Board approves settlements, fines and reprimands in multiple pharmacy investigations

The Connecticut Board of Pharmacy on a unanimous vote approved a series of settlements and disciplinary actions arising from routine inspections and suspicious-order reports, including a $150,000 voluntary payment by a pharmacy and smaller payments and reprimands tied to managerial and recordkeeping failures.

Attorney Ando, representing the Department of Consumer Protection’s drug control division, told the board the matters stemmed from inspections and a suspicious-order report involving prescriptions for family members, missing or disorganized records, incomplete temperature logs and missing controlled‑substance documentation. "The proposed resolution here is a voluntary monetary payment of $10,000," Ando said of one case, adding that other settlements reflect the scope of corrective work performed by respondents.

Why it matters: The resolutions formalize corrective steps taken after agents found repeated deficiencies that can affect patient safety and controlled‑substance tracking. Several settlements pair monetary payments with documentation and training requirements aimed at correcting managerial oversight.

Key cases and decisions

- Case 2022-1896 (pharmacist manager): The board accepted the department’s presentation and approved the proposed resolution. Attorney Ando said the matter grew from a suspicious order report alleging inappropriate prescribing to family members and continued managerial deficiencies on follow-up. The settlement includes a voluntary $10,000 payment. Outcome: approved (motion passed).

- Case 2022-1471 (pharmacy license): The board approved a settlement with the pharmacy itself after inspections showed a range of violations including missing signage and inventory reconciliation problems; the department presented a proposed voluntary payment of $150,000 and documented corrective actions by the pharmacy. Outcome: approved (motion passed).

- Case 2024-1985 (pharmacy license): Following an inspection that found missing manager notifications, incomplete perpetual inventories, missing training records and some adulterated (expired) over‑the‑counter items, the department presented a proposed voluntary payment of $10,000 and a letter of reprimand. The board approved the settlement. Outcome: approved (motion passed).

- Case 2024-1146 (pharmacist manager): The department charged managerial responsibility for recordkeeping failures and use of another person’s signature on DEA forms. The proposed resolution accepted by the board included a $5,000 monetary payment (reported as already paid), a letter of reprimand and a requirement to complete a pharmacy‑management continuing education course within 180 days. Outcome: approved (motion passed).

What the department said about compliance and federal connection

Attorney Ando said some irregularities involved DEA Form 222s and signatures, and that federal authorities had reviewed related paperwork; however, Ando declined to comment on federal investigative details. Ando also told the board that third‑party assistance had helped at least one pharmacy reach compliance and that many corrective steps were documented by the time settlements were negotiated.

Board process and votes

Chair Angelo DiFazio brought each matter forward for a motion and the board voted to accept the department’s recommendations. Commissioners voting in person were Richard Carbary, Anne Taylor, Kristen Lender and Mary Anguante; Commissioner Chisholm was absent. The board recorded the actions as approved during the meeting.

Ending

The board framed the settlements as tied to documented remedial work in most cases and paired monetary penalties with letters of reprimand and training requirements where the department said managerial oversight had been deficient.