```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6010-6012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Laura M. Bellew, N.P.; Decision and Order

    On December 7, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Laura M. Bellew, 
N.P. of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MB1955108, 
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because 
Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle controlled 
substances in New Mexico, the state in which [she is] registered with 
DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration 
expired on July 31, 2024. The fact that a registrant allows her 
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 through 68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request 
for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would 
be deemed to have waived her 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 3.\2\ ``A default, unless

[[Page 6011]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
March 1, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration for a DEA 
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on December 11, 2023, the 
DI served the OSC via email to an email address associated with 
Registrant, and the DI's email was successfully delivered. RFAAX 2, 
at 2, Attachment 2; Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34553 
(2017) (finding that service by email satisfies due process where 
the email is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have 
been unsuccessful). The DI made several other attempts to serve 
Registrant with the OSC, but they were unsuccessful. On December 11 
and 12, 2023, the DI left voicemails at a business associated with 
Registrant, InnovAge, but did not receive any response. RFAAX 2, at 
2. Further on December 12, 2023, the DI mailed two copies of the OSC 
to Registrant's registered address. Id. at 2, Attachments 3-5. On 
the same date, the DI visited two additional addresses associated 
with Registrant, but when the DI arrived at each address, no person 
answered. Id. at 2-3. The DI left a business card at each address, 
but received no response. Id. Also on December 12, 2023, the DI 
visited the location of InnovAge, where the director of InnovAge 
informed the DI that Registrant had not been employed there for at 
least a year and a half. Id. at 3. Finally, on December 20, 2023, 
the DI mailed two copies of the OSC to a Pennsylvania address 
associated with Registrant. Id. at 3, Attachments 6-8. In sum, the 
Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by 
email and the DI's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were 
`` `reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 
[Registrant] of the pendency of the action.' '' Jones v. Flowers, 
547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & 
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Therefore, due process notice 
requirements have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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] Sec.  1316.67.'' Id. Sec.  1301.43(f)(1). Here, 
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's 
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) through (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, on 
January 9, 2023, the New Mexico State Board of Nursing suspended 
Registrant's New Mexico registered nurse license and New Mexico 
certified nurse practitioner license for a period of two years. RFAAX 
1, at 1. According to New Mexico online records, of which the Agency 
takes official notice, both Registrant's New Mexico registered nurse 
license and New Mexico certified nurse practitioner license remain 
suspended.\3\ https://nmbn.boardsofnursing.org/licenselookup (last 
visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds 
that Registrant is not licensed to practice as a nurse practitioner in 
New Mexico, the state in which she is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, 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 the DEA 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 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. 
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 71,371, 71,372 
(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, 76 FR 71371, 71372; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to New Mexico statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a 
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject pursuant 
to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the administering, 
prescribing, packaging, labeling or compounding necessary to prepare 
the controlled substance for that delivery.'' N.M. Stat. Ann. section 
30-31-2(H) (2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means ``a physician . . 
. certified nurse practitioner . . . or other person licensed or 
certified to prescribe and administer drugs that are subject to the 
Controlled Substances Act.'' Id. at section 30-31-2(P).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
lacks authority to practice as a nurse practitioner in New Mexico 
because both her New Mexico registered nurse license and New Mexico 
certified nurse practitioner license have been suspended. As discussed 
above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a 
controlled substance in New Mexico. Thus, because Registrant lacks 
authority to practice as a nurse practitioner in New Mexico and, 
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in New 
Mexico, 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. 
MB1966108, issued to Laura M. Bellew, 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 Laura M. Bellew, N.P., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Laura M. Bellew, N.P., for additional registration in New Mexico. 
This Order is effective February 18, 2025.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
November 26, 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

[[Page 6012]]

the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal 
Register.

Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-01111 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```