Pharmacist Oop faces broad disciplinary action for numerous pharmacy law violations

In a meeting that underscored the gravity of regulatory oversight in California's pharmacy sector, the California State Board of Pharmacy's Disciplinary Petition Committee convened on May 21, 2025, to address a troubling case involving a pharmacist and pharmacy owner accused of extensive violations. The case, which originated from an accusation filed in October 2020, revealed a pattern of misconduct that raised serious concerns about patient safety and compliance with pharmacy laws.

At the heart of the discussion was the petitioner, who held licenses for multiple pharmacies, including Anchor Pharmacy, where he served as the owner and Pharmacist in Charge (PIC). The committee outlined a staggering array of allegations, including unprofessional conduct, falsification of dispensing records, and significant inventory discrepancies involving dangerous drugs. The petitioner was accused of dispensing medications without proper labeling and failing to maintain adequate security measures, leading to substantial losses of controlled substances.

The committee highlighted that the petitioner had falsified records during the investigation, presenting conflicting information to the board. This included dispensing generic medications contrary to prescriptions and failing to notify the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about changes in ownership at one of his pharmacies. Alarmingly, the petitioner continued to act as the DEA registrant for Bruce Pharmacy, despite no longer owning it, raising red flags about potential billing fraud.

The meeting detailed numerous causes for discipline, including the improper transfer of prescriptions between pharmacies and the dispensing of medications without valid prescriptions. The petitioner was also implicated in fraudulent billing practices, having documented the dispensing of drugs without sufficient inventory to support such claims. The committee noted that these actions not only violated pharmacy regulations but also posed risks to public health.

As the meeting progressed, the committee emphasized the need for thorough examination of the case, urging all parties involved to review the extensive documentation provided. The petitioner’s history of prior violations further complicated the matter, suggesting a pattern of disregard for regulatory compliance.

In conclusion, the committee's discussions painted a stark picture of the challenges facing the pharmacy industry in California. With the potential for severe disciplinary action looming, the case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adherence to pharmacy laws and the ongoing need for vigilant oversight to protect public health and safety. As the board prepares to deliberate on the appropriate course of action, the implications of this case will likely resonate throughout the state's pharmacy community for years to come.