Texas Board of Medicine February 2006 meeting notes

[azskeptic]

http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/professionals/calendar/minutes/doc/2006/dec06/licensure.php

[The Trifling Jester]

A few random bits that interested me:

Applicant # 444 appeared with counsel before the Committee in executive session on referral by the Executive Director. In open session, Dr. P moved to recommend to the full board that the applicant be determined ineligible for licensure due to the fact that the applicant is not a graduate of an acceptable unapproved medical school and is a graduate of a medical school that must be proven to be substantially equivalent and that has been disapproved by other state physician licensing agencies (California, Idaho, Indiana, and Oregon). Factors contributing to this recommendation include the failure of this applicant to produce evidence showing that the disapproval of the medical school by other states was unfounded.Ms. R seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The motion passed

So when other states disapprove of your school, it looks like Texas places the burden of proof on the applicant to prove the eduation to be substantially equivalent and/or (?) that the disapproval by other states was unfounded. I also note that the presence of counsel did not appear to help the applicant.Applicant #442 appeared before the Committee in executive session on appeal of the Executive Director’s determination of ineligibility. In open session, Ms. F moved to recommend to the full board that the applicant be determined ineligible due to failure to engage in the active practice of medicine for the previous two years, conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and probation and other problems during training. Factors contributing to this recommendation are the multiple violations. Dr. Miller seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The motion passed.

"Moral turpitude." Sounds mischievous :twisted:

-The Trifling Jester

[dt]

Note this:

Applicant # 441 appeared before the Committee in executive session on appeal of the Executive DirectorÕs determination of ineligibility. In open session, Dr. moved to recommend to the full board that the applicant be determined ineligible for licensure due to the fact that the applicant is a graduate of a medical school that has been disapproved by another state licensing agency (California), is lacking the required amount of training, is not in the active practice of medicine, has had action taken by a training program, has been denied licensure by another state (Alaska), and has falsified the licensure application. Factors contributing to this recommendation are the multiple violations. Mr. seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The motion passed.

-------------

So, does this mean that St. Matthew's graduates cant practice in Texas since the school has been disapproved by California?

[manleyjb]

Note this:

Applicant # 441 appeared before the Committee in executive session on appeal of the Executive DirectorÕs determination of ineligibility. In open session, Dr. moved to recommend to the full board that the applicant be determined ineligible for licensure due to the fact that the applicant is a graduate of a medical school that has been disapproved by another state licensing agency (California), is lacking the required amount of training, is not in the active practice of medicine, has had action taken by a training program, has been denied licensure by another state (Alaska), and has falsified the licensure application. Factors contributing to this recommendation are the multiple violations. Mr. seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The motion passed.

-------------

So, does this mean that St. Matthew's graduates cant practice in Texas since the school has been disapproved by California?

It sounds like to me that this person was denied because of ALL of the above mentioned issues not just based on the fact that they came from a disapproved school. This person was also denied based on training, not practicing anywhere else, denied by Alaska, had some issue with a residency program, AND falsified their application.....I can imagine this is legit based on how many problems this particular applicant had...This is how I read it.

[dt]

look at applicant #444 in one of the posts above. S/he seems pretty clean except for the disapproved school.

[solideliquid]

-------------

So, does this mean that St. Matthew's graduates cant practice in Texas since the school has been disapproved by California?

I think it sort of means if you falsified your application you will not get a license. It also means that if you have a "denied license" on your record it will hurt your chances.

[ASIANDOC]

I believe if someone comes from disapproved school,completed residency training,board certified,licensed in another states and been practicing for few yrs they will grant them licenses otherwise why they allow such applicants to appeal the case?
As I read the committe reviewing ways to evaluate such applicants and considering BC as one area to assure competence,tough rules never lasted long in the past,it failed in Oklahoma when the supreme court told the board [equivalenct thing is unconstitutional],in Illinois the list lasted only few years,in NM the list modified with BC and 3 yrs license elsewhere,in Colorado also require few yrs license elsewhere,in Indiana they are looking at proposal to change the rules...and so on.

Personal thoughts.

[Aviv Imanuel]

...that the board will move to ask (and it won't hesitate to do so) to determine you inelegible as soon as they see that your school has been disapproved by (basically any) other state physician licensing agencies. With or without counsel.

So guys, that part of the Texas code that says...candidates will be considered on a case by case basis basically means, they will turn you down.

Interestingly, if you come from medical schools from which the Board has not previously licensed - (Suez Canal University-Egypt, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tver State Medical Academy – Russia, Binzhou Medical College – China, and North Colombo Private Medical College - Sri Lanka.) but the school is basically designed to cater to locals only, you have a chance of getting approved.

My advise....save your attorney fees, time and sweat and stay away from Texas if you did not attended a school that they do not like.

Al buen entededor, pocas palabras bastan.






http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/professionals/calendar/minutes/doc/2006/dec06/licensure.php

[stephew]

folks, NO NAMES are permitted. ive taken out the names of the above posts but from now on will just edit the whole post. posts may be put it without names. thanks.

[stephew]

its nice they had a DO on the staff. wonder if there was an img. item 11 is interesting.

[azskeptic]

its nice they had a DO on the staff. wonder if there was an img. item 11 is interesting. numerous IMGS on the board when I was there summer before last to speak.

[MDXRS22]

Applicant # 446 appeared before the Committee in executive session on appeal of the Executive Director’s determination of ineligibility. In open session, Dr. moved to recommend to the full board that the applicant be determined ineligible for licensure due to failure to pass USMLE within 7 years. A factor contributing to this recommendation is the statutory eligibility requirement of passage within seven years.Dr. seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed.


If I did not pass after the 5th year, I would just write a book about how I never passed and blame it on the aliens. This damn test must be really a killer then!

[Scott1981]

they are talking about all three steps completed within 7 years.

[IMG2006]

Does anyone know of someone who WAS granted a license in TX? I know a Ross grad who got his, but that was in the 80's and was a very different time. I don't think it's anything to hang out hats on, especially since Ross has been around so long.
I suppose there is a chance that once you've been out there for a while, that you might get in, but case by case looks bad for now. I wonder what the board will do if your school is approved AFTER you graduate. SMU told students that approval for CA would NOT be retroactive, but it will be interesting to see how this actually plays out... especially in states other than CA which use the list.

[Picard]

I have many classmates licensed in TX, several in this past year after doing residencies elsewhere. An easy way is to look at SGU's (or any established school's) match list for grads doing residency in TX in the past 5 years, search their names in TX board website.

P

[stephew]

actually its quite common for states to refuse a license if your baords are not all passed within 7 years. no surprise there.

[IMG2006]

actually its quite common for states to refuse a license if your baords are not all passed within 7 years. no surprise there.


That goes for AMGs also... I did a rotation where one of the interns had graduated from a very good US school, then taken 8 years off to raise her kids. She was in a bit of a pickle, and didn't know if she was going to be able to license.... she did know for sure that GA wouldn't allow her to take step 3. I'd be curious to see what happens there.

[dt]

Not all states have that 7-year rule yet...

[jeff3f]

The 7 year rule is common enough that failure to hit it will severely limit licensure options, at least initially.

[PathOne]

So, does this mean that St. Matthew's graduates cant practice in Texas since the school has been disapproved by California?

Well, the statute in Tx seems pretty clear:

"§ 163.1
...
(2) Acceptable unapproved medical school--A school or college located outside the United States or Canada that:
(A) is substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school; and
(B) has not been disapproved by another state physician licensing agency unless the applicant can provide evidence that the disapproval was unfounded."


Now, I'm no lawyer. But reading 2B it seems to me that anybody graduating from a school on the Calif disapproved list would have to prove that the Calif Med Board was wrong, if they want to practise in Tx....

[Aviv Imanuel]

Not only that, but the applicant will have to prove that the action of another medical board in disparoving his school was unfounded. Based on the reports I have read from the California board they do a pretty good job documenting their findings, especially deficiencies so it makes a tough hurdle to clear for anyone trying to prove CA was wrong, not to mention the costs involved (consulting fees, attorney fees, etc). Last but not least, the Texas medical board highly regards the California Medical board.

I would stay away from it unless I studied in a "real" foreign medical school not listed that is in the business of educating locals not U.S. rejects. That has a much better chance.



Well, the statute in Tx seems pretty clear:

"§ 163.1
...
(2) Acceptable unapproved medical school--A school or college located outside the United States or Canada that:
(A) is substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school; and
(B) has not been disapproved by another state physician licensing agency unless the applicant can provide evidence that the disapproval was unfounded."


Now, I'm no lawyer. But reading 2B it seems to me that anybody graduating from a school on the Calif disapproved list would have to prove that the Calif Med Board was wrong, if they want to practise in Tx....

[usmleed]

grace university is on the disapproved list of IN but not CA. and IN seems to have included grace into its list after 2002. would that make a difference, say, for someone who graduated before 2002?

[azskeptic]

grace university is on the disapproved list of IN but not CA. and IN seems to have included grace into its list after 2002. would that make a difference, say, for someone who graduated before 2002? the California list shows schools that have applied but were disapproved. The approved list reflects all schools that graduates were accepted from. Grace isn't on that list. In terms of Indiana Grace graduates still can't get licensed since they were non-recognized by WHO prior to 2002.

[Aviv Imanuel]

If I am not mistaken Grace was WHO listed for a number of years under the St. Kitts charter way before 2002. That is the reason why the GMC conditionally reviews Grace students on a case by case basis, otherwise they wouldn't.






the California list shows schools that have applied but were disapproved. The approved list reflects all schools that graduates were accepted from. Grace isn't on that list. In terms of Indiana Grace graduates still can't get licensed since they were non-recognized by WHO prior to 2002.