Laurino v. Board of Prof’l Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med.,

Laurino v. Board of Prof’l Discipline of Idaho State Bd.
of Med.,
No. 27131 (Idaho July 16, 2002)

The
Idaho State Board of Medicine revoked a physician’s license for allegedly substandard
care of nine patients based primarily on the testimony of two physicians who
"were on staff at the local hospital and were directly involved in peer
review proceedings during which they observed and evaluated [the physician’s]
performance and ultimately decided not to grant hospital privileges to [him]."
The physician successfully challenged the revocation in court. The board appealed
to the Supreme Court of Idaho, which held that the board ignored relevant evidence
refuting the charges against the physician (as well as the board-appointed hearing
officer’s recommendation to dismiss the claims), and offered little evidence
to establish the appropriate standard of care against which the physician was
judged.

For seven of the nine patients, the court found that the standard of care had
not been proven, and that the physician could not be held to be in violation
of a standard that was not defined. The court found that the board could not
use its expertise as a substitute for evidence in the record, "as substantial
evidence and reasoned findings would become meaningless." The court agreed
with the board on substandard care violations on two of the patients and remanded
the case back to the board for appropriate sanctions to be determined.