Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 19 (2026)

Prescription; restrictions on issuance

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 19. (a) A prescription for a controlled substance to be valid shall be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice. The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances shall be upon the prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility shall rest with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of section one and the person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided by sections thirty-two, thirty-two A, thirty-two B, thirty-two C, thirty-two D, thirty-two E, thirty-two F, thirty-two G, and thirty-two H, as applicable.

(b) No prescription shall be issued in order for a practitioner to obtain controlled substances for supplying the practitioner for the purpose of general dispensing to patients.

(c) Unless permitted by federal law, a prescription shall not be issued for the dispensing of drugs or controlled substances as defined in section thirty-eight of chapter one hundred and twenty-three, listed in any schedule to a drug dependent person for the purpose of continuing his dependence upon such drugs, in the course of conducting an authorized clinical investigation pursuant to an addict rehabilitation program.

(d) Naloxone or other opioid antagonist may lawfully be prescribed and dispensed to a person at risk of experiencing an opiate-related overdose or a family member, friend or other person in a position to assist a person at risk of experiencing an opiate-related overdose. For purposes of this chapter and chapter 112, any such prescription shall be regarded as being issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1977–2020 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 10× “Most relevant here is G. L. c. 94C, § 19, which we have concluded serves two important functions relating to the criminal liability of physicians arising out of prescribing controlled substances.”

Arthurs v. Bd. of Reg. in Med., 418 N.E.2d 1236 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 3× “The board found that Arthurs prescribed controlled substances for other than a legitimate medical purpose, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 19 (a). The plaintiff claims that (1) the board’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the board erred by basing its…”

Commonwealth v. Pike, 718 N.E.2d 855 (Mass. 1999). · cites it 3× “The defendant, a psychiatrist, was convicted of multiple charges of unlawfully dispensing class B and C controlled substances, G. L. c. 94C, §§ 19, 32A, and 32B, and additional charges of filing false Medicaid claims, G.”

Kvitka v. Bd. of Reg. in Med., 551 N.E.2d 915 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 2× “Lawrence Kvitka pleaded guilty in Superior Court to ten counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 19 (a) (1988 ed.). He received a three to five year suspended prison sentence and fines totalling $60,000.”

Strasnick v. Bd. of Reg. in Pharmacy, 562 N.E.2d 1333 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 5× “The Strasnicks’ complaint alleged that (1) the board’s action was not timely; (2) the board failed to give them adequate notice of the charges; (3) there was insufficient evidence before the board to warrant the board’s conclusion that they violated G. L. c. 94C, § 19; (4) the…”

Correa v. Schoeck, 98 N.E.3d 191 (Mass. 2018). “In Cottam , supra at 320-321, 764 N.E.2d 814 , this court held that pharmacists do not, however, have a duty to warn patients of general side effects of prescription drugs.”

Commonwealth v. Kobrin, 893 N.E.2d 384 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “” The jury found that Kobrin’s prescription of a twenty-eight-day supply of one-milligram Klonopin 7 pills to *596 Patient D on January 26, 1996, did not come within the exemption of G. L. c. 94C, § 19(a), and convicted him of violating G.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 904 N.E.2d 452 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 8× “” Without mention of the term “ultimate user,” the court in Chatfield-Taylor explicitly stated that “[t]he essential elements of the crime of unlawful dispensing of a controlled substance are set out in G. L. c. 94C, § 19” (footnote omitted). 399 Mass.”

Commonwealth v. Perry, 464 N.E.2d 389 (Mass. 1984). “Each indictment charged him with issuing a prescription for a particular controlled substance 1 in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 19 (a), in the period between April 14, 1981, and April 20, 1982.”

Commonwealth v. Chatfield-Taylor, 502 N.E.2d 512 (Mass. 1987). “The essential elements of the crime of unlawful dispensing of a controlled substance 4 are set out in G. L. c. 94C, § 19, which states that “[a] prescription for a controlled substance [is valid if it is] issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the…”

Commonwealth v. Eramo, 387 N.E.2d 558 (Mass. 1979). “See G. L. c. 94C, §§ 19, 32; Commonwealth v. Comins, 371 Mass.”

Commonwealth v. Lozano, 367 N.E.2d 1186 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). “147, 148-149 [1976]) which was sufficient to warrant findings that the defendant had acted in bad faith rather than “for a legitimate medical purpose” (G. L. c. 94C, § 19 [o], as amended by St.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 19(6) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Brown, 904 N.E.2d 452 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). “” Without mention of the term “ultimate user,” the court in Chatfield-Taylor explicitly stated that “[t]he essential elements of the crime of unlawful dispensing of a controlled substance are set out in G. L. c. 94C, § 19” (footnote omitted). 399 Mass.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 19(a) — 3 cases

Commonwealth v. Kobrin, 893 N.E.2d 384 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “” The jury found that Kobrin’s prescription of a twenty-eight-day supply of one-milligram Klonopin 7 pills to *596 Patient D on January 26, 1996, did not come within the exemption of G. L. c. 94C, § 19(a), and convicted him of violating G.”

Commonwealth v. Wood, 457 N.E.2d 1131 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983).

Arthurs v. Stern, 427 F. Supp. 425 (D. Mass. 1977).

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.