Title: State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 104 Ohio St.3d 290, 2004-Ohio-6410.] 
 
 
[THE STATE EX REL.] TALWAR, APPELLANT, v. STATE MEDICAL BOARD OF 
OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 104 Ohio St.3d 290, 
2004-Ohio-6410.] 
Mandamus — Writ will not lie where legislature has not created duty relator 
seeks to enforce — State Medical Board authorized, but not required, by 
statutes to perform certain acts — Mandamus will not lie to compel board 
to perform discretionary act. 
(No. 2004-0733 — Submitted November 16, 2004 — Decided December 8, 
2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 03AP-644, 2004-
Ohio-1301. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In June 2003, appellant, Dr. Raman K. Talwar, filed a complaint in 
the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.  Dr. Talwar sought a writ of mandamus 
to compel appellee, the State Medical Board of Ohio, to initiate a disciplinary 
action against Dr. Bilal Kattan. 
{¶ 2} In his complaint, Dr. Talwar alleged that in April 1994, Dr. Kattan  
fabricated data, altered medical records, and made false charges concerning Dr. 
Talwar’s treatment of patients to the Lima Memorial Hospital Medical Staff 
Executive Committee.  Dr. Talwar further alleged that the hospital refused to give 
Dr. Talwar staff privileges because of Dr. Kattan’s actions. 
{¶ 3} In September 1997, Dr. Talwar requested that the board investigate 
and take disciplinary action against Dr. Kattan.  The board investigated the matter 
but determined in January 1999 that a review of Dr. Talwar’s complaint did not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
support the initiation of disciplinary action against Dr. Kattan.  According to Dr. 
Talwar, the board refused to initiate disciplinary action against Dr. Kattan because 
Dr. Kattan had left the country and his Ohio medical license had become inactive 
in October 2000. 
{¶ 4} Dr. Talwar claimed entitlement to the requested writ of mandamus 
based on various statutes.  The board moved to dismiss Dr. Talwar’s complaint 
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Civ.R. 
12(B)(6).  On March 18, 2004, the court of appeals granted the board’s motion 
and dismissed the complaint. 
{¶ 5} On appeal, Dr. Talwar asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
granting the board’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissing his mandamus 
complaint.  Dismissal is proper if, after all factual allegations of the complaint are 
presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in Dr. Talwar’s favor, it 
appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts warranting the requested 
extraordinary relief in mandamus.  State ex rel. Ferguson v. Court of Claims of 
Ohio, Victims of Crime Div., 98 Ohio St.3d 399, 2003-Ohio-1631, 786 N.E.2d 43, 
¶ 9. 
{¶ 6} In order to be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, Dr. 
Talwar had to establish a clear legal right to the initiation of disciplinary action 
against Dr. Kattan, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board to 
initiate this disciplinary action, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law.  State ex rel. Savage v. Caltrider, 100 Ohio St.3d 363, 2003-Ohio-
6806, 800 N.E.2d 358, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 7} For the following reasons, dismissal was warranted because Dr. 
Talwar could not establish the requisite legal right and legal duty regarding the 
initiation of disciplinary action against Dr. Kattan. 
{¶ 8} “ ‘It is axiomatic that in mandamus proceedings, the creation of the 
legal duty that a relator seeks to enforce is the distinct function of the legislative 
January Term, 2004 
3 
branch of government, and courts are not authorized to create the legal duty 
enforceable in mandamus.’  (Emphasis sic.)”  State ex rel. Stiles v. School 
Employees Retirement Sys., 102 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-2140, 807 N.E.2d 
353, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio 
St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 18.  Dr. Talwar relies on R.C. 
4731.22 and 4731.39 to support his entitlement to the writ. 
{¶ 9} R.C. 4731.22(F)(1) requires the board to “investigate evidence that 
appears to show that a person has violated any provision of [R.C. Chapter 4731] 
or any rule adopted under it.”  R.C. 4731.39 imposes a duty on the secretary of the 
board to “enforce the laws relating to the practice of medicine and surgery,” and 
“[i]f he has knowledge or notice of a violation, he shall investigate the matter, 
and, upon probable cause appearing, file a complaint and prosecute the offender.” 
{¶ 10} Dr. Talwar’s own complaint, however, acknowledges that the 
board investigated his charges and determined not to proceed.  Therefore, Dr. 
Talwar’s allegations establish that the board complied with its duties under R.C. 
4731.22 and 4731.39. 
{¶ 11} Moreover, insofar as Dr. Talwar asserts that the board abused its 
discretion in not prosecuting and disciplining Dr. Kattan, R.C. 4731.22(B) 
requires the board to “limit, revoke, or suspend an individual’s certificate to 
practice, refuse to register an individual, refuse to reinstate a certificate, or 
reprimand or place on probation the holder of a certificate” for certain specified 
reasons.  R.C. 4731.22(B) is expressly directed towards a physician’s certificate 
to practice or certificate of registration.  Nothing in that section prohibits a board 
from deciding not to discipline a physician who has left the country and failed to 
renew his medical license.  It is within the board’s discretion to do so in allocating 
its resources in a manner that will best protect patients. 
{¶ 12} Further, as the court of appeals concluded, nothing in R.C. 
4731.22(M)(3) precluded the board from deciding not to reopen its investigation 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
and initiate disciplinary action because Dr. Kattan had left the country and failed 
to renew his medical license.  R.C. 4731.22(M)(3) merely authorizes the board to 
act in these circumstances; it does not require that it do so: 
{¶ 13} “Failure by an individual to renew a certificate of registration in 
accordance with this chapter shall not remove or limit the board’s jurisdiction to 
take any disciplinary action under this section against the individual.” 
{¶ 14} Therefore, the board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to 
initiate disciplinary action against Dr. Kattan. 
{¶ 15} Finally, Dr. Talwar failed to allege in even a conclusory manner in 
his complaint that he lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  
State ex rel. Harris v. Toledo (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 36, 38, 656 N.E.2d 334. 
{¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, even after construing Dr. Talwar’s 
allegations most strongly in his favor, we conclude that he could not prove 
entitlement to the requested writ of mandamus.  Therefore, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Dr. Talwar’s complaint. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR 
and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Matan, Geer & Wright and Robert D. Noble, for appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Rebecca J. Albers, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_____________________