Medical Board of California revokes Granville Marshall’s physician’s and surgeon’s certificate

The Medical Board of California has revoked the license of former Susanville physician Granville Marshall, effective 5 p.m. Jan. 15, 2025.

According to the board’s decision, Marshall’s license was revoked effective Nov. 8, 2018, “however, the board stayed the revocation and placed Marshall on probation for three years on specified terms and conditions, including: completion of an education course (Condition 1); employment of a practice monitor (Condition 4); timely submission of quarterly declarations (Condition 9); compliance with general probation requirements including maintaining a current license (Condition 10); being available for interviews with a Board designee (Condition 11); avoiding periods of non-practice (Condition 12); and payment of probation monitoring costs (Condition 16).

“Condition 14 specified, in pertinent part, “If Respondent violates probation in any respect, the board, after giving respondent notice and the opportunity to be heard, may revoke probation and carry out the disciplinary order that was stayed.

“Respondent understood what was required under Probation Order because his board probation monitor, Teresa Solis-Betty, explained the requirements to respondent at their intake interview Nov. 26, 2018. Respondent also signed an Acknowledgment of Decision form, acknowledging that he received the Probation Order and that Solis-Betty had explained, and he understood, all the terms and conditions of his probation.

First cause to revoke probation (Condition 1 – Educational Courses)
Pursuant to Probation Order Condition 1, Respondent is required to complete 40 hours per year of educational courses in addition to the CME requirements for license renewal. Respondent has failed to complete the required educational courses since January 2020, in violation of Probation Order Condition 1.

Second cause to revoke Probation (Condition 4 – Practice Monitor)
Pursuant to Probation Order Condition 4, Respondent is required to employ a Board-approved practice monitor and to ensure that the monitor timely submits quarterly written reports to the Board. Respondent failed to ensure that his probation monitor’s required quarterly reports were submitted, in violation of Probation Order Condition 4.

Third cause to revoke probation (Condition 9- Quarterly Declarations)
Pursuant to Probation Order Condition 9, respondent is required to submit quarterly declarations on forms provided by the Board no later than 10 calendar days after the end of the preceding quarter. Respondent has failed to submit his required quarterly declarations since 2020, in violation of Probation Order Condition 9.

Fourth cause to revoke probation (Condition 10 – General Requirements)
Pursuant to Probation Order Condition 10, respondent is required to maintain a current and renewed California physician’s and surgeon’s license. Respondent’s license expired on April 30, 2021, and it has not been renewed. Consequently, Respondent failed to maintain a current and renewed California physician’s license, in violation of Probation Order Condition 10.

Fifth cause to revoke probation (Condition 11 – Interview with Board)
Pursuant to Probation Order Condition 11, respondent is required to be available for in-person interviews at his place of business or at the probation unit office. Respondent failed to make himself available for in-person interviews for Quarters II, Ill, and IV of 2020, and all Quarters in 2021 and 2022, in violation of Probation Order Condition 11.

Sixth cause to revoke probation (Condition 12- Non-Practice)
Pursuant to Probation Order Condition 12, respondent’s period of non-practice while on probation shall not exceed two years. Respondent’s period of non-practice has exceeded two years, in violation of Probation Order Condition 12.

Seventh cause to revoke probation (Condition 16 – Payment of Probation Monitoring Costs)
Pursuant to Probation Order Condition 16, respondent is required to pay probation monitoring costs every year of probation. Respondent has failed to pay probation monitoring costs for 2020 ($4,800.00), for 2021 ($6,483.00), for 2022 ($5,485.00), and for 2023 ($5,745). In total, respondent has failed to pay probation monitoring costs in the amount of $22,513, in violation of Probation Order Condition

Disposition
Throughout his probation, respondent has continued to violate numerous conditions of the Probation Order. He has also informed the board he does not intend to participate in his board-ordered probation. Consequently, revocation of respondent’s license is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

Oct. 7, 2008 edition of the Lassen County Times
Local doctor’s suit against county, city and hospital dismissed
Years after filing federal lawsuits against many Lassen County agencies, Dr. Granville Marshall filed to dismiss his case.

In June, the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals executed a Stipulate Request for Dismissal and Order throwing out the entire action regarding Granville Marshall versus the city of Susanville, county of Lassen, Banner Lassen Medical Center and about 50 other defendants. Former CEO of BLMC Dave Anderson was also named in the suit. Anderson died of an apparent heart attack in July 2005.

The district’s clerk of the court, Molly C. Dwyer signed the order that stated, “The parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). This appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Costs shall be allocated according to the provisions of the stipulation.”

An agreement reached with prejudice means the case can never be filed again.

Marshall had alleged the defendants violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Marshall was requesting a jury trial. He is African-American and a descendant of the late Thurgood Marshall, who served as the first African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice from 1967-1991.

Marshall was arrested for driving under the influence in Susanville in May 2003. The charges against him were dismissed on April 13, 2004, after Lassen County Superior Court Judge Stephen Bradbury ruled a blood draw to determine the amount of alcohol in Marshall’s blood was taken with unreasonable force.

In addition, Marshall alleges the blood sample delivered to the Department of Justice was the wrong blood type. According to his complaint, DOJ reported the sample did not comply with legal standards since there was no label on the vial.

Marshall alleged his arrest was the product of a conspiracy by the city, the county, the hospital and others.

Nov. 20, 2018 edition of the Lassen County Times
State medical board orders probation for local doctor
The Medical Board of California suspended the revocation of a former Susanville physician’s license, placed him on 3-years probation and barred him from solo medical practice and from supervising physician’s assistants and advanced practice nurses, effective 5 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 8.

The Medical Board of California announced its Oct. 9 decision regarding former Susanville physician Dr. Granville H. Marshall, who now resides in Santa Maria, Friday, Nov. 9.

The board found Marshall “engaged in gross negligence,” committed “repeated negligent acts,” “repeatedly failed to maintain adequate and accurate records” and “repeatedly failed to attend and participate in an interview by the board, without good cause.”

The terms and conditions of Marshall’s probation include his completion of: An education course, a prescribing practices course, a medical record keeping course, a monitor of his practice, a solo practice prohibition, appropriate notifications, a prohibition of supervising physician assistant and advanced practice nurses, an order to obey all laws, submission of quarterly declarations, compliance with general probation requirements, availability for interviews with the board or its designee, non-practice while on probation and completion of probation.

Should Marshall violate the terms of probation, the board shall have continuing jurisdiction, and Marshall shall no longer be subject to the terms of his probation should he surrender his medical license.

Marshall also will be responsible for all probation monitoring costs.

Accusations against Marshall
The medical board filed an accusation against the doctor Sept. 5, 2017 alleging four causes of action — gross negligence, repeated gross negligence, inadequate medical record keeping and failure to attend and participate in interview with the board.

According to the accusation, Marshall’s treatment of a patient “represents an extreme departure from the standing of care by failing to perform and/or document performing a complete history and physical before … prescribing narcotics … ”

The board also accused Marshall’s “failing to perform and/or document performing a periodic review of patient … pain management therapy from April 30, 2012 to May 30, 2014, in any of the progress notes that documented 45 outpatient clinic visits represents multiple and repeated separate departures from the standard of care,” Marshall’s records “did not document standard pain management guidelines, failed to document (patient’s) pain and were cursory in nature” and “respondent’s repeated failure to attend and participate in an interview with the board as described above represents unprofessional conduct.”

Marshall allegedly prescribed the patient a variety of opiates, but eventually discharged the patient for “engaging in drug seeking behavior.”

According to an investigator’s report, Marshall testified to the board “he has never over-prescribed opiates to patients and believes a prescription pad is very dangerous.”

Marshall said the patient’s complaint against him was “an act of retaliation for discharging him from care for drug-seeking behavior.

Marshall told investigators he closed his Susanville Office Nov. 27, 2016 when he left for Santa Maria “in the middle of the night or he ‘might not have stayed alive.’”

He also questioned the signature on some of the patient’s prescriptions, “noting his office had been burglarized in the past and that there ‘may be another prescription pad out there.’”