Notice2025-07026
De Novo Services, 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
April 23, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 77 (Wednesday, April 23, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 23, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17080-17083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-07026]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
De Novo Services, LLC; Decision and Order
I. Introduction
On June 6, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to De Novo Services,
LLC, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 5. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No.
RD0424515, alleging that Registrant has committed such acts as would
render its registration inconsistent with the public interest. Id. at
1, 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(4)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that between 2013 and 2023,
Registrant lacked effective controls and procedures to guard against
the diversion of controlled substances, as well as committed numerous
recordkeeping violations, in violation of the Controlled Substances
Act's (CSA) implementing regulations and Utah state law.\1\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Utah state law cited by the Government in the OSC
pertains to pharmacists. The applicability of these Utah laws to
Registrant is not clear from the OSC and was not addressed in the
RFAA. Accordingly, the Agency declines to find any violations of
Utah law in this matter. See id. at 3. However, the Agency finds
that the founded allegations in this decision are more than
sufficient to support the Government's requested sanction of
revocation under these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OSC notified Registrant of its right to file with DEA a written
request for hearing and an answer, and that if it failed to file such a
request, it would be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing and
be in default. Id. at 4 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did
not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.\2\ ``A default, unless 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); see also RFAAX 1, at 4 (providing notice to
Registrant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated July
16, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was
adequate. Specifically, on June 10, 2024, a DEA Diversion
Investigator personally served the OSC on J.C., the signatory and
contact person associated with Registrant's DEA Certificate of
Registration No. RD0424515. RFAA, at 1; RFAAX 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(c)(1), (f)(1), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1;
see also 21 CFR 1316.67.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On October 7, 2024, Registrant signed a DEA Form 104,
Surrender for Cause of DEA Certificate of Registration. See 21 CFR
1301.52(a). Even when a registration is terminated, the Agency has
discretion to adjudicate the OSC to finality. See Jeffrey D. Olsen,
M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68479 (2019) (declining to dismiss an immediate
suspension order when the registrant allowed the registration to
expire before final adjudication); Steven M. Kotsonis, M.D., 85 FR
85667, 85668-85669 (2020) (concluding that termination of a
registration under 21 CFR 1301.52 does not preclude DEA from issuing
a final decision and that the Agency would assess such matters on a
case-by-case basis to determine if a final adjudication is
warranted); The Pharmacy Place, 86 FR 21008, 21008-21009 (2021)
(``Adjudicating this matter to finality will create a public record
to educate current and prospective registrants about the Agency's
expectations regarding the responsibilities of registrant[s] . . .
under the CSA and allow stakeholders to provide feedback regarding
the Agency's enforcement priorities and practices.''); Creekbend
Community Pharmacy, 86 FR 40627, 40628 n.4 (2021) (``Adjudicating
this matter to finality will create an official record the Agency
can use in any future interactions with [the registrant] . . . or
other persons who were associated with [the registrant].''). As in
these cases, the Agency has evaluated the circumstances of this
matter and determined that the matter should be adjudicated to
finality for the purpose of creating an official record of the
allegations and evidence, and educating the registrant community,
the public, and stakeholders about the responsibilities associated
with holding a DEA registration and the Agency's enforcement
priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17081]]
II. Applicable Law
A. The Alleged Statutory and Regulatory Violations
As discussed above, the OSC alleges that Registrant violated
provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing
regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in Gonzales v. Raich, ``the
main objectives of the CSA were to conquer drug abuse and to control
the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances. . . .
To effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system
making it unlawful to . . . dispense[ ] or possess any controlled
substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA.'' 545 U.S. 1, at
12-13 (2005). In maintaining this closed regulatory system, ``[t]he CSA
and its implementing regulations set forth strict requirements
regarding registration, . . . drug security, and recordkeeping.'' Id.
at 14.
Here, the OSC's allegations concern the CSA's ``strict requirements
regarding registration . . . drug security, and recordkeeping'' and,
therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's ``closed regulatory system''
specifically designed ``to conquer drug abuse and to control the
legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.'' Id.
B. Failure To Guard Against Diversion and Recordkeeping Violations (21
CFR 1301.74(h), 1304.11(e)(1)(iii), (e)(6), 1304.21(a), (e),
1305.05(d), 1305.12(b), 1305.13(e), 1317.30)
The OSC alleges that between 2013 and 2023, Registrant lacked
effective controls and procedures to guard against the diversion of
controlled substances, as well as committed numerous recordkeeping
violations. RFAAX 1, at 1. CSA regulations require the following.
Registrants receiving controlled substances must maintain complete
and accurate records of all controlled substances received. 21 CFR
1304.21(a). Only a licensed practitioner employed at the facility or
another authorized individual, authorized in writing, may accept
delivery of controlled substances used in a narcotic treatment program,
and such delivery acceptance must be documented by signature of the
licensed practitioner or authorized individual. 21 CFR 1301.74(h).
Specific authorization is required for an individual or entity to
collect controlled substances from ultimate users and other non-
registrants for destruction, and destruction of controlled substances
generally must be documented on a DEA Form 41. 21 CFR 1304.21(e),
1317.30. When executing a power of attorney, a registrant must provide
two witnesses. 21 CFR 1305.05(d). When completing a DEA Form 222,
purchasers must note the number of lines completed at the bottom of the
form, with each line completed containing an item consisting of one or
more commercial or bulk containers of the same finished or bulk form
and quantity of the same controlled substance. 21 CFR 1305.12(b).
Purchasers must also note on each item of the DEA Form 222 the number
of commercial or bulk containers furnished and the dates on which the
containers are received by the purchaser. 21 CFR 1305.13(e). Finally,
regarding inventories of dispensers and researchers, for each
controlled substance in finished form, the inventory must document the
specific finished form of the substance (for example, a 10 mg tablet).
21 CFR 1304.11(e)(1)(iii), (e)(6).
III. Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted.
A. Letters of Admonition
A registrant who is authorized to maintain and/or detoxify
controlled substance users in a treatment program is required to keep
records for each controlled substance utilized in such a program. 21
CFR 1304.24(a). Registrant is deemed to have admitted that following an
on-site inspection by DEA in August 2013, Registrant was mailed a
Letter of Admonition specifying Registrant's violation of 21 CFR
1304.24(a) regarding records for maintenance and detoxification
treatment programs. RFAAX 1, at 2. Registrant is also deemed to have
admitted that it responded to the letter identifying corrective actions
it had taken to become compliant. Id.
21 CFR 1304.11 details the inventory requirements for registrants,
while 21 CFR 1304.21 details the general requirements for continuing
records for registrants. Registrant is deemed to have admitted that
following an on-site inspection by DEA in March 2022, Registrant was
mailed a Letter of Admonition specifying Registrant's violations of 21
CFR 1304.11(e)(6), 1304.21(d) and other federal regulations. RFAAX 1,
at 2. Registrant is also deemed to have admitted that it again
responded to the letter identifying corrective actions it had taken to
become compliant. Id.
B. Failure To Guard Against Diversion and Recordkeeping Violations
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that DEA conducted another
on-site inspection on November 27-30, 2023, which revealed a lack of
effective controls and procedures to guard against diversion. More
specifically, Registrant admits that between March 2022 and June 2023,
it allowed two unauthorized persons to accept delivery of Schedule III
controlled substances. Id. The individuals were unauthorized because
Registrant failed to produce the required written documentation
authorizing the two individuals to accept the deliveries. Id. Further,
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that on six occasions between
July 2023 and November 2023, it accepted delivery of Schedule III
controlled substances without any signature documenting who accepted
delivery. Id.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between March 2022 and
November 2023, thirty-one of its Schedule III controlled substance
invoices were incomplete. Id. Specifically, these thirty-one invoices
were missing either the date the controlled substances were received,
the specific amount of controlled substances that were delivered, or
the signature and title of the authorized receiving individual. Id. at
2-3. Registrant is also deemed to have admitted that one of its
biennial controlled substance inventory forms dated August 4, 2023,
failed to document the finished form for the specified Schedule II
controlled substances. Id. at 3.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that, despite its
registration not authorizing the collection of controlled substances,
on at least five occasions between March 2022 and November 2023, it
collected Schedule I, II, and III controlled substances. Id. Registrant
is also deemed to have admitted that on at least twenty-three occasions
between March 2022 and November 2023, it destroyed controlled
substances without maintaining a DEA Form 41. Id.
[[Page 17082]]
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that on its dispensing logs
for Schedule III controlled substances, it consistently failed to
record the names of the substances, the strengths of the substances,
the dosage forms of the substances, and the amount and dosage of the
substances taken home by the patients. Id. Registrant is also deemed to
have admitted that the power of attorney that it executed on November
1, 2021, failed to provide two witnesses. Id.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that on both May 3, 2022, and
September 6, 2023, J.K. failed to properly fill out a DEA Form 222
(Order Request Form). Id. On May 3, 2022, J.K. ``failed to report the
last line completed section,'' and on September 6, 2023, J.K. failed to
indicate the number of commercial or bulk containers received of the
Schedule II controlled substance, as well as the date received. Id.
Finally, Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between March
2022 and November 2023, Registrant failed to maintain complete and
accurate records and, due to that failure, DEA Investigators were
unable to conduct an accountability audit for controlled substances.
Id. at 4. Based on the above, the Agency finds substantial record
evidence that Registrant failed to maintain effective controls and
procedures to safeguard against diversion and failed to maintain
complete and accurate records.
IV. Discussion
A. The Controlled Substances Act's Public Interest Factors
Pursuant to 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 . . . [21
U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such
section.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a ``practitioner,''
Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in
making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).\4\
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive. Gonzales v. Oregon,
546 U.S. 243, 292-93 (2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (``It is well
established that these factors are to be considered in the
disjunctive,'' citing In re Arora, 60 FR 4447, 4448 (1995)); Robert A.
Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). Each factor is weighed on a
case-by-case basis. Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 173-74
(D.C. Cir. 2005). Any one factor, or combination of factors, may be
decisive. Penick Corp. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 491 F.3d 483, 490 (D.C.
Cir. 2007); Morall, 412 F.3d. at 185 n.2; David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR
37507, 37508 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The five factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E) are:
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board
or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting
research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State
laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws
relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have
been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in
support of its prima facie public interest revocation case regarding
Registrant's violations of the CSA's implementing regulations is
confined to Factors B and D. RFAAX 1, at 4. Moreover, the Government
has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 5 U.S.C.A. 556(d); 21 CFR
1301.44.
B. Factors B and/or D--Applicant's Registration Is Inconsistent With
the Public Interest
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when
it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws
related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled
substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D); see also Kareem Hubbard,
M.D., 87 FR 21156, 21162 (2022). Here, as found above, Registrant is
deemed to admit and the Agency finds that between March 2022 and
November 2023, Registrant lacked effective controls and procedures to
guard against the diversion of controlled substances, as well as
committed numerous recordkeeping violations. RFAAX 1, at 2. More
specifically, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that
Registrant violated 21 CFR 1301.74(h), 1304.11(e)(1)(iii), (e)(6),
1304.21(a), (e), 1305.12(b), 1305.13(e), and 1317.30. Additionally, the
Agency finds substantial evidence that Registrant's power of attorney
dated November 1, 2021, violated 1305.05(d).
The Agency further finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of
denial of Registrant's application and that Registrant's registration
would be inconsistent with the public interest in balancing the factors
of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the
Government established a prima facie case, that Registrant did not
rebut that prima facie case, and that there is substantial record
evidence supporting the revocation of Registrant's registration. 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1).
V. Sanction
Here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of showing that
Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public
interest due to its numerous violations pertaining to its handling of
controlled substances. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Registrant to
show why it can be entrusted with a registration. Morall, 412 F.3d. at
174; Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881
F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018); Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR
18882, 18904 (2018); supra sections III and IV. The issue of trust is
necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the circumstances
presented by the individual registrant. Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR
46968, 46972 (2019); see also Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881
F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past performance is the best predictor of
future performance, DEA Administrators have required that a
[[Page 17083]]
registrant who has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest
must accept responsibility for those acts and demonstrate that he will
not engage in future misconduct. Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881
F.3d at 833; ALRA Labs, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 54 F.3d 450, 452
(7th Cir. 1995). A registrant's acceptance of responsibility must be
unequivocal. Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31. 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. Further, the Agency
has found that the egregiousness and extent of the misconduct are
significant factors in determining the appropriate sanction. Id. at 834
& n.4. The Agency has also considered the need to deter similar acts by
the registrant and by the community of registrants. Jeffrey Stein,
M.D., 84 FR at 46972-73.
Here, Registrant failed to answer the allegations contained in the
OSC and did not otherwise avail itself of the opportunity to refute the
Government's case. As such, there is no record evidence that Registrant
takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the
founded violations, meaning, among other things, that it is not
reasonable to believe that Registrant's future controlled substance-
related actions will comply with legal requirements. Accordingly,
Registrant did not convince the Agency that it can be entrusted with a
registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in
favor of revocation. Given the foundational nature of Registrant'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.
VI. Conclusion
Accordingly, I 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) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. RD0424515 issued to De Novo Services, LLC. Further,
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications
of De Novo Services, LLC, to renew or modify this registration, as well
as any other pending application of De Novo Services, LLC, for
additional registration in Utah. This Order is effective May 23, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
April 18, 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. 2025-07026 Filed 4-22-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 23, 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.