View Exam | PowerPak

1. In the case of Sanchez v Wal-Mart the pharmacies were sued based upon a letter sent by the Nevada Prescription Controlled Substance Abuse Prevention Task Force, which provided the pharmacists with what information?

A. That they had filled prescriptions written by a physician whose license was suspended B. In the last year, 13 pharmacies in the state had filled prescriptions for a patient of theirs who had received approximately 4500 hydrocodone pills in total C. That some of the prescriptions filled for the person who was alleged to have caused the death of a truck driver were illegal D. The letter contained a general notice to all pharmacies in the state reminding them of the corresponding responsibility rule

2. According to the article, how many states either have working prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) or have legislation authorizing the establishment of such systems?

A. 32 B. 40 C. 48 D. 50

3. The Nevada Supreme Court for the Sanchez case found that the underlying purpose of Nevada's PDMP, as it existed in 2004, at the time of the accident, was which of the following:

A. To assist pharmacists with identifying doctor-shoppers so the pharmacies would refuse to fill those prescriptions B. To report any suspected fraud or illegal activity to law enforcement or the appropriate occupational licensing board C. As a revenue source for the state D. To assist pharmacists with applying the corresponding responsibility requirement of state and federal law

4. The Nevada Supreme Court in the Sanchez case said that a pharmacy was not required to take affirmative action to protect a person who was not their customer unless the court found which of the following:

A. A special relationship B. Foreseeability C. Gross negligence D. Both A and B

5. In the Sanchez case there was a dissenting opinion. According to the author, why do judges write dissenting opinions?

A. They feel strongly about an issue B. They want to influence future courts to rule differently in a future case C. They want some future court to completely overrule the present majority decision D. All of the above

6. When the Board of Pharmacy changed some of its rules following the Sanchez case, the Nevada Retail Association asked the Board to amend its new regulation because the following applies:

A. The Association wanted to change the results of the Sanchez case in order to protect future drivers on Nevada highways B. Out of fear the changes and the new regulation might result in an opposite verdict in the future C. For fear that the new regulation might increase civil liability of pharmacies to third parties D. Both B and C

7. Which of the following statements best defines legal duty as the term is used in this article:

A. Legal duty is the ideal required of every practitioner of the profession B. Legal duty is the minimum required of every practitioner of the profession C. Legal duty is the most that should be expected of practitioners of the profession D. Both A and B

8. Which of the following is NOT an element of the tort of negligence:

A. Violation of an ethical principle resulting in injury to the plaintiff B. Breach of duty C. Damages or injury to the plaintiff D. Proof that the plaintiff's damages/injuries were the proximate resulting cause of the defendant's breach of duty

9. What must the plaintiff in a negligence case show regarding the defendant's duty?

A. The defendant's legal duty was owed to the plaintiff B. The defendant was aware the plaintiff was injured by his conduct C. The defendant owed the same duty to others D. The plaintiff need only prove the defendant had a duty

10. For the plaintiff to prevail in a case of negligence against a defendant, what does the plaintiff have to prove regarding damages?

A. That the plaintiff's damages or injuries were “significant” B. That the plaintiff suffered some amount of damage or injury C. That the defendant's breach of duty caused the plaintiff's injuries D. Both B and C

11. Proximate cause means the plaintiff in a negligence suit must prove which of the following:

A. That plaintiff's injuries or damage were a result of the defendant's breach of his or her established legal duty B. That there was an INDIRECT relationship between defendant's breach of legal duty and the plaintiff's injuries or damage C. That the defendant's breach of duty was or could have been the cause of an earlier injury D. Both A and B

12. A useful way to think of the meaning of proximate cause in a case is to apply which of the following tests:

A. The approximate value test B. The “but for” test C. The equal values test D. The professional duty test

13. What is the likely result if 2 defendants are each shown to be equally responsible for the plaintiff's injuries?

A. There will need to be 2 lawsuits, as only 1 person may be held liable in one lawsuit B. Each would be required to pay the entire amount of damages proved necessary to compensate the plaintiff which is designed to result in double payment to the plaintiff C. Each would be required to pay one-half of the amounts of damages proved as necessary to compensate the plaintiff D. Both A and B

14. A question of law must be decided by whom?

A. Judge B. Jury C. Both the judge and the jury must concur on the existence of a legal duty prior to the commencement of a trial D. Duty is not a question of law

15. When determining whether or not a legal duty exists, several factors may be considered. According to the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Happel v Wal-Mart, which of the following are among the factors to be considered:

A. The reasonable foreseeability that the defendant's conduct may injure another B. The magnitude of the burden of guarding against such injury C. The consequences of placing that burden on the defendant D. All of the above

16. The question of standard is often stated as, “What would the _________________ pharmacist, with the same knowledge as the defendant, have done in this circumstance?” Which of the following words would best complete this sentence:

A. Standard B. Best C. Reasonable, prudent D. Well trained

17. As the author uses the term in this paper, which of the following statements most closely defines the professional duty of a pharmacist:

A. A professional duty is one set by the law B. A professional duty is that level of practice maintained by those considered to be the best practitioners in the profession C. Professional duties are primarily personal and depend on early teaching by family and religious leaders D. Professional duties must be performed each time or the pharmacist may face legal consequences

18. According to the author, which of the following statements is TRUE about professional duties:

A. Professional duties may guide and shape future legal duties B. The performance of professional duties may have legal consequences C. The primary question guiding professional duties is what is in the best interests of the patient D. All of the above

19. The answer to the question, “What would the reasonable, prudent pharmacist, with the same knowledge as the defendant, have done in this circumstance?” is ultimately decided by which of the following:

A. What real pharmacists do and believe they are required to do in real cases B. By the jury's experience with pharmacists in the real world C. By the judge's experience with pharmacists in the real world D. By testimony related to the best pharmacists in the community and how they would handle the situation