This case demonstrates the adverse consequences that result when a pharmacist overzealously applies the corresponding responsibility doctrine without bothering to determine the facts. It also shows how important communication and the need to exercise common sense are in a pharmacy. As you read this case, consider how you would have handled this situation.

Should the pharmacist have been liable to the plaintiff?

Did the pharmacist harbor some prejudice against the patient that may have affected her actions?

Should pharmacists second-guess physicians in their selection of controlled substances?

Was communication among pharmacy personnel a problem, and how could it be improved?