[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24753-24754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09962]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 14-4]


Kate B. Mayes, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On February 19, 2014, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A. 
Randall issued the attached recommended decision. Neither party filed 
exceptions to the decision. Having reviewed the entire record, I have 
decided to adopt the ALJ's rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended order. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's 
DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked and that any pending 
application to renew or modify her registration be denied.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 
824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration BM8500452, issued to Kate B. Mayes, M.D., 
be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending 
application of Kate B. Mayes, M.D, to renew or modify her registration, 
be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective June 2, 2014.

    Dated: April 21, 2014.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator.

Bryan Bayly, Esq., for the Government
Kate B. Mayes, M.D., Pro Se, for the Respondent

Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 
of the Administrative Law Judge

I. Facts

    Gail A. Randall, Administrative Law Judge. The Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, (``DEA'' or ``Government''), issued an Order to Show 
Cause (``Order'') dated October 25, 2013, proposing to revoke DEA 
Certificate of Registration (``COR'') number BM8500452 of Kate B. 
Mayes, M.D. (``Respondent''), a practitioner, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3) (2006), because Respondent lacks state authority to 
manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances.
    The Order alleged that, effective June 27, 2012, Respondent's 
medical license was suspended by the South Carolina Board of Medical 
Examiners (``Board''). [Order at 1]. Accordingly, the Order stated that 
``DEA must revoke [Respondent's] current DEA registration based upon 
[her] lack of authority to handle controlled substances in the state of 
South Carolina.'' [Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 
824(a)(3))]. The Order notified Respondent that she may, within thirty 
days of her receipt of the Order, request a hearing to show cause as to 
why the DEA should not revoke her registration. [Id. at 2 (citing 21 
CFR 1301.43(a) (2013)].
    Respondent was served with the Order on November 4, 2013. On 
December 3, 2014, Respondent timely filed a letter with this office 
requesting that I, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to this 
matter, grant her an extension of time to respond to the Order. 
Pursuant to my authority under 21 CFR 1316.47(b), I granted 
Respondent's request for an extension of time and ordered Respondent to 
respond to the Order by December 19, 2013. On December 19, 2013, 
Respondent filed a request for a hearing,\1\ and on December 20, 2013, 
I ordered the Government and Respondent to file prehearing statements 
by January 10, 2014 and January 17, 2014, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the Respondent mentioned an attorney in her request 
for a hearing and in her request for an extension of time, no 
attorney has entered a notice of appearance for Respondent in this 
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2014, the Government filed a motion with this Court 
entitled Government's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Stay the Dates 
for the Parties to Submit Prehearing Statements (``Government's 
Motion''). Therein, the Government requested that I issue a decision 
recommending that the DEA summarily revoke Respondent's COR because 
Respondent's state medical license has been suspended and Respondent 
therefore lacks state authority to handle controlled substances. [Gov't 
Mot. at 1, 2]. Additionally, the Government requested that I postpone 
the deadlines for filing prehearing statements until I have ruled on 
the motion. [Id.].
    On January 13, 2014, I issued an order for Respondent to respond to 
the Government's Motion by January 21, 2014. Also in the order, I 
stayed the deadlines for prehearing statements until I have ruled on 
the Government's Motion. Respondent did not file a response to the 
Government's Motion; indeed, this office has received no correspondence 
from Respondent since she requested a hearing on December 19, 2013.
    For the reasons set forth below, I will grant the Government's 
Motion and recommend that the Deputy Administrator revoke the 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration and deny any currently 
pending applications to renew this registration.

II. Discussion

    The Controlled Substances Act (``CSA'') provides that obtaining a 
DEA registration is conditional on holding a state license to handle 
controlled substances. [See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (defining 
``practitioner'' as ``a physician . . . 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. 823(f) 
(``the Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the 
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under 
the laws of the State in which he practices''); see also Sec.  
824(a)(3) (``a registration may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney 
General upon a finding that the registrant has had his State license or 
registration suspended, revoked or denied by competent State 
authority'')]. The DEA, therefore, has consistently held that the CSA 
requires the DEA to revoke the registration of a practitioner who no 
longer possesses a state license to handle controlled substances. See 
e.g. Joseph Baumstarck, 74 FR 17,525, 17,527 (DEA 2009) (``a 
practitioner may not maintain his DEA registration if he lacks 
authority to handle controlled substances under the laws of the state 
in which he practices''); Roy Chi Lung, M.D., 74 FR 20,346 (DEA 2009); 
Gabriel Sagun Orzame, M.D., 69 FR 58,959 (DEA 2004); Alton E. Ingram, 
Jr., M.D.,

[[Page 24754]]

69 FR 22,562 (DEA 2004); Graham Travers Schuler, M.D., 65 FR 50,570 
(DEA 2000); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (DEA 1993).
    DEA has also held that revocation by summary disposition is proper 
when the parties agree that the respondent lacks state authority to 
handle controlled substances. Michael G. Dolin, M.D., 65 FR 5,661, 
5,662 (DEA 2000) (``where no questions of material fact is involved, a 
plenary, adversary administrative proceeding involving evidence and 
cross-examination of witnesses is not obligatory'') (citing Jesus R. 
Juarez, M.D., 62 FR 14,945 (1997); Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32,887 
(DEA 1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 
1984)).
    Here, it is undisputed that Respondent is without state authority 
to handle controlled substances. Notably, Respondent's COR only 
authorizes her to handle controlled substances in South Carolina. 
[Gov't Mot. Attach. 1 at 1]. However, in her request for a hearing, 
Respondent acknowledged that she has no authority to handle controlled 
substances in the state, noting that she hopes to have her license 
reinstated ``[a]fter more than 18 months of having a suspended medical 
license in the state of South Carolina.'' Also, the Government attached 
to its Motion a copy of the South Carolina Board's order suspending 
Respondent's medical license ``pending further Order of the Board.'' 
[Gov't Mot. Attach. 2 at 1]. Respondent has not responded to the 
Government's Motion and therefore has offered no evidence that any 
``further Order of the Board'' has been issued. I therefore find that 
Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances 
because her medical license in South Carolina is suspended.

III. Conclusion, Order, and Recommendation

    Because there is no genuine dispute that the Respondent currently 
lacks state authority to handle controlled substances, summary 
disposition for the Government is appropriate.
    Accordingly, I hereby
    Grant the Government's Motion.
    I also forward this case to the Deputy Administrator for final 
disposition. I recommend that the Respondent's DEA Certificate of 
Registration, Number BM8500452, be revoked and any pending renewal 
applications for this registration be denied.

Dated: February 19, 2014

s/ Gail A. Randall,

Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc. 2014-09962 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P