How to Reduce the Risk of Being Disciplined by the State Medical Board

The tradeoff between quality and quantity of medical regulation
State medical boards are under public pressure to increase their disciplinary rates.

Manuscript Title

 

How to Reduce the Risk of Being Disciplined by the State Medical Board

Running Title

 

Medical Board Considerations

Names and affiliations of all contributing authors

 

Brett Snodgrass, M.D. DrSocial Ltd. http://drsocial.org

Contact details for Corresponding Author

 

Brett Snodgrass, M.D.
468N Camden Drive
Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California
Telephone:               1 (916) 893-1722
Fax:                   1 (877) 991-6435
Email:               brettsnodgrass@icloud.com

Manuscript words

 

341

Keywords

 

Medical board, state agency, licensure, competency, assessments

Governance, regulation, physician discipline

Funding statement

 

The author received no funding.

 

 

How to Reduce the Risk of Being Disciplined by the State Medical Board

 

Even if physicians’ provide good medical care and behave ethically, it does not guarantee that they will avoid discipline by their State Medical Board (SMB).1,2 SMBs are under public pressure to provide protection from “bad doctors,” and they appear to be doing so when they discipline physicians. The majority of research regarding the performance of SMBs is strictly quantitative.

The Missouri SMB tried to punish Dr. Paskon for prescribing opioids and benzodiazepines for chronic pain patients and for providing the standard-of-care to myriad patients.3 After four and a half years of costly litigation, the Honorable Commissioner John J. Kopp, JD, ruled that each of the SMB’s 137 charges vs. Dr. Paskon was unmeritorious.4

This author reports that the Missouri SMB made false claims against him in court regarding (1) the lumpectomy ischemic intervals of more than 20 women with breast cancer, (2) numerous Joint Commission violations, and (3) an unnecessary level of two to four b unilateral neck dissections. As a mere citizen, this author could not obtain the medical records to prove his innocence, and the SMB created a preponderance of false evidence, including perjurious depositions.

In 1985, Arnold S. Relman M.D. wrote, “Physicians brought before a state board for disciplinary actions often do experience ‘a monumentally destructive disruption’ of life. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the proceedings are likely to give the accused physicians every opportunity to clear charges against them. They can also launch legal counteraction which has a powerful dampening effect on the zeal of would-be accusers and judges.”5

The opportunities to prove innocence have dissipated with the change of laws to a lesser burden of proof.6,7 This creates a situation where a preponderance of false evidence and perjury can create a guilty verdict. In addition, physicians no longer have the powerful legal counteractions, which existed in 1985.6

Physicians are encouraged to protect themselves, and their families, from nefarious or reckless SMBs by routinely hiring an attorney when they need to interact with SMBs.

Finally, medical regulation needs to be changed from a sciolistic system, which punishes excellent care to a “just culture.”

References

  1. Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P. 2d 291 – Nev: Supreme Court 1993.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5539688962490335552 Accessed October 01, 2016.

  1. Snodgrass, B. Novel Insight into the Quality of Assessment of Physicians.

Health Care: Current Reviews. 2016;4:1-4.

  1. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Paskon, No. 02-1491 HA (Mar. 27, 2007). https://archive.org/details/Missouri-SBRHA-vs-Dr-Pakson. Accessed October 01, 2016.
  2. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Paskon, Second Amended Complaint. No. 02-1491 HA (December 27, 2004). http://168.166.15.111/DataTier/Documents/Repository/0/0/7/7/8cee2b62-12fc-4084-995e-bf4cca7494ed.tif Accessed October 01, 2016.
  3. Relman AS. Professional regulation and the state medical boards. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:784-5.
  4. Alan J. Mishler, M.D. v. Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, 94 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 1996).
  5. Neil, C. Medical Board Investigations: Legitimate or Kangaroo Courts? Medscape. Mar 15, 2016.
How to Reduce the Risk of Being Disciplined by the State Medical Board

New Hampshire State Medical Board’s Penny Taylor Harassed and lied about Dr. Glenna C. Burton, MD

​​


Penny Taylor abused discretion, allegedly protected the public, and harassed Glenna C. Burton, MD for not thinking in the double jeaporady mindset – for failing to report that the Missouri Board of Healing Arts piggy-backed discipline on her for the same thing she was already disciplined for by the DEA. Penny Taylor harassed Glenna by asserting that it was poor moral character to not list the reflexive discipline made by the Missouri medical board.

Penny Taylor implied that Dr. Burton was trying to hide something and committing an unethical act by not listing the ~double jeapordy that Dr. Burton experienced at the hands of mindless secretaries and attorneys who piggy-back discipline for “public safety.” 

nefarious penny taylor deserves  prison time
Penny Taylor harassed Glenna C. Burton MD and abused her
I’m 

New Hampshire State Medical Board’s Penny Taylor Harassed and lied about Dr. Glenna C. Burton, MD