Applicant for licensure fails to disclose 5 resignations & 2 terminations.

UNFORTUNATELY, MANY PHYSICIANS ARE GIVEN ULTIMATUMS TO RESIGN OR HAVE THEIR PRIVILEGES REVOKED. More often than not, such physicians submit their voluntary resignations. They then seek priviliges and/or positions at other facilities either within or without the same state. Obviously, if they cannot secure a position within the state, they have little choice but to apply for licensure in other states. Often, such applicants for licensure in other states are not eager to disclose that they "resigned" from one or more positions in other states, fearing that this will raise a red flag and trigger further inquiry into their background, which might result in the denial of their applications for licensure. In this unusual Ohio case a physician had a history of resignations and/or terminations dating back to the 1960s. Instead of making a disclosure of the resignations and/or terminations, the physician failed to disclose them on her application to practice would be denied.

BY LETTER DATED MARCH 14, 2007, THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD OF OHIO NOTIFIED DR. SAVITRI BHAMA THAT IT PROPOSED TO DENY HER APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN OHIO. The board's proposed action was based upon the allegation that Dr. Bhama failed to truthfully answer the application question related to resignations and terminations from private or public medical practices. In particular, the board alleged that the doctor failed to disclose that she had resigned from five positions and had been terminated from two positions during the course of her medical career. The board asserted that the doctor's "acts, conduct and/or omissions" constituted, in pertinent part, "[m]aking a false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading statement ... in securing or attempting to secure any certificate to practice" in violation of law. Dr. Bhama requested an administrative hearing. The matter came before a board-appointed hearing examiner on September 4, 2007. In a report and recommendation filed September 28, 2007, the hearing examiner recommended permanent denial of the doctor's application for licensure. Dr. Bhama filed objections. The board convened to consider the matter. Following discussion, the board, on November 14, 2007, entered an order adopting the hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thus, permanently denying her application for licensure. She appealed the board's order to the Common Pleas Court. That court affirmed the board. Dr. Bhama appealed.

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, AFTER OVERRULING DR. BHAMA'S TWO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT DENYING DR. BHAMA'S APPLICATION TO PRACTICE IN OHIO. The court held, inter alia, that reliable, probative and substantial evidence supported the board's finding that the doctor provided false information on her application with the intent to deceive or mislead when she completely failed to disclose to the board, when required to do so that she had resigned from five positions and had been terminated from two positions during her medical career. Accordingly, the court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the board's determination that the doctor violated Ohio law.

SHOULD MEDICAL LICENSING BOARDS BE WARY OF APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FROM APPLICANTS WHO HAVE HELD MANY POSITIONS IN MANY FACILITIES AND/OR HAVE SOUGHT AND/OR OBTAINED LICENSURE IN MANY STATES? Certainly, many of the most competent and prestigious physicians in the country could fall into that category. However, they are not the ones who would normally fall into the category of those who should be denied licensure. Nevertheless, it is well known that often physicians who resign, often do so under the admonition that either they6 resign or their privileges will be terminated. Too many resilgnations, so-called are the result of such ultimatums. However we must keep in mind that in many instances a very highly qlualiand cometent plohysicians are victims of personality clashes, facilitility internal politics or any number of reasons having nothing to do with physicians' qualifications. Outright terminations may or may not be the result of some of the same reasons for resignations. We all know that the National Practictioner Data Bank (NPDB) is supposed to have information. However, we all know that it does not necessarily contain all of the information which it should. Ironically, in this case the doctor in question had been in practice for an extensive period of time, since her "track record" went back to the 1960s. Obviously, this date as well as others was long before the creation of the NPDB. It appears that the board acted with due diligence in denying the application of the doctor involved. Fortunately, the courts agreed with the decision of the board. Bhama v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2009 Ohio-819 (2/24/2009) -OH