Board grants reinstatement to pharmacist Ramachandran Raju with internship and probation conditions

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy voted to grant the reinstatement application of pharmacist Ramachandran Raju, subject to conditions set out in a proposed order.

The contested matter arose after a proposal for decision dated Nov. 7, 2024, from an administrative law judge at the State Office of Administrative Hearings recommended reinstatement. That PFD found violations in Raju’s earlier record but recommended conditional reinstatement. Board staff told members that an informal conference panel had recommended denial and that staff, consistent with the panel, was urging the board to deny reinstatement at this time. Staff reminded the board that under board rule 281.60(b) the board is not bound by the ALJ’s recommendation and retains full discretion in deciding reinstatement applications.

Ramachandran Raju and his counsel, Rodney Montez, appeared before the board to ask for another opportunity. Raju acknowledged mistakes and said, “I was ignorant, and I’m sorry,” and asked the board for a chance to comply with conditions. Montez told the board Raju has a pharmacist preceptor willing to supervise him—identified in the transcript as Dr. Will Casey of Pharr—and said Raju is prepared to follow supervision requirements and other conditions to return to practice.

Board members asked questions about the nature of the prior violations, how supervision and internship hours would be verified, and the timeline for reapplying if the board denied the request. Staff explained that the required internship hours are provided for by rule based on how long a pharmacist has been out of practice and that the enforcement team monitors compliance with board orders.

Two proposed orders were before the board: one that would grant reinstatement subject to conditions (including passage of the MPJE, completion of 45 hours of continuing education, completion of internship hours—700 hours as noted in the proposed order—followed by five years of probation, and restrictions on holding director or ownership interests), and a second that would deny the application. Board members debated the options and ultimately moved to grant reinstatement under the conditional order. A motion to grant carried on voice vote; the transcript records a second and several board members saying “aye.”

Staff and board members emphasized that the board had previously given Raju opportunities and that the current order places strict conditions on reentry into the profession. The transcript notes that if the board had denied the application, a subsequent application could not be considered until 12 months after the date of denial.

The board directed staff to provide the written order to Raju’s attorney; enforcement staff will monitor compliance with the order’s conditions and the probationary terms.