Notice2026-00626
Walter Walters, 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
January 15, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1816-1817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-00626]
[[Page 1816]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Walter Walters, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 25, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Walter Walters,
M.D., of Evansville, Indiana (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. FW6683331,
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
Indiana, 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 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
2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing, and the Agency finds him to be in default. RFAA, at 3.\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
August 20, 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 June 30, 2025, the DI
arranged for personal service to Registrant at a personal residence
and a business address, but the service was unsuccessful. RFAAX 2,
at 1. On July 1, 2025, the DI arranged for personal service to
Registrant at Registrant's ``mail to'' address associated with his
DEA registration, but the service was unsuccessful. Id. The DI noted
in the Declaration that Registrant was no longer employed at his DEA
registered address. Id. at 2. Finally, on July 2, 2022, the DI
emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's registered email address,
and the email was not returned as undelivered. Id. at 2; see also
id. at 3. Here, the Agency finds that Registrant was successfully
served the OSC by email 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)); 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, after Registrant's employer notified DEA of suspected diversion of
controlled substances, Registrant sent a letter, dated September 3,
2024, to the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency, stating his desire
to retire both his Indiana medical license (state license number
01076958A) and Indiana controlled substance registration (state license
number 01076958B). RFAAX 1, at 2; see also RFAAX 3. According to
Indiana online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,\2\
Registrant's Indiana medical license is ``retired'', and Registrant's
Indiana controlled substance registration is ``expired.'' Indiana State
License Search, <a href="https://mylicense.in.gov/everification">https://mylicense.in.gov/everification</a> (last visited
date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine nor to handle
controlled substances in Indiana, 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
handle controlled substances in Indiana. 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#701415115e1114141f5e1104041f021e150903301415115e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="452120246b2421212a6b2431312a372b203c36052120246b222a33">[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).'').\4\ The Agency has applied these principles
consistently. See, e.g., Byron L. Aucoin, M.D., 67 FR 35583 (2002);
Merry Alice Troupe, N.P., 89 FR 81549 (2024); Rachel Jackson, P.A., 90
FR 13198 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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., Adam T. Rodman, P.A., 87 FR at 21215 (2022); Hazem Barmada,
M.D., 90 FR 13201 (2025); Don Bullens, J.R., N.P., 88 FR 21721
(2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Indiana statute, and subject to exceptions irrelevant
here, ``[e]very person who dispenses or proposes to dispense any
controlled substance within Indiana must have a registration issued by
the [Indiana Board of Pharmacy] in accordance with the board's rules.''
Ind. Code 35-48-3-3(b) (2025). Further, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver
a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner and includes the
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Ind. Code 35-
48-1.1-11 (2025).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks
[[Page 1817]]
authority to dispense controlled substances in Indiana because his
Indiana controlled substance registration is expired. As discussed
above, an individual must hold a controlled substances registration to
dispense a controlled substance in Indiana. Thus, because Registrant
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Indiana, 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.
FW6683331 issued to Walter Walters, 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 Walter Walters, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Walter Walters, M.D., for additional registration in Indiana. This
Order is effective February 17, 2026.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 6, 2026, 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. 2026-00626 Filed 1-14-26; 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 January 15, 2026.
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.