Notice2025-12701
John Hanley, 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
July 9, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 129 (Wednesday, July 9, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 9, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30264-30265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12701]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
John Hanley, P.A.; Decision and Order
On February 13, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to John Hanley, P.A. of
Santa Fe, New Mexico (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MH4317702, alleging that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
``currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or
otherwise handle controlled substances in New Mexico, the state in
which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3) and 21 CFR 1301.37(b)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request
for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he 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 2.\1\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
April 7, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on February 24, 2025, the
DI, an additional DI, and other members of law enforcement attempted
to personally serve Registrant with a copy of the OSC at
Registrant's last known home address but were unsuccessful. RFAAX 2,
at 1. The DI then emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's
registered email address on February 26, 2025, and received a
confirmation message from the Mail Delivery Subsystem that the OSC
was relayed to that email address. In sum, the Agency finds that the
DI's efforts to serve Registrant by email and 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)); see also Mohammed S. Aljanaby,
M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) (finding that service by email
satisfies due process where the email is not returned as
undeliverable and other methods have been unsuccessful). 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] 1316.67.'' Id. 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government
has requested final agency action based on Registrant's default
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), and 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
or about February 27, 2024, the New Mexico Medical Board revoked
Registrant's New Mexico physician assistant license. RFAAX 1, at 2.
According to New Mexico online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Registrant's New Mexico physician assistant license
remains revoked.\2\ <a href="https://nmrldlpi.my.site.com/nmmb/s/searchlicense">https://nmrldlpi.my.site.com/nmmb/s/searchlicense</a>
(last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency
finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice as a physician
assistant in New Mexico, the state in which he is registered with
DEA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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).
\3\ 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.'' The material fact here is
that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to
practice as a physician assistant in New Mexico. 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#7b1f1e1a551a1f1f14551a0f0f1409151e02083b1f1e1a551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4a4b4f004f4a4a41004f5a5a415c404b575d6e4a4b4f00494158">[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 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 at 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 at 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. Sec. 30-
31-2(H) (2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means ``a physician . . .
physician assistant, certified nurse practitioner . . . or other person
licensed or certified to prescribe and
[[Page 30265]]
administer drugs that are subject to the [New Mexico] Controlled
Substances Act.'' Id. Sec. 30-31-2(P). ``Physician assistants may
prescribe, administer, dispense and distribute dangerous drugs;
including Schedule II-V controlled substances, where there is an
established physician assistant-patient relationship.'' N.M. Admin.
Code 16.10.16.8(A) (2024). In this context, the physician assistant
must be licensed by the New Mexico Medical Board to practice as such.
Id. Sec. Sec. 16.10.16.1, 16.10.16.7(E).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in New Mexico
because his New Mexico physician assistant license has been revoked. 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 physician assistant in New Mexico and,
therefore, is not authorized to dispense controlled substances in New
Mexico, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in
New Mexico. 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.
MH4317702, issued to John Hanley, P.A. 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 John Hanley, P.A., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
John Hanley, P.A., for additional registration in New Mexico. This
Order is effective August 8, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 2, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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. 2025-12701 Filed 7-8-25; 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 July 9, 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.