Department of Professional Regulation v. Goldstein

28 Fla. Supp. 2d 224
CourtState of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings
DecidedDecember 9, 1987
DocketCase Nos. 87-3151 and 87-3913
StatusPublished

This text of 28 Fla. Supp. 2d 224 (Department of Professional Regulation v. Goldstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Department of Professional Regulation v. Goldstein, 28 Fla. Supp. 2d 224 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a formal hearing was conducted on November 10, 1987, at Jacksonville, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing.

[225]*225 ISSUES AND INTRODUCTION

These two consolidated cases are both license discipline cases in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against an individual pharmacist and a community pharmacy for various statutory violations which are alleged in separate Administrative Complaints. At the hearing the Respondents admitted some of the allegations of the Administrative Complaints. Thereafter both the Petitioner and the Respondents presented testimony and exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties decided not to order a transcript of the hearing. The parties were allowed until November 25, 1987, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. BOth parties filed timely proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact.

Findings based on stipulations and admissions

1. Respondent Gus Goldstein is, and has been at all times material hereto, a pharmacist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PS 0005354. Respondent’s last known address is 110 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.

2. Respondent Gus Goldstein is and has been at all times material hereto, designated as the prescription department manager of Center Pharmacy, a community pharmacy in the State of Florida, having been issued permit number PH 0002430 and located at 110 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202.

3. On or about December 23, 1986, a pharmacy medication audit was conducted at Center Pharmacy for the period between approximately June 1, 1986 and December 23, 1986. That audit revealed that the Respondents’ records for the period of June 1, 1986, through December 23, 1986, failed to account for the following:

Description Bought Dispensed Unaccounted For

Tylenol #3 w/codeine 4200 2101 2098

Tylenol #4 w/codeine 5000 2600 2400

Florinal #3 1900 1810 90

Valium 5mg. 900 380 520

[226]*226Description Bought Dispensed Unaccounted For

(Diazepam 5mg.)

Valium lOmg. 2200 1600 600

(Diazepam lOmg.)

4. Tylenol #3 with Codeine and APAP with Codeine 30mg are “medicinal drugs” as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contain codeine, a controlled substance, in such quantity that they are included in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.

5. Tylenol #4 with Codeine and APAP with Codeine 60mg are “medicinal drugs” as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contain codeine, a controlled substance, in such quantity that they are included in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.

6. Fiorinal #3 with Codeine is a “medicinal drug” as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains codeine, a controlled substance, in such quantity as to be included in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.

7. Valium is a brand name of a “medicinal drug” as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains diazepam, a controlled substance, which is listed in Schedule IV of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.

8. Tylenol #3 with Codeine is a brand name of a “medicinal drug” as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains a sufficient quantity of codeine, a controlled substance, to be listed in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.

9. Respondent Center Pharmacy is, and has been at all times material hereto, the permittee of Center Pharmacy, a community pharmacy, located in the State of Florida at 110 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, having been issued permit number PH 0002430.

10. Respondent Center Pharmacy has, and had at all times material hereto, Gus Goldstein, a pharmacist in the State of Florida having been issued license number PS 0005354, designated as its prescription department manager.

11. Respondent Center Pharmacy is, and has been at all times material hereto, registered with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. Responderit has been issued certificate of Registration Number AC 5050719.

Findings based on the evidence adduced at the hearing

12. On or about October 27, 1986, Respondent Gus Goldstein created a record which purported to be a telephone prescription [227]*227(#1160450) for F.W. for Tylenol #3 with Codeine, purportedly prescribed by Dr. Samuel J. Alford, M.D. The prescription (#116-450) for F.W. for Tylenol #3 with Codeine was not authorized by Dr. Samuel J. Alford, M.D. Respondent Gus Goldstein dispensed Tylenol #3 with Codeine to F.W. without first being furnished with a prescription. Respondent Gus Goldstein knew that the purported telephone prescription (#116-450) for F.W. was a false record.

13. During the process of dispensing drugs, normally there will be small errors in the counting of the drugs. These small errors will result in shortages in the drug inventory which cannot be accounted for. If proper record-keeping and dispensing practices are followed, the shortages resulting from these small errors normally will be in the range of from 1 percent to 2 percent of drugs dispensed; certainly no more than 3 percent of drugs dispensed. Shortages greater than 3 percent of drugs dispensed are indicative of a failure to follow proper record-keeping and dispensing practices.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and on the applicable statutes, rules, and court decisions, I make the following conclusions of law.

1. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. § 120,57, Fla. Stat.

2. Section 893.07(l)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that every person dispensing or distributing controlled substances shall

. . . maintain, on a current basis, a complete and accurate record of each substance manufactured, received, sold, delivered, or otherwise disposed of by him, except that this subsection shall not require the maintenance of a perpetual inventory.

3. Section 893.07(5), Florida Statutes, imposes the following additional record-keeping requirement on every person dispensing or distributing controlled substances:

(5) Each person shall maintain a record which shall contain a detailed list of controlled substances lost, destroyed, or stolen, if any; the kind and quantity of such controlled substances; and the date of the discovering of such loss, destruction, or theft.

4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 301-392
21 U.S.C. § 301-392
Rules and regulations
21 U.S.C. § 821
§ 301
21 U.S.C. § 301

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Fla. Supp. 2d 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-professional-regulation-v-goldstein-fladivadminhrg-1987.