Filed February 6, 2012
¶ 45. Case 1:12-cv-00185-RBW Document 5 Filed 02/06/12 Page 34 of 42 26 by law to investigate whether each prescription it fills is issued for a legitimate medical purpose, an investigation that Cardinal Health, as a wholesaler, cannot conduct.12 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) (2011); see also Pharmacist’s Manual, DEA Office of Diversion Control, Section IX, available at http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/manuals/pharm2/pharm_content.htm #9 (“To dispense controlled substances, a pharmacist must know the requirements for a valid prescription which are described in this section,” including that the prescription “must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose”). Second, despite the fact that DEA has stated that its role is to further the CSA’s purpose to “prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances . . . into the illicit market while ensuring a sufficient supply of controlled substances . . . for legitimate medical . . . purposes,” 76 Fed. Reg.
Filed July 17, 2015
(Jd. § 1304.04(f)-(h).) For a controlled substance prescription to beeffective, the prescription “must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose” (21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a)), though States retain primary authority to define the applicable standards of practice. (United States v. Tobin (11th Cir. 2012) 676 F.3d 1264, 1275.)
Filed December 14, 2009
Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1125-27 (8th Cir. 2009); Taylor v. Crawford, 48720 F.3d 1072, 1083-84 (8th Cir. 2007). 21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1); 21 U.S.C. § 829(b) (Schedule III and IV controlled substances);21 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). Clemons, 585 F.3d at 1124.