Randol Mill Pharmacy v. Miller involving office use in Texas

Healthcare Liability:

Randol Mill Pharmacy v. Miller, No. 02-12-00519-CV -Opinion, 02-12-00519-CV

-Dissenting (Sept. 19, 2013) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Livingston, C.J., dissents

with opinion).

Held: Because the pharmacist Appellants' act-filling a bulk phone order placed by a doctor for

over twenty 30-milliliter vials of an injectable form of the antioxidant supplement lipoic acid for use

in the doctor's office-does not constitute dispensing a prescription medicine as required for

Appellants to qualify as a health care provider under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), the

trial court did not err by denying Appellants' motion to dismiss Appellees' suit based on their failure

to file a chapter 74 expert report.

Dissent: According to definitions in the TMLA and other pharmacy-related statutes, appellants'

actions in compounding the lipoic acid pursuant to the doctor's verbal order constituted dispensing

of a prescription medicine despite the fact that appellants delivered the medicine to the doctor, who

then administered it to Stacey Miller, rather than directly to Stacey Miller herself. Thus, appellees'

claims are health care liability claims under the TMLA, and the trial court should have dismissed

them for failure to file an expert report.quoted from here