Notice2024-31320
Shiva Akula, 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
December 30, 2024
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106588-106589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31320]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24-58]
Shiva Akula, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 24, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Shiva Akula, M.D.,
of New Orleans, Louisiana (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed
the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BA7786013, alleging that Respondent's DEA registration should be
revoked because Respondent is ``without authority to prescribe,
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the
State of Louisiana, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.''
Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
By letter dated July 29, 2024, (filed August 7, 2024) Respondent
requested a hearing. On August 29, 2024, the Government filed a Motion
for Summary Disposition, to which Respondent did not respond. On
September 26, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum (the
ALJ) granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and
recommended the revocation of Respondent's registration, finding that
because Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled
substances in Louisiana, the state in which he is registered with DEA,
``[t]here is no genuine issue of material fact in this case.'' 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 (RD), at 5. Respondent did not file
exceptions to the RD.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ By letter dated September 18, 2024, (filed October 7, 2024)
Respondent requested a 60-day extension to respond to the RD due to
the pending appeal of an underlying conviction. Respondent's Request
for Extension to File Response to Pending Action on DEA License
(Respondent's Extension Request), at 1. The request was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 as found in the
RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
On January 12, 2024, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
suspended Respondent's Louisiana medical license. RD, at 4.\2\ On March
31, 2024, Respondent's Louisiana medical license expired. RD, at 3. On
June 1, 2024, Respondent's Louisiana controlled substance license
expired. Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence and
Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Louisiana online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent's Louisiana medical license remains
suspended.\3\ Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, License
Verification, <a href="https://online.lasbme.org/#/verifylicense">https://online.lasbme.org/#/verifylicense</a> (last visited
date of signature of this Order). Further, Respondent's Louisiana
controlled substance license status is ``[l]apsed; not valid for
practice.'' Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, License Lookup, <a href="https://secure.pharmacy.la">https://secure.pharmacy.la</a>.gov/Lookup/LicenseLookup.aspx (last visited date of
signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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#89edece8a7e8edede6a7e8fdfde6fbe7ecf0fac9edece8a7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cfabaaaee1aeababa0e1aebbbba0bda1aab6bc8fabaaaee1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not currently
licensed to practice medicine nor to handle controlled substances in
Louisiana, the state in which he is registered with DEA.
[[Page 106589]]
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, 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. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S.
243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General can register a physician to
dispense controlled substances `if the applicant is authorized to
dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in
which he practices.' . . . The very definition of a `practitioner'
eligible to prescribe includes physicians `licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which
he practices' to dispense controlled substances. Sec. 802(21).''). The
Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L.
Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F.
App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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). Because
Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Louisiana statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled dangerous substance to the ultimate user or human research
subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including
the packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the
substance for such delivery.'' La. Stat. Ann. section 40:961(14)
(2024). A ``practitioner'' means ``a physician . . . or other person
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense,
conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled dangerous
substance in the course of professional practice or research in th[e]
state.'' Id. section 40:961(35).
Further, Louisiana statute states that ``[e]very person who . . .
distributes, procures, possesses, prescribes, or dispenses any
controlled dangerous substance within th[e] state . . . shall obtain a
controlled dangerous substance license issued by the Louisiana Board of
Pharmacy in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by
the board prior to engaging in such activity.'' Id. section
40:973(A)(1).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Louisiana
because Respondent's Louisiana medical license is suspended, and
Respondent's Louisiana controlled substance license is lapsed. As
discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner and must
hold a Louisiana controlled substance license to dispense controlled
substances in Louisiana. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to
practice medicine in Louisiana, as well as lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in Louisiana, Respondent is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 5-6. Accordingly, the Agency will
order that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked.
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.
BA7786013 issued to Shiva Akula, M.D. 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 applications of Shiva Akula, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Shiva Akula, M.D., for additional registration in Louisiana. This Order
is effective January 29, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
December 20, 2024, 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. 2024-31320 Filed 12-27-24; 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 30, 2024.
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.