Demint v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
70 N.E.3d 21
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Demint, D.O., an osteopathic physician, challenged a board order suspending his license and revoking his ability to prescribe narcotics; the board alleged treatment of 14 patients fell below minimal standards (Mar. 2010–Apr. 2011).
- Demint had prior disciplinary steps: a 2009 Step I suspension for substance abuse and a 2010 Step II reinstatement with probation and monitoring.
- A 2012 board action found improper prescribing of controlled substances; the initial hearing pastor was remanded after the trial court reversed for denial of continuance.
- On remand (with new board members), the board suspended for 90 days and permanently revoked narcotics prescribing rights (except buprenorphine products); Demint appealed again.
- The trial court upheld the board’s order, and Demint timely appealed to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Demint’s testimony and the board’s expert were properly admitted | Demint argues Dr. Cicek’s testimony was prejudicial | Board contends expert testimony is permissible; credibility is for the board | Overruled; board’s reliance on Dr. Cicek was proper |
| Whether handwriting and charting deficiencies supported discipline | Demint claims handwriting is not a basis for discipline | Board can rely on overall charting deficiencies and professional standard | Overruled; substantial, reliable evidence supported the board’s findings |
| Whether the board properly found improper narcotics prescribing | Demint asserts doses were within standard practice | Board found that dose/type and documentation violated standard of care | Overruled; substantial evidence supported disciplinary action |
| Whether post-claim changes and new standards applied fairly | Due process requires preexisting standards at time of conduct | Board’s expert testimony and post-claim standards applicable to ongoing proceedings | Overruled; board acted within its authority and standards were properly applied |
| Whether there was vindictive punishment on remand | Demint alleges punitive motive after appeal | No evidence of vindictiveness; reasons documented in record | Overruled; no reversible error for vindictiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- Pons v. State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (reasonable review of administrative record; substantial evidence standard)
- Griffin v. State Med. Bd., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-276, 2009-Ohio-4849 (2009) (board authority to discipline for departure from minimal standard of care)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio L.C.C., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (1992) (reliability and probative value of evidence in administrative review)
- Temponeras v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 2015-Ohio-3043 (2015) (hybrid review; deference to board findings in credibility)
- Univ. Hosp., Univ. of Cincinnati Coll. of Med. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 63 Ohio St.3d 339 (1992) (deference to specialized board expertise in medical discipline)