Burdge v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
| Decision Date | 27 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 23360,23360 |
| Citation | 304 S.C. 42,403 S.E.2d 114 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | David C. BURDGE, M.D., Respondent, v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Appellant. . Heard |
Larkin Mims, Anderson, for respondent.
This appeal involves allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. Burdge, a physician licensed to practice in South Carolina. The Board of Medical Examiners found Burdge guilty of misconduct and imposed sanctions. The circuit court reversed on the grounds that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
This action was initiated against Dr. Burdge alleging that he was guilty of professional misconduct in two matters. Specifically, the Complaint filed alleges the commission of the acts set forth below.
Dr. Burdge delivered Ms. McMakin's baby on September 14, 1987. The Complaint alleged that Dr. Burdge's treatment did not reflect a level of competent medical care of Ms. McMakin's labor and delivery using high or mid forceps and that Burdge failed to comply with established protocol for such deliveries in the Greenville Hospital System.
Dr. Burdge lost his hospital privileges for obstetrical procedures during the period of time when he was providing obstetrical services to Ms. Couch. The Complaint alleged that Burdge failed to tell Ms. Couch that he would be unable to deliver her baby. He told her he might not be able to deliver the baby because he had to visit his sick mother in Hawaii.
The Complaint stated that these actions violated § 40-47-200(7), (8) and (12) and Reg. 81-60(A), (D), (F) and (H). Section 40-47-200 provides in pertinent part:
"Misconduct" which constitutes grounds for revocation, suspension, or other restriction of a license or limitation on or other discipline of a licensee is a satisfactory showing to the board of any of the following:
....
(7) That the holder of a license has violated the principles of ethics as adopted by the State Board of Medical Examiners and published in its regulations.
(8) That the holder of a license is guilty of engaging in any dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct that is likely to deceive, defraud, or harm the public.
....
(12) That the holder of a license is guilty of violating the code of medical ethics adopted by the board in accordance with § 40-47-20 or has been found by the board to lack the ethical or professional competence to practice medicine or osteopathy.
Regulation 81-60(A), (D), (F) and (H) states:
81-60. Principles of Medical Ethics.
A. The principal objective of the medical profession is to render service to humanity with full respect for the dignity ....
of man. Physicians should merit the confidence of patients entrusted to their care, rendering to each a full measure of service and devotion
D. The medical profession should safeguard the public and itself against physicians deficient in moral character or professional competence. Physicians should observe all laws, uphold the dignity and honor of the profession and accept its self-imposed disciplines. They should expose, without hesitation, illegal or unethical conduct of fellow members of the profession.
....
F. A physician should not dispose of his services under terms or conditions which tend to interfere with or impair the free and complete exercise of his medical judgment and skill or tend to cause a deterioration of the quality of medical care.
....
H. A physician should seek consultation upon request in doubtful or difficult cases or whenever it appears that the quality of medical service may be enhanced thereby.
After a hearing, the Board found that Burdge was guilty of misconduct because (1) the McMakin case involved a mid forceps delivery when Burdge was restricted by the hospital protocol to only doing low forceps deliveries; (2) Burdge falsely represented in his medical notes that the delivery was a low forceps delivery; and (3) Burdge failed to inform his patients that his obstetrical privileges had been revoked. The Board found that this conduct violated Section 40-47-200(7) and (12) and Regulations 81-60(A), (D), (F) and (H). The Board imposed the following sanction: Dr. Burdge's license to practice medicine was indefinitely suspended with the provision that after service of a thirty (30) day suspension, the license would be reinstated on a probationary status for an indefinite period upon the compliance with certain conditions of probation.
The circuit court reversed on the grounds that the substantial evidence in the record did not support the decision and that Burdge had not been given adequate notice of the charges against him. The Board appeals.
The Board contends that substantial evidence was presented to support its decision and therefore the circuit court erred in reversing the decision.
Section 1-23-380 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an agency's findings of facts may be reversed or modified only if it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the record. That section also provides that the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...Petitioner, however, that the Board improperly found him guilty of misconduct not alleged in the Complaint. Burdge v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 403 S.E.2d 114 (S.C. 1991). Accordingly, the matter is remanded for the Board to reconsider the sanction, disregarding the findings concernin......
-
Huber v. South Carolina State Bd. of Physical Therapy Examiners, 24113
...him of improper documentation of other patients' records constitutes a denial of procedural due process. Burdge v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 304 S.C. 42, 403 S.E.2d 114 (1991). Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge's holding on this issue and remand this matter to the Board to recons......