Prescriptions, orders, and records required by this chapter, and stocks of regulated
drugs, shall be open for inspection only to federal or State officers or their specifically
authorized agent whose duty it is to enforce the federal drug laws or this chapter;
authorized agents of professional licensing board, as that term is defined under 3
V.S.A. chapter 5, or the Department of Health; or authorized agents of the Board of
Medical Practice. No person having knowledge by virtue of the person’s office of any
such prescription, order, or record shall divulge such knowledge, except in connection
with a prosecution, or proceeding before the Department of Health, Board of Pharmacy,
Board of Medical Practice, or another licensing or registration board, to which prosecution
or proceeding the person to whom such prescriptions, orders, or records relate is
a party. (Added 1967, No. 343 (Adj. Sess.), § 11, eff. March 23, 1968; amended 1991, No. 167 (Adj. Sess.), § 65; 2019, No. 126 (Adj. Sess.), § 6; 2023, No. 53, § 109, eff. June 8, 2023.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1992–2005 · leading case: State v. Welch, 624 A.2d 1105 (Vt. 1992).
State v. Welch, 624 A.2d 1105 (Vt. 1992). · cites it 6ד§ 4211 (access to records barred to all but authorized officials, and no person having knowledge by virtue of his office of any such record shall divulge such knowledge, except in connection with a prosecution or licensing proceeding). In so holding, we reject defendant's claim…”
In re Subpoena Pertaining to Nurse W., No. 634 (Vt. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2005). “Waiver The parties stipulated at oral argument that because another statutory provision requires the hospital to allow “inspections” of its records by the State investigator, the Hospital recently allowed the State’s investigator to look at, but not copy, certain of the disputed…”
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.