On February 28, 2019 Commonwealth Court issued a decision reversing a Pennsylvania Medical Board order reprimanding a physician. The order reprimanding the physician stems from a medical malpractice case. The patient died and the Medical Board accused the physician of practicing below the standard of care. The physician objected to the public reprimand placed on his license. The Commonwealth Court agreed, striking the discipline.
A DUI related driver's license suspension is a major issue for all productive members of society. We need to drive to work, be a parent, and simply live a normal life. My health care clients are acutely aware of this issue due to the medical employment circumstances in which they work. Travel nurses, agency nurses, locum tenens physicians, early morning surgeons, real estate sales agents, civil engineers, and last but not least pharmacists all need their drivers.
Medical marijuana has the potential to create huge licensing issues for physicians and all other health care practitioners. On May 17, 2018 what was a temporary regulation became a final annual regulation that targets medical doctors for discipline. Identified at 28 PA. Code § 1181.25, any physician identified in the Medical Marijuana Practitioner Registry will now be subject Department of Health annual reviews. Mandatory Arrest Reporting Responsibility The review will seek to determine if the physician's license is inactive, expired, suspended, revoked, limited or otherwise restricted by the applicable medical board, or if the physician has been subject to professional disciplinary action. This insures that every medical marijuanna "Medical Practitioner" must report to the Medical Board and the Department of Health both upon arrest and annually, any arrests and/or pending disciplinary action.
I routinely write about the overbearing criminal conduct and disciplinary environment that currently exists for Pennsylvania licensees. On May 10, 2018 Commonwealth Court decided Levengood v. BPOA. This cases involves a car salesperson's license and the excessive discipline this Board handed down. In this case, along with several other recent Commonwealth Court decision, the court rejects as excessive and manafestly unreasonable discipline that goes too far - such as revoking licenses and imposing civil penalties - when the facts do not warrant it.