Quiero saber acerca de...

30494

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 8, 2021 / Notices
Washington, DC 20530, 2023076607, jill.ptacek@usdoj.gov.
FR Doc. 202111916 Filed 6721; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 441011P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration Docket No. 1731

Jennifer L. St. Croix, M.D.; Order Denying Motion To Stay
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

I. Introduction On April 12, 2021, I issued a Decision and Order revoking, effective May 12, 2021, Certificate of Registration No.
FS2669868 issued to Jennifer L. St.
Croix, M.D. hereinafter, Petitioner at a registered address in Tennessee.
Jennifer L. St. Croix, M.D., 86 FR 19010
April 12, 2021 hereinafter, April 12, 2021 Decision/Order. On May 6, 2021, Petitioners Counsel filed by email with the Drug Enforcement Administration Office of the Administrative Law Judges hereinafter, OALJ a Motion to Stay Enforcement Pending Appeal hereinafter, Motion to Stay and served by email the Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Chief Counsel hereinafter, DEA or Government. The OALJ forwarded the Motion to Stay to my office. On May 7, 2021, I ordered the Government to respond to Petitioners Motion to Stay no later than 5:00 p.m.
on Monday, May 10, 2021. The Government filed a timely response hereinafter, Govt Opposition, arguing that the Motion to Stay should be denied.
Later in the day of May 7, 2021, the United States Department of Justice alerted my office that Petitioner had filed a pro se petition with the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals for review of my April 12, 2021 Decision/
Order. Petition for Review of Agency Decision, St. Croix v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 211116
dated May 5, 2021 hereinafter, Review Petition. Petitioner identified her address on her Review Petition to be in Las Vegas, Nevada. Review Petition, at 1.
Having considered the merits of Petitioners Motion to Stay and of the Governments Response in conjunction with the record evidence, I deny Petitioners Motion to Stay.
II. The April 12, 2021 Decision/Order Petitioner requested a hearing on the allegations that the Order to Show Cause hereinafter, OSC made against her. 86 FR at 19011. She attended the hearing with her attorney. Id. at 19018.
After the Government rested,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:36 Jun 07, 2021

Jkt 253001

Petitioners counsel made a motion for summary disposition. Id. at 1901718.
After the Chief Administrative Law Judge hereinafter, ALJ heard from both the Petitioners and the Governments counsels on the motion, he ruled on the motion from the bench, denying it in part and reserving it in part. Id.
Petitioner then advised the Chief ALJ
that she chose not to present a case. Id.
at 19018. Following discussion about that decision, Petitioner sought and obtained from the Chief ALJ time to consult with her attorney. Id. After the opportunity to consult, Petitioner restated her decision not to put on a case.
Id. Accordingly, Petitioner knowingly declined the opportunity to offer documentary evidence and oral testimony for the record.
In my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order, I found that Petitioner had committed such acts as would render . . . her registration inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. 824a4. The acts alleged in the OSC for which I found the Government had submitted substantial evidentiary support for the record and had proven were legal violations were 1 that Petitioner issued controlled substance prescriptions for no legitimate purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice, 2 that Petitioner failed to maintain medical records pertaining to her prescribing of controlled substances, 3 that Petitioner provided misleading information to investigating DEA agents, 4 that Petitioner failed to provide fullycompliant controlled substance prescription drug logs to DEA for periods during which she issued controlled substance prescriptions, 5
that Petitioner stored controlled substances at an unregistered location, and 6 that Petitioner failed to provide effective controls or procedures to guard against the theft or diversion of controlled substances. 86 FR at 19019
21, 1902325. I did not find substantial evidence and/or a legal basis to support the OSCs allegations 1 that Petitioner had continued to issue controlled substance prescriptions to individuals who are intimate or close acquaintances, and to an individual with whom she had a romantic interaction, 2 that Petitioner violated 21 U.S.C.
843a4A by failing to comply with the terms of her June 2011
Memorandum of Agreement hereinafter, MOA with DEA, 3 that Petitioner did not maintain records of the controlled substances she dispensed, and 4 that Petitioner did not conduct an initial inventory of the controlled substances she received. Id.
at 1901920, 1902225.

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

In adjudicating the OSC issued to Petitioner, I found that Petitioner made legal arguments that conflict with a core principle of the Controlled Substances Act hereinafter, CSAthe establishment of a closed regulatory system devised to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels. Gonzales v. Raich, 545
U.S. 1, 1314, 27 2005. I found that Petitioner proposed a course of action regarding the storage of controlled substances that would be a danger to public health and safety as it would allow the storage of controlled substances anywhere, as long as no dispensing took place at the location. 86
FR at 19024. I declined to accept Petitioners arguments, concluding that to do so would conflict with my authority under the CSA and would establish a dangerous policy. Id.
In my adjudication of the OSC issued to Petitioner, I also determined that Petitioner urged me to accept positions that minimize statutory and regulatory inventory requirements. Id. I rejected those positions as well.
III. Petitioners Motion To Stay Petitioner argues that there are multiple reasons why her Motion to Stay satisfies the applicable legal standard and why I should grant her requested relief. First, she argues that there is a substantial likelihood that her review petition will prevail because she has had no further issues regarding her prescribing and management of controlled substances . . . over the past seven years. Motion to Stay, at 3.
Petitioner also argues that the reviewing Circuit Court will find in her favor because the penalty I assessed in my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order is excessive, unjust, and disproportionate to her actions based on her review of other administrative actions against physicians. Id. at 4.
Second, Petitioner posits that she will suffer irreparable injury if enforcement of my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order is not stayed. It would be difficult, the Motion to Stay argues, to overstate the impact that the loss of her DEA
registration would have on . . . her ability to earn a living. Id. She states that enforcement of my April 12, 2021
Decision/Order will result in the immediate loss of her current position and essentially make her unemployable as a physician. Id. She also states that she will not be able to recover her lost income that will result from her sudden unemployment and that a stay of enforcement would allow . . . her to continue to support herself while she explores other employment opportunities. Id. at 5.

E:FRFM08JNN1.SGM

08JNN1