Oltman v. Board of Physicians
Decision Date | 02 June 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 97,97 |
Parties | Carl F. OLTMAN, Sr. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF PHYSICIANS. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
William M. Ferris, Annapolis, for Appellant.
Thomas W. Keech (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellee.
Panel: DAVIS, HOLLANDER and DEBORAH S. EYLER, JJ.
Carl F. Oltman, Sr., appellant, challenges a determination by the Board of Physicians (the "Board"), appellee, revoking Oltman's physician assistant certificate.1 The revocation followed appellant's plea of guilty in federal court to "forging or altering a prescription." Appellant's conduct enabled him to obtain prescriptions of Ritalin for his son, knowing that his son was no longer covered under appellant's medical insurance. Oltman sought review of the Board's decision in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which affirmed.
On appeal, Oltman presents three questions for our review, which require us to consider the Maryland Medical Practice Act, Title 14 of the Health Occupations Article of the Maryland Code, and the Maryland Physician Assistants Act, found in Title 15 of the Health Occupations Article. He asks:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm.
Before reviewing the facts, it is important to understand the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions. In Maryland, physicians are governed by Title 14 of the Health Occupations Article ("H.O.") of the Maryland Code (2000 Repl. Vol.), while physician assistants are governed by Title 15 of the Health Occupations Article. In addition, applicable regulations are found in the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR"). The State Government Article ("S.G.") of the Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2003 Supp.) is also pertinent.
H.O. § 15-314 provides:
H.O. § 15-315(a) is also relevant. It provides, in part:
S.G. § 10-226(c) provides:
As we have seen, H.O. § 15-314 expressly refers to H.O. § 14-404. Title 14 of the Health Occupations Article is captioned "Physicians." H.O. § 14-404(b) provides:
"Moral turpitude" is defined in COMAR 10.32.02.02(B)(19) as "conduct evidencing moral baseness of the respondent as determined on a case-by-case basis under common law." COMAR 10.32.01.01, which pertains to physicians, states: "These regulations govern how an individual becomes licensed in Maryland to practice medicine." Moreover, COMAR 10.32.02.01 states: "These regulations govern procedures for disciplinary and licensing matters before the Board of Physicians." Chapter 01 is titled "General Licensure Regulations," while Chapter 02 is titled "Hearings Before the Board of Physicians."
Appellant enlisted in the United States Navy in November of 1969, from which he retired on March 1, 1995. In 1976, appellant became a physician assistant; he has been certified to practice in Maryland since 1991. From 1996 through 1998, Oltman worked under contract as a civilian physician assistant at the Naval Academy in Annapolis and at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.
As a Navy retiree, appellant received free medical care and prescriptions for himself, his wife, and his children, until the children reached the age of twenty-one, or twenty-three if enrolled in college. Appellant's son, Carl Oltman, Jr. ("Junior"), turned twenty-one years of age on May 3, 1996, and did not attend college. Therefore, as of May 3, 1996, Junior became ineligible for health benefits under appellant's Navy medical coverage.
Junior has Attention Deficient Hyperactive Disorder ("ADHD"), for which he was prescribed Ritalin, a controlled substance, or its generic equivalent. After Junior reached the age of twenty-one, appellant continued to obtain Ritalin for his son through the Navy, even though Junior was no longer eligible for prescription benefits through appellant's medical coverage. Appellant's conduct in obtaining medication for his son, knowing his son was ineligible for such medical benefits, led to appellant's prosecution in federal court.
In June 1999, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland filed an Information against appellant, alleging that, "by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and subterfuge," appellant "knowingly and intentionally" "forged and altered prescriptions and written orders for prescriptions for Methylphenadite; and concealed facts in order to obtain prescriptions for Methylphenadite," in violation of Md. Ann. Code , Art. 27, § 300 ,3 and the Assimilated Crimes Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2000).
The Information was filed pursuant to a plea agreement between appellant and the United States, detailed in a letter dated April 26, 1999, written by Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, and signed by appellant and his lawyer on May 28, 1999. The letter set forth the following statement of facts:
On July 15, 1999, appellant formally tendered a guilty plea in federal court to the charge of violating Title 18, §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Para v. 1691 Ltd. P'ship
...and applications of statutory regulatory provisions” that are administeredby the agency); Oltman v. Md. State Bd. of Physicians, 162 Md.App. 457, 482, 875 A.2d 200 (2005). “ ‘[I]t is the final order of the administrative agency that is subject to deferential judicial review.’ ” Carriage Hil......
-
Burke v. Md. Bd. of Physicians
...at common law, referred to "infamous crimes, that precluded their perpetrators from testifying."4 Oltman v. Md. State Bd. of Physicians , 162 Md. App. 457, 484, 875 A.2d 200 (2005) (citing Stidwell , 144 Md. App. at 616, 799 A.2d 444 ). While Maryland has abrogated the statute disqualifying......
-
Board of Physicians v. Elliott
...1217 (2000); Gabaldoni v. Board of Physician Quality Assurance, 141 Md.App. 259, 785 A.2d 771 (2001); Oltman v. Maryland State Board of Physicians, 162 Md.App. 457, 875 A.2d 200 (2005); State Board of Physicians v. Bernstein, 167 Md.App. 714, 894 A.2d 621 (2006). Under the APA, the decision......
-
Neutron v. Dept. of Environment
...and applications of statutory or regulatory provisions" that are administered by the agency); Oltman v. Md. State Bd. of Physicians, 162 Md.App. 457, 482, 875 A.2d 200 (2005). On judicial review, "`it is the final order of the administrative agency that is subject to deferential judicial re......