Avoiding Civil Liability Under OBRA 1990: Documentation is the Key

Abstract

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) and the various state regulations enacted in response to that act have already required a substantial change in the daily activities of pharmacists while performing their professional duties. OBRA 90 requires pharmacists to engage in patient counseling efforts and sets forth specific topics that pharmacists must discuss with the patient or primary caregiver. From a civil liability perspective, however, OBRA 90 requires pharmacists to do far more than counsel patients with regard to those patients' pharmaceutical care. It is anticipated that the requirements of OBRA 90 will establish minimum standards of care which must be met by all pharmacists. Courts will likely view a pharmacist's failure to adhere to the requirements of OBRA 90 as a failure to meet the standard of care applicable to pharmacists. Such failure to meet the applicable standard of care may lead to civil liability under the tort theories of ordinary negligence and negligence per se. Although OBRA 90 mandates that certain records be created and maintained, the prudent pharmacist in today's litigious world must develop a more comprehensive, accurate, and detailed system for documentation of the various counseling activities in which he or she engages. Because most pharmacies employ more than one pharmacist, and because memories of both patients and pharmacists can fail, creating and maintaining accurate records that exceed the documentation requirements of OBRA 90 and are admissible in court may well be the key to avoiding civil liability for an alleged failure to comply with the requirements of OBRA 90. Copyright © 1995 by W.B. Saunders Company

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Pub. L. 101-508, §4401 (November 5, 1990); 42 U.S.C. §1396r-8.

Abood RR : OBRA 90: Implementation and enforcement. NABP and US Pharmacist Continuing Education Series, May 1993.

Riff ν Morgan Pharmacy, 508 A.2d 1247, 1251 ( Pennsylvania Super. 1986).

Walker ν Jack Eckerd Corp., 434 S.E.2d 63 ( Georgia App 1993).

1994 Ariz. App. LEXIS 58 (April 5, 1994).

Palsgraf ν Long Island R.R., 162 N.E. 99 (New York 1928).

Jones ν Irvin, 602 F.Supp. 399, 402-403 (D.C. S.D.Ill 1985).

Id. at 402.

Kampe ν Howard, etc., Pharmacy, 841 S.W.2d 223 (Missouri App. 1992); Adkins ν Mong, 425 N.W.2d 151 (Michigan App. 1988).

10.

Ingram ν Hook's Drugs, 476 N.E.2d 881 ( Indiana App. 1985); see also Fakhouri ν Taylor, 618 N.E.2d 518 (Illinois App. 1993 ).

11.

See generally Markowitz ν Arizona Parks Bd., 706 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1985); Lasley ν Shrake's County Club Pharm. Inc., 1994 Ariz. App., LEXIS 58 (April 5, 1994).

12.

Holleran MJ : The Pharmaceutical Access and Prudent Purchasing Act of 1990: Federal law shifts the duty to warn from the physician to the pharmacist. Akron Law Review 26:1, 77 (Summer 1992).

13.

Harrell ν Lusk, 439 S.E.2d 896 (Georgia 1994).

14.

W. Page Keeton et al: Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts . § 32 at 174-175 (5th ed. 1984).

15.

Taugher ν Ling, 187 N.E. 19 (Ohio 1933).

16.

W. Page Keeton et al: Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts . § 41 at 266 (5th ed. 1984).

17.

W. Page Keeton et al: Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts . § 2 at 9-10 (5th ed. 1984).

18.

See generally, W. Page Keeton et al: Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts. § 36 at 227-229 (5th ed. 1984).

19.

Federal Rule of Evidence 406.