Mishler's original complaint alleged the malicious deprivation of his constitutionally-protected property right to obtain official verification of the existence of his license
licensing tribunal must be impartial and cannot act on the basis of personal bias.
It took 10 years of litigation to address the corruption and dishonesty of the state medical board. The state medical board members used the state's authority to pursue strictly personal agendas and they maliciously deprived Alan J. Mishler, MD, the good neurosurgeon of his constitutional rights.
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.
Cancer Scandals have been and will likely continue to be. The VA Scandal is no exception to UMKC or NSABP cancer scandals nor any different than the South Korea stem cell scandals.
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,
a longtime military contractor, acting after a string of Army medical students testified that Dr. John Hagmann had subjected them to dangerous experiments and sexual exploitation.
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.
Freeman also appeals to novelty, writing that our licensing laws are old and relates this to the idea of general practitioners. However, the USMLE Step 3 was specifically designed to assess the ability of physicians to work unsupervised in an ambulatory care setting
Although there is more information than ever before, there is no evidence to assert that physicians are unable to look it up online, use team-based care, telemedicine, and to refer a patient that the provider is not comfortable in treating [1].
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.