Notice2026-01499

Adam Maass, 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 27, 2026

Issuing agencies

Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3546-3547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-01499]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Adam Maass, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On September 5, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Adam Maass, M.D., of 
Bentonville, Arkansas (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. BM6528369, 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 Arkansas, 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. 
(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 
November 4, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Government's Declarations 
from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) and a DEA Task Force Officer 
(TFO) indicate that on September 24, 2025, Registrant was personally 
served with a copy of the OSC. RFAAX 2, at 2, 6 (Form-DEA 12 signed 
by Registrant, acknowledging receipt of the OSC); RFAAX 3, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 March 5, 2025, Registrant pleaded guilty to two counts of 
harassment. RFAAX 1, at 2. As a result of Registrant's guilty plea, he 
was ordered to surrender his State of Arkansas medical license. Id. On 
April 25, 2025, Registrant surrendered \2\ his Arkansas medical license 
to the Arkansas State Medical Board. Id. According to Arkansas online 
records, of which the Agency takes official notice,\3\ the current 
status of Registrant's Arkansas medical license is ``Inactive.'' 
Arkansas State Medical Board License Verification, <a href="https://www.armedicalboard.org/public/verify/default.aspx">https://www.armedicalboard.org/public/verify/default.aspx</a> (last visited date of 
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant 
is not licensed to practice medicine in Arkansas, the state in which he 
is registered with DEA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under the Arkansas Medical Board's Definitions, 
``surrendered'' means that the ``[p]ractitioner has voluntarily 
relinquished his license.'' Because Registrant was ordered to 
surrender his registration, the surrender was not voluntary, and 
more closely resembles the definition of a revocation. The Arkansas 
Medical Board defines ``revoked'' to mean that the ``[l]icense has 
been removed.''
    \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 Arkansas. 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#b8dcddd996d9dcdcd796d9ccccd7cad6ddc1cbf8dcddd996dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e3e2e6a9e6e3e3e8a9e6f3f3e8f5e9e2fef4c7e3e2e6a9e0e8f1">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized 
to

[[Page 3547]]

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., Merry Alice Troupe, N.P., 89 FR 81,549, 
(2024); Rachel Jackson, P.A., 90 FR 13,198 (2025).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 71,371-72; Sheran Arden 
Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 
58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Arkansas statute, ``dispense'' means ``to 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 controlled substance for that delivery.'' Ark. 
Code Ann. 5-64-101(7) (2025). Further, a ``practitioner'' means 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. 64-101(20)(A).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
lacks authority to practice medicine in Arkansas. As discussed above, 
an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled 
substance in Arkansas. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to 
practice medicine in Arkansas and, therefore, is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in Arkansas, 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. 
BM6528369 issued to Adam Maass, 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 Adam Maass, M.D., to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Adam Maass, M.D., for additional registration in Arkansas. This Order 
is effective [insert Date Thirty Days From the Date of Publication in 
the Federal Register].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
January 16, 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. 2026-01499 Filed 1-26-26; 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 27, 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.