Preview:

Headnote: No. 1838, September Term 1995 Young v. Board of Physician Quality Assurance

ADMINISTRATIVE sanctions

LAW a

-

Statutes licensed

authorizing professional

the

imposition be

of

against

should

strictly

construed against the disciplining agency.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1838 September Term, 1995 ______________________________________

HENRY A. YOUNG

v.

BOARD OF PHYSICIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE

______________________________________ Wenner, Cathell, Alpert, Paul E. (Retired, specially assigned) JJ. ______________________________________

Opinion by Wenner, J. ______________________________________

Filed: October 31, 1996

Henry A. Young (Young) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirming the decision of the Board of Physician Quality Assurance (the Board)1 to revoke Young's license to practice medicine in Maryland. On appeal, Young has presented

us with three questions, which we have rephrased slightly for clarity: (1) whether the Board's decision to suspend Young's license was based on a peer review process which violated mandatory agency regulations; whether the trial court erred by refusing to review the entire record when determining whether the Board had sustained its burden of proof; and whether the decision of the Board established that Young failed to practice within the standard of care.

(2)

(3)

We shall respond in the affirmative to Young's first question, and reverse the judgment of the circuit court. FACTS Young is a neurosurgeon who has been licensed to practice medicine in Maryland since 1986. In November of 1990, the Board The patient

received a complaint from one of Young's patients.

complained of Young having evaluated her without an appropriate neurological examination. In response to the patient's complaint,

The Board is the state regulatory agency charged with licensing and disciplining Maryland physicians. Maryland Medical Practice Act, Title 14 of the Md. Code Ann., H.O.

1

- 2 the Board selected for review twenty of Young's surgeries at Franklin Square Hospital.2 On 17 July 1992, the Board referred the Young complaint to the Medical & Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland (Med-Chi), which referred it to the Maryland Neurological Society Peer Review Committee (the Committee). The Committee spent four hours at a dinner meeting

discussing the selected surgeries and reviewing the patients' files and other materials amassed for evaluation. Rather than individually reviewing each of them, one of the files was assigned to each of the members, with each member presenting a review of the patient's file assigned to that member. During the presentation, pertinent material was circulated among the other members of the Committee. After each presentation, the

full Committee discussed that patient's file until coming to a consensus as to whether Young had breached the standard of medical and surgical care with respect to that patient. Only 14 of the 20 files were reviewed at the meeting, with the Committee finding Young had breached the standard of care in nine of them. The Committee issued a report on 4 September 1992,

finding Young to have breached the appropriate standard of care by performing unnecessary neurosurgery. Based on these findings,

The Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland defines a practice review as "a form of peer review that evaluates a physician's overall performance to determine whether he/she is delivering an appropriate standard of medical care."

2

- 3 Young was charged with violating H.O.

Download Young v. Board of Physicians.pdf

Maryland Law