This is an administrative hearing before the DEA, not a court case. The pharmacist in this case initially meant well by refilling a narcotic prescription for an employee that he was certain would be authorized. The prescriber, however, refused authorization, and what transpired after the refill could be described as a criminal nightmare for the pharmacist. In this hearing, the DEA is attempting to determine whether the pharmacy should retain its DEA registration after the owner was convicted of a controlled substance felony. The case was first argued before an administrative law judge (ALJ). After the ALJ rendered her opinion, the case was referred to the deputy administrator of the DEA for either approval or disapproval. The following decision then is from the perspective of the deputy administrator reviewing the ALJ. Despite the fact that the government established a prima facie case that the pharmacy’s registration be terminated, the ALJ found in favor of the pharmacy and the deputy administrator agreed with the decision. As you read this case, ask yourself:

Would you refill a prescription for a controlled substance on the expectation of subsequent authorization by the prescriber?

If you were the ALJ, would you have decided for the pharmacy; why or why not?
Should deep remorse be a defense?

Should the fact that the pharmacist has obeyed the law since the illegal activities occurred be a defense?

Does this decision send a positive or negative message to pharmacists about the consequences of their actions and why?