STATE OF FLORIDA aileED DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 00 OCT 19 AMI: 23 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, pivisia Petitioner, . ADMINS. fi Bay VE vs. CASE NO. 00-02041 PET MED EXPRESS, Bo-43 la Respondent. / a ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Petitioner, Department of Health, and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Pharmacy, against the Respondent, PET MED EXPRESS, 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 2000-160, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 465, Florida Statutes. 2. Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of pharmacy pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, (formerly Chapter 455, Part II; see Chapter 2000-160, Laws of Florida), Chapter 465, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Department has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils, or boards, as appropriate. YY WY 3. Respondent has been at all times pertinent hereto, a duly licensed pharmacy pursuant to Chapter 465, Florida Statutes, having been issued license number PH 0014144. 4. The Respondent’s last known address is 1441 S.W. 29" Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. 5. On November 16, 1999 a veterinarian at the Spencer Creek Animal Hospital Clinic, Inc., located in St. Peters, Missouri, received a call from Pet Med Express for the purposes of validating the dispensing of Heartguard Plus, a prescription drug for two (2) dogs who were patients of the veterinarian. 6. At the time and place of the law is aforesaid the veterinarian in question denied a script on each of the dogs and refused to authorize the dispensing of the medication in question. 7. In January of this year the veterinarian in question called the owner of the dogs referred to above and was advised that the Heartguard medication had been shipped to him. 8. On November 17, 1999 the Spencer Creek Animal Hospital in St. Peters, Missouri received a telephone call from Pet Med Express, for the purpose of authorizing the dispensing of Heartguard Plus, a prescription medication for two (2) dogs belonging to a client of the animal hospital. 9. At the time that veterinarian put the phone down to get the medical charts and at the time he returned the phone line was dead. Neither the Respondent, Pet Med Express ever called back. U Nw 10. _ In January of 2000 the veterinarian in question called the client to see if he needed the Heartguard medication. 11. The client indicated that they had received the prescription drugsMed in November of 1999. 12. At no time did the veterinarian in question authorize the filling of either of the prescriptions referred to herein above. 14. The Respondent’s conduct is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 465.015(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for selling or dispensing drugs without first being furnished with a prescription and Section 465.016(1)(i), Florida Statutes, for dispensing or distributing a legend drug other than in the course of the professional practice of pharmacy and Section 465.023(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for violating the requirements of Chapter 465, Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Pharmacy to enter an Order imposing one or more of the penalties proscribed by law, together with any other and further relief deemed just under the circumstances. SIGNED thig yay Cured 2000. Robert G. Brooks, M.D. Secretary, Department of Health By: Nancy M. Snurkowski Chief Attorney On Behalf of the Agency for Health Care Administration COUNSEL FOR AGENCY: Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr. Senior Attorney Florida Bar No. 0171063 Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office - MQA Allied Health P.O. Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 323 17-4229 (850)487-2225 07/16/00 PCP: SIN\Y GS DATE: alia OO

Docket for Case No: 00-004312