Facts

In 2006, the Medical Board of California received its first complaint regarding Dr. Ernest Bonner Jr. Four years later, after an investigation and reports from Board employees and expert medical consultants, the Department of Health Care Services suspended Dr. Bonner's Medi-Cal provider number for two years. Then, in early 2013, though the Board revoked Dr. Bonner's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate, it stayed that revocation, instead placing him on probation for three years, but with certain conditions: a physician had to monitor his practice; he had to pay for and complete ethics and medical record-keeping courses; and undergo a formal assessment. In response, Dr. Bonner filed suit in superior court. His case went all the way to the California Supreme Court during which, at each step, he was denied relief.

In April 2014, after being on probation for a year, Dr. Bonner filed a petition, requesting additional time to pay for the courses he was required to take as part of his probation. Two months later, the Board sought to revoke Dr. Bonner's probation because of his failure to comply with probation terms. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that the Board revoke probation and plaintiff's license because of his failure to comply with the probationary terms. The Board, adopting the ALJ's recommendation, then told Dr. Bonner it was withdrawing his petition because they were revoking his license.

Dr. Bonner filed a writ to stay the revocation of his license. The Sacramento Superior Court issued a temporary stay, finding that the Board would unlikely prevail on the merits. The Board then placed Dr. Bonner back on probation and reinstated his license. In March 2015, Dr. Bonner was given instructions for getting a new Medi-Cal billing number and he applied for the new number in 2020.

In February 2017, Dr. Bonner filed a complaint in USDC Eastern against Board employees, including the then Executive Director, Staff Services Manager, investigator, reviewers, and others, alleging violations of federal law. The district court granted defendants' first motion to dismiss, but allowed Dr. Bonner to amend certain claims.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff generally alleged, in his amended complaint, violations of civil rights, and conspiracy to violate those rights; antitrust violations, and conspiracy to commit those violations. For example, plaintiff contended that the Board interviewers' report contained an inordinate amount of misrepresentations and fabrications. Moreover, defendants were not entitled to immunity as the acts were ministerial in nature which precluded defendants from arguing that their actions were shielded by absolute immunity.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that they were entitled to absolute immunity, as actions during disciplinary hearing processes, including investigation, fall within the scope of absolute immunity.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims.