The Issue This case arises out of a notice to show cause served upon the Respondent by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco alleging that Beverage License No. 27-92 should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for five separate counts involving drug sales on the licensed premises. As a basis for its proof, Petitioner relied upon a stipulation entered into with the Respondent and a Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Case Report which was admitted without objection. Mr. Charles Andrews testified on behalf of himself as licensee. A copy of the notice to show cause was admitted as Joint Exhibit 1 and the Petitioner of foreign and had admitted without objection one exhibit, the case report of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Charles D. Andrews, trading as Odom's Bar, is the licensee of Beverage License No. 27-92, License Series 4-COP. The licensed premises is located on Highway 29 in Century, Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner and Respondent, having stipulated to the truth and accuracy of those facts alleged in the notice to show cause, and based upon that stipulation, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds those facts set forth in A through F of this paragraph: On May 24, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate the laws of the State of Florida by delivering a controlled substance, to wit: cannabis to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13 within Florida Statute 561.29. On June 14, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On June 17, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On July 11, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Actent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. A. The negotiations and discussions about the May 24, 1982, transaction occurred inside Odom's Bar and the delivery took place through the drive-in window located on the north side of the licensed premises. On June 14, 1982, Beverage Officer Blackman drove to the drive-in window and asked Johnny Andrews if he was holding any pot. Johnny Andrews stated he was holding a 35 cents bag. After a short discussion about possible purchase of a larger quantity, Officer Blackman purchased the bag of marijuana for $35.00. The plastic bag of marijuana was in a brown paper bag and was handed to Officer Blackman through the drive-in window. The delivery of the marijuana to Officer Blackman on June 17, 1982, also took place at the drive-in window. Johnny Andrews handed Blackman a brown paper bag containing a Miller and a plastic bag of marijuana. On July 11, 1982, Officer Blackman observed three patrons smoking a marijuana cigarette in Odom's Bar, and this activity was observed. by the barmaid on duty. No attempt was made to stop the activity. Officer Blackman was offered the marijuana cigarette and he pretended to smoke it. At this time, Johnny Andrews approached Officer Blackman and offered to 7 sell him some "acid" (LSD). Officer Blackman agreed and was instructed to drive around to the drive- in window. He did so and the delivery of the "acid" took place through the drive-in window. On August 5, 1982, Officer Blackman, after being in the licensed premises, drove up to the drive-in window where Johnny Andrews offered to sell him some "acid" (LSD) Officer Blackman agreed to purchase and agreed to return on August 6 to pick up the "acid". on august 6, 1982, Officer Blackman returned to the drive-in window where Andrews handed him a bag containing six hits of acid. At the time of the conversations and purchases on June 14, August 5, and August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews was on duty and working at Odom's Bar. Mr. Charles Andrews has owned Odom's Bar for the past five years and worked for the two previous owners. He began working at Odom's Bar 20 years ago. The bar is managed by Respondent and his wife. Johnny Andrews, referred to in the stipulation above, is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles D. Andrews, and during the time period of the incidents set forth in Paragraph 1, was working as an employee at the bar. This was the first summer he had worked at the bar. He was working while he was home from college, and has not been allowed to work at the bar since August, 1982, when he was arrested. Generally, Johnny Andrews would relieve Mr. and Mrs. Andrews and they would leave the bar while he was working. The Respondent, Charles D. Andrews, had no knowledge of the drug transactions his son was involved in. Prior to the incidents in question, Odom's Bar was operated by Mr. and Mrs. Andrews with the help of four women whom they employed. Mr. Andrews had previously given instructions to his employees that they were not to allow drugs of any type to be used or sold on the premises. On the date of Johnny Andrews' arrest, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco thoroughly searched the licensed premises and found no drugs. The clientele of Odom's Bar is primarily middle- aged persons. Prior to the incidents described in Paragraph 1 above, the licensee, Charles Andrews, had had no other violations of the law or drug related problems at the licensed premises. Once Mr. and Mrs. Andrews were notified of the charges and arrest warrant for their son, they cooperated with the police and also aided them in completing their arrest of Johnny Andrews. Although the Respondent testified that he had cautioned his employees against drugs on the premises, there was no evidence that he took any steps to ensure that the premises were being properly supervised and legally operated in his absence. There was no arrangement or plan whereby the licensee monitored what was occurring at the licensed premises in his absence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Florida statute 561.29, imposing a civil penalty of $1,000,and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of 60 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 28th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Mr. Howard N. Rasmussen Department of Business Director, Division of Alcoholic Regulation Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles D. Andrews Mr. Gary Rutledge Highway 29, Odom's Bar Secretary, Department of Business Century, Florida Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 5 through 24 and 26 through 37 of the Corrected Second Amended Complaint, as modified, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Sections 499.001 through .081. § 499.004, Fla. Stat. Worldwide Medical Supply is a prescription drug wholesaler who has been issued a permit, numbered 22:01390, to operate at 1452 North Krome Avenue, Suite 102F, Florida City, Miami-Dade County, Florida. On December 7, 2005, an inspection of Worldwide Medical Supply was conducted after a complaint against Worldwide Medical Supply was filed with the Department. Additional inspections were conducted in or about March 2006 and on May 15, 2007. During all three inspections, the Department's inspectors did not review all of the documents in Worldwide Medical Supply's files but took a sampling of the documents maintained by Worldwide Medical Supply relating to prescription drug sales and purchases. All of the drugs at issue herein are prescription drugs, also known as legend drugs. Paragraph 5 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; sale of prescription drugs to an unauthorized person in violation of § 499.005(15), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 1.3 Petitioner's Exhibit 1 contains, in pertinent part, a Worldwide Medical Supply invoice, a Uniform Complaint Form, and a written report of an investigation conducted by the complainant, who was a drug agent. The Worldwide Medical Supply invoice, which is dated September 20, 2005, shows that five "Caverject Imp 20MCGKIT 2"4 were billed and shipped to "Health Environment" at an address in Hialeah, Florida. The Invoice includes a physician's license number and indicates that the Caverject was sent to the attention of "Amneris & Angel." The charge relating to this transaction arose out of a complaint and investigative report filed by a drug agent regarding the subject transaction, in which he reported that the physician whose number was included on the invoice was not employed by Health Environment at the time of the shipment. The Department did not present the testimony of the complaining drug agent, and the Sharon Roberts, one of the Department's inspectors who testified at the final hearing, stated that she had not conducted an investigation into the matter and had no personal knowledge of the matter beyond that which appeared on the invoice and in the report. The evidence related to the violation charged in paragraph 5 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint is hearsay and cannot support a finding that the Caverject was delivered to an unauthorized person. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat.( Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.") The evidence presented by the Department is not, therefore, sufficient to establish that the Caverject was sold or transferred to a person who was not authorized to purchase or possess the prescription drug. Paragraph 6 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree in violation of §§ 499.005(14), (18), and (28) and 499.006(10), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 consists of a Picking Ticket, a Sales Order, an Invoice, and a Prescription (Legend) Drug Pedigree Form DH2129 ("Pedigree Paper")5 relating to a transaction between CT International and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated October 13, 2005, indicates that CT International shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 15 12GM vials of Carimune and 35 6GM vials of Carimune. The Pedigree Paper was signed by a vice president of CT International, and the signature was dated October 10, 2005. The Pedigree Paper relates to the 35 6GM vials of Carimune sold to Worldwide Medical Supply, it identifies "ZLB" as the manufacturer, and lists "ZLB - CT International" as the "wholesaler's name." The Pedigree Paper does not identify the wholesaler that purchased the prescription drug from the manufacturer or the authorized distributor of record, nor does it contain any information on wholesale distributions subsequent to the purchase from the manufacturer or the authorized distributor of record. A stamp on the Pedigree Paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Alex Valdes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of CT International or Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the Pedigree Paper provided by CT International and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The Pedigree Paper lacked much of the information that must be included in a pedigree paper, and it was, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the Pedigree Paper had been authenticated was false. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted a failure to keep the required records of prescription drug transactions. The Department failed, however, to establish that CT International was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida. Although the records kept by prescription drug wholesalers of transactions involving prescription drugs must include the license number of the person distributing a prescription drug and the person purchasing the drug, the absence of the Florida license number of CT International constitutes an omission in the records. The omission is not, however, proof that CT International is not licensed in Florida, and the Department did not present any evidence to establish the Florida licensure status of CT International. Rather, Ms. Roberts, the Department's inspector, testified that she had no information regarding CT International's licensure status in Florida at the time of the sale of the Carimune because that "was not the issue."6 Paragraph 7 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree in violation of §§ 499.005(14), (18), and (28) and 499.006(10), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 consists of a Picking Ticket, a Sales Order, an Invoice, a Credit Memo, and a Pedigree Paper relating to a transaction between CT International and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated October 17, 2005, indicates that CT International shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply seven 10ML units of Baygam intramuscular immune globulin. The Pedigree Paper was signed by a vice president of CT International, and the signature was dated October 18, 2005. The Pedigree Paper relates to the seven 10ML units of Baygam sold to Worldwide Medical Supply; lists "CT International" as the wholesaler; identifies "Bayer/Talecris" as the manufacturer; and identifies "McKesson Drug" as the wholesaler that purchased the prescription drug from the manufacturer. The Pedigree Paper does not identify the wholesaler that purchased the prescription drug from McKesson, nor does it contain any information on wholesale distributions subsequent to the purchase from the manufacturer by McKesson. A stamp on the pedigree paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Alex Valdes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of CT International or of Worldwide Medical Supply. The Baygam was returned by Worldwide Medical Supply to CT International, and a credit memo was issued to Worldwide Medical Supply refunding the cost of the drugs. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the Pedigree Paper provided by CT International and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The Pedigree Paper lacked much of the information that must be included in a pedigree paper, and it was, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the Pedigree Paper had been authenticated was false. For the reasons stated in paragraph 12 above, the evidence presented by the Department failed to establish that CT International was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida. The evidence was, however, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. Paragraph 8 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Petitioner's Exhibit 4 consists of a Picking Ticket, an Invoice, and two Pedigree Papers relating to a transaction between CT International and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated October 7, 2005, indicates that CT International shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 14 6GM vials of Carimune and 15 12GM vials of Carimune. The Pedigree Papers for both the 6GM and the 12GM vials of Carimune were signed by a vice president of CT International, and the signatures were dated October 10, 2005. The Pedigree Papers identify "ZLB" as the manufacturer, and lists "ZLB - CT International" as the "wholesaler's name." The Pedigree Papers do not identify the wholesaler that purchased the prescription drugs from the manufacturer or the authorized distributor of record, nor does it contain any information on wholesale distributions subsequent to the purchase from the manufacturer or the authorized distributor of record. A stamp on the Pedigree Paper for the 12GM vials of Carimune indicates that it was received and authenticated by Alex Valdes of Worldwide Medical Supply; there is no such stamp on the Pedigree Paper for the 6MG vials. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of CT International or of Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the Pedigree Papers provided by CT International and to review them for accuracy and completeness. The Pedigree Papers lacked much of the information that must be included in a pedigree paper, and they were, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. There was no indication that the Pedigree Paper relating to the 6GM vials of Carimune was reviewed for completeness, and the attestation that the Pedigree Paper relating to the 12GM vials of Carimune had been authenticated was false. For the reasons stated in paragraph 12 above, the evidence presented by the Department failed to establish that CT International was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida. The evidence was, however, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 6MG and 12MG vials of Carimune purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from CT International were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree papers for the drugs were incomplete. Paragraph 9 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 33. Petitioner's Exhibit 33 consists of a Picking Ticket, an Invoice, and a Pedigree Paper relating to a transaction between CT International and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated October 3, 2005, indicates that CT International shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 100 2ML units of Baygam intramuscular immune globulin. The Pedigree Paper was originated by First Choice Pharmaceutical Wholesalers and signed by its sales manager, with the signature dated July 18, 2005. The Pedigree Paper does not identify the manufacturer of the Baygam and no quantity of Baygam is listed; First Choice Pharmaceutical is identified as the wholesaler that purchased an unspecified quantity of Baygam from the manufacturer; and the Pedigree Paper indicates that the first subsequent wholesale distribution of the Baygam was to CT International. It appears that all of the required information is included in reference to CT International's purchase of Baygam from First Choice Pharmaceuticals, and Drew Arnold signed the Petitioner as the authenticator from CT International. Finally, the Pedigree Paper shows that the second subsequent wholesale distribution was to Worldwide Medical Supply in the amount of "100 vls." A stamp on the Pedigree Paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Alex Valdes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of CT International or of Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the Pedigree Paper provided by CT International and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The Pedigree Paper lacked the name of the manufacturer and the quantity of Baygam purchased by First Choice. The Pedigree Paper was, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the Pedigree Paper had been authenticated was false. For the reasons stated in paragraph 12 above, the evidence presented by the Department failed to establish that CT International was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida. The evidence was, however, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 100 2ML units of Baygam purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from CT International were adulterated drugs in that the Pedigree Paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 10 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Petitioner's Exhibit 5 consists of a Sales Invoice and a document entitled "Pedigree" relating to a transaction between Medex BioPharm and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated August 31, 2005, indicates that Medex BioPharm shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 11 12gm units of Carimune NF. The pedigree paper is a form apparently generated by Medex BioPharm to conform to the requirements of "Section 503(e)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act," and it was signed by Medex BioPharm's compliance officer, with the signature dated September 6, 2005. The pedigree paper identifies the manufacturer of the Carimune as "ZLB" and indicates that Medex BioPharm purchased the Carimune as an "Authorized Distributor," but there is nothing in the pedigree paper regarding the source from which Medex BioPharm purchased the Carimune. The pedigree paper does not contain any information on wholesale distributions subsequent to the purchase by Medex BioPharm, and, in addition, the pedigree paper was not issued prior to or at the same time the prescription drug was shipped. A stamp on the Invoice attached to the pedigree paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Daphne Csendes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of Medex BioPharm or of Worldwide Medical Supply. At the times relevant to the purchase of the Carimune by Worldwide Medical Supply, however, Medex BioPharm held two licenses in Florida, one as a pharmacy and one as a prescription drug wholesaler. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the pedigree paper provided by Medex BioPharm and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The pedigree paper was incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the pedigree paper had been authenticated was false. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that Medex BioPharm was not authorized to distribute the Carimune identified in the Invoice and pedigree paper to Worldwide Medical Supply. Medex BioPharm had a wholesaler's license to sell prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to this transaction; the failure to include Medex BioPharm's license number in the documentation of the sale constitutes only a recordkeeping error. As further proof that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from an unauthorized source, the Department presented the testimony of Ms. Roberts, one of the Department's inspectors. Ms. Roberts testified that she attempted to authenticate the purchase of the Carimune by Medex BioPharm and learned that Medex BioPharm was "purchasing [the Carimune] using their pharmacy license, and then, selling [the Carimune], using their wholesale license."7 According to Ms. Roberts, this practice is not permitted and renders the Carimune contraband drugs. Ms. Roberts did not, however, provide any more specific information regarding the purchase of the Carimune by Medex BioPharm. Ms. Robert's testimony is hearsay and cannot support a finding of fact that Medex BioPharm was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs to Worldwide Medical Supply. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. ("Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.") The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 11 12gm units of Carimune NF purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Medex BioPharm were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 11 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Petitioner's Exhibit 6 consists of a Packing Slip dated September 6, 2005, a Sales Invoice dated September 7, 2005, and a document entitled "Pedigree" relating to a transaction between Medex BioPharm and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated September 7, 2005, indicates that Medex BioPharm shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 20 2ml units of Baygam. The pedigree paper is a form apparently generated by Medex BioPharm to conform to the requirements of "Section 503(e)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act," and it was signed by Medex BioPharm's compliance officer, with the signature dated September 8, 2005. The pedigree paper identifies the manufacturer of the Baygam as "Talecris" and indicates that Medex BioPharm purchased the Baygam as an "Authorized Distributor," but there is nothing in the pedigree paper regarding the source from which Medex BioPharm purchased the Baygam or the date on which it was purchased. The pedigree paper does not contain any information on wholesale distributions subsequent to the purchase by Medex BioPharm, and, in addition, the pedigree paper was not issued prior to or at the same time the prescription drug was shipped. A stamp on the pedigree paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Daphne Csendes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of Medex BioPharm or of Worldwide Medical Supply. At the times relevant to the purchase of the Baygam by Worldwide Medical Supply, however, Medex BioPharm held two licenses in Florida, one as a pharmacy and one as a prescription drug wholesaler. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the pedigree paper provided by Medex BioPharm and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The pedigree paper was incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the pedigree paper had been authenticated was false. For the reasons stated in paragraph 33 above, the evidence presented by the Department failed to establish that Medex BioPharm was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida. The evidence was, however, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 20 2ml units of Baygam purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Medex BioPharm were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 12 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 7. Petitioner's Exhibit 7 consists of an Invoice and a document entitled "Pedigree Paper/Product History" relating to a transaction between Medical Infusion Technologies and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated June 10, 2005, indicates that Medical Infusion Technologies shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 33 10gm units of Gammunex and 14 5gm units of Gammunex. The pedigree paper is a form apparently generated by Medical Infusion Technologies to conform to the requirements of "section (e)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act." The pedigree paper was not signed or dated. The pedigree paper identifies the manufacturer of the Gammunex as "Bayer" and indicates that the distributor of record is "FFF" and that the Gammunex was purchased by FFF on June 8, 2005, but there is nothing in the pedigree paper regarding the source from which Medical Infusion Technologies purchased the Gammunex. The pedigree paper does not contain any information on wholesale distributions subsequent to the purchase by FFF. A stamp on the Invoice attached to the pedigree paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Daphne Csendes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of Medical Infusion Technologies or of Worldwide Medical Supply. Medical Infusion Technologies was, however, authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Gammunex.8 The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the pedigree paper provided by Medical Infusion Technologies and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The pedigree paper was incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the pedigree paper had been authenticated was false. 48. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that Medical Infusion Technologies was not authorized to distribute the Gammunex identified in the Invoice and pedigree paper to Worldwide Medical Supply. Medical Infusion Technologies had a wholesaler's license to sell prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to this transaction; the failure to include Medical Infusion Technologies' license number in the documentation of the sale constitutes a recordkeeping error. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 33 10gm units of Gammunex and 14 5gm units of Gammunex purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Medical Infusion Technologies were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 13 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Petitioner's Exhibit 8 consists of an Invoice and a document entitled "Pedigree Paper/Product History" relating to a transaction between Medical Infusion Technologies and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated June 16, 2005, indicates that Medical Infusion Technologies shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 25 units of Flebogamma. The exhibit also contains a document from Cardinal Health showing that, on June 14, 2005, it sold 25 units of Flebogamma to Medical Infusion Technologies. The pedigree paper is a form apparently generated by Medical Infusion Technologies to conform to the requirements of "section (e)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act." The pedigree paper is not signed or dated. It identifies the manufacturer of the Flebogamma as "Grifols" and indicates that the distributor of record is "Cardinal Health." An Invoice attached to the pedigree paper shows that the Flebogamma was sold to Medical Infusion Technologies by Cardinal Health, but the pedigree paper does not indicate the lot number and quantity of Flebogamma that Cardinal Health purchased from Grifols, nor does it or the Invoice indicate the dosage form of the Flebogamma purchased by Cardinal Health from Grifols. A stamp on the Invoice attached to the pedigree paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Daphne Csendes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of Medical Infusion Technologies or of Worldwide Medical Supply. Medical Infusion Technologies was, however, authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Flebogamma.9 The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the pedigree paper provided by Medical Infusion Technologies and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The pedigree paper was incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the pedigree paper had been authenticated was false. For the reasons stated in paragraph 47 above, the evidence presented by the Department failed to establish that Medical Infusion Technologies was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida.10 The evidence was, however, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. As further proof that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Flebogamma from an unauthorized source, the Department presented the testimony of Ms. Roberts that, when she attempted to authenticate the pedigree of the Flebogamma, she telephoned Cardinal Health and asked if they sold the Flebogamma to Medical Infusion Technologies: "They did confirm that they sold to Medical Infusion Technologies this product, but Cardinal explained to me that they sold to Medical Infusion Technologies as an end-user, like a pharmacy, which is not permitted for resale to a wholesaler."11 According to Ms. Robert's, an end- user may not sell a prescription drug to a wholesaler, and such a sale renders the Flebogamma contraband drugs. Ms. Roberts did not provide any more specific information regarding the purchase of the Flebogamma by Medical Infusion Technologies. Ms. Robert's testimony is hearsay and cannot support a finding of fact that Medical Infusion Technologies was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs to Worldwide Medical Supply. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. ("Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.") The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 25 units of Flebogamma purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Medical Infusion Technologies were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 14 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 consists of an Invoice and a document entitled "Pedigree Paper/Product History" relating to a transaction between Medical Infusion Technologies and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated November 8, 2005, indicates that Medical Infusion Technologies shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 100 units of Gammar P. The pedigree paper is a form apparently generated by Medical Infusion Technologies to conform to the requirements of "section (e)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act." The pedigree paper is not signed or dated. It identifies the manufacturer of the Gammar P as "Aventis" and indicates that the distributor of record is "Cardinal Health." The pedigree paper does not include the lot number and quantity of Gammar P that Cardinal Health purchased from Aventis, nor does it indicate the dosage form of the Gammar P purchased by Cardinal Health from Aventis. A stamp on the Invoice attached to the pedigree paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Alex Valdes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of Medical Infusion Technologies or of Worldwide Medical Supply. Medical Infusion Technologies was, however, authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Flebogamma.12 The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the pedigree paper provided by Medical Infusion Technologies and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The pedigree paper was incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the pedigree paper had been authenticated was false. For the reasons stated in paragraph 47 above, the evidence presented by the Department failed to establish that Medical Infusion Technologies was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida. The evidence was, however, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 100 units of Gammar P purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Medical Infusion Technologies were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 15 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of § 499.005(14); Petitioner's Exhibit 10. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 consists of an Order Acknowledgement, a Packing List, a Statement of Account, and an Invoice relating to a transaction between Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated August 16, 2004, indicates that Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply two units of Octagam 5%. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was not required to provide a pedigree paper to Worldwide Medical Supply for the sale of the Octagam because Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is the manufacturer of the drug. It did not, however, have a manufacturer's license to ship prescription drugs to Florida from the address in Kentucky from which it shipped the Octagam to Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Octagam from an unauthorized person. Paragraph 16 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 11. Petitioner's Exhibit 11 consists of an Invoice, a copy of the same Invoice stamped "Paid," and a document entitled "Pedigree Statement" relating to a transaction between Premium Health Services and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated September 23, 2004, indicates that Premium Health Services shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 16 12gm vials of Carimune. The pedigree paper is a form apparently generated by Premium Health Services to conform to the requirements of "section (e)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act." The pedigree paper is signed by a "corporate officer" and dated September 23, 2004. The pedigree paper identifies the manufacturer of the Carimune as "ZLB Bioplasma" and indicates that Premium Health Services is the authorized distributor of the Carimune. The pedigree paper does not include the address, telephone number, or purchase invoice number for the purchase of the Carimune by Premium Health Services from ZLB Bioplasma.13 A stamp on the Invoice attached to the pedigree paper indicates that it was received and authenticated by Luis Dilan of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of Premium Health Services or of Worldwide Medical Supply. The state database shows that Premium Health Services' Florida prescription drug wholesaler license expired on June 30, 2004. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the pedigree paper provided by Medical Infusion Technologies and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The pedigree paper was incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the pedigree paper had been authenticated was false. The evidence presented by the Department also was sufficient to establish that Premium Health Services was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time it sold the Carimune to Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence was, additionally, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 16 12gm vials of Carimune purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Premium Health Services were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 17 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4) and (18); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 12. Petitioner's Exhibit 12 consists of a Packing Slip, an Invoice, a copy of the same Invoice stamped "Paid," and a Pedigree Paper relating to a transaction between Priority Pharmaceuticals and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated May 25, 2005, indicates that Priority Pharmaceuticals shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 10 10ml units of Baygam. The Pedigree Paper is signed by an individual who identifies himself as "Buyer"; the date of the signature is incomplete, giving the month but no day or year. The Pedigree Paper identifies the manufacturer of the Baygam as "Bayer" and also indicates that "Bayer" is the "authorized distributor of record" in addition to being the manufacturer. The Pedigree Paper shows a subsequent wholesale distribution to Worldwide Medical Supply, but the same individual that signed the Pedigree Paper also signed the subsequent distribution section as the "authenticator." A stamp on the Invoice marked "Paid" indicates that it was received and authenticated by Daphne Csendes of Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 10 10ml units of Baygam purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Priority Pharmaceuticals were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 18 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4) and (18); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 13. Petitioner's Exhibit 13 consists of five sets of documents relating to transactions between Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation and Worldwide Medical Supply on or about April 27, 2005, and May 11, 18, and 20, 2005. The Department has charged Worldwide Medical Supply in its Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint with four violations of Sections 499.001 through .081, Florida Statutes, each corresponding to a specific date.14 The first set of documents consists of a Picking Slip and Invoice dated April 27, 2005, together with a copy of the Picking Slip showing that it was posted April 28, 2005, and a copy of the Invoice showing that it was paid on May 11, 2005. The Invoice, which is dated May 25, 2005, indicates that Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation 30 10g vials of Gammar. No pedigree paper was included with the Invoices and Picking Slips. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that the 30 10g vials of Gammar were adulterated because they were not accompanied by a pedigree paper. The second set of documents consists of a Pedigree Paper dated May 17, 2005, and Picking Slip and Invoice dated May 11, 2005. The Invoice indicates that 20 6g vials and 10 3g vials of Carimune NF was sold by Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation to Worldwide Medical Supply on May 11, 2005. The Pedigree Paper indicates that ZLB Bioplasma is the manufacturer of the drugs and includes the NDC number, the lot numbers, and the quantity of the drug, which correspond to the lot numbers and quantity of the Carimune sold by Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation to Worldwide Medical Supply. The Pedigree Paper further indicates that Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation was the authorized distributor of record for the Carimune, but the invoice number and date identified on the Pedigree Paper are the invoice number of the Invoice and date relating to the transaction between Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation and Worldwide Medical Supply, not between ZLB Bioplasma and Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation. The Pedigree Paper shows no subsequent wholesale distribution. The Pedigree Paper is signed by an individual who identifies himself as "VP"; the signature is dated May 17, 2005. The evidence presented by the Department with respect to this set of documents was sufficient to establish that the 20 6g vials and 10 3g vials of Carimune NF purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. The third set of documents consists of a Pedigree Paper dated May 17, 2005, and a Picking Slip and Invoice dated May 18, 2005. The Invoice indicates that 20 6g vials of Carimune NF were sold by Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation to Worldwide Medical Supply on May 18, 2005. The Pedigree Paper indicates that ZLB Bioplasma is the manufacturer of the drugs and includes the NDC number, the lot numbers, and the quantity of the drug, which correspond to the lot numbers and quantity of the Carimune sold by Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation to Worldwide Medical Supply. The Pedigree Paper further indicates that Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation was the authorized distributor of record for the Carimune, but the invoice number and date identified on the Pedigree Paper is the number of the Invoice and date relating to the transaction between Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation and Worldwide Medical Supply, not between ZLB Bioplasma and Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation. The Pedigree Paper shows no subsequent wholesale distribution history. The evidence presented by the Department with respect to this set of documents was sufficient to establish that the 20 6g vials of Carimune NF purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. The fourth set of documents consists of two Pedigree Papers dated May 20, 2005, and an Invoice dated May 20, 2005. The Invoice indicates that 20 10g vials of Gammar, five 10g units of Flebogamma, and 10 5g units of Flebogamma were sold by Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation to Worldwide Medical Supply on May 20, 2005. The Pedigree Papers indicate that ZLB Bioplasma is the manufacturer of the Gammar P and that Grifols Biologicals is the manufacturer of the Flebogamma; they include the NDC numbers, the lot numbers, and the quantities of the drugs, which correspond to the lot numbers and quantity of the Gammar P and Flebogamma sold by Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation to Worldwide Medical Supply. The Pedigree Paper for the Flebogamma further indicates that Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation was the authorized distributor of record for the Flebogamma, but the invoice number and date identified on the Pedigree Paper is the number of the Invoice and the date relating to the transaction between Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation and Worldwide Medical Supply, not between Grifols Biologicals and Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation. The Pedigree Paper shows no subsequent wholesale distribution history relating to the Flebogamma. The Pedigree Paper for the Gammar P indicates that Premium Health Services was the authorized distributor of record for the Gammar P and that Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation purchased the Gammar P from Premium Health Services, but the invoice number and date identified on the Pedigree Paper is the number of the Invoice and date relating to the transaction between Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation and Worldwide Medical Supply, not between Grifols Biologicals and Premium Health Services. In addition, there is nothing on the Pedigree Paper for the Gammar P to indicate that the pedigree from Premium Health Services was authenticated by Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation. The evidence presented by the Department with respect to this set of documents was sufficient to establish that the 20 10g vials of Gammar, five 10g units of Flebogamma, and 10 5g units of Flebogamma purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Prodigy Health Supplier Corporation were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 19 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 14. Petitioner's Exhibit 14 consists of an Invoice, a Pedigree Paper, and a facsimile transmittal cover page relating to a transaction between PMP Health Services and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated April 26, 2004, indicates that PMP Health Services shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply eight 10GM units of Gammagard S/D. The Pedigree Paper was apparently originated by PMP Health Services and was signed by an individual who identified himself as "Sec.," with the signature dated April 26, 2004. The Pedigree Paper identifies the manufacturer of the Gammagard as Baxter and includes the lot number and quantity of the drug.15 The invoice number and date below the information related to the manufacturer correspond to the Invoice and date relating to the transaction between PMP Health Services and Worldwide Medical Supply. Cardinal Health is identified on the Pedigree Paper as the authorized distributor of record of the Gammagard, and the subsequent wholesale distribution history shows that the Gammagard was purchased from Cardinal Health by a prescription drug wholesaler in Maryland whose name is illegible on the Pedigree Paper and that the Gammagard was purchased from this company by PMP Health Services. The Pedigree Paper does not contain the purchase date or invoice number for any of the transactions prior to the sale to Worldwide Medical Supply, nor is there any indication that the pedigree of the Gammagard was authenticated by the Maryland company or by PMP Health Services. A facsimile transmittal cover page includes a handwritten note that "This is the pedigree for the Gammagard" and appears to relate to the April 26, 2005, transaction. A stamp on the facsimile transmittal cover page indicates that it was received and authenticated by Luis Dilan of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of PMP Health Services or of Worldwide Medical Supply. PMP Health Services was, however, authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Gammagard. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the Pedigree Paper provided by PMP Health Services and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The Pedigree Paper did not include much of the information required for a pedigree, and it was, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the Pedigree Paper had been authenticated was false. The evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that PMP Health Services was not authorized to distribute the Gammagard identified in the Invoice and Pedigree Paper to Worldwide Medical Supply. PMP Health Services had a wholesaler's license to sell prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to this transaction; the failure to include PMP Health Services' license number in the documentation of the sale constitutes only a recordkeeping error. The evidence was, additionally, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the eight 10GM units of Gammagard S/D purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from PMP Health Services were adulterated drugs in that the Pedigree Paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 20 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4) and (18); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Petitioner's Exhibit 15 consists of an Invoice and a "Statement Identifying Pharmaceutical Sale" relating to a transaction between PMP Health Services and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated June 3, 2004, indicates that PMP Health Services shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply eight 10GM units of Gammagard S/D. The "Statement Identifying Pharmaceutical Sale" is a form apparently generated by PMP Health Services to conform to the requirements of "Section 503(e)(1) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act," and was intended as a pedigree paper for the transaction. The pedigree paper is not signed or dated but includes under a paragraph entitled "Unauthorized Vendor Certification" the typewritten name of an individual who is otherwise unidentified. The pedigree paper identifies the manufacturer of the Gammagard as "Baxter" and also includes the NDC number, expiration date, and lot number of the drug. No quantity or dosage amount is included, however. The pedigree paper shows that PMP Health Services purchased the Gammagard from BioMed Plus, which is identified as an "Authorized Distributor"; there is no information regarding BioMed Plus's purchase of the drug or and no further information regarding PMP Health Services' purchase of the drug from BioMed Plus. A stamp on the Invoice indicates that it was received and authenticated by Luis Dilan of Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the eight 10GM units of Gammagard S/D purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from PMP Health Services were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 21 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 16. Petitioner's Exhibit 16 consists of an Invoice and a Pedigree Paper dated June 21, 2004, and an Invoice and a Pedigree Paper dated July 19, 2004, relating to two transactions between PMP Health Services and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice dated July 19, 2004, indicates that PMP Health Services shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 32 10GM units of Gammunex 10%.16 The Pedigree Paper related to the July 19, 2004, transaction was apparently originated by PMP Health Services and was signed by an individual who identified himself as "Sec.," with the signature dated July 19, 2004. The Pedigree Paper identifies Bayer as the manufacturer of the Gammunex and includes the lot number and quantity of the drug.17 The invoice number and date below the information related to the manufacturer correspond to the Invoice and date relating to the transaction between PMP Health Services and Worldwide Medical Supply. "PHC" is identified on the Pedigree Paper as the authorized distributor of record of the Gammunex, and the subsequent sales history shows that the Gammunex was purchased from PHC by PMP Health Services. The Pedigree Paper contains the purchase date, but it does not include the invoice number for the purchase by PMP Health Services from PHC, nor is there any indication that the pedigree of the Gammunex was authenticated by PMP Health Services. A stamp on the July 19, 2004, Invoice indicates that it was received and authenticated by Luis Dilan of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of PMP Health Services or of Worldwide Medical Supply. PMP Health Services was, however, authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Gammunex. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the Pedigree Paper provided by PMP Health Services and to review them for accuracy and completeness. The Pedigree Paper did not include much of the information required for a pedigree, and it was, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the Pedigree Paper had been authenticated was false. The evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that PMP Health Services was not authorized to distribute the Gammunex identified in the Invoice and Pedigree Paper to Worldwide Medical Supply. PMP Health Services had a wholesaler's license to sell prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to this transaction; the failure to include PMP Health Services' license number in the documentation of the sale constitutes only a recordkeeping error. The evidence was, however, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 32 10GM units of Gammunex 10% purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from PMP Health Services were adulterated drugs in that the Pedigree Paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 22 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of § 499.005(14); Petitioner's Exhibit 17. Petitioner's Exhibit 17 consists of a Sales Order Pick Suggestion and Invoice dated June 7, 2005, and a Sales Order Pick Suggestion and Invoice dated June 22, 2005, relating to two transactions between Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice dated June 7, 2005, indicates that Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply five units of Acthar; the Invoice dated June 22, 2004, indicates that Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply five units of Acthar. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was not required to provide a pedigree paper to Worldwide Medical Supply for the sale of the Acthar because it is the manufacturer of the drug, but it did not have a manufacturer's license to distribute prescription drugs in Florida from the address in Kentucky from which it shipped the Acthar to Worldwide Medical Supply. It did, however, have a manufacturer's license to distribute prescription drugs in Florida from an address in California. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Acthar from an unauthorized person on June 7 and 22, 1005. Paragraph 23 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 18. Petitioner's Exhibit 18 consists of an Invoice dated March 5, 2004, and an Invoice dated October 16, 2003, relating to two transactions between FPP Distribution, Inc., acting as "Logistic Service Providers for: RxBazaar.com," and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice dated October 16, 2003, indicates that FPP Distribution, Inc. shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 60 10GM tabs of Zyprexa. A handwritten notation appears on this Invoice indicating that the Zyprexa was "Returned for no (1) Pedigree Papers (2) RxBazaar not license [sic] in State of Florida for wholesale distribution." The Invoice dated March 5, 2004, indicates that FPP Distribution, Inc., shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 3 5MG units of Aricept.18 No pedigree paper was included with the Invoice, and there is no indication that the Aricept was returned. As noted by Worldwide Medical Supply on the October 16, 2003, Invoice, RxBazaar.com was not licensed to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Zyprexa, and neither it nor FPP Distribution, Inc., was licensed to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Aricept. Because neither FPP Distribution, Inc., nor RxBazaar.com was licensed to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the March 5, 2004, transaction, the evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Aricept from an unauthorized person. However, even though Worldwide Medical Supply did purchase Zyprexa from FPP Distribution, Inc./RxBazaar.com, the evidence establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply returned the shipment and, therefore, for purposes of a separate violation of Sections 499.001 through .081, Florida Statutes, the evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply completed the purchase of the Zyprexa from an unauthorized person. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 3 5MG units of Aricept purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from FPP Distribution, Inc./RxBazaar.com were adulterated drugs in that no pedigree paper was provided for the drugs. Finally, no pedigree papers are included in Petitioner's Exhibit 18, and there is no representation on either the October 16, 2003, or the March 5, 2004, Invoices that anyone at Worldwide Medical Supply authenticated the prescription drug pedigrees. Therefore, the evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply fraudulently authenticated the pedigrees of these drugs. Paragraph 24 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4) and (18); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 19.19 Petitioner's Exhibit 19 consists of an Invoice and four documents entitled "Statement Identifying Prior Sales of Prescription Drugs by Wholesalers Required by the Prescription Drug Marketing Act," which apparently are intended to be pedigree papers, relating to a transaction between Allscripts Healthcare Solutions and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated February 2, 2004, indicates that Allscripts Healthcare Solutions shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 30 200mg tabs of Diflucan; 60 2mg tablets of Risperdal; 60 10mg tabs of Zyprexa; and 60 20mg tabs of Zyprexa. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions provided a statement identifying prior sales to Worldwide Medical Supply for each of these four prescription drugs; these statements were apparently intended to be pedigree papers for each of the drugs. The statements identify the manufacturer and NDC number for each drug; include the bulk lot numbers and expiration dates for the drugs; indicate that Allscripts Healthcare Solutions sold the drugs to Worldwide Medical Supply; provide Allscripts Healthcare Solutions' Florida Out-Of-State Prescription Drug Wholesaler Permit number; identify Amerisource Bergen as the person from whom Allscripts Healthcare Solutions purchased the drugs; identify Amerisource Bergen as an authorized distributor for the drugs; and state that Amerisource Bergen did not provide pedigree documents to Allscripts Healthcare Solutions for the drugs. The statements did not include any information regarding the purchase of the drugs from the manufacturers. The evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the four prescription drugs from an unauthorized person. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions was properly licensed to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the times of the transactions at issue. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 30 200mg tabs of Diflucan, 60 2mg tablets of Risperdal, 60 10mg tabs of Zyprexa, and 60 20mg tabs of Zyprexa purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Allscripts Healthcare Solutions were adulterated drugs in that the statements intended to provide the pedigrees for the drugs were incomplete. Paragraph 26 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 21. Petitioner's Exhibit 21 consists of an Invoice, a Packing Slip, and a "Pedigree" relating to a transaction between ActSys Medical, Inc., and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice dated December 22, 2004, indicates that ActSys Medical, Inc., shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 10 10ml vials of Baygam. The pedigree paper provided by ActSys Medical, Inc., identified the manufacturer of the Baygam as Bayer, and included the NDC number, the quantity, the lot number, and the expiration date of the drugs. The pedigree paper further identified ActSys Medical, Inc., as the supplier of the drugs and identified ActSys Medical, Inc., as the "authorized distributor." There is no further wholesale distribution history for the drugs in the pedigree paper; there is no information in the pedigree paper regarding the purchase of the drugs by ActSys Medical, Inc.; and the pedigree paper is not signed. A stamp on the December 22, 2004, Invoice indicates that it was received and authenticated by Luis Dilan of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of ActSys Medical, Inc., or of Worldwide Medical Supply. ActSys Medical, Inc., was not authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Baygam. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the pedigree paper provided by ActSys Medical, Inc., and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The pedigree paper did not include much of the information required for a pedigree, and it was, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the pedigree paper had been authenticated was false. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that ActSys Medical, Inc., was not authorized to distribute the Baygam identified in the Invoice and "Pedigree" provided to Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence was, additionally, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 10 10ml vials of Baygam purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from ActSys Medical, Inc., were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 27 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; fraudulent authentication of a pedigree and purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (14), (18), and (28); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 22. Petitioner's Exhibit 22 consists of an Invoice, a copy of the Invoice marked "Paid," a Work Order, and a Pedigree Paper relating to a transaction between Florida Infusion/Nations Drug and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice dated September 15, 2005, indicates that Florida Infusion shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 14 2ML units of Baygam Immune Globulin I.M. The Pedigree Paper provided by Florida Infusion identified the manufacturer of the Baygam as "Talecris," and included the NDC number, the quantity, the lot number, and the expiration date of the drugs. The Pedigree Paper further identified Florida Infusion as the "authorized distributor of record." There is no further wholesale distribution history for the drugs in the Pedigree Paper and there is no information in the Pedigree Paper regarding the purchase of the drugs by Florida Infusion.20 The invoice number and date included on the Pedigree Paper corresponds to the invoice number and date of the transaction between Florida Infusion and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Pedigree Paper is signed and dated September 19, 2005. A stamp on the September 15, 2005, Work Order indicates that it was received and authenticated by Daphne Csendes of Worldwide Medical Supply. None of the documents relating to this transaction contain the Florida license number of Florida Infusion or of Worldwide Medical Supply. Florida Infusion was, however, authorized to distribute prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to the sale of the Baygam. The evidence presented by the Department was not sufficient to establish that Florida Infusion was not authorized to distribute the Baygam identified in the Invoice and Pedigree Paper to Worldwide Medical Supply. Florida Infusion had a wholesaler's license to sell prescription drugs in Florida at the time relevant to this transaction; the failure to include Florida Infusion's license number in the documentation of the sale constitutes only a recordkeeping error. The evidence was, additionally, sufficient to establish that the omission of Worldwide Medical Supply's Florida license number constituted the failure to maintain the records required for prescription drug transactions. The evidence presented by the Department establishes that Worldwide Medical Supply failed to authenticate the Pedigree Paper provided by Florida Infusion and to review it for accuracy and completeness. The Pedigree Paper did not include much of the information required for a pedigree, and it was, therefore, incomplete and could not be authenticated with the information provided. As a result, the attestation that the Pedigree Paper had been authenticated was false. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 14 2ML units of Baygam Immune Globulin I.M. purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Florida Infusion were adulterated drugs in that the Pedigree Paper for the drugs was incomplete. Paragraph 28 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (18), and (29); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 23. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 consists of five Invoices and accompanying shipping documents and a sixth Invoice that is not accompanied by a shipping document; these documents relate to six transactions between Bellco Drug Corp and Worldwide Medical Supply. The first Invoice, dated October 17, 2005, indicates that Bellco Drug Corp shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply eight 10ML units of Chorionic Gonad (N/RTN); the second Invoice, dated October 17, 2005, indicates that Bellco Drug Corp shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 10 10ML units of Chorionic Gonad (N/RTN); the third Invoice, dated October 17, 2005, indicates that Bellco Drug Corp shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 5 10ML units of Nubain Inj 10MG/ML N/f; the fourth Invoice, dated October 18, 2005, indicates that Bellco Drug Corp shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply four 20ML units of Ceftriaxone DOD Inj 1GM and 4 2ML units of Thiamine HCL Inj 100MG/ML; the fifth Invoice, dated October 20, 2005, indicates that Bellco Drug Corp shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 24 10CP units of Tamiflu 75MG; and the sixth Invoice, dated October 31, 2005, indicates that Bellco Drug Corp shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply one 2ML unit of Baygam SDV and three 10CP units of Tamiflu 75MG.21 A stamp on the October 31, 2005, Invoice indicates that it was received and authenticated by Alex Valdes of Worldwide Medical Supply. No pedigree papers were, however, provided for any of the six transactions. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the prescription drugs purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from Bellco Drug Corp on October 17, 18, 20, and 31, 2005, were adulterated drugs in that no pedigree papers were provided for the drugs. In addition, the evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply's purported authentication of the pedigrees of the drugs purchased from Bellco Drug Corp on October 31, 2005, was fraudulent. No authentication was possible because no pedigree paper was provided for the drugs. Paragraph 29 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of contraband prescription drugs in violation of §§ 499.005(1)-(4), (18), and (29); 499.006(10); and 499.0051(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 24. Petitioner's Exhibit 24 consists of a Packing List and three statements entitled "Prescription Drug Pedigree" relating to a transaction between BioMed Plus Miami and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Packing List, which is dated December 9, 2004, indicates that BioMed Plus Miami shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply 35 5-gram units of Gammunex 10%; 15 10-gram units of Gammunex 10%; and 5 20- gram units of Gammunex 10%. The "Prescription Drug Pedigree" statements included with the Invoices were apparently created by BioMed Plus Miami. The three "pedigree" statements are not signed or dated. The statements identify the manufacturer of the Gammunex 10% as Bayer, and the only information included on the documents is the name and dosage of the drugs, the NDC numbers, the lot numbers, the expiration dates, and the quantities of the drugs expressed in grams. The statements include no information regarding the purchase of the Gammunex by BioMed Plus Miami or the wholesale distribution history of the drugs. A stamp on the Packing List indicates that it was received and authenticated by Luis Dilan of Worldwide Medical Supply. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the 35 5-gram units of Gammunex 10%, the 15 10-gram units of Gammunex 10%, and the 5 20-gram units of Gammunex 10% purchased by Worldwide Medical Supply from BioMed Plus Miami were adulterated drugs in that the pedigree papers for the drugs were wholly inadequate and incomplete. Paragraph 30 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; receipt of a prescription drug by a non- permitted facility in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and 499.006(10), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 25. Petitioner's Exhibit 25 consists of an Invoice and a Packing Slip relating to a transaction between Mercury Medical and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Invoice, which is dated October 13, 2006, indicates that Mercury Medical shipped 20 5ML units of flu vaccine to Rick Nielson at 7904 West Drive, Unit 1017, North Bay Village, Florida 33141 and billed the vaccine to Worldwide Medical Supply. At the time the vaccine was shipped, Rick Nielson was the certified designated representative of Worldwide Medical Supply, and the address to which it was shipped was Mr. Nielson's home address. Mr. Nielson's home was not a facility licensed to receive prescription drug in Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to establish that the drug was adulterated because the drug was held by a person not authorized to do so, but the Department presented no evidence to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply was responsible for the shipment or that it committed a violation with respect to this transaction. Paragraph 31 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and (15) and 499.0051(1)(b), (4),and (5), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 26. Petitioner's Exhibit 26 consists of a Packing Slip, a Pedigree Paper, and copies of the Georgia and Florida licenses of Medical Infusion Technologies relating to a transaction between Medical Infusion Technologies and Worldwide Medical Supply. The Packing Slip, which is dated April 25, 2006, indicates that a number of 3 gram vials of Carimune NF were shipped to Medical Infusion Technologies at an address in Bossier City, Louisiana. The Pedigree Paper prepared by Worldwide Medical Supply and dated March 6, 2007, indicates that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased nine of the 3 gram vials of Carimune from Medical Infusion Technologies, whose address was noted on the Pedigree Paper as 1525 Doctors Drive, Bossier City, Louisiana. Medical Infusion Technologies did not have a Florida license to distribute prescription drugs from its Bossier City, Louisiana, address. Medical Infusion Technologies' Florida license was issued to Medical Infusion Technologies at 115 Echols Street, Savannah, Georgia. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from a person not authorized to sell the drug in Florida. Paragraph 32 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and (15) and 499.0051(1)(b), (4),and (5), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 27. Petitioner's Exhibit 27 consists of a two-page Invoice dated September 25, 2006, and an Order Pick Sheet dated October 10, 2006. These documents relate to transactions involving Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Worldwide Medical Supply, and an entity referred to as "Kuehne & Nagel - Dallas." The Invoice indicates that, on September 25, 2006, Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply at an address in Dallas, Texas, "c/o Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. (Texas)," 702 6gm units of Carimune. The Order Pick Sheet indicates that, on October 10, 2006, Kuehne + Nagel consigned 46 6gm units of Carimune to Worldwide Medical Supply in Florida City, Florida, and a notation appears on the sheet that a particular Federal Express account was to be used. Kuehne + Nagel is a licensed wholesale distributor of prescription drugs in the State of Texas, as is Worldwide Medical Supply, but it is not licensed as a wholesale distributor of prescription drugs in the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was sufficient to support an inference that the 46 6gm units of Carimune were shipped by Kuehne + Nagel to Worldwide Medical Supply in Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from a person not authorized to sell the drug in Florida. Paragraph 33 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and (15) and 499.0051(1)(b), (4),and (5), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 28. Petitioner's Exhibit 28 consists of two Invoices and a two-page Pedigree Paper that relate to transactions involving Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Worldwide Medical Supply, and Kuehne + Nagel." The first Invoice indicates that, on September 25, 2006, Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, shipped and billed to Worldwide Medical Supply at an address in Dallas, Texas, "c/o Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. (Texas)," 416 6gm units of Carimune. The second Invoice, dated September 29, 2006, indicates that Worldwide Medical Supply shipped and billed to Reliance Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 28 6gm units of Carimune from an address in Florida City, Florida. The Pedigree Paper indicates that Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, sold 28 6gm vials of Carimune NF to Kuehne + Nagel on September 25, 2006, and that these prescription drugs were shipped to Worldwide Medical Supply in Texas. The Pedigree Paper further indicates that Kuehne + Nagel sold the Carimune to Worldwide Medical Supply in Florida on September 26, 2006.22 As previously noted, Kuehne + Nagel is a licensed wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Texas, but it is not licensed as a wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from a person not authorized to sell the drug in Florida. Paragraph 34 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and (15) and 499.0051(1)(b), (4),and (5), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 29. Petitioner's Exhibit 29 consists of an Invoice and a two-page Pedigree Paper that relate to a transaction involving Kuehne + Nagel, Worldwide Medical Supply, and Reliance Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The Invoice indicates that, on October 27, 2006, Worldwide Medical Supply shipped and billed to Reliance Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 45 6gm vials of Carimune NF from an address in Florida City, Florida. The Pedigree Paper indicates that Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, sold 33 6gm vials of Carimune NF to Kuehne + Nagel on September 25, 2006, and that these prescription drugs were shipped to Worldwide Medical Supply in Texas. The Pedigree Paper further indicates that Kuehne + Nagel sold the Carimune to Worldwide Medical Supply in Florida on September 26, 2006. As previously noted, Kuehne + Nagel is a licensed wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Texas, but it is not licensed as a wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from a person not authorized to sell the drug in Florida. Paragraph 35 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and (15) and 499.0051(1)(b), (4),and (5), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 30. Petitioner's Exhibit 30 consists of an Invoice and a two-page Pedigree Paper that relate to a transaction involving Kuehne + Nagel, Worldwide Medical Supply, and Juan F. Lamas, Inc., M.D. The Invoice indicates that, on October 16, 2006, Worldwide Medical Supply shipped and billed to Dr. Lamas 7 6gm vials of Carimune NF from an address in Florida City, Florida. The Pedigree Paper indicates that Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, sold the 7 6gm vials of the Carimune NF to Kuehne + Nagel on September 25, 2006, and that these prescription drugs were shipped to Worldwide Medical Supply in Texas. The Pedigree Paper further indicates that Kuehne + Nagel sold the Carimune to Worldwide Medical Supply in Florida on September 26, 2006. As previously noted, Kuehne + Nagel is a licensed wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Texas, but it is not licensed as a wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from a person not authorized to sell the drug in Florida. Paragraph 36 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and (15) and 499.0051(1)(b), (4),and (5), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 31. Petitioner's Exhibit 31 consists of an Invoice and a two-page Pedigree Paper that relate to a transaction involving Kuehne + Nagel, Worldwide Medical Supply, and Integrated Health Center of America, Inc. The Invoice indicates that, on October 10, 2006, Worldwide Medical Supply shipped and billed to Integrated Health Center of America, Inc., 20 6gm vials of Carimune NF from an address in Florida City, Florida. The Pedigree Paper indicates that Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, sold the 20 6gm vials of the Carimune NF to Kuehne + Nagel on September 25, 2006, and that these prescription drugs were shipped to Worldwide Medical Supply in Texas. The Pedigree Paper further indicates that Kuehne + Nagel sold the Carimune to Worldwide Medical Supply in Florida on September 26, 2006. As previously noted, Kuehne + Nagel is a licensed wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Texas, but it is not licensed as a wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from a person not authorized to sell the drug in Florida. Paragraph 37 of the Corrected Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended; purchase of prescription drugs from an unauthorized person in violation of §§ 499.005(14) and (15) and 499.0051(1)(b), (4),and (5), Fla. Stat.; Petitioner's Exhibit 32. Petitioner's Exhibit 32 consists of an Invoice and a two-page Pedigree Paper that relate to a transaction involving Kuehne + Nagel, Worldwide Medical Supply, and Dr. Wohlfeiler Piperato & Associates. The Invoice indicates that, on September 28, 2006,, Worldwide Medical Supply shipped and billed to Dr. Wohlfeiler Piperato & Associates 12 6gm vials of Carimune NF from an address in Florida City, Florida. The Pedigree Paper indicates that Broughton Pharmaceuticals, LLC, sold the 12 6gm vials of the Carimune NF to Kuehne + Nagel on September 25, 2006, and that these prescription drugs were shipped to Worldwide Medical Supply in Texas. The Pedigree Paper further indicates that Kuehne + Nagel sold the Carimune to Worldwide Medical Supply in Florida on September 26, 2006. As previously noted, Kuehne + Nagel is a licensed wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Texas, but it is not licensed as a wholesale distributor of drugs in the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department was, therefore, sufficient to establish that Worldwide Medical Supply purchased the Carimune from a person not authorized to sell the drug in Florida. The violations committed by Worldwide Medical Supply are substantial, are of long duration, and involve a significant number of transactions relating to the sale and purchase of prescription drugs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding that Worldwide Medical Supply and Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has committed 37 violations of Sections 499.001 through .081, Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative of $185,000.00; and revoking the license of Worldwide Medical Supply and Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to operate as a prescription drug wholesale distributor. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Barnell and Louise Evans held beverage license No. 62-01451-2-COP for premises located at 1313 North Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. They have held this beverage license since 1980. Following receipt of complaints regarding the sale and use of controlled substances, principally marijuana and cocaine, on the licensed premises, an undercover investigation of Foxy's Den was initiated. Keith B. Hamilton, Department of Law Enforcement (DLE) Investigator, visited Foxy's Den the evening of February 28, 1985, observed patrons smoking marijuana, purchased a $5.00 packet from a patron in the lounge of what was later tested and found to be marijuana, purchased paper to roll marijuana cigarettes from the barmaid after holding up the packet he had just purchased, and observed other transactions in what appeared to be the sale and use of marijuana on the licensed premises. Ira L. McQueen, another DLE Investigator, visited the licensed premises during the evening hours of March 21, 26, and 28 April 9, 10, 16, 18, 24, and 29 May 6, 9, 15, 21, and 22: June 20, 25, and 26: July 1, 8, 18, 23, and 29, 1985. During each of these visits he observed one or more of the following: Patrons smoking marijuana in plain view in the bar area patrons selling marijuana and cocaine to other patrons, including McQueen, in the bar area without much attempt at secrecy: bartenders and barmaids discussing the purchase of controlled substances with patrons and acting as intermediaries in those purchases packets of marijuana and money in exchange therefor passing between patrons in plain view of the bartender patrons obtaining change from the bartender, for example, a $20.00 bill, to purchase a nickel ($5.00) or dime ($10.00) packet of marijuana and McQueen being asked by the bartender if he, McQueen, was interested in buying marijuana or cocaine, and thereafter the bartender participating in the purchase of cocaine or marijuana by contributing money to the purchase and contacting the vendors. During these visits to the licensed premises by McQueen, he observed the licensee, Barnell Evans, on the premises only twice, but on each of these occasions McQueen observed the illegal use or sale of controlled substances on the premises which could also have been observed by Evans. Louise Evans has a full-time job at a local hospital and visits the licensed premises only for the purpose of taking the books and records home where she prepares the payroll, pays bills, and keeps the books for the business. Barnell Evans' principal occupation is construction. He is a stucco subcontractor and has maintained this business in Clearwater for a number of years. He has a good reputation in the building industry for honesty and integrity. Operation of Foxy's Den is a part-time occupation of Evans. Respondents had been told by a friend that controlled substances were being sold in the vicinity of the premises. One bartender and a barmaid were fired by Respondents for involvement with drugs on the premises after being warned that implication in drugs on the licensed premises would not be tolerated by the owners. One witness described Barnell Evans as naive regarding controlled substances. His appearance during these proceedings supports the conclusion that he is more naive regarding how to stop the use or sale of controlled substances than indifferent to such use or sale. The bartender on duty most of the evenings Foxy's Den was visited by McQueen, and who was involved in McQueen's purchases, is June Little, the nephew of Barnell Evans, who had hired Little because he was out of work, living with his mother, and "needed a job." Respondents have negotiated an agreement, Exhibit 4, with Curtis McCoy Security Agency for the latter to provide an unarmed uniform security guard on the licensed premises from 4:00 p.m. until midnight daily to detect and deter violations of the laws regarding sale and/or use of controlled substances on the licensed premises.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been substantially affected by agency statements made by Respondent, and, if so, whether the statements violate section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harmony Environmental (Harmony), is duly- licensed as a Universal Waste Transporter Facility (UWTF) with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), holding EPA ID No. FLR000202424. Additionally, Harmony is registered as a Hazardous Waste Transporter by FDEP as well as the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT); a Used Oil Handler by FDEP; a Biomedical Waste Transporter by the Florida Department of Health; and as a Waste Transporter by Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Respondent is the state department charged with regulating drugs, devices, and cosmetics pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 499, Florida Statutes. Respondent does not have jurisdiction over the permitting of universal waste transporters or over Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-730. Respondent has not issued any permits or licenses to Petitioner. On May 20, 2014, Respondent’s Inspector Dr. Tram Vu inspected Petitioner. The Entry Notice and On-Site Inspection Report was included as an exhibit to the Petition filed in this matter. It makes reference to the “inspection” by Dr. Vu as one, “conducted under Ch. 499.051, F.S., and Rule 61N-1.019, F.A.C., to assess firm’s activities and compliance.” Respondent admitted the May 20th inspection was conducted under the authority cited in the report. On July 16 and 17, 2014, Dr. Vu again inspected Petitioner. A number of photographs were taken during the inspection. The photographs depict two large white containers referred to in the Petition and at the hearing as “yard super sacks.” Inspector Vu testified that the yard super sacks were sealed and that none of the “prescription drugs” photographed were found outside of the sealed Universal Pharmaceutical Waste (UPW) containers. Dr. Vu subsequently requested Petitioner to “voluntarily” quarantine the super sacks and a black tote, and a voluntary quarantine form was prepared and executed. The voluntary quarantine form states that it is “an alternative to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (‘DBPR’) removing some or all of the products for examination and sampling pursuant to Section 499.065(2), Florida Statutes.” Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) to Petitioner on August 18, 2014, regarding its application for a restricted drug distributor/destruction permit. The NOID concluded that Petitioner acted as a restricted drug distributor/destruction establishment without a license. The NOID cited rule 61N-1.023(4), which provides that such a permit is required for a person to take possession in Florida of a prescription drug for the purpose of arranging for its destruction. When asked by Petitioner in an interrogatory, “Are there any facts or circumstances that would cause the DDC to consider that a prescription drug has become UPW and no longer subject to its authority? If so, state or identify each and every such fact or circumstance.” Respondent answered, “No. The term ‘UPW’ is a term that is within the jurisdiction of another Florida state agency, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). A prescription drug is no longer a prescription drug when the nature of the prescription drug is altered or changed in a way that the active ingredient which causes the prescription drug to be a prescription drug is no longer active.” Reginald Dixon, the Director of the Division of Drugs, Devices, and Cosmetics (DDC), acknowledged that in his two years as Director, Respondent’s chapter 61N-1 has not contained any definition that addresses the difference between viable drugs and non-viable drugs and that it contains no reference to UPW. Mr. Dixon further acknowledged that chapter 61N-1 does not contain the statement that “[a] prescription drug is no longer a prescription drug when the nature of the prescription drug is altered or changed in a way that the active ingredient which causes the prescription drug to be a prescription drug is no longer active.” He further acknowledged that he is not aware of any federal or Florida law, rule, or regulation that provides the same or similar statement; and that chapter 61N-1 does not contain any definition or explanation as to how the change or alteration that may render the active ingredient inactive takes place. Respondent’s policy that a drug continues to be a prescription drug until its nature is altered or changed so that the active ingredient that makes it a prescription drug is no longer active applies not only to Petitioner. Such policy would apply to other entities engaged in a similar business, as well as to pharmacies, drug wholesalers, and hospitals when considering how to legally dispose of prescription drugs. Respondent takes the position that the UPW rule “is not a rule that belongs to DBPR” (Hr’g Tr. 62); that Respondent “does not have any jurisdiction over the DEP rules” (Hr’g Tr. 75); and that Respondent does “not look at the DEP rules to determine or use their determination of whether or not a drug is viable . . . or nonviable” (Hr’g Tr. 75). “To the extent that [the UPW] rule talks about viable and nonviable pharmaceuticals, that’s not something within our jurisdiction and we don’t deal with it” (Hr’g Tr. 78). Respondent admitted that it is important for regulated entities to know when the agency considered that a drug is no longer under its jurisdiction. Respondent also admitted that if other regulations exist that do not call prescription drugs “prescription drugs” anymore, but instead call them “solid waste, universal pharmaceutical waste or hazardous waste,” those statutes and regulations may “possibly” have a bearing on chapter 499 and chapter 61N-1. In response to Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, Respondent claimed to be “without knowledge” of whether the hazardous waste program under the Federal Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) established a “cradle to grave” system for controlling hazardous waste; and whether pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 272.501, the Federal EPA approved the hazardous waste management program administered by the FDEP pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Moreover, Respondent was “without knowledge” of whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate drugs that have been discarded as hazardous or pharmaceutical waste; and that the FDA does not regulate generators or handlers of hazardous or pharmaceutical waste. Respondent also claimed to be “without knowledge” that some UPW is generated by hospitals during surgical procedures when a vial containing a standard dose of medication is not fully used because of the patient’s size or condition, with the unused dose “wasted” by placing it in a sealed, properly labeled UPW container; that hospitals that dispose of non-controlled and non-viable drugs in a properly labeled UPW container pursuant to rule 62-730.186, do not routinely create a list or inventory of the drugs being wasted or placed in the container that includes the name of the manufacturer, the name of the drug, the quantity, lot number, expiration date, or any combination of these elements; and that hospitals wasting non-viable controlled substances maintain a log that identifies the name and quantity of the controlled substance wasted, but not the manufacturer, the lot number, or the expiration date; and that such controlled substance log complies with DEA regulations as well as chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dixon testified that the act of disposing of the unused portion of a prescription drug in a UPW container at a hospital that also contains sharps, broken glass, tissue, and bloody gauzes could constitute the adulteration of that prescription drug. Further, Mr. Dixon testified that when hospitals dispose of drugs in UPW containers they are “possibly” adulterating drugs, and when Petitioner picks up the UPW container, Petitioner may likewise “possibly” be holding adulterated drugs. Petitioner’s witness, Michelle Chambers, was accepted as an expert witness on UPW and related regulations, both state and federal. Although unpaid for her work due to being the spouse of Petitioner’s owner, she is the compliance coordinator, bookkeeper, and registered agent for Petitioner. Mrs. Chambers trains drug wholesalers how to manage their UPW by directing them to “utilize a return if they can get credit for the drug, but that once a drug becomes waste it falls under the guidelines of UPW and those drug wholesalers need to create a separate area that can handle UPW containers.” When discussing the process of sending UPW to a reverse distributor regulated by Respondent, Mrs. Chambers referred to the FDEP’s pharmaceutical waste guidelines, which state: Only pharmaceuticals with a reasonable expectation of credit can be sent to a reverse distributor. Drop pills, non- credible items, formulated mixtures, items with patient’s names, and raw chemicals cannot be sent to a reverse distributor for credit; thereafter, a waste determination is required and the decision must be made to manage this waste as hazardous waste or UPW waste. Mrs. Chambers stated she had knowledge of unexpired drugs, still in the original packaging that were declared waste by the wholesaler. She asserted that drug wholesalers abandoned or discarded the unexpired drugs in their original packaging because “they couldn’t send it back to a reverse distributor to get credit. There was just no value to it, whatsoever, so they decided to make that waste determination that this is waste, UPW.” Mrs. Chambers stated that UPW labels are attached to UPW containers in Petitioner’s facility, according to the FDEP rule regarding UPW. These labels represent the characteristics of the hazardous waste and other waste inside those containers. Some of the notations on the label refer to a substance, material, or a chemical product that is a prescription drug. She also testified that several documents may be created in the UPW process, such as a hazardous-waste manifest and a bill of lading. In records that a UPW handler is expected to maintain under FDEP rules, a UPW handler is not required to have those records contain the name of the drugs that are in the UPW containers, the manufacturer’s information, or the expiration date of the drugs in the UPW container. She asserted that Petitioner could not reasonably create inventories of all the drugs inside a UPW container because “some of the labels have been poured on by other elements within the container; some are unidentifiable; some are broken . . . it would be very difficult to create an inventory.” Based upon her audits of more than 200 hospitals, Mrs. Chambers stated that if a hospital has a procedure to put non-viable drugs in a UPW container, it is because they are trained to do so. She testified that no hospital she has ever audited has ever kept records that include drug names, manufacturers, or expiration dates for anything they have placed in the UPW containers. Petitioner picks up these containers and brings them to its facility. A UPW handler can add waste to the container, as well as consolidate those containers. Mrs. Chambers also discussed consumer packaging under rule 62-730.186(4)(a), which states: “Consumer packaging” means the packaging that surrounds and encloses a container, in a form intended or suitable for a healthcare or retail venue, or rejected during the manufacture process as long as it is enclosed in its bottle, jar, tube, ampoule, or package for final distribution to a healthcare or retail venue. Further, UPW handlers can conduct activities, including disassembling packages containing several pharmaceuticals into individual pharmaceuticals from consumer packaging. In her experience in the auditing of hospitals for UPW, as well as with Petitioner, Mrs. Chambers stated that controlled substances are put into UPW containers from time to time, yet Petitioner has never been cited or received a notice of violation from the DEA regarding the possession of a controlled substance. To her knowledge, the DEA has never notified any UPW handler in Florida of any violations for possessing controlled substances. Dr. Vu conducts inspections and investigations pursuant to chapter 499, specifically investigating unlicensed activities as well as inspecting facilities that are attempting to obtain a DDC permit. Dr. Vu was tendered and accepted as an expert in pharmacy and conducting inspections for Respondent pursuant to chapter 499. She testified that during her inspection of Petitioner on July 14, 2014, she pulled drugs from UPW containers to inspect them. She admitted there were no prescription drugs outside the UPW containers on Petitioner’s premises. She stated that Petitioner’s agents or employees volunteered to open the UPW containers for her inspection. The scant evidence Dr. Vu relied upon that Petitioner had any controlled substances on the premises was based upon documents she obtained from a third party as well as from Petitioner. She admitted there was no evidence of controlled substances on Petitioner’s premises. While Dr. Vu stated she is able to recognize prescription drugs when she sees them, she is not able to recognize UPW since she is “not trained in universal pharmaceutical waste.” She also stated she is not able to recognize a non-viable drug when she sees it. Dr. Vu has received no training from Respondent on the opening of UPW containers, and even though she has not been trained in UPW rules and definitions, she strongly asserted that Petitioner “[c]learly was in possession of prescription drugs,” and that Petitioner had no permit or authorization to possess prescription drugs. When asked about her understanding of when a prescription drug ceases to be a prescription drug, she replied that “a prescription drug is always a prescription drug unless it’s inactivated or loses its drug ability –- characteristics.” Dr. Vu noted that this understanding is not stated in chapter 61N-1 or chapter 499. David Laven, another drug inspector for Respondent, was tendered and accepted as an expert in pharmacy and issues related to the inspection for Respondent under chapter 499. He testified that Petitioner is not allowed to possess prescription drugs without a DDC permit. On cross-examination, however, he admitted he had not read the rule on UPW, has no knowledge of EPA rules and requirements, and that he is not trained to recognize a non-viable drug. He testified that he considers a prescription drug that is discarded in a UPW container still to be a prescription drug because “there’s still a possibility, depending on how that drug has been disposed of, the container may be partially full –- it can be a full container sometimes. Drugs are thrown in a container for a number of reasons, doesn’t necessarily mean that the drug is no longer viable or can be used in any way.” Regarding the definition of prescription drugs, Mr. Laven stated that “[a] drug is no longer viable or useable if it’s out of date, it’s been damaged in some way, compromised, mis-branded, [or] adulterated.” On October 6, 2014, Petitioner sent a Notice of Unadopted Rules letter to Respondent, stating that the conduct and statements set forth above constitute unpromulgated rules and that, according to section 120.595(4)(b), Florida Statutes, they have 30 days to begin proposed rulemaking in order to rectify the actions and statements made. Respondent did not begin proposed rulemaking in that 30-day period. Respondent presented no evidence or testimony to establish that rulemaking was not feasible or practicable.
