CO Code § 12-240-127 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 12 - Professions and Occupations|Article 240 - Medical Practice|§ 12-240-127. Appeal of Final Board Actions

 When the board refuses to grant a license, imposes disciplinary action pursuant to section 12-240-125 , or places a licensee on probation, the action may be reviewed pursuant to section 12-20-408 , unless the licensee has accepted a license subject to terms of probation as set forth in section 12-240-120 (3) .   History. Source: L. 2019: Entire title R&RE with relocations,(HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1204, § 1, effective October 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 12-36-119 as it existed prior to 2019.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   This statute specifically provides for the reconsideration by the board of any orders issued by it, and court review of any action taken in revoking a physician's license. Colo. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. District Court, 138 Colo. 227 , 331 P.2d 502 (1958).   Where the state board of medical examiners is proceeding pursuant to its statutory authority, a trial court has no authority to issue an absolute writ, prohibiting the board from performing the duties imposed upon it by law, where a statute provides for reconsideration by the board of any orders issued by it and court review of any action taken in revoking a physician's license. Colo. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. District Court, 138 Colo. 227 , 331 P.2d 502 (1958).   The board does not have jurisdiction equal to, or coordinate with, that of the courts, because if any of the orders of the board are defied, it is helpless without judicial process. Sapero v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P.2d 555 (1932).   This disparity in powers and duties is not of judicial origin because it cannot be supposed that the express provision reserving the remedy to review the acts of the medical board in either “refusing to grant or in revoking a license to practice medicine”, was the product of judicial legislation. Sapero v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P.2d 555 (1932).   The district court has no power on certiorari to review the action of the board of medical examiners except for excess of jurisdiction, or abuse of discretion. Dilliard v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 69 Colo. 575 , 196 P. 866 (1921); White v. Andrew, 70 Colo. 50 , 197 P. 564 (1921).   The board has power in the first instance to decide what constitutes unprofessional conduct, but if it abuses that power, the court will reverse its judgment. Sapero v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P.2d 555 (1932), citing Dilliard v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 69 Colo. 575 , 196 P. 866 (1921).   The reviewing court cannot decide the case upon the merits. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Spears, 79 Colo. 588 , 247 P. 563 (1926), appeal dismissed, 275 U.S. 508, 48 S. Ct. 158, 72 L. Ed. 398 (1928).   The reviewing court has no power to correct a mistake of fact or erroneous conclusion from the facts, made by the inferior tribunal. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, v. Spears, 79 Colo. 588 , 247 P. 563 (1926), appeal dismissed, 275 U.S. 508, 48 S. Ct. 158, 72 L. Ed. 398 (1928).   It is proper for the court to say whether the evidence shows the defendants guilty of moral turpitude. Sapero v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P.2d 555 (1932); State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs v. Savelle, 90 Colo. 177 , 8 P.2d 693, appeal dismissed, 287 U.S. 562, 53 S. Ct. 5, 77 L. Ed. 496 (1932); State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs v. Miller, 90 Colo. 193 , 8 P.2d 699, appeal dismissed, 287 U.S. 563, 53 S. Ct. 6, 77 L. Ed. 496 (1932).   Barring doctor whose license is revoked from applying for relicensure for a period of two years is contrary to the plain meaning of subsection (1)(a). Puls v. People ex rel. Woodard, 722 P.2d 424 (Colo. App. 1986).   Section does not restrict board's authority to increase previously imposed sanctions, because it applies only where applicant has demonstrated by his compliance that a lessening of sanctions is warranted. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Robertson, 751 P.2d 648 (Colo. App. 1987).   “Letter of concern” issued to physician after disciplinary proceedings against him were dismissed did not constitute “disciplinary action” taken by the medical board, and therefore not subject to judicial review in the Court of Appeals. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. B.L.L., 820 P.2d 1190 (Colo. App. 1991).   Initial decision by ALJ on disciplinary action complaint referred to ALJ pursuant to § 12-36-118 (5)(g)(II) is not final and is properly reviewable by board under this section. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Slonim, 844 P.2d 1207 (Colo. App. 1992).