PUBLIC HEALTH CODE
Act 368 of 1978
333.17741 Pharmacy license required; personal charge of pharmacy by pharmacist; responsibility for compliance with laws; control and personal charge of pharmacy services; remote pharmacy exception; effect of violation on pharmacy license.
Sec. 17741.
(1) A pharmacy must not be operated unless licensed under this part.
(2) Except for a remote pharmacy, a pharmacy open for business must be under the personal charge of a pharmacist. A pharmacist shall not simultaneously have personal charge of more than 1 pharmacy.
(3) 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. Except for a remote pharmacy, pharmacy services must be conducted under the control and personal charge of a pharmacist.
(4) A sanction for a violation of this part only affects the pharmacy license of the place of business where the violation occurred.
History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 4, Eff. Apr. 26, 2020
PopularName Notes:
Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 750 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 724 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Under § 5838a(l)(a), “ ‘Licensed health facility or agency’ means a health facility or agency licensed under article 17 of the public health code . .. being sections 333.”
Kintigh v. Abbott Pharmacy, 503 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “[MCL 333.17741(2); MSA 14.15(17741)(2).] [N]or shall a controlled substance be dispensed or administered to a drug dependent person for the purpose of continuing his drug dependency.”
Kuznar v. Raksha Corp., 729 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. 2007).
“5838a, and whether, in light of MCL 333.17741, the pharmacist is a necessary party to a claim against a pharmacy for dispensing the wrong drug.”
Patricia Aldrich v. Chidozie Joshua Ononuju Do (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” MCL 333.17741(2). That statute traces back to 1978, antedating cases such as Adkins and Kintigh (as well as the cases involving non-controlled drugs), contrary to their holdings that Michigan pharmacists generally have no duty to monitor prescribing by doctors.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.17741(2) — 2 cases
Kintigh v. Abbott Pharmacy, 503 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“[MCL 333.17741(2); MSA 14.15(17741)(2).] [N]or shall a controlled substance be dispensed or administered to a drug dependent person for the purpose of continuing his drug dependency.”
Patricia Aldrich v. Chidozie Joshua Ononuju Do (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“” MCL 333.17741(2). That statute traces back to 1978, antedating cases such as Adkins and Kintigh (as well as the cases involving non-controlled drugs), contrary to their holdings that Michigan pharmacists generally have no duty to monitor prescribing by doctors.”
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.