On August 31, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Traesa A. Brown, M.D. (Respondent) of Florence, South Carolina. OSC, at 1, 5. The OSC/ISO informed Respondent of the immediate suspension of her DEA Certificate of Registration (registration or COR), Control No. BB9937624, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Respondent's continued registration constitutes “ `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ” Id. at 1 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also proposed the revocation of Respondent's registration, alleging that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest and alleging that Respondent has no state authority to handle controlled substances. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(3), 824(a)(4)).

On September 20, 2023, Respondent requested a hearing. On October 13, 2023, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition only pertaining to the allegation that Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances. ^[1] See Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition (Motion for Summary Disposition), dated October 13, 2023.^[2] Respondent did not respond to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. On October 23, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the 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 South Carolina, 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 hold a COR.” 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 6. 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

The Government asserts that on October 1, 2022, Respondent's South Carolina controlled substance registration expired. RD, at 3-4.^[3] Further, the Government asserts that on June 30, 2023, Respondent's South Carolina medical license expired. RD, at 4.^[4]

According to South Carolina online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent's South Carolina controlled substance registration is expired.^[5] SC DHEC Bureau of Drug Control, Controlled Substances Registration Verification, https://.dhec.sc.gov/​/Licensing/​Home/​Verify (last visited date of signature of this Order). Further, Respondent's South Carolina medical license is listed as “lapsed.” South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners, Licensee Lookup, https://verify.llronline.com/​LicLookup/​Med/​Med.aspx (last visited date of signature of this Order).

Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not currently licensed to engage in the practice of medicine nor to handle controlled substances in South Carolina, the state in which she is registered with the DEA.

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, the 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. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D.,76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 ( printed page 24036) F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D.,43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).^[6]

According to South Carolina statute, “[e]very person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance or who proposes to engage in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of any controlled substance, shall obtain a registration issued by the [Department of Health and Environmental Control] in accordance with its rules and regulations.” S.C. Code section 44-53-290(a) (2024). 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, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for the delivery.” Id. section 44-53-110(15).

Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in South Carolina because her South Carolina controlled substance registration is expired. As discussed above, an individual must hold a controlled substance registration to dispense a controlled substance in South Carolina. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in South Carolina, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 6. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent'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. BB9937624 issued to Traesa A. Brown, 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 Traesa A. Brown, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Traesa A. Brown, M.D., for additional registration in South Carolina. This Order is effective May 6, 2024.

Signing Authority

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 1, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. 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 .