Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 34-23-8 (2026)

Substitution of Drugs or Brands of Drugs.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person shall dispense or cause to be dispensed a different drug or brand of drug in lieu of that ordered or prescribed without the express permission in each case of the person ordering or prescribing such drug, except as provided below:

(1) A licensed pharmacist shall be permitted to select for the brand name drug product prescribed by a licensed physician or other practitioner who is located in this state and authorized by law to write prescriptions, hereinafter referred to as “practitioner,” a less expensive pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent drug product containing the same active ingredient or ingredients, and of the same dosage form strength, in all cases where the practitioner expressly authorizes the selection in accordance with subdivision (4).

(2) A licensed pharmacist shall be permitted to select for the brand name drug product prescribed by a practitioner who is located in another state or licensing jurisdiction and who is authorized by the laws of that state or jurisdiction to write prescriptions, a less expensive pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent drug product containing the same active ingredient or ingredients, and of the same dosage form strength, in all cases where the out-of-state licensed physician or other practitioner does not expressly prohibit a substitution.

(3) A pharmacist shall record on the prescription form the name and manufacturer or distributor of any drug product dispensed as herein authorized.

(4)a. Every written prescription issued in this state by a licensed practitioner shall contain two signature lines. One line shall indicate if the brand name is meant to be dispensed and the other shall indicate if a product selection is permitted. The practitioner shall communicate instructions to the pharmacist by signing on the appropriate line.

b. An oral or electronic prescription, including an e-fax, from the practitioner shall instruct the pharmacist whether or not a less expensive pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent drug product may be dispensed. The pharmacist shall note instructions on the file copy of the prescription and retain the prescription form for the period specified by law. The board shall not adopt any rule affecting the subject matter of this subdivision.

(5) Unless otherwise indicated by the practitioner, the prescription label on the dispensing container shall indicate the actual drug product dispensed, either the brand name, or if none, the generic name, and the name of the manufacturer or a reasonable abbreviation of the name of the manufacturer.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not be interpreted to exclude the use of a formulary or drug list as adopted and approved by a medical staff in a licensed hospital with drugs provided thereunder by procedures established for use within that licensed hospital.

(Acts 1966, Ex. Sess., No. 205, p. 231, §18, Acts 1979, No. 79-429, p. 676, §1; Act 2002-58, p. 144, §1; Act 2019-441, §1; Act 2025-372, §3.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1992–2015 · leading case: New York Ex Rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

New York Ex Rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2015). “See Ala.Code § 34-23-8; Alaska Stat. Ann. §§ 08.”

Ex Parte Cryer, 814 So. 2d 239 (Ala. 2001). · cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 22-52-91 (relating to the taking into temporary custody of persons alleged to be mentally ill); Ala. Code 1975, § 34-23-8 (relating to the substitution of drugs or brands of drugs); Ala.”

Mosley v. Wyeth, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Ala. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 34-23-8(1) & (4). The plaintiffs point to only one court holding that manufacturers of name-brand drugs may be held liable to plaintiffs who, like Mrs.”

Midlothian Labs., LLC v. PAMLAB, LLC, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (M.D. Ala. 2007). · cites it 2× “" 1975 Ala.Code § 34-23-8(1). [41] Pamlab's response in opposition to Midlothian's motion for summary judgment on defendants' counterclaim (Doc.”

Midlothian Labs., L.L.C. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 509 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (M.D. Ala. 2007). · cites it 2× “" 1975 Ala.Code § 34-23-8(1). . Pamlab's response in opposition to Midlot-hian's motion for summary judgment on defendants’ counterclaim (Doc.”

Winn Dixie of Montgomery, Inc. v. Colburn, 709 So. 2d 1222 (Ala. 1998). · cites it 2× “Ala.Code 1975, § 34-23-8. We must point out that the dispensing of prescription drugs is a matter of public trust and that one who dispenses them carelessly endangers the health and safety of the consumer.”

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Robbins, 719 So. 2d 245 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). “Section 34-23-8, Ala.Code 1975, provides that the maximum penalty for dispensing a different drug or different brand drug in lieu of that ordered or prescribed, without the express permission of the person ordering or prescribing the drug, is a $1,000 fine.”

Wyeth, Inc. v. Danny Weeks & Vicki Weeks, 159 So. 3d 649 (Ala. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 34-23-8, Ala. Code 1975. In the present case, it appears that Danny's prescription did not prohibit the pharmacist from substituting a generic drug for the brand-name drug.”

Griffin v. Phar-Mor, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 1115 (S.D. Ala. 1992). “Code § 34-23-8 , entitled “Substitution of drugs or brands of drugs,” states, in pertinent part, that: No person shall dispense or cause to be dispensed a different drug or brand of drug in lieu of that ordered or prescribed without the express permission in each case of the…”

— Ala. Code § 34-23-8(1) — 3 cases

Mosley v. Wyeth, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Ala. 2010). “§ 34-23-8(1) & (4). The plaintiffs point to only one court holding that manufacturers of name-brand drugs may be held liable to plaintiffs who, like Mrs.”

Midlothian Labs., LLC v. PAMLAB, LLC, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (M.D. Ala. 2007). “" 1975 Ala.Code § 34-23-8(1). [41] Pamlab's response in opposition to Midlothian's motion for summary judgment on defendants' counterclaim (Doc.”

Midlothian Labs., L.L.C. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 509 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (M.D. Ala. 2007). “" 1975 Ala.Code § 34-23-8(1). . Pamlab's response in opposition to Midlot-hian's motion for summary judgment on defendants’ counterclaim (Doc.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.