Hazem Barmada, M.D.; Decision and Order, 13201-13202 [2025-04768]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 53 / Thursday, March 20, 2025 / Notices
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, on or about
November 30, 2023, the Medical Board
of California revoked Registrant’s state
medical license. RFAAX 4, at 2.
According to California 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.3
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 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).
3 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.’’ The material fact here is that
Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not
licensed to practice medicine in California.
Registrant may dispute this fact 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 19, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 71,371, 71,372 (2011), pet.
for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton,
M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).4
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 § 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. § 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
4 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, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371–72; Sheran
Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105
(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at
27,617.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13201
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. FS8371267 issued to
Margaret Sprague, 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 Margaret Sprague, M.D.,
to renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Margaret Sprague, M.D., for additional
registration in California. This Order is
effective April 21, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on March 13, 2025, by Acting
Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025–04754 Filed 3–19–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Hazem Barmada, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On February 2, 2022, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Hazem Barmada, M.D. of
Ocean Springs, Mississippi (Registrant).
Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The
OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant’s Certification of Registration
No. BB4130162, alleging that
Registrant’s registration should be
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
13202
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 53 / Thursday, March 20, 2025 / Notices
revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently
without authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of Mississippi,
the state in which [he is] registered with
DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).1
The Agency makes the following
findings of fact based on the
uncontroverted evidence submitted by
the Government in its RFAA dated April
4, 2024.2
Findings of Fact
On November 18, 2021, the
Mississippi State Board of Medical
Licensure accepted Registrant’s
voluntary surrender of his Mississippi
medical license. RFAAX 4, at 1–2.
According to Mississippi online records,
of which the Agency takes official
notice, Registrant’s Mississippi medical
license remains surrendered.3
Mississippi State Board of Medical
Licensure Licensee Lookup, https://
gateway.msbml.ms.gov/verification/
search.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant is not licensed to practice
medicine in Mississippi, the State in
which he is registered with DEA.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
1 According to Agency records, Registrant’s
registration expired on July 31, 2024. 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 (CSA) to adjudicate the
OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474,
68476–79 (2019).
2 Based on the Declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator, the Agency finds that the
Government’s service of the OSC on Registrant was
adequate and rendered on February 23, 2022.
RFAAX 2, at 3. On April 7, 2022, Registrant
requested additional time to respond to the OSC,
which Administrative Law Judge Teresa A.
Wallbaum (the ALJ) granted. RFAAX 3, at 1. On
April 22, 2022, Registrant sent an email regarding
State medical board proceedings, but did not
mention or request a hearing regarding the OSC. Id.
On April 25, 2022, the ALJ issued an Order
Terminating Proceedings due to Registrant’s failure
to request a hearing. Id.
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,
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Mar 19, 2025
Jkt 265001
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. 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
According to Mississippi 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.’’ Miss. Code Ann. section
41–29–105(j) (2024). Further, a
‘‘practitioner’’ means a person
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
‘‘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. section 41–
29–105(y)(i).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant currently lacks
authority to practice medicine in
Mississippi. As discussed above, an
individual must be a licensed
practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in Mississippi. Thus, because
Registrant lacks authority to practice
medicine in Mississippi and, therefore,
is not authorized to handle controlled
substances in Mississippi, 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. BB4130162, issued
to Hazem Barmada, 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 Hazem Barmada, M.D.,
to renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Hazem Barmada, M.D., for additional
registration in Mississippi. This Order is
effective April 21, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on March 13, 2025, by Acting
Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025–04768 Filed 3–19–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 53 (Thursday, March 20, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13201-13202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04768]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Hazem Barmada, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 2, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Hazem Barmada, M.D.
of Ocean Springs, Mississippi (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's Certification of Registration No. BB4130162,
alleging that Registrant's registration should be
[[Page 13202]]
revoked because Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle
controlled substances in the State of Mississippi, the state in which
[he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration
expired on July 31, 2024. 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 (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D.
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency makes the following findings of fact based on the
uncontroverted evidence submitted by the Government in its RFAA dated
April 4, 2024.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator,
the Agency finds that the Government's service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate and rendered on February 23, 2022. RFAAX 2,
at 3. On April 7, 2022, Registrant requested additional time to
respond to the OSC, which Administrative Law Judge Teresa A.
Wallbaum (the ALJ) granted. RFAAX 3, at 1. On April 22, 2022,
Registrant sent an email regarding State medical board proceedings,
but did not mention or request a hearing regarding the OSC. Id. On
April 25, 2022, the ALJ issued an Order Terminating Proceedings due
to Registrant's failure to request a hearing. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings of Fact
On November 18, 2021, the Mississippi State Board of Medical
Licensure accepted Registrant's voluntary surrender of his Mississippi
medical license. RFAAX 4, at 1-2. According to Mississippi online
records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's
Mississippi medical license remains surrendered.\3\ Mississippi State
Board of Medical Licensure Licensee Lookup, https://gateway.msbml.ms.gov/verification/search.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, 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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to
practice medicine in Mississippi, 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 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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Mississippi 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.'' Miss. Code Ann.
section 41-29-105(j) (2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a 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. section 41-29-105(y)(i).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Mississippi. As
discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to
dispense a controlled substance in Mississippi. Thus, because
Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Mississippi and,
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in
Mississippi, 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.
BB4130162, issued to Hazem Barmada, 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 Hazem Barmada, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Hazem Barmada, M.D., for additional registration in Mississippi.
This Order is effective April 21, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
March 13, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025-04768 Filed 3-19-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
