[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