95-22921. Carmencita E. Gallosa, M.D.; Revocation of Registration  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 179 (Friday, September 15, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 47967-47968]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-22921]
    
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    
    Drug Enforcement Administration
    [Docket No. 95-24]
    
    
    Carmencita E. Gallosa, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
    
        On March 7, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
    Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
    Order to Show Cause to Carmencita E. Gallosa, M.D. (Respondent), of 
    Paintsville, Kentucky. The Order to Show Cause proposed to revoke 
    Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, AG9685162, under 21 
    U.S.C. 824(a) (3), (4) and (5) and deny any pending applications for 
    renewal of such registration under 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
        Respondent, through counsel, requested a hearing on the issues 
    raised by the Order to Show Cause, and the matter was placed on the 
    docket of Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. On April 21, 
    1995, the Government filed a motion for summary disposition, alleging 
    that Respondent was not authorized to handle controlled substances in 
    the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On May 1, 1995, Respondent responded to 
    the Government's motion, arguing that her medical license had only been 
    temporarily suspended by the Board, and that any action by DEA should 
    be delayed until the Board holds an evidentiary hearing regarding 
    Respondent's medical license.
        On May 10, 1995, in her opinion and recommended decision, the 
    administrative law judge granted the Government's motion for summary 
    disposition and recommended that Respondent's DEA Certificate of 
    Registration be revoked and that any pending applications for 
    registration be denied. On May 25, 1995, Respondent filed exceptions to 
    the opinion and recommended decision of the administrative law judge. 
    On June 12, 1994, the administrative law judge transmitted the record 
    to the Deputy Administrator. The Deputy Administrator has carefully 
    considered the entire record in this matter and, pursuant to 21 CFR 
    1316.67, hereby issues his final order in this matter based upon 
    findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth.
        The administrative law judge found that the Government's motion for 
    summary disposition alleged that Respondent is not authorized to handle 
    controlled substances in Kentucky. The Government's motion was based on 
    the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure's January 19, 1995, Order of 
    Temporary 
    
    [[Page 47968]]
    Suspension of Respondent's medical license. The administrative law 
    judge also found that Respondent's response to the Government's motion 
    did not deny that her state license has been temporarily suspended. The 
    administrative law judge therefore concurred with the Government's 
    motion regarding Respondent's lack of state authorization to handle 
    controlled substances in Kentucky.
        The Drug Enforcement Administration cannot register or maintain the 
    registration of a practitioner who is not duly authorized to handle 
    controlled substances in the state in which he conducts his business. 
    21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been 
    consistently upheld. See James H. Nickens, M.D., 57 FR 59847 (1992); 
    Elliott Monroe, M.D., 57 FR 23246 (1992); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 
    11919 (1988).
        The administrative law judge properly granted the Government's 
    motion for summary disposition. It is well-settled that when no 
    question of fact is involved, or when the facts are agreed upon, a 
    plenary, adversary administrative proceeding involving evidence and 
    cross-examination of witnesses is not obligatory. The rationale is that 
    Congress does not intend administrative agencies to perform meaningless 
    tasks. Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. 
    Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite, 
    N.D., 43 FR 11873 (1978; see also, NLRB v. International Association of 
    Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 
    (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Consolidated Mines and Smelting Co., 
    Ltd., 455 F.2d 432, 453 (9th Cir. 1971).
        In her exceptions to the opinion and recommended decision of the 
    administrative law judge, the Respondent argued, inter alia, that: her 
    state medical license had been temporarily suspended; DEA does not 
    possess the authority to suspend or revoke Respondent's DEA 
    registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) under the circumstances of 
    this case; and, the administrative law judge exceeded her authority by 
    recommending revocation of Respondent's DEA registration without 
    affording Respondent a hearing.
        The Respondent acknowledged in her exceptions that she is 
    temporarily suspended from the practice of medicine in the Commonwealth 
    of Kentucky. The action taken by the Board in suspending Respondent's 
    state license to practice medicine has rendered the Respondent without 
    authorization to handle controlled substances in the jurisdiction in 
    which she maintains her DEA registration. As outlined above, DEA cannot 
    register the Respondent to handle controlled substances without such 
    authority, and therefore, the administrative law judge's 
    recommendations in this matter were appropriate. As a result, the 
    Deputy Administrator finds that there is no need to address the 
    remaining arguments as set forth in Respondent's exceptions.
        Moreover, since Respondent is not currently authorized to handle 
    controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is not 
    necessary to reach a conclusion regarding the other grounds for 
    revocation alleged in the Order to Show Cause. The Deputy Administrator 
    hereby adopts the opinion and recommended decision of the 
    administrative law judge in its entirety.
        Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
    Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 
    823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA 
    Certificate of Registration, AG9685162, previously issued to Carmencita 
    E. Gallosa, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked, and that any pending 
    applications for renewal of such registration be, and they hereby are, 
    denied. This order is effective October 16, 1995.
    
        Dated: September 8, 1995.
    Stephen H. Greene,
    Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 95-22921 Filed 9-14-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
09/15/1995
Department:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-22921
Pages:
47967-47968 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 95-24
PDF File:
95-22921.pdf