Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00025 September Term, 2007

CARL F. OLTMAN, SR. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF PHYSICIANS

Salmon, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr., (Retired, Specially Assigned) *Adkins, Sally D., JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

Filed: October 1, 2008

*Adkins, Sally D., J., now serving on the Court of Appeals, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; she participated in the adoption of this opinion as a specially assigned member of this Court.

In 2003, the Maryland State Board of Physicians (the "Board"), appellee, revoked the physician assistant ("PA") certificate of Carl F. Oltman, Sr., appellant, for committing a crime of moral turpitude. Oltman was convicted of federal misdemeanor charges stemming from his forgery of Ritalin prescriptions and his fraudulent filling of those prescriptions for an adult son who was no longer a covered dependent under Oltman's military medical plan. In Oltman v. Md. State Bd. of Physicians, 162 Md. App. 457, 487-88, cert. denied, 389 Md. 125 (2005)(Oltman I), this Court held that Oltman's convictions qualified as crimes of moral turpitude within the meaning of Md. Code (1981, 2005 Repl. Vol., 2007 Cum. Supp.), sections 14-404(b) and 15-314 of the Health Occupations Article (HO), because fraud was an essential element of both crimes and Oltman signed a plea agreement explicitly acknowledging that he obtained the prescriptions "by fraud." This appeal arises from Oltman's petition for reinstatement two years after revocation. The Board denied reinstatement and ordered that Oltman may not re-apply for three years. Oltman petitioned for judicial review of that decision, complaining that his request was not considered by the full Board or an administrative law judge, and that it is premised upon a finding that Oltman lied to the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine, but he was never allowed a contested hearing on that allegation.1 The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County granted the Board's motion to dismiss Oltman's petition for judicial review, on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction Given our decision regarding jurisdiction and standing, we do not review the merits of these findings.
1
1

to review a reinstatement decision by the Board. Oltman noted this timely appeal, raising the following issues: I. Does a circuit court have statutory jurisdiction to entertain a petition for judicial review of a Board decision to deny reinstatement of a PA certificate? Did the Board have standing to file a motion to dismiss Oltman's petition for judicial review, [even though] the Board failed to file a response to the petition in accordance with Md. Rule 7-204?

II.

Answering "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second, we will affirm the judgment. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Oltman, a retired naval officer, was employed as a PA under contract with the United States Navy. In that capacity, he used a Navy physician's computer to forge prescriptions for his son's medication, even though he knew that his son's age made him ineligible for Navy physicians' services. Oltman then filled the forged prescriptions for free at a Navy pharmacy, even though he knew that his son also was not eligible for such prescription benefits. In addition, Oltman obtained prescriptions from Navy physicians on several occasions from 1997 through 1998, without a physical examination and without notifying the doctors of his son's ineligibility. The Navy pursued misdemeanor criminal charges against Oltman. He pleaded guilty and was convicted in federal court of obtaining the prescriptions fraudulently. The Navy terminated Oltman, revoked his military PA privileges, and reported the crimes to the Board.
2

After a contested case hearing, the Board revoked Oltman's PA certificate in 2003. This Court affirmed that decision in Oltman I, 162 Md. App. at 488. In May 2005, Oltman petitioned the Board for reinstatement. Pursuant to its standard procedures for reinstatement petitions, the Board obtained Oltman's written answers to its written questions, and a reinstatement panel of the Board subsequently met with Oltman and counsel. The panel considered the request in light of Oltman's criminal and disciplinary history. In particular, the panel reviewed time sheets from the Prison Health Services showing that Oltman had continued his PA practice for 42 days after the August 11, 2003 revocation, despite the Board's instruction to immediately cease practice and return his PA certificate. Furthermore, the reinstatement panel also considered the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine's 2005 denial of Oltman's application to practice as a PA in that State. The Pennsylvania decision reflected that, in the administrative hearing on his Pennsylvania application, Oltman contradicted his prior admissions in the Maryland revocation hearing, by claiming that he "was not aware that his son was no longer eligible for dependent benefits" at the time he obtained the prescriptions. The reinstatement panel determined that Oltman did not establish grounds for reinstatement, because his conduct after the 2003 revocation demonstrated continuing lack of honesty, integrity, and remorse, as well as a failure to understand "the Board's serious view of his crimes" or to accept "responsibility for his actions." In a Final Order, the Board denied reinstatement and stated that it would not entertain another reinstatement application

3

from Oltman for three years. Oltman petitioned for judicial review of the Board's decision in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, citing as jurisdictional grounds "Maryland Rule 7-202." The Board moved to dismiss Oltman's petition, arguing that Rule 7-202 does not confer jurisdiction to review an administrative agency's decision, and that none of the regulatory statutes governing PAs authorizes judicial review of a decision denying reinstatement. After a hearing, the court agreed with the Board and dismissed Oltman's petition. Oltman noted this timely appeal. DISCUSSION I. No Statutory Jurisdiction Authorizing Judicial Review Of Reinstatement Decision Title 15 of the Health Occupations Article governs physician assistants. Section 15314 authorizes revocation of a PA certificate, providing in pertinent part: Subject to the hearing provisions of

Download Oltman v. Board of Physicians.pdf

Maryland Law