On September 27, 2016 Commonwealth Court addressed a consistent issue regarding inactive professional licenses and licensees who fail to appear at hearings to defend these disciplinary process. The case is McLeish v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, 2016 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 687 (September 27, 2016). Sometime prior to 2014 Fred McLeish was discipline by the New Jersey State Board of Pharmacy. He voluntarily surrendered his license and enrolled in its pharmacist drug monitoring program. McLeish had been caught diverting IV Morphine, Fentanyl and Hydroxyzine tablets for personal use.McLeish's New Jersey monitoring program enrollment and voluntary surrender of his NJ license triggered Pennsylvania's Pharmacy Board to commence revocation proceedings consistent with 63 P.S. § 390-5(a)(10). In a 2014 Order to Show Cause Pennsylvania moved against McLeish's inactive Pennsylvania pharmacist license.McLeish did have a history with the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Board. In 2003 his license was suspended for failing to comply with continuing education requirements and providing false documents. In 2006 his pharmacist license was reinstated, to then be placed on inactive status. In December 2006 McLeish's Pennsylvania pharmacist license was placed on three years probation when he enrolled in Pennsylvania's drug monitoring program due to prior New Jersey Pharmacy Board monitoring agreement. In 2008 McLeish completed both PA and NJ's monitoring programs, securing reinstatement of both New Jersey and Pennsylvania licenses. McLeish's Pennsylvania pharmacist license remained inactive since 2008.Many of my clients think that because they practice in another jurisdiction and their Pennsylvania professional license is inactive they are not subject to Pennsylvania disciplinary process or it's not worth responding. This wrong. Inactive status still allows licensees to seek reactivation of their licenses so they may recommence practicing their profession in Pennsylvania. Consequently, inactive status allows licensing boards to commence disciplinary process against that licensee.Importantly, Pennsylvania disciplinary process on inactive licenses will result in a disciplinary decision reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank. This in turn will result in a reportable decision to your current home state licensing board and employers conducting annual background searches. My blog last week discussed Pennsylvania's enrollment in the judicial net fingerprinting and crime reporting network (JNET). Now criminal charges from other jurisdictions are automatically noticed to your Pennsylvania licensing board. These charges will trigger disciplinary processes on an inactive Pennsylvania license.McLeish originally responded to the 2014 Pennsylvania disciplinary action. He asked for a dismissal due to inactive status. This request was denied. McLeish did not appear at the disciplinary hearing. The record did not contain evidence supporting mitigation to impose a lesser sanction than license revocation. The only evidence in the record was the New Jersey Pharmacy Board suspension of McLeish' license based upon the factual drug diversion allegations contained in the petition.McLeish did not have an attorney file an appeal for him. Upon review, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pharmacy Board's public safety need to impose a harsh sanction predicated upon a reciprocal discipline involving the diversion of drugs by a member of the pharmacy profession. Maintaining the integrity of the profession and protecting public safety were deemed to be sufficient basis for revocation."In order to fulfill its duty as protectorate of the public and to the integrity of the profession it needs to send a clear message about the severity of [McLeish's] violations - both to the citizens of the Commonwealth and to [McLeish] himself. Therefore, it is necessary to impose a more stringent sanction than the one recommended by the hearing examiner in her proposed report. Great trust is placed in pharmacists as healthcare providers. Pharmacists have the responsibility to ensure that prescription drugs are legally distributed. Drug diversion has led to numerous overdose deaths within this Commonwealth and throughout the country. [McLeish's] actions in failing to conform to the prevailing standards of practice in New Jersey were not only a violation of this Act but they exhibit a complete lack of professionalism and responsibility to the public when dealing with powerful narcotics."Commonwealth Court affirms the Pharmacy Board's public policy concerns in this age of prescription opiate addiction and overdose propensities. This case is another example of the courts being pushed by current events to stem the tide of opiate addiction and drug overdoses. Whether the drugs are legally secured by medically unnecessary prescriptions, pharmacists not engaging in their corresponding responsibility, or drugs on the street, the courts and the professional licensing boards are stepping up their enforcement protocols, disciplinary processes, and sanctions. McLeish's ongoing fight with his drug addiction and extensive steps he affirmatively took to fight his addiction did not matter.Please call to discuss your pending non-Pennsylvania disciplinary process and it's effect on your current inactive Pennsylvania license.