73. REQ for Admission License

8/13/2019 73. REQ for Admission License

1/12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D., In Pro PerP.O. Box 869French Camp, CA 95231Telephone: (209) 982 9039

Prepared by;REHAN SHEIKH, [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO DIVISION)

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D.Plaintiff,

v.

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant

The STATE OF CALIFORNIADefendant

CASE: 2:10-CV-00213FCD - GGH

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONFRCP 36

ON DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFS

APPLICATION FOR PHYSICAINS ANDSURGEONS LICENSE

Plaintiff Farzana sheikh, M.D. requests that Defendant(s) Medical Board of California and State of

California admit or deny the following statements. If objection is made, please state the reason for

the objection. Please submit an affidavit by Member of Medical Board of California in reference to

the information reviewed (if any) by the members of the Medical Board in reference to pla intiffs

application for Physicians and Surgeons license.Please specifically deny the matter or set forth in

detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.

//

Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 73 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 12
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PETITION: Sheikh v. State of California Page --- PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION(License)

Page | 2

The following statement will be deemed admitted within 30 days. Plaintiff intents to submit a

Motion with the District Court to shorten the number of days to less than 30.

Plaintiff requests Defendant(s) to admit that:

1) Defendants denied Plaintiffs, Farzana Sheikh M.D., application for physicians licenseonDec 5, 2008.

2) In the amended statement of issues dated May 21, 2009, the only cause of action wasDishonesty.

3) A hearing was held before the Hearing Officer of the Medical Board.4) The proposed decision of the Hearing Officer of the Medical Board (dated November 3,

2009) did not find plaintiff guilty of Dishonesty according to law (Exhibit Government Code

section 11425.50).

5) The proposed decision by the Hearing Officer of the Medical Board (dated November 3,2009) did not even use the keyword Dishonesty.

6) Staff of the Medical Board engaged in Ex-Parte Communications with the Hearing Officer ofthe Medical Board in reference to discipline of plaintiff.

7) Attorney for the Medical Board engaged in Ex-Parte Communications with the HearingOfficers of the Medical Board in reference to discipline of plaintiff.

8) Plaintiff correctly checked the box on the application form reflecting that her contract wasNOT renewed by the Residency Program (Exhibit application form completed by plaintiff

Farzana Sheikh, M.D.).

9) Renewal of contract with the Residency Program is NOT a pre-requisite of Physicians andSurgeons License to practice Medicine in the State of California.

10)The Resident physicians who are unable to get a renewal of contract by a Residency Programcan be licensed if they are eligible otherwise.



3/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Page | 3

11)The Resident Physicians who are unable to complete Residency Training can be licensed ifthey are eligible otherwise.

12)During November 2007, after defendants reviewed plaintiffs application forms defendantsstated;

If [plaintiff] satisfactorily completes the full 24 month residency training at San

Joaquin General Hospital she qualifies for licensure (Exhibit).

13)Plaintiff has successfully and satisfactorily completed 24 months (or more) ResidencyTraining with the Family Medicine Residency Program at San Joaquin General Hospital.

14)Plaintiff has satisfactorily completed Family Medicine Residency Training and plaintiff hasbeen awarded certificate of completion of Family Medicine Residency Training from San

Joaquin General Hospital.

15)Plaintiff has satisfactorily completed Family Medicine Residency Training and plaintiff hasbeen awarded certificate of completion of Family Medicine Residency Training from

University of California at Davis.

16)The Executive Staff of the Medical Board generally sends a ballot to the Board Member(s)with the Name and gender of the physician and a proposed disciplinary punishment.

17)The Executive Staff of the Medical Board did not send a ballot to the Members of theMedical Board in reference to discipline of plaintiff Farzana Sheikhs denial of application

for Physicians and Surgeons License.

18)The Members of the Medical Board did not review complete evidence relevant to disciplineof the plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D. before adopting the proposed decision of the Hearing

Officer.

19)The members of the Medical Board did not review a sample of evidence relevant todiscipline of plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D. before adopting the proposed decision.



4/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Page | 4

20)The members of the Medical Board did not review complete transcript relevant to disciplineof plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D. before adopting the proposed decision.

21)The members of the Medical Board did not review a sample of transcript relevant todiscipline of plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D. before adopting the proposed decision.

22)The Executive Staff of the Medical Board engaged in Ex-Parte Communications with theHearing Officer and with the Member(s) of the Medical Board of California on matters

relevant to discipline of plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D.

23)Defendants did not grant a hearing on plaintiffs Notice of Objections/Demurrer (dated April27, 2009) on Statement of Issues / Amended Statement of Issues.

24)Defendants did not comply with the subpoena signed by the administrative law judge anddefendants did not provide requested documentation to plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D.

Respectfully Submitted by;

/s/ Farzana Sheikh

Date: Sep 20, 2010 ----------------------------------

Farzana Sheikh, M.D.



5/12

EXHIBIT



6/12

conducted under Chapter 5 (formal hearing procedure) by an administrative law judge employed by the Office of Administrative Hearings,this provision authorizes the Office of Administrative Hearings, and not the agency for which the Office of Administrative Hearings isconducting the proceeding, to provide for peremptory challenge of the administrative law judge.

11425.50. Decision to be in writing; Statement of factual and legal basis(a) The decision shall be in writing and shall include a statement of the factual and legal

basis for the decision.(b) The statement of the factual basis for the decision may be in the language of, or by

reference to, the pleadings. If the statement is no more than mere repetition or paraphraseof the relevant statute or regulation, the statement shall be accompanied by a concise andexplicit statement of the underlying facts of record that support the decision. If the factualbasis for the decision includes a determination based substantially on the credibility of awitness, the statement shall identify any specific evidence of the observed demeanor,manner, or attitude of the witness that supports the determination, and on judicial review thecourt shall give great weight to the determination to the extent the determination identifiesthe observed demeanor, manner, or attitude of the witness that supports it.

(c) The statement of the factual basis for the decision shall be based exclusively on theevidence of record in the proceeding and on matters officially noticed in the proceeding. The

presiding officer's experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may beused in evaluating evidence.

(d) Nothing in this section limits the information that may be contained in the decision,including a summary of evidence relied on.

(e) A penalty may not be based on a guideline, criterion, bulletin, manual, instruction,order, standard of general application or other rule subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing withSection 11340) unless it has been adopted as a regulation pursuant to Chapter 3.5(commencing with Section 11340).

HISTORY:Added Stats 1995 ch 938 21 (SB 523), operative July 1, 1997.

LAW REVISION COMMISSION COMMENTS:(1995) Section 11425.50 supersedes the first two sentences of Section 11518. See also former subdivision (f)(4) of Section 11500.Subdivision (a) is drawn from the first sentence of 1981 Model State APA 4-215(c). The decision must be supported by findings that link the

evidence in the proceeding to the ultimate decision. Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 522P. 2d 12, 113 Cal. Rptr. 836 (1974). The requirement that the decision must include a statement of the basis for the decision is particularlysignificant when an agency develops new policy through the adjudication of specific cases rather than through rulemaking. Articulation of thebasis for the agency's decision facilitates administrative and judicial review, helps clarify the effect of any precedential decision (see Section11425.60), and focuses attention on questions that the agency should address in subsequent rulemaking to supersede the policy that hasbeen developed through adjudicative proceedings. The decision must only explain its actual basis. It need not eliminate other possible basesthat could have been, but were not, relied upon as the basis for the decision. Thus, for example, if the decision imposes terms andconditions, it need not explain why other terms and conditions were not imposed.

Subdivision (a) requires the decision to contain a statement of the "factual .... basis for the decision," while former Section 11518 requiredthe decision to contain "findings of fact." The new language more accurately reflects case law, and is not a substantive change. SeeTopanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, supra; Swars v. Council of the City of Vallejo, 33 Cal. 2d 867, 872-73, 206P.2d 355 (1949). The requirement in subdivision (b) that a mere repetition or paraphrase of the relevant statute or regulation beaccompanied by a statement of the underlying facts is drawn from the second sentence of 1981 Model APA 4-215(c).

Subdivision (b) adopts the rule of Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951), requiring that the reviewing court weigh moreheavily findings by the trier of fact (the presiding officer in an administrative adjudication) based on observation of witnesses than findingsbased on other evidence. This generalizes the standard of review used by a number of California agencies. See, e.g., Garza v. Workmen's

Compensation Appeals Bd., 3 Cal. 3d 312, 318-19, 475 P. 2d 451, 90 Cal. Rptr. 355 (1970) (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board); Millenv. Swoap, 58 Cal. App. 3d 943, 947-48, 130 Cal. Rptr. 387 (1976) (Department of Social Services); Apte v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 198 Cal.

App. 3d 1084, 1092, 244 Cal. Rptr. 312 (1988) (University of California); Unemp. Ins. App. Bd., Precedent Decisions P-B-10, P-T-13, P-B-57;Lab. Code 1148 (Agricultural Labor Relations Board). It reverses the existing practice under the administrative procedure act and otherCalifornia administrative procedures that gives no weight to the findings of the presiding officer at the hearing. See Asimow, Toward a NewCalifornia Administrative Procedure Act: Adjudication Fundamentals, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 1067, 1114 (1992), reprinted in 25 Cal. L. RevisionComm'n Reports 321, 368 (1995).

Findings based substantially on credibility of a witness must be identified by the presiding officer in the decision made in the adjudicativeproceeding. This requirement is derived from Washington law. See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. 34.05.461(3), 34.05.464(4) (West 1990).However, the presiding officer's identification of such findings is not binding on the agency or the courts, which may make their owndeterminations whether a particular finding is based substantially on credibility of a witness. Even though the presiding officer's determinationis based substantially on credibility of a witness, the determination is entitled to great weight only to the extent the determination derives fromthe presiding officer's observation of the demeanor, manner, or attitude of the witness. Nothing in subdivision (b) precludes the agency head

Administrative Procedure Act

Statutes and RegulationsPage 35



7/12



8/12



9/12



10/12

EXHIBIT



11/12



12/12


73. REQ for Admission License

Documents

Transcript of 73. REQ for Admission License