Willard J. Davis, D.O.; Decision and Order, 13881-13882 [2025-05166]

Agencies

• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 58 (Thursday, March 27, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13881-13882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-05166]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 25-19]


Willard J. Davis, D.O.; Decision and Order

    On November 13, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Willard J. Davis, 
D.O., of Round Rock, Texas (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed 
the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
BD9134254, alleging that Respondent's DEA registration should be 
revoked because Respondent is ``without authority to handle controlled 
substances in the State of Texas, the state in which [he is] registered 
with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    On December 10, 2024 Respondent filed a request for a hearing. On 
December 30, 2024, the Government filed a Motion for Summary 
Disposition, which Respondent opposed. On January 23, 2025, 
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 
Texas, 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 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 May 16, 2024, the Texas Medical Board suspended Respondent's 
Texas medical license. RD, at 3.\1\ According to Texas online records, 
of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent's Texas medical 
license remains suspended.\2\ Texas Medical Board Healthcare Provider 
Search, https://profile.tmb.state.tx.us (last visited date of signature 
of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence and 
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit 1, at 3-6.
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not currently 
licensed to

[[Page 13882]]

practice medicine in Texas, the state in which he is registered with 
DEA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Texas. Accordingly, Respondent may dispute the 
Agency's finding by filing a properly supported motion for 
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of 
the date of this Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed 
and served by email to the other party and to Office of the 
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 
[email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized 
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Texas statute, ``dispense'' means ``the delivery of a 
controlled substance in the course of professional practice or 
research, by a practitioner or person acting under the lawful order of 
a practitioner, to an ultimate user or research subject. The term 
includes the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or 
compounding necessary to prepare the substance for delivery.'' Tex. 
Health & Safety Code Ann. section 481.002(12) (2024). Further, a 
``practitioner'' includes ``a physician . . . or other person licensed, 
registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, analyze, 
conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance 
in the course of professional practice or research in this state.'' Id. 
section 481.002(39)(A).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent 
lacks authority to practice medicine in Texas. As discussed above, an 
individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled 
substance in Texas. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to 
practice medicine in Texas and, therefore, is not authorized to handle 
controlled substances in Texas, Respondent is not eligible to maintain 
a DEA registration. RD, at 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. 
BD9134254 issued to Willard J. Davis, D.O. 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 Willard J. Davis, D.O., to 
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending 
application of Willard J. Davis, D.O., for additional registration in 
Texas. This Order is effective April 28, 2025.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
March 20, 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. 2025-05166 Filed 3-26-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P