Jerome Lentini; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order, 27235-27236 [2012-11106]
Download as PDF
27235
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Notices
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques,
when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
Inspection by Accredited Persons
Program Under the Medical Device
User Fee and Modernization Act of
2002—(OMB Control Number 0910–
0510)—Extension
The Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA)
(Pub. L. 107–250) was signed into law
on October 26, 2002. Section 201 of
MDUFMA adds a new paragraph (g) to
section 704 of the Federal, Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21
U.S.C. 374), directing FDA to accredit
third parties (accredited persons) to
conduct inspections of eligible
manufacturers of class II or class III
devices. This is a voluntary program.
FDA has a guidance document that
provides information for those
interested in participating in this
program. The guidance is entitled
‘‘Implementation of the Inspection by
Accredited Persons Program Under the
Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act of 2002;
Accreditation Criteria.’’
FDA based these estimates on
conversations with industry, trade
association representatives, and internal
FDA estimates. Once an organization is
accredited, it will not be required to
reapply.
FDA estimates the burden of this
collection of information as follows:
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1
Section of the FD&C act/activity
Number of
respondents
Number of
responses per
respondent
Total annual
responses
Average
burden per
response
Total hours
704(g) Request for Accreditation .........................................
1
1
1
80
80
1 There
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
Dated: May 3, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.
Matthew Warren, Office of Scientific
Integrity, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave. Bldg. 32, Rm. 4210, Silver Spring,
MD 20993, 301–796–4613.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2012–11179 Filed 5–8–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0442]
Jerome Lentini; Denial of Hearing;
Final Debarment Order
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is denying Jerome
Lentini’s request for a hearing and is
issuing an order under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) permanently debarring
Lentini from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an
approved or pending drug product
application. FDA bases this order on a
finding that Lentini was convicted of a
felony under Federal law for conduct
relating to the development or approval
of a drug product or otherwise relating
to the regulation of a drug product
under the FD&C Act. Lentini has failed
to file with the Agency information and
analyses sufficient to create a basis for
a hearing concerning this action.
DATES: The order is effective May 9,
2012.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Submit applications for
termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:44 May 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
I. Background
On December 11, 2006, the United
States District Court for the District of
Oregon entered a criminal judgment
against Lentini pursuant to his guilty
plea. Lentini, formerly a medical doctor
at ‘‘A Younger You’’ clinic, pled guilty
to a felony under the FD&C Act, namely
misbranding a drug with an intent to
defraud or mislead while it was held for
sale after shipment in interstate
commerce in violation of sections 301(k)
and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
331(k) and 333(a)(2)) and 18 U.S.C. 2.
The basis for this conviction was
Lentini’s admission that he misled
patients from November 2003 through
December 2004, by injecting them with
a drug product that he offered for sale
as BOTOX/BOTOX Cosmetic (BOTOX).
In fact, as defendant Lentini knew, he
did not generally use BOTOX on
patients but instead used another drug
derived from botulinum toxin type A
that had not been approved by FDA.
Lentini is subject to debarment based
on a finding, under section 306(a)(2) of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(2)), that
he was convicted of a felony under
Federal law for conduct relating to the
development or approval of a drug
product or otherwise relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FD&C Act. By letter dated February 7,
2011, FDA notified Lentini of a proposal
to permanently debar him from
providing services in any capacity to a
person having an approved or pending
drug product application. In a letter
dated February 19, 2011, Lentini
requested a hearing on the proposal. In
his request for a hearing, Lentini
acknowledges his convictions under
Federal law, as alleged by FDA, but he
argues that he is actually innocent of the
offense underlying his felony
conviction.
Hearings will not be granted on issues
of policy or law, on mere allegations,
denials, or general descriptions of
positions and contentions, or on data
and information insufficient to justify
the factual determination urged (see 21
CFR 12.24(b)).
The Chief Scientist and Deputy
Commissioner for Science and Public
Health has considered Lentini’s
arguments and concludes that they are
unpersuasive and fail to raise a genuine
and substantial issue of fact requiring a
hearing.
II. Arguments
In his request for a hearing, Lentini
first argues that he did not misbrand the
drug product at issue. Instead, he argues
that the manufacturer of the drug
product, Toxin Research International,
Inc. (TRI), misbranded the product. As
stated in the indictment in Lentini’s
criminal proceedings, however, a drug
is misbranded under section 502(i)(3) of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(i)(3)) if a
drug ‘‘is offered for sale under the name
of another drug.’’ The specific count to
which Lentini pled guilty charged him
with ‘‘misbrand[ing] a drug, namely
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
27236
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Notices
Botulinum Toxin Type A manufactured
by [TRI] and known as ‘TRI-toxin,’
* * * in that [he] offered the ‘‘TRI-toxin
for sale by injection to patients under
the name of another drug, [BOTOX].’’ In
short, Lentini pled guilty to, and was
convicted of, misbranding a drug under
the FD&C Act.
Section 306(a)(2) of the FD&C Act
provides FDA with authority debar an
individual who has been convicted of
certain Federal felonies. The only
relevant factual issue is whether Lentini
was, in fact, convicted of a felony under
Federal law for conduct relating to the
development or approval of a drug
product or otherwise relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the
FD&C Act. Lentini does not dispute that
he pled guilty to violating the
requirements for drugs under the FD&C
Act. Section 306(l) of the FD&C Act
includes in its definition of a
conviction, a guilty plea. Accordingly,
Lentini’s arguments regarding the
factual circumstances underlying his
plea fail to raise a genuine and
substantial issue of fact as to whether he
was convicted of a felony under Federal
law for conduct relating to the
development or approval of a drug
product or otherwise relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the
FD&C Act. Whether TRI also
misbranded the drug is immaterial to
the conduct underlying Lentini’s
conviction.
Lentini next argues that he entered
the guilty plea underlying his felony
conviction while under ‘‘extreme
duress’’ and only because his attorneys
advised him that the prosecution would
‘‘find a way to convict him legally or
illegally’’ and that he should sign the
plea agreement ‘‘despite the facts.’’ In
Lentini’s petition to enter a guilty plea
in the criminal proceedings, however,
he specifically attested that he was
voluntarily agreeing to plead guilty
because he was guilty of the offense
underlying his conviction. He also
stated in the petition that he had
carefully reviewed every part of the
agreement with his attorney and that the
attorney counseled and advised him on
the nature and elements of the charge to
which he was pleading guilty, as well as
any possible defenses. Under these
circumstances, and in light of the
court’s acceptance of his guilty plea,
Lentini’s mere allegation that he was
actually innocent of the offense and
signed the plea agreement only at the
urging of his attorney is insufficient to
create a genuine and substantial issue of
fact for resolution at a hearing. (See 21
CFR 12.24(b)(1)–(2)). Moreover, the
FD&C Act does not permit consideration
of factors such as the circumstances of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:44 May 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
an individual’s guilty plea. As stated in
this document, section 306(a)(2) the
FD&C Act is clear that an individual
shall be debarred upon a finding that he
has been convicted of a felony under
Federal law for conduct relating to the
development or approval of a drug
product or otherwise relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the
FD&C Act. Lentini has been convicted of
such a felony and is thus subject to
debarment. If a court were to reverse
Lentini’s conviction on the ground that
his plea was involuntary, or for any
other reason, the order of debarment
would be withdrawn pursuant to
section 306(d)(3)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act.
III. Findings and Order
Therefore, the Chief Scientist and
Deputy Commissioner for Science and
Public Health, under section 306(a)(2) of
the FD&C Act and under authority
delegated to him, finds that Mr. Lentini
has been convicted a of a felony under
Federal law for conduct relating to the
development or approval of a drug
product or otherwise relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the
FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing findings,
Lentini is permanently debarred from
providing services in any capacity to a
person with an approved or pending
drug product application under section
505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under
section 351 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective May 9,
2012 (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and
(c)(2)(A)(ii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)). Any
person with an approved or pending
drug product application who
knowingly uses the services of Lentini,
in any capacity during his period of
debarment, will be subject to civil
money penalties. If Lentini, during his
period of debarment, provides services
in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product
application, he will be subject to civil
money penalties. In addition, FDA will
not accept or review any abbreviated
new drug applications submitted by or
with the assistance of Lentini during his
period of debarment.
Any application by Lentini for
termination of debarment under section
306(d) of the FD&C Act should be
identified with Docket No. FDA–2010–
N–0442 and sent to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES).
All such submissions are to be filed in
four copies. The public availability of
information in these submissions is
governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).
Publicly available submissions may
be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Monday through Friday. Persons with
access to the Internet may obtain
documents in the Docket at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Dated: April 16, 2012.
Jesse L. Goodman,
Chief Scientist and Deputy Commissioner for
Science and Public Health.
[FR Doc. 2012–11106 Filed 5–8–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0475]
Daphne I. Panagotacos; Denial of
Hearing; Final Debarment Order
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is denying a
request for a hearing submitted by
Daphne I. Panagotacos and is issuing an
order under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring
Panagotacos for 5 years from providing
services in any capacity to a person that
has an approved or pending drug
product application. FDA bases this
order on a finding that Panagotacos was
convicted of a misdemeanor under
Federal law for conduct relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the
FD&C Act and that the type of conduct
underlying the conviction undermines
the process for the regulation of drugs.
In determining the appropriateness and
period of Panagotacos’s debarment, FDA
has considered the relevant factors
listed in the FD&C Act. Panagotacos has
failed to file with the Agency
information and analyses sufficient to
create a basis for a hearing concerning
this action.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
The order is effective May 9,
2012.
Submit applications for
termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
ADDRESSES:
G.
Matthew Warren, Office of Scientific
Integrity, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4210, Silver Spring,
MD 20993, 301–796–4613.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27235-27236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11106]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0442]
Jerome Lentini; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is denying Jerome
Lentini's request for a hearing and is issuing an order under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) permanently
debarring Lentini from providing services in any capacity to a person
that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases
this order on a finding that Lentini was convicted of a felony under
Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval of a
drug product or otherwise relating to the regulation of a drug product
under the FD&C Act. Lentini has failed to file with the Agency
information and analyses sufficient to create a basis for a hearing
concerning this action.
DATES: The order is effective May 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Matthew Warren, Office of
Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave. Bldg. 32, Rm. 4210, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4613.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 11, 2006, the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon entered a criminal judgment against Lentini pursuant
to his guilty plea. Lentini, formerly a medical doctor at ``A Younger
You'' clinic, pled guilty to a felony under the FD&C Act, namely
misbranding a drug with an intent to defraud or mislead while it was
held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce in violation of
sections 301(k) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(k) and
333(a)(2)) and 18 U.S.C. 2. The basis for this conviction was Lentini's
admission that he misled patients from November 2003 through December
2004, by injecting them with a drug product that he offered for sale as
BOTOX/BOTOX Cosmetic (BOTOX). In fact, as defendant Lentini knew, he
did not generally use BOTOX on patients but instead used another drug
derived from botulinum toxin type A that had not been approved by FDA.
Lentini is subject to debarment based on a finding, under section
306(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(2)), that he was convicted of
a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or
approval of a drug product or otherwise relating to the regulation of a
drug product under the FD&C Act. By letter dated February 7, 2011, FDA
notified Lentini of a proposal to permanently debar him from providing
services in any capacity to a person having an approved or pending drug
product application. In a letter dated February 19, 2011, Lentini
requested a hearing on the proposal. In his request for a hearing,
Lentini acknowledges his convictions under Federal law, as alleged by
FDA, but he argues that he is actually innocent of the offense
underlying his felony conviction.
Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law, on mere
allegations, denials, or general descriptions of positions and
contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the
factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)).
The Chief Scientist and Deputy Commissioner for Science and Public
Health has considered Lentini's arguments and concludes that they are
unpersuasive and fail to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact
requiring a hearing.
II. Arguments
In his request for a hearing, Lentini first argues that he did not
misbrand the drug product at issue. Instead, he argues that the
manufacturer of the drug product, Toxin Research International, Inc.
(TRI), misbranded the product. As stated in the indictment in Lentini's
criminal proceedings, however, a drug is misbranded under section
502(i)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(i)(3)) if a drug ``is offered
for sale under the name of another drug.'' The specific count to which
Lentini pled guilty charged him with ``misbrand[ing] a drug, namely
[[Page 27236]]
Botulinum Toxin Type A manufactured by [TRI] and known as `TRI-toxin,'
* * * in that [he] offered the ``TRI-toxin for sale by injection to
patients under the name of another drug, [BOTOX].'' In short, Lentini
pled guilty to, and was convicted of, misbranding a drug under the FD&C
Act.
Section 306(a)(2) of the FD&C Act provides FDA with authority debar
an individual who has been convicted of certain Federal felonies. The
only relevant factual issue is whether Lentini was, in fact, convicted
of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development
or approval of a drug product or otherwise relating to the regulation
of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Lentini does not dispute that he
pled guilty to violating the requirements for drugs under the FD&C Act.
Section 306(l) of the FD&C Act includes in its definition of a
conviction, a guilty plea. Accordingly, Lentini's arguments regarding
the factual circumstances underlying his plea fail to raise a genuine
and substantial issue of fact as to whether he was convicted of a
felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or
approval of a drug product or otherwise relating to the regulation of a
drug product under the FD&C Act. Whether TRI also misbranded the drug
is immaterial to the conduct underlying Lentini's conviction.
Lentini next argues that he entered the guilty plea underlying his
felony conviction while under ``extreme duress'' and only because his
attorneys advised him that the prosecution would ``find a way to
convict him legally or illegally'' and that he should sign the plea
agreement ``despite the facts.'' In Lentini's petition to enter a
guilty plea in the criminal proceedings, however, he specifically
attested that he was voluntarily agreeing to plead guilty because he
was guilty of the offense underlying his conviction. He also stated in
the petition that he had carefully reviewed every part of the agreement
with his attorney and that the attorney counseled and advised him on
the nature and elements of the charge to which he was pleading guilty,
as well as any possible defenses. Under these circumstances, and in
light of the court's acceptance of his guilty plea, Lentini's mere
allegation that he was actually innocent of the offense and signed the
plea agreement only at the urging of his attorney is insufficient to
create a genuine and substantial issue of fact for resolution at a
hearing. (See 21 CFR 12.24(b)(1)-(2)). Moreover, the FD&C Act does not
permit consideration of factors such as the circumstances of an
individual's guilty plea. As stated in this document, section 306(a)(2)
the FD&C Act is clear that an individual shall be debarred upon a
finding that he has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for
conduct relating to the development or approval of a drug product or
otherwise relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C
Act. Lentini has been convicted of such a felony and is thus subject to
debarment. If a court were to reverse Lentini's conviction on the
ground that his plea was involuntary, or for any other reason, the
order of debarment would be withdrawn pursuant to section
306(d)(3)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act.
III. Findings and Order
Therefore, the Chief Scientist and Deputy Commissioner for Science
and Public Health, under section 306(a)(2) of the FD&C Act and under
authority delegated to him, finds that Mr. Lentini has been convicted a
of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development
or approval of a drug product or otherwise relating to the regulation
of a drug product under the FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing findings, Lentini is permanently
debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under section 505, 512, or
802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective May 9, 2012
(21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly uses the services of Lentini, in any capacity during his
period of debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties. If
Lentini, during his period of debarment, provides services in any
capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product
application, he will be subject to civil money penalties. In addition,
FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications
submitted by or with the assistance of Lentini during his period of
debarment.
Any application by Lentini for termination of debarment under
section 306(d) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2010-N-0442 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The
public availability of information in these submissions is governed by
21 CFR 10.20(j).
Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain documents in the Docket
at https://www.regulations.gov.
Dated: April 16, 2012.
Jesse L. Goodman,
Chief Scientist and Deputy Commissioner for Science and Public Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-11106 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P