[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 127 (Monday, July 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29885-29886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12605]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Loretta Clement, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 18, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Loretta Clement,
M.D., of Cincinnati, Ohio (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FC2337500, alleging that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
``currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or
otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Ohio, the state
in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 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 (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 May
7, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator
(DI) indicates that on February 21, 2024, the DI attempted to
personally serve Registrant at her registered address, mail to
address, and personal residence but Registrant was not at any of
these locations. RFAAX 2, at 1. Finally, the DI emailed a copy of
the OSC to Registrant on March 14, 2025, and the email was not
returned. Id. at 2. The DI also spoke with Registrant on the phone
to explain the OSC process on March 17, 2025. Id. Here, the Agency
finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by email and
that the DI's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were ``
`reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
[Registrant] of the pendency of the action.' '' Jones v. Flowers,
547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)); see also Mohammed S. Aljanaby,
M.D., 82 FR 34,552, 34,552 (2017) (finding that service by email
satisfies due process where the email is not returned as
undeliverable and other methods have been unsuccessful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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] 1316.67.'' Id. 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 August 14, 2024, the State Medical Board of Ohio (the Board)
indefinitely suspended Registrant from the practice of medicine and
surgery in the State of Ohio. RFAAX 1, at 2.
According to Ohio online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice,\2\
[[Page 29886]]
Registrant's Ohio medical license is inactive. eLicense Ohio
Professional License Look-Up, https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense (last visited date of signature of this Order).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to
practice medicine in Ohio, the state in which he 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 Ohio. Accordingly, Registrant 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 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
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 Ohio statute, ``[n]o person shall knowingly obtain,
possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance
analog,'' except pursuant to a ``prescription issued by a licensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription
was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.'' Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
Sec. 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024). Further, a `` `[l]icensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs' or `prescriber'
means an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or
dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the
individual's professional practice.'' Id. Sec. 4729.01(I). The Ohio
statute further defines an authorized prescriber as ``[a] physician
authorized under Chapter 4731. of the Revised Code to practice medicine
and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine
and surgery.'' Id. Sec. 4729.01(I)(4). Additionally, Ohio law permits
``[a] licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if
acting in the course of professional practice, in accordance with the
laws regulating the professional's practice'' to prescribe or
administer schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances to
patients. Id. Sec. 3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Ohio. As already
discussed, a physician is authorized by law to prescribe or administer
drugs in Ohio only when authorized to practice medicine and surgery
under Ohio law. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice
medicine in Ohio and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled
substances in Ohio, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA
registration. Accordingly, I 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.
FC2337500 issued to Loretta Clement, 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 Loretta Clement, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Loretta Clement, M.D., for additional registration in Ohio. This
Order is effective August 6, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 1, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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. 2025-12605 Filed 7-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P