Karl Kauffman, M.D.; Decision and Order, 17268-17269 [2023-05805]

Download as PDF 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 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2023 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Respondent’s registration 1 because Respondent is ‘‘without authority to handle controlled substance[s] in Texas, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). Respondent timely requested a hearing; thereafter, the Government filed and the Chief Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter, CALJ) granted a Motion for Summary Disposition recommending the revocation of Respondent’s registration. 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 (hereinafter, RD), at 5–6. Respondent did not oppose the Government’s Motion or file exceptions to the RD. Id. at 2. Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of the CALJ’s rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein. finds that Respondent is not currently licensed to engage in the practice of medicine in Texas, the state in which he is registered with the DEA. Findings of Fact On March 30, 2022, the Texas Medical Board issued an Order of Temporary Suspension that suspended Respondent’s Texas medical license. RD, at 4; see also Government’s Notice of Filing of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) A, at 1–2. According to Texas online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent’s license is still suspended.2 Texas Medical Board License Verification, https://profile.tmb. state.tx.us (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency 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 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).3 According to Texas statute, ‘‘[d]ispense’’ means ‘‘the delivery of a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research, by a practitioner or person acting under the lawful order of a practitioner, to an ultimate user or research subject. The term includes the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for delivery.’’ Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(12) (2022). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician . . . or other person licensed, 1 Certificate of Registration No. FK0627642 at the registered address of 2675 41st Street SE, Paris, Texas 75462. Id. at 1. According to Agency records, Respondent’s Certificate of Registration No. FK0627642 expired on December 31, 2022. The fact that a registrant allows his registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact the Agency’s jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476 through 68479 (2019). 2 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. 3 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 § 823(f), was redesignated as part of the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Pub. L. 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 and 71372; 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Mar 21, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 17269 registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, analyze, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.’’ Id. at § 481.002(39)(A). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Texas. RD, at 4–5. As discussed above, a person must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Texas. Id. at 5. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to practice medicine in Texas and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Texas, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Id. 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. FK0627642 issued to Karl Kauffman, M.D. 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 Karl Kauffman, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Karl Kauffman, M.D., for additional registration in Texas. 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. 2023–05805 Filed 3–21–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17268-17269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05805]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 17269]]

Respondent's registration \1\ because Respondent is ``without authority 
to handle controlled substance[s] in Texas, the state in which [he is] 
registered with DEA.'' OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Certificate of Registration No. FK0627642 at the registered 
address of 2675 41st Street SE, Paris, Texas 75462. Id. at 1. 
According to Agency records, Respondent's Certificate of 
Registration No. FK0627642 expired on December 31, 2022. The fact 
that a registrant allows his registration to expire during the 
pendency of an OSC does not impact the Agency's jurisdiction or 
prerogative under the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) 
to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 
68474, 68476 through 68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondent timely requested a hearing; thereafter, the Government 
filed and the Chief Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter, CALJ) 
granted a Motion for Summary Disposition recommending the revocation of 
Respondent's registration. 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 
(hereinafter, RD), at 5-6. Respondent did not oppose the Government's 
Motion or file exceptions to the RD. Id. at 2. Having reviewed the 
entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference 
the entirety of the CALJ's rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended sanction and summarizes and expands upon portions 
thereof herein.

Findings of Fact

    On March 30, 2022, the Texas Medical Board issued an Order of 
Temporary Suspension that suspended Respondent's Texas medical license. 
RD, at 4; see also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence and Motion 
for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) A, at 1-2. According to Texas 
online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent's 
license is still suspended.\2\ Texas Medical Board License 
Verification, https://profile.tmb.state.tx.us (last visited date of 
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent 
is not currently licensed to engage in the practice of medicine in 
Texas, the state in which he is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 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).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 Sec.  823(f), was redesignated as part of the 
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Pub. L. 
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 and 71372; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Texas statute, ``[d]ispense'' means ``the delivery of 
a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or 
research, by a practitioner or person acting under the lawful order of 
a practitioner, to an ultimate user or research subject. The term 
includes the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or 
compounding necessary to prepare the substance for delivery.'' Tex. 
Health & Safety Code Ann. Sec.  481.002(12) (2022). Further, a 
``practitioner'' means ``a physician . . . or other person licensed, 
registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, analyze, 
conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance 
in the course of professional practice or research in this state.'' Id. 
at Sec.  481.002(39)(A).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Texas. RD, at 4-5. As 
discussed above, a person must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a 
controlled substance in Texas. Id. at 5. Thus, because Respondent lacks 
authority to practice medicine in Texas and, therefore, is not 
authorized to handle controlled substances in Texas, Respondent is not 
eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Id. 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. 
FK0627642 issued to Karl Kauffman, M.D. 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 Karl Kauffman, M.D., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Karl Kauffman, M.D., for additional registration in Texas. 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. 2023-05805 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.