William Spurlock, M.D. Has Been Disciplined Four Times

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


In 2011, William M. Spurlock, M.D.—also known as W. Marcus Spurlock, M.D.—has been disciplined four times by the Texas Medical Board. In 2011, he was accused of multiple acts of unprofessional conduct in connection with his treatment of 12 patients. The complaint (shown below) stated:

The case was settled with a mediated agreed order under which Spurlock was required to take 8 hours of continuing education courses in record-keeping and have his practice monitored for at least three years. The other three board actions were:

Spurlock, who is trained as a family physician, worked at the Fibromyalgia & Fatigue Center of Dallas for about four years and at Dr. William Rea's Environmental Health Center for about eight years.


HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE
TEXAS STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SOAH DOCKET NO. 503-11-4814-MD
TEXAS MEDICAL LICENSE NO. J7209

IN THE MATTER OF THE

COMPLAINT AGAINST

WILLIAM MARCUS SPURLOCK, M.D.

|
|
|
|
|

BEFORE THE

 

TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD

COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD AND THE HONORABLE ADMINISTRATIVE LA W JUDGE TO BE ASSIGNED:

COMES NOW, the Staff of the Texas Medical Board (the "Board"), and files this Complaint against William Marcus Spurlock, M.D., ("Respondent"), based on Respondent's alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act ("the Act"), Title 3, Subtitle B, Texas Occupations Code, and would show the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

The filing of this Complaint and the relief requested are necessary to protect the health and public interest of the citizens of the State of Texas, as provided in Section 151.003 of the Act.

II. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION

1. Respondent is a Texas Physician and holds Texas Medical License No. J-7209, that was originally issued on November 5, 1994. Respondent's license was in full force and effect at all times material and relevant to this Complaint.

2. Respondent received notice of the Informal Settlement Conference ("ISC") and appeared at the ISC, which was conducted in accordance with §2001.054(c), GOV'T CODE and §164.004 of the Act. All procedural rules were complied with, including but not limited to, Board Rules 182 and 187, as applicable.

3. No agreement to settle this matter has been reached by the parties.

4. All jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Board Staff has received information indicating that Respondent has violated the Act, and based on that information, Board Staff alleges:

A. General Allegations:

1. During the period of approximately 2004-2009, Respondent treated Patient A, Patient B, Patient C, Patient D, Patient E, Patient F, Patient G, Patient H, Patient I, Patient J, Patient K and Patient L ("Patients")1

1Identification of the patients will be provided as a separate confidential document under seal

2. Respondent diagnosed each of the Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome ("CFS") and/or fibromyalgia.

3. For each of the Patients, Respondent ordered medically and scientifically unsupported, unnecessary, unreliable and inadequate laboratory tests that were not diagnostic in nature.

4. For each and every patient, Respondent used laboratory tests that are not recognized or generally accepted in the medical community as useful, necessary, or reliable diagnostic tests.

5. For each and every patient, Respondent based his treatment of the Patients on the inconclusive findings of these laboratory tests that are not recognized or generally accepted in the medical community as useful, necessary, or reliable diagnostic tests.

6. For each and every patient, Respondent made medically and scientifically unsupported findings for each of the Patients.

7. On a number of patients, Respondent did not obtain adequate informed consent and did not adequately disclose the risks and benefits of alternative medical treatment.

8. Respondent's treatment for each of the Patients consisted of prescribed treatments that are not medically recognized treatments for the particular patient's condition.

9. On a number of the Patients specified herein, Respondent made medically unsupported findings/conclusions concerning the particular patient's thyroid condition.

10. Respondent's medical records for each of the Patients were inadequate as they lacked proper documentation. The deficiencies included, but are not limited to: lack of appropriate physical exams; lack of medical, family, social, allergy and medication histories; and lack of medical evidence to support the diagnosis and treatment undertaken.

11. For a number of the Patients, Respondent did not alter treatment when the prescribed treatments worsened the particular patient's symptoms.

12. For each and every patient, Respondent engaged in improper billing for tests and treatments that were not medically necessary, reasonable or indicated, and were not supported by the medical records.

B. Patient A:

13. Patient A began seeing Respondent on December 2, 2005, and continued to receive treatment from Respondent for approximately four years.

14. During his treatment of Patient A, Respondent diagnosed the patient with CFS, fibromyalgia, hypothyroidism and chronic viral and fungal infections.

15. Respondent ordered for Patient A medically and scientifically unsupported, unnecessary, unreliable and inadequate laboratory tests that are not diagnostic in nature.

16. Respondent's use of these tests is below the standard of care.

17. Respondent based his treatment of Patient A on the inconclusive findings of these laboratory tests.

18. Respondent's treatment for Patient A's CFS included prescriptions for anti-virals, anti­fungals and testosterone.

19. Respondent's treatment for Patient A's CFS is not medically recognized as a treatment for the particular patient's condition; 20. Respondent's use of testosterone is medically inappropriate. 20. The Respondent did not disclose to Patient A that the treatment for CFS he prescribed to Patient A was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

21. Although Patient A's thyroid level was normal, Respondent prescribed compounded Triiodothyronine ("T3"), which induced hyperthyroidism in patient A.

22. Respondent did not conduct a gynecological exam or an adequate evaluation of this complaint or refer to a specialist after Patient A reported breast tenderness.

23. Respondent prescribed increased dosages of chronic narcotics to Patient A, but did not document justification for the increases or maintain a narcotics contract with Patient A.

24. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

25. Respondent's billing to Patient A was improper and not supported by the medical records.

26. Respondent's treatment for Patient A's CFS is not medically recognized as a treatment for the particular patient's condition; Respondent's use of testosterone is medically inappropriate.

C. Patient B:

27. Respondent saw Patient B during approximately a three-year period beginning on or about July 27, 2006.

28. During the time Patient B was Respondent's patient. Respondent diagnosed the individual with a multitude of diseases, including CFS and fibromyalgia.

29. Respondent started Patient B on thyroid replacement without first obtaining comprehensive thyroid function testing.

30. In November 2006, Respondent placed Patient B on testosterone and compounded T3, despite the Patient's elevated T3 and testosterone levels on tests.

31. Patient B complained of breast tenderness, but Respondent did not conduct any exams or evaluation of this complaint, even though Respondent was aware there was a history of breast cancer in Patient B's family.

32. Patient B suffered from osteopenia, yet Respondent prescribed T3 and Cortef, which were contra-indicated.

33. Respondent failed to evaluate or treat Patient B's obesity and poor cardiovascular status.

34. Respondent diagnosed Patient B with mycoplasma pneumonia and Lyme Disease, without clinical justification and without conducting a physical exam to support these diagnoses.

35. Respondent ordered for Patient B medically and scientifically unsupported, unnecessary, unreliable and inadequate laboratory tests that were not diagnostic in nature.

36. Respondent's use of these tests is below the standard of care.

37, Respondent based his treatment of Patient B on the inconclusive findings of these tests.

38. Respondent's treatment for Patient B's CFS included anti-virals, anti-fungals and testosterone.

39. Respondent's treatment for Patient B's CFS is not medically recognized as a treatment for the particular patient's condition; Respondent's use of testosterone is medically inappropriate.

40. The Respondent did not disclose to Patient B that the treatment for CFS he prescribed to Patient A was not approved by the FDA.

41. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

42. Respondent's billing to this patient was improper and was not supported by the medical records.

D. Patient C:

43. Patient C saw Respondent for approximately a two-year period, beginning on June 4, 2007. Patient C had a history of autoimmune hepatitis and osteopenia.

44. During the time Respondent treated Patient C, Respondent diagnosed the patient with CFS, fibromyalgia, Chlamydia pneumonia and insomnia.

45. Although a blood test showed Patient C's initial thyroid-stimulating hormone ("TSH") level was normal, Respondent changed Patient C's thyroid medication to T3 without medical justification.

46. On or about June 20, 2007, Patient C complained of suffering from chronic diarrhea and long-term low-grade fever. Respondent did not conduct a physical exam, but instead ordered for Patient C medically and scientifically unsupported, unnecessary, unreliable and inadequate laboratory tests that were not diagnostic in nature.

47. Respondent based his treatment of Patient C on the inconclusive findings of these tests.

48. Respondent's treatment for Patient C's CFS included prescriptions for anti-virals, anti­fungals and testosterone, which are not medically recognized as treatments for the particular patient's condition.

49. The Respondent did not disclose to Patient C that the treatment for CFS was not approved by the FDA.

50. Patient C continued to complain of fever, but Respondent did not conduct an evaluation of the fever or a physical exam.

51. Respondent diagnosed Patient C with Chlamydia pneumonia on the basis of one lab test, without any clinical evidence or having conducted a physical exam.

52. Respondent prescribed hydrocortisone on a chronic basis to treat the Patient's Chlamydia pneumonia based on a test that is not recognized in the medical community or scientifically supported.

53. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

54. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and is not supported by the medical records.

E. Patient D:

55. Patient D saw Respondent for about four years, beginning on February 9, 2005. At the initial visit, Patient D complained of insomnia and chronic and adrenal fatigue. Patient D was also overweight.

56. Respondent did not conduct a physical exam, but instead ordered for Patient D medically and scientifically unsupported, unnecessary, unreliable and inadequate laboratory tests that were not diagnostic in nature.

57. Respondent based his treatment of Patient D on the inconclusive findings of these tests.

58. Respondent diagnosed Patient D with CFS and fibromyalgia.

59. Respondent started treatment with T3 without doing a TSH testing.

60. Respondent prescribed Cortef, Florinef, progesterone and dehydroepiandrosterone ("DHEA") without medical justification.

61. Respondent's treatment for Patient D's CFS is not medically recognized as a treatment for that condition.

62. On or about March 7, 2005, Patient D complained of fatigue, but Respondent did not conduct a physical exam or any thyroid testing.

63. Patient D's weight continued to increase, but Respondent did not address the patient's weight gain.

64. Patient D complained of menstrual bleeding, but no physical exam or tests were conducted. Respondent prescribed increased dosage of Cortef in response to the complaints of menstrual bleeding.

65. Respondent prescribed Lunesta to Patient D without providing adequate justification for the prescription.

66. Respondent repeatedly prescribed controlled substances and diagnosed conditions of Patient D without conducting exams.

67. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

68. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and is not supported by the medical records.

F. Patient E:

69. Patient E initially presented to Respondent on July 7, 2004, claiming a past medical history of hypothyroidism, insomnia and anxiety.

70. Respondent ordered labs and diagnosed patient E with hypothyroidism, obesity and anxiety.

71. At Patient E's follow-up visit on or about August 6, 2004, Patient E demonstrated a normal TSH yet, Respondent changed Patient E's thyroid medication from Synthroid to a combination of Armour and compounded T3.

72. Respondent's regimen of Armour thyroid and compounded T3 was excessive, and caused hyperthyroidism in Patient E.

73. Respondent failed to disclose possible side effects of the thyroid treatment he was prescribing.

74. Patient E's medical records indicated high blood pressure, but Respondent did not treat it.

75. Respondent prescribed Adipex as treatment for obesity. Respondent did not document the Patient's Body Mass Index ("BMI") or discuss medication risks and benefits, weight loss goals, lifestyle changes or dietary planning. Respondent did not address the patient's weight at follow-up visits or monitor the Patient for medication side effects.

76. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

77. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and was not supported by the medical records.

G. Patient F:

78. Patient F saw Respondent for approximately two years, beginning on October 18, 2007.

79. Patient F presented with a long history of fatigue, insomnia, allergic rhinitis and significant discomfort.

80. Respondent ordered extensive lab tests, and based on the test results, Respondent diagnosed Patient F with CFS, fibromyalgia, hypothyroidism and chronic viral bacterial fungal illnesses.

81. Respondent placed the Patient on multiple vitamins, nutraceuticals, antivirals and antibiotics to treat the diagnosed conditions.

82. Respondent also prescribed testosterone supplementation for Patient F, despite the patient's high total testosterone and normal percent free testosterone.

83. As a result of taking the testosterone supplementation, Patient F's testosterone increased without medical justification.

84. Respondent prescribed medications to Patient F without justification.

85. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

86. Respondent's billing to this patient was improper and not supported by the medical records.

H. Patient G:

87. Patient G presented to Respondent for the first time on July 31, 2007, and the Patient reported a history of chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia.

88. Patient G's laboratory results showed an elevated testosterone level; however, Respondent prescribed supplemental testosterone.

89. Respondent's prescriptions of testosterone supplement to Patient G were not supported by evidence that a clinical exam or lab testing was conducted.

90. Patient G's laboratory results showed an elevated normal levels of T3, however, Respondent prescribed T3 with medical justification.

91. Respondent used the results of a infectious disease panel testing that is not generally recognized in the medical community to conclude Patient G suffered from bacterial and viral illnesses. These tests are not diagnostic for acute infection.

92. Respondent prescribed long term antibiotics to treat the acute infection, but he did not maintain any documented clinical or lab findings to support this treatment.

93. Patient G was also given IV treatments, which worsened the Patient's condition.

94. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

95. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and was not supported by the medical records.

I. Patient H:

96. Patient H initially saw Respondent on September 29, 2006 complaining of a history of drug addiction and requested treatment for opioid addiction, fibromyalgia pain, anxiety and sleep Issues.

97. Respondent did not conduct a physical exam on Patient H.

98. Despite knowing of Patient H's tolerance to benzodiazepines, Respondent continued to prescribe Xanax and added Valium to the Patient's medical treatment.

99. Respondent did not develop any clear plan to treat Patient H's chronic pain or drug addictions.

100. On or about November 10, 2006, Respondent diagnosed Patient H with "racing thoughts," but did not address these symptoms.

101. On or about March 1, 2008, Respondent prescribed Patient H with Vicoprofen for the Patient's left foot fracture. Respondent did not conduct an x-ray to document the fracture; Respondent also failed to document any treatment plan for the condition. Respondent continued to prescribe multiple medications with addictive properties to the patient without any justification.

102. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

103. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and was not supported by the medical records.

1. Patient I:

104. Respondent saw Patient I for about one year, beginning on November 1, 2007.

105. Patient I's initial complaint concerned side effects from anti-viral medication. Respondent did not conduct a physical examination, but prescribed the patient a variety of medications without justifying the reason for the medications.

106. On December 6, 2007, Respondent began injecting Patient I with testosterone.

107. The Respondent diagnosed Patient I with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia ("BPH") and began treating the patient with Proscar, but did not conduct a prostrate exam or any type of physical exam on Patient 1.

108. Respondent's records did not justify the diagnosis of BPH or prescription of Proscar. The Respondent continued to prescribe additional medications without any recognized evidence of necessity.

109. Although Respondent was aware Patient I was obese and suffered from fatigue and sleep disturbance, Respondent did not address any of these conditions.

110. Patient I was subjected by Respondent to extensive laboratory testing that demonstrated normal viral antibodies of common viruses; however, these tests are insufficient to diagnose a clinical infection.

111. Respondent gave Patient I multiple anti-viral and anti-fungal medications and adrenal drugs without adequate objective medical, clinical, or laboratory findings.

112. Respondent conducted intramuscular and intravenous treatment with vitamins and gland extraction that had no scientific basis and is not generally recognized or accepted in the medical community.

113. Respondent did not discuss conventional medical treatments with Patient I or document that he discussed with Patient I the risks and benefits of treatment.

114. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

115. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and was not supported by the medical records.

K. Patient J:

116. Patient J saw Respondent for approximately two years beginning on about June 8, 2006. The Patient suffered from a long history of fibromyalgia and CFS.

117. At Patient J's initial visit, the Respondent ordered extensive lab tests.

118. The laboratory testing Respondent used is not clinically relevant.

119. The results of non-relevant clinical tests were normal; however, the Respondent began his treatment of Patient J's CFS with T3, Cortef, antibiotics, anti-virals, and anti-fungals.

120. The treatment with continuous anti-viral, anti-fungal medications, and antibiotics was unnecessary and are not medically supported. Patient J experienced side-effects of nausea and gastrointestinal distress from these unnecessary medications.

121. The Respondent also prescribed Adipex-P to Patient J without documented reason or justification.

122. Patient J complained of breast tenderness on October 31, 2006, but Respondent did not conduct a gynecological or breast exam.

123. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

124. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and was not supported by the medical records.

L. Patient K:

125. Patient K first saw the Respondent on or about December 20, 2005, with a medical history that included CFS, fibromyalgia, obesity, anxiety, and insomnia. Patient K continued to see Respondent for about five years.

126. Respondent ordered laboratory testing, the results were all normal except for elevated lipids. Respondent failed to address or treat the elevated lipids

127. In spite of a normal TSH, Respondent treated Patient K for hypothyroidism by prescribing a T3. The prescribing ofT3 was not medically supported

128. Respondent prescribed a variety of medications without justification during the course of treating this patient, including Cortef.

129. During his treatment of Patient K, Respondent conducted laboratory tests that were unnecessary and/or unindicted.

130. The Respondent prescribing Adipex to Patient K for weight loss, but did not indicate a baseline BM1.

131. Patient K developed diabetes and metabolic syndrome; however, Respondent continued the Cortef, which was not medically supported.

132. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

l33. Respondent's billing to this Patient was improper and was not supported by the medical records.

M. Patient L:

134. The Respondent first Patient L on or about September 19, 2006, and he treated the patient over the next three years.

135. Patient L was subjected by Respondent to extensive laboratory testing that demonstrated normal viral antibodies of common viruses; however, these tests are insufficient to diagnose a clinical infection.

136. Respondent gave Patient L multiple anti-viral and anti-fungal medications and adrenal drugs without adequate objective medical, clinical, or laboratory findings.

137. The Respondent prescribed compounded T3 despite the patient's extremely high T3 and knowledge that Patient L's medical history included a benign thyroid tumor and previous cardiac issues from pregnancies.

138. The Respondent prescribed Cortef to the Patient without adequate medical indications.

139. Respondent diagnosed Patient L with osteoporosis without using a Dexa Scan.

140. Respondent monitored Patient L's baseline laboratory studies and liver function studies infrequently, despite the chronic antibiotics and anti-fungals he prescribed the Patient.

141. Respondent's medical records were inadequate.

142. Respondent's billing to this patient was improper and not supported by the medical records.

N. Violations of the Act:

1. The actions of the Respondent as specified above violate one or more of the following provisions of the Act. The Act authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action based on Respondent's:

a. violation of Section l64.051(a)(1) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent's commission of an act prohibited under Section 164.052;

b. violation of Section 164.051(a)(3) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent's violation of a board rule, specifically Board Rule 165.1, requiring the maintenance of adequate records, and Board Rule 200, regarding the practice of alternative and complementary medicine;

c. violation of Section 164.051(a)(6) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent's failure to practice medicine in an acceptable professional manner consistent with public health and welfare, as further defined by Board Rule 190.8:

190.8(1)(A), failure to meet the standard of care;

190.8(1)(C), failure to exercise diligence in one's professional practice;

190.8(1)(D), failure to safeguard against potential complications;

190.8(1)(G), failure to safeguard reasonably foreseeable side effects of a treatment or procedure;;

190.8(1)(H), failure to disclose reasonable alternative treatments;

190.8(1)(I), failure to obtain informed consent from the patient or other person authorized by law to consent to treatment;

190.8(1)(K), prescription or administration of a drug in a manner that is not in compliance with Chapter 200 of this title; and

190.8(1)(L), prescription of any dangerous drug or controlled substance without first establishing a proper professional relationship with a patient, including but not limited to­ establishing a diagnosis with appropriate diagnostic and laboratory testing;

d. violation of Section 164.052(a)(5) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based upon Respondent's unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public or injure the public, as further defined by Board Rule 190.8(2)(J), providing medically unnecessary services to a patient or submitting a billing statement to a patient or a third party payer that the licensee knew or should have known was improper. "Improper" means the billing statement is false, fraudulent, misrepresents services provided, or otherwise does not meet professional standards;

e. violation of Section 164.053(a)(I) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent's commission of an act that violates a law of this state that is connected with Respondent's practice of medicine; to wit; Texas Health and safety Code, Chapter 311.0025;

f. violation of Section 164.053(a)(5) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent prescribing or administering a drug or treatment that is nontherapeutic in nature or nontherapeutic in the manner the drug or treatment is administered or prescribed, and

g. violation of Section 164.053(a)(6) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent prescribing, administering, or dispensing dangerous drugs or controlled substances in a manner inconsistent with public health and welfare.

2. Pursuant to Board Rule 190.15, the Board may consider the following aggravating factors in determining appropriate sanctions in this matter: multiple violations of the Act; the severity of patient harm; intentional, premeditated, knowing, or grossly negligent act constituting a violation; an increased potential for harm to the public, other relevant circumstances increasing the seriousness of the misconduct and Respondent's prior Board orders.

Respondent has prior Board orders as follows:

IV. APPLICABLE STATUTES AND RULES FOR THE CONTESTED CASE PROCEEDING

The following statutes, rules, and agency policy are applicable to the conduct of the contested case:

  1. Section 164.007(a) of the Act requires that the Board adopt procedures governing formal disposition of a contested case before the State Office of Administrative Hearings.
  2. 22 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, Chapter 187 sets forth the procedures adopted by the Board under the requirement of Section 164.007(a) of the Act.
  3. 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, CHAPTER 155 sets forth the rules of procedure adopted by SOAH for contested case proceedings.
  4. 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, CHAPTER 155.507, requires the issuance of a Proposal for Decision (PFD) containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
  5. Section 164.007(a) of the Act, Board Rule 187.37(d)(2) and Board Rule 190 et. seq., provides the Board with the sole and exclusive authority to determine the charges on the merits, to impose sanctions for violation of the Act or a Board rule, and to issue a Final Order.

V. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

IF YOU DO NOT FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS COMPLAINT, A DEFAULT ORDER MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU, WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE DENIAL OF LICENSURE OR ANY OR ALL OF THE REQUESTED SANCTIONS, INCLUDING THE REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. A COPY OF ANY ANSWER YOU FILE WITH THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED TO THE HEARINGS COORDINATOR OF THE TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Board Staff requests that an administrative law judge employed by the State Office of Administrative Hearings conduct a contested case hearing on the merits of the Complaint, and issue a Proposal for Decision ("PFD") containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law necessary to support a determination that Respondent violated the Act as set forth in this Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD

By: ____________________
Scott M. Freshour
Texas State Bar No. 100789299
Telephone: (512) 305-7096
Fax: (512) 305-7007
333 Guadalupe, Tower 3, Suite 610
Austin, Texas 78701

Filed with the Texas Medical Board on April 19, 2011.

_________________
Mari Robinson, J.D.
Executive Director
Texas Medical Board

This page was revised on July 23, 2014.

Links to Recommended Companies