Professional License Defense Results

Boesen & Snow frequently represents individuals and entities before state Boards of Pharmacy. The firm’s team of experienced health care attorneys includes former pharmacy owner-operators, licensed pharmacists, and litigators. Boesen & Snow leverages this experience and know-how when defending entities and individuals that are under investigation by state and federal regulators. If you have received notice of a complaint or investigation, it is critical that you immediately contact experienced attorneys to defend your rights. Boesen & Snow will fight to help you avoid discipline that will limit job opportunities, prevent you from acquiring additional licenses and enrollment into health networks, and that can end a career or a business. Although—as some of the case examples below demonstrate—it is possible to make Boards reverse course after they vote to impose discipline, the best defense is a robust initial response that steers the agency down a more favorable path. Contact Boesen & Snow today if you are dealing with the Board of Pharmacy, FDA, or any other regulatory nightmare.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow secured a dismissal of a state Board of Pharmacy investigation into a non-sterile compounding pharmacy that had received multiple FDA Form 483s and warning letters. Boards of pharmacy are increasingly using FDA 483 reports—which do not constitute final findings—to allege violations of their practice acts without conducting any independent investigation. Working closely with the pharmacy, the firm highlighted substantial improvements in the pharmacy’s facilities, helped bolster the pharmacy’s policies and procedures, and disputed erroneous findings within the FDA’s reports. Boesen & Snow convinced the Board that issues raised in the FDA’s reports had been thoroughly addressed and the Board unanimously voted to dismiss the matter.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow secured the dismissal of a state Board of Pharmacy complaint against a pharmacist who had filled his own prescriptions while working in a chain pharmacy. It is very common for chain pharmacies to terminate pharmacists for violating company policy and to report the matter to the state Board. Violating company policy does not necessarily equate to unprofessional conduct that may give rise to discipline. The Board had concerns that the prescriptions did not originate from a valid patient-prescriber relationship. The firm worked with the pharmacist to gather and present evidence that the prescriptions were valid, that the termination was improper and did not necessitate discipline, and the Board dismissed the matter.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow represented a pharmacy technician after a state Board of Pharmacy had refused to renew her license because the technician had received a federal conviction for simple marijuana possession. The firm leveraged little-known rights in the state’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to go on the offensive and put the board in a precarious legal position. With a hearing on the denial scheduled, the Board relented and voted unanimously to rescind its earlier decision and issue the license with no disciplinary action. Many state Boards of Pharmacy’s laws provide only part of the legal framework that may apply to a licensing or disciplinary matter. Boesen & Snow’s familiarity with lesser-known parts of the APA allowed it to secure the best outcome possible for its client.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow represented a chain pharmacy and its pharmacist that had received a patient complaint that a compounded medication was potentially subpotent. Boesen & Snow’s team comprised of attorneys with extensive administrative litigation experience, experience owning and operating pharmacies, and pharmacy licensure allowed it to work closely with the pharmacy to quickly gather and present evidence that the compounded medications were prepared appropriately. The Board dismissed the complaint with a report that the pharmacy had presented substantial evidence and argument that provided all necessary information to validate the compounding processes and resulting preparations.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow represented a specialty pharmacy that had received a patient complaint after the pharmacy had refused to dispense a prescription where it had concerns that it was unable to deal with the prescriber. Boesen & Snow worked closely with the client to document its numerous attempts to consult with the prescriber and to demonstrate that the pharmacy had not only complied with the practice act, but it had also taken the right steps to protect patient safety. The Board dismissed the complaint.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow represented a chain pharmacy and pharmacist after a patient complained about a medication error. The firm’s extensive experience in pharmacy operations and administrative processes allowed it to quickly understand that the source of the problem was a look-alike-sound-alike drug pair. The firm helped the client quickly deploy useful corrective actions to prevent similar errors from occurring. The firm demonstrated to the Board that this was an understandable human error that would not reoccur due to the quick and effective corrective actions that the firm had recommended and helped the pharmacy deploy. The Board dismissed the complaint.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow represented a pharmacist who had been arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence after the client had previously disclosed a prior DUI. The firm fought for the client to have his license renewed pending the investigation and prepared a robust defense that convinced the Board that the licensee did not require further evaluation or testing and was safe to continue practicing. The Board voted unanimously to close its investigation and to dismiss the case.

Dismissed!

Boesen & Snow represented a pharmacy that had received discipline and had its license denied in multiple states arising out of a FDA Form 483 report and warning letter. Boards of pharmacy are increasingly using FDA 483 reports—which do not constitute final findings—to allege violations of their practice acts without conducting any independent investigation. Boesen & Snow worked with the client to highlight changes in ownership and operation following the inspection and to demonstrate substantial corrective actions. Whereas before hiring the firm, the pharmacy had received reciprocal discipline in other jurisdictions, Boesen & Snow convinced the Board to dismiss its investigation.