in Re Abdelbaset Abdelmagid Youssef Md
330222
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Petitioner alleges respondent’s prescribing of controlled substances was negligent and below standard of care based on MAPS data showing >25,000 prescriptions (2012–2013).
- The complaint centers on four patients (BS, AR, CH, KB) and alleges monthly prescriptions without monitoring or offering alternatives.
- Expert Dr. Hopper testified respondent’s prescribing fell below standard of care and noted dangerous combinations and lack of monitoring.
- Respondent argued the evidence was insufficient and disputed Hopper’s testimony; the ALJ and Board adopted the proposed decision finding violations of MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i).
- The Board suspended respondent’s license for six months and a day, voided prescribing of controlled substances, and imposed a $20,000 fine; the Board’s decision was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint stated a claim under MCL 333.16221(a) or (b)(i). | Youssef argues complaint was sufficient on its face. | Youssef asserts the complaint failed to state a claim. | Yes; facts alleged support violations under MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i). |
| Whether Hopper’s expert testimony was admissible and credible. | Petitioner relies on Hopper to prove standard-of-care violations. | Respondent challenges Hopper’s data and conclusions. | Admissible; credibility and weight to be resolved by fact-finder; evidence properly considered under relaxed evidentiary standard. |
| Whether ad hoc review panel review was required before filing the complaint under MCL 333.16228. | Panel review is permissible but not mandatory before filing. | Panel review should have occurred; absence violated statute. | Panel review was discretionary; no mandatory pre-filing panel review required. |
| Whether evidentiary and procedural challenges (scope, exhibits, and review) warranted dismissal or reversal. | Admissibility and scope arguments do not undermine the record. | Evidence outside the complaint scope was improperly admitted. | Tribunal properly admitted and weighed evidence; scope deviations acknowledged but not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spiek v Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331 (1998) (tests legal sufficiency on the pleadings; dismissal if no factual development could yield relief)
- Risch v Dept. of Community Health, 274 Mich App 365 (2007) (requires reviewing entire record; substantial evidence standard)
- Becker-Witt v Bd. of Examiners of Social Workers, 256 Mich App 359 (2003) (admissibility of evidence in administrative hearings uses relaxed standard under MCL 24.275)
- Houghton v Keller, 256 Mich App 336 (2003) (no requirement that complaint be reviewed by medical professional before filing)
- People v. Brown, 249 Mich App 382 (2002) (discretionary nature of ad hoc review panel; ‘may’ is permissive, not mandatory)