Pharmacists are subject to numerous regulations that prescribe how they are to practice. No pharmacy adheres to these regulations at all times. It is a simple fact that any pharmacy may be found in violation of some rule at some time, although most pharmacies are in compliance with most rules most of the time. Requirements relating to the number of spatulas and stirring rods that must be owned by a pharmacy seem only distantly related to patient outcomes in a contemporary world. In this case, the question is asked whether it is willful disregard to exceed the allowed ratio for technicians to pharmacists during a brief time when a pharmacist takes a meal break. The plaintiff contends that the pharmacist is liable for punitive damages caused by the violation of the technician ratio rule. 

As you read this case, ask yourself whether there is really any purpose to limits on technicians. If a pharmacy is conducting a meaningful CQI program (perhaps, a big if), then does it really matter whether the pharmacy limits the technicians to a 2:1 ratio with pharmacists? 

Should a pharmacist be permitted to take a meal break if this means that an arbitrary technician/pharmacist ratio will be violated during the meal break? 

If technicians are not used more extensively in the future than they have been in the past, who will fill the prescriptions that are expected to almost double in volume during the next 5 years?