Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Diversion And Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines proposed $1,000 settlement in case tied to diversion concerns; debates manager‑role safeguards
Summary
Commissioners declined to accept a settlement proposed in case 2023‑2206 after discussing a pharmacy manager’s oversight, questions about unreported losses and whether future manager roles should carry conditions.
The Connecticut Pharmacy Commission voted to reject a proposed settlement in case 2023‑2206 after an extended discussion about whether the department’s terms sufficiently protect public safety when potential diversion is involved.
Department counsel described the case as an investigation that followed an untimely death; the medical examiner found multiple controlled substances in the body and some prescriptions linked to the pharmacy. "The proposed settlement agreement here is, monetary payment of $1,000 and continuing education courses on the topics of pharmacy management, record keeping, and drug security," said Attorney Yanda during the presentation. The department proposed that the respondent complete education and maintain security measures ordered during the investigation.
Commissioners raised concerns about the underlying facts and the adequacy of the proposed terms. Several commissioners emphasized the public‑safety implications of unreported losses and gaps in perpetual inventory reconciliation. Some argued that a settlement should include conditions limiting or monitoring future pharmacy‑manager roles for the respondent; others cautioned that each case presents unique facts and that intervention should be proportional.
After debate, a motion to not accept the proposed settlement was made and carried. The transcript records at least one commissioner’s opposition and a recusal by another. Commissioners said the department may return with revised terms that impose additional conditions, such as probationary restrictions if the respondent becomes a pharmacy manager in the future, but counsel noted that the department does not currently have agreement from the respondent to revised terms.
Background: Attorney Yanda told the panel the investigation found weaknesses in perpetual inventory maintenance, commingled records, some undercounts and overcounts, a documented dispensing error, and security issues with controlled substances not stored as required. The respondent voluntarily stepped down as pharmacy manager and now works in a lower‑volume setting; the proposed settlement would have required continuing education and a $1,000 payment.
The Commission’s rejection leaves the department able to reopen negotiations or pursue alternative enforcement paths; no new settlement terms were recorded at the meeting.
