Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

ADVERTISEMENT

Commentary

Alabama Pharmacy Liable for $110,000 Penalty for Recordkeeping Violations

Ann Latner, JD

Do you think recordkeeping isn’t important? Think again. An Alabama pharmacy and its owner were found liable for $110,000 in civil monetary penalties for failing to comply with the Controlled Substances Act’s recordkeeping requirements.

According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the pharmacy, King Drug, was duly authorized to purchase and dispense Schedule II-V controlled substances. However, an inspection revealed that for most of 2021, the pharmacy and owner, Traci McCoy, failed to keep accurate and complete inventories and timely records of the receipt and dispensing of Schedule II controlled substances. This failure led to thousands of doses of controlled substances, including hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, and methadone, being unaccounted for. Based on the DEA’s Tactical Diversion Squad investigation, the United States filed a lawsuit against the pharmacy and its owner, alleging violation of numerous Controlled Substances Act provisions. The pharmacy has since closed.

“Prescription medications, when misused, can pose a grave threat to public health,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Steven L. Hofer of the DEA. “That’s why meticulous recordkeeping by pharmacies is an essential line of defense against the opioid crisis. Every dose, every pill meticulously accounted for protects communities and saves lives.”

Proper recordkeeping for controlled substances is particularly vital, and the DEA has been diligent in investigating cases where the appropriate procedures are not being followed.

References

Samson, Alabama pharmacy liable for $110,000 penalty for recordkeeping violations of the Controlled Substances Act. News release. DEA. Published February 9, 2024. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2024/02/09/samson-alabama-pharmacy-liable-110000-penalty-recordkeeping-violations

United States of America v King Drug Co, et al. DOJ. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question. AL (2024).

© 2024 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved.
Any views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and/or participants and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy, or position of Pharmacy Learning Network or HMP Global, their employees, and affiliates.

Advertisement

Advertisement