Dr David Hartsuch, an emergency medicine physician and former Republican state senator, has transitioned his legal battle against the Iowa Board of Medicine and the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to federal court.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comThe lawsuit arises from an investigation into Hartsuch's professional practices, which he claims involved retaliation linked to his First Amendment rights.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comHartsuch has emerged as a controversial figure due to his advocacy for using ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comIn December 2021, he alleges that Kent Nebel, then the executive director of the Iowa Board of Medicine, indicated that several Iowa doctors faced complaints for disseminating false or misleading information regarding COVID-19.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comShortly thereafter, Hartsuch received a notification that he was under investigation for similar complaints, which he argues were part of a concerted effort to silence dissenting medical opinions.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comThe investigation's scope focused on three main allegations against Hartsuch: unprofessional conduct towards a Walgreens pharmacist, spreading misleading information about COVID-19, and prescribing ivermectin for off-label uses not approved by the FDA.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comIvermectin is primarily used to treat infections caused by parasitic worms, and the National Institutes of Health has advised against its use for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comIn October 2022, the Board of Medicine concluded its investigation, issuing a confidential warning letter to Hartsuch for his behavior towards the pharmacist.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comThis letter, he claims, has hindered his ability to communicate with pharmacists, effectively putting him in a state of fear regarding his professional interactions.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comIn response, Hartsuch filed his first lawsuit against the boards, seeking to have the warning expunged, but the district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, given that the warning was rescinded and did not constitute formal disciplinary action.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comThe Iowa Court of Appeals upheld this ruling in October 2025, prompting Hartsuch to file a new lawsuit alleging that the board's actions were not only unreasonable but also violated his rights and destroyed his professional livelihood.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comHe contends that the Board of Medicine has essentially "blacklisted" him, infringing on his right to express medical opinions and engage in scientific debate regarding public health issues related to COVID-19.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comRecently, the Iowa attorney general’s office filed a notice to remove the case to federal court, arguing that Hartsuch's claims are rooted in federal law.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comThis move marks a significant development in a case that has garnered attention due to its implications for medical professionals' rights to free speech, particularly in the context of the ongoing debates surrounding COVID-19 treatments.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comHartsuch's legal journey reflects a broader national dialogue about the intersection of medical practice, regulatory oversight, and free speech rights in the face of a public health crisis.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comAs the lawsuit unfolds in federal court, it may set precedents that could impact the relationship between healthcare professionals and licensing boards across the country.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comThis case highlights the complexities and controversies surrounding COVID-19 treatment protocols and the responses of state medical boards to physicians who challenge prevailing medical narratives.
Source:
iowacapitaldispatch.comThe outcome could have significant ramifications for the rights of medical practitioners to express dissenting opinions without fear of retribution from regulatory bodies.
Source:
desmoinesregister.comAs developments continue, the legal community and healthcare professionals will be watching closely to see how this case progresses and what it may mean for the future of medical practice in the United States.
