Mansour v. State Med. Bd.
2018 Ohio 2605
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Dr. Waleed N. Mansour, an Ohio-licensed internist, had his Ohio medical certificate permanently revoked by the State Medical Board of Ohio based on: (1) a failure to disclose a 2010 domestic-violence misdemeanor on his 2012 renewal, (2) misleading statements about an Arizona Medical Board action in 2014, and (3) a 2015 guilty plea to two misdemeanor drug-possession counts.
- On the 2012 renewal, Mansour answered "no" to a question asking whether he had been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony despite the 2010 domestic-violence conviction. He testified he relied on counsel to have notified the Board.
- In 2014, Mansour answered "yes" to a renewal question about charges or complaints by other boards, then submitted a December 1, 2014 explanation that downplayed Arizona’s July 2, 2014 letter alleging referral for further action. He later gave shifting testimony about when he received the Arizona letter.
- Mansour pleaded guilty in 2015 to two misdemeanor possession counts; the sentencing transcript described prescriptions written for others to obtain drugs for Mansour’s personal use.
- A Board hearing examiner found Mansour not credible on key points, recommended permanent revocation, the Board adopted that recommendation (Jan. 13, 2016), and the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the Board’s order. Mansour appealed; the Tenth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mansour) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board proved Mansour received July 2, 2014 Arizona letter and intended to mislead by his Dec. 1, 2014 explanation | Mansour claimed uncertain receipt and no intent to mislead; his statement reflected conversations with an investigator, not a misrepresentation | Letter was sent to correct address and Mansour acknowledged receiving it; mailbox presumption and inconsistent testimony support inference of intent | Court upheld finding Mansour received the letter and intended to mislead; assignment overruled |
| Whether Board proved intent to deceive for failure to disclose 2010 domestic-violence conviction on 2012 renewal | Mansour said counsel had already disclosed the conviction to Board enforcement, so he reasonably omitted it | Mansour knowingly failed to disclose a conviction in response to a direct question; his counsel-based excuse was not credible | Court affirmed that intent to deceive could be inferred from the omission and circumstances |
| Admissibility of sentencing/plea transcript (State's Ex. 2(d)) | Mansour argued transcript was unauthenticated, uncertified, and referenced dismissed charges (potentially prejudicial) | Transcript contained identifying headings, case info, and witness identification; Mansour confirmed practitioners in transcript; defense had mentioned indictments during hearing | Court found the hearing examiner acted within discretion to admit the transcript and Mansour showed no prejudice |
| Due process claim re: evidentiary rulings & exclusion of Rohrbaugh affidavit | Mansour argued inconsistent evidentiary rulings and that exclusion of counsel Rohrbaugh's affidavit deprived him of due process | Rohrbaugh was available to be called as a live witness and Mansour declined to call him; hearing examiner has broad evidentiary discretion | Court rejected due process claim; exclusion was not improper where live testimony was available and Mansour declined to call witness |
Key Cases Cited
- Rajan v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 118 Ohio App.3d 187 (10th Dist. 1997) (intent to mislead is required to prove a violation for false or misleading statements to board)
- Hayes v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 138 Ohio App.3d 762 (10th Dist. 2000) (intent may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- Weiss v. Ferro Corp., 44 Ohio St.3d 178 (1989) (mailbox rule: presumption that mailed notice is received in due course)
- Gaston v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, 133 Ohio St.3d 18 (2012) (courts may infer timely arrival of mailed documents when date of mailing and proper address are established)
- Stancourt v. Worthington City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 164 Ohio App.3d 184 (10th Dist. 2005) (administrative hearing examiners have broad discretion to admit evidence)