## Facts

- Dr. George A. Guess, a North Carolina-licensed family physician, regularly administered homeopathic treatments to patients.
- The North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners charged Guess with “unprofessional conduct” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14(a)(6) based solely on his use of homeopathy.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the Board found that homeopathy departed from “acceptable and prevailing medical practice” in North Carolina.
- The Board revoked Guess’s medical license but stayed the revocation on the condition that he stop using homeopathy.
- The record contained no evidence that patients were injured by Guess’s homeopathic treatments; some testimony suggested patients reported improvement.

## Issues

1. Whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14(a)(6) permits physician discipline for a departure from “acceptable and prevailing medical practice” without proof of actual patient harm or danger of harm.
2. Whether the reviewing courts improperly set aside the Board’s decision by reweighing evidence and imposing a harm requirement not found in the statute.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Board’s order conditionally revoking Guess’s license.
- The court held that § 90-14(a)(6) does not require proof of patient injury as a prerequisite to discipline.
- The court concluded substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Guess’s homeopathic practice departed from acceptable and prevailing medical practice in North Carolina.
- The court determined the lower courts exceeded the proper scope of judicial review by substituting their judgment for the Board’s on professional standards and statutory meaning.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14(a)(6), “unprofessional conduct” includes a departure from acceptable and prevailing medical practice, regardless of whether a patient is injured.
- The statute authorizes the medical board to act preventively; it need not wait for patient harm before imposing discipline.
- Determining what constitutes “acceptable and prevailing medical practice” is primarily within the medical board’s regulatory competence, and courts should defer when the finding is supported by substantial evidence.
- Judicial review of administrative discipline focuses on statutory authority and evidentiary support, not reweighing expert testimony or adding extra-statutory requirements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Board’s authority to discipline a physician for practicing outside accepted and prevailing medical standards in North Carolina even without evidence of patient harm, and it reinstated the Board’s conditional revocation of Dr. Guess’s license.


In re Guess, 327 N.C. 46, 393 S.E.2d 833 (N.C. 1990)