The Board Investigator, the Subpoena, and the Competing Board Member
Dr. Chen receives a telephone call from an investigator for the Missouri Board of Chiropractic Examiners. A former patient has complained that Dr. Chen billed for four visits that never occurred and altered a treatment note. The investigator asks for the complete chart, including billing records and the original note, and requests an interview in ten days. The written request says only that the Board is “conducting an investigation”; it does not cite a statute or rule. Dr. Chen also learns that the assigned Board member is Dr. Patel, a chiropractor whose office is two miles away and who publicly criticized Dr. Chen at a local association meeting. Dr. Chen wants to refuse the records because the patient has not signed an authorization and because Dr. Patel is a competitor. A sticky note on the file says, “Do not release until the $240 balance is paid.”
1. Must Dr. Chen produce the complete record? Discuss the Board’s authority, patient authorization, and HIPAA.
Read the worked answer
Dr. Chen should not refuse simply because the patient has not signed a release. The Board is a health oversight agency investigating a licensee, and HIPAA permits disclosures to health oversight agencies for investigations and licensing activities without patient authorization when the applicable conditions are met. Missouri’s licensing scheme also gives the Board investigative authority, including the power to request records and conduct investigations; a licensee’s cooperation is part of the regulatory bargain. The unpaid $240 balance is not a lawful basis for withholding records from the Board. Withholding records for payment may be permissible in some private patient-copy contexts only to the extent the Board’s rules allow, but it is not a defense to a Board investigation. Dr. Chen should produce the complete chart, including the disputed original note, billing records, appointment history, and any metadata or audit trail available. If Dr. Chen believes a record is privileged or irrelevant, he should not unilaterally withhold it; he should identify the objection in writing and produce a privilege log or seek guidance. He should also preserve all records and avoid alterations.
2. Is Dr. Patel’s participation a disqualifying conflict? What should Dr. Chen request?
Read the worked answer
Due process requires an impartial decision-maker, but not every professional competition or critical comment automatically disqualifies a board member. Dr. Chen should preserve the issue early. He should write to the Board’s executive director or counsel, identify Dr. Patel’s direct geographic competition and the public criticism, and request that Dr. Patel recuse or that the Board reassign the matter to avoid an appearance of bias. The request should be factual and unemotional. If the Board denies recusal, Dr. Chen should ask that the denial be documented and continue to participate in the process; refusing to appear or refusing to produce records would weaken his position and could itself support discipline for failure to cooperate. A reviewing court may consider actual bias or an unacceptable risk of bias, but a licensee must usually exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. The key is to make a timely, written record rather than waiting until after an adverse decision.
3. What are the consequences if Dr. Chen ignores the ten-day deadline?
Read the worked answer
Ignoring the deadline is a poor strategy. The Board can compel production through its subpoena power and may seek enforcement in circuit court. Failure to cooperate can become an independent ground for discipline, even if the original billing allegation is unproven. It can also support an inference that the licensee is avoiding scrutiny, although the Board still bears the burden on the underlying charges. Dr. Chen should respond in writing within the deadline, produce what is requested, and state any good-faith objections. If he needs more time, he should request an extension before the deadline and explain why. If he needs counsel, he should retain counsel promptly and have counsel communicate with the investigator. He should not alter, destroy, or backdate records; spoliation can turn a billing dispute into a much more serious integrity case.