1. In Maryland Board of Physicians v. Elliot, the Court (reversing the Circuit Court) affirmed a Board's decision to deny a physician's application for a license. The Board denied the license because the physician failed to disclose past disciplinary proceedings and malpractice actions on his application. (The Court reversed the Circuit Court finding it applied an incorrect standard of review).
2. In Maryland Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners v. Hammond, the Court of Special Appeals remanded a disciplinary proceeding because an Agency improperly accepted new evidence after a contested hearing. The evidence was an affidavit given by a witness to the critical event: when a veterinarian choked an assistant to demonstrate how a cat feels when it is choked. I am not making this up. The Court summarized the event as follows:
On July 11, 2000, appellee observed Gallagher inadvertently choking a cat that she was holding during an attempt to draw blood from the cat. Appellee grabbed Gallagher's hand, releasing the cat from her hold. Appellee was angered by the incident. Immediately thereafter, without requesting or obtaining Gallagher's consent, appellee pressed two fingers against Gallagher's trachea to show her how uncomfortable her hold had been the cat. Although appellee did not compromise Gallagher's breathing, he did cause her to feel discomfort and anxiety.
After appellee released Gallagher, she left the treatment area. Gallagher was shaken, stunned, and scared by appellee's actions. Shortly thereafter, and as a result of the incident with appellee, Gallagher resigned her position at the [veterinary hospital].
Post a Comment