Summary of the Accusation against All Meds Solution Inc., James Darren Dizon Simbulan, Owner and James Darren Dizon Simbulan

Relevant Statutes and Regulations

The accusation falls under the jurisdiction of the California Business and Professions Code (BPC). It is noteworthy that section 118, subdivision (b) states that the suspension, expiration or forfeiture by operation of law of a license shall not hinder the Board of authority or jurisdiction’s power to take disciplinary action against the license or the licensee, or to order suspension or revocation of the license, particularly during the period within which the license may be renewed, restored, reissued, or reinstated. It should also be noted that Section 4300 states that that every license issued by the Board is subject to certain disciplinary measures that include suspension or revocation. Section 43000.1 states that the expiration, cancellation, forfeiture, or even suspension of a board –issued license by the dint of protective laws should not deprive the BPC to commence or to proceed with any investigation of any misdoing and thereby, take any disciplinary action against the licensee if the same has violated the law. In such cases the license may be suspended or revoked.

Facts of the Case as Alleged by the Board

The license issued to All Meds Solution Inc., James Darren Dizon Simbulan, Owner, expired on October 1, 2018, and was never renewed but All Meds Solution Inc., James Darren Dizon Simbulan, the Owner continued the business without renewed license. The original pharmacist license given to Respondent Simbulan will expire on December 31, 2011, unless renewed. But the respondent did already breach the law by violating the renewal clause and extending the continuing the business without a renewed license. The BPC alleged that the licensee misused the license for personal profit and did violate the law. Despite the expiration of the license of All Meds Solution Inc., James Darren, the Owner, continued with the business on the basis of his own pharmacist license that does not implies on the concerned business’ performance and continuation.

Ethical Issues of the Case

The case depicts the violation of ethics. This can be argued by citing the fact that despite expiration of license if the license does not renew the same and continue with the pharmacy business then he/she should be held liable for breaching of law that is established to protect the interest of the consumers. As the license expired, the right to sell medicines automatically by default ceased for All Meds Solution Inc., and for its owner. But the pharmacy and its owner continued the business without legal renewal of the license, thereby breaking the law and violating the premises of the BPC induced law. The primary ethical issue here is the breach of trust of consumers. Under the ethics of deontology, it is the duty of the seller to look after the benefits and well being of the consumer and to ensure that the consumer is consuming things from a legally endorsed business entity. But as the license did expire, the seller-customer
relationship clause was violated and hence, should be termed as a crime.

Discussion of mitigating and aggravating factors that influence board’s level of discipline

The aggravating factor that influenced board’s level of discipline here has been the illegal continuation of business despite of expiration of the business’ license issued by BPC. All records of sale of medicine after license expiry period by defaults then come under illegal act as per the board’s provision and statute.

Prediction of outcome

It is predicted that All Meds Solution Inc. and its owner will be convicted of breaching the law due to non renewal of the pharmacy license despite continuing the business of selling medicines after the expiration of the license. As per the statute, inactive or expired pharmacy license should be renewed every two years to maintain the license and the pharmacy business. There is no provision for a pharmacist to continue his/her business without renewing the license. In this regard, the pharmacy and its owner has to face litigation involving fines and embargoes or even the closure of the business (“Online Renewal Process”, n.d.). Section 4037 of Pharmacy law (including license acquisition, expiration and renewal laws) states that a pharmacy as a business entity cannot continue to exist with an expired license that has not been renewed (“Business and Profession Codes: Chapter 9, Division 2”, 2020 ). Any violation of such rule may bring the pharmacy and its owner under trial and under the interrogation of the State Department of Public Health (“Business and Profession Codes: Chapter 9, Division 2”, 2020). Hence, it is quite predictable that both the BPC and the State Department of Public Health will find All Meds Solution Inc and its owner as defaulters and violators of the pharmacy license law that will expose the pharmacy to penalization and even closure permanently. It can be well predicted that the pharmacy and not the pharmacist at the initial stage will be suspended for at least 14 days and then according to the proved intention of non renewal of the license it would be decided whether or not to let All Meds Solution to be in the business in the future at all.

Takeaway applicable to my future practice

There are certain takeaways that should be remembered as applicable to my future practice as a pharmacist. Primarily, renewal of license should be done in proper time without any delay.  Without the renewal of the pharmacy license through the BPC it will be illegal for the pharmacy to carry on with the business that can result in fines, embargoes and eventual permanent closure of the business. Hence, in the future I will have to abide by the date of renewal of my pharmacy’s license without any further delay to avoid any kind of litigation. It has been understood that a law abiding pharmacy and pharmacist is at safer distance from getting penalized every time the license if renewed within the mandated time. Any failure to such commitment can result in suspension of the business for at least 14 days (California State Board of Pharmacy Department of Consumer Affairs, 2017). It has also been understood that the BPC may hold a pharmacy as more culpable than the individual pharmacist in the context of expiry and non-renewal of the pharmacy license (California State Board of Pharmacy Department of Consumer Affairs, 2017). This can lead to penalties and fines in the long run during the course of trial.

References

Business and Profession Codes: Chapter 9, Division 2 (2020). In 2020 Lawbook for Pharmacy. Retrieved March 20, 2020, from https://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/lawbook.pdf

California State Board of Pharmacy Department of Consumer Affairs (2017). Disciplinary Guidelines. Retrieved March 20, 2020,  from https://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/1760_guidelines.pdf

Online Renewal Process (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2020, from
https://www.pharmacy.texas.gov/phtrenewal.asp