In Re Williams

573 N.E.2d 638 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is engaged in the private practice of medicine. P prescribed Biphetamine or Obetrol for fifty patients as part of a weight control treatment regimen. Biphetamine, an amphetamine stimulant, is a Schedule II controlled substance recommended for use as 'a short-term * * * adjunct in a regimen of weight reduction * * *.' Physician's Desk Reference (43 Ed. 1989) 1603, 1604. Obetrol is also a Schedule II substance and has characteristics similar to Biphetamine. D promulgated Ohio Adm. Code 4731-11-03(B), which prohibited the use of Schedule II stimulants for purposes of weight control. P ceased prescribing Biphetamine and Obetrol for weight control upon becoming aware of the rule. D charged P with violating R.C. 4731.22(B) 2 by prescribing these stimulants without 'reasonable care,' and thereby failing to conform to minimal standards of medical practice. D claimed that P had departed from accepted standards of care by using these drugs as a long-term, rather than a short-term, treatment. The parties stipulated to the accuracy of the medical records in question, which detailed the use of Biphetamine and Obetrol for periods ranging from nearly seven months to several years. D introduced into evidence the Physician's Desk Reference entries for Biphetamine and Obetrol, which recommend that these drugs be used for only 'a few weeks' in the treatment of obesity. D presented no testimony or other evidence of the applicable standard of care. P presented two experts detailing the two schools of thought in the medical community concerning the use of stimulants for weight control. the 'majority' view holds that stimulants should only be used for short periods, if at all, in weight control programs. The 'minority' view holds that the long-term use of stimulants is proper in the context of a supervised physician-patient relationship. Both experts supported the 'majority' view, but that P's application of the 'minority' protocol was not a substandard medical practice. D found against P and suspended his license. P appealed and the court held the order was '* * * not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and * * * [was] not in accordance with law.'