This is an appeal from a peremptory writ of mandate which, in effect, ordered the defendant to issue to plaintiff a permit to operate and conduct a hospital pharmacy in the Warrack Hospital in Santa Bosa, California.

On or about June 29, 1965, Warrack Medical Center Hospital, a corporation (sometimes hereafter referred to as War-rack) filed a petition for a writ of mandate in Los Angeles County requesting that the State Board of Pharmacy (sometimes hereafter referred to as Board) be ordered to grant it a permit to conduct a pharmacy. The Board filed its answer and a hearing was held. The facts are undisputed and are as set *119 forth in the findings of the court and with the conclusions of law are, in part, as follows:

“From the foregoing facts, the Court makes the following Conclusions of Law:

*122 The question is does section 4080.5, Business and Professions Code, 1 compel the Board to deny a pharmacy permit to a corporation the stock of which is owned by licensees doctors of medicine.

Appellant justifies its denial of a nharmacy permit under the theory that the Board “shall not issue any new permit to conduct a pharmacy to a -person who is licensed under Chapter 5 ...” At the same time, appellant admits that “ [o]nly a natural person may be so licensed to practice medicine. ...” and that “Petitioner, a corporation, is not a natural person and is not ‘a person who is licensed under Chapter 5’ within the meaning of Section 4080.5.” (Findings 1.9 and 1.10.)

Appellant asserts however that it has “the power to look behind the facade of corporate applicants and inquire into the qualifications of the owners of the corporation.”

It is further asserted by the Board that the purpose of section 4081 2 was to allow the Board the power to determine whether any nonnatural applicant for a permit was beneficially owned by persons who are ineligible for -a permit under section 4080.5, Business and Professions Code. The Legislature could have prohibited or barred corporate applicants which were “beneficially owned” by a person or persons licensed by chapter 5, but it did not expressly do so. The *123 legislative history of section 4081 demonstrates that it was not intended thereby to be a grant of power to the Board to police the provisions of section 4080.5. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil repeatedly in the past has been brought into play to prevent fraud, but admittedly this is not such a case.

In any event, it would seem from the face of the record that Warrack seeks only to operate a hospital pharmacy, and under section 654, Business and Professions Code, 3 such a facility is exempt.

On this date this court has filed its opinion in Magan Medical Clinic v. California State Board of Medical Examiners, post, p. 124 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 256 ] which is dispositive of the issue presented in the case at hand.

For the reasons herein stated, and for the reasons stated in Magan, the judgment is affirmed.

Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

Section 4080.5 of the Business and Professions Code provides as follows:

Section 4081 of the Business and Professions Code proviJ.es as follows:

Section 654 of the Business and Professions Code provides:

Prohibited arrangements between opticians or pharmacists and medical licensees: