Why This Decision Matters

The Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine revoked psychiatrist Amy Mazza MacIntyre, M.D.’s medical license after finding sexual misconduct with a patient, unprofessional conduct, negligent practice, deficient records, and improper controlled-substance prescribing. The May 28, 2026 Final Adjudication and Order also assessed $11,357.17 in investigative costs, required immediate cessation of practice, and directed surrender of licensure documents within ten days. For practitioners, the decision confirms that boundary violations tied to prescribing can trigger the profession’s most severe sanction.

Background and Procedural History

The case began with an August 8, 2024 Order to Show Cause alleging multiple violations of the Medical Practice Act, including unprofessional conduct, negligent practice, improper prescribing, poor recordkeeping, and sexual misconduct. After discovery, continuances, and a substantial stipulation, Respondent conceded liability on four counts; one count was withdrawn; and only the improper-prescribing count remained for adjudication. The hearing took place August 18–19, 2025, the record closed December 23, 2025, and the Board adopted revocation after reviewing the full record.

The Key Legal Issues

Because liability was stipulated on most counts, the central disputed issue was whether Respondent violated 49 Pa. Code § 16.92 by prescribing controlled substances to patient J.K. without required reevaluations, counseling, and documentation. The Board applied a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and focused on the stipulation, witness credibility, and minimum standards for controlled-substance prescribing.

The Holding and Reasoning

The Board found that Respondent improperly prescribed clonazepam, alprazolam, and stimulant medications to J.K. between 2013 and 2017 without formal in-person reevaluations, required counseling, or complete records. It credited the Commonwealth’s expert on psychiatric prescribing standards and found that prescribing during a sexual relationship, combined with benzodiazepine polypharmacy, fell below prevailing standards. The Board gave limited weight to Respondent’s expert because he did not address medical prescribing standards and relied heavily on Respondent’s self-report.

On sanction, the Board concluded that revocation—not probation or a lesser penalty—was necessary to protect the public. It emphasized the seriousness and duration of the misconduct, including sexual involvement with a patient, continued prescribing without safeguards, and years of deficient recordkeeping. The Board considered mitigation but gave it limited weight because Respondent’s explanations lacked corroboration and did not fully acknowledge the breached professional duties.

Core Factual Context

Respondent began treating J.K. in 2004 and later had a sexual relationship with him through 2017. After June 2013, she continued prescribing controlled substances without formal in-person evaluations or required treatment records. The Board also considered travel, gifts, informal communications about controlled substances, and prescribing to J.K.’s family members as evidence of impaired professional judgment.

Practical Takeaways for Licensees and Counsel

Sexual involvement with a patient is incompatible with safe prescribing and will aggravate discipline under 49 Pa. Code § 16.92. Controlled-substance prescribing requires documented reevaluations, counseling, and complete records; informal contacts cannot substitute for compliant clinical care. Expert testimony grounded in records and prescription history can be decisive, while mitigation that does not address regulatory compliance may carry little weight. Even old misconduct can support revocation when violations are serious, prolonged, and tied to public protection.

Compliance Pointers

When professional boundaries are compromised, physicians should stop treating the patient, document the concern, seek supervision, and arrange an appropriate referral. Controlled-substance prescribing must comply with § 16.92 at initiation and throughout treatment, including documentation of diagnosis, drug name, strength, quantity, directions, counseling, reevaluations, and changes in therapy. Prescribing to non-patients or family members may signal broader failures in professional judgment.

Conclusion

This revocation shows that boundary violations, controlled-substance failures, and poor records can end a medical career. In matters this serious, practitioners need competent legal counsel with focused disciplinary training and real trial experience to evaluate risk, build the record, present mitigation, and protect the license.

CoCounsel’s Draft skill uses a combination of the underlying large language model (LLM), your provided materials, and, when explicitly cited, Thomson Reuters proprietary content to generate legal and non-legal documents. Any citations, including hyperlinked citations to Thomson Reuters content, should be independently verified. As a legal professional, you are ultimately responsible for ensuring the final work is accurate and does not misrepresent the law.

Generated by AI and may contain mistakes. Not legal advice. A qualified professional must verify accuracy and legal compliance.