Notice of Approval of South Carolina's Application for Avoidance of 2013 Credit Reduction Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 76327 [2013-29851]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices
See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 725(c)
(requiring a medical basis for
prescribing controlled substances); 21
CFR 1306.04(a) (‘‘A prescription for a
controlled substance to be effective
must be issued for a legitimate medical
purpose’’). Applicant only treated the
patients with controlled substances,
failed to document treatment plans,
failed take into account the patient’s
past history of drug abuse, and
continuously prescribed high doses of
opiates without documenting any
explanation for doing so in their
medical records. Stipulated Surrender,
at 17–23.
Moreover, as the Expert explained,
Applicant ignored signs of misuse with
respect to E.G., and signs of misuse and
diversion with respect to R.E. Expert’s
Report, at 11 (‘‘signs of misuse on the
part of [E.G.] did not seem to affect
[Applicant’s] prescribing practices’’); id.
at 29–30 (noting that R.E. requested
specific controlled substances, reported
stolen opioids, and ‘‘reported persistent
or increased pain at almost every visit’’
notwithstanding that ‘‘the opioid . . .
doses had been significantly increased’’
and that Applicant ‘‘fail[ed] to respond
to clues that [R.E.] was misusing or
diverting medication’’). Most
significantly, with respect to both E.G.
and R.E., the Expert concluded that
Applicant’s treatment ‘‘fell far outside
the usual professional practice of
medicine.’’ Id. at 32.
I therefore find that Applicant
violated the CSA’s prescription
requirement when he prescribed
controlled substance to E.G. and R.E. 21
CFR 1306.04(a). I also find that
Applicant unlawfully distributed
controlled substances to E.G. and R.E.
See 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); see also Moore,
423 U.S. at 142–43 (noting that evidence
established that physician ‘‘exceeded
the bounds of ‘professional practice,’’’
when ‘‘he gave inadequate physical
examinations or none at all,’’ ‘‘ignored
the results of the tests he did make,’’
and ‘‘took no precautions against . . .
misuse and diversion’’).
Finally, with respect to patient J.G.,
the evidence shows that Applicant
‘‘assumed the methadone maintenance
of a known opiate addict despite his
lack of qualification and without the
guidance of qualified addiction
specialists.’’ Id. at 28. Applicant did so
notwithstanding that he did not hold
the registration required by the CSA to
dispense narcotic drugs for the purposes
of providing maintenance or
detoxification treatment. See 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1) (‘‘practitioners who dispense
narcotic drugs to individuals for
maintenance treatment or detoxification
treatment shall obtain annually a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Dec 16, 2013
Jkt 232001
separate registration for that purpose.’’)
(emphasis added); George C. Aycock,
M.D., 74 FR 17529, 17543 n.32 (2009)
(‘‘Under federal law, a practitioner must
meet extensive requirements and be
separately registered to lawfully
dispense narcotic drugs for maintenance
or detoxification treatment.’’).
Applicant further violated federal law
when he prescribed methadone, a
schedule II narcotic, for the purpose of
treating J.G.’s opioid dependency.
Expert Report, at 22. Under a DEA
regulation, a practitioner (who is
properly registered), ‘‘may administer or
dispense (but not prescribe) a narcotic
drug . . . to a narcotic depend[e]nt
person for the purpose of maintenance
or detoxification treatment.’’ 21 CFR
1306.07(a). Applicant thus also violated
this provision when he prescribed
methadone to treat J.G.’s opioid
dependency.7
Accordingly, I hold that the evidence
with respect to factors two and four
supports the conclusion that
Applicant’s registration ‘‘would be
inconsistent with the public interest.’’
21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Applicant
waived his right to a hearing or to
submit a written statement in lieu of
hearing, there is no evidence to the
contrary. See, e.g., Medicine ShoppeJonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 (2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, I will deny Applicant’s
application.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that
the application of Thomas Neuschatz,
M.D., for a DEA Certificate of
Registration as a practitioner be, and it
hereby is, denied. This order is effective
immediately.
Dated: December 6, 2013.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013–29956 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
76327
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Approval of South Carolina’s
Application for Avoidance of 2013
Credit Reduction Under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Sections 3302(c)(2) and
3302(d)(3) of the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) provide
that employers in a state that has an
outstanding balance of advances under
Title XII of the Social Security Act at the
beginning of January 1 of two or more
consecutive years are subject to a
reduction in credits otherwise available
against the FUTA tax for the calendar
year in which the most recent such
January 1 occurs, if a balance of
advances remains at the beginning of
November 10 of that year. Because the
account of South Carolina in the
Unemployment Trust Fund had a
balance of advances at the beginning of
January 1 of 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and
2013, and still had a balance of
advances at the beginning of November
10, 2013, South Carolina employers
were potentially liable for a reduction in
their FUTA offset credit for 2013.
Section 3302(g) of FUTA provides
that a state may avoid credit reduction
for a year by meeting certain criteria.
South Carolina applied for avoidance of
the 2013 credit reduction under this
section. It has been determined that
South Carolina met all of the criteria of
section 3302(g) and thus qualifies for
credit reduction avoidance. Therefore,
South Carolina employers will have no
reduction in FUTA offset credit for
calendar year 2013.
SUMMARY:
Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of
December, 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training.
[FR Doc. 2013–29851 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am]
7 To
similar effect, California law provides that a
physician cannot ‘‘administer dangerous drugs or
controlled substances to a person he or she knows
or reasonably believes is using or will use the drugs
or substances for a nonmedical purpose.’’ Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code § 2241(b). Thus, ‘‘an order for an
addict or habitual user of controlled substances,
which is issued not in the course of professional
treatment or as part of an authorized narcotic
treatment program, for the purpose of providing the
user with controlled substances,’’ is illegal. Cal.
Health & Safety Code § 11153(a)(2); People v.
Gandotra, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 896, 901 (Cal. Ct. App.
1992) (‘‘[S]ection 11153 . . . prohibits practitioners
from writing controlled substance prescriptions that
. . . are outside the course of their usual
professional practice.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Denial of Georgia’s
Application for a ‘‘Cap’’ of the 2013
Credit Reduction Under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM
17DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 76327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29851]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Notice of Approval of South Carolina's Application for Avoidance
of 2013 Credit Reduction Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Sections 3302(c)(2) and 3302(d)(3) of the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act (FUTA) provide that employers in a state that has an
outstanding balance of advances under Title XII of the Social Security
Act at the beginning of January 1 of two or more consecutive years are
subject to a reduction in credits otherwise available against the FUTA
tax for the calendar year in which the most recent such January 1
occurs, if a balance of advances remains at the beginning of November
10 of that year. Because the account of South Carolina in the
Unemployment Trust Fund had a balance of advances at the beginning of
January 1 of 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and still had a balance
of advances at the beginning of November 10, 2013, South Carolina
employers were potentially liable for a reduction in their FUTA offset
credit for 2013.
Section 3302(g) of FUTA provides that a state may avoid credit
reduction for a year by meeting certain criteria. South Carolina
applied for avoidance of the 2013 credit reduction under this section.
It has been determined that South Carolina met all of the criteria of
section 3302(g) and thus qualifies for credit reduction avoidance.
Therefore, South Carolina employers will have no reduction in FUTA
offset credit for calendar year 2013.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of December, 2013.
Eric M. Seleznow,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training.
[FR Doc. 2013-29851 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
