Md. State Bd. of Physicians v. Eist (Summary)

STATE BOARD OF MEDICINE INVESTIGATION – DUTY TO COOPERATE

Md. State Bd. of Physicians v. Eist, No. 110, Sept. Term 2007 (Md. Jan. 21, 2011)

The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the lower court judgments and affirmed the Maryland State Board of Physicians’ decision to reprimand and fine a physician for failing to cooperate with a lawful investigation conducted by the Board.

The estranged husband and father of a psychiatrist’s patients filed a complaint against the physician with the Maryland State Board of Physicians (“Board”). The Board opened an investigation, during which it subpoenaed the medical records of the patients in question. The physician sought, but did not obtain, the consent from the patients to release the records to the Board. After initially refusing to submit the medical records for fear of breaching his patient confidentiality obligations, the physician eventually provided the records to the Board. The Board completed the investigation, found no breach of the applicable standard of care, and dismissed the complaint against the physician, but nevertheless reprimanded and fined the physician for failing to cooperate with a lawful investigation in a timely and appropriate manner.

The physician challenged the Board’s decision on a number of grounds, including that he was untimely in providing the records because his patients had not given him permission to release them, he was acting throughout on the advice of counsel, he had communicated his concerns to the Board, and it was the Board’s responsibility to seek court guidance on the issues involved. The court disagreed, first holding that “when the board is investigating a complaint against a healthcare provider and subpoenas certain medical records in his or her possession, the health care provider is required to provide the medical records to the Board regardless of the patient’s authorization.” The court then held that it was the physician’s burden and responsibility, not the Board’s, to seek judicial review of any issues or concerns by formally filing a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for protective order.