Opinion No. 44-82 (1982)

CourtMissouri Attorney General Reports
DecidedMay 24, 1982
StatusPublished

This text of Opinion No. 44-82 (1982) (Opinion No. 44-82 (1982)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Opinion No. 44-82 (1982), (Mo. 1982).

Opinion

Dear Representative Jackson:

This replies to your request for our opinion on the following questions of law:

1. May anyone other than a licensed pharmacist or physician reduce bulk drugs prescribed by a physician into smaller packages, complete the label to be affixed to the package of drugs and hand such drugs to the patient?

2. To what extent may a pharmacist or physician delegate the functions of dispensing drugs to persons or employees who are not pharmacists or physicians?

3. Must a licensed pharmacist or physician either personally perform or personally verify the accurateness of the following tasks in each instance of the dispensing of a drug to a patient:

a. The selection from bulk inventory of the type of drug, the strength of the drug and the dosage of the drug prescribed by the physician?

b. The verification of the accuracy and completeness of the contents of the label affixed to the container to be given to the patient?

c. The verification that the drug in the patient's drug container is in fact the drug that the label says it is?

Section 338.010, RSMo 1978, prohibits an unlicensed person from compounding, dispensing, or selling at retail a drug or medicine prescribed by a physician, except under certain limited circumstances. That section states, in pertinent part:

It shall be unlawful for any person not licensed as a pharmacist within the meaning of sections 338.010 to 338.190 to compound, dispense or sell at retail any drug, chemical, poison or pharmaceutical preparation upon the prescription of a physician, or otherwise, or to compound physicians' prescriptions except as an aid to or under the direct supervision of a person licensed as a pharmacist under sections 338.010 to 338.190. And it shall be unlawful for any owner or manager of a pharmacy or drug store, or other place of business, to cause or permit any other than a person licensed as a pharmacist to compound, dispense or sell at retail, any drug, medicine or poison, except as an aid to or under the direct supervision of a person licensed as a pharmacist; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with any legally registered practitioner of medicine or dentistry in the compounding or dispensing of his own prescriptions . . . .

Likewise, Section 338.240(4), RSMo 1978, requires that each Missouri pharmacy be managed ". . . under the supervision of either a registered pharmacist, or an owner or employee of the owner, who has at his place of business a registered pharmacist employed for the purpose of compounding physician's prescriptions in the event any such prescriptions are compounded or sold[.]" Furthermore, 4 CSR 220-2.010(1)(A), a rule of the Board of Pharmacy, provides in pertinent part:

At all times when physicians' prescriptions are compounded in a drug store, pharmacy, apothecary shop, chemist shop, or other place of business where prescriptions are filled, there shall be on duty and present in such place of business a pharmacist registered in the state of Missouri as provided by law. When there is no pharmacist on duty, no prescription will be compounded . . . .

Sections 338.010 and 338.240 and 4 CSR 220-2.010(1)(A) were recently construed in Jack Dunning and Medirate ProfessionalPharmacy, Inc. v. Board of Pharmacy, State of Missouri, Nos. 43504 and 43505 (Mo.App., E.D. January 12, 1982), application fortransfer to Missouri Supreme Court denied No. 63842 (April 13, 1982). Citing Duensing v. Huscher, 431 S.W.2d 169, 173-74 (Mo. 1968), the Missouri Court of Appeals held that these provisions of law are violated when persons who are not licensed pharmacists fill prescriptions or dispense medications in a pharmacy at a time when no licensed pharmacist is present on the pharmacy premises to supervise this conduct. This holding is consistent with our Opinion No. 81 (1962), a copy of which is enclosed.

With regard to a physician who dispenses his own prescription medications, there is no provision in Section 338.010 which allows an unlicensed person to compound, dispense, or sell at retail a prescription drug under the direct supervision of the prescribing physician. Section 338.010 only specifically authorizes a "legally registered practitioner of medicine or dentistry" to compound or dispense his own prescriptions. Further, we find no provision in Chapter 334, RSMo, which regulates the practice of medicine, that governs the dispensing of prescription medications by a prescribing physician. However, Section338.059, RSMo 1978, provides in part:

1. It shall be the duty of a licensed pharmacist or a physician to affix or have affixed by someone under his supervision a label to each and every container in which is placed any prescription drug upon which is typed or written the following information:

(1) The date of [sic] the prescription is filled;

(2) The sequential number;

(3) The patient's name;

(4) The prescriber's directions for usage;

(5) The prescribing doctor's name;

(6) The name and address of the pharmacy;

(7) The exact name and dosage of the drug dispensed;

(8) There may be one line under the words written stating "Refill" with a blank line or squares following; immediately under the word "Refill" the words "No Refill";

(9) When a generic substitution is dispensed, the name of the manufacturer or an abbreviation thereof shall appear on the label or in the pharmacist's records as required in section 338.100.

It is a rule of statutory construction that:

Statutes must be read in pari materia and, if possible, given effect to each clause and provision. Where one statute deals with a subject in general terms and another deals with the same subject in a more minute way, the two should be harmonized if possible, but to the extent of any repugnancy between them the definite prevails over the general. (State ex rel. Fort Zumwalt School District v. Dickherber, 576 S.W.2d 532, 536-537 (Mo. banc 1979). See also Goldberg v. Administrative Hearing Commission, 609 S.W.2d 140, 144 (Mo. banc 1980).)

Section 338.059 specifically allows an unlicensed person acting under the supervision of a physician to affix a label to a prescription drug container bearing the requisite information, while Section 338.010

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

Related

Goldberg v. Administrative Hearing Commission
609 S.W.2d 140 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1980)
Duensing v. Huscher
431 S.W.2d 169 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1968)
State Ex Rel. Fort Zumwalt School District v. Dickherber
576 S.W.2d 532 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Opinion No. 44-82 (1982), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-44-82-1982-moag-1982.