Leia A. Frickey, M.D.; Decision and Order, 37113-37114 [2017-16700]
Download as PDF
37113
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Notices
information. Any person that is neither
a party to the five-year review nor an
interested party may submit a brief
written statement (which shall not
contain any new factual information)
pertinent to the review by August 8,
2017. However, should the Department
of Commerce extend the time limit for
its completion of the final results of its
review, the deadline for comments
(which may not contain new factual
information) on Commerce’s final
results is three business days after the
issuance of Commerce’s results. If
comments contain business proprietary
information (BPI), they must conform
with the requirements of sections 201.6,
207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s
rules. The Commission’s rules with
respect to filing were revised effective
July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25,
2014), and the revised Commission
Handbook on E-filing, available from the
Commission’s Web site at https://
edis.usitc.gov.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document
filed by a party to the review must be
served on all other parties to the review
(as identified by either the public or BPI
service list), and a certificate of service
must be timely filed. The Secretary will
not accept a document for filing without
a certificate of service.
Determination.—The Commission has
determined this review is
extraordinarily complicated and
therefore has determined to exercise its
authority to extend the review period by
up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(5)(B).
Authority: This review is being
conducted under authority of title VII of
the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is
published pursuant to section 207.62 of
the Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 3, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–16677 Filed 8–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
Company
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
The DEA has considered the factors in
21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and
determined that the registration of the
listed registrants to import the
applicable basic classes of schedule I or
II 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 each company’s
maintenance of effective controls
against diversion by inspecting and
testing each company’s physical
security systems, verifying each
company’s compliance with state and
local laws, and reviewing each
company’s background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance
with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has
granted a registration as an importer for
schedule I or II controlled substances to
the above listed persons.
[FR Doc. 2017–16698 Filed 8–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:16 Aug 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Registration
ACTION:
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have
applied for and been granted
registration by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) as importers of
various classes of schedule I or II
controlled substances.
SUMMARY:
The
companies listed below applied to be
registered as importers of various basic
classes of controlled substances.
Information on previously published
notices is listed in the table below. No
comments or objections were submitted
and no requests for hearing were
submitted for these notices.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FR docket
Cambridge Isotope Laboratories ...............................................
Janssen Ortho LLC ....................................................................
Galephar Pharmaceutical Research, Inc. ..................................
Mallinckrodt LLC ........................................................................
Cerilliant Corporation .................................................................
Dated: August 2, 2017.
Demetra Ashley,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
82
82
82
82
82
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
19083
19083
23069
23071
25335
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Leia A. Frickey, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On February 28, 2017, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Leia A. Frickey, M.D.
(Registrant), of New Orleans, Louisiana.
The Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of
Registration, the denial of any
applications to renew or modify her
registration, and the denial of any
applications for any other DEA
registration on the ground that she lacks
‘‘state authority to handle controlled
substances’’ in Louisiana, the State in
which she is registered with the DEA.
Order to Show Cause, at 1 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
With respect to the Agency’s
jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Registrant is registered as a
practitioner in schedules II through V,
pursuant to DEA Certificate of
Registration BF5029574, at the address
of 3312 South I–10 Service Road,
Metairie, Louisiana. Id. The Order also
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Published
Sfmt 4703
April 25, 2017.
April 25, 2017.
May 19, 2017.
May 19, 2017.
June 1, 2017.
alleged that this registration does not
expire until September 30, 2017. Id.
As substantive grounds for the
proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that on May 6, 2016, the
Louisiana State Board of Medical
Examiners issued a ‘‘Notice of Summary
Suspension of Medical License,
summarily suspending [Registrant’s]
medical license.’’ 1 Id. at 1. As a result,
the Order alleged that Registrant is
‘‘currently without authority to practice
medicine or handle controlled
substances in . . . Louisiana, the [S]tate
in which [she is] registered with the
DEA.’’ Id. at 2. Thus, based on her ‘‘lack
of authority to [dispense] controlled
substances in . . . Louisiana,’’ the Order
asserted that ‘‘DEA must revoke’’ her
1 The Show Cause Order also alleges that ‘‘on July
25, 2016, the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy issued
a Notice of Suspension, suspending [Registrant’s]
Louisiana CDS license, number CDS.024813–MD,
effective May 6, 2016.’’ Id. at 1–2. Although those
exact facts are not reflected in the record, the record
does show that on November 16, 2016, the
Louisiana State Board of Pharmacy issued an Order
that Registrant’s ‘‘LOUISIANA CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE LICENSE No. 024813 is hereby
indefinitely suspended in accordance with the
suspension of her medical license by the Louisiana
State Board of Medical Examiners on May 6, 2016.’’
See Government Exhibit (GX) 4, at 1.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
37114
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
registration. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3); 21 CFR 1301.37(b)).
The Show Cause Order notified
Registrant of her right to request a
hearing on the allegations or to submit
a written statement in lieu of a hearing,
the procedure for electing either option,
and the consequence for failing to elect
either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). The Show Cause Order also
notified Registrant of her right to submit
a corrective action plan. Id. at 2–3
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
The Government states that on March
16, 2017, ‘‘[p]ersonnel from DEA’s New
Orleans Field Division served the Order
on Registrant.’’ Government Request for
Final Agency Action (RFFA), at 1 (citing
Government Exhibit (GX) 5).
Specifically, a DEA Diversion
Investigator (DI) and DEA Task Force
Officer traveled to a medical center in
Louisiana on March 16, 2017, where the
nursing staff escorted them to her room
where they found the Registrant. GX5, at
1. The DI advised Registrant that he had
a Show Cause Order to serve on her. Id.
According to the DI’s affidavit, the
Registrant then responded ‘‘ ‘You will
not take my DEA number’ and she
refused to take the [Show Cause Order]
document.’’ Id. The DI ‘‘then placed the
[Order] on the night stand next to
[Registrant’s] bed.’’ Id.
On May 19, 2017, the Government
forwarded its Request for Final Agency
Action and an evidentiary record to my
Office. Therein, the Government
represents that Registrant has neither
requested a hearing nor ‘‘otherwise
corresponded or communicated with
DEA regarding’’ the Show Cause Order.
RFFA, at 2. Based on the Government’s
representation and the record, I find that
more than 30 days have passed since the
Order to Show Cause was served on
Registrant, and she has neither
requested a hearing nor submitted a
written statement in lieu of a hearing.
Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(d)).
Accordingly, I find that Registrant has
waived her right to a hearing or to
submit a written statement and issue
this Decision and Order based on
relevant evidence submitted by the
Government. I make the following
findings.
Findings of Fact
Registrant is a physician who is
registered as a practitioner in schedules
II–V pursuant to Certificate of
Registration BF5029574, at the address
of 3312 South I–10 Service Road,
Metairie, Louisiana. GX 1, at 1. The
registration does not expire until
September 30, 2017. Id.
On May 6, 2016, the Louisiana State
Board of Medical Examiners summarily
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:16 Aug 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
suspended Registrant’s medical license
and stated that the suspension was
‘‘effective immediately.’’ GX 3, at 1. On
November 16, 2016, the Louisiana State
Board of Pharmacy ‘‘indefinitely
suspended’’ Registrant’s controlled
substance license ‘‘in accordance with
the suspension of her medical license by
the Louisiana State Board of Medical
Examiners on May 6, 2016.’’ GX 4, at 1.
Based on the above, I find that
Registrant does not currently have
authority under the laws of Louisiana to
dispense controlled substances.
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 of Title 21, ‘‘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.’’
With respect to a practitioner, 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 registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied,
481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); see
also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR
27616 (1978) (‘‘State authorization to
dispense or otherwise handle controlled
substances is a prerequisite to the
issuance and maintenance of a Federal
controlled substances registration.’’).
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 [s]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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in which she engages in professional
practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR
27616 (1978).
Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling
question’’ in a proceeding brought
under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the
holder of a practitioner’s registration ‘‘is
currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’
Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting Anne
Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848
(1997)), the Agency has also long held
that revocation is warranted even where
a practitioner has lost her state authority
by virtue of the State’s use of summary
process and the State has yet to provide
a hearing to challenge the suspension.
Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274
(2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070,
27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no
consequence that the Louisiana State
Board of Medical Examiners has
employed summary process in
suspending Registrant’s state medical
license. What is consequential is that
Registrant is no longer currently
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in Louisiana, the State in
which she is registered. I will therefore
order that her registration be revoked.
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 No.
BF5029574, issued to Leia A. Frickey,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I
further order that any pending
application of Leia A. Frickey to renew
or modify the above registration, or any
pending application of Leia A. Frickey
for any other registration, be, and it
hereby is, denied. This Order is effective
immediately.
Dated: July 31, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–16700 Filed 8–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Almac Clinical Services
Incorp (ACSI)
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
Notice of application.
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37113-37114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16700]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Leia A. Frickey, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 28, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion
Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Leia A. Frickey, M.D. (Registrant), of New
Orleans, Louisiana. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration, the denial of any
applications to renew or modify her registration, and the denial of any
applications for any other DEA registration on the ground that she
lacks ``state authority to handle controlled substances'' in Louisiana,
the State in which she is registered with the DEA. Order to Show Cause,
at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Registrant is registered as a practitioner in schedules II
through V, pursuant to DEA Certificate of Registration BF5029574, at
the address of 3312 South I-10 Service Road, Metairie, Louisiana. Id.
The Order also alleged that this registration does not expire until
September 30, 2017. Id.
As substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that on May 6, 2016, the Louisiana State Board of Medical
Examiners issued a ``Notice of Summary Suspension of Medical License,
summarily suspending [Registrant's] medical license.'' \1\ Id. at 1. As
a result, the Order alleged that Registrant is ``currently without
authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in . . .
Louisiana, the [S]tate in which [she is] registered with the DEA.'' Id.
at 2. Thus, based on her ``lack of authority to [dispense] controlled
substances in . . . Louisiana,'' the Order asserted that ``DEA must
revoke'' her
[[Page 37114]]
registration. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); 21 CFR 1301.37(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Show Cause Order also alleges that ``on July 25, 2016,
the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy issued a Notice of Suspension,
suspending [Registrant's] Louisiana CDS license, number CDS.024813-
MD, effective May 6, 2016.'' Id. at 1-2. Although those exact facts
are not reflected in the record, the record does show that on
November 16, 2016, the Louisiana State Board of Pharmacy issued an
Order that Registrant's ``LOUISIANA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LICENSE No.
024813 is hereby indefinitely suspended in accordance with the
suspension of her medical license by the Louisiana State Board of
Medical Examiners on May 6, 2016.'' See Government Exhibit (GX) 4,
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Show Cause Order notified Registrant of her right to request a
hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of
a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the
consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of her right to
submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 2-3 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C)).
The Government states that on March 16, 2017, ``[p]ersonnel from
DEA's New Orleans Field Division served the Order on Registrant.''
Government Request for Final Agency Action (RFFA), at 1 (citing
Government Exhibit (GX) 5). Specifically, a DEA Diversion Investigator
(DI) and DEA Task Force Officer traveled to a medical center in
Louisiana on March 16, 2017, where the nursing staff escorted them to
her room where they found the Registrant. GX5, at 1. The DI advised
Registrant that he had a Show Cause Order to serve on her. Id.
According to the DI's affidavit, the Registrant then responded `` `You
will not take my DEA number' and she refused to take the [Show Cause
Order] document.'' Id. The DI ``then placed the [Order] on the night
stand next to [Registrant's] bed.'' Id.
On May 19, 2017, the Government forwarded its Request for Final
Agency Action and an evidentiary record to my Office. Therein, the
Government represents that Registrant has neither requested a hearing
nor ``otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA regarding'' the
Show Cause Order. RFFA, at 2. Based on the Government's representation
and the record, I find that more than 30 days have passed since the
Order to Show Cause was served on Registrant, and she has neither
requested a hearing nor submitted a written statement in lieu of a
hearing. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(d)). Accordingly, I find that
Registrant has waived her right to a hearing or to submit a written
statement and issue this Decision and Order based on relevant evidence
submitted by the Government. I make the following findings.
Findings of Fact
Registrant is a physician who is registered as a practitioner in
schedules II-V pursuant to Certificate of Registration BF5029574, at
the address of 3312 South I-10 Service Road, Metairie, Louisiana. GX 1,
at 1. The registration does not expire until September 30, 2017. Id.
On May 6, 2016, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
summarily suspended Registrant's medical license and stated that the
suspension was ``effective immediately.'' GX 3, at 1. On November 16,
2016, the Louisiana State Board of Pharmacy ``indefinitely suspended''
Registrant's controlled substance license ``in accordance with the
suspension of her medical license by the Louisiana State Board of
Medical Examiners on May 6, 2016.'' GX 4, at 1. Based on the above, I
find that Registrant does not currently have authority under the laws
of Louisiana to dispense controlled substances.
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 of Title
21, ``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.'' With respect to a practitioner,
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 registration. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed.
Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR
27616 (1978) (``State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle
controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance
of a Federal controlled substances registration.'').
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 [s]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 engages in professional practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR 27616
(1978).
Moreover, because ``the controlling question'' in a proceeding
brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a
practitioner's registration ``is currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,'' Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting
Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long
held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner has lost
her state authority by virtue of the State's use of summary process and
the State has yet to provide a hearing to challenge the suspension.
Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR
27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that the Louisiana
State Board of Medical Examiners has employed summary process in
suspending Registrant's state medical license. What is consequential is
that Registrant is no longer currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in Louisiana, the State in which she is
registered. I will therefore order that her registration be revoked.
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 No. BF5029574, issued to Leia A. Frickey, M.D., be, and it
hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of
Leia A. Frickey to renew or modify the above registration, or any
pending application of Leia A. Frickey for any other registration, be,
and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.
Dated: July 31, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-16700 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P