Notice2025-13122
Just Here II Pharmacy; 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 31251-31253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13122]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Just Here II Pharmacy; Decision and Order
I. Introduction
On October 24, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of
Registrations (OSC/ISO) to Just Here II Pharmacy, of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA),
Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the
immediate suspension of its DEA Certificate of Registration, No.
FJ1928689, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Registrant's
continued registration constitutes `` `an imminent danger to the public
health or safety.' '' Id. (quoting 21 U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also
proposed the revocation of Registrant's registration, alleging that
Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public
interest. Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(4)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Just Here II Pharmacy's
registration expired on December 31, 2024. The fact that a
registrant allows its registration to expire during the pendency of
an administrative enforcement proceeding does not impact the
Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC/ISO to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen,
M.D., 84 FR 68,474, 68,476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that between September 27,
2023, and March 1, 2024, Registrant failed to maintain accurate records
of its inventory, purchasing, and dispensing of controlled substances,
in violation of federal and Pennsylvania state law. Id. at 2-4 (citing
21 CFR 1304.04(a), 1304.11(a)-(c), 1304.21(a); 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
Sec. Sec. 780-112(a)-(c), 780-113(a)(21)).\2\ The Government alleges
that these recordkeeping failures resulted in Registrant's inability to
account for thousands of dosage units of controlled substances during
an accountability audit. Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Agency need not adjudicate the criminal violations
alleged in the OSC/ISO. Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022)
(decided in the context of criminal proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2024, the Government submitted a request for final
agency action (RFAA) requesting that the Agency issue a default final
order revoking Registrant's registration. RFAA, at 1-4. After carefully
reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as set forth in
more detail below, the Agency grants the Government's request for final
agency action and revokes Registrant's registration.
II. Default Determination
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails
to file a timely hearing request ``within 30 days after the date of
receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right
to a hearing and to be in default'' unless ``good cause'' is
established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c)(1). In the absence
of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file
an answer also is ``deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and
to be in default.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is
deemed to constitute ``an admission of the factual allegations of the
[OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Here, the OSC/ISO notified Registrant of its right to file with DEA
a written request for hearing 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. RFAAX 2, at 9 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant
did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.\3\ Thus, the Agency finds that
Registrant is in default and therefore has admitted to the factual
allegations in the OSC/ISO. 21 CFR 1301.43(e); 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
December 11, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC/ISO on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the included Declaration from
a DEA Diversion Investigator asserts that on October 25, 2024, the
OSC/ISO was personally served on Registrant's Pharmacist in Charge,
Mr. C.O., at Registrant's registered location. RFAAX 2, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Applicable Law
A. The Alleged Statutory and Regulatory Violations
As discussed above, the OSC/ISO alleges that Registrant violated
provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme
Court stated in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), ``the main
objectives of the [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)] were to conquer
drug abuse and control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in
controlled substances.'' 545 U.S. at 12. Gonzales explained that:
Congress was particularly concerned with the need to prevent the
diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels. To
effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system
making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess
any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA .
. . . The CSA and its implementing regulations set forth strict
requirements regarding registration, labeling and packaging,
production quotas, drug security, and recordkeeping.
Id. at 12-14.
Here, the OSC/ISO'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,'' and ``to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate
to illicit channels.'' Id. at 12-14, 27.
B. Improper Dispensing, Recordkeeping, and Unaccounted For Controlled
Substances
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, pharmacies must
maintain ``a complete and accurate record of each controlled substance
. . . sold . . . .'' 21 CFR 1304.21(a). This includes conducting and
maintaining an ``initial inventory . . . of all stocks of controlled
substances on hand on the date [the pharmacy] first engages in the . .
. dispensing of controlled substances,'' as well as a ``biennial
inventory . . . of all stocks of controlled substances on hand.'' 21
CFR 1304.11(a)-(c). Pharmacies must retain these inventories ``for at
least 2 years from the date of such inventory or records, for
inspection and copying.'' 21 CFR 1304.04.
Pennsylvania law also requires pharmacies to keep accurate records
and maintain proper inventories regarding the purchase, sale, or
dispensing of any controlled substances. 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec.
780-112(a)-(c). In Pennsylvania, it is unlawful for a pharmacy to fail
to ``make, keep or furnish any record, notification, order form,
statement, invoice or information'' relating to the purchasing or
dispensing of a controlled substance. Id. Sec. 780-113(a)(21).
[[Page 31252]]
IV. Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed admitted. Registrant is
deemed to have admitted that from at least September 27, 2023, until at
least March 1, 2024, it failed to maintain accurate records of its
purchasing and dispensing of controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 4. For
example, Registrant admits that there were significant discrepancies
between the dispensing report that DEA investigators analyzed and
Registrant's distributor order data. Id. at 3-4. Registrant admits that
a comparison of the dispensing report to the distributor order data
revealed discrepancies of: (1) approximately 200 dosage units of
oxycodone \4\ HCL 5 mg, (2) approximately 1,459 dosage units of
oxycodone HCL 15 mg, (3) approximately 430 dosage units of oxycodone
HCL 20 mg, (4) approximately 287 dosage units of oxycodone-
acetaminophen 5/325 mg, (5) approximately 440 dosage units of
oxycodone-acetaminophen 10/325 mg, (6) approximately 654 dosage units
of alprazolam \5\ 0.5 mg, (7) approximately 2,044 dosage units of
alprazolam 1 mg, (8) approximately 2,930 dosage units of alprazolam 2
mg, and (9) approximately 2,839 dosage units of promethazine with
codeine.\6\ Id. at 7. These discrepancies amounted to a significant
variance between Registrant's dispensing data and distributor order
data for each substance, ranging from 33% to 100%.\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Oxycodone is a schedule II opioid. RFAAX 1, at 3; see also
21 CFR 1308.12(b)(1)(xiv).
\5\ Alprazolam is a schedule IV benzodiazepine. RFAAX 1, at 4;
see also 21 CFR 1308.14(c)(2).
\6\ Promethazine with codeine is a schedule V opioid. RFAAX 1,
at 4; see also 21 CFR 1308.15(c)(1).
\7\ These discrepancies amounted to a variance of approximately
100% for oxycodone HCL 5 mg, 63.43% for oxycodone HCL 15 mg, 86% for
oxycodone HCL 20 mg, 47.83% for oxycodone-acetaminophen 5/325 mg,
33.58% for oxycodone-acetaminophen, 65.40% for alprazolam 0.5 mg,
85.17% for alprazolam 1 mg, 83.71% for alprazolam 2 mg, and 46.15%
for promethazine with codeine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that
Registrant failed to maintain accurate records of its inventory,
purchasing, and dispensing of controlled substances. Additionally,
Registrant admits, and the Agency finds substantial record evidence
that, it failed to adequately maintain an initial or biennial
inventory.
V. Public Interest Determination
A. Legal Background on Public Interest Determinations
When the CSA's requirements are not met, the Attorney General ``may
deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's]
registration would be `inconsistent with the public interest.' ''
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 251 (2006) (quoting 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(4)). In the case of a ``practitioner,'' which is defined in 21
U.S.C. 802(21) to include a ``pharmacy,'' Congress directed the
Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest
determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. at 292-93 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (``It is well
established that these factors are to be considered in the
disjunctive,'' quoting In re Arora, 60 FR 4447, 4448 (1995)); Robert A.
Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15,227, 15,230 (2003). Each factor is weighed on a
case-by-case basis. David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 37,507, 37,508 (1993);
see Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 181 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
(describing the Agency's adjudicative process as ``applying a multi-
factor test through case-by-case adjudication,'' quoting LeMoyne-Owen
Coll. v. N.L.R.B., 357 F.3d 55, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Any one factor,
or combination of factors, may be decisive, David H. Gillis, M.D., 58
FR at 37,508, and the Agency ``may give each factor the weight . . .
deem[ed] appropriate in determining whether a registration should be
revoked or an application for registration denied.'' Morall, 412 F.3d.
at 185 n.2 (Henderson, J., concurring) (quoting Robert A. Smith, M.D.,
70 FR 33,207, 33,208 (2007)); see also Penick Corp. v. Drug Enf't
Admin., 491 F.3d 483, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the
factors, it ``need not make explicit findings as to each one.'' MacKay
v. Drug Enf't Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Volkman v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009));
Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d
823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 477,
482 (6th Cir. 2005). ``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, Agency decisions have explained that findings under a
single factor can support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664
F.3d at 821.
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR
1301.44(e).
B. Respondent's Registration Is Inconsistent With the Public Interest
While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors of
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), the Government's evidence in support of its prima
facie case for sanction is confined to Factors B and D. RFAA 2-4, RFAAX
1. Evidence is considered under Factors B and D when it reflects
compliance or non-compliance with laws related to controlled substances
and experience dispensing controlled substances. Kareem Hubbard, M.D.,
87 FR 21,156, 21,162 (2022). Here, as found above, Registrant is deemed
to have admitted and the Agency finds that between September 27, 2023,
and March 1, 2024, Registrant failed to maintain accurate records of
its purchasing and dispensing of controlled substances and its
inventory. RFAAX 2, at 5-8. Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial
record evidence that Registrant violated federal and state law, namely
21 CFR 1304.04(a), 1304.11(a)-(c), 1304.21(a); and 35 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. Sec. Sec. 780-112(a)-(c), 780-113(a)(21).
The Agency further finds that after considering the factors of 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1) Registrant's continued registration is ``inconsistent
with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Accordingly, the
Government satisfied its prima facie burden of showing that
Registrant's continued registration would be ``inconsistent with the
public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). The Agency also finds that
there is insufficient mitigating evidence to rebut the Government's
prima facie case. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether, in spite
of the public interest determination, Registrant can be trusted with a
registration.
[[Page 31253]]
VI. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that
Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public
interest, 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). 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, the Agency requires that a
registrant that has committed acts inconsistent with the public
interest accept responsibility for those acts and demonstrate that it
will not engage in future misconduct. See 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). The Agency requires a registrant's
unequivocal acceptance of responsibility. Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 89
FR 82639, 82641 (2024); Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573
(2018); see also Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31.
In addition, a registrant's candor during the investigation and hearing
is an important factor in determining acceptance of responsibility and
the appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881
F.3d at 830-31; Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 483-84. Further, the Agency
considers the egregiousness and extent of the misconduct as significant
factors in determining the appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health
Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 834 & n.4. The Agency also considers the
need to deter similar acts by a registrant and by the community of
registrants. Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR at 46972-73.
Here, Registrant did not timely or properly request a hearing and
was deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAA,
at 1-2. To date, Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office of
the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1).
Registrant has thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the
OSC and has not otherwise availed itself of the opportunity to refute
the Government's case. As such, Registrant has made no representations
as to its future compliance with the CSA nor made any demonstration
that it can be entrusted with registration. Moreover, the evidence
presented by the Government shows that Registrant violated the CSA,
further indicating that Registrant cannot be entrusted.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Registrant's
registration.
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. FJ1928689 issued to Just Here II Pharmacy. 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 Just Here II Pharmacy to renew or modify the named registrations, as
well as any other pending application of Just Here Pharmacy for
additional registration in Pennsylvania. This Order is effective August
13, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 8, 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. 2025-13122 Filed 7-11-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></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.