Sad, delusional sightwalker, sad...
this was found here;
<https://services.georgia.gov/dch/mebs/performSearch.do>
License 040347
Status - Revoked CHUNG, ANDREW BEN-HUA, MD
5701 MABLETON PARKWAY 2 B
MABLETON, GA 30126
Issue Date: 08/03/1995
Expiration Date: 07/31/2017
Not sure what all this means, but it seems from what we've seen here it
was earned?
Again this was found in a public web search at
<https://services.georgia.gov/dch/mebs/performSearch.do> under "public
board orders" for our sightwalker.
"BEFORE THE GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
STATE OF GEORGIA
GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL
BOARD
Petitioner
v.
ANDREW BEN-HUA CHUNG, M.D.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
GEORGtA COMPOSlTE
MEDICAL BOARD
MAR 0 9 Z017
DOCKET NUMBER:
j Q ) <e QD ':!>9
Respondent *
*
OSAH No. OSAH-GCMB-PHY-
1712928-W ALKER
To: ANDREW BEN-HUA CHUNG, M.D.
6041 COLT RIDGE TRAIL
MABLETO , GEORGIA 30126
BETSY COHEN, ESQ.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
40 CAPITOL SQUARE, S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334
*
ORDER OF THE BOARD
COMES NOW, the Georgia Composite Medical Board ("Board"), and hereby
enters an Order after
reviewing the Initial Decision in the above styled case. After hearing
the argument and testimony of the
Appellant herein, Andrew Ben-Hua Chung, M.D., the Board finds as follows
after deliberation:
1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board agrees with the Initial Decision.
2.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board agrees with the Initial Decision regarding conclusions of law.
Page I o.f2
Order of the Board
CONCLUSION
The Board Orders that the Respondent's license is revoked
instanter. THIS THE 9TH DA y OF MARCH, 2017.
Prepared and Submitted By:
ALLEN MEADORS, HEARING OFFICER
GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
JOHN S. ANTALIS, M.D.
Page 2 of2
Order of the Board
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
GEORGIA COMPOSITE
MEDICAL BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
ANDREW CHUNG, M.D.,
Respondent.
Docket No.:
OSAH-GCMB-PHY-1712928-Walker
Agency Reference No.: 20160049
FEB l ~: 2017
Ir.l':l:·• ?,'-~,,.£:Y. /~
~Kevin WestraY,Leii ASSistant
INITIAL DECISION
I. Introduction
On or about September 21, 2016, the Georgia Composite Medical Board
(hereinafter
"Petitioner" or "Board") issued an Order of Summary Suspension,
suspending the Respondent's
license to practice medicine in the State of Georgia. The Respondent
requested an administrative
hearing to contest the Board's order. On October 12, 2016, the Board
also issued a Statement of
Matters Asserted seeking final disciplinary action against Respondent's
license to practice
medicine. A hearing regarding both the Board's Order of Summary
Suspension and the
Statement of Matters Asserted took place on December 7, 2016. 1 Betsy
Cohen, Assistant
Attorney General, represented the Board. Respondent represented himself
during the
proceedings. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the Order of Summary Suspension be AFFIRMED and that the
Respondent's license be REVOKED.
1 An initial hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2016. The Board
sought a continuance in because its counsel
was unavailable on this date. The matter was then reset to December 7,
2016. Upon receipt of the hearing
transcript, the record in this matter closed.
Page 1of9
'
•
ANDREW CHUNG, MD
6041 COLT RIDGE TRAIL
MABLETON, GA 30126-
ROBERT JEFFERY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
2 PEACHTREE ST. 36TH FLOOR
ATLANTA, GA 30303-
BETSY COHEN
ASSIST ANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
40 CAPITOL SQUARE SW
ATLANTA, GA 30334-
Docket No.: 1712928-0SAR-GCMB-PHY-33-Walker
II. Findings of Fact
A. Background
1.
Respondent holds a license to practice as a physician in the State of
Georgia, and has held
such certificate at all times relevant to the issues presented for
hearing. The Respondent's
license will expire on July 31, 2017. (Statement of Matters Asserted if
1; Transcript at p. 19
(hereinafter T-); Exhibit P-1).
2.
Under O.C.G.A. § 43-26-11(2) the Board may order, upon reasonable
grounds, that a
licensee submit to a mental or physical examination to determine whether
such licensee has
become unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety to patients.
3.
In June 2015, the Board received information that the Respondent might
be mentally
unstable. On or about May 16, 2016, the Board issued a Confidential
Order for Mental/Physical
Examination ("MPE order") to the Respondent. The MPE order specified
that the Board had
found reasonable grounds to believe that the Respondent could not
practice medicine with
adequate skill and safety. (Statement of Matters Asserted if 2; T-23 ;
Exhibits P-2, P-4).
4.
The Respondent failed to comply with the Board's MPE order. As a result
of his failure
to comply, the Board summarily suspended the Respondent's medical
license. (Statement of
Matters Asserted if 3; T-23 ; Exhibit P-3). On or about August 4, 2016,
after a hearing before the
Board, it issued a Final Order upholding the Order of Summary Suspension
and requiring the
Respondent to submit to an MPE. (Statement of Matters Asserted if 4;
T-24; Exhibit P-4).
Page 2of9
5.
Respondent obtained an MPE. On or about September 1, 2016, the Board
received a
preliminary MPE report from the evaluating facility indicating that the
Respondent was not able
to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. (Statement of
Matters Asserted iii! 5, 6; T-
25; Exhibit P-5).
6.
On or about September 15, 2016, the Board received a final MPE report
("final report")
from the evaluating facility. The final report concluded that the
Respondent's license shoull
remain suspended until he received treatment at a professional
physician's recovery program
specializing in psychiatric disorders. (Statement of Matters Asserted if
4; T-24; Exhibit P-6).
7.
On or about September 21, 2016, the Board issued an Order of Summary
Suspension
finding that the Respondent's continued ability to practice medicine
posed a threat to the public's
health, safety and welfare. The Respondent requested a hearing.
(Statement of Matters
Asserted if 8; T-27-28; Exhibits P-7, P-8).
8.
On October 12, 2016, the Board issued a Statement of Matters Asserted
seeking final
disciplinary action against Respondent's license to practice medicine.
(Statement of Matters
Asserted ). 2
2 On November 21, 2016, the Respondent submitted a pleading styled
"Motion for Pre-Hearing Review of Attached
Certified Transcript for Summary Judgment." The Board's responsive
pleading noted that the Respondent did not
have right to a "pre -hearing review of attached certified transcript
for summary judgment." On December 1, 2016,
the undersigned denied the Respondent's motion.
Page 3of9
B. Respondent's Evaluation
9.
Dr. Gary Weichbrodt is a psychiatrist certified by the American Board of
Medical
Specialties and a member of the American Psychiatric Association. (T-7
5). He has been in
private practice in Atlanta since 1988. (T-77). As part of his practice,
Dr. Weichbrodt both
evaluates and treats health care professionals. (T-76-77).
10.
Typically, an MPE is "performed by a psychiatrist and several corollary
staff as well as a
psychologist .. . and a board-certified internist that completes a
physical exam .. .. " (T-79). In
late August 2016, Dr. Weichbrodt was the attending psychiatrist assigned
to Respondent's MPE.
(T-78).
11.
After speaking with the Respondent, Dr. Weichbrodt concluded that he
held "nutritional
beliefs" consistent with a delusional disorder. (T-81 , 170-171).3 For
example, the Respondent
weighed his food, believing that every individual, whether infant, child
or adult, should consume
"32 ounces [of food per day because it has] a magical quality that is
necessary for health . . .. "
(T-84, 156-158, 162). To the contrary, nutritional needs must be
calibrated to the individual.
(T-162). In Dr. Weichbrodt's opinion, the Respondent's delusional belief
system would
compromise his ability to diagnose and treat patients. (T-81, 1 70-171 ).
12.
The Respondent also demonstrated "a compulsive sort of driven belief to
repeat certain
phrases .. .. " (T-83 ). Before proceeding with a conversation or
interaction during the MPE,
3 Collateral sources interviewed by Dr. Weichbrodt indicated that the
Respondent developed an obsessive focus on
nutrition following a head injury. (T-85; Exhibit P-7).
Page 4of9
the Respondent insisted on staff repeating the phrase "wonderfully
hungry." (T-114; Exhibit P-
6). 4 Dr. Weichbrodt concluded that the Respondent's obsessive need to
hear individuals repeat
the phrase "wonderfully hungry" before discussing matters at hand is "at
odds with the kind of
neutral information one must gather to do a physical exam or provide
medical care." (T-83).
13.
The Respondent maintained that if an individual proved "wonderfully
hungry" or had a
"healthy appetite," he would know that "through our ability to eat, our
healthy appetite . . . we're
both not having a heart attack at the moment." (T-11, 31-32, 92). "[C]
orrelating a phrase with
not having a heart attack" was another example of "magical thinking"
that would adversely
affect a patient's medical care. (T-163).
14.
In addition to finding that the Respondent suffered from a delusional
disorder, Dr.
Weichbrodt's final report includes a diagnosis of schizotypal
personality disorder. (Exhibit P-6).
Personality disorders interfere with social interaction. (T-88).
Information from collateral
sources indicated that the Respondent had a history of social
awkwardness and difficulty with
interpersonal relationships and personality disorders . (T-87, 88).
15.
Concluding that the Respondent had a "delusional disorder mixed type
continuous with
grandiose features" and a "schizotypal personality disorder," Dr.
Weichbrodt's preliminary and
final reports indicated that the Respondent was not able to practice
medicine with reasonable
skill and safety. (T-79; Exhibit P-6). The final report recommended that
the Board restrict the
Respondent from medical practice until he undergoes treatment at a
professional physician's
4 At the administrative hearing, the Respondent repeatedly asked
witnesses, and the undersigned, if they were
"wonderfully hungry" or had a "healthy appetite." (T-11, 31-32, 92).
Page 5of9
recovery program specializing in psychiatric disorders. Brain injuries
can lead to psychotic
beliefs and symptoms. (T-147). Based on information that the Respondent
had suffered a brain
injury in 1997, the final report also directed that the Board require
medical follow-up regarding
lab abnormalities and neurologic consultation with imaging studies.
Should the Respondent
return to practice, Dr. Weichbrodt urged that the Board actively monitor
patient feedback
regarding their medical care. (T-82, 87; Exhibit P-6).
C. Respondent's Testimony
16.
The . Respondent testified that he has registered in the Federal
Election Commission's
database as a 2020 nonpartisan candidate for president under the name
"HeartDoc Andrew." (T-
192). As part of his presidential campaign platform, the Respondent
believes that he must "say
I'm wonderfully hungry .... " (T-96, 107). According to Respondent, the
Medical Board is
trying to revoke his license for "saying I'm wonderfully hungry;"
however, he maintains that this
is protected political speech under his presidential campaign platform.
(T-123, 140, 192).
17.
The Respondent rejects the determination that he suffers from a
delusional disorder.
Asserting that he is the only physician researching the phrase
"wonderfully hungry," he argued
that "it should be concerning to [the undersigned] that the state
medical board's expert witness
admitted he didn't do such research." (T-93, 187).5
The Respondent also accused the Board, and/or individuals associated
with the Board, of having a financial
interest in this matter. (T-214).
Page 6of9
18.
Respondent proposed that the psychological testing performed as part of
the MPE was
invalid, suggesting that a diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder
and psychotic disorders,
such as delusional disorder, were inherently incompatible. (T-103,
118-119; Exhibit R-2). The
undersigned credits Dr. Weichbrodt's testimony that it is possible to
have both disorders, and in
any event "the focus of concerns would be on the delusional disorder in
terms of medical
practice." (T-120, 122).
III. Conclusions of Law
1.
The Board bears the burden of proof both regarding the Order of
Suspension and
Statement of Matters Asserted. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.07(1).
The standard of proof
is a preponderance of the evidence. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.21(4).
2.
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 43-1-19(a}, a professional licensing board shall
have the authority
to revoke or discipline the license of a person upon a finding that the
licensee has:
(10) Displayed an inability to practice a business or profession licensed
under this title with reasonable skill and safety to the public or has
become
unable to practice the licensed business or profession with reasonable skill
and safety to the public ....
3.
Additionally, the Board may sanction a licensee upon a finding that the
licensee is unable
to practice with "reasonable skill and safety" by reason of illness, the
use of alcohol, drugs, or
other substances, or as a result of any mental or physical condition.
O.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(a)(13).
In enforcing this paragraph, the Board may require the licensee to
submit to a ment.al or physical
examination, the results of which "shall be admissible in any hearing
before the board,
Page 7of9
notwithstanding any claim of privilege under a contrary rule of law or
statute, including, but not
limited to, Code Section 24-5-50 1." 6 O.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(a)(13)(A).
4.
If the Board finds cause for discipline, it may deny, revoke, suspend,
fine, reprimand, or
otherwise limit the license of a physician. O.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(b)(l),
see also O.C.G.A. § 43-1-
19(d),. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 360-3-.02.
5.
Based on the aforementioned Findings of Fact, the Board has proven by a
preponderance
of the evidence that the Respondent is unable to practice with
reasonable skill and safety as a
result of his mental illness. The undersigned finds the testimony of Dr.
Weichbrodt that the
Respondent suffers from a delusional disorder to be persuasive. As a
result of this disorder, the
Respondent adheres to certain beliefs and rituals that compromise his
ability to practice medicine
with reasonable skill and safety. Although the Respondent maintains that
the Board's action is
an attempt to interfere with his constitutional right to freedom of
speech, there was no credible
support for the Respondent's position presented at the hearing. To the
contrary, the Board
proved that Respondent's bizarre nutritional and medical beliefs,
coupled with his obsessive
6 O.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(a)(13)(C) specifies the following:
If any licensee . . . could, in the absence of this paragraph, invoke a
privilege to prevent the
disclosure of the results of the examination provided for in
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph .. .
, all such information shall be received by the board in camera and
shall not be disclosed to the
public, nor shall any part of the record containing such information be
used against any licensee,
certificate holder, or permit holder or applicant in any other type of
proceeding[.]
At the hearing, the Respondent indicated he wished to waive disclosure
of the record. A plain reading of
this provision indicates that, so long as the licensee could raise a
privilege of confidentiality notwithstanding the
statute's provisions, then such evidence "shall be" reviewed in camera
and "shall nof' be disclosed to the public.
Id.; see Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dep't, 285 Ga. 184, 187
(2009) (stating that fundamental statutory
construction requires words be given "their plain and ordinary
meaning"). For the purposes of statutory
construction, the word "shall" is to be generally construed as a
mandatory directive. Lewis v. State, 283 Ga. 191,
194 (2008); see also Garrison v. Perkins, 137 Ga. 744, 755 (1912) ("[I]n
its ordinary signification 'shall' is a word
of command . ... "). Thus, the in camera review and nondisclosure to the
public appear to be mandatory acts and
Respondent may not exercise any privilege to waive a portion of the record.
Page 8of9
need to question others as to whether they were "wonderfully hungry" or
had a "healthy
appetite," would interfere with his ability to practice medicine with
reasonable skill and safety.
IV. Decision
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(b)(l), if the Board finds cause for
discipline, it may
deny, revoke, suspend, fine, reprimand, or otherwise limit the license
of a physician. See also
O.C.G.A. § 43-1-19(d). Based on the evidence presented at the hearing
that the Respondent is
unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety due to
mental illness, the
undersigned finds that the Board had good cause to issue its Order of
Summary Suspension and
AFFIRMS the Order. For the same reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the
Respondent's license be REVOKED.
SO ORDERED, this )') day of February, 2017.
Page 9of9
RO NIT WALKER
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE OF INITIAL DECISION
Attached is the Initial Decision of the administrative law judge. A
party who disagrees
with the Initial Decision may file a motion with the administrative law
judge and/or an
application for agency review.
Filing a Motion with the Administrative Law Judge
A party who wishes to file a motion to vacate a default, a motion for
reconsideration, or a
motion for rehearing must do so within 10 days of the entry of the
Initial Decision. Ga. Comp.
R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.28, -.30(3). All motions must be made in writing and
filed with the judge's
assistant, with copies served simultaneously upon all parties of record.
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs.
616-1-2-.04, -.11 , -.16. The judge's assistant is Kevin Westray -
404-656-3508; Email:
***@osah.ga.gov; Fax: 404-818-3775; 225 Peachtree Street NE, Suite
400, South Tower,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Filing an Application for Agency Review
A party who seeks review by the referring agency must file an
application for agency
review within 30 days after service of the Initial Decision. O.C.G.A. §§
50-13-17(a), -41 (e). In
nearly all cases, agency review is a prerequisite for judicial review.
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-19(a).
The application for agency review must be filed with: . Copies of the
application for
agency review must be served upon all parties of record and filed
simultaneously with the OSAH
Chief Clerk at 225 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400, South Tower, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303. If a
timely application for agency review is not filed and the referring
agency does not review the
Initial Decision on its own motion, the Initial Decision will become the
Final Decision of the
referring agency by operation oflaw. O.C.G.A. §§ 50-13-17(a), -41 (e).
1712928-0SAH-GCMB-PHY-33-Walker
BEFORE THE GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
STATE OF GEORGIA
IN THE MATTER OF: *
*
ANDREW BEN-HUA CHUNG, M.D. *
License No. 040347, *
*
Respondent. *
FINAL DECISION
GEORGIA eCM~OSITE
MEDICAL BOARD
AUG 0 4 2016
DOCKET NUMBER:
it:J l lt oo.31
The above-styled matter came before the Georgia Composite Medical Board
on August
4, 2016, for a hearing under the authority and jmisdiction conferred
upon the Georgia
Composite Medical Board by O.C.G.A. T. 43, Ch. 34, and in accordance
with the Georgia
Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 13, T. 50, and the Rules and
Regulations of the
Georgia Composite Medical Board. Appearing on behalf of the Board was
Betsy D. Cohen,
Assistant Attorney General. Andrew Ben-Hua Chung, M.D. ("Respondent")
was present and
represented himself.
After conducting the hearing, the Board hereby enters this Final Decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Georgia on
or about
August 3, 1995 and was so licensed at all times relative this matter.
Respondent's license is
suspended. The license expires July 31, 2017. (Testimony of Robert
Jeffery; Petitioner's
Exhibit #1.)
2.
In or about June 2015, the Board received information alleging
Respondent was
Page I of?
exhibiting behavior that raised concern as to Respondent's mental
stability. Lawrence
Lo Russo, an attorney, testified that he had conversed with Respondent
on several occasions
on behalf of a client. On each occasion, Respondent would not converse
with Mr. LoRusso
until he answered the following question, "Are you wonderfully hungry?"
Respondent stated
that answering the question was the only way he could tell if someone
was having a heart
attack while he was talking to that person. Since the initial contact,
Respondent has been
posting comments on his Facebook page every two to three days. Mr.
LoRusso filed a
complaint with the Board.
3.
Based on information received by the Board, the Board conducted an
investigation.
(Testimony of Steve Wills.)
4.
On or about May 16, 2016, the Board issued a Confidential Order for
Mental/Physical
Examination ("Order" or "Order for Mental/Physical Examination" or
"OMPE"), Docket No.
10160039, requiring Respondent to obtain a comprehensive, multidisciplinary
mental/physical examination by a Board approved physician/facility with
expertise in the area
of psychiatric evaluation, to include neuropsychological and
neurocognitive testing and
evaluation. (Testimony of Robert Jeffery; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2.) A
Board agent
personally served Respondent with the Order for Mental/Physical
Examination. (Testimony
of Steve Wills; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7.)
5.
The Order was based on reasonable grounds regarding Respondent's
behavior and
speech that raised concern about Respondent's ability to practice
medicine with reasonable
Page 2 of7
skill and safety. (Testimony of Robert Jeffery; Petitioner's Exhibit No.
2.) (Testimony of
Lawrence LoRusso )
6.
Respondent failed to comply with the Board's Order; no report or results
of an
examination were received by the Board. (Testimony of Robert Jeffery)
7.
As the issue was whether the Respondent was safe to practice due to a
medical
condition and the Respondent failed to comply with such order, the Board
determined there
was an imminent threat to the public. As a result, on or about June 15,
2016 the Board issued
an Order of Summary Suspension, Docket No. 10160039, which summarily
suspended
Respondent's medical license for failure to comply with the Board's
Order for
Mental/Physical Examination. (Testimony of Robert Jeffery; Petitioner's
Exhibit No. 3.) A
Board agent personally served Respondent with the Order of Summary
Suspension on or
about June 17, 2016. (Testimony of Steve Wills; Petitioner's Exhibit No.
8.) Respondent
would not converse with Agent Wills until he answered the question "are
you wonderfully
hungry?" (Testimony of Steve Wills)
8.
On or about May 15 and 17, 2016, Respondent informed the Board in
writing that the
earliest an approved facility could schedule a "fitness for duty
evaluation" was not until June
5th through the 9th. (Petitioner's Exhibits No. 4 and 5.) On or about
June 3, 2016,
Respondent informed the Board in writing that "the Board-approved
facility has cancelled the
Board-approved 'fitness for duty' evaluation deeming it an inappropriate
use of its services
based on information in ... a journalist-led 10-2-2015 discussion as to
why the President of
Page 3 of7
the United States (POTUS) along with other Americans need to always say
we're
"wonderfully hungry" and care to "convince it forward." (Testimony of
Robert Jeffery;
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6.)
9.
Chip Abernathy, a employee with Ridgeview Institute, provided testimony that
Respondent had never scheduled a mental/physical examination, that
Respondent denied having
been issued a Board order to obtain an examination, and that no
representative from Ridgeview
Institute received any materials necessary for the facility to conduct
an evaluation.
10.
Respondent testified the he has complied with the Board's Order;
however, everything
else was beyond his control. Respondent testified the he is a candidate
for President of the
United States and that if he submits to a mental evaluation, everything
has to be 100%
transparent and on-line. Respondent testified that his platform requires
him the ask everyone if
they are "wonderfully hungery." Respondent testitfied that in asking the
question, he is
exercising his right to free speech.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
O.C.G.A § 50-13-18(c)(l) provides that:
( c) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license
is lawful
unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency has
sent notice, by
certified mail or statutory overnight delivery to the licensee, of
individual facts or
conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee has been given an
opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for the
retention of the
license except where:
(1) The agency finds that the public health, safety, or welfare
imperatively requires
emergency action and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order,
in which case
Page4of7
summary suspension of a license may be ordered pending proceedings for
revocation
or other action, which proceeding shall be promptly instituted and
determined.
O.C.G.A § 43-34-8 (a)(l3) authorizes the Board to discipline a medical
license upon a
finding that the licensee has:
Become unable to practice pursuant to this chapter with reasonable skill
and safety to
patients by reason of illness or use of alcohol, drngs, narcotics,
chemicals, or any
other type of material, or as a result of any mental or physical condition:
(A) In enforcing this paragraph the board may, upon reasonable grounds,
require a
licensee, certificate holder, permit holder, or applicant to submit to a
mental or
physical examination by physicians designated by the board .... Every
person who
shall accept the privilege of practicing a profession regulated under
this chapter in this
state shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to such
mental or
physical examination and to have waived all objections to the
admissibility of the
results in any hearing before the board, upon the grounds that the same
constitutes a
privileged communication. If a licensee, certificate holder, permit
holder, or applicant
fails to submit to such an examination when properly directed to do so
by the board,
unless such failure was due to circumstances beyond his or her control,
the board may
enter a final order upon proper notice, hearing, and proof of such
refusal. Any
licensee, certificate holder, permit holder, or applicant who is
prohibited from
practicing pursuant to this chapter under this paragraph shall at
reasonable intervals be
afforded an opportunity to demonstrate to the board that he or she can
resume or
begin practice pursuant to this chapter with reasonable skill and safety
to patients.
O.C.G.A § 43-34-8 (a)(IO) authorizes the Board to discipline a medical
license upon a
finding that the licensee has:
Violated or attempted to violate a law, rule, or regulation of this
state, any other state,
the board, the United States, or any other lawful authority without
regard to whether
the violation is criminally punishable, which law, rule, or regulation
relates to or in
part regulates the practice of medicine, when the licensee or applicant
knows or
should know that such action is violative of such law, rule, or
regulation; or violated a
lawful order of the board, previously entered by the board in a
disciplinary hearing.
Upon a finding that a person should be disciplined upon grounds
identified in
0.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(a), the Board is authorized to take any one or more
of the following
actions under 0.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(b ):
(A) Refuse to grant a license, certificate, or permit to an applicant;
Page 5 of7
(B) Place the licensee, certificate holder, or permit holder on
probation for a definite
or indefinite period with terms and conditions;
(C) Administer a public or private reprimand, provided that a private
reprimand shall
not be disclosed to any person except the licensee, certificate holder,
or permit holder;
(D) Suspend any license, certificate, or permit for a definite or
indefinite period;
(E) Limit or restrict any license, certificate, or permit;
(F) Revoke any license, certificate, or permit;
(G) Impose a fine not to exceed $3,000.00 for each violation of a law,
rule, or
regulation relating to the licensee, certificate holder, permit holder
or applicant;
(H) Impose a fine in a reasonable amount to reimburse the board for the
administrative costs;
(I) Require passage of a board approved minimum competency examination;
(J) Require board approved medical education;
(K) Condition the penalty, or withhold formal disposition, which actions
shall be kept
confidential, unless there is a public order upon the licensee or
applicant, certificate
holder, or permit holder's submission to the care, counseling, or
treatment by
physicians or other professional persons and the completion of such
care, counseling,
or treatment, as directed by the board; or
(L) Require a board approved mental and physical evaluation of all
licensees,
certificate holders, or permit holders.
ORDER
After hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and reviewing the exhibits
tendered, and the
relevant law, the Board finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
the Board had reasonable
grounds to issue an OMPE in this matter.
The Board further finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr.
Chung was served
with the OMPE and that Dr. Chung has failed to comply with the Order.
Thus, the Board had
sufficient cause to summarily suspend Dr. Chung's license.
Page 6of7
The Board further finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr.
Chung has not
provided the Board with any evidence of hardship that would have
prevented him from
complying with the Order.
THEREFORE, it is the DECISION of the Board to uphold the Order of Summary
Suspension. The Board orders Dr. Chung to submit to a mental/physical
examination, to be
conducted by a Board approved psychiatrist, within thirty days from the
docket date of this
DECISION. If the results of a mental/physical examination are not
received by the Board by the
end of the business day on the thirtieth day, Dr. Chung's medical
license shall be REVOKED.
This is the FINAL DECISION of the Board as a matter oflaw under 0.C.G.A.
Sections
§§ 50-13-17 and 50-13-41.
This the 4th day of August, 2016.
GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
BY:
ATTEST·
Page 7 of7
BEFORE THE GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
STATE OF GEORGIA
GEORGIACOMPOS\TE
IN THE MATTER OF: * MEDICAL BOARD
~~~~~A~N~D~RE~Wn7'iB'~E~N~-H~UA~c~. f'fi"T'i~,...,...,~.-,
~~*~~~~~~~~IJUN-t52W .__~~~~
License No. 40347, * DOJCKETNUMBER:
Respondent. * jp _ k Do:3j
ORDER OF SUMMARY SUSPENSION
1.
Andrew Ben-Hua Chung, M.D. ("Respondent") was licensed by the Georgia
Composite
Medical Board ("Board") to practice as a physician in the State of
Georgia on or about August
3, 1995 and his license expires July 31, 2017.
2.
On or about May 16, 2016, the Board issued a confidential Order for
Mental/Physical
Examination requiring Respondent to obtain a comprehensive,
multidisciplinary
mental/physical examination by a Board approved physician/facility with
expertise in the area
of psychiatric evaluation, to include neuropsychological and
neurocognitive testing and
evaluation. The Order for Mental/Physical Examination was issued
following the Board's
receipt and review of information regarding Respondent's behavior and
speech that raised
concern about Respondent's ability to practice medicine with reasonable
skill and safety. For
example, Respondent refuses to speak with an individual unless he/she
specifically states
he/she is "wonderfully hungry".
3.
A Board investigator personally served Respondent with the Order for
Mental/Physical
Examination on or about May 16, 2016.
1
4.
The Board Order further required the Respondent to submit to said
examination with
seven (7) days of service of the Order or to provide a release for the
results of a substantially
-----~, ·¥alent-twaluatiGn c;mducted n more-than-thirty (JOJ..d~-prior
to the date..of.s.er_vice...oi.the~----Order;
the Order required Respondent to execute such release as the institution
or practitioner
may require for the release of his medical examination records to the Board.
5.
As of the date of the instant Order, the Board has not received the
results of a
mental/physical examination of Respondent.
NOW THEREFORE, based on Respondent's failure to comply with a lawful
Order of
the Board, the Board finds that summary suspension of Respondent's
license to practice as a
physician in the State of Georgia is warranted under O.C.G.A. §
50-13-18(c)(l), and hereby
ORDERS that Respondent's license to practice as a physician in the State
of Georgia be and is
hereby SUMMARILY SUSPENDED pending further proceedings on behalf of the
Board.
If the Respondent wishes to have an expedited hearing, Respondent shall
execute and
file with the Georgia Composite Medical Board the original and one copy
of the attached
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING no laterthan fourteen (14) days from the
day of
service or receipt of this Order. Respondent also shall serve a copy of
such REQUEST upon
counsel for the Board as identified in the REQUEST.
This Order is signed and attested by the Executive Director on behalf of
the Georgia
Composite Medical Board.
2
This 15 "da' y of June, 2016.
GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
ALICE HOUSE, M.D.
Chairperson
PLEASE DIRECT ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Janet Bolt Wray
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
3
BEFORE THE GEORGIA COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD
STATE OF GEORGIA
IN THE MATTER OF: *
*
NDRE\.VB~E~N~-Hl'TT'U~A~c~nrrru~Nr.....-,~~~~~*,---------------------License
No. 4034 7,
Respondent.
*
*
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
I, ANDREW BEN-HUA CHUNG, M.D., having been served with the Order of
Summary Suspension by the Georgia Composite Medical Board ("Board"), do
hereby request
an expedited hearing. I reserve the right to file a response to a Notice
of Hearing in this matter.
This __ day of ______ , 2016.
ANDREW BEN-HUA CHUNG, M.D.
Respondent
I am/will be represented by counsel:
Name of counsel if known at this time:
THIS REQUEST MUST BE FILED WITH THE GEORGIA COMPOSITE
MEDICAL BOARD, 2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., 36Tu FLOOR, ATLANTA,
GEORGIA 30303-3465.
A COPY OF THIS REQUEST MUST BE SERVED ON THE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, ATTN: JANET BOLT WRAY, SENIOR ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 40 CAPITOL SQUARE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334."
Jimmy Alpha GeD