The Medical Board of California sought to revoke our client’s California Medical license and place him on probation based on disciplinary action in another state.  The out-of-state medical board fined our client $20,000 based on allegations that he employed unlicensed individuals to dispense medications and administer local anesthetic.  There are no allegations of patient harm. 

The physician’s out-of-state counsel retained us as co-counsel for an administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in Oakland, California.  A deputy attorney general representing the Medical Board asked the administrative law judge to revoke the physician’s California medical license, to stay the revocation and place the doctor on probation.  We asked for a public reprimand. 

In January of 2011, the ALJ issued a proposed decision finding that the out-of-state discipline was the result of practice mismanagement, which the doctor corrected, and she ordered a public reprimand.  In March of 2011, the Medical Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision.

There were three key factors to our successful defense of the physician’s medical license in this case:

1. Out-of-state co-counsel effectively demonstrated that the physician is a good doctor;
2. The physician testified credibly about his correction of the management issues that led to his out-of-state discipline;
3. We helped tip the balance towards a public reprimand and away from probation by showing the ALJ that the Medical Board’s standard term of probation number 33 provides for the automatic cancellation of a medical license after two years when a physician is out-of-state (and not on probation in another state).  Since our client was not on probation in any other state, probation would have meant the automatic cancellation of his California Medical license in two years.  By showing that, as a practical matter, probation meant revocation, we helped show the ALJ and Medical Board that a public reprimand would be the appropriate disciplinary action in this case.

A foreign medical school graduate hoping for a Residency Match in California nearly lost her eligibility when the Medical Board denied a routine extension of her PTAL (Postgraduate Training Authorization Letter)  The board's denial was based on an allegation that she had improperly seen or treated patients while serving as a student-observer under the direction of faculty at a California medical school.  After the applicant contacted Slote  & Links, attorney Steve Boreman sought documentation from the supervising faculty member for submission to the Board.  Despite documentation showing the applicant acted appropriately under supervision, the Board staff still insisted on denial.  A request for a Statement of Issues was made to the Attorney General's Office.  Mr. Boreman provided the documentation and evidence to the Deputy Attorney General assigned to the case. Following that communication, the Board's Statement of Issues request was withdrawn and the Board rescinded its denial.  The applicant is happily awaiting the results of the Residency Match and hoping to complete her medical training in California.

Our client is a nurse with a long nursing career and no record of discipline.  She was recently convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI)--a first offense.  In 2009, we started seeing cases in which the California Board of Registered Nursing filed Accusations based on first-time DUIs.  In this case, we were successful in convincing the Board that our client's case does not warrant disciplinary action.  The investigation has been closed.

The most important factor in this case was that the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest do not suggest an alcohol problem.

Our client is an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) licensed by the California Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA).  The EMSA subpoenaed our client’s medical records from a local hospital in response to allegations of illicit drug use by an anonymous source.  In order to protect our client’s right to privacy, we filed objections to the subpoena with the hospital and filed suit in the Bay Area to quash the subpoena.  In response to our lawsuit, the EMSA filed a separate action against the hospital to enforce the subpoena in Sacramento Superior Court. 

The Bay Area court dismissed our case in favor of the Sacramento Superior Court action.  We worked with the hospital’s law firm to defeat the Board’s motion to enforce the subpoena and thereby protected our client’s right to privacy in his medical records.