Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Health Law Blogs -> Healthcare Law Blog

Health Law

: Healthcare Law Blog

LITERALISM RULES IN RESPONDING TO MEDICAL BOARD QUESTIONAIRE.

By Greg Piche'

Dr. Savitra Bhama, a psychiatrist born in the former West Pakistan in 1934 has a license to practice medicine in Michigan and Kentucky. She applied for a license to practice in the State of Ohio. In the questionnaire that the State Medical Board of Ohio required to be submitted along with her application she was asked whether she had ever been terminated or resigned from a position she held or was ever asked to resign. She answered ?no? to the question after interpreting the question in the context of her perception of the interests of the board to mean termination or resignation related to the actions related to patient care. The literal answer to the question was ?yes.? Dr. Bhama argued that she had no intent to deceive the board and cited as evidence the fact that she disclosed her complete employment history and given the number of positions the board would have known that she terminated or was terminated from several positions. The Ohio board determined that her answer constituted a false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading statement? in order to secure a license and denied her application.

Complicating Dr. Bhama?s appeal was the fact that she appears to be a bit of a gadfly.
She was unemployed for 5 years following termination when she refused to return to work because of an alleged extended illness. She was reinstated at the end, but without pay. She was also terminated by another employer in Michigan after a dispute with an administrator over the decision making process related to patient care.  Dr. Bhama conceded that the board had an interest in knowing those things, but she assumed that they would be contacting her for employers to learn that information. In Bhama v. State Medical Board of Ohio, Ohio Ct. App., No. 08AP-488, 2/24/09) the Ohio Court of Appeals, 10th Appellate District held last month that the Board?s determination that Dr. Bhama intended to deceive them was supported by the evidence.

The Court held that Dr. Bhama had no right to take it upon herself to interpret the
Ohio Board?s intent or purpose behind the questionnaire when the question was straight foreword on its face. If she had any doubts about the scope of the request she should have answered the question literally and provided a written explanation. It is not unusual for medical board questionnaires to be somewhat ambiguous or to be subject to some level of subjective interpretation.  It is always safer to err on the side of caution and full disclosure. If a physician is unsure as to the interpretation of a question he or she should answer it both ways.   The hassle beats being in the data bank for being denied a license for intentionally misleading the licensing board.

Full post as published by Healthcare Law Blog on March 11, 2009 (boomark / email).