Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79309 

2Under 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. 

3This 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, 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. 

4 ‘‘Dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a controlled 

substance to an ultimate user or research subject by 

or pursuant to the lawful order of a prescriber, 

including the prescribing, administering, packaging, 

labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the 

substance for that delivery.’’ Id. 570/102(p). 

1On June 14, 2024, Respondent sought to 

continue the DEA proceedings while appealing the 

loss of his state authority; consistent with past 

precedent, the Administrative Law Judge denied the 

continuance. 

Registrant’s Illinois medical license. 

RFAAX 1, at 1. According to Illinois’s 

online records, of which the Agency 

takes official notice, Registrant’s Illinois 

medical license remains suspended.2

Illinois Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation License Search, 

https://online-dfpr.micropact.com/ 

lookup/licenselookup.aspx/ (last visited 

date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice 

medicine in Illinois, 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 27616, 

27617 (1978).3

Pursuant to the Illinois Controlled 

Substances Act, a practitioner in good 

faith (‘‘the regular course of professional 

treatment’’) may dispense a controlled 

substance. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/ 

312(a), 570/102(u) (2024).4 A 

‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician 

licensed to practice medicine in all its 

branches . . . or other person licensed, 

registered, or otherwise lawfully 

permitted by the United States or 

[Illinois] to distribute, dispense, 

conduct research with respect to, 

administer or use in teaching or 

chemical analysis, a controlled 

substance in the course of professional 

practice or research.’’ Id. 570/102(kk). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

Illinois. As discussed above, an 

individual must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in Illinois. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks authority to practice 

medicine in Illinois, and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Illinois, 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. AW2016651 issued 

to Theodore S. Wright Jr., 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 Theodore S. Wright Jr., 

M.D., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Theodore S. 

Wright Jr., M.D., for additional 

registration in Illinois. This Order is 

effective October 28, 2024. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on September 19, 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. 2024–22200 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 24–46] 

Wagner Gervais, P.A.; Decision and 

Order 

On May 7, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Wagner Gervais, P.A., of 

Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). OSC, at 

1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation 

of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. MG7845778, 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 Arizona, the state in which [he 

is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

On May 21, 2024, Respondent 

requested a hearing and filed an 

Answer. On June 4, 2024, the 

Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, to which 

Respondent did not respond.1 On June 

24, 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 Arizona, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
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