licensure--- TECHNICALITY all 50 STATES

[NOTKNOW]

hi i am curious about something if anyone can shed some light

what happens if you are in a school that is not recognized in all 50 states then it becomes recognized (or say a transfer student) but they dont grant retroactivity

meaning you did basic sciences there (or transfered --this way it help me out plus someone that transfer so they dont have to repost) and in your clinicals they get approved

do you get to practice in all 50 if you graduate from a school that is approved in all 50 states (or transfer to a school that has all 50 approved)

[Picard]

In case of California -- No. For California, your entire medical education, from Day One to Graduation, must be done at CA-approved schools. Therefore, transferring does not "cure" your ineligibility for California licensure, doesn't matter where you graduate from. TX board is also very picky (see previous thread on their meeting minutes) -- I suspect that if you are unable to obtain a California license due to school-related issues, you will probably be denied a TX license as well. As for states that use CA list -- don't know. I suspect some will accept transfer credits, some will not.

As for retroactive -- Again for California, if your school is approved, but you went to school before the approval date -- you are still not eligible for licensure in California. Plenty of SABA grads from the late 1990/early 2000's are in the same situation. They fell outside of the effective date of SABA approval, and they are not eligible for CA licensure, ever.

P

[solideliquid]

Picard what does this mean?


http://www.medbd.ca.gov/Regs_IMS_ModifiedNotice.pdf

[Picard]

Not sure how this will be treated by the board. Note the language is "may," not "shall." Therefore, the board is not obligated by this change to review any courses completed before the effective/recognition date. I don't think it will change the substance of CA licensure in any significant way. If the school is not approved, nothing changed -- grads are still not eligible. If the school is approved -- grads before the approval "may" be reviewed case-by-case. Key word is "may," not "shall." CMB can simply ignore this change by using it's discretions. Kinda like the "may issue" CCW laws in California -- most Sheriff's and police chiefs simply excise the discretion granted by the word "may," and treat "may issue" as "will not issue" -- perfectly legal.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so this is not a legal opinion. Just an ex-CA cop's personal opinion.

P

[solideliquid]

Not sure how this will be treated by the board. Note the language is "may," not "shall." Therefore, the board is not obligated by this change to review any courses completed before the effective/recognition date. I don't think it will change the substance of CA licensure in any significant way. If the school is not approved, nothing changed -- grads are still not eligible. If the school is approved -- grads before the approval "may" be reviewed case-by-case. Key word is "may," not "shall." CMB can simply ignore this change by using it's discretions. Kinda like the "may issue" CCW laws in California -- most Sheriff's and police chiefs simply excise the discretion granted by the word "may," and treat "may issue" as "will not issue" -- perfectly legal.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so this is not a legal opinion. Just an ex-CA cop's personal opinion.

P

I appreciate it. Do you think this has any meaning to current graduates of SMU if the school gets approved in the future?

[Picard]

Well, SMU was actually disapproved by CMB. And according to the change, schools previously disapproved by CMB do not qualify for this "may be case-by-case" provision. So my take on the situation is that current SMU grads are not eligible for case by case due to the prior disapproval. Just my opinion only. Call CMB and see what they say?

P

[CaliforniaEquality]

that is why i am saying, we have had enough of the ** from the califoria board, they are being arrogant, ridiculous. we paid them to work for us, not against us.

It is simply ridiculous to judge a person's ability only by the two years of basic science training. I actually knew someone who transferred back to Ross so they can get licensed in california.

therefore, if they refuse to change, we will have to see them in the court. This is discrimination based on a person's education background. I am not close yet, but when I do, you should all join me, and we will fight this in court.

[studentMD]

yall also need to note..
just because u graduate from an approved school.. doesnt guarantee u licensure, board can still deny u licensure if you are not up to par..
its NOT only basic sciences that they evaluate...

going to an approved school is just the first step in the licensure process..

[studentMD]

that is why i am saying, we have had enough of the ** from the califoria board, they are being arrogant, ridiculous. we paid them to work for us, not against us.

It is simply ridiculous to judge a person's ability only by the two years of basic science training. I actually knew someone who transferred back to Ross so they can get licensed in california.

therefore, if they refuse to change, we will have to see them in the court. This is discrimination based on a person's education background. I am not close yet, but when I do, you should all join me, and we will fight this in court.

no this is called evalution of a persons educational qualifications not discrimination

[Aviv Imanuel]

Discrimination based on a person's education background does not even exists, not a protected category under the constitution and quite frankly it does not seem that it will ever exist because you choose what you want to be but you do not choose to be minority, woman, elder, your skin color etc. We can go on for days on this.

But its your money anyway, you may spend it as you wish, lawyers will be happy to grab it, fight a case they know has no chance, loose it, then come back and pad you in the back and tell you they did all they could do.

Good luck





that is why i am saying, we have had enough of the ** from the califoria board, they are being arrogant, ridiculous. we paid them to work for us, not against us.

It is simply ridiculous to judge a person's ability only by the two years of basic science training. I actually knew someone who transferred back to Ross so they can get licensed in california.

therefore, if they refuse to change, we will have to see them in the court. This is discrimination based on a person's education background. I am not close yet, but when I do, you should all join me, and we will fight this in court.

[Picard]

CaEq,
Discriminating applicants by educational backgrounds are EXACTLY what the medical boards (or any licensing authorities of any profession) are required to do by law. Licensed professions are a privilege, not a right. And professions require education. For the same reason, I don't want Joe Blow who graduated from Super-Duper-Mall-Ninja-Security-Academy to become a certified police officer.

Let's not go through California approval process and the differences between true domicile foreign school and pseudo-American offshore schools. If you still don't get it by now, you probably won't get it one more time around.

You said above that you are not close to graduation yet -- well, if you really want to practice in California, and you know it now, the reasonable thing to do is get out and go to a CA-approved school, rather than ranting here. Guess what, CMB (among other boards) probably know exactly who you are in real life. And all you are doing here is showing your inability to take personal responsibility and digging yourself a larger and larger hole every time you post. All your posts here are probably archived -- it will make a very comical reading in court.

There are plenty of CA approved schools that accept applicants with as low as 2.8 GPA and MCAT in the 20 range. If you are not even able to achieve this and gain admission into a CA-approved school, you probably need to consider that medicine is probably not for you. You knew what it takes to achieve what you want (licensure in California), and you've chosen not to do it. You have no one to blame but yourself -- take some personal responsibility for a change. Save the sad stories of how you sufferred academically because of XYZ -- plenty of people have similar stories and go onto proper medical schools approved by CA.

p

P

[studentMD]

taking ownership of ones own actions/decisions would be too easy

[azskeptic]

My theory is if you are going to a school that has the potential of helping prevent you from getting licensed you are in the wrong school. It is like driving a car with a tail light out---you may get to town but most times you are going to get a ticket and if you knowingly drive it, you have no one to blame. You can get an attorney to fight the law but odds are slim you can change it.