Citation Numbers: 72 Op. Att'y Gen. 121
Judges: BRONSON C. La FOLLETTE, Attorney General
Filed Date: 8/23/1983
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
BARBARA NICHOLS, Secretary Department of Regulation and Licensing
The Pharmacy Examining Board has requested my opinion on several questions regarding the application of chapter 450, Stats., which regulates the practice of pharmacy in Wisconsin, to out-of-state pharmacies that regularly and continually solicit mail orders for the retail sale of prescription drugs to Wisconsin residents. The issues presented in your request have been restated below:
1. Does chapter 450 authorize the Pharmacy Examining Board to extend its licensing and registration requirements to out-of-state pharmacies which solicit mail-order sales from Wisconsin residents?
2. Does the regulation of an out-of-state pharmacy by the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board, whether pursuant to a specific statute or based on an implied legislative mandate, establish an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?
3. If it is assumed that out-of-state pharmacies may dispense prescriptions by mail to Wisconsin residents without being licensed, must the pharmacies nevertheless comply with the other provisions of chapter 450 regarding the dispensing of prescription drugs?
I have concluded that chapter 450 may be applied to regulate out-of-state pharmacies when they regularly and continually solicit mail-order *Page 122 sales of prescription drugs from Wisconsin residents. Although chapter 450 does not explicitly require out-of-state pharmacists to become licensed or registered in Wisconsin, an implied power to regulate them when they solicit orders from Wisconsin residents may be inferred from the statute. With regard to the second issue, it is my opinion that application of chapter 450 to out-of-state pharmacists does not create an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. An opinion on the third issue is not necessary, since I have concluded that out-of-state pharmacies may not dispense prescriptions to Wisconsin residents without being licensed by the state. Therefore, they are compelled to comply with all the other provisions of chapter 450.
Section
Section
An analysis of the applicable case law underscores the strong policy considerations in favor of a statutory interpretation which would permit the Pharmacy Examining Board to regulate out-of-state pharmacies when they solicit mail-order sales from Wisconsin residents. AS a general proposition, the courts have uniformly held that a state may enact safety regulations under the police power in the interest of the public health and welfare. State v. Wetzel,
Thus, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the state may, through the exercise of its police power for the protection of the public health, regulate the sale of drugs. The State v.Heinemann,
Generally, statutes should be broadly construed in order to effect their legislative purpose. State ex rel., McGrael v.Phelps,
In Meyers v. Matthews,
Having concluded that chapter 450 authorizes the Pharmacy Examining Board to regulate out-of-state pharmacies that transact business with Wisconsin residents, the question remains whether this licensing requirement establishes an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
A threshold inquiry is whether personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state operation has been established. The general standard is that personal jurisdiction is established if the foreign corporation has "minimum contacts" with the forum state.International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
As stated earlier, state regulations concerning the sale of prescription drugs have been upheld as a valid exercise of the police power to act for the protection of the public health and general welfare. Such regulations are not rendered unconstitutional even though they may indirectly affect interstate commerce since Congress has not expressed an intent to preclude states from entering this area. Pharmaceutical Soc. ofNew York v. Lefkowitz,
It should also be noted that the application of chapter 450 does not discriminate against nonresidents or grant special privileges and *Page 125
immunities to residents. State v. Evans,
You have also inquired whether out-of-state pharmacists would have to comply with other "dispensing laws" of this state. An opinion on this issue is not necessary since it has already been decided that out-of-state pharmacies must comply with all the requirements of chapter 450. Nevertheless, your inquiry suggests that there may be some venue problems in enforcing the statute. These are briefly discussed below in order to help facilitate enforcement efforts by your Department.
Violation of sections
It should also be noted that the out-of-state pharmacist who solicits, prepares, dispenses and delivers would not be the only person in violation of Wisconsin law. A Wisconsin resident who procured such prescription drugs and had them in his or her possession would be in violation of section
BCL:JDJ:RJV:JMM *Page 126
aldens-inc-v-bronson-c-lafollette-individually-and-as-attorney-general , 552 F.2d 745 ( 1977 )
Milligan v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy , 348 Mass. 491 ( 1965 )
Bisenius v. Karns , 42 Wis. 2d 42 ( 1969 )
Butala v. State , 71 Wis. 2d 569 ( 1976 )
International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 66 S. Ct. 154 ( 1945 )
Pharmaceutical Society of the State of New York, Inc. v. ... , 454 F. Supp. 1175 ( 1978 )
National Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. State , 62 Wis. 2d 347 ( 1974 )
Meyers v. Matthews , 270 Wis. 453 ( 1955 )