Froehlich v. Ohio State Med. Bd.
2016 Ohio 1035
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Kurt W. Froehlich, M.D., an OB/GYN solo practitioner, was accused by the Ohio State Medical Board of inappropriate sexual contact with two patients and of committing a misdemeanor assault against an employee; he requested a hearing.
- At the administrative hearing Froehlich admitted to sexual contact with Patient 1 and Patient 2 (including stimulating orgasms) and to having a sexual relationship with Patient 1; he did not record these events in patient charts.
- A medical assistant (S.F.) testified that Froehlich groped her in the office; Froehlich pleaded no-contest and was convicted of misdemeanor assault.
- The hearing examiner found violations warranting discipline and recommended a one-year suspension; the Board instead voted (after rehearing/reconsideration) to permanently revoke Froehlich’s medical license, adding a 30-day wind-down period.
- Froehlich challenged the Board’s action in common pleas court on four grounds (procedural removal of counsel at the Board meeting, consideration of uncharged conduct, whether the misdemeanor was "in the course of practice," and witness credibility); the trial court affirmed.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, rejecting each of Froehlich’s four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Removal of counsel from Board meeting (due process / Open Meetings / parliamentary procedure) | Removal deprived Froehlich of procedural due process and violated Board rules and the Open Meetings Act. | Board afforded notice, hearing, opportunity to be heard, and properly removed counsel for being out of order; minutes reflect corrective procedures (reconsideration, amendment, wind-down). | Court: No due process or Open Meetings violation; Board action lawful; failure to use "magic" parliamentary language not fatal. |
| 2. Consideration of uncharged conduct | Board relied on incidents (breast pump, injection request) not in the notice, violating due process. | Froehlich himself raised those incidents; Board relied on charged misconduct for findings and could consider uncharged conduct as aggravation for sanction. | Court: Board did not violate due process; uncharged conduct may be considered for sanction; findings supported by charged acts. |
| 3. Misdemeanor committed "in the course of practice" under R.C. 4731.22(B)(11) | Conviction occurred after hours and unrelated to medical treatment, so not within course of practice. | Assault occurred in physician’s office, involved an employee, and related to practice management—thus within course of practice. | Court: Conviction occurred in the course of practice; statute applied and supports discipline. |
| 4. Credibility — reliance on S.F.'s testimony | Froehlich contends his testimony was more credible; Board improperly credited S.F. | Certified conviction and S.F.’s testimony support the finding; certified conviction is conclusive proof of commission of crime under administrative rule. | Court: No abuse of discretion; reliable, probative, substantial evidence supports Board order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (1980) (standard for common pleas review of administrative orders)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate review limited to abuse-of-discretion of common pleas court)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties is required by due process)
- Korn v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 61 Ohio App.3d 677 (10th Dist. 1989) (procedural due process requirements in professional-license administrative proceedings)