2024 Ohio 1553
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Dr. Mark A. White, licensed to practice medicine in Ohio since 1997, was accused by the State Medical Board of Ohio of engaging in sexual misconduct with a patient (Patient 1), in violation of state statutes and administrative code.
- White admitted to having a sexual relationship with Patient 1 during the period that Patient 1 was his patient.
- After a hearing in 2021, the board's examiner recommended suspending White's medical license for at least one year and imposing a $6,000 fine.
- White did not contest the facts or legal conclusions but objected to the practicalities of the suspension's timing, requesting more time to transition his medical practice due to his large patient base.
- The Medical Board adopted the examiner's recommendation. White appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, raising due process issues regarding evidence considered and the scope of the Board's basis for discipline.
- The trial court reversed the Board's decision, finding due process violations, but the appellate court reversed that, siding with the Board and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board violated due process/R.C. 119.07 by not including all aggravating factors in the hearing notice | Board disciplined White for uncharged conduct | Board disciplined only for charged conduct; other factors were part of sanction determination | No due process violation; Board only disciplined for noticed charges |
| Whether the Board violated due process by considering excluded evidence (Exhibit V) | Board improperly relied on inadmissible book content | Board relied only on book passages read into the record, unobjected to by White | No due process violation; only admissible evidence cited |
| Whether White waived issues not raised at the agency level | White could raise new issues on appeal | White failed to preserve these issues at agency level | Issues waived by failure to object at the agency |
| Whether the Board was required to specifically enumerate all aggravating factors in the notice | Board had to specify all aggravating facts | Board can consider aggravating/mitigating facts in sanctioning | Board not required to enumerate all such factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (outlines the standard of review for administrative agency orders—must be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (Ohio 1992) (defines reliable, probative, and substantial evidence for agency review)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (sets limitations on appellate review of administrative decisions—focuses on abuse of discretion)