Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BUD EDWARD QUINTANA v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/11/83)

decided: October 11, 1983.

BUD EDWARD QUINTANA, D.O., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL EXAMINERS, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners in the case of In the Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of the License to Practice Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery, No. OS-003221-L, issued September 6, 1974, to Bud Edward Quintana, D.O., dated January 14, 1982.

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Beckley, with him, Jeffrey W. Davis, Backley & Madden, for petitioner.

Mary S. Wyatte, Counsel, State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, with her, Edward D. Frank, II, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, and David F. Phifer, Chief Counsel, Department of State, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., and Judges Williams, Jr., and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri.

Author: Barbieri

[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 439]

The petitioner, Bud Edward Quintana, appeals from a decision of the State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (Board) which revoked his license to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery in the State of Pennsylvania. We affirm.

On July 9, 1981, the State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners held a hearing to determine whether or not the petitioner in this case had violated Section 15(a)(2) and 15(a)(4) of the Osteopathic Medical

[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 440]

Practice Act (Act), Act of October 5, 1978, P.L. 1109, 63 P.S. ยงยง 271.15(a)(2) and 271.15(a)(4). Sections 15(a)(2) and (a)(4) of the Act provide that:

(a) The board shall have authority to refuse, revoke or suspend the license of a physician for any of the following reasons:

(2) Making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of osteopathic medicine and surgery, practicing fraud or deceit in obtaining a license to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery, or making a false or deceptive biennial registration with the board.

(4) Having a license to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery revoked or suspended or having other disciplinary action taken, or an application for a license refused, revoked, or suspended by the proper licensing authority of another state, territory, or country.

The charges brought against the petitioner were based upon disciplinary action taken by the Michigan Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery which in 1980, placed the petitioner on probation for three years. The Michigan state action was prompted by a complaint filed by the Attorney General's office of that state charging the petitioner with subterfuge and use of another's name to obtain and possess controlled substances without lawful authority, and prescribing and administering drugs for other than lawful diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Specifically, the petitioner ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.