Michigan Board of Medicine

Arvind Yekanath, M.D.File 43-23-003786

Final disposition of single statutory count · Order accepted: 11/19/25 · Effective date: 12/19/25

Complaint number: 43-23-003786
Michigan license: 4301105161
Record type: Consent Order
Status: Resolved
Board acceptance: November 19, 2025
Effective date: December 19, 2025
Disposition: $250 fine
License status: Unrestricted with no conditions imposed

Arvind Yekanath, MD is a board-certified psychiatrist and a Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. He completed psychiatry residency at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, where he served as Chief Resident, following his internship at the University of Vermont.

Basis and disposition

The file resolves a single statutory count derived from the existence of a February 2023 VA administrative action. The complaint describes the earlier action as based on alleged documentation deficiencies. It does not allege patient harm, deficient clinical care, or clinical incompetence.

The signed stipulation supplies the operational account associated with the open encounters. Many Veterans could not use the required video platform. Dr. Yekanath asked the main facility in writing to apply a national VA standard converting failed video encounters to telephone encounters. The facility declined. The stipulation describes the resulting choice as an ethical bind: enter an inaccurate code or leave the encounter open. It records that he declined to miscode and escalated the issue in writing.

The same stipulation records supporting materials from VA administrators and clinical colleagues attesting to Dr. Yekanath’s “exceptional clinical care, ethical practice, professionalism, and commitment to Veteran patients.” It notes work on complex cases beyond an already heavy caseload, VA appraisals and awards reflecting a strong performance history, facility-level OIG findings concerning FPPE processes and electronic-record infrastructure, no prior Michigan discipline, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology certification, and no medical-malpractice judgment or payment made on his behalf.

Signed Order and Stipulation (PDF) Michigan license record (LARA)

Related professional literature provides an analytical framework for the coding choice described in the file. A 2022 AMA Journal of Ethics article notes that 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians Board minutes reported a high risk of career-jeopardizing reprisals for physicians who raise inappropriate-billing concerns. It further explains that clinicians can experience moral injury when they are held responsible for billing accuracy but lack the agency or institutional control needed to carry out that responsibility. It describes correction of systems that create such double-binds as important to reducing those harms. The article supplies professional ethics context, not findings in this file. AMA Journal of Ethics: “What Should Clinicians Do When Health Services Are Improperly Billed in Their Names?”

Record materials

Material	Classification	Use in this summary
Consent Order and Stipulation	Controlling Michigan disposition	Disposition and factors considered
Administrative complaint	Michigan charging document	Single-count statutory basis
OIG Report 22-00052-121	Federal oversight	Facility-level process and organizational context
July 11, 2025 legislative correspondence	Investigatory-file submissions	Documentation, technology, and review context presented directly to LARA
Administrator and clinical-colleague attestations	Supporting materials	Materials expressly referenced in stipulation paragraph 4(B)
VA annual proficiency reports	Contemporaneous employment records	Clinical, documentation, and pre-leave performance context
April 26, 2024 evidentiary summary	Investigatory-file submission	Separately attributed chronology
AMA Journal of Ethics article	External professional literature	Ethics framework; not case evidence

Legislative correspondence in investigatory file

The investigatory file includes two letters dated July 11, 2025 and addressed directly to Dr. Marlon I. Brown, Director, Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. One was submitted by a Michigan State Senator and the other by the State Representative for Michigan’s 20th House District. Both requested participation by a Michigan Board of Medicine member at the July 17, 2025 compliance conference and supplied context for the documentation allegations.

Michigan State Senator · 9th District · July 11, 2025

The senator described Dr. Yekanath’s eight years of VA service as distinguished and accompanied by exemplary performance reviews. On medication reconciliation, the letter records a direct factual conflict: the VA accused Dr. Yekanath of using an unapproved template, while the senator stated that the template was Joint Commission-approved and had been validated in writing by the VA’s designated authority. The letter therefore disputes the stated premise of that documentation allegation.

On delayed charting, the senator identified pandemic-era staffing shortages and technological disruptions. The letter stated that VA clinicians had great difficulty accessing the electronic medical record because of VPN saturation and inadequate bandwidth and attributed the increased difficulty completing paperwork to the facility’s structural failures to adapt effectively to remote care. It separately stated that the administrative actions were not based on an allegation of patient harm.

State Representative · Michigan’s 20th House District · July 11, 2025

The representative described Dr. Yekanath as a psychiatrist with more than eight years of distinguished public service in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The letter identified the subject as “alleged documentation deficiencies, specifically related to the timeliness of a chart completion and medical reconciliation templates.” It placed those questions during the difficult transition to telemedicine in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The representative’s letter did not identify deficient patient care. It used the term clinical in a narrower review sense: documentation choices could be nuanced and context-dependent and therefore required a consultant who understood clinical documentation practices. The requested medical input was directed to evaluating documentation context, not an allegation of clinical incompetence.

Source and scope: July 11, 2025 legislative correspondence submitted directly to the Director of LARA and included in the investigatory file. Statements are attributed to the respective legislative offices.

Federal oversight investigation

Office of Inspector General · Report 22-00052-121 · May 23, 2023

The Office of Inspector General’s comprehensive inspection of the Northern Arizona VA Health Care System examined five operational areas, including Leadership and Organizational Risks and Medical Staff Privileging, and issued six recommendations to facility leadership. Within Medical Staff Privileging, the OIG found that “two FPPEs lacked evidence the LIPs were aware of and had accepted the evaluation criteria” before initiation. The report explains that a practitioner who is not informed of the criteria may not understand the FPPE expectations. Recommendation 1 directed the facility Chief of Staff to determine the reasons for noncompliance and require service chiefs to define objective criteria in advance and obtain the practitioner’s acceptance.

The credentialing observations concerned facility process compliance; they were not findings of misconduct by Dr. Yekanath. The signed stipulation places the federal material in the case record by listing OIG findings concerning FPPE misuse or misapplication and network-infrastructure deficiencies among the factors considered in the Michigan agreement. It also states that Dr. Yekanath had documented those concerns contemporaneously. In a case derived from an earlier administrative action, the OIG material supplies independent facility-level context for the focused-review process and the conditions affecting documentation workflow.

The report also reproduced facility-wide employee-survey results concerning employees’ ability to disclose suspected violations without fear of reprisal. Prescott scored below the VHA comparison in each reported year: 3.5 versus 3.8 in 2019, 3.7 versus 3.8 in 2020, and 3.8 versus 3.9 in 2021. The report cautions that survey responses are subjective and serve as a starting point for inquiry. The data supply organizational context for a file in which the coding concern was raised in writing; they do not decide the motive for any individual action.

Comprehensive Healthcare Inspection of the Northern Arizona VA Health Care System in Prescott

Submitted attestations

Clinical colleagues and VA administrators

Paragraph 4(B) of the stipulation states that the parties considered supporting materials from “VA administrators and clinical colleagues.” One of those attestations came from the West Medical Deputy Director, who described Dr. Yekanath’s “quality of documentation” and professionalism as outstanding and wrote that his charting “accurately supports his coding.” That senior clinical attestation is inconsistent with a generalized suggestion that his documentation or coding was unreliable. Read with stipulation paragraph 4(D), it is consistent with the record’s distinction between inaccurate coding, which he declined, and encounters left open. The attestation does not, by itself, establish why the earlier administrative action occurred.

A former Medical Director of the East CBOCs, then serving as Chief Medical Officer, Division of Developmental Disabilities, Arizona Department of Economic Security, described excellent clinical acumen, consistent professionalism, and availability for both a high volume of Veterans and unscheduled patients, and recommended Dr. Yekanath without reservation. The Psychology Director, West Valley Vet Center, described outstanding communication, comprehensive care coordination, favorable reports from shared patients, and no reservations. A former hospital Risk Manager and Directive Compliance Manager described his support of the risk-management program and concern for better patient outcomes.

Annual proficiency reports

A VA proficiency report covering October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021 marked Dr. Yekanath “Outstanding”—the highest category shown on the form—in Clinical Competence and Personal Qualities. The report’s narrative attachment states that he properly documented clinical encounters and entered clear, accurate information in the medical record. Its reporting period ended in the same month the paternity leave began.

An earlier proficiency report was signed by an Outpatient Clinic Director whom the April 26, 2024 investigative submission identifies as Dr. Yekanath’s former direct supervisor, a former Air Force Colonel, and a later Mental Health Service Line Chief. That report states that he placed “the patient before self,” connected his work to adherence to ethical standards, and noted his offer to provide care outside traditional business hours for working Veterans.

Source and scope: title-identified letters and VA proficiency reports submitted during the Michigan investigation. The signed stipulation expressly records that VA administrator and clinical-colleague materials, annual appraisals, and performance awards were considered.

Chronology in investigative submission

Paternity-leave chronology

An April 26, 2024 evidentiary summary submitted to LARA by Dr. Yekanath’s counsel states that he requested paternity leave four months before the anticipated September 2021 birth of his first child. According to that submission, before requesting leave he had never been subjected to VA corrective action, peer review, focused review, clinical-care review, or documentation review, and had received no supervisor complaints.

The submission places the first corrective concern after the leave request: one month before the scheduled leave, a supervisor raised a medication-reconciliation template issue for the first time. It states that a documentation-monitoring FPPE was then set to begin upon Dr. Yekanath’s return from paternity leave.

The submission further reports that when Dr. Yekanath returned in January 2022, his video-telehealth access was unavailable and his telephone clinics had been abruptly closed without prior warning, substantially hindering his ability to complete the associated documentation. This chronology is consistent with the final stipulation’s account of telephone-clinic closures, loss of video access, and technical barriers that impeded timely chart closure.

The same submission states that there was no allegation that Dr. Yekanath failed to meet the standard of care for any VA patient. The final stipulation separately records materials from VA administrators and clinical colleagues attesting to his ethical practice and strong clinical performance.

Same-facility psychiatrist attestation · January 23, 2023

A Staff Psychiatrist, now within the VISN 23 Clinical Resource Hub, stated that she had worked with Dr. Yekanath at the same Northern Arizona facility for three years. She described his reputation as “one of the most skilled and dedicated physicians in the organization” and characterized his documentation as meticulous and complete.

The psychiatrist offered the opinion that the “simplest explanation” for the treatment of Dr. Yekanath was retaliation because he took paternity leave. She stated that the same supervisor had also targeted her, that she had not been permitted to take leave, and that she later left the facility following what she described as abuses. This is the psychiatrist’s assessment in a support letter submitted to the investigatory record; the final consent order makes no finding about motive.

Source and scope: April 26, 2024 Summary of Evidence and January 23, 2023 title-identified support letter submitted during the Michigan investigation. This section reports the chronology and professional assessment presented in those materials; the final consent order does not make a finding about anyone’s motive for the timing.

Stipulation ¶4(A)–(G) — transcription

Paragraph 4(A)–(G), transcribed from the signed stipulation. Line wrapping has been adapted; the official signed record controls.

4. The parties considered the following factors in reaching this agreement:

As part of the Department’s investigation, Respondent voluntarily participated in nearly five hours of interviews with the Board’s investigator and produced contemporaneous exhibits and patient records.

Respondent submitted supporting materials from VA administrators and clinical colleagues attesting to his exceptional clinical care, ethical practice, professionalism, and commitment to Veteran patients. Colleagues described his willingness to take on complex cases in addition to an already heavy caseload. Respondent also submitted annual proficiency appraisals and performance awards, which reflect a strong history of clinical competence and professional performance during his VA career.

Respondent served as the sole psychiatric prescriber at a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) seventy miles from the main facility. He also provided urgent telemedicine coverage at additional sites across the state for rural Veterans. During much of the period in question, Respondent provided care without hospital access or routine diagnostic data due to pandemic-related restrictions at those sites. Respondent faced significant technical and administrative barriers beyond his control, including unannounced telephone-clinic closures during the pandemic, abrupt loss of video-telehealth access, and network instability that impeded timely chart closure.

Many Veterans lacked the ability to use VA’s video-to-home telehealth platform, which required patients to download an app. When the main facility declined to apply a national VA standard to convert failed video encounters to telephone encounters, despite Respondent’s written requests, it placed him in an ethical bind (i.e., miscode or leave encounters open). He declined to miscode and escalated the issue in writing.

In May and July 2023, Federal oversight (OIG) inspections confirmed systemic operational deficiencies at Northern Arizona VA Health Care System, including misuse/misapplication of FPPE processes and deficiencies in network-infrastructure upgrades that compromised EMR functionality and workflow— concerns Respondent had contemporaneously documented.

End of page 4 · page 5 continues

Respondent voluntarily completed 19 hours of documentation-focused CME (not ordered or recommended by the Board); has been licensed since 2014 with no prior discipline against his license; is Board Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN); and has never had a medical-malpractice judgment or payment made on his behalf.

Respondent denies that the VA action was warranted but wishes to resolve this matter without the time and expense of engaging in an administrative hearing. Respondent retains full licensing privileges, with no limitations imposed.

By signing this stipulation, the parties confirm that they have read, understand, and agree with the terms of the consent order.

Sources

Materials outside the signed order—including the April 26, 2024 evidentiary summary, legislative correspondence, title-identified attestations, and VA annual proficiency reports—are separately attributed above and are not reproduced in full on this page.

Signed Consent Order and Stipulation (PDF) Michigan license verification (LARA) VA OIG Report 22-00052-121 (May 23, 2023)