Website Deletions Not Ordered

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed an order denying a motion to remove references to information concerning licensing actions against a doctor

On January 30, 2023, prior to a full disciplinary adjudicatory hearing, Doe filed a motion to remove all references to the emergency suspension from the website, including the May 6 order and notice, and the June 2 order. He alleged in his motion that the availability of these orders online had negatively affected him professionally and personally and had “resulted in extreme social isolation.” The Board denied his motion on March 1, 2023. A little over one month later, Doe voluntarily surrendered his license; thereafter, the voluntary surrender of license was posted on the website. On April 21, 2023, Doe submitted a renewed motion to remove all references to the emergency suspension order from the OPLC website. He asserted in his motion that his reputation had been adversely affected by the Board’s ex parte proceedings, and that “the lack of due process afforded in the ex parte proceedings should result in the Board removing all references to the proceeding from its website and his physician profile.” On September 5, 2023, the Board issued an order denying the requested relief.

The allegations

The following facts either were found by the Board, are undisputed by the parties, or appear in the record. On October 26, 2021, the Office of Public Licensure and Certification, Division of Enforcement (OPLC) was notified by a detective that the mother of one of Doe’s juvenile patients had filed a complaint with a police department alleging that Doe had asked the juvenile inappropriate questions about sex during a medical visit. On April 8, 2022, the OPLC received a report of non-compliance from Doe’s former employer notifying the Board that it had terminated Doe’s employment following the receipt of complaints by three staff members that on three separate occasions Doe had made comments to them that were sexual in nature, and after a non-juvenile female patient had stated that Doe had touched her inappropriately and made sexually inappropriate comments during office visits.

Conclusion

Because we conclude that Doe’s procedural due process rights were not violated, and that the Board did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously, we affirm the Board’s decision not to remove all references to the May 4, 2022 and June 2, 2022 orders and the May 6, 2022 notice of emergency hearing from its website and from Doe’s physician profile.

Affirmed.

(Mike Frisch)