A doctor whose license was recently suspended by Ohio's medical board is planning to sue the board.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is planning to fight the decision, which members of the State Medical Board of Ohio said was over the doctor's response to their investigation into her critical comments on COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Tenpenny's lawyer says.
"We're going to definitely be filing suit," Tom Renz, the lawyer, told The Epoch Times. "I don't think there's really any question about that."
The suit will focus on alleged violations of Dr. Tenpenny's due process rights and will challenge the suspension. Depending on the components, it may be filed in state court or may be filed in federal court.
"We're going to just make sure that we do what we wish they would have done, which is to be ethical, to follow the law, and to make sure that justice is served," Mr. Renz said.
The board declined to comment.
Suspension
Board members voted on Aug. 9 to suspend Dr. Tenpenny's license until she meets certain conditions, including paying a fine and cooperating with investigators.
Members and the office of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said that Dr. Tenpenny did not properly respond to questions prompted by complaints filed over her public testimony before the Ohio House of Representatives that included references to claims that vaccinated people had become magnetic.
"This case is not about Dr. Tenpenny making comments about how when you're vaccinated, 5g Towers could interfere with [you]. It's not about Dr. Tenpenny saying, when you are vaccinated, your body becomes magnetized. It's not about any of that, right?" Dr. Amol Soin, a board member, said ahead of the vote. "It really is about this whole issue of cooperation or not."
Dr. Tenpenny's actions included failing to appear at a deposition, according to Kimberly Lee, the state official who served as hearing examiner for the case.
"This is not punitive. This is procedural," Assistant Attorney General James Wakley said before the vote. "This is a stick necessary to ensure that we get the answers that we require based on the board's responsibility for ensuring the safety of the public."
Dr. Tenpenny and Mr. Renz say the state is mislabeling how she responded to questions and other investigative steps. They say she filed legal objections to the subpoena and other documents, that the investigation was unconstitutional in part because the state could not define how it defines "failure to cooperate" and because it would not show them the complaints.
"You may not like her position on vaccines, on COVID, on whatever it is that she has. But that's not the question before the board," Mr. Renz told the board. "The question before the board today is one simple question: 'Were her rights to due process violated? The record shows that they were. We have a hearing examiner who can't actually define what those rights are."
He added: "This appears very much like a witch hunt, like someone who's looking for an outcome rather than looking to follow the law."
The board declined to provide the complaints to The Epoch Times, citing state law. The law says that the board must investigate in a way that "protects the confidentiality of patients and persons who file complaints with the board."
The same law says that punitive action can be leveled in the event of failure to cooperate with a board investigation.
Mr. Renz also says that the state should have gone to court to resolve the matter.
Mr. Wakley said that going to the courts would lead to "a complete breakdown of the process of investigations" and that "justice delayed is justice denied."
If the board went to court for every case, "the board would never get anything done," added Dr. Jonathan Feibel, another board member.
Breathalyzer Comparison
Mr. Yost, a Republican, said that Dr. Tenpenny could have gone to the courts before the vote.
Mr. Renz said that it was the state's responsibility to compel and that they were not trying to cause a fight with the board.
Mr. Yost also told Just the News that Dr. Tenpenny's actions were like a driver who was pulled over refusing to take a breathalyzer.
Mr. Renz said that comparison did not make sense.
"If a cop pulls you over, and says, 'you need to take a breathalyzer,' he's got to have a reason for that, right? He's not allowed to just randomly pull you over and say you need to take a breathalyzer because he doesn't like how you look, he can't pull you over and say that you need to take a breathalyzer unless you're showing some signs and symptoms or give him some reason to think that you may be intoxicated," Mr. Renz said. "Otherwise, that's violating your due process rights."
