AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp. Order, 46326 [2015-19116]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46326
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
with a hearing to challenge the State’s
action at which he may ultimately
prevail.’’ Kamal Tiwari, M.D., 76 FR
71604, 71606, (2011); see also Bourne
Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274
(2007); Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847
(1997). Additionally, Agency precedent
has established that the existence of
other proceedings in which the
Respondent is involved is not a basis
upon which to justify a stay of DEA
administrative enforcement
proceedings. Grider Drug #1 & Grider
Drug #2, 77 FR 44069, 44104 n.97
(2012).
Congress does not intend for
administrative agencies to perform
meaningless tasks. See Philip E. Kirk,
M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff’d sub
nom. Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th
Cir. 1984); see also Puerto Rico
Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. EPA, 35
F.3d 600, 605 (1st Cir. 1994); NLRB v.
Int’l Assoc. of Bridge, Structural &
Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL–CIO, 549
F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977); United States
v. Consol. Mines & Smelting Co., 455
F.2d 432, 453 (9th Cir. 1971). Thus, it
is well-settled that, where no genuine
question of fact is involved, or when the
material facts are agreed upon, a
plenary, adversarial administrative
proceeding is not required. See Jesus R.
Juarez, M.D., 62 FR 14945 (1997);
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104
(1993). Here, the supplied IDFPR Order
establishes, and the Respondent does
not contest, that the Respondent is
currently without authorization to
handle controlled substances in Illinois,
the jurisdiction where the Respondent
holds the DEA COR that is the subject
of this litigation.
Summary disposition of an
administrative case is warranted where,
as here, ‘‘there is no factual dispute of
substance.’’ See Veg-Mix, Inc., 832 F.2d
601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (‘‘an agency
may ordinarily dispense with a hearing
when no genuine dispute exists’’).4 At
this juncture, no genuine dispute exists
over the fact that the Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled
substances in the state of Illinois.
Because the Respondent lacks such state
authority, both the plain language of
applicable federal statutory provisions
and Agency interpretive precedent
dictate that the Respondent is not
entitled to maintain his DEA
4 Even assuming, arguendo, the possibility that
the Respondent’s state controlled substances
privileges could be reinstated, summary disposition
would still be warranted because ‘‘revocation is also
appropriate when a state license has been
suspended, but with the possibility of future
reinstatement,’’ Rodriguez, 70 FR at 33207 (citations
omitted), and even where there is a judicial
challenge to the state medical board action actively
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 03, 2015
Jkt 235001
registration. Simply put, there is no
contested factual matter adducible at a
hearing that would provide DEA with
the authority to allow the Respondent to
continue to hold his COR.
Accordingly, I hereby
GRANT the Government’s Motion for
Summary Disposition; and further
DENY the Respondent’s Request for
Stay; and further
RECOMMEND that the Respondent’s
DEA registration be REVOKED forthwith
and any pending applications for
renewal be DENIED.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Manufacturer of Controlled
Substances Registration: National
Center for Natural Products Research
(NIDA MPROJECT), Inc.
ACTION:
Notice of registration.
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
National Center for Natural
Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT),
Inc. applied to be registered as a
manufacturer of certain basic classes of
controlled substances. The Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA)
grants National Center for Natural
Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT),
Inc. registration as a manufacturer of
those controlled substances.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice
dated April 14, 2015, and published in
the Federal Register on April 22, 2015,
80 FR 22559, National Center for
Natural Products Research (NIDA
MPROJECT), Inc., University of
Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Complex,
University, Mississippi 38677–1848
applied to be registered as a
manufacturer of certain basic classes of
controlled substances. No comments or
objections were submitted for this
notice.
The DEA has considered the factors in
21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that
the registration of National Center for
Natural Products Research (NIDA
MPROJECT), Inc. to manufacture the
basic classes of controlled substances is
consistent with the public interest and
with United States obligations under
international treaties, conventions, or
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The
DEA investigated the company’s
maintenance of effective controls
against diversion by inspecting and
testing the company’s physical security
systems, verifying the company’s
compliance with state and local laws,
and reviewing the company’s
background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR
1301.33, the above-named company is
granted registration as a bulk
manufacturer of the basic classes of
controlled substances:
pending in the state courts. Michael G. Dolin, M.D.,
65 FR 5661, 5662 (2000).
1 After both the Administrator’s Order and the
Government’s Response were returned to the
Agency as undelivered following efforts to serve
both of Respondent’s counsels, the Government
determined through the New York State Unified
Court System’s database that each attorney had a
different address than that listed in the record.
Notice of Recent Order and Government’s Response
II, at 1–2. The Government represents that on June
30, 2015, it served both the Administrator’s Order
and its Response on each of Respondent’s attorneys
by mailing them to the addresses of Respondent’s
attorneys as listed in the New York Unified Court
System’s database. Id. at 2.
Dated: March 20, 2015.
JOHN J. MULROONEY, II,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 2015–19119 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 12–49]
AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp.
Order
On May 8, 2015, the Administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration,
noting that the expiration date of
Respondent’s registration was June 30,
2014, ordered the parties to address
whether the case is now moot. The
Administrator’s Order was served on
Respondent’s counsel at his address of
record.
The Government filed a timely
response and served a copy of its
response on Respondent’s counsel at his
address of record. Govt. Response to
Administrator’s May 8, 2015 Order, at 1.
Respondent has not filed a response.1
In its Response, the Government
advises that Respondent neither
submitted a renewal application prior to
the expiration of its registration nor an
application for a new registration. Id.
The Government therefore
acknowledges that this case is now
moot. Id.; see Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR
67132, 67133 (1998). Accordingly, I
dismiss the Order to Show Cause.
It is so ordered.
Date: July 27, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–19116 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 46326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19116]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 12-49]
AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp. Order
On May 8, 2015, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, noting that the expiration date of Respondent's
registration was June 30, 2014, ordered the parties to address whether
the case is now moot. The Administrator's Order was served on
Respondent's counsel at his address of record.
The Government filed a timely response and served a copy of its
response on Respondent's counsel at his address of record. Govt.
Response to Administrator's May 8, 2015 Order, at 1. Respondent has not
filed a response.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After both the Administrator's Order and the Government's
Response were returned to the Agency as undelivered following
efforts to serve both of Respondent's counsels, the Government
determined through the New York State Unified Court System's
database that each attorney had a different address than that listed
in the record. Notice of Recent Order and Government's Response II,
at 1-2. The Government represents that on June 30, 2015, it served
both the Administrator's Order and its Response on each of
Respondent's attorneys by mailing them to the addresses of
Respondent's attorneys as listed in the New York Unified Court
System's database. Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Response, the Government advises that Respondent neither
submitted a renewal application prior to the expiration of its
registration nor an application for a new registration. Id. The
Government therefore acknowledges that this case is now moot. Id.; see
Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998). Accordingly, I dismiss the
Order to Show Cause.
It is so ordered.
Date: July 27, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-19116 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
