One Licensee Critiqued his Formal Disciplinary Hearing:                                           

Physicians have fled the state and even the country trying to escape the unjust treatment at the hands of these “all-powerful” agencies (examples attached, links).

“Defense” attorneys appear to have been in collusion with the Board attorneys suggesting covert financial dealings (Eg. Weddington, Wilson) between these defense attorneys and the prosecuting attorneys employed by the NCMB.

Where does a practitioner’s right to HIPPA privacy end and the Board’s right to disseminate information on a public website begin?

When did Dr. Camnitz or the other NCMB Board last review §90 Medicine and Allied Occupations;


NCMB Hearing Exhibits:

Exhibit#    NCMB Item

1                Complaint A (Matthews)

2                Apology to Ms. Matthews

3                Complaint B (Kanoy)

4                Complaint C (Chase)

5                Complaint D (Caudle)

6                Complaint E (Snow)

7                NCMB Renewal 9/16/10

8                NCMB Renewal 12/19/11

9                NCMB Renewal 10/6/12

10              NCMB Renewal 10/16/13

11              Letter from MAMC to Surry/Northern Hospital

12              Application to Surry/Northern Hospital

15              MAMC Memo Inappropriate Conduct Dr.O

16              Email Oenbrink App to Northern Withdrawn

17              Timeline Re; MAMC/Oenbrink departure

18              Oenbrink Public Letter of Concern

19              August 2011 Appeal to remove PLOC

20              5/30/11 Private Letter of Concern Caudle/Snow

21              9/28/13 Acumen Assessment DC Summary

22              1/25/13 Acumen Treatment DC Summary

23              NCPHP Report

24              3/30/13 NCMB Order for Examination

25              1/4/13 Non-Practice Agreement

26              3/31/2014 RJODO Deposition Transcript

27              Peter Graham PhD CV

28              Logan Graddy MD CV

29              NCPHP Updated Report

30              Response by Dr. Oenbrink to Patient B Complaint

31              8/14/09 Consent Order to PLOC


Witness List;


1.                            Ms. Matthews

2.                            Ms. Kanoy

3.                            Caregiver of Ms. Kanoy

4.                            Ms. Caudle

5.                            Ms. Snow (error on transcript, she was the spouse of, not the patient E)

6.                            Ms. Chase

7.                            Deborah Borawski

8.                            *Charlene Lynette Smith

9.                            *Theresa Michelle Darosett

10.                        *Jacqueline Nadine (Naylor)-King MD

11.                        Robert T. Dickinson PhD

12.                        Peter Graham PhD

13.                        Logan Graddy MD

14.                        Odessa Worthy



1.                 Robert T. Dickinson, PhD

2.                 Odessa Worthy


* Indicates Telephonic Testimony, which was not permitted by the defense; Administrative Judge/Hearing Officer Fred Morelock allowed the testimony.  Just before the hearing panel departed to deliberate, Morelock told them to not consider the telephonic testimony (like trying to take the bullet back after squeezing the trigger).  This was noted on Transcript 1 page 14/15.



Specific Points to Address;

1.                  Numerous federal statutes were violated;

a.      ADA

b.      HIPPA

c.       Constitutional amendments

                                                              i.      4

                                                            ii.      5

                                                          iii.      6

                                                          iv.      14.

2.                  Numerous state statutes were violated, especially Re; 

a.      90-14-6; Unprofessional Conduct; committing of any act contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals (kissing an elderly lady on the forehead, helping a very elderly, very debilitated patient undress-something I’ve done throughout my career without complaints, it happens in ED’s all the time—just watch the TV shows where you’ll see physicians and nurses working hand in hand side by side undressing patients!  

                                                              i.      Dr.O has tried to be helpful to my staff over the years.  This could be misinterpreted as something other than my missing nonverbal cues secondary to my primary diagnosis of Asperger’s, or it could also simply be behavior within the range of normal).

b.      90-14-(a)15j; After the Board has made a nonpublic determination to initiate disciplinary proceedings, but before public charges have been issued, the licensee requesting so in writing, shall be entitled to an informal nonpublic pre-charge conference. At least five days prior to the informal nonpublic pre-charge conference, the Board will provide to the licensee the following: (i) all relevant information obtained during an investigation, including exculpatory evidence except for information that would identify an anonymous complainant.

                                                              i.      Dr.O waited 14 months making requests for such a meeting and for charges to be issued—unbelievable behavior on their part, yet their making accusations against me?

c.       90-14-(a)15i; (v) that the Board will complete its investigation within six months or provide an explanation as to why it must be extended; and (vi) that if the Board makes a decision to initiate public disciplinary proceedings, the licensee may request in writing an informal nonpublic pre-charge conference.

                                                              i.      It took them 14 months to charge Dr.O. They did NOT investigate all of these charges within the 6 month timeframe, Jim Wilson sent an Email documenting that they had no evidence in May 2013

3.                  Numerous defense objections overruled while Mr. Jimison’s objections are sustained in the majority of instances.

4.                  The violation of their scope of training by the NCMB members is every bit as big as the illegal activities brought in in item #6 (above) regarding testimony from MAMC! 

a.      Enforcing scope of practice issues is one of their primary charges, yet without a mental health professional on the Board, they disregarded 2 reports from their consultants recommending my immediate return to practice.  

b.      On the second document, immediate return was essential to therapy planned by Acumen.  

c.       Dr.O had already spent thousands of dollars at Acumen.  Their specific direction was for Dr.O to return in May, August & January to review how things were going with the skills that they taught me.  None of that was possible!  Dr.O wasted $20K!  

d.      The NCPHP should have been the agency that mandated Acumen—they are at least mental health professionals, yet my order came directly from the NCMB itself, an agency practicing outside of the scope of their training by doing so, despite having the NCPHP available.

e.       Their action in this manner holds them even more liable for not following the recommendations of their consultant—they sent Dr.O directly—they are solely responsible for acting on the outcome.  They fumbled it.  They practiced outside of the scope of their training, which is a huge liability to them and disservice to every licensed practitioner in the state.  If they can get away with it, why can’t everybody?  

f.        For that matter, the numbers of actions that should have been referred to the NCPHP but were not, were to numerous to count (NCMBVictims.htm).  

g.      The NCMB holds practitioners liable for errors, yet when they make errors in terms of not referring appropriate cases/actions to the NCPHP, how are they held accountable, what consequences do they face?

h.      Either the NCMB practiced outside of the scope of their training, or, the NCMB members were unaware of the steps involved, the attorney(s) chose to keep the members unaware and made decisions without the direct involvement of their overseeing Board members.  Thus, the attorneys chose to disregard/over-ride the advice of their consultant (Acumen) and are thus guilty of practicing medicine without a license, thus harming Dr.O.

5.                  An appropriate investigation would have disclosed the problems with numerous practitioners from Bethany Medical Center appearing before the Board. 

a.      An Eleanor E. Greene MD is employed at Bethany Medical Center where the majority of the complaints originated.

b.      It was later determined that the principal/owner of BMC has had 6 BMC personnel before the NCMB.  There is a historic pattern of offering his employed physicians their position back at half of the prior compensation after NCMB matters resolve. What are the odds that six licensees from that one practice have disciplinary issues with the NCMB? This is statistically most improbable!

c.       One must assume that there is something going on in that practice when looking at such a statistical improbability, yet nothing of the sort was done.  

d.      Dr. Camnitz overruled the request to recuse Dr. Greene

e.       A disciplinary committee requires at least 3 Board Members, this panel had 7; there would have been no risk or harm in recusing Dr. Greene.

f.        Despite our requests on this matter, Dr. Greene refused to be recused (below).

6.                  Misrepresentation by Jimison in opening statement including comments taken out of context;

a.      Transcript page 16; patient was in her latter 60’s, statement by Jimison is out of context, the patient had initiated banter to which Dr.O was responding.

b.      No gloves mean love” was NOT said in front of patients-taken out of context.

c.       “…would go and grab the patient by her upper thighs…” to describe positioning a patient for an exam with the chaperone in the room and not a single patient complaint.

d.      “…touches staff inappropriately…” 

                                                              i.      Dr. King/supervisor never made any comment/objection to Dr.O regarding physical contact at the time of the contact.

                                                            ii.      No other member of the staff ever made any comment/objection to Dr.O at the time of alleged contact.

1.      Allegations of contact—touching somebody on the shoulder to get their attention.

e.       “…transitions from a bimanual exam to a rectal exam without any notice…”

                                                              i.      Patients were notified with the statement of “Now for the final indignity” as examining finger touched peri-anal area

1.      The patient could have objected.

2.      The assistant would not have been able to perceive where the examining finger was on patients perineum.

f.        “…would not discuss these things (touching/type of exam) beforehand

g.      “…so with all of these sexual jokes, all these inappropriate touchings, all of these rectal exams he’s doing, all these inappropriate comments in April of 2010, Madigan says enough.”

                                                              i.      During the final interview with LC Rosen, she was unable to make any statement more specific than “There have been complaints about you.”

                                                            ii.      Clearly these complaints were generated after the departure of Dr.O from MAMC

                                                          iii.      LC Rosen angrily, loudly threatened Dr.O with loss of his medical license when he asked about the purpose of his sudden conference in her office without any part of Article 15 being followed and after his treatment of the burn pit patient and the thorough documentation on the patient’s chart.

h.      Jimison immediately transitions to Patients D & E (despite the letter from the medical assistant for patient E stating that the event that E complained of had never happened (Pages 19 & 20).

i.        Page 21, 22 Re; PLOC; the audio files had been altered/edited with key material deleted Re; the “Private” vs. “Public” letter of concern discussion at the “Licensure Interview”.

j.        Alludes to departure from MAMC as if Dr.O was aware of the suspension on his application to Northern Hospital in Surry County.

k.      Jimison paints a vivid picture of a dangerous provider with all of the dishonesty, suspensions of medical staff privileges etc.  There’s not a single report to the National Practitioners Data Bank (NPDB), which is required for any of these items.

                                                              i.      Clearly these alleged disciplinary items were tenuous enough that no reports to the NPDB were made.

l.        Referring to licensure renewals, that “on none of those renewals” had Dr.O revealed problems at MAMC & with the FBOME “investigation, when in reality, Dr. O had disclosed these facts on  his renewals of 2011, 2012, & 2013.

m.    Refers to complaints coming in after July 2012 which, if the NCMB had fully investigated they would have noted the pattern with BMC providers receiving multiple complaints over the years, the only practice that this has been found in a decade of NCMB actions.

n.      Regarding Patient “A” (Matthews” complaint: The complainant states that the patient changed practices after this occurrence.  Review of the chart at BMC shows that at least one visit happened afterwards.  I cannot comment on further visits as I was no longer employed there after the one post-occurrence visit.

o.      Regarding Patient “B” (Kanoy), there’s a notarized affidavit from Odessa Worthy, the assistant & chaperone for that visit that validated and verified my version of that visit—this was not disclosed to the panel during the opening statement.   It also directly contradicts what Mr. Jimison portrayed to the panel.

p.      Mr. Jimison states that Dr.O was singled out for “one of the first public Non-Practice Agreements we’ve done.”

q.      Mr. Jimison makes a big deal of the final complaint involving a patient seen, a complaint that the disciplinary panel recognized was not worthy of any disciplinary action and for which no wrongdoing was found by the panel.  He goes on to elaborate that this visit was unchaperoned despite the fact that Dr.O was under no requirement at that point to have a chaperone present (added to the point that the complaint was not legitimate).

r.       Page 31-32; Mr. Jimison tells the panel that Dr.O “…has not followed through with Acumen’s recommendations…”.  Acumen had recommended follow-up visits after Dr.O had returned to patient care.  The NPA would need to be removed for him to do so.  Without removal of the NPA it would have been a direct violation of an order from the NCMB if Dr.O had returned to practice.  This was not mentioned to the panel!

s.       Mr. Jimison tells the panel that the diagnosis “…renders him unfit…”, not that this was the opinion of one treatment center with limited experience based on two visits by Dr.O.  The reason for such a limited number of visits was due to the refusal of the NCMB to follow the recommendations of the treatment center that was chosen by the NCMB.  This essential information was not disclosed to the panel during the opening statement.

7.                  Telephonic testimony from MAMC without consent (Page 44);

a.      That testimony provided damning content that was untrue; the testimony came from subordinates following the orders of Lt. Col. R.

b.      There was no way to ensure who was speaking during this telephonic testimony that originated in the state of Washington.  The basis of law in this country mandates that the defendant be able to face their accuser.  This was clearly denied in telephonic testimony.

c.       Such testimony unfairly prejudiced the panel against Dr.O.  

d.      At the conclusion of the disciplinary, after Dr.O was found guilty and during the “sentencing” phase, the disciplinary panel was told to “disregard the testimony” that had been illegally given.  Such a directive is akin to taking the bullet back after the trigger has been pulled; the damage was already done!  This alone would be grounds for a mistrial in any court of law!

e.       Military subordinates are expected to follow orders from their command.  Failure to do so can have serious adverse repercussions to them and their careers.  

f.        Lt. Col. R clearly was unable to produce a single patient complaint and did threaten me with loss of my license; this is why Dr.O resigned. 

                                                              i.      She could not produce any evidence on the day of resignation. 

                                                            ii.      She was reduced to raising her voice and making threats due to her lack of evidence.

                                                          iii.      The “evidence” was fabricated “after the fact”.

8.                  Telephonic testimony of the wife of Patient “A” (Matthews)

a.      Other than the fact that we don’t know who was on the phone there are other problems.

b.      The persons initial statement; “I went in to see—went with my husband and he kissed me on the forehead.”  (Her statement makes it unclear as to who delivered the kiss, the husband?)

c.       She states that the kiss happened at “more at the end” of the visit, it actually happened the moment Dr.O walked in the door.

d.      Numerous objections by Mr. Morrison Re; exhibits, especially exhibit #2 which was not presented to defense prior to hearing, all objections overruled by Dr. Camnitz, no comment by Judge Morelock.

e.       Subject stated that she felt violated by the apology written by Dr.O. 

f.        Clearly this was not a credible witness, the entire complaint appears to be manufactured or at least distorted.

9.                  Motion by defense to strike remote testimony is denied.

a.      Continuing objection to all remote testimony being admitted and to exhibits 11, 13,14, 15, & 16.

10.              Re; Patient “B” (Kanoy)

a.      Patient testimony directly conflicts with that of the medical assistant/chaperone/witness Odessa Worthy.

b.      Regarding assisting with removing her pants, patient states that “he just did it”.

c.       Admits that “He asked about pulling my clothes down.”

d.      Patient denies that the internal exam was discussed-conflicts with testimony/affidavit of Ms. Worthy.

e.       Patient states that she didn’t even know if the nurse was present at the time.

f.        Patient states she had an EKG done “for my hand” which doesn’t make sense.

                                                              i.      She was seen that day for her annual physical as documented in the medical record.

g.      This is a very poor, confused witness.

h.      Caregiver for “Patient B”

                                                              i.      Admits that there was a request by Dr.O that patient remove her pants.

                                                            ii.      States she has seen patient examined by Dr.O before, which was untrue.

                                                          iii.      States “I was seated in the chair and could see”. 

1.      Her chair was behind Dr.O’s back. 

2.      Dr.O & Odessa were between caregiver and patient.

3.      The caregiver couldn’t possibly see what was happening with the patient.

11.              Patient “D” (Caudle) (This had already been reviewed/released by the NCMB)

a.      States she came to office for follow-up visit regarding anti-depressant medication recheck.

b.      Didn’t even check the medical record and said my sugar level was high

                                                              i.      How would anybody know the sugar level was high without checking?

                                                            ii.      Admits to borderline personality disorder (which she did not disclose during the visit).

                                                          iii.      They experience intense abandonment fears and inappropriate anger even when faced with a realistic time-limited separation or when there are unavoidable changes in plans such as happened with the change in therapy regarding her “antidepressant” (Klonopin) which is subject to abuse and addiction issues—it’s not an antidepressant at all.

                                                          iv.      Witness states “there is no way I could go off the medicine…”

1.      Borderline personality disorder is not treated with medicine, medicine has no relationship/effect with this disorder.

                                                            v.      Witness states that Dr.O told her she would not need her medication if she “believed in God”

1.      A ridiculous statement

2.      Would have never happened

3.      Speaks to the credibility of the witness.

12.              Patient “E” (Snow—this is actually the wife of the patient) (This had already been reviewed/released by the NCMB)

a.       The patient chart note will reflect that;

                                                              i.      The patient was fully examined

                                                            ii.      That all of his medications were renewed

                                                          iii.      Lab tests were reviewed

                                                          iv.      A new medication was added

                                                            v.      Overall, a lot went on during the visit.

b.      The wife clearly doesn’t recall any of these events; “if he ever was examined, I didn’t see it”.

c.       “He got in between me and my husband” is in direct contrast to the letter written by the medical assistant.

d.      Ms. Snow goes on to say “I didn’t say anything to my husband…”

                                                              i.      He was present the entire time, this happened directly in front of him, why would she need to say anything about it to him?

                                                            ii.      She speaks of his having dementia, then states that “he wanted me to come back and confront him about it”. 

1.      This doesn’t sound like something a demented person would say.

2.      She characterizes his dementia; “he wasn’t able to comprehend things and, you know, talk with people, explain his-self.  He couldn’t get what he wanted to say out.”

                                                          iii.      States she thinks the exam room was closed, in direct contrast to the letter written by the medical assistant.

13.              Patient “C” (Chase)

a.       Patient tells Mr. Jimison; “He proceeded to check my ears.   The incident occurred and after that he checked my heart”.

                                                              i.      The “incident” could not have occurred prior to the ears being checked, the “incident” referred to the instrument needed to check the ears”

                                                            ii.      Testimony is false right from the start.

b.      “He never checked my lungs or anything else”

                                                              i.      Untrue

                                                            ii.      Her written complaint states that “he couldn’t check my heart” because of the pendant she was wearing around her neck.

                                                          iii.      She then complains about being told she had a heart murmur

c.       Despite stating that “He never checked my lungs or anything else”

d.      Clearly this is not a reliable witness or valid complaint

e.       The panel did not find Dr.O guilty on this patient

14.              Voir Dire with Dr. Greene by Mr. Morrison

a.       Dr. Greene states she does not know Mr. Duran

b.      Dr. Greene states that she works there 3 days per week, part time

c.       States she started working there June 9th “of this year”.

d.      Denies hearing of Dr.O’s name mentioned at BMC

e.       Mr. Morrison repeats his earlier objection to having Dr. Greene on the panel

                                                              i.      Objection is overruled by Dr. Camnitz

15.              Debbie Borawski Northern Hospital Surry County

16.              Telephonic testimony from MAMC without consent (Page 44);

a.      That testimony provided damning content that was untrue; the testimony came from subordinates following the orders of Lt. Col. R.

b.      There was no way to ensure who was speaking during this telephonic testimony that originated in the state of Washington.  The basis of law in this country mandates that the defendant be able to face their accuser.  This was clearly denied in telephonic testimony.

c.       Such testimony unfairly prejudiced the panel against Dr.O.  

d.      At the conclusion of the disciplinary, after Dr.O was found guilty and during the “sentencing” phase, the disciplinary panel was told to “disregard the testimony” that had been illegally given.  Such a directive is akin to taking the bullet back after the trigger has been pulled; the damage was already done!  This alone would be grounds for a mistrial in any court of law!

e.       Military subordinates are expected to follow orders from their command.  Failure to do so can have serious adverse repercussions to them and their careers.  

f.        Lt. Col. R clearly was unable to produce a single patient complaint and did threaten me with loss of my license; this is why Dr.O resigned. 

                                                              i.      She could not produce any evidence on the day of resignation. 

                                                            ii.      She was reduced to raising her voice and making threats due to her lack of evidence.

                                                          iii.      The “evidence” was fabricated “after the fact”.

17.              There was no reason to bring up the case involving Mrs. S; there is a letter dated 1/10/11 from witness/chaperone Carolyn Smith refuting the allegation by that woman in my NCMB file, it was ignored by Mr. Jimison; the event NEVER OCCURRED.  Despite this, Mr. Jimison used the disproven allegation against me.

-What could be a more clear violation of the 5th Amendment; I was being tried twice on an event that the witness stated had not occurred!

            H; The forms for renewal of licensure are ambiguous at best; 

                        1. Why should a licensee need to disclose to the NCMB that the NCMB investigated and/or disciplined that licensee in the past?   Is the NCMB so incompetent that they don’t already have this information on record?

                        2. Some questions state “have you ever…” while others state “since your last renewal…”.  This is a confusing pattern.  

                        3. Missing questions of this nature is hardly reason to keep a practitioner from working for 14 months.  

                        4. This can be attributed to Asperger’s as an “overlook” matter or as a matter of “misinterpretation” as to the “intent” of the question.  

                        5. On one occasion I was asked by an investigative panel member on why I did not answer questions regarding my past as “yes” and provide an explanation.  The form was completed on a web page that stated clearly to provide an explanation if a “no’ answer was selected for that question.  I had answered “yes”.  There was no opportunity on that webpage to answer “yes” and then provide the explanation that the board member chastised me for not supplying on the form!

                        6. Missing questions at Northern Hospital likewise can be done accidentally without intent to deceive; why would I have intentionally attempted deceit when the information is publicly available on the NCMB site?

            I; Composition of my formal disciplinary panel, §Chapter 90 Medicine and Allied Occupations  states that the panel can be 3 or more Board members.  

-The panel consisted of 7 physicians, 5 women and 2 men including President Camnitz.  

-It was apparent to my counsel, to Dr. Dickinson and to me that they had been briefed and were prejudiced when they walked into the room.

-Each time we entered the room the women on the panel glared and scowled at me, from the initial meeting, when they should have been completely ignorant of the facts of the Formal Disciplinary Hearing, they were very clearly prejudiced against me by their posture and facial expressions.

-This would have been ground for a mistrial in any courtroom. 

-Further, they were likely also advised that a finding of innocent would put the NCMB at great risk of liability regarding my absence from practice for so long.

            J. Disciplinary actions by the Board are reported to the National Practitioners Database (NPDB), ANY disciplinary action or restriction/limitation imposed by the NCMB against a licensee is reported.  

-Actions by the NCPHP are not reported to the NPDB.

-I was already under contract with the NCPHP, a contract that included all of the points that Acumen recommended.

-The NCPHP contract specifies a chaperone with ALL patient contacts.  I’ve never had an issue with male patients.  I don’t think that there needs to be a restriction of this nature when I see male patients and would like to have that removed.

            K. Dr. Camnitz ordered that I have another mental health evaluation, but left it unclear as to when that evaluation would be required to be done; would I be able to see patients once the evaluation was scheduled?

-I had already had 2 evaluations and formal treatment (that was cut short by the NCMB) that indicated that I should have been practicing medicine already.

-Why are they allowed to keep referring me for further testing when each time I’m tested, their experts advise my return to practice? 

-After being out of work for more than 20 months, it will be very difficult for me to find a job.  

-I would like to at the very least do some volunteer work locally for at least a few weeks so that I can be “actively practicing” when I apply for paying jobs. I’d like Dr. Camnitz to verify that this is acceptable. (Note by author; this was never done.)

            L. Failure to sequester witnesses for the prosecution, allowing them to communicate, share information, perhaps conspire.  

-A picture is worth a thousand words, this was taken immediately prior to their testimony at my NCMB formal disciplinary hearing; 



            M. Dr. Greene’s failure to recuse herself was another error on the part of the NCMB; she works at/for BMC, which is where these complaints originated.  

-This is especially problematic in terms of conflict of interest.  Administrative Judge Fred Morelock should have recused her immediately!

            N. Any one of these items should have caused a mistrial!



There are numerous examples of the arbitrary nature of the Board’s actions.

-I do not have permission to release practitioner names of the attached documents to the NCMB due to their fear of retaliation.  

The range and arbitrary nature of disciplinary actions is astounding:


Specific examples of those harmed with a summary of their statement of their version of the events. 

-There has been no semblance of fact in the “Findings of Fact” in any of the events that were uncovered during a review of NCMB disciplinary actions that spanned a full decade as documented elsewhere.



There is a tremendous amount of delay that goes on with most these actions.  

-This intentional tactical maneuver on the part of the NCMB legal department helps to ensure that licensees will accept unreasonable consent orders.  

-The longer the NCMB can keep a practitioner out of work, the more severe the financial stress and other aspects become, including loss of practice, home, office bldg. etc.  

-The legal staff know this and capitalize on this; it exponentially increases the number of consent orders in which a single attorney alone judges the physician.  

-This attorney is not only the judge, but the executioner as well, when the physician is coerced into signing the consent order.  

-This problem is not isolated to NC, it goes on all over the country—Boards are ceding their responsibility to their legal staff attorneys.  

-This demonstrates negligence on the part of the Board Members, allowing the attorneys to perform their duties.

-Egregious delays in dealing with providers who have had allegations made against them are not at all unusual—they seem to be part of the NCMB strategy to force providers to accept punitive actions.  

-We have probably all served on hospital committees in which a member of the Medical Staff Office presents the agenda for the meeting, topics to be covered and then “suggests” how to handle those topics.  Being busy physicians, we often do’t critically review such “suggestions”; it’s easier to accept them and move on.  The legal department of medical boards can act with the Board members in the same manner.

-Medical Boards are actually incentivized to punish as many practitioners as possible, as harshly as possible, as long as possible, by Ralph Nader’s Citizens Watch and the Federation of State Medical Board ranking system.

Eg. This is a common course, illustrating one practitioner;






Physician Assistant Temporary License



Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Licensure



Denial of Licensure



Notice of Hearing on License Denial



Notice of Withdrawal of Request for a Hearing



Notice of Hearing



Request for Hearing



Denial of Licensure



Transcript available for viewing



Order of Discipline



Affidavit of Service



Order Granting Continuance



Order Granting Continuance



Notice of Charges and Allegations; Notice of Hearing



Voluntary Surrender Form


Years may pass before charges are formally made, if they are made at all.  

-Statutorily, investigations must be completed within six months—which is exceedingly rare.  

-There is no semblance to due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Another practitioner;

NCMB public actions are posted on this site indefinitely.





Consent Order



Respondent's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Continue



Respondent's Motion to Allow Videotaping of Hearing



Board's Motion to Continue



Response to Notice of Charges and Allegations



Notice of Hearing



Petitioner's Pre-Hearing Statement



Respondent's Amended Pre-Hearing Statement



Notice of Charges and Allegations (OAH2)



Notice of Charges and Allegations (OAH1)






Order Granting Continuance



Motion to Continue



Motion to Stay Proceedings & Response to Charges



Acceptance of Service



Notice of Charges & Allegations; Notice of Hearing



Order Granting a De Novo Hearing



Board's Response to Respondent's Motion for Mistrial



Respondent's Brief in Support of Motion to Declare Mistrial



Order Granting Extension of Time



Motion for Extension of Time



Motion for Mistrial Transcript Available Upon Request



Motion to Declare a Mistrial



Response to Notice of Charges and Allegations



Order Granting Continuance & Rescheduling Hearing



Acceptance of Service



Motion to Continue Hearing



Notice of Charges and Allegations; Notice of Hearing





Practitioners who have attempted to defend themselves pro se in front of the NCMB are strongly urged by the staff there to obtain counsel.  These accused licensees are specifically steered toward certain attorneys who work exclusively with or spend a great deal of their practice in dealings with the NCMB. 

-These “defense” attorneys then charge exorbitant fees; it’s not uncommon for fees of >$100,000.00 “up front” to take to formal hearing a case without substantial witnesses with minimal wrong-doing on the part of the practitioner with allegations against them.  

-The cost of these actions alone acts in a discriminatory manner to prevent maliciously accused practitioners from seeking the truth while de facto forcing them to sign inaccurate, inflammatory consent orders.  

-Attorney Jim Wilson wanted a $70,000 retainer in cash, paid in full up front from me in addition to the $30,000 that MagMutual had remaining in their budget earmarked for my defense.  He wanted $100,000 paid in full before he would do anything to defend me in a formal disciplinary hearing in which there was no evidence of any serious wrongdoing!  

-One practitioner reported that when he attempted to defend himself pro se, the NCMB legal director asked for his documents “so that he could make copies for each board member on the hearing panel”.  The documents disappeared.  The legal director stated that they “were lost”. 

-Essentially, the director stole all of his defensive evidence immediately prior to the hearing (in which he had no defense and thus lost his case and thus his ability to practice).



This arbitrary nature of disciplinary actions combined with the excessive cash demands raises the question of what arrangements are in effect between the “Defense” attorneys and the NCMB’s legal department.  

-The fact that more than one NCMB attorney is involved in these extremely arbitrary Board actions implicates Mr. Mansfield and Henderson with the other staff attorneys working for the NCMB.  

-The only rational explanation for the arbitrary pattern in terms of the nature and range of disciplinary actions would be related to bribes and payoffs.


7.  The (NCOSA) of April 2014 by the NC Office of the State Auditor revealed numerous deficiencies, which have harmed licensees via the NCPHP.  The NCMB is obligated to take these into consideration in their actions and to investigate the responsible parties in the NCPHP for unethical behavior as professional misconduct.  The NCOSA’s findings are that;

a) There was no assurance of due process for physicians evaluated;

b) No assurance of a fair evaluation by NCPHP or its preferred programs;

c) No assurance of a fair evaluation by NCPHP or its preferred programs without undue burden;

d) No assurance of absence of one or more levels of conflict of interest;

e) No prevention of violation of medical protocol in terms of ability to access to one’s assessment report and amend it (= “no medical due process”)

f) No means to protest evaluation done by NCPHP (also “no medical due process”) as the complaint process was not explained and the complaint committee consisted of the same people who did the evaluation;

g) No internal self-monitoring controls by the NCPHP program itself or its extensive Board of Directors;

h) No external control by the two agencies legally responsible both for parenting the program and for monitoring its function (i.e. NCMB and the medical society - NCMS), and…

                        i) Therefore, very real potential exists for adverse harm to career, reputation, finances [and, not mentioned, one’s patient population] and life of practitioners. 

                        j) Agencies (such as Acumen) referred to must stop providing payments and other services to the NCPHP in exchange for referrals.

-The actions above constitute professional misconduct.

-The NCPHP psychiatrist/MD’s involved, who work so closely with the NCMB was never investigated, much less charged for any wrongdoing.

-This is further evidence of the nature of how these institutions operate.



Failure to report unprofessional/unethical behavior among other physicians, including NCMB members is itself an example of unprofessional conduct.  

-Logan Graddy told me on 5/1/13 that he had tried to advocate on my behalf but that Mr. Jimison replied that he was not interested in Dr. Graddy’s opinion.  

-At this point Dr. Graddy, being new to the NCPHP had a responsibility to discuss this with his superior Dr. Pendergast.  

-Dr. Graddy then informed me that there was nothing he could do to advocate for me.  

-The NCPHP’s website  clearly states that the mission statement for the NCPHP is that that it provides “Advocacy for successful participants with the NC Medical Board, insurance companies, employers, families and others”.  

-This documented failure to do so represents further professional misconduct on the part of Doctors Logan & Pendergast as detailed above.  

-Due to their breach of their contractual obligations, I should have been excused from my contract as of 5/1/13, the date that Dr. Graddy made his assertion to me.  I completed the two-year contract without difficulty, under the burden of the requirements of that contract without the advocacy by the NCPHP that the contract specified was due to me.

-The NCMB can discipline licensees who fail to report another professional discipline and sanction for such a failure to report.

-There are several untimely deaths of practitioners related to the NCMB abuse! 

-Numerous patient deaths have been reported due to psychiatrists who have been suddenly and unreasonably removed from practice.  Patients who were unable to form an adequate therapeutic alliance with a new practitioner have resorted to suicide.



Some states will list that there have been “Actions” against a provider without going into detail; this provides a level of privacy to the provider.

-If disciplinary actions were taken, then they’ll bee recorded on the National Practitioners Database where they can be reviewed.  

-Criminal behavior will be recorded on the records of the appropriate criminal court.  The NCMB leaves charges indefinitely, including charges which lead to no discipline/evidence of guilt.

-This is defamation/slander and should stop immediately!



Discrimination against disabled physicians (Me/Asperger’s, those recovering from addiction to legal medications) is a violation of the Federal ADA Statutes.  

-The NCPHP’s failure to effectively advocate on my behalf makes them liable as well.



Posting information about health problems such as addiction and other conditions, especially mental health issues on the public site are a HIPPA violation of the physicians rights.  

-There are other states that refrain from this behavior.



There have been numerous cases in the actions reviewed in which the NCPHP should have been consulted but were not.  

-There is no evidence that the NCMB has ever been held accountable for these oversights.  

-When the NCMB itself is suspected of engaging in unprofessional conduct, the report is best made to the NC Attorney General and Justice Departmentthe NC State Bureau of Investigation, and The Wake County District Attorney

-To date, there is no evidence that this action has ever been taken by anybody against the NCMB.  

-Should the courtesy of considering certain transgressions of law as accidental vs. intentional be provided only to the NCMB/NCPHP?  

-I believe that everybody occasionally makes errors, overlooks details at times without intend to deceive or harm.  

-Unfortunately, licensees generally don’t receive the same respect!  In my case, I was confused and ran afoul of licensure application and renewal questions as well as an oversight on a hospital privileging form.



Review the initial Orders sent by Mr. Jimison vs. the version that we assembled to demonstrate the unreasonable anger and bias Mr. Jimison has in preparing the documents.

-Multiple times he asserts that "the Board has the power to…" listing all of the various disciplinary actions other than probation.  

-This phrase could have been listed once at the bottom conclusions of the order.  

-His repetitive assertions serve to intimidate the accused.  

-This pattern and other observed behaviors of his is compatible with a classic DSM-V Axis II Antisocial/Psychopathic disorder that would likely benefit from psychiatric evaluation regarding fitness for duty and assistance (I assert this as a Board-Certified Family Physician, who as a BCFP has had training in mental health issues).



What types of documents do the other attorneys produce as compared to those produced by Mr. Jimison?  

-Is the anger/bias/bitterness present in their documents?  

-I did not find this to be the case in my review, but didn’t have the author of every document, only of a partial list.  

-My sampling however demonstrated unreasonable bias from Mr. Jimison.

-Mr. Jimison allows his personal emotions to cloud his judgment in a non-professional manner.



Bringing the WNCN news reporter and photographer/videographer through the side door of the NCMB at the conclusion of the hearing was very suspicious of behavior designed to harass the defendant.  

-How often does this activity occur?

-If these hearings are private, why was my wife not allowed to be present?  She was ushered out of the room at the start of the proceedings.

-Why would personnel from a news agency be allowed into private proceedings when the spouse is not allowed to be present?



Wake County Superior Court (and others) will undoubtedly find this information of interest; does the NCMB really need another black eye there?

-It clearly lost the Fenn case.



Perhaps Dr. Camnitz should consider contacting the NC Attorney General to review options

-Jimison’s delay on preparing the final document for almost 5 months to evade Camnitz is a classic example of this as noted in 16-E above.

-The actions of the “Big 3” certainly give the appearance of impropriety with even the most cursory evaluation.

-How could the NCMB Board members be unaware of such a pervasive pattern of actions among the “Big 3”?



Peter Graham PhD was the representative from Acumen. 

He was unaware of all that had gone on there with me as Scott Stacey PhD was my PRIMARY therapist with whom I worked in all of my individual sessions. 

-By sending in a different therapist, the entire truth was not available to us. 

-There were contradictions between Grahams testimony and the Acumen reports.



Reference on orders drafts to my “resignation of privileges”. 

-My interpretation of these issue of “loss of privileges” is resignation of specific procedure privileges such as intubation or things such as admitting privileges—not to resign from a job completely. 

-I think that this is a very real and important distinction that shows I wasn’t being intentionally dishonest.

-The phrase “in good faith” appears 57 times in §Chapter 90 Medicine and Allied Occupations.  

-This communiqué clearly documents the repeated, frequent lack of “good faith”.


The NCMB legal staff’s responsibility includes protecting the NCMB and it’s members from risk/liability.  Does the information presented in this document lead to that conclusion?


Do Dr. Camnitz and the Board Members want to personally assume this degree of liability as the President of the NCMB?