Sunshine Act Meetings, 71431 [2024-19780]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2024 / Notices
physician for a physician assistant’s
actions. Moreover, this argument
demonstrates a blatant attempt by
Respondent to shift the blame to his
supervising physician for his own
failure to exercise basic due diligence in
staying apprised of whether an
agreement critical to the propriety of his
work as a physician’s assistant remained
active. Respondent also attempted to
shift the blame to the PALS system,
stating in his Exceptions that ‘‘[i]t is
unreasonable to expect [Respondent]
not to consider the information in an
official state licensing portal accurate or
to expect it to be error-prone. The
responsibility lies with the state to make
sure the system is functioning
properly.’’ Exceptions, at 3. As
previously noted, Respondent himself
acknowledged that the PALS system can
be inaccurate regarding the dates for
current agreements, see supra I.2; Tr. 64,
and once again, basic due diligence on
the part of Respondent as well as proper
and ongoing communication with his
supervising physician would have
ensured that Respondent would not
have needed to rely solely on PALS to
know whether their supervising
agreement remained active.
Ultimately, the ALJ concluded, and
the Agency agrees, that Respondent has
not demonstrated unequivocal
acceptance of responsibility for his
actions. Id. (citing Jones Total Health
Care Pharmacy, L.L.C. & SND Health
Care, L.L.C., 81 FR 79188, 79201–02
(2016)).17
In addition to acceptance of
responsibility, the Agency considers
both specific and general deterrence
when determining an appropriate
sanction. Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR
74810. In this case, the Agency agrees
with the ALJ that, regarding specific
deterrence, ‘‘there is no reason to
believe that the Respondent’s behavior
will not recur in the future, as he failed
to accept responsibility and repeatedly
attempted to justify his conduct.’’ RD, at
29 (citing Gilbert Y. Kim, D.D.S., 87 FR
21139, 21144–45 (2022)). Further, the
Agency agrees with the ALJ that the
interests of general deterrence also
support revocation, as a lack of sanction
in the current matter would send a
message to the registrant community
that ‘‘one can ignore the law and yet
tkelley on LAP7H3WLY3PROD with NOTICES2
17 When
a registrant fails to make the threshold
showing of acceptance of responsibility, the Agency
need not address the registrant’s remedial measures.
Ajay S. Ahuja, M.D., 84 FR 5479, 5498 n.33 (2019)
(citing Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 81 FR
79202–03); Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR 74800,
74801, 74,810 (2015). Even so, in the current matter,
the ALJ noted, and the Agency has considered, that
Respondent is presently covered by a written
agreement with Dr. P. RD, at 28 n.44; Tr. 63–64; RX
1, at 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:46 Aug 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
incur no consequences from having
done so.’’ Id. at 29–30 (citing Joseph
Gaudio, M.D., 74 FR 10083, 10095
(2009)). Moreover, the Agency agrees
with the ALJ that Respondent’s actions
were egregious, as Respondent issued
seventeen controlled substance
prescriptions to multiple patients
without an active written agreement in
place with a supervising physician. Id.
at 29.18
In sum, Respondent has not offered
any credible evidence on the record to
rebut the Government’s case for
revocation of his registration and
Respondent has not demonstrated that
he can be entrusted with the
responsibility of registration. Id. at 30.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Respondent’s registration be revoked.19
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. MM3329578 issued
to Stephen McCarthy, P.A. Further,
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending
applications of Stephen McCarthy, P.A.,
to renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
71431
Stephen McCarthy, P.A., for additional
registration in Pennsylvania. This Order
is effective October 3, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on August 19, 2024, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
DEA. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024–19730 Filed 8–30–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Sunshine Act Meetings
18 In
his Exceptions, Respondent argues that
‘‘even if it is believed that [Respondent] is guilty of
misconduct, that misconduct . . . was not of a
severity that warrants the extreme measure of
revocation.’’ Exceptions, at 4. Respondent also
claims, without citing to any specific Agency
precedent, that ‘‘[s]imilar or more severe violations
have resulted in lesser punishments, such as fines,
reprimands, or temporary suspension’’ and
‘‘revocation would represent an inconsistency in
the application of penalties.’’ Id. The Agency
possesses discretion to order a sanction lesser than
revocation, however, the Agency finds that
‘‘exercising that discretion here would ill-serve the
public interest’’ because ‘‘Respondent has not
shown that [he] can be entrusted with the
responsibility carried by [his] registration—having
failed to accept responsibility for [his] conduct, [the
Agency has] no assurance that Respondent would
not repeat the conduct if [he was] to retain a
registration.’’ The Pharmacy Place, 86 FR 21008,
21016 (2021).
19 For his final Exception, Respondent argues that
the ALJ’s removal restrictions are unconstitutional
under Jarkesy v. SEC, which held that the removal
protections for ALJs of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) are unconstitutional (while
declining to decide whether that conclusion would
entitle the plaintiff to vacatur of the challenged
agency decision). Jarkesy v. SEC, 34 F.4th 446, 463–
465, 463 n.17 (5th Cir. 2022), aff’d on other
grounds, SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. ll (2024), No.
22–859 (June 27, 2024). Jarksey was decided on the
understanding that ‘‘the SEC Commissioners may
only be removed by the President for good cause,’’
and thus there were ‘‘two layers of insulation’’ that
‘‘impede[d] the President’s power to remove’’ the
SEC’s ALJs. Id. at 464–465. By contrast, there is no
doubt that the President may remove the Attorney
General at will. Accordingly, Jarkesy can and
should be distinguished from the instant situation
with respect to DEA’s ALJs, and the Agency finds
Respondent’s Exception to be unpersuasive.
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The National Science Board’s
Committee on Strategy hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of a
teleconference for the transaction of
National Science Board business
pursuant to the NSF Act and the
Government in the Sunshine Act.
Tuesday, September 3,
2024, from 2–3 p.m. eastern.
TIME AND DATE:
This meeting will be via
videoconference through the National
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
PLACE:
STATUS:
Closed.
The agenda
is: Chair’s Opening Remarks;
Presentation and discussion of NSF’s FY
2026 Budget Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget; Committee
recommendation to NSB related to
NSF’s FY 2026 Budget Submission to
the Office of Management and Budget.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Point of contact for this meeting is:
Chris Blair, cblair@nsf.gov, 703/292–
7000. Meeting information and updates
may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.
Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024–19780 Filed 8–29–24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
U:\REGISTER\03SEN1.SGM
03SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 71431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19780]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Sunshine Act Meetings
The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of
National Science Board business pursuant to the NSF Act and the
Government in the Sunshine Act.
TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, September 3, 2024, from 2-3 p.m. eastern.
PLACE: This meeting will be via videoconference through the National
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
STATUS: Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda is: Chair's Opening Remarks;
Presentation and discussion of NSF's FY 2026 Budget Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget; Committee recommendation to NSB
related to NSF's FY 2026 Budget Submission to the Office of Management
and Budget.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting
is: Chris Blair, [email protected], 703/292-7000. Meeting information and
updates may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.
Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-19780 Filed 8-29-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
