Committee of formal inquiry finds pharmacists and pharmacy support personnel guilty

[dt_fancy_image type=”image” style=”2″ width=”300″ padding=”10″ margin_top=”0″ margin_bottom=”10″ margin_left=”0″ margin_right=”20″ align=”left” animation=”none” image=”https://archive.pharmaciae.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/legal.jpg” image_alt=”Pharmaciae – SAPC – Formal Inquiry”]

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Committee of formal inquiry finds pharmacists and pharmacy support personnel guilty

[dt_gap height=”10″]

In terms of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, and in particular Regulation 26, respondents who have been found guilty by a Committee of Formal Inquiry (CFI) shall have their names, together with the summary of the charges and the penalty imposed by the CFI, published in a Council Report.

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Findings of the Committee of Formal Inquiry

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Matoko Lucas Mokoka (P20344)

Mr Mokoka, a pharmacist, was found guilty in absentia of the following charges:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, conducting a pharmacy without the direct supervision of a pharmacist.
3. In terms of Regulation 11 (1) & (2) of the General Regulations (2003) published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, failing to record the sale of schedule 1 and 2 medicines in a prescription book.
4. In terms of Regulation 33 of the General Regulations (2003) published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, storing pre-packed medicines and failing to label such medicines correctly.
5. In terms of Rule 3 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, failing to sign prescriptions and to identify the dispenser of a prescription by both the name and signature on the trailer label and on the prescription.
6. In terms of Rule 2.7.1.1 & 2.7.1.3 of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice, failing to evaluate prescriptions and to identify any possible problems before dispensing the prescription.
7. In terms of Rule 2.13 of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice, conducting blood pressure monitoring, testing blood sugar and cholesterol levels in an area that does not comply with Good Pharmacy Practice.
8. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, allowing unregistered persons to perform acts pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
9. In terms of Section 22A (5) (b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, dispensing medication and claiming from a medical aid without a valid prescription.

The CFI sentenced Mr Mokoka in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act to pay a fine of R25 000, of which R10 000 is payable immediately and R15 000 is suspended for a period of three years on condition that he is not found guilty of any similar offence during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Taryn Bernice Gidish (P38390)

Ms Gidish, a pharmacist’s assistant (post-basic), was found guilty in terms of Rule 4 (a) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, of a serious dispensing error.

The CFI sentenced Ms Gidish in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act to be suspended from practicing as a pharmacist’s assistant (post-basic) for a period of three years which sentence is suspended for a period of three years on condition that she is not found guilty of any similar offence during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Louis Frederik Van Dyk (P20098)

Mr Van Dyk, a pharmacist, was found guilty in absentia in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to the acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, of harming the honour of the profession by fraudulently using a doctor’s prescription pad to issue a prescription to a relative.

The CFI sentenced Mr Van Dyk in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act to pay a fine of R25 000, of which R10 000 is payable immediately and R15 000 is suspended for a period of three years on condition that he is not found guilty of any similar offence during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Eahann Taljaardt (P12470)

Mr Taljaardt, a pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 30 of the General Regulations (2003) published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, failing to keep an up-to-date, balanced register of all schedule 6 medicines.
3. In terms of Rule 3 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, failing to indicate on the original prescription who the dispenser was by indicating the name on the trailer label and the signature on the prescription.
4. In terms of Section 22A (5) (b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing excessive quantities of Pethidine injections without valid prescriptions.
5. In terms of Section 22A (5) (b) of the Medicines and Related Substance Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing schedule 5 or 6 medicine without a valid prescription (4 counts).

The CFI sentenced Mr Taljaard in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, as follows:

1. Removal from the register of pharmacists, which sentence was suspended for three years on condition that Mr Taljaardt not be found guilty of any similar or related offence;
2. A fine in the amount of R30 000 of which R15 000 is payable immediately and R15 000 is suspended for a period of three years on condition that Mr Taljaardt not be found guilty of any similar or related offence; and
3. A cost order in the amount of R12 785,11.

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Klaas Gift Maganyele (P20363)

Mr Maganyele, a pharmacist, was found guilty in terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy of conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.

1. A fine in the amount of R10 000 which is suspended for a period of five years on condition that Mr Maganyele not be found guilty of any similar or related offence; and
2. A cost order in the amount of R12 785,11.

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Ummendra Ramjee Cara (P01739)

Mr Cara, a pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
3. In terms of Rule 4 (c) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines.
4. In terms of Regulation 11 of the General Regulations (2003) published under the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record the sales of schedule 1 and 2 medicines.
5. In terms of Regulation 30 of the General Regulations (2003) published under the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to lock away schedule 6 medicines and failing to balance the schedule 6 register.
6. In terms of Section 22A (5) (b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing medicine without a valid prescription.

The CFI sentenced Mr Cara in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, as follows:

1. A fine in the amount of R10 000 of which R5 000 is payable immediately and R5 000 is suspended for a period of three years on condition that Mr Cara not be found guilty of any similar or related offence; and
2. A cost order in the amount of R12 785,11.

[dt_gap height=”20″]

Niel Oswald Shaw (P17146)

Mr Shaw, a pharmacist, was found guilty in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps read with Rule 1.3 of the Rules relating to Code of Conduct for pharmacists and other persons registered in terms of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, of disclosing a patient’s confidential information.

The CFI sentenced Mr Shaw in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, as follows:

1. A caution; and
2. A cost order in the amount of R12 785,11.

[dt_gap height=”20″]
[dt_divider style=”thin”]
[dt_gap height=”20″]