Notice2021-27486
Cypress Creek Pharmacy, LLC; Order
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 20, 2021
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71927-71928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27486]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Cypress Creek Pharmacy, LLC; Order
On October 18, 2019, a former Assistant Administrator, Diversion
Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to Cypress Creek Pharmacy,
LLC (hereinafter, Applicant), of Wesley Chapel, Florida. Order to Show
Cause (hereinafter, OSC), at 1. The OSC proposed the denial of
Applicant's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration because,
according to the OSC, Applicant's registration with DEA would be
inconsistent with the public interest. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a)(4)).
In a Declaration dated August 3, 2021, a Diversion Investigator
(hereinafter, the DI) assigned to the Tampa District Office, Miami
Field Division, stated that on October 25, 2019, she met with
Applicant's Registered Agent and Manager at the DEA Tampa District
Office and ``personally served him with a copy of the [OSC].'' Request
for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter,
RFAAX) B, at 1-2. The DI also stated that since the service of the OSC,
she has ``received no communications from anyone acting on behalf of
[Applicant] regarding the [OSC].'' Id. at 2.
The Government filed a Request for Final Agency Action
(hereinafter, RFAA) on September 3, 2021. In its RFAA, the Government
stated that Applicant is without authority to handle controlled
substances in Florida, because its state pharmacy license recently
expired. RFAA, at 1. The Government provided documentation from the
Florida Department of Health to support this claim. See RFAAX B-1 and
B-2. The Government then requested that I deny Applicant's application
for a DEA registration based solely \1\ on the ground that Applicant
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Florida, the state
where Applicant seeks a DEA registration. RFAA, at 1 and 6. The
Government did not allege that Applicant lacked state authority in the
OSC. See generally OSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Government appears to have abandoned its public interest
allegations in the RFAA, and therefore, I am not considering them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Agency decisions have stated that the Government is not
required to issue an amended OSC to notice an allegation of a
registrant's lack of state authority that arises during the pendency of
a proceeding regarding a DEA registration. Hatem M. Ataya, M.D., 81 FR
8221, 8244 (2016). Additionally, previous Agency decisions have stated
that because the possession of state authority is a prerequisite for
obtaining and maintaining a registration, the issue of state authority
can be raised at any stage of a proceeding, even sua sponte by the
Administrator. See id.; see also Joe M. Morgan, D.O., 78 FR 61,961,
61,973-74 (2013). In those matters, however, the registrant had a
meaningful opportunity, during at least one stage in the proceeding, to
refute the Government's claim that the registrant lacked state
authority. See, e.g., Ataya, 81 FR at 8245 (Administrator issued order
directing parties to address whether registrant possessed state
authority); Lesly Pompy, M.D., 84 FR 57,749, 57,749-50 (2019) (notice
provided during administrative hearing); Morgan, 78 FR at 61,973-74
(Government's post-hearing Motion for Summary Disposition provided
adequate notice).
Here, the Government cited to Lawrence E. Stewart, M.D., 86 FR
15,257 (2021), to support the proposition that it was not required to
issue a new OSC demonstrating lack of state authority. RFAA, at 3-4.
Although Stewart is accurately quoted, it also supports the notion that
the Agency must give some sort of notice and an opportunity to contest
the new allegations. In this case, in spite of changing the grounds for
denial two years after issuance of the OSC, the Government had not
demonstrated that it had given any such opportunity to the Applicant.
Accordingly, on October 15, 2021, I issued an Interim Order to
Applicant permitting it to submit a response addressing whether
Applicant currently holds state authority to handle controlled
substances in Florida within fifteen calendar days from the date that
my office served the Order on Applicant. Applicant sent an email in
reply to my Interim Order on October 20, 2021, stating, ``I have closed
the pharmacy and wish to close out of all matters dealing with the
pharmacy and the process of all licensure.'' \2\ Email dated October
20, 2021. I have received no further correspondence from Applicant
regarding the Government's allegations of its lack of state authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In spite of Applicant's statement regarding its
discontinuance of business, its application remains pending and I
will continue to assess the application under 21 U.S.C. 823. See
Lawrence E. Stewart, M.D., 86 FR 15,257 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Applicant has presented no evidence or statements related
to its lack of state authority, I consider the evidence submitted by
the Government on the lack of state authority allegation to be
uncontested.
I make the following findings of fact based on the record before
me.
Findings of Fact
Applicant's Application for a DEA Registration
On or about September 6, 2018, Applicant submitted an application
for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a retail pharmacy in Schedules
II through V with a proposed registered address at 26829 Tanic Drive,
Suite 101, Wesley Chapel, Florida 33544. Applicant's application was
assigned Control No. W18097945A. RFAAX B, at 1.
The Status of Applicant's State License
In her Declaration, the DI sated that Applicant's state pharmacy
license ``expired, without renewal, on February 28, 2021.'' RFAAX B, at
2. The Declaration noted that ``that expiration was automatically
extended until June 30, 2021 as part of the State of Florida's COVID-19
response.'' Id. at n.3.
According to Florida Department of Health's online records, of
which I take official notice, Applicant's state pharmacy registration
PH31651 is ``delinquent'' \3\ with a ``license expiration date'' of
February 28, 2021.\4\
[[Page 71928]]
Florida Department of Health's License Verification, Licensee Lookup,
<a href="https://mqa-internet.doh.state.fl.us/MQASearchServices/Home">https://mqa-internet.doh.state.fl.us/MQASearchServices/Home</a> (last
visited date of signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to the state website, ``delinquent'' means ``[t]he
license practitioner who held a CLEAR ACTIVE or CLEAR INACTIVE
license, but failed to renew the license by the expiration date. The
licensed practitioner is not authorized to practice in the [S]tate
of Florida.'' <a href="https://mqa-internet.doh.state.fl.us/MQASearchServices//LicStatus.html#DELINQUENT">https://mqa-internet.doh.state.fl.us/MQASearchServices//LicStatus.html#DELINQUENT</a>.
\4\ 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, Registrant may dispute my finding by filing
a properly supported motion for reconsideration of finding of fact
within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such
motion shall be filed with the Office of the Administrator and a
copy shall be served on the Government. In the event Registrant
files a motion, the Government shall have fifteen calendar days to
file a response. Any such motion and response may be filed and
served by email (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbbfbebaf5babfbfb4f5baafafb4a9b5bea2a89bbfbebaf5aea8bfb4b1f5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3878682cd8287878ccd8297978c918d869a90a3878682cd9690878c89cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is not licensed to
engage in the practice of pharmacy in Florida, the state in which
Applicant applied for registration 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 (hereinafter, CSA) ``upon a finding that the
registrant . . . has had [its] 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 71,371 (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).
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA.
First, Congress defined the term ``practitioner'' to mean ``a pharmacy
. . . 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(f). 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 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, 43
FR at 27,617.
According to Florida statute, ``It is unlawful for any person to
own, operate, maintain, open, establish, conduct, or have charge of,
either alone or with another person or persons, a pharmacy: (a) Which
is not registered under the provisions of this chapter.'' \5\ Fla.
Stat. Ann. Sec. 465.015(1). Further, ``the practice of the profession
of pharmacy'' definition ``includes compounding, dispensing, and
consulting concerning contents, therapeutic values, and uses of any
medicinal drug \6\ . . . .'' Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 465.003(13) (West,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Government included an email from a Florida Medical
Quality Assurance Investigator stating that ``[p]harmacies are not
allowed to operate at all on a delinquent license.'' RFAA B-2, at 1
(emphasis in original). This statement is supported by my analysis
of Florida law.
\6\ ``Medicinal Drugs'' or ``Drugs'' means ``those substances or
preparations commonly known as `prescription' or `legend' drugs
which are required by federal or state law to be dispensed only on a
prescription . . . .'' Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 465.003(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Applicant
currently lacks authority to operate a pharmacy in Florida. As already
discussed, a pharmacy must be a licensed to dispense a medicinal drug,
including a controlled substance, in Florida. Thus, because Applicant
lacks authority to practice pharmacy in Florida and, therefore, is not
authorized to dispense controlled substances in Florida, Applicant is
not eligible to receive a DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order
that Applicant's application for a DEA registration be denied.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby order that the pending application for a
Certificate of Registration, Control Number W18097945A, submitted by
Cypress Creek Pharmacy, LLC is denied, as well as any other pending
application of Cypress Creek Pharmacy, LLC for additional registration
in Florida. This Order is effective January 19, 2022.
Anne Milgram,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-27486 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 20, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.