repo r t subject: license › documents › artdocs › 00003686728673-0928.pdfors, 677.188(b), and...

Kate Brown, Governor

October 23, 2020

Holly BartholomewWest Linn Tidings

Sent via email: [email protected]

REPORT NAME: LICENSE VERIFICATIONREPORT SUBJECT: David Brian Farley, MDLICENSE #: MD16003

The Oregon Medical Board is responding to your inquiry regarding verification of licensure for theabove-referenced Licensee. Enclosed is a License Verification Report for this Licensee.

There are public Board orders on file for this Licensee. Copies of the following Board Orders are alsoenclosed:

n Interim Stipulated Order; Dated 08/06/2020n Complaint and Notice; Dated 09/03/2020n Stipulated Order; Dated 10/02/2020

If you have any questions regarding this License Verification Report, please contact the Board at (971)673-2700, or toll free in Oregon at (877) 254-6263.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth RossLegislative and Policy Analyst

Enclosures

http://prod.techmed.local/DataTier/Documents/Repository/0/0/6/7/c61ec288-443e-488b-8ef0-7bcc5aed3622.pdfhttp://prod.techmed.local/DataTier/Documents/Repository/0/0/6/1/72ca4f08-954c-4791-a3da-a66c70df6927.pdfhttp://prod.techmed.local/DataTier/Documents/Repository/0/0/7/0/ea40e7ec-a101-45cf-ade6-66c6fc4df7a1.pdf

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Page

BEFORE THE

OREGON MEDICAL BOARD

STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of ))

DAVID BRIAN FARLEY, MD ) STIPULATED ORDERLICENSE NO. MD16003 )

)

L

The Oregon Medical Board (Board) is the state agency responsible for licensing,

regulating and disciplining certain health care providers, including physicians, in the State of

Oregon. David Brian Farley, MD (Licensee) is a licensed physician in the State of Oregon.

- 2. , .

On September 3, 2020, the .Board issucd a Complaint and Notice of Proposed

Disciplinary Action in which the Board; proposed to; take disciplinary action by imposing up to

the maximum range of potential sanctions identified in ORS 677.205(2), which may include the

revocation of license, a $10,000 civil penalty per violation, and assessment of costs, against

Licensee for violations of the Medical Practice Act, to wit: ORS 677.190(l)(a) unprofessional or

dishonorable conduct, as defined in ORS 677.188 conduct unbecoming a person licensed to

practice medicine or detrimental to the best interest of the public as further defined in OAR 847-

010~0073(3)(b)(G) sexual misconduct, ORS 677.188(4)(a) any conduct or practice contrary to

recognized standards of ethics of the medical profession or any conduct or practice which does

or might constitute a danger to the health or safety of a patient or the public, ORS 677.188(b)

willful performance of any surgical or medical treatment which is contrary to acceptable medical

standards, and ORS 677.188(c) willful and repeated ordering or performance of unnecessary

laboratory tests or radiologic studies;, administration of unnecessary treatment; employment of

outmoded, unproved or unscientific, treatments; or otherwise utilizing medical service for

diagnosis or treatment which is or may be considered inappropriate or unnecessary; and ORS

1 -STIPULATED ORDER - David Brian Farley, MD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Page 2 -STIPULATED ORDER - David Brian Farley, MD

677.190(13) gross or repeated acts of negligence. Prior to the issuance of the Notice, on August

6, 2020, Licensee entered into an Interim Stipulated Order with the Board in which he agreed to

voluntarily withdraw from practice and place his license in Inactive status pending the

completion of the Board's investigation.

3.

Licensee and the Board desire to settle this matter by the entry of this Stipulated Order.

Licensee understands that he has the right to a contested case hearing under the Administrative

Procedures Act (Oregon Revised Statutes chapter 183), and fully and finally waives the right to a

contested case hearing and any appeal therefrom by the signing of and entry of this Order in the

Board’s records. Licensee neither admits nor denies, but the Board finds that Licensee engaged

in conduct as described in the September 3, 2020, Complaint and Notice of Proposed

Disciplinary Action, and that this conduct violated the Medical Practice Act, to wit ORS

677,190(l)(a), as defined in ORS 677.188 as further defined in OAR 847-010-0073(3)(b)(G),

ORS 677.188(4)(a),. ORS, 677.188(b), and ORS 677.188(c); and-ORS 677.190(13). Licensee

understands that this Order is a public record and is a disciplinary action that is reportable to the

National Practitioner Data Bank and the Federation of State Medical Boards.

... , , : .4. .. . ■ ■ ■ , , .. ■

Licensee and the Board agree that the Board will dose this investigation and resolve this

matter by entry of this Stipulated Order, subject to the following conditions:

, 4.1 Licensee’s Oregon medical licensees revoked, and Licensee agrees never to

reapply for a license to practicemedicine in Oregon. . ..

4.2 Licensee is reprimanded.; , y ; . ■ -

4.3 Licensee must pay a civil penalty in the amount of $20,000. This term is held in

abeyance unless Licensee violates any term of this Order or practices medicine in the State of

Oregon, including holding himself put as a physician in Oregon, as set forth in ORS 677.085.

Any violation of this term of the Order will immediately terminate the abeyance of the civil

/// > : ■ ;• , ■ > ..: • u ' • s : < ... -. . . . ...

penalty and the $20,000 civil penalty will become payable in full within 30 days from the date

2 that Licensee receives written notification from the Board.

Board Chair signs this Stipulated Order.4

5

6 to the practice of medicine.

7

be grounds for further disciplinary action under ORS 677.190(17).8

9

This Order becomes effective the date it is signed by the Board Chair.10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Page 3 STIPULATED ORDER - David Brian Farley, MD

DAVID BRIAN FAR’

IT IS SO ORDERED this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

BEFORE THE

OREGON MEDICAL BOARD

STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of ))

DAVID BRIAN FARLEY, MD ) COMPLAINT & NOTICE OF PROPOSEDLICENSE NO. MD 16003 ) DISCIPLINARY ACTION

)

1.

The Oregon Medical Board (Board) is the state agency responsible for licensing,

regulating and disciplining certain health care providers, including physicians, in the State of

Oregon. David Brian Farley, MD (Licensee), is a licensed physician in the State of Oregon.

2.

The Board proposes to take disciplinary action by imposing up to the maximum range of

potential sanctions identified in ORS 677.205(2), which may include the revocation of license, a

$10,000 civil penalty per violation, and assessment of costs, against Licensee for violations of

the Medical Practice Act, to wit: ORS 677.190(l)(a) unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, as

defined in ORS 677.188 conduct unbecoming a person licensed to practice medicine or

detrimental to the best interest of the public as further defined in OAR 847-010-0073(3)(b)(G)

sexual misconduct, ORS 677.188(4)(a) any conduct or practice contrary to recognized standards

of ethics of the medical profession or any conduct or practice which does or might constitute a

danger to the health or safety of a patient or the public, ORS 677.188(b) willful performance of

any surgical or medical treatment which is contrary to acceptable medical standards, and ORS

677.188(c) willful and repeated ordering or performance of unnecessary laboratory tests or

radiologic studies; administration of unnecessary treatment; employment of outmoded, unproved

or unscientific treatments; or otherwise utilizing medical service for diagnosis or treatment which

is or may be considered inappropriate or unnecessary; and ORS 677.190(13) gross or repeated

acts of negligence.

Page 1 - COMPLAINT & NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISCIPLINARY ACTION- David Brian Farley, MD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3.

3.1 The American Medical Association (AMA) publishes “AMA Code of Medical

Ethics.” AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.1 states:

The practice of medicine, and its embodiment in the clinical encounter between a patient and a physician, is fundamentally a moral activity that arises from the imperative to care for patients and to alleviate suffering. The relationship between a patient and a physician is based on trust, which gives rise to physicians’ ethical responsibility to place patients’ welfare above the physician’s own self-interest or obligations to others, to use sound medical judgment on patients’ behalf, and to advocate for their patients’ welfare.

3.2 The AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 3.1.3 states:

Audio or visual recording of patients can be a valuable tool for educating health care professionals, but physicians must balance educational goals with patient privacy and confidentiality. The intended audience is bound by professional standards of respect for patient autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality, but physicians also have an obligation to ensure that content is accurate and complete and that the process and product of recording uphold standards of professional conduct.

To safeguard patient interests in the context of recording for purposes of educating health care professionals, physicians should:

(i) Be aware that the information contained in educational recordings should be held to the same protections as any other record of patient information. Recordings should be securely stored and properly destroyed, in keeping with ethics guidance for managing medical records.

(j) Be aware that recording creates a permanent record of personal patient information and may be considered part of the medical record and subject to laws governing medical records.

3.3 The AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 3.1.4 states, in part:

Audio and/or visual recording of patient care for public broadcast is one way to help educate the public about health care. However, no matter what medium is used, such recording poses challenges for protecting patient autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality. Filming cannot benefit a patient medically and may cause harm. As advocates for their patients, physicians have an obligation to protect patient interests and ensure that professional standards are upheld. Physicians also have a responsibility to ensure that information conveyed to the public is complete and accurate (including the risks, benefits, and alternatives of treatments).

Physicians involved in recording patients for public broadcast should:


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

(a) Participate in institutional review of requests to record patient interactions.

3.4 AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 3.3.1 states, in part:

In keeping with the professional responsibility to safeguard the confidentiality of patients’ personal information, physicians have an ethical obligation to manage medical records appropriately.

To manage medical records responsibly, physicians (or the individual responsible for the practice’s medical records) should:

(h) Ensure that records that are to be discarded are destroyed to protect confidentiality.

3.5 The AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 3.3.2 states, in part:

Information gathered and recorded in association with the care of a patient is confidential, regardless of the form in which it is collected or stored.

Physicians who collect or store patient information electronically, whether on stand-alone systems in their own practice or through contracts with service providers, must:

(a) Choose a system that conforms to acceptable industry practices and standards with respect to:(i) restriction of data entry and access to authorized personnel;(ii) capacity to routinely monitor/audit access to records;(iii) measures to ensure data security and integrity; and(iv) policies and practices to address record retrieval, data sharing, third-party access and release of information, and disposition of records (when outdated or on termination of the service relationship) in keeping with ethics guidance.

3.6 The AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.1 states:

Biomedical and health research is intended to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and the welfare of society and future patients, rather than to the specific benefit of the individuals who participate as research subjects.

However, research involving human participants should be conducted in a manner that minimizes risks and avoids unnecessary suffering. Because research depends on the willingness of participants to accept risk, they must be able to make informed decisions about whether to participate or continue in a given protocol.

Physician researchers share their responsibility for the ethical conduct of research with the institution that carries out research. Institutions have an obligation to oversee the design, conduct, and dissemination of research to ensure that scientific, ethical, and legal standards are upheld. Institutional review boards (IRBs) as well as individual investigators should ensure that each participant has been appropriately informed and has given voluntary consent.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Physicians who are involved in any role in research with human participants have an ethical obligation to ensure that participants’ interests are protected and to safeguard participants’ welfare, safety, and comfort.

To fulfill these obligations, individually, physicians who are involved in research should:

(a) Participate only in those studies for which they have relevant expertise.

(b) Ensure that voluntary consent has been obtained from each participant or from the participant’s legally authorized representative if the participant lacks the capacity to consent, in keeping with ethics guidance. This requires that:

1. Prospective participants receive the information they need to make well-considered decisions, including informing them about the nature of the research and potential harms involved.

2. Physicians make all reasonable efforts to ensure that participants understand the research is not intended to benefit them individually.

3. Physicians also make clear that the individual may refuse to participate or may withdraw from the protocol at any time.

(c) Assure themselves that the research protocol is scientifically sound and meets ethical guidelines for research with human participants. Informed consent can never be invoked to justify an unethical study design.

(d) Demonstrate the same care and concern for the well-being of research participants that they would for patients to whom they provide clinical care in a therapeutic relationship. Physician researchers should advocate for access to experimental interventions that have proven effectiveness for patients.

(e) Be mindful of conflicts of interest and assure themselves that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the integrity of the research and the welfare of human participants.

(f) Adhere to rigorous scientific and ethical standards in conducting, supervising, and disseminating results of the research.

3.7 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 847-010-0073(3)(b)(G) defines sexual

misconduct as “behavior that exploits the licensee-patient relationship in a sexual way. The

behavior is non-diagnostic and non-therapeutic, may be verbal, physical or other behavior, and

may include expressions of thoughts and feelings or gestures that are sexual or that reasonably

may be construed by a patient as sexual,” including transmitting, viewing, or in any way using

photos or any other image of a patient for prurient interest, or having any involvement with child

pornography.

4.

Licensee is a board-certified family practice physician who formerly practiced in West

Linn, Oregon. The acts and conduct alleged to violate the Medical Practice Act follow:


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

4.1 Licensee conducted gynecological examinations on Patient A when she was under

18 years of age, to include pelvic and breast exams and Pap smears with a frequency that was not

indicated by the patient's medical history, which breached the standard of care. In November

2016, Patient A presented to Licensee with complaints of dysmenorrhea. Licensee diagnosed her

with endometriosis and gave her a prescription for alprazolam (Xanax, Schedule IV) 1 mg, 1 -2

tablets to be used prior to a scheduled pelvic examination six weeks later. Patient A returned to

the clinic on December 16, 2016. She denied being sexually active but reported heavy menses

that were quite painful. She requested to be on birth control medication because of her acne.

Licensee conducted a pelvic examination that showed moderate tenderness in both adnexa but no

masses. There was marked tenderness with significant nodularity along her uterosacral

ligaments. Licensee began Patient A on birth control pills and asked her to return in four months

for a repeat examination. Patient A was seen again on July 11, 2017. Licensee repeated a pelvic

exam and noted that her tenderness had resolved. Patient A was asked to return in four weeks

for a wellness examination. Patient A returned on August 19, 2017, for a sexually transmitted

disease (STD) check. A repeat pelvic examination showed no abnormalities and screening for

STDs was negative. Patient A was asked to return in three months. Patient A was seen on

November 7, 2017. Licensee performed a breast and pelvic examination, which were normal

and a Pap smear was obtained. The Pap smear returned showing atypical squamous cells of

undetermined significance (ASCUS). HPV testing was positive but negative for genotypes 16

and 18/45 (Patient A had completed her human papilloma virus vaccinations). Licensee

recommended a follow up in six months. Patient A returned on May 23, 2018. Licensee

1

III

1 The current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which have been in effect since 2010, state that most women should wait until age 21 to have their first Pap test unless they have compromised immune systems. The American Academy of Family Physicians also recommend not performing Pap smears on women under the age of 21. The Academy notes that “most observed abnormalities in adolescents regress spontaneously, therefore screening Pap smears done in this age group can lead to unnecessary anxiety, additional testing, and cost.” In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a recommendation recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than age 21 years.

Page 5 COMPLAINT & NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISCIPLINARY ACTION- David Brian Farley, MD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

conducted a pelvic examination, which was normal. A Pap smear continued to show ASCUS.

Patient A was asked to return in four weeks. No current published medical guidelines

recommend routine gynecological examinations or Pap smears in women under the age of 21. In

his lengthy response to the Board’s investigation, Licensee supports his personal guidelines

based on outdated recommendations to start Pap smears at age 18 or the onset of sexual activity,

whichever comes first, and then annually. Patient A was under age 18 and denied sexual activity

at the time of Licensee’s initial examinations. Licensee breached the standard of care by having

Patient A undergo recurring pelvic/gynecological examinations and repeat Pap smears, which

were not documented as being chaperoned and were not medically indicated, nor supported by

current medical science. In addition, Licensee diagnosed Patient A with endometriosis without

medical evidence to support the diagnosis. Licensee repeatedly ordered or administered

unnecessary, outmoded tests, contrary to acceptable medical standards, which may have caused

potential harm to Patient A, and is also contrary to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion

1.1.1. Licensee’s care and treatment of Patient A constitutes unprofessional conduct, including

sexual misconduct, as well as repeated negligence.

4.2 The Board conducted a review of other charts and found other female patients

under the age of 18 for whom Licensee conducted periodic pelvic examinations and Pap smears,

to include Patient B, a 17-year-old female. On November 7, 2017, Patient B presented to

Licensee and at Licensee’s recommendation underwent a Pap smear and STD screening. Her

Pap showed ASCUS. Licensee recommended a repeat Pap in May of 2018. Licensee repeatedly

ordered or administered unnecessary, outmoded tests, contrary to acceptable medical standards,

which may have caused potential harm to Patient B, and is also contrary to the AMA Code of

Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.1. Licensee’s care and treatment of Patient B constitutes

unprofessional conduct, including sexual misconduct, and repeated negligence.

4.3 Patient C, a 15-year-old female, presented to Licensee on November 30, 2018, for

insertion of an IUD. Licensee conducted a pelvic examination, after Patient C declined the

presence of a chaperone, and screened for STDs. Licensee recommended and Patient C agreed

Page 6 COMPLAINT & NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISCIPLINARY ACTION- David Brian Farley, MD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

to also undergo a Pap smear. The Licensee ordered a testosterone level with no apparent or

stated indication. Patient C was under age 18 and denied sexual activity at the time of Licensee’s

examinations. Licensee ordered or administered unnecessary or outmoded tests, contrary to

acceptable medical standards, which may have caused potential harm to Patient C, and is also

contrary to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.1. Licensee’s care and treatment of

Patient C was negligent and constitutes unprofessional conduct, including sexual misconduct.

4.4 Licensee contacted Subject D, the mother of 16-year-old Patient E. Licensee

informed Subject D that he wanted to use her daughter in a study to explain puberty. Licensee

asked if she heard about a study that was done in the 60s in which photographs were taken of

children starting puberty and showing their development over time. Subject D denied having

heard of it. Licensee stated that he was going to update this study and intended to procure photos

and videos depicting male and female development while in puberty and asked if her daughter

(Patient E) would be interested. She told Licensee “no,” but Licensee explained that he would

use the photos and the videos along with additional literature on sexual development to develop a

presentation. This presentation would be placed on a thumb drive with a password that he

could then provide to parents and teens to educate them on what to expect during puberty.

Subject D declined to have Patient E take part in Licensee’s study. Licensee’s solicitation of

Subject D for the participation of Patient E in a study regarding puberty is contrary to the AMA

Code of Medical Ethics Opinions 3.1.4 and 7.1.1, constitutes unprofessional or dishonorable

conduct, including sexual misconduct, and is grossly negligent.

4.5 In Licensee’s response to the Board he admitted that he had taken photographs of

five patients, Patients F - J, all of whom are under the age of 18, on his personal cellular phone

for an educational exercise to document sexual development. These photographs were of the

breasts and exterior genitalia of these patients. Licensee stated he had obtained signed consents

from each patient and their parents to take part in the exercise. Licensee was asked to provide

the Board the consent forms for all patients involved as well as all records and photographs.

Licensee advised the Board that he could not provide the records as he had deleted the


1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

photographs from his phone and had shredded the consent forms and all records related to the

program. The Board obtained a blank consent form that was offered by Licensee to a patient's

family; the “Consent for Use of Photos and Videos of Minors for Education” states that photos

and videos obtained by Licensee become Licensee’s property and may be used for educational

purposes as determined by Licensee. Licensee’s solicitation of Patients F - J for the

participation in a study regarding puberty is contrary to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics

Opinions 3.1.4 and 7.1.1. Licensee’s use of his personal cell phone to photograph Patients F - J,

and his subsequent deletion of these photographs and shredding of the consent forms is contrary

to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinions 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 7.1.1. Licensee’s

conduct constitutes unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, including sexual misconduct, and is

grossly negligent.

5.

Licensee’s above described conduct violated the Medical Practice Act, as set forth below.

5.1 Licensee breached the standard of care in regard to Patients A, B and C, and

exposed these patients to the risk of harm by having these patients, who were all under the age of

21, undergo Pap smears and unnecessary and recurring pelvic and breast examinations, and by

conducting these examinations without the presence of a medically trained chaperone.

Licensee’s conduct constitutes unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, in violation of ORS

677.190(l)(a) unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, as defined in ORS 677.188(4)(a) any

conduct or practice contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the medical profession or any

conduct or practice which does or might constitute a danger to the health or safety of a patient or

the public, ORS 677.188(b) willful performance of any surgical or medical treatment which is

contrary to acceptable medical standards, ORS 677.188(c) willful and repeated ordering or

performance of unnecessary laboratory tests or radiologic studies; administration of unnecessary

treatment; employment of outmoded, unproved or unscientific treatments; or otherwise utilizing

medical service for diagnosis or treatment which is or may be considered inappropriate or

///


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

unnecessary, and OAR 847-010-0073(3)(b)(G) sexual misconduct; and ORS 677.190(13) gross

or repeated acts of negligence.

5.2 Licensee breached the standard of care and engaged in unethical conduct by

diagnosing Patient A with endometriosis without appropriate work-up to establish the diagnosis.

Licensee’s conduct constitutes unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, in violation of ORS

677.190(l)(a) unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, as defined in ORS 677.188(4)(a) any

conduct or practice contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the medical profession or any

conduct or practice which does or might constitute a danger to the health or safety of a patient or

the public; and ORS 677.190(13) gross or repeated acts of negligence.

5.3 Licensee violated well recognized ethical standards by asking the mother of a 16-

year-old patient to participate in a “study” or “educational presentation” that would involve

taking photographs of Patient E’s breasts and genitalia to document sexual development.

Licensee failed to ensure that his proposal was needed, that his research protocol was

scientifically sound and meets ethical guidelines for research with human participants, and

knowing that informed consent can never be invoked to justify an unethical study design.

Licensee’s above described conduct in regard to Subject D and Patient E was contrary to well

recognized standards of ethics, to include AMA Ethics Opinion 1.1.1, in his failing to promote a

relationship with the patient that is based on trust, which gives rise to physicians’ ethical

responsibility to place patients’ welfare above the physician’s own self-interest or obligations to

others, to use sound medical judgment on patients’ behalf, and to advocate for their patients’

welfare; as well as AMA Ethics Opinions 3.1.4 and 7.1.1. Licensee’s conduct violated

ORS 677.190(l)(a) unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, as defined in ORS 677.188(4)(a)

conduct or practice contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the medical profession and

conduct that does or might constitute a danger to the health or safety of a patient, and as defined

in OAR 847-010-0073(3)(b)(G) sexual misconduct; and ORS 677.190(13) gross or repeated acts

of negligence by breaching the standard of care.

HI


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

6.4 Licensee’s conduct was contrary to well recognized ethical standards in his taking

photographs of underaged patients for the purpose of inclusion of his “study” or “educational

presentation” to include the breasts and external genitalia of Patients F - J for the purpose of

documenting sexual development. Licensee failed to ensure that his proposal was needed, that

his research protocol was scientifically sound and met ethical guidelines for research with human

participants, and knowing that informed consent can never be invoked to justify an unethical

study design. Licensee further demonstrated conduct contrary to established ethical standards in

his failing to store the photographs in a secure manner and in his destruction of documents which

should have been kept as part of the medical records for Patients F - J. Licensee’s above

described conduct in regard to Patients F - J is contrary to AMA Ethics Opinions 3.1.3, 3.1.4,

3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 7.1.1. Licensee’s conduct violated ORS 677.190(1 )(a) unprofessional or

dishonorable conduct, as defined in ORS 677.188(4)(a) conduct or practice contrary to

recognized standards of ethics of the medical profession and conduct that does or might

constitute a danger to the health or safety of a patient, and OAR 847-010-0073(3)(b)(G) sexual

misconduct; and ORS 677.190(13) gross or repeated acts of negligence by breaching the

standard of care.

6.

Licensee is entitled to a hearing as provided by the Administrative Procedures Act

(chapter 183), Oregon Revised Statutes. Licensee may be represented by counsel at the hearing.

If Licensee desires a hearing, the Board must receive Licensee’s written request for hearing

within twenty-one (21) days of the mailing of this Notice to Licensee. Upon receipt of a request

for a hearing, the Board will notify Licensee of the time and place of the hearing.

7.

7.1 If Licensee requests a hearing, Licensee will be given information on the

procedures, right of representation, and other rights of parties relating to the conduct of the

hearing as required under ORS 183.413(2) before commencement of the hearing.

///


1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

7.2 In the event of a hearing, the Board proposes to assess against Licensee the

Board’s costs of this disciplinary process and action, including but not limited to all legal costs

from the Oregon Department of Justice, all hearing costs from the Office of Administrative

Hearings, all costs associated with any expert or witness, all costs related to security and

transcriptionist services for the hearing and administrative costs specific to this proceeding in an

amount not to exceed $80,000, pursuant to ORS 677.205(2)(f).

8.

NOTICE TO ACTIVE DUTY SERVICEMEMBERS: Active Duty Servicemembers

have a right to stay these proceedings under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. For

more information contact the Oregon State Bar at 800-452-8260, the Oregon Military

Department at 503-584-3571 or the nearest United States Armed Forces Legal Assistance Office

through http://legalassistance.law.af.mil. The Oregon Military Department does not have a toll-

free telephone number.

9.

Failure by Licensee to timely request a hearing or failure to appear at any hearing

scheduled by the Board will constitute waiver of the right to a contested case hearing and will

result in a default order by the Board, including the revocation of his medical license and

assessment of such penalty and costs as the Board deems appropriate under ORS 677.205. If a

default order is issued, the record of proceeding to date, including Licensee’s file with the Board

and any information on the subject of the contested case automatically becomes a part of the

contested case record for the purpose of proving a prima facie case per ORS 183.417(4).

DATED this 3rd day of > 2020.

OREGON MEDICAL BOARDState of Oregon

ASWAMI, JDNIiEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR


http://legalassistance.law.af.mil