```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106581-106582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 24-52]

Maria Dewitt, N.P.; Decision and Order

    On June 21, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Maria Dewitt, N.P. 
(Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. MD7143960, at the 
registered address of 9038 High Branch, San Antonio, Texas. Id. at 1. 
The OSC alleged 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 [she is] 
registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    On June 25, 2024, Respondent requested a hearing and filed an 
Answer to the OSC.\1\ On June 28, 2024, the Government filed a Notice 
of Filing of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, which 
Respondent opposed.\2\ On August 2, 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 Texas, the state in which she 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 8-9. 
Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Respondent's June 25, 2024, hearing request was an amended 
version of an initial document filed on June 24, 2024. Respondent 
also submitted an amended version of her Answer on the same day of 
its initial filing, June 25, 2024.
    \2\ See Respondent's Response to Government's Motion for Summary 
Disposition and Request for Hearing (Opposition).
    \3\ On August 5, 2024, Respondent filed a letter, dated August 
2, 2024, seeking to appeal the ALJ's Recommended Decision; however, 
in this letter, Respondent did not present any additional arguments 
for the Agency to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    The Government has alleged that Respondent lacks a prescriptive 
authority delegation agreement with a physician, which is required for 
a Texas advanced practice registered nurse to handle controlled 
substances. RD, at 4, 7-8.\4\ According to Texas online records, of 
which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent does not currently 
have a prescriptive authority delegation agreement with a physician.\5\

[[Page 106582]]

Texas Medical Board, Healthcare Provider Search, https://profile.tmb.state.tx.us/Search.aspx (last visited date of signature of 
this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not 
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Texas, the 
state in which she is registered with the DEA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence and 
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) 2.
    \5\ 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].
    \6\ In her Opposition, Respondent argues that there are material 
facts in dispute that require a hearing, specifically mentioning her 
state and federal authority to handle controlled substances. 
Respondent's Opposition, at 6. However, as the ALJ correctly notes 
in the RD, Respondent does not actually dispute the material fact 
that she lacks state and federal authority to handle controlled 
substances, with Respondent admitting that she has no current 
prescriptive authority delegation agreement with a physician. RD, at 
9; Respondent's Opposition, at 2, 11. The Agency also agrees with 
the ALJ's finding that the other facts in dispute, such as 
Respondent's address, are immaterial and not dispositive to the 
adjudication of the current matter. RD, at 9 n.7 (citing Michael 
Jones, M.D., 86 FR 20728, 20729 (2021)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 at 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 at 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. Sec.  481.002(12) (2024). Further, a 
``practitioner'' includes ``an advanced practice registered nurse or 
physician assistant to whom a physician has delegated the authority to 
prescribe or order a drug or device . . . .'' Id. Sec.  481.002(39)(D). 
Texas statute provides that ``[a] physician may delegate to an advanced 
practice registered nurse or physician assistant, acting under adequate 
physician supervision, the act of prescribing or ordering a drug or 
device as authorized through a prescriptive authority agreement between 
the physician and the advanced practice registered nurse or physician 
assistant, as applicable.'' Tex. Occ. Code Ann. Sec.  157.0512(a) 
(2024).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent 
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Texas because she 
does not have a prescriptive authority delegation agreement with a 
physician. As discussed above, a Texas advanced practice registered 
nurse must have a prescriptive authority delegation agreement with a 
physician to dispense controlled substances in Texas. Thus, because 
Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Texas, 
Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 8. 
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. 
MD7143960 issued to Maria Dewitt, N.P. 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 Maria Dewitt, N.P., to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Maria Dewitt, N.P., for additional registration in Texas. 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. 2024-31330 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```