Karkalas v. Dept. of State, Bureau of Prof’l and Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Med. (Summary)

LICENSE

Karkalas v. Dept. of State, Bureau of Prof’l and Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Med., No. 1932 C.D.2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 11, 2013)

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (“commonwealth court”) affirmed the State Board of Medicine’s (“board”) order which required a physician to pay a $2,500 civil penalty and complete 10 hours of continuing education.

In this case, a physician filled prescription requests based on patient online questionnaires provided by a clearinghouse.  The clearinghouse maintained the patient’s health information. Although the physician had access to the records that were maintained by the clearinghouse while his agreement with the clearinghouse was in effect, the physician did not print or personally retain prescription records on patient questionnaires nor did he maintain in his office any records, files or even the patient names pertaining to the online prescriptions that he prescribed.  The physician was denied access to the clearinghouse’s records following the termination of his agreement with the clearinghouse.

The State Board of Medicine ruled that the physician’s failure to maintain medical records for patients for whom he wrote online prescriptions constituted unprofessional conduct.  The Board then imposed a $2,500 civil penalty and a requirement that the physician complete 10 hours of continuing education in the area of recordkeeping.  The physician sued the Board claiming that the Board of Medicine erred when it held that he violated the regulation.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld the Board of Medicine’s decision that the physician violated the Board’s regulation, which required that he “maintain” his patients’ medical records. While the regulation does not explicitly define “maintain,” the court determined that the board’s interpretation of the word as meaning have “access to and control over” is consistent with the regulation. Further, the court held that the regulation was consistent with the statute under which it was promulgated.