IN THE MATTER OF * BEFORE THE

PETER J. DELENICK, M.D. * MARYLAND STATE

Respondent * BOARD OF PHYSICIANS

License Number: D80662 * Case Numbers: 2016-07418

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CONSENT ORDER

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2017, Disciplinary Panel B ("Panel B") of the Maryland State

Board of Physicians (the "Board") charged PETER J. DELENICK, M.D. (the

"Respondent"), License No. 080662, under the Maryland Medical Practice Act (the

"Act"), Md. Code Ann., Health 0cc. II ("Health 0cc. II")§§ 14-101 et seq.

Specifically, Panel B charged the Respondent with violating the following

provision of the Act under Health 0cc. II§ 14-404:

(a) In general. -- Subject to the hearing provisions of§ 14-405 of this

subtitle, a disciplinary panel, on the affirmative vote of a majority of
the quorum of the disciplinary panel, may reprimand any licensee,
place any licensee on probation, or suspend or revoke a license if
the licensee:

(3) Is guilty of:

(ii) Unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine[.]

On August 23, 2017, the Respondent appeared before Panel B, sitting as a

Disciplinary Committee for Case Resolution. As a result of negotiations occurring

before Panel B, the Respondent agreed to enter into the following Consent Order,
consisting of Procedural Background, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order,

Consent and Notary.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Panel B makes the following Findings of Fact:

I. BACKGROUND

1. At all relevant times, the Respondent was and is a physician licensed to practice

medicine in the State of Maryland. He was initially licensed in Maryland on November

13, 2015. His Maryland license is active through September 30, 2018.

2. The Respondent is also licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of

Virginia since November 1, 1985, in Pennsylvania since July 29, 1980 and in Arizona

since April 21, 2011. All licenses are current and unrestricted.

3. The Respondent is board-certified in orthopedic surgery.

4. The Respondent does not currently hold any hospital privileges in Maryland.

5. On or about March 9, 2016, the Board received a complaint from the

Respondent's former employer ("Practice A"\ in Rockville, Maryland, alleging that

Practice A terminated the Respondent's employment for misconduct, disruptive

behavior and creating a hostile work environment.

6. On March 23, 2016, Practice A sent a follow-up letter to the Board to provide

additional information regarding the Respondent's termination. The letter stated that

following the Respondent's termination, Practice A and Respondent disagreed about

payment of the Respondent's malpractice coverage during his employment at Practice

1
For confidentiality purposes, the names of any practice entities, patients or other individuals will not be
used in this Consent Order. The Respondent is aware of the identity of entities, patients or individuals
referenced herein.

2
A. As a result, the Respondent refused to return a laptop computer lent to him by

Practice A and refused to complete and sign outstanding patient notes. 2

7. Thereafter, the Board initiated an investigation.

8. The Board requested that the Respondent provide a written response to the

complaint. In his response, the Respondent stated that he had never spoken to his

employers regarding the allegations made against him. The Respondent further stated

that the complaint is a retaliation for complaints that the Respondent made against

Practice A and its owners.

II. EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC FINDINGS

9. In furtherance of the Board's investigation, the Board issued subpoena duces

tecum for the personal files from each of the Respondent's then-current employers and

previous five employers.

A. CLINIC A

10. Clinic A, an urgent care center in Bethesda, Maryland, employed the Respondent

as a locum tenens physician from approximately April 2016 until July 2016. The

Respondent worked two days per week during his employment at Clinic A.

11. On September 1, 2016, Board staff interviewed the owner of Clinic A ("Provider

A"). According to Provider A, he received complaints from patients regarding the

Respondent. Specifically, Provider A stated that the Respondent displayed a lack of

patience, and was derogatory and rude towards patients, one of whom walked out

without being seen after an interaction with the Respondent.

2
To date, the Respondent has not signed off on patient notes, preventing Practice A from billing for the
Respondent's services. Ultimately, the Respondent returned Practice A's laptop to local law enforcement.

3
12. Provider A stated that the Respondent was verbally abusive, raised his voice and

made the medical assistants feel uncomfortable. As a result, Provider A held a staff

meeting to address the issue.

13. Provider A further stated that he kept a close eye on the Respondent and as

soon as he observed the Respondent getting upset, he removed the Respondent from

the situation and took over patient care.

14. Provider A stated that in the four-month period of the Respondent's employment

at Clinic A, Provider A held two meetings to address concerns regarding the

Respondent's behavior at work.

15. According to Provider A, he terminated the Respondent's employment when he

discovered that the Respondent stole multiple vials of antibiotics from Clinic A.

16. On September 2, 2016, the Board's staff interviewed Witness A, a former medical

assistant at Clinic A.

17. Witness A stated that the Respondent acted in a manner that made her feel

physically threatened and intimidated. Witness A stated that she felt intimidated by the

Respondent because of his large stature (6'6") relative to her small stature.

18. Witness A stated that after this incident, the Respondent gave her a hard time

and didn't want to work with her.

19. Witness A also recalled patients complaining about the Respondent's rudeness,

cultural insensitivity, and inappropriate comments.

B. PRACTICE A

20. Practice A, a pain management practice in Rockville, Maryland, employed the

Respondent from December 26, 2015 until his termination on February 18, 2016. The

4
Respondent worked part-time at Practice A periorming patient examinations and giving

injections under fluoroscopic guidance.

21. On May 12, 2016, Board staff interviewed the part-owner and CEO of Practice A,

a licensed chiropractor ("Provider B").

22. According to Provider B, the Respondent was "extremely combative and

disruptive and difficult to handle from an employee perspective." Provider B further

stated that the Respondent behaved inappropriately with various staff members.

23. The Board's staff interviewed four staff members and one patient at Practice A.

The staff members testified about the Respondent's refusal to enter notes in patient

charts, due to the Respondent's lack of experience with electronic medical records.

Practice A attempted to accommodate the Respondent by allowing him to hand-write

his patient notes, but the Respondent had difficulty doing so.

24. Two of the staff members testified that they observed memory loss and

forgetfulness when interacting with the Respondent.

25. In addition, the staff members testified that the Respondent was dismissive and

condescending to staff members, belligerent regarding office policies and rules, and that

the Respondent made culturally insensitive remarks.

26. The patient testified that the Respondent was disrespectful to her, as well as to

the staff member who was present in the examination room. The patient specifically

requested not to see the Respondent for future appointments.

C. CLINIC B

5
27. Clinic B, a multi-disciplinary pain clinic in Danville, Virginia, employed the

Respondent for a six- or seven-week period in 2015, until Clinic B terminated his

employment.

28. In furtherance of its investigation, the Board issued a subpoena for the

Respondent's personnel file at Clinic B.

29. In summary, a review of the Respondent's personnel file· revealed that the

Respondent:

a. used profane language with patients;

b. aggressively accused patients of being drug seekers;

c. raised his voice with patients;

d. made repeated inappropriate sexual remarks to staff and patients;

e. told jokes that were sexual in nature in the presence of staff and patients;

f. called female staff members inappropriate nicknames despite being told

not to do so;

g. hung up on a mid-level staff member when discussing a patient;

h. verbally abused staff members;

i. documented in a patient's chart that he used a medication that is not

stocked by Clinic B; and

j. threatened to punch another provider in the face.

30. Furthermore, according to the Respondent's personnel file, many of the

Respondent's chart notes are deficient, preventing Clinic B from submitting for

reimbursement for services rendered by the Respondent.

6
31. During his employment at Clinic B, the Respondent supervised a nurse

practitioner. According to the Respondent's personnel file, the Respondent was abusive

toward the nurse practitioner, who ultimately resigned from Clinic B.

32. After his termination from Clinic B, the Respondent filed multiple complaints to

various government agencies against Clinic B and its owner.

D. CLINIC C

33. Clinic C, a walk-in clinic in Falls Church, Virginia, employed the Respondent for

approximately three months from August 2014 to November 2014. It is unclear from the

personnel file why his employment at Clinic C ended.

34. A review of the Respondent's personnel file revealed two employee incident

reports involving the Respondent.

35. The first employee incident report, dated October 20, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.,

documented an incident in which the Respondent displayed rudeness and discourteous

behavior. The Respondent refused to sign the employee incident report.

36. The second employee incident report, dated October 20, 2014 at 5:45 p.m.,

referenced the need for the Respondent to have "respect for colleagues and not be rude

because it hinders patient care." In addition, the employee incident report stated that the

Respondent was advised to provide his signature for electronic medical records and in

response, the Respondent began yelling that the use of his signature is a billing scam.

Finally, the employee incident report described how the Respondent refused to

complete documentation or provide care to waiting patients and left Clinic C.

7
E. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS IN VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA

37. By an Order dated May 18, 2006 (the "2006 Virginia Order"), the Virginia Board

of Medicine (the "Virginia Board") placed the Respondent's Virginia license to practice

medicine on indefinite probation. The Respondent's probation was subject to terms and

conditions, including but not limited to, a comprehensive assessment of the

Respondent's ability to practice medicine and surgery safely and competently.

38. In addition to findings of fact regarding standard of care and documentation

deficiencies, the Virginia Order included findings of fact demonstrating "a pattern of

disruptive behavior that may be the result of mental incapacity or illness." This behavior

occurred at various hospitals in Northern Virginia in the mid-to-late 1990s.

39. As a result of his disruptive behavior, the Respondent was evaluated on multiple

occasions which resulted in recommendations for psychiatric treatment and counseling,

the appointment of physician mentors and disciplinary actions against his privileges.

40. The Virginia Order required the Respondent to undergo a complete assessment

of his ability to practice safely and competently.

41. On October 3, 2006, the Respondent entered into a participation contract with

the Virginia Health Practitioner's Intervention Program and . underwent inpatient

treatment from November 20, 2006 until January 23, 2007. The Respondent was

diagnosed with a major psychiatric illness.

42. On April 17, 2007, in a reciprocal action based upon the 2006 Virginia Order, the

Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine (the "Pennsylvania Board") indefinitely

8
suspended the Respondent's Pennsylvania license to practice medicine until such time

as the Respondent's Virginia license was reinstated. 3

43. On May 18, 2007, the Virginia Board and the Respondent entered into a Consent

Order ("2007 Virginia Order") which found the Respondent in violation of the 2006

Order. The 2007 Order placed the Respondent on indefinite probation because he failed

to timely comply with the conditions of the 2006 Virginia Order, failed to notify patients

of the closure of his practice or to provide copies of medical records upon request.

44. On September 28, 2008, the Virginia Board reinstated the Respondent's license

to practice medicine without restriction.

45. On May 7, 2009, the Pennsylvania Board reinstated the Respondent's license

without restriction.

E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

46. In furtherance of its investigation, the Board obtained releases from the

Respondent to obtain his medical records.

47. Included in the Respondent's medical records, one provider ("Provider C")

documented in an office note on December 8, 2014 that "staff feels that [the

Respondent] has been difficult to deal with. He initially did not want to complete the

paperwork stating that he was a physician and did not have to do so."

48. In addition, the office note stated that the Respondent was "upset about his

handling from the time of the first phone call ... [,] was not satisfied with the discussion

by the technologist or [Provider C], and that he would be complaining to the Virginia

Medical Board."

3
The Virginia Board issued a mandatory suspension of the Respondent's Virginia license based upon
Pennsylvania's action. However, the documentation indicates that the suspension was immediately lifted.

9
49. The Board also obtained the Respondent's medical record from another provider

("Provider D") of the Respondent. In light of Provider D's minimal notes, Board staff

spoke with Provider D on the telephone.

50. Provider D diagnosed the Respondent "many years ago" with a mental health

disorder and continues to prescribe medication to treat the Respondent.

51. Provider D further stated that he speaks to the Respondent weekly on the

telephone and that they meet frequently to lecture students at schools in Virginia.

52. The Respondent's conduct, as described above, constitutes a violation, in whole

or in part, of Health 0cc. II § 14-404(a)(3(ii) Unprofessional conduct in the practice of

medicine.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Panel B concludes as a matter of law

that the Respondent violated the following provision of the Act: Health 0cc. II § 14-

404(a)(3) Is guilty of: (ii) Unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine.

ORDER

It is, on the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum of Panel B, hereby:

ORDERED that the Respondent is REPRIMANDED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondent is placed on PROBATION for a minimum period

of THREE (3) YEARS. 4 During the probationary period, the Respondent shall fully and

satisfactorily comply with all of the following probationary terms and conditions:

1. The Respondent shall enroll in the Maryland Physician Rehabilitation

Program ("MPRP"). Within five (5) business days, the Respondent shall
contact MPRP to schedule an initial consultation for enrollment. Within

4
If the Respondent's license expires while the Respondent is on probation, the probationary period and
any probationary conditions will be tolled.

10
 fifteen (15) business days, the Respondent shall enter into a Participant
Rehabilitation Agreement and Participant Rehabilitation Plan with MPRP.
The Respondent shall fully and timely cooperate and comply with all of
MPRP's referrals, rules, and requirements, including but not limited to, the
terms and conditions of the Participant Rehabilitation Agreement(s) and
Participant Rehabilitation Plan(s) entered into with MPRP, and shall fully
participate and comply with all therapy, treatment, evaluations, and
toxicology screenings as directed by MPRP;

2. The Respondent shall sign and updated the written release/consent forms
requested by Board and MPRP. The Respondent shall sign the
release/consent forms to authorize MPRP to make verbal and written
disclosures to the Board, including disclosure of any and all MPRP
records and files possessed by MPRP. The Respondent shall also sign
any written release/consent forms to authorize MPRP to exchange with
(i.e., disclose to and receive from) outside entities (including all of the
Respondent's current therapists and treatment providers) verbal and
written information concerning the Respondent and to ensure that MPRP
is authorized to receive the medical records of the Respondent, including
but not limited to, mental health and drug or alcohol treatment records;

3. During the probationary period, the Respondent shall provide the name(s)
of any hospitals at which he is privileged and any medical officers at which
the Respondent practices medicine. He shall provide a copy of this
Consent Order to all hospitals at which he is privileged and any medical
offices at which the Respondent practices medicine;

4. During the probationary period, the ,.....,...,8·.:::::-.. "",..,"" shall cause his
employer(s) to submit quarterly reports regarding his compliance with
professionalism standards. An unsatisfactory report or the employer(s)
failure to submit a quarterly report may be deemed ·a violation of the
Consent Order; and

5. The Respondent shall comply with the Maryland Medical Practice Act, Md.
Code Ann., Health 0cc. II§§ 14-101 -- 14-702, and all laws, statutes and
regulations governing the practice of medicine.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after three (3) years, the Respondent

may submit a written petition to the Board requesting termination of probation. After

consideration of the petition, the probation may be terminated through an order of the

Board or Panel B. The Respondent may be required to appear before the Board or

Panel B to discuss his petition for termination. The Board or Panel B will grant the

11
petition to terminate the probation if the Respondent has complied with all of the

probationary terms and conditions and there are no pending complaints related to the

charges; and it is further

ORDERED that if the Respondent allegedly fails to comply with any term or

condition of probation or of this Consent Order, the Respondent shall be given notice

and an opportunity for a hearing. If there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, the

hearing shall be before an Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative

Hearings. If there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact, the Respondent shall be

given a show cause hearing before the Board or Panel B; and it is further

ORDERED that after the appropriate hearing, if the Board or Panel B determines

that act, that Respondent has failed to comply with any term or condition of probation or

this Consent Order, the Board or Panel B may reprimand the Respondent, place

Respondent on probation with appropriate terms and conditions, or suspend or revoke

the Respondent's license to practice medicine in Maryland. The Board or Panel B may,

in addition to one or more of the sanctions set forth above, impose a civil monetary fine

upon the Respondent; and it is further

ORDERED that the Respondent shall not apply for early termination of probation;

and it is further

ORDERED that unless stated otherwise in the order, any time period prescribed

in this order begins when the Consent Order goes into effect. The Consent Order goes

into effect upon the signature of the Board's Executive Director, who· signs on behalf of

the Board disciplinary panel; and it is further

12
 ORDERED that the Respondent is responsible for all costs incurred in fulfilling

the terms and condition of this Consent Order; and it is further

ORDERED that this Consent Order is a PUBLIC DOCUMENT pursuant to Md.

Code Ann., Gen. Prov.§§ 4-101 et seq. (2014).

Date I Christine A. Farrelly

Executive Director
Maryland State Board of Physicians

CONSENT

I, Peter J. Delenick, M.D., acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to consult

with counsel before signing this document. By this Consent, I agree and accept to be

bound by this Consent Order and its conditions and restrictions. I waive any rights I

may have had to contest the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order.

I acknowledge the validity of this Consent Order as if entered into after the

conclusion of a formal evidentiary hearing in which I would have had the right to

counsel, to confront witnesses, to give testimony, to call witnesses on my own behalf,

and to all other substantive and procedural protections as provided by law.

acknowledge the legal authority and the jurisdiction of Panel B to initiate these

proceedings and to issue and enforce this Consent Order. I also affirm that I am

waiving my right to appeal any adverse ruling of Disciplinary Panel A that might have

followed any such hearing.

I sign this Consent Order after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel,

without reservation, and I fully understand and comprehend the language, meaning and

13
terms of this Consent Order. I voluntarily sign this Order, and understand its meaning

and effect.

1>
Date I
b 8 I ;;,.n
I
_53)~ ~ - D.Yg,,,_,4 vw121
P er J. Delenick, M.D. '
Respondent

Read and approved:

A
Counsel for Dr.

NOTARY

STATEOF ~ ~

CITY/COUN~ O; : - ~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this j§f!L-aay of ~ Jlt!/1
2017, before me, a Notary Public of the foregoing State and City/County, did personally

appear Peter J. Delenick, M.D., and made oath in due form of law that signing the

foregoing Consent Order was his voluntary act and deed.

AS WITNESSETH my hand and notary seal.

My commission expires: 1'/f'f~~

14