Disciplinary Action
against Kenneth M. Jones, M.D.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


In 2009, Kenneth Jones, M.D., who practices plastic surgery in Wenatchee, Washington, was charged with unprofessional conduct for aiding and abetted the unlicensed practice of medicine. As described below, this involved allowing unlicensed persons to (a) evaluate clients, (b) provide injections, (c) use his name to obtain and use equipment, and/or (d) use his DEA number to obtain medications. He did this while serving as a consultant to clinics operated by people who lacked appropriate credentials. Jones was also charged with inappropriately prescribing hormones to nine patients. (His Web site at that time stated that he had been certified by the Cenegenics Medical Institute and suggested that "hormonal support" would help people to regain and maintain youthful vigor.") In 2010, the charges were settled with an agreed order under which his license was suspended for 30 days, after which he was placed on probation for five years. He was also fined $10,000 and permanently prohibited from promoting, prescribing, or otherwise providing thyroid hormones, human growth hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin, testosterone, or other anabolic steroids.


STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

KENNETH M. JONES, MD
License No. MD00028268

Respondent.

|
|
|
|
|
|

No. M2007-58443
(07-10-A-1067MD)

THIRD AMENDED
STATEMENT OF CHARGES

The Disciplinary Manager of the Medical Quality Assurance Commission (Commission), on designation by the Commission, makes the allegations below, which are supported by the evidence contained in case number 2005-45266 (program file number 2005-12-0035), case number 2007-49098 (program file number 2007-06-0086) and case number 2008-49099 (program file number 2008-01-0026). The patients referred to in this Third Amended Statement of Charges are identified in the attached Confidential Schedule.

1. ALLEGED FACTS

1.1 On February 24, 1991, the state of Washington issued Respondent a credential to practice as a physician and surgeon. Respondent's credential is currently active.

1.2 Respondent is a board-certified plastic surgeon. Respondent has an office-based plastic surgery practice located in Wenatchee, Washington.

1.3 Pacific Laser & Skin (Pacific) is a limited liability company registered in the state of Washington. Between at least 2004 and 2006, Pacific operated a facility in Seattle that provided a number of services to its clients, including mesotherapy, Restylane® and Botox™ injections. The owners of Pacific were not licensed health care providers in the state of Washington.

1.4 Botox™ is a trade name for botulinum toxin. It is injected into the muscle to remove wrinkles. Botox™ is a prescription medication.

1.5 Restylane® is a trade name for a specific formulation of non-animal sourced hyaluronic acid. Restylane® is injected into the face to remove wrinkles or to augment lips. Restylane® is a prescription medication.

1.6 Mesotherapy is a cosmetic procedure in which small quantities of a "mesotherapy cocktail" pharmaceutical medication, homeopathic medication, and other ingredients are injected into the subcutaneous fat to break down fat deposits. The mesotherapy cocktail provided to patients at Pacific consisted of 4cc lecithin, 4cc aminopylline, 2cc levocarnitine, and 2cc 2% lidocaine. Aminophylline, levocarnitine and lidocaine are prescription medications.

1.7 In 2004, Respondent entered into an agreement to serve as the medical director of Pacific. Respondent agreed to supervise the staff, either in person when he was in Seattle or by phone if he was in Wenatchee. In return, the owners of Pacific agreed to promote Respondent's plastic surgery practice. Respondent knew that he was the only physician working with the staff at Pacific. Respondent served as the medical director until he resigned in April 2006.

1.8 In 2005, Respondent provided his DEA registration number to the staff at Pacific to order Botox™ and Restylane® for use in the facility. The staff at Pacific did not have the legal authority to order prescription medication.

1.9 Respondent was in Pacific's facility approximately five days in 2004 and approximately sixteen days in 2005. Respondent did not visit the facility in 2006.

1.10 During Respondent's tenure as medical director for Pacific, Respondent was aware that staff members routinely evaluated patients, determined whether they were appropriate candidates for treatment, and injected Botox, Restylane and a mesotherapy cocktail into patients without an order from, and not in the presence of, Respondent. By doing so, these staff members engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine. Respondent aided and abetted this unlicensed practice of medicine.

1.11 Under the "corporate practice of medicine doctrine," a corporation, partnership, or similar entity generally may not practice medicine. No exception to the doctrine applies to this case.

1.12 Between at least 2004 and 2006, Pacific, through its employees, provided medical care to patients in the state of Washington, and, thus, engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine in the state of Washington. Respondent aided and abetted this unlicensed practice of medicine.

1.13 Allure Laser Center and Skin Restoration (Allure) is a limited liability company registered in the state of Washington. From 2005 to 2007, Allure operated a facility in Yakima that provided a number of services to its clients, including hair removal with a prescription laser device and a prescription intense pulsed light device. Allure advertises its facility as a "medical day spa."

1.14 The owners of Allure were Robyn Fiebelkorn and Adrianne Phillips. Ms. Fiebelkorn holds a credential to practice as a surgical technician in the state of Washington. Ms. Phillips does not hold a credential to practice a health care profession in the state of Washington.

1.15 In the summer of 2005, Respondent entered into an agreement with Allure to serve as the medical director of Allure facility in Yakima. As medical director, Respondent agreed to supervise Ms. Fiebelkorn and Ms. Phillips. In return, the owners of Allure agreed to promote Respondent's plastic surgery practice. Respondent knew he was the only physician working with the staff at Allure. Respondent served as the medical director until he resigned in April 2007.

1.16 During his tenure as medical director, Respondent helped Allure purchase a McCue intense pulsed light device by providing the owners' names to a distributor for the device, and by permitting the owners to use his name and medical license to enter into a lease-to-buy agreement with the distributor. A McCue intense pulsed light device is a prescription device that can be sold only to persons with prescriptive authority. Respondent aided and abetted unlicensed practice by assisting the owners of Allure to purchase or lease a device they had no legal authority to purchase or lease.

1.17 During Respondent's tenure as medical director of Allure, both Ms. Fiebelkorn and Ms. Phillips used prescription laser and prescription intense pulsed light devices to perform hair-removal procedures on numerous clients.

1.18 The use of a prescription device to perform hair-removal procedures is the practice of medicine. Ms. Fiebelkorn and Ms. Phillips engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine each time they used a prescription device to remove hair from a client.

1.19 As medical director of Allure, Respondent aided and abetted the unlicensed practice of medicine each time a prescription device was used in the office.

1.20 On or about February 2, 2007, Ms. Fiebelkorn used an EpiLight intense pulsed light device to attempt to remove a tattoo from Client A's hand. The Federal Food and Drug Administration approved the use of this particular device for hair removal, not tattoo removal. The FDA designated this particular device as a prescription device. Following the procedure, Ms. Fiebelkorn gave no instructions to Client A, other than telling her not to get the area wet, and that Client A should return in one month. Ms. Fiebelkorn's treatment resulted in third-degree burns to the skin on Client A's hand. Client A's hand subsequently became infected and required treatment at a local hospital.

1.21 The use of a prescription device to remove a tattoo is the practice of medicine. Ms. Fiebelkorn engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine by using a prescription intense pulsed light device to attempt to remove a tattoo from Client A's hand. As medical director of Allure, Respondent aided and abetted the unlicensed practice of medicine.

1.22 Ms. Fiebelkorn inappropriately used a prescription device for an unapproved use, and injured a client. As medical director of Allure, Respondent failed to adequately supervise Ms. Fiebelkorn's treatment of Client A.

1.23 Under the "corporate practice of medicine doctrine," a corporation, partnership, or similar entity generally may not practice medicine. No exception to the doctrine applies to this case.

1.24 Between 2005 and 2007, Allure, through its employees, provided medical care to patients in the state of Washington, and, thus, engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine in the state of Washington. By acting as the medical director for Allure, Respondent aided and abetted this unlicensed practice of medicine.

***

1.25 In 2007, Respondent began promoting an "age management" practice on a web site at www.agemanagementnorthwest.com. The web site stated that Respondent is certified by the Cenegenics Medical Institute. The site states:

Through nutrition, exercise and hormonal support, Age Management Northwest helps to regain and maintain youthful vigor. Our process results in a healthier and happier life. Will you live longer? Probably, but we haven't proven that—yet. As essential hormones diminish, insulin and cortisol increase, bringing some of the recognizable results of the aging process.

1.26 In February 2007, Respondent was interviewed on Evening Magazine, a television news program on KING-TV in Seattle. Respondent told the reporter that he takes human growth hormone every morning and a steroid stimulator twice a week. Respondent stated, "If you do this, you're going to have a longer, happier, healthier life."

1.27 According to Federal law, specifically the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, subchapter III (Prohibited Acts and Penalties), §333 (e), growth hormone can be distributed in adults only for medical diseases or other recognized medical condition authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 21 U.S.C. § 355. According to FDA labeling during the time that the Respondent prescribed and participated in the distribution of growth hormone, those three medical indications were:

AIDS wasting syndrome, short bowel syndrome and Growth Hormone Deficiency. Furthermore, the FDA has made it clear that anti-aging, athletic enhancement and body-building are not medical diseases. Along these lines, "regaining youthful vigor," as the respondent advertised on his website, cannot be regarded as treating a medical disease.

1.28 Growth Hormone Deficiency ("GHD") is a rare disorder affecting approximately 1-4 adults per 1 0,000 adults in the population. It is most often due to cancer involving the anterior pituitary gland, or treatment of that cancer, resulting in that gland's inability to produce appropriate amounts of usually 2 or more of the 6 hormones produced by the anterior pituitary gland (which includes growth hormone). Another cause of GHD, again, very rare, is panhypopituitarism, where the entire pituitary gland is damaged, usually by trauma, a stroke or shock. Such individuals present as extremely sick until the accurate diagnosis is made and appropriate treatment is instituted. There is a form of congenital GHD, usually due to a genetic defect that causes the inability to produce appropriate amounts of growth hormone that requires growth hormone administration in adulthood as well as childhood.

To make a diagnosis of GHD in an adult without a history of congenital GHD, the standard of care requires a physician to base the diagnosis on a combination of documented pituitary or hypothalamic disease AND an inappropriately low production of growth hormone in response to an administered stimulation test. Persistently low IGF-1 levels and low levels of pituitary hormones other than growth hormone (e.g. panhypopituitarism) might not require a stimulation test for an accurate diagnosis of GHD due to panhypopituitarism.

A clinical study of normally aging adults in a 2002 issue of the top-tier medical journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, documented a high risk to benefit ratio for the administration of growth hormone to these subjects with up to a 50% rate of adverse effects, including joint pains, swelling and, in 13%, diabetes. A 2008 article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which assessed the results of 31 clinical studies where growth hormone was administered to healthy adults, again reasserted an unacceptably high risk to benefit ratio. The authors of both publications and consensus statements from the two major Professional Endocrinology Associations state that growth hormone should not be provided for purposes other than those allowed by the FDA (the Secretary of Health and Human Services).

1.29 According to Washington State Law RCW 69.41.320(1), Practitioners are restricted from prescribing, administering or dispensing steroids, as defined in RCW 69.41.300, for the purpose of manipulating hormones to increase muscle mass, strength or weight, without a medical necessity to do so.

Under Washington law, RCW 69.41.300, steroids includes testosterone, any derivative that acts in the same manner as testosterone, and human growth hormone.

1.30 Respondent began seeing Patient B, a 45-year old male, in March 2007. One of Patient B's "healthcare goals" was to increase his lean muscle mass. Respondent diagnosed Patient B with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone to Patient B shortly thereafter. Patient B had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient B had an IGF-1 level of 130, which was within the laboratory's normal range of 86 to 220. Endocrinologists do not rely upon an IGF-1 level to make a correct diagnosis of GHD. There was no evidence of any other pituitary hormonal deficiencies, such as low thyroid function tests or low serum testosterone. The diagnoses of GHD, as incorrectly diagnosed by the Respondent, and the Respondent's prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient B was below the standard of care and created a potential risk of harm to Patient B.

1.31 (a) Respondent began seeing Patient C, a 68-year old male, in November 2006. One of Patient C's "healthcare goals" was to re-gain his muscle mass. Respondent diagnosed Patient C with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone. Patient C had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient C had an IGF-1 level of 126, which was within the laboratory's normal range of 75 to 225. Endocrinologists do not rely upon an IGF-1 level to make a correct diagnosis of GHD. There was no evidence of any other pituitary hormonal deficiencies, such as low thyroid function tests or low serum testosterone. The diagnoses of GHD and the prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient C was below the standard of care and created a potential risk of harm to Patient C.

1.31(b) In November of 2006 Respondent also diagnosed Patient C as having a low testosterone level of 649, based on his Quest Diagnostic lab results, and prescribed testosterone for Patient C. The Quest reference range for a normal testosterone level is 250 to 1100. Dr. Jones might have attempted to indicate that the patient's testosterone level was low by using the Cenegenics-supplied normal range for testosterone of 700 to 900. But according to what would be regarded as the standard of care, that is, using the laboratory range supplied by the lab that performed the test, Patient C's testosterone level was normal. Thus, prescribing testosterone to Patient C, without laboratory evidence of testosterone deficiency, was below the standard of care and created a risk of harm to Patient C.

1.32 Respondent began seeing Patient D, a 42-year old female, in March 2007. Respondent diagnosed Patient D with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone. Patient 0 had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient D had an IGF-1 level of 132, which was within the normal range of 88 to 249. Endocrinologists do not rely upon an IGF-1 level to make a correct diagnosis of GHD. There was no evidence of any other pituitary hormonal deficiencies, such as low thyroid function tests or low serum testosterone. The diagnoses of GHD and prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient D was below the standard of care and created a potential risk of harm to Patient D.

1.33(a) Respondent began seeing Patient E, a 45-year old male, in January 2008. One of Patient E's "healthcare goals" was to have more energy and endurance. Respondent diagnosed Patient E with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone. Patient E had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient E had an IGF-1 level of 109, which was within the normal range of 86 to 220. Particularly when one notes that the blood was obtained in the morning, when IGF-11evels are usually low, the diagnosis of GHD is all the more unlikely (note that endocrinologists do not rely on an IGF-1 level to make a diagnosis of adult GHD). There was no evidence of any other pituitary hormonal deficiencies, such as low thyroid function tests or low serum testosterone. The diagnoses of GHD and the prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient E was below the standard of care and created a potential risk of harm to Patient E.

1.33(b) Respondent's records for Patient E show that Patient E reported having high blood pressure and was diagnosed with sleep apnea about four months prior to his first meeting with Respondent. In spite of this, Respondent has no notes of performing a physical examination of Patient E or communicating with or requesting records from Patient E's primary care physician. Some reports indicate that human growth hormone supplementation can worsen high blood pressure and sleep apnea.

1.33(c) In July of 2008 Respondent also diagnosed Patient E as having clinically significant low testosterone production, despite a level of 487, which is normal according to the Qwest Laboratory normal reference range (250 to 1 "100). Dr. Jones might have attempted to indicate that the patient's testosterone level was low by using the Cenegenics-supplied normal range for testosterone of 700 to 900. But according to what would be regarded as the standard of care, that is, using the laboratory range supplied by the lab that performed the test, Patient E's testosterone level was normal. Because Patient E's testosterone level was normal, according to the Qwest laboratory's reference range, there would be no anticipated medical benefit to Patient E from testosterone. Dr. Jones' prescribing of it was below the standard of care and created a risk of harm to Patient E. Furthermore, this patient was noted to have high blood pressure and obstructive sleep apnea, both of which are relative contraindications for the administration of testosterone, since testosterone can cause or make these conditions worse.

1.34(a) Respondent began seeing Patient F, a 52-year old male, in March 2007. One of Patient F's "healthcare goals" was to feel more energetic and vital. Respondent diagnosed Patient F with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone. Patient F had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient F had an IGF-1 level of 158, within the normal range of 87 to 225. Endocrinologists do not rely upon an IGF-1 level to make a correct diagnosis of GHD. The diagnoses of GHD and the prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient F was below the standard of care and created a potential risk of harm to Patient F.

1.34(b) In January of 2009 Respondent also diagnosed Patient F as having a low testosterone level of 774 based on his Quest lab results and prescribed testosterone for Patient F. The Quest reference range for a normal testosterone level is 250 to 1100. Because Patient F's testosterone level was normal, even considering the Cenegenics' suggested normal range of 700-900, there is no laboratory evidence of clinically significant low testosterone production and, therefore, prescribing testosterone was below the standard of care.

1.34(c) Respondent's records for Patient F show that on March 27, 2008 Respondent agreed with Patient F's decision to stop his medications. Respondent has no other notes or lab results for Patient F between November 20,2007, and January 20, 2009. Patient F's chart notes that Patient F has sleep apnea. In spite of this, Respondent has no physical exam notes and did not request records from Patient F's primary care physician. In light of the patient's diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea, by prescribing testosterone to this patient, Dr. Jones placed the patient at increased risk of worsening his obstructive sleep apnea and placing him at risk of other known adverse events associated with testosterone supplementation, including high blood pressure.

1.35 Respondent began seeing Patient G, a 69-year old male, in August 2007. Respondent diagnosed Patient G with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone. Patient G had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient G had a IGF-1 level of 240, above the normal range of 75 to 228. There was no evidence of any other pituitary hormonal deficiencies, such as low thyroid function tests or low serum testosterone. The diagnoses of GHD and the prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient G was below the standard of care and created a potential risk to Patient G.

1.36(a) Respondent began seeing Patient H, a 57-year old male, in January 2008. Respondent diagnosed Patient H with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone. Patient H had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient H had an IGF-1 level of 90, within the normal range of 87 to 225. Endocrinologists do not rely upon an IGF-1 level to make a correct diagnosis of GHD. There was no evidence of any other pituitary hormonal deficiencies, such as low thyroid function tests or low serum testosterone. The diagnoses of GHD and the prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient H was below the standard of care and created a potential risk to Patient H.

1.36(b) In January of 2008 Respondent also diagnosed Patient H as having clinically significant low testosterone production despite a testosterone level of 403, which is normal according to the Qwest Laboratory normal reference range (250 to 1100). Dr. Jones might have attempted to indicate that the patient's testosterone level was low by using the Cenegenics-supplied normal range for testosterone of 700 to 900. But according to what would be regarded as the standard of care, that is, using the laboratory range supplied' by the lab that performed the test, Patient H's testosterone level was normal. Because Patient H's testosterone level was normal according to the Qwest laboratory's reference range, there would be no anticipated medical benefit to Patient H from testosterone. Dr. Jones' prescribing and contributing to the distribution of testosterone without a substantiated medical reason falls below the acceptable standard of medical care and poses unnecessary medical risks for the patient (such as obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and elevated LDL cholesterol and low HDL cholesterol).

1.37(a) Respondent began seeing Patient I, a 50-year old male, in September 2007. One of Patient I's "healthcare goals" was regaining vitality. Respondent diagnosed Patient I with GHD and prescribed human growth hormone. Patient I had no documented evidence of pituitary or hypothalamic disease, nor was there any documentation of a stimulation test having been performed to document abnormal anterior pituitary function. Patient I had an IGF-1 level of 160, within the normal range of 86 to 220. Endocrinologists do not rely upon an IGF-1 level to make a correct diagnosis of GHD. There was no evidence of any other pituitary hormonal deficiencies, such as low thyroid function tests or low serum testosterone. The diagnoses of GHD and the prescribing of human growth hormone to Patient I was below the standard of care and created a potential risk to Patient I.

1.37(b) Patient I reported in his medical history to Respondent that he had a liver biopsy in 2004, and that he was cured of HCV (Hepatitis C virus). Patient I also stated that his mother had endocrine issues and that he was pre-diabetic. In spite of this, Respondent did not do an extensive physical examination on Patient I and did not request records from Patient I's primary care physician. Particularly in light of the patient's family history of diabetes, Dr. Jones placed patient I at even greater risk of developing diabetes by unnecessarily prescribing and contributing to the distribution of growth hormone to this patient.

1.37(c) In September of 2007 Respondent also diagnosed Patient I as having clinically significant low testosterone production despite a testosterone level of 717, which is normal based on the Qwest Laboratory normal reference range (250 to 1100). Dr. Jones might have attempted to indicate that the patient's testosterone level was low by using the Cenegenics-supplied normal range for testosterone of 700 to 900. Because Patient I's testosterone level was normal according to the Qwest laboratory's reference range (and even the Cenegenics' range), there would be no anticipated medical benefit to Patient I from human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) which stimulates testosterone production. Dr. Jones' prescribing and contributing to the distribution of HCG without a substantiated medical reason falls below the acceptable standard of medical care. Furthermore, the medical standard of care would have required that the patient's luteinizing hormone level be checked, to determine the need for HCG.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

2.1 Based on the Alleged Facts, Respondent has committed unprofessional conduct in violation of RCW 18.130.180 (1), (4), (6), (7), (10) and (14), 21 U.S.C.

333( e)(1), RCW 69.41 .040 and RCW 69.41.320 which provide in part:

RCW 18.130.180
Unprofessional conduct. The following conduct, acts, or conditions constitute unprofessional conduct for any license holder or applicant under the jurisdiction of this chapter:

(1) The commission of any act involving morale turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption relating to the practice of the person's profession, whether the act constitutes a crime or not.

. . .

(4) Incompetence, negligence, or malpractice which results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed. The use of a nontraditional treatment by itself shall not constitute unprofessional conduct, provided that it does not result in injury to a patient or create an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed;

(6) The possession, use, prescription for use, or distribution of controlled substances or legend drugs in any way other than for legitimate or therapeutic purposes, diversion of controlled substances or legend drugs, the violation of any drug law, or prescribing controlled substances for oneself;

(7) Violation of any state or federal statute or administrative rule regulating the profession in question, including any statute or rule defining or establishing standards of patient care or professional conduct or practice;

(10) Aiding or abetting an unlicensed person to practice when a license is required;

. . .

(14) Failure to adequately supervise auxiliary staff to the extent that the consumer's health or safety is at risk.

. . .

21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1):
(e) Prohibited distribution of human growth hormone.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute, human growth hormone for any use in humans other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 505 and pursuant to the order of a physician, is guilty of an offense punishable by not more than 5 years in prison, such fines as are authorized by title 18, United States Code, or both.

RCW 69.41.040
(1) A prescription, in order to be effective in legalizing the possession of legend drugs, must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by one authorized to prescribe the use of such legend drugs. An order purporting to be a prescription issued to a drug abuser or habitual user of legend drugs, not in the course of professional treatment, is not a prescription within the legal meaning of and intent of this section; and the person who knows or should know that he or she is filling such an order, as well as the person issuing it, may be charged with violation of this chapter. A legitimate medical purpose shall include use in the course of a bona fide research program in conjunction with a hospital or university.

RCW 69.41.320
(1 )(a) A practitioner shall not prescribe, administer, or dispense steroids, as defined in RCW 69.41.300, or any form of autotransfusion for the purpose of manipulating hormones to increase muscle mass, strength, or weight, or for the purpose of enhancing athletic ability, without a medical necessity to do so.

(b) A person violating this subsection is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and is subject to disciplinary action under RCW 18.130.180.

(2) A practitioner shall complete and maintain patient medical records which accurately reflect the prescribing, administering, or dispensing of any substance or drug described in this section or any form of autotransfusion. Patient medical records shall indicate the diagnosis and purpose for which the substance, drug, or autotransfusion is prescribed, administered, or dispensed and any additional information upon which the diagnosis is based.

2.2 The above violations provide grounds for imposing sanctions under RCW 18.130.160.

3. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

The charges in this document affect the public health, safety and welfare. The Disciplinary Manager of the Commission directs that a notice be issued and served on Respondent as provided by law, giving Respondent the opportunity to defend against these charges. If Respondent fails to defend against these charges, Respondent shall be subject to discipline and the imposition of sanctions under Chapter 18.130 RCW.

DATED: July 15, 2009,

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMISSION

_____________________________
DANI NEWMAN
DISCIPLINARY MANAGER

_____________________________
KRISTIN G. BREWER WSBA#38494
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

This page was posted on February 23, 2015.

Links to Recommended Companies