Jonathan v. Wright, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health Medical Quality Assurance Comm., Res., 71516-0

Background

Dr. Jonathan Wright directed the Tahoma Clinic and supervised Mitchell, who treated patients in Washington without a license from Sept 2007 to Feb 2009.
MQAC opened an investigation after discovering Mitchell’s lack of Washington licensure and informed Wright in 2009; Wright questioned the investigation’s authority.
Wright refused to provide patient records, claiming releases were needed; later submitted largely redacted records; MQAC renewed requests and warned of noncooperation charges.
In 2011 MQAC charged Wright with failing to cooperate and, after reviewing records, amended the charges to include aiding and abetting unlicensed practice of medicine.
The Tribunal found all charges proven by clear and convincing evidence, suspended Wright for 90 days, fined $7,500, and imposed 30 months of probation with reporting and educational requirements.
The superior court affirmed; Wright appeals on multiple grounds including fairness of charges, legal interpretation, due process, and constitutional challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the aiding and abetting charge was properly proven	Wright contends evidence insufficient; reliance on Texas license status irrelevant.	MQAC proved Wright allowed an unlicensed individual to practice in Washington, violating RCW 18.130.180(10).	Yes; Tribunal's aiding and abetting finding upheld
Whether Mitchell qualified for the out-of-state exemption under RCW 18.71.030(6)	Mitchell may have qualified by license/residency elsewhere and common practice considerations.	Exemption does not apply because Mitchell was not licensed/residing in another state and practiced in Wright’s clinic for 18 months.	No; exemption inapplicable
Whether MQAC's investigation procedures violated due process or patient privacy rights	Procedures impose unconstitutional conditions and improper warrantless searches.	Regulations and RCW 70.02.050 permit disclosures to MQAC for licensing and unprofessional-conduct investigations.	No due process or privacy violation
Whether the sanctions were arbitrary or capricious	Sanctions were retaliatory and not warranted by the record of cooperation.	Disciplinary sanctions are within agency discretion and supported by aggravating factors and lack of remorse.	No; sanctions upheld as within agency discretion
Whether the rule of lenity applies to the statutory interpretation here	Ambiguities in exemption statute warrant lenity in construction.	Lenity applies only to punitive criminal statutes; exemptions here are clear.	No; lenity not applicable

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. State, Dep't of Health, Dental Disciplinary Bd., 94 Wn. App. 7 (1998) (appellate review of agency sanctions standard)
Clausing v. State, 90 Wn. App. 863 (1998) (administrative appeal standards; substantial evidence)
Lang v. State, Dep't of Health, Dental Quality Assurance Comm'n, 138 Wn. App. 235 (2007) (sanctions and protective purposes of disciplinary actions)
In re Little, 40 Wn.2d 421 (1952) (rule of lenity; application in quasi-criminal context)
State v. Reis, 180 Wn. App. 438 (2014) (rule of lenity; statutory construction principles)