Osborne v. Az Medical Board
1 CA-CV 16-0250
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Osborne, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, faced revocation of his Arizona medical license after the Board investigated dangerous opioid prescribing for two patients, SM and SJ.
- An outside consultant identified excessive opioid levels, inadequate management, poor inter-provider communication, and unaddressed red flags for both patients.
- The ALJ recommended revocation based on findings that Osborne deviated from the standard of care for SM and SJ and violated record-keeping requirements.
- The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and added a finding of harm, citing past disciplinary actions (2009 reprimand; 2010 CME) to support ongoing unprofessional conduct.
- SM had complex psychiatric history (bipolar disorder, methamphetamine use) and used multiple pharmacies; SJ had prolonged high-dose opioid treatment with similar red flags, including non-coordination with other providers.
- Osborne challenged the decision, arguing (among other things) that the Board’s interpretation of § 32-1401(27)(q) was unconstitutionally vague and that due process issues and credibility determinations affected the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 32-1401(27)(q) was applied unconstitutionally vague | Osborne contends Webb narrows § 32-1401(27)(q). | Board argues Webb permits broader application where harm is unreasonable under circumstances. | Not unconstitutionally vague; harm found was unreasonable under circumstances. |
| Whether supplemental evidence trial issue violated due process | Osborne asserts he was denied complete defense due to late evidence. | Board contends evidence wouldn’t have changed expert opinions. | No due-process violation; supplemental evidence properly analyzed and not outcome-determinative. |
| Whether the Board properly adopted credibility findings about SM | Osborne argues ALJ's credibility findings should not be adopted as to SM. | Board appropriately credited the ALJ’s credibility determinations. | Board’s adoption of credibility findings affirmed. |
| Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing | Osborne sought an evidentiary hearing about DOJ/DEA investigations and communications. | Board argued no bias or prejudice; documents show no improper influence. | No abuse of discretion; no necessity for an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. State ex rel. Ariz. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 202 Ariz. 555 (App. 2002) (defines Webb narrowing of § 32-1401(27)(q) and due-process limits)
- Ritland v. Ariz. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 213 Ariz. 187 (App. 2006) (substantial evidence standard for agency decisions)
- Hart v. Hart, 220 Ariz. 183 (App. 2009) (finding requirements and non-discretionary factual findings)
- Lathrop v. Ariz. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 182 Ariz. 172 (App. 1995) (presumption of fairness for decision makers)
- Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 211 Ariz. 427 (App. 2005) (credibility and deference principles in administrative review)
- Shaffer v. Ariz. State Liquor Bd., 197 Ariz. 405 (App. 2000) (safety-net evidentiary hearing standard under A.R.S. § 12-910)
- Golob v. Ariz. Med. Bd., 217 Ariz. 505 (App. 2008) (substantial evidence review in Board disciplinary actions)