Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Arlen v. Stategreen2 sentences1993It is well established that “ * * * expert testimony as to a standard of practice is not mandatory in a license revocation hearing and the board may rely on its own expertise to determine whether a physician failed to conform to minimum standards of care.” Arlen v. State (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 168, 172 , 15 O.O.3d 190, 193 , 399 N.E.2d 1251, 1254 . “* * * [A] requirement [of] expert testimony in the record of a license revocation proceeding usurps the power of the State Medical Board’s broad measure of discretion. * * * ” Id. at 174 , 15 O.O.3d at 194 , 399 N.E.2d at 1255 . 1993It is well established that “ * * * expert testimony as to a standard of practice is not mandatory in a license revocation hearing and the board may rely on its own expertise to determine whether a physician failed to conform to minimum standards of care.” Arlen v. State (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 168, 172 , 15 O.O.3d 190, 193 , 399 N.E.2d 1251, 1254 . “* * * [A] requirement [of] expert testimony in the record of a license revocation proceeding usurps the power of the State Medical Board’s broad measure of discretion. * * * ” Id. at 174 , 15 O.O.3d at 194 , 399 N.E.2d at 1255 . | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Williams
green
1 sentence2008In this respect, "[e]xpert testimony as to a standard of practice is not even mandatory in a license revocation hearing" because the specialized knowledge of licensed physicians on the board "renders the Board capable of both interpreting the technical requirements of the medical profession and determining whether a physician's conduct falls below the minimal standard of care." Walker , supra. However, "[w]hile the board need not, in every case, present expert testimony to support a charge against an accused physician, the charge must be supported by some reliable, probative and substantial ev | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board
green
2 sentences2008Because "a majority of the board members possess the specialized knowledge needed to determine the acceptable standard of general medical practice * * * the medical board is quite capable of interpreting technical requirements of the medical field and quite capable of determining when conduct falls below the minimum standard of care." Pons , supra, at 623 . {¶ 47} In the instant case, the trial court's recognition, in its decision, that the medical board has special expertise and knowledge is consistent with the Ohio Supreme Court's admonition that "courts must accord due deference to the [med 2008Because "a majority of the board members possess the specialized knowledge needed to determine the acceptable standard of general medical practice * * * the medical board is quite capable of interpreting technical requirements of the medical field and quite capable of determining when conduct falls below the minimum standard of care." Pons , supra, at 623 . {¶ 47} In the instant case, the trial court's recognition, in its decision, that the medical board has special expertise and knowledge is consistent with the Ohio Supreme Court's admonition that "courts must accord due deference to the [med | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Carroll
green
2 sentences1987In State v. Carroll (1977), 54 Ohio App. 2d 160 , 8 O.O. 3d 285, 376 N.E. 2d 596 , syllabus, the Erie County Court of Appeals held that “[w]here a license revocation hearing is held by the state medical board, pursuant to R.C. 4731.23, before one member of the board, the requirements of a fair hearing and due process are not met where the record affirmatively shows that the assistant attorney general who prosecuted the case was present during the subsequent deliberations of the entire board and the transcript of the evidence of the hearing was not read or considered by all the members of the b 1987In State v. Carroll (1977), 54 Ohio App. 2d 160 , 8 O.O. 3d 285, 376 N.E. 2d 596 , syllabus, the Erie County Court of Appeals held that “[w]here a license revocation hearing is held by the state medical board, pursuant to R.C. 4731.23, before one member of the board, the requirements of a fair hearing and due process are not met where the record affirmatively shows that the assistant attorney general who prosecuted the case was present during the subsequent deliberations of the entire board and the transcript of the evidence of the hearing was not read or considered by all the members of the b | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.