A federal judge has ruled that a doctor’s lawsuit against Maine’s medical licensing board can proceed, finding that the board’s order requiring her to undergo a psychological evaluation appeared to lack the procedural safeguards normally required before imposing such a sanction.
U.S. District Judge Lance Walker issued the ruling on Aug. 20, allowing Dr. Meryl Nass to continue her legal challenge against the Maine Board. Nass had filed the case arguing the board acted without proper procedure. Walker found, as alleged, that it was based on no evidence or process and lacked probable cause.
Walker wrote in his decision that judicial proceedings ordinarily require at least a probable cause finding before imposing pretrial restrictions. In this case, he wrote, the licensing body dispensed with preliminary proceedings altogether. He described the process as resembling investigatory action imposed in the absence of evidence rather than an impartial, sober and thoughtful process designed to assess facts and determine whether probable cause exists.
No comment was provided in response to a request.
The doctor’s response
Nass said in a blog post that she intends to move forward with the legal case and described her goals as clearing her name and defending what she characterized as the right of medical practitioners to share their honest assessments with patients, even if those views conflict with government or mainstream medical positions.
The background
Nass is an internal medicine physician who became a public figure during the COVID-19 pandemic for expressing skepticism about vaccines, treatments and public health guidance that differed from the positions of major health agencies. Maine suspended her license in January 2022 and ordered her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, citing her conduct including prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to patients and making statements said to be outside the mainstream of medical opinion.
Nass’s case attracted attention from critics of COVID-19 policy who viewed the board’s actions as an attempt to silence physicians who deviated from official guidance, and from medical professionals and public health advocates who argued that practicing physicians have an obligation to follow evidence-based standards of care.
What the ruling means
Walker’s ruling does not adjudicate the underlying merits of whether Nass spread misinformation or whether the board was justified in taking action against her. It addresses procedural questions about whether appropriate due process was followed before imposing the psychological evaluation requirement.
A ruling that a case can proceed is not a ruling on the substance. Nass still has to prove her claims, and the licensing body can still defend its actions in the merits phase of the litigation. What the ruling establishes is that Walker found the procedural allegations sufficiently serious that dismissing the lawsuit at this stage was not appropriate.
The ruling adds to a body of post-pandemic litigation examining what process is required before state licensing bodies can take action against physicians for speech and conduct related to COVID-19 treatment and public health guidance.
