KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California JOSE R. GUERRERO Supervising Deputy Attorney General DAVID CARR Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 131672 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102?7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5538 Facsimile: (415) 703-5480 Attorneys for Complainant BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTNIENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Accusation Against, Case No. 12-2011?214229 ROBERT MARTIN KEVESS, M.D. DEFAULT DECISION AND ORDER 2222 BAN CROFT WAY BERKELEY, CA 94720 [Gov. Code ?11520] Physician's and Surgeon's Certi?cate No. G57523 Respondent On or about June 23, 1986, the Medical Board of California (Board) issued Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. G57523 to Robert Martin Kevess, M.D. (Respondent). On or about April 28, 2011, a full Interim Suspension Order no practice was issued. The Certificate expired on November 30, 2013 and is in a delinquent status. A certified copy of Respondent?s Certificate of Licensure is attached as Exhibit A1 in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and incorporated herein by reference. 1 All exhibits are true and correct copies of the originals and are attached in the accompanying Default Decision Evidence Packet. The Default Decision Evidence Packet is hereby incorporated by reference, in its entirety, as if fully set forth herein. 1 DEFAULT DECISION ORDER (MBC Case No. 12-2011?214229) On or about March 17 2014, Complainant Kimberly Kirchmeyer, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Board, Department of Consumer Affairs, filed Accusation No. 12? 2011-214229 against Respondent. On or about March 17, 2014, an employee of the Complainant Agency served by Certified and First Class Mail a copy of Accusation No. 12?2011-214229, Statement to Respondent, Notice of Defense, Request for Discovery, and Government Code sections 11507.5, 11507.6, and 11507.7 (Accusation packet) to Respondent?s address of record with the Medical Board of California (Board), which was and is 2222 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94720. A second copy of the Accusation packet was served on Respondent at 6660 Dana Street, Oakland, CA 94609. A copy of the Accusation, the related documents, and Declaration of Service are attached as Exhibit in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and are incorporated herein by reference. On or about April 4, 2014, Respondent signed the certified mail receipt card addressed to 6660 Dana Street, Oakland, CA 94609, indicating receipt of the aforementioned documents. A copy of the certified mail receipt card is attached as Exhibit in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and is incorporated herein by reference. The Statement to Respondent informed Respondent that he was required to file a Notice of Defense within 15 days after receipt of the Accusation. Respondent failed to file a Notice of Defense by the deadline of April 1, 2014. On or about July 17, 2014, a courtesy Notice of Default was served on Respondent via certified mail at the two addresses set forth above. A copy of the Notice of Default, proof of service certified mail receipt and letter dated July 22, 2014 are attached as Exhibit in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and is incorporated herein by reference. The Declaration of Deputy Attorney General David Carr states that on or about July 17, 2014, a courtesy Notice of Default was served on Respondent via certified mail at the two addresses set forth above. The Notice of Default advised Respondent of the service of the Accusation, and provided him with an opportunity to appear and contest the allegations of the Accusation. On July 18, 2014, Respondent signed the certified mail receipt for service of the 2 DEFAULT DECISION ORDER (MBC Case No. 12-2011?214229) Notice of Default mailed to 6660 Dana Street, Oakland, CA 94609. The Notice of Default mailed to Respondent?s address of record, 2222 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94720, was returned to the Office of the Attorney General with a letter dated July 22, 2014 stating that Respondent was no longer employed at that address. The Declaration of Deputy Attorney General David Carr is attached as Exhibit in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and is incorporated herein by reference . Respondent has not responded to service of the Accusation or to the Notice of Default, and has not filed a Notice of Defense. As a result, Respondent has waived his right to a hearing on the merits to contest the allegations contained in the Accusation. A redacted copy of the University of California Police Department report is attached as Exhibit in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and incorporated herein by reference. A certified copy of the criminal complaint titled People of the State of California vs. Robert Martin Kevess filed on April 27, 2011 in Alameda County Superior Court is attached as Exhibit in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and incorporated herein by reference. The Declaration of Expert Witness Vincent Yap, MD. is attached as Exhibit in the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, and incorporated herein by reference. FINDINGS OF FACT I Kimberly Kirchmeyer (Complainant) is the Executive Director of the Board. The charges and allegations in the Accusation were at all times brought and made solely in the official capacity of the Board?s Executive Director. 11 On or about June 23, 1986, the Board issued Physician's and Surgeon?s certificate No. G57523 to Respondent. The Physician's and Surgeon?s certificate expired on November 30, 2013, and has not been renewed. 3 DEFAULT DECISION ORDER (MBC Case No. 12-2011-214229) HI On March 17, 2014, Respondent was served with Accusation 12-2011?214229, alleging causes for discipline against Respondent. The Accusation and accompanying documents were duly served on Respondent. Respondent signed a Certified Mail Receipt card indicating acceptance of the certified mail delivery of the Accusation, but he failed to file a Notice of Defense by the deadline of April 1, 2014. A courtesy Notice of Default were thereafter served on IV Service of the Accusation was effective as a matter of law under the provisions of Government Code section 11505, subdivision (0). Business and Professions Code section 118 states, in pertinent part: The suspension, expiration, or forfeiture by operation of law of a license issued by a board in the department, or its suspension, forfeiture, or cancellation by order of the board or by order of a court of law, or its surrender without the written consent of the board, shall not, during any period in which it may be renewed, restored, reissued, or reinstated, deprive the board of its authority to institute or continue a disciplinary proceeding against the licensee upon any ground provided by law or to enter an order suspending or revoking the license or otherwise taking disciplinary action against the license on any such ground." V1 6. Government Code section 11506 states, in pertinent part: The respondent shall be entitled to a hearing on the merits if the respondent files a notice of defense, and the notice shall be deemed a specific denial of all parts of the accusation not expressly admitted. Failure to file a notice of defense shall constitute a waiver of respondent?s right to a hearing, but the agency in its discretion may nevertheless grant a hearing." Respondent failed to file a Notice of Defense within 15 days after service upon him of the Accusation, and therefore waived his right to a hearing on the merits of Accusation No. 12-2011- 214229. 4 DEFAULT DECISION ORDER (MBC Case No. 12-2011?214229) California Government Code section 11520 states, in pertinent part: If the respondent either fails to file a notice of defense or to appear at the hearing, the agency may take action based upon the respondent?s express admissions or upon other evidence and affidavits may be used as evidence without any notice to respondent." VII The allegations of the Accusation are true as follows: On or about March 24, 2011, the University of California Police Department received a report from the Medical Director of University Health Services at the University of California, Berkeley, that Patient 12, a former student, had recently complained that he had been masturbated and orally copulated by Respondent during the course of a physical examination at the Health Services clinic on or about March 28, 2007. UCPD investigators interviewed Patient 1 on or about March 26, 2011. Patient 1 described interior aspects of Respondent?s home to the UCPD investigators, descriptions which were later verified by the investigators during a consensual inspection of Respondent?s home. At the behest of UCPD investigators, on March 30, 2011, Patient I placed a recorded pretext telephone call to Respondent. During the course of the recorded conversation between Respondent and Patient 1, Respondent expressed remorse about what had transpired between them in 2007, acknowledged that he then had ?problems with, around sex, problems? but that he had undergone treatment since that time. Respondent also reassured Patient 1 that Patient 1 had no reason to worry about the possibility of having contracted a sexually-transmitted disease from Respondent: ?I?ve been checked, I don?t have anything you need to worry about at all.? At the conclusion of the recorded telephone conversation, Respondent states: don?t expect you to forgive me.? On March 31, 2011, UCPD investigators interviewed Respondent at the UC Berkeley Health Services clinic where Respondent was still employed. During the interview, Respondent told the investigators that he has undergone treatment for ?sexual addiction.? Respondent 2 The patient is identified herein by assigned number to maintain patient privacy. The patient is known to Respondent. 5 DEFAULT DECISION ORDER (MBC Case No. 12-2011-214229) 43mmconfirmed the sexual contact reported by Patient 1 and told the investigators that he has had sexual relationships with ?five or six? other male patients at the University Health Services clinic over the preceding few years; he provided the names he could then recall of those individuals with whom he had sexual contact and supplied additional names to the investigators in a subsequent interview soon thereafter. Pursuant to the expert witness opinion of Vincent Yap, M.D., Respondent?s actions constitute a gross departure from the prevailing standard of practice and therefore grounds exist to discipline Respondent?s license pursuant to Business and Professions code sections 729 [sexual misconduct], section 2234(b) [gross negligence], and section 2234 [unprofessional conduct.] Pursuant to its authority under Government Code section 11520, the Board finds Respondent is in default. The Board will take action without further hearing and, based on Respondent?s express admissions by way of default and the evidence before it, contained in Exhibits the separately filed Default Decision Evidence Packet, finds that the allegations in Accusation No. 12-2011?214229 are true. DETERMINATION OF ISSUES Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, Respondent?s conduct constitutes cause for discipline within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 729 [sexual misconduct], section 2234(b) [gross negligence], and section 2234 [unprofessional conduct.] Ml: IT IS SO ORDERED that Physician's and Surgeon's certificate No. G57523, heretofore issued to Respondent Robert Martin Kevess, M.D., is revoked. Pursuant to Government Code section 11520, subdivision Respondent may serve a written motion requesting that the Decision be vacated and stating the grounds relied on within seven (7) days after service of the Decision on Respondent. The agency in its discretion may vacate the Decision and grant a hearing on a showing of good cause, as defined in the statute. 6 DEFAULT DECISION ORDER (MBC Case No. 12?2011-214229) This Decision shall become effective on November 14. 2014 FOR THE MEMCAL BO ARE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS Kimberly Kirchmeyer It is SO ORDERED October 15. 2014 SF2014407412 Executive Director 41022398.doc 7 DEFAULT DECISION ORDER (MBC Case NO. 12-2011?214229) \lCh FILED KAMALA D. HARRIS STATE OF CALEFQRNIA Attorney General of California MEDICAL BQLARD 0F GAFIFORNIA JOSE R. GUERRERO Supervising Deputy Attorney General 7. ALVS 1" DAVID CARR Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 131672 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703?5538 Facsimile: (415) 703-5480 Attorneys for Complainant BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Accusation Against: Case No. 12-2011-214229 ROBERT MARTIN KEVESS, MD. 2222 BANCROFT WAY A A I BERKELEY, CA 94720 Physician's and Surgeon?s Certi?cate No. G57523 Respondent. Complainant alleges: PARTIES 1. Kimberly Kirchmeyer (?Complainant?) brings this Accusation solely in her of?cial capacity as the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs (?Board?). On or about June 23, 1986, the Board issued Physician's and Surgeon's Certi?cate No. G57523 to Robert Martin Kevess, M.D. (?Respondent?). Respondent?s certi?cate was not renewed and expired on November 30, 2013. Additionally, Respondent?s certi?cate was suspended by the interim suspension order issued by an Administrative Law Judge of the Medical Quality Hearing Panel on April 28, 2011, prohibiting Respondent from all practice until a ?nal decision and order issues in this administrative action. 1 Accusation No. 12-201 1-214229 JURISDICTION 2. This Accusation is brought before the Board under the authority of the following laws. All section references are to the Business and Professions Code. 3. Section 118 provides for the continuing authority of the Board to institute a disciplinary action against a licensee despite the expiration of the issued license. 4. Section 726 states that any act of sexual abuse, misconduct, or relations with a patient constitutes unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon. 5. Section 729(a) of the Code provides, in relevant part, that any act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual contact by a physician and surgeon with a patient constitutes sexual exploitation, a public offense. Subsection of section 729 provides for enhanced punishment for said public offense when the acts prohibited by this section were committed with two or more victims. 6. Section 2246 of the Code requires that any decision or proposed decision which ?nds the licensee engaged in the sexual exploitation described in subsection of section 729 shall contain an order of revocation which cannot be stayed by the administrative law judge. 7. Section 2227 of the Code states: A licensee whose matter has been heard by an administrative law judge of the Medical Quality Hearing Panel as designated in Section 11371 of the Government Code, or whose default has been entered, and who is found guilty, or who has entered into a stipulation for disciplinary action with the board, may, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter: Have his or her license revoked upon order of the board. Have his or her right to practice suspended for a period not to exceed one year upon order of the board. Be placed on probation and be required to pay the costs of probation monitoring upon order of the board. Be publicly reprimanded by the board. The public reprimand may include a requirement that the licensee complete relevant educational courses approved by the board. Accusation No. 12-201 1-214229 Have any other action taken in relation to discipline as part of an order of probation, as the board or an administrative law judge may deem proper. Any matter heard pursuant to subdivision except for warning letters, medical review or advisory conferences, professional competency examinations, continuing education activities, and cost reimbursement associated therewith that are agreed to with the board and successfully completed by the licensee, or other matters made confidential or privileged by existing law, is deemed public, and shall be made available to the public by the board pursuant to Section 803.1." 8. Section 2234 of the Code, states: "The board shall take action against any licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. In addition to other provisions of this article, unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following: Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, assisting in or abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision of this chapter. Gross negligence. Repeated negligent acts. To be repeated, there must be two or more negligent acts or omissions. An initial negligent act or omission followed by a separate and distinct departure from the applicable standard of care shall constitute repeated negligent acts. An initial negligent diagnosis followed by an act or omission medically appropriate for that negligent diagnosis of the patient shall constitute a single negligent act. When the standard of care requires a change in the diagnosis, act, or omission that constitutes the negligent act described in paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, a reevaluation of the diagnosis or a change in treatment, and the licensee's conduct departs from the applicable standard of care, each departure constitutes a separate and distinct breach of the standard of care. Incompetence. The commission of any act involving dishonesty or corruption which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon. 3 Accusation No. 12-201 1-214229 \10Any action or conduct which would have warranted the denial of a certi?cate. The practice of medicine from this state into another state or country without meeting the legal requirements of that state or country for the practice of medicine. Section 2314 shall not apply to this subdivision. This subdivision shall become Operative upon the implementation of the proposed registration program described in Section 2052.5. The repeated failure by a certi?cate holder, in the absence of good cause, to attend and participate in an interview scheduled by the mutual agreement of the certi?cate holder and the board. This subdivision shall only apply to a certi?cate holder who is the subject of an investigation by the board." 9. Section 2230.5 of the Code states: Except as provided in subdivisions and and any accusation ?led against a licensee pursuant to Section 11503 of the Government Code shall be ?led within three years after the board, or a division thereof, discovers the act or omission alleged as the ground for disciplinary action, or within seven years after the act or omission alleged as the ground for disciplinary action occurs, whichever occurs ?rst. An accusation ?led against a licensee pursuant to Section 11503 of the Government Code alleging the procurement of a license by fraud or misrepresentation is not subject to the limitation provided for by subdivision An accusation ?led against a licensee pursuant to Section 11503 of the Government Code alleging unprofessional conduct based on incompetence, gross negligence, or repeated negligent acts of the licensee is not subject to the limitation provided for by subdivision upon proof that the licensee intentionally concealed from discovery his or her incompetence, gross negligence, or repeated negligent acts." If an alleged act or omission involves a minor, the seven?year limitations period provided for by subdivision and the 10-year limitations period provided for by subdivision shall be tolled until the minor reaches the age of majority. An accusation ?led against a licensee pursuant to Section 11503 of the Government Code alleging sexual misconduct shall be ?led within three years after the board, or a division 4 Accusation No. 12-2011-214229 thereof, discovers the act or omission alleged as the ground for disciplinary action, or within 10 years after the act or omission alleged as the ground for disciplinary action occurs, whichever occurs ?rst. This subdivision shall apply to a complaint alleging sexual misconduct received by the board on and after January 1, 2002. The limitations period provided by subdivision shall be tolled during any period if material evidence necessary for prosecuting or determining whether a disciplinary action would i be appropriate is unavailable to the board due to an ongoing criminal investigation." FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Sexual Exploitation--Patient l) 10. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct by violating section 729 in that he engaged in acts constituting sexual exploitation of a patient. The circumstances are as follows: 11. On or about March 24, 2011, the University of California Police Department received a report from the Medical Director of University Health Services at the University of California, Berkeley, that Patient 11, a former student, had recently complained that he had been masturbated and orally copulated by Respondent during the course of a physical examination at the Health Services clinic on or about March 28, 2007. In an interview with UCPD investigators on or about March 26, 2011, Patient 1 stated that Respondent orally copulated him again during the second visit on April 12, 2007. Patient 1 also related that Respondent contacted Patient 1 by telephone and by e-mail after the second appointment, inviting Patient 1 to Respondent?s home. When Patient 1 accepted the invitation sometime in the latter half of April, 2007, Respondent removed Patient 1?s clothes, kissed him, and again orally copulated him. Patient 1 described interior aspects of Respondent?s home to the UCPD investigators, descriptions which were later veri?ed by the investigators during a consensual inspection of Respondent?s home. 1 The patients are identified herein by assigned number to maintain patient privacy. The patients are known to Respondent. Accusation No. 12-2011-214229 Loam \l?the behest of UCPD investigators, on March 30, 2011, Patient 1 placed a recorded pretext telephone call to Respondent. During the course of the recorded conversation between Respondent and Patient 1, Respondent expressed remorse about what had transpired between them in 2007, acknowledged that he then had ?problems with, around sex, problems? but that he had undergone treatment since that time. Respondent also reassured Patient 1 that Patient 1 had no reason to worry about the possibility of having contracted a sexually-transmitted disease from Respondent: ?I?ve been checked, I don?t have anything you need to worry about at all.? At the conclusion of the recorded telephone conversation, Respondent states: don?t expect you to forgive me.? 13. On March 31, 2011, UCPD investigators interviewed Respondent at the UC Berkeley Health Services clinic where Respondent was still employed. During the interview, Respondent told the investigators that he has undergone treatment for ?sexual addiction.? Respondent con?rmed the sexual contact reported by Patient 1 and told the investigators that he has had sexual relationships with ??ve or six? other male patients at the University Health Services clinic over the preceding few years; he provided the names he could then recall of those individuals with whom he had sexual contact and supplied additional names to the investigators in a subsequent interview soon thereafter. Ensuing investigation by UCPD investigators obtained corroborating statements from most of the additional patients Respondent had named. Each told the investigators Respondent masturbated and/or orally copulated them, either in the examination rooms at the University Health Clinic or at Respondent?s home in Berkeley; all were at least 18 years of age when the illicit sexual contact occurred. 14. On April 27, 201 l, the Alameda County District Attorney ?led a nineteen count felony complaint against Respondent, alleging sexual exploitation of patients, sexual battery, and other offenses against multiple victims, all former student?patients identi?ed by Respondent. That criminal proceeding is still pending. 15. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for unprofessional conduct under section 726 for engaging in acts with Patient 1 which constitute sexual exploitation as de?ned in section 729. Accusation No. 12-201 1?214229 SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Sexual Exploitation??Patient 2) 16. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct by violating section 729 in that he engaged in acts constituting sexual exploitation of a patient. The circumstances are as follows: 17. Information provided by Patient 2 and review of medical records from University Health Services established that Respondent saw Patient 2 at the University Health Services clinic at a number of of?ce visits in June 2010. Patient 2 told UCPD investigators that Respondent had caressed Patient 2?s penis on more than one of the visits. Patient 2 further stated that on the June 18, 2010, visit Respondent inserted his gloved ?nger into Patient 2?s rectum while he masturbated Patient 2. Patient 2 also told the investigators that during the June 18, 2010, of?ce visit Respondent repeatedly told Patient 2 that the manual stimulation of his penis was ?necessary.? 18. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for unprofessional conduct under section 726 for engaging in acts with Patient 2 which constitute sexual exploitation as de?ned in section 729. THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Sexual Exploitation--Patient 3) 19. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct by violating section 729 in that he engaged in acts constituting sexual exploitation of a patient. The circumstances are as follows: 20. Patient 3 informed UCPD investigators that he believes he saw Respondent at the University Health Services clinic in or about April 2006. Patient 3 told investigators that he had been masturbated by Respondent on the ?rst visit and on the second visit he had been masturbated and had his rectum penetrated by Respondent?s ?nger for an extended period. Patient 3 also related that Respondent soon thereafter invited Patient 3 to Respondent?s home, where he orally copulated Patient 3. 21. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for unprofessional conduct under section 726 for engaging in acts with Patient 3 which constitute sexual exploitation as de?ned in section 729. Accusation No. 12-2011-214229 FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Sexual Exploitation??Patient 4) 22. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct by violating section 729 in that he engaged in acts constituting sexual exploitation of a patient. The circumstances are as follows: 23. Patient 4 was seen by Respondent at University Health Services on or about May 11, 2010. Patient 4 told UCPD investigators that his physical examination by Respondent included protracted stroking of Patient 4?s penis and that Respondent thereafter invited Patient 4 to his home. Patient 4 stated that he went to Respondent?s home and he and Respondent there engaged in sexual activity. Patient 4 said that when he asked Respondent at that time if the fact that he was Respondent?s patient was an issue of concern, Respondent assured him, ?No, that?s not a problem.? 24. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for unprofessional conduct under section 726 for engaging in acts with Patient 4 which constitute sexual exploitation as defined in section 729. FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Sexual Exploitation--Patient 5) 25. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct by violating section 729 in that he engaged in acts constituting sexual exploitation of a patient. The circumstances are as follows: 26. While Patient 5 was seen more than twice by Respondent at University Health Services, Patient 5 recalled the particular circumstances of two contacts with Respondent at that clinic: on September 21, 2009, Respondent performed a physical examination of Patient 5 during which he masturbated Patient 5 until he ejaculated, and by his comments giving Patient 5 to understand the stimulation was a medically necessary ?discharge test.? Patient 5 also told UCPD investigators the clinic visit on March 11, 2011 included a similar ?discharge test? as well as an unduly prolonged manual prostate examination. Accusation No. 12-201 1-214229 27. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for unprofessional conduct under section 726 for engaging in acts with Patient 5 which constitute sexual exploitation as de?ned in section 729. SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Sexual Exploitation--Patient 6) 28. The allegations of paragraphs 10-13 above are incorporated by reference as if set out in full. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct by violating section 729 in that he engaged in acts constituting sexual exploitation of a patient. The circumstances are as follows: 29. Respondent saw Patient 6 at University Health Services on November 2, 2010. Patient 6 told UCPD investigators that at that office visit Respondent touched his penis in a sexual manner for an extended period, even after Patient 6 developed an erection. Patient 6 stated also that Respondent invited Patient 6 to his home, an invitation he never accepted. 30. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for unprofessional conduct under section 726 for engaging in acts with Patient 6 which constitute sexual exploitation as de?ned in section 729. SEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Gross Negligence) 31. The allegations of paragraphs 10-30 are incorporated herein by reference. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for violation of section 2234(b) in that his acts of sexual exploitation of Patients 1-6 described herein are extreme departures from the standard of care, constituting gross negligence. EIGHTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Unprofessional Conduct) 32. The allegations of paragraphs 10-30 are incorporated herein by reference. Respondent has subjected his license to discipline for violation of section 2234 in that his acts of sexual exploitation of Patients 1?6 described herein constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon. Accusation No. 12-201 1-214229 PRAYER WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Medical Board of California issue a decision: 1. Revoking or suspending Physician's and Surgeon?s Certi?cate No. G57523, issued to Robert Kevess, 2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of Robert Kevess, authority to supervise physician's assistants, pursuant to section 3527 of the Code; 3. Ordering Robert Kevess, M.D., if placed on probation, to pay the Medical Board of California the costs of probation monitoring; and 4. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper. DATED: March 17, 2014 MM KIMBERLY Executive Die ctor Medical Board of California Department of Consumer Affairs State of California Complainant SF2014407412 Kevess.Accusationl .docx lO Accusation No. 12?201 1-214229