Joseph Edward Rich, M.D. v. Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners
350 S.W.3d 919
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Board suspended Dr. Rich’s medical license for one year and imposed conditions after findings of unprofessional conduct and malpractice from 1999–2004 treatments.
- Record included expert testimony on standard of care for heavy metal toxicity and methadone treatment, and multiple patient records showing treatment patterns.
- Court of Appeals reversed for failure to articulate the standard of care in deliberations; remanded with instruction to articulate the standard of care.
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(g) provides that boards may rely on their experts but must articulate the standard of care in deliberations when the standard is at issue.
- The Supreme Court held the Board must articulate the applicable standard of care on remand, but did not reverse the Board’s findings of violations under subsections (1), (4), and (12).
- Costs taxed to the Board; remand for deliberations based on the existing record and articulated standard of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 63-6-214(g) requires articulation of the standard of care in deliberations. | Rich argues statute requires articulation on remand. | Board contends articulation only if no expert testimony. | Yes; Board must articulate standard in deliberations. |
| Whether failure to articulate standard of care invalidates Board findings under (b)(1), (4), (12). | Board’s lack of articulation taints review of violations. | No reversal; only remand to fix record. | Remand, not reversal, authorizes correction of record. |
| Whether remandprocedure is appropriate instead of full reversal. | Error is legal, not factual; should reverse." | Remand allows correction without new hearing. | Remand appropriate to articulate standard on existing record. |
| Scope of standard of care and reliance on expert testimony. | Standard set by statute; Board must show standard. | Board may rely on expertise; articulation still required when standard at issue. | Standard must be articulated in deliberations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Siddall v. Tenn. Bd. Of Med. Exam’rs, No. M2004-02767-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 1763665 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (Board must articulate standard of care despite expert testimony)
- Cocke Cnty. Bd. of Highway Comm’rs v. Newport Util. Bd., 690 S.W.2d 231 (Tenn. 1985) (expert opinions advisory; Board must articulate standard)
- Gibson v. Ferguson, 562 S.W.2d 188 (Tenn. 1976) (experts not binding; weight to record)
- Webb v. State ex rel. Ariz. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 202 Ariz. 555, 48 P.3d 505 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (need for articulated standards for meaningful review)
- Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546 (Tenn. 2011) (deference to statutory construction; de novo review)
- Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 676 (Tenn. 2002) (statutory interpretation to implement legislative intent)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (context for plain meaning interpretation)
- Amos v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 259 S.W.3d 705 (Tenn. 2008) (canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius)
- State v. Goodman, 90 S.W.3d 557 (Tenn. 2002) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning)
- State v. Marshall, 319 S.W.3d 558 (Tenn. 2010) (methodology of statutory interpretation)