Human Medications, Human Drugs, Animal Medications, Animal Drugs, Pharmacy law, Pharmaceutical law, Compounding law, Sterile and Non Sterile Compounding 797 Compliance, Veterinary law, Veterinary Compounding Law; Health Care; Awareness of all Types of Compounding Issues; Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Outsourcing Facilities Food and Drug Administration and Compliance Issues
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Question of the Day April 16, 2014 While veterinary compounded preparations prepared by a highly qualified compounding pharmacist knowledgable about veterinary practices and medications are absolutely essential for the treatment of animals, the number of animals deaths or injuries resulting because of compounded drugs are hard to account for when no true reporting process exists, veterinarians may be reluctant to report an adverse reaction, and animal owners may not be aware that their pet suffered an adverse reason from compounded preparations? How can an accurate report or study of these areas of concern be completed? How can vets be encouraged to report such adverse results without fear of losing the ability to treat animals with compounded preparations? Who should be responsible for making sure these adverse reactions are reported?
Pennsylvania--Horse Racing
Legislation Would Hand Gaming Board Reins to Horse-Racing Industry
|
Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202650966862/Legislation-Would-Hand-Gaming-Board-Reins-to-Horse-Racing-Industry#ixzz2z6P66WtI
Great discussion about state and federal law and preemption and this complex and often conflicting and unresolved area of law by Dale J. Atkinson JD on NABP
Legal Briefs: Court Documents License for Undocumented Licensee
Topics: Federal regulations
By Dale J. Atkinson, JD Originally published in the April 2014 NABP Newsletter
The interaction and potential conflict between federal and state law can present interesting issues for regulatory boards that, at times, may be difficult to reconcile. Generally, states have the right to regulate the professions under the police powers granted via the United States Constitution. But, under certain circumstances, federal law can preempt state law. Federal preemption is limited to specified circumstances involving interstate commerce and where federal governmental control is necessary to promote the orderly relationships between and among the states. These interstate commerce issues have historically been the subject of significant litigation. At times, the state and federal laws remain at odds leaving the enforcement of such conflicting legislation in limbo.
The potential for conflicting laws is particularly significant in the area of immigration. On many occasions, licensure eligibility of persons who may meet the qualifications contained in the practice act is subject to further scrutiny based upon additional federal laws. For example, one question subject to differing answers among regulatory boards of the various professions and of the various states is whether an applicant for licensure must possess and provide a valid Social Security number. When denying an application for licensure, the board must substantiate the basis for such denial. Another example subject to significant scrutiny is whether an undocumented immigrant is eligible for licensure.
The full article, which reviews a case involving an applicant to the State Bar of California, is available in the April 2014 NABP Newsletter (PDF; pages 76-78).
Canadian Drug Seller Fills Maine Prescriptions in India, Alleges Maine Pharmacy Association President
continue to read here
Docket and Status of Randoll Mill Pharmacy v. Miller in Texas Supreme Court
Case Events:
Date | Event Type | Description | Disposition | Remarks | Document | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
04/10/2014 | MET to file reply disposed of | Petitioner | Filing granted | Reply due 04/29/14. |
| ||||
04/10/2014 | Motion to extend time to file reply | Petitioner | Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Petition for Review filed on behalf of Randoll Mill Pharmacy, et al. | ||||||
03/31/2014 | Response to Petition for Review filed | Respondent | Response to Petition for Review filed on behalf of Stacey Miller, et al. | ||||||
03/20/2014 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed | Respondent | Filing granted | Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Response is due March 31, 2014. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THIS FILING WILL BE DISFAVORED. |
| ||||
03/20/2014 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | Respondent | Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file Response filed on behalf of Stacey Miller. | ||||||
02/21/2014 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | Indicates filing of Petition for Review | Requested response to petition for review due no later than 3/24/14. |
| |||||
02/19/2014 | Response to Motion filed | Amicus Curiae | Amicus Curiae Texas Pharmacy Association’s Response to Respondents Stacey & Randy Miller's Motion to Strike or Return Amicus Curiae Brief | ||||||
02/18/2014 | Call received | Amicus Curiae | Attorney Keene will be e-filing a response to the motion to strike as soon as possible. | ||||||
02/14/2014 | Motion to Strike filed | Respondent | Respondents’ Motion to Strike or Return Amicus Curiae Brief of Texas Pharmacy Association. On behalf of Stacey Miller and Randy Miller. | ||||||
02/12/2014 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | Received (instead of filed) | Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Alliance of Independent Pharmacists - Texas, et al. | ||||||
02/10/2014 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | Received (instead of filed) | Amicus Brief of Texas Pharmacy Association. Submitted by Mark A. Keene, KEENE & SEIBERT, P.C. , 2700 Bee Cave Road, Suite 120 , Austin, Texas 78746 , Telephone: (512) 343-6248. | ||||||
01/21/2014 | Case forwarded to Court | ||||||||
01/17/2014 | Response to Petition for Review waived | Respondent | Response Waiver and Designation of Michael W. Minton as lead counsel filed on behalf of Stacey and Randy Miller. | ||||||
01/06/2014 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | Received (instead of filed) | Brief of Amicus Curiae of Southwest Pharmacy Solutions d/b/a American Pharmacies in Support of the Petitioners, submitted by Mr. Miguel S. Rodriguez, Taylor Dunham LLP, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1050, Austin, TX 78701, Phone (512) 473-2257, Fax (512) 478-4409. (HARD COPIES REC'D) | ||||||
12/27/2013 | Call received | Petitioner | Spoke with Erin Lunceford and she will resubmit the corrected petition for review on Monday morning. | ||||||
12/27/2013 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | Left message with Erin Lunceford. We received two courtesy copies of the petition for review, along with $145 check. The petition for review is still rejected because the appendix did not contain the trial court judgment and court of appeals judgment. Asked her efile and resubmit the corrected petition for review along with the filing fee. | |||||||
12/20/2013 | Petition for Review filed | Petitioner | Petition for Review filed on behalf of Randoll Mill Pharmacy, et al. (HARD COPIES REC'D) |
|
Copies of all the Recent Amicus Curiae Briefs and Response filed in Randoll Mill Pharmacy v. Miller (including filed by Texas Pharmacy Association, Sourthwest Pharmacy Solutions d/b/a American Pharmacies)
13-1014 | |
Date Filed: | 12/20/2013 |
Case Type: | Petition for Review under Tex. R. App. P. 53.1 |
Style: | RANDOLL MILL PHARMACY, KVG ENTERPRISES, INC., GARY G. DALEY, JOHN WAYNE BAILEY, JAMES ROBERT FORSYTHE, KEVIN LYNN HEIDE, JULIE KNOWLTON LUBBERT AND CARA MORRELL |
v.: | STACEY MILLER AND RANDY MILLER |
Appellate Briefs:
Date | Event Type | Description | Remarks | Document | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
03/31/2014 | Response to Petition for Review filed | Respondent | Response to Petition for Review filed on behalf of Stacey Miller, et al. | |||||
02/12/2014 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | Received (instead of filed) | Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Alliance of Independent Pharmacists - Texas, et al. | |||||
02/10/2014 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | Received (instead of filed) | Amicus Brief of Texas Pharmacy Association. Submitted by Mark A. Keene, KEENE & SEIBERT, P.C. , 2700 Bee Cave Road, Suite 120 , Austin, Texas 78746 , Telephone: (512) 343-6248. | |||||
01/06/2014 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | Received (instead of filed) | Brief of Amicus Curiae of Southwest Pharmacy Solutions d/b/a American Pharmacies in Support of the Petitioners, submitted by Mr. Miguel S. Rodriguez, Taylor Dunham LLP, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1050, Austin, TX 78701, Phone (512) 473-2257, Fax (512) 478-4409. (HARD COPIES REC'D) | |||||
12/20/2013 | Petition for Review filed | Petitioner | Petition for Review filed on behalf of Randoll Mill Pharmacy, et al. (HARD COPIES REC'D) |
|
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW in Randoll Mill Pharmacy v. Miller
CASE NO. 13-1014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
RANDOLL MILL PHARMACY, CVG ENTERPRISES, INC., GARY G.
BAILEY, JOHN WAYNE BAILEY, JAMES ROBERT FORSYTHE, KEVIN
LYNN HEIDE, JULIE KNOWLTON LUBBERT AND CARA MORRELL
Petitioners
V.
STACEY MILLER AND RANDY MILLER
Respondents
Appealed from the Second Court of Appeals
Fort Worth, Texas
Court of Appeals Case No.: 02-12-00519-CV
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
RANDOLL MILL PHARMACY, CVG ENTERPRISES, INC., GARY G.
BAILEY, JOHN WAYNE BAILEY, JAMES ROBERT FORSYTHE, KEVIN
LYNN HEIDE, JULIE KNOWLTON LUBBERT AND CARA MORRELL
Petitioners
V.
STACEY MILLER AND RANDY MILLER
Respondents
Appealed from the Second Court of Appeals
Fort Worth, Texas
Court of Appeals Case No.: 02-12-00519-CV
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
6 | 03/31/2014 | ...on right now with regard to 12 steroids that were tainted that were delivered to 13 physicians. It was a compounding pharmacy that 14 delivered these prescriptions in bulk. Products 15 liability cases have been filed allover the country as 16 a ... | Other | 13-1014 | SC |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)