Limits on Disciplining Physicians Upheld : Courts: State justices let stand ruling that barred action against doctors who have sex with patients unless it is proven that they took advantage of their status.

The state Supreme Court on Friday let stand an appellate ruling that limits official disciplinary action against physicians who have sex with their patients.

The action came only one month after Gov. Pete Wilson signed a law prohibiting members of another prominent profession--lawyers--from requiring or implying that their clients must join in a sexual relationship.

In a brief order, the justices refused to review a state Court of Appeal decision last July barring discipline against doctors unless the state can prove they took advantage of their status to induce their patients to have sex. The appellate ruling now becomes binding in trial courts throughout the state.

Under a 1980 law, adopted in the wake of concern over sexual misconduct in the health care field, doctors, dentists, nurses, physical therapists and other professionals may face license revocation or suspension if a sexual relationship with a patient is found “substantially related” to their professional functions.

State officials said in a brief filed with the high court that unless overturned, the appellate decision would have a “significant adverse effect” on disciplinary actions and allow physicians to take advantage of often-vulnerable patients “for their own social pleasure.”

State Assistant Atty. Gen. Alvin J. Korobkin said the high court action would force officials to be more specific in charges against doctors and examine such questions as whether a sexual relationship resulted in poor medical care.

W. Scott Quinlan of Fresno, attorney for the doctor facing discipline in the case, welcomed the high court’s refusal to overturn the appeals court ruling. “That was a victory for us,” Quinlan said. The lawyer said there was no evidence that the doctor abused his professional relationship with the patient.

The case arose from charges by the Medical Board of California against Dr. Michael W. Gromis, a Fresno physician allegedly involved in an affair with a law librarian, Tina Marquez, while she was his patient in 1988.

According to testimony, Marquez told Gromis during an office visit she was emotionally distressed over problems with her husband. The doctor and patient met twice for lunch, then later had sexual intercourse at his home and a motel.

At one point, according to testimony, Marquez asked Gromis if she should see another physician but he said that was not necessary. He then said that he could treat her for anything above the waist but that she should see another physician for anything below the waist, court records said. Later in the year, Marquez ended the relationship and sought psychological counseling.

The medical board, acting on a complaint by Marquez’s husband, suspended Gromis’ right to practice for 90 days and placed him on five years probation.

The board’s action was upheld in San Francisco Superior Court but the Court of Appeal overturned the suspension. The appellate court said that a sexual relationship in itself was insufficient to warrant discipline.

The Superior Court must conduct a further review to determine whether Gromis took advantage of Marquez and whether his failure to refer her to a doctor for counseling was based improperly on his sexual relationship with her, the appellate court said.