Supreme Constitutional Court reverses ruling on ophthalmologist disciplinary case

On June 29, the Supreme Constitutional Court overturned an Administrative Court of Appeal decision regarding a disciplinary conviction of an ophthalmologist. The doctor had been penalized by the Medical Disciplinary Board for conducting clinical research without Bioethics Committee approval and for improper advertising. While the original Administrative Court upheld the conviction, the Court of Appeal reversed it, citing a subsequent civil court ruling that influenced the case. The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that the legality of administrative acts must be judged solely on facts available at the time of the decision. It held that using post-facto events to invalidate administrative findings violates principles of fair trial unless specifically argued. Consequently, the initial disciplinary conviction remains under consideration based on the original criteria. The court emphasized that judicial review should not incorporate developments occurring after the initial decision was issued.