As reported by the LA Times, in its Article entitled, “California medical board revokes license of ‘Octomom’ doctor”, the Medical Board of California has taken action as the result of charges related to gross negligence in the practice of medicine by a fertility Doctor.
As the article indicates, following an administrative hearing, in which the Dr. disputed the allegations against him, it appears the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) originally proposed discipline in the form of five years probation. But, following the Board’s non-adoption of the ALJ’s decision, the Board on its own has ordered the revocation of Dr. Kamrava’s license. In its decision, the Board apparently eludes to issues with his defense, and the manner in which he and his attorney transferred blame to his patients.
This goes to show the importance a licensee knowing what types of defenses work best, and which work worst, in administrative licensing matters. Never blame the consumer! And, when the evidence is overwhelming, while not having to admit any type of guilt, one may also want to avoid the appearance of not taking at least some responsibility for their alleged wrongdoing.
In the end, defending a license requires a very delicate balance, where outright denial of the allegations by the license has to be weighed with a level of compassion and understanding for why the accusations have been levied against them. In the case of this Doctor, it is clear that the Board needed to see that he actually had learned from the situation, and took some responsibility for what others in the medical profession had opined to be gross negligence.
Licensing defense cases are very unique. They are neither criminal, nor civil, and many attorneys do not realize that what may work before a jury, or in other types of legal actions, may not work in the realm of licensing and administrative law. This attorney does not know the background of Dr. Kamrava’s attorney, or the overall theory of defense presented at the administrative hearing in Dr. Kamrava’s case, and therefore makes no judgment of the representation given in this particular case. This attorney only cautions licensees of any State agency to make sure that they understand the risks of each type of defense, and that their attorney recognizes that they can simultaneously present an absolute defense, and present evidence in mitigation, rehabilitation, and which demonstrates an understanding by the licensee of the concerns of the Board and consumers of the State of California.
Call Scott J. Harris, an experienced Professional License Defense Attorney for more information about protecting your California license. 323-370-6139