BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked Certificate of: Nolan C. Jones Physician's & Surgeon's Certificate No. A ~R=e~sp~o=n=d=e=n=t. MBC Case# ORDER CORRECTING NUNC PRO TUNC CLERICAL ERROR IN "CASE NUMBER" PORTION OF DECISION On its own motion, the Medical Board of California (hereafter "board" finds that there is a clerical error in the "case number" portion of the Decision in the above-entitled matter and that such clerical error should be corrected so that the case number will conform to the Board's issued case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case number contained on the Decision Order Page in the above-entitled matter be and hereby is amended and corrected nunc pro tunc as of the date of entry ofthe decision to read as " ". February 28, 2017

2 BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked Certificate of: NOLAN C. JONES, Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. A Petitioner. Case No OAH No DECISION AFTER NON-ADOPTION Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Ralph B. Dash heard this matter on August 24, 2016, in Los Angeles, California. Deputy Attorney General Claudia Ramirez represented the Office of the Attorney General. Benjamin J. Fenton, Attorney at Law, represented Nolan C. Jones (Petitioner, who was present throughout the proceedings. Oral and documentary evidence was received and the matter was submitted for decision on August 24, A Proposed Decision was issued on September 21, On November 4, 2016, Panel A of the Medical Board of California (Board issued an Order ofnon-adoption of Proposed Decision. Oral argument on the matter was heard by the Panel on January 25, 2017, with ALJ Erin R. Koch-Goodman presiding. The Attorney General of the State of California was represented by Deputy Attorney General Claudia Ramirez. Petitioner was present and was represented by Benjamin J. Fenton. Panel A, having read and considered the entire record, including the transcripts and the exhibits, and having considered the written and oral arguments presented by the parties, hereby makes and enters this decision on the matter. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On August 27, 1976, the Board issued Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate number A to Petitioner. 1

3 2. Petitioner has a lengthy history of Board discipline. On August 2, 1999, in the Matter of the Accusation Against Nolan Jones, MD., case number , the Board revoked Petitioner's medical license, stayed the revocation, and imposed a four-year probation against Petitioner. The probation contained various terms and conditions, including a requirement that Petitioner's license be suspended until he successfully completed the Physician's Assessment and Continuing Education program at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. The Accusation in that matter alleged that Petitioner committed acts of gross negligence (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (b, repeated negligent acts (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (c, and incompetence (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (d in his care and treatment of numerous female patients in approximately Petitioner entered into a stipulated settlement wherein he agreed not to contest those allegations, agreed he was subject to discipline, and agreed to be bound by the Board's discipline. 3. On June 21, 2002, in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation Against Nolan Jones, MD., case number D , the Board again revoked Petitioner's medical license, stayed the revocation, and extended Petitioner's probation for three years beyond the date it would have otherwise expired under the terms of the previously imposed probation, with various terms and conditions. The Petition in that proceeding alleged that, in approximately 1999, Petitioner had violated three different conditions of probation, including failing to ensure practice monitor reports were filed, failing to obey all laws, and failing to file accurate quarterly reports. Petitioner entered into a stipulated settlement, wherein he agreed Complainant could establish a prima facie showing in support of the Petition's charges, he gave up his right to contest those charges, agreed he was subject to discipline, and further agreed to be bound by the imposition of discipline. 4. On August 12, 2004, in the Matter of the Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation Against Nolan Jones, MD., case number D , the Board revoked Petitioner's medical license a third time, stayed the revocation, and extended Petitioner's probation for five years beyond the date it would have otherwise expired under the terms of the previously imposed probation. The terms and conditions of this probation included condition number 10 that states as follows: "Obey All Laws: Petitioner shall obey all federal, state and local laws, all rules governing the practice of medicine in California, and remain in full compliance with any court ordered criminal probation, payments and other orders." The Accusation and Petition in that proceeding alleged six causes for discipline involving his care and treatment of patients, three distinct counts of gross negligence (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (b, two distinct counts of dispensing an improperly labeled dangerous drug (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2238, and false advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, 651. The pleading further alleged cause to revoke the earlier imposed probation for failing to obey all laws. Petitioner entered into a stipulated settlement, wherein he agreed Complainant could establish a factual basis for the allegations, gave up his right to contest those charges, agreed he was subject to discipline, and further agreed to be bound by the imposition of discipline. 5. In its Decision effective April20, 2009, in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation Against Nolan Jones, MD., case number D , the Board revoked Petitioner's certificate to practice medicine. In this Decision, the Board made the following Legal Conclusions, among others (all references to "Respondent" are to Petitioner: 2

4 6. Respondent created false medical records by documenting examinations and evaluations of patients R.C. and M.C., though he never met, examined, or treated either patient. These actions by Respondent are substantially related to a physician's qualifications, functions, and duties. Respondent failed to monitor the four physical therapy sessions with which each patient was treated, and falsely documented that a significant number of additional physical therapy treatments had been rendered to each. Furthermore, he failed to document the basis for treating patients R.C. and M.C. with physical therapy, the manner in which the treatments were administered, and each patient's response to those treatments. All of these actions and omissions by Respondent were extreme departures from the standard of care, and thus constitute gross negligence. [,-r]... [,-r] 8. Complainant proved her allegations by clear and convincing evidence to a reasonable certainty. Respondent's history of discipline by the Board, and his willingness to engage in acts of gross negligence and dishonesty within his medical practice while on probation, demonstrate that the constraints of probation are ineffective and unmerited. Therefore, revocation ofrespondent's medical license is appropriate. 6. On a specific date not established by the evidence, but in 2010, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, of one count of violating Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107, subdivision (b(4(a, Medi-Cal fraud. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Petitioner on probation for one year. The court also ordered Petitioner to make restitution. Thereafter, the court set aside the conviction and dismissed the criminal complaint under the provisions of Penal Code section According to Petitioner's Narrative Statement, filed along with his Petition, the conviction arose out of"a billing issue at a hospice." Petitioner offered no further details of the crime during his testimony. 7. Petitioner graduated from Columbia University College ofphysicians and Surgeons in New York City then went on to a residency in OB/GYN at Martin Luther King Medical Center (MLK in Los Angeles. Petitioner then completed a fellowship in gynecologic oncology at Tufts University School of Medicine in Medford, Massachusetts. After his fellowship he moved back to Los Angeles and returned to MLK as an Assistant Professor. He went into private practice in After the Board revoked his license, Petitioner returned to his native Wichita, Kansas where he found employment as a common laborer. He then went to school in order to earn his contractor's license. He thereafter worked with children with special emotional needs through 1 These facts were gleaned from information provided by the California Department of Justice in a document entitled "Disposition Details." (Exhibit 23. There was no further evidence offered regarding the facts and circumstances of the crime or details of the probationary terms, such as the amount of restitution the court ordered Petitioner to pay. 3

5 the Urban League. He then moved to Woodbridge, Virginia to be near his adopted daughter who was pregnant. He became the director of an adult daycare program for the developmentally disabled and stayed in that position for two years. 9. Petitioner then returned to Los Angeles and began doing manual labor for American Apparel. It was there that he met Reverend Maurice Meyers, an Associate Pastor at Holy Revival Baptist Community Church in Compton. Rev. Meyers testified on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner is well-liked at his job, showing dignity and respect. He believes Petitioner has repented wholeheartedly from his past misconduct and noted that fellow churchgoers see Petitioner as being honest and having a "humble spirit." Rev. Meyers is aware ofpetitioner's criminal history and the loss of his medical license. 10. Harold T. Peart, M.D., wrote a letter on Petitioner's behalf (Exhibit J and also testified at the hearing. He has known Petitioner for 35 years, having met him when Petitioner was Chief Resident and Dr. Peart was a fourth year resident. Dr. Peart is aware of Petitioner's background with the Board and his criminal conviction. He noted that patients he had had in common with Petitioner "all thought very highly of him and he believed and believes that Petitioner is honest and caring. Petitioner expressed remorse for his past conduct. In Exhibit J, Dr. Peart wrote, in part, "The revocation of his license has had an indelible impact on [Petitioner]. I have observed him since this event, and can report that it has changed him. I believe that he understands the severity of his actions, and that he is keen to not repeat the mistakes of the past." Dr. Peart is "happy" to recommend the reinstatement ofpetitioner's medical license. 11. Anthony C. Pickett wrote a letter on Petitioner's behalf (Exhibit K and also testified at the hearing. Dr. Pickett is Chief of the Department of OB/GYN at California Hospital Medical Center. Dr. Pickett has known Petitioner for at least 15 years. He believes Petitioner has excellent technical skills and medical judgment and, knowing about the Board's discipline and the criminal conviction, believes him to be of "impeccable character." He believes Petitioner's "life has been about charity." Because of his skills and chosen field of gynecologic oncology, Petitioner "could have written his own ticket" but chose to practice in a poor underserved area. He believes Petitioner "has taken ownership of his problems." In Exhibit K he wrote, in part: Beyond [Petitioner ]'s academic scholarship, he is an honest man of integrity and a decent human being. I have become familiar with the nature of his medical license revocation and am solidly convinced that he is sincerely apologetic, contrite and has adequately undergone the personal introspection to garner the public trust and return to the full Practice of Medicine. 12. Darlene Taylor has been a nurse for 43 years and is now retired. She has known Petitioner for 38 years, having worked with him at MLK in the OB/GYN Department. She said "all of [Petitioner's] patients loved him" and that he had an excellent bedside manner. His patients would lovingly call him "Old Dr. Jones." She stated that she knows Petitioner to be smart, kind, empathetic and compassionate." Nurse Taylor has also known Petitioner as a member of her church and from their work at the Estelle Van Meter Community Service Center where Petitioner 4

6 volunteers his time and serves as vice president of the board. "All the old ladies love him," she said. 13. During his testimony, Petitioner acknowledged that he had been arrogant, but that his trouble with the Board "was a learning experience" and he "is not that way anymore." Petitioner acknowledged that he had practiced below the standard of care and he "accepts that discipline is warranted." 14. Petitioner has become active in his American Legion post and often works on the "Moving Wall" project which is a replica of the VietNam War Memorial in Washington D.C. He has also taught anatomy and physiology to nursing students at National University. Petitioner made an impressive showing that he has been rehabilitated from his former misconduct. Petitioner testified on his own behalf. He was confident, articulate and honest. He freely talked about his past without attempting to palliate or vitiate his conduct. It would not be adverse to the public interest to reinstate Petitioner's certificate to practice medicine, provided it is on a probationary basis and conditioned as set forth below. Because Petitioner has not practiced medicine in seven years, as a condition precedent to his certificate being reinstated, he will be required to complete a clinical competence assessment program. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS 1. The burden rests on Petitioner to prove that he has rehabilitated himself and that he is entitled to have his license restored. (Flanzer v. Board of Dental Examiners ( Cal.App.3d 1392, A person seeking reinstatement must present strong proof of rehabilitation and the showing of rehabilitation must be sufficient to overcome the Board's former adverse determination. The standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. (Housman v. Board of Medical Examiners ( Cal.App.2d, 308, Government Code section 11522, Business and Professions Code section 2307 and California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 13597, govern these proceedings and establish the timelines and format for filing a petition. 4. California Code of Regulations, title 16, section , provides: When considering a petition for reinstatement of a license... pursuant to the provisions of Section of the Government Code, the division or panel shall evaluate evidence of rehabilitation submitted by the petitioner considering the following criteria: (a The nature and severity of the act(s or crime(s under consideration as grounds for denial. Ill 5

7 (b Evidence of any act(s or crime(s committed subsequent to the act(s or crime(s under consideration as grounds for denial which also could be considered as grounds for denial under Section 480. (c The time that has elapsed since commission of the act( s or crime( s referred to in subsections (a or (b. (d (e In the case of a suspension or revocation based upon the conviction of a crime, the criteria set forth in Section , subsections (b, (d and (e. Evidence, if any, of rehabilitation submitted by the applicant. 5. Rehabilitation is a state of mind and the law looks with favor upon rewarding with the opportunity to serve, one who has achieved reformation and regeneration. (Hightower v. State Bar ( Cal.3d 150, Cases authorizing reinstatement to a professional practice commonly involve a substantial period of exemplary conduct following the misdeeds. The more serious the misconduct, the stronger the showing of rehabilitation must be. (In re Gossage ( Cal. 4th 1080, The purpose of discipline is not to punish, but to protect the public by eliminating practitioners who are dishonest, immoral, disreputable or incompetent. (Fahmy v. Medical Board ofcalifornia ( Cal.App.4th 810, Petitioner has met his burden, as set forth in Findings 3 through 14, that he has been sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant reinstatement of his medical license on a probationary basis. ORDER The Petition ofnolan C. Jones for reinstatement of his revoked Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate number A is granted, subject to the following: The newly reinstated certificate is hereby revoked. However, the revocation is stayed and Petitioner is placed on probation for five (5 years upon the following terms and conditions: 1. Clinical Competence Assessment Program - Condition Precedent Within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, Petitioner shall enroll in a clinical competence assessment program approved in advance by the Board or its designee. Petitioner shall successfully complete the program not later than six (6 months after Petitioner's initial enrollment unless the Board or its designee agrees in writing to an extension of that time. The program shall consist of a comprehensive assessment of Petitioner's physical and mental health and the six general domains of clinical competence as defined by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Medical Specialties pertaining to 6

8 Petitioner's current or intended area of practice. The program shall take into account data obtained from the pre-assessment, self-report forms and interview, and the Decision(s, Accusation(s, and any other information that the Board or its designee deems relevant. The program shall require Petitioner's on-site participation for a minimum of 3 and no more than 5 days as determined by the program for the assessment and clinical education evaluation. Petitioner shall pay all expenses associated with the clinical competence assessment program. At the end of the evaluation, the program will submit a report to the Board or its designee which unequivocally states whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the ability to practice safely and independently. Based on Petitioner's performance on the clinical competence assessment, the program will advise the Board or its designee of its recommendation( s for the scope and length of any additional educational or clinical training, evaluation or treatment for any medical condition or psychological condition, or anything else affecting Petitioner's practice of medicine. Petitioner shall comply with the program's recommendations. Determination as to whether Petitioner successfully completed the clinical competence assessment program is solely within the program's jurisdiction. Petitioner shall not practice medicine until Petitioner has successfully completed the program and has been so notified by the Board or its designee in writing. 2. Professionalism Program (Ethics Course Within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, Petitioner shall enroll in a professionalism program, that meets the requirements of Title 16, California Code ofregulations (CCR section Petitioner shall participate in and successfully complete that program. Petitioner shall provide any information and documents that the program may deem pertinent. Petitioner shall successfully complete the classroom component of the program not later than six (6 months after Petitioner's initial enrollment, and the longitudinal component of the program not later than the time specified by the program, but no later than one ( 1 year after attending the classroom component. The professionalism program shall be at Petitioner's expense and shall be in addition to the Continuing Medical Education (CME requirements for renewal of licensure. A professionalism program taken after the acts that gave rise to the charges in the Accusation, but prior to the effective date of the Decision may, in the sole discretion of the Board or its designee, be accepted towards the fulfillment of this condition if the program would have been approved by the Board or its designee had the program been taken after the effective date of this Decision. Petitioner shall submit a certification of successful completion to the Board or its designee not later than 15 calendar days after successfully completing the program or not later than 15 calendar days after the effective date of the Decision, whichever is later. Ill 7

9 3. Monitoring of Practice Within 30 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, Petitioner shall submit to the Board or its designee for prior approval as a practice monitor, the name and qualifications of one or more licensed physicians and surgeons whose licenses are valid and in good standing, and who are preferably American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS certified. A monitor shall have no prior or current business or personal relationship with Petitioner, or other relationship that could reasonably be expected to compromise the ability of the monitor to render fair and unbiased reports to the Board, including but not limited to any form ofbartering, shall be in Petitioner's field of practice, and must agree to serve as Petitioner's monitor. Petitioner shall pay all monitoring costs. The Board or its designee shall provide the approved monitor with copies of the Decision(s and Accusation(s, and a proposed monitoring plan. Within 15 calendar days of receipt of the Decision(s, Accusation(s, and proposed monitoring plan, the monitor shall submit a signed statement that the monitor has read the Decision(s and Accusation(s, fully understands the role of a monitor, and agrees or disagrees with the proposed monitoring plan. If the monitor disagrees with the proposed monitoring plan, the monitor shall submit a revised monitoring plan with the signed statement for approval by the Board or its designee. Within 60 calendar days ofthe effective date of this Decision, and continuing throughout probation, Petitioner's practice shall be monitored by the approved monitor. Petitioner shall make all records available for immediate inspection and copying on the premises by the monitor at all times during business hours and shall retain the records for the entire term of probation. If Petitioner fails to obtain approval of a monitor within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, Petitioner shall receive a notification from the Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three (3 calendar days after being so notified. Petitioner shall cease the practice of medicine until a monitor is approved to provide monitoring responsibility. The monitor(s shall submit a quarterly written report to the Board or its designee which includes an evaluation of Petitioner's performance, indicating whether Petitioner's practices are within the standards of practice of medicine, and whether Petitioner is practicing medicine safely. It shall be the sole responsibility of Petitioner to ensure that the monitor submits the quarterly written reports to the Board or its designee within 1 0 calendar days after the end of the preceding quarter. If the monitor resigns or is no longer available, Petitioner shall, within 5 calendar days of such resignation or unavailability, submit to the Board or its designee, for prior approval, the name and qualifications of a replacement monitor who will be assuming that responsibility within 15 calendar days. If Petitioner fails to obtain approval of a replacement monitor within 60 calendar days of the resignation or unavailability of the monitor, Petitioner shall receive a notification from the Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three (3 calendar days after being so notified Petitioner shall cease the practice of medicine until a replacement monitor is 8

10 approved and assumes monitoring responsibility. In lieu of a monitor, Petitioner may participate in a professional enhancement program approved in advance by the Board or its designee, that includes, at minimum, quarterly chart review, semi-annual practice assessment, and semi-annual review of professional growth and education. Petitioner shall participate in the professional enhancement program at Petitioner's expense during the term of probation. 4. Education Course Within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, and on an annual basis thereafter, Petitioner shall submit to the Board or its designee for its prior approval educational program(s or course(s which shall not be less than 40 hours per year, for each year of probation. The educational program(s or course(s shall be aimed at correcting areas of deficiency or knowledge as to refreshment of surgical techniques and/or medical practice management/financial management, and shall be Category I certified. The educational program(s or course(s shall be at Petitioner's expense and shall be in addition to the Continuing Medical Education (CME requirements for renewal of licensure. Following the completion of each course, the Board or its designee may administer an examination to test Petitioner's knowledge of the course. Petitioner shall provide proof of attendance for 65 hours of CME of which 40 hours were in satisfaction of this condition. 5. Solo Practice Prohibition Petitioner is prohibited from engaging in the solo practice of medicine. Prohibited solo practice includes, but is not limited to, a practice where: 1 Petitioner merely shares office space with another physician but is not affiliated for purposes of providing patient care, or 2 Petitioner is the sole physician practitioner at that location. If Petitioner fails to establish a practice with another physician or secure employment in an appropriate practice setting within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, Petitioner shall receive a notification from the Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three (3 calendar days after being so notified. The Petitioner shall not resume practice until an appropriate practice setting is established. If, during the course ofthe probation, the Petitioner's practice setting changes and the Petitioner is no longer practicing in a setting in compliance with this Decision, the Petitioner shall notify the Board or its designee within 5 calendar days of the practice setting change. If Petitioner fails to establish a practice with another physician or secure employment in an appropriate practice setting within 60 calendar days of the practice setting change, Petitioner shall receive a notification from the Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three (3 calendar days after being so notified. The Petitioner shall not resume practice until an appropriate practice setting is established. Ill 9

11 6. Notification Within seven (7 days of the effective date of this Decision, the Petitioner shall provide a true copy of this Decision and Accusation to the Chief of Staff or the Chief Executive Officer at every hospital where privileges or membership are extended to Petitioner, at any other facility where Petitioner engages in the practice of medicine, including all physician and locum tenens registries or other similar agencies, and to the Chief Executive Officer at every insurance carrier which extends malpractice insurance coverage to Petitioner. Petitioner shall submit proof of compliance to the Board or its designee within 15 calendar days. This condition shall apply to any change(s in hospitals, other facilities or insurance carrier. 7. Supervision of Physician Assistants and Advanced Practice Nurses During probation, Petitioner is prohibited from supervising physician assistants and advanced practice nurses. 8. Obey All Laws Petitioner shall obey all federal, state and local laws, all rules governing the practice of medicine in California and remain in full compliance with any court ordered criminal probation, payments, and other orders. 9. Quarterly Declarations Petitioner shall submit quarterly declarations under penalty of perjury on forms provided by the Board, stating whether there has been compliance with all the conditions of probation. Petitioner shall submit quarterly declarations not later than 10 calendar days after the end of the preceding quarter. 10. General Probation Requirements Compliance with Probation Unit: Petitioner shall comply with the Board's probation unit. Address Changes: Petitioner shall, at all times, keep the Board informed of Petitioner's business and residence addresses, address (if available, and telephone number. Changes of such addresses shall be immediately communicated in writing to the Board or its designee. Under no circumstances shall a post office box serve as an address of record, except as allowed by Business and Professions Code section 2021 (b. 10

12 Place of Practice: Petitioner shall not engage in the practice of medicine in Petitioner's or patient's place of residence, unless the patient resides in a skilled nursing facility or other similar licensed facility. License Renewal: Petitioner shall maintain a current and renewed California physician's and surgeon's license. Travel or Residence Outside California: Petitioner shall immediately inform the Board or its designee, in writing, of travel to any areas outside the jurisdiction of California which lasts, or is contemplated to last, more than thirty (30 calendar days. In the event Petitioner should leave the State of California to reside or to practice Petitioner shall notify the Board or its designee in writing 30 calendar days prior to the dates of departure and return. 11. Interview with the Board or its Designee Petitioner shall be available in person upon request for interviews either at Petitioner's place of business or at the probation unit office, with or without prior notice throughout the term of probation. 12. Non-practice While on Probation Petitioner shall notify the Board or its designee in writing within 15 calendar days of any periods of non-practice lasting more than 3 0 calendar days and within 15 calendar days of Petitioner's return to practice. Non-practice is defined as any period oftime Petitioner is not practicing medicine as defined in Business and Professions Code sections 2051 and 2052 for at least 40 hours in a calendar month in direct patient care, clinical activity or teaching, or other activity as approved by the Board. If Petitioner resides in California and is considered to be in non-practice, Petitioner shall comply with all terms and conditions of probation. All time spent in an intensive training program which has been approved by the Board or its designee shall not be considered non-practice and does not relieve Petitioner from complying with all the terms and conditions of probation. Practicing medicine in another state of the United States or Federal jurisdiction while on probation with the medical licensing authority of that state or jurisdiction shall not be considered non-practice. A Board-ordered suspension of practice shall not be considered as a period of non-practice. In the event Petitioner's period of non-practice while on probation exceeds 18 calendar months, Petitioner shall successfully complete the Federation of State Medical Board's Special 11

13 Purpose Examination, or, at the Board's discretion, a clinical competence assessment program that meets the criteria of Condition 18 ofthe current version of the Board's "Manual of Model Disciplinary Orders and Disciplinary Guidelines" prior to resuming the practice of medicine. Petitioner's period of non-practice while on probation shall not exceed two (2 years. Periods of non-practice will not apply to the reduction of the probationary term. Periods of non-practice for a Petitioner residing outside of California, will relieve Petitioner of the responsibility to comply with the probationary terms and conditions with the exception ofthis condition and the following terms and conditions of probation: Obey All Laws; General Probation Requirements; Quarterly Declarations; Abstain from the Use of Alcohol and/or Controlled Substances; and Biological Fluid Testing. 13. Completion of Probation Petitioner shall comply with all financial obligations (e.g., restitution, probation costs not later than 120 calendar days prior to the completion of probation. Upon successful completion of probation, Petitioner's certificate shall be fully restored. 14. Violation of Probation Failure to fully comply with any term or condition of probation is a violation of probation. If Petitioner violates probation in any respect, the Board, after giving Petitioner notice and the opportunity to be heard, may revoke probation and carry out the disciplinary order that was stayed. If an Accusation, or Petition to Revoke Probation, or an Interim Suspension Order is filed against Petitioner during probation, the Board shall have continuing jurisdiction until the matter is final, and the period of probation shall be extended until the matter is final. 15. License Surrender Following the effective date ofthis Decision, if Petitioner ceases practicing due to retirement or health reasons or is otherwise unable to satisfy the terms and conditions of probation, Petitioner may request to surrender his or her license. The Board reserves the right to evaluate Petitioner's request and to exercise its discretion in determining whether or not to grant the request, or to take any other action deemed appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances. Upon formal acceptance of the surrender, Petitioner shall within 15 calendar days deliver Petitioner's wallet and wall certificate to the Board or its designee and Petitioner shall no longer practice medicine. Petitioner will no longer be subject to the terms and conditions of probation. If Petitioner re-applies for a medical license, the application shall be treated as a petition for reinstatement of a revoked certificate. Ill Ill 12

14 16. Probation Monitoring Costs Petitioner shall pay the costs associated with probation monitoring each and every year of probation, as designated by the Board, which may be adjusted on an annual basis. Such costs shall be payable to the Medical Board of California and delivered to the Board or its designee no later than January 31 of each calendar year. This Decision shall become effective at 5:00 p.m. on _!larch 15, 2017 IT IS SO ORDERED February 13, 2017 Jamie Panel A 13

15 BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked Certificate of: NOLAN C. JONES Physician's & Surgeon's Certificate No: A30400 Respondent Case No.: OAH No.: ORDER OF NON-ADOPTION OF PROPOSED DECISION The Proposed Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in the above-entitled matter has been non-adopted. A panel of the Medical Board of California (Board will decide the case upon the record, including the transcript and exhibits of the hearing, and upon such written argument as the parties may wish to submit directed to the question of whether the proposed decision should be modified and what, if any, limitations should be placed on Respondent's ability to practice medicine. The parties will be notified of the date for submission of such argument when the transcript of the above-mentioned hearing becomes available. To order a copy of the transcript, please contact Kennedy Court Reporters, 920 West 17th Street, 2nd Fl., Santa Ana, CA The telephone number is ( To order a copy of the exhibits, please submit a written request to this Board. In addition, oral argument will only be scheduled if a party files a request for oral argument with the Board within 20 days from the date of this notice. If a timely request is filed, the Board will serve all parties with written notice of the time, date and place for oral argument. Oral argument shall be directed only to the question of whether the proposed penalty should be modified. Please do not attach to your written argument any documents that are not part of the record as they cannot be considered by the Panel. The Board directs the parties attention to Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations, sections and for additional requirements regarding the submission of oral and written argument. Please remember to serve the opposing party with a copy of your written argument and any other papers you might file with the Board. The mailing address of the Board is as follows: Date: November 4, 2016 MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA ( Attention: Michelle Solar Jamie Wri t, J.D. Chair, Panel A

16 BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked Certificate of: Case No NOLAN C. JONES, OAH No Petitioner. PROPOSED DECISION Administrative Law Judge Ralph B. Dash heard this matter on August 24, 2016, in Los Angeles, California. Deputy Attorney General Claudia Ramirez represented the Office of the Attorney General. Benjamin J. Fenton, Attorney at Law represented Nolan C. Jones (Petitioner, who was present throughout the proceedings. Oral and documentary evidence having been received and the matter having been submitted, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Proposed Decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On August 27, 1976, the Medical Board of California (Board issued Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate number A to Petitioner. 2. Petitioner has a lengthy history of Board discipline. On August 2, 1999, in the Matter of the Accusation Against Nolan.! ones, M.D., case number , the Board revoked Petitioner's medical license, stayed the revocation, and imposed a four-year probation against Petitioner. The probation contained various terms and conditions, including a requirement that Petitioner's license be suspended until he successfully completed the Physician's Assessment and Continuing Education program at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. The Accusation in that matter alleged that Petitioner committed acts of gross negligence (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (b, repeated negligent acts (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (c, and incompetence (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (d in his care and treatment of numerous female patients in

17 approximately Petitioner entered into a stipulated settlement wherein he agreed not to contest those allegations, agreed he was subject to discipline, and agreed to be bound by the Board's discipline. 3. On June 21, 2002, in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation Against Nolan Jones, M.D., case number D , the Board again revoked Petitioner's medical license, stayed the revocation, and extended Petitioner's probation for three years beyond the date it would have otherwise expired under the terms of the previously imposed probation, with various terms and conditions. The Petition in that proceeding alleged that, in approximately 1999, Petitioner had violated three different conditions of probation, including failing to ensure practice monitor reports were filed, failing to obey all laws, and failing to file accurate quarterly reports. Petitioner entered into a stipulated settlement, wherein he agreed Complainant could establish a prima facie showing in support of the Petition's charges, he gave up his right to contest those charges, agreed he was subject to discipline, and further agreed to be bound by the imposition of discipline. 4. On August 12, 2004, in the Matter of the Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation Against Nolan Jones, M.D., case number D , the Board revoked Petitioner's medical license a third time, stayed the revocation, and extended Petitioner's probation for five years beyond the date it would have otherwise expired under the terms of the previously imposed probation. The terms and conditions of this probation included condition number I 0 that states as follows: "Obey All Laws: Petitioner shall obey all federal, state and local laws, all rules governing the practice of medicine in California, and remain in full compliance with any court ordered criminal probation, payments and other orders." The Accusation and Petition in that proceeding alleged six causes for discipline involving his care and treatment of patients, three distinct counts of gross negligence (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2234, subd. (b, two distinct counts of dispensing an improper! y labeled dangerous drug (Bus. & Prof. Code, 2238, and false advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, 651. The pleading further alleged cause to revoke the earlier imposed probation for failing to obey all laws. Petitioner entered into a stipulated settlement, wherein he agreed Complainant could establish a factual basis for the allegations, gave up his right to contest those charges, agreed he was subject to discipline, and further agreed to be bound by the imposition of discipline. 5. In its Decision effective April 20, 2009, in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation Against N alan 1 ones, M.D., case number D , the Board revoked Petitioner's certificate to practice medicine. In this Decision, the Board made the following Legal Conclusions, among others (all references to "Respondent" are to Petitioner: 6. Respondent created false medical records by documenting examinations and evaluations of patients R.C. and M.C., though he never met, examined, or treated either patient. These actions by Respondent are substantially related to a physician's qualifications, functions, and duties. Respondent failed to monitor the four physical therapy sessions with which each patient was treated, and falsely documented that a significant number of 2

18 additional physical therapy treatments had been rendered to each. Furthermore, he failed to document the basis for treating patients R.C. and M.C. with physical therapy, the manner in which the treatments were administered, and each patient's response to those treatments. All of these actions and omissions by Respondent were extreme departures from the standard of care, and thus constitute gross negligence. [~]... [~] 8. Complainant proved her allegations by clear and convincing evidence to a reasonable certainty. Respondent's history of discipline by the Board, and his willingness to engage in acts of gross negligence and dishonesty within his medical practice while on probation, demonstrate that the constraints of probation are ineffective and unmerited. Therefore, revocation of Respondent's medical license is appropriate. 6. On a specific date not established by the evidence, but in 2010, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, of one count of violating Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107, subdivision (b(4(a, Medi Cal fraud. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Petitioner on probation for one year. The court also ordered Petitioner to make restitution. Thereafter, the court set aside the conviction and dismissed the criminal complaint under the provisions of Penal Code section According to Petitioner's Narrative Statement, filed along with his Petition, the conviction arose out of "a billing issue at a hospice." Petitioner offered no further details of the crime during his testimony. 7. Petitioner graduated from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City then went on to a residency in OB/GYN at Martin Luther King Medical Center (MLK in Los Angeles. Petitioner then completed a fellowship in gynecologic oncology at Tufts University School of Medicine in Medford, Massachusetts. After his fellowship he moved back to Los Angeles and returned to MLK as an Assistant Professor. He went into private practice in After the Board revoked his license, Petitioner returned to his native Wichita, Kansas where he found employment as a common laborer. He then went to school in order to earn his contractor's license. He thereafter worked with children with special emotional needs through the Urban League. He then moved to Woodbridge, Virginia to be near his adopted daughter who was pregnant. He became the director of an adult daycare program for the developmentally disabled and stayed in that position for two years. 9. Petitioner then returned to Los Angeles and began doing manual labor for American Apparel. It was there that he met Reverend Maurice Meyers, an Associate Pastor 1 These facts were gleaned from information provided by the California Department of Justice in a document entitled "Disposition Details." (Exhibit 23. There was no further evidence offered regarding the facts and circumstances of the crime or details of the probationary terms, such as the amount of restitution the court ordered Petitioner to pay. 3

19 at Holy Revival Baptist Community Church in Compton. Rev. Meyers testified on Petitioner's behalf Petitioner is well-liked at his job, showing dignity and respect. He believes Petitioner has repented wholeheartedly from his past misconduct and noted that fellow churchgoers see Petitioner as being honest and having a "humble spirit." Rev. Meyers is aware of Petitioner's criminal history and the loss of his medical license. 10. Harold T. Peart, M.D., wrote a letter on Petitioner's behalf (Exhibit J and also testified at the hearing. He has known Petitioner for 35 years, having met him when Petitioner was Chief Resident and Dr. Peart was a fourth year resident. Dr. Peart is aware of Petitioner's background with the Board and his criminal conviction. He noted that patients he had had in common with Petitioner "all thought very highly of him and he believed and believes that Petitioner is honest and caring. Petitioner expressed remorse for his past conduct. In Exhibit J, Dr. Peart wrote, in part, "The revocation of his license has had an indelible impact on [Petitioner]. I have observed him since this event, and can report that it has changed him. I believe that he understands the severity of his actions, and that he is keen to not repeat the mistakes of the past." Dr. Peart is "happy" to recommend the reinstatement of Petitioner's medical license. 11. Anthony C. Pickett wrote a letter on Petitioner's behalf (Exhibit K and also testified at the hearing. Dr. Pickett is Chief of the Department of OB/GYN at California Hospital Medical Center. Dr. Pickett has known Petitioner for at least 15 years. He believes Petitioner has excellent technical skills and medical judgment and, knowing about the Board's discipline and the criminal conviction, believes him to be of "impeccable character." He believes Petitioner's "life has been about charity." Because of his skills and chosen field of gynecologic oncology, Petitioner "could have written his own ticket" but chose to practice in a poor underserved area. He believes Petitioner "has taken ownership of his problems." In Exhibit K he wrote, in part: Beyond [Petitioner]' s academic scholarship, he is an honest man of integrity and a decent human being. I have become familiar with the nature of his medical license revocation and am solidly convinced that he is sincerely apologetic, contrite and has adequately undergone the personal introspection to garner the public trust and return to the full Practice of Medicine. 12. Darlene Taylor has been a nurse for 43 years and is now retired. She has known Petitioner for 38 years, having worked with him at MLK in the OB/GYN Department. She said "all of [Petitioner's] patients loved him" and that he had an excellent bedside manner. His patients would lovingly call him "Old Dr. Jones." She stated that she knows Petitioner to be smart, kind, empathetic and compassionate." Nurse Taylor has also known Petitioner as a member of her church and from their work at the Estelle Van Meter Community Service Center where Petitioner volunteers his time and serves as vice president of the board. "All the old ladies love him," she said. 13. During his testimony, Petitioner acknowledged that he had been arrogant, but that his troubles with the Board "was a learning experience" and he "is not that way 4

20 anymore." Petitioner acknowledged that he had practiced below the standard of care and he "accepts that discipline is warranted." 14. Petitioner has become active in his American Legion post and often works on the "Moving Wall" project which is a replica of the VietNam War Memorial in Washington D.C. He has also taught anatomy and physiology to nursing students at National University. Petitioner made an impressive showing that he has been rehabilitated from his former misconduct. Petitioner testified on his own behalf. He was confident, articulate and honest. He freely talked about his past without attempting to palliate or vitiate his conduct. It would not be adverse to the public interest to reinstate Petitioner's certificate to practice medicine, provided it is on a probationary basis and conditioned as set forth below. Because Petitioner has not practiced medicine in seven years, as a condition precedent to his being re-licensed, he will be required to take the Special Purpose Examination (SPEX. 2 LEGAL CONCLUSIONS 1. The burden rests on a petitioner to prove that he has rehabilitated himself and that he is entitled to have his license restored. (Flanzer v. Board of Dental Examiners ( Cal.App.3d 1392, A person seeking reinstatement must present strong proof of rehabilitation and the showing of rehabilitation must be sufficient to overcome the Board's former adverse determination. The standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. (Housman v. Board of Medical Examiners ( Cal.App.2d, 308, Government Code section 11522, Business and Professions Code section 2307 and California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 13597, govern these proceedings and establish the timelines and format for filing a petition. 4. California Code of Regulations, title 16, section , provides: When considering a petition for reinstatement of a license... pursuant to the provisions of Section of the Government Code, the division or panel shall evaluate evidence of rehabilitation submitted by the petitioner considering the following criteria: (a The nature and severity of the act(s or crime(s under consideration as grounds for denial. (b Evidence of any act( s or crime( s committed subsequent to the act( s or crime(s under consideration as grounds for denial which also could be considered as grounds for denial under Section The SPEX is a computerized, multiple-choice examination of current knowledge requisite for the general, undifferentiated practice of medicine. 5