- Revocation on conviction of felony - Fugitive from justice. A. 1. The State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision is hereby given quasi-judicial powers while sitting as a Board for the purpose of revoking, suspending, or imposing other disciplinary actions upon the license of physicians or other licensees of the Board, and appeals from its decisions shall be taken to the Supreme Court of this state within thirty (30) days of the date that a copy of the decision is mailed to the appellant, as shown by the certificate of mailing attached to the decision. 2. The license of any physician or other licensee of the Board who has been convicted of any felony within or outside of this state, whether in a state or federal court, may be suspended by the Board upon the submission thereto of a certified copy of the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
3. Upon proof of a felony conviction by the courts or any plea of a felony, the Board shall revoke the license of the physician or other licensee of the Board. If the felony conviction is overturned on appeal and no other appeals are sought, the Board shall restore the license. Court records of such a conviction shall be prima facie evidence of the conviction. 4. The Board shall also revoke and cancel the license of any physician or other licensee of the Board who has been charged in a court of record of this or other states of the United States or in the federal court with the commission of a felony and who is a fugitive from justice, upon the submission of a certified copy of the charge together with a certificate from the clerk of the court that after the commitment of the crime the physician or other licensee of the Board fled from the jurisdiction of the court and is a fugitive from justice. B. To the extent necessary to allow the Board the power to enforce disciplinary actions imposed by the Board, in the exercise of its authority, the Board may punish willful violations of its orders and impose additional penalties as allowed by Section 509.1 of this title. Added by Laws 1923, c. 59, p. 112, § 33, emerg. eff. March 31, 1923. Amended by Laws 1925, c. 63, p. 96, § 6, emerg. eff. April 6, 1925; Laws 1935, p. 56, § 2, emerg. eff. May 13, 1935; Laws 1987, c. 118, § 32, operative July 1, 1987; Laws 1994, c. 323, § 36, eff. July 1, 1994; Laws 1998, c. 374, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 1998; Laws 2004, c. 523, § 11, emerg. eff. June 9, 2004; Laws 2019, c. 492, § 11, eff. Nov. 1, 2019; Laws 2025, c. 350, § 5, eff. July 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31 (Okla. 2021).
· cites it 7× “Rivero's failure to obtain a copy of this report cannot be subject to a first-instance judicial examination in an administrative appeal brought pursuant to 59 O.S. § 513. ¶21 The order challenged in the appeal contains the following finding of fact describing the documents Dr.”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Pinaroc, 46 P.3d 114 (Okla. 2002).
· cites it 5× “13 The State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision has the power to revoke, suspend or impose disciplinary actions upon the license of a physician or surgeon, "and appeals from its decisions shall be taken to the Supreme Court of this state within thirty (30) days of the…”
State v. Bridwell, 592 P.2d 520 (Okla. 1979).
· cites it 3× “” 21 The legislature in 59 O.S.1971 § 513 apparently intended to strike a balancing point between the interests of the state’s protective rights and the interest of the physician’s right to practice.”
Metcalf v. KFOR-TV, INC., 828 F. Supp. 1515 (W.D. Okla. 1992).
“8 is considered in conjunction with the immediately preceding statement in the broadcast, concerning suspension of Met-calf’s license in 1978, the communication is a fair and accurate statement of a quasi-judicial proceeding, see Okla.Stat. tit. 59, § 513, authorized by law.”
State ex rel. State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Naifeh, 598 P.2d 225 (Okla. 1979).
· cites it 2× “MEMORANDUM OPINION BY ORDER DOOLIN, Justice: Upon application and petition to assume original jurisdiction and to prohibit the respondent judge from further proceedings in an attempted appeal of a decision of the Oklahoma Board of Medical Examiners to the District Court of…”
Chehak v. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 765 P.2d 1235 (Okla. Civ. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The Naifeh statement was based on 59 O.S.1971 § 513, which specifically provides that license appeals of physicians and/or surgeons lie exclusively with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.”
Martinez v. State ex rel. Okalahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision, 852 P.2d 173 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
“ins a similar provision: The applicant, having been admitted to the examination in those subjects required for graduation from approved medical schools and such other subjects as may be required by the Board, shall be required to attain an average grade of seventy-five percent…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 59, § 513(A)(1) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31 (Okla. 2021).
“Rivero's failure to obtain a copy of this report cannot be subject to a first-instance judicial examination in an administrative appeal brought pursuant to 59 O.S. § 513. ¶21 The order challenged in the appeal contains the following finding of fact describing the documents Dr.”
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.