Sec. 4. (a) A practitioner shall conduct the practitioner's
practice in accordance with the standards established by the board
regulating the profession in question and is subject to the exercise of
the disciplinary sanctions under section 9 of this chapter if, after a
hearing, the board finds:
(1) a practitioner has:
(A) engaged in or knowingly cooperated in fraud or material
deception in order to obtain a license to practice, including
cheating on a licensing examination;
(B) engaged in fraud or material deception in the course of
professional services or activities;
(C) advertised services in a false or misleading manner; or
(D) been convicted of a crime or assessed a civil penalty
involving fraudulent billing practices, including fraud under:
(i) Medicaid (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
(ii) Medicare (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.);
(iii) the children's health insurance program under IC 12-17.6; or
(iv) insurance claims;
(2) a practitioner has been convicted of a crime that:
(A) has a direct bearing on the practitioner's ability to continue
to practice competently; or
(B) is harmful to the public;
(3) a practitioner has knowingly violated any state statute or rule,
or federal statute or regulation, regulating the profession in
question;
(4) a practitioner has continued to practice although the
practitioner has become unfit to practice due to:
(A) professional incompetence that:
(i) may include the undertaking of professional activities that
the practitioner is not qualified by training or experience to
undertake; and
(ii) does not include activities performed under IC 16-21-2-9;
(B) failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or
practice;
(C) physical or mental disability; or
(D) addiction to, abuse of, or severe dependency upon alcohol
or other drugs that endanger the public by impairing a
practitioner's ability to practice safely;
(5) a practitioner has engaged in a course of lewd or immoral
conduct in connection with the delivery of services to the public;
(6) a practitioner has allowed the practitioner's name or a license
issued under this chapter to be used in connection with an
individual who renders services beyond the scope of that
individual's training, experience, or competence;
(7) a practitioner has had disciplinary action taken against the
practitioner or the practitioner's license to practice in any state or
jurisdiction on grounds similar to those under this chapter;
(8) a practitioner has diverted:
(A) a legend drug (as defined in IC 16-18-2-199); or
(B) any other drug or device issued under a drug order (as
defined in IC 16-42-19-3) for another person;
(9) a practitioner, except as otherwise provided by law, has
knowingly prescribed, sold, or administered any drug classified
as a narcotic, addicting, or dangerous drug to a habitue or addict;
(10) a practitioner has failed to comply with an order imposing a
sanction under section 9 of this chapter;
(11) a practitioner has engaged in sexual contact with a patient
under the practitioner's care or has used the practitioner-patient
relationship to solicit sexual contact with a patient under the
practitioner's care;
(12) a practitioner who is a participating provider of a health
maintenance organization has knowingly collected or attempted
to collect from a subscriber or enrollee of the health maintenance
organization any sums that are owed by the health maintenance
organization;
(13) a practitioner has assisted another person in committing an
act that would be grounds for disciplinary sanctions under this
chapter; or
(14) a practitioner has failed to report to the department of child
services or an appropriate law enforcement agency suspected
child abuse in accordance with IC 31-33-5.
(b) A practitioner who provides health care services to the
practitioner's spouse is not subject to disciplinary action under
subsection (a)(11).
(c) A certified copy of the record of disciplinary action is conclusive
evidence of the other jurisdiction's disciplinary action under subsection
(a)(7).
As added by P.L.152-1988, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.2-1993,
SEC.136; P.L.149-1997, SEC.7; P.L.22-1999, SEC.4; P.L.200-2001,
SEC.2; P.L.203-2001, SEC.3; P.L.1-2002, SEC.96; P.L.197-2007,
SEC.22; P.L.173-2017, SEC.7; P.L.35-2018, SEC.1; P.L.168-2025,
SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Indiana State Bd. of Health Facility Administrators v. Werner, 841 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “practice" as required by Indiana Code Section 25-1-9-4. The ALJ and the Board also found that given Werner's knowledge of the incidents and JM's physical and verbal aggression, her failure to ensure that Westpark's social services department set up a more effective behavior…”
William Hedrick v. State of Indiana, 124 N.E.3d 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “On April 2, 2013, the Board issued a detailed Order that found three violations of Indiana Code section 25-1-9-4. Specifically, the Board concluded that Hedrick had violated: (1) I.”
Davis v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 24 N.E.3d 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “On May 31, 2011, the Attorney General filed a complaint with the Indiana State Board of Nursing, alleging a violation of Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(D) in that [Davis] has continued to practice although she has become unfit to practice due to addiction to, abuse of, or severe…”
Behavioral Health & Human Servs. Licensing Bd. v. Williams, 5 N.E.3d 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× “” The trial court nonetheless concluded that the Board’s decision to impose the harshest sanction of revocation was arbitrary and capricious in light of: (1) the absence of evidence of prior disciplinary actions against Williams; (2) what the court believed to be the improper…”
Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. PROVISER, 669 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1996).
· cites it 2× “1 After a hearing, the board decided to suspend Provisor's medical license for six years, with two years of the suspension stayed, because the board concluded that her conduct had a direct bearing on her ability to practice as a pediatrician, in violation of Ind.Code §…”
Molly A. Melton v. Indiana Athletic Trainers Bd., David Craig, A.T., in his Off. & individual capacity, Larry Leverenz, A.T., in his Off. & individual capacity, 53 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Also by a vote of 5-0, the Board concluded that Melton violated Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(5), -4(a)(ll), and it ordered that she be placed on indefinite suspension for at least seven years and that prior to petitioning for reinstatement she provide the Board proof of successful…”
Donald R. Walker, D.D.S. v. State Bd. of Dentistry, 5 N.E.3d 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “denied, which noted that, "although the Board's findings and conclusions reference [the language of Indiana Code Section 25-1-9-4(a) ], it does not appear that there is a finding that Werner knowingly violated the regulations or that she has become unfit to practice due to her…”
Virginia Davis v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 3 N.E.3d 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “On May 31, 2011, the Attorney General filed a complaint with the Indiana State Board of Nursing, alleging a violation of Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(D) in that [Davis] has continued to practice although she has become unfit to practice due to addiction to, abuse of, or severe…”
Behavioral Health & Human Servs. Licensing Bd., Kimble L. Richardson, George Brenner, Andrew Harner, Geneva Osawe, Rex Stockton, Carla Gaff-Clark, & The State of Indiana v. Elaine Williams (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 18× “7, the Board revoked her license pursuant to Indiana Code section 25-1-9-9(a) (2001), which provides: 3 Williams filed a Verified Motion to Dismiss Appeal on June 28, 2013, and a Second Motion to Dismiss Appeal on September 17, 2013.”
Lundeen v. Rhoad, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (S.D. Ind. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Lundeen’s medical license with the Indiana Board, asserting that his conduct constituted a violation of Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(7) 5 based on the Ohio Board’s summary suspension and permanent revocation of his medical license.”
Molly Ann Melton v. Indiana Athletic Trainers Bd. (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 8× “Upon finding an athletic trainer has violated a standard of professional practice, Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4 , the Board has authority to impose a range of disciplinary sanctions, including suspension of a practitioner’s license, Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a) — 3 cases
Indiana State Bd. of Health Facility Administrators v. Werner, 841 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“practice" as required by Indiana Code Section 25-1-9-4. The ALJ and the Board also found that given Werner's knowledge of the incidents and JM's physical and verbal aggression, her failure to ensure that Westpark's social services department set up a more effective behavior…”
Donald R. Walker, D.D.S. v. State Bd. of Dentistry, 5 N.E.3d 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“denied, which noted that, "although the Board's findings and conclusions reference [the language of Indiana Code Section 25-1-9-4(a) ], it does not appear that there is a finding that Werner knowingly violated the regulations or that she has become unfit to practice due to her…”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(1)(4)(B) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(1)(A) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(2) — 1 case
Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. PROVISER, 669 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1996).
“1 After a hearing, the board decided to suspend Provisor's medical license for six years, with two years of the suspension stayed, because the board concluded that her conduct had a direct bearing on her ability to practice as a pediatrician, in violation of Ind.Code §…”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(3) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(A) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(A)(ii) — 1 case
William Hedrick v. State of Indiana, 124 N.E.3d 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“On April 2, 2013, the Board issued a detailed Order that found three violations of Indiana Code section 25-1-9-4. Specifically, the Board concluded that Hedrick had violated: (1) I.”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(B) — 4 cases
William Hedrick v. State of Indiana, 124 N.E.3d 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“On April 2, 2013, the Board issued a detailed Order that found three violations of Indiana Code section 25-1-9-4. Specifically, the Board concluded that Hedrick had violated: (1) I.”
Behavioral Health & Human Servs. Licensing Bd. v. Williams, 5 N.E.3d 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“” The trial court nonetheless concluded that the Board’s decision to impose the harshest sanction of revocation was arbitrary and capricious in light of: (1) the absence of evidence of prior disciplinary actions against Williams; (2) what the court believed to be the improper…”
Behavioral Health & Human Servs. Licensing Bd., Kimble L. Richardson, George Brenner, Andrew Harner, Geneva Osawe, Rex Stockton, Carla Gaff-Clark, & The State of Indiana v. Elaine Williams (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“7, the Board revoked her license pursuant to Indiana Code section 25-1-9-9(a) (2001), which provides: 3 Williams filed a Verified Motion to Dismiss Appeal on June 28, 2013, and a Second Motion to Dismiss Appeal on September 17, 2013.”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(D) — 2 cases
Davis v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 24 N.E.3d 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“On May 31, 2011, the Attorney General filed a complaint with the Indiana State Board of Nursing, alleging a violation of Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(D) in that [Davis] has continued to practice although she has become unfit to practice due to addiction to, abuse of, or severe…”
Virginia Davis v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 3 N.E.3d 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“On May 31, 2011, the Attorney General filed a complaint with the Indiana State Board of Nursing, alleging a violation of Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(D) in that [Davis] has continued to practice although she has become unfit to practice due to addiction to, abuse of, or severe…”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(5) — 2 cases
Molly A. Melton v. Indiana Athletic Trainers Bd., David Craig, A.T., in his Off. & individual capacity, Larry Leverenz, A.T., in his Off. & individual capacity, 53 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
“Also by a vote of 5-0, the Board concluded that Melton violated Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(5), -4(a)(ll), and it ordered that she be placed on indefinite suspension for at least seven years and that prior to petitioning for reinstatement she provide the Board proof of successful…”
Molly Ann Melton v. Indiana Athletic Trainers Bd. (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
“Upon finding an athletic trainer has violated a standard of professional practice, Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4 , the Board has authority to impose a range of disciplinary sanctions, including suspension of a practitioner’s license, Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(7) — 1 case
Lundeen v. Rhoad, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (S.D. Ind. 2014).
“Lundeen’s medical license with the Indiana Board, asserting that his conduct constituted a violation of Ind.Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(7) 5 based on the Ohio Board’s summary suspension and permanent revocation of his medical license.”
— Ind. Code § 25-1-9-4(a)(9) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.