BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ...4patientsafety.org › documents › Hassan,...

BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation Against:

ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D.

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816

Respondent

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 800-2015-019469

OAH No. 2016020202

DECISION

The attached Proposed Decision is hereby adopted as the Decision and Order of the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California.

This Decision shall become effective at 5:00 p.m. on December 16, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED November 17,2016.

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA



In the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation Against:

ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D.

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816,

Respondent.

Case No. 800-2015-019469

OAH No. 2016020202

PROPOSED DECISION

On September 26 and 27, 2016, Debra D. Nye-Perkins, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings, heard this matter in San Diego, California.

Lori J. Forcucci, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, represented complainant, Kimberly Kirchmeyer, Executive Director of the Medical Board of California.

Marvin H. Firestone, M.D., Attorney at Law, represented respondent Allen C. Hassan, M.D., who was present throughout the administrative proceeding.

The matter was submitted on September 27, 2016.

PROTECTIVE ORDER SEALING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

The name of medical patients mentioned during testimony in this matter is subject to a protective order. No court reporter or transcription service shall transcribe any patient name but shall instead refer to any patient in the transcript by their initials.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

1. On January 15, 1968, the Medical Board of California issued Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816 to respondent, Allen C. Hassan, M.D. Respondent's certificate was disciplined in the 1970s. In 2015, respondent's certificate was placed on

probation. On January 7, 2016, the board issued a Cease Practice-No Practice order to respondent. The physician's certificate remains in full effect until March 31, 2018, unless otherwise revoked.

2. On December 27, 2013, the board filed a disciplinary action entitled "In the Matter of the Accusation against Allen C. Hassan, M.D.," Case Number 02-2011-218969, against respondent alleging fourteen causes for discipline: gross negligence in his care and treatment of pain management of patient J.M.; failure to maintain records for patient J.M.; gross negligence in his care and treatment of pain management for patient R.S.; gross negligence for prescribing to patient R.S., an addict; repeated negligent acts for lack of treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome for patient R. S. and for failure to maintain records for patient R.S.; gross negligence and unethical behavior regarding patient R.S.; gross negligence in his care and treatment of pain management for patient J.W.; repeated negligent acts for lack of psychiatric treatment and poor record keeping for patient J.W.; gross negligence and unethical behavior regarding patient J.W.; failure to maintain records for patient J. W.; gross negligence in his care and treatment of pain management for patient C. W.; repeated negligent acts for lack of psychiatric treatment and poor record keeping for patient C.W.; and failure to maintain records for patient C.W.

On January 15, 2015, effective February 12, 2015, in a Decision and Order, the board adopted a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order in Case Number 02-2011-218969. In its Decision and Order, the board revoked respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate (certificate), but stayed revocation and placed respondent's certificate on probation for five years on certain terms and conditions of probation that included a requirement that respondent, within 60 calendar days after the decision became effective, enroll in and successfully complete, the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program (PACE) at the University of California-San Diego, School of Medicine, or an equivalent program. The terms further included a requirement that respondent successfully complete the program not later than six months after his initial enrollment unless the board agreed to an extension of time. The determination of whether respondent successfully completed the program was solely within the program's discretion.

The terms of probation also included a requirement that, within 60 calendar days after the decision became effective, respondent enroll, in the Prescribing Practices Course at PACE (the prescribing practices course or the course), or an equivalent program. Respondent was required to successfully complete the classroom component of the course within six months after initial enrollment, successfully complete other components of the course within one year of enrollment, and submit a certification of successful completion of the course not later than 15 calendar days after completing the course.

3. On January 27, 2016, complainant filed the Petition to Revoke Probation in her official capacity. The Petition alleged that respondent failed to successfully complete the PACE program, or its equivalent, a violation of Probation Condition 7 of the Decision and Order, and failed to successfully complete and submit a certification of successful

2

completion of the prescribing course within the required time period, a violation of Probation Condition 4 of the Decision and Order. Respondent timely requested a hearing.

Conditions tj and 7 of Respondent's Probation

4. Probation Condition 4 requires in part:

Within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, Respondent shall enroll in a course in prescribing practices equivalent to the Prescribing Practices Course at the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program at the University of California-San Diego, School ofMedicine (Program), approved in advance by the Board or its designee .... Respondent shall participate in and successfully complete the classroom component of the course not later than six (6) months after Respondents' initial enrollment. Respondent shall successfully complete any other component of the course within one (1) year of enrollment. ... Respondent shall submit a certification of successful completion to the Board or its designee not later than 15 days after successfully completing the course, or not later than 15 calendar days after the effective date of the Decision, whichever is later.

5. Probation Condition 7 requires in part:

Within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, respondent shall enroll in a clinical training and educational program equivalent to the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program (PACE) offered at the University of California-San Diego School of Medicine ("Program"). Respondent shall successfully complete the Program not later than six (6) months after Respondent's initial enrollment unless the Board or its designee agrees in writing to an extension of that time. . . . At the completion . . . Respondent shall submit to and pass an examination. Detennination as to whether Respondent successfully completed the examination or successfully completed the program is solely within the program's jurisdiction .... If respondent fails to enroll, participate in, or successfully complete the clinical training program within the designated time period, Respondent shall receive a notification from the Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three (3) calendar days after being so notified. . . . If Respondent did not successfully complete the clinical training program, the Respondent shall not resume the

,., .)

practice of medicine until a final decision has been rendered on the accusation and/or a petition to revoke probation ....

The PACE Program

6. The PACE program involves an extensive evaluation of a doctor's skills to assess areas where the doctor may be deficient. The program involves two phases. Phase 1 of the PACE program consists of a comprehensive, two-day, assessment that uses a variety of evaluation methods to provide an overall picture of the physician's skills, knowledge and physical health. Components of the comprehensive assessment include a practice profile completed by the physician; a review of a sampling of the doctor's medical charts for overall quality, organization, legibility and proper documentation; an oral or written clinical examination to assess the physician's skills; written examinations; computer based case simulations; the performing of history and physical examinations of a mock patient; and a comprehensive physical and mental health screening. Phase 2 of the program involves, at a minimum, a 40-hour program of clinical education in any area of practice in which the program determines respondent is deficient. The program takes into account data obtained from the comprehensive assessment conducted in Phase 1 and any other information that the board or its designee deems relevant. Each program is individually tailored to the participant's specialty and Phase 1 findings to the extent possible. As a result, Phase 2 programs vary widely by specialty and from participant to participant. A participant in PACE must pay all expenses associated with the clinical training program.

Complainant's Evidence

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM ARTHUR NORCROSS, M.D.

7. William Arthur Norcross, M.D. is the founder of the PACE program, which began in 1996. Dr. Norcross obtained his M.D. degree from Duke University School of Medicine in 1974. He completed his residency in Family Medicine in 1977 at University of California San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center. Since 1996, Dr. Norcross has held the position of Director of the UCSD PACE Program. In addition, he is currently a Clinical Professor of Family Medicine in the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at UCSD. Dr. Norcross has continuously been a member of the faculty at UCSD since 1977.

8. Dr. Norcross testified that the PACE program attempts to assess and evaluate a physician's core competencies necessary to practice as a safe physician. The core competencies are measured in the six domains of patient care, medical knowledge, practice based learning and improvements, inter-personal skills, professionalism, and system based practice. As part of the PACE program, physicians are asked to complete an intake questionnaire and provide background information such as age, language spoken, education etc. Additionally, physicians are given a multiple choice examination created by the National Board of Medical Examiners for physicians in practice. Dr. Norcross stated that the exam is used selectively to help assess a physician's knowledge. The PACE program also requires a physician to perform a History and Physical (H & P) on a mock patient, a member

4

of the staff; the physician is evaluated on his or her performance. In order to assess the physician's decision making process, PACE utilizes computer programs that provide the physician with eight virtual patients to evaluate and provide pathways to treatment. The program also provides a short test for computer literacy. The program, further, administers an oral clinical examination in which the physician provides verbal information for between four and six clinical scenarios. In addition, PACE performs a chart audit, where a random sample of seven chart entries in the physician's medical records for his or her actual patients are reviewed. PACE utilizes a standardized patient examination where the patient is a faculty member utilizing a script.

Respondent participated in Phase 1 of the PACE program on May 12 and 13, 2015, and he participated in Phase 2 of the program on September 28, 2015 through October 2, 2015. Phase 1 of the program consisted of a Self-Report; Mock Patient History and Physical; History, Physical and Mental Health Screening of respondent; Behavioral Evaluation of respondent; Cognitive Screening Test; Oral Clinical Examination in Family Medicine; Chart Review of randomly selected and reviewed patient charts from respondent's practice; and the Computer Delivered Tests to measure respondent's clinical decision- making and patient management skills. Phase 2 of the program consisted of clinical sessions where respondent was paired with a faculty member who shadowed respondent throughout a half-day when respondent saw patients in a clinical setting so as to evaluate respondent's clinical acumen and behavior in a real world setting. The Phase 2 portion of the program required respondent to attend several family medicine clinic sessions and interact with UCSD faculty, staff and patients. As part of Phase 2, respondent also participated in a standardized patient evaluation and a chart simulated recall. In the chart simulated recall respondent was required to bring in 20 random medical record charts for his patients for review by the faculty of PACE.

9. After each phase of the program was completed, the program instructors drafted the results of the examinations and Dr. Norcross and other team members met to discuss the findings. Dr. Norcross is always present at assessment meetings. Dr. Norcross stated that, after respondent was evaluated in the PACE program, a report was generated, reviewed and signed by Dr. Norcross.

10. The Phase 1 meeting for respondent's assessment was conducted on June 26, 2015. During that assessment meeting, Dr. Norcross and his team recommended that respondent undergo a full psychological assessment based on a low score on a cognitive screen given to respondent by a neuropsychologist. However, the full psychological assessment performed on respondent indicated that there was no reason he could not continue to practice medicine based on his psychological health.

Respondent failed Phase 1 of the PACE program. Dr. Norcross stated that respondent performed satisfactory on his oral exam in family medicine and generally demonstrated good medical knowledge and clinical judgment; however respondent needed to improve his antibiotic management. Dr. Norcross testified respondent failed Phase 1 primarily because only one of seven of respondent's chart notes met the standard of care, and respondent's medical interviewing skills were unsatisfactory while his physical examination skills were

5

satisfactory. Dr. Norcross testified that respondent's medical record keeping was very poor and respondent's charting deficiencies remained a consistent theme throughout respondent's assessment with the PACE program. Dr. Norcross stated that despite the fact that respondent obtained medical record keeping training, respondent continued to demonstrate the same deficiencies in his medical record keeping skills as shown in the chart review portion of the PACE program. According to Dr. Norcross, respondent's medical charts were "abysmal" to the point where skilled observers stated that the records could not be classified as medical charts. Dr. Norcross stated that respondent's medical record keeping in his medical charts were the worst he has seen in the 20 year history of the PACE program. Despite failing Phase 1 of the PACE program, respondent was allowed to continue on to Phase 2.

11. The Phase 2 assessment meeting for respondent was conducted on December 12, 2015. Dr. Norcross stated that respondent was shadowed in the UCSD clinics by five different physicians, each of whom summarized their evaluations. According to Dr. Norcross each physician evaluated respondent on the following domains: promptness, appearance, participation, professional behavior, communication skills, medical knowledge and ability to assess evidence based medicine. Respondent's ratings were based on a ninepoint scale where a score between one and three is unsatisfactory, four to six is satisfactory, and seven to nine is superior. Below is a brief summary of each of the five faculty physician's evaluations of respondent during his clinical sessions:

Dr. Cecilia Gutierrez wrote that respondent was "engaged and very talkative but it was difficult to assess his knowledge" because he "answered questions in a vague fashion and then quickly redirected to talk about his previous experiences and his credentials."

Dr. Esmat Hatamy evaluated respondent during two different clinical sessions and wrote that respondent "participated during the patient encounter" and was also "interested in talking to the patients about his previous travels and experiences which would prolong the visit t:me" and he had "good communication skills and was able to educate patients." Dr. Hatamy stated that respondent "would benefit from a refresher course in primary care."

Dr. Regina Wang wrote that respondent "sometimes talked too much during the encounter [with patients]" and he seems "not to recognize personal space boundaries." She wrote that respondent "attributed many problems a patient had to psychiatric diagnoses" when there were "other possible physical causes as well." Dr. Wang wrote that she is "not confident that he can read an EKG" and "it was difficult to assess him in general." She wrote that she "was not sure if he was telling the truth or delusional or narcissistic at times" and he told her that

6

"he tried to sue the medical board and now the board is retaliating by accusing him ofbeing a terrorist."

Dr. Kurtis Lindeman wrote that respondent "would introduce himself to a patient, interject, or examine the patient when [he] felt he should have taken my lead instead." Dr. Lindeman wrote that respondent "was prone to talk quite a bit" and "was correct with most of his medical knowledge" but that he "gave a few dated responses or gave treatments that would not be my first choice, but were not inappropriate." Dr. Lindeman further wrote that he was "somewhat perplexed by" respondent because he "listed [a] myriad [of] life experiences that border on perplexing" and are "either very impressive or very odd."

Dr. Patricia Brady wrote that respondent "seems to have solid knowledge, but a little bit of over-confidence" and was "[s]ometimes ... fast to jump in with a diagnosis and be ready to move on without taking time to consider other psycho-social aspects of the illness."

Dr. Norcross testified that respondent's performance was unsatisfactory on his Standardized Patient Evaluation based on four standardized patient encounters. During the evaluation, one of the faculty members plays the part of the patient with a specific complaint, but that faculty member and another evaluate respondent's performance.

During the Standardized Patient Evaluation, respondent completed four standardized patient encounters and he was evaluated by two different faculty members independently for his evaluation during each of the four cases. Dr. Norcross explained that an overall score of four or below on this portion of the program indicates a failing score. Respondent's average score on this portion of the evaluation was 3.75. Dr. Norcross testified that during this evaluation, respondent obtained insufficient information from the patient during the H & P c:nd his physical examinations of the patients were done either incorrectly or critical elements of the physical exam were not done at all. In some cases, these deficiencies led respondent to make incorrect clinical decisions and diagnoses.

Dr. Norcross stated that in the Chart Simulated Recall (CSR) portion of the Phase 2 evaluation, the physician provides chart notes from his or her medical practice. A PACE faculty member reviews the chart notes and asks the physician why he or she made the decisions for treatment of the patient and to explain any extenuating circumstances. According to Dr. Norcross, this portion of the Phase 2 assessment is the single most powerful tool to evaluate a doctor's practice.

Respondent's CSR assessment was conducted by Dr. Bazzo, a faculty member. During this evaluation, respondent provided several patient chart notes from his current medical practice for review. Dr. Norcross testified that Dr. Bazzo reviewed all 20 charts

7

provided by respondent for the CSR and saw "significant deficiencies" in all of those charts. According to Dr. Bazzo's summary of the CSR in the PACE program report, only four of the 20 charts contained enough information for a meaningful discussion with respondent. Respondent informed Dr. Bazzo that "his girls" did not send the dictated notes to accompany the charts, which according to respondent contained all the information. As a result, Dr. Bazzo rescheduled the CSR for a future date to be performed by telephone once respondent provided the correspondent dictated notes. Respondent then sent 1 00 unmarked dictations for patients respondent had seen in the previous 30 days to Dr. Bazzo for the CSR, but none of those dictations matched with the previously submitted 20 charts. Dr. Bazzo informed respondent that he could base the CSR on 20 of the new dictations and rescheduled the CSR for a later date.

On the rescheduled date for the CSR, respondent was confused regarding what was to be accomplished and did not have the selected chart notes available. Dr. Bazzo again explained the process of the CSR to respondent and rescheduled the CSR for a future date by telephone. On that second rescheduled date, respondent was again not ready for the CSR telephone call and needed an additional ten minutes to get the selected chart notes for the CSR to be conducted. When he finally located the notes, he was not able to identify the selected 20 chart notes. After utilizing date of service, date of dictation, and first sentence of dictation to identify ten chart notes, Dr. Bazzo discussed those ten chart notes with respondent to conduct the CSR. During the CSR, Dr. Bazzo observed that respondent's interactions with him "were quite tangential" and Dr. Bazzo frequently had to redirect the discussion back to the patient. According to Dr. Bazzo' s notes, respondent would interrupt Dr. Bazzo's questions and venture off on unrelated topics of conversation. At one point, when Dr. Bazzo attempted to redirect respondent back to discussing the patient, respondent raised his voice and stated "I am 30 years older than you!" Dr. Bazzo asked respondent not to patronize him and respondent replied by stating "Don't patronize me!" Dr. Bazzo concluded in his summary of the CSR as follows:

Overall, based on the CSR performed on Dr. Hassan I have serious concerns regarding his ability to practice. His records are not in standard format and it is difficult to follow his logic and medical decision making. I cannot deem him safe to practice based on this activity and the interactions surrounding this evaluation.

After the CSR was completed, Dr. Bazzo received a faxed note from respondent that was written on a sheet from a prescription pad, instead of a customary sheet of paper. Dr. Bazzo noted in the PACE summary that the prescription pad is not typically used by physicians for notes because it is only to be used for sending medication orders to a pharmacy for a patient. Dr. Norcross testified that it is inappropriate for a physician to use a prescription pad to make notes because a person receiving the note can obtain the state license number from the prescription pad and utilize that to unlawfully obtain drugs. Dr. Norcross noted that most physicians know to use a prescription pad only for the purpose of obtaining prescriptions for a patient.

8

12. Dr. Norcross testified that in addition to Phase 1 and Phase 2, the PACE program includes a Physician Enhancement Program (PEP), which is a practice monitor who audits respondent's practice by reviewing progress notes randomly selected from patient appointment data sent to the PACE office. In this case, respondent's practice monitor was Dr. Leslie Martin, who performed progress note audits on respondent's practice in July, August and September of2015. Dr. Norcross testified that Dr. Martin's PEP audit of respondent supported the other PACE faculty members' findings that respondent's medical record keeping and chart notes were unsatisfactory. Dr. Martin summarized her findings regarding respondent's audit in her report to the PACE program as follows:

All of Dr. Hassan's notes fall into the unsatisfactory category and as such, none meet the standard of care. In fact, a full 113 of his notes received a 1 rating which is the lowest possible score achievable. I am hard pressed to even call them progress notes as they have little to no relevant information and most can best be described as "random scribbling of a few words on paper." Dr. Hassan needs to immediately rectify his inadequate documentation. His notes offer no organization nor comprehensive medical data. Legibility is also somewhat of an issue as a majority ofhis notes have some handwritten component and his writing is not easily discernible.

13. Dr. Norcross testified that respondent had recently completed a chart taking course prior to his PACE evaluation. Accordingly, respondent's medical record keeping should have been far better than what his faculty members were seeing on their evaluations. Dr. Norcross also noted that there were trends in respondent's patient care and charting, including his frequent prescribing of opiates in patient care, and his confusion regarding the drugs and dates on which patients took drugs, which was exacerbated by his poor record keeping. Dr. Norcross testified that he could summarize respondent's PACE evaluation and performance of respondent as follows: generally demonstrating good medical knowledge and clinical judgement; deficiencies in performing a careful history and thorough physical exam ef patient::;; deficiencies in clinical decision making by jumping at the first diagnosis and holding onto it to the exclusion of other possibilities as observed by multiple faculty members; and having the worst charting notes ever seen in the 20 year history of the PACE program as observed by multiple faculty members.

TESTThWNY OF VIRGINIA GERARD

14. Virginia Gerard is employed by the probation unit of the board and has held that position for 12 years. She is respondent's probation monitor and is responsible for interacting with him during the term of his probation and monitoring his progress on probation. Ms. Gerard is familiar with each of respondent's probationary terms, and she and other board employees provide information for quarterly reports of respondent's progress for all of his probationary terms. These quarterly reports for his probation were received into

9

evidence. Ms. Gerard testified regarding her multiple interactions with respondent during his probationary term.

15. On February 11, 2015, Ms. Gerard was present with other employees of the probation unit of the board for an intake interview with respondent that took place at the board's offices. During the intake interview, respondent informed Ms. Gerard that he has a private practice where he practices medicine about 36 to 44 hours per week. He also told her that he has been a licensed lawyer since 1981, and he practices law at the same location about 10 to 15 hours per week. Respondent stated that his office staff consists of himself, three to four employees, and a doctor, Jack Friedman, M.D. During this intake interview, an inspector started to read to respondent a probationary term that was a partial restriction on respondent's use of controlled substances. The inspector advised respondent that he could not prescribe Schedule II controlled substances until he completed and provided the board with a certificate of completion of a prescribing practices course. Respondent then leapt out of his seat grabbing his chest indicating he had a heart problem, and he needed to be excused. Respondent then stated that he "would go to trial over this" and that "this was a complete ambush." After this, respondent got up and exited the room before the interview was completed. The interview ended at that point.

16. On February 20, 2015, Ms. Gerard made an unannounced visit to respondent's private practice office. During the visit, Ms. Gerard asked to see respondent's controlled substance logs. Respondent's staff informed Ms. Gerard that there were no controlled substance logs. Respondent told Ms. Gerard that he did not know what controlled substance logs were. Ms. Gerard again reminded respondent that he was on probation and one of the terms ofhis probation prohibited him from prescribing Schedule II controlled substances until he completed and submitted a certificate of completion of a prescribing practices course.

17. On March 9, 2015, Ms. Gerard conducted a second intake interview of respondent at the board's offices in Sacramento. Ms. Gerard read through all of the required terms of respondent's probation and advised respondent of the requirements, including the requirement that he not prescribe Schedule II controlled substances until after completing the prescribing practices course and submitting a certificate of completion.. Respondent informed Ms. Gerard that he had completed the Prescribing Practice Course offered by the Western Institute of Legal Medicine, but he could not provide Ms. Gerard with the dates of completion. Respondent informed Ms. Gerard that he had requested the Certificate of Completion for the course and would provide that to her when he received it. Ms. Gerard testified that at this meeting respondent also told her that he had a pending court case relating to being arrested for driving under the influence of a drug.

18. On Aprill5, 2015, Ms. Gerard received a letter from the Administrative Coordinator of the Western Institute of Legal Medicine (WILM) stating that respondent had not completed the entire Prescribing Practices and Pain Management Course because he missed the morning of the first day of the course. She wrote that WILM would be willing to

10

have respondent attend the first day of the course the next time it was offered at no cost to him.

19. On May 19,2015, Ms. Gerard had a telephone call with respondent and advised him that she received a letter from WILM stating that he had not completed the Prescribing Practices and Pain Management Course because he missed a portion of the first day of the course. Respondent informed Ms. Gerard that he would contact WILM to complete the course.

20. On May 25,2015, Ms. Gerard received a fax copyofrespondent's Certificate of Completion for the Prescribing Practices and Pain Management Course offered by WILM. However, the certificate stated on its face "does not apply for Medical Board of California purposes."

21. On June 4, 2015, Ms. Gerard interviewed respondent at his private practice office. During that interview, she reminded respondent that he must enroll in a prescribing practice course no later than June 12, 2015, in order to be in compliance with his probationary terms. Respondent informed Ms. Gerard that WILM informed him that they do not have another prescribing practices course until2016. At the end of the interview, respondent stated to Ms. Gerard that he has a law firm that makes $20 million, and he can buy the Medical Board.

22. Ms. Gerard testified that respondent's probation required that he enroll in, complete, and provide a certificate of completion for a prescribing practices course prior to specifically set deadlines. On April20, 2015, she sent respondent a non-compliance letter informing him that he needed to provide the certificate of completion to her no later than June 12, 2015. She stated that despite her repeated reminders ofhis obligations regarding the prescribing practices course, respondent never provided the board with an acceptable certificate of completion. Ms. Gerard explained that the fact that respondent enrolled in the prescribing practices course before he began probation was not an issue. However, the course had to be approved by the board. In this case, the certificate submitted by respondent was not a:::ccptable because iL stated on its face that it "docs not apply for Medical Doard of California purposes." Ms. Gerard stated that respondent had explained to her that the reason he did not complete the first two hours of the course was because of a car accident. Regardless, she informed him of his obligations for the prescribing practices course repeatedly, and he never successfully fulfilled those obligations.

23. Ms. Gerard further testified that she did receive a letter from Marvin Firestone, M.D., J.D. informing her that he conducted a two hour private tutoring session with respondent to make up for the two hours of the course that respondent missed. Ms. Gerard explained that the letter was insufficient to meet the requirements of respondent's probation because it was not from a board approved course.

11

Respondent's Evidence

TESTuVIONY OF ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D.

24. Respondent is 80 years old and received his M.D. degree in 1966 from the University of Iowa. He completed an externship in neurology in 1964 and an externship in psychiatry in 1965 from the University of Iowa. Respondent also received his J.D. degree from Lincoln Law School in Sacramento in 1978. Respondent was board certified in Family Medicine in 1973 and was recertified five times. He also served in the United States Marine Corp from 1954 to 1957. He worked in Vietnam as a volunteer combat physician in 1968 and 1969 and stated that he came back with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. During his years of medical practice, respondent has worked in the fields ofF amily Medicine, Psychology and Neurology. He has practiced medicine in Sacramento, California since 1970. Prior to receiving the cease practice order on January 7, 2016, 50 to 60 percent of respondent's patients were veterans.

Respondent stated he has kept up his continuing medical education requirements, has published many journal articles, and has published a book entitled "Ghosts of War." He obtained a license to practice law in California in 1981. He explained that he got a law degree so that he could use his understanding of law and medicine to help veterans. Respondent also stated he had experience and credentialing in veterinary medicine, although his Curriculum Vitae was devoid of information regarding his veterinary experience and credentialing. Respondent testified that he was an Iowa farm boy and "not a terrorist despite what Homeland Security told the Medical Board of California."

25. Respondent stated that his practice and procedure for documenting patient visits is to listen to the patients and their concerns, review their blood pressure, oxygen, body mass index, height, weight and chief complaints. He takes notes of this infonnation and then reviews available x-rays, toxicology reports and all lab reports. He stated that he also reviews the medications taken by the patient. Respondent records "what is in my mind regarding the relevant material about the health of the patient." He then performs a physical exami;1atim: Jf the patient. While the patient i5 still in the exam room, respondent dictates his reports in front of the patient "so that the patient can correct me if they feel I have made statements that are incorrect." His dictation includes his objective findings from the examination, the subjective findings regarding the patient's chief complaint, and also lab studies. He stated that his notes include vitals and introductory information, but he has a separate sheet regarding the patient's vaccinations, and he has a hepatitis questionnaire.

26. Respondent testified that he first met Dr. Bazzo in the PACE program. He informed Dr. Bazzo that he had a lawsuit pending against the board "for racism because they sent Homeland Security to my office," and he was "put on a terror watch list." Respondent stated that Dr. Bazzo's response was a blank stare. Respondent stated that after that interaction, Dr. Bazzo was aloof with him. He also stated that Dr. Bazzo was irritated with him during the telephone calls for the evaluation ofhis patient records. He stated that at one point during the telephone interactions, Dr. Bazzo told him that he did not have enough

12

information regarding a patient to make a determination on the diagnosis. Respondent told Dr. Bazzo, "I wrote a book on it," and Dr. Bazzo stated "don't patronize me." In response respondent stated "don't patronize me."

27. Respondent stated that Dr. Leslie Martin came to his practice unannounced for the chart review or audit. He stated that while she was in his office, she began measuring his exam and charting rooms and prepared a "layout of the building." Respondent stated that he did not understand what her measurements had to do with record keeping. He testified that Dr. Martin saw a document on respondent's wall indicating that he was a Commander in the Marines. After she saw that document, Dr. Martin told him she was his commander now. Respondent stated he pulled three patient records for Dr. Martin to review. Respondent claimed she opened the records and saw the four page reports and stated "this is not what I want to see." According to respondent, Dr. Martin told him there was a $4,000 charge for the chart review that had not been paid. Respondent testified that, after this interaction, Dr. Martin left his office and never returned. He claimed to have had no further interactions with her.

28. Respondent testified that on his way to the first day of the WILM prescribing practices course, he had a car accident. As a result, he was an hour and a half late for the course. Respondent stated he completed 24 to 26 hours of the course. Respondent stated he received tutoring from Marvin Firestone, M.D. for two hours on the phone to make up for the missed time from the course. Respondent paid Marvin Firestone directly the sum of $1,100 for the two hours of tutoring. Dr. Firestone sent a letter to the board documenting that he had provided the two hours of tutoring to respondent. Respondent stated his probation officer informed him the letter was insufficient to meet the probation requirements because she needed a certificate of completion.

29. Respondent stated he began probation in 2015. He asserted he had been practicing for 50 years and never had a question about his medical record keeping, except in one instance when his computer was stolen and as a result, the record for one patient was not available. Respondent stated that the board has "all kinds of information" in his file regarding the fact that he is an "Arab" J.nd about bis name. Respondent became very agitated and abruptly indignant during this testimony.

Respondent testified he has only had one complaint about the medical care that he has provided over the years. He stated he was on medication from back surgery at the time of that care, and he was "loosy goosy."

Respondent stated that ifhe had to do over again, he would change the format ofhis charting in any manner the board required and would undergo the chart review in any manner his attorney decided was the best approach. Respondent reiterated that he believes his charting is excellent, and his patient notes are thorough and above the standard of care.

13

TESTIMONY OF JACK FRIEDMAN, M.D.

30. Dr. Jack Friedman received his M.D. degree from State University oflowa in 1966. He completed his residency in Anesthesiology in 1970 at University of Southern California School of Medicine and Los Angeles General Hospital. Dr. Friedman went to Vietnam and was in the U.S. Air Force from 1970 to 1972. He completed a Fellowship in Pain Management in 1995 at the University of South Florida. His practice specializes in Anesthesiology and Pain Management. From 1995 to 2000, Dr. Friedman had a Pain Management practice in an office building owned by respondent. For the last five years, until about four months ago, Dr. Friedman saw patients for pain management about once a month in respondent's office building.

31. Dr. Friedman stated he has known respondent for over 50 years, and they attended medical school together. Dr. Friedman observed respondent's practice while Dr. Friedman worked in Pain Management in Los Angeles at the medical offices they shared. During that time Dr. Friedman saw patients with addiction and pain issues in respondent's office building once a month. Dr. Friedman stated he knows respondent to be very honest and ethical, and he is a wonderful physician. Dr. Friedman opined that respondent is very bright and has extensive medical knowledge. Dr. Friedman said that Dr. Norcross's testimony regarding respondent did not fit with his observations and knowledge of respondent, and Dr. Friedman stressed that respondent is a caring physician who is loved by his patients.

32. Dr. Friedman was not aware of any discipline or accusations filed against respondent in the 1970s and did not know about an accusation filed against respondent in 2013. Dr. Friedman stated that during the time he worked in respondent's medical office building, they did not see each other's patients, but only shared office space. Dr. Friedman also stated that he was respondent's treating physician but only in a consulting role about two to three years ago because respondent suffered back problems.

Arguments

33. Complainant asked that respondent's license be revoked because he did not successfully complete all phases of the PACE Program as required, and because respondent failed to complete and submit a certificate of completion for a prescribing practices course as required. Complainant argued that respondent's failure to successfully complete the PACE program is a detern1ination that is solely within the discretion of the PACE program as stated in the terms of respondent's probation. Complainant asserted that respondent failed the PACE program "abysmally" with regard to his record keeping and, he is therefore a danger to the public. Additionally, respondent failed to submit a certificate of completion for the prescribing practices course in a timely and acceptable manner. As shown on the face of the certificate he provided the certificate was not to be used for any Medical Board of California purposes. Additionally, the letter submitted by Marvin Firestone, M.D. was not a certificate as required and had not been approved for use to satisfy the prescribing practices requirement

14

by the board. Complainant asserts that revocation is the only remedy that will protect the public.

34. Respondent argued that, with regard to the prescribing practices course, the board was placing form over substance by rejecting the certificate of completion document. He asserted he has effectively met his requirements for that term of his probation. Respondent also argued that PACE did not perform an adequate review of his patient records and, if they had, they would have found those records to be adequate. Additionally, respondent argued that PACE subjected respondent to prejudice during the chart evaluations from Dr. Bazzo and those reviews did not constitute a fair assessment. Respondent further argued that all the evidence presented regarding his medical record keeping was hearsay and not supported by direct evidence.

Disciplinary Guidelines

35. The Medical Board maintains a Manual of Model Disciplinary Orders and Disciplinary Guidelines (11th Edition) for use by persons involved in the physician disciplinary process. The guidelines are not binding; however, a proposed decision departing from the disciplinary guidelines should identify the departures and the facts supporting the departures.

36. For a violation of probation, the board's guidelines recommend the imposition of a maximum penalty of an outright revocation and a minimum sanction of a 30 day suspension. The board's guidelines state: "The maximum penalty should be given for repeated similar offenses or for probation violations revealing a cavalier or recalcitrant attitude."

Evaluation

37. Respondent's failure to successfully complete all phases ofthe PACE program, or a board approved equivalent program, constitutes a violation of probation under Probation Condition 7 cf the Decisior, and Order. Respondent's failure to provide an acceptable certificate of completion of the prescribing practices course in a format acceptable to the board constitutes a violation of probation under Probation Condition 4 of the Decision and Order. Pursuant to the Decision and Order, each of these violations constitutes cause to impose the disciplinary order of revocation, which was stayed.

38. Respondent stipulated to the terms of the Decision and Order, which explicitly states that "[ d]etermination as to whether Respondent successfully completed the examination or successfully completed the [PACE or its equivalent] program is solely within the program's jurisdiction." Substantial direct evidence provided by Dr. Norcross's testimony regarding respondent's performance in the PACE program established that respondent did not successfully complete the program. Additionally, the certificate of completion provided by respondent for the prescribing practices course stated on its face that it was not to be used for Medical Board of California purposes. The letter provided by

15

Marvin Firestone, M.D. did not remedy the deficiency. Respondent's repeated assertions that his medical record keeping is above the standard of care was not supported by any evidence other than his own testimony. Additionally, his actions indicated a repeated cavalier attitude toward the board's requirements and probationary conditions. Accordingly, public protection can only be served by revocation consistent with the board's guidelines.

LEGAL CONCLUSIONS

Burden and Standard of Proof on the Petition

1. The burden ofproofwas on complainant to establish that cause exists to revoke probation in this administrative proceeding. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. (Sandarg v. Dental Board ofCalifornia (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1441-1442.)

2. Business and Professions Code section 2227 provides that a licensee who has violated the Medical Practice Act may have his or her license revoked, suspended for a period not to exceed one year, placed on probation and required to pay the costs of probation monitoring, or subject to other discipline the board deems proper.

3. The board's Decision and Order, effective February 13,2015, contained the following provision:

Failure to fully comply with any term or condition of probation is a violation of probation. If Respondent violates probation in any respect, the Board, after giving respondent notice and the opportunity to be heard, may revoke probation and carry out the disciplinary order that was stayed. If an Accusation or a Petition to Revoke Probation, or an Interim Suspension Order is filed against Respondent during probation, the Board shall have ~ontinuing jurisdiction until the matter is final, and the period of probation shall be extended until the matter is final.

4. It was established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent failed to comply with Probation Condition 4 and with Probation Condition 7 ofthe board's Decision and Order. Respondent failed to successfully complete the PACE program and failed to complete and provide a certificate of completion of the prescribing practices course. Each of these violations constitutes a separate cause for discipline.

II

16

ORDER

The stayed revocation issued by the board Decision and Order in the disciplinary action entitled "In the Matter of the Accusation against Allen C. Hassan, M.D.," Case Number 02-2011-218969, is vacated and the revocation of respondent's certificate is imposed.

DATED: October 27, 2016

[

DocuSigned by:

~£}-t):J,-8-,A..,_ 73AD8C62DODE42D ..

DEBRA D. NYE-PERKINS Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

17

1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California

2 JOSE R. GUERRERO Supervising Deputy Attorney General

3 MARAFAUST Deputy Attorney General

4 State Bar No. 111729 1300 I Street, Suite 125

5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

6 Telephone: (916) 324-5358 Facsimile: (916) 327-2247

7 Attorneys for Complainant

FILED STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

SA~Ml:TO~O~ BY:· :. \ ~ 1 ' N~ YST \._

8 BEFORE THE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation Against,

ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D. 2929 El Camino Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821


Respondent.

Complainant alleges:

Case No. 800-2015-019469

PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION

PARTIES

19 1. Kimberly Kirchmeyer (Complainant) brings this Petition to Revoke Probation solely

20 in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, Department

21 of Consumer Affairs.

22 2. On or about January 15, 1968, the Medical Board of California issued Physician's and

23 Surgeon's Certificate Number C 29816 to Allen C. Hassan, M.D. (Respondent). The Physician's

24 and Surgeon's Certificate was in effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will

25 expire on March 31, 2016, unless renewed.

26 3. On or about January 5, 1979, Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate

27 Number C 29816 was placed on five (5) year probation, with 120 days suspension, additional

28 CME and standard terms and conditions of probation were imposed. On or about December 9,

1

PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION (800-2015-019469)

1 1982, Respondent's Petition for early termination of probation was granted.

2 4. In a disciplinary action entitled "In the Matter of Accusation Against Allen C.

3 Hassan, M.D.," Case No. 02-2011-218969, the Medical Board of California, issued a decision,

4 effective February 13,2015, in which Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate was

5 revoked. However, the revocation was stayed and Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's

6 Certificate was placed on probation for a period of five (5) years with certain terms and

7 conditions. A copy of that decision is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference.

8 5. On January 7, 2016, a Cease Practice Order-No Practice was issued to Respondent

9 with an effective date of January 10, 2016.

10 JURISDICTION

11 6. This Petition to Revoke Probation is brought before the Medical Board of California

12 (Board), Department of Consumer Affairs, under the authority of the following laws, and the

13 Board's Decision in Case No. 02-2011-218969. All section references are to the Business and

14 Professions Code unless otherwise indicated.

15 7. Section 2227 of the Code states:

16 "(a) A licensee whose matter has been heard by an administrative law judge of the Medical

17 Quality Hearing Panel as designated in Section 11371 of the Government Code, or whose default

18 has been entered, and who is found guilty, or who has entered into a stipulation for disciplinary

19 action with the board, may, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:

20 "(1) Have his or her license revoked upon order of the board.

21 "(2) Have his or her right to practice suspended for a period not to exceed one year upon

22 order of the board.

23 "(3) Be placed on probation and be required to pay the costs of probation monitoring upon

24 order of the board.

25 "(4) Be publicly reprimanded by the board. The public reprimand may include a

26 requirement that the licensee complete relevant educational courses approved by the board.

27 "( 5) Have any other action taken in relation to discipline as part of an order of probation, as

28 the board or an administrative law judge may deem proper.

2


1 "(b) Any matter heard pursuant to subdivision (a), except for warning letters, medical

2 review or advisory conferences, professional competency examinations, continuing education

3 activities, and cost reimbursement associated therewith that are agreed to with the board and

4 successfully completed by the licensee, or other matters made confidential or privileged by

5 existing law, is deemed public, and shall be made available to the public by the board pursuant to

6 Section 803 .1."

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8. Section 2228 of the Code states:

"The authority of the board or the California Board of Podiatric Medicine to discipline a

licensee by placing him or her on probation includes, but is not limited to, the following:

"(a) Requiring the licensee to obtain additional professional training and to pass an

examination upon the completion of the training. The examination may be written or oral, or

both, and may be a practical or clinical examination, or both, at the option of the board or the

administrative law judge.

"(b) Requiring the licensee to submit to a complete diagnostic examination by one or more

physicians and surgeons appointed by the board. If an examination is ordered, the board shall

receive and consider any other report of a complete diagnostic examination given by one or more

physicians and surgeons of the licensee's choice.

"(c) Restricting or limiting the extent, scope, or type of practice of the licensee, including

requiring notice to applicable patients that the licensee is unable to perform the indicated

treatment, where appropriate.

"(d) Providing the option of alternative community service in cases other than violations

relating to quality of care."

9.

FIRST CAUSE TO REVOKE PROBATION (Failure to Pass Clinical Training Program)

Pursuant to Probation Condition 7 of the Board's Decision and Disciplinary Order

26 Case No. 02-2011-218969, Respondent was required to enroll in and successfully complete a

27 clinical training or education program equivalent to the Physician Assessment and Clinical

28 Education ("PACE") Program at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine.

3


1 This condition further states that PACE Program's determination of whether Respondent

2 successfully passed or completed PACE is binding and that failure to successfully complete

3 PACE is a violation of probation. This condition also provides that if Respondent does not

4 successfully complete the PACE Program, then Respondent shall receive a notification from the

5 Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three calendar days after so being

6 notified and shall not resume the practice of medicine until successful completion or until a final

7 decision has been rendered on the accusation and/or petition to revoke probation.

8 10. Respondent's probation is subject to revocation because he failed to comply with

9 Probation Condition 7, referenced above. The facts and circumstances regarding this violation

10 are as follows:

11 A. On or about June 26, 2015, Respondent completed Phase I of the PACE

12 Program, wherein PACE recommended Respondent undergo a neuropsychological evaluation.

13 On or about November 24, 2015, Respondent completed Phase II of the PACE Program.

14 B. On or about December 28, 2015, PACE provided its assessment of

15 Respondent's performance during Phase I, and Phase II, and the neuropsychological evaluation to

16 the Board. PACE rated Respondent's overall performance as consistent with a fail, meaning

17 Respondent's performance was poor and not compatible with overall physician competency and

18 safe practice.

19 SECOND CAUSE TO REVOKE PROBATION (Failure to Pass and Receive Certificate of Completion for the Prescribing Practices and

20 Pain Management Course)

21 11. Pursuant to Probation Condition 4 of the Board's Decision and Disciplinary Order

22 Case No. 02-2011-218969, Respondent was required to enroll in and successfully complete a

23 Prescribing Practices and Pain Management Course equivalent to the Prescribing Practices and

24 Pain Management Course at the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program,

25 University of California, San Diego School of Medicine (Program), approved in advance by the

26 Board or its designee. The condition further states that Respondent shall submit a certification of

27 successful completion to the Board or its designee not later than 15 calendar days after

28 successfully completing the course, or not later than 15 calendar days after the effective date of

4


1 the Decision, whichever is later.

2 12. Respondent's probation is subject to revocation because he failed to comply with

3 Probation Condition 4, referenced above. The facts and circumstances regarding this violation

4 are as follows:

5 A. On or about April 15, 2014, the Board's probation officer received a letter from

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Administrative Coordinator for the Western Institute of Legal Medicine that Respondent was

unable to attend the morning session of the Prescribing Practices and Pain Management course

that he was enrolled in. On or about May 25, 2014, Respondent submitted to the Board probation

monitor a certificate of completion for the Prescribing Practices and Pain Management course,

which stated that the course "does not apply for Medical Board of California purposes. " On

October 14, 2015, Dr. F., the lecturer of the Prescribing Course, 1 wrote a letter indicating he had

privately tutored Respondent on October 9, 2015, to make up for Respondent's missed morning

session of the Prescribing Practices and Pain Management Course. On November 23, 2015, the

probation monitor wrote to Dr. F. and asked him to submit a properly endorsed certificate of

completion no later than December 1, 2015. To date, no endorsed certificate of completion has

been received by the Board from either Dr. F. and/or any representative of the Western Institute

of Legal Medicine.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged,

and that following the hearing, the Medical Board of California issue a decision:

1. Revoking the probation that was granted by the Medical Board of California in Case

No. 02-2011-218969 and imposing the disciplinary order that was stayed thereby revoking

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816 issued to Allen C. Hassan, M.D.;

2. Revoking or suspending Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816, issued to

Allen C. Hassan, M.D.;

Ill

1 Dr. F. is also the co-founder and owner of the Western Institute of Medicine.

5


1 3. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of Allen C. Hassan, M.D.'s authority to

2 supervise physician's assistants, pursuant to section 3527 of the Code;

3 4. Ordering Allen C. Hassan, M.D. to pay the Medical Board of California the costs of

4 probation monitoring if Respondent is placed on further probation; and

5

6

7

5. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.

8 DATED: January 27, 2016

9 Executive Di ector Medical Board of California

10 Department of Consumer Affairs State of California

11 Complainant

12 SA2016300079

13 32364628.docx

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6


Exhibit A

Decision and Order

Medical Board of California Case No. 02-2011-218969

..... ··

BEFORE TI-lE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA


In the Matter of the Accusation Against: ) ) )

ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D. ) )

Physician's and Surgeon's ) Certificate No. C 29816 )

) Respondent. )

)

Case No. 02-2011-218969

DECISION AND ORDER

The attached Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order is hereby adopted by the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California, as its Decision in this matter.

This Decision shall become effective at 5:00 p.m. on February 13, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED January 15, 2015.

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALU'ORNIA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California E. A. JONES Ill Supervising Deputy Attorney General MARA FAUST Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 111729 California Department of Justice

1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 324-5358 Facsimile: (916) 327-2247

Attorneys for Complainant



In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D. 2933 El Camino Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821


Respondent.

Case No. 02-2011-218969

OAH No. 2014010754

STIPULATED SETfLEMENT AND DISCIPLINARY ORDER

18 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties to the above-

19 entitled proceedings that the following matters are true:

20 IJARTIES

21 1. Kimberly Kirchmeycr ("Complainant") is the Executive Director of the Medical

22 Board of California. She brought this action solely in her o1Ticial capacity and is represented in

23 this matter by Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of the State of California, by Mara Faust,

24 Deputy Attorney General.

25 2. Respondent Allen C. Hassan, M.D. ("Respondent") is representing himself in this

26 proceeding and has chosen not to exercise his right to be represented by counsel.

27 3. On or about January 15, 1968, the Medical Board of California issued Physician's and

28 Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816 to Allen C. Hassan, M.D. (Respondent). The Physician's and

STIPULATED SETfLEMENT (02-2011-218969)

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

Surgeon's Certificate was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought in

Accusation No. 02-2011-218969 and will expire on March 31, 2014, unless renewed.

JURISDICTION

4. Accusation No. 02-2011-218969 was filed before the Medical Board of California

(Board), Department of Consumer Affairs, and is currently pending against Respondent. The

Accusation and all other statutorily required documents were properly served on Respondent on

December 27, 2013. Respondent timely filed his Notice of Defense contesting the Accusation.

5. A copy of Accusation No. 02-2011-218969 is attached as exhibit A and incorporated

herein by reference.

ADVISEMENT AND WAIVERS

6. Respondent has carefully read, fully discussed with counsel, and understands the

charges and allegations in Accusation No. 02-2011-218969. Respondent has also carefully read,

fully discussed with ~ounsel, and understands the effects of this Stipulated Settlement and

Disciplinary Order.

7. Respondent is fully aware of his legal rights in this matter, including the right to a

hearing on the charges and allegations in the Accusation; the right to be represented by counsel at

his own expense; the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him; the right to

present evidence and to testify on his own behalf; the right to the issuance of subpoenas to compel

the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents; the right to reconsideration and

court review of an adverse decision; and all other rights accorded by the California

Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws.

8. Respondent voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives and gives up each and

every right set forth above.

CULPABILITY

9. Respondent understands and agrees that the charges and allegations in Accusation

No. 02-2011-218969, if proven at a hearing, constitute cause for imposing discipline upon his

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate.

Ill

2

STIPULATED SEITLEMENT (02-2011-218969)

,.

1 10. For the purpose of resolving the Accusation without the expense and uncertainty of

2 further proceedings, Respondent agrees that, at a hearing, Complainant could establish a factual

3 basis for the charges in the Accusation, and that Respondent hereby gives up his right to contest

4 those charges.

5 11. Respondent agrees that his Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate is subject to

6 discipline and he agrees to be bound by the Board's probationary terms as set forth in the

7 Disciplinary Order below.

8 Respondent agrees that if he ever petitions for early termination or modification of

9 probation, or if the Board ever petitions for revocation of probation, all of the changes and

10 allegations contained in Accusation No. 02-2011-218969 hall be deemed true, correct and fully

11 admitted by respondent for purposes of that proceeding or any other licensing proceeding

12 involving respondent in the State of California.

13 CIRCUMSTANCES IN MITIGATION

14 12. Respondent Allen C. Hassan, M.D. has never been the subject of any disciplinary

15 action. He is admitting responsibility at an early stage in the proceedings.

16 RESERVATION

17 13. The admissions made by Respondent herein are only for the purposes of this

18 proceeding, or any other proceedings in which the Medical Board of California or other

19 professional licensing agency is involved, and shall not be admissible in any other criminal or

20 civil proceeding.

21 CONTINGENCY

22 14. This stipulation shall be subject to approval by the Medical Board of California.

23 Respondent understands and agrees that counsel for Complainant and the staff of the Medical

24 Board of California may communicate directly with the Board regarding this stipulation and

25 settlement, without notice to or participation by Respondent or his counsel. By signing the

26 stipulation, Respondent understands and agrees that he may not withdraw his agreement or seek

27 . to rescind the stipulation prior to the time the Board considers and acts upon it. If the Board fails

28 to adopt this stipulation as its Decision and Order, the Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary

3

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (02-2011-218969)

1 Order shall be of no force or effect, except for this paragraph, it shall be inadmissible in any legal

2 action between the parties, and the Board shall not be disqualified from further action by having

3 considered this matter.

4 15. The parties understand and agree that Portable Document Format (PDF) and facsimile

5 copies of this Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, including Portable Document Format

6 (PDF) and facsimile signatures thereto, shall have the same force and effect as the originals.

7 16. In consideration of the foregoing admissions and stipulations, the parties agree that

8 the Board may, without further notice or formal proceeding, issue and enter the following

9 Disciplinary Order:

10 DISCIPLINARY ORDER

11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816 issued

12 to Respondent Allen C. Hassan, M.D. (Respondent) is revoked. However, the revocation is

:13 stayed and Respondent is placed on probation for five (5) years on the following terms and

14 conditions.

15 1. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES- PARTIAL RESTRICTION. Respondent shall not

16 order, prescribe, dispense, administer, furnish, or possess any controlled substances as defined by

17 the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, except for those drugs listed in Schedules Ill

18 through V of the Act until and unless Respondent passes the clinical training program in

19 paragraph #7 and the prescribing course in paragraph #4.

20 Respondent shall not issue an oral or written recommendation or approval to a patient or a

21 patient's primary caregiver for the possession or cultivation of marijuana for the personal medical

22 purposes of the patient within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. If

23 Respondent forms the medical opinion, after an appropriate prior examination and medical

24 indication, that a patient's medical condition may benefit ti·om the use of marijuana, Respondent

25 shall so inform the patient and shall refer the patient to another physician who, following an

26 appropriate prior examination and medical indication, may independently issue a medically

27 appropriate recommendation or approval for the possession or cultivation of marijuana for the

28 personal medical purposes of the patient within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section

4


1 11362.5. In addition, Respondent shall inform the patient or the patient's primary caregiver that

2 Respondent is prohibited from issuing a recommendation or approval for the possession or

3 cultivation of marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient and_that the patient or

4 the patient's primary caregiver may not rely 011 Respondent's statements to legally possess or

5 cultivate marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient. Respondent shall fully

6 document in the patient's chart that the patient or the patient's primary caregiver was so

7 informed. Nothing in this condition prohibits Respondent from providing the patient or the

8 patient's primary caregiver information about the possible medical benefits resulting from the use

9 of marijuana. This condition will only be in effect until Respondent completes the conditions in

10 paragraphs 4 and 7 of this stipulated settlement.

11 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES- MAINTAIN RECORDS AND ACCESS TO

12 RECORDS AND INVENTORIES. Respondent shall maintain a record of all controlled

13 substances ordered, prescribed, dispensed, administered, or possessed by Respondent, and any

14 recommendation or approval which enables a patient or patient's primary caregiver to possess or

15 cultivate marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient within the meaning of Health

16 and Safety Code section 11362.5, during probation, showing all the following: 1) the nalne and

17 address of patient; 2) the date; 3) the character and quantity of controlled substances involved;

18 and 4) the indications and diagnosis for which the controlled substances were furnished.

19 Respondent shall keep these records in a separate file or ledger, in chronological order. All

20 records and any inventories of controlled substances shall be available for immediate inspection

21 and copying on the premises by the Board or its designee at all times during business hours and

22 shall be retained for the entire term of probation. With regards to Schedule II controlled

23 substances that Respondent prescribes to patients Respondent will fax the inventory logs to his

24 probation monitor every other week for the period of probation. Failure by Respondent to submit

25 the faxes of the inventory logs to his probation monitor in a timely manner shall constitute a

26 violation of probation.

27 3. EDUCATION COURSE. Within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this

28 Decision, and on an annual basis thereafter, Respondent shall submit to the Board or its designee

5


1 for its prior approval educational program(s) or course(s) which shall not be less than 40 hours

2 per year, for each year of probation. The educational program(s) or course(s) shall be aimed at

3 correcting any areas of deficient practice or knowledge and shall be Category I certified. The

4 educational program(s) or course(s) shall be at Respondent's expense and shall be in addition to

5 the Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements for renewal of licensure. Following the

6 completion of ench course, the Board or its designee may administer an examination to test

7 Respondent's knowledge of the course. Respondent shall provide proof of attendance for 65

8 hours of CME of which 40 hours were in satisfaction of this condition.

9 4. PRESCRIBING PRACTICES COURSE. Within 60 calendar days of the effective

10 date of this Decision, Respondent shall enroll in a course in prescribing practices equivalent to the

11 Prescribing Practices Course at the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program,

12 University of California, San Diego School of Medicine (Program), approved in advance by the

13 Board or its designee. Respondent shall provide the program with any information and documents

14 that the Program may deem pertinent. Respondent shall participate in and successfully complete

15 the classroom component of the course not later than six (6) months after Respondent's initial

16 enrollment. Respondent shall successfully complete any other component of the course within

17 one (1) year of enrollment. The prescribing practices course shall be at Respondent's expense

18 and shall be in addition to the Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements for renewal of

19 licensure.

20 A prescribing practices course taken after the acts that gave rise to the charges in the

21 Accusation, but prior to the effective date of the Decision may, in the sole discretion of the Board

22 or its designee, be accepted towards the fulfillment of this condition if the course would have

23 been approved by the Board or its designee had the course been taken after the effective date of

24 this Decision.

25 Respondent shall submit a certification of successful completion to the Board or its

26 designee not later than 15 calendar days after successfully completing the course, or not later than

27 15 calendar days after the effective date of the Decision, whichever is later.

28 Ill

6

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (02-2011-21H969)

1 5. MEDICAL RECORD KEEPING COURSE. Within 60 calendar days of the effective

2 date of this Decision, Respondent shall enroll in a course in medical record keeping equivalent to

3 the Medical Record Keeping Course offered by the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education

4 Program, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine (Program), approved in

5 advance by the Board or its designee. Respondent shall provide the program with any information

6 and documents that the Program may deem pertinent. Respondent shall participate in and

7 successfully complete the classroom component of the course not later than six (6) months after

8 Respondent's initial enrollment. Respondent shall successfully complete any other component of

9 the course within one (1) year of enrollment. The medical record keeping course shall he at

10 Respondent's expense and shall be in addition to the Continuing Medical Education (CME)

11 requirements for renewal of licensure.

12 A medical record keeping course taken after the acts that gave rise to the charges in the


14 or its designee, be accepted towards the fulfillment of this condition if the course would have

15 been approved by the Board or its designee had the course been taken after the effective date of

16 this Decision.

17 Respondent shall submit. a certification of successful completion to the Board or "its

18 designee not later than 15 calendar days after successfully completing the course, or not later than

19 15 calendar days after the effective date of the Decision, whichever is later.

20 6. PROFESSIONALISM PROGRAM (ETHICS COURSE). Within 60 calendar days of

21 the effective date of this Decision, Respondent shall enroll in a professionalism program, that

22 meets the requirements of Tille 16, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 1358.

23 Respondent shall participate in and successfully complete that program. Respondent shall

24 provide any information and documents that the program may deem pertinent. Respondent shall

25 successfully complete the classroom component of the program not later than six (6) months after

26 Respondent's initial enrollment, and the longitudinal component of the program not later than the

27 time specified by the program, but no later than one (1) year after attending the classroom

28 component. The professionalism program shall be at Respondent's expense and shall be in

7

STIPULATED SETILEMENT (02-2011-218969)

1 addition to the Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements for renewal of licensure.

2 A professionalism program taken after the acts that gave rise to the charges in the


4 or its designee, be accepted towards the fulfillment of this condition if the program would have

5 been approved by the Board or its designee had the program been taken after the effective date of

6 this Decision.

7 Respondent shall submit a certification of successful completion to the Board or its ·

8 designee not later than 15 calendar days after successfully completing the program or not later

9 than 15 calendar days after the effective date of the Decision, whichever is later.

10 7. CLINICAL TRAINING PROGRAM. Within 60 calendar days of the effective date

11 of this Decision, Respondent shall enroll in a clinical training or educational program equivalent

12 to the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program (PACE) offered at the University of

13 California - San Diego School of Medicine ("Program"). Respondent shall successfi..Jlly complete

14 the Program not later than six (6) months after Respondent's initial enrollment unless the Board

15 or its designee agrees in writing to an extension of that time.

16 The Program shall consist of a Comprehensive Assessment program comprised of a two-

17 day assessment of Respondent's physical and mental health; basic clinical and communication

18 skills common to all clinicians; and medical knowledge, skill and judgment pertaining to

19 Respondent's area of practice in which Respondent was alleged to be deficient, and at minimum,

20 a 40 hour program of clinical education in the area of practice in which Respondent was alleged

21 to be deficient and which takes into account data obtained from the assessment, Decision(s),

22 Accusation(s), and any other information that the Board or its designee deems relevant.

23 Respondent shall pay all expenses associated with the clinical training program.

24 Based on Respondent's performance and test results in the assessment and clinical

25 education, the Program will advise the Board or its designee of its recommendation(s) for the

26 scope and length of any additional educational or clinical training, treatment for any medical

27 condition, treatment for any psychological condition, or anything else atTecting Respondent's

28 practice of medicine. Respondent shall comply with Program recommendations.

8

STIPULATED SETILEM ENT (02-20 11-218969)

1 At the completion of any additional educational or clinical training, Respondent shall

2 submit to and pass an examination. Determination as to whether Respondent successfully

3 completed the examination or successfully completed the program is solely within the program's

4 jurisdiction.

5 A clinical training or educational program taken after the acts that gave rise to the charges

6 in the Accusation, but prior to the effective date of the Decision may, in the sole discretion of the

7 Board or its designee, be accepted towards the fulfillment of this condition if the program would

8 have been approved by the Board or its designee had the program been taken after the effective

9 date of this Decision.

10 If Respondent fails to enroll, participate in, or successfully complete the clinical training

11 program within the designated time period, Respondent shall receive a notification from the

12 Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three (3) calendar days after being

13 so notified. The Respondent shall not resume the practice of medicine until enrollment or

14 participation in the outstanding portions of the clinical training program have been completed. If

15 the Respondent did not successfully complete the clinical training program, the Respondent shall

16 not resume the practice of medicine until a final decision has been rendered on the accusation

17 and/or a petition to revoke probation. The cessation of practice shall not apply to the reduction of

18 the probationary time period.

19 8. MEDICAL EVALUATION AND TREATMENT. Within 30 calendar days of the

20 effective date of this Decision, and on a periodic basis thereafter as may be required by the Board

21 or its designee, Respondent ~hall undergo a medical evaluation by a Board-appointed phy~ician

22 who shall consider any information provided by the Board or designee and any other information

23 the evaluating physician deems relevant and shall furnish a medical report to the Board or its

24 designee. Respondent shall provide the evaluating physician any information and documentation

25 that the evaluating physician may deem pertinent.

26 Following the evaluation, Respondent shall comply with all restrictions or conditions

27 recommended by the evaluating physician within 15 calendar days after being notified by the

28 Board or its designee. If Respondent is required by the Board or its designee to undergo medical

9


1 treatment, Respondent shall within 30 calendar days of the requirement notice, submit to the

2 Board or its designee for prior approval the name and qualifications of a California licensed

3 treating physician of Respondent's choice. Upon approval of the treating physician, Respondent

4 shall within 15 calendar days undertake medical treatment and shall continue such treatment until

5 further notice from the Board or its designee.

6 The treating physician shall consider any information provided by the Board or its designee

7 or any other information the treating physician may deem pertinent prior to commencement of

8 treatment. Respondent shall have the treating physician submit quarterly reports to the Board or

9 its designee indicating whether or not the Respondent is capable of practicing medicine safely.

10 Respondent shall provide the Board or its designee with any and all medical records pertaining to

11 treatment, the Board or its designee deems necessary.

12 If, prior to the completion of probation, Respondent is found to be physically incapable of

13 resuming the practice of medicine without restrictions, the Board shall retain continuing

14 jurisdiction over Respondent's license and the period of probation shall be extended until the

15 Board determines that Respondent is physically capable of resuming the practice of medicine

16 without restrictions. Respondent shall pay the cost of the medical evaluation(s) and treatment.

17 9. PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION. Within 30 calendar days of the effective date of

18 this Decision, and on whatever periodic basis thereafter may be required by the Board or its

19 designee, Respondent shall undergo and complete a psychiatric evaluation (and psychological

20 testing, if deemed necessary) by a Board-appointed board certified psychiatrist, who shall

21 consider any information provided by the Board or designee and any other information the

22 psychiatrist deems relevant, and shall furnish a written evaluation report to the Board or its

23 designee. Psychiatric evaluations conducted prior to the effective date of the Decision shall not

24 be accepted towards the fulfillment of this requirement. Respondent shall pay the cost of all

25 psychiatric evaluations and psychological testing.

26 Respondent shall comply with all restrictions or conditions recommended by the evaluating

27 psychiatrist within 15 calendar days after being notified by the Board or its designee.

28 (((

10


1 10. MONITORING - PRACTICE. Within 30 calendar days of the effective date of this

2 Decision, Respondent shall submit to the Board or its designee for prior approval as a practice

3 monitor(s), the name and qualifications of one or more licensed physicians and surgeons whose

4 licenses are valid and in good standing, and who are preferably American Board of Medical

5 Specialties (ABMS) certified. A monitor shall have no prior or current business or personal

6 relationship with Respondent, or other relationship that could reasonably be expected to

7 compromise the ability of the monitor to render fair and unbiased reports to the Board, including

8 but not limited to any form of bartering, shall be in Respondent's field of practice, and must agree

9 to serve as Respondent's monitor. Respondent shall pay all monitoring costs.

10 The Board or its designee shall provide the approved monitor with copies of the Dccision(s)

11 and Accusation(s), and a proposed monitoring plan. Within 15 calendar days of receipt of the

12 Decision(s), Accusation(s), and proposed monitoring plan, the monitor shall submit a signed

13 statement that the monitor has read the Decision(s) and Accusalion(s), fully understands the role

14 of a monitor, and agrees or disagrees with the proposed monitoring plan. If the monitor disagrees

15 with the proposed monitoring plan, the monitor shall submit a revised monitoring plan with the

16 signed statement for approval by the Board or its designee.

17 Within 60 calendar days of the effective date of this Decision, and continuing throughout

18 probation, Respondent's practice shall be monitored by the approved monitor. Respondent shall

19 make all records available for immediate inspection and copying on the premises by the monitor

20 at all times during business hours and shall retain the records for the entire term of probation.

21 If Respondent fails to obtain approval of a monitor within 60 calendar days of the effective

22 date of this Decision, Respondent shall receive a notification from the Board or its designee to

23 cease the practice of medicine within three (3) calendar days after being so notified. Respondent

24 shall cease the practice of medicine until a monitor is approved to provide monitoring

25 responsibility.

26 The monitor(s) shall submit a quarterly written report to the Board or its designee which

27 includes an evaluation of Respondent's performance, indicating whether Respondent's practices

28 are within the standards of practice of medicine, and whether Respondent is practicing medicine

11

STIPULATED SE'ITLEMENT (02-2011-218969)

1 safely, billing appropriately or both. It shall be the sole responsibility of Respondent to ensure

2 that the monitor submits the quarterly written reports to the Board or its designee within 10

3 calendar days after the end of the preceding quarter.

4 If the monitor resigns or is no longer available, Respondent shall, within 5 calendar days of

5 such resignation or unavailability, submit to the Board or its designee, for prior approval, the

6 name and qualifications of a replacement monitor who will be assuming that responsibility within

7 15 calendar days. If Respondent fails to obtain approval of a replacement monitor within 60

8 calendar days of the resignation or unavailability of the monitor, Respondent shall receive a

9 notification from the Board or its designee to cease the practice of medicine within three (3)

10 calendar days after being so notified Respondent shall cease the practice of medicine until a

11 replacement monitor is approved and assumes monitoring responsibility.

12 In lieu of a monitor, Respondent may participate in a professional enhancement program

13 equivalent to the one offered by the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program at the

14 University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, that includes, at minimum, quarterly

15 chart review, semi-annual practice assessment, and semi-annual review of professional growth

16 and education. Respondent shall participate in the professional enhancement program at

17 Respondent's expense during the term of probation.

18 11. f\!OTIFIC~.TION. Within seven (7) days of the effective date of this Decision, the

19 Respondent shall provide a true copy of this Decision and Accusation to the Chief of Staff or the

20 Chief Executive Officer at every hospital where privileges or membership are extended to

21 Respondent, at any other facility where Respondent engages in the practice of medicine,

22 including all physician and locum tenens registries or other similar agencies, and to the Chief

23 Executive Officer at every insurance carrier which extends malpractice insurance coverage to

24 Respondent. Respondent shall submit proof of compliance to the Board or its designee within 15

25 calendar days.

26 This condition shall apply to any change(s) in hospitals, olher facilities or insurance carrier.

27 12. SUPERVISION OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. During probation, Respondent is

28 prohibited from supervising physician assistants.

12


1 13. OBEY ALL LAWS. Respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws, all rules

2 governing the practice of medicine in California and remain in full compliance with any court

3 ordered criminal probation, payments, and other orders.

4 14. QUARTERLY DECLARATIONS. Respondent shall submit quarterly declarations

5 under penalty of perjury on forms provided by the Board, stating whether there has been

6 compliance with all the conditions of probation.

7 Respondent shall submit quarterly declarations not later than 10 calendar days after the end

8 of the preceding quarter.

9 15. GENERAL PROBATION REQUIREMENTS.

10 Compliance with Probation Unit

11 Respondent shall comply with the Board's probation unit and all terms and conditions of

12 this Decision.

13 Address Changes

14 Respondent shall, at all times, keep the Board informed of Respondent's business and

15 residence addresses, email address (if available), and telephone number. Changes of such

16 addresses shall be immediately communicated in writing to the Board or its designee. Under no

17 circumstances shall a post office box serve as an address of record, except as allowed by Business

18 and Professions Code section 202l(b).

19 Place of Practice

20 Respondent shall not engage in the practice of medicine in Respondent's or patient's place

21 of residence, unless the patient resides in a skilled nursing facility or other similar licensed

22 facility.

23 License Renewal

24 Respondent shall maintain a current and renewed California physician's and surgeon's

25 license.

26 Travel or Residence Outside California

27 Respondent shall immediately inform the Board or its designee, in writing, of travel to any

28 areas outside the jurisdiction of California which lasts, or is contemplated to last, more than thirty

13

STIPULATED SETI'LEMENT (02-2011-218969)

1 (30) calendar days.

2 In the event Respondent should leave the State of California to reside or to practice

3 Respondent shall notify the Board or its designee in writing 30 calendar days prior to the dates of

4 departure and return.

5 16. INTERVIEW WITH THE BOARD OR ITS DESIGNEE. Respondent shall be

6 available in person upon request ior interviews either at Respondent's place of business or at the

7 probation unit office, with or without prior notice throughout the term of probation.

8 17. NON-PRACTICE WHILE ON PROBATION. Respondent shall notify the Board or

9 its designee in writing within 15 calendar days of any periods of non-practice lasting more than

10 30 calendar days and within 15 calendar days of Respondent's return to practice. Non-practice is

11 defined as any period of time Respondent is not practicing medicine in California as defined in

12 Business and Professions Code sections 2051 and 2052 for at least 40 hours in a calendar month

13 in direct patient care, clinical activity or teaching, or other activity as approved by the Board. All

14 time spent in an intensive training program which has been approved by the Board or its designee

15 shall not be considered non-practice. Practicing medicine in another state of the United States or

16 Federal jurisdiction while on probation with the medical licensing authority of that state or

17 jurisdiction shall not be considered non-practice. A Board-ordered suspension of practice shall

18 not be considered as a period of non-practice.

19 In the event Respondent's period of non-practice while on probation exceeds 18 calendar

20 months, Respondent shall successfully complete a clinical training program that meets the criteria

21 of Condition 18 of the current version ofthe Board's "Manual of Model Disciplinary Orders and

22 Disciplinary Guidelines" prior to resuming the practice of medicine.

23 Respondent's period of non-practice while on probation shall not exceed two (2) years.

24 Periods of non-practice will not apply to the reduction of the probationary term.

25 Periods of non-practice will relieve Respondent of the responsibility to comply with the

26 probationary terms and conditions with the exception of this condition and the following terms

27 and conditions of probation: Obey All Laws; and General Probation Requirements.

28 Ill

14


1 18. COMPLETION OF PROBATION. Respondent shall comply with all financial

2 obligations (e.g., restitution, probation costs) not later than 120 calendar days prior to the

3 completion of probation. Upon successful completion of probation, Respondent's certificate shall

4 be fully restored.

5 19. VIOLATION OF PROBATION. Failure to fully comply with any term or condition

6 of probation is a violation of probation. lf Respondent violates probation in any respect, the

7 Board, after giving Respondent notice and the opportunity to be heard, may revoke probation and

8 carry out the disciplinary order that was stayed. If an Accusation, .or Petition to Revoke Probation,

9 or an Interim Suspension Order is filed against Respondent durii?g probation, the Board shall have

10 continuing jurisdiction until the matter is final, and the period of probation shall be extended until

11 the matter is final.

12 20. LICENSE SURRENDER. Following the effective date of this Decision, if

13 Respondent ceases practicing due to retirement or health reasons or is otherwise unable to satisfy

14 the terms and conditions of probation, Respondent may request to surrender his or her license.

15 The Board reserves the right to evaluate Respondent's request and to exercise its discretion in

16 determining whether or not to grant the request, or to take any other action deemed appropriate

17 and reasonable under the circumstances·. Upon formal acceptance of the surrender, Respondent

18 shall within 15 calendar days deliver Respondent's wallet and wall certificate to the Board or its

19 designee and Respondent shall no longer practice medicine. Respondent will no longer be subject

20 to the terms and conditions of probation. If Respondent re-applies for a medical license, the

21 application shall be treated as a petition for reinstatement of a revoked certificate.

22 21. PROBATION MONITORING COSTS. Respondent shall pay the costs associated

23 with probation monitoring each and every year of probation, as designated by the Board, which

24 may be adjusted on an annual basis. Such costs shall be payable to the Medical Board of

25 California and delivered to the Board or its designee no later than January 31 of each calendar

26 year.

27 Ill

28 ///

15

STIPULATED SE'ITLEMENT (02-2011-218969)

ACCEIYfANCE

2 I have carefully read the above Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order and have fully

3 discussed it with my attorney, Allen Hassan. I understand the stipulation and the effect it will

4 have on my Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate. I enter into this Stipulated Settlement and

5 Disciplinary Order voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and agree to be bound by the

6 Decision and Order of the Medical Board of California.

7

8

9

10

DATED:\' - \ «[)'- \ y Ge~~~ ~ ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D. ~ . Respondent

11 ENDORSEMENT

12 The foregoing Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order is hereby respectfully

13 submitted for consideration by the Medical Board of California.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Dated:

SA20 13310654 23 11442885.doc

24

25

26

27

28

16

Respectfully submitted,

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California E. A. JONES lil Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MARA FAUST Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Complainant

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT (02-2011-218969)

Exhibit A

Accusation No. 02-2011-218969

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

'16

17

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California E. A. JoNES III Supervising Deputy Attorney General MARA FAUST Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 111729

California Department of Justice 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 324-5358 Facsimile: (916) 327-2247

Attorneys for Complainant


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE Oli, CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

ALLEN C. HASSAN, M.D. 2933 El Camino Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821 Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. C 29816

Respondent.

Case No. 02-2011-218969

ACCUSATION

18 Complainant alleges:

19 PARTIES

20 1. Kimberly Kirchmeyer (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in her official

21 capacity as the Interim Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, Department of

22 Consumer Affairs.

23 2. On or about January 15, 1968, the Medical Board of California issued Physician's and .

24 Surgeon's Certificate Number C 29816 to Allen C. Hassan, M.D. (Respondent). The Physician's

25 and Surgeon's Certificate was in full force and etiect at all times relevant to the charges brought

26 herein and will expire on March 31, 2014, unless renewed.

27 3. On or about January 5, 1979, Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate

28 Number C 29816 was placed on five (5) years probation, with 120 days suspension, additional

1 Accusation

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

CME and standard terms and conditions of probation were imposed. On or about December 9,

1982, Respondent's Petition for early termination of probation was granted.

JURISDICTION

4. This Accusation is brought before the Medical Board of California (Board),

Department of Consumer Affairs, under the authority of the following laws. All section

references are to the Business and Professions Code (Code) unless otherwise indicated.

5. Section 2234 ofthc Code states in relevant part:

''The board shall take action against any licensee who is charged with unprofessional

conduct. In addition to other provisions of this article, unprofessional conduct includes, but is not

limited to, the following:

"(a) Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, assisting in or abetting the

violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision of this chapter.

"(b) Gross negligence.

"(c) Repeated negligent acts. To be repeated, there must be two or more negligent acts or

omissions. An initial negligent act or omission followed by a separate and distinct departure from

the applicable standard of care shall constitute repeated negligent acts.

"(1) An initial negligent diagnosis followed by an act or omission medically appropriate

for that negligent diagnosis of the patient shall constitute a single negligent act.

"(2) When the standard of care requires a change in the diagnosis, act, or omission that

constitutes the negligent act described in paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, a

reevaluation of the diagnosis or a change in treatment, and the licensee's conduct departs from the

applicable standard.of care, each departure constitutes a separate and distinct breach of the

standard of care.

"(d) Incompetence.

"(e) The commission of any act involving dishonesty or corruption which is substantially

related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon."

Ill

Ill

2 Accusation

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

6. Section 223~ ofthe Code states:

AA violation of any federal statute or federal regulation or any of the statutes or regulations

of this state regulating dangerous drugs or controlled substances constitutes unprofessional

conduct.@

7. Section 2241 ofthc Code states in relevant part:

"(a) A physician and surgeon may prescribe, dispense, or administer prescription drugs,

including prescription controlled substances, to an addict under his or her treatment for a purpose

other than maintenance on, or detoxification from, prescription drugs or controlled substances.

"(b) A physician and surgeon may prescribe, dispense, or administer prescription drugs or

prescription controlled substances to an addict for purposes of maintenance on, or detoxification

from, prescription drugs or controlled substances only as set forth in subdivision (c) or in Sections

11215, 11217, 11217.5, 11218, 11219, and 11220 of the Health and Safety Code. Nothing in this

subdivision shall authorize a physician and surgeon to prescribe, dispense, or administer

dangerous drugs or controlled substances to a person he or she knows or reasonably believes is

using or will use the drugs or substances for a nonmedical purpose."

8. Section 2242 of the Code states:

"(a) Prescribing, dispensing, or furnishing dangerous drugs as defined in Section 4022

without an appropriate prior examination and a medical indication, constitutes unprofessional

conduct.

"(b) No licensee shall be found to have committed unprofessional conduct within the

meaning of this section if, at the time the drugs were prescribed, dispensed, or furnished, any of

the following applies:

"(1) The licensee was a designated physician and surgeon or podiatrist serving in the

absence of the patient1s physician and surgeon or podiatrist, as the case may be, and if the drugs

were prescribed, dispensed, or furnished only as necessary to maintain the patient until the return

of his or her practitioner, but in any case no longer than 72 hours.

11 (2) The licensee transmitted the order for the drugs to a registered nurse or to a licensed

vocational nurse in an inpatient facility, and if both of the following conditions exist:

3 Accusation

"(A) The practitioner had consulted with the registered nurse or licensed vocational nurse

2 who had reviewed the patient's records.

3 "(B) The practitioner was designated as the practitioner to serve in the absence of the

4 patient's physician and surgeon or podiatrist, as the case may be.

5 "(3) The licensee was a designated practitioner serving in the absence of the patient's

6 physician and surgeon or podiatrist, as the case may be, and was in possession of or had utilized

7 the patient's records and ordered the renewal of a medically indicated prescription for an amount

8 not exceeding the original prescription in strength or amount or for more than one rciill.

9 "(4) The licensee was acting in accordance with Section 120582 of the Health and Safety

10 Code."

11 9. Section 2266 of the Code states: A The failure of a physician and surgeon to maintain

12 adequate and accurate records relating to the provision of services to their patients constitutes

13 unprofessional conduct.@

14 10. Section 725 ofthe Code states:

15 "(a) Repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing, furnishing, dispensing, or administering

16 of drugs or treatment, repeated acts of clearly excessive use of diagnostic procedures, or repeated

17 acts of clearly excessive use of diagnostic or treatment facilities as determined by the standard of

18 the community of licensees is unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon, dentist,

19 podiatrist, psychologist, physical therapist, chiropractor, optometrist, speech-language

20 pathologist, or audiologist.

21 "(b) Any person who engages in repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing or

22 administering of drugs or treatment is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of

23 not less than one hundred dollars ($1 00) nor more than six hundred dollars ($600), or by

24 imprisonment for a term of not less than 60 days nor more than 180 days, or by both that fine and

25 imprisonment.

26 "(c) A practitioner who has a medical basis for prescribing, furnishing, dispensing, or

27 administering dangerous drugs or prescription controlled substances shall not be subject to

28 disciplinary action or prosecution under this section.

4 Accusation

"(d) No physician and surgeon shall be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to this section

2 for treating intractable pain in compliance with Section 2241.5."

3 DRUGS

4 11. Klonopin, the trade name for Clonazepam, is a Schedule IV controlled substance

5 within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11057, and is a dangerous drug as defined

6 in section 4022 of the Code.

7 12. 1-Iydrocodone bitartrate, an opiate, is the chemical name for Vicodin, Lortab and

8 Norco and is a Schedule III controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code

9 section 11056, subdivision (e)( 4 ), and is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

10 13. Dilaudid, an opiate, is the trade name for hydromorphone hydrochloride and is a

11 Schedule II controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11055,

12 subdivision (d), and is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

13 14. Morphine sulfate, an opiate, is the chemical name for a Schedule II controlled

14 substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11055, subdivision (b)(l), (L),

15 and is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

16 15. Methadone, a opiate, is the chemical name and is a Schedule II controlled substance

17 within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11055, subdivision (c), and is a dangerous

18 drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

19 16. Percocct, an opiate, is the trade name for oxycodone hydrochloride and is a Schedule

20 II controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11055, subdivision

21 (b)(l)(M), and is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

22 17. Oxymorphone hydrocloride, an opiate, is the chemical name for Opana which is a

23 Schedule II controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section ll 055,

24 subdivision (b)(l)(N), and a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

25 18. Soma, a trade name, is a dangerous drug as defmcd in section 4022 of the Code.

26 19. Restoril, a trade name, is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

27 20. Fioricet, a trade name, is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

28 21. Elavil, a trade name, is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

5 Accusation

2

3

22. Lunesta, a trade name, is a dangerous drug as defined in section 4022 of the Code.

FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient J.M.--Gross Negligence (Pain Management))

[Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2234, subd. (b)]

4 23. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (b),

5 in that Respondent was grossly negligent in the care, treatment, and pain management of patient

6 J.M. The circumstances arc as follows:

7 24. In or about June 2010, J .M., a 52 year old female, returned to live in California, and

8 began to have Respondent treat her for neck and back pain that was the result of prior car

9 accidents. Previously, Respondent had treated this patient for a twenty year period before she had

10 moved out of state to Colorado. Respondent ordered an MRI for patient J .M. and reviewed the

11 results. Respondent told patient J.M. that she had problems in the cervical spine that would

12 require surgical intervention.

13 25. Thereafter, J.M. went to Kaiser Permanente and was told by another physician that

14 she did not have a cervical spine problem but rather carpal tunnel syndrome and that the

15 appropriate treatment was to wear a brace.

16 26. Patient J.M. returned to Respondent on August 18, 2011, in extensive pain in her neck

17 and back. Respondent prescribed this patient the following: Norco, I 0/25, up to four times a day;

18 Morphine Sulfate ER 60 mg, one po. b.i.d; Methadone t 0 mg half tablets two times a day for five

19 days and then full tablets for five days; and Lunesta, 3 mg at bedtime to sleep. Patient J.M.

20 expressed to Respondent her fear that taking all these medications could have side effects and

21 cause addiction. Respondent said that if she followed his instructions she would not have any of

22 these issues.

23 27. Patient J.M. described Respondent on August 18, 2011, as appearing "loosey-

24 goosey." She saw Respondent fall into a wall when walking down a hallway. J.M. stated that

25 Respondent was "high as a kite" and was probably under the influence of some drug.

26 28. After patient J.M. took all of the prescribed medication, (except the Lunestra ), the

27 next day, she experienced a big drop in her heart rate and nausea. As a result J.M. had her

28 husband take her to the Kaiser emergency room to be treated.

6 Accusation

29. Respondent was interviewed by a Medical Board investigator on April 9, 2013. With

2 respect to patient J.M., Respondent admitted that he did not take good notes and had a "terrible

3 work-up" of this patient. Respondent admitted that he did not have a diagnosis for the patient and

4 a physical examination was not documented. Respondent speculated that there might have been a

5 dictated report for this patient but it would not be in the chart because someone stole his

6 computer.

7 30. Respondent's lack of a history and physical, no follow-up treatment, no planned

8 periodic review of this patient, no signed informed consent along with the excessive prescribing

9 of pain medication which might have compromised the patient's health collectively constitutes an

10 extreme departure from the standard of care in violation of section 2234, subdivision (b), of the

11 Code.

12 SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient J.M.--Failure To Maintain Records)

13 [Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2266]

14 31. Complainant re-alleges paragraphs 24-30 above and incorporates them by reference

15 herein as though fully set forth.

16 32. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2266 in that he failed

17

18

19

20

to record a history and physical, had no signed informed consent, no record of planned follow-up

treatment, and no record of planned periodic review of patient J.M.

THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient R.S.--Gross Negligence (Pain Management))

[Bus. & Prof. Code,§ 2234, subd. (b)]


22 in that Respondent was grossly negligent in the care, treatment, and pain management of patient

23 R.S. The circumstances are as follows:

24 34. On or about September 21, 2011, Respondent undertook the care and treatment of

25 patient R.S., a 26 year old male who had a history of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),

26 mental breakdowns and drug overdoses. During Respondent's period of treating R.S. from

27 September 21 through December 21, 2011, Respondent wrote multiple prescriptions for

28 ///

7 Accusation

1 clonazcpam, fioricet, morphine, methadone, dilaudicl, oxycodone, trazodone and soma, all for

2 patient R. S.

3 35. On October 9, 2011, R.S. was admitted to the Veteran Administration (VA)

4 Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), as an Iraqi war veteran with opiate dependence and Post

5 Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). R.S. had recently overdosed on heroin while in a substance

6 abuse program and that was documented in his medical records. Prior to R.S. 's admission at the

7 VA, Respondent prescribed clonazepam to this patient on October 3 and 5, 2011. In addition,

8 Respondent prescribed tamazepam, clonazepam and hydromorphone 8mg., 100 tablets to R.S. on

9 October 8, 2011. Respondent visited patient R.S. at the VA PICU and was seen hugging and

10 crying with the patient. Respondent claimed not to be the patient's doctor until he was confronted

11 with the prescriptions that he wrote for R.S.

12 36. Previously R.S. had been treated at the VA Medical Hospital for opioid withdrawal

13 on September 13,2011, opioid abuse on September 14,2011, traumatic brain injury on

14 September 21, 2011, and opioid dependence on October 7, 2011. From the October 9, 2011,

15 admission to the VA PICU, R.S. was discharged on October 12,2011, from a 72 hour hold, but

16 only after Respondent vouched for R.S. 's health, welfare and safety before a Board of

17 Professionals. R.S. was released to Respondent's custody and he lived at the back of

18 Respondent's medical offices for a couple of months along with living in Respondent's house

19 located next to the medical offices. The day after discharge on October 13,2011, Respondent

20 prescribed another 100 hydromorphonc tablets to R.S.

21 37. On October 19,2011, Respondent prescribed to R.S. methadone 10 mg, 150 tablets,

22 clonazepam 2 mg, tablets #90, morphine 60 mg., #60 and hydromorphonc 4 mg, 150 tablets. This

23 pattern of frequent and significant amounts of both opioids and other controlled substances

24 prescribed by Respondent to R.S. continued through November 7, 2011.

25 38. Respondent was interviewed by a Medical Board investigator on April 9, 2013. With

26 respect to patient R.S., Respondent admitted that he was treating R.S. for lower back pain,

27 monitoring his PTSD and was aware the patient was on heroin. Respondent claimed he had such

28 poor records on this patient because his computer had been stolen.

8 Accusation

2

3

4

5

6

7

39. Respondent's lack of a history and physical, and his failure to obtain an MRI, to

provide follow-up treatment, to periodically review this patient, to obtain signed informed

consent, along with the excessive prescribing of pain medication, collectively constitute an

extreme departure from the standard of care in violation of section 2234, subcli vision (b), of the

Code.

FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient R.S.--Gross Negligence-Prescribing to an Addict)

[Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 2234, subd. (b) and 2241]



10 41. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code sections 2234, subdivision

11 (b), and 2241, in that he was grossly negligent in prescribing opioids to a known addict. The

12 circumstances are as follows:

13 42. Respondent admitted that he knew R.S. was a known heroin addict and that he had

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

recently been discharged tl·om the VA Medical Hospital for narcotic overdose yet he continued to

prescribe a large amount of opioids and other controlled substances. Such conduct constitutes

prescribing to an addict in violation of Business & Professions Code sections 2234, subdivision

(b), and 2241.

FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient R.S.--Repeated Negligence-Lack of Treatment ofPTSD and

Failure to maintain records) [Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2234, subd. (c)]



23 44. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (c),

24 in that he engaged in repeated negligent acts in his care and treatment of patient R.S. The


26 45. There is no record of Respondent treating patient R.S. 's PTSD or other comorbid

27 psychiatric issues, nor did Respondent consult with or refer the patient out to a specialist in either

28 psychiatry or addiction medicine, and such failures constitute a single act of negligence. In

9 Accusation

addition Respondent's failure to maintain an adequate medical record of patient R.S. also

2 constitutes a single negligent act. These failures collectively constitute repeated negligent acts in

3 violation of 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code.

4 46. The allegations of the First and Second Causes for Discipline are incorporated herein

5 as if fully set forth.

6 47. Respondent's care and treatment of J.M. as set forth above includes the following acts

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

and/or omissions which constitute negligent acts namely, Respondent's failure to maintain

adequate medical records on patient J .M., including a lack of a history and physical examination;

his lack of follow· up treatment; his failure to provide periodic review; and his failure to obtain a

signed informed consent, which taken in combination with the negligent acts in paragraph 43,

constitute repeated negligent acts in violation of section 2234, subdivision (c) of the Code.

SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient R.S.·-Gross Negligence (Unethical Behavior))

(Bus. & Prof. Code,§§ 2234, subd. (b) & 2234]

14 48. Complainant re·alleges paragraphs 34-38 above and incorporates them by reference



17

18

19

20

21

22

(b) and/or 2234, in that he was grossly negligent and/or engaged in unprofessional conduct when

he permitted R.S., a psychiatric and narcotic addicted patient, to live in his office and residence.

This violates the physician· patient relationship, and represents an unethical coni1ict of interest

which constitutes unprofessional conduct and/or an extreme departure from the standard of care.

SEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient R.S.-Failure To Maintain Records)

[Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2266)


24 herein as though fully set fm1h.

25 51. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2266 of the Code in that he

26 failed to record a history and physical, obtain an MRI, do any follow-up treatment, or periodic

27 review of patient R.S.

28 ///

10 Accusation

2

EIGHTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient J.W.--Gross Negligence (Pain Management))



4 in that he was grossly negligent in the care and treatment of patient J. W.. The circumstances are

5 as follows:

6 53. In or about May 2011 through April 2012, Respondent undertook the care and

7 treatment of patient J.W., a 28-year-old male who attempted suicide in October 2011, suffered

8 lower back pain due to both scoliosis and herniated discs, and who also suffered from PTSD and

9 traumatic brain injuries due to lED (Improved Explosive Devices) explosions. Respondent

10 allowed J.W. to live for several months in the back of Respondent's medical offices.

11 54. Respondent's clinical notes indicate patient J.W. was on methadone for pain with

12 prescriptions written May 25, 2011, for methadone 1 Omg #180, on May 27, 2011, for methadone

13 1 Omg #36, on June 1, 2011, for methadone 1 Omg 180, after a note that patient claims his refills

14 were stolen. A July 1, 2011lab report lists patient J.W.'s urine as positive for fentanyl,

15 methadone and benzodiazepine. No adequate pain history was taken, no complete history and no

16 adequate physical examination was noted for the entire period oftreatment by Respondent of

17. J.W .. From August 13, 2011, through February 4, 2012, Respondent wrote multiple prescriptions

18 for Clonazepam, hydrocodone/ AP AP, hyromorphone HCL, hydromorphone hydrochloride,

19 methadone hydrochloride, morphine sulfate, and oxycodone hydrochloride. On February 23,

20 2012, there are two prescriptions written by Respondent for oxycontin 30 mg # 120 and one of the

21 prescriptions included dilaudid and klonopin for J.W. On April 3, 2012, Respondent wrote for

22 methadone and dilaudid for J.W.

23 55. Respondent's lack of a history and physical, follow-up treatment, periodic review of

24 this patient, and signed informed consent, along with the excessive prescribing of pain medication

25 including prescribing both short acting and long acting pain medications in combination and

26 prescribing a narcotic refill after patient reported theft of his narcotics, collectively constitute an

27 extreme departure from the standard of care in violation of section 2234, subdivision (b), of the

28 Code.

11 Accusation

NINTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

2 (Patient J.W.--Repeated Negligence-Lack of Psychiatric Treatment & Poor Records)

· [Bus. & Prof. Code,§ 2234, subd. (c)]



5 57. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (c),.

6 in that in that he engaged in repeated negligent acts in his care and treatment of patient J.W. The

7 circumstances arc as follows:

8 58. There is no record ofRespondent treating patient J.W.'s PTSD and anxiety disorder,

9 nor did Respondent consult with or refer the patient out to a specialist in either psychiatry or

10 addiction medicine, and such failures constitute a single act of negligence. In addition,

11 Respondent's failure to maintain an adequate medical record of patient J.W. also constitutes a

12 single negligent act. These failures collectively constitute repeated negligent acts in violation of

13 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code.

14 TENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient J.W.--Gross Negligence (Unethical Behavior))

15 [Bus. & Prof. Code,§§ 2234, subd. (b) &/or 2234]




19 (b), and/or 2234, in that he was grossly negligent and/or engaged in unprofessional conduct when

20 he permitted J.W., a psychiatric and narcotic addicted patient, to live in his office and/or

21 residence. This violates the physician-patient relationship, and represents an unethical conflict of

22 interest.

23 ELEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient J.W.--Failure To Maintain Records)

24 fBus. & Prof. Code, § 2266]

25 61. Complainant rc-allcgcs paragraphs 53-55 above and incorporates them by reference


27 ///

28 ///

12 Accusation

. \

1 62. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2266 in that he failed to

2

3

4

5

record a history and physical, to record any follow-up treatment, and to record periodic review of

patient J .W.

TWELFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient C.W.--Gross Negligence (Pain Management))


6 63. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (b)

7 in that in that he was grossly negligent in the care and treatment of patient C. W. The


9 64. In or about July 2011, Respondent undertook the care and treatment of patient C.W.,

10 a 34-year-old woman, to treat her pain relating to degenerative discs in her back. On August 1,

11 2011, Respondent diagnosed C.W. with degenerative disc disorder without conducting a physical

12 examination. There was no psychiatric work-up or consult regarding the patient's report of

13 chronic stress and depression. A urine test was done on C.W. on the same day, which was

14 positive for hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and clonazepam. Respondent prescribed

15 Dilaudid 4 mg #120 and restoril15 mg #30.

16 65. On August 24,2011, Respondent prescribed to C.W., Percocet 10/325 #120,

17 Klonopin lmg #120, Soma 350 mg #120, and Restoril 30 mg #140. There was no physical

18 examination and no psychiatric work-up of the patient. On September 17, 2011, Respondent

19 prescribed to C.W., Percocet 10/325 #120, Elavil #30, and Rcstoril30 mg #140. There was no

20 physical examination and no psychiatric work-up of the patient. On September 22, 2011,

21 Respondent prescribed to C.W., klonopin hng #120, and Soma 350 mg #120. The patient's chief

22 complaint was that she was in a lot of pain. There was no physical examination and no psychiatric

23 work-up of the patient.

24 66. In patient C.W.'s medical record with Respondent was a report by Dr. S., dated

25 March 5, 2010, which referenced the patient's three prior back surgeries, a depressive disorder;

26 and chronic pain due to trauma. Dr. S. did a complete history and physical and concluded that

27 patient C.W. was not a candidate for long term opiate therapy but that perhaps short acting

28 ///

13 Accusation

opioidsgiven briefly would be o.k. Dr. S. felt that the best way to treat C.W.'s pain was to

2 consider the use of spinal cord stimulation.

3 67. Respondent's lack of a history and physical, no follow-up treatment, periodic review

ofthis patient and signed informed consent along with the excessive prescribing of pain

medication constitutes an extreme departure from the standard of care in violation of section

2234, subdivision (b), of the Code.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

4

5

6

7

8 (Patient C.W.--Repeated Negligence-LackofTreatment of Psychiatric Issues & Poor Records)

(Bus. & Prof. Code,§ 2234, subd. (c)]


I 0 herein as though fully set forth.

11 69. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (c),

12 in that he engaged in repeated negligent acts in his care and treatment of patient C.W. The


14 70. There is no record of Respondent treating patient C.W.'s PTSD or depression, despite

15 Respondent's claim that C.W. was a drug addict, Respondent failed to consult with or refer the

16 patient out to a specialist in either psychiatry or addiction medicine; and such failures constitute a

17 single act of negligence. In addition, Respondent's failure to maintain an adequate medical

18 record of patient C. W. also constitutes a single negligent act. These failures collectively

19 constitute repeated negligent acts in violation of2234, subdivision (c), ofthe Code.

20 FOURTEENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Patient C.W.-Failure To Maintain Records)

21 [Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2266]



24 72. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2266 in that he failed to

25 record a history and physical, to record any follow-up treatment, to record periodic review of

26 patient C. W.

27 Ill

28 Ill

14 Accusation

I '

PRAYER

2 WHEREfORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged,

3 and that following the hearing, the Medical Board of California issue a decision:

4 .1. Revoking or suspending Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate Number C 29816,

5 issued to Allen C. Hassan, M.D.;

6 2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of Allen C. Hassan, M.D.'s authority to

7 supervise physician assistants, pursuant to section 3 527 of the Code;

8 3 Ordering Allen C. Hassan, M.D., if placed on probation, to pay the Medical Board of

9 California the costs of probation monitoring; and

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

4. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.

December 27, 2013 DATED: -------------------

17 SA2013310654

18

19

20'

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31811393.doc

Interim Execu ve Director Medical Board ofCalifornia Department of Consumer Affairs State of California Complainant

15 Accusation

BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ...4patientsafety.org › documents › Hassan,...

Documents

Transcript of BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ...4patientsafety.org › documents › Hassan,...