Court Opinion

ID: 9785125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:04:52.9952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:06.600889
License: Public Domain

RAKER, J., dissenting, joined by BELL, C.J. and CATHELL, J.
The Circuit Court for Montgomery County reversed the decision of the Maryland State Board of Physicians on April 5, *5692006, and remanded the matter to the Board with instructions to dismiss the charge against Dr. Eist. Earlier, in August of 2005, the same court ruled, from the bench, that the Board had committed an error of law when it determined, inter alia, that a doctor who fails to produce records in response to a Board-issued subpoena necessarily violates Maryland Code (1981, 2009 RepLVol.) § 14-404(a)(33) of the Health Occupations Article, even if he acted in good faith and in reliance upon the advice of counsel. The court then remanded the matter to the Board for a full contested case hearing before the ALJ. I would affirm the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on the grounds that Dr. Eist, in relying upon the advice of his counsel, did not fail to cooperate with a lawful investigation conducted by the Board.1
Dr. Eist was represented on this issue by a highly respected and competent attorney, Armin U. Kuder. It is clear from the facts that Mr. Kuder was advising Dr. Eist throughout these proceedings. Under the circumstances presented herein, and whether a doctor must file a motion to quash a subpoena or simply may decline to provide the medical records, it seems to me that a physician should be able to rely upon and follow the advice of his attorney.
I gleaned the following facts related to this representation from the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals, which noted as follows:
“Dr. Eist then called Armin U. Kuder, Esquire, for advice. Mr. Kuder told him that [the Board] was wrong and that it was essential to obtain the patients’ permission before disclosing their mental health records....
Dr. Eist did not receive [the Board’s second] letter until July 7, 2001. He contacted Mr. Kuder, who on July 11 responded to [the Board] in writing. Mr. Kuder gave *570background information about the Domestic Case for context, and said that Dr. Eist was preparing, and shortly would send, a written response to Mr. S’s unprofessional conduct allegation. Mr. Kuder went on to say that, to the extent the Board was considering the ‘allegations’ against Dr. Eist to include Mr. S’s complaint about the propriety of the treatment being rendered to Patients A, B, and C (i e., the standard of care allegation), ‘Dr. Eist is under the impression that he does not have his patients’ permission to reveal their confidences, and that no court has weighed the necessity for violating their confidences based upon the unsupported allegations of someone with a clear conflict of interest, and a desire to violate those confidences.’ ”
Board of Physicians v. Eist, 176 Md.App. 82,104-06, 932 A.2d 783, 796-97 (2007).
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, albeit on different grounds than that court held. I would hold that Dr. Eist relied in good faith upon the advice of his counsel and that he did not fail to cooperate with an investigation of the Board.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge ROBERT M. BELL and Judge DALE CATHELL join in the views expressed in this dissenting opinion.

. Because the Court of Special Appeals decided the case on other grounds, i.e., that the Board was not entitled to the records, the court did not consider whether Dr. Eist acted in good faith and/or upon the advice of counsel in refusing to furnish the records in response to the subpoena.