BILL NUMBER: AB 2045	CHAPTERED  09/15/02

	CHAPTER  562
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE  SEPTEMBER 15, 2002
	APPROVED BY GOVERNOR  SEPTEMBER 14, 2002
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 25, 2002
	PASSED THE SENATE  AUGUST 22, 2002
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 20, 2002
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 13, 2002
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 17, 2002

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Matthews

                        FEBRUARY 15, 2002

   An act to add Section 4306.6 to the Business and Professions Code,
relating to pharmacists.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 2045, Matthews.  Pharmacists:  disciplinary actions.
   Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, requires each pharmacy to
designate a pharmacist-in-charge who is responsible for the pharmacy'
s compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations
pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.  The law makes a pharmacist
subject to disciplinary action by the California State Board of
Pharmacy for the commission of unprofessional conduct, which may
include an act or omission that arises in the course of the
pharmacist's practice or in his or her ownership, management,
administration, or operation of a pharmacy or other entity licensed
by the board.
   This bill would require the board in a disciplinary action against
a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation by another person of a
state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of
pharmacy, to use a report made by the pharmacist-in-charge of the
violation or suspected violation as a mitigating factor, if specified
conditions are met.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


  SECTION 1.  Section 4306.6 is added to the Business and Professions
Code, to read:
   4306.6.  If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the
violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by
another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board
that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report
as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:
   (a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or
indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or
regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.
   (b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve
of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any
conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal
law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.
   (c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected
violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to
the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible
following the discovery of the violation.
   (d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions reasonably necessary
to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any
state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of
pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of
the violation.