All parties involved must be evaluated. It can be argued that due to the doctor's lack of documentation or communication, this was an act of negligence. A jury may decide that the lack of documentation is sufficient evidence to find a doctor guilty of negligence (Pozgar, 2009). When we look at the role of the defendant, who was the pharmacist and not the doctor, his duty goes beyond just filling prescriptions, a pharmacist's duty is to monitor the patient's medications. To do this properly, he should have made sure to contact the doctor for further information, even if the doctor was unable to communicate with him. Because of his actions, the plaintiff holds the pharmacist responsible for his treatment and that is not where all the blame should be placed. The argument that can be made in favor of the pharmacist is that he acted within his scope of practice and left everything to the doctor. This situation can easily be interpreted as if the doctor had needed additional medication or if there had been an adverse reaction, he or she would have contacted the pharmacist. Once again, the prosecutor can argue that the pharmacist had a duty to follow through on any treatment he provided to a patient. These arguments would be the most convincing. These are the key elements in determining the pleaded case. For example, the pharmacist who does not follow up with the patient's doctor may be