DeMio v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
2025 Ohio 2606
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Dr. Phillip DeMio, a licensed physician since 1987, faced disciplinary action from the Ohio State Medical Board for alleged failure to meet minimal standards of care in treating 16 patients between 2012 and 2016 (5 adults, 11 pediatric).
- Allegations included poor documentation, inappropriate or unsubstantiated prescriptions, failure to refer or follow specialist advice, and unsafe pain management practices.
- A board-appointed hearing examiner found Dr. DeMio had violated minimal standards, recommending an indefinite suspension with conditions for reinstatement.
- The Medical Board adopted the factual findings but imposed a harsher penalty—permanent revocation of Dr. DeMio’s medical license.
- Dr. DeMio appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Board's decision; he further appealed to the Tenth District Appellate Court.
- DeMio raised five assignments of error relating to statutory interpretation, the standard of care, evidentiary sufficiency, Board procedures, and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Alternative Medicine Law | Board failed to consider alternate treatment statute (R.C. 4731.227). | Alternative treatments must still comply with minimal standards. | R.C. 4731.227 does not override need for compliance with minimal standards. |
| Standard of Care Used | Board/experts wrongly used specialist standards, not generalist standards. | Experts/testimony addressed minimal standard for similar practitioners. | Board applied correct generalist standard; experts’ credentials unchallenged at hearing. |
| Board’s Departure from Hearing Examiner | Board improperly failed to explain harsher penalty than hearing examiner’s recommendation. | Board reasoned its harsher sanction in the meeting minutes as required. | Board adequately explained its reasons for departing from the examiner's recommendation. |
| Board as Own Expert/Evidence Issues | Board improperly acted as its own expert and drew inferences unsupported by the record. | Board entitled to rely on expertise and evidence; findings supported. | No improper inferences; Board’s expertise and deliberation were proper. |
| Consideration Outside Notice/Due Process | Board violated due process by considering uncharged factors (beliefs, attitude) in sanction. | Board can consider mitigating/aggravating circumstances for penalty. | Discussion of mindset was relevant to likelihood of future compliance, not a separate sanctionable act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (sets forth scope for judicial review of administrative agency decisions)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate review of administrative decisions limited to abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (Ohio 1992) (elaborates meanings of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in administrative context)
- Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 1993) (trial court’s review of admin findings de novo on legal questions, deferential on factual findings)