Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 1 of 18

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

IN RE: MISSISSIPPI STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE

CAUSE NO. G2019-509 G/2

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMES NOW, Walter R. Wolfe, M.D. (“Dr. Wolfe”), by and through undersigned

counsel, and moves for temporary restraining order and injunctive relief against the Mississippi

Board of Medical Licensure (“MBML” or “the Board”), and in support of his Motion would show

the following:

1. Walter R. Wolfe, M.D., is an adult residence citizen of Madison County,

Mississippi. He has at all pertinent times been a physician licensed to practice medicine in the

State of Mississippi, having initially been licensed by the MBML in 1989.

2. The Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure is an administrative board created

pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §73-43-1. Its business offices are located in Hinds County,

Mississippi. The Board has at all pertinent times governed physician licensure and discipline

issues pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§73-43-1 through 73-43-17, 73-25-1 through 73-25-95. The

Board has already appeared in this action and may be served over the MEC system.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter in accordance with the Mississippi

Constitution, Article 6 §159, and Miss. Code Ann. §§ 73-25-95 and 73-25-27.

4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §73-43-17 and other

applicable provisions.

1
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 2 of 18

FACTS

5. Dr. Wolfe has been practicing medicine in the field of obstetrics and gynecology

since 1985 when he began his residency program.

6. Over the course of medical practice extending over thirty (30) years in Mississippi,

until 2019, Dr. Wolfe has never been the subject of any investigation by the MBML, nor has he

received any reprimands or suspensions from the Board.

7. Dr. Wolfe is not aware of a single patient complaint having been lodged against

him to the Board until this investigation was announced to him in a surprise office visit by the

Board in February, 2019, other than one complaint that was investigated and dismissed for lack of

merit.

8. During his 30+ year career, Dr. Wolfe has delivered over 16,000 children. He has

cared for more than 29,000 patients.

9. Dr. Wolfe presently practices in Canton, Mississippi, an underserved community

where he is one of only two Ob/gyns practicing in that community and the only one that offers

VBAC’s (vaginal births after deliveries), a delivery option he is known for throughout the state.

Dr. Wolfe is also a primary source of referral for doulas and midwives and is the only physician

most will refer to because of his respect for the desires of patients of these referring providers. Dr.

Wolfe is also the primary transport obstetrician for Yazoo, Holmes, Attala, and west Leake

Counties. Again, these are all underserved areas where patient access to care is more limited. Dr.

Wolfe is also the main admitting physician to Merit Health Madison, and the administration is

fully supportive of him.

10. According to charges delivered to Dr. Wolfe yesterday, July 10, 2019, the MBML

initiated an investigation of Dr. Wolfe in November, 2018. The MBML did not make Dr. Wolfe
2
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 3 of 18

aware of its investigation until they appeared unannounced in his office in February of 2019 to

demand patient charts of specified patients.

11. Even in spite of this lack of notice and lack of articulation of any charges, Dr. Wolfe

offered his full cooperation in this now 8-month old investigation, having sat with MBML

investigators, MBML counsel, and Executive Director, Dr. Ken Cleveland, for almost three (3)

hours voluntarily on April 11, 2019. Dr. Wolfe and his counsel have also voluntarily cooperated

in providing requested documents to the MBML since becoming aware of the 8-month old

investigation.

12. The MBML, until yesterday, has been elusive about the specific focus of its

investigation, having never even charged Dr. Wolfe at all until July 10, 2019. Prior to that time,

the MBML merely indicated that the nature of its investigation was primarily related to Dr. Wolfe

allegedly having had a personal relationship with a patient or patients, as well as some

accompanying issues of prescribing medications to these persons or patients. Indeed, we now

know from the charges delivered yesterday one allegation is that Dr. Wolfe is accused of kissing

a pregnant patient as she entered ultrasound in November of 2018. What the Board fails to disclose

in this charge is that at the time of the kiss, the patient was Dr. Wolfe’s fiancé and is presently his

wife.

13. Having obtained at least six (6) patient charts from Dr. Wolfe in February of 2019,

to ascertain whether Dr. Wolfe has acted inappropriately with patients (which appears to include

kissing his fiancé), the MBML has had all relevant information now for almost five (5) months. In

other words, these charts on the patients who are the subject of this inquiry were obtained in

February, 2019, from Dr. Wolfe during the unannounced visit and have been available to MBML

since that time.

3
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 4 of 18

14. The MBML has likewise had in its possession since at least February of 2019 the

prescribing history of Dr. Wolfe as to all of Dr. Wolfe’s patients, including the persons of interest

whose charts were commandeered in February of 2019. Prescribing information is independently

available to MBML through a database. In other words, the MBML does not need Dr. Wolfe or

his permission to retrieve it. Accordingly, all pertinent information as to the topics of the

investigation have been in the possession of the MBML for months. That is, the MBML knew the

patients’ names who were the focus of the inquiry; it had their charts; and it had their prescribing

history. All charges asserted against Dr. Wolfe for the first time on July 10, 2019, were derived

from this information in the Board’s possession dating back to at least February, 2019. Yet the

Board waited until July 10 to declare “imminent danger.”

15. Dr. Wolfe also agreed to sit for an interview to answer questions related to this

investigation. That interview occurred on April 11, 2019, and present were Dr. Ken Cleveland,

two investigators employed by the MBML, and counsel for the MBML. Hence, by April 11, 2019,

the Board not only had all relevant data, it had the story from Dr. Wolfe as he answered all but one

of their questions during an interview that lasted approximately three (3) hours.

16. Since the Board started investigating in late 2018, and throughout the 8-month

inquiry, Dr. Wolfe has continuously practiced medicine. The Board, having had in its possession

all relevant information on the patients who are the subject of this investigation for months, made

no claims during these months that Dr. Wolfe posed any threat or risk to patients, certainly not an

imminent threat or danger.

17. Similarly, at no time during Dr. Wolfe’s interview on April 11, 2019, or in the

immediate aftermath, did the Board state or insinuate that it deemed Dr. Wolfe to be a threat to

patients.
4
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 5 of 18

18. Dr. Wolfe therefore continued his medical practice after his interview on April 11,

2019. He also practiced all of May, 2019, without objection by the Board. He practiced

throughout June, 2019, as the Board had not charged him and certainly had not notified him that

it deemed him to be an immediate danger to patients. The same occurred in July, 2019, as part of

another month went by after the interview. Again, the Board had held possession of the relevant

patient charts and prescribing history since at least February, 2019.

19. Then on July 10, 2019, a Board investigator, along with a large armed body guard,

and Board Executive Director, Dr. Ken Cleveland, charged into Dr. Wolfe’s clinic unannounced

and served him with charges, including the allegation that he (Dr. Wolfe) posed an immediate

threat and danger such that his license was suspended immediately. This, in spite of the fact that

the Board had held all relevant information for months without even charging Dr. Wolfe, much

less labeling him an immediate threat and danger. This was all precipitated the most public way

possible, in front of patients, such that the story immediately spread across social media and

ultimately into the Clarion Ledger this morning.

20. The paperwork delivered to Dr. Wolfe during the surprise visit of July 10, 2019,

failed to explain why the Board deemed Dr. Wolfe a sudden danger on July 10, 2019, when it did

not so deem him upon review of medical charts and prescribing history in February, 2019, or after

his interview on April 11, 2019.

21. The sudden shutdown of Dr. Wolfe’s OBGYN clinic and practice obviously poses

immediate and pressing problems for Dr. Wolfe, as well as his active patients. Dr. Cleveland

apparently recognized this problem at some point during his surprise appearance on July 10, 2019,

as he agreed that it would be prudent for Dr. Wolfe to continue following an active labor patient

on July 10 and also to follow and discharge his present post-op patients. It is hard to understand
5
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 6 of 18

is why a doctor who is an immediate danger to patients should be allowed to perform any medical

care at all after being so identified as a danger. Dr. Cleveland’s own actions on behalf of the Board

in this respect make clear that Dr. Wolfe is no threat whatsoever to his active patients or any other

patients; otherwise, Dr. Cleveland would not have permitted Dr. Wolfe to continue limited medical

practice.

22. What is even harder to understand is why the Board all of a sudden identified this

alleged imminent danger on July 10, 2019, having had all relevant information available to it for

months and months prior to July 10, 2019, dating back to at least February, 2019. In other words,

the alleged proof of Dr. Wolfe’s dangerous propensities has been in the Board’s possession for

months prior to July 10, 2019, the date upon which he was suddenly declared an imminent threat.

23. The Board’s behavior, and particularly its timeline of action (or rather, inaction),

makes clear there is no imminent danger whatsoever. If there had been a danger as alleged, the

Board would have acted long ago.

24. The Board’s Draconian actions of abruptly charging Dr. Wolfe and suspending his

license have nothing to do Dr. Wolfe’s medical abilities or the Board’s concerns about his patients.

Rather, it has everything to do with seeking tactical advantage and thwarting due process by

creating a process of guilty until proven innocent completely inconsistent with what is required by

Miss Code 73-25-27 and governing case law discussed infra. The law requires an evidentiary

hearing before a suspension. The Board has convicted with no hearing, in the most public way

imaginable, in a calculated attempt to ruin Dr. Wolfe before he can utter the first word or

evidentiary witness in defense. Many of the charges utter on the preposterous – for example, the

accusation of sexual assault against Dr. Wolfe for kissing his fiance before her ultrasound.

6
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 7 of 18

25. The Board’s springing the emergency suspension is a denial of due process, as well

as a conviction of an accused who was not even been charged, much less tried, until the very day

his license was pulled.

26. Obviously a doctor is guaranteed constitutional due process through disciplinary

proceedings. Caine v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406, 1413 (5th Cir. 1991). This includes an assurance

that the proceedings will be fair, free from suspicion, and without oppression. See Miss. State

Board of Health v. Johnson, 19 So. 2d 827 (Miss. 1944). This due process is also protected by

Miss. Code 73-25-27, which states that the Board has no right to take action against a licensee

without the hearing having occurred first: “The State Board of Medical Licensure after notice and

opportunity for a hearing to the licensee, is authorized to suspend or revoke for any cause named

in this chapter … .” (emphasis added). The hearing process, in turn, requires fair notice to the

doctor, an orderly hearing, and a process for evaluating the evidence and charges of the Board. See

id.

27. Here, the Board has cleverly and improperly invoked Miss. Code 73-25-89 to claim

“imminent danger.” By declaring Dr. Wolfe to be an imminent danger, the Board can create a

chaotic process where (a) Dr. Wolfe’s license is suspended immediately; and (b) a hearing is held

in only fifteen (15) days. Both (a) and (b) are patently unfair to Dr. Wolfe.

28. First, there is no immediate danger, and the Board itself proves this by its inaction.

Yet by declaring the danger, the Board gains the tactical advantage of putting Dr. Wolfe in duress

and threatening his livelihood before the evidentiary hearing is even held.

29. As to (b), the Board has been planning these charges and actions against Dr. Wolfe

since at least November, 2018 (according to its charges delivered July 10), so it has spent eight

months planning its case in advance before ever disclosed the charges. So, the Board gets eight
7
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 8 of 18

months to plan a legal attack, while providing Dr. Wolfe only fifteen (15) days to mount a defense,

all while his reputation is slandered across the state newspapers and social media.

30. Had the Board perceived imminent danger and immediate threat, it should have

suspended Dr. Wolfe months and months ago. The Board has built its case over an extended period

of time in a calculated way, never asserting any charges or providing any details to Dr. Wolfe until

July 10, 2019. By asserting this immediate danger claim under Miss Code Ann. § 73-25-89, the

Board is intentionally depriving Dr. Wolfe of his constitutional rights to due process. In other

words, these proceedings should be occurring under Miss. Code Ann. §73-25-27, which requires:

“notice and opportunity for hearing” prior to suspension.

31. The Board’s action is, quite frankly, tactical bad faith. It is the kind of oppressive

behavior that calls into question whether it can even conduct a hearing consistent with Johnson,

see id., which requires the Board to be even, impartial, and beyond suspicion.

32. Dr. Wolfe is entitled to practice medicine unless and until he is adjudicated as

having breached governing rules or standards. Miss. Code Ann. §73-25-27 and the Miss.

Constitution assure him of this due process protection. Again, he was not even charged with any

violations until July 10, 2019, and he certainly has not been adjudicated as guilty of these charges.

33. The Board’s acts of administering the penalty before the trial are inconsistent with

due process, inconsistent with governing statutory law, and inconsistent with the Board’s own

rules. Again, this heavy-handed behavior further evidences a bias that calls into question the

Board’s ability to adjudicate fairly the charges it has made. Clearly, the Board has made its

decision without permitting Dr. Wolfe to present a defense. This is the essence of arbitrary and

capricious action.

8
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 9 of 18

34. Accordingly, Dr. Wolfe seeks this Court’s intervention to issue a TRO and

injunctive relieve permitting Dr. Wolfe to continue his medical practice in the status quo until the

charges can be substantively adjudged pursuant to a procedure that meets due process, before a

fair tribunal.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

35. Miss. R. Civ. P. 65 permits this Court to issue injunctive relief, including in the

form of a temporary restraining order, when the following legal factors are satisfied: (a) there is a

substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (b) the relief is necessary to

prevent irreparable harm; (c) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the harm that may

arise to the non-moving party; and (d) granting the relief is consistent with the public

interest. Littleton v McAdams, 60 So.3d 169, 171 (Miss. 2011).

36. These factors are met here. Dr. Wolfe is likely to prevail on the merits as the only

question is whether he is an imminent danger. Because the MBML has sat on relevant information

for months without declaring an emergency or imminent danger, there is no imminent danger. And

therefore under Miss. Code Ann. § 73-25-89, MBML does not have the right to suspend Dr.

Wolfe’s license. Hence, Dr. Wolfe is likely to prevail on the merits or the immediate suspension

issue, and he should be entitled to the process outlined in § 73-25-27. As to irreparable harm,

clearly Dr. Wolfe’s reputation has already been slandered before any hearing or the merits has

occurred. The Clarion Ledger posted an article outlining one side of the story this morning, July

11, 2019. The article obviously does not detail that one of the patients Dr. Wolfe is accused of

sexually assaulting is his wife, who he kissed as she entered ultrasound. Obviously, reputational

harm will arise to Dr. Wolfe which cannot be monetarily recovered. In addition, Dr. Wolfe has
9
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 10 of 18

active patients under his care who need his immediate attention. Medical harm to active patients

is threatened by the Board’s abrupt actions. Next, the Board will suffer no harm if the equitable

relief is granted, and the harm to Dr. Wolfe and his patients far outweighs any potential harm to

the MBML. Finally, the public interest favors enforcement of the law and the right to due process.

That is, the public interest is in having matters heard substantively before penalties are enforced.

37. To elaborate further on the factors, Dr. Wolfe’s practice is at stake. Once his doors

close, patients will not only move to other doctors, but they will question why Dr. Wolfe abruptly

abandoned their care. It will be impossible to repair the damage done by an abrupt closure. In

addition, Dr. Wolfe’s legal ability to recapture the financial losses accompanying this abrupt

closure will be limited. The Board’s actions are not subject to the same legal standards as private

companies or litigants, and cases against the Board are governed by higher standards, which would

make recovery and recompense limited and difficult. In short, once the practice doors are closed,

reopening to recreate the same practice is virtually impossible. Those losses cannot be reversed

because the Board cannot and will not repair the damage even if its actions are determined to be

wrong. Moreover, the full damage more than likely they cannot be fully defined or recovered.

The present damages being inflicted against Dr. Wolfe as of the filing of this Motion are serious;

they will necessarily grow and lead to continuing irreparable harm. The effect on the patients of

Dr. Wolfe is also an important consideration. Dr. Wolfe’s patients – all of them – will have to

transition their care, which could cause medical problems for those in acute situations. In addition,

these patients, or some of them, may not have access to other quality medical care as Canton and

the other areas of practice for Dr. Wolfe are under-served areas.

38. By contrast, no irreparable harm will accrue to any party or person if the injunctive

relief is provided. Dr. Wolfe has been practicing medicine in Mississippi for over thirty (30) years
10
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 11 of 18

with no prior suspension or investigative activity by the MBML. Dr. Wolfe is fully capable of

continuing to practice. His continued practice poses no harm to MBML, nor can MBML articulate

any harm to any patient that will arise through his continued practice. Indeed, the allegations

regarding the alleged untoward behavior date back for years. Moreover, many of the claims by

MBML refer to “unidentified patients” or patients who have specifically said they have no

complaint whatsoever against Dr. Wolfe. See infra. If Dr. Wolfe posed an imminent threat,

MBML would have closed his doors at least by February, 2019, when it had all relevant

information.

39. MBML’s feigned “emergency,” is disproved by its own actions. The MBML has

been investigating Dr. Wolfe since late 2018. Had an emergency situation or imminent danger

existed, the MBML would have suspended Dr. Wolfe’s license at the outset of the investigation,

upon receipt of the initial complaint(s) upon which the investigation was based. The MBML has

waited months and months to suddenly declare imminent danger, and its own inaction is an

admission that the situation is not, and never has been, urgent.

40. MBML is only permitted to suspend a physician’s license without hearing when

“the board determines that evidence in its possession indicates that a physician’s continuation in

practice or unrestricted practice would constitute an immediate danger to the public…” Miss. Code

Ann. § 73-25-89; see also § 73-25-83 (“The Board shall have authority…to discipline a physician

licensed or otherwise lawfully practicing within this state who, after a hearing, has been adjudged

by the Board as unqualified….”) (emphasis added).

41. The statutory criteria is not met for suspension without hearing for all the reasons

set forth herein.

11
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 12 of 18

42. This calculated “emergency” is aimed at destroying Dr. Wolfe’s practice and

depriving him of his due process rights under Art. 3, Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution to

a fair and impartial hearing prior to the imposition of the penalty. By enforcing the penalty before

the trial, the MBML is un-leveling the playing field. The MBML has acted in an arbitrary and

capricious manner by declaring imminent danger, and Dr. Wolfe should be protected by this Court

as innocent until proven guilty.

43. This is not the first heavy-handed act of the MBML, nor the first signal that the

MBML is aiming to execute the accused before a hearing is even permitted. The behavior set

forth below again calls into question the Board’s competence to be a fair tribunal in this matter.

a. Most fundamentally, Dr. Wolfe’s patients who are the subject of the MBML’s claims

against Dr. Wolfe have not even complained, and, in fact, they dispute that Dr. Wolfe

should be charged. Specifically, Patient A.W. (mentioned in the Board’s charge of July

10) has objected to the Board’s pursuit of any claims related to Dr. Wolfe’s treatment of

her, and she has further testified by Affidavit that Dr. Wolfe is a good doctor and that she

has no complaints against him. Patient A.W. has stated she has no complaint against Dr.

Wolfe, professional or otherwise, and has at all times persisted that the Board leave her out

of its investigation, having rebuffed numerous attempts by the MBML to coerce her against

her will to testify.

b. Similarly, the MBML has recently sent a subpoena to Dr. Wolfe’s office for records as to

Patient K. Patient K has not been a patient of Dr. Wolfe for many years. Patient K has

testified by Affidavit that she objects to the Board’s review of her medical records. Patient

K has further stated in that Affidavit that she has no complaint against Dr. Wolfe,

12
Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 13 of 18

professional or otherwise. There is pending Motion to Quash as to the MBML’s attempt

to obtain these records as to Patient K.

c. Next, the MBML is using a complaint from Patient A.T. to justify its ongoing investigation

and charges. Patient A.T.’s complaint is dated October of 2013. This Complaint sat in the

office of the MBML for five years with no action. How can a five-year-old complaint that

was ignored by the MBML all of sudden create the emergency or imminent danger now

asserted by the MBML?

d. The second patient complaint upon which the MBML is purporting to investigate and

charge was made by patient L.D. This patient, upon information and belief, has advised

the MBML that she does not desire to pursue this complaint. Patient L.D. has also been

in recent contact with Dr. Wolfe’s office requesting additional medical care from Dr.

Wolfe, having further stated that he is a “good doctor.” Why would Patient L.D. desire to

see Dr. Wolfe again if he posed a threat to her?

e. Independently, this entire investigation has been conducted without proper notice or fair

disclosure, in an attempt to gain procedural advantage and coerce evidence through

surprise. Rule 1.3 of the Board’s administrative rules requires the Board (a) to provide a

copy of any complaint made against Dr. Wolfe, and (b) inform the licensee of the nature

and purpose of the investigation. Yet instead of providing this requisite notice, the Board

sent investigators to Dr. Wolfe’s office and demanded medical charts without even

advising him that an investigation was ongoing nor advising him as to the nature and

purpose of the investigation as required by both Rule 1.3 and Miss. Code § 73-43-11. This

law requires notice to a licensee when he is under investigation, but certainly if documents

are being requested, the licensee is entitled to know why. In fact, while Miss. Code § 73-
13
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 14 of 18

25-28 contemplates that the Board has a right to examine records in the course of an

investigation, it also states that the right exists only upon “reasonable cause” and further

the statute requires documentation of the reasonable cause be provided to the physician

prior to entry. It further states that the Board shall inspect “at a time convenient for all

parties.” Here, the investigators simply appeared at Dr. Wolfe’s office, demanded records,

without notice, without providing reasonable cause, and took same. This is not compliant

with the substance or spirit of the governing law.

f. As set forth above, one of the allegations of the MBML pertains to Dr. Wolfe kissing his

fiancé prior to her ultrasound. To allege this act in these circumstances is a physical or

sexual assault is frivolous and reckless and in outright bad faith.

g. As to numerous allegations received just yesterday, July 10, about improper prescribing of

medications to patients such as Dr. Wolfe’s fiancé the Board has had this information

through the prescribing history database since at least February, 2019. Were Dr. Wolfe a

dangerous prescriber, the Board would have addressed it in February of 2019. It has

unfettered access to the prescribing database and has had this information for months. The

MBML did not address the issue in February, 2019, because there was no danger, and it is

only declaring an imminent danger now to gain procedural advantage and sway public

opinion before any evidence has been presented.

44. The equities in granting the requested relief completely favor Dr. Wolfe. Taking

the license is Draconian, tactical, oppressive, unwarranted, and not in accord with the way an

impartial entity would act.

45. In addition, the public interest would be served by granting the proposed temporary

restraining order and injunction. Due process protects Dr. Wolfe’s rights to practice medicine, as
14
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 15 of 18

he has done without interruption for over thirty (30) years, unless and until he is found to have

violated some law that requires reprimand or suspension. There has been no such finding. There

was not even a charge levied against Dr. Wolfe until he was ambushed with the accompanying

suspension on July 10, after the investigation had been ongoing since November, 2018.

46. Dr. Wolfe’s practice serves the Canton, Mississippi, area, as well as other under-

served areas. His patients demand constant and ongoing care for labor and delivery, as well as

acute gynecological medical problems. His patients who are forced to undergo abrupt transition

could very well be in danger if he is not permitted to continue practicing medicine. Dr. Wolfe’s

sudden, unexpected departure from the practice of medicine is not only an extreme inconvenience

to his patients, but those patients with critical or specialized needs could be in danger.

47. It is in the public interest that medical practitioners who have been practicing for

thirty (30) years not be blindsided with feigned emergency as justification for abrupt suspension

of their licenses. The medical community has distinct interest in an orderly process such that this

type of suspension should occur only when the MBML truly can identify an immediate emergency

or threat. The public interest requires the requested relief and requires in this case that the

procedure occur as intended under Miss Code 73-25-27.

48. Dr. Wolfe prays for a temporary restraining order and/or injunction as follows:

(a) Preserving the status quo by enjoining the MBML from suspending Dr.

Wolfe’s license until after a substantive hearing is held;

(b) Enjoining all further action by the Board to the detriment of Dr. Wolfe and

his practice until a substantive hearing is held.

15
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 16 of 18

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Dr. Wolfe requests that the Court enter a

Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunctive Order and/or set a hearing for and

grant the requested injunctive relief.

THIS, the 11th day of July, 2019.

Respectfully submitted,

WALTER R. WOLFE, M.D.

/s/ C. Maison Heidelberg

C. MAISON HEIDELBERG, MB #9559

OF COUNSEL:

WATSON HEIDELBERG PLLC

2829 Lakeland Drive, Suite 1502
Flowood, Mississippi 39232
P.O. Box 23546
Jackson, Mississippi 39225-3546
601-503-1935 (direct)
601-939-8900 (general)
601-932-4400 (fax)
mheidelberg@whjpllc.com

16
Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 17 of 18
 Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/11/2019 Page 18 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, C. Maison Heidelberg, attorney for Walter Wolfe, M.D., do hereby certify that I have

this day served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document via Court’s ECF

system on the following:

Stanley T. Ingram
Robert Davis House
Biggs, Ingram & Solop, PLLC
P.O. Box 14028
Jackson, MS 39236-4028
singram@bislawyers.com
dhouse@bislawyers.com

THIS, the 11th day of July, 2019.

/s/ C. Maison Heidelberg

C. MAISON HEIDELBERG MB #9559

18
Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/27/2019 Page 1 of 4
Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/27/2019 Page 2 of 4
Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/27/2019 Page 3 of 4
Case: 25CH1:19-cv-00509 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/27/2019 Page 4 of 4
affair with him. In one of Licensee's responses to the lawsuit, he acknowledged and admitted

to a relationship with this patient. While pregnant and during sex with said patient, Licensee

attempted without the patient's knowledge or consent to insert four (4) Misoprostol (Cytotec)

tablets into the patient's vagina in an attempt to induce an abortion; however, the patient later

gave birth to Licensee's child in 2016; and

WHEREAS, on January 21, 2019, Affiant interviewed a previous patient of Licensee who

advised that Licensee made inappropriate comments to her immediately after he conducted a

vaginal examination on this patient; and

WHEREAS, a practitioner in the field of obstetrics and gynecology was consulted and

reviewed the complaints against Licensee. Based on this review, this practitioner deemed

Licensee to be an immediate threat to not only the citizens of Mississippi, but to any patient that

should enter into his care; and

WHEREAS, as further evidenced by separate Determination of Need for Temporary

Suspension, the Board has determined that the evidence in its possession indicates that

Licensee's continued practice of medicine would constitute an immediate danger to public health

and safety.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that pursuant to authority granted in

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 73-25-89, Mississippi Medical License No. 11096 is hereby temporarily

suspended, and Licensee shall be prohibited from the practice of medicine pending the

outcome of a hearing as scheduled in the matter.

The above action is hereby taken on a temporary basis, without a hearing. Enclosed

herewith, and served as part of this Order of Temporary Suspension, is a copy of the

Determination of the Board, wherein it was found that the Board has in its possession evidence