Doctors Name: David Nathaniel Michelson
License Number: 31906
License Status:  Current - (Dues Paid)
Probation Completed

City of Record: Westlake Village/Oxnard
Region: Los Angeles
License issued on: 06/25/1976
Licensing Boards: Medical
Specialties : Plastic Surgeon (Cosmetic Surgery)

Gender: Male

Accusations and Infractions or Causes for Discipline:  Unprofessional Conduct
Violation Of Probation
Convicted Of A Felony
Repeated Negligent Acts
Dangerous use of drugs or alcohol
Gross Negligence
Incompetence
Sexual Misconduct

Date of Last MBC Action: 11/02/2001

Repeat Offender:  Yes
Ongoing Discipline:  No
Out of State Discipline:  No
No Medical Board Activity:  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Medical Board Documents, News Articles, Court Documents, Etc.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

• 8/05/2020—ARRESTED FOR SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A PATIENT.
• 11/02/2001—ORDER RESTORING LICENSE TO CLEAR STATUS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF PROBATION.
• 8/26/1998—PLACED ON 3 YEARS PROBATION WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. VIOLATED CONDITIONS OF BOARD PROBATION, EFFECTIVE 9/25/1998.
  • 2/26/1997—PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION; ACCUSATION FILED.
• 8/22/1994—CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE REINSTATED AFTER COMPLETING TERMS AND CONDITIONS, EFFECTIVE 9/21/1994.
• 11/18/1991—REINSTATEMENT OF REVOKED LICENSE GRANTED WITH TERMS AND CONDTIONS, EFFECTIVE 12/18/1991.
• 1/31/1991—FILED FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE.
• 2/02/1987—CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE REVOKED. SELLING PRESCRIPTIONS FOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES FOR CASH. SELLING COCAINE FOR CASH. SELF USE OF COCAINE. FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, EFFECTIVE 3/04/1987.
• 1/1986—PLACED ON FIVE YEARS COURT-MANDATED PROBATION.
  • 9/26/1985—FIRST AMENDED ACCUSATION FILED.
  • UNKNOWN DATE (DUE TO LAST PAGE MISSING FROM ACCUSATION)—ACCUSATION FILED.
• 6/1985—PLEADED GUILTY TO ONE COUNT OF WRITING ILLEGAL PRESCRIPTIONS IN 1983.
• 5/16/1985—FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTIMENT.

In Re: "J.L." - Sexual Misconduct

14. At all times relevant herein, J.L. was an adultfemale individual residing in the State of California.

15. On or about March 3, 1996,. J.L. sought medical care from Encino Urgent Care Medical Center, at which entity respondent was working in his capacity as a physician.

16. On or about March 3, 1996, during the course of an ophthalmic examination that respondent was conducting upon J.L., respondent kissed J.L. on the side of her lips.

17. By virtue of the facts set forth above, as to J.L., respondent engaged in sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. Sexual abuse and sexual misconduct are unprofessional conduct, as well as grounds for license discipline under B&P § 726. By engaging in said unprofessional conduct, respondent has violated 20 the terms and conditions of his probation in that he has failed to obey all laws and rules governin~ the practice of medicine, as required by Probation Term No. 8. Such a violation of the terms and conditions of probation is grounds to revoke probation and impose the underlying license revocation. Such unprofessional conduct constitutes independent grounds to impose discipline upon respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's certificate pursuant to B&P §§ 2234, 2220, 726.

18. By virtue of the facts set forth above, as to J.L.; respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct, pursuant to B&P § 2234. By engaging in said unprofessional conduct, respondent has violated the terms and conditions of his probation in that he has failed to obey all laws and rules governing the practice of medicine, as required by Probation Term No. 8. Such a violation of the terms and conditions of probation is grounds to revoke probation and impose the underlying license revocation. Such unprofessional conduct constitutes independent grounds to impose discipline upon respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate pursuant to B&P §§ 2234, 2220.

19. By virtue of the facts set forth above, respondent's care and treatment of J.L. constitutes gross negligence, which is unprofessional-conduct under B&P § 2234(b}. 15 By engaging in said unprofessional conduct, respondent has violated the terms and conditions of his probation in that he has failed to obey all laws and rules governing the practice of medicine, as required by Probation Term No. 8. Such a violation of the terms and conditions of probation is grounds to revoke probation and impose the underlying license revocation. Such unprofessional conduct constitutes independent grounds for license discipline under B&P §§ 2234, 2220.

In Re: "J.E." - Sexual Misconduct

20. At all times relevant herein, J.E. was an adult female individual residing in the State of California.

21. On or about January 5, 1995, and continuing through August 1995, J.E. sought medical care from Advantage Care Medical Group, at which entity respondent.was working in his capacity as a physician.

22. During the course of one of J.E.'s visits to Advantage Care, respondent performed the examination of J.E., who was experiencing lower back pain. Respondent had J.E. remove her shirt and performed a range-of-motion examination. Respondent then had J.E. pull down her bra straps, and he proceeded to massage J.E.'s neck and shoulders for approximately five minutes. 11 23. By virtue of the facts set forth above, as to J.E., respondent engaged in sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. Sexual abuse and sexual misconduct are unprofessional conduct, as well as grounds for license discipline under B&P § 726. By engaging in said unprofessional conduct, respondent has violated the terms and conditions of his probation in that he has failed to obey all laws and rules governing the practice of medicine, as required by Probation Term No. 8. Such a violation of the terms and conditions of probation is grounds to revoke probation and impose the underlying license revocation. Such unprofessional conduct constitutes independent grounds to impose discipline upon respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate pursuant to B&P §§ 2234, 2220, 726.

24. By virtue of the facts set forth above, as to J.E., respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct, pursuant to B&P § 2234. By engaging in said unprofessional conduct, respondent has violated the terms and conditions of his probation in that he has failed to obey all laws and rules governing the practice of medicine, as required by.Probation Term No. 8. Such a violation of the terms and conditions of probation is grounds to revoke probation and impose the underlying license revocation. Such unprofessional conduct constitutes independent grounds to impose discipline upon respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate pursuant to B&P §§.2234, 2220.

25. By virtue of the facts set forth above, respondent's care and treatment of J.E. constitutes gross negligence, which is unprofessional conduct under B&P § 2234(b). By engaging in said unprofessional conduct, respondent has violated the terms and conditions of his probation in that he has failed to obey all laws and rules governing the practice of medicine, as required by Probation Term No. 8. Such a violation of the terms and conditions of probation is grounds to revoke probation and impose the underlying license revocation. Such unprofessional conduct constitutes independent grounds for license discipline under B&P §§ 2234; 2220.

In Re: "C.L." - Unprofessional Conduct

26. At all times relevant herein, C.L. was an adult female individual residing in the State of California.

27. On or about December 19, 1996, C.L. was employed at Advantage Care Medical Group, the entity where respondent was then working in his capacity as a physician.

28. On or about December 19; 1996, respondent intentionally brushed his hand against C.L.'s clothed buttocks area.

34. Respondent's license is further subject to discipline pursuant to section 2234(b) in that respondent has been grossly negligent in discharging his duties as a physician as more specifically alleged herein below:

A. From approximately 1981 through February 1, 1983, respondent established a doctor-patient relationship with patient Vickey R. on or about February 9, 1983, respondent established a doctor-patient relationship with baby R.

B. On or about February 9, 1983, patient Vickey R., a 17-year-old female, presented herself to respondent as having severe abdominal pain. Respondent elected to evaluate her condition at her residence, in lieu of evaluating her condition, in an environment with a variety of medical instruments and ancillary laboratory and radiologic aids immediately available. Said treatment constitutes gross negligence.

C. On or about February 9, 1983, respondent attempted to transport patient Vickey R. to his residence for further evaluation, although his residence was inaccessible to emergency personnel. Respondent failed to transport·patient to an appropriate medical facility for medical care. This conduct constitutes gross negligence.

D. On or about February 9, 1983, while transporting patient Vickey R. to his residence, respondent stopped at an Exxon gas station at patient's request following statements regarding abdominal pain and bowel urge at approximately 8:00-9:00 p.m. In the restroom respondent observed a face presentation of a fetus and associated same with spontaneous abortion. The reconstruction of regular periodic abdominal pain, followed by severe bowel urge, and thereafter by the presentation of a fetal head at the iultrolties [sic] would normally suggest labor, not an abortive process. Respondent failed to identify the signs and symptoms of labor and a possible life threatening intra-abdominal condition. This conduct constitutes gross negligence.

E. On or about February 9, 1983, respondent exited the restroom at the moment he heard the fetus drop in the toilet bowl. Respondent failed to attempt to resusitate [sic] or treat the fetus. Respondent abandoned both the fetus and patient Vickey R in a life threatening situation and failed to seek additional assistance. This conduct constitutes gross negligence.

F. Respondent transported patient Vickey R. to his residence. Respondent failed to transport patient and fetus to an appropriate medical facility. This conduct constitutes gross negligence.

G. At 6:30 a.m., on February 10, l983, a dead male infant was found in a toilet bowl in the women's restroom at the Exxon station.

H. Respondent was grossly negligent in the medical care and treatment of Vickey R. and baby R. as follows:

(1} Respondent failed to attend to the delivery of baby R. into the toilet and abandoned patient Vickey R. and baby R. and/or

(2) Respondent failed to examine baby R and/or

(3) Respondent failed to attempt resuscitation of baby R. and/or

(4)Respondent failed to transport patient Vickey R. to a proper facility for monitoring and treatment-prior to delivery and following a precipitous, unsterile, uncontrolled delivery and/or

(5)Respondent failed to adequately examine patient Vickey R. prior to and following the delivery.

35. Respondent is further subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Section 2234(d) in that he has been incompetent as a physician. The circumstances are as follows:

(A) The facts alleged herein above at paragraph 34 are realleged and incorporated herein fully set forth at this point.

(B} Respondent was incompetent in that he did not diagnose a term pregnancy in a non-obese female patient and/or if he did make the diagnosis, respondent was incompetent in failing to deliver baby R. when be observed or heard him being born.

(C) Respondent was incompetent in that he failed to recognize a viable infant and failed to adequately treat and monitor baby R.

(D) Respondent was incompetent in his knowledge of abortions and size of abortions.

(E) Respondent was incompetent in his predelivery and post partum care of patient Vickey R. and baby R.

25. Respondent is subject to discipline pursuant to sections 2234, subdivision (a) , 2234(b},(c),(d) and (e}, 2238 and 2242, subdivision (a) in conjunction with Health and Safety Code sections 11153, 11154 and 11157 by engaging in the following:

A. On August 2, l983, respondent sold for cash triplicate prescription #83175-006-87 dated August 2, 1983, for #60 Preludin, 75 mg., in the name of Henry P[redacted].

B. On August 2, 1983, respond~nt sold for cash a triplicate prescription #83175-006-86 dated August 2, 1983, for 30 Quaalude, 300 mg., in the name of Kay N. A[redacted].

C. On August 2, 1983, respondent sold for cash a triplicate prescription #83175-006-83 dated August 2, 1983, written for #60 Preludin, 75 mg., in the name of Juanita P[redacted].

D. On August 2, 1983, respondent sold for cash a triplicate prescription #83175-006-82 dated August 2, 1983, for #60 Preludin, 75 mg. in the name of Gregory C[redacted].

E. On August 2, 1983, respondent sold for cash a triplicate prescription #83175-006-85 dated August 2, 1983, for #60 Preludin, 75 mg., in the name of Darryl J[redacted].

F. On August 2, i983, respondent sold for cash a triplicate prescription #83175-006-84 dated August 2, 1983, for #60 Preludin, 75 mg., in the name of Earl A[redacted].

G. On August 2, 1903, respondent sold for cash a prescription for controlled substance, 30 Talwin, 50 mg., in the name of Pamela D[redacted].

H. On August 2, 1983, respondent sold for cash a prescription for #30 PBZ, 50 mg., a dangerous drug in the name of John H[redacted].

I. On August 2, 1983, respondent sold for cash a prescription for a controlled substance #30 Doriden, 50 mg., in the name of Jimmy F[redacted].

J. On August 2, l983, respondent sold for cash a prescription for a controlled substance·, 30 APC #4 with codeine in the name of Jimmy F[redacted].

K. On August 9, 1983, respondent sold 0.3 grams of cocaine for cash.

L. On August 9, 1983, respondent sold for cash ten 10 triplicate prescriptions for #60 Preludin, 75 mg, as follows:

[see original document for data.]

M. On August 23, 1983,  respondent sold approximately 56.5 grams of cocaine for $2300 in cash.

26. Respondent is further subject to discipline pursuant to section 2239. The facts and circumstances are as follows:

A. On or about August 9, 1983, respondent snorted cocaine while engaged in the sale of prescriptions for cash.

27. Respondent is further subject to discipline pursuant to section 2234, subdivision {e) in that he has committed acts involving dishonesty or corruption. The facts and circumstances are as follows:

A. On or about August 14, i983, he arranged for the sale of triplicate prescriptions by a Dr. Paul Tsujimoto. On or about August 16, 1983, Dr. Tsujimoto wrote 10 prescriptions each for Preludin, 75 mg., #60, for a total of $600.

B. On August 23, 1983, respondent was paid $650 as his introduction fee for the prescriptions. Dr. Tsujimoto wrote the prescriptions not for legitimate medical purposes and without a good faith prior medical examination.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________