Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Puls v. People Ex Rel. Woodard
Citations: 722 P.2d 424; 1986 Colo. App. LEXIS 902Docket: 84CA0784
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals; May 1, 1986; Colorado; State Appellate Court
Gerald Eugene Puls, M.D. appealed a final order from the Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners that revoked his medical license under 12-36-118, C.R.S. The case stemmed from Puls' actions in July 1983 concerning a patient in labor, identified as patient A. Despite having had his hospital privileges revoked, Puls attempted to influence the hospital board to restore them before patient A's delivery. He prescribed medication to delay her labor, despite her being diagnosed with ruptured membranes, which increased the risk of infection. Patient A was later referred to another doctor in Utah and delivered a healthy baby. The board's complaint against Puls alleged gross negligence in his medical practice. A hearing officer determined that, while Puls' actions constituted misconduct, they did not amount to gross negligence. The board later adopted the hearing officer's factual findings but reversed the conclusion regarding the manipulation of patient A, asserting that Puls acted in his own interest rather than the patient's welfare. Consequently, the board revoked his license and barred him from reapplying for two years. On appeal, Puls argued that the question of whether he manipulated his patient was an evidentiary fact that could only be reversed if deemed contrary to the evidence's weight. The court held that the hearing officer's finding regarding patient manipulation was an ultimate fact, not binding on the board, and concluded that the board was justified in its decision. The court referenced statutory definitions distinguishing between ultimate and evidentiary facts. The hearing officer reviewed extensive testimony regarding the actions of Puls, patient A, and the Rangely hospital board. His evidentiary findings, which are supported by the evidence, cannot be altered by the board, although the board may reach a different conclusion about whether patient A was manipulated for Puls' benefit. The hearing officer's findings substantiate the board's conclusion that Puls did manipulate patient A, making this finding binding upon review. Puls argues that the board's decision to bar him from applying for relicensure for two years contradicts the Colorado Medical Practice Act. The statute allows for reconsideration of disciplinary actions by the board at any time after imposition, which means a revoked doctor can apply for reinstatement without a pre-defined waiting period. Thus, the order's provision that prohibits Puls from applying for relicensure for two years is reversed. The order revoking Puls' license for two years and requiring compliance with specific regulations upon application remains affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings in line with this opinion, with judges Smith and Sternberg concurring.