A. Sehbai, M.D. v. BPOA, State Board of Medicine
1743 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Dr. Aasim Sehbai, an oncologist board‑certified in multiple states, applied for a Pennsylvania medical license; the Board provisionally denied the application based on prior Delaware disciplinary consent agreements.
- Delaware discipline: (1) May 2014 consent — reprimand, $2,000 fine, ethics CME for writing residency recommendation letters that misrepresented students’ clinical experience; (2) March 2015 consent — $1,000 fine, additional CMEs and reporting after he gave a cancer patient another patient’s unlabeled oral chemotherapy sample and drafted a letter attributed to the patient.
- At the administrative hearing, the hearing examiner found Dr. Sehbai credible, emphasized remediation, character letters, and unrestricted licenses issued by seven other states, and recommended granting an unrestricted Pennsylvania license.
- The Board exercised its authority to review and rejected the hearing examiner’s recommendation, finding the Delaware misconduct evidenced moral turpitude and an escalating pattern, and denied licensure (two‑year bar to reapplication).
- Commonwealth Court review: Dr. Sehbai appealed, arguing the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the hearing examiner’s findings and not fairly reviewing the record; the Court reviewed whether the Board’s denial was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused its discretion in denying Dr. Sehbai’s license | Sehbai: Hearing examiner found him credible and rehabilitated; evidence shows remorse, remediation, and other states granted unrestricted licenses — Board misapplied the record and reversed credibility without cause | Board: It may deny licensure based on discipline in another state; Delaware consent agreements show dishonesty and unlawful conduct amounting to lack of good moral character and possible escalation, justifying denial | Held: No abuse of discretion — Board, as ultimate factfinder, may reject hearing examiner credibility findings and deny license based on substantial record evidence |
| Whether other states’ licensure decisions compel Pennsylvania to grant a license | Sehbai: Seven sister states issued unrestricted licenses despite Delaware discipline, supporting his character and fitness | Board: Sister state decisions are persuasive but not controlling; Pennsylvania may independently evaluate moral character and public protection | Held: Sister state licenses are a factor but do not bind the Board; Board permissibly gave them limited weight |
| Whether the Board’s review of the record without having heard witnesses violates due process | Sehbai: Board reversed credibility determinations without observing witness demeanor | Board: Statutes and precedent allow an ultimate adjudicator to decide credibility from the written record | Held: Board may make credibility determinations on review; doing so does not violate due process |
| Whether the Board relied on legally inaccurate statements (e.g., federal law violation) in its decision | Sehbai: Board included erroneous legal assertions about federal law violations and used heavy‑handed language unsupported by record | Board: Acknowledged the statement was incorrect on appeal and termed it de minimis; core denial rested on moral‑character findings | Held: Court affirmed denial but cautioned the Board against imprecise or unsupported language in decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Barran v. State Bd. of Med., 670 A.2d 765 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (Board may deny license based on discipline in another state; appellate scope limited to legal error, constitutional violation, or lack of substantial evidence)
- Khan v. State Bd. of Auctioneer Exam'rs, 842 A.2d 936 (Pa. 2004) (sister‑state licensing is evidence that an applicant met qualifications elsewhere)
- Gombach v. Dep't of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections & Legislation, 692 A.2d 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (definition of good moral character requires absence of conduct indicating moral turpitude)
- Bowalick v. Commonwealth, 840 A.2d 519 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (acts involving dishonesty, fraud, or deception can constitute moral turpitude)
- Hammad v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Veterinary Med., 124 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (administrative board may accept or reject testimony and make credibility determinations on review)
- A.O. v. Dep't of Public Welfare, 838 A.2d 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (ultimate factfinder may determine credibility from the transcript; adjudicators need not have observed witnesses live)