Opinion ID: 1762242
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does the Pharmacy Act Cover Veterinary Drugs?

Text: United Pharmacal presents two arguments on appeal: first, that the circuit court erred in holding that the retail sale of veterinary prescription drugs used for treating animals constitutes the practice of pharmacy under the Act; and, second, that the Act, as construed by the circuit court, violates due process because it is unconstitutionally vague and it fails to inform persons of ordinary intelligence that the retail sale of veterinary prescriptions drugs to consumers for use in animals is the practice of pharmacy. This Court reviews this question of law de novo. Smith v. Shaw, 159 S.W.3d 830, 832 (Mo. banc 2005). This controversy can be resolved by reading the statute. It is unnecessary to reach United Pharmacal's constitutional challenge. The statutory language guides this Court's analysis. The goal of statutory analysis is to ascertain the intent of the legislature, as expressed in the words of the statute. American Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Mo. banc 1999) ( citing Hyde Park Housing Partnership v. Director of Revenue, 850 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo. banc 1993)). This goal is achieved by giving the language used its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. When the legislative intent cannot be determined from the plain meaning of the statutory language, rules of statutory construction may be applied to resolve any ambiguity. Bosworth v. Sewell, 918 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo. banc 1996).