Christina Collins, APRN; Decision and Order, 17267-17268 [2023-05802]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2023 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
[or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by
State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.’’
With respect to a practitioner, the DEA
has also long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition 3 for obtaining and
maintaining a practitioner’s registration.
See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR
71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481
F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).4
According to Alabama statute,
‘‘[e]very person who manufactures,
distributes, or dispenses any controlled
substance within [the] state or who
proposes to engage in the manufacture,
distribution, or dispensing of any
controlled substance within [the] state
3 As such, the Agency finds Respondent’s
arguments regarding the permissive nature of 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3), see Respondent’s Response, at 3–
4, to be unavailing. RD, at 5; see also Bhanoo
Sharma, M.D., 87 FR 41355, 41356 n.4 (2022).
4 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term
‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . .
veterinarian . . . or other person licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the
jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to
distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of professional
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s
registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) (this section,
formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of
the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research
Expansion Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257
(2022)). Because Congress has clearly mandated that
a practitioner possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has
held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner’s
registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he
is no longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in which he
practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371–
72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104,
51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919,
11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR
27617. Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling
question’’ in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a practitioner’s
registration ‘‘is currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR
at 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847,
12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that
revocation is warranted even where a practitioner
is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne
Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield
Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no
consequence here that the final outcome of the
underlying action against Respondent may still be
pending. See Respondent’s Response, at 3–4. What
is consequential is the Agency’s finding that
Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in Alabama, the state in
which she is registered with the DEA. Austin J.
Kosier, M.D., 87 FR 4941, 4943 (2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Mar 21, 2023
Jkt 259001
must obtain annually a registration
issued by the certifying boards in
accordance with [their] rules.’’ Ala.
Code section 20–2–51(a) (2022); see also
Ala. Admin. Code r. 930–X–1.13(1)
(2022) (‘‘[a]ll licensed veterinarians who
handle controlled substances must
register annually with the State Board
and get a state controlled substance
number from the Board’’). Further,
‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘[t]o deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user
or research subject by or pursuant to the
lawful order of a practitioner, including
the prescribing, administering,
packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for
that delivery.’’ Ala. Code section 20–2–
2(7) (2022).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent currently
lacks authority to dispense controlled
substances in Alabama because her
Alabama controlled substance license
has been suspended. RD, at 5. As
discussed above, an individual must
hold an Alabama controlled substance
license to dispense a controlled
substance in Alabama. RD, at 5–6. Thus,
because Respondent lacks authority to
handle controlled substances in
Alabama, Respondent is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. See RD, at
6. Accordingly, the Agency will order
that Respondent’s DEA registration be
revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. FE4914164 issued to
Heather M. Entrekin, DVM. Further,
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending
applications of Heather M. Entrekin,
DVM, to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any other
pending application of Heather M.
Entrekin, DVM, for additional
registration in Alabama. This Order is
effective April 21, 2023.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on March 15, 2023, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
DEA. This administrative process in no
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17267
way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023–05804 Filed 3–21–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23–2]
Christina Collins, APRN; Decision and
Order
On September 28, 2022, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Christina Collins, APRN
(Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC
proposed the denial of Respondent’s
renewal application 1 because
Respondent is ‘‘without authority to
handle controlled substances in the
State of Tennessee, the state in which
[she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
Respondent requested a hearing; 2
thereafter the Government filed and the
ALJ granted a Motion for Summary
Disposition recommending the denial of
Respondent’s renewal application for
her registration. RD, at 7–8. Respondent
did not file exceptions to the RD.
Having reviewed the entire record, the
Agency adopts and hereby incorporates
by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s
rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommended sanction and
summarizes and expands upon portions
thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
On February 28, 2022, the Tennessee
Board of Nursing issued a Final Order
revoking Respondent’s Tennessee
license to practice as an Advanced
Practice Registered Nurse (APRN
license). RD, at 6–7; Government’s
Submission of Evidence Regarding Proof
of Service and Motion for Summary
Disposition, Exhibit (GX) D, at 1, 11,
1 Certificate of Registration No. MC1638696 at the
registered address of 6523 Central Avenue Pike,
Knoxville, Tennessee 37912. Id. at 1.
2 Respondent’s Request for Hearing is dated
October 31, 2022, see Administrative Law Judge
Exhibit (ALJX) 4, at 1, but was deemed filed on
November 1, 2022. Further, although Respondent’s
Request for Hearing was untimely, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) accepted the filing.
Order Granting the Government’s Motion for
Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings,
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision
of the Administrative Law Judge (Recommended
Decision or RD), at 2–4.
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
17268
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2023 / Notices
13.3 According to Tennessee’s online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent’s APRN
license is revoked.4 Tennessee
Department of Health License
Verification, https://apps.health.tn.gov/
Licensure/default.aspx (last visited date
of signature of this Order). Accordingly,
the Agency finds that Respondent is not
licensed to practice as an Advanced
Practice Registered Nurse in Tennessee,
the state in which she is registered with
the DEA.
Discussion
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823 of the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State
license or registration suspended . . .
[or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by
State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.’’
With respect to a practitioner, the DEA
has also long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining
a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x
826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh
Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617
(1978).5
3 In that Order, the Board went on to state that,
‘‘[s]hould Respondent be granted a new advance
practice registered nurse certificate by this Board
[in the future], Respondent’s advance practice
registered nurse certificate shall be restricted to
prohibit Respondent from prescribing controlled
substances.’’ GX D, at 11.
4 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an
agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage
in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’
United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure
Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint
1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an
agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a
party is entitled, on timely request, to an
opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly,
Respondent may dispute the Agency’s finding by
filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen
calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such
motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov.
5 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term
‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . or other
person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted,
by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . ,
to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of professional
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Mar 21, 2023
Jkt 259001
According to Tennessee statute,
‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user
or research subject by or pursuant to the
lawful order of a practitioner, including
the prescribing, administering,
packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for
that delivery.’’ Tenn. Code Ann. section
39–17–402(7) (2022). Further, a
‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘[a] physician
. . . or other person licensed, registered
or otherwise permitted to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect
to or to administer a controlled
substance in the course of professional
practice or research in this state.’’ Id. at
section 39–17–402(23)(A). According to
Tennessee nursing regulations,
‘‘[c]ertification by the Tennessee Board
of Nursing to prescribe and/or issue
legend drugs . . . shall authorize a
nurse practitioner 6 to prescribe and/or
issue such drugs. Any nurse who
prescribes and/or issues drugs without
proper certification by the Tennessee
Board of Nursing shall be subject to
disciplinary action by the Board of
Nursing . . . .’’ Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs.
1000–04-.04(1) (2022).
Here, the evidence in the record is
that Respondent lacks authority to
practice as an Advanced Practice
registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) (this section,
formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of
the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research
Expansion Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257
(2022)). Because Congress has clearly mandated that
a practitioner possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has
held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner’s
registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he
is no longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in which he
practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371–
72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104,
51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919,
11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR
27617. Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling
question’’ in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a practitioner’s
registration ‘‘is currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR
71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847,
12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that
revocation is warranted even where a practitioner
is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne
Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield
Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no
consequence that Respondent is still challenging
the underlying action here. See Respondent’s Reply
to the Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition, at 4–8; RD, at 6–7. What is
consequential is the Agency’s finding that
Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in Tennessee, the state in
which she is registered with the DEA. Adley
Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 (2022).
6 Prior to revocation, Respondent’s APRN license
designated Respondent as a ‘‘Nurse Practitioner
with Certificate of Fitness.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Registered Nurse in Tennessee. RD, at 7.
As discussed above, an individual must
be a licensed practitioner to dispense a
controlled substance in Tennessee.
Thus, because Respondent lacks
authority to practice as an Advanced
Practice Registered Nurse in Tennessee
and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in
Tennessee, Respondent is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 7–
8. Accordingly, the Agency will order
that Respondent’s application for
renewal of her registration be denied.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1), I hereby deny the pending
application of Christina Collins, APRN,
for renewal of her DEA Certificate of
Registration No. MC1638696, as well as
any other pending application of
Christina Collins, APRN, for additional
registration in Tennessee. This Order is
effective April 21, 2023.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on March 15, 2023, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
DEA. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023–05802 Filed 3–21–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23–12]
Karl Kauffman, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On November 18, 2022, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Karl Kauffman, M.D.
(Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC
proposed the revocation of
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17267-17268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05802]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23-2]
Christina Collins, APRN; Decision and Order
On September 28, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Christina Collins,
APRN (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the denial of
Respondent's renewal application \1\ because Respondent is ``without
authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Tennessee,
the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Certificate of Registration No. MC1638696 at the registered
address of 6523 Central Avenue Pike, Knoxville, Tennessee 37912. Id.
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent requested a hearing; \2\ thereafter the Government filed
and the ALJ granted a Motion for Summary Disposition recommending the
denial of Respondent's renewal application for her registration. RD, at
7-8. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD. Having reviewed the
entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference
the entirety of the ALJ's rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommended sanction and summarizes and expands upon portions
thereof herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Respondent's Request for Hearing is dated October 31, 2022,
see Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (ALJX) 4, at 1, but was deemed
filed on November 1, 2022. Further, although Respondent's Request
for Hearing was untimely, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
accepted the filing. Order Granting the Government's Motion for
Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
(Recommended Decision or RD), at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings of Fact
On February 28, 2022, the Tennessee Board of Nursing issued a Final
Order revoking Respondent's Tennessee license to practice as an
Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN license). RD, at 6-7;
Government's Submission of Evidence Regarding Proof of Service and
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) D, at 1, 11,
[[Page 17268]]
13.\3\ According to Tennessee's online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, Respondent's APRN license is revoked.\4\
Tennessee Department of Health License Verification, https://apps.health.tn.gov/Licensure/default.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent
is not licensed to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in
Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In that Order, the Board went on to state that, ``[s]hould
Respondent be granted a new advance practice registered nurse
certificate by this Board [in the future], Respondent's advance
practice registered nurse certificate shall be restricted to
prohibit Respondent from prescribing controlled substances.'' GX D,
at 11.
\4\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e),
``[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is
entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the
contrary.'' Accordingly, Respondent may dispute the Agency's finding
by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of
findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this
Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) ``upon a finding that the registrant .
. . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or]
revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized
by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled
substances.'' With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long
held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances
under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and
maintaining a practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617
(1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
CSA. First, Congress defined the term ``practitioner'' to mean ``a
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . ,
to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled
substance in the course of professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C.
802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a
practitioner's registration, Congress directed that ``[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is
authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) (this
section, formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of the
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Public Law
117-215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022)). Because Congress has clearly
mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly
that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate
sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See,
e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71
FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105
(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. Moreover, because ``the controlling
question'' in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is
whether the holder of a practitioner's registration ``is currently
authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,'' Hooper,
76 FR 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)),
the Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even
where a practitioner is still challenging the underlying action.
Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR
27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent
is still challenging the underlying action here. See Respondent's
Reply to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, at 4-8;
RD, at 6-7. What is consequential is the Agency's finding that
Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense controlled
substances in Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with
the DEA. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Tennessee statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Tenn. Code Ann.
section 39-17-402(7) (2022). Further, a ``practitioner'' means ``[a]
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or
to administer a controlled substance in the course of professional
practice or research in this state.'' Id. at section 39-17-402(23)(A).
According to Tennessee nursing regulations, ``[c]ertification by the
Tennessee Board of Nursing to prescribe and/or issue legend drugs . . .
shall authorize a nurse practitioner \6\ to prescribe and/or issue such
drugs. Any nurse who prescribes and/or issues drugs without proper
certification by the Tennessee Board of Nursing shall be subject to
disciplinary action by the Board of Nursing . . . .'' Tenn. Comp. R. &
Regs. 1000-04-.04(1) (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Prior to revocation, Respondent's APRN license designated
Respondent as a ``Nurse Practitioner with Certificate of Fitness.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the evidence in the record is that Respondent lacks authority
to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in Tennessee. RD,
at 7. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner
to dispense a controlled substance in Tennessee. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to practice as an Advanced Practice
Registered Nurse in Tennessee and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in Tennessee, Respondent is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 7-8. Accordingly, the Agency
will order that Respondent's application for renewal of her
registration be denied.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny the pending application of Christina
Collins, APRN, for renewal of her DEA Certificate of Registration No.
MC1638696, as well as any other pending application of Christina
Collins, APRN, for additional registration in Tennessee. This Order is
effective April 21, 2023.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
March 15, 2023, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the
Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic
format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-05802 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
