CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PHARMACY AND THE STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's negative drug formulary statute does not violate the state constitution's single-subject requirement, and the Board of Pharmacy's exclusion of petitioner's drug from the formulary was not arbitrary or procedurally defective.
Chapter 76-47, Laws of Florida does not violate Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution because its subject is briefly expressed in the title, and the negative formulary adopted by the respondent boards is valid.
[1] A statute does not violate the single-subject requirement of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution when its title gives fair notice of the subject matter and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCiba-Geigy Corporation challenged a negative drug formulary adopted by the Florida Board of Pharmacy and State Board of Medical Examiners pursuant to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Single Subject Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have considered each of petitioner’s contentions upon the briefs, record and oral argument. Chapter 76-47, Laws of Florida, does not violate Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution because its subject is briefly expressed in the title. Though the title is not an exact summary of the contents, it gives fair notice and provokes inquiry into the body of the act. The negative formulary adopted by respondents in compliance with the Act is not invalid. The formulary promulgated is but a beginning, and the statute itself contemplates drugs may be added or deleted. Section 465.30(6), (7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976). The formulary promulgated at the outset need not have completely and accurately carried into effect all present medical knowledge concerning all drugs. Respondents did not abdicate their authority by seeking professional consultation concerning drugs to be included and excluded in the formularies. Excluding petitioner’s drug from the negative formulary, thus enabling substitution for it in keeping with the Act’s general purpose, is not shown to have been rationally baseless. No material error in procedure is demonstrated. The prayer of the petition for review is
DENIED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J. and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.