Parrott v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
2016 Ohio 4635
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Dr. Cassandra Parrott, an osteopathic physician, disclosed two prior DUI convictions and a history of alcohol dependence when applying for a training certificate to begin residency; the State Medical Board of Ohio required further inquiry.
- After medical evaluations (Shepherd Hill/Dr. Whitney; Cleveland Clinic/Dr. Collins) diagnosed alcohol dependence and recommended inpatient treatment and monitoring, the Board summarily suspended her training certificate and later held a hearing.
- At the hearing, Parrott admitted extensive past alcohol abuse, two DUI arrests, prior inpatient/outpatient treatment, and some resumed drinking; she contested the need for inpatient treatment and denied current impairment.
- Two expert physicians testified the history and current use placed Parrott at high ongoing risk and rendered her unable to practice according to acceptable standards.
- The Board adopted the hearing examiner’s recommendation to suspend Parrott’s training certificate indefinitely (minimum 90 days) under R.C. 4731.22(B)(26); the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed, and Parrott appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence to support suspension under R.C. 4731.22(B)(26) | Parrott: Board lacked proof of current impairment and no patient harm; past conduct alone insufficient | Board: Expert opinions + Parrott’s admissions show impairment or risk justifying prophylactic discipline | Held: Evidence (expert testimony and admissions) was sufficient to support suspension |
| Whether the Board exceeded its rulemaking authority by defining "impairment" in Ohio Adm.Code 4731-16-01(A) | Parrott: Rule impermissibly expands or alters statutory meaning and effectively mandates abstinence | Board: Rule reasonably fills a statutory gap by defining an undefined term consistent with legislative purpose | Held: Rule is a valid exercise of rulemaking authority and does not conflict with statute |
| Whether the Board improperly relied on relapse-proof rule Ohio Adm.Code 4731-16-02(B)(2)(a) | Parrott: Board relied on rule that treats relapse as independent proof of impairment | Board: Suspension was based on examination and diagnosis under R.C. 4731.22(B)(26), not that independent-proof provision | Held: Court need not decide rule validity for that provision; Board did not base suspension on it |
| Whether challenges to the summary suspension were live | Parrott: (implicit) challenge to summary suspension | Board: Summary suspension moots upon final Board action | Held: Any challenge to the initial summary suspension was moot because Board later took final action |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (standard for common‑pleas court review of administrative orders: consider entire record and weigh evidence credibility)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate review of administrative decisions limited to abuse‑of‑discretion except on pure questions of law)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review on appeal)
- Regions Hosp. v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1998) (agencies may fill gaps and reasonably define terms in light of legislative design)
- Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wickham, 63 Ohio St.2d 16 (Ohio 1980) (administrative rules cannot exceed statutory rulemaking authority)
- Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St. 275 (Ohio 1955) (administrative record review requires appraisal of witness credibility and evidence weight)