Posts tagged "Pharmacy"

Lawless v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-180-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     SJC‑11366     LEO M. LAWLESS  vs.  BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN PHARMACY.   October 7, 2013.   Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice. Pharmacy.  Board of Registration in Pharmacy.  Administrative Law, Adjudicatory proceeding, Hearing.  License.  Practice, Civil, Default, Review of administrative action.     After the Board of Registration in Pharmacy (board) revoked Leo M. Lawless’s license to practice pharmacy for a minimum of two years, Lawless sought judicial review, pursuant to G. L. c. 112, § 62, from a single justice of this court.  The single justice denied the petition for review and a motion for reconsideration, and Lawless appeals.  There was no error.     Background.  Lawless has held a license to engage in practice as a pharmacist in the Commonwealth since 1974.  Following his termination from a pharmacist position at Hanscom Air Force Base (Hanscom) based on “multiple patient safety adverse events,” the board issued a temporary order summarily suspending his pharmacist license.  The board thereafter issued an order that Lawless “appear and show cause” why it should not suspend, revoke, or otherwise take action against his license pursuant to G. L. c. 112, § 61, and 247 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 2.00 (2013).  The order alleged that Lawless failed accurately to fill and verify prescriptions on multiple occasions and otherwise to maintain the pharmacy; made threatening comments about a member of the pharmacy staff; left the pharmacy while on duty; and failed to comply with the board’s continuing education requirements.  Lawless answered the order to show cause, as well as an amended order.  An adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for March 26, 27, and 28, 2012.[1]  At Lawless’s request, a fourth day, March 30, 2012, was added to permit him to call an expert witness.   In advance of the hearing, Lawless served subpoenas for the release of documents and to procure the attendance of witnesses from Hanscom to testify on his behalf.  At a prehearing conference on March 21, 2012, he sought continuance of the hearing on the basis that a staff judge advocate at Hanscom had objected to the subpoenas and returned them without action.  The hearing officer ruled that the first two days of hearing would proceed as scheduled, with prosecuting counsel for the board presenting her case, and the remaining hearing dates would be continued to give Lawless an opportunity to seek enforcement of the subpoenas.   […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 7, 2013 at 4:52 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,