Youmna Abdulhadi, M.D.; Decision and Order

Issuing agencies

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66363-66365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21410]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Youmna Abdulhadi, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On March 17, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Youmna Abdulhadi, 
M.D., of El Centro, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FA2682967, 
alleging that Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, 
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the 
State of California, the state in which [she 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 June 30, 2026. The fact that a registrant allows her 
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, 68476-68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request 
for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would 
be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. Id. 
at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a 
hearing, and the Agency finds her to be in default. RFAA, at 3.\2\ ``A 
default,

[[Page 66364]]

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 June 
23, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was 
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator 
(DI) indicates that on or about March 30, 2026, the DI traveled with 
a Special Agent (SA) to Registrant's last known residential address 
to attempt in-person service but was unsuccessful. RFAAX 3, at 2. On 
the same date, the DI emailed Registrant a copy of the OSC at her 
registered email address. Id. at 3; see also id., Attachment C. On 
or about March 31, 2026, the DI traveled with another SA and a Task 
Force Officer (TFO) to Registrant's registered address to attempt 
in-person service but was again unsuccessful. Id. at 3. On the same 
date, the DI also mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's 
registered address. Id. On or about April 1, 2026, the DI mailed 
another copy of the OSC to a newly discovered address associated 
with Registrant. Id. Finally, on the same date, the DI emailed a 
copy of the OSC to two newly discovered email addresses associated 
with Registrant. Id.; see also id., Attachments D-E. 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), and 1301.46. RFAA, at 4; 
see 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. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). 
According to the OSC, effective December 4, 2024, the Medical Board of 
California revoked Registrant's California medical license. RFAAX 2, at 
2. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes 
official notice,\3\ Registrant's California medical license has a 
primary status of ``License Revoked.'' California DCA License Search, 
<a href="https://search.dca.ca.gov">https://search.dca.ca.gov</a> (last visited date of signature of this 
Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed 
to practice medicine in California, the state in which she 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 in California. 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#0a6e6f6b246b6e6e65246b7e7e6578646f73794a6e6f6b246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acc8c9cd82cdc8c8c382cdd8d8c3dec2c9d5dfecc8c9cd82cbc3da">[email&#160;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 California 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, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary 
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code 
Sec.  11010 (West 2026). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person 
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, 
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] 
state.'' Id. Sec.  11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As 
discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to 
dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, 
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in 
California, 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. 
FA2682967 issued to Youmna Abdulhadi, 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 Youmna Abdulhadi, M.D., to 
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending 
application of Youmna Abdulhadi, M.D., for additional registration in 
California. This Order is effective November 19, 2026.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
October 14, 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

[[Page 66365]]

the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal 
Register.

Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2026-21410 Filed 10-19-26; 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>