Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowFinding state statute does not require a professional license to be renewed after an expungement, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has upheld a refusal by the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana to amend the disciplinary records and lift the sanctions imposed on a physician who was convicted of a misdemeanor.
Dr. Kathleen Whaley agreed to put her Indiana medical license on inactive status after suffering a mental health crisis that led to a May 2017 conviction for reckless driving. In March 2020, she had her conviction expunged.
Whaley then filed a motion for rehearing with Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, seeking relief from the sanctions that had been imposed. She argued continuing to restrict her medical license after the expungement would constitute unlawful discrimination in violation of the anti-discrimination statute, Indiana Code § 35-38-9-10(b)(5).
However, the board denied the rehearing motion on the grounds that the licensing statute, I.C. 35-38-9-0.6(a)(3), does not require a change or alternation in Whaley’s disciplinary record despite her conviction being expunged.
The Marion Superior Court denied Whaley’s petition for a review, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in Kathleen Anne Whaley, M.D. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, 21A-MI-1525.
On appeal, Whaley argued the licensing statute used by the board did not apply. She contended the anti-discrimination statute required her motion for rehearing to be granted.
But the appellate court was not convinced, finding the licensing statute does not require a change or alteration to a proceeding and does not cancel the anti-discrimination statute.
“… (T)he licensing statue merely limits the reach of the anti-discrimination statute, it does not nullify the anti-discrimination statute,” Judge Derek Molter wrote for the panel. “Even under the Board’s and the trial court’s correct interpretation of the licensing statute, the anti-discrimination statute still bars adverse professional licensing decisions based on a conviction which was expunged before discipline is imposed. So if Dr. Whaley’s conviction had been expunged before the Board contemplated imposing sanctions, the anti-discrimination provision would have prevented the Board from using her expunged conviction to impose the discipline.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.