Attorney General Ken Paxton has stepped into a legal battle against the Texas Medical Board, siding with Dr. Mary Talley Bowden and asking a Travis County court to declare the board’s public reprimand against her void.
In a petition filed Thursday, Paxton accused the board of acting “on nothing more than personal animosity and spite” when it disciplined Bowden over her 2021 attempt to administer ivermectin to a hospitalized COVID-19 patient.
Rather than defend the Texas Medical Board, Paxton’s office is intervening in support of Bowden. The filing asks the court to reverse the reprimand and permanently block the board from taking further action against her related to the case.
“I will not stand by as Dr. Bowden has her Constitutional rights trampled and ability to serve her patients impeded with an illegal reprimand,” Paxton said. “Dr. Bowden has been a champion for health freedom, selflessly served her patients, and acted in full accordance with the law.”
The dispute stems from a November 2021 incident involving a COVID-19 patient at Huguley Hospital who was on a ventilator and in a medically induced coma.
The patient’s family obtained a temporary injunction from a state district court ordering the hospital to grant Bowden emergency privileges to administer ivermectin.
Later that same day, however, a court of appeals stayed the order. According to the State’s filing, Bowden was not a party to that proceeding and was never notified of the stay.
Believing the injunction remained in effect, Bowden sent a nurse to the hospital. Staff refused entry and law enforcement was called.
The Texas Medical Board later determined Bowden engaged in “unprofessional conduct” by attempting to treat a patient at a facility where she lacked privileges. It issued a public reprimand—a disciplinary mark that remains permanently on her record.
In its intervention, the State argues the reprimand “fails as a matter of law” and asserts the board violated both statutory requirements and constitutional protections.
In its petition, the attorney general argues the reprimand cannot stand as a matter of law. According to the filing, the board imposed discipline without presenting any medical expert testimony to support its conclusion that Bowden’s actions harmed—or even risked harming—the public.
The filing also disputes the board’s finding that Bowden acted intentionally, noting that she relied on a district court’s temporary injunction and advice of counsel when she sent her nurse to the hospital. Those facts, the petition argues, undercut any claim that she knowingly violated the law.
Further, the filing challenges the “aggravating factors” cited to justify the reprimand, characterizing them as speculative and legally insufficient—particularly the board’s suggestion that Bowden might repeat similar conduct in the future.
Paxton additionally raised due process concerns, alleging that Bowden and her attorneys were provided a non-functioning link to attend the sanctions hearing remotely and that the board proceeded with its vote despite being notified of the technical failure.
Bowden thanked Paxton for his action in the case, calling it a win not just for herself but for patients.
“No one should have to sue to get a second opinion, hospitals should not have the power to defy court orders, and doctors should not be targeted for trying to help their patients. Texas has been captured by the medical mafia, but this is a step in the right direction,” said Bowden.
The move is unusual as the Office of the Attorney General typically represents state agencies such as the Texas Medical Board in litigation. In this case, Paxton has not only declined to defend the agency but has affirmatively joined the lawsuit against it.
