BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation ) and Petition to Revoke Probation Against: )

) ) )

JOANNE MARIAN BENZOR, M.D. ) ) ) )

Respondent. )

File No: Dl-2005-165388

DECISION

The attached Proposed Decision of Roy W. Hewitt, Administrative Law Judge, of April 3, 2012, in San Diego is hereby amended, pursuant to Government Code section 11517(c)(2)(c) to correct technical or minor changes that do not affect the factual or legal basis of the proposed decision. The proposed decision is amended as follows:

1. Page 1 - the heading of "Case No. 19-2009-203564" is stricken and replaced with "Case No. Dl-2005-165388".

The Proposed Decision as amended is hereby accepted and adopted as the Decision and Order by the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California.

This Decision shall become effective at 5:00 p.m. on May 18, 2012

IT IS SO ORDERED April 18, 2012

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

By:~~ ...... ,,,... Shelton Duruisseau, Ph.D., Chair Panel A

BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the First Amended Accusatio and Petition to Revoke Probation Against: Case No. 19-2009-203564

JOANNE MARIAN BENZOR, M.D. OAH No. 2011070662

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. G53502,

Respondent.

PROPOSED DECISION

This matter came on regularly for hearing before Roy W. Hewitt, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings, in San Diego, California on March 7, 2012.

Deputy Attorney General Abraham M. Levy represented complainant.

Dr. Joanne M. Benzor (respondent) represented herself.

Oral and documentary evidence was received and the matter was submitted on March 7, 2012.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

1. The First Amended Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation against respondent was filed by Linda K. Whitney (complainant), while acting in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California (the Board).

2. On August 27, 1984, the Board issued respondent Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. G53502. Respondent's certificate was in full force and effect until May 7, 2007.

3. Effective May 7, 2007, in case numbers 09-2005-165388 and 10-2006-176969, the Board revoked respondent's certificate, stayed the revocation, and placed respondent on

probation, with certain terms and conditions, for a period of five years. At all times relevant to the instant proceedings respondent's certificate was subject to the terms and conditions of the May 7, 2007 probation order.

4. Condition number 8 ofrespondent's probation provided:

OBEY ALL LAWS Respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws, all laws governing the practice of medicine in California, and remain in full compliance with any court ordered criminal probation, payments and other orders.

5. Respondent violated probation condition number 8 on July 26, 2009. On that date, Riverside County Sheriffs Deputies responded to an assault with a deadly weapon call. The deputies were informed that someone driving a motor vehicle had attempted to run over another individual. When deputies arrived at the scene they interviewed witnesses including one ofrespondent's male friends (the friend). The friend told the deputies that he and respondent had been drinking all day, gotten into an argument and that respondent had driven away from the area. As the deputies were gathering more information they heard one of the bystanders yell, "Here she comes now." Respondent, driving a white Toyota Sequoia, drove past the deputies and side-swiped her friend's car. One of the deputies yelled for respondent to stop and then got into his patrol vehicle so that he could catch and stop respondent. After driving a short distance respondent stopped and the deputy, based on safety concerns, conducted a "felony stop." The deputy handcuffed respondent and noted the smell of alcohol on and about her person. Respondent's speech was slurred and based on her failed attempts to complete certain field sobriety tests (FST's), the deputy, along with backup deputies, arrested respondent. During the encounter respondent tried to "back-kick" the deputy who administered the FST's, and she was yelling obscenities at the deputies. For example, she yelled that she was a "fucking doctor" and the arresting deputy had a "small penis which is why he became a police officer."

6. The arresting deputy transported respondent to the Riverside County Regional Medical Center for medical evaluation prior to taking her to the jail for booking. At the Medical Center respondent kicked the deputy and demanded to be released. Respondent was medically cleared for booking and a blood sample was taken for drug and alcohol testing. The deputy then transported respondent to the detention facility for booking. On the way, respondent began spitting on the deputy. The deputy had to pull over and place a "spit shield" over respondent's head and face. Respondent kept yelling profanities at the deputy.

7. The blood sample taken from respondent at the Medical Center revealed that at the time the blood was taken respondent's blood alcohol content was 0.18 percent. The legal limit for driving is 0.08 percent, so respondent's blood/alcohol level was over two times the legal limit.

8. On September 9, 2009, in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. RIM538011, respondent was convicted, after pleading guilty, of one

2

count of violating California Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) (driving under the influence of alcohol), and one count of violating California Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b ), (driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more), misdemeanor convictions which constituted the use of alcohol to the extent and in such a manner as to be dangerous, or injurious, to respondent, her friend, the deputies, and to members of the general public.

9. As a result of the September 9, 2009, convictions respondent was placed on three years of summary probation under certain terms and conditions, including: actual custody for 10 days; a prohibition against driving with alcohol in her blood or within six hours of consuming alcohol; completion of a First Offender DUI Program; payment of fines and penalties; and an order that she submit to chemical tests of blood, saliva, breath, or urine or any reasonable physical test upon request of any probation or law enforcement officer.

10. Respondent testified concerning the July 26, 2009, events. Her testimony is paraphrased as follows: July 26, 2009, was a Sunday; respondent called her friend to see if he wanted to go out to eat; the two went to a Mexican restaurant. The restaurant bar was serving "specials" which consisted of pomegranate martinis; the martinis were "strong" and "pretty tasty;" respondent drank two martinis and then experienced an "alcohol black-out;" respondent only has "partial memories" of what occurred thereafter; her friend decided it was time to take respondent home; her friend stopped at his house on his way to respondent's house; the friend got out of the car, but left the keys in the ignition; respondent ''took off' in the car but has no memory of driving the car; respondent did not recall the deputies taking her to the Medical Center for evaluation and thought they were lying about having done so, consequently, after being released from custody respondent went to the Medical Center and discovered that she had, indeed, been there on the 261h; and, respondent does not usually drink and must have suffered the alcohol blackout due to the strength of the martinis.

Factors in Aggravation

11. Respondent was on probation with the Board at the time of her misuse/abuse of alcohol and violated condition number 8 of her probation.

12. Respondent is currently on criminal probation.

13. Respondent does not seem to appreciate the magnitude of her professional misconduct. She minimized her conduct, as revealed by her hearing testimony that, at the time of the alcohol abuse incident, she was on vacation and was not "a danger to my patients." The incident was just a "one time deal."

14. On July 17, 2008, respondent was issued a "Citation Order" for failing to enroll in, and complete Medical Record Keeping and Prescribing Courses, as ordered by the Board in probation condition numbers 2 and 3. Respondent paid a $350 fine for the probation violations.

3

15. On July 16, 2009, respondent was issued a "Citation Order" for failing to pay the Board's probation costs, as ordered by the Board in probation condition number 17. The citation required respondent to pay the Board the probation monitoring costs for 2008, in full, within 30 days of the date of the citation. It was unclear at the time of the instant hearing whether respondent complied with the citation; however, respondent did admit that she is not current on the payment(s) of her probation monitoring costs. Respondent testified that she had been experiencing financial problems and did not have the ability to pay the probation monitoring costs. She further testified that she had made "$600 payments to the Board over the last couple months."

16. When respondent was interviewed by Board representatives concerning the matters that form the basis of the instant proceedings, a Board investigator, who is a law enforcement officer, requested respondent to provide a hair sample and respondent refused. The transcript of the interview reveals the following relevant verbal exchanges:

[Investigator]: I would like to take a hair sample today?

[Respondent]: Under what authority? I'm not giving up any body fluids or hair samples.

[Investigator]: It's part of your criminal probation, ifl request that you - - to submit to it.

[Respondent]: If you - - do you suspect that I'm under the influence right now?

[Deputy Attorney General]: Doctor, we're not here to - -

[Respondent]: I refuse to give you a hair sample and I refuse to give you any body fluids.

[Deputy Attorney General]: I just want to make clear that you understand that Investigator [] is a peace officer - -

[Respondent]: Um-hmm.

[Deputy Attorney General]: - - of the State of California.

[Respondent]: Okay. And I understand that as a peace officer, if you think that I'm under the influence while driving, you - - you can do that.

[Deputy Attorney General]: You do understand that submit [sic] to chemical tests of blood, saliva, breath, or urine or any

4

reasonable physical test or inspection of any probation or law enforcement officer is a term of your criminal probation.

[Respondent]: As I read that, it's only if - - if they suspect - -only ifl'm in my vehicle and they suspect that I'm under the influence. (Exh.8, pg. AG0-0204)

Respondent never supplied a hair sample, as requested by the Board's Investigator who was a State of California law enforcement officer even though she was required to do so by a term and condition of her criminal probation.

17. At one point Board representatives asked respondent to voluntarily undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Respondent refused. During the hearing she testified that she refused to undergo a psychiatric examination because, based on her reading and discussions with others, she arrived at the opinion that, "no good would come" from any Board conducted psychiatric examinations. In addition, respondent testified that, to date, she has not independently sought any such evaluation by a psychiatrist of her own choosing.

18. No evidence in mitigation or of rehabilitation was presented by respondent. No witnesses appeared and testified on her behalf and respondent did not present any written character reference letters, whatsoever. Respondent's own testimony did not provide any mitigation evidence or evidence ofrehabilitation. Quite the contrary, respondent's testimony revealed that she does not currently appreciate the magnitude of her unprofessional conduct, the concerns it raises in view of her miserable performance on her grants of probation, both administrative (citations plus the instant action) and criminal (failure to provide a hair sample upon the request of a Peace Officer), and her refusal to cooperate with Board representatives (providing a hair sample and refusing to undergo a psychiatric evaluation) in determining whether she is an impaired physician.

LEGAL CONCLUSIONS

1. Cause exists for discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 2227 and 2234, as defined by section 2239 because respondent used alcoholic beverages to the extent and in such manner as to be dangerous or injurious to herself (the licensee), another person, and the public.

2. Cause exists for discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 2227 and 2234, because the facts, considered in their entirety, reveal that respondent has engaged in conduct which breaches the rules and ethical code of the medical profession and that she engaged in conduct that is unbecoming to a member in good standing of the medical profession, and which demonstrates an unfitness to practice medicine.

3. Cause for revocation of probation exists because, as set forth in Findings 4 and 5, respondent violated condition number 8 of her Administrative Probation.

5

4. There are numerous aggravating factors in the present situation and no mitigating factors or evidence ofrehabilitation. Respondent's past performance on probation reveals that she is not an appropriate candidate for reinstating her probation. She does not seem to appreciate, at any level, the magnitude of her unprofessional conduct.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING ORDER is hereby made:

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate Number 053502, issued to respondent, Joanne Marian Benzor, and all rights appurtenant thereto is/are revoked.

DATED: April 3, 2012

ROY .HEWITT Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

6

1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California

2 THOMAS S. LAZAR Supervising Deputy Attorney General

3 ABRAHAM M. LEVY Deputy Attorney General

4 State Bar No. 189671 110 West "A" Street, Suite 1100

5 San Diego, California 92101 P.O. Box 85266

6 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2072

7 Facsimile: (619) 645-2061 Attorneys for Complainant

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

BEFORE THE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation Against:

JOANNE MARIAN BENZOR, M.D. 15942 Ninya Avenue Moreno Valley, California 92551

Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate Number G53502,

Respondent.

Complainant alleges:

Case No. Dl-2005-165388

OAH No. 2011070662

FIRST AMENDED ACCUSATION AND PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION

PARTIES

1. Linda K. Whitney (Complainant) brings this First Amended Accusation and

23 Petition to Revoke Probation solely in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the

24 Medical Board of California (Board).

25 2. On or about August 27, 1984, the Board issued Physician's and Surgeon's

26 Certificate Number G53502 to Joanne Marian Benzor, M.D. (Respondent). That certificate was

27 in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on

28 October 31, 2013, unless renewed.

1

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: D 1-2005-165388)

1

2 3.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

On April 6, 2007, in a case entitled "In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

3 Joanne Marian Benzor, M.D.," Case Numbers 09-2005-165388 and 10-2006-176969, the Medical

4 Board of California (Board) issued a Decision and Order in which respondent's Physician's and

5 Surgeon's Certificate No. G53502 was revoked. However, effective May 7, 2007, the revocation

6 was stayed and respondent was placed on probation for a period of five (5) years with certain

7 terms and conditions.

8 JURISDICTION

9 4. This First Amended Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation is brought

10 before the Board under the authority of the following laws and the Board's Decision and Order in

11 the case entitled "In the Matter of the Accusation Against Joanne Marian Benzor, MD.," Case

12 Nos. 09-2005-165388 and 10-2006-176969. All section references are to the Business and

13 Professions Code (Code) unless otherwise indicated.

14 5. Section 2227 of the Code provides that a licensee who is found guilty under the

15 Medical Practice Act may have his or her license revoked, suspended for a period not to exceed

16 one year, placed on probation and required to pay the costs of probation monitoring, be publically

17 reprimanded or such other action taken in relation to discipline as the Division deems proper.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. Section 2234 of the Code states:

"The Division of Medical Quality 1 shall take action against any licensee

who is charged with unprofessional conduct. In addition to other provisions of this

article, unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

"(a) Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, assisting in

or abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision of this chapter

[Chapter 5, the Medical Practice Act].

1 California Business and Professions Code section 2002, as amended and effective January 1, 2008, provides that, unless otherwise expressly provided, the term "board" as used in the State Medical Practice Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§2000, et. seq.) means the "Medical Board of California," and references to the "Division of Medical Quality" and "Division of Licensing" in the Act or any other provision of law shall be deemed to refer to the Board.

2

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: Dl-2005-165388)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

"(b) Gross negligence.

"( c) Repeated negligent acts ...

"( d) Incompetence.

"( e) The commission of any act involving dishonesty or corruption

which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a

physician and surgeon.

"(f) Any action or conduct which would have warranted the denial of a

certificate.

" "

7. Unprofessional conduct under California Business and Professions Code

11 section 2234 is conduct which breaches the rules or ethical code of the medical profession, or

12 conduct which is unbecoming a member in good standing of the medical profession, and which

13 demonstrates an unfitness to practice medicine. 2

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. Section 2239 of the Code states, in pertinent part:

"(a) The use ... of alcoholic beverages, to the extent, or in such a

manner as to be dangerous or injurious to the licensee, or to any other person or to

the public, or to the extent that such use impairs the ability of the licensee to

practice medicine safely or more than one misdemeanor or any felony involving

the use, consumption or self-administration of any of the substances referred to in

this section ... constitutes unprofessional conduct. The record of the conviction is

conclusive evidence of such unprofessional conduct."3

"(b) A plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of no lo

contendere is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section ... "

2 Shea v. Board of Medical Examiners (1978) 81Cal.App.3d564, 575.

3 There is a nexus between a physician's use of alcoholic beverages and his or her fitness to practice medicine, established by the Legislature in section 2239, "in all cases where a licensed physician used alcoholic beverages to the extent or in such a manner as to pose a danger to himself or others." (Watson v. Superior Court (Medical Board) (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1411.)

3

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: Dl-2005-165388)

1 I II

2 FIRST CAUSE TO REVOKE PROBATION

3 (Failure to Obey All Laws)

4 9. At all times after the effective date of respondent's probation in Case Numbers

5 09-2005-165388 and 10-2006-176969, Condition 8, stated:

6 "OBEY ALL LAWS Respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws,

7 all laws governing the practice of medicine in California, and remain in full

8 compliance with any court ordered criminal probation, payments and other

9 orders."

10 10. Respondent's probation is subject to revocation because she failed to comply

11 with Probation Condition 8, referenced above. The circumstances are set forth below:

12 A. On or about September 4, 2009 a misdemeanor criminal complaint captioned

13 "The People v. Joanne Marian Benzor," Case No. RIM538011, was filed in the Superior

14 Court of California, County of Riverside, charging Respondent with violating Vehicle

15 Code sections 23152, subdivisions (a) [driving under the influence of alcohol] and 23152,

16 subdivision (b) [driving with a blood alcohol with a concentration of .08 or more] on July

17 26, 2009, in Riverside County. Pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23578, the misdemeanor

18 complaint further charged her with driving under the influence with a blood alcohol

19 concentration of .15 or greater

20 B. On September 9, 2009, Respondent pled guilty as charged and was convicted of

21 the charges contained in the Misdemeanor Complaint and was placed on summary

22 probation for 36 months with terms and conditions including actual custody for 10 days, a

23 prohibition on driving with alcohol in her blood or within six hours of consuming alcohol;

24 an order not to drive unless properly licensed or insured; an order to submit to chemical

25 tests of blood, saliva, breath, or urine or any reasonable physical test upon request of any

26 probation or law enforcement officer and completion of a First Offender DUI Program

27 for four months. In addition, she was ordered to pay a fine and assessment in the total

28

4

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: Dl-2005-165388)

1 amount of $1582.00, a $60.00 security fee, a $30.00 conviction assessment fee; and a

2 $387.00 booking fee.

3 SECOND CAUSE TO REVOKE PROBATION

4 (Failure to Pay Probation Monitoring Costs)

5 11. At all times after the effective date of respondent's probation in Case Numbers

6 09-2005-165388 and 10-2006-176969, Condition 17 stated:

7 "17. Respondent shall pay the costs associated with probation

8 monitoring each and every year of probation, as designated by the Division, and

9 may be adjusted on an annual basis. Such costs shall be payable to the Medical

1 O Board of California and delivered to the Division or its designee no later that

11 January 31 of each calendar year. Failure to pay costs within 30 calendar days of

12 the due date is a violation of probation."

13 12. Respondent's probation is subject to revocation because she failed to comply

14 with Probation Condition 17, referenced above, in that she failed to pay the costs associated with

15 probation monitoring within 30 calendar days of the due date. The circumstances are set forth

16 below:

17 A. On or about January 31, 2010, Respondent's probation monitoring costs for

18 2009 of $3, 173.00 became due. Respondent paid the Board only $1,3 73.00.

19 B. On or about January 31, 2011, respondent's probation monitoring costs of

20 $3,673.00 for the year 2010 became due. Respondent failed to pay any of the probation

21 monitoring costs due for 2010.

22 C. Respondent currently owes the Board the amount of $5,046.00 in probation

23 monitoring costs for the period 2009 and 2010.

24 I I I

25 I I I

26 I I I

27 I I I

28 I I I

5

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: Dl-2005-165388)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Use of Alcoholic Beverages to the Extent, or in Such Manner, as to be Dangerous or Injurious to the Licensee, Another Person, or the Public, or to the Extent that Such Use

Impairs the Licensee's Ability to Safely Practice Medicine)

13. Respondent has subjected her Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No.

G53502 to disciplinary action under sections 2227 and 2234, as defined by section 2239,

subdivision (a), in that she has used alcoholic beverages to the extent, or in such a manner as to be

dangerous or injurious to herself, another person or the public, or to the extent that such use

impairs her ability to practice medicine safely, as more particularly alleged hereinafter:

14. On or about July 26, 2009, Riverside County Deputy M.R. received a call

that an assault with a deadly weapon had taken place. When Deputy M.R. arrived at the scene

Respondent's boyfriend told him that Respondent and he had been drinking all day and had

gotten into an argument. He also told Deputy M.R. that Respondent had driven off. As Deputy

M.R. was evaluating the circumstances of the incident, Respondent's neighbors yelled "here she

come now." Respondent, in her white Toyota Sequoia, approached the officer and others at the

scene and collided into her boyfriend's car. Deputy M.R. yelled for her to stop. He then got into

his police vehicle car and pursued Respondent. After some distance, Respondent finally stopped.

Deputy M.R. did a felony stop out of concern for his own safety and based on his observation that

Respondent had hit her boyfriend's car with her vehicle. He arrested respondent. Other deputies

arrived, including Deputy D.S. and Deputy M.R. left the scene.

15. Deputy D.S. engaged with Respondent, observed that respondent's

speech was slurred and he smelled alcohol. He conducted a series of field sobriety tests (FSTs)

which she was unable to complete. He also observed that she had difficulty standing. During this

time Respondent was yelling profanities at Deputy D.S. She yelled at him that he had a little

penis and that is why he is a police officer. Respondent repeatedly told Deputy D.S. that she was

a doctor.

6

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: Dl-2005-165388)

1 16. Due to her failure to complete the FSTs, Respondent was arrested for

2 Driving under the Influence and was transported to Riverside County Regional Medical Center to

3 get medical clearance before being booked. When at the hospital, Respondent kicked Deputy D.S.

4 and yelled to be released. After a blood sample was taken, Respondent was transported to a

5 detention center for booking. On the way, Respondent spit at Deputy D.S. Deputy D.S. stopped

6 his vehicle to place an expectorant shield over Respondent's face. She continued to yell

7 profanities at Deputy D.S. The blood sample obtained from Respondent revealed that

8 Respondent had a blood alcohol level of .18.

9

10

11

SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(General Unprofessional Conduct)

12 17. Respondent has further subjected her Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate

13 No. G53502 to disciplinary action under sections 2227 and 2234 of the Code in that she has

14 engaged in conduct which breaches the rules or ethical code of the medical profession, or conduct

15 which is unbecoming to a member in good standing of the medical profession, and which

16 demonstrates an unfitness to practice medicine, as more particularly described in Paragraphs 9

17 through 14, above, which are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if fully set forth

18 herein.

19 DISCIPLINARY CONSIDERATIONS

20 18. To determine the degree of discipline, if any, to be imposed on respondent,

21 Complainant alleges the following: On or about May 18, 2006, the Medical Board of California

22 filed Accusation No. 09-2005-165388 against Respondent. The Accusation charged Respondent

23 with gross and repeated acts of negligence in her recommending medical marijuana for three

24 patients. The Accusation also accused Respondent of failing to supervise a physician assistant,

25 failing to perform a good faith prior exam before providing a medical marijuana recommendation,

26 and failing to maintain adequate and accurate records. On April 6, 2007, in a Decision captioned

27 "In the Matter of the Accusation Against: Joanne Marian Benzor, MD.," Case Numbers 09-2005-

28 165388 and 10-2006-176969, the Medical Board of California issued a decision in which

7

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: Dl-2005-165388)

1 respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. G 53502 was revoked. However, the

2 revocation was stayed and she was placed on probation for five (5) years with certain terms and

3 conditions including a requirement for additional education and prescribing practices and medical

4 record keeping courses. She was also required to have a practice monitor and was prohibited

5 from engaging in the solo practice of medicine. Respondent was also required to submit to the

6 Board's standard terms and conditions.

7 19. Subsequently, the Medical Board of California cited her twice for failing to

8 comply with the terms of her probation: On July 18, 2008 she was cited for failing to provide

9 proof that she had completed medical records and prescribing practices courses pursuant to her

10 probation. She was ordered to provide proof of her completion of this course. On July 16, 2009

11 the Medical Board cited Respondent for failing to pay her probation costs and she was ordered to

12 pay her 2008 probation costs.

13 PRAYER

14 WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged,

15 and that following the hearing, the Board issue a decision:

16 1. Revoking or suspending Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate G53502, issued to

17 respondent Joanne Marian Benzor, M.D.;

18 2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of respondent Joanne Marian Benzor,

19 M.D.' s authority to supervise physicians assistants, pursuant to section 3527 of the Code;

20

21 and

22

23

24

3.

4.

DATED: 25

26

27

28

If placed on probation, ordering respondent to pay the costs of probation monitoring;

Taking such other and further action as deemed neces,sary and proper.

February 10, 2012 ------

/

/////'/

/:ll/e· LINDA K. WHITNE Executive Director Medical Board of alifomia State of California Complainant

8

First Amended Accusation & Petition to Revoke Probation (Case Number: Dl-2005-165388)