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 The issues are those promoted by an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against the Respondent, Charles McArthur. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent practiced pharmacy in the state of Florida with an expired license, in violation of Subsection 465.015(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Charles McArthur, is a pharmacist licensed by the State of Florida. His license number is 0012091. On June 20, 1983, Respondent attempted to renew his pharmacy license issued by the state of Florida on a bi-annual basis. He attempted this renewal by appearing in person before officials with the State of Florida, Board of Pharmacy, entitled to grant renewal. That renewal was denied based upon the fact that the Respondent was unable to provide verification of the requisite continuing education credits necessary for relicensure. As a consequence, on June 21, 1983 Respondent's active pharmacy license expired, leaving the Respondent with an inactive pharmacy license. For the period June 21, 1983 through July 20, 1983 Respondent practiced pharmacy with an inactive license. During that time frame, Thomas Hannah, an investigator with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent in the pharmacy in which Respondent was practicing in Tallahassee, Florida. He observed the Respondent practice pharmacy and noted the presence of the expired active Florida pharmacy license. On that occasion, Hannah told the Respondent that he was operating without a current license. On the following day, July 20, 1953, Respondent paid the appropriate fees and made proof of the requisite continuing education credits and his active pharmacy license was re-issued. Subsequent to that date Respondent has held an active pharmacy license issued by the State of Florida. In view of the Respondent's practice of pharmacy with an inactive license from the period of June 21, 1983 through July 20, 1983, Respondent was charged with the present offense and requested, and was granted, a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. In dealing with other recalcitrant licensees who have not renewed their licenses in the time allotted, the Board of Pharmacy, prior to February, 1980 sent a list to Board inspectors within one or two weeks following the due date of renewal and those inspectors contacted the licensees to ascertain whether the licensees had renewed their pharmacy licenses. If they found that the individual pharmacist did not renew his license that person was given an opportunity to fill out an application, to pay the fee, and to present his continuing education credits to the investigator. Persons who were not entitled to renew due to problems with the continuing education credits were told that they were delinquent, and practicing with a delinquent license was a violation of law. Those persons were given the opportunity to take leave of absence from their active pharmacy practice. Around February, 1980 due to the re- organization of the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, insufficient work force was available to carry out this process of checking on the topic of the delinquent license renewals, and this sequence of inactivity continued until approximately December, 1981. During this period actions were not brought against pharmacists for failure to timely renew a license to practice pharmacy, within the meaning of Section 465.015(2)(b), Florida Statutes, provided they renewed licenses within one year of the appropriate renewal date. In December, 1981 the practice changed and the pharmacists would be prosecuted for failure to timely renew a license to practice pharmacy and continuing to practice with an expired license. This change in policy position which occurred in December, 1981 was not shown in the course of the hearing to be a matter noticed for the benefit of the practicing pharmacists in the State of Florida.
The Issue The issue is whether the pharmacy permit issued to the Respondent, North Florida Drug Corporation, d/b/a Scottie Discount Drugs, should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact North Florida Drug Corporation, d/b/a Scottie Discount Drugs, currently holds permit No. PH 0004096 as a Community Pharmacy. Respondent is located at 1448 Bakers Square, Macclenny, Florida. On December 24, 1987, Gustave Goldstein, who had been the designated prescription department manager for Respondent, resigned as a pharmacist at the Respondent's location. He notified Frankie Rosier, the owner and operator of the Respondent, that he was leaving and he notified the DPR that he would no longer be the designated prescription department manager. Carl Messina is the relief pharmacist for the Respondent. From the time of Goldstein's resignation, Messina has told Ms. Rosier many times that it is illegal to operate without a prescription department manager. DPR inspected the Respondent's pharmacy in December, 1987, and determined that there was no prescription department manager after Goldstein quit. DPR conducted an inspection of the Respondent's premises on February 16, 1988, and discovered that there still was no prescription department manager employed there. Frankie Rosier was made aware of this deficiency. On February 16, 1988, the official records of DPR showed that no new designation of a prescription department manager had been filed by Respondent and Goldstein was still listed as the prescription department manager by Respondent. On May 22, 1988, DPR again inspected the premises and determined that there was still no prescription department manager. It is important that each permittee have a designated prescription department manager to assure that all required records are kept and that the pharmacy complies with all legal requirements. This is especially important regarding control and accountability for controlled substances. Without a prescription department manager, a non-pharmacist owner, like Ms. Rosier, would and does have access to these controlled substances without any accountability. By Final Order entered and filed with the agency clerk on December 17, 1987, this same permittee was fined and placed on probation for operating a community pharmacy with an expired permit and for obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or fraud or through an error of the department or the board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy, enter a Final Order finding North Florida Drug Corporation, d/b/a Soottie Discount Drugs, guilty of the violations alleged and revoking the community pharmacy permit No. PH 0004096. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 14th day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone' Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 North Florida Drug Corporation Scottie Discount Drugs 1448 Bakers Square Macclenny, Florida 32063 Bruce Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Rod Presnell, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Palma Pharmacy and Discount, Inc. holds pharmacy permit number 7654. The Respondent Pharmacy is a corporation owned by Reinaldo Pino, corporate president and Daniel Hollingsworth, corporate vice-president. On or about January 11, 1982, Olga Garcia Allemond, the wife of the Respondent Pino, dispensed to Georgina George, an investigator with the Petitioner Department, 13 capsules of Tranxene, 7.5 milligrams, a controlled substance, without first being furnished with a valid prescription for the drug. On or about January 20, 1982, Olga Garcia Allemond, dispensed to Ms. George, 11 capsules of Tranxene, 7.5 milligrams, without first being furnished with a valid prescription for the drug. On or about February 1, 1982, Olga Garcia Allemond, dispensed to Ms. George 20 capsules of Tranxene, 7.5 milligrams, without first being furnished with a valid prescription for the drug. On or about February 17, 1982, Olga Garcia Allemond, dispensed to Ms. George 12 capsules of Tranxene, 7.5 milligrams, without first being furnished with a valid prescription for the drug. All of the prescriptions dispensed by Olga Garcia Allemond, who is neither licensed as a pharmacist nor registered as a pharmacy intern in Florida, were dispensed from the prescription department of the Respondent Pharmacy. At the final hearing the Petitioner Department took a voluntary dismissal as to Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. Additionally, no evidence was presented concerning Count VI of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Pharmacy enter a Final Order revoking the pharmacy permit of the Respondents Palma Pharmacy & Discount, Inc. d/b/a Farmacia Palma Discount, Inc., and Reinaldo Pino and Daniel Hollingsworth. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Reinaldo Pino and Daniel Hollingsworth Farmacia Palma Discount, Inc. 4367 Southwest Eighth Street Miami, Florida Wanda Willis, Executive Director Frederick Roche, Secretary Florida Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Old Courthouse Square Building Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Howard Newman, is a pharmacist licensed in the State of Florida, holding license number 0014877. The Respondent, Bek-New Chemist, holds community pharmacy permit number 0006282. The Respondent practices pharmacy, and Bek-New Chemist is located, at 3690 Northwest 199th Street, Carol City, Florida 33054. Howard Newman is the owner and operator of Bek-New Chemist. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing the licensure standards and status of pharmacists and pharmacies in Florida and the regulation and enforcement of their standards of practice. On August 26, 1980, Detective Kenneth Hackett of the Hialeah Police Department, pursuant to information received from a confidential informant, went with that informant to Bek-New Chemist Pharmacy, the Respondent's place of practice. Upon arriving in the parking lot of that establishment, the confidential informant pointed out to Detective Hackett a particular car which he said belonged to a black male by the name of "Howard." The informant told Detective Hackett that Howard would sell controlled drugs without a prescription. Detective Hackett thereupon gave his informant $20 in Hialeah Police Department "investigation funds" and instructed him to go inside and attempt to buy Darvon from the black male previously identified by the informant as "Howard." The informant then proceeded into the pharmacy, followed immediately thereafter by Detective Hackett. The informant identified the black male inside behind the counter as "Howard." Detective Hackett later checked the license number on the car identified as belonging to Howard, the individual in the pharmacy at the time, and identified by the informant, as being registered to the Respondent, Howard Newman. The informant, under the observation of Detective Hackett, engaged the individual identified by that means as the Respondent Howard Newman in a conversation. The Respondent went into the back room area of the pharmacy, returning a few minutes later and again conversing with the police informant. The Respondent then returned to the "back room" and returned with a medication container marked "Valium." The informant thereupon gave the Respondent the subject $20 in cash and the Respondent gave him the container. The container proved, after laboratory tests, the results of which are in evidence, to contain 60 Dextropropoxyphene tablets, commonly known as Darvon. Darvon is a scheduled, controlled drug, the dispensing of which must be accompanied by a prescription. The Respondent thus sold this controlled substance without being furnished a valid prescription or authorized refill therefor while the Respondent was licensed to practice pharmacy in this state.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of the Respondent, Howard Newman, and the community pharmacy permit of the Respondent Bek-New Chemist be revoked without prejudice to those Respondents reapplying for licensure and permitting upon a proper show of rehabilitation. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Newman 3690 Northwest 199th Street Carol City, Florida 33054 Wanda Willis, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
