Sullivan

The secrecy surrounding the case of a Bend physician who surrendered his medical license this month illustrates physicians’ ability to control what the Oregon Medical Board reveals about their wrongdoing.

Dr. Daniel Sullivan, an internal medicine physician who had practiced at Bend Memorial Clinic since 2009, decided to surrender his license Oct. 8 after a board investigation found he had engaged in “unprofessional or dishonorable conduct.” That’s all the detail the board is releasing about the case, which aligns with an Oregon law that allows investigations and complaints against physicians to be kept private.

Separately, court records show Sullivan, who declined to comment, has been charged in Deschutes County with felony drug possession and misdemeanor theft. He’s scheduled to enter a plea Oct. 30..

Compare that with the wealth of publicly available information on the case surrounding Dr. Rose Kenny, a family practice physician in Redmond.

Kenny is at risk of losing her license after the board detailed in public documents a long list of allegations against her, including that she had prescribed excessive antibiotics to children, excessive narcotics to a truck driver who reported having six alcoholic drinks per day and excessive and unnecessary testosterone treatments to a patient who developed prostate issues.

Much of the difference between what the public has learned about the cases depended upon how the physicians reacted to the initial allegations. One of the first things the board does when it receives such allegations is bring them to the physician. At that point, he or she can decide whether to dispute some or all of the allegations, said Nicole Krishnaswami, operations and policy analyst with the Oregon Medical Board.

In Sullivan’s case, he decided right away to stop practicing when the board informed him in June of the allegations, rendering his license inactive. Kenny, by contrast, indicated to the board she planned to contest the allegations, which later prompted a documented called a Complaint and Notice, which contains a detailed account of the resulting investigation.

Kathleen Haley, executive director of the Oregon Medical Board, said the board does not proceed further with determining discipline when the licensee surrenders his or her license and doesn’t try to contest the evidence in a case.

“We’re always trying to find ways to be expeditious because we don’t like to drag investigations out,” she said.

Cases like Sullivan’s are relatively rare, Haley said. Since January 2014, nine people surrendered their licenses while under investigation, according to data from the board.

While Haley said she understands the value of transparency when it comes to physician misconduct, she does not think board investigations should be made public.

“I think this physician has determined he’s not going to practice anymore, so he’s out of having a license and he can’t do anything further,” she said. “It’s both his choice and the board’s.”

Lisa Robin, chief advocacy officer for the Federation of State Medical Boards, a nonprofit that represents all state medical boards, said settlements like Sullivan’s, which include the stipulation that the details remain private, are not uncommon.

“I think that probably would not be an unusual event to happen in any state,” she said.

A 2006 report by Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, found fewer than half of state medical boards would make public some type of narrative explaining the reason behind their disciplinary action against a physician.

But Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said there are plenty of reasons the public should know why a physician surrendered a license. It would be good information for patients whose care was negatively affected by the conduct that led to the board’s finding.

Any misconduct may have affected other patients who chose not to report it, Carome said.

“Now that they see it’s happened to others, seeing another case could prompt them to report similar misconduct, which might influence the ability of the physician to get his or her license back,” he said. “It might lead to the disclosure of a pattern.”

If the physician tries to get a license in another state, it will be important for that state’s board to learn about what happened in Oregon, Carome said.

The Oregon Medical Board would provide more information to other medical boards than is available to the public when assessing a potential licensee who practiced in Oregon, Krishnaswami said.

Carome also wondered whether, in the event Sullivan eventually gets his license back, future patients would be able to learn what happened.

“If you end up being a potential future patient of this physician, those patients, they might like to know the reasons for the disciplinary action,” he said.

Sullivan will not be eligible to reapply for a license for two years, Krishnaswami said. If he reapplies at that time, the board would reopen the current case and decide whether it wants to take further disciplinary action or deny the license, she said.

The Sullivan court case

According to court documents, Sullivan was charged in Deschutes County on Aug. 14 with unlawful possession of hydrocodone, a prescription narcotic, and third-degree theft, although the documents do not identify the victim. Court documents say both alleged crimes occurred April 16. He has a plea hearing scheduled for Oct. 30. It is unclear whether the board action is related to those charges. The board launched its investigation May 28, a few weeks after the alleged crimes occurred.

Physician and state Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, D-Beaverton, has criticized the board in the past for its inconsistent treatment of cases and its punitive rather than rehabilitative approach to discipline.

In an interview Friday, she said she doesn’t hear of those problems as often these days.

“I think the board is more aligned now and more consistent,” she said.

Steiner Hayward did not say whether she thinks the board should make public what led to Sullivan surrendering his license, noting the board action could be unrelated to criminal charges.

“The medical board is not a law enforcement agency, nor should it be a law enforcement agency,” she said. “Their job is entirely to protect the safety of the public from practitioners that they license and promote access to high quality care.”

Gretchyn Wolfe and her husband, Phil, had been patients of Sullivan’s beginning in 2010 until about a year ago. The couple, who have since moved to Idaho, can’t say enough about Sullivan, said Wolfe, 69.

“He was detailed; he was thorough; he never had his hand on the door knob ready to leave,” she said. “He listened very well.”

Wolfe said she and her husband were shocked to learn about the criminal charges against Sullivan and feel his former patients have a right to know about the board’s investigation and whether it’s related.

“I would think the public has a total right to know why the license was surrendered,” she said. “I just don’t think down the road that that’s fair for people. I think they should be able to know what the deal is.”

— Reporter: 541-383-0304,

tbannow@bendbulletin.com