In re Williams
573 N.E.2d 638, 60 Ohio St. 3d 85 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's disciplinary order is not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence if it is based solely on the board members' own expertise and contradicts the only expert testimony presented, especially where the professional's conduct was not illegal and reflected a divided expert opinion within the field.
Facts:
- Dr. Williams prescribed Schedule II controlled substances, such as Biphetamine and Obetrol, to patients as part of long-term weight control programs.
- At the time of the prescriptions, this medical practice was not prohibited by any specific Ohio statute or administrative rule.
- The appropriateness of using these substances for long-term weight control was a controversial topic on which the medical community was divided.
- During his disciplinary hearing before the Ohio State Medical Board, Dr. Williams presented expert witnesses who testified that his prescribing practices did not fall below the acceptable standard of medical care.
- The Ohio State Medical Board did not present any expert testimony to rebut the evidence offered by Dr. Williams's experts.
- The board, relying on the collective medical expertise of its physician members, found Dr. Williams's conduct fell below the acceptable standard of care and disciplined him.
Procedural Posture:
- The Ohio State Medical Board issued an order disciplining Dr. Williams for his prescribing practices.
- Dr. Williams appealed the board's administrative order to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, the court of first instance.
- The Court of Common Pleas reversed the board's order, finding it was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
- The Ohio State Medical Board, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas to the intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the lower court.
- The Ohio State Medical Board then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio for a final review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a state medical board's disciplinary order supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence when the board presents no expert testimony to counter the physician's experts regarding a standard of care, and the physician's conduct was legal at the time and represented one side of a divided medical opinion?
Opinions:
Majority - H. Brown, J.
No. The medical board’s order is not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. While a board composed of experts is not always required to present outside expert testimony, it cannot convert its own disagreement with uncontradicted expert testimony into affirmative evidence of a contrary proposition. This is especially true where the issue is one on which medical experts are divided and there is no statute or rule governing the situation. Because the only evidence in the record came from Dr. Williams's experts who testified his conduct was acceptable, and his actions were not illegal at the time, the board's disciplinary action lacked the required evidentiary support.
Dissenting - Wright, J.
Yes. The medical board's order was supported by sufficient evidence. The majority wrongly distinguishes 'Arlen' by focusing on the legality of the conduct, which is irrelevant to whether the conduct met the professional standard of care. The board's members are experts charged with regulating their profession, and their collective expertise is sufficient to determine the standard of care without needing outside testimony, particularly when the physician's conduct is stipulated. By requiring expert testimony in this context, the majority's decision improperly strips the board of its necessary discretion to police the medical profession.
Analysis:
This decision curtails the discretionary power of professional regulatory boards by clarifying the evidentiary standards they must meet. It establishes that a board's internal expertise, while valuable, cannot serve as a substitute for affirmative evidence in the record, particularly when faced with unrebutted expert testimony defending a professional's conduct. The ruling effectively requires administrative agencies to build a stronger evidentiary case, likely including their own expert testimony, when seeking to discipline professionals for conduct that is not per se illegal but falls within a 'gray area' of divided professional opinion. This provides professionals with greater protection against disciplinary actions based on a board's unstated or internal views of a controversial practice.
Unlock the full brief for In re Williams