Scott Freshour, Margaret McNeese, Timothy Webb, and Sherif Zaafran, M.D., in Their Official Capacities as Officers of the Texas Medical Board// Robert W. Van Boven M.D., D.D.S. v. Robert W. Van Boven M.D., D.D.S.// Amy Swanholm and Christopher Palazola, in Their Official Capacities as Officers of the Texas Medical Board

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-18-00817-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 8, 2020; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Texas Court of Appeals is addressing a dispute arising from a disciplinary proceeding by the Texas Medical Board against Dr. Robert W. Van Boven, who was accused of inappropriate conduct during medical examinations. Although the Board ultimately dismissed the complaints against him, Dr. Van Boven sued several Board officials, alleging they acted beyond their authority (ultra vires) when they reported the proceedings' outcome to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). The Board officials filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming sovereign immunity, which the trial court partially granted. The appellate court concluded that Dr. Van Boven's claims are indeed barred by sovereign immunity, reversing the trial court's decision on some Board officials while affirming it for others.

In 2015, two complaints led the Texas Medical Board to impose a temporary restriction on Dr. Van Boven's medical license, prohibiting him from treating female patients, pending further action. The Board reported this restriction to the NPDB in March 2016, as mandated by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, which requires state medical boards to report actions related to a physician's professional competence or conduct. Reports to the NPDB are confidential but can be shared with certain entities. The Board categorized the reported action as an Initial-Adverse-Action Report.

The Board filed a formal complaint against Dr. Van Boven with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), leading to a four-day hearing. On September 15, 2017, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the Board did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Van Boven deserved sanction. Consequently, on December 8, 2017, the Board issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s findings and dismissing the case, which lifted a prior temporary restriction on Dr. Van Boven’s medical license.

The Board reported this Final Order to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) as a Revision-to-Action Report, indicating that the complaint had been dismissed based on the ALJ’s findings. Dr. Van Boven contested the Board's choice to submit a Revision-to-Action Report instead of a Void Report, claiming he was exonerated and that previous disciplinary records should be eliminated from his NPDB record. The Board maintained its position, explaining that NPDB guidelines necessitated a Revision-to-Action Report to reflect modifications to previously reported adverse actions.

Dr. Van Boven initiated a dispute resolution process with the NPDB regarding the Board's reporting. The NPDB later recommended that the Board amend its report to accurately reflect the ALJ's finding of insufficient evidence against Dr. Van Boven and to clarify that the matter was dismissed. The Board complied by submitting a corrected Revision-to-Action Report. In April 2018, the NPDB issued a decision rejecting Dr. Van Boven's claims regarding the reporting requirements, affirming that a Void Report is only applicable when an action is fully overturned or vacated.

A medical board must file a Revision-to-Action Report when a final action alters a previously reported adverse action to the NPDB. The NPDB determined that the Board intended to modify, rather than overturn, the temporary restriction on Dr. Van Boven’s license, which legally obligated the Board to file the report. The NPDB clarified that it cannot override the Board's judgment and that the dispute process is not an appeal mechanism. In response to dissatisfaction with the Board's actions and the NPDB's decision, Dr. Van Boven amended his lawsuit in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Final Order effectively overturned the Initial Order, thus requiring a Void Report submission. He also sought mandamus and injunctive relief to compel the Board to withdraw the Revision Report and submit the Void Report. The Board Defendants claimed sovereign immunity in their plea to the jurisdiction, which was contested by Dr. Van Boven on the grounds of ultra vires acts. The trial court denied his temporary injunction request, granted the plea regarding two defendants (Palazola and Swanholm), and denied it for four others (Freshour, McNeese, Webb, Zaafran), who appealed the denial. Dr. Van Boven cross-appealed the grant of immunity for the two defendants and the denial of his injunction. The court emphasized that subject-matter jurisdiction is a foundational issue, and the review of the plea to the jurisdiction involves assessing whether the plaintiff's pleadings and any evidence sufficiently demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction. The standard of review is de novo, focusing on the plaintiff's allegations and intent, while liberally interpreting pleadings in favor of jurisdiction.

Sovereign immunity protects government officials in Texas from liability for mistakes unless there is a clear legislative waiver, which limits the ability to challenge state agency decisions in court. However, a suit against a state official may proceed if the official acted ultra vires—beyond their legal authority. For a claim to qualify under the ultra vires exception, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the official acted without legal authority or failed to perform a mandated ministerial duty. Ministerial acts are strictly defined by law, while discretionary acts involve judgment.

In the context of this case, the Board Defendants argue the trial court incorrectly denied their plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the evidence does not show they committed any ultra vires acts. Dr. Van Boven contends that the Board Defendants failed to fulfill their ministerial duty by not submitting a Void Report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) after the temporary sanction against him was overturned. He claims that NPDB guidance supports his position that a Void Report is warranted in such circumstances. Conversely, the Board Defendants maintain that they were not required to issue a Void Report and reference NPDB guidance indicating that reporting obligations extend beyond final actions.

The appellate briefing centers on whether the Board's decision to submit a Revision-to-Action Report was correct and compliant with NPDB rules. Disagreement from Dr. Van Boven regarding the Board's interpretation does not establish that the Board acted ultra vires, as ultra vires claims must question an official's authority rather than the correctness of their decision. An erroneous decision made within granted authority does not constitute an ultra vires act. The analysis begins by assessing the Board's authority concerning NPDB-reporting requirements, evaluating the discretion the Board had in reporting the Final Order that dismissed disciplinary action against Dr. Van Boven. The situation parallels Hall v. McRaven, where the court examined the Chancellor's authority based on rules rather than federal law. Here, Chapter 164 of the Occupations Code gives the Board exclusive authority to discipline medical license holders and mandates reporting disciplinary actions to the Secretary of Health and Human Services without imposing specific reporting duties or constraints on interpretation. Thus, the Board is tasked with interpreting federal law in fulfilling its reporting obligations. The conclusion is that the Board did not have a ministerial duty to submit a Void Report, and Dr. Van Boven's claims of exceeding legal authority due to misinterpretation of federal law do not constitute valid ultra vires claims. Dr. Van Boven also contends that the Board's representation of the ALJ’s decision and Final Order as a reinstatement or modification of his license conflicts with state law and Board Rules. His claim, interpreted liberally, suggests that there is no legal authority under state law for the Board to interpret the Final Order as such.

Dr. Van Boven's allegations against the Board regarding the handling of the ALJ’s decision and the Board’s Final Order do not establish a valid ultra vires claim. He contends that the Board’s failure to treat the Final Order as an exoneration for NPDB reporting qualifies as ultra vires conduct; however, his only sought relief is an injunction to submit a Void Report to the NPDB. The core issue is whether the Board's choice to file a Revision-to-Action Report conflicts with its enabling authority. Lacking a specific constraint in the Occupations Code regarding the Board's authority on the Final Order’s legal effect for NPDB reporting, his ultra vires claim fails. 

In his cross-appeal, Dr. Van Boven argues the trial court erred in granting the plea to the jurisdiction concerning Board staff attorneys Swanholm and Palazola, asserting that the Board’s Final Order should be seen as overturning its Initial Action. However, since his requested relief is not prospective, it does not support an ultra vires claim. Additionally, he raises allegations against Swanholm and Palazola regarding their actions during the investigation and disciplinary processes; yet, these claims do not constitute a valid ultra vires claim. Even if his allegations were accepted as true, they challenge past actions without seeking specific relief from them or from the attorneys involved, and do not demonstrate a basis for prospective equitable relief. 

Dr. Van Boven's assertion that the Board's decision to submit a Revision-to-Action report was vindictive does not show it exceeded the Board's authority. Ultimately, he has not established a valid ultra vires claim, leading to the conclusion that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his suit. The court affirmed the plea to the jurisdiction for Swanholm and Palazola while reversing the denial for other Board Defendants, resulting in the dismissal of Dr. Van Boven’s claims against them. The court did not address the denial of his request for temporary injunctive relief as it deemed the jurisdiction issue determinative.