Donna Winingham, MD; Decision and Order, 59932-59933 [2024-16212]

Download as PDF 59932 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2024 / Notices document upon publication in the Federal Register. Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 2024–16211 Filed 7–23–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Donna Winingham, MD; Decision and Order On July 19, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Donna Winingham, M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. AW1730729 in Templeton, CA 93465. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the [registrant’s] right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant’s default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR 1316.67. 1 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated September 26, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Government’s included Notice of Service of Order to Show Cause indicates that Registrant was served with the OSC by certified mail on August 9, 2023. RFAAX 1, at 1; see also id. at 6. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Jul 23, 2024 Jkt 262001 Findings of Fact The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant’s default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective July 30, 2021, the Medical Board of California revoked Registrant’s California medical license. RFAAX 2, at 2. According to California’s online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s California medical license remains revoked.2 California DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov/ (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in California, the state in which she is registered with DEA. Discussion Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, 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, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).3 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, Registrant 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 the DEA 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 Controlled Substances Act (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 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 According to California 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, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.’’ Cal. Health & Safety Code section 11010 (West 2024). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means a person ‘‘licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] state.’’ Id. section 11026(c). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant’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. AW1730729 issued to Donna Winingham, 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 Donna Winingham, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Donna Winingham, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective August 23, 2024. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 15, 2024, by Administrator Anne 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). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 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, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2024 / Notices 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. Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant’s default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR 1316.67. Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration. Findings of Fact The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant’s default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on January 4, 2023, Registrant surrendered her Georgia medical license, with the surrender made effective on January 6, 2023. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to Georgia online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s Georgia medical license remains ‘‘Voluntarily Surrendered.’’ 2 Georgia Composite Medical Board License Search, https://gcmb.mylicense.com/ verification (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Georgia, the state in which she is registered with DEA. [FR Doc. 2024–16212 Filed 7–23–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Carrie L. Madej, DO; Decision and Order On May 15, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Carrie L. Madej, D.O. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. FM6088997 at the registered address of 527 Luther Bailey Road, Senoia, Georgia 30276. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the state of Georgia,’’ the state in which Registrant is registered with DEA. Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant’s/applicant’s right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). 1 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated October 12, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on the Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the submitted Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator indicates that Registrant was personally served with the OSC on May 25, 2023. RFAAX 2, at 1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Jul 23, 2024 Jkt 262001 Discussion Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, 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 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, Registrant 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 DEA Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59933 professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).3 According to Georgia 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.’’ Ga. Code Ann. section 16–13–21(9) (2023). Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means a ‘‘physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise authorized under the laws of [Georgia] to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [Georgia].’’ Id. section 16– 13–21(23)(A). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Georgia. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Georgia. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Georgia and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Georgia, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant’s DEA registration be revoked. 3 This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (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, 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, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59932-59933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Donna Winingham, MD; Decision and Order

    On July 19, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Donna Winingham, 
M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit 
(RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's 
Certificate of Registration No. AW1730729 in Templeton, CA 93465. Id. 
at 1. The OSC alleged that Registrant's registration should be revoked 
because Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, 
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the 
State of California, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' 
Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written 
request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she 
would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in 
default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request 
a hearing. RFAA, at 2.\1\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed 
to constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing and an 
admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
September 26, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Government's included 
Notice of Service of Order to Show Cause indicates that Registrant 
was served with the OSC by certified mail on August 9, 2023. RFAAX 
1, at 1; see also id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be 
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action 
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In 
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order 
pursuant to [21 CFR] Sec.  1316.67.'' Id. Sec.  1301.43(f)(1). Here, 
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's 
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see 
also 21 CFR 1316.67.

Findings of Fact

    The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the 
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, 
effective July 30, 2021, the Medical Board of California revoked 
Registrant's California medical license. RFAAX 2, at 2. According to 
California's online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, 
Registrant's California medical license remains revoked.\2\ California 
DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov/ (last visited date of 
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant 
is not licensed to practice medicine in California, the state in which 
she is registered with 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, Registrant 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 the DEA 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 21 U.S.C. 823 ``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, 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, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for 
rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 
D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the 
Controlled Substances Act (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). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a 
practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a 
practitioner under the CSA, 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, D.O., 71 
FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 
(1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick 
Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to California 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, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary 
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code 
section 11010 (West 2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person 
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, 
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] 
state.'' Id. section 11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As 
discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to 
dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, 
therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances 
in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA 
registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant'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. 
AW1730729 issued to Donna Winingham, 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 Donna Winingham, M.D., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Donna Winingham, M.D., for additional registration in California. 
This Order is effective August 23, 2024.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
July 15, 2024, by Administrator Anne

[[Page 59933]]

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. 2024-16212 Filed 7-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.