IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-0975

Filed June 29, 2016

RICHARD MAX FLEMING, M.D.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

IOWA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall, Judge.

A physician appeals the district court’s ruling on a petition for judicial 

review. AFFIRMED.

Richard M. Fleming, Studio City, California, appellant pro se.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Julie J. Bussanmas and 

Theresa M. O’Connell Weeg, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Mahan, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2

MAHAN, Senior Judge.

Richard Fleming, M.D., appeals the district court’s ruling affirming a 

decision by the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners (Board) imposing discipline on 

his medical license. We affirm. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Fleming is a licensed Iowa physician and cardiologist who was practicing 

medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, when the events giving rise to this case occurred. 

In 2009, Fleming pled guilty in federal court to one count of health care fraud and 

one count of mail fraud. Because Fleming was convicted of a felony relating to 

the medical profession, the Board filed formal disciplinary charges against him. 

After Fleming unsuccessfully appealed his federal convictions, the Board issued 

its final decision in February 2012 outlining his penalty—pay a $10,000 civil 

penalty, attend a professional ethics course within sixty days, and attend a billing 

practices course within ninety days. The Board also placed his license on 

probation for five years. Fleming did not seek judicial review of that decision. 

The Board subsequently filed a second set of charges against Fleming, 

claiming he had willfully or repeatedly violated a Board order because he had not 

completed the discipline requirements of its February 2012 decision. Following a 

hearing, the Board issued its final decision in September 2012, concluding 

Fleming had “fail[ed] to comply” with its February 2012 order. The Board 

indefinitely suspended his license until he complied with the requirements 

imposed in the February 2012 order. Fleming filed a request for rehearing and 

asked the Board to consider additional evidence; the Board denied his request, 
3

finding it was an attempt “to relitigate matters related to his criminal conviction 

and such matters are not relevant to this case.” 

Fleming filed a petition for judicial review in the district court. The district 

court affirmed the Board’s decision. Fleming appeals. 

II. Standard of Review

We review for correction of errors of law on the part of the agency. 

Glowacki v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 516 N.W.2d 881, 884 (Iowa 1994). We

apply the standards of Iowa Code chapter 17A (2011) to determine whether the 

conclusions we reach are the same as those of the district court. See Hill v.

Fleetguard, Inc., 705 N.W.2d 665, 669 (Iowa 2005). We affirm if the conclusions 

are the same; otherwise we reverse. Id.

III. Discussion

Fleming raises a myriad of claims on appeal; however, none of his claims 

are relevant to the agency action on review. Specifically, Fleming challenges the 

district court’s action striking his motions for summary judgment and associated 

filings and appendices, which he claims were relevant to show the Board “failed 

to substantially investigate this case,” and the district court’s failure to conclude 

the Board’s “investigation was subpar.” Fleming further contends the Board 

acted in “bad-faith with scienter” during its investigation and “intentionally 

omit[ted] facts and matters of law.” 

These claims are with regard to the Board and district court’s 

“investigation” of Fleming’s federal criminal conviction. Fleming pled guilty to 

health care fraud in federal court, and his subsequent appeal of his criminal 
4

conviction and other attempts for relief were unsuccessful.1 In light of Fleming’s 

federal conviction of a felony relating to the medical profession, the Board filed 

charges—and ultimately entered a discipline order—against him. Fleming did 

not appeal the Board’s decision. He also did not comply with it. The Board then

filed a second set of charges against him for his “willful[] or repeated[] violat[ion 

of] a Board order,” which culminated in a Board order suspending his license 

indefinitely until he complied with the discipline imposed in its February 2012 

order. 

On judicial review of that decision, Fleming focused his dispute on his 

federal criminal conviction and challenged the Board’s investigation of that 

matter. The district court stated, “Petitioner failed to make arguments pertaining 

to the agency action at issue.” Noting Fleming’s admission that he had not paid 

the fine or taken the ethics and billings courses required by the Board’s first 

order, the district court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding “substantial 

evidence support the Board’s September 7, 2012 determination that Petitioner 

failed to comply with the February 9, 2012 Decision and Order.” 

We agree substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. We affirm 

the district court’s ruling affirming the Board’s decision imposing discipline on 

Fleming’s medical license.

AFFIRMED.

 

1 See Fleming v. United States, No. 3:13-CV-00154-MMD, 2013 WL 5838719, at *2-3 

(D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2013), aff’d, 616 F. App’x 223 (9th Cir. 2015); Fleming v. Wolfe, 

No. 4:12CV3036, 2012 WL 1478794, at *1-2 (D. Neb. Apr. 27, 2012); Fleming v. United 

States, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1020 (D. Neb. 2010); United States v. Fleming, 

No. 4:07CR3005, 2009 WL 3271338, at *2-3 (D. Neb. Oct. 9, 2009).