[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24035-24036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07237]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23-64]
Traesa A. Brown, M.D.; Decision and Order
On August 31, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Traesa A. Brown, M.D. (Respondent) of
Florence, South Carolina. OSC, at 1, 5. The OSC/ISO informed Respondent
of the immediate suspension of her DEA Certificate of Registration
(registration or COR), Control No. BB9937624, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
824(d), alleging that Respondent's continued registration constitutes
`` `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' '' Id. at 1
(quoting 21 U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also proposed the revocation of
Respondent's registration, alleging that Respondent's continued
registration is inconsistent with the public interest and alleging that
Respondent has no state authority to handle controlled substances. Id.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(3), 824(a)(4)).
On September 20, 2023, Respondent requested a hearing. On October
13, 2023, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition only
pertaining to the allegation that Respondent lacks state authority to
handle controlled substances.\1\ See Government's Notice of Filing of
Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition (Motion for Summary
Disposition), dated October 13, 2023.\2\ Respondent did not respond to
the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. On October 23, 2023,
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 state authority to handle controlled substances in
South Carolina, the state in which she is registered with DEA, ``there
is no other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide in order to
determine whether or not she is entitled to hold a COR.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This suggests that the Government has dropped the public
interest allegation included in the OSC/ISO; as such, the Agency
will only consider the lack of state authority allegation from the
OSC/ISO.
\2\ The Government originally filed a Motion for Summary
Disposition on October 12, 2023, and therein asserted that
Respondent had failed to timely file an Answer to the allegations in
the OSC/ISO. RD, at 2 n.4; Motion for Summary Disposition, dated
October 12, 2023, at 3-4. Later on October 12, 2023, the Government
was informed that Respondent had filed an Answer on October 10,
2023, and was provided with a copy of Respondent's Answer. RD, at 2
n.4. On October 13, 2023, the Government filed its amended Motion
for Summary Disposition, referenced in this Decision, with revisions
based on its receipt of the copy of Respondent's Answer. Id.; see
also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October 13, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 asserts that on October 1, 2022, Respondent's South
Carolina controlled substance registration expired. RD, at 3-4.\3\
Further, the Government asserts that on June 30, 2023, Respondent's
South Carolina medical license expired. RD, at 4.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October 13,
2023, Exhibit (GX) 1; Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October
13, 2023, at 4-5.
\4\ See also Motion for Summary Disposition, dated October 13,
2023, at 4. As noted by the ALJ, the Government did not submit
documentary evidence regarding the status of Respondent's South
Carolina medical license as they had for Respondent's South Carolina
controlled substance registration, see supra n.3. RD, at 4 n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to South Carolina online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, Respondent's South Carolina controlled substance
registration is expired.\5\ SC DHEC Bureau of Drug Control, Controlled
Substances Registration Verification, https://.dhec.sc.gov//Licensing/
Home/Verify (last visited date of signature of this Order). Further,
Respondent's South Carolina medical license is listed as ``lapsed.''
South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners, Licensee Lookup, https://verify.llronline.com/LicLookup/Med/Med.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not currently
licensed to engage in the practice of medicine nor to handle controlled
substances in South Carolina, the state in which she is registered with
the 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, 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
[[Page 24036]]
F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR
27616, 27617 (1978).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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) (this
section, formerly Sec. 823(f), was redesignated as part of the
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Pub. L.
117-215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022)). 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 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 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to South Carolina statute, ``[e]very person who
manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance or who
proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
any controlled substance, shall obtain a registration issued by the
[Department of Health and Environmental Control] in accordance with its
rules and regulations.'' S.C. Code section 44-53-290(a) (2024).
Further, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a controlled substance 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 the substance for the
delivery.'' Id. section 44-53-110(15).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in South
Carolina because her South Carolina controlled substance registration
is expired. As discussed above, an individual must hold a controlled
substance registration to dispense a controlled substance in South
Carolina. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled
substances in South Carolina, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration. RD, at 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.
BB9937624 issued to Traesa A. Brown, 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 Traesa A. Brown, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Traesa A. Brown, M.D., for additional registration in South
Carolina. This Order is effective May 6, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
April 1, 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. 2024-07237 Filed 4-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P