ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-16209-MDX-res · Arizona Medical Board · 2008-11-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 5, 2008 APPEARANCES: Dr. James L. Robrock appeared on his own behalf; Assistant Attorney General Dean Brekke appeared for the Arizona Medical Board ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thomas Shedden _____________________________________________________________________ The Arizona Medical Board brought a Complaint against Dr. James L. Robrock. Robrock. The Board alleges that Dr. Robrock violated A.R.S. §§ 32- 1401(27)(a), (27)(e), (27)(f), (27)(r) and (27)(dd) and requests that his license be revoked. FINDINGS OF FACT The Arizona Medical Board (“Board”) is the duly constituted authority for licensing and regulating the practice of allopathic medicine in the State of Arizona. James L. Robrock, M.D. is the holder of License No. 16209 for the practice of allopathic medicine in Arizona issued by the Board. Dr. Robrock’s license is currently suspended and expired. See Exhibit 17.

On August 14, 2008 the Board issued a Complainant and Notice of Hearing setting this matter for hearing at 9:00 a.m. November 5, 2008. The hearing was convened shortly after that time. [1] The Board presented the testimony Sue Dana and Lorraine Brown and had 17 exhibits entered into evidence; Dr. Robrock testified on his own behalf. On June 8, 2006, Dr. Robrock entered into a Stipulated Health Agreement (“SHA”) that required him to enroll and participate in the Physicians Health Program (“PHP”) and to complete the program defined in the Physician Renewal Center (“PRC”) Evaluation. The SHA also required Dr. Robrock to enter treatment with an approved psychiatrist who would submit quarterly reports to the Board. See Exhibit 1. Dr. Robrock has not completed the PRC program and has not completed the treatment by a psychiatrist as required by the SHA. On or about October 4, 2006, the Board received an anonymous complaint alleging that Dr. Robrock was using illegal drugs. On October 5, 2006, a Board interview was conducted by telephone because Dr. Robrock has sustained a back injury. See Exhibit 8 (transcript). At that time Dr. Robrock agreed to enter an Interim Consent Agreement for Practice Restriction (the “Consent Agreement”), which was signed on his behalf by his attorney on October 5, 2006. Dr. Robrock personally signed the Consent Agreement on October 19, 2006. See Exhibit 10. In signing the Consent Agreement Dr. Robrock acknowledged that he had a chemical dependency problem. See Exhibit 10. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Dr. Robrock is prohibited from the practice of medicine until he receives permission from the Board to resume practice. In conjunction with the Consent Agreement, Dr. Robrock was required to file by October 27, 2006 a Declaration of Compliance showing that he was no longer practicing clinical medicine. Dr. Robrock did not file the Declaration as required and the Board sent a notice showing that Dr. Robrock would have until January 25, 2007 to respond to a request for his Declaration of Compliance. On February 14, 2007, the Board received a Declaration of Compliance from Dr. Robrock. On or about April 9, 2007, the Board received a complaint from D.B., a patient of Dr. Robrock, in which D.B. alleged that Dr. Robrock had failed to properly perform a facelift and that she was unable to get her medical records from Dr. Robrock. The Board notified Dr. Robrock of D.B.’s complaint and instructed him to respond by May 1, 2007. See Exhibit 14. Dr. Robrock did not respond by May, 1, 2007, but on May 4, 2007, at the request of Dr. Robrock’s attorney, the deadline was extended. Dr. Robrock did not meet the new deadline and, on May 30, 2007 the Board issued a second notice that added an allegation that Dr. Robrock had not responded to the Board in a timely manner. See Exhibit 15. Dr. Robrock acknowledged that the Board’s allegations are true, but requested that the Board institute a penalty other than revocation. Dr. Robrock testified that he has been unable to make a living the past two years and that has impacted his ability to comply with the SHA and Consent Agreement. Dr. Robrock testified that he is open to suggestion as to how to meet these obligations without money. Dr. Robrock acknowledged that, with respect to D.B., he had not included in the chart all the notes that he should have included. According to Dr. Robrock, he has been infected with nanotechnology, which is not recognizable by doctors, although he acknowledged that a patient reporting the same would be considered delusional. Dr. Robrock was a plastic surgeon and he would like to keep his license to pursue research activities, but does not want to engage in surgery in the future. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. The Board has the burden of persuasion. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2). The burden of proof on all issues that of the preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990). The Board alleges that Dr. Robrock violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1401(27)(a), (27)(e), (27)(f), (27)(r) and (27)(dd). The preponderance of the evidence shows that Dr. Robrock violated A.R.S. § 32-1401(27)(a) in that his failure to provide D.B. with her medical records is a violation of A.R.S. § 12-2293. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Dr. Robrock violated A.R.S. § 32-1401(27)(e) in that he failed to maintain adequate records on patient D.B. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Dr. Robrock violated A.R.S. § 32-1401(27)(f) in that he admitted to having a substance abuse problem when he entered into the Consent Agreement. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Dr. Robrock violated A.R.S. § 32-1401(27)(r) in that he has violated the SHA and, in that he did not timely file his Declaration of Compliance related to the Consent Agreement.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Dr. Robrock violated A.R.S. § 32-1401(27)(dd) in that he did not timely comply with the Board’s request for information related to D.B. Because Dr. Robrock has committed acts of unprofessional conduct, discipline against his license is appropriate. See A.R.S. § 32-1451(M). The Board argues that revocation is appropriate because Dr. Robrock’s unprofessional conduct is egregious given the number and nature of the violations and considering that Dr. Robrock was censured in 2002. The evidence supports the Board’s position and Dr. Robrock offered no substantial evidence in mitigation that would show that discipline other than revocation is appropriate.

RECOMMENDED ORDER IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, Dr. James L. Robrock’s License No. 16209 is revoked.

Done this day, November 25, 2008

______________________________________ Thomas Shedden Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2008, to:

Lisa Wynn , Executive Director Arizona Medical Board 9545 East Doubletree Ranch Road Scottsdale, AZ 85258

By ___________________________ ----------------------- No representative appeared for Dr. Robrock at the scheduled time and, after a 15 minute grace period the Administrative Law Judge convened the hearing in his absence. Dr. Robrock arrived a few minutes after the hearing convened and was in attendance for the presentation of all evidence. After the hearing ended, the Administrative Law Judge learned that Dr. Robrock had contacted the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to the hearing and informed the OAH that he was stuck in traffic and running late.

-----------------------

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