This case is a lawsuit within a lawsuit. The primary case was a malpractice lawsuit brought by a patient against a pharmacist who had allegedly dispensed to her an incorrect medication. The judge in that lawsuit ruled that evidence from a previous board of pharmacy disciplinary action could be used in the malpractice case. The pharmacist then filed an action against the judge who issued that ruling, seeking to have the ruling set aside by the appellate court on review.

As you read this case, reflect on the differing purposes of administrative actions brought by the board of pharmacy against a licensee and of malpractice cases brought by patients against their pharmacist. In the former, the purpose is to protect the public in the future, whereas in the latter the purpose is to award compensation for a problem of the past. 

Might admissions made in one type of action be inappropriate for consideration in the other type of action on the basis of the difference in character of the two proceedings? 

On the other hand, why should a person who has made an admission in one legal proceeding not be forced to live with that admission in another, albeit different, proceeding? 

How might practical matters such as the availability of funding to support litigation, the relatively slight punishment one expects, and the confidentiality of a disciplinary action influence pharmacists to admit to charges that they would prefer to contest?