Notice2025-01111
Laura M. Bellew, N.P.; 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
January 17, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6010-6012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01111]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Laura M. Bellew, N.P.; Decision and Order
On December 7, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Laura M. Bellew,
N.P. of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MB1955108,
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because
Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle controlled
substances in New Mexico, the state in which [she is] registered with
DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration
expired on July 31, 2024. The fact that a registrant allows her
registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact
the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D.
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476 through 68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request
for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would
be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. Id.
at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing. RFAA, at 3.\2\ ``A default, unless
[[Page 6011]]
excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/
applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the factual
allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
March 1, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration for a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on December 11, 2023, the
DI served the OSC via email to an email address associated with
Registrant, and the DI's email was successfully delivered. RFAAX 2,
at 2, Attachment 2; Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34553
(2017) (finding that service by email satisfies due process where
the email is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have
been unsuccessful). The DI made several other attempts to serve
Registrant with the OSC, but they were unsuccessful. On December 11
and 12, 2023, the DI left voicemails at a business associated with
Registrant, InnovAge, but did not receive any response. RFAAX 2, at
2. Further on December 12, 2023, the DI mailed two copies of the OSC
to Registrant's registered address. Id. at 2, Attachments 3-5. On
the same date, the DI visited two additional addresses associated
with Registrant, but when the DI arrived at each address, no person
answered. Id. at 2-3. The DI left a business card at each address,
but received no response. Id. Also on December 12, 2023, the DI
visited the location of InnovAge, where the director of InnovAge
informed the DI that Registrant had not been employed there for at
least a year and a half. Id. at 3. Finally, on December 20, 2023,
the DI mailed two copies of the OSC to a Pennsylvania address
associated with Registrant. Id. at 3, Attachments 6-8. In sum, the
Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by
email and the DI's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were
`` `reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
[Registrant] of the pendency of the action.' '' Jones v. Flowers,
547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Therefore, due process notice
requirements have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order
pursuant to [21 CFR] Sec. 1316.67.'' Id. Sec. 1301.43(f)(1). Here,
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) through (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1;
see also 21 CFR 1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on
January 9, 2023, the New Mexico State Board of Nursing suspended
Registrant's New Mexico registered nurse license and New Mexico
certified nurse practitioner license for a period of two years. RFAAX
1, at 1. According to New Mexico online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, both Registrant's New Mexico registered nurse
license and New Mexico certified nurse practitioner license remain
suspended.\3\ <a href="https://nmbn.boardsofnursing.org/licenselookup">https://nmbn.boardsofnursing.org/licenselookup</a> (last
visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds
that Registrant is not licensed to practice as a nurse practitioner in
New Mexico, the state in which she is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, 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 the DEA Office of the Administrator,
Drug Enforcement Administration at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1c5c4c08fc0c5c5ce8fc0d5d5ced3cfc4d8d2e1c5c4c08fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa9e9f9bd49b9e9e95d49b8e8e9588949f8389ba9e9f9bd49d958c">[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 21 U.S.C. 823 ``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 71,371, 71,372
(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, 76 FR 71371, 71372; Sheran
Arden Yeates, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci,
D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919,
11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to New Mexico statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject pursuant
to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the administering,
prescribing, packaging, labeling or compounding necessary to prepare
the controlled substance for that delivery.'' N.M. Stat. Ann. section
30-31-2(H) (2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means ``a physician . .
. certified nurse practitioner . . . or other person licensed or
certified to prescribe and administer drugs that are subject to the
Controlled Substances Act.'' Id. at section 30-31-2(P).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to practice as a nurse practitioner in New Mexico
because both her New Mexico registered nurse license and New Mexico
certified nurse practitioner license have been suspended. As discussed
above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a
controlled substance in New Mexico. Thus, because Registrant lacks
authority to practice as a nurse practitioner in New Mexico and,
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in New
Mexico, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant'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.
MB1966108, issued to Laura M. Bellew, N.P. 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 Laura M. Bellew, N.P., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Laura M. Bellew, N.P., for additional registration in New Mexico.
This Order is effective February 18, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
November 26, 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
[[Page 6012]]
the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal
Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-01111 Filed 1-16-25; 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 January 17, 2025.
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.