STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
IN THE MATTER OF: )
) BEFORE THE TENNESSEE
RANDOLPH M. LOWRY, M.D. ) BOARD OF MEDICAL
RESPONDENT ) EXAMINERS
)
) CASE NO. 2021015531
ALCOA, TENNESSEE ) DOCKET NO: 17.18-222238A
TENNESSEE LICENSE NO. 12162 )

AMENDED FINAL ORDER

This matter came to be heard before the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners (“Board”)

on January 11, 2023 pursuant to a Notice of Charges issued against Randolph M. Lowry, M.D.

(“Respondent”) by the Division of Health Related Boards of the Tennessee Department of Health

(“State”). Presiding at the hearing was the Honorable Steve Darnell, appointed by the Tennessee

Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division. The State was represented by Lara E. Gill,

Senior Associate General Counsel. Respondent was present and appeared pro se. After

consideration of the testimony, the documentary evidence, and the record as a whole, the Board

finds as follows:

______________________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT
______________________________________________________________________________

1. Respondent has been at all times pertinent hereto licensed by the Board as a medical doctor,

having been granted license number 12162 on September 7, 1979. Respondent’s license

expired on September 30, 2022.

2. At the time of the filing of this Notice of Charges, Respondent’s medical license was

summarily suspended by order of the Board dated March 16, 2022. The exhibits in support
 of the summary suspension and the order of summary suspension are incorporated by

reference the same as if copied herein verbatim in their entirety.

3. Respondent is a medical doctor specializing in internal medicine. Respondent worked at

Wellness North/Behavioral Health Group (hereinafter “Wellness North”), a certified

office-based buprenorphine treatment facility, from 2017 until 2021, providing direct

patient care. Prior to this, Respondent worked at Fort Sanders Medical Center (“Fort

Sanders”). Both Wellness North and Fort Sanders are located in the Knoxville, Tennessee

area.

4. A complaint was received by the Office of Investigations alleging that Respondent was

engaging in sexual misconduct at Wellness North. An investigation was opened. As part

of the investigation, a health-related board investigator (hereinafter “HRB investigator”),

and a Tennessee Bureau of Investigations agent (hereinafter “TBI agent”), gathered

documentation and interviewed witnesses.

5. Respondent treated multiple female patients at Wellness North. These patients were

primarily TennCare patients seeking treatment for their opiate addictions.

6. GV was a patient treated by Respondent for addiction. GV testified at the Contest Case

hearing, both via written sworn statement and via deposition. The Board expressly finds

that GV’s testimony was credible. Respondent treated GV for substance use disorder from

2018 to 2021. During Respondent’s treatment of GV , Respondent began closing the door

to the exam room and touching GV. During one visit, Respondent began rubbing Patient

GV’s thighs. On another visit Respondent closed and locked the exam room door, kissed

patient GV’s neck and breast, stuck his hand down her shirt and exposed her breast. The

sexual misconduct by Respondent to GV continued at subsequent visits, at various times

2
 when patient GV was wheelchair bound or using a cane. Respondent would frequently

touch Patient GV, expose his penis and masturbate in her presence as a patient. Respondent

expressed to patient GV that if she did not allow him to do what he wanted to her or if she

told anyone, he would no longer prescribe her suboxone.

7. During one office visit when GV was wheelchair bound, Respondent got GV by the back

of the head and forced GV to perform oral sex on him. Respondent also wanted GV to lick

Respondent’s breast and frequently masturbated in GV’s presence as a patient. During

the office visit when GV was wheelchair bound, Respondent stood over her, holding the

prescription.

8. Patient GV, like other Wellness North patients, would bring others with her to her office

visits at Wellness North to avoid Respondent’s sexual misconduct without direct

confrontation. GV is afraid of Respondent, and fears seeking medical treatment because

of Respondent’s sexual misconduct. Patient GV’s last visit with Respondent occurred on

or about May 21, 2021. GV reported Respondent’s sexual misconduct to Wellness North

and TennCare. An APS Report of Alleged Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation of an Adult was

generated on June 22, 2021.

9. Respondent admitted that he touched GV’s breast and that GV performed oral sex on him,

but claims it was initiated by Patient GV. Respondent also admitted he continued to treat

GV, despite her alleged conduct.

10. Respondent engaged in other sexual misconduct while working at Wellness North. Patient

HB, a former patient of Respondent, was interviewed by the HRB investigator. Patient HB

provided a sworn statement to the HRB Investigator on October 21, 2021. The Board

expressly finds that HB’s testimony was credible.

3
11. On at least two occasions during office visits with Respondent, Respondent unbuttoned his

shirt in front of HB . During one office visit, Respondent requested that patient HB suck

his penis, which patient HB refused. Respondent threatened to terminate patient HB’s

treatment and “kick her out of the clinic.” Patient HB stopped seeing Respondent because

of his sexual misconduct.

12. Patient AW is a former patient that Respondent treated for approximately one year. Patient

AW reported to the TBI Agent that Respondent began asking patient AW about her sex

life. Respondent told patient AW that if her boyfriend was not sexually pleasing to her,

that Respondent would be. During one office visit, Respondent became erect and began

rubbing his penis through his khaki pants. Patient AW also reported that Respondent “has

been sexually inappropriate with at least two other patients.” Patient AW stated that she

reported Respondent’s behavior to Wellness North staff but did not receive any response.

The Board expressly finds that AW was credible.

13. Following Respondent’s summary suspension and related media coverage, additional

patients came forward regarding Respondent’s sexual misconduct. One such patient was

KS. KS provided a sworn statement and deposition testimony. The Board expressly finds

that KS was credible.

14. KS began seeing Respondent to titrate down her dependency on pain medication. During

Respondent’s treatment of KS , Respondent started “talking raunchy or making comments

and stuff.” During one visit, Respondent commented that he wanted “to see [KS’s] boobs

and stuff.” During one office visit, Respondent unbuttoned his shirt to show her his chest

scar. During another office visit when KS was alone with Respondent, Respondent shut

the exam room door, came up behind KS, and started touching her shoulder and breast.

4
 During other office visits, Respondent started “rubbing on everything’, and KS “knew what

he was wanting.” KS used the excuse of her bad teeth to avoid performing oral sex on

Respondent when Respondent “started to unzip his pants.” Respondent told KS that “I’m

going to keep you coming back every two weeks until you get your teeth fixed,” instead of

monthly appointments. At a subsequent visit, Respondent masturbated and requested that

KS expose her breasts and perform oral sex on him. The sexual exploitation described by

GV, HB, AW and KS occurred in Wellness North examination rooms while the patients

were in the course of consultation, examination, and/or ongoing treatment by the

Respondent.

15. Patients were not chaperoned when they received treatment from Respondent in the

Wellness North examination rooms, unless the patients brought individuals to accompany

them. Amy Turner, the program director and office manager for Wellness North, performed

chart audits of the providers at Wellness North and has never seen any physical contact

with patients documented by a provider. Any provider at Wellness North, including the

Respondent, could have a patient dismissed from the program. Ms. Turner testified that 4

other patients besides patient GV, reported Respondent’s sexual misconduct during his

treatment of them at Wellness North. The Board expressly finds Ms. Turner credible.

16. Patient KU provided deposition testimony. The Board expressly finds KU credible. Patient

KU and her mother were patients of Respondent when Respondent practiced medicine at

Fort Sanders in Knoxville, Tennessee. Patient KU’s relationship with Respondent changed

following a visit where KU was concerned with hepatitis C resulting from a tattoo she had

received. Respondent asked to see her tattoo that was above her breast. KU unbuttoned

her shirt to show him the tattoo. Following this office visit, Respondent contacted KU

5
 after hours without a legitimate medical purpose. Following this, while Respondent was

still treating KU, Respondent again contacted KU and asked if he could get together with

her. Respondent visited KU at home and she and Respondent engaged in consensual sex.

KU and Respondent would “play around” sexually when Respondent examined her at Fort

Sanders, and the sexual intercourse occurred outside of Fort Sanders.

17. Respondent admitted to sexual intercourse with patient KU, but claims it was only one

time.

18. TBI agent Gregg McNamara testified at the summary suspension hearing and provided

deposition testimony at the contested case hearing. The Board expressly finds that Mr.

McNamara was credible. Agent McNamara conducted an interview with Respondent on

July 28, 2021. During his interview with Respondent, Respondent advised Agent

McNamara stated there was no need for physical contact by Respondent with his patients,

and that office visits typically only last 15 minutes. At the time Respondent was

interviewed by Agent McNamara, Respondent denied all allegations of sexual misconduct.

19. Respondent had complete control over the prescriptions of suboxone for the patients

Respondent was seeing.

______________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
______________________________________________________________________________

Respondent’s acts as described are sufficient to establish that grounds for discipline of

Respondent’s medical license exist. Specifically, Respondent has violated the following statutes

or rules which are part of the Tennessee Medical Practice Act, (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 63-6-101, et

seq.), for which disciplinary action before and by the Board is authorized:

6
20. The facts found in paragraphs four (4) through nineteen (19) constitute a violation of Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(1):

Unprofessional, dishonorable or unethical conduct;

21. The facts found in paragraphs four (4) through nineteen (19) constitute a violation of Tenn.

Code Ann. § § 63-6-214(b)(2):

Violation or attempted violation, directly or indirectly, or assisting in or

abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision of this
chapter or, any lawful order of the board issued pursuant thereto or any
criminal statute of this state

22. The facts found in paragraphs four (4) through nineteen (19) constitute a violation of Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(4):

Gross health care liability in the course of medical practice;

23. The facts found in paragraphs four (4) through nineteen (19) constitute a violation of Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(12):

Dispensing, prescribing or otherwise distributing any controlled substance

or any other drug not in the course of professional practice, or not in good
faith to relieve pain and suffering, or not to cure an ailment, physical
infirmity or disease, or in amounts and/or for durations not medically
necessary, advisable or justified for a diagnosed condition;

24. The facts found in paragraphs four (4) through nineteen (19) constitute a violation of Tenn.

Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(13):

Dispensing, prescribing or otherwise distributing to any person a controlled

substance or other drug if such person is addicted to the habit of using
controlled substances without making a bona fide effort to cure the habit of
such patient;

25. The facts found in paragraphs four (4) through nineteen (19) constitute grounds for

disciplinary action against Respondent’s license to practice as a medical doctor in the State

of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 0880-02-.14(6)(e):

7
 3. Prescribing, ordering, administering, or dispensing dangerous drugs or controlled
substances for pain [without] a legitimate medical purpose…[and without]

(i) a documented medical history, which may be provided orally or in

writing by the patient, and physical examination by the physician providing
the medication including an assessment and consideration of the pain,
physical and psychological function, any history and potential for substance
abuse, coexisting diseases and conditions, and the presence of a recognized
medical indication for the use of a dangerous drug or controlled substance;

(ii) Pursuant to a written treatment plan tailored for the individual needs of
the patient by which treatment progress and success can be evaluated with
stated objectives such as pain relief and/or improved physical and
psychosocial function…

***********************************************************

(iv) Subject to documented periodic review of the care by the physician at

reasonable intervals in view of the individual circumstances of the patient
in regard to progress toward reaching treatment objectives which takes into
consideration the course of medications prescribed, ordered, administered,
or dispensed as well as any new information about the etiology of the pain;

************************************************************

26. The facts found in paragraphs four (4) through nineteen (19) constitute a violation of the

Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association, as articulated in Opinion

8.14, Sexual Misconduct in the Practice of Medicine, which states:

Sexual contact that occurs concurrent with the patient-physician relationship

constitutes sexual misconduct. Sexual or romantic interactions between physicians
and patients detract from the goals of the physician-patient relationship, may
exploit the vulnerability of the patient, may obscure the physician’s objective
judgment concerning the patient’s health care, and ultimately may be detrimental
to the patient’s well-being.

If a physician has reason to believe that non-sexual contact with a patient may be
perceived as or may lead to sexual contact, then he or she should avoid the non-
sexual contact. At a minimum, a physician’s ethical duties include terminating the
physician-patient relationship before initiating a dating, romantic, or sexual
relationship with a patient.

8
 Sexual or romantic relationships between a physician and a former patient may be
unduly influenced by the previous physician-patient relationship. Sexual or
romantic relationships with former patients are unethical if the physician uses or
exploits trust, knowledge, emotions, or influence derived from the previous
professional relationship.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________

Therefore, the Board ORDERS the following:

27. The Tennessee medical license of RANDOLPH M. LOWRY, M.D. license number

12162, is hereby PERMANENTLY REVOKED, effective the date of entry of this Order

by the Board.

28. Respondent shall pay twelve (12) “Type A” civil penalties in the amount of one thousand

dollars ($1,000.00) each, representing one civil penalty per individual to whom Respondent

perpetrated sexual misconduct upon as described in paragraphs six (6) through fourteen

(14), plus one civil penalty per violation of law as described in paragraphs twenty (20)

through twenty-six (26), for a total of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000.00).

29. Respondent must pay, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(k) and Rule 0880-02-

.12(1)(j), the actual and reasonable costs of prosecuting this case to the extent allowed by

law, including all costs assessed by the Office of Investigations, Secretary of State,

Administrative Procedures Division, as well as the Office of General Counsel. These costs

will be established by an Assessment of Costs prepared and filed by counsel for the

Department. The maximum amount for the assessment of costs shall be twenty-five

thousand dollars ($25,000.00).

30. This is a formal disciplinary action and will be reported to the National Practitioner Data

Bank (NPDB) and/or similar agency.

9
31. Any and all costs shall be paid in full within twelve (12) months from the Issuance of the

Assessment of Costs. Payments shall be made in equal monthly installments by the fifth

day of each month until paid in full, with payments to commence the fifth day of the month

immediately following the issuance of the Assessment of Costs. Payments shall be made

Respondent shall begin paying the civil penalties and costs within sixty (60) days of the

issuance of the Assessment of Costs, and costs and civil penalties shall be paid in full within

three (3) years from the issuance of the Assessment of Costs. Payments may be made by

certified check, cashier’s check, or money order payable to the State of Tennessee,

which shall be mailed or delivered to: Disciplinary Coordinator, Office of General

Counsel, Tennessee Department of Health, 665 Mainstream Drive, 2nd Floor,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243. Any check or money order shall contain a notation to the

effect that it is payable for the costs and civil penalties of Randolph M. Lowry, M.D.,

Case No. 2021015531.

______________________________________________________________________________

POLICY STATEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners takes this action in order to protect the health,

safety and welfare of people in the State of Tennessee. Respondent has sexually exploited

vulnerable female patients seeking treatment for addiction for at least four (4) years. Respondent

used the trust, emotions, and influence derived from his status as a prescribing physician to force

patients to perform sexual acts against their will. Respondent’s conduct is also a gross violation of

his ethical duties and responsibilities.

10
 RECONSIDERATION, ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

Within fifteen (15) days after the entry of an initial or final order, a party may file a petition to the

Board for reconsideration of the Final Order. If no action is taken by the Board within twenty (20)

days of filing of the petition, it is deemed denied. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-317. In addition, a party

may petition the Board for a stay of the Final Order within seven (7) days after the effective date

of the Final Order. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-316. Finally, a party may seek judicial review by filing

a petition for review in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee or a court of competent

jurisdiction, in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § § 4-5-322, within sixty (60) days after the

effective date of the Final Order. A petition for reconsideration does not act to extend the sixty

(60) day period. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322. However, if the petition is granted, then the sixty

(60) day period is tolled and a new sixty (60) day period commences from the effective date of the

Final Order disposing of the petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-317.

11
7022 0410 0003 4911 3076