Angerbauer v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
2017 Ohio 7420
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dr. Steven R. Angerbauer applied for an Ohio medical license in Dec. 2013 and disclosed a Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission investigation.
- In June 2014 Angerbauer and Washington entered an agreed order: findings that he provided substandard care to a single patient (Patient A), prescribed substantial hydrocodone long-term without adequate records, monitoring, diagnostics, or a treatment plan, and breached physician‑patient boundaries.
- Washington imposed Tier B sanctions including 2.5 years of monitoring, coursework, prescription monitoring registration, and a fine; the order warned that noncompliance could lead to suspension or further action.
- Ohio State Medical Board notified Angerbauer of possible denial under R.C. 4731.22(B)(22) and held proceedings; a hearing examiner found the Washington agreed order implicated R.C. 4731.22(B)(22).
- The Board permanently denied his Ohio license; the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed, and Angerbauer appealed to the Tenth District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the certified record was incomplete because the Board failed to file a transcript of the July 13, 2016 board meeting | Angerbauer: missing transcript of the board meeting means agency failed to certify a complete record under R.C. 119.12(I) | Board: meeting was not an adjudication hearing, minutes suffice; appellant waived objection by not requesting a transcript earlier | Court: no abuse — minutes were adequate, issue waived, and appellant showed no prejudice |
| Whether Washington’s agreed order constitutes an action enumerated in R.C. 4731.22(B)(22) (e.g., limitation or probation) | Angerbauer: the agreed order is not one of the listed actions so Ohio lacked authority to deny his license under (B)(22) | Board: the agreed order imposed enforceable conditions and remedial requirements that reasonably constitute a limitation/probation | Court: agreed order reasonably construed as limitation/probation under (B)(22); denial was in accordance with law |
| Whether the Board’s decision was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and comported with due process | Angerbauer: board relied on prejudicial or inaccurate characterizations, and he was denied a meaningful hearing (esp. treated for submitting a written statement instead of appearing) | Board: decision rested on the Washington agreed order and statutory authority; appellant had notice and opportunity to be heard and submitted a written statement under R.C. 119.07 | Court: no due process violation; evidence (the agreed order) was reliable/probative/substantial; common pleas court did not abuse its discretion |
| Whether the Board violated equal protection (and commerce clause asserted) by treating out‑of‑state applicant differently from similarly situated Ohio physicians | Angerbauer: cited other physician cases with lesser discipline showing disparate treatment | Board: comparisons were not of similarly situated applicants and Board presented contrary examples | Court: appellant failed to show similarly situated comparators or lack of rational basis; equal protection claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (defines scope of judicial review of administrative orders)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (defines reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Pons v. State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate review of administrative decisions limited to abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Henry's Cafe, Inc. v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St. 233 (courts’ limited power to modify penalties imposed by administrative agencies)