Notice2022-14832
Alphonsus Okoli, M.D.; Decision and 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
July 12, 2022
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41354-41355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14832]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Alphonsus Okoli, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 7, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter,
DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to
Alphonsus Okoli, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1 and 4. The
OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration
No. BO4917780 at the registered address of 7525 Greenway Center Drive,
Suite 110, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
``without authority to handle controlled substances in Maryland, the
state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The OSC also alleged that Registrant's registration should
be revoked because Registrant has ``committed such acts as would
render [his] registration inconsistent with the public interest, as
that term is defined under the Controlled Substances Act,'' based on
Registrant's lack of compliance with a DEA Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA). OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4)). However,
in its Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA) submitted to this
Office on June 22, 2022, the Government noted that while it does not
concede that Registrant complied with the MOA, Registrant's lack of
state authority to handle controlled substances is ``case
dispositive and the Government does not seek a Final Order on the
public interest allegations.'' RFAA, at n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency makes the following findings of fact based on the
uncontroverted evidence submitted by the Government in its Request for
Final Agency Action (RFAA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By letter dated July 12, 2021, Registrant submitted a
written statement in response to the OSC in which he waived his
right to a hearing. RFAA, Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) B, at 1-2. As
the Government seeks Final Agency Action solely on the ground that
Registrant lacks state authority to handle controlled substances,
the Agency will not consider Registrant's explanation in response to
the public interest allegations at this time. See id. Registrant
also argues that his DEA registration should not be revoked for lack
of state authority because he still has a North Carolina medical
license in ``inactive status.'' Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings of Fact
On March 23, 2021,\3\ Registrant and the Maryland State Board of
Physicians (hereinafter, the Board) entered into a Consent Order
suspending Registrant's Maryland medical license and permanently
prohibiting him from prescribing and dispensing Controlled Dangerous
Substances (hereinafter, CDS). See RFAAX C-4 (Consent Order), at 12-18.
On September 29, 2021, the Board issued an Order Terminating Suspension
and Imposing Probation that ended the suspension of Registrant's
Maryland medical license, but maintained that, as had been ordered in
Registrant's Consent Order with the Board, Registrant was permanently
prohibited from prescribing and dispensing all controlled dangerous
substances. RFAAX C-5, at 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On April 13, 2020, an Administrative Law Judge of the
Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Proposed
Decision recommending that Registrant's Maryland Controlled
Dangerous Substances (CDS) license be revoked. RFAAX C-2, at 1, 21.
On June 25, 2020, the Designee of the Maryland Secretary of Health
issued a Final Decision and Order adopting the Proposed Decision in
full and revoking Registrant's Maryland CDS license. RFAAX C-3, at
1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Maryland's online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Registrant's Maryland CDS license is still revoked.\4\
Maryland Department of Health CDS Search, <a href="https://health.maryland.gov/ocsa/pages/cdssearch.aspx">https://health.maryland.gov/ocsa/pages/cdssearch.aspx</a> (last visited date of signature of this
Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not currently
licensed to dispense controlled dangerous substances in Maryland, the
state in which he is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#610504004f0005050e4f0015150e130f041812210504004f1412050e0b4f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="620607034c0306060d4c0316160d100c071b11220607034c1711060d084c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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, 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
[[Page 41355]]
826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616,
27,617 (1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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(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 Maryland statute, ``a person shall be registered by
the Department before the person manufactures, distributes, or
dispenses a controlled dangerous substance in the State or transports a
controlled dangerous substance into the State.'' Md. Code. Ann., Crim.
Law Sec. 5-301(a)(1) (West 2022). Maryland law further defines
``dispense'' to mean ``to deliver to the ultimate user or the human
research subject by or in accordance with the lawful order of an
authorized provider'' and states that the term includes ``to prescribe,
administer, package, label, or compound a substance for delivery.'' Id.
at Sec. 5-101(I)(1)-(2).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant's
CDS license was revoked. As already discussed, a practitioner must hold
a valid controlled substance license to dispense a controlled substance
in Maryland.\6\ Thus, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA
registration in Maryland and the Agency will order that Registrant's
DEA registration be revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Agency finds that Registrant's inactive North Carolina
medical license has no bearing on the issue in this case, which is
whether Registrant has authority to handle controlled substances in
the Maryland, the state of his DEA registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
BO4917780 issued to Alphonsus Okoli, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby
deny any pending applications of Alphonsus Okoli, M.D. to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Alphonsus Okoli, M.D. for additional registration in Maryland. This
Order is effective August 11, 2022.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 6, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. 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. 2022-14832 Filed 7-11-22; 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 July 12, 2022.
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.