Opinion ID: 2008931
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the threshold question is whether the state may discipline a physician for a single act of ordinary negligence

Text: The State argues on appeal that the district court erred in determining the locality rule is the standard of conduct in a disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct. Mahnke contends, however, that we should affirm the district court's decision regardless of the standard applied, because the State may not discipline him for a single act of alleged negligence. Mahnke argues that the relevant statutes do not provide for discipline against a physician based on ordinary negligence. He further argues that § 013.18 of the Department's regulations could subject a physician to discipline for an act of ordinary negligence and is therefore invalid as inconsistent with the statutes. The State responds that it does not contend a single act of ordinary negligence would be grounds for discipline. The State argues that it never charged ... Mahnke with `ordinary negligence,' but instead charged him with unprofessional conduct. [4] In fact, the State further concedes, [N]or do the disciplinary statutory provisions of §§ 71-147 and 71-148 of the Uniform Licensing Law state that `ordinary negligence' is grounds for disciplining a medical license. [5] The State apparently believes that any act of medical negligence may be grounds for discipline if the charge is couched as unprofessional conduct rather than in negligence terms. This artificial distinction is not convincing. We conclude that the threshold question is whether the State can subject a physician to discipline for a single act of ordinary negligence.