[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