Notice2025-02339
Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A.; 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
February 7, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 25 (Friday, February 7, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 25 (Friday, February 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9167-9169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02339]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24-47]
Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A.; Decision and Order
On May 21, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Herold Pierre-Louis,
P.A., of Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed
the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No.
MP7845766, 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 Arizona, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id.
at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
On May 30, 2024, Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer
to the OSC. On June 10, 2024, the Government filed a Motion for Summary
Disposition, to which Respondent did not respond.\1\ On June 27, 2024,
Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (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
Arizona, the state in which he is registered with DEA, ``there is no
other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide.'' Order Granting
the
[[Page 9168]]
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\ On June 17, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion to Continue Show
Cause Hearing to request a continuance on the instant proceedings,
which the Administrative Law Judge 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 or about November 29, 2023, the Arizona Regulatory Board of
Physician Assistants revoked Respondent's Arizona physician assistant
license. RD, at 3.\2\ According to Arizona online records, of which the
Agency takes official notice, as of August 23, 2024, the status of
Respondent's Arizona physician assistant license was revoked.\3\
Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants, Find Your PA, <a href="https://www.azpa.gov/PASearch/PASearch">https://www.azpa.gov/PASearch/PASearch</a> (last visited date of signature of this
Order).\4\ Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not
currently licensed to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona, the
state in which he is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence of Lack
of State Authority; Service of Order to Show Cause; and Motion for
Summary Disposition, Exhibit A, at 10.
\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#2e4a4b4f004f4a4a41004f5a5a415c404b575d6e4a4b4f00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2868783cc8386868dcc8396968d908c879b91a2868783cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>.
\4\ As of August 23, 2024, the Arizona Regulatory Board of
Physician Assistants website identified Respondent's physician
assistant license as revoked. However, there is no longer any record
of Respondent's licensure on the website. Despite being provided an
opportunity to so do, Respondent has not established that his
Arizona license has been reinstated or that he otherwise has state
authority to dispense controlled substances. Following the issuance
of the RD, Respondent did not file any Exceptions to indicate that
his license had been restored. Additionally, on October 1, 2024, the
Agency issued a Briefing Order requesting documentary evidence
regarding the status of Respondent's Arizona physician assistant
license. Respondent's acknowledged receipt of the Order, but did not
provide any responsive documentation or evidence regarding the
status of his Arizona license. Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Respondent's Arizona physician assistant license remains revoked.
See Fares F. Yasin, M.D., 88 FR 74523, 74524 n.5 (2023); Heather M.
Entrekin, DVM, 88 FR 17266, 17266 (2023). Respondent may dispute the
Agency's finding by filing a motion for reconsideration of findings
of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order with
supporting documentation (showing that Respondent had state
authority to dispense controlled substances on or before 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#96f2f3f7b8f7f2f2f9b8f7e2e2f9e4f8f3efe5d6f2f3f7b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e6a6b6f206f6a6a61206f7a7a617c606b777d4e6a6b6f20696178">[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, 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).\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). 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, 71372;
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.
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 Answer, at 2;
Respondent's Motion to Continue Show Cause Hearing. What is
consequential is the Agency's finding that Respondent is not
currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Arizona,
the state in which he is registered with the DEA. Adley Dasilva,
P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 (2022); see also Order Denying
Respondent's Motion to Continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Arizona statute, ``[e]very person who manufactures,
distributes, dispenses, prescribes or uses for scientific purposes any
controlled substance within th[e] state or who proposes to engage in
the manufacture, distribution, prescribing or dispensing of or using
for scientific purposes any controlled substance within th[e] state
must first: (1) [o]btain and possess a current license or permit as a
medical practitioner as defined in Sec. 32-1901 . . . .'' Ariz. Rev.
Stat. Ann. section 36-2522(A)(1) (2024). Section 32-1901 defines a
``[m]edical practitioner'' as ``any medical doctor . . . or other
person who is licensed and authorized by law to use and prescribe drugs
and devices to treat sick and injured human beings or animals or to
diagnose or prevent sickness in human beings or animals in [Arizona] or
any state, territory or district of the United States.'' Id. section
32-1901.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona. As
discussed above, only a licensed medical practitioner can dispense
controlled substances in Arizona. Thus, because Respondent lacks
authority to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona, and
therefore is not a licensed medical practitioner, Respondent is not
eligible to maintain a DEA registration. 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.
MP7845766 issued to Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A. Further,
[[Page 9169]]
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 Herold Pierre-
Louis, P.A., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other
pending application of Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A., for additional
registration in Arizona. This Order is effective March 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 31, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025-02339 Filed 2-6-25; 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 February 7, 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.