The liability of pharmacies increasingly depends on not simply an error by a pharmacist, but also perhaps the alleged failure to provide appropriate supervision of pharmacists. This is primary liability of a pharmacy company for its own failure rather than secondary liability as the employer of a pharmacist who has erred. To complicate the picture, courts have begun to entertain the notion that the failure to use systems to prevent error or the failure to learn from the past and improve in the future may subject a pharmacy company to punitive damages. This case that follows resulted in a verdict for a huge amount of money. As you read this case, ask yourself what the solution might be to the workload problem in pharmacy and how pharmacies might be able to address the dilemma of a public that demands cheaper prices and highest quality. 

How can pharmacists and the pharmacies they work for find solutions to this dilemma by working together? 

Are we condemned in pharmacy to unrealistic public expectations of perfection and huge jury verdicts for failure to attain unrealistic expectations? 

Can the threat of liability force pharmacists and pharmacies to develop new quality improvement systems to learn from the past and improve in the future? 

Is coercion of new system development the role of litigation or would other avenues be better suited to this activity?