Dr. Kent was performing spinal surgery at Lancaster General. Dr. Mathews was listed as a co-surgeon for the operation. During the procedure, a high speed drill slipped and tore the patient's esophagus.
27 of the 208
Mr. Robert Katana, President and CEO of Columbia Hospital, discovered the application did not contain a reappointment reference from Lancaster Genera
unity from 632*632 monetary damages under § 11111(a) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. The district court also granted summary judgmen
The 2011 UMKC Pathology Breast Cancer Scandal was a cover-up of the prolonged, unsafe, ischemic times provided to women with breast cancer in the UMKC-TMC Pathology Department. Reports of unsafe patient care went neglected by the pathology chair, an attending, the residents, the DIO. I reported this to the ACGME in 2011 and in 2014 I discovered that the UMKC-Graduate Medical Education office lied to the ACGME about months of breast cancer care.
,100 women who had surgery for breast cancer at Solihull Hospital and Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield have been recalled by the trust because they may need further treatment after undergoing botched procedures by surgeon Ian Paterson.
healthcare scandals, breast cancer scandals, VA Scandal, Medical Board Regulation, Excellence and many failing, sham peer review and the abuse of trust.
his report, from Missouri, describes the repeated failure of the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (SBRHA) in distinguishing safe and effective coronary artery stenting from unnecessary stenting.
state medical boards (SMBs
d to ensure that only competent physicians are practicing medicine and that those physicians act in a professional manner
According to Chaudhry et al., physicians are given due process by SMBs [1,9]. However, this report of fraudulent or fraud-like regulation by the SBRHA demonstrates that licensees are not always afforded the “luxury” of due process.
This report describes the numerous efforts to discipline interventional cardiologist, Antoine Adem, MD, by the Missouri (MO) State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (SBRHA)
The SBRHA cited no peer-reviewed literature or scholarly work in support of their claims of negligent patient care.
legislatively establish
filed blatantly dishonest
ried to conceal the exculpatory deposition of Dr. Tobis
The SBRHA
scientifically unmeritorious claims alleging unsafe patient care in court
ntentionally mischaracterized the medical records reviewed by Dr. Kern
“to punish or penalize in order to train and control
definition of discipline
is it concerning that none of the eight doctors on the SBRHA demonstrated sufficient medical knowledge to either know that Dr. Adem’s provision of care was appropriate or to learn that it was appropriate
The physicians of the MO SBRHA have repeatedly demonstrated
misrepresentation
ignoranc
attempted concealme
regulatory miscondu
fraud
ineffective communication
gross negligence
Further investigation and study of regulatory misconduct by SMBs is critical to determine its extent and impact.
This article provides novel insight into the quality of medical regulation by the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts. This article raises critical questions about the efficacy and integrity of a state medical board and suggests that further study is needed to evaluate the extend of regulatory misconduct.
After a brief association with the neurosurgeon in Reno, Dr. Mishler, appalled at the neurosurgeon's standards of practice and his billing procedures, refused to work with him any longer.
the Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Washoe Medical Center (WMC)
brought his concerns to the attention of
Governor
an investigator
he Board
the Board obstructed Dr. Mishler's access to the records.
WMC did not renew Dr. Mishler's hospital privileges.
As a result, Dr. Mishler could not obtain work elsewhere
Board denied him access to the evidence (X-rays and radiographs)
none of the experts had an opportunity to review the X-rays
When WMC initiated the hostile chart review against Dr. Mishler
First, the Board's timing is suspect because it initiated proceedings against Dr. Mishler five years after he treated the patients in question, when the Board knew that WMC had a five-year retention policy
According to the uncontroverted evidence, Dr. Mishler's colleagues, in retaliation against him for his candor
Board knew that Dr. Mishler had declared bankruptcy and could not afford counse
the Board's failure to retain the records relevant to the license revocation proceedings against Dr. Mishler demonstrates a significant degree of discovery abuse
Fifth, the merits of the allegations against Dr. Mishler were inadequately addressed because neither he nor any of the witnesses had the opportunity to view the X-rays and diagnostic films.
similar abuses
Dr. Mishler's surgeries were successful, the symptoms vanished,
The sole purpose of the power to revoke a physician's license is to protect the public.
Boswell held that a doctor's harsh criticism of other doctors did not warrant revocation of his license
the discipline was unwarranted.
The Board's power was not exercised for the proper and commendable purpose of protecting 297*297 the public from incompetent and negligent physician
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.
only one
subsequently found to be unjustified,
Board
limit the evidence
obstruct Dr. Mishler's access to evidence,
violated the same policy
The Board knew that Dr. Mishler was so impoverished that he had declared bankruptcy, and that he could ill afford to hire counse
In short, we conclude that the Board's actions and the proceedings against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power
reverse the disciplinary order of the Board in its entirety and dismiss all proceedings against Dr. Mishler with prejudice
Concern about doctors on probation practicing. Parenthetically, Halstead, one of the best surgeons in American history was a habitual cocaine (stimulant) and then morhpine (depressant) user.
Thousands of doctors are being disciplined by state medical boards for serious wrongdoing. But finding out who those doctors are can be difficult
The takeaway - doctors on the state medical board engage in conduct far more unethical than many of the physicians they discipline... Harming patients is okay, if they do it. However, reporting patient harm and unsafe patient care is unethical - at least according to the Missouri medical board.
Consumer Reports' investigation shows how hard it can be to find out whether your doctor has been cited for substandard medical care or other issues.
The North Carolina medical board staff are kind and courteous and occasionally would reply to me, but the executive director and the staff of the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts acts contemptuously towards others that ask them to not file blatant lies in court about months of unsafe breast cancer testing.
occupational licensing that licensing increases costs and fails to improve quality,
patient deaths
the number of disciplinary actions made by state medical boards may not be a precise indicator of quality
for providing excellent patient care
wrongfully disciplined physicians for reporting their colleagues
State medical boards have increased the number of disciplinary actions against physicians since the 1980s.[10] However, the number of disciplinary actions made by state medical boards may not be a precise indicator of quality as some have wrongfully disciplined physicians for reporting their colleagues as well as for providing excellent patient care
Medical license from wikipedia - this article reviews the requirement of a medical license to practice medicine, compares medical regulation in several different countries, and discusses criticisms of state medical boards.
"What is particularly egregious about SBR's [SBRHA’s] 'offer of proof ' [made during the July 2013 trial] is that it is completely inconsistent with Dr. Kern's April 18, 2013 deposition testimony. This Commission need not look any further than the first patient case, patient E.O., to determine that the offer of proof is grossly inaccurate at best and a fraudulent misrepresentation to this Commission at worst.
Missouri (MO) State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (SBRHA)
physician professionalism.
Brett Snodgrass, MD
physicians is overseen by state medical boards (SMBs)
“unfathomable and deeply disturbing [sic],”
“wholly unworthy of a state agency [sic],”
Commissioner Dandamudi’s 2013 proposed report
misconduct by the SBRHA.
severity
Dr. Adem’s
Morton Kern, MD,
Commissioner Dandamudi
SBRHA may have committed fraud
Dr. Jonathan Tobis
State Board of Registration (SBR)
The SBRHA tried to frame Dr. Adem several times
Fifth, if a single act of misrepresentation or fraud is a threat to the public, should consideration be given to the need to discipline the members of the SBRHA for their deceptive regulatory conduct
The SBRHA’s disruption of the practice of medicine was profound, and investigation and research into the causes of the unacceptable regulatory conduct are needed
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,
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.
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