Kristen Lee Raines, A.P.R.N.; Decision and Order, 14890-14892 [2016-06103]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14890
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
States exists as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule
210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the
presiding administrative law judge shall
take evidence or other information and
hear arguments from the parties and
other interested persons with respect to
the public interest in this investigation,
as appropriate, and provide the
Commission with findings of fact and a
recommended determination on this
issue, which shall be limited to the
statutory public interest factors set forth
in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
(a) The complainant is:
Immersion Corporation, 50 Rio
Robles, San Jose, CA 95134.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino,
CA 95014.
AT&T Inc., 208 South Akard Street,
Dallas, TX 75202.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 1025 Lenox Park
Boulevard NE., Atlanta, GA 30319.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite
401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted,
the Chief Administrative Law Judge,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
shall designate the presiding
Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in
accordance with section 210.13 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such
responses will be considered by the
Commission if received not later than 20
days after the date of service by the
Commission of the complaint and the
notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 14, 2016.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–06112 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 16–5]
Kristen Lee Raines, A.P.R.N.; Decision
and Order
On September 16, 2015, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Kristen Lee Raines,
A.P.R.N. (hereinafter, Respondent), of
Little Rock, Arkansas. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration MR1972632, pursuant to
which she is authorized to dispense
controlled substances in schedules III
through V, as a mid-level practitioner,
as well as the denial of any pending
applications to renew or modify her
registration, on the ground that she does
not have authority to dispense
controlled substances in Arkansas, the
State in which she holds her
registration. Show Cause Order at 1.
The Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent’s registration will not
expire until April 30, 2018. Id. The
Show Cause Order then alleged that the
Arkansas State Board of Nursing had
issued an Order, which summarily
suspended Respondent’s nursing and
advance practice nursing licenses
effective on June 19, 2015. Id. The Show
Cause Order thus alleged that
Respondent is ‘‘without authority to
handle controlled substances in
Arkansas,’’ and as a consequence, her
DEA registration is subject to
revocation. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21),
823(f), and 824(a)(3)).
Following service of the Show Cause
Order, Respondent, through her
counsel, requested a hearing on the
allegations. In her hearing request,
Respondent did not dispute that her
registration does not expire until April
30, 2018. Resp. Hearing Req., at 1. Nor
did she dispute that the Arkansas State
Board of Nursing had summarily
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
suspended her nursing and advance
practice nursing licenses. Id. Instead,
Respondent objected to the proposed
action ‘‘on the grounds that the Show
Cause Order and suspension of her
Arkansas nursing license and advance
practice nursing license stem from
unfounded and unsubstantiated
allegations that she violated . . . 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(e) by the U.S.
Attorney in’’ a criminal case brought
against her in the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Id. Respondent further
asserted that ‘‘she did not knowingly or
intentionally distribute [h]ydrocodone
and [a]lprazolam . . . without an
effective prescription.’’ Id. Respondent
further stated that she has pled not
guilty to the charges and believes that
she will be acquitted. Id.
Thereafter, the matter was placed on
the docket of the Office of
Administrative Law Judges and assigned
to Chief Administrative Law Judge John
J. Mulrooney, II (hereinafter, CALJ). On
October 20, 2015, the CALJ issued an
order directing the Government to file
evidence to support the allegation and
any motion for summary disposition by
October 30, 2015; the order also
provided that Respondent should
respond to the Government’s expected
motion no later than November 13,
2015.
On October 26, 2015, the Government
filed its Motion for Summary
Disposition. As support for the Motion,
the Government attached a copy of the
decision and order of the Arkansas State
Board of Nursing, which summarily
suspended Respondent’s advance
practice nursing license and nursing
license effective June 19, 2015. Mot. for
Summ. Disp., at Attachment 3, at 3
(Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order, at 3; In re Kristen Lee Raines
Plant Raines (Ark. Bd. of Nursing, June
19, 2015) (hereinafter, Nursing Board
Order). The Government also provided
a printout from the Nursing Board’s
Web site (dated September 4, 2015)
showing that both Respondent’s RN and
Certified Nurse Practitioner licenses
were suspended. Mot. for Summ. Disp.,
at Attachment 4.
Respondent opposed the
Government’s Motion. In her
opposition, Respondent asserted that
she has been wrongly accused, and that
the State Board’s suspension of her
licenses is the ‘‘result of her wrongful
indictment.’’ Resp. Reply to Govt’s Mot.
for Summ. Disp., at 3. She further
argued that the DEA may exercise
discretion in determining the
appropriate sanction and that revocation
of her registration ‘‘is an unjust and
overly severe punishment given the
circumstances, particularly that the
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Government [i.e., the U.S. Attorney]
admits it lacks the evidence to
substantiate the criminal indictment
against’’ her. Id. at 5. She then
maintains that suspending her
registration ‘‘pending the outcome [of
the criminal case] is more appropriate
and fair in light of the facts and
circumstances of this case,’’ and that
‘‘[i]t would be a further miscarriage of
justice to revoke her [registration] on top
of her criminal indictment absent any
corroborating evidence thereof.’’ Id. at
5–6.1
On November 16, 2015, the CALJ
granted the Government’s motion. The
CALJ correctly rejected Respondent’s
request for a stay of the proceedings,
noting that a stay can rarely be justified
by the existence of collateral
proceedings.2 Order Granting Govt’s
Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 4 (citing Grider
Drug #1 & Grider Drug #2, 77 FR 44070,
44104 n.97 (2012)). Finding it
undisputed ‘‘that the Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled
substances in the [S]tate of Arkansas,’’
the CALJ concluded that ‘‘[b]ecause the
Respondent lacks such state authority,
both the plain language of applicable
federal statutory provisions and Agency
1 In opposing the Government’s motion,
Respondent attached a copy of the indictment, as
well as the Assistant United States Attorney’s
response and supplemental response to her motion
to compel discovery. Respondent also submitted an
affidavit in which she asserts that she is not guilty
of the charges and that she is confident that the
charges will either be dismissed or that she will be
acquitted. Resp. Reply to Gov. Mot. for Summ.
Disp., at Ex. C. Therein, she further asserts that she
has requested a hearing on the Nursing Board’s
action, and that she ‘‘expect[s] that [her] nursing
licensed will be restored.’’ Id. at 2. She also
contends that due to the Board’s actions against her
licenses, ‘‘the additional revocation of my
[registration] would affect no change in my
employment status and is unnecessary and would
serve no public purpose.’’ Id. She thus requested
that the revocation of her registration be stayed
pending the outcome of her criminal case and the
Nursing Board’s action. Id.
2 In his Order, the CALJ noted that ‘‘the Agency
recently held revocation proceedings in abeyance at
the post-hearing adjudication level for a lengthy
period pending the resolution of criminal fraud
charges.’’ Order Granting Govt’s Mot. for Summ.
Disp., at 4–5 (citing Odette L. Campbell, 80 FR
41062, 41064 (2015)). However, in Campbell, the
respondent was indicted on 30 counts of health care
fraud shortly before the hearing in the matter and
also allowed her registration to expire; indeed, the
respondent did not file a new application until
three months after the hearing. See 80 FR at 41063.
Thus, at the time the Administrator’s Office held
the case in abeyance, Campbell no longer involved
a revocation proceeding. Moreover, had the
respondent been convicted on the health care fraud
charges, she would have been subject to mandatory
exclusion from federal health care programs and her
application would have been subject to denial on
this basis. See Arvinder Singh, 81 FR 8247 (2016)
(denying application based, in part, on physician’s
convictions for health care fraud and mandatory
exclusion from federal health care programs
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7(a)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
interpretive precedent dictate that she is
not entitled to maintain her DEA
registration.’’ Order Granting Govt’s
Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 6. The CALJ
thus recommended that I revoke
Respondent’s registration.
Neither party filed exceptions to the
CALJ’s Recommended Decision.
Thereafter, the record was forwarded to
me for Final Agency Action. Having
reviewed the record in its entirety, I
adopt the CALJ’s factual finding, his
legal conclusion and recommended
disposition. I make the following
findings:
Findings of Fact
Respondent is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration MR1972632,
pursuant to which she is authorized to
dispense controlled substances in
schedules III through V, as a mid-level
practitioner, at the address of 14312
Ridgewood Dr., Little Rock, Arkansas
72211. Gov. Mot. for Summ. Disp.,
Attachment 1, at 1. Respondent’s
registration does not expire until April
30, 2018. Id.
Respondent is also the holder of
Advanced Practice Registered Nurse
License A003251 and Registered Nurse
License R063743 issued by the Arkansas
State Board of Nursing. Nursing Board
Order, at 1. On June 19, 2015, the Board
ordered the summary suspension of
both of these licenses. Id. at 3.
According to the results of an online
search using the Arkansas Board’s
license verification page, Respondent’s
licenses remain suspended.
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, ‘‘upon a finding that
the registrant . . . has had [her] State
license . . . suspended [or] revoked
. . . by competent State authority and is
no longer authorized by State law to
engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.’’ Moreover, DEA
has 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 Alfred
Tennyson Smurthwaite, 43 FR 11873
(1978) (‘‘State authorization to handle
controlled substances is a prerequisite
to the issuance and retention of a
Federal controlled substances
registration.’’) (citations omitted).
This rule derives from the text of two
provisions of the CSA. First, Congress
defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to]
mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14891
person licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in
which he practices . . . to distribute,
dispense, [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of
professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C.
802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a
practitioner’s registration, Congress
directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General
shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . .
controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices.’’ 21
U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has
clearly mandated that a practitioner
possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the Act,
DEA has held repeatedly that revocation
of a practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever she is no
longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which she practices medicine. See,
e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036
(2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71
FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A.
Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby
Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
Thus, the Agency has held that
revocation is warranted even where, as
here, the state board has suspended (as
opposed to revoked) a practitioner’s
dispensing authority and that authority
may be restored at some point in the
future through further proceedings. See
Ramsey 76 FR at 20036 (citations
omitted); see also Frederick Marsh
Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (revoking
registration of physician whose medical
license had been suspended for one
year, but placed on probation for three
years thereafter). As the Agency has
held, the controlling question is not
whether a practitioner’s license to
practice medicine in the state is
suspended or revoked; rather, it is
whether the Respondent is currently
authorized to handle controlled
substances in the state. James L. Hooper,
76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting cases),
pet. for rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder,
481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012);
Blanton, 43 FR at 27616 (‘‘As a result of
the suspension of his medical license,
the [r]espondent is no longer authorized
to dispense or otherwise handle
controlled substances under the laws of
Florida. Accordingly . . . the
[r]espondent’s DEA registration must be
revoked[.]’’).
Respondent further argues that I
should consider that the Nursing
Board’s case ‘‘is the ‘‘result of her
wrongful indictment’’ by the United
States Attorney and that the latter has
admitted that he ‘‘lacks the evidence to
substantiate the criminal indictment
against’’ her. This argument is simply a
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
14892
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
collateral attack on the State Board’s
proceeding, whose order suspending her
state authority remains in effect as of
this date. The Agency has held,
however, ‘‘that a registrant cannot
collaterally attack the result of a state
criminal or administrative proceeding in
a proceeding under section 304, 21
U.S.C. 824, of the CSA.’’ Muzaffer
Aslan, 77 FR 37068, 37069 (2012) (other
citations omitted). ‘‘Rather,
Respondent’s challenge to the validity
of the [Nursing Board’s] Order must be
litigated in the forums provided by the
State of [Arkansas], and [her]
contentions regarding the validity of the
[Board’s] order are not material to this
Agency’s resolution of whether [she] is
entitled to maintain [her] DEA
registration in’’ Arkansas. Id.
Because it is undisputed that
Respondent’s Arkansas Advanced
Practice Nursing License remains
suspended, I find that she no longer has
authority under the laws of Arkansas,
the State in which she is registered, to
dispense controlled substances. See
Ark. Code Ann. Section 17–87–310
(b)(1) (‘‘An advanced practice registered
nurse with a certificate of prescriptive
authority may receive and prescribe
drugs, medicines, or therapeutic devices
appropriate to the advanced practice
registered nurse’s areas of practice in
accordance with rules established by the
Arkansas State Board of Nursing.’’).
Therefore, she is not entitled to
maintain her DEA registration. See 21
U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3).
Accordingly, I will order that her
registration be revoked and that any
pending application to renew or modify
her registration be denied.3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA
Certificate of Registration MR1972632,
3 While Respondent also asked that I stay the
revocation of her registration pending the resolution
of the criminal case and nursing board proceeding,
I decline to do so. As the Agency has previously
explained, ‘‘in circumstances similar to those raised
by Respondent, DEA has repeatedly denied requests
to stay the issuance of a final order of revocation,
noting that [u]nder the Controlled Substances Act,
a practitioner must be currently authorized to
handle controlled substances in the jurisdiction in
which [she] practices in order to maintain [her]
DEA registration.’’ Gregory F. Saric, 76 FR 16821,
16822 (2011) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Of further note, Respondent’s advanced
practice nursing license was suspended more than
8 months ago, and yet her license still remains
suspended. And while Respondent asserts that the
Nursing Board’s suspension is the result of the
wrongful indictment, she ignores that the Board’s
order also relied on her having ‘‘prescribed opioids
from November 13, 2014 through January 7, 2015
without prescriptive authority.’’ Nursing Board
Order, at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
issued to Kristen Lee Raines, A.P.R.N.,
be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further
order that any application of Kristen Lee
Raines, A.P.R.N., to renew or modify
this registration be, and it hereby is,
denied. This Order is effective
immediately.4
Dated: March 11, 2016.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–06103 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Cambrex Charles City
ACTION:
connection with suspension, denial, or
revocation of registration) has been
redelegated to the Deputy Assistant
Administrator of the DEA Office of
Diversion Control (‘‘Deputy Assistant
Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR
1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 31,
2015, Cambrex Charles City, 1205 11th
Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616–3466
applied to be registered as an importer
of coca leaves (9040), a basic class of
controlled substance.
The company plans to import the
listed controlled substance for internal
use, and to manufacture bulk
intermediates for sale to its customers.
Dated: March 8, 2016.
Louis J. Milione,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–06102 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
Notice of application.
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
Registered bulk manufacturers of
the affected basic class, and applicants
therefore, may file written comments on
or objections to the issuance of the
proposed registration in accordance
with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before
April 18, 2016. Such persons may also
file a written request for a hearing on
the application pursuant to 21 CFR
1301.43 on or before April 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Register Representative/ODW, 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152. Request for hearings should be
sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: Hearing
Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive,
Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments
and request for hearings on application
to import narcotic raw material are not
appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25,
2007).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Attorney General has delegated her
authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to the Administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to
exercise all necessary functions with
respect to the promulgation and
implementation of 21 CFR part 1301,
incident to the registration of
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers,
importers, and exporters of controlled
substances (other than final orders in
DATES:
4 For the same reasons which led the Nursing
Board to conclude ‘‘that an emergency exists
constituting a threat to the public health, safety and
welfare’’ and to order the summary suspension of
Respondent’s licenses, I conclude that the public
interest necessitates that this Order be effective
immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Comment Request for State
Retention of Applications and Job
Orders
ACTION:
Notice.
The Department of Labor
(DOL) is soliciting comments
concerning a proposed extension
without changes of the data retention
required by CFR 652.8(d)(5) of the
Wagner-Peyser Act. This comment
request is part of continuing
Departmental efforts to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
written comments received by May 17,
2016.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
applicable supporting documentation;
including a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free by contacting the
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration, Attention:
Adriana Kaplan, by telephone at (202)
693–3740 (this is not a toll free number),
by email, at kaplan.adriana@dol.gov,
TTY/TDD, 1–877–889–5627, (this is a
toll-free number), by fax at (202) 693–
3587, or by email at 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room S–4209,
Washington, DC 20210.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14890-14892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06103]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 16-5]
Kristen Lee Raines, A.P.R.N.; Decision and Order
On September 16, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order
to Show Cause to Kristen Lee Raines, A.P.R.N. (hereinafter,
Respondent), of Little Rock, Arkansas. The Show Cause Order proposed
the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration
MR1972632, pursuant to which she is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules III through V, as a mid-level practitioner, as
well as the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify her
registration, on the ground that she does not have authority to
dispense controlled substances in Arkansas, the State in which she
holds her registration. Show Cause Order at 1.
The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent's registration will
not expire until April 30, 2018. Id. The Show Cause Order then alleged
that the Arkansas State Board of Nursing had issued an Order, which
summarily suspended Respondent's nursing and advance practice nursing
licenses effective on June 19, 2015. Id. The Show Cause Order thus
alleged that Respondent is ``without authority to handle controlled
substances in Arkansas,'' and as a consequence, her DEA registration is
subject to revocation. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and
824(a)(3)).
Following service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent, through her
counsel, requested a hearing on the allegations. In her hearing
request, Respondent did not dispute that her registration does not
expire until April 30, 2018. Resp. Hearing Req., at 1. Nor did she
dispute that the Arkansas State Board of Nursing had summarily
suspended her nursing and advance practice nursing licenses. Id.
Instead, Respondent objected to the proposed action ``on the grounds
that the Show Cause Order and suspension of her Arkansas nursing
license and advance practice nursing license stem from unfounded and
unsubstantiated allegations that she violated . . . 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(e) by the U.S. Attorney in'' a criminal case brought against
her in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Id. Respondent further
asserted that ``she did not knowingly or intentionally distribute
[h]ydrocodone and [a]lprazolam . . . without an effective
prescription.'' Id. Respondent further stated that she has pled not
guilty to the charges and believes that she will be acquitted. Id.
Thereafter, the matter was placed on the docket of the Office of
Administrative Law Judges and assigned to Chief Administrative Law
Judge John J. Mulrooney, II (hereinafter, CALJ). On October 20, 2015,
the CALJ issued an order directing the Government to file evidence to
support the allegation and any motion for summary disposition by
October 30, 2015; the order also provided that Respondent should
respond to the Government's expected motion no later than November 13,
2015.
On October 26, 2015, the Government filed its Motion for Summary
Disposition. As support for the Motion, the Government attached a copy
of the decision and order of the Arkansas State Board of Nursing, which
summarily suspended Respondent's advance practice nursing license and
nursing license effective June 19, 2015. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at
Attachment 3, at 3 (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at
3; In re Kristen Lee Raines Plant Raines (Ark. Bd. of Nursing, June 19,
2015) (hereinafter, Nursing Board Order). The Government also provided
a printout from the Nursing Board's Web site (dated September 4, 2015)
showing that both Respondent's RN and Certified Nurse Practitioner
licenses were suspended. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Attachment 4.
Respondent opposed the Government's Motion. In her opposition,
Respondent asserted that she has been wrongly accused, and that the
State Board's suspension of her licenses is the ``result of her
wrongful indictment.'' Resp. Reply to Govt's Mot. for Summ. Disp., at
3. She further argued that the DEA may exercise discretion in
determining the appropriate sanction and that revocation of her
registration ``is an unjust and overly severe punishment given the
circumstances, particularly that the
[[Page 14891]]
Government [i.e., the U.S. Attorney] admits it lacks the evidence to
substantiate the criminal indictment against'' her. Id. at 5. She then
maintains that suspending her registration ``pending the outcome [of
the criminal case] is more appropriate and fair in light of the facts
and circumstances of this case,'' and that ``[i]t would be a further
miscarriage of justice to revoke her [registration] on top of her
criminal indictment absent any corroborating evidence thereof.'' Id. at
5-6.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In opposing the Government's motion, Respondent attached a
copy of the indictment, as well as the Assistant United States
Attorney's response and supplemental response to her motion to
compel discovery. Respondent also submitted an affidavit in which
she asserts that she is not guilty of the charges and that she is
confident that the charges will either be dismissed or that she will
be acquitted. Resp. Reply to Gov. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Ex. C.
Therein, she further asserts that she has requested a hearing on the
Nursing Board's action, and that she ``expect[s] that [her] nursing
licensed will be restored.'' Id. at 2. She also contends that due to
the Board's actions against her licenses, ``the additional
revocation of my [registration] would affect no change in my
employment status and is unnecessary and would serve no public
purpose.'' Id. She thus requested that the revocation of her
registration be stayed pending the outcome of her criminal case and
the Nursing Board's action. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2015, the CALJ granted the Government's motion. The
CALJ correctly rejected Respondent's request for a stay of the
proceedings, noting that a stay can rarely be justified by the
existence of collateral proceedings.\2\ Order Granting Govt's Mot. for
Summ. Disp., at 4 (citing Grider Drug #1 & Grider Drug #2, 77 FR 44070,
44104 n.97 (2012)). Finding it undisputed ``that the Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate of
Arkansas,'' the CALJ concluded that ``[b]ecause the Respondent lacks
such state authority, both the plain language of applicable federal
statutory provisions and Agency interpretive precedent dictate that she
is not entitled to maintain her DEA registration.'' Order Granting
Govt's Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 6. The CALJ thus recommended that I
revoke Respondent's registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In his Order, the CALJ noted that ``the Agency recently held
revocation proceedings in abeyance at the post-hearing adjudication
level for a lengthy period pending the resolution of criminal fraud
charges.'' Order Granting Govt's Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 4-5
(citing Odette L. Campbell, 80 FR 41062, 41064 (2015)). However, in
Campbell, the respondent was indicted on 30 counts of health care
fraud shortly before the hearing in the matter and also allowed her
registration to expire; indeed, the respondent did not file a new
application until three months after the hearing. See 80 FR at
41063. Thus, at the time the Administrator's Office held the case in
abeyance, Campbell no longer involved a revocation proceeding.
Moreover, had the respondent been convicted on the health care fraud
charges, she would have been subject to mandatory exclusion from
federal health care programs and her application would have been
subject to denial on this basis. See Arvinder Singh, 81 FR 8247
(2016) (denying application based, in part, on physician's
convictions for health care fraud and mandatory exclusion from
federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither party filed exceptions to the CALJ's Recommended Decision.
Thereafter, the record was forwarded to me for Final Agency Action.
Having reviewed the record in its entirety, I adopt the CALJ's factual
finding, his legal conclusion and recommended disposition. I make the
following findings:
Findings of Fact
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration
MR1972632, pursuant to which she is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules III through V, as a mid-level practitioner, at
the address of 14312 Ridgewood Dr., Little Rock, Arkansas 72211. Gov.
Mot. for Summ. Disp., Attachment 1, at 1. Respondent's registration
does not expire until April 30, 2018. Id.
Respondent is also the holder of Advanced Practice Registered Nurse
License A003251 and Registered Nurse License R063743 issued by the
Arkansas State Board of Nursing. Nursing Board Order, at 1. On June 19,
2015, the Board ordered the summary suspension of both of these
licenses. Id. at 3. According to the results of an online search using
the Arkansas Board's license verification page, Respondent's licenses
remain suspended.
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, ``upon a
finding that the registrant . . . has had [her] State license . . .
suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no
longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.'' Moreover, DEA has 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 Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite, 43 FR
11873 (1978) (``State authorization to handle controlled substances is
a prerequisite to the issuance and retention of a Federal controlled
substances registration.'') (citations omitted).
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA.
First, Congress defined ``the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . .
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to
distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in
the course of professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in
setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration,
Congress directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register
practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . .
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated
that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of
a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever she
is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the
laws of the State in which she practices medicine. See, e.g., Calvin
Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR
39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993);
Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
Thus, the Agency has held that revocation is warranted even where,
as here, the state board has suspended (as opposed to revoked) a
practitioner's dispensing authority and that authority may be restored
at some point in the future through further proceedings. See Ramsey 76
FR at 20036 (citations omitted); see also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43
FR 27616 (1978) (revoking registration of physician whose medical
license had been suspended for one year, but placed on probation for
three years thereafter). As the Agency has held, the controlling
question is not whether a practitioner's license to practice medicine
in the state is suspended or revoked; rather, it is whether the
Respondent is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in
the state. James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting cases), pet.
for rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012);
Blanton, 43 FR at 27616 (``As a result of the suspension of his medical
license, the [r]espondent is no longer authorized to dispense or
otherwise handle controlled substances under the laws of Florida.
Accordingly . . . the [r]espondent's DEA registration must be
revoked[.]'').
Respondent further argues that I should consider that the Nursing
Board's case ``is the ``result of her wrongful indictment'' by the
United States Attorney and that the latter has admitted that he ``lacks
the evidence to substantiate the criminal indictment against'' her.
This argument is simply a
[[Page 14892]]
collateral attack on the State Board's proceeding, whose order
suspending her state authority remains in effect as of this date. The
Agency has held, however, ``that a registrant cannot collaterally
attack the result of a state criminal or administrative proceeding in a
proceeding under section 304, 21 U.S.C. 824, of the CSA.'' Muzaffer
Aslan, 77 FR 37068, 37069 (2012) (other citations omitted). ``Rather,
Respondent's challenge to the validity of the [Nursing Board's] Order
must be litigated in the forums provided by the State of [Arkansas],
and [her] contentions regarding the validity of the [Board's] order are
not material to this Agency's resolution of whether [she] is entitled
to maintain [her] DEA registration in'' Arkansas. Id.
Because it is undisputed that Respondent's Arkansas Advanced
Practice Nursing License remains suspended, I find that she no longer
has authority under the laws of Arkansas, the State in which she is
registered, to dispense controlled substances. See Ark. Code Ann.
Section 17-87-310 (b)(1) (``An advanced practice registered nurse with
a certificate of prescriptive authority may receive and prescribe
drugs, medicines, or therapeutic devices appropriate to the advanced
practice registered nurse's areas of practice in accordance with rules
established by the Arkansas State Board of Nursing.''). Therefore, she
is not entitled to maintain her DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3). Accordingly, I will order that her
registration be revoked and that any pending application to renew or
modify her registration be denied.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While Respondent also asked that I stay the revocation of
her registration pending the resolution of the criminal case and
nursing board proceeding, I decline to do so. As the Agency has
previously explained, ``in circumstances similar to those raised by
Respondent, DEA has repeatedly denied requests to stay the issuance
of a final order of revocation, noting that [u]nder the Controlled
Substances Act, a practitioner must be currently authorized to
handle controlled substances in the jurisdiction in which [she]
practices in order to maintain [her] DEA registration.'' Gregory F.
Saric, 76 FR 16821, 16822 (2011) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Of further note, Respondent's advanced practice nursing
license was suspended more than 8 months ago, and yet her license
still remains suspended. And while Respondent asserts that the
Nursing Board's suspension is the result of the wrongful indictment,
she ignores that the Board's order also relied on her having
``prescribed opioids from November 13, 2014 through January 7, 2015
without prescriptive authority.'' Nursing Board Order, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of
Registration MR1972632, issued to Kristen Lee Raines, A.P.R.N., be, and
it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of Kristen
Lee Raines, A.P.R.N., to renew or modify this registration be, and it
hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the same reasons which led the Nursing Board to conclude
``that an emergency exists constituting a threat to the public
health, safety and welfare'' and to order the summary suspension of
Respondent's licenses, I conclude that the public interest
necessitates that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR
1316.67.
Dated: March 11, 2016.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-06103 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
