Facts: Petitioner Geoffrey Ames was suspended from the practice of medicine by the respondent Medical Quality Assurance Commission after a hearing in which the commission ruled that Ames had engaged in unprofessional conduct in violation of Washington Revised Code §18.130.180(4) and had used an inefficacious medical device in violation of §18.130.180(16). Ames subsequently filed suit against the commission in the Superior Court for Benton County, asserting that the commission’s decision was based upon insufficient evidence insofar as no additional expert testimony beyond the testimony of the device’s creator had been introduced to speak to the relevant standard of care or to whether the device was inefficacious for the purpose it had been used. The trial court declined to overturn the commission’s decision, holding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The Washington Court of Appeals also affirmed the commission’s decision. Ames subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Was the expert testimony introduced in Ames’ hearing sufficient to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence to a layperson that Ames had engaged in professional misconduct?
Conclusion: Justice Owens’ opinion for a unanimous Court concluded that, consistent with the requirements of the Washington Administrative Procedure Act (§34.05) regarding the review of agency adjudicative proceedings, no additional expert testimony was necessary to establish that Ames had used a medical device for purposes for which it was not designed once the device’s creator had testified that such biofeedback devices do not have the ability to diagnose and treat allergies. The Court held that the Medical Quality Assurance Commission was therefore not required to consider testimony regarding an alleged dispute in the medical profession with regard to the possible benefits of using the device in the manner that Ames had used it.
Docket No. 80644-6 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 24897-6)
Petitioner: Geoffrey Ames
(Counsel: William R. Bishin)
Respondent: Department of Health Medical Quality Assurance Commission
(Counsel: Robert M. McKenna, Kim O’Neal, and Tracy L. Bahm)
Briefs:
- Amicus of American Assn of Health Freedom, Et Al
- Amicus of WA Choice
- Answer to Aahf and Cfh Amici
- Answer to Petition for Review
- Answer to WA Choice Amicus
- Appellant Brief
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner's Response to WA Choice
- Reply
- Respondent Brief
- Respondent State of Wash, Dept of Health, Medical Quality Assurance Commissioner's Answer to Brief of Amici
- Supplemental Brief of Petitioner
- Supplemental Brief of Respondent Doha
Argument: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, June 4th, 2009
Vote: 9-0
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)
Alexander
Johnson
Madsen
Sanders
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Opinion
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form.