HLD, v. 33, n. 7 (July 2005)
Ohio Appeals Court Finds Evidence Supports Revocation Of Physician's
An Ohio appeals court recently affirmed a
permanent medical license revocation, finding that the Ohio State Medical
Board's findings and conclusions were supported by the evidence.
The Ohio State Medical Board
notified Glenda Dahlquist, M.D., a pain management specialist, of its intention
to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her due to her care of sixteen
patients, which the board alleged fell below the standard of care. The board
also alleged that Dahlquist failed to use reasonable care in the administration
of drugs and failed to employ reasonable scientific methods in the selection of
drugs for treatment.
requested a hearing at the conclusion of which the hearing examiner issued an
exhaustive report containing a patient-by-patient account of the facts. The
hearing examiner concluded that Dahlquist "prescribed medications in types,
amounts, and combinations that were inappropriate" and recommended permanent revocation
of Dahlquist's medical license. Dahlquist objected and the board convened to
consider the matter. The board amended the report to allow Dahlquist thirty
days to wind down her practice before her license would be revoked. Dahlquist
appealed and the trial court affirmed the order. Dahlquist again appealed.
The Ohio Court of Appeals,
Tenth District, affirmed. Dahlquist first argued that the court abused its
discretion in finding that a discussion between one of the state's expert
witnesses and a board member was privileged. The appeals court found that
Dahlquist was able to cross examine the witness extensively and had not
demonstrated that she was prejudiced in any way by the court's ruling.
next argued that she was denied due process because the state's expert witness
based his testimony on the standard of medical care generally rather than the
specific standard for treating patients with intractable pain. The appeals
court found, however, that the board members posses specialized knowledge and
are capable of "interpreting the technical requirements of the medical
profession and determining whether a physician's conduct falls below the
minimal standard of care." The appeals court found the board reviewed all
evidence presented and reached a conclusion supported by that evidence.
court upheld the board's determination that Dahlquist was not amenable to
reeducation. Although Dahlquist pointed to changes she had made in her practice
to benefit patients, the board's conclusion that her violations were so severe
that she could not be rehabilitated was supported by the evidence, the appeals
Dahlquist v. Ohio
State Med. Bd., No.
04AP-811 (Ohio Ct. App. May 10, 2005). To read the case, go to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/10/2005/2005-ohio-2298.pdf