Moore v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Nelson
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from common pleas court upholding state medical board's license revocation decision; judgment affirmed
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The court affirmed the State Medical Board of Ohio's decision to permanently revoke a doctor's medical license following his convictions for federal and state felonies. The court held that medical board proceedings do not allow collateral attack on criminal convictions and that the board was authorized by law to impose this sanction.
Excerpt
The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the determination of the state medical board permanently to revoke the license of a doctor who, even after having been convicted of a federal felony, was convicted by plea of seven subsequent felonies under Ohio law. Medical board proceedings do not allow collateral attack on criminal convictions, and neither that rule nor the enforcement there of certain relevancy limitations on the introduction of supposed mitigation evidence violates due process. The board was authorized by law to strip the doctor of his medical license, and courts are not empowered to recalibrate that sanction. Judgment affirmed.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.