[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 58 (Thursday, March 27, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13882-13884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-05164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 25-9]


Joely Keen, A.P.R.N.; Decision and Order

    On September 24, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Joely Keen, 
A.P.R.N., of The Woodlands, Texas (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC 
proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration 
No. MK4402210, alleging that Respondent's DEA registration should be 
revoked because Respondent is ``without authority to prescribe, 
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the 
State of Texas, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. 
at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    On October 22, 2024, Respondent requested a hearing,\1\ and on 
October 23, 2024, Respondent filed an Answer to the allegations in the 
OSC. See Order For Respondent To File Answer. On November 1, 2024, the 
Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, to which Respondent 
did not respond. On November 19, 2024, 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 Texas, the state in which

[[Page 13883]]

she is registered with DEA, ``there is no other fact of consequence for 
th[e] tribunal to decide.'' 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 5-6. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Respondent initially responded to the OSC via email on 
October 18, 2024, but her email did not include a hearing request. 
See Respondent's Request for Hearing (October 18, 2024). On October 
21, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) directed Respondent to 
file a request for a hearing if she desired one, along with an 
answer to the allegations in the OSC. Order for Respondent to File 
Request for Hearing and Answer and for Government to File Evidence 
of Lack of State Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    According to Texas online records, of which the Agency takes 
official notice, Respondent's Texas APRN license and Texas registered 
nurse license are revoked.\2\ Texas Board of Nursing License 
Verification Portal, https://txbn.boardsofnursing.org/licenselookup 
(last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency 
finds that Respondent is not currently licensed to practice as an APRN 
or registered nurse in Texas, 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 Texas. Respondent 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 
Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as of March 27, 2024, Respondent has not had an 
active prescriptive authority agreement with a supervisory physician, 
which is required for an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) in 
Texas to handle controlled substances. RD, at 4; 22 Tex. Admin. Code 
sections 193.7(a), 222.4(a)(l)(A), 222.5(a).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence and 
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. 
App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 
27617 (1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 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, M.D., 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Texas statute, ``dispense'' means ``the delivery of a 
controlled substance in the course of professional practice or 
research, by a practitioner or person acting under the lawful order of 
a practitioner, to an ultimate user or research subject. The term 
includes the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or 
compounding necessary to prepare the substance for delivery.'' Tex. 
Health & Safety Code Ann. section 481.002(12) (2024). Further, a 
``practitioner'' includes ``an advanced practice registered nurse or 
physician assistant to whom a physician has delegated the authority to 
prescribe or order a drug or device . . . .'' Id. section 
481.002(39)(D). Texas statute provides that ``[a] physician may 
delegate to an advanced practice registered nurse or physician 
assistant, acting under adequate physician supervision, the act of 
prescribing or ordering a drug or device as authorized through a 
prescriptive authority agreement between the physician and the advanced 
practice registered nurse or physician assistant, as applicable.'' Tex. 
Occ. Code Ann. section 157.0512(a) (2024).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent 
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Texas because her 
Texas APRN license and Texas registered nurse license have both been 
revoked. Respondent also lacks authority to handle controlled 
substances in Texas because she has not had an active prescriptive 
authority agreement with a supervisory physician since March 27, 2024. 
As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to 
dispense a controlled substance in Texas, and for an advanced practice 
registered nurse to meet the definition of a practitioner, he or she 
must be delegated the authority to handle controlled substances via a 
prescriptive authority agreement with a supervisory physician.
    Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to practice as an advanced 
practice registered nurse in Texas, Respondent is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in Texas and is therefore not eligible to 
maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 5-6.
    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. 
MK4402210 issued to Joely Keen, A.P.R.N. 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 Joely Keen, A.P.R.N., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Joely Keen, A.P.R.N., for additional registration in Texas. This 
Order is effective April 28, 2025.

[[Page 13884]]

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
March 18, 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. 2025-05164 Filed 3-26-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P