ALJDEC

96F-4279-MDX · Board of Medical Examiners · 1997-11-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|In the Matter of: |(| | | |(| | |WENDELL M. PETTY, M.D. |(|Docket No.: 96F-4279-MDX | |Holder of License No. 15367 |(| | |For the Practice of Medicine |(| | |In the State of Arizona |(|findings of fact and conclusions of| | |(|law | | |(| | |Re: Veterans Administration v. |(| | |Wendell Petty, M.D., (In. No. |(| | |4279) |(| | | |(| | | |(| | | |(| | | |(| |

HEARING: November 7, 1997, at 1:00 p.m. Appearances: The State of Arizona, Board of Medical Examiners, was represented at the hearing by Ms. Victoria M. Mangiapane, Assistant Attorney General. The Respondent, Wendell M. Petty, M.D., appeared pro personam. Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston.

This matter came on for administrative hearing on November 7, 1997, at 1:00 p.m., before the Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether cause exists for the imposition of discipline against Respondent, Wendell M. Petty, M.D. The State of Arizona, Board of Medical Examiners was represented at the hearing by Ms. Victoria M. Mangiapane, Assistant Attorney General. The Respondent appeared in his own behalf. Having heard the testimony of all witnesses brought by the Board and that of the Respondent, having read and considered the exhibits offered by the Board and the Respondent which were admitted into evidence, having reviewed the audio-taped record of the hearing, having heard the Board’s and the Respondent’s arguments, and being adequately advised and based on the record taken as a whole, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge now submits the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for consideration by the Board. FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. Respondent, Wendell M. Petty, M.D., is and at all times material hereto was the holder of License Number 15367, issued to him by the State of Arizona, Allopathic Board of Medical Examiners, for the practice of medicine in the State of Arizona. At the times of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the instant complaint, Dr. Petty also held medical licenses from the States of Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and at one time Texas. Dr. Petty is and at all times material hereto was Board Certified in the practice of Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. He was during the events that are the subject of this hearing practicing Psychiatric medicine in the Veterans Hospital at Grand Junction, Colorado.

2. D. G., who later became a patient of Dr. Petty’s, was heavily involved in the oil and gas leasing business in Utah, and real estate ventures in Colorado, in the 1970s and 1980s. D. G.’s business ventures were less than successful, and by the time he presented at Dr. Petty’s office at the VA Medical Center on March 26, 1990, he was in serious financial straits. As matters of fact, D. G.’s financial difficulties and their attendant stressors were the chief precipitating factors of the despondency which had resulted in D. G. being hospitalized the week before he went to see Dr. Petty, and of which D. G. complained to Dr. Petty when he presented at Dr. Petty’s office at that time. Dr. Petty, beyond any question, established a patient/physician relationship involving himself and D. G. on March 26, 1990, in his office. Dr. Petty consulted with D. G. on that date, prescribed the anti-depressant Prozac for D. G., and scheduled a follow-up visit.

3. During the existence of the patient/physician relationship between himself and D. G., and while knowing of D. G.’s precarious financial situation, Dr. Petty entered into a financial relationship with D. G. on April 6, 1990. This was only eleven days after Dr. Petty had entered into the patient/physician relationship with D. G. The financial relationship was Dr. Petty’s loan to D. G. of $6,000.00, and D. G.’s execution of a promissory note in favor of Dr. Petty and Dr. Petty’s wife for that amount plus interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The note’s due date was October 6, 1990, or six months after its execution. Dr. Petty had the appropriate accompanying security agreement and financial statement prepared contemporaneously with the execution of the note.

4. D. G. failed to repay the $6,000.00, and by November 15, 1990, Dr. Petty had retained Mr. J. Richard Livingston, Attorney-at-Law, to collect the money from D. G. On that date Dr. Petty’s attorney wrote a demand letter to D. G., noting therein that the amount then due their client, Dr. Petty, was $6,451.23 principal, plus interest to that date in the amount of $124.02. The lawyer also informed D. G. that interest would thereafter accrue at the rate of $3.18 per day. D. G. had an attorney, Mr. John Moore, respond by letter to Mr. Livingston dated November 27, 1990.

5. Meanwhile, Dr. Petty himself began to experience difficulties of his own. He applied for disability retirement benefits under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System, completing his application and statement on June 24, 1991. He formally applied for the benefits on August 26, 1991. In his statement of disability, which he certified to be true “to the best of his knowledge and belief,” Dr. Petty stated that he was “suffering from ongoing anxiety, depression and stress disorder which makes it impossible to maintain interest, attention and concentration on the topic to be addressed.” He further conceded his inability to “make correct decisions regarding patient mental problems.”

6. Dr. Gerd C. Leopoldt, Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and a practicing Psychiatrist in Grand Junction, Colorado, was Dr. Petty’s treating Psychiatrist during the latter’s period of applying for disability retirement benefits. Dr. Leopoldt provided a physician’s statement in support of Dr. Petty’s claim. Dr. Leopoldt’s statement, dated August 1, 1991, included his diagnosis of Dr. Petty’s adjustment disorder with depressed mood, mention of his being on Prozac for the foreseeable future and in supportive psychotherapy. Dr. Leopoldt added that Dr. Petty could at that time not function in direct care of patients, but that he expected Dr. Petty’s at least partial recovery in a year. The record is devoid of any updated diagnosis or prognosis of Dr. Petty’s psychiatric state.

7. Dr. Petty’s claim for disability benefits was approved by notice dated October 11, 1991, with the award being retroactive to the date of his separation from employment with the VA Medical Center, July 9, 1991. Shortly thereafter, November 7, 1991, his former employer, the Veterans Administration Medical Center, over signature of its Director, Robert R. Rhyne, D.D.S., notified Dr. Petty by letter that pursuant to the United States Code’s mandate relative to the Veterans’ Administration’s Health Care Amendments, that medical center was evaluating whether to report Dr. Petty’s practice behavior when he was at the VA Medical Center in Grand Junction to the respective state medical licensing board’s in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and Texas. The two specific instances cited by Dr. Rhyne in that letter were Dr. Petty’s loan of money to D. G., and his attempts to foreclose on D. G.’s property to collect payment thereon, and Dr. Petty’s claims pertaining to his mental disabilities as described by him in his claim for disability retirement benefits. Dr. Rhyne invited Dr. Petty to submit any information relative to these events.

8. Meanwhile, back on the legal front, Dr. Petty’s lawyers evidently had forborne actually filing a lawsuit against D. G. for some time, because on March 9, 1992, Dr. Petty’s attorney, Mr. J. Richard Livingston, wrote another demand letter to D. G. That letter, as did the first, stated the amount of principal owed, and the amount of interest owed and its daily rate of accumulation. Dr. Petty’s demands for payment of the promissory note, and D. G.’s failure to pay same, culminated in his filing a lawsuit against D. G. in Mesa County (Colorado) Court on April 1, 1992, praying for $8,623.91 on the note’s principal and accrued interest, plus interest on the judgment, costs, and any other items allowed by applicable law. D. G. answered and defended.

9. D. G., subsequent to being sued by Dr. Petty, took the legal offensive, and filed his own lawsuit against the Grand Junction VA Medical Center in Federal Court, under the Federal Tort Claims Liability Act. D. G. alleged that he suffered at the hands of Dr. Petty. Specifically, D. G. alleged that Dr. Petty had malpracticed by failing to follow through on his treatment for depression, and had blurred the boundaries of the therapeutic alliance by entering into a business transaction with him. D. G. alleged that the proximate cause of Dr. Petty’s malpractice was a recurrence of his major depressive episode. 10. D. G.’s law firm sent him to Joseph T. Smith, M.D., to undergo psychiatric examination by Dr. Smith to generate evidence in support of D. G’s federal lawsuit against the VA Medical Center. Dr. Smith issued his Forensic Psychiatric Report on June 9, 1992. Dr. Smith concluded that “Dr. Petty’s treatment [of D. G.] fell below a standard of care, precipitating a further serious Depression on the part of Mr. G.” The sub-standard care administered to D. G. by Dr. Petty, referred to by Dr. Smith, involved the loan and promissory note. Dr. Smith’s Definitive Diagnosis Axis I, was Major Depression, Recurrent, Severe, without Psychotic features. Dr. Smith prognosed Major Depressive Episode; need of immediate psychiatric attention, but with proper medical attention the prognosis should be at least fair, provided D. G. also obtains needed support. For purposes of the instant complaint against Dr. Petty, perhaps the most interesting of Dr. Smith’s report is to be found in its summary. There Dr. Smith stated: “It almost goes without saying that Dr. Petty’s failure to follow through on the proper treatment for the depression, and also his blurring the boundaries of the therapeutic alliance, by entering into a business relationship and abusing the patient’s trust and the transference phenomena, has been the proximate and serious cause of the recurrence of Mr. G.’s Major Depressive Episode, along with the anxiety and marital discord, when his wife became impatient with Mr. G.’s failure to pull himself out of his lethargy and depression. It can be said with reasonable medical certainty that Dr. Petty’s treatment of Mr. G. fell below a standard of psychiatric care and, as a result, Mr. G.’s depression and anxiety returned and continue to exist.”

11. Dr. Petty was interviewed by Grand Junction VA Medical Center’s Staff Attorney, Mr. Thomas R. Kennedy, on November 9, 1992, at the Center. Dr. Petty, during that interview, admitted his loan of money to D. G., and the accompanying promissory note, but stated his position that there existed no patient/physician relationship at the time.

12. The Grand Junction VA Medical Center reported Dr. Petty’s failure “to meet generally accepted standards of clinical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the safety of patients” to the National Practitioner Data Bank (hereinafter NPDB) on November 19, 1992. Dr. Rhyne sent a letter to the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners dated November 20, 1992, in which notice of the report was given, and the two events on which the report was based, i.e., Dr. Petty’s entering into a financial transaction with a patient, and his own serious mental disabilities. This November 20, 1992 letter from the VA Medical Center was the precipitating document for the Arizona Board’s investigation.

13. Once these events were reported to the NPDB the states of Dr. Petty’s various licensures began making inquiries of him as to them. Dr. Petty made written response to the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners’ inquiry by his letter to that Board dated January 11, 1993; to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners by letter dated January 14, 1993, and to the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners, by letter also dated January 14, 1993.

14. The Arizona Board of Medical Examiners, by letter to Dr. Petty dated February 4, 1993, signed by then-Assistant Director Mark R. Speicher, informed him that the Board had received information that Dr. Petty had failed to meet generally accepted standards for clinical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the safety of patients. Again, the two particular failures were Dr. Petty’s entering into a financial transaction with D. G., and his depression, anxiety, and stress disorder, as outlined in his disability claim. The correspondence referred to by Mr. Speicher was the precipitating event of this investigation of Dr. Petty, alluded to above at Finding of Fact #12. Mr. Speicher invited Dr. Petty to meet with David G. Greenberg, then an outside medical consultant to the Board, and himself, for an Investigative Interview relative to these events. The initiation of this investigation by the Board as a response to such a reporting is routinely done as a part of its licensing oversight of Arizona physicians. Dr. Rhyne then followed with a letter to the Arizona Board’s then-Executive Director Mr. Douglas N. Cerf, dated February 8, 1993, referencing the enclosures he sent therewith; namely, the November 7, 1991 notification from Dr. Rhyne to Dr. Petty, and the Notice of Approval of Dr. Petty’s disability claim (See: Finding of Fact #7, supra).

15. The Colorado Board of Medical Examiners wrote a letter to Dr. Petty dated March 23, 1993, in which that Board, over the signature of its Compliance Program Coordinator, Mr. Kent Mount, expressed its concern over the same set of facts and circumstances that have been found thus far herein. The Colorado Board stated its desire that Dr. Petty undergo “a physical and mental status examination by a physician of the Board’s choosing.” That Board stated that if Dr. Petty did not voluntarily undergo such an evaluation, the Board would issue an order compelling him to do so. Mr. Mount concluded his letter by informing Dr. Petty of his option to settle the entire matter by a voluntary relinquishment of his Colorado license.

16. Due to schedule conflicts, the Investigative Interview between the Arizona Board and Dr. Petty was unable to take place until May 3, 1993. Dr. Petty attended the interview voluntarily and without legal counsel. During the course of that interview, Dr. Petty stated that he was on Prozac at the time, but was no longer seeing his Psychiatrist, Dr. Leopoldt. He admitted making the loan to patient D. G. at a high interest rate, and that he foreclosed on the loan collateral when D. G. did not repay. Dr. Petty also acknowledged his awareness, at the time D. G. presented to him at the VA Medical Center, that D. G.’s depression had financial difficulties as its precipitating factor.

17. On the same day Dr. Petty was being interviewed by Dr. Greenberg and Mr. Speicher, D. G. was attesting by his signature to a Voucher for Payment Under Federal Tort Claims Act his acceptance of the sum of $45,000.00 as settlement of his claim against the VA for the malpractice on him by Dr. Petty (See: Finding of Fact #9, supra). A check was issued from the United States Treasury, on June 28, 1993, in that amount, made payable to D. G. and his attorney.

18. By letter dated June 30, 1993, Dr. Rhyne notified Dr. Petty that the VA Medical Center had been notified of the tort claim settlement by the NPDB, and that the VA Medical Center intended, in turn, to report back to the NPDB in regards to the payment to D. G. Dr. Rhyne invited Dr. Petty to inform him of any reason as to why the report should not be made. Dr. Rhyne did indeed submit the Medical Malpractice Payment Report to the NPDB on July 15, 1993.

19. On July 27, 1993, the Iowa State Board of Medical Examiners, over signature of Mr. Dennis M. Carr, Associate Director/Chief of Compliance, sent to Dr. Petty a form voluntary surrender of medical license. On August 3, 1993, Dr. Petty signed and submitted to the Iowa Board his written voluntary surrender of his Iowa medical license. 20. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Speicher wrote to Dr. Petty. He indicated in that letter that Dr. Petty had been requested after the May 3, 1993 Investigative Interview to undergo evaluations, and that he had made an appointment to see Dr. Brennan on July 2, 1993. Mr. Speicher went on to state that Dr. Petty’s wife had informed him that Dr. Petty intended to “cancel” his Arizona medical license, and had canceled his appointment with Dr. Brennan. Mr. Speicher advised Dr. Petty that he could only cancel his license in the middle of an open investigation by admitting the pending charges. Mr. Speicher enclosed a form Request for Cancellation with Cause in case Dr. Petty wished to sign and return same. He never did. Mr. Speicher indicated in conclusion that he would place this matter on the next available Board agenda, and recommend formal discipline, and psychiatric and psychometric evaluation and competency testing.

21. On August 26, 1993, the Iowa State Board of Medical Examiners met and, as revealed in the official minutes of that meeting, accepted by unanimous vote Dr. Petty’s voluntary surrender of his Iowa medical license. By correspondence of the same date of the Iowa Board meeting, its Executive Director, Ann M. Martino, Ph.D., notified Dr. Petty of the Board’s action relative to his license. Dr. Martino continued in her letter to advise Dr. Petty that “voluntary surrender of your license has the same force and effect as an order of revocation.”

22. On November 10, 1993, Mr. Speicher wrote another letter to Dr. Petty, this time informing him that his presence was requested for an Informal Interview to be held on January 25, 1994, at the Board’s offices in Phoenix, and purposed to discuss the allegations against him already mentioned herein. Dr. Petty failed to appear for this interview.

23. On February 8, 1994, Ms. Marlene J. Brown, Secretary/Compliance Section, of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, sent to Mr. Speicher of the Arizona Board, investigative material relative to Dr. Petty’s case.

24. On March 30, 1994, the Arizona Board’s Director, Mr. Cerf, wrote a letter to Dr. Petty informing him that pursuant to statute his license would expire on May 1, 1994, for failure to pay the fees. This is a routine letter sent to all physicians whose license fees are delinquent. As a matter of regulation the Board will not permit the simple expiration of a license while it is currently under investigation.

25. On April 29, 1994, Mr. Tim Keene, Medical Investigator of the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners, drafted a memorandum to the Dr. Petty investigative file. This document memorializes several of the same facts found thus far herein. It also proves Mr. Keene’s request to the Iowa Board for copies of the Board’s minutes of August 26, 1993 meeting, and the Iowa law treating a voluntary surrender as tantamount to a revocation of license. Mr. Keene also noted his agreement with Mr. Donald L. McBee, Attorney-at-Law, Grand Junction, Colorado, and counsel to D. G., that Mr. McBee would forward to Mr. Keene materials relevant to D. G.’s treatment at the VA and his subsequent treatment by Dr. Smith.

26. On May 13, 1994, the Iowa Board, by enclosures under a cover letter to Mr. Keene, responded to his request for the aforesaid materials, including I.C.A. 148.8, which makes voluntary surrender of an Iowa medical license the practical equivalent of its revocation.

27. On May 25, 1994, the Arizona Board, through Mr. Speicher, wrote to Dr. Petty to inform him that his license was suspended, rather than expired, due to the pending investigation.

28. On June 15, 1994, Mr. McBee forwarded the promised materials to Mr. Keene.

29. On August 21, 1996, Mr. Mike Wheeler, Medical Investigator with the Arizona Board, wrote a memorandum to Mr. Speicher in which he detailed his review of the Dr. Petty file, and his conference with Mr. Jim McGee regarding requested items in anticipation of the Board’s filing a Complaint and Notice of Hearing against Dr. Petty.

30. The Arizona Board of Medical Examiners filed the first Complaint and Notice of Hearing against Dr. Petty on September 22, 1996. Dr. Petty filed a written answer thereto dated October 5, 1996. The administrative hearing was scheduled for November 26, 1996. The first Complaint and Notice of Hearing was withdrawn on December 10, 1996.

31. On November 20, 1996, Dr. Michael E. Brennan dictated his Report and Summary on the Dr. Petty case. Dr. Brennan is Medical Staff Physician Consultant to the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners. In that capacity his duties to the Arizona board of Medical Examiners includes review of records in complaints related to Psychiatrists, and substance use by physicians and physician’s assistants and related issues, and boundary issues relative to patient/physician relationships. He is Board Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and the American Board of Quality Assurance and Utilization Review Physicians. He took his Medical doctorate in 1979, and was licensed as a physician by Arizona and Oklahoma in 1979. Dr. Brennan is highly credentialed in the field of medicine, especially Psychiatry, and has enjoyed a long and distinguished career. He is recognized as an expert in the field of Psychiatry.

32. Dr. Brennan reviewing the Board’s investigative file in this case exemplifies nothing more than the routine of Board procedure in these cases. His Report and Summary was based on his review of the records possessed by the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners, reference to which has already been made in these factual findings. The most significant aspects of Dr. Brennan’s Report and Summary, and of his sworn testimony given at this hearing, was his professional opinion concurring with that of Dr. Smith, the Psychiatrist who had examined D. G. in June of 1992 (See: Finding of fact #10, supra). Dr. Brennan explained the “transference” phenomena to which Dr. Smith had alluded in his report. Transference, as Dr. Brennan explained, is the “relationship between a patient and physician, a psychiatrist, in which the patient has rekindled relationship issues from the past, and reacts to that individual in that fashion as an authority figure for example, as a paternal figure for example.” It is further found, as Dr. Brennan testified, that Dr. Petty’s unprofessional conduct relative to patient D. G. was a “problem with exploitation of the patient/physician relationship, and an inappropriate move by Dr. Petty’s part to enter into a financial relationship with a patient by using information that he had gleaned from the initial evaluation process, and using that to his advantage to have a promissory note drafted up, and charge a given interest rate, lending itself to this patient having further financial difficulties and suffering an exacerbation of his underlying mood disorder.” Dr. Brennan testified that this misconduct of Dr. Petty more than aroused the potential for harm to D. G., it actually did harm D. G. His testimony on this point as well as the other facts found infra, provide abundant evidence to find that Dr. Petty’s actions in relation to D. G., including not only making the loan in the context of their patient/physician relationship, but also subsequently suing on the note and attempting to foreclose on D. G.’s property, did in fact harm that patient by exacerbating the financial problems of D. G. that were the major precipitating factor of his depression.

33. It is found through the testimony of Dr. Brennan and the findings of Dr. Smith, that Dr. Petty did in fact blur the boundaries of the therapeutic relationship between himself and D. G. As Dr. Brennan testified, and as here found, “Boundaries are simply those areas of defining clearly that your relationship with the patient is one as a physician/therapist. Your relationship is not one of friendship, though you can be amiable to the individual. You’re not their financial remedy, or banker. You are not their lawyer. You don’t play other roles. You do not socialize with that individual, as it blurs. . . boundary issues about the therapeutic relationship, and what you [are supposed to] function as is their treating physician.”

34. These “boundaries” exist even as between physician and former patients, according to the American Psychiatric Association’s rigid posture in the province of these issues. It is found here, however, that at the time of the events in question, the relationship between Dr. Petty and D. G. was current, not former. Dr. Brennan’s testimony buttresses the finding already made that there existed a patient/physician relationship as between Dr. Petty and D. G. at the time Dr. Petty loaned the money to D. G. As Dr. Brennan testified, that relationship is commenced as “a medical intervention in which medical needs or mental needs are assessed.” The physician “interviews the patient, makes an assessment about their medical need for treatment, and comes to a conclusion about what the problem is, defines the problem, and sets forth a course of treatment intervention that is appropriate to that problem.” This was clearly done by Dr. Petty relative to D. G. There is no evidence that Dr. Petty and D. G. ever terminated their patient/physician relationship. 35. As Dr. Brennan opined and as here is found, the making of the loan to D. G. was a professionally inappropriate act by Dr. Petty. The Principles of Medical Ethics promulgated by the American Psychiatric Association are standards all Psychiatrists in the United States of America are expected to uphold. The provide at Section 2, subsection 2., “The psychiatrist should diligently guard against exploiting information furnished by the patient and should not use the unique position of power afforded him/her by the psychotherapeutic situation to influence the patient in any way not directly relevant to the treatment goals.” Dr. Petty ran afoul of this principle in his treatment of D. G. As Dr. Brennan testified and as here found, these financial relationships between patient and physician are improper on the physician’s part because the physician “is considered able not only to model behavior of the patient, but also equally able to be exploitative of the patient because of the inherent trust in the patient/physician relationship. The patient comes to the physician as an authority, as a guide, someone to be revered, respected and expected to be ethical and appropriate.”

36. The Board’s First Amended complaint and Notice of Hearing was filed March 24, 1997, with administrative hearing thereof scheduled for June 20, 1997. Dr. Petty filed written answer to the Amended Complaint on April 8, 1997. The First Amended Complaint and Notice of Hearing was withdrawn on June 11, 1997.

37. The First Amended Complaint and Notice of Hearing was re-filed on September 15, 1997, and the administrative hearing thereof scheduled for November 7, 1997. This hearing was convened and had on that date.

Conclusions of Law

1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Board as the Respondent is, and at all times material hereto was, the holder of a license issued by the Board.

2. The Board’s first allegation of unprofessional conduct brought against the Respondent is for violation of A.R.S. §32-1401.25.(o): “Action taken against a doctor of medicine by another licensing or regulatory jurisdiction due to that doctor’s mental or physical inability to engage safely in the practice of medicine, his medical incompetence or for 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. . . .” There is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the Respondent violated this statute. The Iowa State Board of Medical Examiners accepted Respondent’s voluntary surrender of his license. According to Iowa law, this offer and acceptance of Dr. Petty’s surrender of his Iowa medical license has the same force and effect as an order revoking that license. The Iowa Statutes controlling the practice of medicine in that state provide at I.C.A. Sec. 148.8 “A voluntary surrender, when accepted, has the same force and effect as an order of revocation.” Additionally, the facts of this case inescapably lead to the conclusion that what brought about the offer and acceptance of Dr. Petty’s medical license to and by the Iowa Board was the mental disability Dr. Petty was then experiencing, as well as the problems caused by his loan to D. G. Therefore, not only was the surrender of his Iowa medical license the legal equivalent of its revocation, the reasons which lead to the surrender are concluded to be mental inability to engage safely in the practice of medicine, as well as his interaction with D. G. found to have taken place in the instant case; all being incompetence or unprofessional conduct proscribed by I.C.A. Secs. 148.6.g., and h., the language of which “corresponds directly or indirectly to” A.R.S. §32-1401.25.(q) and (ll).

3. The second allegation of unprofessional conduct against the Respondent is for violating A.R.S. §32-1401.25.(q): “Any conduct which is or might be harmful or dangerous to the health of the patient or the public.” There is sufficient evidence of record to conclude as a matter of law, and it is here so concluded, that the Respondent did violate this section. Clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt, the actions of Dr. Petty which he took within the context of his existing patient/physician relationship with D. G. actually caused harm to D. G.

4. The third and final allegation of unprofessional conduct brought against the Respondent is for violating A.R.S. §32-1401.25.(ll): “Conduct that the board determines is gross negligence, repeated negligence or negligence resulting in harm to. . . .a patient.” Once again, there is sufficient evidence of record to conclude as a matter of law, and it is here so concluded, that Respondent did violate this section. Obviously, the actions of Dr. Petty in loaning the money to D.G. blurred the boundaries of the therapeutic alliance, and harmed his patient D. G. This harm to D. G. was the proximate result of Dr. Petty’s negligence which occurred during the course of their patient/physician relationship.

Dated this 21st day of November, 1997.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of November, 1997, to:

Mark R. Speicher, Executive Director Nancy Beck, Assistant Attorney General 1651 E. Morten Ave., Suite 210 Phoenix, AZ 85020-4160

Transmitted by:

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