AUSTIN — The state agency that regulates physicians has declined at least initially to investigate an East Texas fertility doctor who has acknowledged using his own sperm to inseminate a woman who selected another donor.

It could not be determined Tuesday if the Texas Medical Board, whose 19 members are appointed by the governor, went along with a staff recommendation not to investigate Nacogdoches obstetrician-gynecologist Kim McMorries because his disputed actions occurred in the mid-1980s — too long ago to be subject to review.

A 2011 law limits most board investigations, at least of care of adult patients, to doctors’ actions in the past seven years.

Eve Wiley, a Preston Hollow woman born as a result of McMorries’ artificial insemination of her mother Margo Williams of Texarkana, said she’s disappointed by the board staff’s recommendation.

“I was very surprised,” said Wiley, who successfully prodded the Legislature and Gov. Greg Abbott this year to make fertility fraud a crime. “To me, this is such a clear ethical violation. You’re taking advantage of your patient – and it’s a physical violation.”

McMorries did not respond to a call to his medical office requesting comment.

As first reported by WFAA-TV, the board’s staff said in a Sept. 16 letter that no investigation of McMorries would be opened.

“Specifically, due to a recent change in the law, Texas Medical Board does not review complaints after 7 years of the date of service,” board staff wrote. “Therefore, no further action will be taken.”

Indiana University law professor Jody Lyneé Madeira, an expert on fertility fraud, said she filed the complaint against McMorries in June, about a month after ABC’s 20/20 reported on the case.

In communications with Williams and the TV network, McMorries clashed with Williams over whether, after five attempts to impregnate her with the sperm of her chosen donor from California failed, he obtained her permission to combine sperm from a local donor in East Texas.

McMorries, 67, acknowledged he had taken a sample of his own sperm, from his days as a medical resident in the 1970s, and inserted it into Williams. But while he insisted Williams concurred, she adamantly denied he consulted with her before using local sperm — his own.

From the beginning of her consultations with McMorries, she told ABC, “I told him I didn’t want a local donor.” Asked by ABC whether he used his own sperm to inseminate other patients, “Dr. McMorries tell us he knows of ‘1-2’ women who became pregnant after he mixed in his own sperm,” the network reported.

Madeira, the law professor, criticized board staff’s recommendation not to investigate.

“It was incumbent upon them to investigate these claims and take appropriate action,” she said. The actions McMorries admitted he took with Williams “never constituted the standard of care,” even in the 1980s, Madeira said.

Also expressing dismay over the staff’s recommendation to dismiss was Rep. Stephanie Klick, a Fort Worth Republican who was House sponsor of the Wiley-backed bill. It made fertility fraud a new category of sexual assault, punishable by between six months and two years in jail.

“We know that it’s been a practice with this particular physician,” Klick said of McMorries’ use of his own sperm to help infertile couples. “I would’ve thought they’d at least investigate to see if it continues — instead of closing the file without actually finding out.”

News media organizations recently have published "stories about doctors around the country who are still doing it," she said of unauthorized insertion of their own sperm into patients.

Board spokesman Jarrett Schneider declined to say whether any review of McMorries is pending.

“We cannot confirm or deny the existence of complaints and/or investigations,” Schneider wrote in an email.

He cautioned that “cases set for dismissal” by Texas Medical Board staff “are not final until the Board approves them for dismissal at a Board meeting.”

While not discussing McMorries in particular, Schneider continued, “The Board just held its most recent regularly scheduled meetings on Oct. 17-18. And yes, they would have voted on dismissals as part of their regular Board business.”

He noted that people who file complaints that are dismissed can appeal. The board also can pull cases set for dismissal and order staff to investigate further. Conceivably, that also could “include consideration of other potential violations of statutes and TMB rules that may not have been originally considered,” Schneider said. He stressed, though, that any continuing probe must be kept confidential until some disciplinary action is taken or the case is sent to state administrative law judges.

Schneider did not respond to other criticisms, such as Madeira’s urging the board to clearly tell consumers on its website that in most cases, it won’t review physician actions more than seven years old.

Also, Klick said the board exceeds its authority in some areas but hides behind technical limitations such as the seven-year maximum when it doesn’t want to exert its authority to police the medical profession. She noted that the board is trying to regulate certified registered nurse anesthetists "when they really have no authority to do so,” which she said could speed up closures of rural hospitals.

Schneider offered no rebuttal.