§ 61-11-1-1

A. The legislature finds that the practice of pharmacy in New Mexico is a professional practice affecting the public health, safety and welfare and is subject to regulation and control in the public interest. The legislature finds further that it is a matter of public interest and concern that the practice of pharmacy as defined in the Pharmacy Act merit and receive the confidence of the public, and that only qualified persons be permitted to engage in the practice of pharmacy so that the quality of drugs and related devices distributed in New Mexico is ensured. B. The purpose of the Pharmacy Act is to promote, preserve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by and through the effective control and regulation of the practice of pharmacy, including the licensure of pharmacists and pharmacist interns and registration of pharmacy technicians; the licensure, control and regulation of all sites or persons, in or out of state, who distribute, manufacture or sell drugs or devices used in the dispensing and administration of drugs in New Mexico; and the regulation and control of such other materials as may be used in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of injury, illness or

sed in the dispensing and administration of drugs in New Mexico; and the regulation and control of such other materials as may be used in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of injury, illness or disease of a patient or other person. History: Laws 1997, ch. 131, § 2. ANNOTATIONSStandard of care required of retail pharmacists in filling prescriptions for controlled substances. — Where the personal representative of decedent's estate brought a lawsuit, asserting claims of negligence and negligence per se, against the pharmacy that dispensed certain Schedule II drugs to decedent, who died from an overdose of physician-prescribed medications, the district court erred in granting the pharmacy's motion for summary judgment, because the pharmacy's motion did not establish a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to the standard of care or the pharmacy's compliance with the standard, and even if the pharmacy had met that burden, plaintiff's expert affidavit sufficed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact concerning these material issues, and dismissal of the pharmacy from the case was improper because the motion did not demonstrate the pharmacy's

fficed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact concerning these material issues, and dismissal of the pharmacy from the case was improper because the motion did not demonstrate the pharmacy's entitlement to summary judgment on the separate claim of negligence per se. Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc., 2017-NMCA-054, cert. denied.