Notice2025-23545
David Halvorson, M.D.; 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
December 22, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 243 (Monday, December 22, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 243 (Monday, December 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59869-59871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-23545]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
David Halvorson, M.D.; Decision and Order
On September 5, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to David Halvorson,
M.D., of Alabaster, Alabama (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. BH3453278,
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because
Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, administer,
dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of
Alabama, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the OSC and Agency records, Registrant's
registration expired on October 31, 2025. RFAAX 1, at 1. The fact
that a registrant allows his 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 to finality. Jeffrey D.
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59870]]
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 his right to a hearing and be in default. Id.
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing,
and the Agency finds him to be in default. RFAA, at 3.\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
October 22, 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 September 8, 2025, DEA
employees attempted to personally serve Registrant at his registered
address, but the address, a business location, appeared to be closed
and/or abandoned. RFAAX 2, at 1. On the same day, other DEA
employees attempted to serve Registrant at his residential address,
where the DEA employees were informed that Registrant lived there
but was not home. Id. at 1-2. On September 9, 2025, the DI mailed a
copy of the OSC to Registrant's residential address and received
proof of delivery, with the delivery signed for by Registrant on
September 10, 2025. Id. at 2; see also id. at 3. Here, the Agency
finds that the OSC was successfully served on Registrant by mail and
that the 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 deemed admitted. According to the
OSC, on or about June 6, 2025, the Medical Licensure Commission of
Alabama revoked Registrant's Alabama medical license. RFAAX 1, at 2.
According to Alabama online records, of which the Agency takes official
notice,\3\ Registrant's Alabama medical license remains revoked.
Alabama Board of Medical Examiners and Medical Licensure Commission
License Lookup, <a href="https://dashboard.albme.gov/Verification/search.aspx">https://dashboard.albme.gov/Verification/search.aspx</a>
(last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency
finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Alabama,
the state in which he is registered with DEA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\4\ 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 medicine in Alabama. 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#aacecfcb84cbcecec584cbdedec5d8c4cfd3d9eacecfcb84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8befeeeaa5eaefefe4a5eaffffe4f9e5eef2f8cbefeeeaa5ece4fd">[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. 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 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 Alabama statute, ``dispense'' means ``[t]o deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Ala. Code 20-2-
2(7) (2025). Further, a ``practitioner'' includes a ``physician . . .
or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to
distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or to
administer a controlled substance in the course of professional
practice or research in [the] state.'' Id. at Sec. 20-2-2(20)(a).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to practice medicine in Alabama. As discussed above, an
individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in Alabama. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to
practice medicine in Alabama and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in Alabama, Registrant is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration. 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.
BH3453278 issued to David Halvorson, M.D. 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 David Halvorson, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of David Halvorson, M.D., for additional registration in Alabama. This
Order is effective January 21, 2026.
[[Page 59871]]
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
December 15, 2025, by Administrator Terrance C. Cole. 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. 2025-23545 Filed 12-19-25; 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 December 22, 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.