Banker v. State Med. Bd.
2024 Ohio 6009
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Dr. Wade L. Banker, a board-certified radiologist until 2014, opened a private aesthetic practice without formal training in surgery or endocrinology.
- The State Medical Board of Ohio revoked Dr. Banker's license after finding he provided inadequate care and documentation, prescribed medications inappropriately, and performed surgeries/procedures beyond his training.
- Board proceedings involved extensive evidence, including Dr. Banker's admissions of violating prescription rules and maintaining inadequate documentation for 15 patients.
- The Board initially recommended suspension but, after additional consideration, permanently revoked his medical license due to the severity and scope of the misconduct.
- Banker appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Board's decision, leading to this appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Court Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board acted on grounds not in hearing notice | Board revoked based on training/experience not formally charged | Actions and deficits were fully disclosed in hearing notice | No due process violation; discipline was for noticed conduct |
| Use of expert report as affirmative evidence | Board relied on insufficient expert report improperly | Banker stipulated to report; evidence in record supports findings | No merit; Board can rely on stipulated and other evidence |
| Lack of evidence for some violations | Only documentation errors were admitted; no proof of other issues | Board could infer from inadequate documentation and admissions | No abuse of discretion; adverse inference allowable |
| Standard of care—specialty vs. general practice | Not subject to endocrinologist standard for HRT patients | Practiced endocrinology, held to minimal standards of field | Held to standard of field chosen; cannot excuse poor care |
| Admitted HRT prescribing violations | Did not admit violations for all HRT patients | Admitted violations for at least four HRT patients | Court's statement accurate; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1995) (courts must defer to medical board’s technical judgments on minimum standards of care)
- TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, 172 Ohio St.3d 225 (2022) (limits deference to agency’s interpretations of law, but preserves deference to technical/ethical expertise)