Je veux savoir à propos de…

sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES

50176

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices
find, based on substantial record evidence, that the Affidavit for Arrest and the Arrest Warrant state that Respondent presented four forged prescriptions for filling in 2009, the year after Respondents 2008 very grave mistake forgery admission described in her Written Statement. RFAAX 4, at 29
31. I find substantial record evidence that one of the instances described in the Arrest Warrant corresponds to the facts underlying Respondents negotiated guilty plea according to the Transcript of that plea. Id. at 9.
There is substantial fact congruity between the evidence submitted by the Government and Respondents Written Statement. The glaring exceptions to this substantial fact congruity are the number of controlled substance prescription forgeries the evidence indicates and the number of times Respondent pled to forging a controlled substance prescription.
Regarding the number of controlled substance prescription forgeries the evidence indicates, there are significant differences between the Written Statements description of the forgery Respondent states took place in 2008, and the forgery underlying her 2009
guilty plea documented in the Governments evidence along with the alleged forgeries described in the Arrest Warrant. These significant differences lead me to conclude that they describe two different forgeries. For example, in its description of the four purported self-prescribed controlled substance prescriptions, the Arrest Warrant differentiates between brand names and generic names for controlled substances.
See, e.g., RFAAX 4, at 31 Arrest Warrant description of four purported self-prescribed controlled substance prescriptions for hydrocodone, Vicodin, Tussionex Pennkinetic, and Vicodin. The Written Statement states that the forged prescription she wrote for herself in 2008 was for Vicodin which is also known as Hydrocodone 5/500 mg. RFAAX 3, at 1. The Transcript of Respondents guilty plea, on the other hand, describes the forged prescription of 2009 to have been for hydrocodone. RFAAX 4, at 7.
While the Written Statement explains that Vicodin is also known as Hydrocodone, this is in direct contrast to the record evidence in the Arrest Warrant that provides the precise name of the controlled substance entered on the purportedly forged prescriptions.
Accordingly, in this context, I find that Vicodin, not hydrocodone, is a noteworthy departure and points to two different forgeries.
By way of further example, according to the Written Statement, Respondent
VerDate Sep<11>2014

00:30 Sep 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

wrote the Vicodin prescription for herself in 2008 on a prescription pad which belonged to . . . her collaborating physician and she presented this prescription to a local pharmacy who notified the physician . . . she worked with and then proceeded to notify the local authorities. RFAAX 3, at 1. According to the Transcript of her 2009 guilty plea, by contrast, the prosecutor stated that Respondent left the employ of a medical practice in 2008 to work for another medical practice. RFAAX 4, at 9.
Several months after that job change, he stated, Respondent presented a forged hydrocodone prescription written on a pad that belonged to the previous employer. Id. at 910. The pharmacy contacted Respondents new employer and then the previous employer who informed them that he did not write or authorize this prescription. Id. at 10.
The previous medical practice notified law enforcement. Id. Neither Respondent nor her Public Defender corrected any part of these prosecutor statements. Instead, the Public Defender added that Respondent had retained the prescription pad from the former employer and forged the prescription while at the subsequent employment.
Id. at 11. I find that the differences between the Written Statement and the guilty plea Transcript on these critical points are too significant to result from faulty memory. I further find that the absence of any correction of those differences by Respondent or her Public Defender during the guilty plea proceeding means that the 2008 forgery described in the Written Statement and the forgery to which Respondent pled guilty in 2009 are not the same.
Consequently, I find that the Written Statement describes a different forgery than the forgery to which Respondent pled guilty and the forgeries alleged in the Arrest Warrant. RFAAX 4, at 31. I
consider the fact that the 2009 guilty plea for forging a controlled substance in the Governments evidence was not an isolated incident in determining the appropriate sanction.6 Infra section IV.
Regarding the number of forgery pleas, the Written Statement describes a 2008 nolo contendere plea for forging a controlled substance prescription.
RFAAX 3, at 1. The conviction described in the Governments evidence is a 2009 guilty plea for forging a controlled substance prescription on February 5, 2009. RFAAX 4, at 316; see 6 Although I find this fact relevant to my determination of a sanction, there is more than enough record evidence without it to support revocation as a sanction based on the Governments prima facie case.

PO 00000

Frm 00165

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

U:07SEN1.SGM

also RFAAX 5, at 1 referring to Respondents plea of guilty to the felony criminal offense of Forgery, First Degree in the Superior Court of Douglas County . . . pertaining to her forging prescriptions in 2009 for pain medication for her own use. I need not sort out whether there were two pleas or one plea because the OSC alleges one felony conviction and because I am carrying out the provisions of 21 U.S.C.
824 regarding that felony conviction alleged in the OSC. 28 CFR 0.100b.
Whether Respondent pled nolo contendere to a violation in 2008 is not an issue presented by the OSC, is not before me for adjudication, and, therefore, I shall not resolve it.
E. Allegation That Respondent Has Been Convicted of a Felony Related to a Controlled Substance 21 U.S.C.
824a2
I find that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent, after leaving employment at a medical practice, retained a prescription pad of a doctor in that medical practice. Id. at 13
statement of Respondents attorney. I
find that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent used the prescription pad after leaving that employment to write prescriptions out for herself without authorization of the doctor to whom the prescription pad belonged. Id. statement of Respondents attorney. I find that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent would have to have gone back to the doctor to get that prescription authorized prior to the time this was done and thats not the way it was done. Id. statement of Respondents attorney.
I find that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent presented for filling a controlled substance hydrocodone prescription on February 5, 2009, that this prescription purported to be issued by a doctor at her former employment, and that this prescription was one of the unauthorized prescriptions Respondent wrote for herself on the prescription pad of a doctor at her former employment. Id. at 9.
I find that there is substantial record evidence that the pharmacist investigated this prescription. Id. at 10.
I find that there is substantial record evidence that the doctor for whom Respondent had previously worked stated that he neither wrote nor authorized the prescription, that this doctor notified his practice, and that the practice notified law enforcement. Id. I
find that there is substantial record evidence that the prosecutor at Respondents sentencing stated that
07SEN1