-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

In re ABDELBASET A. YOUSSEF, M.D. 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, 

 Petitioner-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

April 25, 2017 

v No. 330222 

Board of Medicine 

ABDELBASET ABDELMAGID YOUSSEF, 

M.D., 

LC No. 15-015505 

 Respondent-Appellant. 

Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and SERVITTO and STEPHENS, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Respondent appeals by right the order issued by the Board of Medicine suspending his 

license to practice medicine for six months and a day, rendering void his license to prescribe 

controlled substances, and imposing a $20,000 fine, to be paid before he could apply for 

reinstatement of his medical license. We affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 Petitioner filed a two-count administrative complaint against respondent alleging 

negligence and incompetence under MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i), respectively, in part on the 

basis of data petitioner obtained from the Michigan Automated Prescriptions System (MAPS) 

indicating that respondent had prescribed more than 25,000 controlled substances between 

August 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013. Petitioner’s complaint focused on four of respondent’s 

patients, BS, AR, CH, and KB, and alleged that in each case he had issued monthly prescriptions 

for commonly abused controlled substances without offering the patients alternative treatments 

or monitoring them for abuse or diversion of the drugs. Petitioner’s investigation was prompted 

when BS’s mother, a retired nurse, found him in possession of a large number of drugs that had 

been prescribed by respondent and in a condition that led her to believe he had overdosed on 

drugs. 

 John Hopper, a licensed physician with expertise in opioid use, management, and 

dependence, testified that he reviewed these four patients’ charts and MAPS reports and 
-2- 

concluded that respondent’s prescribing practices fell below the standard of care. Hopper’s 

report to that effect was entered into evidence. Respondent testified that the amounts and 

combinations of medications he prescribed were necessary because his patients all suffered from 

conditions that caused chronic pain, which was often accompanied by anxiety and difficulty 

sleeping. 

 In the proposal for decision (PFD), the ALJ concluded that petitioner established that 

respondent violated MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i) by failing “to consider the use of other 

treatment modalities or non-narcotic medications for the treatment of pain,” failing “to 

consistently monitor for abuse and diversion by utilizing urine drug testing and checking 

patients’ prescription records with MAPS,” and “[p]rescribing an inappropriate combination of 

medication[.]” Respondent filed exceptions to the PFD. The Board of Medicine’s disciplinary 

subcommittee accepted the PFD after reviewing the record. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative 

officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or 

quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review 

by the courts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum, the 

determination whether such final decisions, findings, rulings and orders are 

authorized by law; and, in cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same 

are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole 

record. [Const 1963, art 6, § 28.] 

We “review the entire record and not just the portions supporting the agency’s findings.” Dep’t 

of Community Health v Risch, 274 Mich App 365, 372; 733 NW2d 403 (2007). “Substantial 

evidence is evidence that a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. 

While this requires more than a scintilla of evidence, it may be substantially less than a 

preponderance.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

A. MOTION TO DISMISS 

 Respondent argues that the complaint should have been summarily dismissed. He 

alleged that the complaint did not state a claim under MCL 333.16221(a) or MCL 

333.16221(b)(i). This is analogous to a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) which “tests the legal 

sufficiency of the claim on the pleadings alone to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a 

claim on which relief may be granted.” Spiek v Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 

201 (1998). “The motion must be granted if no factual development could justify the plaintiff’s 

claim for relief.” Id. 

 In this case, the tribunal ruled that the facts regarding respondent’s record of prescribing 

drugs alleged in the complaint, “if proven, likely would be sufficient to establish a violation 

under MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i).” We agree. The factual assertion in the complaint cites the 

number of prescriptions for each of the named patients, the inappropriate combinations of such 

drugs, the lack of any record of the patients being given advice about the dangers of the drugs or 

advice on alternative treatments. The complaint also states that the patients denied receiving 
-3- 

such advice and counsel. This factual scenario adequately states a claim for violation of the cited 

laws. 

B. EXPERT TESTIMONY 

 Hooper’s testimony was highly significant in this case and the respondent argues that it 

should not have been admitted. The crux of his objections to Hooper’s testimony concerns its 

veracity and scientific reliability. Hopper testified that respondent had prescribed KB a 

combination of hydrocodone, alprazolam, promethazine with codeine, lorazepam, butalbitol, and 

carisoprodol. Hopper stated that it “would be hard to imagine a patient receiving this 

combination of drugs and actually function[ing] at all,” and that the combination could cause 

“sedation, confusion,” and could “certainly result in death as well.” Hopper noted that 

respondent continued to prescribe KB a stimulant that was known to increase a person’s blood 

pressure, despite the fact that KB’s blood pressure was “over two hundred,” which Hopper stated 

was “shocking.” 

 Hopper testified that respondent had not met the minimum standard of care for BS either, 

noting that BS’s prescriptions would cause a person to be “sedated and not functional.” Hopper 

stated that if a person were receiving “that many prescriptions and was functioning right,” he 

would suspect that the person was not taking them, causing a concern that they were being 

shared or sold to other people. 

 Respondent raises several arguments that are based largely on his assertion that Hopper’s 

testimony contained incorrect information. Because he argued against the admission of some of 

this evidence at the hearing, we will consider this issue preserved. We are left to speculate the 

exact nature of his specific objections to portions of Hooper’s testimony because they are 

addressed without transcript references. In general, we note that the admissibility of evidence in 

an administrative hearing is governed not by the Michigan Rules of Evidence but by the 

“somewhat relaxed” standard set forth in MCL 24.275. Becker-Witt v Bd of Examiners of Social 

Workers, 256 Mich App 359, 365; 663 NW2d 514 (2003). Respondent opines that Hooper’s 

information was inaccurate or misleading but offers nothing more than his own opinion in 

support of that argument. However, the fact that respondent disagreed with Hopper’s testimony 

did not render it either untruthful or inadmissible. Rather, the conflict between the two was to be 

resolved by the fact-finder, which is invested with the authority to assess witness credibility, 

Risch, 274 Mich App at 372, and to weigh the evidence presented, Surman v Surman, 277 Mich 

App 287, 309; 745 NW2d 802 (2007). 

C. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS 

 Respondent alleges errors with respect to certain actions taken, or not taken, by petitioner 

with regard to the filing of the complaint, predicated on the applicable statutes. Respondent 

argues petitioner violated MCL 333.16228 by failing to have its complaint reviewed and 

approved by a controlled prescription panel before it was filed. MCL 333.16228 provides as 

follows: 

 (1) For an investigation involving the prescription of a controlled 

substance, the department may establish an ad hoc review panel to provide the 
-4- 

department with expert information regarding a specific health profession or 

health specialty or a specific health care treatment or procedure as it relates to the 

investigation. The department shall establish an ad hoc review panel under this 

subsection as follows: 

 (a) The department shall triennially establish a pool of 10 physicians, 5 of 

whom are allopathic physicians licensed under part 170 [MCL 333.17001 et seq.] 

and 5 of whom are osteopathic physicians licensed under part 175 [MCL 

333.17501 et seq.]. 

 (b) For each ad hoc review panel, the department shall appoint 3 

physicians from the pool established under subdivision (a). 

 (2) The ad hoc review panel shall provide the information described in 

subsection (1) to the department during the investigation process and before a 

formal complaint is issued. [Emphasis added.] 

 In using the permissive “may” when speaking to the department’s authority to establish 

an ad hoc review panel, the Legislature clearly gave the department discretion to establish such a 

panel. See People v Brown, 249 Mich App 382, 386; 642 NW2d 382 (2002) (“The statutory 

term ‘may’ is permissive . . . .”). The correlating authority is the discretion not to establish such 

a panel. It is only when the department has exercised its discretion to establish an ad hoc review 

panel that MCL 333.16228 limits the department’s authority. See id. (“[T]he term ‘shall[ ]’ . . . 

carries a mandatory, nondiscretionary connotation.”). 

 Respondent also argues that the complaint should have been reviewed by a person in the 

medical field before it was filed. However, he cites no authority in support. Houghton v Keller, 

256 Mich App 336, 339-340; 662 NW2d 854 (2003). In any event, MCL 333.16231(6)(a) gives 

the department the authority to issue a formal complaint if an investigation indicates that a 

licensee has violated Article 15 of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.16101 through 333.18838. 

This section contains no requirement that the complaint be reviewed by a person with medical 

qualifications prior to filing. 

D. OTHER EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 

 Respondent made several other evidentiary arguments, again without specific transcript 

references. The arguments concern admission of evidence that was irrelevant to or outside the 

scope of the complaint as filed. Again, the admissibility of evidence in an administrative hearing 

is governed by the standard set forth in MCL 24.275. Becker-Witt, 256 Mich App at 365. 

However, even if respondent’s characterization is accurate, the tribunal was not required to 

exclude irrelevant evidence under MCL 24.275. Further, the tribunal acknowledged that it had 

taken testimony that went outside the scope of the allegations set forth in the complaint, but it 

made it clear it would not consider that evidence when rendering a decision. 

 Respondent also argues that the tribunal admitted petitioner’s exhibits before he had time 

to review them. However, the record reflects that respondent was offered the opportunity to 

review petitioner’s exhibits at a pretrial conference and declined. 
-5- 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien 

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto 

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens