Suspension of a license to practice medicine for two years; Whether the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) provided protection from negative licensing actions; MCL 333.26424(g); Qualifying a physician witness as an expert; MRE 702; Whether competent, material, & substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) findings; Negligence; MCL 333.16221(a); Incompetence, & lack of “good moral character”; MCL 333.16221(b)(i) & (vi); MCL 333.16104(6); MCL 338.41; Failure to properly maintain medical records; MCL 333.16213(1); Due process; Foreseeability; Bureau of Professional Licensing, Board of Medicine Disciplinary Subcommittee (the Bureau); Standard of care (SOC)

The court held that respondent-physician was not entitled to immunity under the MMMA, that the ALJ’s decision to qualify a physician witness (R) as an expert did not fall outside the range of principled outcomes, and that the ALJ’s findings were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. Thus, it affirmed petitioner-Bureau’s order suspending respondent’s medical license for two years. He “issued 21,708 medical marijuana certifications” in a 1-year period. The ALJ found he was negligent for failing to meet one of his patients (ML) “in person, failing to diagnose his conditions, and failing to plan for his continuity of care.” The ALJ further found him “incompetent for failing to conform to the [SOC] and consistently signing certificates for an extended period of time.” In addition, the ALJ determined he “lacked good moral character for issuing a high volume of certificates,” and that MCL 333.26424(g) did not apply. Finally, the ALJ found he failed to properly maintain medical records. As to respondent’s argument “he was not subject to licensing consequences pursuant to the MMMA[,]” the court noted that “MCL 333.26424(g) contains an explicit exception for violations of the” SOC. The ALJ determined that he “violated MCL 333.16221(a) (negligence) because” he failed to meet the applicable SOCs. Further, the “MMMA describes a full assessment for the purposes of a written certification as ‘a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation.’ . . . Both respondent and ML testified that they met through a video system.” The court further noted that R “opined that telemedicine was not sufficient because respondent could not test range of motion or conduct a neurological examination. [R] also opined that respondent acted below the [SOC] when he failed to diagnose ML, but respondent testified that a diagnosis was not necessary.” While he gave explanations for why he did not believe “tests or a diagnosis were necessary or appropriate, it was for the [ALJ] to determine his credibility and" weigh the evidence. R also “opined that continuity of care was part of the [SOC], and ML’s medical records did not include” such a plan as the onus was placed on ML “to follow up.”