Hartman v. State Medical Board of Ohio

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas’ judgment upholding the permanent revocation of David M. Hartman, M.D.’s medical license by the State Medical Board of Ohio. The court rejected Hartman’s challenges concerning the administrative standard of review, expert testimony, due process, evidentiary rulings, findings of sexual misconduct, and the alleged vagueness of Ohio Administrative Code 4731-25-05.

Holdings

1. The common pleas court applied the correct standard because it considered both whether the Board's order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and whether it was in accordance with law.
2. The appellate court generally reviews the common pleas court's administrative-review decision for abuse of discretion, but reviews purely legal questions de novo.
3. The Board did not improperly create a new disciplinary charge by considering evidence of Hartman's training and qualifications when evaluating the appropriate sanction.
4. Hartman failed to preserve most of his evidentiary objections, and the challenged rulings did not constitute an abuse of discretion or a violation of law.
5. Hartman did not establish that the Board's proceedings denied him due process or that cumulative error required reversal.
6. The finding that Hartman committed sexual misconduct involving Patient 13 was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
7. Ohio Adm.Code 4731-25-05(F) is not unconstitutionally vague.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the common pleas court applied the correct standard of review under R.C. 119.12.
2. Whether the Board improperly considered testimony concerning Hartman's training and qualifications as an uncharged basis for discipline or as an aggravating circumstance.
3. Whether the hearing examiner improperly limited Hartman's presentation of confidential investigatory materials and testimony concerning Board subpoenas.
4. Whether the admission of expert testimony and social-media videos violated applicable rules or due process.
5. Whether the cumulative effect of the Board's evidentiary and procedural rulings denied Hartman a fair hearing.
6. Whether the finding of sexual misconduct involving Patient 13 was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
7. Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4731-25-05(F), governing focused, local, small liposuction performed as part of another procedure, was unconstitutionally vague.

Disposition

affirmed