Notice2023-27524
APEXX Pharmacy, LLC; 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
December 15, 2023
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86941-86944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27524]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 22-48]
APEXX Pharmacy, LLC; Decision and Order
I. Introduction
On August 2, 2022, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and
Immediate Suspension of Registration (collectively, OSC) to APEXX
Pharmacy, LLC (Respondent), of Hudson, Florida. OSC, at 1, 9. The OSC
immediately suspended, and proposes the revocation of, Respondent's DEA
registration No. FA5493363, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d) and (a)(4),
and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1).\1\ Id. at 1. The OSC more specifically alleges
that Respondent's ``continued registration is inconsistent with the
public interest.'' Id. It also alleges violations of Florida law. Supra
n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective December 2, 2022, the Medical Marijuana and
Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Public Law 117-215, 136 Stat.
2257 (2022) (Marijuana Research Amendments or MRA), amended the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and other statutes. Relevant to this
matter, the MRA redesignated 21 U.S.C. 823(f), cited in the OSC, as
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, this Decision cites to the current
designation, 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), and to the MRA-amended CSA
throughout.
The Federal and state substantive violations alleged in the OSC
include 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(2) and 842(a)(1); 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and
1306.06; Fla. Stat. 893.055(3)(a)(3); and Fla. Admin. Code r. 64B16-
27.810(1) and (2), Fla. Admin. Code r. 64B16-27.831(1)(b) and (c),
(2)(c), and (4), and Fla. Admin. Code r. 64B16-27.1001(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing Respondent requested was held on December 13 and 14,
2022. Hearing Transcript. The Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (RD)
concludes that Respondent's registration should be revoked. RD, at 27.
This Decision and Order, based solely on OSC allegations that
Respondent filled controlled substances under the names of three
individuals who, at the time, were deceased, agrees.\2\ Fla. Admin.
Code r. 64B16-27.1001(4). Accordingly, the Agency will revoke
Respondent's registration. Infra Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The OSC's substantive headings describe the allegations as
``Improper Filling of Prescriptions to Undercover Officers,''
specifically referencing July 7, 2022, July 14, 2022, and July 15,
2022, ``Issuing Prescriptions to Dead Patients,'' and ``Imminent
Danger.'' The OSC cites federal and state authorities as the bases
of its allegations. Supra n.1.
This Decision is adjudicating only OSC allegations that
Respondent filled controlled substance prescriptions issued to
individuals who were deceased. Because these allegations alone are
sufficient to revoke Respondent's registration, the Agency does not
reach the other OSC allegations. The other OSC allegations include
various references to conduct observed by and involving undercover
officers; the record evidence related to those observations and
interactions is periodically referenced herein as relevant to the
analysis of Respondent's credibility and trustworthiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Findings of Fact
The Allegation That Respondent Filled Controlled Substance
Prescriptions Issued to Deceased Individuals
The OSC alleges, among other things, that Respondent filled
controlled substance prescriptions issued to individuals who, at the
time, were deceased. OSC, at 9. According to the Government's evidence,
Respondent filled at least forty-seven such controlled substance
prescriptions. See, e.g., GX 6-GX 8 and GX 12-GX 14.
Respondent does not dispute that it filled the forty-seven Schedule
II controlled substance prescriptions. See, e.g., Tr. 366. It does not,
however, take responsibility for doing so. Instead, it maintains that
it acted properly and suggests, without any documentary or evidentiary
support, a complex and layered theory of misconduct by others.
According to the testimony of Respondent's owner/Pharmacist-in-
Charge (PIC), whom the Agency finds to be not credible, infra, the
``only way'' he can determine the validity of a prescription is to call
the issuing doctor and ask whether the doctor wrote the specific
elements of the order for the individual to whom the prescription is
issued. Id. at 368-69. He testified that he does this for all of the
prescriptions presented to his pharmacy. Id. at 369. He also testified
that, for the forty-seven controlled substance prescriptions, each
issuing doctor provided the verification. Id.
Further, Respondent's owner/PIC testified, for the forty-seven
prescriptions, as with all other prescriptions, that ``every patient
that comes into the pharmacy ha[s] to have an ID,'' that he ``get[s]
their ID,'' and that he has ``to have an ID that matches the person in
front of . . . [him].'' Tr. 367. He specifically testified that he
``always'' makes a copy of the IDs to put in the pharmacy's files, and
that those prescriptions were not an exception.\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The admitted exhibits do not support the owner/PIC's
testimony that he always makes a copy of the IDs. GX 4; GX 5. They
indicate that the owner/PIC made copies of controlled substance
prescriptions and patient history forms. E.g., GX 5, at 1, 5. They
do not indicate, however, that the owner/PIC made a copy of any of
the IDs that the undercover officers handed him. See, e.g., GX 5, at
2, 10. Accordingly, the Agency finds that the testimony of
Respondent's owner/PIC lacks credibility. See also infra section V
(credibility discussion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While he acknowledged the Government-sponsored testimony that no
copies of IDs presented for the forty-seven prescriptions were found in
Respondent's files, the owner/PIC testified that ``that is impossible''
because ``[f]or every patient there ha[s] to be an ID to match the--the
patient. They have to fill the information sheet and they have to give
me an ID to match them and the prescription that they are filling.''
Id. at 368. He further testified that he was provided IDs for the three
deceased individuals' prescriptions, that he made copies of them, and
that ``those IDs seem to match the prescriptions that were presented
to'' him. Id. The owner/PIC could not recall whether, for each of the
forty-seven prescriptions, the individual presenting the Schedule II
controlled substance prescription provided an ID in hard copy or
electronically. Id. at 367; see also RD, at 23 (owner/PIC's ``testimony
is undermined by his statement that he could not remember whether the
customer presented a physical identification or emailed him one from a
phone application''). Regardless, as already noted, Respondent's owner/
PIC testified that he has ``to have an ID that matches the person in
front of . . . [him].'' Tr. 367.
When asked for his explanation as to how Respondent filled any of
the forty-seven Schedule II controlled substance prescriptions issued
to deceased
[[Page 86942]]
persons, Respondent's owner/PIC testified that the ``only thing'' he
``can think of is identity theft.'' Tr. 366. In other words, instead of
acknowledging the possibility that his actions led, in any way, to the
diversion of Schedule II controlled substances ordered on any of the
forty-seven prescriptions, Respondent's owner/PIC engaged in
speculation and misdirection.
Respondent offered no documentary evidence to support the identity
theft theory. Indeed, it should have had evidence to prove or disprove
the identity theft theory had Respondent's owner/PIC, as he testified
(though not credibly), required the production of an ID that matched
the individual presenting any of the forty-seven Schedule II controlled
substance prescriptions, copied the ID, and put the copy in the
pharmacy's files. See supra n.3. The Diversion Investigator (DI),
though, credibly testified that he did not see any such IDs in
Respondent's files for any of the forty-seven controlled substance
prescriptions. Tr. 276-77; infra.
Again, though, instead of acknowledging the possibility that its
actions or inactions led, in any way, to there being no copies of IDs
in the pharmacy's files for any of the forty-seven prescriptions,
Respondent suggested that the Government's seizure of its files was the
cause. See, e.g., Respondent Prehearing Statement, at 8 (``Proposed
Documents--None because the Government seized all APEXX Pharmacy
documents without a valid search warrant, as required pursuant to F.S.
465'').
Respondent did not, however, successfully develop its suggestions
of Government responsibility for Respondent's allegedly missing
pharmacy records. Instead, the Special Agent (S/A) testified about the
seizure of Respondent's files, the DI testified about the content of
those seized files, and the ALJ explicitly invited Respondent to
develop its position through the cross-examination of both Government
witnesses. See, e.g., Tr. 123-31, 132-34, 136-37 (S/A testimony); id.
at 126-27, 130, 134-36, 139, 277 (Administrative Law Judge-Respondent
colloquy); see also id. at 206-09, (Respondent's cross examination of
S/A); id. at 272-73, 275-77 (Respondent's cross examination of DI).
However, Respondent did not successfully develop, on cross-examination
of those two witnesses, its suggestion that Government error is the
reason that there are no IDs in Respondent's seized files for any of
the forty-seven controlled substance prescriptions. Supra. Instead,
Respondent's owner/PIC testified that the Government's exhibits,
offered as including Respondent's records regarding the forty-seven
controlled substance prescriptions, ``match what is on PDMP.'' \4\ Tr.
366; see also id. at 134. As it is Respondent that submitted these data
to E-FORCSE, Florida's PDMP, the fact that Respondent's owner/PIC
admits that the data in the Government's exhibits match the data in the
PDMP is further evidence of the soundness and legal sufficiency of the
Government's seizure of Respondent's files and the lack of credibility
of Respondent's claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ PDMP stands for Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Respondent is asking the Agency to credit its post hoc,
concocted sequential claims that: (1) it always copies and files an ID
that matches each person presenting a prescription, (2) on forty-seven
occasions it was presented with IDs that matched the physical
characteristics of the persons presenting the forty-seven prescriptions
for Schedule II controlled substances, but those IDs were fake and part
of the perpetration of forty-seven incidents of identity theft, (3)
Respondent cannot document the forty-seven fake IDs because of
unspecified Government errors during the Government's search and
seizure of Respondent's files, (4) and Respondent cannot develop the
parameters of the unspecified Government errors even though it was
given ample opportunity to do so during the hearing. The Agency
declines.
After thoroughly reviewing the transmitted record, the Agency
concludes that it will afford the testimony of both Government
witnesses full credibility, and find that the testimony of Respondent's
owner/PIC that conflicts with the Government witnesses' testimonies is
not credible or creditable.\5\ Accord RD, at 4, 5 (Government
witnesses); id. at 14 (Respondent's witness). Further, when testimony
of Respondent's owner/PIC conflicts with the testimony of a Government
witness, the Agency will credit the testimony of the Government
witness. Accord RD, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The credibility of Respondent's owner/PIC is further eroded
by his relentless pursuit of controlled substances sales and his
willingness to violate legal requirements. See, e.g., GX 5, at 7
(Respondent's owner/PIC telling the undercover sponsor which days
during the following week to bring in ``some more people'' whom the
sponsor will be ``taking to the doc''), GX 5, at 3, 4 (showing how
Respondent's owner/PIC coached undercover sponsors and undercover
officers on what to do to get the controlled substances from him
that they want), and infra section V (addressing Respondent's owner/
PIC's decision to close, permanently, the pharmacy's back door).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the record before it, the Agency finds uncontroverted
evidence that Respondent, through Respondent's owner/PIC, filled forty-
seven controlled substance prescriptions issued to individuals who, at
the time, were deceased.\6\ See, e.g., GX 6-GX 8 and GX 12-GX 14; infra
section III. The Agency further finds uncontroverted record evidence
that, due to these fillings, Respondent diverted 1,040 hydromorphone 8
mg tablets and 966 oxycodone HCL 30 mg tablets, or a total of 2006
Schedule II controlled substance tablets.\7\ Id. The Agency concludes,
based on substantial record evidence, that, since the individuals to
whom these controlled substance prescriptions were issued were
deceased, Respondent could not have ``dispensed'' the prescribed
controlled substances to the individuals to whom the prescriptions were
issued, and necessarily ``dispensed'' each of these forty-seven
controlled substance prescriptions to a ``third party'' instead. GX 12-
14; accord RD, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Based on all of the above, the Agency does not credit
Respondent's submissions to E-FORCSE that the individuals who
dropped off the forty-seven prescriptions and picked up the filled
controlled substances were the individuals to whom the controlled
substance prescriptions were issued. GX 6, at 4, GX 7, at 4, and GX
8, at 4.
Further, a violation of the Florida regulation that this
Decision is applying, according to the regulation's text, simply
occurs when a pharmacy physically ``dispenses'' a controlled
substance to a ``third party,'' not to the individual in whose name
the prescription is written. Cf., e.g., United States v. Green
Drugs, 905 F.2d 694, 698 (3d Cir. 1990) (``The defendants further
argue that the result we enunciate here would allow the government
to hold virtually any pharmacy liable for the most minor infraction
even where the greatest care has been exercised and good faith
demonstrated. This is a consequence that Congress likely accepted in
enacting the [Controlled Substances] Act, and perhaps should be
considered together with the broad discretion the district court has
in assessing fines.'').
\7\ Some prescriptions were written for Dilaudid 8 mg and were
filled with hydromorphone HCL 8 mg. See, e.g., GX 10, at 9-10, 13-
18, and 25-28; GX 11, at 3-4, 19-20, 23-26, and 31-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency also finds substantial record evidence that Respondent's
owner/PIC did not explain credibly why Respondent's seized files do not
contain any of the alleged copies of the deceased customers'
identifications that its owner/PIC testified he made when filling the
forty-seven Schedule II controlled substance prescriptions. Supra.
III. Florida Legal Prohibition on ``Dispensing'' Prescriptions to
``Third Parties''
Among its other statutes and regulatory provisions concerning
pharmacy standards of practice, Florida prohibits the ``dispensing'' of
controlled
[[Page 86943]]
substances to a ``third party.'' Fla. Admin. Code r. 64B16-27.1001(4)
(2010) (``The pharmacist, as an integral aspect of dispensing, shall be
directly and immediately available to the patient or the patient's
agent for consultation and shall not dispense to a third party. No
prescription shall be deemed to be properly dispensed unless the
pharmacist is personally available.''). According to the clear text of
the regulation, nothing beyond the physical ``dispensing'' to a ``third
party'' constitutes a violation. This regulation was in effect for the
entire time covered by the OSC's allegations and, therefore, applies to
Respondent's actions during that period.
Having thoroughly analyzed all of the record evidence, the Agency
finds substantial and undisputed record evidence that Respondent
``dispensed'' controlled substances, pursuant to prescriptions issued
to deceased individuals, to ``third parties'' at least forty-seven
times. See, e.g., GX 6-GX 8 and GX 12-GX 14.
IV. Discussion
Under Section 304 of the CSA, ``[a] registration . . . to . . .
distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended
or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant .
. . has committed such acts as would render his registration under
section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as
determined by such section.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a
``practitioner,'' which is defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(21) to include a
``pharmacy,'' Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five
factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(A-E). The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003).
According to Agency decisions, the Agency ``may rely on any one or
a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems
appropriate in determining whether'' to revoke a registration. Id.; see
also Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881
F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Akhtar-Zaidi v. Drug Enf't
Admin., 841 F.3d 707, 711 (6th Cir. 2016)); MacKay v. Drug Enf't
Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011); Volkman v. U. S. Drug Enf't
Admin., 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin.,
419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005). Moreover, while the Agency is
required to consider each of the factors, it ``need not make explicit
findings as to each one.'' MacKay, 664 F.3d at 816 (quoting Volkman,
567 F.3d at 222); see also Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 482. ``In short, . . .
the Agency is not required to mechanically count up the factors and
determine how many favor the Government and how many favor the
registrant. Rather, it is an inquiry which focuses on protecting the
public interest; what matters is the seriousness of the registrant's
misconduct.'' Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 FR 459, 462 (2009).
Accordingly, as the Tenth Circuit has recognized, findings under a
single factor can support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664
F.3d at 821.
According to DEA regulations, ``[a]t any hearing for the revocation
. . . of a registration, the . . . [Government] shall have the burden
of proving that the requirements for such revocation . . . pursuant to
. . . 21 U.S.C. 824(a) . . . are satisfied.'' 21 CFR 1301.44(e).
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have
been considered, the Government's evidence in support of its prima
facie case regarding the forty-seven prescriptions is confined to
Factors B and D.\8\ Government's Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, at 19; see also RD, at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Neither Respondent nor the Government argues that it offered
evidence relevant to Factors A, C, or E. Although the Agency
considered Factors A, C, and E, it finds that they are not relevant
to this adjudication. Accord RD, at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors B and/or D--Respondent's Experience in Dispensing Controlled
Substances and Compliance With Applicable Laws Related to Controlled
Substances
Florida regulations explicitly prohibit pharmacies from
``dispensing'' to ``third parties.'' Fla. Admin. Code r. 64B16-
27.1001(4) (2010); supra sections II and III. The record evidence is
uncontroverted that, at least forty-seven times, Respondent filled
Schedule II controlled substance prescriptions when the persons to whom
the prescriptions were issued were deceased. Due to these fillings,
Respondent diverted 1,040 hydromorphone 8 mg tablets and 966 oxycodone
HCL 30 mg tablets, or a total of 2006 Schedule II controlled substance
tablets to ``third parties.'' Supra sections II and III. The Agency
finds that, as a result of this ``dispensing'' to ``third parties,''
Respondent repeatedly violated applicable law, supporting the
revocation of its registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and Fla. Admin.
Code r. 64B16-27.1001(4) (2010).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent's continued
registration is inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(4) and 823(g)(1)(B) and (D).
V. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of
showing that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with
the public interest due to its numerous violations pertaining to
controlled substances, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show why
it can be entrusted with a registration. Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83
FR 18882 (2018). The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent
determination based on the circumstances presented by the individual
respondent. Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR 46968, 46972 (2019). Moreover,
as past performance is the best predictor of future performance, DEA
Administrators have required that a registrant who has committed acts
inconsistent with the public interest must accept responsibility for
those acts and demonstrate that it will not engage in future
misconduct. Id. A registrant's acceptance of responsibility must be
unequivocal. Id. In addition, a registrant's candor during the
investigation and hearing has been an important factor in determining
acceptance of responsibility and the appropriate sanction. Id.
Furthermore, DEA Administrators have found that the egregiousness and
extent of the misconduct are significant factors in determining the
appropriate sanction. Id. DEA Administrators have also considered the
need to deter similar acts by the respondent and by the community of
registrants. Id.
Regarding these matters, there is no record evidence that
Respondent, or its owner/PIC, takes responsibility, let alone
unequivocal responsibility, for the founded, egregious violations
involving the diversion of 2006 Schedule II controlled substance
tablets. Supra sections II and IV. Instead, Respondent's case consists
of one debunked and failed attempt after another to shift the blame for
the unlawful filling of at least forty-seven controlled substance
prescriptions away from itself.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The testimony offering these serial attempts reflects poorly
on the candor of Respondent's owner/PIC. Supra section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of
revocation. Respondent has not convinced the Agency that it understands
that its controlled substance prescription filling fell short of the
applicable legal standards and that this substandard filling has
serious negative ramifications for the health, safety, and medical care
of individuals who come to it for medicine. See, e.g., Garrett Howard
Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18910 (collecting cases). As such, it is not
reasonable to
[[Page 86944]]
believe that Respondent's future controlled substance prescription
filling will comply with legal requirements.\10\ Indeed, Respondent's
owner/PIC's own testimony suggests that he has no intention of
complying with the CSA in the future because he believes compliance is
unduly burdensome.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Agency notes the record evidence, in GX 5, of two
incidents when Respondent's owner/PIC declined to provide the
undercover officers with additional controlled substances without a
prescription. GX 5, at 6, 8-9. These incidents do not excuse
Respondent's owner/PIC's otherwise laser-focused pursuit of
controlled substances sales regardless of legal requirements. Supra
section II.
\11\ Respondent's owner/PIC testified that ``filling controls is
a lot of headache. You have to record it down, you have to go
through a lot of process, and nobody wants to deal with that.'' Tr.
297. Respondent's owner/PIC further testified that when he worked
for larger pharmacies in the past, he would tell customers that
controlled substances were not in stock because he got paid the same
amount whether he filled controlled or non-controlled substances.
Id. He testified, ``why would pharmacies . . . want to fill a
control medication for somebody when it can come back to haunt him
when he can say I don't have it, I will fill just the non-
controls.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, given the foundational nature and vast number of
Respondent's violations, a sanction less than revocation would send a
message to the existing and prospective registrant community that
compliance with the law is not a condition precedent to maintaining a
registration.
The Agency finds that it cannot entrust Respondent with a
registration.\12\ It finds that Respondent's actions were motivated by
profiting while avoiding DEA's detection and lacked any genuine care
for the health and welfare of its customers. For example, the record
evidence shows that Respondent coached customers regarding what to
write on their forms in order to get the desired controlled substances,
see, e.g., GX 5, at 3, 4, and shows the complete willingness of
Respondent's owner/PIC to continue to fill the controlled substance
prescriptions that S/A and undercover officer ``sponsors'' were
bringing him. GX 5, at 1, 7.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ While only the evidence relating to the found violation,
supra, was used to determine that the Government made a prima facie
case, the entire record supports the Agency's determination that
Respondent's owner/PIC is not credible and that, therefore, the
Agency cannot entrust Respondent with a registration.
\13\ GX 5, at 1 (``S/A: `Can I drop you some more scripts?' . .
. . Respondent's owner/PIC: `How many is there?' ''); GX 5, at 7
(``Undercover Officer: `I got some more people I'm taking to the
doc. you good with me bringing them here again? Um next week.' . . .
. Respondent's owner/PIC: `Next week, yeah, next week that's fine.'
'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent's owner/PIC's testimony regarding those matters further
erodes the Agency's trust in the truthfulness of Respondent's owner/PIC
and in the ability of Respondent to maintain a registration in
compliance with the law.
In sum, the record supports the imposition of a sanction because
Respondent did not unequivocally accept responsibility for its
egregious and extensive violations, and has not convinced the Agency
that it can be entrusted with a registration.
Accordingly, the Agency shall order the sanction the Government
requested, as contained in the Order below.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(4), I hereby revoke DEA registration No. FA5493363 issued
to APEXX Pharmacy, LLC. 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 application of APEXX Pharmacy, LLC, for a DEA Registration in
Florida. This Order is effective January 16, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
December 7, 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. 2023-27524 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 15, 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.