Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 224 Commonwealth Docket 1965, in case of Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. Edward Robert Pastor.
David N. Savitt, with him John Patrick Walsh, for appellant.
Norman Ackerman, Assistant Attorney General, with him William C. Sennett, Attorney General, for Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy, appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Hannum, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.
[ 213 Pa. Super. Page 228]
Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:
This is an appeal by Edward Robert Pastor from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, sitting as the Commonwealth Court. The lower court modified the adjudication of the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy which had revoked Pastor's license to practice pharmacy in this Commonwealth. The court directed a suspension of the license for six months.
The undisputed facts may be set out briefly as follows: On June 23, 1964, Pastor, the pharmacist manager of the Park and Lock Drugs, Inc., placed an advertisement in the Camden Courier, a newspaper published in New Jersey but distributed in Philadelphia. This advertisement contained a list of certain drugs with the prices for each.
As a result of this advertisement, the State Board of Pharmacy issued a citation charging that Pastor violated Section 8(11) of the Pharmacy Act, Act of
[ 213 Pa. Super. Page 229]
September 27, 1961, P. L. 1700, § 8(11), 63 P.S. 390-8(11) which provides:
"It shall be unlawful for. . . .
"(11) Any pharmacist or owner of a pharmacy advertising or promoting dangerous drugs, narcotics or drugs containing either by name or prices therefor to the general public."
A hearing was held before the State Board on December 9, 1964, pursuant to which the Board revoked Pastor's license. Pastor appealed to the Commonwealth Court which remanded the case to the Board for the purpose of making definite findings of fact relative to the quality and contents of the drugs advertised. Pursuant to the court order, a second hearing was held before the Board and supplementary findings of fact and conclusions of law were made to the effect that the drugs advertised included dangerous drugs within the meaning of The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of September 26, 1961, P. L. 1664, § 2(h), 35 P.S. § 780-2(h). ...