In re Karakashian – March 2015 (Summary)

MISREPRESENTATIONS

Chaganti v. Mo. Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts, WD 77746 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2015)

In re Karakashian, Docket No. BDS 8660-07 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 16, 2015)

These two cases involve judicial review of disciplinary actions taken by state medical boards against physicians. In Chaganti, the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts took disciplinary action against a physician who had omitted prior hospital affiliations on an application for staff privileges. In Karakashian, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners took action against a physician for failing to disclose the existence of a pending investigation against his practice on an application for staff privileges.

In Chaganti, the hospital revoked the physician’s privileges after discovering that he had failed to list his affiliations with three other hospitals on a reapplication for active staff privileges.   Upon learning of this, the Missouri Board of Healing Arts conducted a hearing on the matter. The Missouri Board concluded that although the physician had not intentionally failed to update his information, he had acted in a manner that constituted “unprofessional conduct.” Reviewing this decision on appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Board had no lawful basis to assert a disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct in the matter. The court emphasized that the definition of “unprofessional conduct” was “somewhat circular” and that the physician had not received adequate notice that he could be disciplined for this omission.

In Karakashian, the New Jersey Attorney General was conducting an investigation of the physician over alleged acts of negligence and violation of professional standards. While his case was under review by the Office of Administrative Law, the physician applied for renewal of staff privileges at a hospital. He failed to disclose the existence of the investigation on this renewal application. The New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners ultimately concluded that the physician had made false and deceptive statements and suspended him for two years and assessed civil penalties and costs. Reviewing this decision on appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the Board’s ruling. The court agreed with the Board’s reasoning that discipline was required under these circumstances in order to ensure that physicians act in a trustworthy fashion with patients and hospitals.

These cases illustrate how courts in different states can resolve similar cases in different ways. Here, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that the Board could not assert a disciplinary action over the physician’s omission of other hospital affiliations. In contrast, the New Jersey Superior Court upheld the Board’s disciplinary action over a physician’s omission of a pending investigation.