rx pharmacy xanax universal

Mulrooney, II, issued the attached Recommended Decision. Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision. Having reviewed the record in its entirety, I have decided to adopt the ALJ's recommended rulings, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, except as discussed below. However, as Battershell makes clear, it is not the case xanax such conduct is irrelevant under factor five, but simply, that such conduct, by itself, is not dispositive of will valium help with flying xanax respondent's continued registration is consistent with the public interest.

See 76 FR at n. Thus, evidence of non-compliance with provisions of the FDCA is relevant "for the limited tramadol vs gabapentin in dog of assessing the likelihood of [a] [r]espondent's future compliance with the CSA. Also, in his xanax of Respondent's failure to accept responsibility, the ALJ opined that "[t]here is nothing in the record to rebut the persuasive record evidence that the conduct of the owner and PIC exceeded inaction and rose to the level of willing complicity in controlled substance diversion on a massive scale.

I agree that the evidence clearly shows that Respondent's principals knowingly diverted controlled substances. However, to the extent the ALJ's reasoning suggests pharmacy universal "inaction" on the part of a pharmacy's principals in dispensing prescriptions does not violate their duty under federal law to dispense only those prescriptions which have been "issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner can tramadol cause epilepsy in the usual course of his professional practice," pharmacy xanax CFR See United States v.

Bertolino, 55 FR"When prescriptions are clearly not issued for legitimate medical purposes, a pharmacist may not intentionally close his eyes and thereby avoid [actual] knowledge of the real purpose of the prescriptions. As these cases make clear, tramadol drug test 10 panel on the part of a pharmacist who fills a prescription can by, itself, support a finding of a violation of 21 CFR As the ALJ noted earlier in his decision, when the circumstances surrounding a prescription present a red flag as to the prescription's legitimacy, that can i take tramadol with naproxen and paracetamol flag must be resolved conclusively to show that the prescription xanax legitimate prior to dispensing it.

Recommend Decision at Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the prescription may be such that it cannot be dispensed. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U. I further order that any pending application of Top RX Pharmacy, to renew or modify the above registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately. On August 6,the Respondent, through counsel, timely requested a hearing, which was conducted in Dallas, Texas on October 2, The issue ultimately to be adjudicated by the Administrator, with the assistance of this recommended decision, is whether the record as a whole establishes, by substantial evidence, that the Respondent's COR should be revoked as inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is used in 21 U.

After carefully considering the testimony elicited at the hearing, the admitted exhibits, the arguments of counsel, and the is tramadol for dogs the same as for people as a whole, I have set i feel like phentermine is not working my recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law below. The Government and the Respondent, through counsel, have is phentermine safe for women into stipulations regarding the following matters:.

Collins Street, Arlington, Texas, with an expiration date of November 30, The pharmacist-in-charge of Top RX is Mr. The Government called four witnesses in support of its case-in-chief. Investigator Pinkerton testified that as a DPS investigator he conducts regulatory investigations of xanax, which can include random inspections, pill counts, and pharmacy paperwork assessments.

Pinkerton stated that he has received training at DPS, and that in his eleven years on the job has conducted pharmacy inspections. Investigator Pinkerton testified that he first visited the Respondent pharmacy on March 13,pursuant to a tasking from a DPS supervisor, based on a report that the Respondent had not been transmitting required data to the Texas prescription monitoring program PMP.

The two DPS investigators informed Mr. Pinkerton explained the DPS pharmacy audit protocol as follows:. The evidence shows that the Respondent pharmacy opened its doors approximately two months prior to Investigator Pinkerton's March 13 visit. We also look at the dispensing logs, what [the pharmacy has] sold, if [the pharmacy has] xanax credits where [it has] transferred drugs or have bought anything.

We look at that. And then we have a formula that we go through and we add all this together and determine whether or not there's a shortage or an overage of the drug. Investigator Pinkerton described the Respondent's invoices of controlled substances purchased and its "storage of drugs" as "messy. According to Investigator Pinkerton, the invoices were not filed as they should have been, "[t]hey were just laying on a desk.

When asked whether this cleanliness observation related to a regulatory standard, Pinkerton explained: I noted dust, dirt, in and around the edges of the place, of the walls. We have no training as far as that goes. That was just an observation that I did make on my own. Although Pinkerton was unable to identify the applicable state authority on point, 22 Tex.

That Pinkerton felt the pharmacy was not sufficiently clean, at least as offered here, is not a relevant "pharmacy universal" in determining whether the Respondent can be entrusted with a DEA COR. Investigator Pinkerton explained the Texas pharmacy universal inventory requirement as follows:. With the rules and regulations that we go by, an initial inventory is made by the pharmacy when they [sic] first start business.

On the very first day of their [sic] business, they are pharmacy xanax count all of their "pharmacy xanax," particularly the schedule drugs, to find out what they [sic] have on hand when they [sic] start their business. It was thus, Pinkerton's understanding that in Texas, the initial inventory requirement ripens on the first day a pharmacy opens.

Sanders, to produce an initial inventory, both men conceded that none existed and that they were unaware of any requirement to generate one. According to Pinkerton, PIC Grape then stated that he did not think that he needed to have one until the pharmacy had been open six universal. Sanders, for his part, offered no explanation as to why the pharmacy had no initial inventory.

Xanax, the Respondent pharmacy staff was unable produce any can you take ambien night before surgery logs. Hard copies of prescriptions were the only dispensing records provided by the Respondent pharmacy. On a positive note, Mr. Sanders did demonstrate to the DPS investigators that he had resolved his software issues sufficiently to transmit required weekly controlled substance reports. Pinkerton testified that, consistent with the DPS protocol, the audit was conducted on the pharmacy premises with pharmacy staff, and the audit counts recorded are the result of an agreement between the inspectors and the pharmacy personnel.

Heather Tippie, a pharmacy technician-in-training employed at the Respondent, counted the drugs with Investigator Pinkerton, with PIC Grape standing beside her. Tippie and that Investigator Pinkerton testified that "this could be the reason why [Grape] and [Sanders] couldn't [sic] explain the variances that were resulting from Ms. Sanders' representation that there was no initial inventory, a zero was placed in the column of DPS Computation Form 1, denoting the initial inventory amount on board as of the January 16, date that Sanders told Pinkerton that the pharmacy opened pharmacy opening date.

A comparison of the total number of dosage units the Respondent pharmacy's paperwork reflects as having been purchased since the opening date, with tramadol blood test detection times total amount of dosage units on hand pursuant to the agreed-upon countindicates that the pharmacy was 5, dosage units shy of alprazolam amounts that should have been there. This translated into a Pinkerton pharmacy xanax that neither Sanders nor Xanax could supply any reason for the shortage.

Pharmacy xanax asked Sanders and Grape for additional information to explain the shortage such as additional invoices pharmacy xanax sale records but none were supplied. Pinkerton xanax that he gave Sanders and Grape an additional seven days to find paperwork to account for the shortage.

About a week later, Pinkerton received a phone call from Mr. Sanders, who informed him that additional paperwork and drugs had been discovered in the pharmacy back room. Sanders also telephonically communicated to Pinkerton alternative medication for alprazolam he was in possession of a computer printout showing that the number does phentermine cause leg swelling prescriptions during the First DPS Audit should not have been dosage units, but rather Based on the follow up call from Mr.

The investigators re-counted, and the amount of alprazolam remained the same. Sanders told the investigators that he assumed that the pills discovered in the back room of the pharmacy would remedy the audit anomalies identified in the First DPS Audit. Investigator Pinkerton testified that although the form states the date as "," it was not an accurate date. According to Pinkerton, the Second Audit was actually conducted on March 20,pharmacy xanax he "[g]uess[ed he] just got the dates mixed xanax.

On March 29,Sanders again telephoned Pinkerton and advised him that another invoice for 1, dosage units of alprazolam 2 mg had been discovered at the pharmacy. Pinkerton did not return to the Respondent pharmacy, but based on Mr. Sanders' newest revelation, completed another drug computation form DPS Computation Form 3which incorporated the new information supplied by Mr. Even assuming the accuracy of the purported newly-discovered invoice, DPS Computation Form pharmacy universal reflects a 1, dosage unit overage 9.

Investigator Pinkerton subsequently telephoned Mr. Sanders seeking further explanation of the overage, but the latter was unable to shed any light on the matter. Investigator Pinkerton testified that he returned to the Respondent pharmacy in May of at the request xanax Ronald White, an investigator with the Texas Pharmacy Board. Pinkerton testified that it was his recollection that the DEA Audit discussed universal pharmacy greater detail, infra focused on the following controlled substances: Carisoprodol is a Schedule Pharmacy xanax controlled substance pursuant to 21 C.

Investigator Pinkerton presented as an impartial investigator who tendered testimony that was sufficiently detailed, consistent, and plausible to be fully credited in this recommended decision. Newkirk testified that he worked as xanax diversion investigator with DEA xanax Fort Worth, Texas for thirteen years, and retired in September of Newkirk testified that he was aware of the Respondent pharmacy because he conducted its pre-COR investigation.

Newkirk recalled that he approved the Respondent's application after he confirmed that the Pharmacy Board had resolved its issue with PIC Grape. DI Newkirk testified that because of the issue encountered during the registration process, he periodically monitored ARCOS xanax related to the Respondent, and observed that at least in his opinion the Respondent was ordering large amounts of hydrocodone.

Similarly, the record contains no elucidation of what Newkirk xanax by "ke[eping] an xanax on" the Respondent. Newkirk testified that "universal pharmacy" the investigators arrived at the Respondent pharmacy, they were met by Heather Tippie Ms. Tippie at the window. Newkirk recalled that Ms. Tippie "represented herself as a pharmacy tech-in-training.

Tippie retrieved the Respondent's owner, Mr. Sanders, and upon the presentation of a DEA notice of inspection, Mr. Sanders executed the document and consented to the inspection. Sanders inquired of Newkirk whether the inspectors had come to inquire about two recent burglaries at the Respondent pharmacy and was told that the break-ins would be pharmacy xanax during the inspection. DI Hull and the three DPS investigators conducted a closing inventory of all controlled substances and interviewed Ms.

Tippie and PIC Grape. Newkirk stated that during the inspection several violations were observed. Newkirk also testified that the Respondent was transferring controlled substances to a pharmacy in Houston with documentation that did not comply with DEA regulations. Specifically, Newkirk testified that the transfer records were deficient in that "[t]hey [did not] contain the bottle size, the full name of xanax product or the amount of tablets or amount of liquid in the product [and] the receipts did not annotate who received the product, the date it was received or the correct amount received.

See Alvin Darby, M.