Tag Archives: suspicious orders

West Virginia Imposes New Suspicious Order Reporting Requirements

The West Virginia Board of Pharmacy (“Board”) rolled out a new mandatory suspicious order reporting form for wholesalers at its board meeting last month.  The one-page form is designed to be filled out for each individual suspicious order being reported. This will require wholesalers that currently create and submit automated suspicious order reports to adapt … Continue Reading

DEA Prevails Over Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.

On June 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order in Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (No. 15-1335). In sum, the Court denied Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s (“Masters”) Petition for Review seeking to overturn the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (“DEA”) revocation of Masters’ DEA registration. This decision has wide-ranging implications … Continue Reading

The Continued Evolution of DEA’s Due Diligence Requirements

On May 11, 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration filed its brief in Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Docket No: 15-1335), in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The vast majority of the Government’s brief addresses whether “substantial evidence” (the applicable standard of review) supports Acting Administrator Rosenberg’s decision … Continue Reading

Suspicious Order Monitoring – What’s Next?

Come join us at the 2014 HDMA Distribution Management Conference and Technology Expo.  We are excited to share our perspective on the latest developments in suspicious order monitoring and reporting.  As an added bonus, we will also be available for a post-presentation discussion to continue the conversation on this very important topic.  Yet another bonus … Continue Reading

DEA and Walgreens Settlement

On June 11, 2013, the DEA announced that Walgreens Corporation agreed to pay $80 million in civil penalties, the largest settlement in DEA history.  This settlement resolves both the DEA’s administrative actions against Walgreens and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s civil penalty investigation.  In addition to the civil penalty, Walgreens agreed to a two year suspension … Continue Reading
LexBlog