Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3


statement published February 27, 2013 on azfamily.com, the official website of 3TV News, a juror noted that: The key factors in this verdict [acquitting Dr Ogbonnaya of ALL CHARGES] were not only that the witnesses were not credible, but also the flawed investigation led by Detective Kessler of the Mesa PD, and the fact that there was never any sexual intent on the part of Dr Ogbonnaya. In all cases he performed an appropriate medical examination. When the Arizona Medical Board was contacted by the media, Lisa Wynn, their Executive Director initially said that the Boards revocation order stands because the Board proved Dr Ogbonnaya guilty of the sexual allegations by preponderance of evidence which is a lower burden of proof (Arizona Republic; 03/09/2013). The Executive Director was subsequently challenged with her sworn testimony at the revocation hearing in which she said that the Arizona Medical Board did NOT determine the truthfulness of the allegations against Dr Ogbonnaya but acted solely on the allegations and the perceived potential for harm to the public OAH 1065:19-1066:9. She was also challenged with the Boards press release dated February 3, 2012 following the revocation of Dr Ogbonnayas license in which the Board made no claim that they proved Dr Ogbonnaya guilty of any of the allegations. She then said that Dr Ogbonnayas license was revoked because of serious malpractice convictions and that Dr Ogbonnaya will have to wait till 2017 to re-apply for licensure (3 TV News; 03/11/2013). Seriously? Malpractice convictions? There are only FOUR allegations of standard of care deviations (serious malpractice convictions!) in the Medical Boards revocation order against Dr Ogbonnaya. These are in their Findings of Facts (FOF) # 31, 32, 40, 43, and Conclusions of Law #2. These are the unquestionable FACTS behind those allegations! 1. Increase in dose of narcotics for KH, FOF #31 and #32: The Board alleges that: Dr Ogbonnaya deviated from the standard of care by increasing Patient KHs narcotics dose at her request, after having previously developed a treatment plan to wean Patient KH off narcotics and that Patient KH could have suffered harm due to the potential for narcotic and anxiolytic misuse and abuse. Dr Coffer, the Medical Boards expert on this subject, did not consult any standard of care guideline in forming this opinion OAH 462:16-22. Section II of the Arizona Medical Boards Guidelines for Treatment of Chronic Pain states that, treatment planning should be tailored to both the individual and the presenting problem. At no place does the Guidelines indicate that it is a deviation from the standard of care to increase the dose of a patients narcotics after having previously developed a treatment plan to wean the patient off the medication. This is the summary of Dr Coffers testimony on this subject at the OAH: Q. Specifically, when patient KH came in, in January of 2010, she is reporting increasing pain because of aggravation of her back problem during the holidays. And Dr. Ogbonnaya examines her. And she asks for additional medicine. He prescribes the additional medicine. Under those circumstances, that wasn't below the standard of care, was it? A. No, ma'am. OAH 547:19-548:1 THE BOARDS EXPERT WITHDREW HER PRIOR OPINION! 2. Dispensing/prescription of controlled substance to AT, FOF #40:

The Board alleges that Dr Ogbonnaya interfered with Patient ATs on-going addiction treatment by prescribing controlled substances, specifically Librium, Suboxone and xanax, to Patient AT without coordinating with the physicians treating her addiction. This charge was based on an opinion rendered by Dr Peairs, the Boards expert. Patient AT was a candidate in the Nursing Boards CANDO program. Dr Peairs testified she does not know anything about the CANDO program OAH 382:25-383:1. She did not know how CANDO participants and their prescribing physicians relate with the Nursing Board OAH 382:16-24, and she was not aware that CANDO is a monitoring and NOT a treatment program as she had suggested in her report OAH 383:212. She established that Patient AT did not have a physician treating her addiction when she established care with Dr Ogbonnaya OAH 407:2-9. Dr Peairs withdrew this charge in the following exchange: Q. Now does that address your concern that he [Dr Ogbonnaya] disbursed or prescribed controlled substances, Suboxone, Librium and Xanax, to a person actively undergoing treatment for chemical dependence? A. Yes. OAH 411:5-9 THEIR EXPERT WITHDREW HER PRIOR OPINION ONCE AGAIN! 3. Non-Discontinuation of Ibuprofen on Patient MAG; FOF #43: The Medical Boards Revocation Order, alleges that: On June 4, 2007, Patient MAG presented with severe symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). She had been previously prescribed Ibuprofen... There is no indication that Respondent instructed Patient MAG to discontinue that medication in light of the GERD symptoms MAGs medical record shows that on June 4, 2007, MAG presented with acute lymphadenitis, not GERD. Her only previous Ibuprofen prescription was Ibuprofen 600mg PO tid #30 prescribed February 20, 2007. Neither the Medical Board nor their Administrative Law Judge ever explained how a 10-day Ibuprofen prescribed 3 and months prior lasted till June 4, 2007. This is a mathematical and common sense impossibility! 4. Inadequate Medical Records, Conclusion of Law #2: The Board summarized the standards expected of a physicians medical record in Findings of Fact #66 of their Revocation Order. Dr Coffer served as the Boards expert on all the standard of care reviews except for Patient AT. Her testimony at the OAH is summarized as follows: That all the medical records she reviewed met the standards outlined in the Findings of Fact #66 OAH 590:11-591:22. That her findings of some repetitions of physical findings and incompletely edited medication list is a known disadvantage of electronic medical records OAH 504:12-25, was not unique to Dr Ogbonnaya OAH 505:1-5, and she did not cite it as a deviation from standard of care OAH 504:12-23; 592:2-21. That the Board enjoins their reviewers to cite medical record deviations as aggravating factors, and not standard of care violations OAH 592:11-21. That the Board typically relies on her findings and recommendations as the primary document in reaching decisions regarding alleged standard of care deviations and aggravating factors OAH 509:1-5. That she did not recommend any disciplinary action against Dr Ogbonnaya to the Board or executive staff based on her standard of care review OAH 506:5-11. That she has not given any information about her quality of care review to any of the Board members OAH 453:4-7.

That she would not have recommended suspension or revocation of Dr Ogbonnayas license based on her findings of alleged deviations in standard of care or aggravating factors OAH 505:6-506:4 That there has never been a case where a physicians license was suspended or revoked based on the standard of care deviations and aggravating factors she found in her review of this case OAH 506:23-507:1; 592:22-593:3 Are these the serious malpractice convictions for which Dr Ogbonnayas license was REVOKED? While we respect judges and their decisions, it is important to note that the Administrative Law Judge, hand-picked by the Arizona Medical Board for the revocation hearing, practically reproduced and upheld ALL the Boards initial complaints against Dr Ogbonnaya including complaints the Arizona Medical Board withdrew entirely during the course of the hearing! The Medical Board simply voted to adopt the judges Decision. The Medical Board NEVER had any evidentiary hearing of its own on this case! When next the Arizona Medical Board wants to fool you, these are the questions you should ask them: 1. How many tablets of Ibuprofen did Patient MAG have left on her June 4 2007 visit to Dr Ogbonnaya from the previous 10-day prescription given to her in February 2007? 2. What standard of care guideline makes it a deviation in standard of care for a physician to increase the dose of a medication for a patient after having previously developed a treatment plan to wean the patient off that medication? 3. Why does the Arizona Medical Board insist that Dr Ogbonnaya interfered with Patient ATs ongoing addiction treatment when their expert who rendered this opinion withdrew this charge? 4. If the Arizona Medical Boards burden of proof of the sexual allegations led both the investigating physician OAH 498:17-23 and the Executive Director OAH 1065:19-1066:9 to conclude that they did not determine the truthfulness of the allegations, and if by the Boards position had been that they revoked Dr Ogbonnayas license due to the allegations, why would they NOT reinstate the license now that Dr Ogbonnaya has been acquitted of ALL charges? Please download the full transcript of the Medical Boards Executive Director testimony from my Facebook page @ Gabriel Ogbonnaya The longer the Arizona Medical Board keeps holding onto Dr Ogbonnayas license the longer well draw national and international attention to the face of justice The Arizona Medical Board style! Aluta Continua! YES WE CAN!