Hamza Alsayouf, M.D. v. Iowa Board of Medicine

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-2056
Filed January 28, 2026
_______________

Hamza Alsayouf, M.D.,
Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
Iowa Board of Medicine,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Michael M. Sellers and Trent Nelson of Sellers Galenbeck & Nelson, Clive,
attorneys for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Patrick C. Valencia, Deputy Solicitor
General, and Chad D. Brakhahn, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for
appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.

1
BULLER, Judge.

Dr. Hamza Alsayouf appeals the denial of his petition for judicial
review of other agency action, see Iowa Code section 17A.19(3) (2024),
seeking to compel the Iowa Board of Medicine to provide him an
investigatory file before any disciplinary proceedings take place.

Alsayouf is a physician who practices overseas but maintains an Iowa
medical license as a condition of a certification. The Board requested
information from Alsayouf following its receipt of a complaint he had been
convicted of criminal offenses in a foreign jurisdiction. Alsayouf claimed
ignorance of any convictions and requested the Board’s investigative file.
The Board declined and suggested Alsayouf narrow his request for
information. He instead petitioned for judicial review.

The district court denied Alsayouf’s petition, finding Doe v. Iowa State
Board of Physical Therapy & Occupational Therapy Examiners, 320 N.W.2d 557
(Iowa 1982), controlled. Doe holds that, under section 272C.6(4)(a), a
licensing board is only required to provide an investigatory file once it
commences disciplinary proceedings. See 320 N.W.2d at 561.

Alsayouf appeals, and we review for correction of errors at law. Irland
v. Iowa Bd. of Med., 939 N.W.2d 85, 89 (Iowa 2020). Alsayouf requested the
supreme court retain this case to “reconsider” Doe, observing in his reply
brief the “futility” of his argument before the court of appeals.

The supreme court transferred the case to us, and we agree with the
district court that Doe controls. We are not at liberty to “reconsider”
supreme court precedent, so we affirm without further opinion. See State v.
Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014); Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(c).

AFFIRMED.

2