Jackson Jambalaya

Didn't I see this on "Law and Order"?

Can anybody explain to me why this Board is represented by counsel in private practice, rather than an attorney from the Attorney General's office? As far as I know, the other licensure boards, which are state agencies, have agency lawyers from the AG's office.

The board is a quasi state agency, not a state agency.

This should be a layup for the physician. The Chancellor's inquiry is limited to this: What proof did the Board have that this doctor was an imminent danger to his patients so that he could not keep his license till July 24 and be afforded due process? The answer is none. Maison should win the battle- temporary reinstatement- but will obviously lose the war when the doctor finally is afforded due process. However, the Board's egregious conduct so far will give Maison a good appeal ground, though the standard of review for his appeal will be very much in the Board's favor.

The Board will probably still win in the end, but their victory would have been a virtual certainty if they had handled this correctly (assuming they really do have substantial evidence of his misconduct).

Guilty or not (and of course this Lothario is indeed guilty! Nobody just makes this stuff up!) Dr. Wolfe’s reputation is shot, and what woman in her right mind would go within a hundred feet of any office he ever opens? So much kerfuffle about the Board and what it might have done differently, procedurally—-where is the public hurrray of acclaim for the Board, for shutting down this sleazy clown? Of course, I think the three women who were stupid enough to screw him should be publicly named, as well. Maybe this would encourage them to be less slutty during future doctor visits...?

@11:17 p.m.

You're kidding, right - obviously you didn't take the time to read the documents filed with the court that KF has taken the time to post. The doctor's lawyer has "the burden" to prove the 4 "elements necessary to obtain a TRO". He can't prove any of those 4 elements.

The most glaring and obvious is that he can't prove the element that requires him to demonstrate that he has a "likelihood of success on the merits" when the case goes to hearing before the Medical Board. Assuming that there are facts to support the board's allegations that we know about, the doctor has very little hope of success at the Medical Board because of the way that the lawyer has played it. So the lawyer can't satisfy the essential "likelihood of success on the merits" element for a TRO. Neither can he satisfy the other elements if you'll take the time to read them.

Now that the doctor's secrets are coming out of the closet with all of the publicity caused by his lawyer, do you really think that a judge is going to give this doctor a chance to continue to see patients with the possibility that he could do the same things with other young women? If the judge did let him continue to practice, can you imagine what would happen if the doctor did this again because the judge granted the TRO to allow him to see patients again? The judge would never be elected again, and the Medical Board would get sued for not protecting the public from the doctor. Gee, wake up guys.

a point of clarification needed :
There are 2 women involved in these allegations.
1. The first is the employee who Wolfe impregnated and attempted to cause her to abort. He then settled an alienation suit with her ex husband. It was during discovery for this alienation suit that Wolfe admitted to the failed abortion attempt and this explains, in part, why he tried to quash the subpoena issued for his deposition given during that suit and why he hasn't denied that part of the boards accusations.

2. The second women was impregnated by Wolfe while she was his patient. He was later seen kissing her during an ultrasound. She delivered the child several months ago. She and Wolfe married this spring after the Board launched their investigation and after the child was born.

8:03 p.m., please provide a citation to back up your conclusion that the Board is a quasi-agency. As far as I can determine, the Board is an administrative agency of the State of Mississippi, created by statute, with only those powers delegated to it by the legislature. McFadden v. Mississippi State Bd. of Med. Licensure, 735 So. 2d 145 (Miss. 1999)

Some may wish it to be a quasi-agency, as that would give them less oversight and more power, but that doesn't make it so.

In the end, I think this case comes down to the allegation that the doctor dosed his patient with abortion-inducing medication without her knowledge or consent. If the evidence backs that up, I just don't see how he can get past it.

It seems the pursuit of a TRO is being done based on Wolfe's position that MBML does not have the authority to suspend his license without a hearing.

That's not true. MBML does have the authority to suspend a physician's license on a moment's notice WITHOUT a hearing, if they deem you a danger to the public.

Now, whether the evidence they possess is substantial enough to justify their determination of him, in fact, being a danger to the public is another question. But, I don't think the chancellor is going to play doctor and let him practice until his hearing in two weeks, although stranger things have happened.

Most Boards have a private attorney who is a “Special Assistant Attorney General”. It is supposed to be cheaper and easier than having an in-house counsel.

The board’s proceedings are administrative (quasi-judicial)....no formal rules of evidence, etc., so they likely do not have an attorney, just investigators. Regardless of their decision, due process will allow for an appeal to a court of law if a doctor elects to appeal. At that point, lawyers get involved. Makes sense to employ outside counsel to handle those matters as opposed to handling it in house especially consodering the quality of counsel most doctors will be able to afford if they want to go to court.

@6:58 am said: “If the judge did let him continue to practice, can you imagine what would happen if the doctor did this again because the judge granted the TRO to allow him to see patients again? The judge would never be elected again,...”

lol this is Hinds County, competence and good decision making skills are not qualifications for being elected judge.

6:58. You're correct that I only skimmed the pleadings. I've got my own cases to work on and get paid for. However, I do believe there is a likelihood that the TRO will be granted. What should be argued is that the doctor has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the issue of was he such an imminent danger that the Board should have suspended his medical license, which they had just issued on July 1, with no due process to him. Of course the Board has no such evidence. Read their Order. The last misconduct mentioned allegedly occurred 6 months ago and consisted of inappropriate comments, hardly proof of imminent danger.

The publicity was caused by the Board, not the doctor. It was the Board that alerted all of the media. Maison then did what I would have done- sought a TRO. There's no downside. It can't get any worse than no license and the Board waging a media campaign to destroy him. As far as the argument that the Board can conduct discovery in the Chancery action, the fact is that Maison can, too. Plus the Board has subpoena power.

The Chancellor's job is not to decide whether he should have a license. Her job is to determine if th Board had proof of imminent danger to justify yanking his license they just gave him.

It sounds like you have already seen all of the Board's purported proof and decided the doctor is some dangerous micreant. Maybe he is, but their Order doesn't lay it out. What proof is there, for example, of the sordid allegation about the abortion pills? That allegation is flimsy on its face since obviously, if he did do it, he didn't know what he was doing because the child was born.

Again, the physician very likely loses in the end because he'll be in a kangaroo tribunal. But he'll go down swinging.

Other administrative agencies do have attorneys assigned to them, who work through the AG's office, and are called “Special Assistant Attorney General." The attorneys are who develop the record for appeal, as any appeal from a decision of an administrative agency to a court of law is based solely on the administrative record (except, arguably, tax appeals). This is what led me, yesterday, to ask if anybody can explain to me why the medical licensure board has outside counsel.

So far, the answers I received are 1) the board isn't a state agency, 2) Special Assistant Attorneys General don't work for the state, and 3) boards don't have attorneys until their decisions are appealed to a court. Maybe I'm misreading what was written, but it appears to me that some folks should be studying for the Bar exam right now, rather than pretending they already know the answers. I suspect the real answer the real answer to my question is "we don't know."

2:16 You might want to take the time to read a little closer.

Everyone knows that the judge is supposed to determine whether the doctor's lawyer meets his burden and proves "ALL FOUR ELEMENTS" necessary to obtain the TRO that the lawyer requested. One of those four elements is whether there is a likelihood that the doctor will "prevail on the merits" of the board's claims against him at the ultimate hearing before the board. But, the immediate danger issue, to which you allude, is NOT one of the four elements for obtaining a TRO.

The "likely to prevail on the merits" element/requirement for the TRO refers to the likelihood of the TRO applicant prevailing on the merits of the underlying claims in the litigation. It has nothing to do with the imminent danger issue as you suggest. That's where you're confused. But, even if you were right, the medical board has (and should have) a right to take emergency action against a doctor when "the medical board" believes the doctor is an immediate threat to the public. The judge is not likely to substitute his or her own opinion for that of the board's executive director (a doctor) when it comes to deciding when another doctor that he regulates does or does not pose a threat to the public.

I've read many times of the board sanctioning a doctor, but the doctor continued to practice in some manner. But in this situation, it looks like the Rambo slash and burn strategy of the doctor's lawyer has backfired on him, and that won't be a possibility for the doctor now. You can't call out the executive director of a state agency like that, basically call him an incompetent liar, and not expect to alienate him and the medical board against you. So, regardless of what documents he's filed, I don't agree with your implication that the lawyer has handled it in the best interest of the doctor. As far as the publicity, the doctor's lawyer seems to be the one getting it, and he's probably the only one that wants it. Neither the doctor or the board would have any reason to want to publicize it. From where I sit it looks like the doctor's lawyer is the one who is causing the publicity stink, not the board.

Love to see lawyers arguing law and cases, of which they 9nly have peripheral information. Almost as good as a good catfish in a bar around midnight

"What proof is there, for example, of the sordid allegation about the abortion pills? That allegation is flimsy on its face since obviously, if he did do it, he didn't know what he was doing because the child was born."

Flimsy? After a certain stage of pregnancy the drug is not effective.

Yeah, I hate those "catfish" in a late night bar.

6:52: 1. I disagree. The Chancellor's inquiry is limited to the imminent danger issue, and there is a substantial likelihood that the doctor prevails on that issue. The no due process/ danger issue is "the underlying claim in the litigation." The substantive administrative hearing at the Board isn't "the litigation"

Your argument is that despite having zero proof that this physician is an imminent danger to anybody, they can yank his license with no due process because they claim they think he's an immediate threat. My bet is the Chancellor calls BS on this specious position.

You misapprehend what happened. Board yanks his license with no notice and no hearing. Board notifies every media out,et to publicize their action. I saw it on WLBT the day the Board did it. Then and only then did Maison file for a TRO. He had no choice. The Board did not offer to allow the doctor to practice till July 24, as they should have done.

Any lawyer who has dealt with Maison knows he's no Rambo and no publicity hound. He's a fine person and excellent attorney. Say what you want about his client, but you're off base with your personal attacks on Maison.

Board did not notify media. I got a tip Wednesday night from someone not affiliated with the board. Order was online. Broke story at 6 AM Thursday. Sarah Fowler did her usual thing, which is read this website and "discover" a story and posted it three hours or so later. Rest of media quickly fell in and covered it.

Sorry to ruin your narrative.

The Medical Board DOES have a AG counseled their lawyer. Stan Ingram is under contract to be their complaint counsel, the prosecutor in a way, for their disciplinary matters. Because the lawyer for the Board cannot be the prosecutor too. The AG lawyer advises them and helps them reach a final decision.

All Special State Attorneys General are state employees who represent SPB PIN numbers at the Attorney General's office. Period. Try telling one of them he/she's not a state employee while they're busy calculating their PERS retirement.

Many state agencies have assigned SAGs. Department of Corrections, for example, has one. And they had one when Epps absconded with millions of dollars. In fact Epps, at this attorney's wedding, gave away the bride, another DOC employee.

It's another story for another day or one that will never be considered....but, was this guy asleep at the wheel? Maybe competence is not a job requirement.

If it's true, as we're told regularly, that there is only one place in Mississippi performing abortions, how is it this doctor had a supply of 'those things', the practical purpose of which is to cause an abortion?

The board DID notify the media. It posted the action on Wednesday.

Posting orders on the website as a normal course of business is not the same thing as sending out a press release to the media. No affirmative action was taken to notify the media.

As I asked in the other thread about this case, does anyone really think that Wolfe could repeat the myriad actions that form the main basis for the immediate suspension, even assuming that he really wanted to do so, in the two weeks between the immediate suspension and the hearing? Since chancery is a forum of equity, how is it equitable, even assuming the allegations in favor of the board, that Wolfe not get a hearing prior to suspension? From the perspective of a outsider with no other knowledge about Wolfe or the workings/personnel of the board and based only on what has been posted by KF and the info in the CL, this just doesn't pass the smell test.

I will also observe that just in the last 5-10 years, a number of MS lawyers and judges have admitted and/or had proved a variety of highly-inappropriate and sordid extramarital hijinks with clients, co-workers and/or litigants/defendants and I don't recall any hit with immediate disciplinary action (at least two come to mind where there were serious consequences after an appeal to MSSC and in which opinions are published).

Those posting are obviously male and the board certainly is male dominated.
You all seem to assume that the women were unable to refuse the doctor's advances though there is zero indication of forced intercourse. You seem to think the women didn't know how to prevent pregnancy or if they did, the doctor wouldn't write the prescription or insert birth control prevention.

The attempt at abortion failed and frankly that was probably because she kept the pregnancy to herself too long.

Of course, few women seem to know that if they keep up with their cycles, they can, with probable success, end the early stages of pregnancy within the first few days of being late without ever seeing an abortion doctor. Women were aborting babies in Medieval times with herbs with fairly high success and now there are legal and over the counter drugs that can do the same that are in many medicine cabinets. The only women who can't use those with a high probability of success are those with irregular cycles. These methods, sadly, are found in historical and sociologic research on specific societies or women in those societies.
The ignorance in this country of all things sexual is astounding. And, if men hadn't been in control so long, birth control in pill form wouldn't had taken so damn long to appear on the market.

Thank you, 9:48, for the explanation. I had a feeling I was missing something.

Cytotec is not, primarily, an abortion pill. It is a medicine invented to prevent stomach ulcers in people taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In the US, it is neither sold, nor marketed, as an "abortion drug".

12:24 Does that mean that in addition to the other charges, the doctor would also be guilty of malpractice if he attempted an abortion using that particular drug? Well, if he attempted it without the patient/lover's consent, wouldn't that also be malpractice?

11:33 AM I don't know about all those other things you mentioned. But, I do know that a MS Statute gives the medical board the legal right to suspend a doctor's license without a hearing.

I doubt that you're a doctor, so you don't know whether or not the doctor is a danger. What do think that the MS Legislature had in mind when they enacted that statute? I don't know and neither do you. My guess is that they felt like the medical board would be in a better position to make that call than you or I, or a judge. Don't like it, then vote for somebody to change it. But no judge is going to second guess the doctors at the medical board who say that one of their own is a danger to the public. Ain't gonna happen.

"Cytotec is not, primarily, an abortion pill. It is a medicine invented to prevent stomach ulcers in people taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In the US, it is neither sold, nor marketed, as an "abortion drug"."

Thank you for your comments. But, please tell us how it is that a man spends half his life becoming a successful medical doctor with a specialty in vaginal and Fallopian issues and chooses this particular drug for the purpose of inducing abortion? Oh...but you did say 'primarily', didn't you?

He is a physician specializing in women's issues and chose a particular drug in order to cause an abortion. Deny that all you want to. The jury would laugh you off the stand.

Dear 3:39,

At 9:58 it was said "how is it this doctor had a supply of 'those things', the practical purpose of which is to cause an abortion". I was simply correcting this misperception. He had a supply of those things that, when used off label, can cause an abortion. Of course he knew that. Of course that was his intent. Nothing in my comment indicates that I am am defending or denying. I was simply disabusing the notion that doctors keep boxes and boxes of abortifacients in their office.

Thank you for your well reasoned response...

The Legislature gave the Board the power to prevent an IMMEDIATE threat to the public. Immediate and egregious are not synonyms. What the doctor is accused of is reprehensible and in some ways unheard of, but it is sporadic, and for the most part isolated. Not something that should suspend due process. Board filings cite two experts: one that is an OB/GYN, and the other an author on medical ethics and boundaries. I feel quite certain that it is the ethicist that provided the opinion that there was an IMMEDIATE threat posed.

The Board states that it took it time assembling a case, but to this layperson that flies in the face of the argument that an immediate suspension is warranted. E.g., if an axe murderer physician was practicing, the Board should wield it's power to IMMEDIATELY stop the next axe murder. The very hint of an axe murder demands that due process be suspended and beheadings stopped. (Forgive the reductio ad absurdum). The Board would not wait for all aspects of the murders to be explicated prior to action. This is not the case here. But doctors do love to play lawyer, or in this instance law enforcement officer. The public breathes a collective sigh of relief that their vaginas are now, at last, safe from the surreptitious insertion of cytotec. Or worse yet, the threat of marriage to Dr. Wolfe.

Not that it will matter. If you peel this onion, even the most thin layer will empower the Board to take action. Not having a patient file documenting the need for controlled substances will elicit a suspension, and in the larger context here a revocation. So Dr. Wolfe only buys himself a bit more time...and creates a Board level and public feeding frenzy.

5:58 is dead on. Dr. Wolfe should win the battle but will lose the war at the Board hearing, where the tribunal consist of the same doctors who just gave him a renewed license on July 1 and then revoked it with no due process days later. His only chance, albeit a very slim one given the standard of review on appeal, is that the Chancellor on appeal reverses, in part based on the Board's obviously illegal actions taken against Dr. Wolfe so far. He may well need to lose his license, depending of course on what the proof at the hearing shows, but this should happen only after he is afforded due process. There is not a scintilla of proof that he is an immediate threat to his patients.

9:59 PM Most people believe that there's something very very wrong with a doctor who inserts pills into the vagina of his patient while they are having sex in order to cause the death and abortion of the fetus that he conceived without his patient's consent or knowledge.

That takes a very sick mind, and in some ways it could be considered attempted murder. So if he did that, where are his limits and what else might he do if he's allowed to continue to practice (no pun intended) on other women before a hearing.

But you apparently think that it's better to force the public to be at risk and exposed to the doctor's practices so that the doctor can get a few more weeks of pay. I think that the doctor will lose before the chancellor because I don't think that chancellor will tip the scales of justice the way that you want. That's just sick.

There's a name for people who prey and do sick things to people in a vulnerable position. If what the medical board alleges is true, then that name fits the doctor. Hopefully, no judge will permit the doctor to continue doing those things.

6:39, I could care less what the outcome of all of this is. I'm just saying what might well happen given how the Board has messed this up. The fact is that there is no proof in the record about the abortion pill allegation that allegedly happened years ago. I agree that IF he did that, he needs to lose his license and be prosecuted.

Question: How long has the Board known about this abortion pill allegation? Months? Why is it all of a sudden an emergency that can't wait till July 24?

4:39 PM I for one read proof that the board put in the papers they filed. If what they said is true, then the doctor could be a menace to women.

It's more important to be cautious and protect the public from a possible menace, than it is to let the doctor keep raking in his fees for a few more weeks. If there's not enough proof, then he'll get his suspension lifted in a few weeks when the board has its hearing. That's a small price to make sure that the public is safe. But hey, he might be able to sue the board to get back his two weeks worth of fees if he wins at the board hearing.

I guess in your mind, the almighty dollars for the doctor are more important than women. Isn't that what the doctor's claim for a TRO is really all about -- money that he can make in two weeks.

The only person harmed here is the child that isn’t wanted, or wasn’t wanted and survived attempted murder. With this generation, he might be spoiled and then think him or herself deprived and attempt revenge on the Wolfe Man. Time will tell and the poor kid will never get to live without folks talking bad about him. Or, her. Daddy’s money will never make it better. That’s Ephed Up.

6:52 - you are correct in the elements to win a TRO; however, I believe you misapprehend what the ultimate "controversy" is. You believe it is whether Wolfe will ultimately lose his license. I disagree. The "controversy" is whether the board had grounds to suspend the medical license without affording Wolfe the usual due process most doctors receive prior to having their license pulled. I've represented doctors who would have posed more legitimate immediate dangers to the public than what Wolfe poses...assuming all allegations against my clients were true and the all allegations against Wolfe are true. And, they were always afforded due process through notice and a hearing. I see nothing in the allegations that warrant immediate suspension. I believe Wolfe will win this battle in chancery..but as others have pointed out, he will likely lose the war after he gets what he asking for...a hearing. Finally, with regard to Maison Heidelberg....I've never met a finer attorney. And, a publicity seeker he is not.

7:32 PM The "controversy" is the board's charges of the violations by Wolfe contained in the board's affidavit/complaint against him. The board utilized the emergency suspension statute to suspend Wolfe, and followed the procedure specified. Go read the statute. If Wolfe wants to make the controversy about due process instead of the charges against him, then he needs to file a complaint that constitutionally challenges the statute. The application for a TRO does not accomplish it. Go read the TRO rule.

As for the publicity, the board has no reason to want it, and I doubt that the doctor does either. It's not in the best interest of either. That sorta narrows the list of who benefits from publicity. But one of the associates of the doctor's lawyer wouldn't admit that, would they? They'd more likely suck up, don't you think.

"I was simply disabusing the notion that doctors keep boxes and boxes of abortifacients in their office. "

Correct - most doctors do not - only those who want to provide them so patients can have an abortion in private, without going to an "abortion clinic".

Personally, I'd like to see the posters at 7:32 and 9:51 face-off in court, and then on appeal, as I suspect they are both skilled, experienced attorneys. High-quality counsel with genuinely-different interpretations of the law make for good published opinions, in my opinion. If competent, reasonable minds couldn't differ on what the law means, society wouldn't need attorneys or the courts (except to deal with the unreasonable minds - 9:56, I'm looking in your direction).

7:32 is right, and 9:51 is wrong. 9:51 is real good at taking cheap shots at 7:32 rather than just disagreeing with him.

The fact is that there was no emergency, there's no proof that Dr. Wolfe is an immediate threat to anybody, and the Board got this wrong. This is not about Dr. Wolfe' income. I'm sure missing a few weeks of pay won't land him at Stewpot. This is about following the rule of law and giving the doctor due process before taking his medical license.

@7:32 Yours is very much a minority view . . . on all points . . . according to those who know the lawyer and understand the legal issues. LOL at your "dissent".

Reading these comments is entertaining to say the least. What is even more entertaining than reading, is picking out the "anonymous" comments made by Dr. Wolfe, who is clearly trying to conduct damage control.

Boards are not 'state agencies'. Boards are boards.