C53BA104d01 - Page 1 8 of 27 DOCUMENTS WALGREEN CO.,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
8 of 27 DOCUMENTS WALGREEN CO., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. WISCONSIN PHARMACY EXAMINING BOARD AND WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION AND LICENSING, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. No. 97-1513 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN, DISTRICT FOUR 217 Wis. 2d 290 ; 577 N.W.2d 387; 1998 Wisc. App. LEXIS 201 February 19, 1998, Released NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED LIMITED PRECEDENT OPINION - REFER TO LOCAL RULE 809.23(1)(B)5, STATS. PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: DANIEL R. MOESER, Judge. DISPOSITION: Affirmed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board appealed from an order reversing its ruling that respondent pharmacy corporation, the owner and operator of several pharmacies, violated various regulatory statutes and administrative rules when, as part of a test program, it accepted prescription orders from physicians via a computer electronic mail system, and provided used computers for some of the physicians participating in the test. OVERVIEW: The board concluded that the use of computer-transmitted prescriptions violated Wis. Stat. § 450.11(1) which required written prescription orders to be signed by the prescribing physician and that providing computers to participating physicians violated Wis. Admin. Code § Phar. 10.03(14), which prohibited pharmacies from participating in rebate or fee splitting arrangements with physicians. On appeal, the court rejected the board's determination that the program violated the "rebate" rule because the board failed to determine the extent of any financial benefit to either the pharmacy corporation or the participating physicians. The court also disagreed with the board's conclusion that a computer-transmitted prescription was so analogous to a written prescription that it had to be treated as such under the statute and required a physician's signature. The court ruled that it was more closely akin to a prescription transmitted orally, by telephone, which the legislature expressly stated could have been filled without being signed. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the circuit court's decision reversing the board's ruling that the pharmacy corporation had violated various regulatory statutes and administrative rules. The court remanded the case to the board for reconsideration of the forfeiture. CORE TERMS: prescription, pharmacy, deference, transmission, telephone, rebate, participating, pharmacist, board's decision, transmitted, electronic, forfeiture, signature, renewal, electronically, fee-splitting, dispensing, administrative agencies, electronic mail, financial benefit, great deference, agency's decision, de novo, prior case, computer-transmitted, prescribing, due-weight, impression, dictionary, expertise Page 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes [HN1] See Wis. Stat. § 450.11(1).
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/29/2010 for the course ENTR Buisness l taught by Professor Sandhous during the Spring '10 term at Johns Hopkins.

Page1 / 8

C53BA104d01 - Page 1 8 of 27 DOCUMENTS WALGREEN CO.,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online