Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A former pharmacist’s inability to allege an ongoing violation of federal law has negated his attempt to prevail in his case against the Indiana Board of Pharmacy, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled Thursday.
The COA originally overturned a trial court’s judgment in favor of former pharmacist Paul Elmer and found he was not entitled to attorney fees in his case against the state’s pharmacy board back in March.
The appellate court granted Elmer’s petition for rehearing to clarify that’s former pharmacist’s claims made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the board members in their official capacities — as opposed to their individual capacities— are encompassed by the court’s original opinion.
The former pharmacist had filed a lawsuit in January 2020 because he alleged the board lacked the statutory authority to revoke his already expired license and had violated his fundamental rights pursuant to Section 1983.
Elmer’s attempt to cover up his production and distribution of adulterated drugs brought a federal grand jury to a 10-count indictment. He was convicted in April 2019, according to the Indianapolis Business Journal, and was sentenced to more than two years in federal prison.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that sentence in November 2020.
Meanwhile, the state initiated a summary-suspension proceeding against Elmer’s pharmacist license in July 2017. A year later, Elmer let his license expire, and the state’s pharmacy board ultimately revoked that license.
In the appellate court’s original opinion, it concluded that the board members had absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a Section 1983 suit in their individual capacities, and Elmer was not entitled to attorney fees.
In the opinion issued Thursday, the COA did agree with Elmer that the immunity does not extend to the board members’ official capacities, in which he also sued them.
But the appellate court ruled Elmer had already been granted all the relief to which he was entitled.
“When Elmer’s judicial-review claim terminated in his favor, he was no longer able to state a claim pursuant to Section 1983 because any violation of federal law that might have occurred ceased when Elmer won his judicial-review action, i.e., the illegal ‘revocation’ of his expired license was over. This inability to allege an ongoing violation of federal law fatally undercut Elmer’s Section 1983 claim against the Board members in their official capacities,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “For the same reason, prospective relief can no longer be given to Elmer, also serving to render his claim moot. A request for injunctive relief is moot when no relief is possible or if the relief sought has already occurred.”
Bradford wrote that because the appellate court has already ordered that the trial court enter judgment in favor of all appellants, its original disposition of the case is unaffected by the COA’s opinion on rehearing.
This case is Indiana Board of Pharmacy, Donna S. Wall, Steven Anderson, Del Fanning, Winnie Landis, Mark Smosma, and Matt Balla v. Paul J. Elmer, 22A-PL-1811.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.