Steven Mullins, Executive Director
State Board of Osteopathic Examiners
4848 N. Lincoln Blvd., Ste. 100
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
Re: Lamoureaux, Case No. 415-045
Dear Executive Director Mullins:
This office has received your request for a written Attorney General Opinion regarding action that the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners intends to take in Case Number 415-045. Respondent’s license was suspended in 2015, after the Board received an Emergency Order of Suspension from the Arkansas Board due to the filing of criminal complaint in an Arkansas federal court.
The Oklahoma Osteopathic Medicine Act authorizes the Board to “revoke any license issued” upon proof that the license holder has engaged in “unethical conduct or unprofessional conduct, as determined by the Board.” 59 O.S.2021, § 637(A)(2). Further, the Board may also take action when a license holder: (5) “has . . . entered a plea of guilty . . . in a criminal prosecution for any offense reasonably related to the qualifications, functions or duties of an osteopathic physician”; (6) “has had the authority to engage in the activities regulated by the Board . . . suspended”; (7) “has violated or failed to comply with provisions of any act or regulation administered by the Board”; (8) “is incapable, for medical or psychiatric or any other good cause, of discharging the functions of an osteopathic physician in a manner consistent with the public’s health, safety and welfare”; or (13) “has been guilty of personal offensive behavior, which would include, but not be limited to, obscenity, lewdness, and molestation.” Id. § 637(A)(5–8, 13).
According to a Board complaint, Respondent entered a plea agreement to coercion and enticement of a minor in an Arkansas federal court. Respondent was ordered to serve 180 months in prison. Finding clear and convincing evidence of grounds for discipline under 59 O.S.2021, § 637(A)(2), (5–8, 13), the Board proposes to revoke Respondent’s license. The Board may reasonably believe the proposed action is necessary to deter future violations.
It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners has adequate support for the conclusion that this action advances the State’s policy to protect the public welfare.
ROB JOHNSON
General Counsel
