Judge Blocks Part of Doctors’ Disclosure Law : Medicine: Ruling prevents board from revealing discipline that was recommended but not taken.

Ruling in favor of doctors’ privacy rights, a Sacramento Superior Court judge barred the Medical Board of California on Thursday from disclosing disciplinary recommendations it has made against physicians.

The ruling by Judge Ronald B. Robie nullified a key element of a new disclosure policy instituted by the medical board Oct. 1 to give consumers greater access to information about doctors. The decision was hailed as a victory by the state’s largest physician organization, the California Medical Assn., which has vigorously opposed the new policy.

The ruling lets stand other segments of the policy that permit the disclosure of doctors’ felony convictions, past disciplinary action by other states and malpractice judgments exceeding $30,000.

In a two-page order granting the medical association a preliminary injunction, Robie said it is proper to reveal formal charges filed against doctors but to disclose recommendations for disciplinary action would invade their privacy rights. “The court concludes that the constitutional privacy rights of (doctors) are not outweighed by any compelling state interest,” he wrote.

Without the disclosure, Robie said, consumers could still be protected because the board has authority to seek emergency suspension of the license of any doctor it considers a danger to the public.

Until Robie’s ruling, the policy had permitted the board to disclose when it had completed investigations against doctors and decided to recommend to the attorney general that disciplinary action be taken against a physician’s license. Once the recommendation is made, the attorney general must determine if charges are to be filed. If the charges are proved, the doctor can be disciplined in a variety of ways, including the suspension or revocation of the license to practice.

Saying that the ruling is regrettable, Julianne D’Angelo of the University of San Diego’s Center for Public Interest Law, said it will deprive consumers of the right to know when the board suspects a doctor is incompetent, dishonest or impaired. Because of understaffing, she said, it sometimes takes a year for the attorney general to file charges against doctors once the medical board has completed an investigation.

She said seeking emergency suspensions is only practical in a few cases.

Now that the court has ruled against the disclosures, she said, doctor license fees should be increased by at least $100 a year to pay for more staff members to process cases more quickly in the attorney general’s office. “(Doctors) can’t have their cake and eat it too,” she said.