Djordjevic v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2021 Ohio 3341

Borko Djordjevic, M.D., trained abroad; his Ohio license expired in 1990 after he practiced in California (1977–2007) and later in Montenegro. Disciplinary actions in California (2007), New Jersey (2008), and New York (2009) resulted from the California action.
Djordjevic applied to reinstate his Ohio license in 2016; after an administrative hearing the board in 2017 conditionally granted reinstatement contingent on passing the SPEX within six months and completing a four-month preceptorship plus probationary monitoring and education requirements.
Djordjevic failed the SPEX (May 2018); his 2016 application was deemed abandoned. He reapplied in October 2018 and received a hearing. The hearing examiner recommended repeating the 2017 terms.
The board adopted the recommendation but extended the SPEX deadline to 12 months (Oct. 2019). Djordjevic appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the board.
On appeal, Djordjevic argued the conditions were unreasonable and effectively foreclosed his ability to practice in Ohio; at oral argument he advanced an unpreserved statutory claim that the board lacked authority to issue a “conditional” grant. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the board's conditional grant (SPEX deadline, preceptorship, monitoring/probation) was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and "in accordance with law"	Djordjevic: Conditions are unduly onerous or impossible (age, international practice, COVID testing/travel issues); PACE program is a viable, less burdensome alternative	Board: Evidence of out-of-country practice and prior discipline justifies testing, supervised preceptorship, and monitoring; conditions are lawful and tailored to protect public	Court: Conditions were supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence and not contrary to law; common pleas did not abuse discretion in affirming the board
Whether appellant preserved and may litigate the separate statutory argument that R.C. 4731.22(B) does not authorize a "conditional" grant (distinct statutory-authority challenge)	Djordjevic (at oral argument): Board lacked statutory authority to make reinstatement conditional rather than a definitive grant or denial	Board: Argument was not preserved below; primary dispute below was reasonableness of conditions, not statutory authority	Court: New statutory theory was not preserved in lower filings and cannot be raised for first time on appeal; court declined to address it

Henry's Café, Inc. v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St. 233 (1959) (sets limits on courts modifying agency sanctions when supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
Roy v. Ohio State Medical Board, 80 Ohio App.3d 675 (10th Dist.) (appellate review of a common pleas court's administrative-review determination is for abuse of discretion)