Collison v. Iowa Bd. of Med. (Summary)

STATE MEDICAL BOARD ACTION

Collison v. Iowa Bd. of Med., No. 13-0477 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014)

The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed a lower court’s ruling upholding the state Medical Board’s decision that a physician violated state law by knowingly making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations to the Board, finding that the physician’s right to due process was not violated.

After being diagnosed with abdominal cancer, a long-term patient of the physician’s brought a malpractice suit against him, alleging failure to order diagnostic testing, and late detection of the cancerous mass. The physician’s insurance company then filed notice with the Medical Board regarding the malpractice action, and the Board subsequently sent the physician an investigative inquiry. The physician claimed that the patient saw his assistant, and that he had not been involved in the patient’s care, either directly or indirectly, in several years. The Board held that the physician had knowingly made misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations to the Board and, among other things, was ordered to pay a $3,000 civil penalty.

The physician asserted that while the record shows his response to the Board’s investigation as untrue, there was no substantial evidence that he intended to deceive the Board.  The court found, however, that the Board’s statutory and administrative code provisions do not require an intent to deceive or that someone was actually misled; a statement that is made knowingly and is untrue or misleading is sufficient.  As such, the court found that there was substantial evidence that the physician made a misleading and untrue representation to the Board.

The physician also claimed that his right to due process was violated by the Board due to the participation of three people in both the investigative and adjudicative process. The court found that while the Board’s actions were not ideal, they were not “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious,” and thus, the Board did not abuse its discretion.