```

[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
```