Have professional medical boards or institutions investigated annette bosworth for research misconduct?

1. Criminal convictions and licensing consequences are well-documented, not research probes

State prosecutors charged and a jury convicted Bosworth on counts tied to nominating petitions and related filings; some counts were later vacated by the South Dakota Supreme Court but convictions for offering false or forged instruments were affirmed, and the criminal history prompted medical‑licensing action ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The South Dakota Medical Board voted to revoke her license after weighing those felony convictions and concerns about truthfulness and patient trust ^[2]. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administrative law decision records that CMS placed Bosworth on a preclusion list because of a felony conviction detrimental to Medicare program interests ^[1].

2. Separate administrative and billing inquiries exist, but they are not labeled “research misconduct”

Reporting and commentary indicate Bosworth has faced other administrative scrutiny — including references to a Medicaid‑billing investigation and disputes with former employees — that factored into public and regulatory perceptions of her professional conduct ^{[3] [7]}. None of the items in the supplied reporting frame those inquiries as investigations into research integrity (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) or name institutional research‑integrity offices or federal research‑oversight entities as investigators ^{[3] [1]}.

3. What the medical board said and why that is distinct from research‑misconduct probes

The medical board’s stated rationale for revocation emphasized concerns about honesty with government entities and patients and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession — grounds for licensure discipline that do not equate to a formal research‑misconduct allegation handled by an institutional review board or an Office of Research Integrity (ORI) process ^{[2] [1]}. The board and its counsel argued that felony convictions for false filings made Bosworth a risk to the public and the profession; that disciplinary standard differs procedurally and substantively from an ORI inquiry into research records or publications ^[2].

4. The defendant’s contestation and claims of political motive are part of the record

Bosworth consistently contested the criminal and disciplinary actions as politically motivated and attributed some problems to misunderstanding of campaign processes or bad advice from consultants; those arguments appear in court records and news accounts but did not convert into research‑misconduct allegations in the reporting provided ^{[8] [9]}. Coverage notes social media and travel records were used as evidence in the campaign‑petition case, reinforcing the election‑law focus of the investigations rather than any allegation about research activities ^[10].

5. Limits of the available reporting: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The sources assembled here are thorough about Bosworth’s criminal case, license revocation, CMS preclusion, and references to Medicaid billing disputes ^{[1] [2] [3]}, but they do not include any report, complaint, institutional investigation, ORI case, or published retraction that would indicate a formal probe into research misconduct. Therefore, based on the provided reporting, it is accurate to say professional medical boards and government health agencies investigated and disciplined Bosworth for criminal and licensure issues, and there is no documented investigation into research misconduct in these sources; the possibility of unreported or separate inquiries outside the supplied materials cannot be confirmed here ^{[1] [2] [3]}.