decided: December 10, 1985.
RAPHAEL S. TANCREDI, RICHARD J. TANCREDI AND TANCREDI APOTHECARY, PETITIONERS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, RESPONDENT
Appeal 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.
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.
Judge Palladino and Senior Judges Barbieri and Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish. Judge Colins did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 388]
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*fn1 of regulations under the Pharmacy Act.*fn2
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 389]
This case originally came to this court after a Board order revoked the petitioners' licenses.*fn3 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.*fn4 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 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.
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.