This case involves a patient who was dispensed the wrong medication at a retail pharmacy, leading to a severe adverse reaction that required ICU hospitalization. The expert pharmacist’s review focused on identifying how such a significant error could occur within a standard community pharmacy workflow. The analysis highlighted multiple system failures at the retail level, including inadequate verification processes, breakdowns in prescription data entry, insufficient final product checks, and lapses in technician–pharmacist communication. These combined workflow deficiencies created an environment where the incorrect medication was selected, filled, and dispensed without the safeguards that should have prevented it. The expert report provided detailed background on typical pharmacy operations, demonstrating how high-volume pressures, staffing limitations, and insufficient quality‐assurance protocols contributed to the error. By mapping each breakdown in the workflow, the pharmacist clearly illustrated how the pharmacy’s internal systems failed at several checkpoints, ultimately allowing a preventable and dangerous dispensing error to reach the patient.

This case centers on a pediatric patient who was dispensed the wrong dosage form of a prescribed medication, resulting in the child receiving a significantly more concentrated product than intended. The error led to an acute overdose and subsequent hospitalization for monitoring and treatment.

The expert pharmacist’s evaluation focused on three key areas. First, the review identified the dispensing error itself—specifically, the failure to recognize that the product selected did not match the prescriber’s intended pediatric formulation. Second, the expert provided a clear explanation of the pharmacologic impact of this medication when administered at a markedly higher dose in a child, outlining the expected physiologic response and why the overdose produced the symptoms observed.

Third, the assessment detailed the toxicology profile of the medication, including both short-term risks (such as acute toxicity, organ involvement, and the need for emergent supportive care) and potential longer-term consequences relevant to pediatric patients.

Overall, the expert report clarified how the error occurred, what clinical harm resulted from the unintended high-dose exposure, and how the overdose should be interpreted from both a pharmacologic and toxicologic standpoint.

This case involves a patient who was maintained for an extended period on a medication intended only for short-term therapeutic use. Prolonged exposure ultimately resulted in a range of adverse effects, including several long-term and irreversible sequelae.

The pharmacist expert witness was tasked with evaluating the patient’s reported symptoms and determining which harms were directly attributable to the inappropriate duration of therapy. The expert’s analysis drew on established pharmacology, known risk profiles associated with chronic use, and the documented timeline of the patient’s deteriorating health.

In the final report, the pharmacist clearly distinguished medication-related toxicities from unrelated conditions, identified which adverse effects were consistent with extended exposure, and articulated how these effects could have been avoided with proper prescribing and monitoring.

his case involves a patient who was discharged from the hospital with a prescription for an anticoagulation medication requiring prior authorization. The medication could not be dispensed immediately, and the patient alleged that the delay in receiving therapy was the result of pharmacy negligence. During this waiting period, the patient experienced another heart attack.

The pharmacist expert reviewed the pharmacy’s actions step-by-step and confirmed that all required protocols were followed. This included timely submission of the prior authorization request, appropriate communication with the prescriber, and proper documentation of each intervention. The analysis clarified that the delay stemmed from the insurance approval process—an element outside the pharmacy’s control—rather than any lapse in pharmacy practice.

The expert report ultimately demonstrated that the pharmacy adhered to accepted standards of care and that the interruption in therapy was not caused by a failure on the pharmacy’s part.