In the case Randol Mill Pharmacy v. Miller, the Texas Supreme Court held on April 24, 2015 that a compounding pharmacy was a health care provider, and the act of providing a compounded medication for office use was a health care liability claim with protections under the Texas Medical Liability Act (“TMLA”). The plaintiff in the case suffered an adverse reaction that left her blind after her physician administered intravenous lipoic acid provided by the compounding pharmacy for office use. At issue in this case was whether or not these actions were health care liability claims under the TMLA, which provides for more requirements for a successful claim.
The trial and appeals court had originally held that the pharmacist defendants were not health care providers in that context because the prescriptions were not provided upon receipt of a valid prescription from a doctor, but the Supreme Court held that dispensing includes preparing a prescription drug for delivery to a user’s agent under a practitioner’s lawful order, and therefore the actions were considered health care claims. Compounding pharmacies should be aware that many of their activities they perform are considered health care, with the corresponding statutory protections. More generally, we can see that courts can understand the important role a compounding pharmacy plays in the health care system.
