Appeals from the Order of the State Board of Pharmacy in case of In the matter of the Suspension or Revocation of a License to Practice Pharmacy, License No. 17600 issued July 22, 1936 to Louis Martin Goldberg, and of a License to Practice Pharmacy, License No. 26112, issued January 22, 1969 to Howard Stephen Goldberg, and of a Pharmacy Permit, Permit No. 413159, issued to Pharmaceutical Center, 419 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, dated February 15, 1978.
David L. Creskoff, of counsel, Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffee, Cramer & Jamieson, for Howard S. Goldberg, R.P., appellant.
Clarence D. Bell, Jr., with him, Scott S. Berger, for Louis M. Goldberg, R.P., appellant.
Charles L. Ford, Chief Counsel, with him, Leona M. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge DiSalle concurs in the result only. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSalle.
[ 49 Pa. Commw. Page 125]
The Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy (Board) revoked the pharmacy permit and license of Howard S. Goldberg and the pharmacy license of Louis M. Goldberg under Sections 5(a)(6) and 5(b)(4) of the Pharmacy Act,*fn1 finding:
1. That respondents had violated the rules and regulations of the Board in that they renewed prescriptions at an unreasonable time prior to the date when the contents of the previous prescriptions were to be consumed in violation of 49 Pa. Code § 27.18(t).
2. That respondents violated Section 13 of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act*fn2 (Drug Act) by dispensing the controlled substance Dillaudid beyond the 14-day period to persons whom the practitioners had reason to know were drug dependent without confirming their admission in a drug rehabilitation program.
Louis and Howard Goldberg appeal. The order of the Board is vacated and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Goldbergs first seek reversal of the Board's finding that they violated the Drug Act by contending that they did not receive due and proper notice of the allegation in the official citation.
[ 49 Pa. Commw. Page 126]
Due process requires notice to be given to an accused of the charges pending against him. To be adequate, the notice must at least contain a sufficient listing and explanation of any charges so that the accused may know against what he must defend. Jacobs v. Department ...