Disciplinary Action
against Jonathan Wright, M.D.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


In May 2013, the Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission concluded that Jonathan Wright, M.D. had engaged in unprofessional conduct by employing an unlicensed physician in his clinic and had failed to cooperate with the Commission's investigation of his wrongdoing. The Commission suspended Wright's license for 90 days, to be followed by 30 months of probation, and ordered him to pay a $7,500 fine. Wright is medical director of the Tahoma Clinic, in King County, Washington. The Final Order (shown below) states:

Wright appealed the Commission's order to a superior court, claiming that he was charged unfairly, that the hearing panel misinterpreted the law, and that he had been subjected to unconstitutional searches and sanctions. The superior court ruled against him, so he appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals. In February 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's ruling, concluding that the Commission had not "acted arbitrarily and caprisiously" when it imposed sanctions.

The Tahoma Clinic's Web site describes Wright as "a for-runner [sic] in research and application of natural treatments for healthy aging and illness" who "has taught natural biochemical medical treatments since 1983 to thousands of physicians in the USA, Europe, and Japan." Quackwatch has additional background information on his activities.


STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

JONATHAN V. WRIGHT, M.D
Credential No. MD.00011394

Respondent.


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Master Case No. M2010-1697

FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND FINAL ORDER

APPEARANCES:

Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., Respondent, by
Bullivan/Houser/Bailey P.C., per
Michael McCormack, Attorney at Law; and
Law Office of Jacques G Simon, Esq., per
Jacques G. Simon, Attorney at Law

Department of Health Medical Program (Department), by
Office of the Attorney General, per
Kim O'Neal, Assistant Attorney General

PANEL: Michael T. Concannon, J.D., Panel Chair Theresa J. Elders, Public Member Warren Howe, M.D. . Samuel Selinger, M.D.

PRESIDING OFFICER: . Frank Lockhart, Health Law Judge

A Second Amended Statement of Charges was filed on June 26, 2012, charging the Respondent with failure to cooperate with the Medical Quality Assurance Commission (Commission) by not furnishing papers, documents, or records, and with aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of medicine, A hearing was held in this matter on March 18-19, 2013, regarding these allegations of unprofessional conduct. SUSPENSION imposed with conditions.

ISSUES

Did the Respondent commit unprofessional conduct as defined in RCW 18.130.180(8) and (10)?

If the Department proves unprofessional conduct, what are the appropriate sanctions under RCW 18.130.160?

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of: Joe Mihelich, Department of Health (DOH) Investigator; Joy Johnson, BSN, R.N., DOH Investigator; and Mike Bahn, former DOH Staff Attorney. The Respondent testified on his own behalf.

The Presiding Officer admitted the following Department exhibits:

Exhibit D-1 Memorandum from Complaint Intake Unit of the Commission Medical Investigations Unit, with a copy of the Billing from Tahoma Clinic for services provided by Roby Mitchell, M.D.;
Exhibit D-2 Email string between Catrina Murphy, Program Representative, Commission, and Roby Mitchell, M.D., dated February 16, 2009;'
Exhibit D-3 Printout, dated April 16, 2009, from the Tahoma Clinic's Website;
Exhibit D-4 DOH Case Database Printout showing Case Management Team's April 22, 2009 determination investigation warranted;
Exhibit D-5 May 4, 2009 Letter of Cooperation to the Respondent from Joy Johnson, DOH Health Care Investigator;
Exhibit D-6 May 14, 2009 Letter to Joy Johnson from Michael McCormack on behalf of the Respondent;
Exhibit D-7 May 21, 2011 Letter to Michael McCormack from Joy Johnson, DOH Health Care Investigator;
Exhibit D-8 December 17, 2009 e-mailed letter to Michael McCormack from Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney on behalf of the Reviewing Commission Member;
Exhibit D-9  Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated December 17, 2010 through January 5, 2010, with Mike Bahn's handwritten notations;
Exhibit D-10 February 26, 2010 letter to Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, from Michael McCormack, on behalf of the Respondent;
Exhibit D-11 Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated February 26, 2010 through March 1, 2010;
Exhibit D-12 Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated March 9, 2010;
Exhibit D-13 Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated March 9, 2010 through March 26, 2010;
Exhibit D-14 March 26, 2010 letter to Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, from Michael McCormack, on behalf of the Respondent;
Exhibit D-15 Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated April 14, 2010;
Exhibit D-16 April 14, 2010 letter to Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, from Michael McCormack, on behalf of the Respondent;
Exhibit D-17 April 23, 2010 letter to Michael McCormack from Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney;
Exhibit D-18 Email from Michael McCormack to Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, dated April 27, 2010
Exhibit D-19 Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH, Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated May 6, 2010
Exhibit D-20 Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated June 14, 2010 through June 15, 2010
Exhibit D-21 Email string between Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, and Michael McCormack, dated June 25, 2010 through July 8, 2010;
Exhibit D-22 July 15, 2010 letter to Mike Bahn, DOH Staff Attorney, from Michael McCormack, on behalf of the Respondent, with copies of redacted medical records;
Exhibit D-23 August, 30, 2010 letter to Dr. Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., from Joy Johnson, DOH Health Care Investigator
Exhibit D-24 September 14, 2010 letter to Joy Johnson from Michael McCormack, on behalf of the Respondent;
Exhibit D-25 September 27, 2010 Letter to Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., from Joy Johnson, DOH Health Care Investigator;
Exhibit D-26 September 28, 2010 letter to Joy Johnson from Michael McCormack, on behalf of the Respondent;
Exhibit D-27 September 30, 2010 letter 'to Joy Johnson from Michael McCormack, on behalf of the Respondent
Exhibit D-28 February 4:, 2011 Order of the Texas Medical Board, 'In the Matter of the Complaint Against: Roby Dean Mitchell, M.D., No.503-10-5750MD;
Exhibit D-29 Website printout from Texas Medical Board Public Verification/Physician Profile for Roby Dean Mitchell, MD;
Exhibit D-30 Washington' State License, Status Verification for Roby Dean Mitchell;
Exhibit D-31 Patient One's medical records;
Exhibit D-32 Patient Two's medical records;
Exhibit D-33 Patient Three's medical records
Exhibit D-34 Patient Four's medical records; and
Exhibit D-35 Patient Five's medical records.

The Presiding Officer admitted the following Respondent exhibits1:

Exhibit R-1: May 4, 2009 letter from Joy Johnson of the Commission to Jonathan Wright, M.D.;
Exhibit R-2: May 29, 2009 response letter from Michael McCormack of Gordon & Polscer, LLC to Joy Johnson;
Exhibit R-3: December 17, 2009 email from Michael Bahn of the, Commission to Michael McCormack;
Exhibit R-4: February 26, 2010 response from Michael McCormack to Michael Bahn;
Exhibit R-5: February 26, 2010 email response from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack;
Exhibit R-6:  March 9, 2010 email from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack;
Exhibit R-7: March 26, 2010 letter from Michael McCormack to Michael Bahn;
Exhibit R-8: March 26, 2010 email from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack;
Exhibit R-9: April 14, 2010 letter from Michael McCormack to Michael Bahn;
Exhibit R-10: April 23, 2010 letter from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack;
Exhibit R-11: May 6, 2010 email from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack;
Exhibit R-12: July 15, 2010 letter from Michael McCormack to Michael Bahn with records;
Exhibit R-13: August 30, 2010 letter from Joy Johnson to Dr. Wright and Michael McCormack;  
Exhibit R-14: September 30, 2010 letter from Michael McCormack to, Joy Johnson;
Exhibit R-15: Letter from attorney Jacques Simon to Assistant Attorney General Kim O'Neal, dated April 16, 2012, (cover letter related to transmitting five medical records to the Department. See Exhibits 0-31 through 0-25);
Exhibit R-21: Memo dated April 16, 2009, from Joe Mihelich to Complaint Intake regarding Roby Mitchell (noted as Exhibit F in Prehearing Order No. 25);
Exhibit R-22: Letter dated April 30, 2009 from James H. Smith, Chief Investigator for the Commission to the Respondent (noted as Exhibit G in Prehearing Order No. 25);
Exhibit R-27: Email dated March 9, 2010, from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack, dated December 17, 2009 (noted as Exhibit N in Prehearing Order No. 25);
Exhibit R-28: Email string dated March 9, 2010 to March 18, 2010, between Michael Bahn and Michael McCormack (noted as Exhibit 0 in Prehearing Order No. 25);
Exhibit R-29: Email dated June 14, 2010, from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack (noted as Exhibit P [n Prehearing Order No: 25); .
Exhibit R-30: Email dated June 25, 2010, from Michael Bahn to Michael McCormack (noted as Exhibit Q in Prehearing Order No. 25);
Exhibit R-31: Email string dated August 30, 2010, between Joy Johnson and Michael Bahn (noted as Exhibit R in Prehearing Order No. 25);
Exhibit R-32: Email string dated September 29, 2010 to September 30, 2010, between Joy, Johnson and Michael Bahn (noted as Exhibit S in Prehearing Order No. 25);
Exhibit R-33: Letter dated September 30, 2010, from Michael McCormack to Joy Johnson (noted as Exhibit T in Prehearing Order No. 25); and
Exhibit R-36: Copy of RCW 18.71.030 (admitted at hearing).

1The numbering of the Respondent's exhibits R-1 through R-15 corresponds to the numbering system used-in Prehearing Order No. 24 and corresponds to the numbering system on the exhibits that the Respondent provided to the Tribunal. The numbering of the remaining Respondent exhibits, however, corresponds only to the numbering system on the exhibits the Respondent provided to the Tribunal and not to Prehearing Order No. 25, which allowed these additional exhibits. Notations have been placed in parenthesis to indicate the original numbering system in Prehearing Order No. 25, In addition, Prehearing Order No. 25 admitted 2 exhibits (Exhibits Hand M) that the Respondent elected not to submit to the Tribunal.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1.1 The Respondent was granted a license to practice as a physician and surgeon in the state of Washington on July 13; 1970. The Respondent's license is currently active.

1.2 During the timeframe relative to this case, the Respondent was (and currently is) the Medical Director of the Tahoma Clinic in King County, Washington. As medical director, he supervises three physicians and nine naturopaths.

1.3 In September 2007, one Roby Mitchell came to work at the Clinic under the supervision of the Respondent. Mr. Mitchell claimed to be a physician, licensed in the state, of Texas. In fact, Mr. Mitchell's Texas credential had been .permanently revoked by the Texas authorities in 2005. Mr. Mitchell practiced as a physician in the Respondent's Clinic treating patients on a regular basis. Mr. Mitchell engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine at the Clinic from September 2007 to February 2009. During this time Mr. Mitchell resided in Washington. In February 2009, Mr.' Mitchell simply disappeared.

1.4 On April 16, 2009, a DOH investigator who works for the Cornmisston2 received a telephone call asking if Mr. Mitchell was licensed to practice medicine in Washington.3 The investigator checked with the licensing staff at DOH and determined that Mr. Mitchell was not licensed in Washington. The investigator referred the matter to the Commission.

2For clarification purposes, the following nomenclature is used in this Order: "Commission" refers to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission as an entity and "Tribunal" refers to the independent panel of Commission members who adjudicated this case at hearing. ("Independent" meaning that the panel consisted of Commission members who were not involved in the original investigation or charging decision by the Commission.)

3See Exhibit R-21.

1.5 On April 28, 2009, the Commission's Case Management Team (CMT) authorized an investigation in the matter.4

4See Exhibits 0-4,0-12, and 0-23. Pursuant to RCW 18.130.080(2) the disciplining authority is required to determine whether a complaint/information merits investigation. The Tribunal believes that the Commission appropriately authorized the investigation into this matter.

1.6 The Commission's investigator then sent a 'letter to the Respondent advising him of the investigation and asking for information about Mr. Mitchell. A series of correspondence then transpired between the staff attorney for the Commission and the Respondent's attorney. On March 4, 2010, the Commission reviewed the case,5 but still had questions, and requested a sample of Mr. Mitchell's patient records.6 This request was relayed to the Respondent7 on March 9, 2010. From that point on, the Respondent engaged in a pattern of written objections and delay, to avoid providing patient records. As of June 2010, no records were provided. On July 16, 2010, after continual requests from the Commission, the Respondent submitted nine pages of almost completely redacted medical records from unknown patients.

5See Exhibit R-6.

6RCW 70.02.050(2)(a) requires a health care provider to provide requested medical records if requested by state health authorities when that information is needed to determine compliance with state licensure rules or when needed to protect public health. See also, WAC 246-919-620. The Tribunal determines that the Commission's request to see patient records was appropriate and necessary.

7Actually, the request was relayed to the Respondent's attorney, since the Respondent always handled all communication with the! Commission through his attorneys, See Exhibit R-6 and the testimony of the Respondent at hearing.

1.7 On August 30, 2010, the Commission's investigator sent a letter to the Respondent requesting 30 complete, unredacted and unaltered, patient records. The Respondent resisted these requests over the next two years in multiple emails and letters. Although the Respondent did turn over five patient records in April 2012, he never complied with the Commission's request for the 30 medical records despite multiple requests.

Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Person to Practice When License is Required:

1.8 As indicated, the Respondent is the Medical Director of the Tahoma Clinic in King County, Washington8, It is unclear how long the Respondent had known Mr. Mitchell prior to his employment. The Respondent testified that he had heard of Mitchell's work in Texas and first contacted him in 2006. However, Mr. Mitchell's webpage on the Clinic's website states that Mitchell attended a workshop that the Respondent gave in 1994, and "developed a lasting friendship with [the Respondent] as well as falling under his mentorship". In any event, Mr. Mitchell came to Washington and began working as a physician under the Respondent's supervision at the Clinic in September 2007, That same month he applied for licensure as a physician in Washington.

8The organizational structure of the Tahoma Clinic is unclear. The clinic's website refers to the clinic as "Dr. Wright's Tahoma Clinic" as if he owned it. See Exhibit D-3. The Respondent testified that the clinic is a limited liability corporation owned by a nurse who works at the clinic. However, he also testified that his attorney advised him to set the clinic up that way. Thus, it is unclear to the Tribunal who has actual legal ownership of the clinic, but it is clear that the Respondent has supervisory authority at the clinic. He testified that he personally reviewed and signed off on all the patient charts, His attorney's written representation to the Commission was that the Respondent supervised Mr. Mitchell daily, (Exhibit R-7) While the Respondent was evasive about who hired Mr. Mitchell, it was clear that Mr. Mitchell was hired because of the Respondent's sponsorship.

1.9 The Respondent, both in his testimony and in correspondence with the Commission in 2009, claimed that Mr. Mitchell was practicing lawfully at the Clinic under RCW 18.71.030(6). The Tribunal rejects this defense in total. RCW 18.71.030(6) allows a physician who is properly licensed in another state. (which Mr. Mitchell was not) and who is a resident of that other state (which Mr. Mitchell was not, since he lived in Washington for the 18 months that he worked at the Respondent's Clinic) to practice medicine in Washington if he does not "appoint a place of meeting patients or receiving calls within this state" (which Mr. Mitchell clearly was doing). Even if Mr. Mitchell had been licensed in Texas, RCW 18.81.030(6) simply did not allow him to see patients on a regular basis at a clinic.9 Given Mr. Mitchell's job at the Clinic, the only issue is whether he was licensed in Washington, which he was not. The Tribunal also rejects the Respondent's defense that he relied on his attorney's interpretations of the statute. The statute: is clear on its face and does not say what the Respondent claims. Even if the Respondent believed that Mr. Mitchell was licensed in Texas, he never called the Commission to inquire about the legality of employing an out-of-state physician.

9When questioned about Mr. Mitchell's patients, the Respondent claimed that no doctor in the clinic has individual patients. Rather, all patients are "patients of the clinic" who may request to be seen by an individual doctor. The Commission views this description as a distinction without a difference. Mr. Mitchell's webpage with his alleged biography appeared on the Clinic's website. Mr. Mitchell's webpage claimed he was an M.D., touted his skills, and provided a phone number for patients at the bottom of the webpage. That phone number was preceded by the phrase "Appointments can be made by calling" followed by the phone number. The top of Mr. Mitchell's webpage was labeled "Dr. Wright's Tahoma Clinic". A photograph of the Respondent appeared just to the left of the' photograph of Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell's biography. It was absolutely clear that Mr. Mitchell was using the Clinic as a place to meet patients and receive calls in Washington, all in violation of RCW 1 B. 71.030(6). It is also evident that the Respondent knew that Mr. Mitchell was not licensed in Washington. For example, Mr. Mitchell would write and sign prescriptions to the compounding pharmacy on the Respondent's prescription pad, and the Respondent would sign (or use a signature stamp) along side of Mr. Mitchell's signature to authorize the prescription. (See Department Exhibit 32, page 17.)

1.10 The Respondent testified that Mr. Mitchell told him he was licensed in Texas. The Respondent never called Texas or checked the Texas Medical Board's website (Exhibit D-29). If he had done so, he would have known in a matter of minutes that Mr. Mitchell was not a licensed physician.

1.11 The Respondent claims his actions are exonerated because the Commission never informed him that Mr. Mitchell was not licensed in Texas. But the Commission did not know it either. The parties stipulated that Mr. Mitchell applied to the Washington State Department of Health for a Washington license on September 14, 2007, and that the processing clerk who took the application determined at the inception that Mr. Mitchell was not licensed in Texas, but that she never told the Commission. It was not until April 2009, when the DOH investigator received the phone call described in Paragraph 1.4, that the investigator discovered that Mr. Mitchell was not licensed. The investigator then notified the Commission.

1.12 The Respondent claims the Clinic staff periodically checked on Mr. Mitchell's application status with the DOH and was only informed that the application was pending. While it is true that the original processing clerk, who took Mr. Mitchell's application and determined that his license had been revoked in Texas, did not call the Respondent, it is not clear that she knew that Mr. Mitchell was even working at the Respondent's Clinic. Nor was there any evidence that anyone from the Clinic ever spoke to her. The fact that there could be improvements in how applications are processed does not excuse the Respondent from allowing Mr. Mitchell to work for 18 months treating patients at his Clinic without having a Washington license. The status of Mr. Mitchell's Texas' license is irrelevant. Even if Mr. Mitchell had had a valid Texas .medical credential, he was prohibited from practicing medicine in Washington in the manner in which the Respondent allowed him to practice at his Clinic.

10It is not clear whether the Clinic staff only checked the DOH website or whether they called the licensing section in the DOH, (The written response from the Respondent only indicated that staff checked the licensing status every 60 days. See Exhibit D-10.) The Respondent never checked himself nor did he ever observe his staff check.

1.13 Credibility finding: The Respondent testified on his own behalf. The Commission did not find the Respondent to be a credible witness. Some of his explanations were not plausible.11 He engaged in evasion, blame-shifting and responsibility-avoiding.

11For example, the Respondent claimed no ownership interest in the Clinic, yet his attorney is the one who instructed him how to set up the Clinic as a limited liability corporation. He claimed his only financial interest was the income he derived from seeing his own patients, and that he does not receive a salary as Medical Director nor any income from supervising the other physicians at the Clinic, yet he spends a majority of his time engaged in that supervision, and in reviewing and Signing off on their medical charts, and signing off on prescriptions. As indicated previously, he claimed his first interaction with Roby Mitchell was in 2006, whereas Mr. Mitchell's webpage implies the relationship began years earlier.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2.1 The Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondent and subject of this proceeding. RCW 18.130.040 RCW.

2.2 The Washington Supreme Court has held the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against physicians is proof by clear and convincing evidence. Nguyen v. Department of Health, 144 Wn.2d 516, 534 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 904 (2002).

2.3 The Commission used its experience, competency, and specialized knowledge to evaluate the evidence. RCW 34.05.461(5).

2.4 The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated RCW 1B.130.1BO(B)(a), which defines unprofessional conduct as

Failure to cooperate with the disciplining authority by:

(a) Not furnishing any papers, documents, records or other items;

2.5 The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated RCW 18.130.180( 10), which defines unprofessional conduct as

Aiding or abetting an unlicensed person to practice when a license is required;

2.6 In closing, argument, counsel for the Respondent claimed that the Respondent was "set-up" by the Commission and requested that all charges be dismissed. The Department argued that the violations were clear and warranted sanctions,' including some period of suspension (to be determined by the Tribunal) followed by two-years probation, and a $10,000 fine. The Department also requested conditions including quarterly reports ensuring that the licensure of all staff at the Clinic has been verified, and the successful completion of an ethics course, or in the alternative to an ethics course, the completion 'of a paper describing the importance of licensure and describing what steps should be taken to verify employees' licenses,

2.7 In determining the appropriate sanctions, public safety must be considered before the rehabilitation of the Respondent. RCW 18.130.160. The unprofessional conduct in this case is not described in a sanctioning schedule in WAC 246-16, Thus the Tribunal used its judgment to determine sanctions. WAC 246-16-800(2)(d). The Tribunal considered the following aggravating factors when determining the sanction in this matter: the severity of the conduct; the lack of remorse; and the risk of patient harm.12 The Tribunal did not find any mitigating factors affecting sanctions.

12The Tribunal finds that the risk of patient harm from Mr. Mitchell was quite great. According to the Texas Medical Board's Physician Profile (Exhibit D-29), Mr. Mitchell's Texas credential was restricted in 2003, suspended in 2004 based on evidence that he presented a continuing threat to public welfare, and finally revoked in 2005. It appears that after leaving the Respondent's Clinic in 2009, Mr. Mitchell returned to Texas, opened up a new (unlicensed) practice as a cancer specialist. forcing the Texas Medical Board to obtain a Cease and Desist Order against him in 2011.

III. ORDER

3.1 The Respondent's license to practice as a physician in the state of Washington is SUSPENDED for 90 days, effective 30 days after the issuance of this Order.

3.2 Following suspension, the Respondent's license is placed on 30 months of PROBATION subject to the following terms and conditions:

  1. Within six months of beginning probation, the Respondent shall provide the Commission with proof of the written office policy regarding the verification of employee credentials;
  2. Within six months of beginning probation, the Respondent shall submit a paper to the Commission describing the importance of licensure and the elements of proper licensure;
  3. Within nine months of beginning probation, the Respondent shall pay a fine of $7,500. The fine shall be paid by certified or cashier's check or money order, made payable to the Department of Health and mailed to the Department of Health, Medical Quality Assurance Commission, at P.O, Box 1099, Olympia, Washington 98507-1099. Credit or Debit cards can also be used for payment at the front counter of the Department of Health building at 111 Israel Road SE, Tumwater, Washington 98501, during regular business hours; and
  4. During the term of probation, the Respondent must appear before the Commission on an annual basis and report whether any new physician or naturopath is working at the Clinic and 'describing what was done to verify their credential. The Respondent shall contact the Commission within six months of beginning probation to arrange the time and date of appearance.

3.3 The Respondent may not seek modification of the conditions or timeframe of this Order. At the end of the 30 months of probation, the Respondent may apply to have the probation lifted if he has complied with all the terms and conditions listed above. He must appear in person before the Commission in order to have the request for lifting of probation granted.

3.4 Change of Address. The Respondent shall inform the Commission and the Adjudicative Service Unit, in writing, of changes in his residential and/or business address within 30 days of such change.

3.5 Assume Compliance Costs. The Respondent shall assume all costs of complying with all requirements, terms, and conditions of this Order.

3.6 Failure to Comply. Protecting the public requires practice under the terms and conditions imposed in this Order. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Order may result in suspension and/or revocation of the Respondent's license after a show cause hearing. If the Respondent fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this Order, the Commission may hold a hearing. At that hearing, the Respondent must show cause why his license should not be suspended. Alternatively, the Commission may bring additional charges of unprofessional conduct under RCW 18.130.180(9) In either case, the Respondent will be given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the issue of non-compliance.

Dated this 15 day of May, 2013,

MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMISSION

________________________________
MICHAEL T. CONCANNON, J.D.
Panel Chair

CLERK'S SUMMARY

Charge Action
RCW 18.130.180(8)(a)  Violated
RCW 18.130.180 (10)  Violated

NOTICE TO PARTIES

This order is subject to the reporting requirements of RCW 18.130.110, Section 1128E of the Social Security Act, and any other applicable interstate or national reporting requirements. If discipline is taken, it must be reported to the Healthcare Integrity Protection Data Bank.

Either party may file a petition for reconsideration. RCW 34.05.461(3); 34.05.470. The petition must be filed within ten days of service of this order with:

Adjudicative Service.
Unit P.O. Box 47879
Olympia, WA 98504-7879

and a copy must be sent to:

Department of Health Medical Program
P.O. Box 47866
Olympia, WA 98504-7866

The petition must state the specific grounds for reconsideration and what relief is requested. WAC 246-11-580, The petition is denied if the Commission does not respond in writing within 20 days of the filing of the petition.

A petition for judicial review must be filed and served within 30 days after service of this order. ' RCW 34.05.542. The procedures are identified in Chapter 34.05 RCW, Part V, Judicial Review and Civil' Enforcement. A petition for reconsideration is not required before seeking, judicial review. If a petition for reconsideration is filed, the above 30-day period does not start until the petition is resolved. RCW 34.05.470(3).

The order is in effect while a petition for reconsideration or review is filed. "Filing" means actual receipt of the document by the Adjudicative Service Unit. RCW 34.05.010(6). This order is "served" the day it is deposited in the United States mail. RCW 34.05.010(19).

For more information, visit our website at:
http://www.doh.wa.gov//PubliicHealthandHealthcareProviders/HealthcareProfessionsandFacilities/Hearings.aspx

This page was revised on February 19, 2015.

Links to Recommended Companies