Opinion ID: 2630324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Improperly accepting drugs from an unlicensed company

Text: Dutchess and Legend argue that the Board erred when it determined that Dutchess had violated NRS 639.210(4) and (12) [36] and NAC 639.945(1)(g), (h), and (i). [37] The Board concluded that Dutchess violated those provisions when it accepted and sold drugs that were handled and shipped by Overseas International, a company unlicensed in any state, and by accepting and selling drugs from various addresses at which no pharmaceutical wholesaler was licensed. Dutchess and Legend argue that the Board erred for two reasons: (1) the statute governing licensing requirements, NRS 639.233, did not require a company such as Overseas to maintain a license at the time its transactions with Dutchess took place; and (2) even if Overseas was required to maintain a license, Dutchess never purchased drugs from Overseas because Overseas was merely a shipping agent. We agree and conclude that the Board erred in reaching this conclusion of law. NRS 639.233(1) requires wholesalers who furnish drugs to people in this state to be licensed. [38] However, the version of the statute effective in 2003 exempted from the licensing requirement wholesalers or manufacturers whose principal place of business was in another state. [39] Therefore, Overseas was not then required to be licensed in Nevada to sell controlled substances to Dutchess. We conclude that the Board erred in determining that Dutchess's conduct in accepting and selling to other wholesalers drugs obtained from Overseas was unprofessional under NRS 639.210(4) and a violation of regulation[s] relating to drugs, the manufacture or distribution of drugs or the practice of pharmacy under NRS 639.210(12). Accordingly, on remand from the district court, the Board should recalculate the fines imposed on Dutchess.