Notice2023-05802
Christina Collins, APRN; 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
March 22, 2023
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17267-17268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05802]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 23-2]
Christina Collins, APRN; Decision and Order
On September 28, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Christina Collins,
APRN (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the denial of
Respondent's renewal application \1\ because Respondent is ``without
authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Tennessee,
the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Certificate of Registration No. MC1638696 at the registered
address of 6523 Central Avenue Pike, Knoxville, Tennessee 37912. Id.
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent requested a hearing; \2\ thereafter the Government filed
and the ALJ granted a Motion for Summary Disposition recommending the
denial of Respondent's renewal application for her registration. RD, at
7-8. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD. 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 and summarizes and expands upon portions
thereof herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Respondent's Request for Hearing is dated October 31, 2022,
see Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (ALJX) 4, at 1, but was deemed
filed on November 1, 2022. Further, although Respondent's Request
for Hearing was untimely, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
accepted the filing. 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
(Recommended Decision or RD), at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings of Fact
On February 28, 2022, the Tennessee Board of Nursing issued a Final
Order revoking Respondent's Tennessee license to practice as an
Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN license). RD, at 6-7;
Government's Submission of Evidence Regarding Proof of Service and
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) D, at 1, 11,
[[Page 17268]]
13.\3\ According to Tennessee's online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, Respondent's APRN license is revoked.\4\
Tennessee Department of Health License Verification, <a href="https://apps.health.tn.gov/Licensure/default.aspx">https://apps.health.tn.gov/Licensure/default.aspx</a> (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent
is not licensed to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in
Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In that Order, the Board went on to state that, ``[s]hould
Respondent be granted a new advance practice registered nurse
certificate by this Board [in the future], Respondent's advance
practice registered nurse certificate shall be restricted to
prohibit Respondent from prescribing controlled substances.'' GX D,
at 11.
\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, Respondent 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#3b5f5e5a155a5f5f54155a4f4f5449555e42487b5f5e5a155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="731716125d1217171c5d1207071c011d160a00331716125d141c05">[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 (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 71371 (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
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) (this
section, formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of the
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Public Law
117-215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022)). 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 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, 43 FR 27617. Moreover, because ``the controlling
question'' in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is
whether the holder of a practitioner's registration ``is currently
authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,'' Hooper,
76 FR 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)),
the Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even
where a practitioner is still challenging the underlying action.
Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR
27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent
is still challenging the underlying action here. See Respondent's
Reply to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, at 4-8;
RD, at 6-7. What is consequential is the Agency's finding that
Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense controlled
substances in Tennessee, the state in which she is registered with
the DEA. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Tennessee statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Tenn. Code Ann.
section 39-17-402(7) (2022). Further, a ``practitioner'' means ``[a]
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or
to administer a controlled substance in the course of professional
practice or research in this state.'' Id. at section 39-17-402(23)(A).
According to Tennessee nursing regulations, ``[c]ertification by the
Tennessee Board of Nursing to prescribe and/or issue legend drugs . . .
shall authorize a nurse practitioner \6\ to prescribe and/or issue such
drugs. Any nurse who prescribes and/or issues drugs without proper
certification by the Tennessee Board of Nursing shall be subject to
disciplinary action by the Board of Nursing . . . .'' Tenn. Comp. R. &
Regs. 1000-04-.04(1) (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Prior to revocation, Respondent's APRN license designated
Respondent as a ``Nurse Practitioner with Certificate of Fitness.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the evidence in the record is that Respondent lacks authority
to practice as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse in Tennessee. RD,
at 7. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner
to dispense a controlled substance in Tennessee. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to practice as an Advanced Practice
Registered Nurse in Tennessee and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in Tennessee, Respondent is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 7-8. Accordingly, the Agency
will order that Respondent's application for renewal of her
registration be denied.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny the pending application of Christina
Collins, APRN, for renewal of her DEA Certificate of Registration No.
MC1638696, as well as any other pending application of Christina
Collins, APRN, for additional registration in Tennessee. This Order is
effective April 21, 2023.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
March 15, 2023, 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. 2023-05802 Filed 3-21-23; 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 March 22, 2023.
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.