Miss. State Bd. of Med. Licensure v. Harron (Summary)

PHYSICIAN LICENSURE

Miss. State Bd. of Med. Licensure v. Harron, No. 2013-SA-00654-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2014)

fulltextThe Court of Appeals of Mississippi overturned a lower court’s decision and held that a physician was more than just an expert witness in silicosis litigation when he diagnosed potential plaintiffs with silicosis, thus he is subject to the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure. Plaintiff, a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in Mississippi, was employed to screen potential plaintiffs for asbestosis and silicosis-related diseases in preparation for multidistrict litigation that was held in Texas. The physician was listed as the diagnosing physician on 2,600 of the claims. He testified that he allowed medically untrained secretaries and typists to interpret his reports, insert a diagnosis, stamp his signature on the reports and send them out with no review by the physician.

During the ensuing litigation, the physician was dismissed as an expert witness and sanctioned by the court for his lack of quality controls that produced results that were “staggering, implausible, and not scientifically plausible.”

The Texas Medical Board instituted disciplinary proceedings against him as a result of these activities and he agreed to surrender his Texas license to practice medicine. The defendant, the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure, then investigated the physician, found that he engaged in unprofessional conduct in the Texas ligation that was likely to defraud or harm the public, and barred him from renewing his Mississippi medical license. The physician appealed, and the lower court found in favor of the Physician, holding that the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure did not have jurisdiction because the physician’s conduct occurred out of state and his conduct was in the capacity of an expert witness, not a practicing physician.

The trial court’s decision was reversed by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. The court of appeals held that the physician was more than just an expert witness for the potential plaintiffs; he was actually practicing medicine when he diagnosed them with silicosis. Therefore, the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure had proper jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court of appeals stated that the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure was correct when it found the physician had engaged in unprofessional behavior when he “recklessly” diagnosed patients with silicosis.