AAPS Files Federal Lawsuit Against the Texas Medical Board
In late December of last year, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed a federal lawsuit against the Texas Medical Board seeking various injunctive and declaratory relief against what it characterizes as the abusive practices of the Board. The AAPS complaint contains numerous allegations running the gamut from Board manipulation of the anonymous complaint process, a conflict of interest by the former head of the disciplinary committee, an ongoing policy of arbitrarily rejecting the recommendations of Administrative Law Judges, breaches of confidentiality during the disciplinary review process, and Board retaliation against physician criticism.
In a press release, Executive Director of the AAPS, Jane M. Orient stated that the AAPS felt compelled to file the lawsuit on behalf of its Texas members given that individual physicians were too afraid of possible TMB retaliation to take action on their own. The AAPS identifies itself as a non-profit entity with thousands of members throughout the country, including Texas, dedicated to preserving the traditional doctor-patient relationship and effective medicine. One of the organization’s overriding purposes is identified in their complaint as the protection of its members “from arbitrary and unlawful government action” such as that alleged to have been perpetrated by the TMB.
A central allegation of the complaint claims that Texas Medical Board President Roberta Kalafut actively manipulated the anonymous complaint process to harass and discipline physicians, including some of her Abilene competitors. According to the pleadings, Mrs. Kalafut had her husband file the anonymous complaints which she then ensured were actively pursued by the Board. Mrs. Kalafut has responded to the press by stating that this claim is completely untrue, noting that none of the anonymous complaints which led to disciplinary action came from Abilene. The AAPS complaint also targets outside abuse of the anonymous complaint process. It alleges that a New York insurance company arranged to have an anonymous complaint filed against a Texas doctor who had treated five of its insured members, who were all pleased with their treatment, so as to avoid paying their costs. The suit seeks an injunction against future receipt of anonymous complaints and a declaratory judgment that such complaints violate a physician’s due process rights under color of state law.
The second main allegation involves Keith Miller’s tenure as Chairman of the TMB’s Disciplinary Process Review Committee, a topic I have previously blogged about. Mr. Miller resigned in the fall of last year amid criticism of his continued position as disciplinary chairman while he simultaneously served as a plaintiff’s expert witness in scores of medical malpractice cases throughout Texas. The complaint points out this conflict of interest and Board officials’, such as President Kalafut, admitted awareness of it as reason for the federal court to compel the reopening of the disciplinary cases heard by Miller.
The final primary allegation of the AAPS involves the TMB’s arbitrary rejection of negative administrative rulings. The complaint itself points out a case where the TMB sought a disciplinary sanction against a doctor’s license who had requested, as per his hospital’s standard rate, that a patient pay $81 dollars for a copy of her medical records. In response to the patient’s complaint the Board’s disciplinary committee, headed by Keith Miller, demanded that the doctor pay a $1000 fine as part of a sanction that would be reported to the National Practitioner’s Databank. After the doctor appealed the case and an Administrative Law Judge ruled unequivocally that the TMB had no legal authority on which to take such an action, the Board simply reinstated its findings and doubled the fine. The suit seeks an injunction against any further arbitrary rejections of administrative rulings by the TMB and a declaratory judgment that such rejections violate both due process and equal protection.
Finally, as additional matters the complaint alleges that physician’s inability to speak out against the TMB and its policies for fear of retaliation, amounts to a denial of free speech. In support of this claim, the complaint points to several instances where Board members have allegedly publicly defamed doctors critical of the TMB. The suit also attacks the Board for allegedly giving confidential records regarding a physician to a hospital with which the doctor was involved in a private dispute.
In response, the TMB has stated that all of the AAPS claims are baseless. Specifically in regards to anonymous complaints, the TMB’s general counsel, Robert Simpson has noted that of the over 10,000 complaints received by the Board in the past two years, only 10 anonymous complaints have resulted in a “disciplinary measure” against a physician’s license / registration. Furthermore, only four percent of the complaint total is made anonymously. TMB officials also point out that the statute authorizing the use of anonymous complaints is designed to protect whistleblowers and thus better protect Texans from bad doctors. Any recent increase in disciplinary actions based on anonymous complaints is also probably at least partially explainable as part and parcel of the 39 percent overall increase in complaints received since the law was amended in 2003 to better catch bad doctors.
The AAPS’s suit raises serious allegations regarding contemporary disciplinary practices at the Texas Medical Board and it will be interesting to see how this will play out in federal court. If nothing else, this heated dispute between a national physician’s organization and the TMB indicates the importance of retaining an experienced professional licensing attorney whenever a doctor is entangled in the Board's disciplinary process.
Deferred Adjudication Probation & Discipline by State Licensing Boards
Last week I resolved three cases involving pleas of guilty or no contest to drug / alcohol related offenses and the subsequent investigations and prosecutions by the individual Client’s respective State licensing Board(s):
- The Texas Optometry Board
- The Texas State Board of Pharmacy
- The Texas Medical Board
In each case, although the Board did not have jurisdiction to discipline for the criminal status in-and-of-itself, each agency found a way to link the conduct (the actions behind the commission of the criminal offense) to the Client’s occupational practice and attempt to resolve the matter through a reasonable agreed order.
Neither the Texas Pharmacy Act nor the Texas Optometry Act afforded jurisdiction to the agency to discipline the license holder for the court ordered felony deferred adjudication probation(s). However, public scrutiny being what it is, each Board simply stated that the conduct was egregious and unbecoming of a licensee. Moreover, the Board’s mission was to protect the public and each agency felt this was something the public should know about.
In each case the Respondent was able to put forth an excellent showing of compliance since the offense date as well as evidence demonstrating their good professional character including efforts made to remediate the circumstances. Each Agreed Order allowed the individuals to remain in active practice in an unsupervised manner. No active suspension was imposed in either case. A fine was assessed in one case. The reality –a pound of flesh for punishment and appearance! Unfortunately, each Client had technically violated another Rule or Statute of their respective licensing Board’s Act so if prosecuted they would be subject to discipline under an alternative theory. The good news is each agency was receptive to the individual’s situation(s) and took into account the mitigating and remedial circumstances. The bottom line is sometimes deferred probations do not afford the protection from State licensing board & agencies that they used to. The Texas Pharmacy Act has also been amended to include jurisdiction over deferred adjudication(s). The act discussed above occurred prior to the amendment going into effect.
What is a Confidential Rehabilitation Order?
In lieu of public discipline, the Texas Medical Board has the option of offering a Confidential Rehabilitation Order (Private Order) to a physician who suffers from certain drug or alcohol related problems and/or mental health problems or disorders. Outlined under Title 22, Section 180.1 of the Texas Administrative Code, the purpose of an order is to create an incentive for a licensee or applicant to self-report and seek early assistance / treatment, thereby avoiding any harm to the public due to the deterioration of the physician’s ability to practice medicine. Successful completion of a Confidential Rehabilitation Order serves as an alternative to a public disciplinary order which must be reported to the National Practitioner Databank and can have adverse effects on a medical doctor’s ability to practice. A Private Order is Non-Public so there is no way the public, prospective employer’s or other health care entities should know that the physician’s medical license is subject to a Board Order.
The regulatory guidelines regarding who is eligible and under what circumstances a Confidential Rehabilitation Order can be issued are complex. An experienced attorney can help guide a physician through this process, accumulate supporting documentation, and ensure the licensee does not make a decision that will make them ineligible for a private order.
The issuance of a Confidential Rehabilitation Order is at the sole discretion of the Board. Under the Board’s rules, Staff and the Board may consider issuing a private order when:
- the licensee or applicant suffers from an addiction caused by medical treatment;
- the licensee or applicant self-reports intemperate use of drugs or alcohol and has not been the subject of a previous Board order related to substance abuse;
- a court has determined that the licensee or applicant is of an unsound mind;
- the licensee has a physical or mental impairment as determined by an examination; or
- a licensee or applicant admits to suffering from an illness or a physical or mental condition that limits or prevents the person’s practice of medicine with reasonable skill and safety.
In deciding whether to offer a confidential order, the Staff & the Board will weigh several factors. The Board will not grant an order absent a showing of good cause if either the physician has been found guilty, pled guilty, or received deferred adjudication of any felony or misdemeanor related to the intemperate use of drugs or alcohol. The same applies if the licensee or applicants’ intemperate use led to a violation of Sections 481 or 483 of the Texas Health and Safety Code or of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Whether the physician’s intemperate use led to patient harm, any prior disciplinary or criminal history, and any improper self-prescription or treatment, will also be considered and may pose an absolute bar from an offer of a Non-Public Confidential Rehabilitation Order. These matters are often won or lost based on the proper showing of physical documentary evidence, legal reasoning and most importantly the physician’s well thought out and planned presentation to the Board.
Physicians are encouraged to provide evidence and documentation supportive of a Private Order such as proof of rehabilitative potential, a clinical diagnosis of a physical or DSM IV Psychiatric Disorder along with supportive medical records, steps taken by the licensee to prevent future harm to the public, and a proposed treatment and monitoring program. Doctors who self-report intemperate use must provide thorough information on what, when, where, and to what extent the substances were used along with any prior history of substance abuse treatment. To be effective, a self-report must be given within five years from the last commission of intemperate use and be submitted prior to the Board receiving a complaint regarding the physician’s intemperate use. A lawyer can greatly assist a physician in assembling and effectively presenting these documents.
Finally, in considering whether to offer a Confidential Rehabilitation Order, the Board Staff will invite the physician to an Informal Show Compliance and Settlement Conference. (ISC) There the Board’s attorney will present the allegations to the Staff who will then ask the licensee questions. If the licensee has retained counsel, their attorney will also have an opportunity to speak to the Staff. Then, the Board’s panel members will decide whether to offer the physician a Confidential Rehabilitative Order which they may then accept or reject. If the licensee accepts the order and later the Board determines that they have violated its terms, the rehabilitation order may become public and the Board may take additional disciplinary action. Successful completion can prevent further disciplinary action and ensure that the order remains confidential.
DWI: Medical Licenses & Physician Discipline
The Texas Medical Board does not have the power to discipline a physician’s medical license / registration for an isolated arrest and subsequent conviction for driving while intoxicated. However, Board Staff will open an investigation into all physicians who have been arrested for DWI to determine if the physician suffers from a medical or physical condition which may impair their ability to practice or during the commission of the DWI they committed unprofessional conduct.
The Texas Medical Practice Act (Texas Occupations Code § 164.051) and the Medical Board’s Rules found in the Texas Administrative Code (Title 22, Part 9, Rule 190.8) are the guiding statutory for the Board’s ability to investigate and discipline a physician’s license for the offense of DWI. Per the Medical Practice Act the Board lacks the jurisdiction to impose discipline for a DWI offense that “stands alone” as it is neither a felony nor a crime of moral turpitude (Tex. Occ. Code § 164.051(a)(2). However, if an investigation yields that a physician was on call, subject to duty or scheduled to work soon after the time of arrest the following potential violations will be explored:
- implications of unprofessional conduct (Prohibited Practices § 164.052(5)
- the possibility of the physician’s use of alcohol or drugs in an intemperate manner that in the Board’s opinion could endanger a patient’s life ( Prohibited Practice § 164.052(4)
Practically speaking, Board Staff will investigate and schedule an informal settlement conference (ISC) after the arrest has been finally adjudicated. Generally, arrests that result in dismissals in the criminal court may be dismissed before making their way to the Board's legal department; however, convictions will almost always lead to an ISC. If, during the ISC, the physician is able to demonstrate that the DWI was an honest mistake and/or isolated incident the case will usually result in the recommendation of a dismissal -no disciplinary action. However, if the Board’s panel suspects the habitual and intemperate use of alcohol or drugs a disciplinary order (Agreed Order) involving drug testing, treatment and psychological / psychiatric evaluations may be presented to the physician. Anytime a physician has two DWI’s the physician will be placed into a position where they are forced to prove an absence of a DSM IV diagnosis relating to alcohol / substance abuse. For a more detailed explanation of the Texas Medical Board’s investigatory / disciplinary process please see our firm’s website pamphlet concerning medical licenses & discipline.
