Shiva Akula, M.D.; Decision and Order, 106588-106589 [2024-31320]
Download as PDF
106588
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices
Under Wyoming law, ‘‘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.’’ Wyo. Stat. Ann.
section 35–7–1002(a)(vii) (2024).
Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ includes ‘‘[a]
physician . . . or other 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 th[e]
state.’’ Id. section 35–7–1002(a)(xx)(A).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent currently
lacks authority to practice as a
physician assistant in Wyoming. As
discussed above, a physician assistant
must be a licensed practitioner to
dispense controlled substances in
Wyoming. Thus, because Respondent
currently lacks authority to practice as
a physician assistant in Wyoming and,
therefore, is not currently authorized to
handle controlled substances in
Wyoming, Respondent is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 4–
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. MR4038293 issued
to Jason Lee Ray, PA–C. 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 Jason Lee Ray, PA–C, to
renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Jason Lee Ray, PA–C, for additional
registration in Wyoming. This Order is
effective January 29, 2025.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on December 20, 2024, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR
27617.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:58 Dec 27, 2024
Jkt 265001
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. 2024–31317 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24–58]
Shiva Akula, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 24, 2024, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Shiva Akula, M.D., of
New Orleans, Louisiana (Respondent).
OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
BA7786013, alleging that Respondent’s
DEA registration should be revoked
because Respondent is ‘‘without
authority to prescribe, administer,
dispense, or otherwise handle
controlled substances in the State of
Louisiana, the state in which [he is]
registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
By letter dated July 29, 2024, (filed
August 7, 2024) Respondent requested a
hearing. On August 29, 2024, the
Government filed a Motion for
Summary Disposition, to which
Respondent did not respond. On
September 26, 2024, Administrative
Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum (the
ALJ) granted the Government’s Motion
for Summary Disposition and
recommended the revocation of
Respondent’s registration, finding that
because Respondent lacks state
authority to handle controlled
substances in Louisiana, the state in
which he is registered with DEA,
‘‘[t]here is no genuine issue of material
fact in this case.’’ 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 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Respondent did not file exceptions to
the RD.1
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 12, 2024, the Louisiana
State Board of Medical Examiners
suspended Respondent’s Louisiana
medical license. RD, at 4.2 On March 31,
2024, Respondent’s Louisiana medical
license expired. RD, at 3. On June 1,
2024, Respondent’s Louisiana
controlled substance license expired. Id.
at 4.
According to Louisiana online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent’s Louisiana
medical license remains suspended.3
Louisiana State Board of Medical
Examiners, License Verification, https://
online.lasbme.org/#/verifylicense (last
visited date of signature of this Order).
Further, Respondent’s Louisiana
controlled substance license status is
‘‘[l]apsed; not valid for practice.’’
Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, License
Lookup, https://
secure.pharmacy.la.gov/Lookup/
LicenseLookup.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Respondent is not currently licensed to
practice medicine nor to handle
controlled substances in Louisiana, the
state in which he is registered with
DEA.
1 By letter dated September 18, 2024, (filed
October 7, 2024) Respondent requested a 60-day
extension to respond to the RD due to the pending
appeal of an underlying conviction. Respondent’s
Request for Extension to File Response to Pending
Action on DEA License (Respondent’s Extension
Request), at 1. The request was denied.
2 See also Government’s Notice of Filing of
Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition,
Exhibit 1.
3 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.
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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, 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. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The
Attorney General can register a
physician to dispense controlled
substances ‘if the applicant is
authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices.’ . . . The very
definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to
prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted, by
the United States or the jurisdiction in
which he practices’ to dispense
controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The
Agency has applied these principles
consistently. 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).4
Under Louisiana statute, ‘‘dispense’’
means ‘‘to deliver a controlled
dangerous substance to the ultimate
user or human research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a
practitioner, including the packaging,
labeling, or compounding necessary to
4 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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR
27617.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:58 Dec 27, 2024
Jkt 265001
prepare the substance for such
delivery.’’ La. Stat. Ann. section
40:961(14) (2024). A ‘‘practitioner’’
means ‘‘a physician . . . or other person
licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted to distribute, dispense,
conduct research with respect to, or
administer a controlled dangerous
substance in the course of professional
practice or research in th[e] state.’’ Id.
section 40:961(35).
Further, Louisiana statute states that
‘‘[e]very person who . . . distributes,
procures, possesses, prescribes, or
dispenses any controlled dangerous
substance within th[e] state . . . shall
obtain a controlled dangerous substance
license issued by the Louisiana Board of
Pharmacy in accordance with the rules
and regulations promulgated by the
board prior to engaging in such
activity.’’ Id. section 40:973(A)(1).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent currently
lacks authority to handle controlled
substances in Louisiana because
Respondent’s Louisiana medical license
is suspended, and Respondent’s
Louisiana controlled substance license
is lapsed. As discussed above, an
individual must be a licensed
practitioner and must hold a Louisiana
controlled substance license to dispense
controlled substances in Louisiana.
Thus, because Respondent lacks
authority to practice medicine in
Louisiana, as well as lacks authority to
handle controlled substances in
Louisiana, Respondent is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 5–
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. BA7786013 issued to
Shiva Akula, 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 Shiva Akula, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any
other pending application of Shiva
Akula, M.D., for additional registration
in Louisiana. This Order is effective
January 29, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on December 20, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
106589
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. 2024–31320 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–1463]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Curia New York, Inc.
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Justice.
ACTION: Notice of application.
AGENCY:
Curia New York, Inc. has
applied to be registered as an importer
of basic class(es) of controlled
substance(s). Refer to Supplementary
Information listed below for further
drug information.
DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of
the affected basic class(es), and
applicants, therefore, may submit
electronic comments on or objections to
the issuance of the proposed registration
on or before January 29, 2025. Such
persons may also file a written request
for a hearing on the application on or
before January 29, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement
Administration requires that all
comments be submitted electronically
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
which provides the ability to type short
comments directly into the comment
field on the web page or attach a file for
lengthier comments. Please go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions at that site for
submitting comments. Upon submission
of your comment, you will receive a
Comment Tracking Number. Please be
aware that submitted comments are not
instantaneously available for public
view on https://www.regulations.gov. If
you have received a Comment Tracking
Number, your comment has been
successfully submitted and there is no
need to resubmit the same comment. All
requests for a hearing must be sent to:
(1) Drug Enforcement Administration,
Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106588-106589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31320]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24-58]
Shiva Akula, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 24, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Shiva Akula, M.D.,
of New Orleans, Louisiana (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed
the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BA7786013, alleging that Respondent's DEA registration should be
revoked because Respondent is ``without authority to prescribe,
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the
State of Louisiana, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.''
Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
By letter dated July 29, 2024, (filed August 7, 2024) Respondent
requested a hearing. On August 29, 2024, the Government filed a Motion
for Summary Disposition, to which Respondent did not respond. On
September 26, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum (the
ALJ) granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and
recommended the revocation of Respondent's registration, finding that
because Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled
substances in Louisiana, the state in which he is registered with DEA,
``[t]here is no genuine issue of material fact in this case.'' 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 5. Respondent did not file
exceptions to the RD.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ By letter dated September 18, 2024, (filed October 7, 2024)
Respondent requested a 60-day extension to respond to the RD due to
the pending appeal of an underlying conviction. Respondent's Request
for Extension to File Response to Pending Action on DEA License
(Respondent's Extension Request), at 1. The request was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12, 2024, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
suspended Respondent's Louisiana medical license. RD, at 4.\2\ On March
31, 2024, Respondent's Louisiana medical license expired. RD, at 3. On
June 1, 2024, Respondent's Louisiana controlled substance license
expired. Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence and
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Louisiana online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent's Louisiana medical license remains
suspended.\3\ Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, License
Verification, https://online.lasbme.org/#/verifylicense (last visited
date of signature of this Order). Further, Respondent's Louisiana
controlled substance license status is ``[l]apsed; not valid for
practice.'' Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, License Lookup, https://secure.pharmacy.la.gov/Lookup/LicenseLookup.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not currently
licensed to practice medicine nor to handle controlled substances in
Louisiana, the state in which he is registered with DEA.
[[Page 106589]]
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, 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. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S.
243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General can register a physician to
dispense controlled substances `if the applicant is authorized to
dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in
which he practices.' . . . The very definition of a `practitioner'
eligible to prescribe includes physicians `licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which
he practices' to dispense controlled substances. Sec. 802(21).''). The
Agency has applied these principles consistently. 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).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Louisiana statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled dangerous substance to the ultimate user or human research
subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including
the packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the
substance for such delivery.'' La. Stat. Ann. section 40:961(14)
(2024). A ``practitioner'' means ``a physician . . . or other person
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense,
conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled dangerous
substance in the course of professional practice or research in th[e]
state.'' Id. section 40:961(35).
Further, Louisiana statute states that ``[e]very person who . . .
distributes, procures, possesses, prescribes, or dispenses any
controlled dangerous substance within th[e] state . . . shall obtain a
controlled dangerous substance license issued by the Louisiana Board of
Pharmacy in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by
the board prior to engaging in such activity.'' Id. section
40:973(A)(1).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Louisiana
because Respondent's Louisiana medical license is suspended, and
Respondent's Louisiana controlled substance license is lapsed. As
discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner and must
hold a Louisiana controlled substance license to dispense controlled
substances in Louisiana. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to
practice medicine in Louisiana, as well as lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in Louisiana, Respondent is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 5-6. 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.
BA7786013 issued to Shiva Akula, 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 Shiva Akula, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Shiva Akula, M.D., for additional registration in Louisiana. This Order
is effective January 29, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
December 20, 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. 2024-31320 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P