Lawsuits and CA List [Archive] - ValueMD Medical Schools Forum

nevisbutterfly

03-08-2009, 01:10 PM

Does anyone know of any lawsuits against the CA list either being filed in CA or other states? If so please let me know.

I think the CA list in unconstitional because those of us that are American citizens have no due process. States can decide on a "whim" to change to the CA list. By doing this, they are thumbing their nose at the USMLE Step 1, 2 and 3 and CS along with the ACGME that makes graduating doctors board eligible. Along with that note the individual boards give Board Tests that will allow that person to become board certified in their chosen speciality. With all that said, how can you be substandard in any fashion if a person has taken all the boards of USMLE, went through a rigerous intern and residency program which is highly regulated and passed their boards then they should be able to practice in all states providing they went through the above stated steps.

If someone or a group of people could get a lawsuit filed and it could go to the US Supreme Court, I think things could change for all of us that have problems with the CA list. Of course the flipside of that is that we could get a royal screwing if the Court decided againist us.

However, I think we all have a good case because we have NO due process at all at this time. States are granting license to foreign people just because of where their school was located and they are not even US citizens - we as US citizens should have the same rights as those people. Not that I think they (foreign people) don't deserve the right to be licensed - only that we should have the same rights as they do. For God's sake this is MY country.

But so many are like me, no time, no money to do this. Maybe we can get someone to do this pro bono.

Penny for your thoughts?

Aviv Imanuel

03-08-2009, 03:35 PM

The practice of medicine is a privilege not a right, therefore no constitutional grounds. Also they "protect" the public wealth fare and health by regulating the practice of medicine by deciding who gets to practice based on where they went to school, it is s state right to do so. There have been some attempts to sue in the past ALL have failed. No lawyer will take this pro-bono, do you have any idea how much it will cost to litigate this? At a potential rate of $300 plus per billable hour? I have personally followed the CA list for almost 2 decades now. I used to think like you, but I am very practical from a legal point of view, especially after seeing this argument for so long.

Does anyone know of any lawsuits against the CA list either being filed in CA or other states? If so please let me know.

I think the CA list in unconstitional because those of us that are American citizens have no due process. States can decide on a "whim" to change to the CA list. By doing this, they are thumbing their nose at the USMLE Step 1, 2 and 3 and CS along with the ACGME that makes graduating doctors board eligible. Along with that note the individual boards give Board Tests that will allow that person to become board certified in their chosen speciality. With all that said, how can you be substandard in any fashion if a person has taken all the boards of USMLE, went through a rigerous intern and residency program which is highly regulated and passed their boards then they should be able to practice in all states providing they went through the above stated steps.

If someone or a group of people could get a lawsuit filed and it could go to the US Supreme Court, I think things could change for all of us that have problems with the CA list. Of course the flipside of that is that we could get a royal screwing if the Court decided againist us.

However, I think we all have a good case because we have NO due process at all at this time. States are granting license to foreign people just because of where their school was located and they are not even US citizens - we as US citizens should have the same rights as those people. Not that I think they (foreign people) don't deserve the right to be licensed - only that we should have the same rights as they do. For God's sake this is MY country.

But so many are like me, no time, no money to do this. Maybe we can get someone to do this pro bono.

Penny for your thoughts?

jonasp

03-08-2009, 05:49 PM

I would like to see a more fair and balanced approach to licensing. I have no problem with california and i agree with genossa about medicine being a privilege. The problem is the ruling is inconsistent and scattered. There are many foreign institutions in other countries that are far far worse than caribbean schools but they are approved due to political correctness. If California was really concerned about protecting our citizens then they should scrutinize every school.There are tons of Indian institutions that admit those who can afford tuition and not on merit. There are schools in war torn poverty ravaged nations that hardly have any resources either in faculty or facilities.I don't buy the argument that these schools are preparing doctors for their own citizens so they should be approved,because when these doctors come to our country they are treating OUR citizens. Unfortunately this is a wrong that as carib students we have little power to make right.

nevisbutterfly

03-09-2009, 12:47 AM

Medical license are are privledge and not a right. The right to deny on the basis of moral character etc.... However, the constituion gives all of us rights to due process - even in administrative law which governs the medical licensing boards. Otherwise can you see a medical board not allowing a person a license because of their race? I can tell you the US Supreme Court would be all over that. Could a medical board deny a person simply because they were of the wrong race, religion or sexual orientation? No - I don't think so.

I don't agree with what is going on here. This is discrimination. Period.

I know the pro bono thing was a "pipe dream". I certainly was not serious about anyone actually taking the case on - but it could really make a name for a struggling attorney like in Roe v Wade in 73.

The US Supreme Court takes on cases that involve States Rights - well heck - the Civil War was fought over states rights. Does a State have the right to tell you that you are not good enough even though you are Board Certified in your field? Think about it - the Federal government will honor any State license and let us practice in ALL 50 states and territories in the VA system or the military bases.

jonasp

03-09-2009, 01:52 AM

Aviv Imanuel

03-09-2009, 12:14 PM

You are using the wrong analogy. A medical board cannot deny a license based on race, that is a fact. They cannot deny it based on religious creed, that is another fact. They cannot deny it due to gender, a fact. However they can DENY it based on where you went to school if they deem that your school is not up to their standards. The Federal system is totally independent from the State system, a State is in NO OBLIGATION to honor the license of another professional if they don't deem so. That my dear and confused friend, is what separation of State and Federal powers are for.

As per your question..." Does a State have the right to tell you that you are not good enough even though you are Board Certified in your field?"

It is a technicality , but the answer is yes. I will give you an good and simple example:

Joe Schmuck is licensed in State X, which allows you to sit for a license without any limits on taking the USMLE. He is board certified in Family Medicine. Joe took USMLE Step 1 six times and Step 2 five times. Eventually he made it! Mazletof!

Joe decides to move to State Y which has a limit of max 3 attempts in any of the USMLE exams and has no reciprocity agreement with any other state unless such state has the same requirements for licensure. Also State Y denies Joe, Joe sues at the State level, goes all the way up to the State Supreme court and is turned down. Joe decides to sue in Federal court....Federal court denies him because he has no valid argument under discrimination under Federal law.

A MEDICAL LICENSE is a privilege, actually going to medical school is a privilege not a right. The day you can prove me or anyone with a little bit of know how, that a medical license and going to medical school is a right, touche, I will be the first to concede. Any state can regulate it as it finds convenient. There is due process already, California gives the opportunity for a school to apply for recognition. If they don't well, so be it. Other states are more flexible, true. You are trying to make equal a privilege with a right, that is not correct, a flawed and weak argument on your side.

It sounds very familiar to some of us who have done this for a living for quite some time. But you will get there, eventually. Reality sucks, I know that.:confused:

Wanna give it a try? Sue them and keep us posted. Good luck while you are at it.

Medical license are are privledge and not a right. The right to deny on the basis of moral character etc.... However, the constituion gives all of us rights to due process - even in administrative law which governs the medical licensing boards. Otherwise can you see a medical board not allowing a person a license because of their race? I can tell you the US Supreme Court would be all over that. Could a medical board deny a person simply because they were of the wrong race, religion or sexual orientation? No - I don't think so.

I don't agree with what is going on here. This is discrimination. Period.

I know the pro bono thing was a "pipe dream". I certainly was not serious about anyone actually taking the case on - but it could really make a name for a struggling attorney like in Roe v Wade in 73.

The US Supreme Court takes on cases that involve States Rights - well heck - the Civil War was fought over states rights. Does a State have the right to tell you that you are not good enough even though you are Board Certified in your field? Think about it - the Federal government will honor any State license and let us practice in ALL 50 states and territories in the VA system or the military bases.

ol' man

03-09-2009, 01:59 PM

jonasp

03-09-2009, 02:51 PM

Good point ol man but i'm not too sure its the same. Again, I'm all for regulation and I have no problem with California wanting to scrutinize schools (AND I'm from smu.) The way its done however is inconsistent,counterintuitive and counterproductive and it affects other states who have neither the resources nor the desire to research the matter.

Aviv Imanuel

03-09-2009, 03:06 PM

Reason why driving is permitted is because it affects Inter-state commerce, not the same analogy.;)

Driving is also a privelege, but the federal government does not allow a state to prevent liscensed drivers from another bordering state from driving there, so the Federal system is not cpmpletely independent from the state system. The difference is that the feds get around states rights on this one via the ITT. I believe it would take an act of Congress to get this changed in favor of FMG/IMGs though....

seattle

03-09-2009, 03:54 PM

Tipton

03-09-2009, 04:00 PM

If you graduate from a Caribbean school that IS California approved, then can we obtain liscensure there eventually after passing all Step exams and gaining ECFMG certification? (Also assuming you have finished residency and all pertinent exams therein)?

Yes.

For example, SABA got California approval in 2004. CA states they will accept all coursework completed after January 2002 I believe. So, if one enrolls in 2009, graduates in 2013...then goes on for residency let's say anywhere in the US, then wants to get licensed in CA someday, can that person do so?

Yes.

I understand all the nuances of passing exams and green book rotations and all that jazz, but my question is going to a CA approved school does give a leg up on getting licensed there? right?

Not just a leg up. From imposible (no CA approval) to possible.

Not to nit-pick or anything...but if you understand all the nuances of "green book rotations and all that jazz", these are pretty simple questions to ask about CA licensure...just a thought.

(BTW - local folk-lore tells me that Ross gained CA approval only after they successfully pursued a class-action lawsuit against the MBC...not that suing CA again would be a good idea...but it may work with some other entity.)

Aviv Imanuel

03-09-2009, 04:06 PM

My understanding was that they sued back when the State did not had a list of schools and the current method of inspecting schools. After that CA came up with their now not so famous method of approving schools.

Yes.

Yes.

Not just a leg up. From imposible (no CA approval) to possible.

Not to nit-pick or anything...but if you understand all the nuances of "green book rotations and all that jazz", these are pretty simple questions to ask about CA licensure...just a thought.

(BTW - local folk-lore tells me that Ross gained CA approval only after they successfully pursued a class-action lawsuit against the MBC...not that suing CA again would be a good idea...but it may work with some other entity.)

Tipton

03-09-2009, 04:28 PM

My understanding was that they sued back when the State did not had a list of schools and the current method of inspecting schools. After that CA came up with their now not so famous method of approving schools.

That is certainly possible. I'd be willing to bet a certain sum that if this is the case, the current approval process was at least a proximate result of Ross Univ's lawsuit.

Tipton

03-09-2009, 04:50 PM

nevisbutterfly

03-09-2009, 10:21 PM

Driving is also a privelege, but the federal government does not allow a state to prevent liscensed drivers from another bordering state from driving there, so the Federal system is not cpmpletely independent from the state system. The difference is that the feds get around states rights on this one via the ITT. I believe it would take an act of Congress to get this changed in favor of FMG/IMGs though....

The federal government did not allow segregation in the south - they would cut the highway funds and federal funds if they did. Therefore, the southern states HAD to comply or be left without federal funds. The last time they (the south) did this it did not work out so well... it was called "The Civil War". Of course, you know how that ended.

"ole man" Spoken like a true "southern gentleman".

I agree........Great Point.

jonasp

03-09-2009, 11:01 PM

BTW - it just occured to me that once a school is added to CA's "approved list" this is no guarantee that other States that "follow CA's list" will then remove said school from their un-approved list. This whole grafting-in of another State's list I think is a slippery slope to future problems both for IMGs and the States themselves.

I think most of the states that adopted the california list don't have an unapproved list. They basically don't have the resources to evaluate the schools on their own merit so they say "well California did the work so thats good enough for me" and just follow california's list. That being said if a school gets off the california dissaproved list and is put on the approved list I dont see why that wouldnt change the policy of these other states since they follow the list to the letter. I could be wrong about this...very little of these licensing issues makes sense or are logical.Arkansas actually not only follows california it actually lists every school that isnt either on the approved or dissaproved list and states that they are banned as well.So tipton may have a good point.

ol' man

03-10-2009, 01:19 AM

Reason why driving is permitted is because it affects Inter-state commerce, not the same analogy.;)

Maybe not the exact analogy, but it does demonstrate that the federal government can pass laws that regulate "privileges" as well as "rights". Some states drivers tests are more stringent than others, but passing in an "easy" state allows you to drive in a "stringent" state as well. Basically, the feds can do most anything if they choose to.... ;)

Wajaro

03-10-2009, 05:19 PM

Didn't D.O.s sue California medical board for the right to practice in cali. also didn't DO sue to get the right to apply for allopathic residencies?? please correct me if I am wrong

Tipton

03-10-2009, 05:30 PM

DOs have a separate board in CA: Welcome To Our Web Site - Osteopathic Medical Board of California (http://www.ombc.ca.gov/)

It may have required a lawsuit to set this up...not sure. Any idea when they would have sued?

nevisbutterfly

03-10-2009, 07:39 PM

It appears that Dr. Waiton died last September.
He apparently was one of the 8 people that filed a lawsuit against CA when California Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the 1962 state law prohibiting the licensing of DOs was unconstitutional.

R.O. Waiton, DO, MD
One of eight plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit
that overturned the California merger, Dr
Waiton, 86, of Los Gatos, Calif, died Sept
1, 2008, in Campbell, Calif.
Born in Monessen, Pa, Dr Waiton served
in the US Army Air Force during World
War II, flying 99 combat missions. He later
flew 38 combat missions during the Korean
War.
Dr Waiton earned a bachelor of science
degree in 1949 from the University of Pittsburgh
and a master’s degree in education in
1954 from Stanford University in Palo Alto,
Calif. In 1965, Dr Waiton graduated from
the Kirksville (Mo) College of Osteopathic
Medicine-A.T. Still University. He
interned at Kennedy Memorial Hospital/
University Medical Center in Turnersville,
NJ. In 1974, he earned a doctor
of medicine degree from what is now the
Oregon Health and Science University
School of Medicine.
Dr Waiton and seven other DOs filed a
class-action lawsuit in 1968 charging that
California’s licensing boards were denying
qualified osteopathic physicians their civil
rights since by not allowing them to be
licensed. Eight years later, in one of the
profession’s brightest moments, the California
Supreme Court agreed and ruled
that the 1962 state law prohibiting the
licensing of DOs was unconstitutional.
Still in practice at the time of his death,
Dr Waiton had practiced in Los Gatos since
1974. He was AOA board certified in physical
medicine and rehabilitation.
An AOA life member, Dr Waiton
belonged to the American Osteopathic College
of Rehabilitation Medicine and the
Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of
California. He was an adjunct professor at
the Western University of Health Sciences
College of Osteopathic Medicine of the
Pacific (WesternU/COMP) in Pomona,
Calif.
Dr Waiton is survived by his wife, Marilyn,
two sons, two daughters, one brother
and one sister.
Contribution may be made in Dr Waiton’s
memory to WesternU/COMP.

I continue to believe this is a contstituional issue that could be solved by the CA supreme court or the US Supreme court if anybody had the time, energy and funds to take this forward.

Quote:
"Eight years later, in one of the
profession’s brightest moments, the California
Supreme Court agreed and ruled
that the 1962 state law prohibiting the
licensing of DOs was unconstitutional"

This is a civil rights issue based in constituional law.

1962 A California public referendum prohibited the granting of new licenses to DOs in the state. The College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, Los Angeles, was converted to an allopathic medical college. This institution, upon receipt of $65 per applicant, granted some 2,500 unearned MD degrees to DOs in that state, with the concurrence of the California Medical Association and the California Osteopathic Association. A new group, Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California, was chartered by AOA for DOs who chose to retain their osteopathic degrees and identities. A long court fight was begun, which was resolved in 1974 when the California State Supreme Court ruled that licensing of DOs in that state must be resumed.

1974 Ban on licensing new DOs since 1962 voided by California State Supreme Court. 100th year anniversary of osteopathic medical profession celebrated.

For more information click below:

Osteopathic Virtual Museum (http://history.osteopathic.org/timeline.shtml)

ol' man

03-10-2009, 08:04 PM

So practicing as a DO there must be a right and not a privilege based on that. Where is the distinction between DO and IMG/FMG, Genossa? I'm not being facetious in asking this. Your posts seem to usually be based on sound legal principles, and if medical practice is not a right, how were the DO's successful in getting the ban declared unconstitutional?

jonasp

03-10-2009, 08:08 PM

Wajaro

03-10-2009, 10:11 PM

First graduate school then get an acgme residency and then board certification and then fight california.I wasnt around in those days but i dont know if osteopaths ever had the same stigma carib students have but you have a point.Like I said, I'll join you when i'm board certified.

Not only was there a stigma associated with being a DO, some might argue that even today there is still a stigma associated with being DO.

Why do people choose to forgo DO training in the US and go to the carib to get an MD?

perhaps another class action lawsuit is in order

jp9094

03-10-2009, 11:05 PM

As I have previously posted (See AUA Forum) I agree that a Lawsuit against the CA Board may suceed with the following caveats: The suit must be from someone who has passed all 3 steps, is Licensed in another state (preferable for 5 years or more) and was physically in attendance at the Caribean school which is NOT on the disapproved list (and is an Amercan Citizen).

Medical practice is a privelege, no question. Licensing of Professions and trades is a state right. However, as with the analogy with drivers licenses, interstate commerce does give the Federal Government a wedge with which to enter the equation. Medical practice is subject to Interstae Trade regulation (in my opinion).

The other way to approach the problem is purely political. As most states have a relative lack of medical practitioners, it would be possible to stimulate the public to require their state legislature to accept 'reciprocity' with other states licencees. Some states on the East coast have provisions in their medical practice acts that allow medical practitioners who practice in neighbouring states, close to their borders, to 'cross the border' to attend patients in the neighbouring states. This would be in essence an "end run" around the CA Act. You would need to establish your 'Bone Fides' in another state first.

As I stated in my original post on the AUA forum, it will take patience, dedication and a bucketful of money to get Medical Boards to treat all IMG's equally.

FWIW

Aviv Imanuel

03-10-2009, 11:57 PM

It has been tried, with no success. It does not mean people should stop trying, but when precedent have been established it makes the issue up hill. The California Board is very powerful and they know how to move their legal arguments. So far, as we say in boxing, they are undefeated.

No, interstate commerce does Not give the Federal Government a wedge with which to enter the equation. Reason, Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In this category among them, falls the power to regulate the practice of medicine, law, etc.

It ain't easy, as much as I sympathize with the idea.

As I have previously posted (See AUA Forum) I agree that a Lawsuit against the CA Board may suceed with the following caveats: The suit must be from someone who has passed all 3 steps, is Licensed in another state (preferable for 5 years or more) and was physically in attendance at the Caribean school which is NOT on the disapproved list (and is an Amercan Citizen).

Medical practice is a privelege, no question. Licensing of Professions and trades is a state right. However, as with the analogy with drivers licenses, interstate commerce does give the Federal Government a wedge with which to enter the equation. Medical practice is subject to Interstae Trade regulation (in my opinion).

The other way to approach the problem is purely political. As most states have a relative lack of medical practitioners, it would be possible to stimulate the public to require their state legislature to accept 'reciprocity' with other states licencees. Some states on the East coast have provisions in their medical practice acts that allow medical practitioners who practice in neighbouring states, close to their borders, to 'cross the border' to attend patients in the neighbouring states. This would be in essence an "end run" around the CA Act. You would need to establish your 'Bone Fides' in another state first.

As I stated in my original post on the AUA forum, it will take patience, dedication and a bucketful of money to get Medical Boards to treat all IMG's equally.

FWIW

MDsoon

03-11-2009, 12:10 AM

CA does have a proceess of evaluation and validation of caribbean med schools . Its a GOOD thing . Inevitably not all the schools will be approved ( this is the whole point of evaluation ) .

So your school disqualifies , this means you should sue the board . yes sue away. that sounds right . After all , you were forced to attend a non approved CA school . Again , the board's fault . Go ahead sue ..

Aviv Imanuel

03-11-2009, 12:13 AM

That is an easy argument, because DO schools in essence are the same as M.D. schools, they have basically the same curriculum, they are U.S. State based and U.S. State regulated the same way allopathic schools are. Who are we kidding here, everyone in the medical community knows that.

In the Caribbean private U.S. oriented schools there is virtually no control, no quality control to that extent. Nobody regulates it, with the exception of the recent CAAM-HP , and they were created basically to grandfather their grads, into the UK system.

The issue with California is in essence one of potential stereotyping and mis-perceptions (to a certain degree justified), they simply speaking DO NOT trust the so called for-profit schools in the Caribbean because they know, as we know, that all these school were not built with the interest of traning locals, they were built and created to give U.S. medical school rejected applicants (sorry to put it that way) the opportunity to study medicine , compete for residency, etc and at the same time, make a lot of money for the owners and operators. Unfortunately, there have been real bad actors throughout the Caribbean, there have been instances of schools selling diplomas in exchange for little work done. California addressed that buy institutionalizing the review process. Reason why they send evaluators on site to report on how good these schools might or might not be, not just money making machines. They do not need to do it for graduates from schools that other countries have traditionally been traning locals only with no interest in coming to the US. Some do, but that is a mere minority, almost insignificant compared with Caribbean grads.

And no, medical practice is not a right, not even close to be a right, it is and will always be a privilege, like being a lawyer. Find me a law, statute or constitution in any of the 50 states that say that the practice of medicine is a right of the citizens. Doesn't make sense, right? Nope, and it will not.

So practicing as a DO there must be a right and not a privilege based on that. Where is the distinction between DO and IMG/FMG, Genossa? I'm not being facetious in asking this. Your posts seem to usually be based on sound legal principles, and if medical practice is not a right, how were the DO's successful in getting the ban declared unconstitutional?

jonasp

03-11-2009, 12:27 AM

That is an easy argument, because DO schools in essence are the same as M.D. schools, they have basically the same curriculum, they are U.S. State based and U.S. State regulated the same way allopathic schools are. Who are we kidding here, everyone in the medical community knows that.

In the Caribbean private U.S. oriented schools there is virtually no control, no quality control to that extent. Nobody regulates it, with the exception of the recent CAAM-HP , and they were created basically to grandfather their grads, into the UK system.

The issue with California is in essence one of potential stereotyping and mis-perceptions (to a certain degree justified), they simply speaking DO NOT trust the so called for-profit schools in the Caribbean because they know, as we know, that all these school were not built with the interest of traning locals, they were built and created to give U.S. medical school rejected applicants (sorry to put it that way) the opportunity to study medicine , compete for residency, etc and at the same time, make a lot of money for the owners and operators. Unfortunately, there have been real bad actors throughout the Caribbean, there have been instances of schools selling diplomas in exchange for little work done. California addressed that buy institutionalizing the review process. Reason why they send evaluators on site to report on how good these schools might or might not be, not just money making machines. They do not need to do it for graduates from schools that other countries have traditionally been traning locals only with no interest in comming to the US. Some do, but that is a mere minority, almost infimal compared with Caribbean grads.

And no, medical practice is not a right, not even close to be a right, it is and will always be a privilege, like being a lawyer. Find me a law, statute or constitution in any of the 50 states that say that the practice of medicine is a right of the citizens. Doesn't make sense, right? Nope, and it will not.

They should. If a graduate from an incompetent medical school in bangladesh for example comes to work in california he will be taking care of my fellow citizens! How is that any better than an AUA or MUA or SMU student.If he commits gross medical errors on his own countrymen thats awful but its out of our realm of responsibility but when he comes to my country I want his credentials checked and regulated. Some of the foreign school are more dilapidated and corrupt than caribbean schools but are given a pass because they are foreign.Caribb school should be regulated and medicine is indeed a privilege but it is a privilege for everyone including foreigners. Regulation should be consistent.

Aviv Imanuel

03-11-2009, 01:43 AM

I understand that, however, how many people from Bangladesh actually make it to California with the intention of practicing medicine compared to how many US students go to the Caribbean with the intention of practicing in California? As I stated, they do not need to do it for graduates from schools that other countries have traditionally been training locals only with no interest in coming to the US. Some do, but that is a mere minority, almost insignificant compared with Caribbean grads.The ratios are extremely different jonas. That is part of the logic behind it. I am not condoning it, just telling you how they see it.

They should. If a graduate from an incompetent medical school in bangladesh for example comes to work in california he will be taking care of my fellow citizens! How is that any better than an AUA or MUA or SMU student.If he commits gross medical errors on his own countrymen thats awful but its out of our realm of responsibility but when he comes to my country I want his credentials checked and regulated. Some of the foreign school are more dilapidated and corrupt than caribbean schools but are given a pass because they are foreign.Caribb school should be regulated and medicine is indeed a privilege but it is a privilege for everyone including foreigners. Regulation should be consistent.

jonasp

03-11-2009, 03:17 AM

I understand that, however, how many people from Bangladesh actually make it to California with the intention of practicing medicine compared to how many US students go to the Caribbean with the intention of practicing in California? As I stated, they do not need to do it for graduates from schools that other countries have traditionally been training locals only with no interest in coming to the US. Some do, but that is a mere minority, almost insignificant compared with Caribbean grads.The ratios are extremely different jonas. That is part of the logic behind it. I am not condoning it, just telling you how they see it.

I agree with you 100% but its the principle behind it. If I prove my competency in my medical education (solid rotations, acgme residency passing all my boards 1st time,board certification and practice in another state for x amount of years) How can a california board member tell me I am unacceptable when they accepted someone who is far less qualified from a school more "incompetent" than my own.Its illogical and an unmistakable flaw in the system.

BTW-I know the answer is "Because they can" but that argument eventually wont hold water if enough people make a fuss about it.

Aviv Imanuel

03-11-2009, 08:08 AM

I see your point, and I agree, but, as I have pointed out, they have a valid point, and it has stood water for quite some time. My impression is that the affected physicians are not using a more convincing argument, as long as the little "d" word is used (discrimination), it is not going to change a thing, because this type of discrimination is legal, believe it or not. There is no such thing as a protected class of "education discrimination", and that is where the argument goes down the tubes and the CaMB has made a good point about it.

I agree with you 100% but its the principle behind it. If I prove my competency in my medical education (solid rotations, acgme residency passing all my boards 1st time,board certification and practice in another state for x amount of years) How can a california board member tell me I am unacceptable when they accepted someone who is far less qualified from a school more "incompetent" than my own.Its illogical and an unmistakable flaw in the system.

BTW-I know the answer is "Because they can" but that argument eventually wont hold water if enough people make a fuss about it.

nevisbutterfly

03-11-2009, 05:21 PM

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

"[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive," reasoned Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Court thus interpreted the fifth amendment's due process clause to include an equal protection element but has continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its fourteenth amendment jurisprudence.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The CA list has deprived certain people from liberty without equal protection and due process of law. They do not evaluate on an individual basis. Setting standards of passing USMLE's within a certain time frame and certain number of attempts could be viewed as standard since it applies to everyone. However, when you write or call a board for re-consideration or you try to argue your case before a medical board which ignores you this is not due process. Medical boards fall under "administrative law" and they can be challenged in court on the circuit or federal level. If the USMLE and Board certification is not enough to verify that one is a capable doctor then the system needs to do-away with such tests if you go to a school that is on the list. Setting certain standards for everybody is acceptable. For instance, no internet learning or advanced credit. We all know that the Carib schools have been targeted because the "good ole boys" that normally run boards and government think we took a short cut and they lost control of us that found another door. This is all about power - it really has nothing to do with the quality of doctors. For instance, Arkansas is willing to let the citizens of AR suffer the loss of qualfied physicians to have the power of excluding certain people. I do believe this is personal with someone on the board that is against Carib schools and not in the best interest of the State.

Medical boards set administrative law in each state. The DO's were able to win their case with a similar court case.

In my opinion the 5th and 14th amendment has been violated.

People that home school their children which excell on their SAT's are not disqualfied from getting federal loans, grants, scholarships or admittance to colleges and universities. What if a college or university said "We cannot admit you to our university or grant you a loan or scholarship based on where you went to high school or you were home schooled?"

Tipton

03-11-2009, 05:28 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if MUA-N has cousel who would take this up for you...have you asked them?

nevisbutterfly

03-11-2009, 08:45 PM

I have not approached my school about this. It does cost a lot do take on such a project. I do think that the more people are aware of this the better. It took the DO's 11 years to fight such a blacklist.

I can survive quite well without an AR license. I use this forum to vent and to hear the opposition. The bottom line is that it is more about principal than anything. It is just wrong. My husband and I can practice in other states and do very well. But if I was alone and was counting on coming back then it would be even worse.

Life is not black and white there are so many shades of grey. Life is not fair. At my age I have known that for some time.

Thanks for your thoughts and all those that took the time to comment.

Tipton

03-11-2009, 08:49 PM

I have not approached my school about this. It does cost a lot do take on such a project. I do think that the more people are aware of this the better. It took the DO's 11 years to fight such a blacklist.

Might be worth a few minutes to see what they say. I know other schools are probably looking into this as well. What's good for MUA-N may be good for other schools as well.

Of course only if you are willing and able. Just a suggestion.

pvttimhall

03-11-2009, 09:08 PM

Reason why driving is permitted is because it affects Inter-state commerce, not the same analogy.;)

ACtually, if you lose your license in one state, they CAN deny you to drive in their state, even if another state grants you a license. This is all part of state's rights.

However, the solution to this problem lies in state government. The board of examiners of any state is only grated their authority by the legislature of that state. The schools, students, graduates, etc., would need to contact their individual state reps and senators about this issue. A collective effort of giving factual representation about how licenses are issued and how many states do NOT follow California. Remember this.. California's list is in the SEVERE minority, no the majority. All the stats on IMGs, healthcare shortages, etc., need to be compiled and sent to states in question first. All in the legislature, the board, and even the governor need to be aware of the issues at hand.

The AMA has a IMG section with representative to help IMGs. I would suggest contacting them, since they are a part of a large national organization. The AMA has asked states to accept IMGs, but they don't have any direct power over state boards.

Also, you can argue a point with any state board. If you are willing to take the time and spend the money, you can petition these boards to re-assess their stance.

The question is this.. how many students are willing to give $10-25, and maybe time making calls and sending letters to get something done?
In 2008, there were a little over 3,000 US citizen, IMGs applying for residency in the match. If just half of them would give $25, that is over $35,000. Add in all the IMGs who are in residency, and students currently enrolled.. there could be a lot of money raised to fight this. In addition, the schools who don't have Cali, would most likely chip in. I think if "we" had around $100,000, we could get a few good lawyers and have a shot at squashing the Cali. list.

the question is.... are YOU willing to give for this cause?

jp9094

03-11-2009, 09:53 PM

With all due respect to the many cogent points made in this discussion, I would like to make the following points: As regards CA law and due process, the CA medical Act specifies that any decision on the board may be apealed to the state Supreme Court. One of the posters to this list "GM" stated that apeals have been tried; can you cite any specific cases? What was the basis of the appeal and to whom was it made?

As I stated in my post, a political resolution can be attempted ie, getting the state legislature to approve 'reciprocity' then one gets licensed in another state and uses this mechanism to get licensed in CA.

We all seem to be on the same page, that is USMLE credentials and acceptable post graduate education should be sufficient for initial licensing in any state in the US.

That should be the bottom line of all actions as regards licensing in the US by all medical lobbying groups. Where is the AMA on this issue?

FWIW.

Aviv Imanuel

03-12-2009, 12:32 PM

Not the same, it falls under the REQUIREMENTS of the state for the practice of medicine. You must meet the requirements, that is not discrimination. Likewise it will be discrimination if a State University requires you MCAT and GPA to be admitted to medical school and you would argue that the G.P.A. is irrelevant because your MCAT score is high. They still can 'discriminate" you based on your low GPA.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

"[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive," reasoned Chief Justice Earl Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren). The Court thus interpreted the fifth amendment's due process clause to include an equal protection element but has continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its fourteenth amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) jurisprudence.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The CA list has deprived certain people from liberty without equal protection and due process of law. They do not evaluate on an individual basis. Setting standards of passing USMLE's within a certain time frame and certain number of attempts could be viewed as standard since it applies to everyone. However, when you write or call a board for re-consideration or you try to argue your case before a medical board which ignores you this is not due process. Medical boards fall under "administrative law" and they can be challenged in court on the circuit or federal level. If the USMLE and Board certification is not enough to verify that one is a capable doctor then the system needs to do-away with such tests if you go to a school that is on the list. Setting certain standards for everybody is acceptable. For instance, no internet learning or advanced credit. We all know that the Carib schools have been targeted because the "good ole boys" that normally run boards and government think we took a short cut and they lost control of us that found another door. This is all about power - it really has nothing to do with the quality of doctors. For instance, Arkansas is willing to let the citizens of AR suffer the loss of qualfied physicians to have the power of excluding certain people. I do believe this is personal with someone on the board that is against Carib schools and not in the best interest of the State.

Medical boards set administrative law in each state. The DO's were able to win their case with a similar court case.

In my opinion the 5th and 14th amendment has been violated.

People that home school their children which excell on their SAT's are not disqualfied from getting federal loans, grants, scholarships or admittance to colleges and universities. What if a college or university said "We cannot admit you to our university or grant you a loan or scholarship based on where you went to high school or you were home schooled?"

Aviv Imanuel

03-12-2009, 12:40 PM

You are missing the whole point, well let me take your argument, "The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

HOWEVER the California medical Act specifies that any decision on the board may be appealed to the state Supreme Court. That is due process, YOU SEE, your argument that they do not give due process is not valid. As affected as you are by this, you seem to refuse to see that in fact there is a due process procedure in place. That you refuse to see that, does not mean it does not exist, sorry.

ANYONE affected may challenged it to the State Supreme Court, and then, if that does not work to the Federal Court, and so on.

You may review the board cases and previous decisions by contacting the Board directly and or the State Supreme Court cases.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution) reads:
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

"[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive," reasoned Chief Justice Earl Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren). The Court thus interpreted the fifth amendment's due process clause to include an equal protection element but has continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its fourteenth amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) jurisprudence.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The CA list has deprived certain people from liberty without equal protection and due process of law. They do not evaluate on an individual basis. Setting standards of passing USMLE's within a certain time frame and certain number of attempts could be viewed as standard since it applies to everyone. However, when you write or call a board for re-consideration or you try to argue your case before a medical board which ignores you this is not due process. Medical boards fall under "administrative law" and they can be challenged in court on the circuit or federal level. If the USMLE and Board certification is not enough to verify that one is a capable doctor then the system needs to do-away with such tests if you go to a school that is on the list. Setting certain standards for everybody is acceptable. For instance, no internet learning or advanced credit. We all know that the Carib schools have been targeted because the "good ole boys" that normally run boards and government think we took a short cut and they lost control of us that found another door. This is all about power - it really has nothing to do with the quality of doctors. For instance, Arkansas is willing to let the citizens of AR suffer the loss of qualfied physicians to have the power of excluding certain people. I do believe this is personal with someone on the board that is against Carib schools and not in the best interest of the State.

Medical boards set administrative law in each state. The DO's were able to win their case with a similar court case.

In my opinion the 5th and 14th amendment has been violated.

People that home school their children which excell on their SAT's are not disqualfied from getting federal loans, grants, scholarships or admittance to colleges and universities. What if a college or university said "We cannot admit you to our university or grant you a loan or scholarship based on where you went to high school or you were home schooled?"

Aviv Imanuel

03-12-2009, 12:48 PM

You may review the board cases and previous decisions by contacting the Board directly and or the State Court cases.

Where is the AMA in this: They don't get involved and don't want to, it is obvious by now, isn't it?

The problem with this is California and it's state legislature have in place what they believe is a process to recognize "offshore" medical schools. As long as the schools are willing to pay for the assessment of course. So it is not a closed door policy, but if the schools affected by this DO NOT wish to apply for recognition, must be because they are aware they may not pass it (or do not have the financial solvency to do so, a BIG problem then), that is NOT the California Medical Board problem, but the schools, especially if the schools know and are aware that their graduates are affected and decide to do nothing about it.

Still playing devils advocate, but the process is pretty straight forward, at least it was for ROSS, SGU, AUC and SABA. Or was it a conspiracy to just approve them and leave the rest out? That argument will be ridiculous.

With all due respect to the many cogent points made in this discussion, I would like to make the following points: As regards CA law and due process, the CA medical Act specifies that any decision on the board may be apealed to the state Supreme Court. One of the posters to this list "GM" stated that apeals have been tried; can you cite any specific cases? What was the basis of the appeal and to whom was it made?

As I stated in my post, a political resolution can be attempted ie, getting the state legislature to approve 'reciprocity' then one gets licensed in another state and uses this mechanism to get licensed in CA.

We all seem to be on the same page, that is USMLE credentials and acceptable post graduate education should be sufficient for initial licensing in any state in the US.

That should be the bottom line of all actions as regards licensing in the US by all medical lobbying groups. Where is the AMA on this issue?

FWIW.

pvttimhall

03-12-2009, 02:50 PM

OK.. I contacted my attorney about this.. his partner does a lot of licensing law.. He said that there is really nothing you can do. There is NO due process with licensing from medical boards. ONLY if they discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc.. the constitutionally held issues, can one have a case.

Aviv Imanuel

03-12-2009, 03:09 PM

I have been saying that all along. Thanks for double checking ;)

OK.. I contacted my attorney about this.. his partner does a lot of licensing law.. He said that there is really nothing you can do. There is NO due process with licensing from medical boards. ONLY if they discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc.. the constitutionally held issues, can one have a case.

nevisbutterfly

03-15-2009, 11:44 AM

pvttimhall

03-15-2009, 10:04 PM

http://www.aapsonline.org/tmb/tmb-12-20-2007.pdf

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and federal law; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), in that it is brought to redress deprivations, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution.

27. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for .........

That is funny - there is a lawsuit against the Texas Medical Board for slightly different reasons but citing the lack of due process and violation of contsitutional rights with the Texas Medical Board. In addition to that lawsuit, The DO's won their case between in CA to obtain a license to practice in CA.

I have NO faith in what lawyers say. I have heard more insightful advice coming from a anus expelling gas. I have had several lawyers during my divorce and none of them could find their butt with both hands. I ended up representing myself and did very well. If they don't know something they make something up. Seen it happen and I actually studied the case law and the code law and found avenues and answers they didn't and they were convinced that I was wrong. Well I was not - they just failed to know the law and case law. All they did was take a large amount of money and do nothing. After they get the retainer they do next to freaking nothing - willing to sell you out to the wolves as long as they can recover their fee.

Recent news: In Arkansas a lawyer had forced sex with his client and he is suspended for 14 weeks and owes a fine of around $10,000. In the same newspaper on the same day a family practice doctor fondled several of his patients and got 20 years - 15 suspended and to serve 5 years in prison if he attends a sex offender course and his medical license was revoked. Should have happened to both of them

Would go to law school myself but not enough time left at my age to do that and pay off all my loans and build retirement.

I am with you on this fight.. however.. if you read the entire complaint filed.. they only assert that the TMB was trying to repress their right to free speach in publically speaking against the board. There was no direct claim of lack of due process, outside of their wording at the start of their complaint.
I know in some states, if one is unhappy with a board decision, you can appeal it to the board and a board hearing (usually public) will be granted. If this doesn't give satisfaction, usually an appeal to an Administrative Law Judge is used.

I do believe that if someone is willing to try...you can make this a very public issue after getting denied from a state, such as California. Better yet, I think getting denied by a state that uses the Cali list would be better. I want a board to answer why they are using another state's list, and why they didn't investigate the matter itself. Ask the board do they always copy what California does? IT would make a few boards look silly in the public's eye. In addition, when you have US citizens, especially if they are boarded, applying for a license in an underserved state, and they get denied because of where they went to school 10 years earlier.. that makes the board look petty..to me.

I think it was would be fairly easy to meet with the administrator of these boards (not Cali) and talk with them about the issues. Then crunch the numbers, give them a good argument and request that their board discuss the issue publically in their next meeting... where you will make sure a few local reporters are at.

nevisbutterfly

03-16-2009, 01:18 AM

I agree. I think if this was to go anywhere it would have to be filed against a state that is using the CA list.

I tried to get the newspaper interested and they dropped the interest for some reason.

I have sent material and concerns to the Board and they will not return a phone call, email or snail mail. When the Board met to decide such an issue I sent a package of material outling the concerns of medically underserved areas and indicated my concerns about the CA list and they never responded in anyway. I did crunch the numbers etc... I was not able to appear in person for obvious reasons - being in a very demanding residency program. I also told them about the school I went to and where many of our graduates were practicing.... no response. I have even written State senators and state representatives without even one response.

I have even written to them that if this state is so interested in doing what CA is doing then why don't we legalize marijuanna for medical purposes and allow same sex marriages? I don't have a personal stand on these issues - but the bible thumping people of AR do.

Aviv Imanuel

03-16-2009, 03:53 PM

Since you decide to trash talk lawyers with such colorful analogies, Then...why don't you take your case against the CA Board of Medicine and AR board of medicine by yourself, since you seem to do better than lawyers?

I am sorry, but you are setting yourself up for this argument with your own words, and your flawed argument. You won't win a court case in Valuemd, and you as well, as I know, you do not need a lawyer to represent you in court as long as you know your procedures, etc. You still keep arguing using the D.O. case but it is in essence a different monster. I already explained you why. The whole point with CA that you are missing is that they can regulate who gets to get the privilege, not the right of practicing medicne based on where they went to school when the school is out of the country. You do not have a constitutional right to practice medicine, you know that, so far you are using a sterile argument based on due process. Due process of what? I have debunked that argument and I am not even with the CA Board of Medicine, imagine what they will use. They do give you due process, in their own medical act it states that you can appeal their decisions. I already explained you that. So stop complaining here and do something about it, take them to court if you think you can win.

As for states logics and or reasons using the CA list, mere economics. It saves them the time and money to put into place an evaluations committee to go an evaluate offshore medical schools (in the Caribbean most of them) . They know CA has this implemented and they trust the results of the CA evaluators and give, sort of, full faith and credit in their ability to do so.

Pardon the rudeness if any.

http://www.aapsonline.org/tmb/tmb-12-20-2007.pdf

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and federal law; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), in that it is brought to redress deprivations, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution.

27. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for .........

That is funny - there is a lawsuit against the Texas Medical Board for slightly different reasons but citing the lack of due process and violation of contsitutional rights with the Texas Medical Board. In addition to that lawsuit, The DO's won their case between in CA to obtain a license to practice in CA.

I have NO faith in what lawyers say. I have heard more insightful advice coming from a anus expelling gas. I have had several lawyers during my divorce and none of them could find their butt with both hands. I ended up representing myself and did very well. If they don't know something they make something up. Seen it happen and I actually studied the case law and the code law and found avenues and answers they didn't and they were convinced that I was wrong. Well I was not - they just failed to know the law and case law. All they did was take a large amount of money and do nothing. After they get the retainer they do next to freaking nothing - willing to sell you out to the wolves as long as they can recover their fee.

Recent news: In Arkansas a lawyer had forced sex with his client and he is suspended for 14 weeks and owes a fine of around $10,000. In the same newspaper on the same day a family practice doctor fondled several of his patients and got 20 years - 15 suspended and to serve 5 years in prison if he attends a sex offender course and his medical license was revoked. Should have happened to both of them

Would go to law school myself but not enough time left at my age to do that and pay off all my loans and build retirement.

Aviv Imanuel

03-16-2009, 04:04 PM

"I want a board to answer why they are using another state's list"

That's easy to answer....mere economics. It saves them the timer and money to put into place an evaluations committee to go an evaluate offshore medical schools (in the Caribbean most of them) . They know CA has this implemented and they trust the results of the CA evaluators and give, sort of, full faith and credit in their ability to do so. Hope that helps.

I am with you on this fight.. however.. if you read the entire complaint filed.. they only assert that the TMB was trying to repress their right to free speach in publically speaking against the board. There was no direct claim of lack of due process, outside of their wording at the start of their complaint.
I know in some states, if one is unhappy with a board decision, you can appeal it to the board and a board hearing (usually public) will be granted. If this doesn't give satisfaction, usually an appeal to an Administrative Law Judge is used.

I do believe that if someone is willing to try...you can make this a very public issue after getting denied from a state, such as California. Better yet, I think getting denied by a state that uses the Cali list would be better. I want a board to answer why they are using another state's list, and why they didn't investigate the matter itself. Ask the board do they always copy what California does? IT would make a few boards look silly in the public's eye. In addition, when you have US citizens, especially if they are boarded, applying for a license in an underserved state, and they get denied because of where they went to school 10 years earlier.. that makes the board look petty..to me.

I think it was would be fairly easy to meet with the administrator of these boards (not Cali) and talk with them about the issues. Then crunch the numbers, give them a good argument and request that their board discuss the issue publically in their next meeting... where you will make sure a few local reporters are at.

nevisbutterfly

03-16-2009, 08:03 PM

I guess it is obvious that the Saddam Hussien School of Medicine is superior -because it is on the CA list. They have only 2 Robbins path books to be shared by all the medical students - they have very limited internet access too.CA has not re-evaluated these schools in years if they ever did. Many - if not most of these schools - were grandfathered in and it appears that once you are on the CA list then you are deemed forever worthy in CA for a medical license regardless if the country is war torn or has engaged in extreme human rights issues. What about Cuba - nobody from the US can even go there legally and they are on the list. It could not have been evaluated in more than 50 years.

azskeptic

03-17-2009, 02:14 PM

Aviv Imanuel

03-17-2009, 03:30 PM

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!;)

One should push their medical school if it isn't doing what it takes to get licensed in all states. You have to exhaust all avenues before you would even have a standing to sue and if your school hasn't applied, you have no legs to stand on.

MDsoon

04-04-2009, 08:19 PM

One should push their medical school if it isn't doing what it takes to get licensed in all states. You have to exhaust all avenues before you would even have a standing to sue and if your school hasn't applied, you have no legs to stand on.

Exactly , can you believe the nerve of the original poster ? Sue the state of California ? Thats moronic to say the least . THERE is a PROCESS that CA uses , doctors make intelligent decisions , want CA liscense , then go to a CA APPROVED caribbean medical school - they do exist . STOP being a sour grape or sour butterfly !!!

You are a medical professional now , follow the rules !!! Its not California's fault that you made wrong decisions ,OP. :twisted:

Shiz77

04-04-2009, 10:02 PM

Exactly , can you believe the nerve of the original poster ? Sue the state of California ? Thats moronic to say the least . THERE is a PROCESS that CA uses , doctors make intelligent decisions , want CA liscense , then go to a CA APPROVED caribbean medical school - they do exist . STOP being a sour grape or sour butterfly !!!

You are a medical professional now , follow the rules !!! Its not California's fault that you made wrong decisions ,OP. :twisted:

The OP does not really have a problem with not practicing in california, it is practicing in other associated states which just blindly adopt the rule. If you look into it, California approves some really backwards school and many other states follow their rules. Nevisbutterfly is a resident, and I'm sure when she attended the school she went to, the CA list was not such a big deal.

I notice you are looking into AUA, actions by people her will help out people like you. In my opinion what you just wrote is simply moronic, as you are biting the hand that tries to help you.

MDsoon

04-05-2009, 01:51 AM

The OP does not really have a problem with not practicing in california, it is practicing in other associated states which just blindly adopt the rule. If you look into it, California approves some really backwards school and many other states follow their rules. Nevisbutterfly is a resident, and I'm sure when she attended the school she went to, the CA list was not such a big deal.

I notice you are looking into AUA, actions by people her will help out people like you. In my opinion what you just wrote is simply moronic, as you are biting the hand that tries to help you.

You notice I am looking into AUA ??? :roll: Well you noticed wrong , maybe thats why you are at a non approved CA school . I attend a CA approved CAribbean Medical School . You think thats by chance ???

AND NO , she is not helping anyone by threatening to " sue " CA . Its just plain MORONIC ..just as is your illogical assumption .

MDsoon

04-05-2009, 01:54 AM

yeah Shizz , CA approves some really backward schools ? I bet YOU have a better system . Sarcasm off > YOu have a choice in the caribbean med school you attend . Don't be a sour grape because you made the wrong choice . I mean " you " as the generic pinhead student who makes the wrong decisions .

pvttimhall

04-05-2009, 03:42 PM

I don't think California is the main issue, per se.

I think other boards that follow their list should be petitioned. Maybe even by showing some of the sham schools that Cali DOES approve may make these states think twice.

California is such a backwards state, I have NO idea why any other professional board would ever use their list. It really comes down to only one factor.. These other states don't want to actually investigate schools theirselves.. They are piggy backing off of other's work.

Aviv Imanuel

04-06-2009, 01:37 PM

Yes, they are piggy backing, yes they do it because they don't want to investigate themselves, and they do it because it saves them time, money and is perfectly LEGAL, because California agreed to it as it has been discussed in meetings of the FSMB (Federation of State Medical Boards) which means...more states to come and join. My advise....and not to be rude...get used to it.:)

I don't think California is the main issue, per se.

I think other boards that follow their list should be petitioned. Maybe even by showing some of the sham schools that Cali DOES approve may make these states think twice.

California is such a backwards state, I have NO idea why any other professional board would ever use their list. It really comes down to only one factor.. These other states don't want to actually investigate schools theirselves.. They are piggy backing off of other's work.

nevisbutterfly

04-30-2009, 09:30 PM

You know my feelings!!!! I am so proud of the lawsuit AUA is involved in with the Arkansas Medical Board. I hope all the schools contribute to this cause.

Way to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :clapover:

Yes.

Yes.

Not just a leg up. From imposible (no CA approval) to possible.

Not to nit-pick or anything...but if you understand all the nuances of "green book rotations and all that jazz", these are pretty simple questions to ask about CA licensure...just a thought.

(BTW - local folk-lore tells me that Ross gained CA approval only after they successfully pursued a class-action lawsuit against the MBC...not that suing CA again would be a good idea...but it may work with some other entity.)

corpsman

05-05-2009, 08:50 AM

Aviv Imanuel

05-05-2009, 09:23 AM

And your point is.....????

14th- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

corpsman

05-05-2009, 11:01 PM

Does this really need explaining? You said " a medical license is a privilege, not a right." That last post from me is from the 14th amendment. It says that citizens can't have a privilege taken away. Let me know if you need further translation. I forget some things need to be spelled out...

MDsoon

05-05-2009, 11:04 PM

corpsman

05-05-2009, 11:23 PM

having a virtual orgasm I see , save it though ...lawsuit has no merit . There is a PROCESS of validation used by CA

Take it from MDsoon. He has been at Ross since 2003 or at least on a waiting list. By now he should know the rules

Arkie

05-05-2009, 11:57 PM

I think everyone is worried that if Arkansas allows AUA, MUA, or SMU graduates to obtain licenses that it will somehow take away the legitimacy of their degrees from "Harvard of the Caribbean" (SGU), "Yale of the Caribbean" (AUC), "Princeton of the Caribbean" (Ross), and "Brown of the Caribbean" (Saba).

nevisbutterfly

05-08-2009, 08:17 PM

Has anyone read this from Article 5 section 2107
Business and Professional Code of CA:

2107. (a) The Legislature intends that the Division of Licensing
shall have the authority to substitute postgraduate education and
training to remedy deficiencies in an applicant's medical school
education and training. The Legislature further intends that
applicants who substantially completed their clinical training shall
be granted that substitute credit if their postgraduate education
took place in an accredited program.
(b) To meet the requirements for licensure set forth in Sections
2089 and 2089.5, the Division of Licensing may require an applicant
under this article to successfully complete additional education and
training. In determining the content and duration of the required
additional education and training, the division shall consider the
applicant's medical education and performance on standardized
national examinations, and may substitute approved postgraduate
training in lieu of specified undergraduate requirements.
Postgraduate training substituted for undergraduate training shall be
in addition to the year of postgraduate training required by
Sections 2102 and 2103.

I don't think CA is following it's own law. Arkansas is not even following its own law and has no clue about CA. One of the mainpoints in the AUA lawsuit is that Arkansas is going against it's own rules, regulations, code law and the US Constituion.

The one you referred to as Brown Univeristy aka Saba is our sister schools which has the same standards as MUA. Administrative office in the same building - we are at the same graduation ceremony - it is owned by the same people.

Rossgrad2011

05-17-2009, 12:53 PM

Yeah nevisbutterfly
I realize the offices r the same
As from what I have heard from friends all the students who don't meet the meager standards of carib colleges and don't wanna do remediation semesters in big 4 end up going to mua
I don't understand why u guys r so excited about the lawsuit. I said this a while back on the aua post that there will be a snowball effect with other states taking up the california list and these schools will not be able to do anything about it but waste more money on these unsuccessful lawsuits and the last remaining students will be the ones arguing about weird constitutional anomalies
Laws r made to keep people safe and that's what they r doing requiring quality assurance
Next time u respond please enlightn us on quality assurance procedures at ur school because the students from the approved ones can

Aviv Imanuel

05-17-2009, 06:18 PM

You want me to go into the details as to why, most of the time these things get dismissed? I can. Besides a lengthy explanation I already left in trhe AUA , here entertain yourself with it....hope it is well spelled out for you;)

http://www.valuemd.com/state-medical-licensing-information/176068-aua-sues-arkansas-board.html#post1093657

Also entertain yourself with this other interesting case, more or less the same arguments AUA is bringing in their case....

Law.com - Connecticut Court Dismisses Online J.D.'s Suit to Force State to Let Him Take Bar Exam (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176195845756)

Then read this other precedent case....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Commission_v._Pullman_Co.

After all that, you may come and argue with me. Happy readings!!;)

Does this really need explaining? You said " a medical license is a privilege, not a right." That last post from me is from the 14th amendment. It says that citizens can't have a privilege taken away. Let me know if you need further translation. I forget some things need to be spelled out...

futureboy

06-02-2009, 08:37 PM

This is an interesting post about CA exclusion of DOs. I came across it on the SDN pre-allo board:

From Bob Jones "The Difference a D.O. Makes":""Progress both within and outside the (Osteopathic) profession had encouraged a lull of contentment in some circles, but in 1961, the calm and complacency were shattered by a bombshell in California, the stronghold of osteopathic medicine. When the smoke cleared, the D.O.'s found that most of the hospitals in the state had dropped their osteopathic relationships, and the osteopathic college itself had been converted into an M.D. institution. And 85% of the state's D.O.'s had traded their earned Doctor of Osteopathy degree and sixty-five dollars to boot for an alien piece of paper that identified them as M.D. graduates of the rechristened college.All this came about through an incredible series of events. Although the procedures eventually were ruled unconstitutional, their impact was severe.The first and most important phase of the Califonia Medical Association's strategy had been to convert the College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons in Los Angeles to the California College of Medicine. The college, founded in 1896 as the Pacific College of Osteopathy, was not only the largest of six osteopathic institutions across the nation in terms of enrollment but was also widely regarded one of the best.in its first act, the newly reconstituted college granted M.D. degrees to its faculty. Then it handed out M.D. degrees to 2,400 California D.O.'s, who agreed to the conversion, including Dr. Vincent P. Carroll, a past president of the American Osteopathic Association. Meanwhile, 260 loyal D.O.'s shunned the new degree letters offered them.In 1962, the voters of California approved Proposition 22, which prohibited further licensing of D.O.'s - only those licensed by the state would be able to practice. That meant that the only new physicians in California would be M.D.'s.Many commentators saw the California debacle as the death knell for osteopathic medicine in America. If the profession could be practically wiped out in the state where it had been the strongest, the observers reasoned, then what chance was there for survival in the weaker states?......Unwittingly, the AMA had surrendered one of its biggest guns - the charge the osteopathic training was incomplete and faulty. If 2,400 graduates of osteopathic colleges were deemed worthy of Doctor of Medicine degrees, then logic would suggest that the degrees were interchangeable adn of equal value - excluding the ludicrous aspect of teh sixty-five dollar fee. In an even more convincing act of blessing, the AMA elected Dr. Vincent P. Carroll, the past AOA president, for membership in its House of Delegates." [pp. 36-39]The California episode stimulated osteopathic medicine accross the nation;.... And although the long-standing osteopathic college has been lost, 1978 saw the opening of the new College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, at Pomona, California."

corpsman

06-04-2009, 09:21 AM

You want me to go into the details as to why, most of the time these things get dismissed? I can. Besides a lengthy explanation I already left in trhe AUA , here entertain yourself with it....hope it is well spelled out for you;)

http://www.valuemd.com/state-medical-licensing-information/176068-aua-sues-arkansas-board.html#post1093657
Yes, I understand AUA is suing ARK
Also entertain yourself with this other interesting case, more or less the same arguments AUA is bringing in their case....

Law.com - Connecticut Court Dismisses Online J.D.'s Suit to Force State to Let Him Take Bar Exam (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176195845756)
The issue at hand is Medicine, the article is about someone sitting for the bar exam. If the exam is what you are pointing out... I sat for my USMLEs
Then read this other precedent case....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Commission_v._Pullman_Co.
This case only describes that these issues should be handled at the level of the state, not federal court

After all that, you may come and argue with me. Happy readings!!;)

I would be happy to read some more. What do you have?