Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GIRARD PRESCRIPTION CENTER AND GOLD-BRICK COMPANIES v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/19/85)

decided: July 19, 1985.

GIRARD PRESCRIPTION CENTER AND GOLD-BRICK COMPANIES, INC., PETITIONERS
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in case of Appeal of: Girard Prescription Center and Gold-Brick Companies, Inc., File No. 22-82-7.

COUNSEL

James C. Schwartzman, with him, Michael B. L. Hepps, Schwartzman & Hepps, for petitioners.

Bruce G. Baron, Assistant Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Craig and Colins, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.

Author: Kalish

[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 489]

The petitioner, Girard Prescription Center, Inc. (Girard) is a provider-pharmacy under the Medical Assistance Program and is owned entirely by the

[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 490]

    petitioner, Gold-Brick Companies, Inc. The petitioners appeal the order of the Hearings and Appeals Unit of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), sustaining DPW's proposed suspension of Girard from participation in the Medical Assistance Program for a period of two years.*fn1

On September 2, 1982, DPW notified the petitioners that it was suspending them as a provider pharmacy in the Medical Assistance Program for a period of two years. On March 28, 1984, a hearing attorney for DPW issued an adjudication in which he found that on three separate occasions an employee of Girard, who was not a licensed pharmacist nor a pharmacy intern, filled, packaged, sold and dispensed prescriptions out of the presence of and not under the direct, immediate supervision of a licensed pharmacist. In each instance, undercover agents for the Board, posing as medical assistance recipients, made the purchases which Girard later billed to DPW.

On appeal to this Court, the petitioners contend that:

1) the specific grounds upon which DPW issued the Basis for Termination are not, as a matter of law, violations upon which DPW has authority to terminate or suspend a provider agreement;

2) the words "immediate personal supervision" found in Section 8(2), of the Pharmacy Act,*fn2 are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.