SCLICENSELAW.COM: Sexual Misconduct and Inappropriate Prescription of Drugs Cost a Doctor the Right to Practice Medicine

The South Carolina Professsional and Occupational License Law Blog

A blog discussing legal issues related to professional and occupational licenses in South Carolina. The blog will also follow decision of the boards, commissions, and all courts relating to professional and occupational licenses in South Carolina.

Sexual Misconduct and Inappropriate Prescription of Drugs Cost a Doctor the Right to Practice Medicine

South Carolina Administrative Court affirmed the decision by the South Carolina Labor, Licensing, and Regulation Department (LLR) to revoke a doctor's license to practice medicine. The agency revoked appellant's license because of proof of inappropriate prescription of drugs and sexual misconduct.

As to the prescription of drugs findings, the court found substantial evidence supporting the agency's finding. The record indicated that appellant inappropriately prescribed Stadol, Stadol NS, Hydrocodone, Fioricet, Ultram, Zoloft, Nubain, and Phenergan. Appellant prescribed the medicine without adequate medical justification, monitoring, and record keeping. The court noted that much of the evidence, actually, came from the doctor's own kept records, after being investigated by experts.

            On the issue of sexual misconduct, the court cited South Carolina LLR State Board of Examiners Regulations. A physician must provide medical services in a manner that maintains respect for human dignity (Regs. 81-60(A)), that demonstrates honest dealings with the patient (Regs. 81-60() and that respects the rights of the patient (Regs. 81-60(D)). In addition, Section 40-47-200(F)(12) of the South Carolina Code of Laws states that a physician must not engage in dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct that will likely deceive, defraud, or harm the public must also not lack the ethical competence to practice medicine. The court's review found that there was substantial evidence supporting the agency's finding that appellant had sexual contacts with two patients that were not in compliance with the South Carolina codes and regulations.

            To read all allegations, findings, and detailed reasoning of the court's holding, you may visit http://www.scalc.net/decisions.aspx?q=4&id=8099.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.