California’s attorney general has charged a Milpitas woman with impersonating a pharmacist and dispensing hundreds of thousands of prescriptions at Walgreens stores in the Bay Area over several years.

Kim Thien Le is facing three felony charges of false impersonation, identity theft and obtaining money, labor or property by false pretenses, Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office announced Tuesday.

Becerra alleges that for more than a decade, beginning in November 2006, Le used license numbers of legitimate pharmacists to illegally impersonate pharmacists and dispense more than 745,000 prescriptions.

More than 100,000 of those prescriptions “contained highly regulated controlled substances, including prescription opioids such as fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, and codeine,” a statement from Becerra’s office said.

The attorney general also alleges Le never obtained a pharmacist license “and was therefore never actually legally permitted to dispense medication.”

In January, this news organization revealed a California State Board of Pharmacy investigation of Le and three Walgreens stores in Fremont, Milpitas and San Jose that allowed her to perform pharmacist duties and lacked proper records for prescriptions.

Le surrendered on July 26 and was booked into Santa Clara County Jail, according to Becerra’s statement. Related Articles Bay Area Walgreens’ fake pharmacist handled more than 700,000 prescriptions

“Californians picking up medications at their local pharmacy should never have to worry about whether pharmacies are employing licensed pharmacists to dispense prescriptions,” Becerra said in a statement Tuesday.

“The California Department of Justice is committed to protecting patients from anyone who unlawfully practices without a license. Today’s announcement should serve as a stern warning — we are committed to ending this reckless behavior and will vigorously hold wrongdoers accountable.”

The three Walgreens stores — 2600 Mowry Ave. in Fremont, 1833 N. Milpitas Blvd. in Milpitas, and 2105 Morrill Ave. in San Jose — could have received a range of disciplines for their part in the case, from a reprimand up to suspension or revocation of their pharmacy licenses.

However, Becerra’s office ultimately required Walgreens to pay a $335,000 civil penalty and $19,500 to cover the Department of Justice’a investigation costs, according to State Board of Pharmacy documents reviewed by this news organization.

In the settlement agreement, Walgreens admitted to the truth of the claims in the state board’s investigation. The Fremont store was found to have allowed the dispensing drugs when some prescription forms did not meet state requirements, failed to have some original prescription forms on file, and didn’t have documents proving a real pharmacist was identified at that store.

All three stores were found to have allowed an unlicensed person to act as a pharmacist or an intern pharmacist, and the San Jose and Milpitas stores were found to have failed to place a pharmacist in charge of the pharmacy when Le was serving in that role there.

Walgreens also will have a formal reprimand placed into its record with the state, which would be considered if there are any future issues with the company, Bob Dávila, a spokesman for the state board, said Wednesday.

The state board reviewed and approved the settlement agreement from Becerra’s office on June 25, and it became effective on July 25.

Becerra’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment about the settlement as of Wednesday afternoon.

A spokesman for Walgreens said previously that Le has not been working for the company since October 2017.

After Walgreens learned of the allegations against Le, the company “undertook a re-verification of the licenses of all our pharmacists nationwide,” company spokesman Jim Cohn said in January.

Investigators for the pharmacy board said Le had a pharmacist technician license, which expired in 2008. The pharmacist license number listed in Walgreens’ records for Le actually belonged to another licensed pharmacist with a similar name but not employed by Walgreens, investigators said.

According to the pharmacy board complaint, when investigators confronted Le about the first license not belonging to her, she also falsely told them she possessed another pharmacist license.

Walgreens could not say whether any of Le’s licensure papers “were requested or reviewed” before she was hired. Walgreens also was “not able to locate a copy of any application for employment” filled out by Le.