Iowa Doctor Fights Board of Medicine in Case That Could Reshape Licensing Rules

A Clinton physician is asking the Iowa Supreme Court to block the state Board of Medicine from issuing a disciplinary ruling, arguing the board lacked probable cause and tried to dig up evidence to justify its charges. The case could have major implications for how licensing boards operate across Iowa.

Dr. Mona Alqulali, a board-certified ob/gyn with 30 years of experience, faces disciplinary charges filed March 19, 2026, over improper management of medical records and prescribing controlled substances to her late father. Alqulali admits she prescribed the medications but says she did so only during acute or emergency conditions and with proper documentation.

What are the charges against Dr. Alqulali?

The Board of Medicine alleges Alqulali prescribed controlled substances to her father on several occasions without conducting examinations and without maintaining required documentation. She also allegedly administered and dispensed unauthorized medications to him.

Board records show Alqulali acknowledged prescribing the drugs to her ailing father, who has since passed away. She maintains she acted appropriately given the circumstances.

Legal battle over probable cause and board authority

On July 10, 2026, Alqulali filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal before a hearing. Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Gallagher denied that request on Aug. 7, 2026.

Gallagher found that four of six prescriptions at issue included required documentation. However, he noted a Nov. 11, 2024 prescription bore a signature date of June 22, 2026, after the disciplinary case began. Citing the number of pills prescribed, up to 90, and documentation concerns, Gallagher concluded enough evidence existed for a reasonable person to generally discredit Alqulali's explanations.

Alqulali appealed to Polk County District Court on Aug. 10, 2026, and requested an emergency continuance of the board hearing scheduled four days later.

Her attorney, Michael Sellers, argued the board lacked probable cause to investigate in the first place.

This is bedrock law. Board operatives cannot just 'dig up' confidential and privileged statutorily protected records and materials from wherever to see if they can 'put together' a seemingly viable complaint.

Sellers said the career of an established 30-year veteran has already been jeopardized by a proceeding with no identifiable probable cause, no complainant, no connection to medical practice, no public interest, and no victim.

Allegations of retaliation and a broken plea deal

Sellers claims the board initially offered a plea deal requiring Alqulali to complete two board-approved educational courses on prescribing practices. She completed four courses. Then, without warning, the board filed a public complaint leading to immediate action by UnityPoint Hospital, which required her to obtain a waiver to keep her credentials.

While Sellers argues there is no complainant, he also alleges the complaint was retaliatory. It was initiated by a UnityPoint Health rehabilitation facility that had been the subject of a complaint alleging Alqulali's father was mistreated there. Court records show the mistreatment complaint was deemed unsubstantiated by the facility one day before the board filed its complaint.

Court fight escalates to the Iowa Supreme Court

On Aug. 12, 2026, a district court judge temporarily halted all action in the case. Two days later, the Iowa Supreme Court stayed that order at the request of the attorney general's office, clearing the way for the board hearing to proceed that same day.

The closed-door hearing took place as scheduled. Sellers has now filed a petition with the Iowa Supreme Court seeking a temporary order to block publication of the board's ruling until the district court can rule on the underlying issues.

Sellers said Thursday that even minor discipline, such as requiring additional education, could seriously impact Alqulali's ability to practice.

Attorney general warns of consequences for licensing boards

The attorney general's office argues that if Alqulali prevails, the Board of Medicine would be left in the unenviable position of having heard all evidence while being unable to issue a ruling. The state also warns of a Sword of Damocles hanging over Iowa's licensing boards due to the dispute over whether the district court exceeded its authority.

Without the Iowa Supreme Court's continued jurisdiction in such cases, the state argues, licensing board proceedings could grind to a halt.

Sellers counters that the attorney general's efforts are intended solely to enable the Board of Medicine to issue a sanction in a case with no value whatsoever, other than expanding and protecting the power of licensing boards.

The Iowa Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the matter.

Why this case matters for Iowans

This dispute touches on fundamental questions about government accountability and the limits of regulatory authority. If the court sides with Alqulali, it could rein in licensing boards that overstep their bounds. If it sides with the board, it could affirm broad investigative powers for state agencies.

For Iowa physicians and other licensed professionals, the outcome could determine how much protection they have from investigations lacking clear probable cause.