Rebecca Sotelo Denial of Registration, 28580-28581 [05-9835]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28580
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Notices
DEA does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to
issue or maintain a registration if the
applicant or registrant is without state
authority to handle controlled
substances in the state in which he
conducts business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). this
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Stephen J. Graham, M.D.,
69 FR 11,661 (2004); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988). Revocation
is also appropriate when a State license
has been suspended, but with
possibility of future reinstatement. See
Alton E. Ingram, Jr., M.D., 69 FR 22,562
(2004); Ann Lazar Thorn, M.D., 62 FR
847 (1997)
Here, it is clear Dr. Goobermen is not
currently licensed to handle controlled
substances in Pennsylvania, where he
seeks registration with DEA. Therefore,
he is not entitled to such a registration.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders that the pending
application of Lance L. Gooberman,
M.D., for registration be, and it hereby
is, denied. This order is effective June
17, 2005.
Dated: May 9, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9834 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 05–01]
Katarzyna Rygiel, M.D.; Revocation of
Registration
On September 3, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Katarzyna Rygiel,
M.D. (Dr. Rygiel) of San Diego,
California, notifying her of an
opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not revoke her DEA
Certificate of Registration BK4222179,
as a practitioner, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3) and deny any pending
applications for renewal of that
registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
As the basis for revocation, the Order to
Show Cause alleged that Dr. Rygiel’s
license to practice medicine in
California had been revoked and
accordingly, she was not authorized to
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:03 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
handle controlled substances in
California, the state in which she is
registered.
In a letter dated October 6, 2004,
through her counsel, Dr. Rygiel timely
requested a hearing in this matter. In
that letter she admitted the California
Medical Board had revoked her license
but argued that decision was being
reviewed by the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego.
On October 13, 2004, the government
filed a Motion for Summary Disposition,
requesting that Administrative Law
Judge Gail A. Randall (Judge Randall)
summarily dismiss the action, arguing
that Dr. Rygiel lacked state authority to
handle controlled substances in
California. On October 14, 2004, Judge
Randall issued an Order staying
proceedings and affording Dr. Rygiel an
opportunity to respond to the
Government’s motion. Dr. Rygiel then
filed a Motion for Further Stay of
Proceedings and Opposition to
Government’s Motion for Summary
Adjudication and Alternatively, Motion
for Stay of Judgment (Response). In that
Response Dr. Rygiel acknowledged she
was currently without state authority to
practice medicine in California but
argued the DEA hearing should be
stayed until the San Diego Superior
Court had issued an anticipated
decision in her favor.
On November 22, 2004, Judge Randall
issued her Order, Opinion and
Recommended Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (Opinion and
Recommended Decision). As part of her
recommended ruling, Judge Randall
granted the Government’s Motion for
Summary Disposition, finding Dr.
Rygiel lacked authorization to handle
controlled substances in California, the
jurisdiction in which she is registered.
Judge Randall recommended that Dr.
Rygiel’s DEA registration be revoked. No
exceptions were filed by either party to
the Opinion and Recommended
Decision and on January 11, 2005, the
record of these proceedings was
transmitted to the Office of the DEA
Deputy Administrator.
The Deputy Administrator has
considered the record in its entirety and
pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby
issues her final order based upon
findings of fact and conclusions of law
as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy
Administrator adopts, in full, the
Opinion and Recommended Decision of
the Administrative Law Judge.
The Deputy Administrator finds that
Dr. Rygiel holds DEA Certificate of
Registration, BK4222179. The Deputy
Administrator further finds that on
March 16, 2004, the Division of Medical
Quality, Medical Board of California,
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department of Consumer Affairs, State
of California (Board) issued a Decision
revoking Dr. Rygiel’s Physician and
Surgeon’s Certificate. In that Decision,
the Board adopted a February 13, 2004,
Proposed Decision of a California
Administrative Law Judge which
recommended revocation of Dr. Rygiel’s
medical license on certain enumerated
grounds.
There is no evidence in the record
indicating the Board’s Decision has been
stayed or set aside by judicial action,
rescinded by the Board or that Dr.
Rygiel’s license has been reinstated.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
finds that Dr. Rygiel is currently not
licensed to practice medicine in
California and, as a result, it is
reasonable to infer that she is also
without authorization to handle
controlled substances in that state.
DEA does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to
issue or maintain a registration if the
applicant or registrant is without state
authority to handle controlled
substances in the state in which she
conducts business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Gabriel Sagun Orzame,
M.D., 69 FR 58959 (2004); Dominick A.
Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993); Bobby
Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1988).
Here, it is clear that Dr. Rygiel is not
currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in California,
where she is registered with DEA.
Therefore, she is not entitled to
maintain that registration. Accordingly,
the Deputy Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, pursuant
to the authority vested in her by 21
U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b)
and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA
Certificate of Registration, BK4222179,
issued to Katarzyna Rygiel, M.D., be,
and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy
Administrator further orders that any
pending applications for renewal or
modification of such registration be, and
they hereby are, denied. This order is
effective June 17, 2005.
Dated: May 9, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9837 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Rebecca Sotelo Denial of Registration
On October 6, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Notices
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Rebecca Sotelo
(Respondent) who was notified of an
opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not deny her application
for registration as a mid-level
practitioner, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3) and 823(f).
The Order to Show Cause alleged that
Respondent had not been granted
Prescribing and Dispensing Authority
by the Arizona State Board of Nursing
and was not authorized to handle
controlled substances in Arizona, the
State in which she practices. The Order
to Show Cause also notified Respondent
that should no request for a hearing be
filed within 30 days, her hearing right
would be deemed waived.
The Order to Shaw Cause was sent by
certified mail to Respondent’s residence
at 4479 N. Camino Del Ray, Tucson,
Arizona 85718. According to the return
receipt, the Order to Show Cause was
delivered to Respondent on October 18,
2004. DEA has not received a request for
a hearing or any other reply from
Respondent or anyone purporting to
represent her in the matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days
having passed since the delivery of the
Order to Show Cause to the Respondent
and (2) no request for hearing having
been received, concludes that
Respondent is deemed to have waived
her hearing right. See David W. Linder,
67 FR 12579 (2002). After considering
material from the investigative file in
this matter, the Deputy Administrator
now enters her final order without a
hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d)
and (e) and 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds that
on March 3, 2004, Respondent, a nurse
practitioner, applied for registration
with DEA as a mid-level practitioner in
Schedules II–V (Control No.
E06325608N). She had previously been
registered with DEA in that same status
under Certificate of Registration
MS0233222 but allowed the registration
to expire on March 29, 2003, and it was
retired from the DEA registration
system.
Respondent had been licensed as a
Registered Nurse with the Arizona State
Board of Nursing (Board) and possessed
a Certificate for Advance Practice,
which is required by the Board for a
nurse to act as a Nurse Practitioner.
Under Arizona law and regulations,
Nurse Practitioners may prescribe and
dispense controlled substances if they
are registered with DEA and the Board
had granted them Prescribing and
Dispensing Authority.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:03 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
Respondent’s initial Prescribing and
Dispensing Authority expired on
December 31, 1998, and her state
nursing license, together with her
Advance Practice Certificate, expired on
June 30, 2003. In February 2004, she
renewed her nursing license and
Advanced Practice Certificate. However,
she did not attempt to renew her
Prescribing and Dispensing Authority.
In June 2004, after Respondent
submitted her current application for
DEA registration, the Board notified
DEA investigators that because of public
complaints lodged against her,
Respondent’s Prescribing and
Dispensing Authority would not be
renewed without an investigation and
resolution of the allegations. On July 15,
2004, the State board advised DEA the
Respondent ‘‘has not possessed the
authority to prescribe and/or dispense
medications as a nurse practitioner in
the state of Arizona from January 1,
1999, to present.’’
There is no evidence before the
Deputy Administrator that Respondent’s
Prescribing and Dispensing Authority
has been since been renewed. Therefore,
the Deputy Administrator finds that
Respondent is not currently authorized
to handle controlled substances in the
State of Arizona.
DEA does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to
issue or maintain a registration if the
applicant or registrant is without state
authority to handle controlled
substances in the state in which she
conducts business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Rory Patrick Doyle, M.D.,
69 FR 11,655 (2004); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Here, it is clear Respondent is not
currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in Arizona, where
she currently practices. Therefore, she is
not entitled to a DEA registration in that
State.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders that the pending
application for a DEA Certificate of
Registration, submitted by Rebecca
Sotelo, be, and it hereby is, denied. This
order is effective June 17, 2005.
Dated: May 9, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9835 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28581
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Combating Exploitive Child Labor
Through Education in Guyana;
Correction
Bureau of International Labor
Affairs, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Correction.
AGENCY:
In notice document 05–9284
beginning on page 24632 in the issue of
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, make the
following correction:
On page 24632 in the third column,
the population statistics previously
listed in the second sentence under the
heading ‘‘Barriers to Education for
Working Children in Guyana’’ are
incorrect. This sentence should be
changed to read ‘‘UNICEF has estimated
that 27 percent of children ages 5 to 14,
or approximately 44,500 children, were
working in Guyana in 2000.’’
SUMMARY:
Dated: May 11, 2004.
Valerie Veatch,
Grant Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–9870 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–23–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. NRTL2–2001]
TUV America, Inc., Application for
Expansion of Recognition
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
application of TUV America, Inc.,
(TUVAM) for expansion of its
recognition to use additional test
standards, and presents the Agency’s
preliminary finding. This preliminary
finding does not constitute an interim or
temporary approval of this application.
DATES: You must submit information or
comments, or any request for extension
of the time to comment, by the
following dates:
• Hard copy: Your information or
comments must be submitted
(postmarked or sent) by June 2, 2005.
• Electronic transmission or
facsimile: Your comments must be sent
by June 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information or comments to this
notice—identified by docket number
NRTL2–2001—by any of the following
methods:
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28580-28581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9835]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Rebecca Sotelo Denial of Registration
On October 6, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
[[Page 28581]]
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Rebecca Sotelo (Respondent) who was notified of
an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not deny her
application for registration as a mid-level practitioner, pursuant to
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 823(f).
The Order to Show Cause alleged that Respondent had not been
granted Prescribing and Dispensing Authority by the Arizona State Board
of Nursing and was not authorized to handle controlled substances in
Arizona, the State in which she practices. The Order to Show Cause also
notified Respondent that should no request for a hearing be filed
within 30 days, her hearing right would be deemed waived.
The Order to Shaw Cause was sent by certified mail to Respondent's
residence at 4479 N. Camino Del Ray, Tucson, Arizona 85718. According
to the return receipt, the Order to Show Cause was delivered to
Respondent on October 18, 2004. DEA has not received a request for a
hearing or any other reply from Respondent or anyone purporting to
represent her in the matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator of DEA, finding that (1) thirty
days having passed since the delivery of the Order to Show Cause to the
Respondent and (2) no request for hearing having been received,
concludes that Respondent is deemed to have waived her hearing right.
See David W. Linder, 67 FR 12579 (2002). After considering material
from the investigative file in this matter, the Deputy Administrator
now enters her final order without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR
1301.43(d) and (e) and 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds that on March 3, 2004, Respondent, a
nurse practitioner, applied for registration with DEA as a mid-level
practitioner in Schedules II-V (Control No. E06325608N). She had
previously been registered with DEA in that same status under
Certificate of Registration MS0233222 but allowed the registration to
expire on March 29, 2003, and it was retired from the DEA registration
system.
Respondent had been licensed as a Registered Nurse with the Arizona
State Board of Nursing (Board) and possessed a Certificate for Advance
Practice, which is required by the Board for a nurse to act as a Nurse
Practitioner. Under Arizona law and regulations, Nurse Practitioners
may prescribe and dispense controlled substances if they are registered
with DEA and the Board had granted them Prescribing and Dispensing
Authority.
Respondent's initial Prescribing and Dispensing Authority expired
on December 31, 1998, and her state nursing license, together with her
Advance Practice Certificate, expired on June 30, 2003. In February
2004, she renewed her nursing license and Advanced Practice
Certificate. However, she did not attempt to renew her Prescribing and
Dispensing Authority.
In June 2004, after Respondent submitted her current application
for DEA registration, the Board notified DEA investigators that because
of public complaints lodged against her, Respondent's Prescribing and
Dispensing Authority would not be renewed without an investigation and
resolution of the allegations. On July 15, 2004, the State board
advised DEA the Respondent ``has not possessed the authority to
prescribe and/or dispense medications as a nurse practitioner in the
state of Arizona from January 1, 1999, to present.''
There is no evidence before the Deputy Administrator that
Respondent's Prescribing and Dispensing Authority has been since been
renewed. Therefore, the Deputy Administrator finds that Respondent is
not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the State
of Arizona.
DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or
registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances
in the state in which she conducts business. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21),
823(f) and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld.
See Rory Patrick Doyle, M.D., 69 FR 11,655 (2004); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Here, it is clear Respondent is not currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in Arizona, where she currently practices.
Therefore, she is not entitled to a DEA registration in that State.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C.
823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that the
pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, submitted by
Rebecca Sotelo, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective
June 17, 2005.
Dated: May 9, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-9835 Filed 5-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
