Vida Janson, M.D.; Decision and Order

Issuing agencies

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67331-67333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21799]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 26-112]


Vida Janson, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On May 5, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Vida Janson, M.D., 
of Seattle, Washington (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
BJ6418380, alleging that Respondent is ``without authority to 
prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled 
substances in the State of Washington, the state in which [she is] 
registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    On June 3, 2026, Respondent filed a request for a hearing and filed 
a Supplemental Answer to the allegations in the OSC. Respondent also 
filed a Motion to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance seeking to defer the 
proceeding until

[[Page 67332]]

resolution of the underlying state authority matter. On August 7, 2026, 
the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, which Respondent 
opposed. On August 27, 2026, Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. 
Julius (Chief ALJ) granted the Government's Motion for Summary 
Disposition and recommended the revocation of Respondent's 
registration, finding that because Respondent lacks state authority to 
handle controlled substances in Washington, the state in which she is 
registered with DEA, ``there is no other fact of consequence for this 
tribunal to decide in order to determine whether or not she is entitled 
to maintain her DEA registration.'' Order Granting the Government's 
Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings of 
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge 
(RD), at 5. Respondent did not file exceptions to the RD.
    Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby 
incorporates by reference the entirety of the ALJ's rulings, findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction as found in the 
RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.

Findings of Fact

    Effective January 23, 2026, the Washington State Department of 
Health issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Order 
suspending Respondent from the practice of medicine in the State of 
Washington as a result of Respondent committing unprofessional conduct. 
OSC, at 2.\1\ According to Washington online records, of which the 
Agency takes official notice, Respondent's Washington medical license 
is suspended.\2\ Washington State Department of Health Provider 
Credential Search, <a href="https://wahelms.my.site.com/s/license-search">https://wahelms.my.site.com/s/license-search</a> (last 
visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds 
that Respondent does not have the state authority to handle controlled 
substances in Washington, the state in which she is registered with 
DEA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See also Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, at 2.
    \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 Respondent, as of the date of this Order, is not authorized to 
prescribe controlled substances in Washington. Respondent may 
dispute this fact 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 Office of the 
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c78797d327d787873327d6868736e7279656f5c78797d327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cf8f9fdb2fdf8f8f3b2fde8e8f3eef2f9e5efdcf8f9fdb2fbf3ea">[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 section 823 of the 
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) ``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. Sec.  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); Scott Hansen, A.P.R.N., 90 FR 27338 (2025).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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., 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 Washington statute, ``[a] practitioner may dispense or 
deliver a controlled substance to or for an individual or animal only 
for medical treatment or authorized research in the ordinary course of 
that practitioner's profession.'' Wash. Rev. Code Sec.  69.50.308(j) 
(2025). Further, a ``prescription'' means ``an order for controlled 
substances issued by a practitioner duly authorized by law or rule in 
the state of Washington to prescribe controlled substances within the 
scope of his or her professional practice for a legitimate medical 
purpose.'' Id. at Sec.  69.50.101(41). Finally, a ``practitioner'' as 
defined by Washington statute includes ``[a] physician licensed to 
practice medicine and surgery.'' Id. at Sec.  69.50.101(40)(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington. As 
already discussed, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to 
dispense or prescribe a controlled substance in Washington. Thus, 
because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington 
and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in 
Washington, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration 
in Washington. RD, at 7. 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. 
BJ6418380 issued to Vida Janson, 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 Vida Janson, M.D., to renew or 
modify these registrations, as well as any other pending application of 
Vida Janson, M.D., for additional registration in Washington. This 
Order is effective November 25, 2026.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
October 19, 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

[[Page 67333]]

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. 2026-21799 Filed 10-23-26; 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>