Adam L. Larson, M.D.; Decision and Order, 79312-79313 [2024-22191]

Download as PDF 79312 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 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. 2024–22204 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 24–30] lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Adam L. Larson, M.D.; Decision and Order On February 23, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Adam L. Larson, M.D., of Draper, Utah (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration No. FL0432815, alleging that Respondent is ‘‘without authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer. On March 15, 2024, the Government filed a Submission of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition. On April 9, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition and recommended the revocation of Respondent’s registration, finding that because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, the state in which he is registered with DEA, ‘‘there is no other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide.’’ 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 (RD), at 6. 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 as found in the RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein. Findings of Fact On January 3, 2024, Respondent surrendered his Utah medical license VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Sep 26, 2024 Jkt 262001 and Utah controlled substance license. RD, at 3; see also Government’s Submission of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) 2, at 7, 11. According to Utah online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent’s Utah medical license and Utah controlled substance license both remain surrendered.1 Utah Division of Professional Licensing, Licensee Lookup & Verification System, https://secure.utah.gov/llv/search/ search.html (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not licensed to practice medicine nor to handle controlled substances in Utah, the state in which he is registered with DEA.2 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 1 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. 2 In his Answer, Respondent contends that the correct registered address for his DEA Certificate of Registration No. FL0432815 is in Arizona. Answer of Respondent [ ] and Evidence of State Authority (Respondent’s Answer), at 1., However, Agency records show that the registered address for Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration FL0432815 is 12340 South 450 East, Draper, Utah 84020. Respondent also argues that despite lacking authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, he has authority to handle controlled substances elsewhere, referencing a different DEA Certificate of Registration with a Texas address. Respondent’s Answer, at 1. Because Respondent’s DEA registration at issue is based on his Utah licenses, which have undeniably been surrendered, it is of no consequence that he may maintain valid authority and a separate DEA registration elsewhere. Ralph Reach, M.D., 89 FR 24036, 24037 n.5 (2024); Omar Garcia, M.D., 87 FR 32186, 32187 n.6 (2022). PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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, 71372 (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 Utah statute, ‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, produces, distributes, prescribes, dispenses, administers, conducts research with, or performs laboratory analysis upon any controlled substance in Schedules I through V within [the] state . . . shall obtain a license issued by the [Division of Professional Licensing].’’ Utah Code Ann. section 58–37–6(2)(a)(i) (2024). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Utah because he surrendered both his Utah medical license and his Utah controlled substance license. As discussed above, an individual must hold a controlled substance license to dispense a controlled substance in Utah. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Utah, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in Utah. RD, at 5–6. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent’s DEA registration in Utah 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. FL0432815 issued to Adam L. Larson, 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 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). 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. E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices of Adam L. Larson, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Adam L. Larson, M.D., for additional registration in Utah. This Order is effective October 28, 2024. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 17, 2024, 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. 2024–22191 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Michael Fletcher, M.D.; Decision and Order On June 29, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Michael Fletcher, M.D., of Cincinnati, OH (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. FF0291005, alleging that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Ohio, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ RFAAX 1, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘A 1 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated November 16, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the RFAA’s included exhibits indicate that Registrant was served a copy of the OSC via VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Sep 26, 2024 Jkt 262001 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). 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. 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 May 11, 2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio issued an order prohibiting Registrant from prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise professionally utilizing controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Ohio online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,2 Registrant’s Ohio medical license is active but ‘‘limited and restricted by a prohibition against prescribing, dispensing, [and/or] utilizing controlled substances in the course of practice.’’ eLicense Ohio Professional Licensure License Look-Up, https:// elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to handle controlled substances in Ohio, the state in which he 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 email on July 7, 2023, and Registrant acknowledged receipt on July 9, 2023. RFAAX 3–4. 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 79313 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 According to Ohio statute, ‘‘[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog,’’ except pursuant to a ‘‘prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.’’ Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sections 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024). Further, a ‘‘[l]icensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs’’ or ‘‘prescriber’’ means ‘‘an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the individual’s professional practice.’’ Id. section 4729.01(I). The definition further provides a limited list of authorized prescribers, the relevant provision of which is ‘‘[a] physician authorized under Chapter 4731[ ] of the Revised Code to practice medicine and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery.’’ Id. section 4729.01(I)(5). Additionally, Ohio law permits ‘‘[a] 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). 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, 11120 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79312-79313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 24-30]


Adam L. Larson, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On February 23, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Adam L. Larson, 
M.D., of Draper, Utah (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FL0432815, alleging that Respondent is ``without authority to handle 
controlled substances in Utah, the state in which [he is] registered 
with DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer. On March 15, 
2024, the Government filed a Submission of Evidence and Motion for 
Summary Disposition. On April 9, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. 
Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the Government's Motion for Summary 
Disposition and recommended the revocation of Respondent's 
registration, finding that because Respondent lacks authority to handle 
controlled substances in Utah, the state in which he is registered with 
DEA, ``there is no other fact of consequence for this tribunal to 
decide.'' 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 (RD), at 6. 
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 as found in the 
RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.

Findings of Fact

    On January 3, 2024, Respondent surrendered his Utah medical license 
and Utah controlled substance license. RD, at 3; see also Government's 
Submission of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) 
2, at 7, 11. According to Utah online records, of which the Agency 
takes official notice, Respondent's Utah medical license and Utah 
controlled substance license both remain surrendered.\1\ Utah Division 
of Professional Licensing, Licensee Lookup & Verification System, 
https://secure.utah.gov/llv/search/search.html (last visited date of 
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent 
is not licensed to practice medicine nor to handle controlled 
substances in Utah, the state in which he is registered with DEA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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].
    \2\ In his Answer, Respondent contends that the correct 
registered address for his DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FL0432815 is in Arizona. Answer of Respondent [ ] and Evidence of 
State Authority (Respondent's Answer), at 1., However, Agency 
records show that the registered address for Respondent's DEA 
Certificate of Registration FL0432815 is 12340 South 450 East, 
Draper, Utah 84020.
    Respondent also argues that despite lacking authority to handle 
controlled substances in Utah, he has authority to handle controlled 
substances elsewhere, referencing a different DEA Certificate of 
Registration with a Texas address. Respondent's Answer, at 1. 
Because Respondent's DEA registration at issue is based on his Utah 
licenses, which have undeniably been surrendered, it is of no 
consequence that he may maintain valid authority and a separate DEA 
registration elsewhere. Ralph Reach, M.D., 89 FR 24036, 24037 n.5 
(2024); Omar Garcia, M.D., 87 FR 32186, 32187 n.6 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 71372 (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). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Utah statute, ``[e]very person who manufactures, 
produces, distributes, prescribes, dispenses, administers, conducts 
research with, or performs laboratory analysis upon any controlled 
substance in Schedules I through V within [the] state . . . shall 
obtain a license issued by the [Division of Professional Licensing].'' 
Utah Code Ann. section 58-37-6(2)(a)(i) (2024).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent 
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Utah because he 
surrendered both his Utah medical license and his Utah controlled 
substance license. As discussed above, an individual must hold a 
controlled substance license to dispense a controlled substance in 
Utah. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled 
substances in Utah, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA 
registration in Utah. RD, at 5-6. Accordingly, the Agency will order 
that Respondent's DEA registration in Utah 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. 
FL0432815 issued to Adam L. Larson, 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

[[Page 79313]]

of Adam L. Larson, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well 
as any other pending application of Adam L. Larson, M.D., for 
additional registration in Utah. This Order is effective October 28, 
2024.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
September 17, 2024, 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. 2024-22191 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.