California Board of Pharmacy committee hears four petitions seeking early termination of probation; decisions reserved

The Disciplinary Petition Committee of the California State Board of Pharmacy met by video conference on May 19, 2026, and heard four petitions from pharmacists seeking early termination of probation or modification of probation conditions. Administrative Law Judge Patrice Huber presided and the committee received testimony and documentary exhibits from each petitioner; the record for all four matters was submitted and closed for later deliberation.

The committee first heard the petition of Dr. Stacy Alexis Smoller (agency case 7526; OAH 2026050181). The deputy attorney general summarized the board’s file, noting an effective revocation with stayed discipline and a three‑year probation term beginning December 2023. Smoller testified that she shoplifted items while struggling with postpartum depression and related personal stressors; she described ongoing therapy, completion of an ethics course (02/11/2025), quarterly reporting and payment of required fees, and monitoring arrangements after relocating to Illinois. Smoller asked the committee to grant early termination of probation or, if that was not possible, to remove the board’s 80‑hour‑per‑month California work requirement so she could remain monitored in Illinois. The deputy attorney general opposed an exemption from the work requirement, arguing the board needs the opportunity to observe practice while a licensee is working to protect the public. Both sides confirmed the matter was submitted; the committee will deliberate in closed session and issue its written decision later.

The second petition, from Dr. Lola Bey (agency case 7344; OAH 2026050189), concerned a 2022 DUI conviction that led to a stayed revocation and a four‑year probation term. The DAG told the committee the record included nine letters of recommendation and evidence of probation compliance, but also four missed Vault check‑ins on specified dates. Bey described sustained abstinence, attendance at AA and professional support groups, and work presenting alcohol‑use‑disorder education to students; she acknowledged the missed check‑ins, described technical and work‑related reasons for them, and said she has adopted multiple safeguards (alarms, physical calendars) and has had no positive tests. The matter was submitted for deliberation.

The third petitioner, Dr. Jaime Bautista (agency case 7448; OAH 2026050194), told the committee he has participated in the pharmacist recovery program (PRP), maintained abstinence and frequent AA attendance, and entered a transition phase in the PRP; the DAG noted Bautista had not yet completed the program and recommended the committee require completion of PRP transition before terminating probation to reduce relapse risk. Bautista said he intended to finish transition and continue recovery even if probation were terminated. The record was submitted and closed.

The final petition, from Dr. Purva Patel (agency case 7113; OAH 2026050196), involved allegations that, while a pharmacist‑in‑charge and owner, she failed to maintain accurate acquisition and disposition records and directed removal of tablets/capsules that reduced dispensed quantities while claims were submitted for full quantity. Patel said she accepted responsibility for the conduct, has been compliant with probation terms, completed education and ethics training, and intends to practice as a staff pharmacist rather than restart ownership. The DAG reported no objection from the people and confirmed compliance in the file; the matter was submitted.

Across all four hearings the committee admitted large petition packets into evidence (each marked Exhibit 1 in the record), took testimony in narrative format, and allowed questioning from the deputy attorney general and committee members. The DAG repeatedly emphasized the board’s statutory duty to protect the public and urged that work requirements and PRP completion provide necessary observation and safeguards. Petitioners described rehabilitation steps (therapy, PRP participation or AA meetings, CE courses, community service), expressed remorse, and requested early termination or targeted modification of conditions that they said were barriers to employment or family stability. No formal motions or committee votes occurred in open session; the ALJ closed the record in each matter and the committee moved into closed session to deliberate. Final written decisions will be issued at a later date and communicated to the parties.

The committee also accepted a member request for future board consideration (raised by Licensee Member Nicole Tibo) about reports that some pharmacies are refusing to dispense gender‑affirming medications; the chair agreed that item should be considered for a future agenda or referred to an appropriate committee. The meeting adjourned to closed session for deliberations and then to adjournment; the public was informed that deliberations and final decisions would not be broadcast.

The hearing transcript shows: (1) four petitions were heard and the record closed in each matter; (2) the DAG argued the board’s monitoring conditions (work requirement, PRP completion) are essential for public protection; (3) petitioners documented compliance and offered evidence of rehabilitation; and (4) final outcomes will be issued in writing after closed‑session deliberations. The board did not issue any final disciplinary decisions on May 19, 2026.