Cundiff v. Med. Bd. of Cal. (Summary)

LICENSURE ACTIONS

Cundiff v. Med. Bd. of Cal., No. B234734 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2012)

The California Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) affirmed a trial court’s denial of a physician’s petition to set aside an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to deny reinstatement of his medical license.  The physician, who was board certified in oncology and hematology, withdrew anticoagulants from a patient diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis without patient consent.  The patient subsequently died from a pulmonary embolism.  The physician was discharged from the county hospital where he practiced and his medical license was revoked following a civil service hearing.  Afterwards, he began conducting research into whether the standard of care applied in his case was appropriate and concluded that it was not.  The physician appealed the revocation of his license to a hearing before an ALJ; however, the fact that the physician was convinced that he had not violated the standard of care led the ALJ to deny his petition for reinstatement.  Nine years later, the physician requested reinstatement and was again denied, after testifying that his acts were within the standard of care, leading the ALJ to conclude that there was a lack of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal agreed.  First, it reiterated that the factual issues regarding the standard of care were foreclosed.  Therefore, the only relevant medical standard was the one in place at the time of the initial proceedings.  Second, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that “[the physician’s] steadfast insistence, in the face of prevailing medical opinion, that he [knew] best when it [came] to the treatment of venous thromboembolism, and his insistence that he would adhere to his own judgment if permitted to treat future patients” demonstrated that reinstatement was not warranted, because the physician had not been rehabilitated.