there were are parts of the brief that were moved around to make clear of the reading of the brief but there was nothing substantial worth cereal no other changes that is other than the changes to the two in appendix no other changes namely they controlled substances act by reposing a corresponding build your own pharmacist to dispense pursuant to a legitimate medical purpose i think that's been dealt with relied on base for recommendation or injured during the hearing on her disagreement with prescription prescribing practices of the physicians pacifically whether thirty days policy or was given as opposed to fourteen whether or not a photo was prescribed with a non controlled substance skill accident these are all medical judgments and  if the expert is looking at the prescribing by zisha and the pharmacist calls the physician to confirm the  the united states three general the authority to say what was a what did we better purpose the world was texas law says that in texas it says that a pharmacist shall not a pharmacist shall not dispense a prescription drug if the pharmacist knows or should have know that the order for such drugs issue would have valid precessing of him and he can seize point this is all you re a hearing where the use her pharmacy database was excluded from the jury in this is prescribing in the context of a neighborhood family pharmacy where the pharmacist kno patients and the physicians for over ten years and these red flags are almost a term of art as to what raises a pharmacist have been mitigating sufficient not toward the harshest sa commissioner must comply with those rules in this case the agency found the petitioner did not comply in many ways and that his continued registration would not be consistent with the public interest the record support both the findings and the sanction conduct and the business conduct alone would support revocation second there were numerous prescriptions from which fisher's pharmacists should not have dispensed controlled substances as was  just being discussed the pharmacist how the corresponding responsibility to ensure that she filled only those prescriptions that are for legitimate medical purposes and issued in the usual course of professional practice fisher spartacists did not e excess of those otherwise unusual dosing and other prescriptions are facially valid the prescriptions themselves which were in the record photocopies along with the experts testimony regarding standards of pharmacy having therefore stablish that petitioner was responsible for acts inconsistent with the public interest the petitioner did not acknowledge its misconduct and did not present credible mitigating evidence to support a lesser sanction if i can address just a couple of the points the pharmacy database was information in the possession of the pharmacy it was not offered her evidence it was not excluded from the the point of the texas law and issue that was not again before the agency at the time of the hearing the taxes the government does not see any conflict in conflict with decades of law ever since more we know that a prescription signature on a prescription does not it does not make it a prescription issue for a legitimate purpose and addition of the  the in fact his principal was recognized by the patient in that in in pleadings before he agency are particularly and the as good as you were of that duty does seem rather must take steps to resolve the red flags and that is the evidence that was not in the record and so when the agency was reviewing the record in deciding the case what they had it was the experts testimony that there were red flags that there was no evidence that there were steps taken to resolve the red flags and that is what was consistent with the record have a defense which was a scription the expert testified that there should be some indication on the basis of the prescriptions that scouts were taken to resolve their red speak to that situation in texas what that the number of shops was in texas by each shot more than one i don't know the answer to that your honor was none other than answers and not are some of these prescriptions  i'm sorry or did you have anything else i just got the exemption here was consistent with the agency's prior precedent i'm none of the cases on which there are shortages and overages this pharmacy had kept twelve years of dealing to or properly in their pharmacy the inventory that was going on and the out there was going to be conductive would have