Calloway v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (Summary)

STATE BOARD OF MEDICINE

Calloway v. Ohio State Med. Bd., No. 12AP-599 (Ohio Ct. App. May 21, 2013)

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas with instructions to order the Ohio State Medical Board to dismiss the proceedings filed against a physician who was subject to disciplinary action after completing a Certificate of Recommendation (“recommendation form”) for an out-of-state physician seeking a medical license in Ohio.

The recommending physician completed the recommendation form for the out-of-state physician based on his knowledge of him 30 years ago in medical school and a 30-minute meeting with the license-seeking physician. The recommending physician then filled out the recommendation form, stating the out-of-state physician’s abilities were “excellent” and affirming his “good moral character,” without answering how long the two doctors have personally known each other.

The board permanently denied the license for the out-of-state physician, as he was a convicted felon who had been professionally disciplined in Illinois and New York. The board alleged that the recommending physician intended to mislead and knowingly made false statements, a judgment which the common pleas court repeated.

However, the recommending physician contended that he was honest in his belief in the out-of-state physician and never intended to mislead, as he was never informed of the physician’s past legal problems and disciplinary actions. The appeals court noted that the board did not make the requisite finding that the physician intended to mislead the board with his recommendation form. As support of this, the appeals court used the physician’s statement that he did not intend to mislead the board by not answering how long he had known the seeking physician, along with the board’s failure to follow its own practice of returning uncompleted forms to the applicant.

The appeals court concluded that the common pleas court abused its discretion in affirming the board’s finding that the physician violated R.C. 4731.22(B)(5). The appeals court also found that the board’s conclusion that the physician’s conduct satisfied the statutory requirements of falsification, thus violating R.C. 4731.22(B)(12), was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. Falsification requires that the physician knowingly made a false statement. Further, the appeals court found that the physician had no knowledge of the license-seeker’s past problem, thus his statements were not false. As such, the common pleas court was erroneous in concluding that the physician had violated R.C. 4731.22(B)(12).