Burke v. Bd. of Physicians, 250 A.3d 313

Background:

Dr. Thomas F. Burke, MD, practiced pulmonary/critical care medicine in Maryland from 1995 until license revocation in 2019.
A Harford County grand jury indicted him on 62 CDS-related counts; in January 2019 he pleaded guilty to five counts under CR § 5-902(c) admitting he knowingly and intentionally prescribed Schedule II and IV controlled dangerous substances to non‑patients (his girlfriend, brother, neighbor) without examination or medical rationale.
He was sentenced (concurrent/consecutive terms with most suspended), surrendered his DEA and Maryland CDS registrations, and served time pre‑disposition credit.
The Maryland Board of Physicians summarily suspended his license (Nov. 2018), initially charged conduct under HO §14-404(a), then—after the guilty plea—proceeded under HO §14-404(b)(2) and revoked his license by final order (Sept. 2019) without an evidentiary hearing.
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City affirmed the Board; Dr. Burke appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed, holding (inter alia) that (1) substantial evidence supports that the convictions involved moral turpitude and (2) the Board permissibly revoked under §14-404(b)(2) without a hearing.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burke)	Defendant's Argument (Board)	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports finding Burke committed crimes of moral turpitude	Board failed to parse the specific facts; conduct was documentation/examination lapses, not moral turpitude	Guilty pleas plus plea facts show knowing, intentional prescriptions outside professional duties, undermining public confidence	Court: Affirmed—substantial evidence supports that the convictions involved moral turpitude
Whether CR §5-902(c) is a crime involving moral turpitude or requires case‑by‑case analysis	Statute does not categorically establish moral turpitude; need fact‑specific inquiry and mitigating context	Elements plus admitted facts (non‑patient prescriptions, possible diversion, substance‑use risk) show conduct contrary to professional duties and public confidence	Court: Elements + plea facts suffice; in administrative licensing moral turpitude is broad and applies here
Whether revocation under HO §14-404(b)(2) without an evidentiary hearing violated due process	Burke has a property interest in his license and was entitled to a hearing to present mitigating facts	HO §14-404(b)(2) permits summary disposition on conviction/plea for crimes involving moral turpitude; statute’s purpose is expedited disposition and not re‑litigation of the criminal judgment	Court: Burke’s license is a conditional property interest; Board acted within §14-404(b)(2) and due‑process limits—no arbitrary or capricious denial of hearing
Whether Board’s selection of §14-404(b) over §14-404(a) was arbitrary/capricious	Board should have proceeded under (a) to allow mitigating evidence and hearing	Board may elect (b) where conviction/plea exists; choice is discretionary and consistent with statutes/regulations	Court: Choice to proceed under (b) was not arbitrary or capricious; Felsenberg supports summary revocation on conviction

Key Cases Cited

Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Pollard, 466 Md. 531 (2019) (explains substantial‑evidence standard for review of agency factual findings)
Stidwell v. Md. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 144 Md. App. 613 (2002) (defines moral turpitude in administrative licensing as broader, focused on public confidence)
Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance v. Felsenberg, 351 Md. 288 (1998) (holding conviction may permit summary discipline and preclude relitigation of underlying criminal facts)
Att’y Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Proctor, 309 Md. 412 (1987) (CDS/statutory drug violations ordinarily implicate moral turpitude; facts matter)
Metheny v. State, 359 Md. 576 (2000) (a guilty plea constitutes an admission of the elements of the crime)
Oltman v. Md. State Bd. of Physicians, 162 Md. App. 457 (2005) (discusses historical concept of "infamous crimes" and testimonial disqualification)