oe MBL Ab hi a li te A Wo. we) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH _ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, _ vs. CASE NUMBER: 99-00271 CHANCHENG HSU, R-Ph., Or [ 4 4 RESPONDENT. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Petitioner, Department of Health, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Pharmacy against | CHANCHENG HSU, R.Ph., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”, and in support thereof _ would state: 1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of pharmacy pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 465, Florida Statutes. 2. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as the “Agency,” to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils or board, as appropriate, including the issuance of emergency orders of suspension or restriction. Vo | Y 3. Respondent is, and has been at all times pertinent hereto, a daly. licensed . ‘pharmacist | pursuant to “Chapter 465, “Florida Statutes, having been issued license number ‘PS0030915, 4, Respondent’s last known address is 15424 Plantation Oaks Drive, Apt. #13, Tampa, Florida 33647. 5. During the course of an investigation undertaken by agents and employees of the Petitioner which was predicated ona complaint by physician, K.B., who had treated patient, R.S., for bronchiolitis and possible pneumonia, it was discovered that Respondent pharmacist, on November 4, 1998, dispensed ALBUTEROL SYRUP to said patient with the following incorrect dosage instructions: T 1/2D TID7D; however the actual prescribed dosage instructions by K.B. were as follows: ALBUTEROL SYRUP Img or % teaspoon every 8 hours. 6. By his _own admission, Respondent pharmacist changed ‘the prescription (referenced in paragraph 5 of this complaint) dosage as dispensed to patient, R.S., because he thought the doctor’s prescription was “too high” in comparison to his own interpretation of the PDR. 7 The Respondent admits he did not ever speak with the prescribing physician | - (KB). uct of the _ Respondent as aforesaid i is contrary t to , the _provisions ee contained in Sections 465. O16(1)(e). and 465. 016(1)(8), Florida Statutes by using in the compounding of a prescription, or furnishing upon prescription, an ingredient or article different in any manner from the ingredient or article prescribed; and Rule 64B16-27.400(1)(d), Florida ERE NEE RR AE ERECTED PR eR i vee S ‘ * Administrative Code, by not engaging in ~ consultation with the practitioner regarding interpretation of the prescription and data in patient’s profile. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Pharmacy to enter and Order i imposing one or more of the penalties proscribed by law, together with any other and further relief deemed just under the circumstances. “SIGNED this lc Waday o of < » 2000. Dr. Robert G. Brooks, M.D., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH By: Nancy M. Snurkowski DEPUTY CLERK Chief Attorney CLERK Uchi R Mion On Behalf of the Agency for pate 2/2/00 Health Care Administration ~ Senior Attomey Florida Bar Number - 086703 Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel’s Office -MQA Practitioner Regulation P.O. Box 14229 Tallahassee, FL 32317-4229 (850) 487-3908 ‘MT/cg PP Dek ' . 9/7/08 CNR RE RE NR RE emer

Docket for Case No: 00-001177