Kim v. Maryland State Board of Physicians, 32 A.3d 30

Petitioner Charles Y. Kim is a Maryland OB/GYN licensed in 1977; he is board certified.
In 2005 a medical malpractice action (the Wagner case) was filed naming Kim; he answered and was deposed in 2005.
In February 2006 Kim applied to renew privileges at Frederick Memorial Hospital; he initially answered “No” to having malpractice claims, then amended to “Yes” with addenda.
On August 15, 2006 Kim filed a Board renewal license application containing three health-care questions answered “No.”
In November 2006, during unrelated CRC scheduling discussions, Board investigators learned Kim was involved in a malpractice action at the time of his August 2006 renewal application.
In March 2007 the Board charged Kim with violations of § 14-404(a)(3), (a)(11), and (a)(36); the Board sought reprimand, ethics course, and $10,000 fine.
An ALJ held that Kim’s conduct was unprofessional and willful, recommending reprimand, $5,000 fine, ethics course, and six months’ probation.
The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and imposed six months’ probation, $5,000 fine, and an ethics course.
Kim sought judicial review; the circuit court and Court of Special Appeals affirmed; this Court granted certiorari to address three questions about CRC information use, “in the practice of medicine,” and willfulness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CRC disclosures may be used against Kim.	Kim argues COMAR 10.32.02.03.C(7)(d) prohibits use of CRC information.	Board contends the CRC statement was not confidential or substantive and was discoverable.	Board did not err; use was permitted under the regulation's scope.
Whether filing a license renewal application falls within the practice of medicine.	Kim contends renewal filing is not a medical practice act.	Board and courts have held it is within practice to ensure patient protection.	Yes; renewal filing is within the practice of medicine.
Whether “willful” requires intent to deceive; was there substantial evidence of willfulness?	Willful means intentional deception; no such intent shown given English limitations.	Willful means intentional or purposeful conduct, not necessarily deceptive motive.	Willful requires intentional act; substantial evidence supports willfulness.

McDonnell v. Commission on Medical Discipline, 301 Md.426 (Md. 1984) (defines scope of 'in the practice of medicine')
Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md.577 (Md. 2004) (conduct related to delivery of patient care within practice)
Banks v. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 354 Md.59 (Md. 1999) (on-duty conduct affecting the practice; 'in the practice of medicine')
Cornfeld v. State Bd. of Physicians, 174 Md.App.456 (Md. Ct. App. 2007) (false statements in peer review and Board investigations; relates to patient care)
Elliott v. Md. Bd. of Physicians, 170 Md.App.369 (Md. Ct. App. 2006) (willfulness not requiring deceitful motive)
Deibler v. State, 365 Md.185 (Md. 2001) (definition of willful in context of statute)
Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Jarosinski, 411 Md.432 (Md. 2009) (willfulness defined as voluntary, intentional violation of a known duty)
Lee v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n, 387 Md.89 (Md. 2005) (communication confidentiality and use of information)