CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - Doctors are reprimanded for wrongfully prescribing opioids, sexual misconduct and patient neglect, but do the sanctions they receive fit the gravity of their actions?
Some South Carolina physicians are allowed to continue practicing medicine by the state's medical board even after being cited for their medical care, sometimes including patient death.
Despite this, their licenses remain intact, leaving questions regarding patient safety and accountability.
On March 17, 2023, Cynthia Denise Fields went to the New Body Center in West Ashley for a liposuction procedure performed by Dr. Kenneth E. Robinson, and trusted she was in capable hands.
"She was like, 'once the procedure is done, I'm going to call you back,'" Fields' son, Rodney Johnson said. "Um... the phone call never happened..."
A medical malpractice lawsuit said Fields was given a combination of Benadryl and lethal doses of Lidocaine before her surgery, which had tragic consequences.
Cynthia Fields passed away after suffering a cardiac arrest from the toxic levels of Lidocaine.
"When I think about it, whatever happened from what we know at this point, she suffered and she died alone; that was not the plan at all," Fields' daughter, Juwanna Johnson-Lawrence said.
Documents show Dr. Kenneth Robinson had been under scrutiny long before this incident.
The Medical Board of South Carolina first received complaints against Robinson in 2017 for performing liposuction in his office without the proper emergency plan, prescribing controlled substances over the phone and not providing the names of prescribed medications to patients.
Despite this, the board's actions were limited to public reprimands in 2021, 2023 and 2024, but never stripped Robinson of his medical license.
"Our mother was still under that doctor's care, and I know they take an oath to preserve life and take care of citizens. In that case of what happened to our mother, I felt like that wasn't upheld," Johnson said.
Robinson did not respond to questions about these accusations.
But Robinson is just one of several physicians whose license was not permanently revoked after a series of complaints to the board.
In Columbia, records show Dr. Kevin W. Burnham's license was suspended for several months after repeatedly writing prescriptions for narcotics without seeing patients.
His actions were investigated by the medical board in 2010, 2011, 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2022. Yet, despite numerous violations, Burnahm's license was never revoked, and so, his practice continued.
"When you have repeat offenders, I think that needs to be looked at very closely and a determination needs to be made. Can this person safely practice medicine?" Medical Malpractice Attorney James B. Moore III said. "When you've got somebody who goes beyond negligence, beyond an accident, and there's intentional acts, criminal acts, by these physicians, I think many times they need to be looked up very closely as to whether or not their licenses should be permanently revoked."
Dr. Todd Jarosz, located in Spartanburg, admitted to the medical board he engaged in sexual relationships with a nurse and a patient on multiple occasions in 2017 but was allowed to keep his license. Jarosz's actions were noted by the medical board in 2019, 2022 and 2024.
In another case, Dr. Blake Christian Leche was reprimanded by the medical board twice in 2018 and again in 2020 for providing blank pre-signed prescriptions to his former wife.
Public documents state over 100 forms were used by his wife to fill opioid prescriptions for her friends. Leche continues to practice as an anesthesiologist in the Upstate with his license never permanently revoked.
Between 2014 and 2015, Dr. Aathirayen Thiyagarajah prescribed Subsys, an oral FDA-approved Fentanyl spray, to treat "breakthrough pain" of cancer patients. Thiyagarajah used Subsys to treat noncancerous patients documents state.
In Thiyagarajah's response to the medical board, he treated 4,000 patients and only saw 10% of those patients per month. He also did not check blood pressures or perform physical exams on patients at follow-up visits.
Once again, Thiyagarajah was "publicly reprimanded" but his license was not taken away. He currently works in Greenville.
A total of 1,461 complaints have been made to the Board of Medical Examiners over the last three years.
"One thing our medical board seems to have the effect of doing, is chasing some very specialized doctors that have a bad record out of their field and into other fields," Medical Malpractice Attorney Scott Evans said.
Listed below are the top five complaint categories made to the board in 2022, 2023 and 2024:
In 2022, D'Angelo Brown died inside the Charleston County Detention Center with his death ruled a homicide by gross medical neglect.
Dr. Paul Drago served as the jail's medical director at the time of Brown's death, according to documents.
His medical license was suspended indefinitely in North Carolina and Drago was reprimanded in South Carolina where he was restricted to only working at sites within the S.C. Department of Corrections.
Suspended again in 2015, Drago had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature. The South Carolina Medical Board determined that Drago "engaged in dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct that is likely either to deceive, defraud and harm the public."
"If they can't provide adequate and safe care to people in a hospital setting, they shouldn't be providing care to folks who have been charged with the crime but haven't been convicted in our state," Moore said.
A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed by Brown's family against Charleston County on Dec. 27, 2024. The family believes Charleston County was informed of Drago's past history and despite the information, "Charleston County permitted Wellpath LLC to hire and retain Drago as a medical director and continued to contract with Wellpath LLC for delivery of medical services to the individuals housed within the Charleston County Detention Center."
If doctors who were cited by the board can continue practicing, what can be done to protect patients?
"One thing that I would like to see from the medical board is transparency. So often, it's very difficult to find out the reason for a suspension," Evans said. "The reprimands are often private and it is only in the most extreme situations with repeated offenders that you can actually find out what happened."
"They don't make it particularly easy to search the names of doctors and nurses. You find them and then you'll see okay, no public orders, no public reprimands. What does that mean?" Moore said. "The whole vetting process is very difficult."
"Let the consumer know what you're dealing with. Here's your warning; this guy right here has previous litigation or whatever in the past," Johnson said. "Then, if you choose this doctor, it's at your own risk. It's almost like a disclaimer."
Today, Cynthia Fields' family is left with lingering questions and lasting heartbreak...
"He should have been shut down a long time ago, honestly," Johnson-Lawrence said. "If he had all those violations and it was known, he should not have been allowed to practice. Period. There are holes in the system that clearly should be filled."
On the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation website, Robinson's current license status is relinquished which is defined as an individual has voluntarily given up their credential and is no longer using it.
His office, the New Body Center, stands abandoned.
To find the current status of a doctor's medical license in the state or any actions taken against them, search the individual's name here.
The doctors listed in this investigation were contacted for a comment or statement on the allegations.
An attorney for Jarosz declined to comment.
The South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation did not agree to an interview, but it did provide answers to specific questions via email.
What process does the medical board go through to review medical complaints?
Complaints for all of LLR's boards are vetted through complaint analysts who review them to determine whether the allegations, if proven, would be a violation of the licensing law applicable to the profession. If so, the case is opened and assigned to an investigator. The investigator interviews the parties and witnesses, and issues subpoenas for records. When all of the information is gathered, the investigator compiles a report to be considered at the Investigative Review Conference (IRC). Each IRC consists of investigators, attorneys and at least one member of the profession who together vet each case and make a recommendation for further handling that is sent to the applicable board for review. The board can decide to dismiss a case, refer a case back for additional investigation or send a case to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to issue a formal complaint and prepare the case for a hearing or other resolution.
How is the punishment determined for the reported offence?
Discipline is rendered in each case individually, based on the facts of the case. Revocations, indefinite suspensions, probation, public reprimands, and private reprimands are some of the sanctions available to the Board of Medical Examiners (Board) when it is proven that a licensee has committed misconduct under the Medical Practice Act. Many factors go into what the Board believes is an appropriate sanction. The courts have repeatedly held that the purpose of sanctions is to not punish the licensee but to protect the public, so the primary consideration in determining appropriate sanctions is what is necessary to protect the public and to affect compliance with the law in the future. Other factors used by the Board in determining sanctions include (1) the type of misconduct committed, (2) whether there were multiple violations of the Medical Practice Act, (3) the intent of the licensee, (4) potential or actual patient harm caused by the misconduct, and (5) other aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
And if an individual is punished more than once by the medical board?
The Board would take into account prior disciplinary history in determining appropriate sanctions in a subsequent case before it.
We have seen situations where individuals have strong allegations that the medical board took disciplinary action against but stopped short of permanently revoking their license. Why is there a lack of permanent revocation?
There are cases where the Board has permanently revoked a medical license. If, however, there are sanctions available to the Board, short of permanent revocation, that will address the misconduct, deter future misconduct and adequately protect the public, then the Board must consider those sanctions. In a 1991 case, Wilson v. State Board of Medical Examiners, the South Carolina Supreme Court set out the standard the Board must apply when issuing a sanction in its cases. The Supreme Court stated: "It is therefore an essential element of the legislatively designed administrative regulatory scheme that the Board, in a disciplinary proceeding, scrupulously consider all factors relevant to continued licensure. It must, therefore, meticulously weigh the public interest and the need for the continued services of qualified medical doctors against the countervailing concern that society be protected from professional ineptitude."
We have spoken to attorney's and families that claim a lack of punishment/oversight. What does the medical board have to say in response to those claims?
Some doctors who were allowed to continue medical practice after being reprimanded had patients allegedly die under their care.... Any comment?