Federal Medical Board Suspension Case - Buckwalter v. Nevada Board of Medical Examiners (9th Cir. 2012)
The bottom line is that patient safety concerns eliminate due process and fair hearing rights for a physician.
In this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Dr. Kevin Buckwalter, a Nevada-licensed physician, challenged an emergency summary suspension of his authority to prescribe, administer, or dispense controlled substances. The suspension was imposed ex parte by the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners in November 2008, following an investigation into patient complaints alleging malpractice, including excessive narcotic prescriptions linked to at least one patient death. Buckwalter sought damages and equitable relief (e.g., an injunction to vacate the suspension), claiming the action violated his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The bottom line is that not only hospitals, the MEC and medical staff have broad powers to suspend a doctor and federal due process protections will not allow the doctor to counter attack., medical boards have even broader powers and any concept of fair hearing before a "death blow" is administered to a physician's practice are "out the window" when patient safety is involved.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Buckwalter's claims on two key grounds:
- Absolute Immunity for Board Members: The individual Board members (defendants Anjum, Anwar, McBride, Heffner, and Cousineau) were entitled to absolute judicial immunity from Buckwalter's claims for monetary damages. The court reasoned that the Board's summary suspension authority—exercised in a quasi-judicial capacity to protect public health—was functionally comparable to a judge's power to issue a temporary restraining order or arrest warrant. This immunity applies even to ex parte proceedings, as the Board's actions involved discretionary, adjudicative decision-making based on evidence, not mere administrative or investigative functions.
- Younger Abstention: Federal courts were barred from granting Buckwalter's requested equitable relief (e.g., enjoining the suspension) under the Younger doctrine, which requires abstention from interfering in ongoing state administrative proceedings that implicate important state interests (here, medical licensing and public safety). The state proceedings were deemed ongoing and adequate for Buckwalter to raise his constitutional claims, and he had not shown bad faith or harassment by the Board.
The court rejected Buckwalter's arguments that the lack of an automatic stay during state appeals or the potential for political influence undermined due process, emphasizing that Nevada law provided a post-suspension hearing opportunity (which Buckwalter initially waived). The decision underscores broad protections for state medical boards in emergency actions while deferring constitutional challenges to state forums. (678 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2012)).
