The Issue The issue presented at the final hearing was whether the Respondents' Eddy and Edith Portillo pharmacy permit should be revoked or suspended for the acts of a licensed pharmacist hired by the Respondents who engaged in unprofessional and bad faith dispensing of methaqualone as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed May 26, 1982. John McDonough, a Department medical investigator, John Statnik, a community pharmacist and licensed pharmacist, and Sidney Simkovitz, a retired pharmacist, testified for the Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3 were offered and admitted into evidence. The Respondent Eddy Portillo testified on his own behalf and Respondents' Exhibit 1 was admitted as a late-filed exhibit. A proposed Recommended Order has been submitted by the Petitioner. To the extent that the proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are not reflected in this Order, they were rejected as being either not supported by the weight of admissible evidence or as being irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents Eddy and Edith Portillo hold pharmacy permit number 7276 for Federgo Discount Center, which is located at 1881 79th Street Causeway, North Bay Village, Miami Beach, Florida. Federgo Discount Center is a discount dry goods facility housed in a building of approximately 3,000 square feet. A small portion of the store is occupied by a pharmacy. The Respondent Eddy Portillo is the manager of the entire facility. Since Portillo was not a licensed pharmacist, he hired Michael Interess, a state licensed pharmacist, to operate the pharmacy portion of the store. Pursuant to a "contract work agreement" executed between the Respondent Eddy Portillo and Interess, net profits from the operation of the pharmacy were divided 40 percent to the pharmacist and 60 percent to the store following the deduction of certain delineated items from gross profits. In effect, the pharmacist's wages were based on his success in operating the pharmacy since he was not paid any guaranteed wage. A drug diversion audit conducted by the Petitioner established that the following amounts of methaqualone were dispensed by the pharmacy: November 1, 1981 through February 15, 1982; 56,386 Methaqualone dispensed. June 1, 1980 through February 15, 1982; 251,230 Methaqualone dispensed. When compared to all other Schedule II drugs dispensed by the pharmacy, the percentage of methaqualone dispensed during the audit period was 76.96 percent. No evidence was presented concerning the amount of methaqualone as a percentage of total prescription sales. Based on a seven-day week, approximately 14 methaqualone prescriptions were filled every day of the audit period by the pharmacy. As manager and cashier of the center, the Respondent Eddy Portillo spent a considerable amount of time within the store. The Respondent Portillo received a daily log of all drug sales which indicated the amount of sales in order to compensate Interess, the pharmacist. Although the Respondent Eddy Portillo knew the pharmacy was filling methaqualone prescriptions, he believed the percentage of methaqualone dispensed to be reasonable in relation to total prescription sales. The pharmacy received a large number of methaqualone prescriptions due to its geographical proximity to physicians who apparently frequently prescribed this drug.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Pharmacy dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, (Division), was the state agency responsible for regulation the wholesale and retail sales of alcoholic beverages in Florida. Respondent, Warehouse Liquors, III d/b/a Lake Avenue Liquors, held 3-PS liquor license 93-00582, for its retail liquor store located at 209 E. Lake Avenue in Tampa. The parties stipulated that the facts as alleged in paragraphs 1 - 18 of the Emergency Order of Suspension issued in this case on September 27, 1994, and Counts 1 through 11 of the Notice to Show Cause of even date are correct, and may be incorporated herein as Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer. They are as follows: On or about April 29, 1991, Tampa City Councilman, Perry Harvey, notified the licensee's President and sole officer, Michael Kwasin, Jr., by letter, of specific public nuisance problem associated with his operation of the licensed premises. Mr. Kwasin was also given a corrective action plan to follow which included working with the Tampa Police Department, (TPD), to remedy the problem. In addition, TPD Sergeant G. Kelly contacted the licensee, through Mr. Kwasin, by telephone on several occasions in an effort to have him address the public nuisance complaints from the police Citizens Advisory Committee, made up of community leaders and city officials, relative to the licensed premises. In addition, citizens who reside in the surrounding neighborhood have met with Mr. Kwasin to voice their complaints about the drug dealing and safety problems related to his operation. Notwithstanding the repeated notices of misconduct in and around his facility given to Mr. Kwasin, the records of TPD reflect numerous complaints, incident reports and arrests associated with the licensed premises. On or about April 16, 1994, Special Agents, (SA), Hamilton and Murray went to the licensed premises as a part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While at the premises, SA Murray observed patrons in the possession of "crack" cocaine. On or about May 19, 1994, SA Hamilton spoke with Mr. Kwasin regarding drug and loitering problems at the licensed premises. Nonetheless, TPD continued to receive complaints about the drug activity on the premises from citizens of the neighborhood. On or about June 2, 1994, SA's Hamilton, Zedell and Akins returned to the premises and while there, Zedell observed several male patrons, some of whom were conducting drug transactions, loitering in front of the licensed premises. Again, on or about July 21, 1994, SA's Maggio and Zedell returned to the licenses premises where Zedell observed patrons conducting drug transactions right in front. On or about August 25, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises and went inside where they met with the two female employees of the licensee and a male patron to arrange a purchase of marijuana. Zedell handed the male patron ten dollars and received, in exchange, a small plastic package of a substance which, when later analyzed, was determined to be marijuana. On or about August 26, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell again returned to the licensed premises where Zedell observed patrons conducting drug transactions out in front. After one transaction, a patron went inside. When the agents went inside, they met with an employee, Lori, who asked the previously mentioned male patron if he had any marijuana. Thereafter, McKenzie got change from Lori from which he gave the patron ten dollars in exchange for a small plastic package containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. On or about September 1, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell again returned to the licensed premises. While there they were approached by a male patron and solicited to buy marijuana. This patron thereafter directed McKenzie inside the premises to conduct the transaction because, he indicated, there were two police cars in the area. While inside, in front of employee, Lori, McKenzie gave the patron ten dollars for a small plastic bag of a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Again, on or about September 2, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises where they observed several male patrons loitering outside. Just outside the door, McKenzie met with one of the male patrons to whom he gave ten dollars in return for a small bag containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. On or about September 7, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell went back to the licensed premises where they were approached outside by a male patron regarding the sale of marijuana. McKenzie and the patron went inside where McKenzie handed him ten dollars in exchange for a small package containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. Later that same day, McKenzie and Zedell were again approached by the same patron regarding a sale of marijuana. McKenzie and the patron entered the premises where McKenzie again handed him ten dollars in exchange for a small plastic package containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. This transaction was witnessed without interference by a male employee of the establishment. Again, that same day, Zedell met for a third time with that patron and gave him ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. On September 9, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises where they were approached by another patron, different from all the previous patrons mentioned, who offered to sell them marijuana. They went with that patron inside the licensed premises where, in the presence of Respondent's employee, Jackie, McKenzie handed the patron ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. On September 12, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell again went to the licensed premises where they were approached by yet another patron, a female this time, who offered to sell them marijuana. Again, as with prior patrons, they went inside the licensed premises where, in the presence of and with the concurrence of Respondent's employee, Lori, McKenzie handed the patron ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance which was later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Two days later, on September 14, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell again went to the licensed premises where they were approached by several male patrons who were competing with one another to sell marijuana. All these patrons displayed small packages of purported marijuana and followed McKenzie into the licensed premises. Two of the patrons got into an argument about what was described as marijuana being openly displayed on the counter. Nonetheless, while inside the premises, McKenzie gave one of the patrons ten dollars in front of Jackie for which he received in return a small plastic bag containing a substance which was later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Respondent's President, Mr. Kwasin, on the other hand, while not denying the details of the reported drug transactions which reportedly took place on the premises, denied ever being advised by his employees, the police, or his neighbors, that the situation was as bad as reported. His employee, Jacqueline Hall, (Jackie), in testimony at the hearing, indicated there was no room for drugs in the store because Mr. Kwasin has made it clear he doesn't want them there. She indicated management has also tried to get rid of the pushers outside the store as well and has cooperated with the police in all efforts to clean up the area. In her opinion, the primary responsibility lies with the police. Ms. Hall noted that she and Mr. Kwasin have gone to neighborhood meetings and have tried to implement the suggestions give by the police and others in an effort to cut down drug activities. There are only two employees at the store, she and Lori, and she has heard from law enforcement and others in the area that Respondent's policies on drugs are effective. According to her, the police have indicated that Respondent is doing all that can be done, and his efforts are appreciated. Ms. Hall has lived in that area all her life and she knows who the drug dealers are. They have come onto the licensed premises, but when they try to sell drugs inside, she sends them out. She denies having ever seen Lori selling drugs on the premises. Her testimony is patently incredible. Nonetheless, some law enforcement officers feel Respondent is being cooperative and trying to solve the drug problem. According to TPD Officer Garrett, who has spoken with Respondent Kwasin about the problem on many occasions, there has never been an instance where Kwasin has not cooperated fully with him, and Kwasin has sought suggestions from him on how to curb the drug traffic in the area. Respondent's general manager, Ms. Kennedy, has worked with him for about eight years. Approximately three years ago, the company put out a policy seeing to operate a drug-free work place. All employees are given copies of this policy. Earlier this year, Respondent's worker's compensation carrier provided her with new information to use to promote a drug free environment, which called for mandatory drug testing of employees and signed affidavits of non-use required from each employee. These new procedures have not been implemented as yet, however. Ms. Kennedy knows that Mr. Kwasin goes to the licensed premises in question each day, seven days a week. She also sees him at the location where she works, at least four hours a day the six days a week she is there. They have frequently discussed, prior to their implementation, anti-drug policies and procedures which Mr. Kwasin has brought back with him from training sessions at the IBD conventions he attends. He recognizes it to be in his best interests to conform to a no-drug policy in his stores. Ms. Kennedy is available to all Respondent's employees 24 hours a day, either at work, or on call at home. All employees go through a training program on anti-drug activity, but the drug testing and the anti-drug affidavits have not yet been implemented. Mr. Kwasin believes his efforts to curb drug activity in and around Lake Avenue Liquors had brought the problem under control. When Sgt. Hamilton spoke with him in May, 1994, he added more external lights and found that within a week of installation, all bulbs were broken. He replaced them four times, finally installing another type of bulb which is not so easily broken. He has tried to work with the police and even suggested they send in an undercover agent to work in the store as a clerk. This was not done, however. He has tried to enlarge the peep hole through which in-store activity could be monitored, but this was resisted by his employees who felt it placed them in increased danger of bodily harm. Mr. Kwasin claims he tried every way he knew to reduce the drug activity in the area because he knew it was a liability. He has taken pictures of the drug activity going on in the area outside his facility and contends they show open and unfettered drug sales going on without any interference by police. He tried to solicit suggestions from the police but nothing he tried helped. He thought his presence at the store would reduce drug dealing and when he was present, it was usually quiet. All of this related to drug activity outside the store, however. Mr. Kwasin claims to have had no knowledge at all that any drug activity was going on inside the store. He was told by his employees that they were doing what the could do and that no problem existed. It was only recently he found that his two female employees were being flattered by the male patrons who then could do what they wanted on the premises. Respondent now has a plan for new employees which includes "responsible vendor training" on anti-drug policies and procedures at the company headquarters and at the store. He had thought his prior policy was enough since no liquor was sold over the bar. At Respondent's Gandy Boulevard store, where liquor is sold by the drink, he has implemented such training, and will implement it at Lake Avenue Liquors. He will also repair and place into operation a video monitor which has been installed but not working for the past year, and he will manage the licensed premises personally until he gets proper, qualified employees in place, and he will monitor the closely after that. In short, Mr. Kwasin contends there was a tremendous breakdown in communications between him and the police and his neighbors, but denies there is any reason to fear being in the area at night. He claims he has been there at night many times. He admits his previous written policies have not worked with the employees he had. He admits his video system didn't work, and he admits that neither Jackie nor Lori was checked out on anti-drug training or tested. Notwithstanding Mr. Kwasin's denials of knowledge that any problem regarding drug sales existed inside the premises, Senator James T. Hargrett, Jr., who has lived in the area of the licensed premises for many years and who passes it frequently, has received numerous complaints from residents about the area, and as a property owner, he has made considerable effort to insure his properties are in compliance with all requirements of the law. He has observed the area at all hours and has worked with the police regarding it. Senator Hargrett believes Respondent could have done more to thwart the drug trafficking in the area. If the Senator suspected drug activity inside the premises, he would have gotten rid of those who were engaged in illegal activity; he would have worked more closely with the police; and he would have worked to get rid of loiterers. Lake Avenue Liquors has a very poor reputation in the surrounding community. It is not responsive to the neighbors' concerns about illegal activity. This facility constitutes a definite problem compared with other businesses in the neighborhood and seems to suffer from owner neglect. In Hargrett's opinion, it is incumbent upon anyone in business to supervise and audit what goes on in his business establishment and to be aware of any illegal activity. This was not done here, he feels, and this absence of proper supervision has resulted in the creation of a nuisance in the community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license number 39-00583, series 3- PS, issued to Respondent, Warehouse Liquors III, Inc., d/b/a Lake Avenue Liquors, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 29. Not Proposed Findings of Fact but restatements of the testimony of witnesses. They are, however, accepted as accurate restatements of the testimony as they support the findings made herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No submittal by Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Michael Kwasin, Jr., pro se Lake Avenue Liquors 4023 Gandy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33611 John J. Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a community pharmacy in the State of Florida, having been issued permit number 0008482. Respondent's last known address is A & C Pharmacy #2, 1053 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. On May 29, 1984, and May 30, 1984, an audit was conducted at respondent's pharmacy by investigators for the Department of Regulation. The audit covered the period from March 15 1984, the date the permit was first issued and the business first opened, to May 29, 1984. The audit revealed that the pharmacy was unable to produce records to account for shortages in the following controlled substances, 1/ as defined in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and the evidence revealed the shortages to be in the following amounts: DRUG SHORTAGE Librium 5 mg. 62 capsules Darvon Compound 65 120 capsules Tenuate 75 mg. 130 tablets Valium 5 mg. 55 tablets Valium 10 mg. 8 tablets Librium's generic name is chlordiazepoxide, Darvon Compound 65 contains propoxyphene, Tenuate's generic name is diethylpropion, and Valium's generic name is diazepam. Section 893.07(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that every person engaged in dispensing controlled substances maintain "on a current basis a complete and accurate record of each substance manufactured, received, sold, delivered, or otherwise disposed of by him . . ." The audit revealed that the respondent did not have records that showed the disposition of the controlled substances listed above. The records of respondent were in disarray and, to some extent, were mixed with the records of a related pharmacy, A & C Pharmacy #1, located on Flagler Street. Controlled substances were often ordered at the same time for both pharmacies and, on occasion, drugs ordered by one store were delivered to the other. Indeed, due to the poor record keeping, there was some confusion concerning the amount of Tenuate received by the respondent and, accordingly, the amount of the shortage. It is undisputed that respondent received 200 tablets of diethylpropion or Tenuate, on April 9, 1984. On May 10, 1984, an additional 100 tablets of diethylpropion were ordered. The invoice revealed that these tablets were ordered by the A & C Pharmacy on Flagler Street. However, Mrs. Rodriguez provided the invoice to the auditors as part of respondent's records. She also told the auditors that 100 tablets of Tenuate had been transferred from the Flagler Street pharmacy to the respondent due to orders being mixed-up and drugs ordered by one store being delivered to the other. The auditors therefore determined that respondent and received 400 Tenuate tablets: 200 on April 9th, 100 on May 10th, and, an additional 100 transferred from the Flagler pharmacy. There were 170 tablets in respondent's inventory, and no records of any sale. Thus, the auditors determined that there was a shortage of 230 tablets. However, from the evidence presented at the hearing, it appears that the 100 tablets that Mrs. Rodriguez mentioned were the same 100 tablets shown on the invoice dated May 10, 1984. Ms. Jorge's testimony linked the tablets that were transferred to an invoice that had the Flagler pharmacy's address (T-73), and Mr. Bludworth's testimony established that the only records showing purchases were the invoices of April 9 and May 10, 1984. (T-34) Thus, the shortage of Tenuate was 130 tablets rather than 230 tablets. At the time of the audit some of respondent's records, the prescriptions filled, had been sent to Luis Cruz, a Medicaid preparer. However, there was no evidence that any of the prescriptions that had been sent to Luis Cruz were for the controlled substances audited. The evidence establishes that respondent has failed to maintain, on a current basis, a complete and accurate record of each substance manufactured received sold, delivered or otherwise disposed of by respondent. On May 10, 1984, an inspection of Respondent's pharmacy was conducted by an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation. At the time of the inspection, Ada Rodriguez, the owner of A & C Pharmacy was in the prescription department. Ada Rodriguez is not a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida. The pharmacist on duty was not present when Ada Rodriguez was in the prescription department. There was no pharmacist on the premises at the time the inspection began, and the prescription department was not locked. No activity was observed by the investigator which would be consistent with an unlicensed pharmacist dispensing drugs. When the inspection was conducted, the business hours for the store where respondent's pharmacy is located were 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Saturday. When the inspection was conducted, the prescription department hours were from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, thus the prescription department was open a total of thirty (30) hours a week. Rule 215-1.14, Florida Administrative Code, provides in part as follows: [A]t all times when the prescription depart- ment is closed, either because of the absence of a . . . pharmacist or for any other reason, said prescription department shall be . . . locked or padlocked so as to prevent the entry into said department by persons not licensed to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida, and at such times no person other than a person licensed to practice pharmacy in Florida shall enter or be permitted to enter the prescription department. . . . Rule 215-1.24 provides, in part, as follows: Any person who receives a community pharmacy permit pursuant to Section 465.018, Florida Statutes, and commences to operate such a establishment shall, for the benefit of the public health and welfare, keep the prescription department of the establishment open for a minimum of forty (40) hours per week and sixty (60 percent) percent of the total hours the establishment is open each day. . . . Since Mrs. Rodriguez has been informed by the investigators of the restricted access requirement for the prescription department, she has not gone into the prescription department except when the licensed pharmacist has been present. Upon being informed by the investigators of the minimum-hour requirements, the respondent expanded the working hours of the licensed pharmacist in order to increase the number of open hours of the prescription department in order to meet the provisions of Rule 215-1.24. The Respondent's pharmacy meets the needs of the predominantly Spanish-speaking neighborhood by providing pharmacy services with a Spanish- speaking pharmacist.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that respondent violated the requirements of section 893.07(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and rules 215-1.14 and 215-1.24, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and that, pursuant to section 465.023(1)(c), Florida Statutes, respondent be placed on probation for two (2) years, with the following terms: Respondent shall be inspected two (2) times per year, and respondent shall pay the reasonable costs of such inspections. Respondent shall remit a fine of $500 to the Board of Pharmacy within forty-five (45) days of filing the final order. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January 1986.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a license as a Registered Pharmacy Technician should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On May 22, 2008, based on a plea of nolo contendere, Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offense of Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, a second-degree felony. She was placed on five years of Sexual Offender Probation. The special conditions of Petitioner’s probation included the following: a. Restitution to the victim in the amount of $425.00; b. No contact with the victim; and c. Attend parenting classes. The standard conditions of Sex Offender Probation were imposed upon Petitioner, including: (a) A mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.; (b) A prohibition on living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park, playground, or other place where children regularly congregate; (c) Participation in a sex offender treatment program; (d) No contact with any children under the age of 18, unless court approved; and (e) A prohibition on working for pay or as a volunteer at any place that children regularly congregate, including but not limited to any school, day care center, park, playground, pet store, library, zoo, theme park or mall. On October 5, 2009, Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. On December 9, 2009, the Board voted to deny Petitioner’s application. A Notice of Intent to Deny reflecting the vote was filed on December 31, 2009. Petitioner testified that she has been a pharmacy technician since 1981. There was no evidence presented, however, indicating that Petitioner has been licensed in Florida as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. Petitioner is currently employed by Randolph Margrave, preparing intravenous medications (IVs) and supplies for administering to patients in their homes. She works in a clean room under a hood in an isolated barrier. She has no contact with the public, and she has no contacts with the patients. Although her position does not require Petitioner to review patient records, she has access to patient records. According to her current employer, Petitioner does an excellent job. Prior to her current position, Petitioner worked in a retail pharmacy from 1981 to 1989. From 1989 to 1999 she worked in the pharmacy department of a hospital. Petitioner’s current employment does not require her to have contact with the public. Petitioner described the circumstances that led to her arrest and subsequent conviction. She testified that she performed oral sex on her daughter’s seventeen-year-old boyfriend. In her testimony, Petitioner stated: My daughter’s boyfriend was very abusive. We got a restraining order against him, and they only granted it for two weeks, temporary. And he threatened me through her. And as it turned out, I made a bad decision. And it was an oral sex one time and . . . [h]e was 17 years old at the time. Petitioner testified that her daughter’s boyfriend was a very mature 17-year-old. Petitioner further testified: And I thought my daughter’s life was being threatened, and it was like making a deal with the devil. And it was a one-time thing and a very bad thing. In a typical retail pharmacy setting, a pharmacy technician is the first point of contact for patients that drop off or pick-up a prescription. A pharmacy technician in a retail setting gathers the patient’s information, enters it into the computer, prepares the label and counts and pours the medication. Pharmacy technicians have access to personal information of the patients that patronize the pharmacy. This information includes but is not limited to the patient’s name, gender, phone number (including cell number), address, allergy information and prescription medication history. Minors may purchase and pick-up medications from a pharmacy. A licensed Registered Pharmacy Technician may practice at any location without restriction.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order denying Celeste Donald’s application for licensure as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
