Tancredi v. Commonwealth, State Board of Pharmacy

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Tancredi v. Commonwealth, State Board of Pharmacy

501 A.2d 702, 93 Pa. Commw. 387, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1421

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 10, 1985

DocketAppeal, No. 496 C.D. 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 501 A.2d 702 (Tancredi v. Commonwealth, State Board of Pharmacy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tancredi v. Commonwealth, State Board of Pharmacy, 501 A.2d 702, 93 Pa. Commw. 387, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1421 (Pa. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Senior Judge Kalish,

Raphael S. and Richard J. Tancredi, t/a Tancredi Apothecary, have petitioned this court for review of an order of the State Board of Pharmacy .(Board), which suspended their pharmacist licenses for- one year.' We affirm. '

The Board cited the petitioners with numerous violations¹ of. regulations under the . Pharmacy Act.² [389]*389This case originally came to this court after a Board order revoked the petitioners’ licenses.³ After argument, this court remanded the case to the Board simply to review its penalty of revocation in light of this court’s'conclusion that the pharmacists’ conduct was not “grossly, unprofessional conduct” as that term is defined under the Pharmacy Act.⁴ The Board took testimony relating to the reputation of the petitioners and that they were active in community affairs. The Board reduced the penalty from complete revocation to suspension for one year.

The petitioners contend that even though they admit to the violations, they were de minimis and that the penalty was too severe.

The issue before the Board on the remand was not the sufficiency of the evidence, which had previously been considered by this court and found to be substantial, but whether under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to impose the penalty of revocation. On remand, the Board considered the mitigating circumstances and lowered the sanction. This sanction is amply supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.

Order

• The order of. the State Board of Pharmacy, dated February 10,1982, suspending the pharmacist licenses of Raphael S. Tancredi and Richard J. Tancredi, is affirmed. ■ '

Judge Colins did not participate in the decision in •this case. >

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

Opinion by

Senior Judge Kalish,

Raphael S. and Richard J. Tancredi, t/a Tancredi Apothecary, have petitioned this court for review of an order of the State Board of Pharmacy .(Board), which suspended their pharmacist licenses for- one year.' We affirm. '

The Board cited the petitioners with numerous violations¹ of. regulations under the . Pharmacy Act.² [389]*389This case originally came to this court after a Board order revoked the petitioners’ licenses.³ After argument, this court remanded the case to the Board simply to review its penalty of revocation in light of this court’s'conclusion that the pharmacists’ conduct was not “grossly, unprofessional conduct” as that term is defined under the Pharmacy Act.⁴ The Board took testimony relating to the reputation of the petitioners and that they were active in community affairs. The Board reduced the penalty from complete revocation to suspension for one year.

The petitioners contend that even though they admit to the violations, they were de minimis and that the penalty was too severe.

The issue before the Board on the remand was not the sufficiency of the evidence, which had previously been considered by this court and found to be substantial, but whether under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to impose the penalty of revocation. On remand, the Board considered the mitigating circumstances and lowered the sanction. This sanction is amply supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.

Order

• The order of. the State Board of Pharmacy, dated February 10,1982, suspending the pharmacist licenses of Raphael S. Tancredi and Richard J. Tancredi, is affirmed. ■ '

Judge Colins did not participate in the decision in •this case. >

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 A.2d 702, 93 Pa. Commw. 387, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tancredi-v-commonwealth-state-board-of-pharmacy-pacommwct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack