79310 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

2See also Government’s Notice of Filing of 

Evidence of Lack of State Authority; Service of 

Order to Show Cause; and Motion for Summary 

Disposition, Declaration of [Diversion Investigator], 

Exhibit A, at 8–9. 

3Under 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. 

4This 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, 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. Moreover, because 

‘‘the controlling question’’ in a proceeding brought 

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of 

a practitioner’s registration ‘‘is currently authorized 

to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ 

Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 

62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also 

long held that revocation is warranted even where 

a practitioner is still challenging the underlying 

action. Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 

(2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). 

Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent is 

still challenging the underlying action here, see 

Respondent’s Answer, at 1; Respondent’s Motion to 

Continue Show Cause Hearing. Rather, the Agency’s 

finding that Respondent is not currently authorized 

to dispense controlled substances in Arizona, the 

state in which he is registered with DEA, is 

controlling. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 

69341 n.2 (2022); see also Order Denying 

Respondent’s Motion to Continue. 

Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law, and Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 4–5. 

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 November 29, 2023, the Arizona 

Regulatory Board of Physician 

Assistants revoked Respondent’s 

Arizona physician assistant license. RD, 

at 3.2 According to Arizona online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Respondent’s Arizona 

physician assistant license remains 

revoked.3 Arizona Regulatory Board of 

Physician Assistants, Find Your PA, 

https://www.azpa.gov/PASearch/ 

PASearch (last visited date of signature 

of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency 

finds that Respondent is not currently 

licensed to practice as a physician 

assistant in Arizona, 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 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. 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 Arizona statute, ‘‘[e]very 

person who manufactures, distributes, 

dispenses, prescribes or uses for 

scientific purposes any controlled 

substance within th[e] state or who 

proposes to engage in the manufacture, 

distribution, prescribing or dispensing 

of or using for scientific purposes any 

controlled substance within th[e] state 

must first: (1) [o]btain and possess a 

current license or permit as a medical 

practitioner as defined in § 32–1901 

. . . .’’ Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 36– 

2522(A)(1) (2024). Section 32–1901 

defines a ‘‘[m]edical practitioner’’ as 

‘‘any medical doctor . . . or other 

person who is licensed and authorized 

by law to use and prescribe drugs and 

devices to treat sick and injured human 

beings or animals or to diagnose or 

prevent sickness in human beings or 

animals in [Arizona] or any state, 

territory or district of the United 

States.’’ Id. section 32–1901. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent lacks 

authority to practice as a physician 

assistant in Arizona. As discussed 

above, only a licensed medical 

practitioner can dispense controlled 

substances in Arizona. Thus, because 

Respondent lacks authority to practice 

as a physician assistant in Arizona, and 

therefore is not a licensed medical 

practitioner, Respondent is not eligible 

to maintain a DEA registration. 

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. MG7845778 issued 

to Wagner Gervais, P.A. 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 Wagner Gervais, P.A., to 

renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Wagner Gervais, P.A., for additional 

registration in Arizona. This Order is 

effective October 28, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on September 16, 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. 2024–22190 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D.; Decision 

and Order 

On July 12, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79311 

1According to Agency records, Registrant’s 

registrations expired on April 30, 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). 

2Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated March 20, 2024, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the submitted Declaration from a DEA 

Diversion Investigator indicates that Registrant was 

personally served with the OSC on August 23, 2023. 

RFAAX 2, at 2. 

3Under 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. 

4This 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, 11920 (1988); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. 

Cause (OSC) to Lawrence Rudolph, 

D.M.D., of Pittsburgh, PA, Washington, 

PA, and Cranberry TWP, PA 

(Registrant). Request for Final Agency 

Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 3, at 1, 

3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificates of Registration 

Nos. FR0070538, FR7760728, and 

FR7760730, alleging that Registrant’s 

registrations should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to prescribe, administer, 

dispense, or otherwise handle 

controlled substances in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the 

state in which [he is] registered with 

DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)).1

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 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 

request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.2 ‘‘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). 

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, Registrant’s 

Pennsylvania dental license expired on 

March 31, 2023. RFAAX 3, at 2. 

According to Pennsylvania online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s dental 

license remains expired.3 Pennsylvania 

Licensing System Verification Service, 

https://www.pals.pa.gov/#!/page/search 

(last visited date of signature of this 

Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds 

that Registrant is not licensed to 

practice dentistry in Pennsylvania, 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. 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 27,616, 

27,617 (1978).4

According to Pennsylvania statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance, other drug or 

device 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 such item for that delivery.’’ 35 

Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780– 

102(b) (West 2024). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician . . . 

dentist . . . or other person licensed, 

registered or otherwise permitted to 

distribute, dispense, conduct research 

with respect to or to administer a 

controlled substance, other drug or 

device in the course of professional 

practice or research in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.’’ Id. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania. As 

discussed above, an individual must be 

a licensed practitioner to dispense a 

controlled substance in Pennsylvania. 

Thus, because Registrant lacks authority 

to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania 

and, therefore, is not authorized to 

handle controlled substances in 

Pennsylvania, Registrant is not eligible 

to maintain a DEA registration. 

Accordingly, the Agency will order that 

Registrant’s DEA registrations 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 Certificates 

of Registration Nos. FR0070538, 

FR7760728, and FR7760730 issued to 

Lawrence Rudolph, D.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 Lawrence Rudolph, 

D.M.D., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Lawrence 

Rudolph, D.M.D., for additional 

registration in Pennsylvania. This Order 

is effective October 28, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on September 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
79312 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

1Under 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). 

3This 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. 

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] 

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

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1