it demonstrates that for those reported to medical boards, the peer review process disciplines those with less training or the inability to qualify for or pass certification requirements.
Almost all of these cases are completely archived except for one file - that file is usually the ruling by the judge. In this case, someone archived the ruling that rebuked the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts on every one of their 137 charges. However, the claim can still be found at https://archive.org/details/Medical-Board-vs-Paskon. #Healthcare
Case No.: #02-1491 HA
Title: State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts vs. Paskon, M.D., Seth
t Dr. Mishler, and that complaint was subsequently found to be unjustified, the Board purposely scrutinized Dr. Mishler's charts to find evidence with which to discipline Dr. Mishler.
Board used its own rules of confidentiality as an excuse to obstruct Dr. Mishler's access to evidence, it violated the same policy with respect to Dr. Mishler's confidential reports.
In 1993 Dr. Mishler, a neurosurgeon was forced to go to court against the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners secondary to their unscrupulous and unethical conduct. The Arizona Medical Board obstructed peer
Healthcare scandals along with the related relevant medical and scientific literature highlighting why the actions are considered a scandal. Regulatory medicine, healthcare, health policy, and patient safety. Doctor Brett Snodgrass, MD has a particular interest in transparency in healthcare and policy suggestions that regulators can consider in order to prevent things such as the VA Scandal, the UMKC Pathology Breast Cancer Scandal of 2011, and many others including the Stem Cell Scandal of South Korea in 2006.
While the Board withheld documents from Dr. Mishler on the expressed basis of its policy of confidentiality, it violated that policy when it forwarded confidential material, including the transcripts of Dr. Mishler's conversations with an investigator, to Dr. Mishler's neurosurgical colleagues.
Finally, even though the Board had the right to obtain the records and Dr. Mishler did not, the Board attempted to shift the burden for the preservation of evidence to Dr. Mishler.
In short, we conclude that the Board's actions and the proceedings against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power.
Therefore, we reverse the disciplinary order of the Board in its entirety and dismiss all proceedings against Dr. Mishler with prejudice.
The Board's power was not exercised for the proper and commendable purpose of protecting 297*297 the public from incompetent and negligent physicians. Instead, the Board wielded its power to ruin the career of an outspoken physician while simultaneously protecting a possibly negligent or incompetent practitioner who had questionable billing procedures.
Also, while the Board used its own rules of confidentiality as an excuse to obstruct Dr. Mishler's access to evidence, it violated the same policy with respect to Dr. Mishler's confidential reports.
Despite the absence of this evidence—office records, X-rays, and diagnostic films— at the hearing,