Sec. 164.053. UNPROFESSIONAL OR DISHONORABLE CONDUCT. (a) For purposes of Section 164.052(a)(5), unprofessional or dishonorable conduct likely to deceive or defraud the public includes conduct in which a physician:
(1) commits an act that violates any state or federal law if the act is connected with the physician's practice of medicine;
(2) fails to keep complete and accurate records of purchases and disposals of:
(A) drugs listed in Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code; or
(B) controlled substances scheduled in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.);
(3) writes prescriptions for or dispenses to a person who:
(A) is known to be an abuser of narcotic drugs, controlled substances, or dangerous drugs; or
(B) the physician should have known was an abuser of narcotic drugs, controlled substances, or dangerous drugs;
(4) writes false or fictitious prescriptions for:
(A) dangerous drugs as defined by Chapter 483, Health and Safety Code; or
(B) controlled substances scheduled in Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, or the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.);
(5) prescribes or administers a drug or treatment that is nontherapeutic in nature or nontherapeutic in the manner the drug or treatment is administered or prescribed;
(6) prescribes, administers, or dispenses in a manner inconsistent with public health and welfare:
(A) dangerous drugs as defined by Chapter 483, Health and Safety Code; or
(B) controlled substances scheduled in Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, or the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.);
(7) violates Section 311.0025, Health and Safety Code;
(8) fails to supervise adequately the activities of those acting under the supervision of the physician; or
(9) delegates professional medical responsibility or acts to a person if the delegating physician knows or has reason to know that the person is not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform the responsibility or acts.
(b) A complaint, indictment, or conviction of a violation of law is not necessary for the enforcement of Subsection (a)(1). Proof of the commission of the act while in the practice of medicine or under the guise of the practice of medicine is sufficient for the board's action.
(c) Subsection (a)(3) does not apply to a person the physician is treating for:
(1) the person's use of narcotics after the physician notifies the board in writing of the name and address of the person being treated; or
(2) intractable pain under the Intractable Pain Treatment Act (Article 4495c, Revised Statutes).
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.034(a), eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 202, Sec. 32, eff. June 10, 2003.
Notes of Decisions
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd., 573 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2019).
· cites it 5× “" TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). In the Court's view, the Board's reading errs by "favoring microscopic examination of isolated words over consideration of the statute as a whole.”
Jorge R. Guevara, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “37 Appendix: Tab A: Final Order on Plaintiff’s Original Petition (CR 379–80) Tab B: Agency Final Decision (CR 33–45) 4 Tab C: Aleman v.”
Jorge R. Guevara, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “See TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). If it did, that would effectively impose a duty on every physician to independently assess the qualifications of another physician in another practice area before referring a patient to him or risk discipline for the other physician’s treatment.”
Texas Med. Bd. v. Grayce Yannuzzi (Tex. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “at 799–800; Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(1). The trial court and court of appeals in pertinent parts affirmed.”
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. 2019).
“To begin with, that characterization simply isn’t true: failing to adequately supervise a subordinate is not necessarily likely to deceive or defraud the public, see TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a)(8), nor is writing a prescription for a known narcotic abuser or prescribing a…”
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. 2019).
“” TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). In the Court’s view, the Board’s reading errs by “favoring microscopic examination of isolated words over consideration of the statute as a whole.”
Fire Prot. v. Survitec Survival (5th Cir. 2025).
“3d at 804, along with a catchall category that encompassed other violations of law “connected with the physician’s practice of medicine,” Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 164.053 (a)(1). Applying the statute’s “unambiguous parameters,” the Texas Supreme Court merely held that this catchall…”
— Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(1) — 1 case
— Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(a) — 5 cases
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd., 573 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2019).
“" TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). In the Court's view, the Board's reading errs by "favoring microscopic examination of isolated words over consideration of the statute as a whole.”
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. 2019).
“” TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). In the Court’s view, the Board’s reading errs by “favoring microscopic examination of isolated words over consideration of the statute as a whole.”
Jorge R. Guevara, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. App. 2025).
“See TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). If it did, that would effectively impose a duty on every physician to independently assess the qualifications of another physician in another practice area before referring a patient to him or risk discipline for the other physician’s treatment.”
— Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(a)(1) — 4 cases
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd., 573 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2019).
“" TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). In the Court's view, the Board's reading errs by "favoring microscopic examination of isolated words over consideration of the statute as a whole.”
Jorge R. Guevara, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. App. 2025).
“See TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). If it did, that would effectively impose a duty on every physician to independently assess the qualifications of another physician in another practice area before referring a patient to him or risk discipline for the other physician’s treatment.”
— Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(a)(5) — 1 case
— Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(a)(6) — 1 case
— Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(a)(8) — 2 cases
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd., 573 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2019).
“" TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). In the Court's view, the Board's reading errs by "favoring microscopic examination of isolated words over consideration of the statute as a whole.”
Ruben Aleman, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. 2019).
“To begin with, that characterization simply isn’t true: failing to adequately supervise a subordinate is not necessarily likely to deceive or defraud the public, see TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a)(8), nor is writing a prescription for a known narcotic abuser or prescribing a…”
— Tex. Occ. Code § 164.053(a)(9) — 1 case
Jorge R. Guevara, M.D. v. Texas Med. Bd. (Tex. App. 2025).
“See TEX. OCC. CODE § 164.053(a). If it did, that would effectively impose a duty on every physician to independently assess the qualifications of another physician in another practice area before referring a patient to him or risk discipline for the other physician’s treatment.”
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.