On August 15, 2006 Dr. Kim applied for renewal of his medical license with the Board. The application asked whether Dr. Kim had been named in a medical malpractice suit, and Dr. Kim responded in the negative. Indeed, during a separate and confidential standard of care CRC, which was later dismissed (Case No.: 2004-0803), the Board learned that Dr. Kim was actually named as a defendant in the case of Wagner v. Kim.

Upon learning this information, the Board initiated proceedings against Dr. Kim, which culminated in a determination by the Board that Dr. Kim must attend an ethics class and pay a $5,000 fine. Dr. Kim appealed this determination to the Circuit Court, which affirmed. Dr. Kim then noted this appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, claiming that the Board was not entitled to consider evidence learned in the course of a confidential CRC, and the Board did not have jurisdiction to impose discipline, because Dr. Kim was not acting, "within the practice of medicine," as required under Md. Code Ann., Health Occ. § 14-404(a)(3).

The Court of Special Appeals found that the Board was entitled to consider evidence of Dr. Kim's medical malpractice action because it did not relate to the substance of the CRC. Instead, Dr. Kim revealed the malpractice case because of an administrative scheduling conflict. The Court of Special Appeals found that information concerning the mere logistics of the proceeding is not entitled to confidentiality or any special treatment.

Additionally, the Court of Special Appeals also found that Dr. Kim's license application was, "within the practice of medicine," and therefore, the Board had authority to discipline him. The Court of Special Appeals noted that, over time, the definition of, "within the practice of medicine," has evolved. While it once only included acts in the course of diagnosing and treating patients, the definition now includes anything that, "relates to the effective delivery of patient care." Dr. Kim's license application related to the delivery of patient care, so the Board had jurisdiction.

Since the Court of Special Appeals found that the Board had jurisdiction and the Board did not rely on inadmissible evidence, the Court of Special Appeals upheld the Board's fine.