Morrill v. Md. Bd. of Physicians

Decision Date20 December 2019
Docket NumberNo. 1597, Sept. Term, 2016,1597, Sept. Term, 2016
Parties Ann C. MORRILL v. The MARYLAND BOARD OF PHYSICIANS
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by: Ilona Mclintick, Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by: Stacey M. Darin (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: Graeff, Reed, Friedman, JJ.

Reed, J. The Maryland Board of Physicians ("the Board") conducted an investigation into Dr. Ann C. Morrill's ("Dr. Morrill") prescribing habits following a complaint alleging she overprescribed opioid pain medications to a patient, even after being informed of the patient's misuse of the drug. Subsequent to a preliminary investigation, the Board subpoenaed Dr. Morrill's medical records for nine additional patients.

On July 7, 2016, Dr. Morrill filed a motion for protective order and/or motion to quash the subpoena. On September 12, 2016, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied Dr. Morrill's motions. On October 8, 2016, Dr. Morrill filed a motion to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal, which was denied. Finally, on October 30, 2016, Dr. Morrill filed a motion to reconsider, which was also denied. On October 11, 2016, the Board filed a motion to compel the requested medical records from nine of Dr. Morrill's patients. The circuit court granted the Board's motion on December 27, 2016.

Dr. Morrill now brings this timely appeal from the circuit court's decision to deny her motion for protective order and/or motion to quash the subpoena on September 12, 2016. Dr. Morrill presents one question for our review, which we have rephrased for clarity:

I. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion where it denied Dr. Morrill's motion for protective order and/or motion to quash the June 28, 2016, subpoena issued by the Board?

For the following reasons, we answer Dr. Morrill's question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2016, Dr. Morrill received a letter from the Maryland Board of Physicians ("the Board") informing her that a complaint had been filed against her. The complaint, filed by the mother of a previous patient, alleged that Dr. Morrill, "continue[d] to prescribe [opioid pain] medications for [her] daughter despite sending [Dr. Morrill] letters...to tell [Dr. Morrill] that [her daughter] abuses them." The complaint alleged that the patient had two DUIs and was jailed, had her child taken away from her care, and continues to be hooked on opioid pain medication. Finally, the complainant alleges "[she knows] of others that Dr. Morrill has done this to, especially young women that work for her." However, the complaint never lists the name of these young women or the "other's [sic]." Attached to the complaint was a subpoena for the complainant's daughter's medical records as well as Dr. Morrill's personnel file. Dr. Morrill produced the documents on May 26, 2016.

Based on a preliminary investigation, it was determined by the Board that further investigation was needed. As such, the Board opened a full investigation into the allegations asserted in the complaint. On June 28, 2016, the Board sent another letter to Dr. Morrill informing her of the full investigation and requesting the complete medical records of nine patients. The subpoena, attached to the letter, required Dr. Morrill to deliver the documents to the Board within fifteen days of the date on the subpoena.1 On July 1, 2016, Dr. Morrill's counsel sent an email to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's ("the Department") Executive Director stating:

Unless you can explain to me how the records of these nine patients will aid your investigation into whether and how my client got the patient in question ‘hooked’ on narcotics, I will move to quash this subpoena as none of these patient records could possibly be relevant to your inquiry.

Unsatisfied with the Department's response, Dr. Morrill filed a motion for protective order and/or motion to quash subpoena on July 7, 2016. Dr. Morrill argued, among many things, that the request was unduly burdensome, too expensive to comply with, and was irrelevant to the Board's investigation.

Dr. Morrill's motion was denied on September 12, 2016. The court stated, "[u]nder the circumstances of this case, the court has no authority to interfere with the investigation by the Board of Physicians' subpoena it has issued for the medical records of Dr. Morrill." On September 28, 2016, Dr. Morrill filed a notice of appeal with this Court, appealing the circuit court's order.

Shortly after the notice of appeal was filed, the Board filed a Motion to Compel on October 11, 2016, requiring Dr. Morrill to comply with the subpoena and submit the records. Dr. Morrill filed an opposition to the motion and subsequently filed a motion to stay the enforcement of the order pending appeal. On November 22, 2016, that motion was denied and on December 27, 2016, the Board's motion to compel was granted.

On January 3, 2017, the Board received the records requested in the June 28, 2016 subpoena. This appeal follows the September 12, 2016 order.

DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Dismiss

Prior to discussing the merits of Dr. Morrill's appeal, we must first discuss the Board's motion to dismiss. In its motion, the Board asserted that Dr. Morrill's appeal is moot because, following the denial of Dr. Morrill's motion to quash, Dr. Morrill produced the records. A case is moot if "at the time it is before the court, there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer an effective remedy the court can provide." Attorney Gen. v. A.A. Co. School Bus, 286 Md. 324, 327, 407 A.2d 749 (1979). We agree that there exists a controversy; however, we are unconvinced that there exists an adequate remedy that would satisfy Dr. Morrill.

Regardless, we will continue with analysis concerning the nature of her claims. See A.A. Co. School Bus , 286 Md. at 329, 407 A.2d 749. ("[A] court may decide a moot question where there is an imperative and manifest urgency to establish a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern, which may frequently recur, and which, because of inherent time constraints, may not be able to be afforded complete appellate review.") (internal citations omitted). As the opioid epidemic has become a matter of public concern, especially in Maryland, this Court feels it necessary to address Dr. Morrill's claims in light of future litigation that may arise. As such, the motion to dismiss is denied.

B. Parties' Contentions

Dr. Morrill contends that the June 28, 2016, subpoena was not authorized by MD. CODE ANN., HEALTH OCC. § 14-401.1. She first argues that the Board's authority, in requesting the nine additional patient charts, is limited to "collecting the ‘information necessary’ to determine ‘whether there is reasonable cause to charge [Dr. Morrill]... with a violation of the Medical Practice Act...because she allegedly over-prescribed [sic] CDS to the complainant's daughter." She believes the Board acted outside of its authority because its request was specifically targeted at her as a "wholesale fishing expedition into [her] filing cabinets." Second, she argues that the nine patient charts and records are irrelevant to the initial complaint. She disagrees with the Board that the charts were needed to investigate other abuses or to get a sufficient sample size. Third, she contends that the subpoena was too indefinite and overbroad because the cost of producing the records was too high. Finally, she asserts that the circuit court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining the validity of a subpoena issued by an administrative agency. She alleges that the standard that should have been used was enumerated in Banach v. State of Md. Comm'n on Human Relations , 277 Md. 502, 507, 356 A.2d 242 (1976). As such, she believes that, had the court applied the standard in Banach , the subpoena would have been denied.

In its brief, the Board argues that it was authorized to investigate any alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act through its subpoena power, and the scope of the subpoena itself has no bearing on whether the subpoena was authorized by statute. Second, it asserts that the randomly selected patient records were necessary for the Board to determine whether the allegations in the complaint were isolated or indicative of a pattern. Third, it maintains the subpoena was neither overbroad nor indefinite because the Board eventually agreed to share the costs of the production of the patient records. Moreover, it argues that the entirety of the records were necessary because it reflects a "complete picture of the care provided to the patients and...provide[s] the information necessary for the Board to evaluate whether Dr. Morrill's prescribing practices complied with the standard of care." Finally, the Board asserts that there is no merit to Dr. Morrill's argument that the circuit court applied the incorrect legal standard. We agree.

C. Standard of Review

We review a circuit court's order denying a Motion to Quash under the abuse of discretion standard. See Unnamed Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Comm'n , 409 Md. 509, 520, 976 A.2d 267 (2009) ("...[W]e ordinarily review a court's order denying a motion under an abuse of discretion standard."). A trial court abuses its discretion only if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court in denying the Motion to Quash. See Jones v. Rosenberg , 178 Md. App. 54, 56, 940 A.2d 1109 (2008). An abuse of discretion may be found when the court acts "without reference to any guiding rules or principles." Bord v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et. al., 220 Md. App. 529, 566, 104 A.3d 948 (2014). Moreover, a trial court can abuse its discretion where the ruling is "clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court, or where the ruling is violative of fact and logic." In re...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT