Background
Dr. Sami Moufawad, a pain-management physician, treated a patient in 2007 and again in 2010 and 2011. On three occasions, after the patient raised her shirt and bra while asking whether her breast size contributed to her pain, Moufawad briefly lifted her breasts. He did not offer a gown on any occasion, did not offer a chaperone on two occasions, and did not document the examinations. He later admitted he had not performed proper breast examinations and had initially lied to a Medical Board investigator about touching the patient’s breasts.
The Board opened an investigation in 2011 but took no action at that time. In 2023, after the patient had died, it issued a notice of opportunity for hearing. The Board found three violations of its sexual-misconduct rule and indefinitely suspended Moufawad’s license for at least one year, subject to reinstatement conditions and post-reinstatement probation. The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. Although the court was troubled by the Board’s unexplained delay of more than a decade, it held that Moufawad did not establish material prejudice necessary for a due-process violation. His own testimony and admissions supplied the evidence supporting the disciplinary findings, notwithstanding the unavailability of the patient and the retired investigator. Laches also did not bar the proceeding because it generally is not a defense to government action enforcing a public right or protecting the public interest.
The court also held that a finding of sexual misconduct under Ohio Administrative Code 4731-26-01(H) necessarily includes exploitation of the licensee-patient relationship; the Board did not need to make a separate express finding using the word “exploitation.” Moufawad’s admitted failures to offer a gown and, on two occasions, a chaperone were sufficient to establish sexual impropriety and thus sexual misconduct. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in finding reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the Board’s order.
Key Takeaways
- An unexplained administrative delay does not establish a due-process violation without material prejudice to the licensee.
- Under Ohio’s medical-board rule, sexual misconduct includes sexual impropriety, including failures to use privacy-respecting disrobing practices or offer a chaperone for an intimate examination.
- Appellate courts will not reweigh the evidence or replace the Medical Board’s authorized sanction with their own judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a physician’s own admissions can sustain professional discipline even when delay has made witnesses unavailable. It also confirms that Ohio’s sexual-misconduct rule does not require a separately labeled finding of exploitation when the Board has found sexual misconduct under the rule’s definition.
For medical-license appeals, the case illustrates the narrow scope of appellate review after a common pleas court has found the agency’s decision supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.