Notice2026-18200
Stephen Bossenberry, 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
September 8, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57163-57164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18200]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Stephen Bossenberry, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 18, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Stephen Bossenberry,
M.D., of Grand Blanc, Michigan (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FB7239393,
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
Michigan, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration
expired on July 31, 2026. The fact that a registrant allows his
registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2.\2\ ``A default,
unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the
registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing and an
[[Page 57164]]
admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated May
20, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was
adequate. The RFAA's included Declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator (DI) indicates that, after discovering that Registrant
was no longer employed at his DEA registered address, on March 6,
2026, the DI traveled to the address associated with Registrant's
Michigan driver's license to attempt personal service of the OSC on
Registrant, but Registrant was not present at the address. RFAAX 2,
at 1-2. On March 10, 2026, the DI mailed copies of the OSC to
Registrant's registered address and Registrant's mailing address, as
well as emailed the OSC to Registrant's registered email address.
Id. at 2; see also id., Attachment A. 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)). Therefore, due process notice requirements
have been satisfied. See 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); Emilio Luna, M.D., 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012)
(same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. at 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 December 20, 2025, both Registrant's Michigan medical license
and Michigan controlled substance license expired by their own terms.
RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Michigan online records, of which the
Agency takes official notice,\3\ both Registrant's Michigan medical
license and Michigan controlled substance license remain expired. State
of Michigan Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Professional Licensing
Search, <a href="https://aca-prod.accela.com/MILARA/GeneralProperty/PropertyLookUp.aspx">https://aca-prod.accela.com/MILARA/GeneralProperty/PropertyLookUp.aspx</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 Michigan, 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 Order, is not licensed to
practice medicine nor to handle controlled substances in Michigan.
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 Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9efafbffb0fffafaf1b0ffeaeaf1ecf0fbe7eddefafbffb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2b6b7b3fcb3b6b6bdfcb3a6a6bda0bcb7aba192b6b7b3fcb5bda4">[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., Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D., 89 FR 79310 (2024);
Henry-Norbert O. Ndekwe, M.D., 90 FR 15990 (2025); Benson Sergiles,
P.A., 90 FR 32016 (2025).\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., Elias Garcia Garcia, P.A., 90 FR 31242
(2025); Jason Weakley, R.N., A.P.R.N., 90 FR 10085 (2025); Khursheed
Haider, M.D., 90 FR 21950 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Michigan law, ``a person who manufactures,
distributes, prescribes, or dispenses a controlled substance in this
state or who proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution,
prescribing, or dispensing of a controlled substance in this state
shall obtain a license issued by the [Michigan Board of Pharmacy] in
accordance with the rules.'' Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 333.7303(1) (2025).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Michigan because his
Michigan controlled substance license is expired. As discussed above,
an individual must hold a Michigan controlled substance license to
dispense controlled substances in Michigan. Thus, because Registrant
lacks authority handle controlled substances in Michigan, 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.
FB7239393 issued to Stephen Bossenberry, 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 Stephen Bossenberry, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Stephen Bossenberry, M.D., for additional registration
in Michigan. This Order is effective October 8, 2026.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
August 31, 2026, by DEA 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. 2026-18200 Filed 9-4-26; 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 September 8, 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.