81 FR 44049 - Prianglam Brooks, N.P.; Decision and Order
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 129 (July 6, 2016)
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 129 (July 6, 2016)
| Page Range | 44049-44050 | |
| FR Document | 2016-15955 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 44049-44050] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-15955] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Prianglam Brooks, N.P.; Decision and Order On April 14, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Prianglam Brooks, N.P. (Respondent), of Houston, Texas. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration MB1907611, which authorizes her 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 and any applications for any other DEA registration, because she does ``not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas, the [S]tate in which'' she is registered with DEA. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3)). More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective February 17, 2015, the Texas Board of Nursing (TBN) issued a summary suspension of Respondent's ``nurse practitioner license'' and her ``Advanced Practice Registered Nurse License with Prescription Authorization,'' resulting in her loss of authority under Texas law ``to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas.'' Id. The Order thus notified Respondent that her DEA registration was subject to revocation based upon her ``lack of authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of her right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waving her right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). On April 29, 2015, a DEA Diversion Investigator personally served the Show Cause Order on Respondent. GX 4. On May 18, 2015, the Office of Administrative Law Judges received a letter from an attorney representing Respondent. GX 5. Therein, Respondent waived her right to a hearing and provided a written statement of her position on the matters of fact and law asserted by the Government. GX 5, at 2-3. On February 16, 2016, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action along with the Investigative Record and Respondent's Statement of Position. Having considered the record in its entirety, I make the following findings of fact. Findings Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration MB1907611, pursuant to which she is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules III through V, as a mid-level practitioner, at the registered location of Prillenium Healthcare, 6260 WestPark Drive, Suite 260, Houston, Texas. GX 2. Her registration was last renewed in June 2014 and expires on July 31, 2017. Id. Respondent is also the holder of Advanced Practice Registered Nurse License No. AP119040 with Prescription Authorization No. 10237 and Permanent Registered Nurse License No. 784525 issued by the Texas Board of Nursing. GX 3. However, on February 17, 2015, the Board ordered the temporary suspension of Respondent's licenses, finding that her continued practice as a nurse ``constitutes a continuing and imminent threat to the public welfare.'' GX 3, at 1. As support for its imminent threat finding, the Board found that Respondent, while employed as a family nurse practitioner and owner of Prillenium Healthcare, prescribed 8,614 dangerous cocktail drugs without therapeutic benefit and failed to individually assess each patient and develop an individualized treatment plan. Id. at 1-2 (citations omitted). The Board also found that ``Respondent's non- therapeutic prescribing practices constitute grounds for disciplinary action.'' Id. at 2 (citations omitted). The Board also found that ``[o]n or about October 7, 2014 through December 12, 2014 . . . Respondent issued 410 prescriptions for hydrocodone, a Schedule II controlled substance, to patients not in a hospital setting or receiving hospice care.'' Id. Finding that Respondent ``does not have prescriptive authority to issue prescription for schedule II controlled substances,'' the Board also found that ``Respondent's prescribing practice . . . places patients at risk and endangers public safety.'' Id. The Board then alleged that Respondent's prescribing of schedule II controlled substances constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Id. (citations omitted). The Board further found that Respondent owned and operated a pain clinic in violation of a state regulation, and that she issued prescriptions from a location not registered with the Texas Medical Board. Id. (citations omitted). The Board alleged that this conduct also constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Id. The Board's Order mandated that both a probable cause hearing and a final hearing on the matter be conducted within 60 days of the entry of its order. Id. at 3. According to Respondent's statement, a hearing was held on April 7, 2015, at which a state administrative law judge ``extended the temporary suspension finding probable cause of a continuing and imminent threat to the public safety.'' GX 5, at 2. According to an online query of the Board's Web site, all of Respondent's licenses remained suspended as of the date of this Order. See http://www.Board.texas.gov/forms/apnrslt.asp. In her Statement, Respondent contends that the Show Cause Order mischaracterizes the Board's temporary suspension as a `` `summary suspension.' '' GX 5, at 2. Respondent argues that the Board's February 17, 2015 temporary suspension was imposed ``prior to notice and hearing.'' Id. While Respondent acknowledges that the Board provided her with ``a probable cause hearing,'' after which it found that she poses ``a continuing and imminent threat to the public safety'' and thus continued the suspension,'' she argues that ``this is not a final order'' [[Page 44050]] and that a final hearing ``has yet to be scheduled.'' Id. (citation omitted). Respondent admits that she is not currently authorized to prescribe any medications in Texas. Id. at 3. She contends, however, that because the temporary suspension ``is not a final order'' of the Board, DEA's authority under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) must be considered in light of the its authority under subsection 824(d), the provision which authorizes the Attorney General to suspend a registration based upon a finding of imminent danger to public health or safety. Id. Respondent thus argues that because a suspension under section 824(d) ``runs until the conclusion of such proceeding, including judicial review, . . . the principle of comity . . . suggest[s] that while a suspension of [her] registration may be appropriate [contingent on the outcome of the Board proceeding], a revocation is not appropriate.'' Id. 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 this title, ``upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had [her] State license . . . suspended . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.'' Also, 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, e.g., Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978) (``State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.''); James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012). This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the Controlled Substances. First, Congress defined ``the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which [s]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 long held 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). This is so even where, as here, the state board has imposed a suspension of a practitioner's dispensing authority prior to providing a hearing and the practitioner has yet to be afforded the opportunity to challenge the basis of the state board's action. See, Ramsey 76 FR at 20036 (citations omitted). As the Agency previously explained: ``Under the CSA, it does not matter whether the suspension is for a fixed term or for a duration which has yet to be determined because it is continuing pending the outcome of a state proceeding. Rather, what matters--as DEA has repeatedly held--is whether Respondent is without authority under [state] law to dispense a controlled substance.'' Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007) (citation omitted). Cf. James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting cases); Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (revoking registration of physician whose medical license had been suspended for one year, but thereafter, would have his license restored subject to probationary conditions; ``[a]s 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''). See also Rezik A. Saqer, 81 FR 22122, 22126 (2016). Because the CSA clearly makes the possession of state authority a condition for maintaining a practitioner's registration, it is of no consequence that the Texas Board's temporary suspension order is not a final order of the Board. As for her contention that the principle of comity suggests that I should impose a suspension rather than a revocation, revoking her registration in no manner interferes with the Texas Board's authority to adjudicate the allegations it has raised against her.\1\ Respondent remains free to challenge the allegations raised by the State before the Board, and in the event she prevails, she can immediately apply for a new DEA registration. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Respondent's invocation of 21 U.S.C. 824(d) provides no support for her contention that comity suggests that I suspend rather than revoke her registration. That provision governs the exercise of the Agency's authority to immediately suspend a DEA registration, ``simultaneously with the institution of proceedings under'' section 824(a), based upon a finding that a registrant poses ``an imminent danger to public health or safety.'' The provision says nothing about the Agency's authority where a registrant's state authority has been suspended prior to hearing. Section 824(a) does, however, and while it provides the Attorney General with discretionary authority to suspend or revoke upon making one or more of the five enumerated findings, for the reasons explained above, the specific provisions that apply to practitioners establish that a registrant who loses her state authority no longer meets the definition of a practitioner and cannot retain her registration even in a suspended status. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, because it is undisputed that Respondent's Texas Advanced Practice Nursing License and Prescription Authority remains suspended, I find that she no longer has authority under the laws of Texas, the State in which she is registered, to dispense controlled substances. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintain her DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that her registration be revoked and that any pending applications be denied. 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 MB1907611, issued to Prianglam Brooks, N.P., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of Prianglam Brooks, N.P., to renew or modify this registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ For the same reasons which led the Nursing Board to conclude that the continued practice of nursing by Respondent constitutes ``a continuing and imminent threat to public 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: June 27, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016-15955 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / Notices 44049
simultaneously with the Attorney Respondent’s ‘‘nurse practitioner nurse practitioner and owner of
General and the Federal Trade license’’ and her ‘‘Advanced Practice Prillenium Healthcare, prescribed 8,614
Commission disclosing additions or Registered Nurse License with dangerous cocktail drugs without
changes to its standards development Prescription Authorization,’’ resulting therapeutic benefit and failed to
activities. The notifications were filed in her loss of authority under Texas law individually assess each patient and
for the purpose of extending the Act’s ‘‘to handle controlled substances in the develop an individualized treatment
provisions limiting the recovery of State of Texas.’’ Id. The Order thus plan. Id. at 1–2 (citations omitted). The
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages notified Respondent that her DEA Board also found that ‘‘Respondent’s
under specified circumstances. registration was subject to revocation non-therapeutic prescribing practices
Specifically, since January 26, 2016, based upon her ‘‘lack of authority to constitute grounds for disciplinary
ASME has initiated two new standards handle controlled substances in the action.’’ Id. at 2 (citations omitted).
activities within the general nature and State of Texas.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. The Board also found that ‘‘[o]n or
scope of ASME’s standards 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3)). about October 7, 2014 through
development activities, as specified in The Show Cause Order also notified December 12, 2014 . . . Respondent
its original notification, and has Respondent of her right to request a issued 410 prescriptions for
discontinued three standards activities. hearing on the allegations or to submit hydrocodone, a Schedule II controlled
More detail regarding these changes can a written statement while waving her substance, to patients not in a hospital
be found at www.asme.org. right to a hearing, the procedure for setting or receiving hospice care.’’ Id.
On September 15, 2004, ASME filed electing either option, and the Finding that Respondent ‘‘does not have
its original notification pursuant to consequence for failing to elect either prescriptive authority to issue
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). prescription for schedule II controlled
of Justice published a notice in the On April 29, 2015, a DEA Diversion substances,’’ the Board also found that
Federal Register pursuant to section Investigator personally served the Show ‘‘Respondent’s prescribing practice . . .
6(b) of the Act on October 13, 2004 (69 Cause Order on Respondent. GX 4. places patients at risk and endangers
FR 60895). On May 18, 2015, the Office of public safety.’’ Id. The Board then
The last notification with the Administrative Law Judges received a alleged that Respondent’s prescribing of
Attorney General was filed on January letter from an attorney representing schedule II controlled substances
28, 2016. A notice was filed in the Respondent. GX 5. Therein, Respondent constitutes grounds for disciplinary
Federal Register on February 26, 2016 waived her right to a hearing and action. Id. (citations omitted).
(81 FR 9883). provided a written statement of her The Board further found that
position on the matters of fact and law Respondent owned and operated a pain
Patricia A. Brink, clinic in violation of a state regulation,
asserted by the Government. GX 5, at 2–
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust 3. and that she issued prescriptions from
Division. On February 16, 2016, the a location not registered with the Texas
[FR Doc. 2016–15967 Filed 7–5–16; 8:45 am] Government submitted a Request for Medical Board. Id. (citations omitted).
BILLING CODE P Final Agency Action along with the The Board alleged that this conduct also
Investigative Record and Respondent’s constitutes grounds for disciplinary
Statement of Position. Having action. Id.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE considered the record in its entirety, I The Board’s Order mandated that both
make the following findings of fact. a probable cause hearing and a final
Drug Enforcement Administration hearing on the matter be conducted
Findings within 60 days of the entry of its order.
Prianglam Brooks, N.P.; Decision and
Order Respondent is the holder of DEA Id. at 3. According to Respondent’s
Certificate of Registration MB1907611, statement, a hearing was held on April
On April 14, 2015, the Deputy pursuant to which she is authorized to 7, 2015, at which a state administrative
Assistant Administrator, Office of dispense controlled substances in law judge ‘‘extended the temporary
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement schedules III through V, as a mid-level suspension finding probable cause of a
Administration, issued an Order to practitioner, at the registered location of continuing and imminent threat to the
Show Cause to Prianglam Brooks, N.P. Prillenium Healthcare, 6260 WestPark public safety.’’ GX 5, at 2. According to
(Respondent), of Houston, Texas. GX 1, Drive, Suite 260, Houston, Texas. GX 2. an online query of the Board’s Web site,
at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed Her registration was last renewed in all of Respondent’s licenses remained
the revocation of Respondent’s DEA June 2014 and expires on July 31, 2017. suspended as of the date of this Order.
Certificate of Registration MB1907611, Id. See http://www.Board.texas.gov/forms/
which authorizes her to dispense Respondent is also the holder of apnrslt.asp.
controlled substances in schedules III Advanced Practice Registered Nurse In her Statement, Respondent
through V as a mid-level practitioner, as License No. AP119040 with Prescription contends that the Show Cause Order
well as the denial of any pending Authorization No. 10237 and Permanent mischaracterizes the Board’s temporary
applications to renew or modify her Registered Nurse License No. 784525 suspension as a ‘‘ ‘summary
registration and any applications for any issued by the Texas Board of Nursing. suspension.’ ’’ GX 5, at 2. Respondent
other DEA registration, because she does GX 3. However, on February 17, 2015, argues that the Board’s February 17,
‘‘not have authority to handle controlled the Board ordered the temporary 2015 temporary suspension was
substances in the State of Texas, the suspension of Respondent’s licenses, imposed ‘‘prior to notice and hearing.’’
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[S]tate in which’’ she is registered with finding that her continued practice as a Id. While Respondent acknowledges
DEA. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) nurse ‘‘constitutes a continuing and that the Board provided her with ‘‘a
and 824(a)(3)). imminent threat to the public welfare.’’ probable cause hearing,’’ after which it
More specifically, the Show Cause GX 3, at 1. found that she poses ‘‘a continuing and
Order alleged that effective February 17, As support for its imminent threat imminent threat to the public safety’’
2015, the Texas Board of Nursing (TBN) finding, the Board found that and thus continued the suspension,’’
issued a summary suspension of Respondent, while employed as a family she argues that ‘‘this is not a final order’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:04 Jul 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44178/page/1.svg)
![44050 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / Notices
and that a final hearing ‘‘has yet to be the State in which [s]he practices.’’ 21 remains free to challenge the allegations
scheduled.’’ Id. (citation omitted). U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has raised by the State before the Board, and
Respondent admits that she is not clearly mandated that a practitioner in the event she prevails, she can
currently authorized to prescribe any possess state authority in order to be immediately apply for a new DEA
medications in Texas. Id. at 3. She deemed a practitioner under the Act, registration.
contends, however, that because the DEA has long held that revocation of a Accordingly, because it is undisputed
temporary suspension ‘‘is not a final practitioner’s registration is the that Respondent’s Texas Advanced
order’’ of the Board, DEA’s authority appropriate sanction whenever she is no Practice Nursing License and
under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) must be longer authorized to dispense controlled Prescription Authority remains
considered in light of the its authority substances under the laws of the State suspended, I find that she no longer has
under subsection 824(d), the provision in which she practices medicine. See, authority under the laws of Texas, the
which authorizes the Attorney General e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 State in which she is registered, to
to suspend a registration based upon a (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 dispense controlled substances.
finding of imminent danger to public FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Therefore, she is not entitled to
health or safety. Id. Respondent thus Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby maintain her DEA registration.
argues that because a suspension under Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). Accordingly, I will order that her
section 824(d) ‘‘runs until the This is so even where, as here, the registration be revoked and that any
conclusion of such proceeding, state board has imposed a suspension of pending applications be denied.
including judicial review, . . . the a practitioner’s dispensing authority Order
principle of comity . . . suggest[s] that prior to providing a hearing and the
while a suspension of [her] registration practitioner has yet to be afforded the Pursuant to the authority vested in me
may be appropriate [contingent on the opportunity to challenge the basis of the by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
outcome of the Board proceeding], a state board’s action. See, Ramsey 76 FR as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA
revocation is not appropriate.’’ Id. at 20036 (citations omitted). As the Certificate of Registration MB1907611,
Agency previously explained: ‘‘Under issued to Prianglam Brooks, N.P., be,
Discussion and it hereby is, revoked. I further order
the CSA, it does not matter whether the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the suspension is for a fixed term or for a that any application of Prianglam
Attorney General is authorized to Brooks, N.P., to renew or modify this
duration which has yet to be determined
suspend or revoke a registration issued registration, be, and it hereby is, denied.
because it is continuing pending the
under section 823 of this title, ‘‘upon a This Order is effective immediately.2
outcome of a state proceeding. Rather,
finding that the registrant . . . has had Dated: June 27, 2016.
what matters—as DEA has repeatedly
[her] State license . . . suspended . . . Chuck Rosenberg,
held—is whether Respondent is without
by competent State authority and is no
authority under [state] law to dispense Acting Administrator.
longer authorized by State law to engage
a controlled substance.’’ Bourne [FR Doc. 2016–15955 Filed 7–5–16; 8:45 am]
in the . . . dispensing of controlled
Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274 BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
substances.’’ Also, DEA has long held
(2007) (citation omitted). Cf. James L.
that the possession of authority to
dispense controlled substances under Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting
cases); Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
the laws of the State in which a
practitioner engages in professional (revoking registration of physician
whose medical license had been Foreign Claims Settlement
practice is a fundamental condition for Commission
obtaining and maintaining a suspended for one year, but thereafter,
practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., would have his license restored subject [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No.
Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616, to probationary conditions; ‘‘[a]s a result 6–16]
27617 (1978) (‘‘State authorization to of the suspension of his medical license,
the [r]espondent is no longer authorized Sunshine Act Meeting
dispense or otherwise handle controlled
substances is a prerequisite to the to dispense or otherwise handle The Foreign Claims Settlement
issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances under the laws of Commission, pursuant to its regulations
controlled substances registration.’’); Florida. Accordingly . . . the
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), [r]espondent’s DEA registration must be the Agency’s authority to immediately suspend a
pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 revoked’’). See also Rezik A. Saqer, 81 DEA registration, ‘‘simultaneously with the
FR 22122, 22126 (2016). institution of proceedings under’’ section 824(a),
(4th Cir. 2012). based upon a finding that a registrant poses ‘‘an
This rule derives from the text of two Because the CSA clearly makes the imminent danger to public health or safety.’’ The
provisions of the Controlled Substances. possession of state authority a condition provision says nothing about the Agency’s authority
First, Congress defined ‘‘the term for maintaining a practitioner’s where a registrant’s state authority has been
registration, it is of no consequence that suspended prior to hearing. Section 824(a) does,
‘practitioner’ [to] mean[ ] a . . . however, and while it provides the Attorney
physician . . . or other person licensed, the Texas Board’s temporary suspension General with discretionary authority to suspend or
registered or otherwise permitted, by order is not a final order of the Board. revoke upon making one or more of the five
. . . the jurisdiction in which [s]he As for her contention that the principle enumerated findings, for the reasons explained
of comity suggests that I should impose above, the specific provisions that apply to
practices . . . to distribute, dispense, practitioners establish that a registrant who loses
[or] administer . . . a controlled a suspension rather than a revocation, her state authority no longer meets the definition
substance in the course of professional revoking her registration in no manner of a practitioner and cannot retain her registration
interferes with the Texas Board’s even in a suspended status.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in 2 For the same reasons which led the Nursing
setting the requirements for obtaining a authority to adjudicate the allegations it
Board to conclude that the continued practice of
practitioner’s registration, Congress has raised against her.1 Respondent nursing by Respondent constitutes ‘‘a continuing
directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General and imminent threat to public welfare’’ and to order
1 Respondent’s invocation of 21 U.S.C. 824(d) the summary suspension of Respondent’s licenses,
shall register practitioners . . . if the provides no support for her contention that comity I conclude that the public interest necessitates that
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . suggests that I suspend rather than revoke her this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR
controlled substances under the laws of registration. That provision governs the exercise of 1316.67.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:04 Jul 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44178/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2016-07-06 07:56:05
Document Modified: 2016-07-06 07:56:05
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 44049 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR