Opinion
Argued September 13, 1985
December 10, 1985.
State Board of Pharmacy — License suspension — Abuse of discretion.
1. When the imposition of a one year license suspension is supported by substantial evidence of statutory and regulatory violations, the imposition of such a sanction by the State Board of Pharmacy does not constitute an abuse of discretion. [389]
Argued September 13, 1985, before Judge PALLADINO and Senior Judges BARBIERI and KALISH, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 496 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the State Board of Pharmacy, in case of In The Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of Licenses to Practice Pharmacy, issued to Raphael S. Tancredi, License No. RP-23114-L, and Richard J. Tancredi, License No. RP-25477-L, and Samuel J. Tancredi, License No. RP-17051-L t/a Tancredi Apothecary, dated February 10, 1982.
Pharmacy licenses revoked by State Board of Pharmacy. Pharmacists appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Case remanded. ( 54 Pa. Commw. 394) Penalty reduced from revocation to suspension. Pharmacists appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Richard D. Atkins, for petitioners.
James J. Kutz, Deputy Attorney General, with him, Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Special Litigation, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
Raphael S. and Richard J. Tancredi, t/a Tancredi Apothecary, have petitioned this court for review of an order of the State Board of Pharmacy (Board), which suspended their pharmacist licenses for one year. We affirm.
The Board cited the petitioners with numerous violations of regulations under the Pharmacy Act. This case originally came to this court after a Board order revoked the petitioners' licenses. After argument, this court remanded the case to the Board simply to review its penalty of revocation in light of this court's conclusion that the pharmacists' conduct was not "grossly unprofessional conduct" as that term is defined under the Pharmacy Act. The Board took testimony relating to the reputation of the petitioners and that they were active in community affairs. The Board reduced the penalty from complete revocation to suspension for one year.
The findings of violations generally included:
1. Violations of bookkeeping records.
2. Faulty dispensation of a dangerous drug.
3. Inadequate security for drugs stored in the basement.
4. Debris in the basement.
Act of September 27, 1961, P.L. 1700, as amended, 63 P. S. § 390-1 to 390-13.
Tancredi v. State Board of Pharmacy, 54 Pa. Commw. 394, 421 A.2d 507 (1980).
Section 5(a)(9) of the Pharmacy Act, 63 P. S. § 390-5(a)(9).
The petitioners contend that even though they admit to the violations, they were de minimis and that the penalty was too severe.
The issue before the Board on the remand was not the sufficiency of the evidence, which had previously been considered by this court and found to be substantial, but whether under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to impose the penalty of revocation. On remand, the Board considered the mitigating circumstances and lowered the sanction. This sanction is amply supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
ORDER
The order of the State Board of Pharmacy, dated February 10, 1982, suspending the pharmacist licenses of Raphael S. Tancredi and Richard J. Tancredi, is affirmed.
Judge COLINS did not participate in the decision in this case.