AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The personal representative of the estate of Tawana Lucero, who died from an overdose of physician-prescribed medications including opioids, filed a lawsuit against May Maple Pharmacy, Inc. The lawsuit claimed negligence and negligence per se, alleging the pharmacy dispensed excessive quantities of dangerous drugs to Lucero, leading to her death (paras 1-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Pharmacy, dismissing all claims against it with prejudice and awarding costs to the Pharmacy.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Pharmacy breached its duty of care by dispensing excessive quantities of Schedule II or other dangerous drugs to Lucero and violated regulatory duties to properly and reasonably dispense controlled medications. The plaintiff contended that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, supported by expert opinions on the conduct required of a retail pharmacist under statutes, regulations, and public policy (paras 6-7, 11-12).
• Defendant (Pharmacy): Contended that it met the standard of care by dispensing medications according to a proper medical doctor's prescription and had no liability for injuries caused by drugs if the prescriptions were accurate and proper on their face. The Pharmacy relied on a clerical accuracy standard and did not address statutes or regulations applicable to pharmacy practice or controlled substances in its motion for summary judgment (paras 6-7, 8-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Pharmacy breached its duty of care by dispensing excessive quantities of dangerous drugs to Lucero.
• Whether the Pharmacy violated regulatory duties to properly and reasonably dispense controlled medications.
• Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the Pharmacy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Pharmacy and remanded for further proceedings (para 49).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the Pharmacy did not establish a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the standard of care or its compliance with that standard. The court noted that the Pharmacy's motion and supporting affidavit failed to account for statutes and regulations relevant to the professional responsibilities of pharmacists, particularly in the context of dispensing Schedule II controlled substances. The court also identified genuine disputes of material fact concerning the standard of care required of a retail pharmacist in these circumstances and whether the Pharmacy's conduct met those requirements. Additionally, the court found that the Pharmacy did not address, and the district court did not rule on, the separate claim of negligence per se. The appellate court emphasized the importance of considering statutes and regulations in determining the professional standard of care and concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without adequately considering these factors (paras 28-48).