Janak K. Mehtani M.D. is listed as a QME in psychiatry with an office on Fulton Avenue in Sacramento. He practices psychiatry under the business name Fair Oaks Psychiatric Associates. Recently the California Medical Board filed an Accusation against him complaining about his treatment of industrially injured patients and patients with chronic pain, anxiety, sleep disturbance and other problems.

The First Cause for Discipline alleges that his treatment was “grossly negligent.” The Second Cause alleges that he “he committed repeated negligent acts in his care and treatment” of the Patients described in the Accusation. In the Third Cause that he “prescribed controlled substances and dangerous drugs” to these patients without an appropriate medical examination or medical indication. In the Fourth Cause that he “failed to maintain adequate and accurate medical records in the care and treatment” of these patients. And in the Fifth Cause for Discipline “that he has engaged in conduct which breaches the rules or ethical code of the medical profession, or conduct which is unbecoming a member in good standing of the medical profession, and which demonstrates an unfitness to practice medicine.

These charges are allegations only, and should not be considered to be true or accurate until there has been a trial on the merits and Dr. Mehtani be afforded an opportunity to be heard and present evidence on his behalf.

However the Accusation does set forth what the California Medical Board considers to be the standard of care for industrially injured patients in a psychiatric setting. The standards set forth in this Accusation should be read and understood by claims administrators and other workers’ compensation professionals since this document sets forth standards that are seldom articulated in one document, with illustrative examples. This document should serve as a benchmark or checklist by which quality of treatment should be evaluated. Here are examples of the standards set forth in this Accusation by the California Medical Board.

First and foremost the Accusation reiterates the requirement that medical records clearly document medical findings, histories, complaints, and rationale for treatment decisions. Often this is not seen when reviewing subpoenaed records of treating physicians. For example, one of the patients complained of weight gain, yet the Accusation alleges that “there has been no documentation of Respondent’s discussion of her weight gain. There was no documentation of her diet, exercise, weight or anything that addresses the risk of weight gain associated with psychotropic medications.” Another concern was “Respondent failed to document the reason for prescribing Abilify, Ambien, and Cymbalta. Respondent failed to document and/or identify any concern about the risks of chronic use of a benzodiazepine Xanax and Ambien, which are not recommended for use greater than 60 days.” The Accusation goes on to say “Respondent’s charting is vague and suggests that the dose of Abilify was increased because the patient was having thoughts about cutting. Respondent failed to document what is being treated other than reducing anxiety and his concern about cutting. There is no description or identification of target symptoms, no identified measurable signs or symptoms to assess the progress or lack of progress in treatment. Respondent’s clinical descriptions are vague and difficult to interpret.” Later the Accusation states “Respondent also documented a global statement without providing any clinical justification or explanation. Respondent noted that “She remains disabled from gainful employment” without explaining and documenting exactly what was Patient GC’s disability, how the disability affects her life and what are the barriers for progress”.

The Accusation summarizes another case where the Respondent allegedly did not respond to letters sent by the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and “Respondent failed to document treatment goals and target symptoms so that the progress of treatment could be objectively evaluated. Respondent failed to document clinical reasons when there is a change in treatment,including change of medication as well as the dose.” These factors among others are according to the Board allegedly “gross negligence” and reason to bring disciplinary action against the QME.

The Accusation alleges concern about the lack of an interpreter. The Board alleges that a “medical assistant” was at times used as an interpreter, and during one follow up visit the “interpreter was not notified of the appointment so she was seen without one.” The Accusation alleges that “Respondent failed to provide an interpreter in order for Patient GC to freely share her feelings and be open to psychotherapeutic interventions.” This patient was seen for about 40 visits of “Medical Psychoanalysis.”

While these allegations may or may not be proven against this particular psychiatrist, they nonetheless set forth examples of what the California Medical Board considers to be appropriate care for industrially injured workers with psychiatric complaints, and what the Medical Board consider to be “gross negligence.” This Accusation should serve as a guideline for appropriate record keeping, and care. All too often this is not the case reflected in typical subpoenaed records that are reviewed.