3326. Misbranding of sulfathiazole tablets, thyroid tablets, diethylstilbestrol
tablets, and methyltestosterone tablets. U. S. v. M & M Drugs and
Max Sherman. Pleas of nolo contendere. Fine of $200 against each
defendant. (F.D.O. No. 29996. Sample Nos. 52960-K, 52964-K, 52986-K,
52999-K, 84132-K, 84138-K, 84328-K, 84333-K.)
INFORMATION FILED : On or about November 17,1950, Northern District of Ohio,
against M & M Drugs, a partnership, Toledo, Ohio, and Max Sherman, partner
and pharmacist.
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT : From the States of New Jersey, Michigan, and Indiana,
of quantities of sulfathiazole tablets, thyroid tablets, diethylstilbestrol tablets,
and methyltestosterone tablets.
ALLEGED VIOLATION : On or about January 28, February 21, and April 14, 15, 20,
24, and 25, 1950, while the drugs were being held for sale after shipment in
interstate commerce, the defendants caused various quantities of the drugs to
be repacked and sold without a physician's prescription, which acts of the
defendants resulted in the repackaged drugs being misbranded.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (b) (2), the repackaged drugs
failed to bear labels containing a statement of the quantity of the contents;
and, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the repackaged drugs bore no direc-
tions for use.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (b) (1), the repackaged thyroid tablets
and diethylstilbestrol tablets and portions of the sulfathiazole tablets and
methyltestosterone tablets failed to bear labels containing the name and place
of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; Section 502 (e) (1),
the repackaged methyltestosterone tablets and a portion of the thyroid tablets
bore no labels containing the common or usual name of the drugs; and, Section
502 (f) (2), the repackaged sulfathiazole tablets bore no labeling containing
warnings against use in those pathological conditions where their use may
be dangerous to health, and against unsafe dosage and methods and duration
of administration.
DISPOSITION : December 5,1950. Pleas of nolo contendere having been entered,
the court imposed a fine of $200 against each defendant.