Cengage Advantage Books: Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business 3rd Edition by Marianne Jennings

تمرين 7

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a suspension order that revoked the controlled medication licenses of two pharmacies because the pharmacies were filling prescriptions for oxycodone (the painkiller) in excess of their monthly allowances for controlled substances. In addition, the DEA alleges that the pharmacies' corporate entities failed to conduct on-site inspections and also failed to notice that 42 to 58 percent of all the sales of the substances were cash sales, a red flag in the sale and distribution of controlled substances. In addition, the number of prescriptions filled continued to escalate-increasing ninefold in one year to more than two million dosages dispensed. When investigators were present on-site at one of the pharmacies, every third car going through the drive-thru pick-up was receiving a prescription for oxycodone. Those using the drive-thru also used "street slang" for requesting certain brands of oxycodone. Pharmacists at the drug stores, in interviews with the DEA agents, indicated that the customers paying cash for the oxycodone were "shady," and that they suspected that some of the prescriptions were not valid. The shipment of oxycodone to the pharmacies was five times the amount that would have been within normal bounds for the population in the area. Many patients living at the same address had the same prescriptions for oxycodone from the same doctor.
DEA seeks to hold the corporations responsible because of the lack of on-site presence and the failure to follow the numbers for sales and distribution at the pharmacies. Can the corporation be held liable when it was not actually participating in the distribution of the oxycodone? [ Holiday CVS, L.L.C. v. Holder , 839 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.C. 2012).]