Medical board declines two reinstatement requests, approves amended consent order for monitored physician

At its April 14 meeting, the state medical licensing board considered three licensing matters: two physician reinstatement applications and a proposed amendment to a consent order for a physician already under monitoring.

The board did not recommend reinstatement for Dr. Malletz, who applied after active practice ended in 2014. Celeste Aldell of the practitioner licensing and investigation section presented the application; board members said the packet lacked a clear statement of why Dr. Malletz sought reinstatement and that recent continuing medical education (CME) documentation was either out of date or not clearly current. Dr. Wolf, Dr. Green and other members said they were uncomfortable granting an unrestricted license to someone who had been out of active practice for 12 years. The motion to recommend reinstatement, moved by Dr. Green and seconded by Dr. Zean, failed on a roll‑call vote: yes 0, no 13. The board recorded that Dr. Malletz’s reinstatement would not be recommended at this time and requested updated documentation and a clearer statement of intent if the applicant seeks reconsideration.

The board next reviewed Dr. Tesler’s reinstatement application. Members flagged evidence that he had been consulting while unlicensed, questioned whether consulting involved the practice of medicine, and asked whether he carried malpractice insurance and what clinical duties he intended to perform if reinstated. Concern that the applicant’s recent activities may amount to practicing without a license led the board to vote not to recommend reinstatement; the motion, moved by Dr. Green and seconded, failed on a roll call (yes 0, no 13). Members asked licensing staff to seek detailed information about the nature and substance of the applicant’s consulting work before the board will reconsider the application.

The board then considered a proposed amendment to a consent order for Dr. Burgerer, who is on probation under a restriction that limits direct patient care and prescribing. Department counsel said the amendment would extend probation to monitor alleged noncompliance: one positive alcohol screen on Aug. 28 and two missed daily check‑ins on Nov. 4 and Dec. 8. Defense counsel said the positive screen was the result of inadvertent ingestion of punch at a family event, that the applicant has no history of alcohol dependence, and that missed check‑ins occurred for reasons the defense characterized as understandable (confusion about holidays and an acute illness). The board voted to approve the amended consent order: yes 12, no 0, recused 1 (Dr. Wolf).

Votes at a glance: - Dr. Malletz—reinstatement recommendation: failed (yes 0, no 13). - Dr. Tesler—reinstatement recommendation: failed (yes 0, no 13). - Dr. Burgerer—amended consent order (extend probation/monitoring): approved (yes 12, no 0, recused 1).

Why it matters: The reinstatement denials show the board requires current CME evidence, clarity on applicants’ intended scope of practice, and reassurance about patient‑safety risks after prolonged absence from active clinical work. The approved consent order keeps monitoring in place for a physician already restricted from direct care.

What’s next: Board staff said applicants may return with updated documentation; the board asked that any reconsideration packets include a clear statement of intent and current CME records.

Attributions: Statements and votes are recorded from the meeting transcript; attorney arguments were presented by Attorney Joel Newton for the department and defense counsel Attorney Lagnes.