Osteopathic board hears petition from Dr. Stephen Western seeking early end to probation

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California heard sworn testimony Aug. 14 from Dr. Stephen Duane Western as he asked the board to shorten a four‑year probation ordered in October 2022.

Administrative Law Judge Juliet Cox opened the hearing, and Deputy Attorney General Christopher Young presented the prosecution’s overview and the seven exhibits the board would consider, including Western’s petition with supporting letters and the board’s disciplinary order that imposed probation effective Oct. 10, 2022. Young told the board the discipline was based on a stipulated settlement and that, except for one narrow matter about Percocet prescriptions noted in paragraph 9 of the order, the factual allegations in the accusation were deemed admitted by Western.

Western then testified under oath, saying he complied with probation conditions, completed the required continuing medical education and other programs, and no longer practices in the ways that led to the discipline. He acknowledged aspects of the order that described his conduct — including treating a former romantic partner and record‑keeping and prescribing shortcomings — and told the board he accepts the findings and ‘‘will never do that again.’’ He said he now uses an electronic health record for patient notes and would refer complex psychiatric issues to psychiatrists rather than treat them himself.

Young and board counsel questioned Western about details in his narrative submission that appeared inconsistent with facts in the stipulation — for example, the timing of treatment provided to the patient now referred to as ‘‘patient A’’ — and pressed him about whether he continued to practice psychiatry on that patient. Western acknowledged that his recordkeeping was deficient and that some treatments were negligent; he testified he no longer provides that type of care.

The board admitted seven exhibits into the record, including the disciplinary order and probation monitoring documents. Young cited legal precedent (Hausman v. Board of Medical Examiners, 194 Cal.App.2d 308, p. 316) as guiding the board’s burden of proof when evaluating petitions for early termination: the petitioner must demonstrate rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. Board members asked brief questions and did not immediately announce any vote; Judge Cox told Western the board would deliberate in closed session and send a written decision later.

No formal action was announced before the board recessed to closed session.

Why it matters: petition hearings give the board an opportunity to weigh rehabilitation evidence against public‑protection concerns. The board’s written decision will determine whether Western’s probation is reduced and — if granted — when his conditions will formally end.