Notice2025-13119
Elias Garcia Garcia, 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 14, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 132 (Monday, July 14, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 132 (Monday, July 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31242-31244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13119]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Elias Garcia Garcia, P.A.; Decision and Order
On July 22, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Elias Garcia Garcia,
P.A., of Yuma, Arizona (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No.
[[Page 31243]]
MG8041206, alleging that Registrant is ``currently 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)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written
request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he
would be deemed to have waived his 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] 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
March 6, 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 July 24, 2024, DI
emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's registered email address
and received a confirmation message from the Mail Delivery Subsystem
that the OSC was successfully delivered to Registrant. RFAAX 3, at 2
& Attachment B. The DI then emailed Registrant a copy of the OSC to
Registrant's newly discovered business email address and received an
additional confirmation message from the Mail Delivery Subsystem
that the OSC was successfully delivered. Id. at 3 & Attachment D.
The DI also mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's newly
discovered business mailing address, to which delivery cannot be
confirmed. Id. The Agency finds that Registrant was successfully
served the OSC by email and that 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] 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), 1301.46. RFAA, at 3; 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. Registrant admits that, on
the date the OSC was issued, Registrant was registered as a physician
assistant in the State of Arizona. RFAAX 2, at 2. That registration
expressly prohibited Registrant from prescribing controlled substances.
Id. According to Arizona online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Registrant's Arizona physician assistant license has
since expired.\2\ Arizona Medical Board, Licensee Search, <a href="https://www.azmd.gov/doctorsearch/doctorsearch#">https://www.azmd.gov/doctorsearch/doctorsearch#</a> (last visited date of signature
of this Order). The same Arizona online records confirm that
Registrant's license--while active--prohibited him from prescribing
controlled substances. Id. Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant is not currently licensed to practice as a physician
assistant or to handle controlled substances in Arizona, 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 Order, is not licensed to
practice as a physician assistant or to handle controlled substances
in Arizona. 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1a5a4a0efa0a5a5aeefa0b5b5aeb3afa4b8b281a5a4a0efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="422627236c2326262d6c2336362d302c273b31022627236c252d34">[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
Controlled Substances Act (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 Yeats,
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 Arizona statute, ``[e]very person who manufactures,
distributes, dispenses, prescribes or uses for scientific purposes any
controlled substance within [Arizona] or who proposes to engage in the
manufacture, distribution, prescribing or dispensing of or using for
scientific purposes any controlled substance within [Arizona]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. Sec. 36-2522(A)(1) (West 2025). 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. at 32-
1901.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant or to handle
controlled substances in Arizona. As discussed above, only a licensed
medical practitioner can dispense controlled substances in Arizona.
Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice as a physician
assistant or to handle controlled substances in Arizona, and therefore
is not a licensed medical practitioner, Registrant is not eligible to
maintain a
[[Page 31244]]
DEA registration in Arizona. 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.
MG8041206 issued to Elias Garcia Garcia, 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 Elias Garcia Garcia, P.A., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Elias Garcia Garcia, P.A., for additional registration
in Arizona. This Order is effective August 13, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 9, 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. 2025-13119 Filed 7-11-25; 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 14, 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.