[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 53 (Thursday, March 20, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13200-13201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04754]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Margaret Sprague, M.D.; Decision and Order
On July 15, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Margaret Sprague,
M.D., of La Jolla, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 4, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FS8371267,
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because
Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, administer,
dispense, or to otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of
California, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at
1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
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 2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing. RFAA, at 3.\1\ ``A default, unless 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
September 23, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. On August 2, 2024, Registrant was
personally served with the OSC. RFAAX 1, at 1. On September 4, 2024,
Registrant filed a ``Response to Order to Show Cause,'' to which, on
the same date, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ)
issued an Order directing Registrant to file a request for hearing
and an Answer to the allegations of the OSC by September 11, 2024.
Id. at 1-2; see also RFAAX 2. On September 10, 2024, Registrant
filed a ``Request for Extension of Time to File Request for Hearing
and Answer,'' to which the ALJ granted Registrant a two-day
extension. RFAAX 1, at 2; see also RFAAX 3. Ultimately, Registrant
failed to file a request for hearing or Answer by the new deadline.
RFAAX 1, at 2. On September 13, 2024, the ALJ terminated the
proceedings. Id. at 3. Further, Registrant was ``deemed to have
waived her right to a hearing and [to be] in default.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13201]]
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(c), (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
or about November 30, 2023, the Medical Board of California revoked
Registrant's state medical license. RFAAX 4, at 2. According to
California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Registrant's California medical license remains revoked.\2\ California
DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant
is not licensed to practice medicine in California, the state in which
she is registered with DEA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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).
\3\ 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.'' The material fact here is
that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to
practice medicine in California. Registrant may dispute this fact 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 27,616, 27,617 (1978).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act (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 71,371-72; Sheran Arden
Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D.,
58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to California statute, ``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, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code
Sec. 11010 (West 2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the]
state.'' Id. Sec. 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As
discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to
dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and,
therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances
in California, 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.
FS8371267 issued to Margaret Sprague, 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 Margaret Sprague, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Margaret Sprague, M.D., for additional registration in
California. This Order is effective April 21, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
March 13, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025-04754 Filed 3-19-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P