ALJDEC - Licensing
24-242-NMB · Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board · 2025-02-20
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of:
Jose Ortiz, N.M.D.
Holder of License No. 07-989
To Practice as a Naturopathic Physician
In the State of Arizona,
Respondent.
No. 24-242-NMB
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 13, 2025; the record closed on February 10, 2025
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Casey Hutchison represented the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board. Gail Anthony and Arianna Rodriguez, N.M.D. appeared as witnesses for the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board. Steven C. Mahaffy, Esq. represented Respondent Jose Ortiz, N.M.D., who was present. Mannal Abdalla appeared as a witness for Respondent Jose Ortiz, N.M.D.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board’s Exhibits 3 through 9 and 11 through 16 (1, 2, and 10 not offered) and Respondent Jose Ortiz, N.M.D.’s Exhibit 22
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent Jose Ortiz, N.M.D. holds License Number 07-989 issued by the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board (“Board”).
2. Dr. Ortiz is the owner of Altogether You Med Spa (“Med Spa”).
3. On or about January 22, 2024, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) to Dr. Ortiz.
4. The Notice provided that the issue set for determination was “whether grounds exist to revoke or take other action regarding [y]our license number 07-989.” After several continuances, a hearing was held on January 13, 2025. At hearing, the Board presented the testimony of Gail Anthony, the Board’s Executive Director, and Arianna Rodriguez, N.M.D. Dr. Ortiz testified on his own behalf and called Mannal Abdalla as a witness.
5. Between July 2023, and September 2023, the Board received three complaints against Dr. Ortiz from three patients.
Gail Anthony’s Testimony
6. Ms. Anthony testified regarding the complaints received against Dr. Ortiz that are the subject of the instant hearing.
Complaint 24-237
On or about July 11, 2023, the Board received a complaint from patient D.O. alleging that Dr. Ortiz “failed to comply [with] standard regulation.” Attached to D.O.’s complaint was a demand letter drafted by an attorney on or about March 31, 2023.
The Board communicated with D.O. to inquire why there was such a delay in filing the complaint given that the procedure about which the complaint was filed occurred on September 13, 2021. D.O. responded that she had attempted to resolve the matter with Dr. Ortiz and then retained counsel to do so; however, the matter remained unresolved.
During its investigation, the Board reviewed Dr. Ortiz’s medical records for D.O. and his written response to the complaint.
Those records indicated that on September 13, 2021, Dr. Ortiz performed a “360 Tumescent Liposuction” procedure with a “BBL” and “Inner Thighs & Renuvion Treatment.” The procedure involved fat removal through incision sites, aspiration of the removed fat, and injection into areas around the buttocks. The total amount of fat aspirated was 2,500 ml. The total amount of fat administered to D.O.’s buttocks was 750 ml to the right and 700 ml to the left. The procedure start time was 9:50 a.m. and the end time was 2:00 p.m.
On September 27, 2021, D.O. called Dr. Ortiz complaining of right buttock pain. Dr. Ortiz called in a prescription for an antibiotic and scheduled an appointment with D.O. for the following day.
On September 28, 2021, Dr. Ortiz assessed D.O. and found “a moderate amount of diffuse swelling over the right buttock with an area of mild erythema approximately 3cm in diameter.” Dr. Ortiz also noted “some hardening of the area which may be indicative of some fat necrosis.”
On November 10, 2021, D.O. returned to Dr. Ortiz’s office for another follow-up. At this time, Dr. Ortiz performed additional right buttock fat removal on D.O.
On January 25, 2022, D.O. returned to Dr. Ortiz’s office once again complaining of pain in her right buttock. At this time, Dr. Ortiz made an incision and manipulated the fibrotic area with a cannula in an effort to displace the tissue.
The Board’s Confidential Investigative Report concerning this complaint sets forth the following in pertinent part:
According to his response, at no time did [Dr. Ortiz] present himself to D.O. as a plastic surgeon, that he made clear he is not a plastic surgeon and therefore could not perform a tummy tuck or breast implants. [Dr. Ortiz] admits D.O. did develop a postoperative infection with some subsequent necrosis of the transferred fat into her buttocks. His records show D.O. did sign a consent to treat form, which informs the patient, among other things, that infection is a possible [sic]. [Dr. Ortiz] treated D.O. with antibiotics and follow up procedures.
It should be noted that the complainant D.O. did contact this board back on March 1, 2022 asking for “assistance on how to proceed with filing a possible complaint.” In a response email the same day, she was instructed the complaint form was available on the Board’s website. The Board did not receive the complaint until 7/11/2023.
Complaint 24-242
On September 7, 2023, the Board received a complaint from V.A. alleging that Dr. Ortiz performed a panniculectomy procedure on her while she was under anesthesia sedation for six hours, among other complaints.
On September 18, 2023, the Board received a similar complaint from R.A., V.A.’s daughter, who alleged that Dr. Ortiz performed a panniculectomy on her as well as a fat insertion into her breasts. Included in her complaint were hospital records showing that R.A. had been admitted to the hospital for sepsis in her left breast on August 23, 2023, and was discharged on August 27, 2023.
The Board opened an investigation into the complaints and reviewed medical records and Dr. Ortiz’s written response.
On July 12, 2023, V.A. appeared for a consultation with Dr. Ortiz at his office. During the consultation, Dr. Ortiz created a treatment plan for V.A. that included liposuction of the upper and lower abdomen, arms, and chin, as well as removal of excess skin of the lower abdomen.
On July 15, 2023, Dr. Ortiz performed the planned procedures on V.A. Records note that the procedure lasted from 8:59 a.m. to 1:49 p.m., and that V.A. was sedated by an anesthesiologist. The total fat aspirated was 1,200 ml.
On July 12, 2023, R.A. also had a consultation with Dr. Ortiz. However, Dr. Ortiz did not document this encounter in R.A.’s medical record.
On July 18 and 21, 2023, V.A. appeared for post-procedure exams. According to the medical record, V.A. appeared to be “healing well. No signs of infection or erythema over the incision cites.”
On August 15, 2023, R.A. appeared for liposuction of the upper and lower abdomen, flanks, upper and lower back, arms, inner and outer thighs, as well as fat transfer to the breasts and excess skin removal below the umbilicus.
These procedures were performed in Dr. Ortiz’s office under sedation performed by an anesthesiologist. According to the records, R.A. was under sedation for the procedure that lasted from 8:57 a.m. to 4:50 p.m., approximately eight hours. The total amount of fat aspirated during the procedure was 1,650 ml.
On August 18, 2023, R.A. complained to Dr. Ortiz about pain and the results of the procedures.
On August 19, 2023, at a post-procedure follow-up, Dr. Ortiz documented that he observed no signs of infection or erythema, and that R.A. was scheduled to fly to Michigan the following day.
Over the following several days, R.A. and Dr. Ortiz exchanged a series of text messages relating to her physical condition. Beginning on August 21, 2023, R.A. told Dr. Ortiz that she had been in a lot of pain, experiencing sweating, body aches, shivering and nausea.
On August 22, 2023, Dr. Ortiz instructed R.A. to begin taking her temperature every two hours, and after receiving a picture of her breast on August 23, 2023, he advised her to have the breast drained at an urgent care clinic.
On August 23, 2023, R.A. arrived at an urgent care clinic but was immediately referred to a hospital emergency department. R.A. was admitted with left breast cellulitis. Hospital records further indicate that R.A. presented with sepsis and a left breast abscess. A left breast washout was performed and “copious necrotic fat and purulent material was irrigated out the breast.” R.A.’s hospital records from August 25, 2023, indicate in pertinent part:
Patient presented to the emergency room with early signs of sepsis and an obvious infection of the left breast. She was placed on intravenous antibiotics in 24 hours after admission spiked a temperature to 103 was tachycardic and mildly hypotensive. She was resuscitated kept on her antibiotics and the decision was made to take her to the operating room this morning for drainage. Originally we had hoped to get drainage utilizing interventional radiology but given the patient's course over the evening we felt that this change in plan was appropriate. Both the patient and her husband were thoroughly informed about the fact that with this operation she might need to have more operations in order to get all of the infection to the go away [sic], she will likely have breast asymmetry and most likely breast distortion that will have to be addressed at another time.
During her testimony, Ms. Anthony acknowledged that “minor” procedure was not defined in the statutes or rules that regulate naturopathic physicians and that she was not aware of any case law that defined the term. Ms. Anthony testified that a definition for “minor” procedure has never existed and that the Board has relied on the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (“NPLEX”) exam for guidance. Ms. Anthony acknowledged that there is no rule or law that prohibits a naturopathic physician from performing liposuction. Ms. Anthony further acknowledged that there are no laws or rules governing a minimum or maximum amount of fat that can be removed from a patient. Ms. Anthony testified that the Board has not adopted a standard of ethics.
Ms. Anthony testified that Dr. Ortiz has been licensed by the Board for at least fifteen (15) years and has fulfilled his required continuing education requirements every year.
Dr. Jose Ortiz’s Testimony
Dr. Ortiz testified that he graduated from naturopathic school in Portland, Oregon in 2005, and became licensed there at that time; however, he did not practice. Dr. Ortiz has been licensed in Arizona since 2007, and is currently only licensed to practice in Arizona.
Dr. Ortiz testified that in 2009, he decided to perform cosmetic procedures as they are minor surgical procedures. Dr. Ortiz testified that he learned while in naturopathic school that procedures are considered minor if “major body cavities are not entered,” such as the head, thorax, or abdomen.
Dr. Ortiz testified at length regarding his training for such procedures, including a training in 2009 in Belgium with the developer of the device he utilizes for these procedures. Dr. Ortiz testified that he trained with four different physicians, including training regarding fat transfers with a surgeon in California. Dr. Ortiz testified that there are no continuing education courses focusing on liposuction. However, Dr. Ortiz took a fifteen (15) hour course regarding liposuction and fat transfer in addition to his required continuing education requirements. Dr. Ortiz testified that eighty percent of his practice was liposuction, and of that eighty percent, eighty percent also had fat transfers.
Dr. Ortiz testified that he removed scars from both R.A. and V.A. per their requests and used an elliptical incision. Dr. Ortiz testified that a 24cm incision was not too long of an incision and that there were no parameters in place to determine whether an incision was “too long.” Further, Dr. Ortiz was qualified to suture, as he was a medic in the military, received training in naturopathic school, and passed the NPLEX in Minor Surgery. Dr. Ortiz testified that he has removed large lipomas, which are fatty tumors, some as long as 15cm.
Dr. Ortiz testified that all of his procedures took place in the subcutaneous layers of the skin and connective tissue above the fatty layer.
Dr. Ortiz further testified in detail regarding the local anesthetic he used, the Tumescent Klein Solution, which has been in use since the 1970s. Dr. Ortiz testified that the Tumescent Klein Solution is a concentrated anesthetic that is injected under the skin with a cannula, and then another cannula is used to remove the solution with the fat which is placed in a sterile container with sterile and antibiotic solution, and then reinserted into the respective patients.
Dr. Ortiz testified that both R.A. and V.A. had MAC anesthesia which was monitored anesthesia by an anesthesiologist. General anesthesia was not used. Both patients were breathing on their own throughout their respective procedures. D.O. only had Tumescent Klein Solution anesthetic.
Dr. Ortiz explained that R.A.’s procedures took approximately eight hours because she had multiple procedures in one day, including liposuction on both arms, front and back, her sides, inner thighs, fat transfer, skin removal, and an extra layer of sutures.
Dr. Ortiz testified that both R.A.’s and V.A.’s procedures were successful and that he prescribed pain medications post procedure and warned that post procedure would be painful. Dr. Ortiz testified that follow up care was critical. Dr. Ortiz further testified that breast cellulitis was not uncommon, that he spoke and texted with R.A. multiple times per day, changed her antibiotic, followed her through urgent care and the emergency department, and spoke with the emergency department physician.
Dr. Ortiz contended that the term “sepsis” was misused in R.A.’s situation, as sepsis is a life-threatening condition with symptoms of significant fever, tachycardia over 120 beats per minute, and multiple organ failure. Dr. Ortiz testified that R.A. did not have fever at the emergency department, her vital signs were stable, and that she was “not near septic.” Further, a blood culture was performed prior to the administration of antibiotics, and the result was negative and continued to be negative throughout the hospital stay. Therefore, according to Dr. Ortiz, R.A. did not have sepsis.
Dr. Ortiz testified that D.O.’s procedure was successful. D.O. had liposuction with a fat transfer. D.O. had many stretch marks and was advised by Dr. Ortiz that she needed a “tummy tuck,” however, Dr. Ortiz does not perform that type of procedure. Dr. Ortiz testified that there was nothing out of the ordinary regarding the amount of fat removed. Dr. Ortiz testified that D.O. might need a “touch up” procedure, which was “not anticipated but not unheard of.” Dr. Ortiz further explained that it was “always a possibility that tissue will die” (fat necrosis) and can be painful and can be removed with an incision or with a cannula. However, D.O. never returned to the office for any follow up care after her procedure.
Regarding R.A. and V.A., Dr. Ortiz testified that both were supposed to remain in Arizona for one week prior to returning to Michigan, however, R.A. flew three to four days after her procedure, and V.A. flew a week after her procedure, and then again two weeks later. Dr. Ortiz advised both V.A. and R.A. that flying “was not a good idea” and that they should receive post-operative care where they resided. Dr. Ortiz explained that flying could be adverse to healing.
Dr. Ortiz’s informed consent documents advised his patients of the risks and possible complications of the various procedures, and all three of these patients signed those documents.
Dr. Ortiz asserted that he was not a danger to the health or safety of the public, there was no evidence that any of these patients’ health was in danger, there was no gross malpractice, he adhered to the standard of care, and there was no immorality or misconduct that would discredit the profession. Further, he was in “constant contact” with his patients.
Mannal Abdalla’s Testimony
Mannal Abdalla, a nurse practitioner who provides surgical nurse services as an independent contractor, testified that she had known Dr. Ortiz since 2010, and has worked with him since 2018 or 2019, approximately one to two times per month.
Ms. Abdalla testified that V.A. was her aunt and R.A. was her cousin, and they both lived in Michigan. Ms. Abdalla was First Assist for Dr. Ortiz for both of their procedures, however, did not participate in D.O.’s procedure.
Ms. Abdalla explained that V.A. and R.A. were in Arizona for vacation when they decided they wanted to have some cosmetic procedures and made an appointment at Dr. Ortiz’s Med Spa. While there, and after consultation with Dr. Ortiz, they decided they wanted to have the procedures that they underwent. Ms. Abdalla testified that she heard Dr. Ortiz inform both R.A. and V.A. that he was not a plastic surgeon and they spoke on the car ride home about the fact that he was not a plastic surgeon. Ms. Abdalla testified that on the drive home, she asked both R.A. and V.A. if they wanted to obtain a second opinion or consultation with a plastic surgeon. They both stated that they were comfortable with Dr. Ortiz and did not want to spend additional money for a plastic surgeon.
Ms. Abdalla was in the room the entire time for both of R.A.’s and V.A.’s procedures and performed the suturing.
V.A. was supposed to stay in Arizona for two weeks after her procedure as she was informed of the risk of her sutures opening if she flew prior to two weeks after her procedure. V.A. agreed to stay for two weeks, and both R.A. and V.A. stayed with Ms. Abdalla at her home. Ms. Abdalla cared for V.A., feeding her, showering her, changing her dressings, and driving her to her post-operative appointments. V.A. did not experience any issues while Ms. Abdalla was caring for her. After a week, V.A. traveled from Arizona to Michigan, and then less than a week after arriving in Michigan, V.A. flew to California. According to Ms. Abdalla, other than V.A. not being satisfied with her results, V.A. did not experience any issues.
After R.A.’s procedure, Ms. Abdalla cared her for in the evenings, observing her and changing her dressings, and testified that nothing was out of the norm. However, R.A. left to go back to Michigan less than a week after her procedure and subsequently, went to the emergency department. Ms. Abdalla testified that less than two weeks after her hospital stay, R.A. posted photos on Facebook depicting her celebrating at a wedding.
Dr. Arianna Rodriguez’s Testimony
Arianna Rodriguez, N.M.D., the Board’s expert witness, is a full-time faculty member of Sonoran University (formerly Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences) (“Sonoran”), and is an Assistant Professor of Minor Surgery and Dermatology since 2017. Dr. Rodriguez also see patients at a private practice located at Sonoran. Dr. Rodriguez writes and delivers the curriculum for Sonoran concerning the subject of minor surgery. Sonoran is the only Naturopathic Medical School in Arizona.
Dr. Rodriguez testified regarding the various educational requirements to become a naturopathic physician, including taking the required courses of Minor Surgery I and Minor Surgery II. Dr. Rodriguez testified that naturopathic physicians are trained in minor in-office procedures, including but not limited to suturing, cyst removal, lipoma removal, fingernail or toenail evulsions, cryotherapy, and skin biopsies.
Dr. Rodriguez testified that all naturopathic physicians must pass the NPLEX in order to practice. Dr. Rodriguez explained that Sonoran’s curriculum is modeled after the NPLEX. The NPLEX Part II Clinical Elective Examination In-Office Minor Surgery Competencies, refers to in-office procedures and indicates that naturopathic physicians should “[k]now how to correctly perform: biopsy; excision and removal; incision and drainage; cryosurgery; chemical cautery or electrocautery; electrodesiccation with or without curettage; nail trephination, removal, and ablation; and laceration repair.” Dr. Rodriguez testified that Sonoran does not teach “major” surgical procedures. However, Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged that there was not an accepted definition of “minor” surgery. Dr. Rodriguez testified that medical factors such as medications, co-morbidities, scar tissue, and a patient’s weight can complicate procedures and account for factors that would lead one to determine whether a procedure is “minor” or “major.”
Dr. Rodriguez testified that Sonoran’s curriculum was focused on procedures that only required local anesthetics, infiltrated into the site, such as localized field blocks, digital blocks, and nerve blocks. Dr. Rodriguez explained that naturopaths received no training concerning general anesthesia.
Dr. Rodriguez explained the procedures of liposuction, fat transfer, Brazilian Butt Lift (“BBL”), and panniculectomy, and testified that none of these procedures fell under Sonoran’s curriculum. Dr. Rodriguez explained the risks involved in these procedures and testified that the risks depended on the amount of fat harvested. Dr. Rodriguez testified that liposuction has a risk of complications that increase with the amount of fat removed, and asserted that a patient could be deformed if fat is not skillfully removed.
Dr. Rodriguez explained that BBLs are inherently dangerous and that the mortality rate for this procedure was as high as three percent.
Regarding fat transfers, Dr. Rodriguez explained that fat embolisms can occur, resulting in pulmonary embolisms and ocular embolisms.
Dr. Rodriguez testified that the Aesthetic Surgery and Research Foundation indicated that these types of procedures should be performed by plastic surgeons who receive different training than naturopaths, and must be MDs or DOs whose education includes a four year undergraduate degree, the MCAT exam, four years of medical school, a two to three year residency, and a one to three year fellowship. Therefore, these physicians are more specialized, and notwithstanding all of this training, there are still fatalities with BBLs.
Dr. Rodriguez defined “standard of care” as “when a medical professional has established guidelines for established evidence based treatment for a condition.” Dr. Rodriguez defined “scope of practice” as “procedures or practice of medicine that can be performed by a specific practitioner.” Dr. Rodriguez testified that there was “no standard of ethics for the Board.”
Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged that Dr. Ortiz did not perform a panniculectomy and that the size of allowable scar removal is not defined by statutes or rules governing naturopathic physicians. Dr. Rodriguez further acknowledged that the statutes and rules governing naturopathic physicians were devoid of definitions for “major” and “minor” surgeries. Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged that “minor” surgeries did not “invade a body cavity.” Dr. Rodriguez testified that none of the procedures at issue in the instant matter invaded a body cavity or muscle. Dr. Rodriguez also testified that none of the complainants suffered a fat embolism.
Dr. Rodriguez opined that Dr. Ortiz’s conduct was unprofessional because the procedures he performed were “not in the curriculum,” he did not receive training in school for these types of procedures, the procedures were not regulated, and they did not qualify as “minor.” Dr. Rodriguez testified that the procedures performed by Dr. Ortiz were “universally recognized” to be performed by plastic surgeons. However, Dr. Rodriguez acknowledged that there were no promulgated restrictions prohibiting naturopathic physicians from performing those cosmetic procedures.
Dr. Rodriguez testified that Dr. Ortiz’s care of R.A. fell below the standard of care because he prescribed her pain medications to “mask” signs of infection.
The Board stipulated that Dr. Ortiz did not perform any panniculectomies in relation to these proceedings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Board’s jurisdiction.
The Board bears the burden of proof and must establish cause to discipline Dr. Ortiz’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than 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.”
A.R.S. § 32-1501(31) provides:
"Unprofessional conduct" includes the following, whether occurring in this state or elsewhere:
. . . .
(f) Engaging in conduct that the board determines is gross malpractice, repeated malpractice or any malpractice resulting in the death of a patient.
. . . .
(p) Engaging in immorality or misconduct that tends to discredit the naturopathic profession.
. . . .
(r) Engaging in any conduct or practice that is contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the naturopathic profession, any conduct or practice that does or might constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public, or any conduct, practice or condition that does or might impair the ability to safely and skillfully practice as a doctor of naturopathic medicine.
The Administrative Law Judge has considered the entire hearing record including the testimony, the admitted exhibits, and the parties’ respective arguments.
In this matter, the Board alleged that the procedures performed by Dr. Ortiz were outside the scope of a naturopathic physician’s practice because they were not within Sonoran’s curriculum for “minor” surgery, and therefore, were considered “major” surgery, and consequently, Dr. Ortiz fell below the standard of care when he performed such procedures. The Board argued that neither statute nor rule contemplated advanced, invasive, major, or other surgery training, and that naturopathic physicians did not receive such training in schools of naturopathic medicine. Therefore, Dr. Ortiz placed these patients at increased risk for adverse medical and cosmetic outcomes.
However, the Board acknowledged that there were no definitions in their statutes or rules defining the terms “minor” and “major” surgeries and what fell within each category. Moreover, the Board admittedly did not have a standard of ethics for the naturopathic physicians it regulates. Nothing in the Board’s statutes or rules prohibited Dr. Ortiz or any other naturopathic physician from performing such procedures. The Board had the ability to promulgate its own rules and lobby the Legislature to implement statutes to govern the parameters of the practice; however, it had not done so. Because the Board had not defined the parameters of what constituted “major” and “minor” surgery, the Tribunal cannot make a determination that Dr. Ortiz performed a “major” surgery or that he engaged in unprofessional conduct by performing the procedures at issue herein.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing that the Board failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Ortiz engaged in conduct that was gross malpractice, repeated malpractice or any malpractice resulting in the death of a patient.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing that the Board failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Ortiz engaged in immorality or misconduct that tends to discredit the naturopathic profession.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes based on the evidence presented at hearing that the Board failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Ortiz engaged in any conduct or practice that was contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the naturopathic profession, any conduct or practice that does or might constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public, or any conduct, practice or condition that does or might impair the ability to safely and skillfully practice as a doctor of naturopathic medicine.
The Board has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that
Dr. Ortiz committed unprofessional conduct as defined by A.R.S. § 32-1501(31)(f), A.R.S. § 32-1501(31)(p), or A.R.S. § 32-1501(31)(r). Therefore, the Board failed to establish cause to discipline Dr. Ortiz’s license.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the complaints filed in this matter be dismissed and no discipline be imposed on Dr. Ortiz’s License Number 07-989.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, February 20, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Gail Anthony
Executive Director
Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board
[email redacted]
Casey Hutchison
Assistant Attorney General – SGD/LES
[email redacted]
Steve Mahaffy
Mahaffy Law Firm, P.C.
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff