Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-410 (2026)
Denial, suspension, or revocation — Proceedings
-
Any person may file a complaint with the Arkansas State Medical Board against any person having a license to practice medicine in this state charging the licensee with:
- Failure to have the necessary qualifications as set out in § 17-95-403; and
- The commission of any of the offenses enumerated and described as unprofessional conduct in § 17-95-409.
- If the board finds a probable violation of the Arkansas Medical Practices Act, § 17-95-201 et seq., § 17-95-301 et seq., and § 17-95-401 et seq., or the rules of the board, the board shall review the complaint and issue an order and notice of hearing to the licensee.
-
- The order and notice of hearing shall set forth a specification of charges in sufficient detail that the person accused shall have full and complete disclosure of any alleged acts of misconduct, impropriety, or lack of qualification.
- When an order and notice of hearing is issued, the board or its agent shall send by registered mail to the person's last address of record a copy of the order and notice of hearing along with a written notice of the time and place of the hearing and a statement advising the person that he or she may be present in person or by counsel to offer evidence and be heard in his or her defense.
- The time fixed for the hearing shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of the mailing of the notice.
- At the time and place fixed for a hearing before the board, the board shall receive evidence upon the subject under consideration and shall accord the person against whom charges are preferred a full and fair opportunity to be heard in his or her defense. The board shall not be bound by strict or technical rules of evidence but shall consider all evidence fully and fairly. However, all oral testimony considered by the board must be under oath.
-
- At the conclusion of the hearing, the board shall first decide whether the accused is guilty of the charges against him or her and then decide on appropriate disciplinary action.
- If the accused is found not guilty, the board shall dismiss the charges.
-
If the accused is found guilty, the board may do one (1) or more of the following:
- Revoke his or her license;
- Suspend his or her license for a period not to exceed one (1) year;
- Issue a reprimand;
- Impose a probation allowing the licensee to continue practicing under terms and conditions found to be in the best interest of the accused and the general public; or
- Levy a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation of the Arkansas Medical Practices Act, § 17-95-201 et seq., § 17-95-301 et seq., and § 17-95-401 et seq., and collect out-of-pocket costs of investigation incurred by the board to conduct the disciplinary hearing.
- If the board suspends the license, it may issue a temporary license for whatever duration it decides and renew this temporary license at its discretion.
- Appeals may be had by either of the parties from the decision of the board in the manner now provided by law. All evidence considered by the board shall be reduced to writing and available for the purpose of appeal or certiorari to any of the parties of the hearing.
- Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deprive any person of his or her rights without a full, fair, and impartial hearing.
History. Acts 1957, No. 198, § 14; A.S.A. 1947, § 72-614; Acts 1989, No. 362, § 1; 1993, No. 290, § 1; 2001, No. 464, § 6; 2019, No. 315, § 1625.
Amendments. The 2019 amendment substituted “rules” for “regulations” in (b).
Cross References. Peer review committees, immunity from civil action, § 20-9-501 et seq.
Research References
ALR.
Pretrial Discovery in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Physician. 65 A.L.R.6th 295.
Ark. L. Rev.
Rules of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings, 15 Ark. L. Rev. 138.
Case Notes
Complaint.
Charges preferred against physician by the board are not required to be as specifically set forth as in pleadings in courts. Eclectic State Medical Bd. v. Beatty, 203 Ark. 294, 156 S.W.2d 246 (1941) (decision under prior law).
Complaint seeking revocation of physician's license was not so vague and uncertain as not to inform physician of the nature of what he would be confronted with at the hearing. Eclectic State Medical Bd. v. Beatty, 203 Ark. 294, 156 S.W.2d 246 (1941) (decision under prior law).
Continuance.
Grant of continuance by board was a matter of grace and not a right, and the board had authority to temporarily restrict physician's prescribing practices as a condition to granting the continuance. Ark. State Medical Bd. v. Leonard, 267 Ark. 61, 590 S.W.2d 849 (1979).
Evidence.
Affidavits of physicians were competent evidence since revocation proceeding was not a criminal prosecution but an administrative proceeding, and the board members were not required to observe technical rules of evidence. Bockman v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 229 Ark. 143, 313 S.W.2d 826 (1958).
This section requires that the evidence heard by the board shall be reduced to writing, and the record must contain some evidence to substantiate the board's finding; where the record was insufficient to reveal the basis for the board's finding that the defendant was mentally and emotionally incompetent to practice and had been guilty of malpractice, the action of the board in revoking defendant's license must be reversed. Hake v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 237 Ark. 506, 374 S.W.2d 173 (1964).
Judicial Review.
Board's action in revocation proceedings will not be set aside on certiorari unless there is an entire absence of substantial evidence to sustain the findings, in which case the board's action is deemed to be arbitrary. Bockman v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 229 Ark. 143, 313 S.W.2d 826 (1958).
Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction to hear evidence and to revoke or refuse to revoke a physician's license was vested by law in the Eclectic State Medical Board (now Arkansas State Medical Board), and a chancery court was without jurisdiction to enjoin the board from hearing and determining that question. Eclectic State Medical Bd. v. Beatty, 203 Ark. 294, 156 S.W.2d 246 (1941) (decision under prior law).
Where statute gave circuit court power to issue writs of certiorari to any officer or board to correct erroneous or void proceedings, circuit court had jurisdiction over Eclectic State Medical Board (now Arkansas State Medical Board), and, upon finding that board was failing or refusing to act in accordance with court's order to conduct a revocation hearing, court could act in lieu of board. Schirmer v. Cockrill, 223 Ark. 817, 269 S.W.2d 300 (1954) (decision under prior law).
Laches.
Proceeding to revoke physician's license on ground that his diploma was illegally and fraudulently obtained and license was obtained by fraud and deception, initiated nine years after issuance of license, was not barred by laches since board had right to proceed after discover of fraud. Eclectic State Medical Bd. v. Beatty, 203 Ark. 294, 156 S.W.2d 246 (1941) (decision under prior law).
Licensee's Rights.
Although the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq., gives to the respondent in an administrative proceeding the right to appear by counsel and to present and cross-examine witnesses, the board was under no duty to warn a respondent, who had been notified to appear and show cause why his medical license should not be revoked, of the rights. 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) (decision under prior law).
Presumption.
Where there is no evidence to show that board revoked license without a hearing, it will be presumed that the board acted lawfully. Tyler v. State, 191 Ark. 41, 83 S.W.2d 555 (1935) (decision under prior law).
Res Judicata.
Prior decision of board refusing to revoke license because of criminal convictions involving moral turpitude did not bar charge that license was fraudulently procured when such charge was not raised in prior suit. Bockman v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 229 Ark. 143, 313 S.W.2d 826 (1958).
Cited: Ark. State Nurses Ass'n v. Ark. State Medical Bd., 283 Ark. 366, 677 S.W.2d 293 (1984); Finch v. Neal, 316 Ark. 530, 873 S.W.2d 519 (1994).