Garfield Beach CVS v. Board of Pharmacy etc. CA4/1

Filed 7/18/25 Garfield Beach CVS v. Board of Pharmacy etc. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, D083962

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2023- 00006013-CU-WM-CTL) BOARD OF PHARMACY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carolyn M. Caietti, Judge. Affirmed. Much Shelist and Ryan N. Burns, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Carl W. Sonne, Assistant Attorney General, Gregory J. Salute and Nicole R. Trama, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. In 2020, the Board of Pharmacy, Department of Consumer Affairs cited Garfield Beach CVS, LLC for failure to maintain prescription records at CVS pharmacy number 5837 (Buena Park CVS) in a secure manner preserving patient confidentiality in violation of title 16 of the California Code of

Regulations sections 1714, subdivision (d) and 1707, subdivision (g)(2), as well as Civil Code section 56.101. After the Board affirmed the citation, CVS petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate to compel the Board to set aside its decision and order. The court denied the petition. On appeal, CVS raises three arguments. First, CVS argues substantial evidence was not presented that an alarmed but unlocked door inadequately secures prescription records and protects their confidentiality. We determine, however, that the record contains substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences drawn from the record evidence, to support that finding. Second, CVS contends the Board was collaterally estopped from affirming the citation given its prior dismissal of a similar citation against CVS pharmacy number 6755 (Long Beach CVS). Yet because (1) the citations arose out of different transactions and (2) the Long Beach CVS prescription records were stored behind a locked door, whereas the doors to the storage area of the Buena Park CVS were alarmed but unlocked, we conclude the issues are not identical, so collateral estoppel does not apply. Finally, CVS claims the Board abused its discretion in interpreting the relevant regulations and statute to require that access to prescription records be restricted to pharmacy employees. But the record, which shows the Board was concerned about non-employees’ access to the records as well, does not support CVS’s argument. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s dismissal of the petition.