Local pharmacy pays $60,000 in feds’ pill probe
Palisade drug store penalized for numerous prescription violations
Palisade Pharmacy, 707 Elberta Ave., has paid a $60,000 penalty to resolve allegations by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of federal drug law violations.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Denver said Thursday that the pharmacy admitted no liability in settling a federal civil action, which stemmed from allegations of more than 480 violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the claimed violations included:
■ Shipping controlled substances to unregistered locations;
■ Failure to verify addresses;
■ Filling prescriptions for controlled substances despite missing required information on the face of the prescription;
■ Failure to maintain, record and retain complete and accurate records relating to distribution of controlled substances; and
■ Selling List 1 chemical products without a valid self-certification certificate.
List 1 chemicals could include ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and methylamine — all associated with the manufacturing of methamphetamine — among others. As part of the settlement, Palisade Pharmacy agreed to surrender its certification to sell List 1 chemicals for the next three years.
The negotiated settlement says the conduct at issue occurred between May 19, 2013, and, “the effective date of the settlement agreement,” signed on Nov. 23 by Drug Enforcement Administration agent David Schiller, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Rocque and Palisade Pharmacy owner Walter Jorgensen.
When the Sentinel sought comment from the pharmacy’s owner via telephone Thursday, the man who addressed the issue declined to identify himself.
“There are all kinds of things we could dispute, but at this point it wouldn’t benefit either side,” the man said, declining substantive comment. “An agreement has been made.”
He did say the federal allegations were “remedied.”
The settlement further says the pharmacy agreed to enhanced training and reporting requirements. Both sides “entered into the settlement to avoid the uncertainty and expense of further litigation,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.
The DEA headed an investigation in the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment