J.Z. Mir, M.D. v. BPOA, State Board of Medicine
2557 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D., licensed in Pennsylvania since 1974, had his California medical license revoked (stay lifted) by the Medical Board of California (MBC) effective August 16, 2012, after probation violations; New York later revoked his New York license based on the California action.
- Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine initiated reciprocal-discipline proceedings (OSC, later amended) based on the California and New York revocations under Section 41(4) of the Medical Practice Act.
- Mir repeatedly requested continuances (granted multiple times) largely due to pending federal litigation in California and jury-duty conflicts; the Hearing Examiner ultimately denied further continuances and scheduled a May 12, 2014 hearing at which Mir did not appear.
- At the May 12, 2014 hearing the Board admitted certified copies of the California and New York revocation orders, heard argument, and the Hearing Examiner recommended revocation of Mir’s Pennsylvania license as reciprocal discipline; the Board adopted that recommendation.
- Mir appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing denial of continuance (due process), collateral estoppel/double jeopardy, insufficiency of the foreign discipline to support reciprocal discipline, mitigating factors, unconstitutionality of Section 41(4), and failure to recuse the Hearing Examiner.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: Mir had multiple opportunities to be heard; reciprocal discipline may be imposed on the fact of foreign revocation; Mir’s procedural and constitutional challenges failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance / due process | Mir: denial of last continuances violated Fourteenth Amendment; he showed good cause (federal litigation, jury duty, need to prepare expert). | Board: Mir had nine notices/continuances, was warned no further continuances, could have appeared by counsel or phone; denial not an abuse of discretion. | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; Mir received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. |
| Collateral estoppel / double jeopardy | Mir: prior withdrawal of earlier reciprocal charges and overlap of CA revocations bar re-litigation or constitute double punishment. | Board: earlier matter was withdrawn (no judgment), so collateral estoppel inapplicable; disciplinary action is regulatory/protective, not criminal. | Claims rejected: collateral estoppel does not apply; double jeopardy not implicated. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for reciprocal discipline | Mir: MBC proceedings were unlawful/procedurally defective and the conduct was too remote. | Board: under Khan and Section 41(4), foreign revocation itself supports reciprocal discipline; evidence (certified revocation orders) was introduced. | Substantial evidence supported reciprocal revocation; remoteness and merits of foreign proceedings are not re-litigated in Pennsylvania. |
| Constitutionality of Section 41(4) / recusal | Mir: statute facially and as-applied unconstitutional because it limits ability to challenge foreign proceedings; Hearing Examiner biased. | Board: statute is valid police-power regulation; Board affords notice and hearing; no evidence of bias. | Section 41(4) upheld; no recusal required; Mir had statutory notice/hearing opportunities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. State Bd. of Auctioneer Examiners, 842 A.2d 936 (Pa. 2004) (reciprocal-discipline statute limits what merits of foreign proceedings may be relitigated before the home board)
- Tandon v. State Bd. of Med., 705 A.2d 1338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (reciprocal discipline is regulatory, not punitive; foreign suspension supports local action)
- DeMarco v. State Board of Medicine, 408 A.2d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (discusses remoteness of foreign misconduct for reciprocal discipline inquiries)
- Capital Blue Cross v. Pennsylvania Ins. Dep’t, 937 A.2d 552 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (standard of review: continuance decisions by administrative agencies reviewed for abuse of discretion)