In an appeal from a medical board’s order, a reviewing trial court is bound to uphold the order if it is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and is in accordance with law. R.C. 119.12; In re Williams (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 85, 86, 573 N.E.2d 638, 639. The appellate court’s review is even more limited than that of the trial court. While it is incumbent on the trial court to examine the evidence, this is not a function of the appellate court. The appellate court is to determine only if the trial court has abused its discretion, i.e., being not merely an error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency. Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, a court of appeals may not substitute its judgment for those of the medical board or a trial court. Instead, the appellate court must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 257, 260-261, 533 N.E.2d 264, 266. See, also, Rossford Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 705, 707, 590 N.E.2d 1240, 1241.
Moreover, when reviewing a medical board’s order, courts must accord due deference to the board’s interpretation of the technical and ethical requirements of its profession. The policy reason for this was noted in Arlen v. State (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 168, 173, 15 O.O.3d 190, 194, 399 N.E.2d 1251, 1254-1255: “ ‘ * * * The purpose of the General Assembly in providing for *622administrative hearings in particular fields was to facilitate such matters by placing the decision on facts with boards or commissions composed of [people] equipped with the necessary knowledge and experience pertaining to a particular field. * * * ’ ” (Quoting Farrand v. State Med. Bd. [1949], 151 Ohio St. 222, 224, 39 O.O. 41, 42, 85 N.E.2d 113, 114.)
Thus, the narrow issue before us today is to determine whether the appellate court correctly determined that the trial court abused its discretion in affirming the board’s decision. For the following reasons, we hold that it did not. Accordingly, we reverse its decision.
I
The board concluded that the acts, conduct, and/or omissions of Dr. Pons fell below the minimum standards of care in violation of R.C. 4731.22(B)(6): “A departure from, or the failure to conform to, minimal standards of care of similar practitioners under the same or similar circumstances, whether or not actual injury to a patient is established.” The board never alleged that Dr. Pons’ surgical skills were remiss or that he lacked basic medical knowledge. However, the board felt that the care a doctor renders to a patient includes more than just procedures performed or medications prescribed. The overall care consists of the entire treatment relationship between the physician and patient.
In finding that Dr. Pons’ overall care of Patient 1 was deficient, the board specifically found that Dr. Pons exhibited extremely poor medical judgment by entering into an emotional and sexual relationship with Patient 1 when he had reason to believe she was in a vulnerable, unstable, emotional state. The basis of this belief was that the sexual relationship began after Dr. Pons had received over one year’s worth of complaints from Patient 1 of depression, anxiety, and marital discord. Additionally, he knew of her previous psychiatric hospitalization, he had prescribed anti-depressants for her, and he had counseled Patient 1 and her husband for their marital difficulties. Dr. Pons knew, or should have known, that Patient 1 placed a great deal of trust in him, and that by entering into an emotional relationship with her this was likely to be detrimental to Patient l’s already unstable condition. In doing so, Dr. Pons was not acting in Patient l’s best interest.
Also, the board determined that Dr. Pons failed to maintain the level of objectivity that minimal standards of care dictate by advising Patient 1 on various forms of birth control while engaging in a sexual relationship with her, thus serving his own personal desire that she not become pregnant with his child. In addition, he lacked objectivity when he failed to insist she see specialists for her back pain and psychiatric care or counseling for her marital *623problems. Indeed, the board felt Dr. Pons took personal advantage of the fact that Patient 1 and her husband were having marital difficulties, an intimate fact learned through the professional relationship.
A medical disciplinary proceeding is a special statutory proceeding conducted by twelve persons, eight of whom are licensed physicians. R.C. 4731.01. Thus, a majority of the board members possess the specialized knowledge needed to determine the acceptable standard of general medical practice. In re Williams, supra, at 87, 573 N.E.2d at 640. Hence, the medical board is quite capable of interpreting technical requirements of the medical field and quite capable of determining when conduct falls below the minimum standard of care. Arlen, supra, at 173, 15 O.O.3d at 194, 399 N.E.2d at 1254.
Dr. Pons’ testimony, Patient l’s medical records, and the expert witness’ testimony support the board’s finding that Dr. Pons failed to conform to minimal standards of care. The common pleas court, finding reliable, probative, and substantial evidence existed in the record, properly upheld the board’s order. The appellate court incorrectly found an abuse of discretion and improperly substituted its judgment for those of the board and the trial court on this finding.
II
The board also found Dr. Pons’ behavior violated R.C. 4731.22(B)(14) and (15). R.C. 4731.22(B)(14) and (15) authorize the board to discipline physicians for violations of ethical standards adopted by national professional organizations such as those promulgated by the American Medical Association (“AMA”).
The specific provisions Dr. Pons was charged with violating include Sections 1, 4, 6, and 8 of the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics in effect until July 1980, and Sections I, II, and IV of the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics in effect after July 1980. These provisions require a physician to provide competent medical service with compassion and respect for human dignity, deal honestly and objectively with a patient, uphold the dignity and honor of the medical profession, seek consultation where appropriate, and safeguard the public against physicians deficient in moral character.
The board concluded that Dr. Pons’ conduct was neither honorable nor ethical. The board believed that the necessity of physician objectivity underlies all the enumerated provisions. Where there is a lack of objectivity there can be no assurance that the doctor is acting in the patient’s best interest.
In addition, Dr. Pons’ conduct was deceitful because he used information acquired through the relationship to his own personal advantage. The board *624felt it was implausible that Dr. Pons recommended marriage counseling after beginning his sexual relationship with Patient 1.
The board also believed Dr. Pons was obligated to obtain a consultation with a mental health specialist or insist that Patient 1 accept a referral for these problems.
The board also determined Dr. Pons failed to uphold the dignity and honor of his profession by maintaining this dual relationship and exploiting Patient l’s trust.
We find the board was well within its statutory authority and had the discretion to weigh the evidence and make the decision that Dr. Pons violated the medical profession’s Code of Ethics and would be sanctioned pursuant to R.C. 4731.22(B)(14) and (15). Cf. Leon v. Ohio Bd. of Psychology (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 683, 687, 590 N.E.2d 1223, 1226: “It takes no citation of authority to safely state that sexual relations between any professional and a client * * * are universally prohibited by the ethical regulations of practically every profession.”
In view of the foregoing, we uphold the order of the medical board. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents.