ALJDEC

00F-23145-MDX · Board of Medical Examiners · 2001-04-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 21, 2001. The record closed on April 10, 2001. APPEARANCES: Daniel P. Jantsch, Esq. represented Respondent David G. Lawson, M.D. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Burns represented the Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Daniel G. Martin _____________________________________________________________________

The question presented by this case is whether Respondent David G. Lawson, M.D. has engaged in unprofessional conduct under A.R.S. § 32- 1401(25)(o), and, if so, the disciplinary action to be taken against his medical license pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1451. Based on the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT Respondent David G. Lawson, M.D. is the holder of License No. 23145 for the practice of allopathic medicine in the State of Arizona. The Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners (the “Board” or “BOMEX”) is the duly constituted authority for licensing and regulating the practice of allopathic medicine in the State of Arizona.

Dr. Lawson’s Background Dr. Lawson graduated medical school in 1982. He completed his medical training in 1985 after finishing a one-year internship at Deaconess Hospital in St. Louis and a two-year family practice residency at Southern Illinois University in Belleville, Illinois. [Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (hereafter “R.T.”), at 86] Dr. Lawson is a family practice physician. He received his family practice board certification in 1985, and was re-certified twice, most recently in 1998. [R.T., at 86-87; Exhibit 8-B, at 22] After completing his residency, Dr. Lawson worked in private practice in California. [R.T. at 87] In December 1986, Dr. Lawson relocated to Kansas City, Missouri, where he started a family practice program with Kaiser Permanente. [Id.] Dr. Lawson received his license to practice medicine in Missouri on December 19, 1986. [Exhibit 4, at 3, ( 2] In May 1995, for reasons that will hereafter be further elaborated upon, Dr. Lawson left Missouri and moved to Arizona. [Exhibit B, at 7] Dr. Lawson received his license to practice medicine in Arizona on May 12, 1995. [Answer to Complaint, ( I] In June 1995, Dr. Lawson joined the medical staff at Desert Diagnostic Center (“Deseret”) in Mesa, Arizona. In 1996, Dr. Lawson became a shareholder of Deseret. [Exhibit 8-B, at 83 & 84] Since relocating to Arizona, Dr. Lawson has maintained his practice in the East Valley area of the greater Phoenix Metropolitan area. Dr. Lawson’s current practice focuses primarily on geriatrics (diseases of the aged), which constitutes approximately 95% of his work. [R.T., at 83-84] The Events Leading Up To The Board’s Complaint Against Dr. Lawson Between February or March 1994 and July 1994, while practicing medicine in Missouri, Dr. Lawson engaged in sexual relationships with two female patients. [Exhibit 4, at 4] The weight of the credible evidence demonstrated the nature and extent of these sexual relationships to be that both patients performed oral sex on Dr. Lawson two or three times during the stated period. [R.T., at 132] The evidence of record does not permit reconstruction of the precise sequence of events that followed the termination of Dr. Lawson’s relationships with his patients. However, the record supports the following: l. One or both of the patients with whom Dr. Lawson had engaged in sexual relations filed a complaint against Dr. Lawson alleging sexual improprieties. m. On or about December 7, 1994, Dr. Lawson’s employer submitted a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank indicating that Dr. Lawson had resigned while under investigation for two incidents of sexual misconduct. n. The Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (the “Missouri Board”) initiated an investigation of Dr. Lawson, and subsequently filed a formal complaint against his license. [Compare Complaint, (( 7-10, with Answer, (( IV-VI; see also generally Exhibit 3, at 6-9; Exhibit 7, at 4] On October 5, 1999, Dr. Lawson entered into a “Joint Stipulation of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Waiver of Hearing Before the Administrative Hearing Commission” (the “Joint Stipulation”) with the Missouri Board. [Exhibit 4] Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation, Dr. Lawson acknowledged receipt of the Missouri Board’s complaint, agreed that he had engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional sexual relationships with two patients, agreed that his conduct with the two patients constituted misconduct in the practice of medicine, and agreed that cause existed for the Missouri Board to take disciplinary action against his medical license. [Exhibit 4] On April 27, 2000, the Missouri Board conducted a hearing to determine the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against Dr. Lawson’s medical license. Dr. Lawson attended that hearing and was represented by counsel. [Exhibit 6 at 2, ¶ 4; see also Exhibit 8-B, at 1- 33] By Disciplinary Order dated May 4, 2000 [Exhibit 6], the Missouri Board revoked Dr. Lawson’s medical license and ordered that Dr. Lawson not apply for reinstatement for a period of seven years. The Missouri Board’s Disciplinary Order does not explain the Missouri Board’s rationale for revoking Dr. Lawson’s medical license, and the Administrative Law Judge does not speculate herein on the Missouri Board’s reasoning. The Administrative Law Judge notes that the Missouri Board did not conduct an evidentiary hearing (Dr. Lawson waived this right) prior to reaching its decision. On June 21, 2000, Dr. Lawson participated in a formal interview before BOMEX. [See Exhibit 7 and Exhibit B] The purpose of the formal interview was to determine what disciplinary action the Board should take against Dr. Lawson’s Arizona license in light of the revocation of Dr. Lawson’s Missouri license. [Exhibit 7, at 6] At the conclusion of the formal interview, the Board voted to impose disciplinary action against Dr. Lawson’s license consisting of (i) a Decree of Censure, and (ii) five years probation, during which time Dr. Lawson would undergo psychotherapy with a Board-approved therapist with quarterly reports being brought to the Board. [Exhibit 7, at 18-19] By correspondence dated August 21, 2000 [Exhibit C], submitted before the Board finalized its decision regarding Dr. Lawson, the Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, urged the Board to refer Dr. Lawson’s case for formal hearing so as to allow the State to appear and argue for sanctions more severe than those imposed by the Board. On October 25, 2000, the Board met to discuss and vote on, among other things, its previously adopted decision regarding discipline against Dr. Lawson’s license. [See Exhibit D] In light of the Attorney General’s August 21, 2000 letter, the Board voted to rescind its previous vote and refer Dr. Lawson’s case for formal hearing. [Id., at 4-5] Thereafter, on December 4, 2000, the Board issued the Complaint and Notice of Hearing that gave rise to the instant matter. In that Complaint, the Board charged Dr. Lawson with having engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1401(25)(o) (disciplinary action by another jurisdiction against the physician’s license). At hearing, counsel for the Board asserted that the Board was seeking revocation of Dr. Lawson’s license. Evidence Relevant To The Determination Of The Appropriate Disciplinary Penalty To Be Imposed Against Dr. Lawson’s Medical License

In support of its Complaint, the Board pointed first to Dr. Lawson’s admitted acts of inappropriate and unprofessional sexual intimacies with two patients. Dr. Michael E. Brennan, M.D., a psychiatrist who has served as a consultant to the Board in various capacities since 1987, testified that given the position of trust that a physician occupies with respect to his or her patients, a physician who engages in a sexual relationship with a patient commits “one of the gravest transgressions of the patient/physician relationship.” [R.T., at 50] Dr. Lawson acknowledged that a sexual boundary violation is an egregious violation of the patient/physician relationship. [R.T., at 95] In further support of its Complaint, the Board offered evidence as to the “devastating consequences” (see R.T., at 11) that the patients in issue suffered as a result of Dr. Lawson’s conduct. The Board’s evidence in this regard consisted of two reports prepared in 1997 by Harold J. Bursztajn, M.D., an associate clinical professor in the Harvard Medical School Department of Psychiatry. [See Exhibit 8-B, at 34-71] The Administrative Law Judge reviewed the Board’s evidence as to the alleged “devastating consequences” suffered by the patients in issue, and found that evidence to be neither substantial nor probative. First, Dr. Bursztajn did not testify at the hearing. Therefore, his opinions were not subject to examination by Dr. Lawson. Second, Dr. Bursztajn’s reports were substantially redacted, thereby depriving the Administrative Law Judge of any reasonable means to fully assess the basis for Dr. Bursztajn’s conclusions. Third, Dr. Bursztajn’s opinions were, by his own admission, “preliminary, pending review and analysis of such additional discovery materials as are made available to me.” [Exhibit 8-B, at 61 & 71] Fourth, Dr. Bursztajn conducted only one evaluation of each of the patients (and both of those on the same day) prior to rendering his reports, thereby casting doubt on the reasonableness of his conclusions notwithstanding his excellent credentials (see, e.g., Exhibit 8-B, at 37-50). One additional matter that arose during the presentation of the Board’s case concerned Dr. Lawson’s conduct during an August 21, 1996 investigative interview. The Board, through Dr. Brennan, had conducted that interview after learning that the Missouri Board was conducting an investigation into Dr. Lawson’s relationships with his patients. [See Exhibit 3, at 7] The evidence demonstrated that during the course of the interview, Dr. Lawson was not forthcoming about the details of his relationships. To some degree (and with the benefit of hindsight), the Administrative Law Judge finds that Dr. Brennan failed to ask sufficiently pointed questions to clarify what were patently evasive answers by Dr. Lawson. However, the interview transcript (Exhibit 3) reveals that Dr. Lawson affirmatively failed to disclose many details regarding the nature of the charges against him. Following the conclusion of the investigative interview, Dr. Brennan recommended that the Board await further information from the Missouri Board before taking further action. [See Exhibit 2, at 4] The Board did not charge Dr. Lawson with unprofessional conduct arising from the answers that he gave during the investigative interview, and therefore the Administrative Law Judge did not consider the above evidence insofar as it might independently support imposition of discipline against Dr. Lawson’s license (on this point the Administrative Law Judge makes no conclusions, and none should be implied). However, the Administrative Law Judge considered this evidence as an aggravating circumstance when determining recommended discipline under the Board’s charge of unprofessional conduct as set forth in the Board’s Complaint. Dr. Lawson testified at the hearing in his own behalf, during which he admitted to the conduct that gave rise to the Missouri complaint and subsequently the instant complaint. The Administrative Law Judge found Dr. Lawson to be genuinely sincere and forthcoming in his acknowledgment of, and expressions of remorse for, his past conduct. With the exception of the 1994 misconduct that is the subject of this matter, Dr. Lawson’s 16-year medical career appears to be free of any serious incident. The evidence was undisputed that since he moved to Arizona and became licensed to practice medicine (a period of approximately 5¾ years), Dr. Lawson has not been the subject of any complaint (other than the instant complaint) regarding his professional skill or judgment. At hearing, Dr. Lawson attributed his misconduct to a number of factors, the sum of which can be stated as follows: During the period of time in question, Dr. Lawson’s marriage was deteriorating. Dr. Lawson felt that his wife imposed undue financial expectations upon him, and that his efforts to meet those expectations in the form of working harder and harder were never properly acknowledged. Rather than express his frustration, Dr. Lawson internalized it, thereby contributing to the downward spiral in his marriage and ultimately to his inappropriate relationships with his patients. [R.T., at 95-97, 107-08] In August 1999, Dr. Lawson sought psychological help in understanding the reasons for his actions, and ultimately was referred to Micki Kloss, Ph.D. [R.T., at 105-07] Dr. Lawson testified that he delayed seeking such treatment because prior to this time, there were two lawsuits pending against him arising out of his wrongful acts, and he felt that any effort to seek therapy would constitute an admission of liability. Dr. Lawson’s malpractice insurance coverage did not extend to acts found to be sexual in nature; therefore, Dr. Lawson was concerned that not only would he lose the lawsuits, he also would be forced to personally pay the judgments and defense costs. [R.T., at 106-07] Dr. Kloss, the therapist to whom Dr. Lawson was referred, is certified in Arizona as a marriage and family therapist. Dr. Kloss is not licensed in Arizona as a psychologist. [R.T., at 223-24] As of the hearing date in this matter, Dr. Lawson had undergone approximately 27 one-hour sessions with Dr. Kloss. [R.T., at 175] Dr. Lawson sees Dr. Kloss approximately once every two weeks. Dr. Kloss testified at hearing that based on her evaluation of Dr. Lawson, she concluded that Dr. Lawson’s misconduct in 1994 was an aberrant and isolated behavior that arose from what Dr. Kloss described as a “major depressive episode.” [R.T., at 182] Dr. Kloss stated that Dr. Lawson is neither a sex addict nor a sexual predator, and that in her opinion Dr. Lawson is safe to continue in the practice of medicine. [R.T., at 182-83, 189-90,198-200] The Administrative Law Judge does not accept Dr. Kloss’s “major depressive episode” diagnosis because Dr. Kloss could not provide any credible testimony in support of that diagnosis (for example, by correlating written findings with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) description of major depressive episode). The evidence does, however, generally support Dr. Kloss’s conclusion that the events in 1994 were isolated incidents, regardless of the actual causal force(s). The Administrative Law Judge gives measured evidentiary weight to the remainder of Dr. Kloss’s opinions. On the whole, Dr. Kloss was not a particularly strong witness for Dr. Lawson. However, her experience was substantial, and her opinions were generally consistent with the evidence. Further, the Board did not offer any substantial evidence to rebut those opinions. Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Dr. Lawson’s actions in 1994 were isolated incidents of uncharacteristic behavior related to Dr. Lawson’s marital difficulties. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Dr. Lawson is likely to repeat such behavior in the future. Four of Dr. Lawson’s current patients testified at the hearing. Mr. Jim Crupi has been a patient of Dr. Lawson’s for approximately two years. Mr. Crupi first began seeing Dr. Lawson about five years ago, and then had to change physicians when his employer selected a different health plan for which Dr. Lawson was not a contracted provider. When Mr. Crupi retired and changed health plans again, and discovered that Dr. Lawson was one of the plan’s providers, he “immediately went back.” [R.T., at 134-35] Mr. Crupi described Dr. Lawson as “brilliant,” and stated that in his personal opinion, “it would be criminal to take someone with [the] talent of Dr. Lawson out of the community.” [R.T., at 136 & 139] Mr. Robert Henderson has been a patient of Dr. Lawson’s for approximately 4½-5 years. Mr. Henderson’s wife is also one of Dr. Lawson’s patients. Mr. Henderson described Dr. Lawson as “excellent” and as an asset to the community. [R.T., at 146-47] Reverend Roger Hedstrom, a Lutheran minister, has been a patient of Dr. Lawson’s for approximately 3 years. Reverend Hedstrom is not Dr. Lawson’s minister, and does not know Dr. Lawson other than as a patient. Reverend Hedstrom described Dr. Lawson as “attentive” to his health concerns and able to make proper specialist referrals. [R.T., at 152-53] Ms. Daryl Zavacky has been a patient of Dr. Lawson’s for approximately 5 years. Ms. Zavacky described Dr. Lawson as a caring physician who treats “the whole person” and not just individual symptoms. Ms. Zavacky testified that in her opinion, both as a patient and as a member of the community at large, it “definitely” would be a detriment to the community if Dr. Lawson was not allowed to practice medicine anymore. [R.T., at 161-63] Neither Mr. Crupi, Mr. Henderson, Reverend Hedstrom nor Ms. Zavacky had any detailed information regarding Dr. Lawson’s 1994 conduct in Missouri. None had read the Missouri Complaint or any of the accompanying documentation (such as, e.g., the Joint Stipulation). Each of these individuals had only a general knowledge of the allegations against Dr. Lawson based on what they had read in the media. [See, e.g., R.T. at 136 (Crupi), 146 (Henderson), 153 (Hedstrom) & 161 (Zavacky)]. However, each of these individuals also stated that based on what they knew about Dr. Lawson, and the relationships that they had formed with him, the general knowledge that they had obtained regarding Dr. Lawson’s misconduct did not cause them concern about continuing to see Dr. Lawson. [See, e.g., R.T. at 136-37 (Crupi), 146-47 (Henderson), 153-55 (Hedstrom) & 161 (Zavacky)]. Four physicians who work with Dr. Lawson in the East Valley testified at the hearing. Troy Brinkerhoff, M.D., is a general surgeon based in Mesa. Dr. Brinkerhoff has been practicing medicine for approximately 20 years. [R.T., at 228] Dr. Brinkerhoff has known Dr. Lawson for approximately 5-6 years. During that time, Dr. Lawson has referred patients to Dr. Brinkerhoff. [R.T., at 229-30] Dr. Brinkerhoff testified that all of the patients that have been referred to him from Dr. Lawson have spoken very highly of Dr. Lawson and “have had nothing to say but good things about him in their perception of his care on their behalf.” [R.T., at 233] Dr. Brinkerhoff, even after learning the particulars of Dr. Lawson’s 1994 misconduct, testified that he would still refer patients, including female patients, to Dr. Lawson. Dr. Brinkerhoff believes Dr. Lawson to be an asset to the medical community. [R.T., at 231-32] Kenneth Boren, M.D., is a nephrologist based in Mesa. Dr. Boren has been practicing medicine for approximately 21 years. [R.T., at 238-39] Dr. Boren has known Dr. Lawson for approximately 5 years. During that time, Dr. Lawson has referred patients to Dr. Boren. Dr. Lawson and Dr. Boren also served together on the Lutheran physician hospital organization board. [R.T., at 239-41] Dr. Boren, as a subspecialist, does not ordinarily refer patients. However, even with knowledge about the nature of Dr. Lawson’s misconduct, Dr. Boren stated that he would have no reservation about referring patients, including female patients, to Dr. Lawson. Dr. Boren opined that Dr. Lawson is a very good physician and an asset to the community. [R.T., at 243-44] Warren Hill, M.D., is an ophthalmologist based in Mesa. Dr. Hill has been practicing medicine for approximately 20 years. [R.T., at 247] Dr. Hill has known Dr. Lawson for approximately 5 years. Dr. Hill receives referrals from Dr. Lawson “almost every day.” Dr. Hill also serves with Dr. Lawson on the Valley Lutheran Hospital Credentials Committee. [R.T., at 248-49] According to Dr. Hill, Dr. Lawson is held “in universal high regard” by his patients. [R.T., at 250] Like Dr. Boren, Dr. Hill does not ordinarily refer patients. However, Dr. Hill stated that if such a situation came up, there is no reason why he would not make such a referral, including that of a female patient, to Dr. Lawson. Dr. Hill testified that Dr. Lawson is well regarded in, and an asset to, the Arizona medical community. [R.T., at 252- 53] Larry Spratling, M.D., is a pulmonary disease specialist based in the East Valley. Dr. Spratling has been practicing medicine for approximately years. [R.T., at 263] Dr. Spratling came to know Dr. Lawson shortly after Dr. Lawson moved to Arizona. Their professional contacts increased approximately 3 years ago when Dr. Spratling’s office moved to the building where Dr. Lawson’s practice is located. Like Dr. Boren, Dr. Spratling served with Dr. Lawson on the Lutheran physician hospital organization board. [R.T., at 264-65] Dr. Spratling described Dr. Lawson as an “outstanding primary care doctor.” Dr. Spratling joined Drs. Brinkerhoff, Boren and Hill in opining that Dr. Lawson is an asset to the East Valley medical community. [R.T., at 265] Also like Drs. Brinkerhoff, Boren and Hill, Dr. Spratling stated that he would have no concern referring a female patient to Dr. Lawson. [Id., at 267] The Administrative Law Judge found all of the foregoing witnesses to be credible in their testimony and sincere in their support of Dr. Lawson. The weight of the credible evidence establishes that Dr. Lawson is a substantial asset to the East Valley medical community, particularly to the patients who he serves. This evidence stands in strong mitigation with respect to the penalty to be imposed as a result of the improper 1994 sexual relationships that resulted in Dr. Lawson’s license revocation in Missouri. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In this proceeding, the Board bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Lawson engaged in unprofessional conduct pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1401(25)(o), and that he is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1451. See A.A.C. R2-19-119. A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). A.R.S. § 32-1401(25)(o) defines “unprofessional conduct” as including the following: Action taken against a doctor of medicine by another licensing or regulatory jurisdiction due to . . . unprofessional conduct as defined by that jurisdiction and which corresponds directly or indirectly to an act of unprofessional conduct prescribed by this paragraph. The action taken may include refusing, denying, revoking or suspending a license by that jurisdiction or a surrendering of a license to that jurisdiction, otherwise limiting, restricting or monitoring a licensee by that jurisdiction or placing a licensee on probation by that jurisdiction.

The Missouri Board revoked Dr. Lawson’s license for misconduct in the practice of medicine based on his improper sexual relationships with his patients. This conduct corresponds to A.R.S. § 32-1401(25)(z), which defines sexual intimacies with patients as constituting unprofessional conduct in Arizona. Therefore, the Board proved that Dr. Lawson engaged in unprofessional conduct. At hearing, Dr. Lawson did not dispute that he engaged in unprofessional conduct; the question instead was the appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed as a result of that conduct.

A.R.S. § 32-1451(K) provides: Any doctor of medicine who after a formal hearing is found by the board to be guilty of unprofessional conduct, to be mentally or physically unable safely to engage in the practice of medicine or to be medically incompetent is subject to censure, probation as provided in this section, suspension of license or revocation of license or any combination of these, including a stay of action, and for a period of time or permanently and under conditions as the board deems appropriate for the protection of the public health and safety and just in the circumstance. . . .

Dr. Lawson argued that revocation is inappropriate because the Board did not establish that he is unable to safely engage in the practice of medicine. However, the Board has no such duty. A.R.S. § 32-1451(K) speaks in the disjunctive, and thus authorizes revocation as a remedy to (i) the inability to safely engage in the practice of medicine, (ii) medical incompetence, or (iii) unprofessional conduct. The Board established that Dr. Lawson engaged in unprofessional conduct; therefore, revocation is an available remedy. Although the Board is authorized to revoke Dr. Lawson’s license for his unprofessional conduct, the Administrative Law Judge concludes, under all of the facts and circumstances of this case, that revocation is not the appropriate disciplinary action to be imposed. Dr. Lawson’s misconduct was egregious, and not to be condoned under any circumstances. However, several factors mitigate against revocation. First, the events in question took place in 1994, and all of the evidence suggests that they were isolated incidents of aberrant behavior not likely to recur. Second, although the Board urged that Dr. Lawson’s conduct was aggravated by the “devastating consequences” alleged to have been suffered by the patients in issue, the Board presented no credible, substantial or probative evidence to support this claim. Third, Dr. Lawson has practiced medicine in Arizona for almost 6 years with no evidence of improprieties or unprofessional conduct. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that Dr. Lawson is a highly capable physician admired by both his patients and his peers. Fourth, the Administrative Law Judge found Dr. Lawson to be truly remorseful for his conduct. Fifth, Dr. Lawson has undergone counseling and continues on a regular basis to receive counseling. Although the Administrative Law Judge concludes that revocation is not the appropriate disciplinary action to be imposed in this action, Dr. Lawson’s conduct nonetheless warrants significant discipline. At the conclusion of the June 21, 2000 formal interview, the Board voted to impose disciplinary action against Dr. Lawson’s license consisting of (i) a Decree of Censure, and (ii) five years probation, during which time Dr. Lawson would undergo psychotherapy with a Board-approved therapist with quarterly reports being brought to the Board. [See Finding of Fact No. 18, above] In administrative matters, agency expertise is entitled to deference. The Board, upon consideration of this case in June 2000, concluded that censure and probation were appropriate disciplinary remedies. The Administrative Law Judge finds no compelling reason to deviate from the Board’s determination. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Board should impose discipline against Dr. Lawson’s license consisting of censure and probation as set forth in the Recommended Order, below. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Executive Director enter the following Order: A Decree of Censure is hereby entered against David G. Lawson, M.D.’s license for the practice of allopathic medicine in the State of Arizona (No. 23145) for unprofessional conduct in violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1401(25)(o). Dr. Lawson is hereby placed on probation for a period of five years commencing on the effective date of this Order. The terms of Dr. Lawson’s probation include the following: c. Dr. Lawson shall undergo psychotherapy at his sole expense with a therapist approved by the Board, and such therapist shall submit quarterly reports to the Board documenting Dr. Lawson’s progress. Dr. Lawson shall execute such releases as are necessary to allow the Board access to his treatment records. Dr. Lawson’s psychotherapy shall continue at a frequency of not less than two sessions per month until terminated or otherwise modified by the Board; d. Dr. Lawson shall fully cooperate with any further investigation conducted by the Board, whether arising out of the Complaint in Docket No. 00F-23145-MDX or any other matter; e. Upon request by the Board, Dr. Lawson shall submit to any combination of mental, physical, or oral or written competency examinations as required by the Board, and successfully complete any rehabilitative retraining or assessment program subsequently ordered by the Board; and f. Upon request by the Board, Dr. Lawson shall meet with the Board and demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction that he is medically competent and medically and physically able to safely engage in the practice of medicine. Any violation of the terms and conditions of this Order shall result in summary suspension of Dr. Lawson’s license, and any violations proved after hearing may result in the revocation of Dr. Lawson’s license.

Done this day, April 30, 2001.

______________________________________ Daniel G. Martin Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2001, to:

Claudia Foutz, Executive Director Arizona Board of Medical Examiners ATTN: Amanda Diehl 9545 East Doubletree Ranch Road Scottsdale, AZ 85258

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826