2023-00496
Active
Yes
03/06/2023
05/08/2027
See: Actions-Adverse & Administrative Tab
Active Supervisees
| Name | Type | Status | Approved | Inactive |
| None Reported |
North Carolina Hospital Admitting Privileges
Out of State Active/Inactive Licenses
Out of Country Active/Inactive Licenses
Address
Jacksonville, NC
Information
Medical School
| School | Graduation |
| Uniformed Services Univ of the Health Sciences | 2005 |
Post Graduate Training
"Last Year" does not necessarily mean that the licensee completed his/her training program. (In NC, a physician can be licensed without completing such a program.)
| Institution | Specialty | State, Country | Training Program | Last Year |
| Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune | Family Medicine |
NC, US
| Residency | 2012 |
| National Naval Medical Center | Other - Transitional Internship |
MD, US
| Internship | 2006 |
Current Board Certification and Year of Certification/Recertification
Physicians should not list non-ABMS or non-AOA specialty boards unless the board meets the criteria set forth in the NC Medical Board’s Advertising and Publicity Position Statement.
| Primary/Subspecialty | Year |
| None Reported |
Area of Practice
| Area Of Practice | Primary |
| Family Medicine | Yes |
Current Membership in Medical Professional Organizations
Honors & Awards
| Honor/Award | Given By | Date |
| None Reported |
Public Service
| Name of Clinic | Service Description | Date |
| None Reported |
Current Academic Appointments
| Title | Institution | City, State, Country |
| None Reported |
Publications
Section 1: Adverse Actions
North Carolina Medical Board Public Actions
This section indicates whether the North Carolina Medical Board has taken adverse public action regarding the
licensee. Click on the link or links below to see an electronic copy of public documents associated with the
licensee.
Certain public documents, such as hearing transcripts, are listed but are not posted on the site. If the record
indicates a transcript is available, it may be obtained by contacting the Board.
NCMB public actions are posted on this site indefinitely.
| Date | Description | Link |
|
01/23/2026
| Amended Consent Order |
View
|
|
03/06/2023
| Consent Order |
View
|
Other Regulatory Board or Agency Public Actions
This section indicates whether a regulatory authority other than NCMB has taken public action against the
licensee. Out-of-state medical board actions are posted on this website indefinitely. Actions by regulatory
agencies such as Medicare, Medicaid, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
etc., are posted for a period of seven years, from the date of the action.
| Date | Name of Board/Agency | Action Taken | Link |
|
10/16/2023
| Virginia Board of Medicine | Suspension of medical license based on action taken by Wisconsin Medical Examining Board |
View
|
|
09/20/2023
| Wisconsin Medical Examining Board | Surrender of medical license |
View
|
Health Care Institution Suspensions and Revocations
| Date | Health Care Institution | Action Taken |
| None Reported |
Section 2: Administrative Actions
Actions listed in this section are considered non-disciplinary by the Board. In situations where
administrative actions are taken, the licensee may not have met certain statutory requirements or
may have failed to follow correct administrative procedures.
North Carolina Medical Board Reentry Agreement
| Date | Description | Link |
| None Reported |
North Carolina Special Purpose Licensing Agreement
| Date | Description | Link |
| None Reported |
Malpractice Information
This section indicates whether the licensee has been the subject of a malpractice judgment, award,
payment or settlement. In accordance with NC law, the board posts this information for a period of
seven years after the date of the judgment, award, payment or settlement. Settlements of less than
$75,000 or that occurred prior to May 1, 2008 are not included in this information.
The Board encourages the public to consider malpractice payment information in context and in
combination with other information about the licensee’s education, training and professional
experience.
Please see Interpreting Malpractice Payment Information below.
The Board reviewed this payment and determined that no public action was warranted.
| Incident Date | Payment Date | Area of Practice | City, State, Country | Response |
| 05/13/2016 |
07/09/2020
| Obstetrics |
Camp Lejeune, NC, US
| The following is based on my review of the patient's medical information that was provided to me, the medical literature, and my recollection of her care.
I diagnosed twin pregnancy at 13 weeks gestation via ultrasound at the initial OB visit. Because I had never cared for a twin pregnancy nor delivered twins previously, I made sure that the patient was referred to an obstetrician for counseling on twin delivery and maternal-fetal medicine for proper monitoring of twin gestation. Additionally, I researched the risks involved with twin gestation and risk mitigation strategies. Specifically, there is an increased risk for preterm delivery and preeclampsia in twin gestation. The specific risk reduction that I identified was the administration of low-dose aspirin after 14 weeks gestation until 36 weeks. I discussed this with another obstetrically trained family physician who agreed that this was a good and safe clinical decision.
At the next routine OB visit, at 16 weeks gestation, I initiated aspirin therapy for the prevention of preterm labor, intrauterine growth restriction, and preeclampsia in twin gestation. The order placed in the EHR was for 325 mg aspirin. The intent was for a low dose (81 mg) aspirin. I incorrectly ordered the wrong dose, most likely the result of a mouse click error. I ordered 90 days of medication with adequate refills to get her through the pregnancy.
The EHR primary care routine OB template used in the family medicine clinic was manually updated to indicate the aspirin prescription, as per standard procedures because the does not automatically update the current medications information. I entered the intended dose of 81 mg vice the actual prescribed dose of 365 mg. Because the medical reconciliation is manually entered and does not synchronize with the actual pharmacy record, and then is copied forward to future encounters, the EHR system and the established practices for using the template perpetuated this error.
The workaround of the template was intended to streamline documentation and provide a better, more readable, and provider friendly record; however, that workaround does not have a built-in mechanism to validate manual entries. There is no check between the patient encounter and the pharmacy record. This system problem also exists with the medical history and other historical elements of the patient encounter record.
, as it is built and functions, creates a cumbersome and unwieldy encounter document that hinders efficient patient care. The tools and techniques developed to fix that have created their own risks, such as this situation. The combination of manual entry and copy forward, which is the standard procedure for the use of the, creates and perpetuates a systemic risk of documentation error and, therefore, treatment error.
Because of the associated risks with a twin gestation and delivery, I ordered consultations from obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine and reviewed each encounter with an OB trained family physician. The patient was evaluated and counseled on twin delivery by an obstetrician. The patient was routinely monitored by the maternal-fetal medicine clinic, both the specialist and the nurse-midwife that worked in the clinic. There were no indications of complications with the pregnancy and the medication was never questioned. Medical reconciliation was documented in multiple encounters by these other providers and no one identified the aspirin dosing error. This further highlights the system problem with proper documentation and medication reconciliation.
Immediately after being informed of the medication error, I did a detailed literature search on aspirin and pregnancy. The search confirmed that there was evidence of significant benefit from low-dose aspirin use to help prevent preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm labor, all of which are of increased risk in twin gestation. Dosing regimens studied were up to 150 mg of aspirin a day with improved outcomes and no increased risk of bleeding or placental abruption.
In preparing this statement, I searched the medical literature for "aspirin" and "pregnancy" to include data published up to the time of my aspirin prescription in this case and have found no evidence that would indicate that the medication error was the cause of this outcome. I repeated a search to include the most recent data available. This updated search confirmed the benefit of aspirin in pregnancies at increased risk for preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm labor and that there were no significant risks associated with aspirin use. Specifically, there was no significantly increased risk of placental abruption and peripartum hemorrhage.
One study specifically looking at the use of aspirin and its effect on placental abruption and antepartum hemorrhage indicated that daily doses of aspirin greater than 100 mg for the prevention of preeclampsia may decrease the risk of placental abruption or antepartum hemorrhage.
Although I ordered the wrong dose of the correct medication, the template and the clinical procedures in practice at the facility facilitated the perpetuation of that error and prevented it from being identified and corrected. I do not take this case lightly and do not have a cavalier approach to evaluating my role in what happened. I have informally consulted multiple physicians - obstetricians, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, pediatricians, and hematologists - regarding this case because I wanted to know if the outcome was my fault. None of them have had any suspicion that a 325 mg aspirin resulted in placental abruption or the baby's developmental abnormalities.
|
Interpreting Malpractice Payment Information
North Carolina Medical Board Public Action associated with a malpractice payment
An important factor to consider when interpreting malpractice payment information is whether the
payment is associated with a public action of the NC Medical Board. The Board reviews the quality
of care associated with every malpractice payment involving a North Carolina licensee. The Board
takes public action when its investigation determines patient care was below accepted and prevailing
standards.
When considering malpractice payment data, please keep in mind:
-
The existence of a payment does not necessarily mean that malpractice has occurred. Nor is a payment
necessarily evidence of incompetence, misconduct or an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the licensee.
-
It often takes years for a malpractice claim to move through the legal and/or liability insurance systems.
The incident that resulted in a payment may have taken place years before the payment was made.
-
Malpractice payment histories vary by area of practice. Some licensees may have a higher-than-average
incidence of malpractice payments because they specialize in treating patients who are at a high risk
for problems.
-
Malpractice insurance companies sometimes settle cases because it is less costly to make a monetary
settlement than it is to defend a case in court. Many times, such cases are settled without a finding
of fault or admission of negligence by the licensee.
Misdemeanor/DUI/DWI Conviction Information
| Conviction Date | Conviction | Jurisdiction | Sentence |
| None Reported |
Felony Conviction Information
| Conviction Date | Conviction | Jurisdiction | Sentence |
| None Reported |