Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-409 (2026)
Denial, suspension, or revocation — Grounds — Definition
-
- The Arkansas State Medical Board may revoke an existing license, impose penalties as listed in § 17-95-410, or refuse to issue a license in the event the holder or applicant, as the case may be, has committed any of the acts or offenses defined in this section to be unprofessional conduct.
-
The words “unprofessional conduct”, as used in the Arkansas Medical Practices Act, § 17-95-201 et seq., § 17-95-301 et seq., and § 17-95-401 et seq., mean:
-
- Conviction of a felony listed under § 17-3-102.
- The judgment of any such conviction, unless pending upon appeal, shall be conclusive evidence of unprofessional conduct;
- Resorting to fraud, misrepresentation, or deception in applying for or securing a license to practice medicine, in taking the examination for the license, or in seeking a renewal of a license;
- Aiding or abetting an unlicensed person to practice medicine;
- Procuring or aiding or abetting in procuring a wrongful and criminal abortion;
- Violation of the laws of the United States or the State of Arkansas regulating the possession, distribution, or use of narcotic or controlled drugs classed in Schedules I-V of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 or the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 5-64-101 et seq., including any amendments thereto;
- Habitual indulgence in the use of alcohol to such an extent as to render himself or herself incapable of exercising that degree of skill and judgment in the treatment of his or her patients which the moral trust and confidence in him or her demands;
- Grossly negligent or ignorant malpractice;
- Habitual, intemperate, or excessive use of narcotics or of any other habit-forming drugs;
- Representing to a patient that a manifestly incurable condition of sickness, disease, or injury can be permanently cured;
- Becoming physically or mentally incompetent to practice medicine to such an extent as to endanger the public;
- Insanity or mental disease, if evidenced by an adjudication or by voluntary commitment to an institution for treatment of a mental disease or as determined by an examination conducted by three (3) impartial psychiatrists retained by the Arkansas State Medical Board;
- Soliciting for patronage; advertising for patronage in a false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading manner; advertising the quality of medical services; or advertising illegal procedures and practices;
- Offering, undertaking, attempting, or agreeing to cure or treat disease by a secret method, procedure, treatment, or medicine or representing, directly or indirectly, that he or she can treat, operate on, or prescribe for any human condition by a method, means, or procedure which he or she refuses to divulge upon demand to the Arkansas State Medical Board;
- The willful betraying of a professional secret;
- Persistent and flagrant overcharging or overtreating of patients;
- Violating a rule of the Arkansas State Medical Board;
- Violating a term of probation or an order previously imposed by the Arkansas State Medical Board;
- Having been found in violation of a statute or a rule governing the practice of medicine by a medical licensing authority or agency of another state; and
- Committing an ethical violation as determined by the Arkansas State Medical Board by rule.
-
-
-
- Upon receipt of a final order from another agency of the State of Arkansas or a final order from a court of this state after all appeal rights have been exhausted that finds a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state has breached the loan contract entered into by the physician under § 6-81-701 et seq., the Arkansas State Medical Board may suspend the license of that physician.
- The suspension shall be for a period of years equivalent to the number of years that the recipient is obligated to practice medicine in a rural area but has not so practiced and until the loan with interest together with any civil money penalties, as reduced by each full year of medical practice according to the terms of the loan contract, is paid in full.
- Upon notification from the Dean of the College of Medicine of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the Secretary of the Department of Health that exigent circumstances warrant a waiver of the suspension, the Arkansas State Medical Board shall reinstate the holder's license.
- In deciding whether to suspend a holder's medical license, the Arkansas State Medical Board, at its discretion, may adopt any or all recommendations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law issued or adopted by the Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan and Scholarship Board, an arbitrator, or a court.
-
History. Acts 1957, No. 198, § 13; 1965, No. 85, § 1; 1973, No. 486, § 1; 1981, No. 708, § 1; 1981, No. 876, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 72-613; Acts 1993, No. 1219, § 23; 1995, No. 1257, § 3; 2001, No. 464, § 5; 2007, No. 123, § 3; 2007, No. 1058, § 10; 2009, No. 1178, § 1; 2019, No. 910, § 4901; 2019, No. 990, § 100.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 1995, No. 1257, § 4, provided: “The provisions of this act shall not apply to any person entering a Rural Medical Practice Student Loan prior to the 1995-96 school year or to any subsequent Rural Medical Practice Student Loan contracts entered into by those persons.”
Amendments. The 2007 amendment by No. 123, in (a)(2), deleted “are declared to” preceding “mean”; and added (a)(2)(R) and made related and stylistic changes.
The 2007 amendment by No. 1058 rewrote (b)(1)(A); substituted “but has not…the loan contract” for “and the suspension shall continue until the loan, with interest thereon” in (b)(1)(B); added (b)(3); and made related changes.
The 2009 amendment, substituted “rule” for “regulation” in (a)(2)(P); deleted “or regulation” following “rule” in (a)(2)(R); inserted (a)(2)(S); and made related changes.
The 2019 amendment by No. 910 substituted “Secretary of the Department of Health” for “Director of the Department of Health” in (b)(2).
The 2019 amendment by No. 990, in (a)(2)(A)(i), deleted “any crime involving moral turpitude or conviction of” preceding “a felony” and added “listed under § 17-3-102”.
U.S. Code. Schedules I-V of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 referred to in this section are codified as 21 U.S.C. § 812.
Cross References. Doctors, physicians, and surgeons required to report treatment of knife and gunshot wounds to peace officer, § 12-12-602.
Violation of Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, notice to board, revocation of license, § 20-64-215.
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
Former section was not unconstitutional as depriving a person whose license was revoked of his property without due process of law. State Medical Board v. McCrary, 95 Ark. 511, 130 S.W. 544 (1910); Eclectic State Medical Bd. v. Beatty, 203 Ark. 294, 156 S.W.2d 246 (1941) (decision under prior law).
Aiding and Abetting Illegal Practice.
Evidence of drug dispensing by physician's employee was sufficient to show that physician was aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to practice medicine in violation of this section. Ark. State Medical Bd. v. Grimmett, 250 Ark. 1, 463 S.W.2d 662 (1971).
City Ordinance.
City ordinance prohibiting the employment of solicitors, cappers, or drummers by physicians was not inconsistent with former similar section. Burrow v. City of Hot Springs, 85 Ark. 396, 108 S.W. 823 (1908) (decision under prior law).
Controlled Substances.
Suspension of doctor's license was supported by substantial evidence of issuance of excessive prescriptions for controlled substance. Ark. State Medical Bd. v. Elliott, 263 Ark. 86, 563 S.W.2d 427, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862, 99 S. Ct. 183, 58 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1978).
Gross Negligence.
Although the State Medical Board did not differentiate in its finding between “ignorant malpractice” or “gross negligence,” there was substantial evidence of an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care, which constituted gross negligence. Livingston v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 288 Ark. 1, 701 S.W.2d 361 (1986).
Negligent Malpractice.
Evidence that doctor gave prescription to same healthy patient under different names established “negligent or ignorant malpractice.” Ark. State Medical Bd. v. Elliott, 263 Ark. 86, 563 S.W.2d 427, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862, 99 S. Ct. 183, 58 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1978).
Evidence of violation of former subdivision (7) [now (a)(2)(G)] of this section held insufficient. Hollabaugh v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 43 Ark. App. 83, 861 S.W.2d 317 (1993).
Perjury.
Board may revoke license for perjury and, where physician was convicted of perjury, it was duty of court to revoke license. Tyler v. State, 191 Ark. 41, 83 S.W.2d 555 (1935) (decision under prior law).
Powers of Board.
Contention that present board members would have no power to review the issuance of a license granted by a former board composed of different members was untenable. Eclectic State Medical Bd. v. Beatty, 203 Ark. 294, 156 S.W.2d 246 (1941) (decision under prior law).
The contention that the board is without power to revoke any license issued before the passage of subchapters 2-4 of this chapter is unsound. Bockman v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 229 Ark. 143, 313 S.W.2d 826 (1958).
A regulation of the board was arbitrary on its face and invalid insofar as it restricted the number of registered nurse practitioners that could be employed by a physician or a group of physicians and declared that a violation of the restriction constituted malpractice. The board had no authority to create a nonstatutory basis for the revocation of a physician's license. Ark. State Nurses Ass'n v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 283 Ark. 366, 677 S.W.2d 293 (1984).
Propriety of Discipline.
In conducting review, pursuant to § 25-15-212, of a decision of the Arkansas State Medical Board, which revoked a physician's license based on a finding that he violated Regulation 2.7 by becoming sexually involved with a patient, the court found substantial evidence to uphold the decision because the evidence showed that the physician became romantically involved with a patient and subsequently ordered prescription medication for her; however, revocation of the physician's license to practice under this section was arbitrary and capricious based on the physician's unblemished professional record and based on the fact that he did not try to willfully violate the Regulations. Thus, the revocation was modified to a one-year suspension. Collie v. Ark. State Med. Bd., 370 Ark. 180, 258 S.W.3d 367 (2007).
Revocation of License.
Decision by an Alaska administrative law judge, and the Alaska State Medical Board's adoption of that decision, definitively decided that the doctor violated Alaska statutes, which decision the doctor did not appeal, and therefore there was substantial evidence for the Arkansas State Medical Board to revoke the doctor's Arkansas medical license for a violation of this section. Ahmad v. Ark. State Med. Bd., 2018 Ark. App. 111, 542 S.W.3d 224 (2018).
When the Arkansas State Medical Board received verification that the Alaska proceedings resulted in a finding that the doctor had violated Alaska law, the Arkansas board then revoked his medical license under this section, and the appellate court could not say that the Arkansas board's decision was arbitrary or capricious for purposes of § 25-15-212(h). Ahmad v. Ark. State Med. Bd., 2018 Ark. App. 111, 542 S.W.3d 224 (2018).
As Alaska pharmacists had reported high volumes of the doctor's patients with prescriptions for high-dosage opioids and controlled substances without visible symptoms and the doctor's exam findings did not support the specific diagnoses listed in patient records, the Arkansas State Medical Board's decision to revoke the doctor's Arkansas license under this section was not unduly harsh for purposes of § 25-15-212(h). Ahmad v. Ark. State Med. Bd., 2018 Ark. App. 111, 542 S.W.3d 224 (2018).
Standing.
Doctor who had allowed his Arkansas medical license to lapse did not have standing to obtain a judgment declaring that subsection (b) of this section did not apply to contracts under the Community Match Loan and Scholarship Program, established under § 6-81-715 et seq., because the Declaratory Judgment Statute, § 16-111-101 et seq., was applicable only where there was a present actual controversy. Nelson v. Ark. Rural Med. Practice Loan & Scholarship Bd., 2011 Ark. 491, 385 S.W.3d 762 (2011).
Cited: Hake v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 237 Ark. 506, 374 S.W.2d 173 (1964); Ark. State Medical Bd. v. Cross, 256 Ark. 388, 507 S.W.2d 709 (1974); Smith v. Bentley, 493 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. Ark. 1980); McCormick v. Ark. State Med. Bd., 2017 Ark. App. 697, 545 S.W.3d 776 (2017).