Indiana state officials filed an administrative complaint against Dr. James E. Jenison alleging that he had committed lewd or immoral conduct in connection with the delivery of services to the public on five occasions, that he had prescribed controlled substances without a valid Controlled Substances Registration (“CSR”), and that he had engaged in fraud or material deception in order to renew his CSR. Following an administrative hearing, the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (“the Board”) found that the State had presented sufficient evidence on all seven counts and issued an order revoking Dr. Jenison’s medical license. Dr. Jenison then filed a petition for judicial review. The trial court concluded that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board’s order and granted Dr. Jenison’s petition, set aside the Board’s order, and reinstated Dr. Jenison’s license.
The Board appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it granted Dr. Jenison’s petition.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana, in its February 26, 2025 Memorandum Decision, stated: “We acknowledge that Dr. Jenison presented evidence to contradict the evidence against him. However, again, courts that review administrative determinations, at both the trial and appellate level, “are prohibited from reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.” 255 Morris, 93 N.E.3d at 1153. While the Board did not make any explicit findings regarding weight or credibility, it is clear that the Board found the victims to be credible witnesses and that it gave greater weight to the State’s evidence than to Dr. Jenison’s. Given the evidence presented by the State, including the in-person testimony from four victims, the affidavit of a fifth victim, the consumer complaints, and the employment records, we hold that the State presented substantial evidence to support its findings that Dr. Jenison had engaged in lewd or immoral conduct in connection with the delivery of services. In concluding otherwise, the trial court improperly reweighed the evidence and judged the credibility of witnesses.”
“We similarly hold that the State presented substantial evidence to show that Dr. Jenison knowingly violated a state statute or rule regulating the profession. Indiana Code Section 35-48-3-3(b) provides that “every person who dispenses
or proposes to dispense any controlled substance within Indiana must have a registration[.]” The State’s evidence demonstrates that Dr. Jenison’s CSR expired on December 1, 2021, and that he did not renew it until April 14, 2022.
The evidence further shows that he prescribed controlled substances to 163 patients during that time. Thus, the evidence shows that he prescribed controlled substances without a license.”
“Finally, we hold that the State presented substantial evidence to show that Dr. Jenison had engaged in fraud or material deception to obtain his CSR. In particular, the evidence demonstrates that Dr. Jenison was served with a copy
of the State’s motion for summary suspension on April 13, 2022, in which the State indicated that his CSR had expired on December 1, 2021, and that he had continued to prescribe controlled substances after that date. At the very least,
Dr. Jenison became aware that he had been prescribing controlled substances without a license upon receiving that motion. When he renewed his CSR on April 14, he was asked if there had “been an occasion where you have not been
in complete compliance with all state and local laws pertaining to controlled substances.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 5 at 175. Despite his knowledge that he had been prescribing controlled substances without an active CSR, Dr. Jenison responded in the negative.”
The Indiana appellate court concluded: “Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that Dr. Jenison engaged in lewd and immoral conduct in connection with the delivery of services to the public when he inappropriately touched five women, that Dr. Jenison had knowingly violated a state statute when he prescribed controlled substances without a CSR, and that Dr. Jenison had engaged in fraud or material deception in order to obtain a license to practice when he provided a false response on his CSR renewal application. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to affirm the Board’s order.”
Source Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. James E. Jenison, M.D., Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-PL-1294.
If you or a loved one were injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Indiana or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Indiana medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us on our toll-free number in the United States (800-295-3959) to find medical malpractice attorneys near you who may help you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
