BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Accusation Against: case 16?2012'222622 DEFAULT DECISION SEGUN M. A. RASAKI, MD. AND ORDER 10574 IRON HORSE LANE CARMEL, IN 46032 [Gov Code, ?11520] AND CERTIFICATE No. A94806 RESPONDENT. On June 5, 2012, an employee of the Medical Board of California (?Board?) sent by certi?ed mail a copy of Accusation No. 16-2012-222622, Statement to Respondent, Notice of Defense in blank, copies of the relevant sections of the California Administrative Procedure Act as required by sections 11503 and 11505 of the Government Code, and a request for discovery, to Segun M.A. Rasaki, M.D. (?Respondent?) at what was then his address of record with the Board. Respondent ?led a Notice of Defense, and provided a new address of record: 10574 Iron Horse Lane, Carmel, IN 46032. Thereafter, on February 15, 2013, a First Amended Accusation was ?led and served on Respondent at his address of record. The green certi?ed mail receipt for the First Amended Accusation was signed and returned. (First Amended Accusation package, proof of service and return noti?cation, Exhibit Package, Exhibit 11; Notice of Defense, Exhibit 2.) On February 25, 2013, a Notice of Hearing was served by certi?ed mail on Respondent, informing him that an administrative hearing in this matter was scheduled for May 2, 2013. The certi?ed mail receipt were signed and returned. (Exhibit Package, Exhibit 3, Notice of Hearing, the proof of service and receipt.) 1 The evidence in support of this Default Decision and Order is submitted herewith as the ?Exhibit Package.? Default Decision and Order (16-2012-222622) Respondent did not appear at the May 2, 2013 hearing. Deputy Attorney General Jane Zack Simon appeared on behalf of Complainant. The Administrative Law Judge found that proper notice of the hearing had been provided, and declared Respondent to be in default. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Linda K. Whitney is the Executive Director of the Board. The charges and allegations in the First Amended Accusation were at all times brought and made solely in the of?cial capacity of the Board?s Executive Director. 11. On April 5, 2006, Physician?s and Surgeon?s Certi?cate No. A94806 was issued by the Board to Segun M.A. Rasaki, MD. The certi?cate will expire on October 31, 2013, and is SUSPENDED based on an order issued on May 11, 2012 pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 2310(a). (Exhibit Package, Exhibit 4, license certi?cation.) On February 15, 2013, Respondent was duly served with a First Amended Accusation, alleging causes for discipline against Respondent. Respondent had previously ?led a Notice of Defense to contest the Board?s action against him, but he thereafter failed to appear at a properly noticed hearing, and was declared to be in default. IV. The allegations of the First Amended Accusation are true as follows: On March 22, 2012, the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana summarily suspended Respondent?s license to practice medicine in Indiana based on the fact that on March 5, 2012 Respondent was charged with sexual battery and battery on two of his patients. After the criminal charges were ?led, a number of Respondent's former patients came forward and alleged inappropriate sexual touching during treatment. On September 28, 2012, the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana issued its ?nal decision entitled Findings of Fact, Cenclusions of Law, and Order (Indiana Order) following an administrative hearing. The Indiana Order contained factual Default Decision and Order (16-2012-222622) ?ndings that Respondent, who held himself out as a family practitioner, obstetrician] gynecolo gist and pain management physician, was convicted on September 25, 2012 of one count of felony sexual battery and one count of misdemeanor battery. (Criminal Conviction, EXhibit Package, Exhibit 5.) The Indiana Order contained a number of other ?ndings, including: that Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual touching of a patient during a medical appointment; that approximately 40 other patients reported inappropriate sexual touching during medical examinations; that Respondent prescribed controlled substances to undercover law enforcement of?cers without adhering to the standard of care; that Respondent issued prescriptions for controlled substances during a time when his DEA Registration was suspended or revoked; that based on expert review, Respondent's prescribing practices regarding controlled substances fell well below the standards of medical care and were dangerous to the health and safety of his patients; and that Respondent engaged in a pain management practice despite lacking appropriate knowledge to do so. Based on these ?ndings, Respondent?s Indiana license was revoked. (A copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order issued by the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana is attached to the First Amended Accusation, Exhibit Package, Exhibit 1.) DETERMINATION OF ISSUES 1. Pursuant to the foregoing Findings of Fact, Respondent?s conduct and the action of the Michigan Board of Medicine constitute cause for discipline within the meaning of Business and Professions Code sections 2305 and 141(a). II. Respondent?s criminal convictions constitutes unprofessional conduct and the conviction of crimes substantially related to the quali?cations, functions or duties of a physician and surgeon, and are cause for discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 2234 and/or 2236. Default Decision and Order (16?2012-222622) DJN Respondent?s conviction for sexual battery requires him to register as a sex offender, pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Respondent is therefore subject to the provisions of section 2232 of the Code and his license must be revoked. DISCIPLINARY ORDER Physician?s and Surgeon?s certi?cate No. A94806 issued to Segun M.A. Rasaki, MD. is hereby REVOKED. Respondent shall not be deprived of making a request for relief from default as set forth in Government Code section 11520(c) for good cause shown. However, such showing must be made in writing by way of a motion to vacate the default decision and directed to the Medical Board of California at 2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1200, Sacramento, CA 95815 within seven (7) days of the service of this Decision. June 14 This Decision will become effective 2013 It is so ordered on May 16 2013. MEDICAL BOARD OF ALIFORNIA By LINDA K. EXECUTIVE DIREC Default Decision and Order (16-2012-222622) '28 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California 085 R. GUERRERO Supervising Deputy Attorney General JANE ZACK SIMON Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 116564 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102?7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5544 Facsimile: (415) 703?5480 E?mail: I anezack.simon@doj .ca. gov Attorneys for Complainant Medical Board of California alas stars or cAiJroaNIA ear-20am BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Accusation Against: SEGUN M. A. RASAKI, MD. 10574 Iron Horse Lane Carmel, TN 46032 Physician? and Surgeon? Certi?cate No. A94806 Respondent. Case No. 16-2012?222622 FIRST AMENDED ACCUSATION The Complainant alleges: PARTIES 1. Complainant Linda K. Whitney is the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (Accusation) solely in her of?cial capacity. and brings this First Amended Accusation 2. On April 5, 2006, Physician?s and Surgeon?s Certi?cate No. A94806 was issued by the Medical Board of California to Segun M.A. Rasaki, MD. (?Respondent?) Said certi?cate will expire on October 31, 2013, and is in SU SPENDED status based on an order issued on May 11, 2012 pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 2310(a). First Amended Accusation (16-2012-222622) JURISDICTION 3. This Accusation is brought before the Medical Board of California], (the ?Board?) under the authority of the following sections of the California Business and Professions Code (?Code?) and/or other relevant statutory enactment: A. Section 2227 of the Code provides in part that the Board may revoke, suspend for a period not to exceed one year, or place on probation, the license of any licensee who has been found guilty under the Medical Practice Act, and may recover the costs of probation monitoring. B. Section 2234 of the Code provides that the Board shall take action against a licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. C. Section 2305 of the Code provides, in part, that the revocation, suspension, or other discipline, restriction or limitation imposed by another state upon a license to practice medicine issued by that state, that would have been grounds for discipline in California under the Medical Practice Act, constitutes grounds for discipline for unprofessional conduct. D. Section 141 of the Code provides: For any licensee holding a license issued by a board under the jurisdiction of a department, a disciplinary action taken by another state, by any agency of the federal government, or by another country for any act substantially related to the practice regulated by the California license, may be ground for disciplinary action by the respective state licensing board. A certi?ed copy of the record of the disciplinary action taken against the licensee by another state, an agency of the federal government, or by another country shall be conclusive evidence of the events related therein. Nothing in this section shall preclude a board from applying a speci?c statutory provision in the licensing act administered by the board that provides for discipline 1. The terms ?Board? and ?Division? or ?Division of Medical Quality? mean the Medical Board of California; First Amended Accusation (16-2012-222622) based upon a disciplinary action taken against the licensee by another state, an agency of the federal government, or another country.? E. Section 2236 of the Code provides that the conviction of any offense substantially related to the quali?cations, functions or duties of a physician and surgeon constitutes unprofessional conduct. F. Section 2232 of the Code requires the revocation of the license of any physician and surgeon required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290. FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Discipline, Restriction, or Limitation Imposed by Another State) 4. On March 22, 2012, the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana summarily suspended Respondent?s license to practice medicine in Indiana based on the fact that on March 5, 2012 Respondent was charged with sexual battery and battery on two of his patients. After the criminal charges were filed, a number of Respondent?s former patients came forward and alleged inappropriate sexual touching during treatment. On September 28, 2012, the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana issued its ?nal decision entitled Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Indiana Order) following an administrative hearing. The Indiana Order contained factual findings that Respondent, who held himself out as a Family Practitioner, Obstetrician/Gynecologist and Pain Management Physician, had been convicted on September 25, 2012 of one count of felony sexual battery and one count of misdemeanor battery. The Indiana Order contained a number of other findings, including: that Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual touching of a patient during a medical appointment; that approximately 40 other patients reported inappropriate sexual touching during medical examinations; that Respondent prescribed controlled substances to undercover law enforcement of?cers without adhering to the standard of care; that Respondent issued prescriptions for controlled substances during a time when his DEA Registration was suspended or revoked; that based on expert review, Respondent's prescribing practices regarding controlled substances fell well below the standards of medical care and were dangerous to the health and safety of his patients; and that Respondent engaged in a pain management practice despite lacking appropriate knowledge to do so. Based on 3 First Amended Accusation (16-2012?222622) these ?ndings, Respondent's Indiana license was revoked. A copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order issued by the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana is attached as Exhibit A. 5. Respondent?s conduct and the action of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana as set forth in paragraph 4, above, constitute unprofessional conduct within the meaning of section 2305 and conduct subject to discipline within the meaning of section 141(a). SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Criminal Conviction) 6. The factual allegations set forth above are incorporated herein by reference. 7. Respondent?s criminal conviction constitutes unprofessional conduct and the conviction of crimes substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a physician and surgeon, and is cause for discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 2234 and/ or 2236. 8. Respondent?s conviction requires him to register as a sex offender. Respondent is therefore subject to the provisions of section 2232 of the Code and his license must be revoked. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Board issue a decision: 1. Revoking Physician?s and Surgeon?s Certificate Number A94806 issued to respondent Segun M.A. Rasaki, 2. Revoking Respondent?s authority to supervise physician assistants; fl, 3. Taking such other and further action as the Board eemsmecessary and proper. DATED: February 13, 2013 LINDA K. WHITNE Executive Director Medical Board of alifornia Department of nsumer Affairs State of California Complainant First Amended Accusation (16-2012-222622) EXHIBIT A BEFORE THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDEANA CAUSE NO. 2012 MLB 0022 THE OF THE LICENSE OF or.? 1:33: Fit?- -.it_lJ no Zinc. snoon M. RASAKI, MI). L1-CEN-SENO: 01061519A indiana Licensing Agency FINDINGS OF FACT1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER The Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (?Board?) held an administrative hearing on the 27th day of September, in Room Indiana Government Center South: 40?. est Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204: eonc-eming a disciplinary Complaint filed against the medical license of Segun M. Rasalti, MD. (?Resliondent?): on September 13, 2012. The State of Indiana (?Petitioner?) was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Jessica W. ng. The Respondent appeared in person) and by counsel, Brian Lute, Esq. The Board, after considering the evidence presented and taking of?cial notice of its file in this matter, by a vote of 5?0?0, issues the following: i . Respondent is a physician holding Indiana license number 0] 06l519A. 2. Iiespondent?s address on file with the Board is 3266 N. Meridian St: Suite 60l Indianapolis, IN 46208. 3. Respondent has previously maintained a medical practice at 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 6017 Indianapolis, IN 46208. Respondent?s current practice location is 6855 Shore Terrace: Indianapolis, IN 46254. Respondent has held himself out as a Family Practitioner as well as an Obsten?ieiaru?Gyneeologist and a Pain Management Physician- m??I 4. The Board has jurisdiction to decide this matter, conduct a hearing, and impose discipline upon a Respondent?s license in accordance with Ind. Code art. 25?1 and Ind. Code eh. 2532643. was adequate notice of the hearing in accordance with ind. Code and hid. Code c'lz?L?l .5~3?20. 5. The Board placed Respondent?s license on Summary S?USpension on lVl-areh 2012 and it was extended on May 24, 2012 and August 23? 2012. 6. In March 2012, Respondent was charged criminally with two (2) counts of battery and one count of sexual battery relating to his inappropriate touching of two individual female patients. 7. On September 25, 2012, ReSpondent was convicted of one (1) count of Felony Sexual. Battery and one (ill) count of Misdemeanor Battery in the Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division. 8. Respondent was the physician for Shawnteil Caito from 2010-2011. 9. During a Visit in the late fall of 20111? Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual touching of Ms. Caito when she sppeared for a routine medical appointment. 10. Subsequent to the arrest of Respondent; numerous other patients of the Respondent came forward to report similar allegations of inappropriate touching that occurred during purported physical examinations. lndianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Sex Crimes Detective Laura Stnidi spoke with approximately 40 patients who reported receiving ?pap smears? or ?pelvic. exams? where the Respondent touched their genitals in ti manner inconsistent with a medical exam or without medical necessity. Such examinations are routinely performed only on an annual basis, not evory thirty laits New"; L1 days as was done by Respondent. As such? these actions violate the standards of medical practice. ll. Madeline Kuzn?ia1 Diversion lnvestigator for the Drug Enforcement Administration served Respondent at his of?ce with an Immediate Suspension Order on December 21, 2011. The effect of the 180 was to susPend the Respondent?s DEA Registration which is a necessary license to prescribe controlled substances. 12. The action taken by the DEA in suspending Respondent?s license was predicated on its investigation, which revealed that Respondent had prescribed controlled substances to undercover of?cers without following the necessary standards of care on approximately ten (10) occasions. These actions constitute a violation of the Controlled Substance Act which is enforced by the. DEA. 13. Restiondent?s DEA Registration has been suSpended or revoked continuously since December 21, 2011, and at no time after that date could Respondent issue a valid prescription for controlled substances. 14. Respondent issued a prescription for Phenobarbital, a Schedule IV controlled substance. on January 11, 2012, in violation of both state and federal regulations. 15. Respondent issued a prescription for Promethazine VC/Codeine, a Schedule HI controiled substance. on January 19, 2012, in violation of both state and federal regulations. L1) to. Respondent issued a prescription for Dronabinol; a Schedule Ill controlled substance according to federal regulations and a Schedule ll controlled substance in the State of lndianai on. February 1 l, 20 2t in violation, of both state and federal regulations. 17. Dr. Timothy King an expert in the areas oi" ,Aitiesthesiology and Pain Management, conducted a thorough review of a random of 19 of Respondent?s patient: charts. in, addition to the patient charts, Dr. King reviewed reports from the Indiana Scheduled Prescription Electronic Collection Tracking Program as well as Coroner?s reports where available. 18. Based on Dr. King?s complete review of Respondent?s prescribing practices, Dr. King was sale to draw conclusions as to the appropriateness of medical care provided by 19'. Respondent?s prescribing, practices regarding controlled substances fell well below the standards of medical care and were dangerous to the health and safety of his patients. 20. Of the charts reviewed, 9' of the patients received controlled substances from multiple providers, a fact that indicates Respondent?s prescribing of controlled substances in the manner in which he prescribed was contraindicated and did not meet the appropriate standards for medical care. 21. Of the charts reviewed? 333% of the patients had inconsistent urinaryt drugr screen results which indicated that the controlled substances prescribed by Respondent were not being used for appropriate medical purposes and that he knew or should have known of their diversion. 22. Of the charts reviewed, 67% of the patients had no UDS results at all, indicating that Respondent failed to appropriately monitor the health and safety of his patients and insure that the controlled substances that he was prescribing were not being diverted. instead. he contributed to their diversion. 23. Of the. charts reviewed, 56% of the patients had a history of substance abuse and or addiction which made Respondent?s prescribing of controlled substances. contraindicated and likely to lead to diversion. 24. Of the charts reviewed: 61% of the patients had a cornorhid diagnosis of one or more conditions that contraindicated the use of controlled substances in their treatment; Respondent failed to acknowledge this fact and prescribed these controlled substances? an act which fell below the standards of medical care. 25. Of the charts reviewed, 50% of the patients received the ?triad? of controlled substances {benzodiazepinea stimulants, and an ?enhancer?) that is indicative of diversiOn. These. controlled substances prescribed in combination are largely not supported under appropriate standards of medical care given their dangerousness as a pharmacological mix and their desirability for use for diversionary purposes. 26. Respondent?s treatment of patients largely ignored the diagnoses and histories documented in the patient chart. Patients who were noted to be allergic to codeine were prescribed codeine. A patient who was noted to be pregnant received codeine during pregnancy. a known and obvious contraindication for narcotics. These failures are indicative that Respondent?s purpose for prescribing the controlled substances was not based in medical standards of care. In 27. espondent?s medical charts documented that patients had numerous diagnoses that had no soppoi?ting evidence. Speci?cally: several patients Were noted to have hyperlipiden'iia, a condition where the patient has an excess of lipids. or fats. in. his or her blood. Most patients with this diagnosis lacked con?rmatory lab work. In the one [1 j} patient where lab work was completed. the patient?s cholesterol count was normal a fact that negates the diagnosis given to her. 2 . The excessive number of diagnoses ascribed to patients without supporting documentation is suSpicioiis of fraud and fails to meet the standards of medical practice. 29 Respondent prescribed cough syrup with hydrocodone, a controlled substance. repeatedly and in a ll'l?ll?til? inconsistent with safety. These medications. such as Tussionex. are intended to treat cough associated with a cold for approximately one week. Respondent repeatedly prescribed this medication in excessive amounts. montth for up to four years. his practice can only he considered against the standards of medical practice and is indicative ofdiversion. 30. Respondent engaged in the act of pain management despite lacking the appropiiale knowledge or ti'ainingvto do so. His complete inability to perform pain management within the acceptable guidelines for the safe and appropriate. practice ot?pain management indicates that he. lacks the training, and understanding of pain management to do so. 3l. Overall. Respondent?s medical treatment of patients failed to meet the appropriate standards of medical care a physician must be held to. ?41- warm-gape1.1 ?In 0N8 GP LAW COUNT I With regard to Count l? Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has continued to practice althougl?i the Respondent has become unfit to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice as evidenced by his failure to provide safe and apprOpriatc medical care for his patients, including suhiecting female patients to inappropriate sexual touching. COUNT ll With regard to Count ll, Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of loci. Code in that he has engaged in. a course of lewd or immoral conduct in connection with the delivery of services to the public as evidenced by subjecting female patients to inappropriate, sexual touching. COUNT EH With regard to Count Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of ind. Code in that he has continued to practice although the ReSpondent has become unfit to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice as evidenced by his inappropriate prescribing practices related to controlled substances. COUNT IV With regard to Count 1V, Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of ind. Code 25?1~9?4tajt4thMi) in that he has continued to practice although the practitioner has become. un?t to practice due to professional incompetence that includes the undertaking of professional activities that the practitioner is not quali?ed by training or experience to Lindon-alto as evidenced by his engaging in pain nianagoinont without sufficient knowledge or training to do so in a manner consistent with accepted modioal practice. COUNT VI By a vote of 41o with togard to Count VI, insuf?oisnt ovidonoo was presented to support this finding. GREEK Based upon the above. Findings of Fact: the Board issues the. following Order: I. Rospondont?s license. to practice inodioino in the State. of Indiana hereby pennanontly REV OKED. iv Respondent is assessed a FINE of One. Thousand Dollars for cash of the five counts for a total fine. of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS and is ORDERED to pay this ?ne to the Board within ninety (90) days of tho date. of this Order, This ?ne may be paid by cash? shook, or money order to the. following: Indiana Professional Lioonsincr Agency AITILI Medical Board 402 W. Washington St, Room. W072 Indianapolis, IN 46204. A. i. Rcspondent shall, pursuant to Ind. Code 4?6?14?10tb), pay a fee of Five Dollars to be dopositad into the Health Records and Personal Identifying Information Protection Tnist Fund. his fee shall be paid by check: or money order payable to the State of Indiana, and subi?nittod to the following address: Office of the Indiana Attorney General Attn: Katii: Thorpe 302 West Washington Street, 5th Floor Indianapolis, Indiana 462.04. (I - ?rm?nw-a- ?ii?an! 1wmww~ .. 4. Respondent is further ordared to i11m1cdiatsI}-' 001111313 mm 311 duties of revoked licensees as set forth in 844 7?1-3, a true and waist copy of which Is attached herc?m and incorporated harem by reference as Exhibit A. 53:1. SO ORDERED, [his clay OI Septemben 2012. IVIEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA Frances L. Kelly kw Executive Director Indiana Professional Licensing Agency y: ?ll? OF SERVECE certify that a copy of the: ?Findings of Fact. Conclusions of'Law, and. Order" has boon duly served upon: DI. Sogguo Raisalgi, MD. 32.66 N. St, Suite 601 indiai'izipolis. 46208 Service: by US. Mail Brian Lutz Counsel for l-{cspondoot 5026 (:Trar-vfordsvilla Road Speedway, 46224 Sowicc by US. Mail .l'assica W. ng Dopuiy Attornsy General Govcmmorrl Souih; Fifth Floor 302 West Washington Street. Indianapolis, Indiana 46204421770 l6 ssi . gov Sewice by Email - . I ?r i la stem?ii fuzz/i Date Kristen Kelley, Board Dimfctor Medical. Licensing Board of Indiana Government Center South 302 ?i lest Fifth Floor Indianapolis, IN 4-6204 Phone: 31733432060 Fax: 317233?4236 Email: Explanation of Service Methods Personal Service: by delivering a Uth copy of {he aforcsaid documenms) p?rsonally. Strvicc bv Mail: by serving a true copy of the aforesaid documentls] by First Class US. Mail, postage prepaid. Servica bv Email: by sending a [mo copy oftha aforesaid documenti's) to tho individual?s electronic mail see . raw?rm "f5 - .v 1! f??i?i?ii w-r- 2? 1 a. 1:57- 35? E?Uud A .4 . . . m. 339.3%: kw . main-1 auri'?. .v .H i 4 ., 844 IAC 7?13 Duties of revoked licensees and registrants Authority: lC. 725?225?251 Affected: lC 25?225; lC. 25-27; 1C 25?29; 1C 25-33 Sec. 3. in any case where a person?s license? registration or approval has been revoked, said person shall: notify or cause to be notified by in the mmer and method speci?ed by the board: all patients then in the care of the licensee or registrant, or those persons reSponsible for the patients care, of the revocation and of the licensee's or registrant's consequent inability to act for or. on their behalf in the licensee?s or registrant's professional capacity. Such notice shall advise all such patients to seek the services of another licensee in good standing of their own choice. notify or cause to be notified althospitala medical and health care facilities where such licensee or registrant has privileges or staff status of the revocation accompanied by a list of all patients then in the care of said licensee or registrant. (3) Notify in writing by first class mail, the following organizations and agencies of the revocation of licensurei registration or approval: (A) Indiana department of public welfare; (B) Social Security Administration; (C) the medical licensing boardts), or equivalent state agency, each state in which the person is licensed, registered; (D) drug enforcement administration; (13) Indiana hospital association; (F) Indiana state medical association; (Cr) Indiana pharmacists association; (H) American Medical Association; (I) American Osteopathic Association; (I) Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, loo. hilalte reasonable arrangements with said licensee?s or registrant?s active patients for the transfer of all patient records, radio graphic studies: and test results, or copies thereof, to a succeeding licensee or registrant employed by the patient or by those responsible for the patients care. (5) Within thirty (30) days after the date of license or rcgistrati on revocation, the licensee or registrant shall tile an af?davit with the medical licensing board showing compliance with the of the revocation order and with 844 ?7 which time ma}r be extended by the board. Such af?davit shall also state all other jurisdictions in which the licensee or registrant is still licensed and/or registered. Proof of compliance with this section shall be a condition precedent to any petition for reinstatement. (h-fedica] Licensing Board of'lndiano; 844 MC 7-1?3; filed Apr 12, 984, 8:28 am; 1528; Not? 95 200], 3:16pm.: 25 132 readoptcd?led Oct 4: 2007; 3:36pm. iE-rthihit A BEFORE THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA CAUSE NO. 2012 MLB IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE 0F RASAKI, SEGUN M., MD. MAR 2 0; 2012 LICENSE NO: 01061519 Agency PETITION FOR SUMMARY SUSPENSION The State of Indiana (Petitioner), by Deputy Attorney General, Jessica W. Krug, moves the Indiana Medical Licensing Board (?Board?) to summ?arily suspend the license of Segun M. Rasaki, M.D. (?Respondent?) for ninety (90) days, and in support thereof now states the following: 1. Respondent?s address on file with the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana is 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. Respondent is alicensed medical doctor holding Indiana license number 01061519. 2. This Board has jurisdiction to suspend Respondent?s license in accordance with the provisions of Indiana Code ch. and Indiana Code ch. 25?19-10. 3. If allowed to continue to practice as a licensed medical doctor, Respondent represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety for the following reasons: a. Respondent has maintained a medical praCtice at 3266 N. Meridian 'St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. Respondent has held himself out as a Famin Practitioner as well as an Obstetrician/Gynecologist. b. Respondent accepts Medicaid patients. 1174398 1 c. On or about March 5, 2012, Respondent was charged with two (2) counts of criminal actions in Marion Superior Court, speci?cally one (1) count of Sexual Battery and one (1) count of Battery, in regards to his actions toward two (2) individual patients. d. Subsequent to the ?ling of these charges and the publicity surrounding the arrest of Respondent, Detective Laura Smith (Det. Smith) with the Indianapolis MetrOpolitan Police Department began receiving numerous complaints from former patients of Respondent. These complaints allege inappropriate sexual touching by Respondent during appointments, Det. Smith began referring these patients to Petitioner, who then conducted an investigation into the medical license of Respondent. e. In the course of Petitioner?s investigation, Petitioner determined that Respondent?s actions pose a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety. These dangerous actions include the treatment and harm caused to the following patients: 1. Patient A saw Respondent during 2009-2010 as her primary care physician. During this time she was scheduled to see him every thirty (30) days for routine checkups. Respondent prescribed various medications for Patient A, including- Vicodin- and Phenobarbital. Patient A reports that during the entirety of her time as a patient of Respondent she was required to undergo a pelvic exam and/or pap smear every thirty (30) days without any medical necessity. 2. Patient was treated by Respondent on two (2) separate occasions in March and April of 2011 after she required treatment for an ankle injury. During the ?rst visit, Reapondent performed no examination of Patient B?s ankle and 1174398 2 took no history regarding the injury, but did prescribe Vicodin. Also during the ?rst visit, Respondent required Patient to have a ?breast exam? which was performed by Respondent while Patient was fully clothed. During Patient B?s second visit, Respondent?s office staff informed her that she would be required to submit to a pelvic exam and/or pap smear in order to be seen by the Respondent on that date. Patient refused as she was only seeking treatment for her ankle and .was then required to seek treatment from another physician. 3. Patient was a patient of Respondent?s for two (2) to three (3) years. On or about February 2011, Patient sought to have her Mirena intrauterine contraceptive device (IUC) removed by Respondent. Respondent reported that there was a complication with the IUC and that Patient would need to undergo a Dilation and Curettage (D C) procedure. Respondent performed this procedure in his office without any additional staff and without administering any pain medication to Patient C. 4. Patient was also patient of Respondent and seen every thirty (30) days. In December 2011, at her visit, Respondent again required a breast exam and a pelvic exam /and or pap smear. While Respondent was standing between Patient D?s legs, Patient was able to feel that ReSpondent was penetrating her with his left hand. Patient was also able to view Responden?s right hand and saw that Respondent masturbated to ejaculation. 5. Patient had I been a patient of Respondent for approximately one (1) year when she went in for her regularly scheduled thirty (3 0) day check up. At this visit, Patient was dressed when Respondent entered the room and shortly after he asked the Patient to lower her pants. After lowering her clothing, 1174398 3 Respondent penetrated her vagina digitally. When Patient asked Respondent to stop he failed to comply. Patient then witnessed Respondent masturbating while penetrating A her with his other hand. 6. Patient was also a patient of Respondent. During an examination in February 2011, Patient reports that Respondent placed his hand inside her clothing, beneath her underwear and penetrated her digitally after the conclusion of an appointment as she was preparing to leave the room under the pretense of needing to ?check her c-section scar.? 7. Patient was treated by Respondent beginning Summer 2007. At the time that she began seeing Respondent, it was discovered that she was pregnant. Throughout her pregnancy, Patient was seen by Respondent at least every thirty (30) days and more frequently toward the end of her pregnancy. At each of these visits, Respondent would perform a pelvic exam and a breast exam. During oneof her visits, Patient was concerned about the heart rate of her unborn child. As Patient tried to call the Respondent?s attention to it and ask him questions regarding the health of her child, Respondent appeared to be more interested in examining Patient G?s breasts and discussing ?if her milk had come in? yet. Patient ultimately suffered a stillborn child and Respondent delivered this child at St. Vincent Hospital. Patient then suffered post-birth complications that were not adequately treated by Respondent. 8. Patient at all relevant times was a minor, aged seventeen (17) years old. Patient was assigned Respondent through Medicaid when she was four (4) months pregnant on or about March 2010. At that ?rst visit, Respondent conducted an ultrasound. Respondent required Patient to undress for the ultrasound to the extent 1174398 that her genital area was exposed. During the ultrasound, Respondent placed his hand on Patient H?s vulva and began ?pushing.? When Patient asked Respondent why he was touching her genitals, he responded that he was ?looking for the baby.? Patient was so uncomfortable with the examination that she refused to submit to the pelvic exam and/or . pap smear that day. WHEREF ORE, the State of Indiana requests that this Board set a hearing on this petition and suspend Respondent?s physician?s license for a period of ninety (90) days and for all other, relief just and proper. Respectfully submitted, GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana Attorney Number: 1958-98 WV- . .L 13y: Jessica W. Krug Deputy Attorney General Attorney Number: 26222-49 1174393 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing "Petition" has been served upon the Respondent listed below, by United States mail, ?rst class postage prepaid, on this 20th day of March, 2012. Dr. Segun Rasaki 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601 Indianapolis, IN 46208 Brian Lutz Counsel for Respondent 5026 Crawfordsville Road Speedway, IN 46224 an; I ?f/szsf? Jessica Whug Deputy Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204?2770 Phone: (317) 234-2598 Fax: (317) 233-4393 Jessica.Krug@atg.in.gov 1174398 6 BEFORE THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA CAUSE NO. 2012 MLB 0022 IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF SEGUN M. RASAKI, M.D. LICENSE N0: 01061519A "mm?-m . AGREED SUMMARY SUSPENSION ORDER The Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (?Boar held an administrative hearing on the 22nd day of March, 2012, in Room W064, Indiana Government Center South, 402 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, to consider the Petition for Summary Suspension ?led against Segun M. Rasaki, MD. (?Respondent?). The State of Indiana (Petitioner) was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Jessica W. Krug. The Respondent appeared in person, and by counsel, Brian Lutz, Esq. The Board, after considering the evidence presented and taking of?cial notice of its ?le in this matter, by a vote of 5-0-0, issues the following: 1. Respondent is a licensed physician holding Indiana license number 01 061 519A. 2. Respondent?s address on ?le with the Board is 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. 3. This Board has jurisdiction to suspend Respondent?s license in accordance with the provisions of Ind. Code ch. 4-21.5-4 and Ind. Code?. 25?1-9-10. 4. If allowed to continue to practice medicine, Respondent represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety for the following reasons: a. by verbal agreement of the parties. ORDER Pursuant to Ind. Code 25-1-9-10 and based upon the above stated facts, the Board ?nds that the Respondent represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety if allowed to continue to practice medicine in the State of Indiana. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent?s license to practice as a physician in the State of Indiana, License No. 01061519A, is hereby SUMMARILY SUSPENDED for ninety (90) days. SO ORDERED, this day of March, 2012; this order is effective as of the 22?d day of March, 2012. MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA Biz? a?ticgs L. Kelly I xecutive Director Indiana Professional Licensing Agency Copies to: Segun Rasaki, MD. 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601 Indianapolis, IN 46208 CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 91 7190 0005 2720 0017 7985 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Brian Lutz Counsel for Respondent 5026 Crawfordsville Road Speedway, IN 46224 Jessica W. Krug Deputy Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2770 BEFORE THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA CAUSE N0. 2012 MLB 0022 ILE JUN 06 2312 IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF Indiana Professions! Licensing Agency SEGUN MUFUTAU RASAKI, M.D., LICENSE NO: 01061519A ORDER EXTENDING SUMMARY SUSPENSION The Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (?Board?) held an administrative hearing on the 24th day of May, 2012, in Room W064, Indiana Government Center South, 402 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, to consider the request to extend the Summary Suspension of the medical license of Segun M. Rasaki, MD. (?ReSpondent?). The State of Indiana (?Petitioner?) was represented by Deputy Attorney General Jessica W. Krug. The Respondent appeared in person, and by counsel, Brian Lutz, Esq. The Board, after considering the evidence presented and taking of?cial notice of its ?le in this matter, by a vote of 5-0-0, issues the following: 1. Respondent is a physician holding Indiana license number 01061519A. 2. Respondent?s address on ?le with the Board is 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. 3. This Board has jurisdiction to suspend Respondent?s license in accordance with the provisions of Ind. Code ch. 4-21.5-4 and Ind. Code 25-1?9?10. 4. If allowed to continue to practice medicine, Respondent represents a clear-and immediate danger to the public health and safety for the following reasons: a. by agreement of the parties the suspension is extended until midnight on the evening of August 23, 2012. ORDER Pursuant to Ind. Code 25-1-9-10 and based upon the above stated facts, the Board ?nds that the Respondent represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety if allowed to continue to practice medicine in the State of Indiana. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent?s license to practice as a physician in the State of Indiana, License No. 01061519A, is hereby SUMMARILY SUSPENDED until August 23, 2012. SO ORDERED, this day of June, 2012; this order iseffective as of the 24th day of May, 2012. MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA AM, By:/ ?e?es L. Kelly gerbutive Dire or diana Profess onal Lie mg Agency Copies to: Segun Mufutau Rasaki, MD. 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601 Indianapolis, IN 46208 CERTIFIED MAIL 91 7190 0005 2720 0019 9390 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Brian Lutz Counsel for Respondent 5026 Crawfordsville Road Speedway, IN 46224 Jessica W. Krug Deputy Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204?2770 BEFORE THE NIEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA CAUSE NO. 2012 MLB 22 IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE 0F . . FILED RASAKI, SEGUN M., MD. . SEP 1 3 2012 LICENSE NO: 01061519 ?Imam Magma, Licensing Mm" I COMPLAINT This complaint is brought against the medical license of Segun M. Rasaki, M.D. (?Respondent?), by the State of Indiana, by counsel, Deputy Attorney General, Jessica W. Krug, on behalf of the Of?ce of the Attorney General (?Petitioner?) and pursuant to Indiana Code 25- 1-7-7, Ind. Code 25-1-5-3, Ind. Code art. 25-225, the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act, Ind. Code ch. 4-21.5-3 and Ind. Code ch. 25?1?9, and in support alleges and states: FACTS 1. Respondent?s address on ?le with the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana is 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. Respondent is a licensed medical doctor holding Indiana license number 01061519. I 2. Respondent has previously. maintained a medical practice at 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. Respondent?s current practice location is 16855 Shore Terrace, Indianapolis, IN 46254. Respondent has held himself out as a Family Practitioner as well as an Obstetrician/Gynecologist and a Pain Management Physician. 3. Respondent accepts Medicaid patients. I 4. On or about December 21, 2011, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), by its Diversion Investigator Madeline Kuzrna served Respondent with an Immediate Suspension Order (ISO) that suspended his DEA registration effective that date. The ISO was based on evidence Iof Respondent?s inappropriate prescribing practices in violation of the federal regulations governing the prescribing of controlled substances. Respondent?s DEA registration has not been reinstated and he has not had prescribing authority for controlled substances since that date. 5. On or about March 5, 2012, Respondent was charged with two (2) counts 'of criminal actions in Marion Superior Court, speci?cally one (1) count of Sexual Battery and one (1) count of Battery, in regards to his touching of two (2) individual patients. 6. Subsequent to those charges becoming public knowledge, numerous additional patients and former patients came forward and reported additional inappropriate touching that occurred during their treatment by Respondent. 7. On March 29, 2012, Respondent?s medical license was summarily suspended by order of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana effective'that same date. Respondent?s license has not yet been reinstated. 8. During the investigation into the reported instances of patient sexual abuse and the suspension action taken by the DEA, the Petitioner requested and received certain patient charts from Respondent. A review of those patient charts reveals that Respondent has failed to follow proper medical practices in the prescribing of controlled substances, including but not limited to his prescribing of tussionex, hydrocodone in various forms, and phentermine. 9. Subsequent to the DEA suspension order, Respondent continued to prescribe controlled substances despite his lack of a valid DEA registration. COUNT I 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorpOrated by reference herein. 11. Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has continued to practice although the ReSpondent has become un?t to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice as evidenced by his failure to provide safe and appropriate medical care for his patients, including subjecting female patients to inappropriate, sexual touching. A I 292m 12.? Paragaphs 1 through 9 are incorporated by reference herein. 13. Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has engaged in a course of lewd or immoral conduct in connection with the delivery of services to the public .- as evidenced by subjecting female patients to inappropriate, sexual touching. 14. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated by reference herein. 15. Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has continued to practice although the Respondent has become un?t to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice as evidenced by his inappropriate prescribing practices related to controlled substances. COUNT IV 16. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated by reference herein. I 17. Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has continued to practice although the practitioner has become un?t to practice due to professional incompetence that includes the undertaking of professional activities that the practitioner is not quali?ed by training or experience to undertake as evidenced by his engaging in pain management without suf?cient knowledge or training to do so in a manner consistent with accepted medical practice. COUNT 18. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated by reference herein. 19. Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he i has knowingly violated any state statute or rule, or federal statute or regulation, regulating the profession in question as evidenced'by Respondent?s continued use of his DEA registration to prescribe controlled substances after it was suspended on DeCember 21, 2011, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 1316.03. COUNT VI 20. Paragraphs 1through 9 are incorporated by reference'herein. 21. Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he continued to practice although the Respondent has become un?t to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice as evidenced by Respondent?sfailure to comply with Ind. Code 35-48-3-11 when prescribing phentermine to patients. WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands an order against the Respondent, that: l. Imposes the appropriate disciplinary sanction; 2. Directs Respondent to immediately pay all the costs incurred in the prosecution of this case; 3. Provides any other relief the Board deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana Attorney Number: 1958-98 Byfg?gq?qz?y fless a W. Krug eputy Attorney General Attorney Number: 26222-49 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVHE I certify that a copy of the foregoing "Complaint" has been served upon the gespondent 'sted below, by United States mail, ?rst class postage prepaid, on' this i day of \2012. Dr. Segun Rasaki . 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601 Indianapolis, IN 46208 Brian Lutz Counsel for Respondent 5026 Crawfordsville Road Speedway, IN 46224 Krug I Dep Attorney General - Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2770 Phone: (317) 234-2598 Fax: (317) 233-4393 essica.K.rug@atg.in.gov BEFORE THE NIEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA CAUSE NO. 2012 MLB 0022 FILED IN THE MATTER on THE LICENSE or SEP 1 3 2312 SEGUN M. RASAKI, M.n. - mans Fromm, MEEHSIHQ Agency LICENSE No: 01061519A EXTENSION OF SUWARY SUSPENSION ORDER The Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (?Board?) held an administrative hearing on the August 23, 2012, in Room W064, Indiana Government Center South, 402 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, to consider the request to extend the Summary Suspension of the medical license of Segun M. Rasaki, Ml). (?Respondent?). The State of Indiana (?Petitioner?) was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Jessica W. Krug. The Reapondent appeared in person, and by counsel, Brian Lutz, Esq. The Board, after considering the evidence presented and taking of?cial notice of I its file in this matter, by a vote of 6-0-0, issues the following: 1. Respondent is a licensed physician holding Indiana license number 01061 51914.. 2. Respondent?s address on file with the Board is 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. 3. This Board has jurisdiction to suspend Respondent?s license in accordance with the provisions of Ind. Code ch. and Ind. Code ch. 25-1?9-10. 4. Petitioner ?led its Petition for Summary Suspension (?Petition?) on or about March 20, 2012. On March 24, 2012, the first hearing regarding the Petition was held by the Board and at that time Respondent appeared in person and by counsel and agreed to the suspension of his license for ninety (90) days. 5. On May 24, 2012, a hearing was held by the Board regarding whether the suspension of Respondent?s license should be extended. Respondent appeared in person and by counsel and again agreed to the suspension of his license until midnight on August 23, 2012. 6. I On August 23, 2012, the Board again addressed the Petition and whether the suspension of Respondent?s license should be exteuded at that time. Respondent appeared in person and by counsel. 7.. Based on the totality of the evidence presented at trial, this Board now ?nds that if Respondent is allowed to continue to practice as a physician, he represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety for the following reasons: a. Respondent has appeared twice previously before the board and acknowledged that the Summary Suspension of his license is appropriate; b. Respondent has been given a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and testimony on his behalf, and, in fact, testi?ed at this hearing; c. Respondent has been charged criminally with two (2) counts of batter and one (1) count of sexual battery relating to his inappropriate touching of two (2) individual female patients; d. The allegations of inappropriate sexual touching, if true, constitute an immediate threat to the public safety as Respondent utilized his medical license in the commission of the acts by inducing the victims to come to him for the purposes of medical treatment; e. In addition to the criminal charges, Respondent is also being sued by a former patient who has alleged inappropriate sexual touching during ?examinations,? which acts again constitute a threat to the public in that Respondent has utilized his medical license induce the victim to come to him for the purposes of medical treatment; f. Respondent was the physician for Shawntell Caito from 2010- 2011; g. During a visit in the late fall of 2011, Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual touching of Ms. Caito when she appeared for a routine medical appointment. I Pursuant to Ind. Code 25-1-9-10 and based upon the above stated facts, the Board ?nds that the ReSpondent represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety if allowed to continue to practice medicine in the State of Indiana. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent?s license to practice as a physician in the State of Indiana, License No. 01061519A, is hereby SUMNIAREY SUSPENDED until September 28, 2012. SO ORDERED this fS epteniber, 2012, tlus order IS e?ectwe as of the 23rd day of August, 2012. 1., 26m es . Kelly cutige Director lndiana Professional Licensing Agency CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the ?Extension of Summary Suspension Order? has been duly served upon: Dr. Segun Rasaki 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601 Indianapolis, IN 46208 Service by U.S. Mail Brian Lutz Counsel for Respondent 5026 Crawfordsville Road Speedway, IN 46224 Service by US. Mail Jessica W. Krug Deputy Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-370 JessicaKrug@atg.in.gov Service by Email imma? Date Medieal Licensing Board of Indiana Indiana Government Center South 302 West Washington St, Fifth Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 31 7-2.3 4-2060 Fax: 317?233-4236 Email: pla3@pla.in.gov Elana?oa of Service Mel?th Mild Donna Moran, Litigation specialist Personal Service: by delivering a true copy of the aforesaid document(s) personally. Service US. Mail: by serving a one copy ofihe aforesaid docwneni?s) by First Class US. Mail, postage prepaid Service by Email: by sending a true copy ofrhe aforesaid documeai?r) to the individual ?3 electronic mail address. do BEFORE THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA CAUSE NO. 2012 MLB 0022 Licensing Agency IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE 0F i if? am; 4 SEGUN M. RASAKI, MD. SE, ?3 23,3 LICENSE N0: 01061519A moiana Professional 4; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER The Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (?Board?) held an administrative hearing on the 27th day of September, 2012, in Room W064, Indiana Government Center South, 402 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, concerning a disciplinary Complaint ?led against the medical license of Segun M. Rasaki, MD. (?Respondent?), on September 13, 2012. The State of Indiana (?Petitioner?) was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Jessica W. Krug. The Respondent appeared in person, and by counsel, Brian Lutz, Esq. The Board, after considering the evidence presented and taking of?cial notice of its file in this matter, by a vote of 50-0, issues the following: 1. Respondent is a physician holding Indiana license number 01061519A. 2. Respondent?s address on ?le with the Board is 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. 3. Respondent has previously maintained a medicai practice at 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601, Indianapolis, IN 46208. Respondent?s current practice location is 6855 Shore Terrace, Indianapolis, IN 46254. Respondent has held himself out as a Family Practitioner as well as an and a Pain Management Physician. 4. The Board has jurisdiction to decide this matter, conduct a hearing, and impose discipline upon a Respondent?s license in accordance with Ind. Code art. 25-1 and Ind. Code ch. 25-2643. Respondent was provided adequate notice of the hearing in accordance with Ind. Code 4-21.5-3-8 and Ind. Code 5. The Board placed ReSpOndent?s license 0n Summary Suspension on March 22, 2012 and it was extended on May 24, 2012 and August 23, 2012. 6. In March 2012, Respondent was charged criminally with two (2) counts of battery and one (1) count of sexual battery relating to his inappropriate touching of two (2) individual female patients. 7. On September 25, 2012, Respondent was convicted of one (1) count of Felony Sexual Battery and one (I) count of Misdemeanor Battery in the Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division. 8. Respondent was the physician for Shawntell Caito from 2010-201 1. 9. During a visit in the late fall of 2011, Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual touching of Ms. Caito when she appeared for a routine medical appointment. 10. Subsequent to the arrest of Respondent, numerous other patients of the Respondent came forward to report similar allegations of inappropriate touching that occurred during purported physical examinations. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Sex Crimes Detective Laura Smith spoke with approximately 40 patients who reported receiving ?pap smears? or ?pelvic exams? where the Respondent touched their genitals in a manner inconsistent with a medical exam or without medical necessity. Such examinations are routinely performed only on an annual basis, not every thirty (30) days as was done by Respondent. As Such, these actions violate the standards of medical practice. 11. Madeline Kuzma, Diversion Investigator for the Drug Enforcement Administration served Respondent at his of?ce with an Immediate Suspension Order on December 21, 2011. The effect of the 180 was to suspend the Respondent?s DEA Registration which is a necessary license to prescribe controlled substances. 12. The action taken by the DEA in suspending Respondent?s license was predicated on its investigation, which revealed that Respondent had prescribed controlled substances to undercover of?cers without following the necessary standards of care on approximately ten (10) occasions. These actions constitute a violation of the Controlled Substance Act which is enforced by the DEA. 13. Reapondent?s DEA Registration has been suspended or revoked continuously since December 21, 2011, and at no time after that date could Respondent issue a valid prescription for controlled substances. 14. Respondent issued a prescription for Phenobarbital, a Schedule IV controlled substance, on January 11, 2012, in violation of both state and federal regulations. 15. Respondent issued a prescription for Promethazine VCr?Codeine, a Schedule controlled substance, on January 19, 2012, in violation of both state and federal regulations. 16. Respondent issued a prescription for Dronabinoi, a Schedule controlled substance according to federal regulations and a Schedule II controlled Substance in the State of Indiana, on February 1 l, 2012, in violation of both state and federal regulations. 17. Dr. Timothy King, an expert in the areas of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, conducted a thorough review of a random sampling of 19 of Respondent?s patient charts. In addition to the patient charts, Dr. King reviewed reports from the Indiana Scheduled Prescription Electronic Collection 3.: Tracking Program as well as Coroner?s reports where available. 18. Based on Dr. King?s complete review of Respondent?s prescribing practices, Dr. King was able to draw conclusions as to the appropriateness of medical care provided by Respondent. 19. Respondent?s prescribing practices regarding controlled substances fell well below the standards of medical care and were dangerous to the health and safety of his patients. 20. Of the charts reviewed, 94% of the patients received controlled substances from multiple providers, a fact that indicates Respondent?s prescribing of controlled substances in the manner in which he prescribed was contraindicated and did not meet the appropriate standards for medical care. 21. 0f the charts reviewed, 33% of the patients had inconsistent urinary drug screen results which indicated that the controlled substances prescribed by Respondent were not being used for appropriate medical purposes and that he knew or should have known of their diversion. 22. 0f the charts reviewed, 62% of the patients had no results at all, indicating that Respondent failed to appropriately monitor the health and safety of his patients and insure that the controlled substances that he was prescribing were not being diverted. Instead, he contributed to their diversion. 23. Of the charts reviewed, 56% of the patients had a history of Substance abuse and or addiction which made Respondent?s prescribing of controlled substances contraindicated and likely to lead to diversion. 24. Of the charts reviewed, 61% of the patients had a comorbid diagnosis of one or more conditions that contraindicated the use of controlled substances in their treatment. Respondent failed to acknowledge this fact and prescribed these controlled substances, an act which fell below the standards of medical care. 25. Of the charts reviewed, 50% of the patients received the ?triad? of centrolled substances (benzodiazepines, stimulants, and an ?enhancer?) that is indicative of diversion. These controlled substances prescribed in combination are largely not supported under appropriate standards of medical care given their dangerousness as a pharmacological mix and their desirability for use for diversionary purposes. 26. Respondent?s treatment of patients largely ignored the diagnoses and histories documented in the patient chart. Patients who were noted to be allergic to codeine were prescribed codeine. A patient who was noted to be pregnant received codeine during pregnancy, a known and obvious contraindication for narcotics. These failures are indicative that Respondent?s purpose for prescribing the controlled substances was not based in medical standards of care. 27. Respondent?s medical charts documented that patients had numerous diagnoses that had no supporting evidence. Speci?cally, several patients were noted to have hyperlipidemia, a condition where the patient has an excess of lipids, or fats, in his or her blood. Most patients with this diagnosis lacked confirmatory lab work. In the one (1) patient where lab work was completed, the patient?s cholesterol count was normal a fact that negates the diagnosis given to her. 28. The excessive number of diagnoses ascribed to patients without Supporting documentation is suspicious of fraud and fails to meet the standards of medical practice. 29. Respondent prescribed cough syrup with hydrocodone, a controlled substance, repeatedly and in a manner inconsistent with safety. These medications, such as Tussionex, are intended to treat a cough associated with a cold for approximately one (1) week. Respondent repeatedly prescribed this medication in excessive amounts, including montth for up to four (4) years. This practice can only be considered against the standards of medical practice and is indicative of diversion. 30. Respondent engaged in the act of pain management despite lacking the appropriate knowledge or training to do so. His complete inability to perform pain management within the acceptable guidelines for the safe and appropriate practice ofpain management indicates that he lacks the training, experience, and understanding of pain management to do so. 31. Overall, Respondent?s medical treatment of patients failed to meet the appropriate standards of medical care a physician must be held to. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW COUNT I With regard to Count l, Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has continued to practice although the Respondent has become un?t to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice as evidenced by his failure to provide safe and appropriate medical care for his patients, including subjecting female patients to inappropriate, sexual tOuching. mum With regard to Count II, Reap0ndent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has engaged in a course of lewd or immoral conduct in connection with the delivery of services to the public as evidenced by subjecting female patients to inappropriate, sexual touching. With regard to Count Ill, Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has continued to practice although the Respondent has become un?t to practice due to failure to keep abreast of current professional theory 0r practice as evidenced by his inappropriate prescribing practices related to controlled substances. COUNT IV With regard to Count 1V, Respondent?s actions constitute a violation of Ind. Code in that he has continued to practice although the practitioner has become un?t to practice due to professional incompetence that includes the Undertaking of professional activities that the practitioner is not quali?ed by training or experience to undertake as evidenced by his engaging in pain management without suf?cient knowledge or training to do so in a manner consistent with accepted medical practice. germ By a vote of 4~lh0, with regard to Count VI, insuf?cient evidence was presented to support this ?nding. ORDER Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Board issues the following Order: 1. Respondent?s license to practice medicine in the State of Indiana is hereby permanently REVOKED. 2. Respondent is assessed a FINE of One Thousand Dollars for each of the ?ve (5) counts for a total ?ne of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS and is ORDERED to pay this ?ne to the Board within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order. This ?ne may be paid by cash, check, or money order to the following: Indiana Professional Licensing Agency Attn.: Medical Board 402 W. Washington St, Room W072 Indianapolis, IN 46204. 3. Respondent shall, pursuant to Ind. Code pay a fee of Five Dollars to be deposited into the Health Records and Personal Identifying Information Protection Trust Fund. This fee shall be paid by check or money order payable to the State of Indiana, and submitted to the following address: Of?ce of the Indiana Attorney General Attn: Katie Thorpe 302 West Washington Street, 5th Floor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 4. Respondent is further ordered to immediately comply with all duties of revoked licensees as set forth in 844 IAC 751-3, a true and exact copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. SO ORDERED, this El ilk?day of September, 2012. MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA By: Frances L. Kell}r ?04 - Executive Director Indiana Professional Licensing Agency CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the ?Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order? has been duly served upon: Dr. Segun Rasaki, MD. 3266 N. Meridian St, Suite 601 Indianapolis, IN 46208 Service by U.S. Mail Brian Lutz Counsel for Respondent 5026 Crawfordsville Road Speedway, IN 46224 Service by U.S. Mail Jessica W. Krug Deputy Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2770 Jessica.Krug@atg.in.gov Service by Email a {Kiwi Date Kristen Kelley, Board Dindctor Medical. Licensing Board of Indiana Indiana Government Center South 302 West Washington St, Fifth Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 311234?2060 Fax: 317-233-4236 Email: p1a3 @pla.in.gov Explanation of Service Methods Personal Service: by delivering a true copy of the aforesaid documentts) personally. Service by US. Mail: by serving a true copy of the aforesaid document(s) by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. Service by Email: by sending a true copy of the aforesaid docurnent(s} to the individual?s electronic mail address, 10 844 7~1~3 Duties of revoked licensees and registrants Authority: IC Affected: IC 25-225; lC 25-27; 1C 25-29; 1C 25-33 See. 3. In any case where a person's license, registration or approval has been revoked, said person shall: (1) notify or cause to be noti?ed by in the manner and method speci?ed by the heard, all patients then in the care of the licensee or registrant, or those persons responsible for the patient?s care, of the revocation and of the licensee's or registrant's consequent inability to act for or on their behalf in the licensee?s or registrant's professional capacity. Such notice shall advise all such patients to seek the services of another licensee in good standing of their own choice. (2) notify or cause to be noti?ed all hospitals, medical and health care facilities where such licensee or registrant has privileges or staff status of the revocation accompanied by a list of all patients then in the care of said licensee or registrant. (3) Notify in writing, by first class mail, the following organizations and governmental agencies of the revocation of licensurc, registration or approval: (A) Indiana department of public welfare; (B) Social Security Administration; (C) the medical licensing board(s), or equivalent state agency, of each state in which the person is licensed, registered; (D) drug enforcement administration; (E) Indiana hospital association; (F) Indiana state medical association; (G) Indiana pharmacists association; (H) American Medical Association; (I) American Osteopathic Association; (I) Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (4) Make reasonable arrangements with said licensee's or registrant's active patients for the transfer of all patient records, radio graphic studies, and test results, or copies thereof, to a succeeding licensee or registrant employed by the patient or by those responsible for the patient?s care. (5) Within thirty (30) days after the date of license or registration revocation, the licensee or registrant shall ?le an af?davit with the medical licensing board showing compliance with the provisions of the revocation order and with 844 IAC 7 which time may be extended by the board. Such af?davit shall also state all other jurisdictions in which the licensee or registrant is still licensed andfor registered. (6) Proof of compliance with this section shall be a condition precedent to any petition for reinstatement. ?MedicnI Licensing Board of'i?ndiana; 844 IAC 7-i-3;fiied Apr I2, 1984, 8:28 am: 7 IR 1528; readopred?led Nov 9, 2001, 3:16pm.: 25 IR ?325," rendopted?led Oct 4, 2007, 3 :3 6 p. m. 200371 031-112-844OFOU50RFA) Exhibit A