How Often Do Pharmacists End up in Court? Analysis of Civil and Criminal Case Law in Poland

Background: Pharmacists, as healthcare professionals of public trust, operate within a complex legal environment involving multiple forms of professional liability, particularly civil and criminal liability. Although these forms of responsibility are formally regulated by statutory law, the practical distinction between them remains largely dependent on judicial interpretation and case-specific circumstances. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the scale and nature of judicial proceedings involving pharmacists and to identify the most common factors leading to civil and criminal liability. Additionally, the study sought to highlight the largely under-recognized phenomenon of legal actions involving pharmacists and to determine which areas of pharmacy practice generate the greatest legal risk. Methods: The study employed a mixed-methods design combining qualitative case law analysis with descriptive quantitative assessment. A total of 146 judicial decisions involving pharmacists were reviewed, including 43 civil and 19 criminal cases constituting the principal subject of the analysis. The examined judgments were assessed with regard to factual background, legal qualification, judicial reasoning, applied legal provisions, and type of liability imposed. Cases were additionally categorized according to the nature of the violation and the protected legal interest affected. Results: A total of 146 judicial decisions involving pharmacists were identified and analyzed, including 43 civil cases and 19 criminal cases. The findings demonstrate that legal proceedings involving pharmacists are not isolated events but represent a recurring phenomenon within professional practice. Civil cases were dominated by disputes related to reimbursement claims, prescription processing, and regulatory compliance, accounting for over half of all analyzed civil proceedings. In contrast, criminal cases were less frequent but displayed substantial heterogeneity, including unlawful medicine distribution, reimbursement fraud, breaches of professional duties, and other criminal offences. Importantly, only a minority of cases involved direct patient harm, while the majority arose from administrative, organizational, and regulatory obligations associated with pharmacy practice. The analysis identified prescription reimbursement procedures, medicine dispensing regulations, and pharmacy management responsibilities as the principal sources of legal risk for pharmacists. Conclusions: Published case law demonstrates the recurrent presence and considerable diversity of legal proceedings involving pharmacists. Most cases do not arise from direct patient harm but rather from regulatory, administrative, and organizational obligations associated with pharmacy practice. Civil proceedings are predominantly linked to reimbursement and prescription-related disputes, whereas criminal cases are less common but more diverse in nature. The results highlight the need for greater legal awareness among pharmacists, enhanced risk-management education, and stronger integration of legal competencies into undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy training. Increased recognition of legal risks may contribute to both professional protection and improved patient safety.