Opinion ID: 839447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: a licensed health-care professional

Text: Defendants and the Michigan Pharmacists Association urge us to hold that a pharmacy is a licensed health-care professional. We decline to do so. A licensed health-care professional is an individual licensed or registered under article 15 of the public health code . . . and engaged in the practice of his or her health profession in a . . . business entity. [24] The flaw in defendants' proposition is that the Public Health Code defines individual to mean a natural person. [25] Article 15 defines a pharmacist as an individual licensed under this article to engage in the practice of pharmacy. [26] However, it does not define a pharmacy as an individual or a natural person. Instead, pharmacy is defined as a building or a part of a building in which the practice of pharmacy is conducted. [27] MCL 333.17711(1) provides that a person shall not engage in the practice of pharmacy unless licensed or otherwise authorized by this article. The Public Health Code defines person in relevant part as an individual, partnership, cooperative, association, private corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or other legal entity. [28] Although a business entity can operate a licensed pharmacy, there is no requirement that a business entity operating as a pharmacy must consist solely of licensed health-care professionals. Rather, the standards for the operation of a pharmacy provide: (1) A pharmacy shall not be operated unless licensed by this part. (2) A pharmacy open for business shall be under the personal charge of a pharmacist.[ [29] ] A pharmacist shall not simultaneously have personal charge of more than 1 pharmacy. The person to whom a pharmacy license is issued and the pharmacists on duty are responsible for compliance with federal and state laws regulating the distribution of drugs and the practice of pharmacy. Pharmacy services shall be conducted under the control and personal charge of a pharmacist. (3) A penalty for violation of this part does not affect the pharmacy license of other than the place of business where the violation occurred.[ [30] ] These standards make clear that a license to operate a pharmacy can be issued to a nonpharmacist. But the holder of the pharmacy license cannot open a pharmacy for business unless a licensed pharmacist is physically present on site. Because a pharmacy may be operated by a nonpharmacist, a pharmacy and a pharmacist are not the same thing. Whereas a pharmacist is a licensed health care professional, a pharmacy is not. [31] Since Crown Pharmacy was not a licensed health-care professional, it could not have had a professional relationship with plaintiffs. Because plaintiffs' direct claim against the pharmacy fails the first prong of Bryant's two-pronged test, it cannot sound in medical malpractice. In count 19(c) and (d) of the complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Crown Pharmacy allowed nonpharmacists to refill prescriptions. They asserted that Crown did not have a licensed pharmacist on site to oversee, supervise, and control the activities of nonpharmacists. Plaintiffs essentially alleged that the holder of the pharmacy license in this case operated the pharmacy in violation of MCL 333.17741. [32] These are allegations of direct liability on the part of Crown Pharmacy. [33] Because the pharmacy itself is not a licensed health-care professional, its direct liability for violations of the statute lies in ordinary negligence. The claims in count 19(c) and (d) of the complaint are subject to the three-year statutory period of limitations for ordinary negligence and are not barred by the expiration of it. The remaining allegations in plaintiffs' complaint concern Randall's direct liability for her own negligence in refilling the prescription and Crown Pharmacy's vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee. [34] Plaintiffs alleged that Randall was not a licensed pharmacist, and defendants have presented no documentary evidence to disprove this allegation. [35] On the basis of the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, Randall cannot be liable in medical malpractice. Rather, she is directly liable for her own ordinary negligence, and Crown Pharmacy is vicariously liable for the ordinary negligence of its employee.