Petitioner Samira Katami tells board she accepts responsibility but works in DME; committee takes matter under submission

Samira Katami, the petitioner in a two‑year disciplinary matter, told the Board of Pharmacy’s disciplinary petition committee on Dec. 18 that she “takes full responsibility” for the violations that led to probation and described the remedial steps she has completed.

Deputy Attorney General Nicole Trauma summarized the underlying accusation: during a board inspection the pharmacy where Katami served as pharmacist in charge failed to keep required compounding self-assessments and compounding logs, lacked written compounding policies and a quality-assurance plan, and showed substantial inventory overages. An administrative decision in November 2022 revoked Katami’s pharmacist license, stayed the revocation and imposed three years of probation with monitoring and reporting requirements. The petition packet (admitted as Exhibit 1) includes continuing-education certificates, a personal statement and six letters of recommendation verified by board staff.

On the record, Katami testified that she “take[s] full responsibility” for the underlying violations and said remedial education — including courses in professional boundaries and pharmacy ethics — has changed how she approaches supervision and recordkeeping. She testified she stopped compounding some years before the board inspection and now runs a DME business (Orinda Rx and Medical), providing durable medical supplies and CGM testing supplies; she said she is the sole pharmacist at that business and works roughly 80 hours a week there. Katami said she has done volunteer clinical work at a free clinic in San Lorenzo and that she would like to return to pharmacy practice without restrictions to better support her family.

Committee members pressed Katami on whether work as a DME pharmacist satisfies the probationary work requirement to demonstrate rehabilitation for a full pharmacy practice. Deputy AG Trauma and members noted the DME business does not mirror a typical pharmacy setting and therefore may provide limited evidence of competence to manage a licensed pharmacy and to compound; board counsel said the people could not recommend the petition at this time. Petitioner’s counsel argued the disciplinary settlement defines “employment” broadly and that Katami’s work satisfies the order’s definition.

The administrative law judge admitted the petition packet as evidence. After closing arguments, the committee took the matter under submission; no final decision was announced on the record. Katami will receive the board’s decision in writing in a few months.