Summary
The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a physician who prescribed morphine after personally attending the patient was not required under Acts 1913 (1st Ex. Sess.) chapter 11 to keep a duplicate of the prescription unless the physician dispensed or distributed the drug. The court reversed and dismissed the conviction for failing to keep such a duplicate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Acts 1913 (1st Ex. Sess.), chapter 11, section 2 required a practicing physician who personally attended a patient and issued a morphine prescription to keep a duplicate of that prescription.
- Whether Friedman's issuance of the prescription constituted dispensing or distributing morphine within the meaning of the statute.
Holdings
- The statute required duplicate prescriptions only from physicians who dispense or distribute the covered drugs; because Friedman did not dispense or distribute the morphine under the circumstances, his failure to retain a duplicate did not violate the statute.
- A physician who personally attends the patient and issues a prescription is not, solely by issuing that prescription, a dispenser or distributor of the drug for purposes of the duplicate-prescription requirement.
Key quotations
“It is plain and unambiguous, and there is no room for construction.” (554)
“Therefore we hold that the plaintiff in error did not violate this section of the act when he failed to keep a duplicate of the prescription, because he did- not dispense or distribute the drug.” (554-55)
Factual background
Friedman was a practicing physician, not a salesman of morphine. After personally attending an habitual morphine user, he prescribed morphine but did not keep a copy or duplicate of the prescription. The State prosecuted him for failing to retain the duplicate required by the statute.
Procedural history
Friedman, a practicing physician, was convicted in the criminal court of Shelby County. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the applicable statute did not require him to retain a duplicate of the prescription under the circumstances and reversed and dismissed the case.