AUA sues Arkansas board

[Shiz77]

I haven't been able to read the full article because I need the subscription but here is the link Medical school suing board (http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/apr/29/medical-school-suing-board-20090429/)

This is from the AUA forum.

Medical school suing board
Graduates denied licenses in state
BY CAROLYNE PARK ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

A medical school in the Caribbean islands is suing the Arkansas State Medical Board and its 12 board members for not allowing its graduates to become licensed physicians in Arkansas.

The lawsuit on behalf of American University of Antigua and four former and current students was filed late Monday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

American University of Antigua is one of 53 schools in Central America, the Caribbean and Africa that are on a list of “disapproved” medical schools approved by the medical board last year. The board developed the list in an effort to identify foreign medical schools so questionable in quality that their graduates shouldn’t be allowed to practice medicine in Arkansas.

But the university claims the board violated its own rules in developing the list “in favor of damaging and discriminating against AUA and other medical schools in the Caribbean region,” according to the lawsuit.

Further, it claims the board is violating the 14th Amendment rights of American citizens who are students at the school by preventing them the “right to practice the professions of their choice and in the right to apply for and to obtain a license to practice medicine in Arkansas without due process of law and without equal protection of the laws.”

The plaintiffs include Ar- kansas natives Amber Milward of Bentonville and Justin T. Harney of Crossett. Both are students at the university and plan to return to Arkansas to practice medicine after they graduate, according to the lawsuit.

Graduates Shreekanth Cheruku of Whitestone, N.Y., and Anjan Patel, of Pennsville, N.J., are also plaintiffs.

The medical board hasn’t yet filed a response to the lawsuit. Bill Trice, the board’s attorney, didn’t return phone messages left with his Little Rock office Tuesday.

New York attorney Leonard Sclafani and the Schults Law Firm of Little Rock are representing the university, its graduates and students.

Sclafani said this is the first lawsuit they’ve filed against a state medical board, although there are other states that deny medical licenses to its graduates.

“We filed against Arkansas because they’re particularly egregious in the way they went about following this trend,” he said. “Other states have done it in a gentler fashion.”

At its June 2008 meeting, the Arkansas medical board voted to use the Medical Board of California’s list of “approved” and “ disapproved” schools as its main guide in deciding which schools should be on Arkansas’ disapproved list.

Arkansas’ list includes schools that either aren’t recognized by California or that are on that state’s disapproved list. Several other states also use California’s list as a guide, including Mississippi, Vermont, Alaska and New Mexico.

At the June meeting, Dr. Trent P. Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas board — who is recovering from injuries suffered in a bomb blast in the driveway of his West Memphis home Feb. 4. — said most states don’t have the resources to review foreign medical schools themselves.

“California is the only state that does its own site reviews of medical schools, and its list in many cases is the gold standard for which schools [state medical boards] will allow and not allow,” he said at the meeting.

The lawsuit argues the board violated its own rules by disapproving the university without conducting its own investigation, or relying on any investigation by a sister state medical board.

“They have no basis to say we’re disreputable,” Sclafani said. “They don’t know anything about us. They haven’t done any site visits, they haven’t asked us for any information.”

American University of Antigua was founded in 2004 by a group of American doctors and medical professionals, according to the lawsuit. It was then sold to Manipal University, a privately owned university in India.

It has no connection to American University in Washington, D.C.

The medical school hasn’t undergone the approval process for California, and isn’t on its approved or disapproved list, Sclafani said. The university was approved by New York’s medical board after undergoing an extensive review process and plans to apply for approval in Florida and California, he said.

[Arkie]

try this link: Medical school suing board (http://epaper.arkansasonline.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=ArDemocrat/2009/04/29&ID=Ar00903&Locale=)

[Shiz77]

Medical school suing board (http://epaper.arkansasonline.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=ArDemocrat/2009/04/29&ID=Ar00903&Locale)=

[PediDoc2013]

Go get them! I don't know how successful this will be, but as an MUA student who was raised in Arkansas, and would not be able to practice in my home state, I think Arkansas should have been sued, if for no other reason than they went beyond the California list.

[Kronos]

I think it is safe to say that most Carib students (AUA or not) are pulling hard for the plaintiffs here. The issues they raise in the lawsuit are long-standing unanswered questions, and now we can finally get a state board to address them instead of just blowing us off and disapproving everything in sight. Last I checked, Arkansas did exactly have a glut of doctors clambering to practice in their state.

[ol' man]

Finally, a school with come cojones ...

[NWS]

It would be nice if all the Carib schools on the disapproved list pooled together their resources in overturning the list in Arkansas and other states.

[Arkie]

It would be nice if all the Carib schools on the disapproved list pooled together their resources in overturning the list in Arkansas and other states.

Welcome to the Medical Board of California - International Medical Schools Disapproved by the State of California (http://www.medbd.ca.gov/applicant/schools_unapproved.html)

There are 3 lists according to the California medical board: Recognized, Unrecognized, and Disapproved. AUA is neither Recognized nor Disapproved.

[MDisME]

It would be nice if all the Carib schools on the disapproved list pooled together their resources in overturning the list in Arkansas and other states.

Yeah, I completely agree. I feel like it's getting a little out of control with the number of states starting to disapprove Caribbean schools.

[Shiz77]

I wonder if MUA and SMU will join AUA or just sit back, I gotta give credit to AUA

[MDisME]

I wonder if MUA and SMU will join AUA or just sit back, I gotta give credit to AUA

I think all the schools should join! They're all involved! All except the big 4 of course...

[MDisME]

I'm so excited right now, I hope they win!

[Kronos]

I really really hope that with the breaking of this news, SMU and MUA admins are making calls to AUA to see how they can contribute to the cause. Otherwise they are just passing up the best opportunity they have...

[Aviv Imanuel]

Well, both SMU and MUA had the opportunity to do the same, but they just waited. There is a huge gap that separates leaders from followers.


I wonder if MUA and SMU will join AUA or just sit back, I gotta give credit to AUA

[hapshey_usa]

I think that the State Medical Boards should at least evaluate on a case by case basis or consider board certification sufficient. I understand that they may not have a lot of resources to send a team to various schools for a site visit, but they could send one person to do a basic review.

[azulpanther]

I think all the schools should join! They're all involved! All except the big 4 of course...


I wonder if st george and ross would lobby against other schools from receiving full 50 state approval. It will def hurt their bottom line.

[JMT]

“California is the only state that does its own site reviews of medical schools, and its list in many cases is the gold standard for which schools [state medical boards] will allow and not allow,” he said at the meeting.

It seems there are many states who does not know that there are other states that do review other medical schools and does site visits. New York is one of them even though it's not for licensure but they still do site visits and continues do to do so even when approved. If only we can get the other states to understand and adopt the new york list as well.

[Aviv Imanuel]

That is one of the best ideas I have heard so far. Let's see.

It would be nice if all the Carib schools on the disapproved list pooled together their resources in overturning the list in Arkansas and other states.

[Aviv Imanuel]

It is a possibility, not saying they will/are , but a possibility nevertheless.;)

I wonder if st george and ross would lobby against other schools from receiving full 50 state approval. It will def hurt their bottom line.

[RussianJoo]

I wonder how much this is costing the two students who probably initiated this whole thing. I am sure if it wasn't for them the school wouldn't have made a big deal. it's not like there are a ton of residency spots in Arkansas anyway, and unless you're from there not too many people will want to move their either, that's why they have a doctor shortage in the first place.

AUA has a point they're not on the disproved list so it's not fair to just disprove them because they're not on the approved list. However you guys say SMU should join in? they have no part in this no matter what happens SMU was disproved by California and thus belongs on the Arkansas disproved list. SMU won't magically get approved unless they had some major changes in the last 4 years which I doubt they did, just because I am sure just like everyone else they're looking at the bottom line and drastic changes cost a lot of money, and in this economy no one has extra money to spend.

I think at best the outcome for AUA will be an early scheduled site visit and the rest will pend on that if they pass they pass, if not they'll be put on the banned list.

One question I have is by how much do you think AUA will raise their tuition to pay for this lawsuit? This isn't going to be cheap.

and SGU and Ross aren't the only schools with all 50 state approval. AUC and SABA are too.

So who knows what will happen but this is exciting stuff. A lot more fun than the swine flu that's for sure.

[jonasp]

I wonder how much this is costing the two students who probably initiated this whole thing. I am sure if it wasn't for them the school wouldn't have made a big deal. it's not like there are a ton of residency spots in Arkansas anyway, and unless you're from there not too many people will want to move their either, that's why they have a doctor shortage in the first place.

AUA has a point they're not on the disproved list so it's not fair to just disprove them because they're not on the approved list. However you guys say SMU should join in? they have no part in this no matter what happens SMU was disproved by California and thus belongs on the Arkansas disproved list. SMU won't magically get approved unless they had some major changes in the last 4 years which I doubt they did, just because I am sure just like everyone else they're looking at the bottom line and drastic changes cost a lot of money, and in this economy no one has extra money to spend.

I think at best the outcome for AUA will be an early scheduled site visit and the rest will pend on that if they pass they pass, if not they'll be put on the banned list.

One question I have is by how much do you think AUA will raise their tuition to pay for this lawsuit? This isn't going to be cheap.

and SGU and Ross aren't the only schools with all 50 state approval. AUC and SABA are too.

So who knows what will happen but this is exciting stuff. A lot more fun than the swine flu that's for sure.

I think AUA has a solid case. Its not about Arkansas its about the whole adopting the California list blindly that is the problem. Arkansas is the worst offender so they are getting sued. You are right about SMU, they actually were disapproved so they have less of a case but they are approved in NY and Florida (the only non cali approved school to have done this).The Cali inspection happened over 5 years ago and there actually have been a lot of major changes since then.SMU needs to reapply but I am sure they are rightfully being careful.Anyway, the argument can be made that a state should inspect the school on their own and not base it on another state's decision.

[DrCannoli]

I hope they win...passing the Step and being WHO listed should be the only requirement!

[RussianJoo]

I think AUA has a solid case. Its not about Arkansas its about the whole adopting the California list blindly that is the problem. Arkansas is the worst offender so they are getting sued. You are right about SMU, they actually were disapproved so they have less of a case but they are approved in NY and Florida (the only non cali approved school to have done this).The Cali inspection happened over 5 years ago and there actually have been a lot of major changes since then.SMU needs to reapply but I am sure they are rightfully being careful.Anyway, the argument can be made that a state should inspect the school on their own and not base it on another state's decision.

I personally believe there should be a national license. There's a national EMT license, and I think other countries have only one license. What's the big deal about this? it's just that States want some power and control and don't want the federal government controlling them. But it's really stupid that you can practice in NY but can't in Texas or if you want to practice in multiple states you need a license for each one.

As for arkansas blindly adopting cali's list none of you would be complaining if they blindly adopted the NY list, it's just that your chances are limited even less so you complain.

I personally feel that if a state doesn't have the funding to go visit and approve individual schools then it's perfectly fair to adopt another state's list. It would be totally unfair to raise taxes in that state just so they can approve a school. if anything the med school should pay all the expenses needed to get state approval, that way states like arkansas can't use the excuse of we're a poor state and can't afford to visit these schools. I also don't understand why the picked california's list but whatever, each states' list should pretty much be identical, because each state should use the same criteria for determining which school is approved or not.

it's like "the best interest standard" from ethics. it shouldn't matter who makes the decision because they all should come to the same conclusion.

hopefully this won't drag out for a year or more..

[RussianJoo]

I think AUA has a solid case. Its not about Arkansas its about the whole adopting the California list blindly that is the problem. Arkansas is the worst offender so they are getting sued. You are right about SMU, they actually were disapproved so they have less of a case but they are approved in NY and Florida (the only non cali approved school to have done this).The Cali inspection happened over 5 years ago and there actually have been a lot of major changes since then.SMU needs to reapply but I am sure they are rightfully being careful.Anyway, the argument can be made that a state should inspect the school on their own and not base it on another state's decision.

if you're going to be picky about it, it happened on 2/18/05 that's 4 years and 2 months ago.
Welcome to the Medical Board of California - International Medical Schools Disapproved by the State of California (http://www.medbd.ca.gov/applicant/schools_unapproved.html)

[jonasp]

if you're going to be picky about it, it happened on 2/18/05 that's 4 years and 2 months ago.
Welcome to the Medical Board of California - International Medical Schools Disapproved by the State of California (http://www.medbd.ca.gov/applicant/schools_unapproved.html)

The decision came out 2/18/05.California takes forever to do an inspection. the inspection took place middle of 2004 so its been over 5 years.

[jonasp]

I personally believe there should be a national license. There's a national EMT license, and I think other countries have only one license. What's the big deal about this? it's just that States want some power and control and don't want the federal government controlling them. But it's really stupid that you can practice in NY but can't in Texas or if you want to practice in multiple states you need a license for each one.

As for arkansas blindly adopting cali's list none of you would be complaining if they blindly adopted the NY list, it's just that your chances are limited even less so you complain.

I personally feel that if a state doesn't have the funding to go visit and approve individual schools then it's perfectly fair to adopt another state's list. It would be totally unfair to raise taxes in that state just so they can approve a school. if anything the med school should pay all the expenses needed to get state approval, that way states like arkansas can't use the excuse of we're a poor state and can't afford to visit these schools. I also don't understand why the picked california's list but whatever, each states' list should pretty much be identical, because each state should use the same criteria for determining which school is approved or not.

it's like "the best interest standard" from ethics. it shouldn't matter who makes the decision because they all should come to the same conclusion.

hopefully this won't drag out for a year or more..

I agree with the National license. And med schools do pay for the site visits. SMU paid 65k for california to visit so I don't know what additional costs these so called "poor states" are paying for.Its all politics no one wants to take the time to evaluate schools because there is no incentive to do so its much easier to accept cali.

[RussianJoo]

I agree with the National license. And med schools do pay for the site visits. SMU paid 65k for california to visit so I don't know what additional costs these so called "poor states" are paying for.Its all politics no one wants to take the time to evaluate schools because there is no incentive to do so its much easier to accept cali.


this is from the OP's post. "At the June meeting, Dr. Trent P. Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas board — who is recovering from injuries suffered in a bomb blast in the driveway of his West Memphis home Feb. 4. — said most states don’t have the resources to review foreign medical schools themselves. "

That can only mean money, if they had the money they'd find someone to review the schools.

and the dude is recovering from a bomb blast in the driveway? did AUA hire a hitman?

What kind of wacky stuff goes on in Arkansas....

[jonasp]

this is from the OP's post. "At the June meeting, Dr. Trent P. Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas board — who is recovering from injuries suffered in a bomb blast in the driveway of his West Memphis home Feb. 4. — said most states don’t have the resources to review foreign medical schools themselves. "

That can only mean money, if they had the money they'd find someone to review the schools.

and the dude is recovering from a bomb blast in the driveway? did AUA hire a hitman?

What kind of wacky stuff goes on in Arkansas....

The chairman of the state med board is gonna give a politically correct answer. The site review teams are only a handful of people and the schools cover almost the entire cost. If they wanted to get it done they could. There is no incentive, why should they invest 1 cent into doing this when they can easily take another states word for it.

Yeah that bomb explosion thing was very strange to read about.AUA means business lol

[Arkie]

American University of Antigua College of Medicine Files Lawsuit Against US State Medical Board - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/American-University-of-iw-15084929.html)

[bstone]

I personally believe there should be a national license. There's a national EMT license, and I think other countries have only one license.

Minor correction, there is a national EMT certification given by a private company called the National Registry of EMTs. This is tantamount to physician board certification. However, not all states accept the NREMT for purposes of licensure. Having this certification is not a license to private EMT services in all states.

I hold the NREMT certification (at the EMT-Intermediate level) but I have to apply to each state individually where I want to work on an ambulance for an EMT license.

[RussianJoo]

Minor correction, there is a national EMT certification given by a private company called the National Registry of EMTs. This is tantamount to physician board certification. However, not all states accept the NREMT for purposes of licensure. Having this certification is not a license to private EMT services in all states.

I hold the NREMT certification (at the EMT-Intermediate level) but I have to apply to each state individually where I want to work on an ambulance for an EMT license.


hmm that's good to know. thanks!

[ol' man]

this is from the OP's post. "At the June meeting, Dr. Trent P. Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas board — who is recovering from injuries suffered in a bomb blast in the driveway of his West Memphis home Feb. 4. — said most states don’t have the resources to review foreign medical schools themselves. "

That can only mean money, if they had the money they'd find someone to review the schools.

and the dude is recovering from a bomb blast in the driveway? did AUA hire a hitman?

What kind of wacky stuff goes on in Arkansas....

From an interview with him back in February ... Note the bolded sentence and especially the one word in red:

At the June meeting, Dr. Trent P. Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas board — who is recovering from injuries suffered in a bomb blast in the driveway of his West Memphis home Feb. 4. — said most states don’t have the resources to review foreign medical schools themselves.

“California is the only state that does its own site reviews of medical schools, and its list in many cases is the gold standard for which schools [state medical boards] will allow and not allow,” he said at the meeting.

[MDisME]

From an interview with him back in February ... Note the bolded sentence and especially the one word in red:

I read that last part too, about Cali being the only state to do it, and I was thinking seriously? What about NY and FL?

[joe soap]

kudos to AUA for having the steel balls to take them on, if only MUA would do the same, now would be the time to take on these states barring Doctors that have proven themselves by passing the SAME exams as US trained Docs.

[BrendaB_MD]

I agree that the pathwork quilt of state medical regulations has to go. The current system is costly and silly and should be made uniform across the nation. However, this raises the question as to what standard would be applied. The standards might be uniform but could end up similar to the CA list.

I agree with you that the CA board's approach to licensing is reasonable. They apply the 80/20 rule. The vast majority of USIMGs (who have taken an end run around the LCME) come from carib schools. Thus, if you have a limited budget, it makes sense to focus on the schools that have the largest impact. It is not fair, but it is practical. There is no way any medical board can go around and approve every school; however, they have an obligation to look at schools that supply hundreds graduates per year.

I also agree that it is reasonable for other states to follow CAs lead. Overall, it would be so much better if there was just one set of regulations and approved schools; however, I suspect the approved list would end up looking like CA. Nobody wants to appear as if they are compromising health care quality. Thus, I suspect it is most likely that a uniform standard would tend toward the highest standard.

You can bet that SGU, Ross and AUC will lobby on behalf of Arkansas. They have already set up an organization in the carib that is supposed to accredit medical schools (i.e. members of the club). I think it is difficult for the management of SMU/Saba/MUA. They have one in and one out.


I personally believe there should be a national license. There's a national EMT license, and I think other countries have only one license. What's the big deal about this? it's just that States want some power and control and don't want the federal government controlling them. But it's really stupid that you can practice in NY but can't in Texas or if you want to practice in multiple states you need a license for each one.

As for arkansas blindly adopting cali's list none of you would be complaining if they blindly adopted the NY list, it's just that your chances are limited even less so you complain.

I personally feel that if a state doesn't have the funding to go visit and approve individual schools then it's perfectly fair to adopt another state's list. It would be totally unfair to raise taxes in that state just so they can approve a school. if anything the med school should pay all the expenses needed to get state approval, that way states like arkansas can't use the excuse of we're a poor state and can't afford to visit these schools. I also don't understand why the picked california's list but whatever, each states' list should pretty much be identical, because each state should use the same criteria for determining which school is approved or not.

it's like "the best interest standard" from ethics. it shouldn't matter who makes the decision because they all should come to the same conclusion.

hopefully this won't drag out for a year or more..

[Tipton]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/01/antigua (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/01/antigua)

News
Shot Across the Bow

May 1, 2009

Some lawsuits aim at narrow targets, some go broad. Others focus on one specific target with a far broader goal in mind. Such is the case with a lawsuit filed Thursday by the American University of Antigua College of Medicine, which is directly suing the state medical board in Arkansas but is challenging, in a none-too-subtle way, the entire system for licensing doctors to practice medicine in the United States.
That is much-contested terrain, legally and otherwise. At a time of widespread (but not unanimous) recognition of a doctor shortage in the United States, there is very slowly growing support for the idea that making it easier for qualified foreign-trained doctors to earn approval to practice in American might be part of the solution (as this 2006 commentary (http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/march06/word.htm) from the then-head of the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests).

But because of concerns about the quality of the Caribbean schools' education -- or the protectionism of American medical schools, depending on where one sits -- skepticism, and often major regulatory hurdles, remain both for medical schools from outside the U.S. and Canada and for their graduates seeking to practice in the States.
The latter concern is the motivating factor behind the lawsuit filed Thursday by the Antiguan medical college, on behalf of two recent graduates and two current students, against the Arkansas State Medical Board and its members. The lawsuit, filed under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, contends that Arkansas has discriminated against the right of the Antigua institution's students to seek licenses to practice medicine in the state by placing the foreign medical college on its list of "disapproved" schools ("medical schools that the board deems is [sic] unacceptable," its regulations read, (https://www.armedicalboard.org/professional/EGTYBVCW/ORMPVBRYM/PDF/MPA.pdf) whose graduates cannot qualify for licenses) without any independent review.
Instead, the legal complaint asserts, Arkansas has essentially subcontracted out its decision making authority to California, from which the Antiguan medical school has sought, but not earned (or at this point failed to earn), approval to operate in that state through California's own "difficult, arbitrary" licensure process. Neither Arkansas nor California, the lawsuit alleges, has done the sort of independent review of the Antigua college's curriculum, faculty or students that Arkansas law requires, and therefore Arkansas's inclusion of the Antiguan institution on its disapproved list violates the students' due process rights.
The lawsuit's other claim -- that the Arkansas policy violates the equal protection clause -- arises because of how Arkansas and California treat foreign medical schools, especially those whose students are mostly Americans. Neither state puts up barriers to graduates of accredited American or Canadian medical colleges, and California's policy, on which the lawsuit says Arkansas heavily relies, automatically includes on its "approved" list (http://www.medbd.ca.gov/applicant/schools_recognized.html) foreign medical schools whose students are predominantly not Americans. But foreign schools whose students are mostly Americans, like AU-Antigua's medical school and most of its Caribbean counterparts, get the state's full scrutiny.

That policy not only discriminates against the four American plaintiffs (two of whom are from Arkansas), AU-Antigua says, but also underscores the lawsuit's underlying point: that the various bodies responsible for accrediting American medical schools and for licensing doctors to practice in the country have "a history that spans several decades of wrongfully limiting and restricting the number of medical schools in the United States and the number of seats for students in those schools," and therefore limit the ability of schools outside the U.S. to compete with them. The parties it singles out are the Liaison Committee for Medical Education, which accredits U.S. and Canadian medical schools, and the American Medical Assocation and AAMC, which co-sponsor the accreditor.

"What this lawsuit is really about is [medical organizations'] efforts to continue to control the medical profession in the U.S. to limit doctors of American origin" to going to U.S. medical schools, said Leonard A. Sclafani, vice president and general counsel of American University of Antigua. "A U.S. citizen has a right to practice his chosen profession free of government restraint, and there's no rational basis here for this kind of illegal discrimination against Americans."

Alternative View From Arkansas
A lawyer for the Arkansas State Medical Board disputed many of the Antigua school's assertions. From a procedural standpoint, said William Trice, a federal court is unlikely to hear the student plaintiffs' claims because they have not applied for licensure in Arkansas, let alone been denied, and therefore "have not exhausted their state remedies," often a necessary precursor to successful filing of a lawsuit.

More substantively, Trice said, the Antigua college's lawsuit misrepresents the extent to which Arkansas has subjugated its own judgment to California or any other single state or source. "Our regulation allows us to disapprove schools that are disapproved or not recognized in at least two other states, and we collect other information in the information gathering process," said Trice. "We gather information from the various licensure and accrediting organizations, go to all of the other states and get their input, and, when it exists, negative information from at least two other states."
The fact that American University of Antigua does not appear on California's "disapproved" list in no way precludes Arkansas from counting it as one of the two states in which a foreign medical school "has not been approved or recognized" for Arkansas to deny licensure to its graduates, Trice said. Not being on California's approved list "is a negative," he added: "If you never finished your driver's test, you don't get the license, even if you're still in the middle of it."

Asked which other state or states had negatively assessed the Antigua institution, Trice said that neither he nor officials of the Arkansas board could answer that question on short notice. "The main thing to take home is that [our judgment] is based on a lot of different states sharing their information."

Sclafani, the lawyer for AU-Antigua, said Arkansas officials were trying to play down their dependence on California's judgment despite board members' statements (http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/jun/07/state-list-disapproved-caribbean-medical--20080607/) in news articles last year (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/National/221701/print/) acknowledging that they did not have the personpower or time to invest in independent reviews. It is unfair, and ultimately will be found illegal, he said, for Arkansas to produce a list of "disapproved" schools that makes it look like the state has "looked at a school and made its own determination, as if the school has gone through an approval process and been denied," when in fact "we haven't completed an approval process or Arkansas or in California, or ended up on California's disapproved list."

Antigua's medical school has earned approval of a sort, he said, from the only state that has looked deeply and critically into its operation. New York's medical board has approved Antigua to send its students to New York hospitals to complete the clinical portions of their Antiguan educations; students who go through that system are then qualified for licensure in New York.

A lawyer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, Joseph A. Keyes Jr., said that his group had not seen the lawsuit and so could not comment fully about those conspiratorial accusations. "AAMC is a sponsor of LCME, and is proud of the role it has played. Its jurisdiction is limited to schools in the U.S., and state licensure boards have the autonomy to set up their own procedures for licensure of doctors," Keyes said. "So this seems mostly like an issue for Arkansas."

Describing what they characterize as the Arkansas board's "collusion" with the national medical groups, the lawsuit says that the organizations restrict the approval of of foreign med schools and their graduates "under the guise of protecting the quality of the practice of medicine in the United States," but their "real purpose" is to "preserve and protect their monopolistic power base," and "preclude or limit competition from Americans who do not graduate from schools under their aegis."
Why would Arkansas, which has only one medical school and, like many states, faces a critical shortage of doctors, take such a restrictive stance against foreign schools? Sclafani asked. Most of the discussion about Arkansas's approach focused on questions about the quality of the foreign schools and their graduates' medical skills, but those behind the Antigua college's lawsuit -- echoing longstanding complaints by proponents of Caribbean and other foreign medical schools -- see a more protectionist bent.


— Doug Lederman (doug.lederman@insidehighered.com)

[Kronos]

Looks like the rhetoric is heating up from both sides... Thankfully it looks like AUA has a good law firm working on the case.

Check out this reader comment from the article above:
Everyone knows that if you have to go to the Caribbean to get a medical degree, you couldn't get into a U.S. medical school. It is a last ditch effort by students who just got by in undergrad and are not really cut out for practicing medicine. I wouldn't want a doctor, if you can call them that, working on me who could not get into a U.S. medical school. Call it what you want, but if you can't get into medical school here it is time to find a new career not go to the Caribbean.


Fairly or not, that might be the prevailing public perception of Caribbean med schools.

[md12886]

Fairly or not, that might be the prevailing public perception of Caribbean med schools.

thats true. I guess these people dont know that more than 1/3rd of physicians in US are FMG's who never went to any clinical setting in US, some cant even communicate in proper english and they are not even US citizens.

every student who went to carribean will have this stigma associated with them that they couldnt make it to US medical schools. I think every carribean student has their own story, some couldnt make it to US medical schools because they partied much during their first two years or they couldnt make competitive score on mcats. all it matters at the end is how well you perform on your steps.

[phdmd]

Sounds like the attorney, Mr. Trice, and Dr. Pierce need to get on the same page before the trial. It will be interesting to see how they all justify their public statements on the matter in court including the board member- foreign medical graduate, Dr. Omar Atiq. I wonder whether they checked out his medical school prior to licensing?

[Aviv Imanuel]

I am going to , intentionally and selectively take some text of of context, because it is one of those rare cases that, unfortunately is valid. "if you have to go to the Caribbean to get a medical degree, you couldn't get into a U.S. medical school. It is a last ditch effort by students who just got by in undergrad"

Based alone, notice I said alone, on what I have seen in VMD , my personal and profesional anecdotal evidence, the cases of folks with low GPA'a and admitted undergrad goofing off, the statement has some validity. GPA's in the 2.50, 2.60, 2.70's ETC? Low MCAT's, no to mention the many cases of poor people skills by some, it makes them wonder, I can't blame them for having that impression.

On the other hand, yes most come and pass their board exams, do well in clinicals and get into residencies, etc. But does that make great physicians? Not that we don't find our fair share of bad medical students in the good Old U.S.A. I have seen my fair share of bad physicians or medical students from US schools as well. Best example, the now infamous Craig's list killer.

I know we cannot generalize, but all things considered, there is a layer of truth for both arguments, it depends on how you argue it.

I am going to ask, who went to the Caribbean Medical schools (not Government sponsored schools, but the pseudo-American private schools) because it was all along, their first choice ever since they decided to go into the medicine?

Peace to all!




Looks like the rhetoric is heating up from both sides... Thankfully it looks like AUA has a good law firm working on the case.

Check out this reader comment from the article above:


Fairly or not, that might be the prevailing public perception of Caribbean med schools.

[bstone]

I will admit, it is somewhat entertaining that the AK, CA and OR boards of medicine allow a Somali medical school to obtain a license and not AUA. Afterall, AUA is entirely and specifically geared for students to return to the US and practice medicine, have US professors, NY approval, etc.

I don't think Somalia has NY approval.

[Shiz77]

Based alone, notice I said alone, on what I have seen in VMD , my personal and profesional anecdotal evidence, the cases of folks with low GPA'a and admitted undergrad goofing off, the statement has some validity. GPA's in the 2.50, 2.60, 2.70's ETC? Low MCAT's, no to mention the many cases of poor people skills by some, it makes them wonder, I can't blame them for having that impression.

Peace to all!

Err, that's not possible for the Big 4, maybe for the lower tiered schools but getting into the big 4 is almost equivalent to getting into a DO school.

[Scott1981]

Err, that's not possible for the Big 4, maybe for the lower tiered schools but getting into the big 4 is almost equivalent to getting into a DO school.

i knew somebody that was rejected from SGU and ended up being accepted at a DO school.

[Aviv Imanuel]

I wouldn't say impossible. I know some Rossies (one of the big 4) folks with sub 3.00 gpa., besides numerous accounts of people being accepted with 2.70.



Err, that's not possible for the Big 4, maybe for the lower tiered schools but getting into the big 4 is almost equivalent to getting into a DO school.

[Shiz77]

I wouldn't say impossible. I know some Rossies (one of the big 4) folks with sub 3.00 gpa., besides numerous accounts of people being accepted with 2.70.

They probably had high MCAT score (28+), maybe 10 years ago it might have been the case but not today.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Sure.....yeah....right


They probably had high MCAT score (28+), maybe 10 years ago it might have been the case but not today.

[RussianJoo]

they have all sorts of "programs" to make you spend extra time on the island and prove yourself to the school for those that have a lower gpa or mcat or both. especially with Ross very very few get flat out rejected. Ross has the MERP program to place those that don't have the best grades and/or mcat. SGU has the Foundations of Medicine program. So people with low gpa's and mcats get eventually admitted into med school they just have to spend a little more money and time to do so.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Thanks for the clarification.

they have all sorts of "programs" to make you spend extra time on the island and prove yourself to the school for those that have a lower gpa or mcat or both. especially with Ross very very few get flat out rejected. Ross has the MERP program to place those that don't have the best grades and/or mcat. SGU has the Foundations of Medicine program. So people with low gpa's and mcats get eventually admitted into med school they just have to spend a little more money and time to do so.

[RussianJoo]

you're welcome

[tennisball80]

:fencing:

Who is going to win ?

[RussianJoo]

:fencing:

Who is going to win ?


yeah that's what I want to know.. I wish I could fast forward to the end.. court is soo boring.

but if anything my money is on the state of arkansas not that I have anything against AUA, I actually have a few friends from high school that are there right now. but i just feel like you can't beat the government in a court of law especially when you charge them with something as huge as being unconstitutional.

I guess let the flaming begin... but i'll stick with my statement Arkansas over AUA and the score is going to be 24 to 14, wait this isn't football? ehh whatever i'll stick with that score.

[Chopdoc]

I am going to ask, who went to the Caribbean Medical schools (not Government sponsored schools, but the pseudo-American private schools) because it was all along, their first choice ever since they decided to go into the medicine?

Peace to all!

The same question might be asked about DO schools. I think a substantial number of their students are there because of grades etc and not being able to get into an MD school.

I do believe there needs to be a national standard.

There are, I think, necessarily some schools that would not make the cut in any such national standard.

It would be nice to assume that a degree and simply passing the boards should be the standard, but experience tells us that such a scheme is not in fact a good one. There have been schools busted "selling" degrees and their students were passing the boards. Such schools basically provided an intensive board review course and a degree.

When considering schools that cater primarily to US students I think it is only prudent to apply some standard that includes an on site review of the school. After all, I think we all know that whatever credentials such a school holds in their home nation are often flimsy to be kind and WHO recognition says little more than that the school exists.

One might consider the impact of a national scheme. It seems that people assume that such a thing would include whatever school they advocate, and it simply may not.

One simply must consider that matters of licensing are in fact public information. The status of any particular school in this regard as well as such things as how long it has been around and how many graduates are practicing should enter into any reasonable decision by an applicant.

I do wish those fighting this battle well. I also must say "be careful what you ask for, you might get it". If there is bias against a particular group of schools at the root of this matter, one might consider what the outcome would be if licensing bodies were compelled to spend additional resources in order to review such schools or their graduates.

[tennisball80]

I want to go to the court and listen to this.

Anyone wants to go in summer ? :D

[MDXRS22]

Man, I want to witness that duel.....

I am sure some news will be made this time. I will not bet too much on AUA, but they do have some good lawyers who can surely make good impact

[jonasp]

I think AUA is going to win.The Arkansas board doesn't really have an argument.If AUA were disapproved in California then things might be different but AUA has only been reviewed by NY for clinicals and has been approved. My guess is that the board will come to some kind of compromise by adopting california's disapproved list and making everyone else case by case.

[azskeptic]

You can't predict anything. My guess is that they will require that AUA has exhausted all of its options first before suing. They haven't finished their process with California as they don't show up as being rejected. Our resident legal folks here may comment on that issue but it is a standard of law. States also have to look at other potential problems if they lost these type of suits. It is interesting indeed.

I think AUA is going to win.The Arkansas board doesn't really have an argument.If AUA were disapproved in California then things might be different but AUA has only been reviewed by NY for clinicals and has been approved. My guess is that the board will come to some kind of compromise by adopting california's disapproved list and making everyone else case by case.

[jonasp]

You can't predict anything. My guess is that they will require that AUA has exhausted all of its options first before suing. They haven't finished their process with California as they don't show up as being rejected. Our resident legal folks here may comment on that issue but it is a standard of law. States also have to look at other potential problems if they lost these type of suits. It is interesting indeed.

The whole argument is that it isn't right to follow california's list blindly.It doesnt make sense to force AUA to finish the california review.I don't know what options you want AUA to exhaust. Arkansas listed AUA as one of their banned schools that means don't even bother applying for a license.There are no confusing elements here its pretty cut and dry.

[azskeptic]

There is no list, only requirements or am I missing something?

The whole argument is that it isn't right to follow california's list blindly.It doesnt make sense to force AUA to finish the california review.I don't know what options you want AUA to exhaust. Arkansas listed AUA as one of their banned schools that means don't even bother applying for a license.There are no confusing elements here its pretty cut and dry.

[UHSADOC]

CARICOM MDs to follow AUA foot steps:
I think other qualified CARICOM MDs should follow suit....and send clear message to these state boards.....that CARICOM MDs are AS qualified if not more qualified than any other IMG***

***The role of licensing board exams / USMLEs should suffice, and ECFMG should be good enough of a screen for licensure !!

CARICOM MDs have US Clerkship experience in additon to CaribMed Faculty members that for the most part were trained in the US !!

[jonasp]

There is no list, only requirements or am I missing something?

You are missing something. There is a California approved medical school list and a medical school disapproved list.Arkansas has adopted the approved list. Anyone not on the approved list (disapproved or have not applied) are automatically banned from getting a training or permanent license in the state without question.

[Tipton]

There is no list, only requirements or am I missing something?

Never seen anything on the Arkansas State Medical Board site. All of these are from the medical school:

New Page 1 (http://www.uams.edu/gme/1.220%20International%20Medical%20Schools.htm)

http://www.uams.edu/anesthesiology/residency/ASMB_Disapproved_Schools.pdf

Ophthalmology Departmental Policies And Benefits :: Information for Students and Residents :: Jones Eye Institute :: UAMS (http://www.uams.edu/jei/students/policy_benefits.asp)

[Arkie]

Never seen anything on the Arkansas State Medical Board site. All of these are from the medical school:

New Page 1 (http://www.uams.edu/gme/1.220%20International%20Medical%20Schools.htm)

http://www.uams.edu/anesthesiology/residency/ASMB_Disapproved_Schools.pdf

Ophthalmology Departmental Policies And Benefits :: Information for Students and Residents :: Jones Eye Institute :: UAMS (http://www.uams.edu/jei/students/policy_benefits.asp)

I can't even access the Arkansas State Medical Board site w/ Google Chrome or Firefox. :lol:

[Kronos]

After doing some more research on this (and asking an actual lawyer), I have second thoughts about this lawsuit. Although it was brought to court and the media with the best intentions, from a legal standpoint it is clear that AUA has not exhausted all its options to get its graduates licensed in Arkansas. They never applied to Cali, or to Arkansas, so they can't claim that the board is willfully blocking their graduates with intent. Thus, this suit is an indirect claim, which makes it harder to win. The judge assigned to this case will look at damages and see that there has not been any done to AUA or its graduates yet.

If and when Cali rejects them, the best course would be to sue California's medical board. Any thoughts on this, azskeptic?

[RussianJoo]

After doing some more research on this (and asking an actual lawyer), I have second thoughts about this lawsuit. Although it was brought to court and the media with the best intentions, from a legal standpoint it is clear that AUA has not exhausted all its options to get its graduates licensed in Arkansas. They never applied to Cali, or to Arkansas, so they can't claim that the board is willfully blocking their graduates with intent. Thus, this suit is an indirect claim, which makes it harder to win. The judge assigned to this case will look at damages and see that there has not been any done to AUA or its graduates yet.

If and when Cali rejects them, the best course would be to sue California's medical board. Any thoughts on this, azskeptic?


yep like i thought at best this will just get the accreditation board over to AUA a lot sooner. it will be funny if after all this stuff happens they fail the accreditation for something silly like not having handicapped excess or something. It's like failing the CS because you forgot to wash your hands.

[RussianJoo]

how long do you guys think it will take for them to come to a final decision be it go visit the school or just approve or deny. do you think this will drag on for years? or more like months to a year?

[Vaginitis]

a plaintiff in the AUA v. ASMB case frequents this board. Cheruku, where you at? Give us some news.

[wcb22]

After doing some more research on this (and asking an actual lawyer), I have second thoughts about this lawsuit. Although it was brought to court and the media with the best intentions, from a legal standpoint it is clear that AUA has not exhausted all its options to get its graduates licensed in Arkansas. They never applied to Cali, or to Arkansas, so they can't claim that the board is willfully blocking their graduates with intent. Thus, this suit is an indirect claim, which makes it harder to win. The judge assigned to this case will look at damages and see that there has not been any done to AUA or its graduates yet.

If and when Cali rejects them, the best course would be to sue California's medical board. Any thoughts on this, azskeptic?

the problem with this argument is the fact that whenever an IMG applies for a license in a state, and he/she is rejected for a permanent medical license, that is forever on your record, and you are in essence "blacklisted" from that point on. the damage is already done. any intelligent person is not going to apply for the permanent license only to be denied, and then say, "okay, now we can press forward with a real case."

i know of people who are already licensed in another state, and then try for california, or texas, and if they are rejected, they still have their permanent license in another state to fall back on. but for someone who is fresh out of residency, and wants to now practice in arkansas, you'd better not be on that list. i wouldn't risk it. when applying for a permanent license, you have to answer if you've ever been denied licensure in another state. try to lie about that question, and your troubles become even greater.

[Aviv Imanuel]

You are aware that folks involved in a pending lawsuit should not comment on the matter, correct?


a plaintiff in the AUA v. ASMB case frequents this board. Cheruku, where you at? Give us some news.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Kronos, what you ask follows basically the same principles that Arkansas, the question i would ask, if I was the judge attending the matter is....why didn't you sue California instead of Arkansas? Then proceed to dismiss without prejudice, pending a student to actually apply for lic. in Arkansas. Bear in mind, there will be other arguments in the case, example, is the practice of medicine a right or a priviliege? Can a state outsource to another state the functions of accrediting or recognizing an institution of higher education under the full faith and credit clause of the Cosntitution? If, not, then are regionally accrediting organizations legal? etc. It can be dragged for a while.

[Aviv Imanuel]

The judge, after hearing their initial arguments can dismiss the case without prejudice, in other words a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future, in this case, once an actual AUA student files for licensing and is denied.


the problem with this argument is the fact that whenever an IMG applies for a license in a state, and he/she is rejected for a permanent medical license, that is forever on your record, and you are in essence "blacklisted" from that point on. the damage is already done. any intelligent person is not going to apply for the permanent license only to be denied, and then say, "okay, now we can press forward with a real case."

i know of people who are already licensed in another state, and then try for california, or texas, and if they are rejected, they still have their permanent license in another state to fall back on. but for someone who is fresh out of residency, and wants to now practice in arkansas, you'd better not be on that list. i wouldn't risk it. when applying for a permanent license, you have to answer if you've ever been denied licensure in another state. try to lie about that question, and your troubles become even greater.

[Arkie]

The judge, after hearing their initial arguments can dismiss the case without prejudice, in other words a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future, in this case, once an actual AUA student files for licensing and is denied.

2 of the plaintiffs were denied residencies in Arkansas b/c their school (AUA) was on Arkansas' disapproved list. I don't know about both of them, but I know at least one of them was highly qualified as he went on to obtain an anesthesiology residency elsewhere. ;)

[Vaginitis]

2 of the plaintiffs were denied residencies in Arkansas b/c their school (AUA) was on Arkansas' disapproved list. I don't know about both of them, but I know at least one of them was highly qualified as he went on to obtain an anesthesiology residency elsewhere. ;)

I know that kid...it's Cheruku. His dad's a anesthesiologist somewhere. He matched in the NYC area, I believe.

Cheruku!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[azskeptic]

agree and suing a medical board is like suing a girlfriend to marry you...not a good idea. Courts and medicine don't do well together in the long run. You need to meet the rules in a calm professional manner.

After doing some more research on this (and asking an actual lawyer), I have second thoughts about this lawsuit. Although it was brought to court and the media with the best intentions, from a legal standpoint it is clear that AUA has not exhausted all its options to get its graduates licensed in Arkansas. They never applied to Cali, or to Arkansas, so they can't claim that the board is willfully blocking their graduates with intent. Thus, this suit is an indirect claim, which makes it harder to win. The judge assigned to this case will look at damages and see that there has not been any done to AUA or its graduates yet.

If and when Cali rejects them, the best course would be to sue California's medical board. Any thoughts on this, azskeptic?

[ol' man]

agree and suing a medical board is like suing a girlfriend to marry you...not a good idea. Courts and medicine don't do well together in the long run. You need to meet the rules in a calm professional manner.

So you should just take whatever rules they pass, even if it costs you a chance to practice in a state? Some things have to be taken to court. While it may cost the original parties an opportunity to practice there, it may open up opportunities for numerous others qualified physicians to practice in these states that are adopting these CA rules. Since they think so much of CA, I wonder if Arkansas is considering allowing gay unions ....

[RussianJoo]

I know that kid...it's Cheruku. His dad's a anesthesiologist somewhere. He matched in the NYC area, I believe.

Cheruku!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


nope he matched at Mississippi state

[RussianJoo]

So you should just take whatever rules they pass, even if it costs you a chance to practice in a state? Some things have to be taken to court. While it may cost the original parties an opportunity to practice there, it may open up opportunities for numerous others qualified physicians to practice in these states that are adopting these CA rules. Since they think so much of CA, I wonder if Arkansas is considering allowing gay unions ....


or of they lose then it will set a judgment that can be used/refrenced by many other states in favor of not allowing certain universities licensure in their state. This is done all the time in law. A judge passes a judgment and if a similar case is ever presented the lawyers simply use the old case as a reference and that's the end of that lawsuit.
I am just saying it can go either way.

[ol' man]

True, but with the way states have been following CA on this over the past few months (I mean, we're talking about Arkansas and Mississippi, 2 of the least progressive states in the union!), these schools have to at least try or there will be no states left for their grads to practice.

[RussianJoo]

True, but with the way states have been following CA on this over the past few months (I mean, we're talking about Arkansas and Mississippi, 2 of the least progressive states in the union!), these schools have to at least try or there will be no states left for their grads to practice.


sure, I mean trying to fight is better than not doing anything. but I wouldn't go into a fight like this unprepared because if they lose, it's going to be very hard for another school or even AUA to sue another state licensing board again. just because those states will use this law suit as a reference and those lawsuits will get thrown out. Heck this lawsuit might even get thrown out. I am not holding my breath, i think it will be at least a year before any sort of decision is made.

it's funny that an AUA school official didn't really have anything to say on the topic and frankly seemed like he/she was unaware of it.

[Kronos]

suing a medical board is like suing a girlfriend to marry you...not a good idea.

Well said...

It just seems like the court of public opinion will naturally fall against AUA in this case. As Carib grads, we have an inside view on this process and the shocking unfairness of it, but from the average Joe Schmo's viewpoint, the Arkansas board is just doing its job...

[Arkie]

Have you guys even read the 26 page lawsuit???

[Aviv Imanuel]

I am betting on lawsuit dismissed without prejudice.
If not, then....we will see .

[RightOn]

I personally believe there should be a national license. There's a national EMT license, and I think other countries have only one license. What's the big deal about this? it's just that States want some power and control and don't want the federal government controlling them. But it's really stupid that you can practice in NY but can't in Texas or if you want to practice in multiple states you need a license for each one.

As for arkansas blindly adopting cali's list none of you would be complaining if they blindly adopted the NY list, it's just that your chances are limited even less so you complain.

I personally feel that if a state doesn't have the funding to go visit and approve individual schools then it's perfectly fair to adopt another state's list. It would be totally unfair to raise taxes in that state just so they can approve a school. if anything the med school should pay all the expenses needed to get state approval, that way states like arkansas can't use the excuse of we're a poor state and can't afford to visit these schools. I also don't understand why the picked california's list but whatever, each states' list should pretty much be identical, because each state should use the same criteria for determining which school is approved or not.

it's like "the best interest standard" from ethics. it shouldn't matter who makes the decision because they all should come to the same conclusion.

hopefully this won't drag out for a year or more..

RussianJoo, just because you are in SGU doesn't mean you are any better than any of the other carib students. I mean seriously, with all due respect, you are full of it! :doh: I think this an excellent opportunity that schools like AUA can argue their case and get a fair review. I am pretty sure you would completeley change your stance if you were an AUA student.

[RussianJoo]

I am betting on lawsuit dismissed without prejudice.
If not, then....we will see .


yep you're probably correct.

[RussianJoo]

RussianJoo, just because you are in SGU doesn't mean you are any better than any of the other carib students. I mean seriously, with all due respect, you are full of it! :doh: I think this an excellent opportunity that schools like AUA can argue their case and get a fair review. I am pretty sure you would completeley change your stance if you were an AUA student.


what does me being from SGU having anything to do about? I could care less if AUA wins or loses. I am just stating my opinions which are simply that. you can disagree with me and many think AUA will win, i don't. I don't think i am better than any other carib school grad, because in the eyes of US program directors we're all the same, we're all foreign grads! So how am I being "full of it"? If I was an AUA student I would still think that AUA will lose or at best it will get the case thrown out. It's very hard to sue a State and takes a ton of money. Do you think AUA lawyers are working for free? I don't I bet they're charging the school $200/hr or more in legal fees. that's the average going rate for a lawyer. This lawsuit will cost AUA at least a few hundred thousand dollars.

This could be an excellent oppertunity if AUA is well prepared for battle, if they're not, then this is could be one of the worst things to happen to carib schools because it can prevent other schools that have a better argument from suing again. During the pretrial period of new trials the state lawyer will simply draw examples from the AUA v. Arkansas case and the judge will through those new cases out.

[azskeptic]

Why not post it as a file here for all to read?

Have you guys even read the 26 page lawsuit???

[Aviv Imanuel]

Why not post it as a file here for all to read?

Good idea. I will be more than eager to read it.

[Tipton]

it's funny that an AUA school official didn't really have anything to say on the topic and frankly seemed like he/she was unaware of it.

Who is that?

[RussianJoo]

Never seen anything on the Arkansas State Medical Board site. All of these are from the medical school:

New Page 1 (http://www.uams.edu/gme/1.220%20International%20Medical%20Schools.htm)

http://www.uams.edu/anesthesiology/residency/ASMB_Disapproved_Schools.pdf

Ophthalmology Departmental Policies And Benefits :: Information for Students and Residents :: Jones Eye Institute :: UAMS (http://www.uams.edu/jei/students/policy_benefits.asp)


you are.. isn't that saying that you never saw anything on the arkansas board saying that AUA can't get licensed in arkansas?

[Tipton]

you are.. isn't that saying that you never saw anything on the arkansas board saying that AUA can't get licensed in arkansas?

No. I wrote that the list is not found anywhere on the ASMB site.

If it is, please find the link.

[azskeptic]

My guess is that there is no official list but these people surmise these schools
not to be able to license.

No. I wrote that the list is not found anywhere on the ASMB site.

If it is, please find the link.

[Tipton]

Found it buried here: ASMB Help Desk--Downloads (http://www.armedicalboard.org/support/sub-downloads.asp)

http://www.armedicalboard.org/professional/EGTYBVCW/ORMPVBRYM/PDF/ASMB_Disapproved_Schools.pdf

[RussianJoo]

No. I wrote that the list is not found anywhere on the ASMB site.

If it is, please find the link.


oh ok, i guess i misunderstood you.

[ol' man]

Did anyone notice that Trinity and UMHS are NOT on this list? If Arkansas is using the CA list as the basis for these disapprovals, why omit these two? MUA, SMU, and AUA all have more state approvals than these 2 schools ...

[azskeptic]

Call them...I assure you that Trinity/UMHS are not approved either

Did anyone notice that Trinity and UMHS are NOT on this list? If Arkansas is using the CA list as the basis for these disapprovals, why omit these two? MUA, SMU, and AUA all have more state approvals than these 2 schools ...

[JesusLovesYou]

“California is the only state that does its own site reviews of medical schools, and its list in many cases is the gold standard for which schools [state medical boards] will allow and not allow,” he said at the meeting.

It seems there are many states who does not know that there are other states that do review other medical schools and does site visits. New York is one of them even though it's not for licensure but they still do site visits and continues do to do so even when approved. If only we can get the other states to understand and adopt the new york list as well.

And that is why world leaders emerge from New York. That is why the gold business standard is in New York. California fails in everything they do (state bankruptcy, high crime, traffic horror, massive pollution, low education standards, etc). I do not even know why people follow California's standards. They are lame in every which way.

[azskeptic]

define lame as it relates to their medical board.

And that is why world leaders emerge from New York. That is why the gold business standard is in New York. California fails in everything they do (state bankruptcy, high crime, traffic horror, massive pollution, low education standards, etc). I do not even know why people follow California's standards. They are lame in every which way.

[Aviv Imanuel]

And...what part of New York are you from?


And that is why world leaders emerge from New York. That is why the gold business standard is in New York. California fails in everything they do (state bankruptcy, high crime, traffic horror, massive pollution, low education standards, etc). I do not even know why people follow California's standards. They are lame in every which way.

[Kronos]

We really should refrain from attacking individual states, whether it is California, Arkansas or New York. The medical board is what is important. Who cares about other prejudices and preconceptions.

[Tipton]

My favorite CA bumpersticker?: Welcome to California. Now go home!

[md12886]

Did anyone notice that Trinity and UMHS are NOT on this list? If Arkansas is using the CA list as the basis for these disapprovals, why omit these two? MUA, SMU, and AUA all have more state approvals than these 2 schools ...

if you notice that pdf file of disapproved schools that TIPTON has posted, revised date of the list is 06/2008. UMHS and trinity started around same time i think. I am sure they will be on disapproved list in the new revised list.

its funny how they claim that they are following california but AUA is not even disapproved by cali yet. I think AUA has valid point in their lawsuit. nonetheless, its shame by ASMB by putting schools like AUA and MUA on that list without conducting any site visits.

[RussianJoo]

And that is why world leaders emerge from New York. That is why the gold business standard is in New York. California fails in everything they do (state bankruptcy, high crime, traffic horror, massive pollution, low education standards, etc). I do not even know why people follow California's standards. They are lame in every which way.

I guess you've never been stuck in rush hour traffic in NY? just cause some garbage truck decided to double park?

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC! and don't violate the Terms of Service.

[RussianJoo]

And...what part of New York are you from?

upstate probably. where there are more cows than people.

[RussianJoo]

if you notice that pdf file of disapproved schools that TIPTON has posted, revised date of the list is 06/2008. UMHS and trinity started around same time i think. I am sure they will be on disapproved list in the new revised list.

its funny how they claim that they are following california but AUA is not even disapproved by cali yet. I think AUA has valid point in their lawsuit. nonetheless, its shame by ASMB by putting schools like AUA and MUA on that list without conducting any site visits.

no dude they're following the california approved list.

[jonasp]

no dude they're following the california approved list.

Thats correct.So any new school or any school accidently left out that isn't approved in Ca. is banned.

Still don't understand why people think the court will dismiss the case. There are no options for AUA to exhaust. The point of the lawsuit is that using Cali's list blindly is unfair and unconstitutional.The court can't say to AUA go get California approval and apply to arkansas..... thats the whole point of the lawsuit.Arkansas states any school not approved in Cali is banned in their state...AUA grads need not apply for license and there is nothing short of being approved in Cali that will remedy the situation.There are no 2 ways about it.They can rule in favor of the state med board and say they are justified in using the Cali list but it wouldnt make sense to dismiss the case.

[Aviv Imanuel]

"the court can't say to AUA go get California approval and apply to arkansas..... "

Yes they can. Trust me, I have seen so many "solid" cases dismissed entirely, I would not hold my breathe any more.

Thats correct.So any new school or any school accidently left out that isn't approved in Ca. is banned.

Still don't understand why people think the court will dismiss the case. There are no options for AUA to exhaust. The point of the lawsuit is that using Cali's list blindly is unfair and unconstitutional.The court can't say to AUA go get California approval and apply to arkansas..... thats the whole point of the lawsuit.Arkansas states any school not approved in Cali is banned in their state...AUA grads need not apply for license and there is nothing short of being approved in Cali that will remedy the situation.There are no 2 ways about it.They can rule in favor of the state med board and say they are justified in using the Cali list but it wouldnt make sense to dismiss the case.

[jonasp]

"the court can't say to AUA go get California approval and apply to arkansas..... "

Yes they can. Trust me, I have seen so many "solid" cases dismissed entirely, I would not hold my breathe any more.

I don't believe it will happen.They need to have a reason to throw out the case.There are none.

[Rossgrad2011]

As Carib grads, we have an inside view on this process and the shocking unfairness of it, but from the average Joe Schmo's viewpoint, the Arkansas board is just doing its job...

And than i hear Sarah Palin say, "AND We will bring those jobs back to America!!!" with a crowd of Bigots howling in the background

okay never mind that was just some bad humor...

If you have ever dealt with the legal system you know they will do anything they can to delay being cornered into making a ruling.... so they can ask AUA to do anything they want before making a decision.

but i think the fact that this kind of list is out there is pretty bad news. u are damned if u do and damned if u dont in this case. Either the schools sue Arkansas and possibly get held in court initially because of students not having applied for licensure, this will let other states slowly take the list up leading to loss of income for these schools and they slowly close down. On the other hand, if none of the schools had done anything the other states would have started such a list anyways.

I think the interesting thing I see is what happens with the Big 4. Do they get tougher on incoming admission standards with no mediocore schools left for admission as they start to cap with the cream of the caribbean should we say.... OR worst, if the scrutiny increases, just in case Arkansas is found to be wrong, a new kind of way is sought to ban Carib schools with the Big 4 being stuck in this jumble.

My personal view is that this is all the fault of the new schools that have cropped up in the last 3-4 years.... I remember the time i applied the list of schools on the Caribbean medical schools forum list was like 10-12.... now there are sooo many of them. Its the greed. It is a great risk to go to any school with 20 students per class being taught in a substandard facility with substandard faculty that was setup about 2-3 years ago with no licensed grads or residents. I think some students are risking way too much money and time with certain places. I know it looks like schools have to start somewhere.... but think about it...... schools are not like living things that grow with time.... they are like other services where a significant amount of overhead has to be put in before being started+ they should be in process of accreditation as the first incoming class starts( i mean havin already put in their application for whatever accreditation is necessary.... especially in these rough times where schools are cropping everywhere)

[BrendaB_MD]

I am not a lawyer so perhaps GM can help out here. My impression is that this is an issue of administrative law -- which is about whether a govt agency has followed the rules and made a reasonable decision. Usually, admin law allows for specific avenues of appeal within the system before an issue is turned over to the courts. I am guessing this may be the case in Arkansas. The students in question may not even have applied for licensure and, if denied, have yet to pursue the appeal process (if any exists).

Also, I doubt that the court would tell Arkansas specifically how to handle USIMGs. A ruling in administrative law generally is whether the process was followed or that the rules exceed their authority or something like that. They will not make the decision. Rather, they will tell Arkansas to go back and revise their rules or to use the same rules and follow the correct administrative process. In the end, I suspect Arkansas will be able to devise whatever rules they want.

[Arkie]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/04/30/AntiguaMedSchool.pdf

[Vaginitis]

nope he matched at Mississippi state

my bad.....

[RussianJoo]

my bad.....

it's cool. I guess he's from the south and his daddy helped him out a little. it's nice to have connections.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Neither you or I are the judge to determine if there is a reason or not to throw it out. For each argument that AUA has brought, I am pretty darn sure the Medical Board has a counter-argument, did you think about that?

Perhaps you missed one of my first posts on just a few questions that the presiding judge can ask in order to decide to continue with the case. Among them..."is the practice of medicine a right or a priviliege? Can a state outsource to another state the functions of accrediting or recognizing an institution of higher education under the full faith and credit clause of the Cosntitution? If, not, then are regionally accrediting organizations legal?" "Did the plaintiff's used all administrative remedies to their disposition before going to the courts?" Etc.

So, even if you don't see any, I see many.
And of course the whole issue can turn out to be academic because AUA has not applied for California approval and it can be dismissed without prejudice based on that alone. Of course that will lead to another possible question....why didn't you sue California instead of Arkansas? But of course it is up to the judge if he decides to go on with the case or not.





I don't believe it will happen.They need to have a reason to throw out the case.There are none.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Interesting arguments, there can be some technicalitites on their own arguments, which may or may not backfire on them, some of them fantastic, like the collusion between the Medical Board and LCME, AMA, etc. Why didn't they made the LCME, AMA part of the defendants? That is amusing. We will see what happens.


Thanks Arkie, good luck with that one!


http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/04/30/AntiguaMedSchool.pdf

[Kronos]

Let's not forget that much of this issue is highly politicized already in the media and in the public. Naturally, the courts are going to be influenced by these politics. Those judges are only human, and they read the paper and have friends in the state capital.

AUA/SMU/MUA is appealing for an honest and fair judgment in the face of the lobbying power of the AMA and a state medical board. Talk about making powerful enemies. They can throw out all kinds of confounding legal arguments and delays to this lawsuit being heard fairly... Maybe it is the cynic in me, but this will be a tough case to win...

[azskeptic]

The 'schools' with 2 old profs, a cadaver, in a rented facility over a pizza parlor are the cause of the problems but also it is a problem of govts that take money for registration but do no quality control. There are schools on the 'books' in some countries that have NO facilities and are just parking their registrations. What can you expect the states to do but react? Their job is to protect consumers. In the absence of govt oversight on the islands they must come up with a system. azskeptic

And than i hear Sarah Palin say, "AND We will bring those jobs back to America!!!" with a crowd of Bigots howling in the background

okay never mind that was just some bad humor...

If you have ever dealt with the legal system you know they will do anything they can to delay being cornered into making a ruling.... so they can ask AUA to do anything they want before making a decision.

but i think the fact that this kind of list is out there is pretty bad news. u are damned if u do and damned if u dont in this case. Either the schools sue Arkansas and possibly get held in court initially because of students not having applied for licensure, this will let other states slowly take the list up leading to loss of income for these schools and they slowly close down. On the other hand, if none of the schools had done anything the other states would have started such a list anyways.

I think the interesting thing I see is what happens with the Big 4. Do they get tougher on incoming admission standards with no mediocore schools left for admission as they start to cap with the cream of the caribbean should we say.... OR worst, if the scrutiny increases, just in case Arkansas is found to be wrong, a new kind of way is sought to ban Carib schools with the Big 4 being stuck in this jumble.

My personal view is that this is all the fault of the new schools that have cropped up in the last 3-4 years.... I remember the time i applied the list of schools on the Caribbean medical schools forum list was like 10-12.... now there are sooo many of them. Its the greed. It is a great risk to go to any school with 20 students per class being taught in a substandard facility with substandard faculty that was setup about 2-3 years ago with no licensed grads or residents. I think some students are risking way too much money and time with certain places. I know it looks like schools have to start somewhere.... but think about it...... schools are not like living things that grow with time.... they are like other services where a significant amount of overhead has to be put in before being started+ they should be in process of accreditation as the first incoming class starts( i mean havin already put in their application for whatever accreditation is necessary.... especially in these rough times where schools are cropping everywhere)

[Arkie]

The 'schools' with 2 old profs, a cadaver, in a rented facility over a pizza parlor are the cause of the problems but also it is a problem of govts that take money for registration but do no quality control. There are schools on the 'books' in some countries that have NO facilities and are just parking their registrations. What can you expect the states to do but react? Their job is to protect consumers. In the absence of govt oversight on the islands they must come up with a system. azskeptic

Currently this "system" is allowing graduates of a medical school in SOMALIA (and many other schools around the world that are questionable to say the least) to practice in any of the 50 states (without question), while AMERICAN CITIZENS are being denied licenses in an increasing number of states despite passing the requisite licensing exams and having undergone clinical training in North American teaching hospitals. There is clearly a problem with this picture. ;)

[azskeptic]

If the govts had LCME type systems, which most foreign countries do, the state boards couldn't say anything. The Carib. islands, before CAAM-HP, had nothing...eventually I predict they will be accepted widely. It takes time. Some of the islands now have 7 medical schools and no oversite on their islands. That the students are Americans isn't the point---they are foreign countries and under our rules have to be equivalent. Dislike it if you must but it is reality.

Currently this "system" is allowing graduates of a medical school in SOMALIA (and many other schools around the world that are questionable to say the least) to practice in any of the 50 states (without question), while AMERICAN CITIZENS are being denied licenses in an increasing number of states despite passing the requisite licensing exams and having undergone clinical training in North American teaching hospitals. There is clearly a problem with this picture. ;)

[Aviv Imanuel]

No, it is not the cynic in you, it is a possibility.


Let's not forget that much of this issue is highly politicized already in the media and in the public. Naturally, the courts are going to be influenced by these politics. Those judges are only human, and they read the paper and have friends in the state capital.

AUA/SMU/MUA is appealing for an honest and fair judgment in the face of the lobbying power of the AMA and a state medical board. Talk about making powerful enemies. They can throw out all kinds of confounding legal arguments and delays to this lawsuit being heard fairly... Maybe it is the cynic in me, but this will be a tough case to win...

[Aviv Imanuel]

It looks the same but, the rationale is different. Using Somalia as an example , we can assume is people graduated from pre-war Somalia. I am sure they check the dates on those.

In essence, when comparing 3rd world country schools (or any other foreign State sponsored school for that matter) with the pseudo-American schools in the Caribbean , designed to cater to U.S. rejects (sorry but true) there is the element that in these countries they are training doctors to practice in their countries, not to export them to the U.S. (like Caribbean schools do) and as such they have their accreditation and standards to meet, reason why California accepts them. Compared to Caribbean schools, graduates from these countries from these schools are a tiny fraction of applicants for licensure in the States as of those from Caribbean schools. Does that raise red flags? Of course. Take for example St. Kitts, with a whopping 7 schools. It raises eye brows and concerns. Reason why most of us, do not but that argument you are using.

Pray that the judge presiding this case does not share the same views, otherwise your case is toast.

Max




Currently this "system" is allowing graduates of a medical school in SOMALIA (and many other schools around the world that are questionable to say the least) to practice in any of the 50 states (without question), while AMERICAN CITIZENS are being denied licenses in an increasing number of states despite passing the requisite licensing exams and having undergone clinical training in North American teaching hospitals. There is clearly a problem with this picture. ;)

[Shiz77]

Isn't the somalian war like 25 years old? Wouldn't that make only Somalian doctors eligible for licensure as being in their 50s?

(I don't like to pick on Somalia, but it is the example provided)

[azskeptic]

Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't the somalian war like 25 years old? Wouldn't that make only Somalian doctors eligible for licensure as being in their 50s?

(I don't like to pick on Somalia, but it is the example provided)

[jonasp]

Neither you or I are the judge to determine if there is a reason or not to throw it out. For each argument that AUA has brought, I am pretty darn sure the Medical Board has a counter-argument, did you think about that?

Perhaps you missed one of my first posts on just a few questions that the presiding judge can ask in order to decide to continue with the case. Among them..."is the practice of medicine a right or a priviliege? Can a state outsource to another state the functions of accrediting or recognizing an institution of higher education under the full faith and credit clause of the Cosntitution? If, not, then are regionally accrediting organizations legal?" "Did the plaintiff's used all administrative remedies to their disposition before going to the courts?" Etc.

So, even if you don't see any, I see many.
And of course the whole issue can turn out to be academic because AUA has not applied for California approval and it can be dismissed without prejudice based on that alone. Of course that will lead to another possible question....why didn't you sue California instead of Arkansas? But of course it is up to the judge if he decides to go on with the case or not.

Those are valid points but I'm assuming the lawyers hired from AUA aren't idiots.They should know more law than you or G-d help them. The points you made about constitutional laws must have been researched before suing or AUA is dumb for hiring these lawyers.And your last point about applying for California is defeating the purpose. AUA is claiming using california's list blindly is unfair and unconstitutional and you are proposing that the case could be dismissed because they didnt apply to California.AUA has no problem with California or their list thats why they arent suing california. They have a problem with states that do no investigation of their own and blindly use another list that doesn't discredit(nor validate) their own school.

[azskeptic]

Max is an attorney also I think. I defer to him on legal matters.

Those are valid points but I'm assuming the lawyers hired from AUA aren't idiots.They should know more law than you or G-d help them. The points you made about constitutional laws must have been researched before suing or AUA is dumb for hiring these lawyers.And your last point about applying for California is defeating the purpose. AUA is claiming using california's list blindly is unfair and unconstitutional and you are proposing that the case could be dismissed because they didnt apply to California.AUA has no problem with California or their list thats why they arent suing california. They have a problem with states that do no investigation of their own and blindly use another list that doesn't discredit(nor validate) their own school.

[jonasp]

Max is an attorney also I think. I defer to him on legal matters.

Then he should know better that those are all issues that should be researched before suing.I'm not claiming to know any law but that all seems like common sense.

[Rossgrad2011]

In essence, when comparing 3rd world country schools (or any other foreign State sponsored school for that matter) with the pseudo-American schools in the Caribbean , designed to cater to U.S. rejects (sorry but true) there is the element that in these countries they are training doctors to practice in their countries, not to export them to the U.S. (like Caribbean schools do) and as such they have their accreditation and standards to meet, reason why California accepts them. Compared to Caribbean schools, graduates from these countries from these schools are a tiny fraction of applicants for licensure in the States as of those from Caribbean schools. Does that raise red flags? Of course. Take for example St. Kitts, with a whopping 7 schools. It raises eye brows and concerns. Reason why most of us, do not but that argument you are using.

Pray that the judge presiding this case does not share the same views, otherwise your case is toast.

Max

i could not have explained it better... its soo true... I mean any country in the world will make sure its physicians are well trained and thus this leads to blanket accreditation...
i was gonna make the point another way.... whichever small, insignificant country u talk about and whose poor citizens u wanna make fun of, they still have had some clinicians practicing and prescribing meds and doing procedures prior to some lucky people getting into US to get licensed.... that itself serves as a reason for blanket approval.

I dont see anyone from the Carib schools practising in Caribbean ( i understand that the Big 4 are possibly a part of it though there are a quite a few caribbean students at my school atleast), so why should they get blanket approvals or be allowed to get in without some major stress tests, I mean XYZ school that opened in the last 3-4 yrs has no clinicians practicing in the country he or she got their medical degree from.... why should a state be asked to take the risk?

[Aviv Imanuel]

You are right, neither the attorney's for the medical board are idiots. I am just pointing out what might happen. Yes, I am pointing out a technicality, the case can be thrown out because they did not apply to California, AUA lawyer's know it too, but it is not wrong to ask and argue, that is what the courts are for. 2 possibilites here. I saw AUA arguments, interesting, but the AMA, LCME Medical board collusion part sounds more like an eloquent rant than anything else. They don't need to convince anyone but the judge who will decide if the case will proceed or not, then they will have to handle a trial. 2 parties, I assume both well prepared, and the part with the most convincing argument, will get it's way. The the possibility of appeals. This is just the beginning.





Those are valid points but I'm assuming the lawyers hired from AUA aren't idiots.They should know more law than you or G-d help them. The points you made about constitutional laws must have been researched before suing or AUA is dumb for hiring these lawyers.And your last point about applying for California is defeating the purpose. AUA is claiming using california's list blindly is unfair and unconstitutional and you are proposing that the case could be dismissed because they didnt apply to California.AUA has no problem with California or their list thats why they arent suing california. They have a problem with states that do no investigation of their own and blindly use another list that doesn't discredit(nor validate) their own school.

[Aviv Imanuel]

When you file a lawsuit you can pretty much claim anything you want, it is a matter of convincing the judge about it, it is the nature of the Civil law system. I remember a case of a guy who was suing G-d. Yes , suing G-d. Of course it was thrown out, but nothing prevented him from filing a lawsuit.;)




Then he should know better that those are all issues that should be researched before suing.I'm not claiming to know any law but that all seems like common sense.

[jonasp]

When you file a lawsuit you can pretty much claim anything you want, it is a matter of convincing the judge about it, it is the nature of the Civil law system. I remember a case of a guy who was suing G-d. Yes , suing G-d. Of course it was thrown out, but nothing prevented him from filing a lawsuit.;)

Of course anyone can sue for any reason, but AUA has to be pretty stupid to go into something this big blindly.I can't believe they are.

[Aviv Imanuel]

They have some valid points, problem is the Medical Board will bring their own arguments as well. We can only wait and see what will happen.


Of course anyone can sue for any reason, but AUA has to be pretty stupid to go into something this big blindly.I can't believe they are.

[md12886]

You are right, neither the attorney's for the medical board are idiots. I am just pointing out what might happen. Yes, I am pointing out a technicality, the case can be thrown out because they did not apply to California, AUA lawyer's know it too, but it is not wrong to ask and argue, that is what the courts are for. 2 possibilites here. I saw AUA arguments, interesting, but the AMA, LCME Medical board collusion part sounds more like an eloquent rant than anything else. They don't need to convince anyone but the judge who will decide if the case will proceed or not, then they will have to handle a trial. 2 parties, I assume both well prepared, and the part with the most convincing argument, will get it's way. The the possibility of appeals. This is just the beginning.

I thought AUA applied for cali last march...am i reading something different>> :confused:

[Arkie]

AUA has applied for Cali but has not had a site visit yet.

[Shiz77]

Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia)

Somali Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalian_Revolution_(1986%E2%80%931992)

[azskeptic]

If they applied for California already then this lawsuit is really just a publicity stunt....they have to exhaust their other proccesses first.

I thought AUA applied for cali last march...am i reading something different>> :confused:

[Aviv Imanuel]

You just stole the words out of my mouth.:cool:


If they applied for California already then this lawsuit is really just a publicity stunt....they have to exhaust their other proccesses first.

[jonasp]

If they applied for California already then this lawsuit is really just a publicity stunt....they have to exhaust their other proccesses first.

Its not a stunt. They would like their students to be able to practice in California. California has their own evaluation process and you need to apply to be evaluated.Arkansas has no process. They know nothing about the school nor care to know and just follow what another state does blindly without considering the consequences.There is a big difference.The point of the lawsuit isn't about California or their list its about Arkansas not doing any legwork and banning schools who have never even been evaluated.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Let me ask you a question, you don't want to see how intrinsically related they are? Please!



Its not a stunt. They would like their students to be able to practice in California. California has their own evaluation process and you need to apply to be evaluated.Arkansas has no process. They know nothing about the school nor care to know and just follow what another state does blindly without considering the consequences.There is a big difference.The point of the lawsuit isn't about California or their list its about Arkansas not doing any legwork and banning schools who have never even been evaluated.

[Kronos]

I wonder if AUA will get approved by Cali if the application is in process...

[tennisball80]

When will the result come out ?

[jonasp]

Let me ask you a question, you don't want to see how intrinsically related they are? Please!

You don't get the point of the lawsuit.

[RussianJoo]

When will the result come out ?


probably in a year or two.. the Arkansas medical board is going to drag this out as long as they can. I don't think they even spoke in front of a judge yet. everyone is still "gathering" information.

[RussianJoo]

I found a great picture depicting the trial..

enjoy. http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c184/RussianJoo/twip_2002_0704_05.jpg

[Aviv Imanuel]

Yes like the stunt on the allegation of a collusion between the AMA, LCME, Medical Board , conspiracy theories, etc.

Its is a waste of time to discuss this with you.

Bye!


You don't get the point of the lawsuit.

[RussianJoo]

ohh and the tank is Arkansas in case you guys were wondering.

[Arkie]

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6342/copperheadandtank.jpg

:lol:

[nevisbutterfly]

Its not a stunt. They would like their students to be able to practice in California. California has their own evaluation process and you need to apply to be evaluated.Arkansas has no process. They know nothing about the school nor care to know and just follow what another state does blindly without considering the consequences.There is a big difference.The point of the lawsuit isn't about California or their list its about Arkansas not doing any legwork and banning schools who have never even been evaluated.

First of all California has two sets of standards in allowing a medical school to be on their list. They will accept ANY school that is located in the country outside the Caribbean if they train physicians to practice in their home country. They accept these school at face value with no site visit. Nobody could legally go to Cuba for at least 50 years and they are on the list. After researching a few schools on the list, one is out of Africa that allows internet and distance learning. The other is in the war torn country of Iraq - Saddam School of Medicine where they have only two Robbins Path books, copies of some journals and little to no internet access. Yet those two are approved on the California list. Only those located in the Carribean have to go through the extensive, costly process which the California Medical Board requires thousands of dollars to approve. I heard from our school it was around $40,000 to $50,000.

This is clearly a double standard. It is directed toward US citizens who obtained a degree outside the US. It is not about the quality of medical education.

I have read the 26 page federal court filing and it has addressed this issue in detail. The double standard is targeting US Citizens giving foreign born applicants an advantage which is not based on merit and only location and country of origin.

Folks, as I said back in March. This is a violation so many laws it is not funny. Just because CA did it - does not make it legally right. Until a law or rule is challenged in court, the law or rule will stand. It is judicial and case law that makes most of our laws in this country.

[RussianJoo]

First of all California has two sets of standards in allowing a medical school to be on their list. They will accept ANY school that is located in the country outside the Caribbean if they train physicians to practice in their home country. They accept these school at face value with no site visit. Nobody could legally go to Cuba for at least 50 years and they are on the list. After researching a few schools on the list, one is out of Africa that allows internet and distance learning. The other is in the war torn country of Iraq - Saddam School of Medicine where they have only two Robbins Path books, copies of some journals and little to no internet access. Yet those two are approved on the California list. Only those located in the Carribean have to go through the extensive, costly process which the California Medical Board requires thousands of dollars to approve. I heard from our school it was around $40,000 to $50,000.

This is clearly a double standard. It is directed toward US citizens who obtained a degree outside the US. It is not about the quality of medical education.

I have read the 26 page federal court filing and it has addressed this issue in detail. The double standard is targeting US Citizens giving foreign born applicants an advantage which is not based on merit and only location and country of origin.

Folks, as I said back in March. This is a violation so many laws it is not funny. Just because CA did it - does not make it legally right. Until a law or rule is challenged in court, the law or rule will stand. It is judicial and case law that makes most of our laws in this country.


Well no kidding Cali will be more strict with carib schools. 1) the students there are US rejects (we're not smart enough to get into US schools)
2) they know those students will try and to get back to the US and work as doctorts while students of Iraq have a hard enough time finding books to even think about trying to move to the US.
3) the carib schools have done some really shaddy stuff in the past. like having their students take an intensive USMLE step1 and 2 course in stead of going to medical school and just issuing diplomas to them. And guess what, people can still pass the steps without going to medical school.

So what would you expect the US to do? especially when you can get accepted into some of these schools with like a 2.7 GPA and not even need an MCAT. NOT everyone should be a doctor. it's a privilage not a right.

What you should be asking yourself is why can't our schools get california approval what are we missing? it's obviouse that california approval can be achieved, look at SGU, ROSS, AUC, SABA. So why can't other school get it? what's holding other schools back? If the california approval wasn't a fair proccess then No Caribbean med school would be approved, but clearly some are.

And lastly everyone knew before accepting and flying down and starting med school that their school was or wasn't approved by california, and everyone knew that laws regarding foreign doctors can change at any moment. If you are really that concered and wanted Cali approval or was affraid to to think that other states might fallow cali then you should have not gone to your school and gone to those schools that have all 50 state approval and have been around long enough to show that they're solid schools. But you guys picked to go to a shaddy med schools, i don't know why but you did. and i define shaddy as being less than 5 years old and having only one graduating class or not even a graduating class, not being approved by all 50 states, and not needing an mcat score to get in. You complain about not being treated properly, then take the darn MCAT if you want to be a doctor, all the other US students do.

And just because we're US citizens doesn't mean we have the right to be doctors if our grades aren't good enough to get into a US med school. The governemnt i bet is pretty pissed about that, we were told by the US medical schools (some of us multiple times) that no you can not be a doctor, you didn't work hard enough in undergrad or just aren't smart enough to be one. but we said hey screw you i am going to be a doctor anyway.

so stop your complaining, you picked the schools you wanted to go to, no one put a gun to your head and said go hear or i pull the trigger. you made your choices now live with them. Don't try to blame your poor grades, or your poor judgement in picking schools, or your lack of motivation to take the mcat, on the US government. They are just trying to protect themselves from what they feel like will be poor doctors. because in their eyes if you start out with a bellow average student, and he goes to a bellow average medical school, then he's going to be far bellow average as a doctor, generally speaking (of course there are exceptions to every rule) but the US governemnt when it comes to protecting it's citizens with proper healthcare just dosen't like taking chances and it's rightfully so.

So stop your complaining, everyone knew the risks of going to the caribbean for med school. and just thank God that you're allowed to practice in some states, because technically speaking none of us deserve to be in med school right now because we all failed to gain acceptance into US schools, and that's where it should have ended.

And lastly you don't see that many people from other countries besides the US and Canada at your med schools or going abroad for med schools in the frist place, why is that? because they realise that once they get rejected that, hey it's time to find another career. i guess am not smart enough to be a doctor, i guess i'll be come a nurse or a PA. But the US has the mentality of I will do whatever I want. So we look for loop holes to get around certain things.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Ahhhh, i couldn't put more beautiful than that, thanks for saving me the time typing all that.;):p


Well no kidding Cali will be more strict with carib schools. 1) the students there are US rejects (we're not smart enough to get into US schools)
2) they know those students will try and to get back to the US and work as doctorts while students of Iraq have a hard enough time finding books to even think about trying to move to the US.
3) the carib schools have done some really shaddy stuff in the past. like having their students take an intensive USMLE step1 and 2 course in stead of going to medical school and just issuing diplomas to them. And guess what, people can still pass the steps without going to medical school.

So what would you expect the US to do? especially when you can get accepted into some of these schools with like a 2.7 GPA and not even need an MCAT. NOT everyone should be a doctor. it's a privilage not a right.

What you should be asking yourself is why can't our schools get california approval what are we missing? it's obviouse that california approval can be achieved, look at SGU, ROSS, AUC, SABA. So why can't other school get it? what's holding other schools back? If the california approval wasn't a fair proccess then No Caribbean med school would be approved, but clearly some are.

And lastly everyone knew before accepting and flying down and starting med school that their school was or wasn't approved by california, and everyone knew that laws regarding foreign doctors can change at any moment. If you are really that concered and wanted Cali approval or was affraid to to think that other states might fallow cali then you should have not gone to your school and gone to those schools that have all 50 state approval and have been around long enough to show that they're solid schools. But you guys picked to go to a shaddy med schools, i don't know why but you did. and i define shaddy as being less than 5 years old and having only one graduating class or not even a graduating class, not being approved by all 50 states, and not needing an mcat score to get in. You complain about not being treated properly, then take the darn MCAT if you want to be a doctor, all the other US students do.

And just because we're US citizens doesn't mean we have the right to be doctors if our grades aren't good enough to get into a US med school. The governemnt i bet is pretty pissed about that, we were told by the US medical schools (some of us multiple times) that no you can not be a doctor, you didn't work hard enough in undergrad or just aren't smart enough to be one. but we said hey screw you i am going to be a doctor anyway.

so stop your complaining, you picked the schools you wanted to go to, no one put a gun to your head and said go hear or i pull the trigger. you made your choices now live with them. Don't try to blame your poor grades, or your poor judgement in picking schools, or your lack of motivation to take the mcat, on the US government. They are just trying to protect themselves from what they feel like will be poor doctors. because in their eyes if you start out with a bellow average student, and he goes to a bellow average medical school, then he's going to be far bellow average as a doctor, generally speaking (of course there are exceptions to every rule) but the US governemnt when it comes to protecting it's citizens with proper healthcare just dosen't like taking chances and it's rightfully so.

So stop your complaining, everyone knew the risks of going to the caribbean for med school. and just thank God that you're allowed to practice in some states, because technically speaking none of us deserve to be in med school right now because we all failed to gain acceptance into US schools, and that's where it should have ended.

And lastly you don't see that many people from other countries besides the US and Canada at your med schools or going abroad for med schools in the frist place, why is that? because they realise that once they get rejected that, hey it's time to find another career. i guess am not smart enough to be a doctor, i guess i'll be come a nurse or a PA. But the US has the mentality of I will do whatever I want. So we look for loop holes to get around certain things.

[RussianJoo]

Ahhhh, i couldn't put more beautiful than that, thanks for saving me the time typing all that.;):p

you're welcome. i had some time to kill.

[nevisbutterfly]

you're welcome. i had some time to kill.


First all the ranting and raving may have saved you money with your therapist.

Second, You are forgetting one key point here.

The 14th Amendment and others. In addition, you cannot have two standards for licensure in the US and it be constitutional. If the lawyer in the crowd learned anything in law school then you would know that US citizens and even those that are not US citizens have certain rights. When segregation was a problem with the African American Community the contsitutional played an important role in their rights despite what people thought. You are thinking like an amature and not a lawyer on this one. In Birmingham, AL a little BBQ place named Ollies thought they could do their own thing under "states rights" they found out differently when the federal government said they will not tolerate this behavior of segregation - period. In light of that , the US Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could serve whites and blacks or lose all federal funding for schools, roads etc.. OR comply with federal law. This is no different. To deny a US citizen a training license to obtain a medical residency that is receiving government funds by way of grants, medicare and medicaid could cost the institution a large part of their funding if it is found that discrimination is at play. This funding falls under the US Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, to deny a US citizen the right to obtain a medical license in any of the 50 states without due process and equal protection under the law is also a violation. Otherwise, we would continue to have two sets of standards. One for whites and one for blacks. Thank God that is behind us. People thought that people of color were inferior before 1964. LBJ took care of that. We now have an African-American president. In the 50's people would have laughed if you would have predicted that one.

It is too bad that you continue to have that attitude.

Ever heard of equal protection under the law? Civil rights? EEOC?

Have you read the lawsuit AUA filed? I have.

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.

I would like to hear facts about the filing of the case instead of "shoot from the mouth" opinion. That means you have to read the case and make argument based on the facts and laws that are stated in the AUA case. Not just, you are wrong because "I don't like you" or implying that people are inferior because of a choice or that people are immorale based on a choice. Roe v. Wade gave women rights despite what people "thought" was right. The "State" does not have the right to impinge on your Contsitutional Right.

[Rossgrad2011]

Ouch!!! RussianJoo, I agree that sums it up pretty well...

if these other guys keep arguing and bringing up weird technical amendments they just dont get it... its just common sense and we all know Denial is a defense mechanism...

And just because these students like NevisButterfly here love to make fun of war-torn countries I have a small anecdote to share about a 1st year intern from a Baghdad medical college who i worked under while doing one of my recent rotations... she explained how she had to start doing clinical sciences with actual hospital shifts in her 2nd year with doing everything from lines to sutures by the end of 3rd year due to the war.
She has high 90s on her boards and was transitional year in medicine first year and was promoted in the middle of the 2nd year categorical med because of her work... on the recent Hospital Research day before the annual ACP gathering she has 6 research papers with three already sent in to be peer reviewed for possible publishing.

But again, she is from a war torn country with 20+ year old medical schools serving their communities especially through crises like the present one... Of course they wont be as good as the high-tech, state of the art, clinical experience filled with world famous faculty and competitively admitted students of a 3-5 year old Carib school which doesn't serve its own local community!!!

Butterfly, u know we should in fact be grateful to these people who end up going thru such training in times of great need and war... I mean we always say how humble are those men and women of Médecins Sans Frontières who go to serve in these areas but how about the kids who go through the rough medical school training with shootouts, bombings etc all around them and then serve their communities.

I am sorry if I seem out of context here but these people making fun of these countries don't realize these places are the ones that are REALLY REALLY being served because health care there is not to prolong endlife as it is in US now, but to serve the poor, malnourished, diseased or injured working people

[jonasp]

Yes like the stunt on the allegation of a collusion between the AMA, LCME, Medical Board , conspiracy theories, etc.

Its is a waste of time to discuss this with you.

Bye!

No one is talking about that.You still don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[nevisbutterfly]

I am not making fun of those people. I respect anyone that has to live in that environment and try to help other people. I encourage all of them to strive for everything they deserve out of life.

You all are missing the point. That makes them no better or worse than anyone else.





Ouch!!! RussianJoo, I agree that sums it up pretty well...

if these other guys keep arguing and bringing up weird technical amendments they just dont get it... its just common sense and we all know Denial is a defense mechanism...

And just because these students like NevisButterfly here love to make fun of war-torn countries I have a small anecdote to share about a 1st year intern from a Baghdad medical college who i worked under while doing one of my recent rotations... she explained how she had to start doing clinical sciences with actual hospital shifts in her 2nd year with doing everything from lines to sutures by the end of 3rd year due to the war.
She has high 90s on her boards and was transitional year in medicine first year and was promoted in the middle of the 2nd year categorical med because of her work... on the recent Hospital Research day before the annual ACP gathering she has 6 research papers with three already sent in to be peer reviewed for possible publishing.

But again, she is from a war torn country with 20+ year old medical schools serving their communities especially through crises like the present one... Of course they wont be as good as the high-tech, state of the art, clinical experience filled with world famous faculty and competitively admitted students of a 3-5 year old Carib school which doesn't serve its own local community!!!

Butterfly, u know we should in fact be grateful to these people who end up going thru such training in times of great need and war... I mean we always say how humble are those men and women of Médecins Sans Frontières who go to serve in these areas but how about the kids who go through the rough medical school training with shootouts, bombings etc all around them and then serve their communities.

I am sorry if I seem out of context here but these people making fun of these countries don't realize these places are the ones that are REALLY REALLY being served because health care there is not to prolong endlife as it is in US now, but to serve the poor, malnourished, diseased or injured working people

[nevisbutterfly]

Position stated. Stick to the facts and read the lawsuit. Since you have such high regard for all those educated in the US, then you should be impressed by the two Harvard Lawyers in AR representing this case.

First all the ranting and raving may have saved you money with your therapist.

Second, You are forgetting one key point here.

The 14th Amendment and others. In addition, you cannot have two standards for licensure in the US and it be constitutional. If the lawyer in the crowd learned anything in law school then you would know that US citizens and even those that are not US citizens have certain rights. When segregation was a problem with the African American Community the contsitutional played an important role in their rights despite what people thought. You are thinking like an amature and not a lawyer on this one. In Birmingham, AL a little BBQ place named Ollies thought they could do their own thing under "states rights" they found out differently when the federal government said they will not tolerate this behavior of segregation - period. In light of that , the US Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could serve whites and blacks or lose all federal funding for schools, roads etc.. OR comply with federal law. This is no different. To deny a US citizen a training license to obtain a medical residency that is receiving government funds by way of grants, medicare and medicaid could cost the institution a large part of their funding if it is found that discrimination is at play. This funding falls under the US Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, to deny a US citizen the right to obtain a medical license in any of the 50 states without due process and equal protection under the law is also a violation. Otherwise, we would continue to have two sets of standards. One for whites and one for blacks. Thank God that is behind us. People thought that people of color were inferior before 1964. LBJ took care of that. We now have an African-American president. In the 50's people would have laughed if you would have predicted that one.

It is too bad that you continue to have that attitude.

Ever heard of equal protection under the law? Civil rights? EEOC?

Have you read the lawsuit AUA filed? I have.

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.

I would like to hear facts about the filing of the case instead of "shoot from the mouth" opinion. That means you have to read the case and make argument based on the facts and laws that are stated in the AUA case. Not just, you are wrong because "I don't like you" or implying that people are inferior because of a choice or that people are immorale based on a choice. Roe v. Wade gave women rights despite what people "thought" was right. The "State" does not have the right to impinge on your Contsitutional Right.

[RussianJoo]

First all the ranting and raving may have saved you money with your therapist.

Second, You are forgetting one key point here.

The 14th Amendment and others. In addition, you cannot have two standards for licensure in the US and it be constitutional. If the lawyer in the crowd learned anything in law school then you would know that US citizens and even those that are not US citizens have certain rights. When segregation was a problem with the African American Community the contsitutional played an important role in their rights despite what people thought. You are thinking like an amature and not a lawyer on this one. In Birmingham, AL a little BBQ place named Ollies thought they could do their own thing under "states rights" they found out differently when the federal government said they will not tolerate this behavior of segregation - period. In light of that , the US Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could serve whites and blacks or lose all federal funding for schools, roads etc.. OR comply with federal law. This is no different. To deny a US citizen a training license to obtain a medical residency that is receiving government funds by way of grants, medicare and medicaid could cost the institution a large part of their funding if it is found that discrimination is at play. This funding falls under the US Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, to deny a US citizen the right to obtain a medical license in any of the 50 states without due process and equal protection under the law is also a violation. Otherwise, we would continue to have two sets of standards. One for whites and one for blacks. Thank God that is behind us. People thought that people of color were inferior before 1964. LBJ took care of that. We now have an African-American president. In the 50's people would have laughed if you would have predicted that one.

It is too bad that you continue to have that attitude.

Ever heard of equal protection under the law? Civil rights? EEOC?

Have you read the lawsuit AUA filed? I have.

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.

I would like to hear facts about the filing of the case instead of "shoot from the mouth" opinion. That means you have to read the case and make argument based on the facts and laws that are stated in the AUA case. Not just, you are wrong because "I don't like you" or implying that people are inferior because of a choice or that people are immorale based on a choice. Roe v. Wade gave women rights despite what people "thought" was right. The "State" does not have the right to impinge on your Contsitutional Right.

yes but in the case you're talking about, the federal government made a law stating segregation is illegal. But there are no federal laws for medical licensure. The Federal government pretty much said hey you guys take care of this and do what you want. That's why if you want to practice in NY you apply to the NY state licensing board, and if you want to practice in NJ right next to NY you can't until you apply to that state's licensing board and get a license. Now if medical licnesure was a federal thing, then I agree, Arkansas would have no right to not allow AUA students to do a residency there, but it's not the federal government washed their hands clean of that. So while the 14th amendment talks about protection of federal rights and rights to an equal education it says nothing about making a state recognize a foriegn diploma. which is what AUA wants them to do. they want Arkansas to say that a diploma from AUA med school is equivalent to a diploma from a US medical school and their students should have the right to get licensed there. While Arkansas says we don't think AUA's diploma is equivalent. It's a state thing they can do that if they want to.

[Rossgrad2011]

You all are missing the point. That makes them no better or worse than anyone else.

no YOU are missing the point, its opposite of what you said.... no matter how u put it most Carib schools are worse than the rest of the world's colleges because the local island governments don't give a rat's behind on how u practice so ur education can be sub par because u will never effect the health of the local community... unless an outside accrediting agency does a full review of ur curriculum etc. these colleges can run as they like.

I hope we don't belay the point any further...

[nevisbutterfly]

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protections_Clause#cite_note-0#cite_note-0) The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protections_Clause#cite_note-1#cite_note-1) by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

The adoption of another state’s laws or ruling does not excuse Arkansas from having to answer for the above complaint. Until a law or rule is challenged, then infractions can continue until it can be proved to be violating the people’s rights under the US Constitution. As you can see in many Supreme Court cases, states rights are respected unless it impinges on a person or group of people’s rights clearly defined by our the US Constitution. Just because a few states have engaged in this practice does not make it constitutionally right. The burden of proof lies with Arkansas proving that all those seeking to obtain and will obtain a medical license, educational opportunities and employment in Arkansas are equally qualified and are subjected to the same selection process, rules, regulations, scrutiny with comparable educational backgrounds regardless of their citizenship or country of origin.


If you want to argue about consitutional law then I am "game". If you want to discuss the fine points of the lawsuit I will respond. Otherwise, this thread "dead" to intellectual discussion.

[RussianJoo]

no YOU are missing the point, its opposite of what you said.... no matter how u put it most Carib schools are worse than the rest of the world's colleges because the local island governments don't give a rat's behind on how u practice so ur education can be sub par because u will never effect the health of the local community... unless an outside accrediting agency does a full review of ur curriculum etc. these colleges can run as they like.

I hope we don't belay the point any further...


exactly this is my point as well. and States like California know this as well and are protecting their citizens from the possibility of substandard care from doctors who graduate from those schools, especially when they know that the graduates of these schools will go straight for the US and that's their only goal is to practice in the US.

[jonasp]

This is all side tracked issues. Are carib schools not as good as U.S schools? of course. Is california's evaluation unfair? Maybe, but again no one should complain, you get what u paid for. Don't go to a school that isnt approved. The issue is whether Arkansas or any other state can not do any evaluation and base their licensing entirely on another state that may or may not have even evaluated certain schools.

[nevisbutterfly]

Might want to stay out of states that are not on the California approved list because you might end up in an ER or OR with a doctor that graduated from an unapproved or unrecognized medical school diploma? God forbid that you travel through one of those areas and need trauma or ER care.

After 3 plus years in residency, board certification which is the "gold standard" - you will never know.

I guess you need to stay out of all the VA hospitals, clinics and the military bases too. We are out there too. The federal government has enough sense to know this will not stand up to federal law scrutiny. The states are narcissistic in their tactics and law.

AUA vs. Arkansas could end up being a landmark case.

[RussianJoo]

Might want to stay out of states that are not on the California approved list because you might end up in an ER or OR with a doctor that graduated from an unapproved or unrecognized medical school diploma? God forbid that you travel through one of those areas and need trauma or ER care.

After 3 plus years in residency, board certification which is the "gold standard" - you will never know.

I guess you need to stay out of all the VA hospitals, clinics and the military bases too. We are out there too. The federal government has enough sense to know this will not stand up to federal law scrutiny. The states are narcissistic in their tactics and law.

AUA vs. Arkansas could end up being a landmark case.


yeah man, we'll see what happens. none of us are lawyers, none of us are judges. all we're doing is talking out of our butts. This personally doesn't affect me at all so I could care less who wins or loses. I am just hear to stir the pot a little. and it's been fun. now all is left is to wait for the real judges and lawyers to battle it out. So we'll see what happens. I'll be back in a year or so when this lawsuit will finally end.
:peace:

[Rossgrad2011]

AUA vs. Arkansas could end up being a landmark case.

lets all hope for the result we want....

U dont get it. Its not individual students; its the group itself. There will be some bad apples everywhere but the chances of the majority of the group being bad is higher in newer colleges..... for the previously explained reasons.

JC!!!

[Aviv Imanuel]

As I said, I am not wasting my time with you, say what you want, if that makes you feel better.;)

Ciao


No one is talking about that.You still don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Actually you are wrong, the burden of proof relies on the promoting party, plaintiff, in this case AUA, since they are the ones alleging infringement of rights, they must prove what rights, why, etc. You are watching too many Law and Order episodes.




The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction) the equal protection of the laws".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protections_Clause#cite_note-0#cite_note-0) The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal)"[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protections_Clause#cite_note-1#cite_note-1) by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

The adoption of another state’s laws or ruling does not excuse Arkansas from having to answer for the above complaint. Until a law or rule is challenged, then infractions can continue until it can be proved to be violating the people’s rights under the US Constitution. As you can see in many Supreme Court cases, states rights are respected unless it impinges on a person or group of people’s rights clearly defined by our the US Constitution. Just because a few states have engaged in this practice does not make it constitutionally right. The burden of proof lies with Arkansas proving that all those seeking to obtain and will obtain a medical license, educational opportunities and employment in Arkansas are equally qualified and are subjected to the same selection process, rules, regulations, scrutiny with comparable educational backgrounds regardless of their citizenship or country of origin.


If you want to argue about consitutional law then I am "game". If you want to discuss the fine points of the lawsuit I will respond. Otherwise, this thread "dead" to intellectual discussion.

[nevisbutterfly]

Don't freaking think so.


What say you?


Go study.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Wow, 2 Harvard grad. lawyers, big deal, you think the Medical Board's attorneys are impressed with that? I have seen Harvard lawyers lose to lawyers from less impressive schools, please get real, that is naive to say.





rvard lawyers loose against lawyers from far lesser impressive schools. Get realPosition stated. Stick to the facts and read the lawsuit. Since you have such high regard for all those educated in the US, then you should be impressed by the two Harvard Lawyers in AR representing this case.

[Aviv Imanuel]

You are comparing apples with oranges, perhaps you may come up with a new juice. Let me ask you a question....since when the practice of medicine is a right? I am pretty darn sure it is a privilege,as such a state can devise mechanism for its regulation. Keep ranting on your 14th amendment rights, as a matter of fact, almost everyone who files a lawsuit these days uses the same argument. Not impressive by any standards, actually, a boring argument, borderline with generic.



First all the ranting and raving may have saved you money with your therapist.

Second, You are forgetting one key point here.

The 14th Amendment and others. In addition, you cannot have two standards for licensure in the US and it be constitutional. If the lawyer in the crowd learned anything in law school then you would know that US citizens and even those that are not US citizens have certain rights. When segregation was a problem with the African American Community the contsitutional played an important role in their rights despite what people thought. You are thinking like an amature and not a lawyer on this one. In Birmingham, AL a little BBQ place named Ollies thought they could do their own thing under "states rights" they found out differently when the federal government said they will not tolerate this behavior of segregation - period. In light of that , the US Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could serve whites and blacks or lose all federal funding for schools, roads etc.. OR comply with federal law. This is no different. To deny a US citizen a training license to obtain a medical residency that is receiving government funds by way of grants, medicare and medicaid could cost the institution a large part of their funding if it is found that discrimination is at play. This funding falls under the US Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, to deny a US citizen the right to obtain a medical license in any of the 50 states without due process and equal protection under the law is also a violation. Otherwise, we would continue to have two sets of standards. One for whites and one for blacks. Thank God that is behind us. People thought that people of color were inferior before 1964. LBJ took care of that. We now have an African-American president. In the 50's people would have laughed if you would have predicted that one.

It is too bad that you continue to have that attitude.

Ever heard of equal protection under the law? Civil rights? EEOC?

Have you read the lawsuit AUA filed? I have.

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.

I would like to hear facts about the filing of the case instead of "shoot from the mouth" opinion. That means you have to read the case and make argument based on the facts and laws that are stated in the AUA case. Not just, you are wrong because "I don't like you" or implying that people are inferior because of a choice or that people are immorale based on a choice. Roe v. Wade gave women rights despite what people "thought" was right. The "State" does not have the right to impinge on your Contsitutional Right.

[Arkie]

I like to base my arguments entirely on fact. See below (http://www.armedicalboard.org/support/nl/Issue40.pdf):

(Taken from the Amendment to Regulation No. 3 which was approved last summer)

7. ACA § 17-95-403(b)(3)iii(a) provides that an Applicant for licensure must submit to the Board that he is a graduate of “a foreign medical school whose entrance requirements and course of instruction have been approved by the Board.” The Arkansas State Medical Board will, by June 15th of each year provide to the public a list of medical schools which will be considered As “disapproved,” that is medical schools that the Board deems is unacceptable and, thus, students graduating from those schools will Not be considered for licensure by the Arkansas State Medical Board. Inclusion on the list of “disapproved medical schools” will be made by A majority vote of the Board. Criteria for inclusion on the list of “disapproved medical schools” will be based on but not limited to the following:
a. Information compiled by the staff of the Arkansas State Medical Board concerning the foreign medical school, its curriculum and facilities.<<Arkansas has never so much as called AUA officials to inquire about its medical education program.>>
b. Information compiled by other medical boards of the various states based on site visits to the foreign medical school.<<Please find 1 (ONE) state medical board that has compiled any information on AUA based on site visits.>>
c. Information from at least two (2) sister State Medical Licensure Boards that reflects that a Foreign Medical School has not been approved or recognized as a medical school needed for licensure of physicians or for other requirements of that Board. <<I know of only 1 state that has formally placed us on a list of unrecognized schools--CALIFORNIA. According to the Oregon medical board, applicants "must have graduated from a foreign medical school in one of the following countries which the Board considers to have medical schools equivalent to US medical schools: England, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia." By this standard, AUC, Ross, Saba, and SGU graduates would be deemed unfit to practice medicine in the State of Oregon. Sorry guys. According to the New Mexico Medical Board, "board approved school" means a medical school that has been approved by the liaison committee on medical education, composed of the AMA and the AAMC, has a liaison council on medical education (LCME)-approved curriculum or equivalent for graduates of Canadian schools, is on the approved list of the California state medical board, or has been approved by the board. The only state (New York) that has investigated AUA has granted accreditation. No state has compiled ANY information to suggest the contrary.>>
d. Those foreign medical schools whose curriculum and primary requirements are Internet based and/or distance learning, shall further be considered as disapproved. <<Well, you can count AUA out on that one...I've been stuck on this rock for months.>>

This is what AUA's lawyers are referring to when they say that the ASMB is ignoring it's own regulation number 3 when it restricts AUA graduates from obtaining licensure in the state of Arkansas.

[Arkie]

Wow, 2 Harvard grad. lawyers, big deal, you think the Medical Board's attorneys are impressed with that? I have seen Harvard lawyers loose to lawyers from less imnpressive schools, please get real, that is naive to say.





Harvard lawyers loose against lawyers from far lesser impressive schools. Get real

I hate it when I lose loose change. :headspin:

[Aviv Imanuel]

Hi Arkie, I like red, thanks for the bold red colors. However let me highlight something for you as well, in your own quote. Apparently they left a door open just in case....."will be based on but not limited to the following:"
Very clever.;)


I like to base my arguments entirely on fact. See below (http://www.armedicalboard.org/support/nl/Issue40.pdf):

7. ACA § 17-95-403(b)(3)iii(a) provides that an Applicant for licensure must submit to the Board that he is a graduate of “a foreign medical school whose entrance requirements and course of instruction have been approved by the Board.” The Arkansas State Medical Board will, by June 15th of each year provide to the public a list of medical schools which will be considered As “disapproved,” that is medical schools that the Board deems is unacceptable and, thus, students graduating from those schools will Not be considered for licensure by the Arkansas State Medical Board. Inclusion on the list of “disapproved medical schools” will be made by A majority vote of the Board. Criteria for inclusion on the list of “disapproved medical schools” will be based on but not limited to the following:
a. Information compiled by the staff of the Arkansas State Medical Board concerning the foreign medical school, its curriculum and facilities.<<Arkansas has never so much as called AUA officials to inquire about its medical education program.>>
b. Information compiled by other medical boards of the various states based on site visits to the foreign medical school.<<Please find 1 (ONE) state medical board that has compiled any information on AUA based on site visits.>>
c. Information from at least two (2) sister State Medical Licensure Boards that reflects that a Foreign Medical School has not been approved or recognized as a medical school needed for licensure of physicians or for other requirements of that Board. <<I know of only 1 state that has formally placed us on a list of unrecognized schools--CALIFORNIA. According to the Oregon medical board, applicants "must have graduated from a foreign medical school in one of the following countries which the Board considers to have medical schools equivalent to US medical schools: England, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia." By this standard, AUC, Ross, Saba, and SGU graduates would be deemed unfit to practice medicine in the State of Oregon. Sorry guys. According to the New Mexico Medical Board, "board approved school" means a medical school that has been approved by the liaison committee on medical education, composed of the AMA and the AAMC, has a liaison council on medical education (LCME)-approved curriculum or equivalent for graduates of Canadian schools, is on the approved list of the California state medical board, or has been approved by the board. The only state (New York) that has investigated AUA has granted accreditation. No state has compiled ANY information to suggest the contrary.>>
d. Those foreign medical schools whose curriculum and primary requirements are Internet based and/or distance learning, shall further be considered as disapproved. <<Well, you can count AUA out on that one...I've been stuck on this rock for months.>>

This is what AUA's lawyer is referring to when he says that the ASMB is ignoring it's own regulation number 3 when it restricts AUA graduates from obtaining licensure in the state of Arkansas.

[Aviv Imanuel]

I have seen better comebacks .;)


`I hate it when I lose loose change. :headspin:

[ol' man]

Criteria for inclusion on the list of “disapproved medical schools” will be based on but not limited to the following:


They kinda covered their butt on this bolded part, but they screwed up when they put in the italicized/underlined part. They are not basing it on either a or b, and c only applies to TN because the idiots there adopted the same CA list. When this lawsuit wins in AR, you will see similar lawsuits filed in TN and MS, unless the boards in those states have enough sense to realize they screwed up by following a state that can't even balance their state budget ...

[nevisbutterfly]

Oregon rules:



GRADUATES OF OTHER FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOLS

•
Must speak English fluently and write English legibly.

•


Medical School: Must have graduated from a foreign medical school:

��


Chartered in the country in which school is located

��


Attended four full terms of instruction of eight months each

��


All courses completed on-site in the country in which the medical school is chartered

��


Medical school must have provided a resident course of instruction equivalent to US medical

schools accredited by the LCME. Schools are considered equivalent if they are listed on the
California Medical Board’s List of Recognized Medical Schools
Welcome to the Medical Board of California - Medical Schools Recognized by the Medical Board of California (http://www.mbc.ca.gov/applicant/schools_recognized.html)



or are located in a country listed

by the US Department of Education’s National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and
Accreditation



http://www.ed.gov/print/about/bdscomm/list/ncfmea.html, which has

determined that these countries use standards to accredit their medical schools that are
comparable to the US medical school standards.
��



The Board may determine a foreign medical school is not equivalent if the medical

school has had its authorization, accreditation, certification or approval denied or
removed by any state, country or territorial jurisdiction, or its graduates were
refused a license by any state, country or territorial jurisdiction on the grounds
that the school failed or fails to meet reasonable standards for medical education
facilities.
Waiver



: 1. Four full terms of eight months each may be waived if applicant has substantially
met the attendance requirements, and applicant has current certification by ABMS or AOA-BOS.


So, 32 months after board certification you can get an Oregon license. Same rule applies in New Mexico.

[Aviv Imanuel]

I am under the impression this thing won't reach trial, will get dismissed. I explained why previously, pray that I am wrong though. ;)


They kinda covered their butt on this bolded part, but they screwed up when they put in the italicized/underlined part. They are not basing it on either a or b, and c only applies to TN because the idiots there adopted the same CA list. When this lawsuit wins in AR, you will see similar lawsuits filed in TN and MS, unless the boards in those states have enough sense to realize they screwed up by following a state that can't even balance their state budget ...

[Arkie]

Hi Arkie, I like red, thanks for the bold red colors. However let me highlight something for you as well, in your own quote. Apparently they left a door open just in case....."will be based on but not limited to the following:"
Very clever.;)

:lol: LOL! Maybe the 2009 revision will include a criterion 'e' which will read: "We do what we want because you're not the boss of us." :doh:

[Aviv Imanuel]

That is a possibility;)

Good night to all!

:lol: LOL! Maybe the 2009 revision will include a criterion 'e' which will read: "We do what we want because you're not the boss of us." :doh:

[jonasp]

As I said, I am not wasting my time with you, say what you want, if that makes you feel better.;)

Ciao
.............

[Aviv Imanuel]

Sayonara.... feel better now?;)




Aside from saying bye in different languages....still clueless

[jonasp]

Sayonara.... feel better now?;)

無知 (clueless in Japanese) ;)

[Aviv Imanuel]

No wonder you ended in a Caribbean school, it is self explanatory. res ipsa loquitur. Bye kiddo






無知 (clueless in Japanese) ;)

[wcb22]

Oregon rules:




GRADUATES OF OTHER FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOLS

•
Must speak English fluently and write English legibly.

•


Medical School: Must have graduated from a foreign medical school:

��


Chartered in the country in which school is located

��


Attended four full terms of instruction of eight months each

��


All courses completed on-site in the country in which the medical school is chartered

��


Medical school must have provided a resident course of instruction equivalent to US medical

schools accredited by the LCME. Schools are considered equivalent if they are listed on the

California Medical Board’s List of Recognized Medical Schools


Welcome to the Medical Board of California - Medical Schools Recognized by the Medical Board of California (http://www.mbc.ca.gov/applicant/schools_recognized.html)




or are located in a country listed

by the US Department of Education’s National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and

Accreditation




http://www.ed.gov/print/about/bdscomm/list/ncfmea.html, which has

determined that these countries use standards to accredit their medical schools that are

comparable to the US medical school standards.


��




The Board may determine a foreign medical school is not equivalent if the medical

school has had its authorization, accreditation, certification or approval denied or

removed by any state, country or territorial jurisdiction, or its graduates were
refused a license by any state, country or territorial jurisdiction on the grounds
that the school failed or fails to meet reasonable standards for medical education
facilities.


Waiver




: 1. Four full terms of eight months each may be waived if applicant has substantially
met the attendance requirements, and applicant has current certification by ABMS or AOA-BOS.


So, 32 months after board certification you can get an Oregon license. Same rule applies in New Mexico.


you are misreading it. in new mexico, you may obtain a permanent license by "reciprocity" if you have practiced in another state for 3 years, and your record is basically clean.

in oregon, that statement about the 4 full terms of 8 months each is speaking about medical school attendance, not time spent in another state with a permanent license.

[jonasp]

No wonder you ended in a Caribbean school, it is self explanatory. res ipsa loquitur. Bye kiddo
..................................

[Aviv Imanuel]

Cool, that is the only thing you can say about me, call me clueless, and that attitude made you cool in high school , got you through college with low gpa and low MCAT scores (if you took it at all) then you landed in a small Caribbean medical school that now has to sue in order to practice back home. Speaking of clueless?

Now do yourself a favor, go back to your medical books and study what you are supposed to be studying, medicine in your small library, from your small school, that has to sue in order to get their graduates to practice in certain states.

In the mean time I will remain clueless, just to please you;) You see, I am not difficult to deal with!

Bye for now kiddo.

[jonasp]

Cool, that is the only thing you can say about me, call me clueless, and that attitude made you cool in high school , got you through college with low gpa and low MCAT scores (if you took it at all) then you landed in a small Caribbean medical school that now has to sue in order to practice back home. Speaking of clueless?

Now do yourself a favor, go back to your medical books and study what you are supposed to be studying, medicine in your small library, from your small school, that has to sue in order to get their graduates to practice in certain states.

In the mean time I will remain clueless, just to please you;) You see, I am not difficult to deal with!

Bye for now kiddo.

.........................

[Aviv Imanuel]

No, MUA, even worse.;)
Boring! Now, back to your medical books and study what you are supposed to be studying, medicine in your small library, from your small school, that has to sue in order to get their graduates to practice in certain states because you were not smart enough for something better and you were clueless about licensing issues when you enrolled and now want every state to change their rules to fit the poor judgment of your decisions. So that makes 2 of us clueless kiddo. You are very boring.:cool::p;):D





I don't attend AUA..................The hat trick of cluelessness ;)

[Arkie]

I think he goes to SMU. Regardless, I think everyone needs to relax and stop with the personal attacks.

[jonasp]

No, MUA, even worse.;)
Boring! Now, back to your medical books and study what you are supposed to be studying, medicine in your small library, from your small school, that has to sue in order to get their graduates to practice in certain states because you were not smart enough for something better and you were clueless about licensing issues when you enrolled and now want every state to change their rules to fit the ineptitude of your decisions. So that makes 2 of us clueless kiddo. You are very boring.:cool::p;):D

.......................

[jonasp]

I think he goes to SMU. Regardless, I think everyone needs to relax and stop with the personal attacks.

I agree.I am not responding anymore.

[Aviv Imanuel]

SMU?, wow, impressive, the school that got the no stamp from California? Another school besides the big 4? Same pet, different fleas. What argument, that the board apparently is contradicting its own rules? 14th amendment generic argument? Come on, enlighten us with your knowledge, flood the thread with your impressive skills and argumentative thinking on the lawsuit. Of course, that is something some minds cannot even fathom to do.

Your turn.;)


If I get a warning, infraction, oh, well oh well!;)



Nope not MUA but keep going you will get there..............eventually :rolleyes:.Just because I understand AUA's argument doesnt mean I want anyone to sue any state. But thats something a clueless person can't understand.

[Arkie]

SMU?, wow, impressive, the school that oficially got the no stamp from California? Another school besides the big 4? Same pet, different fleas. What argument, that the board apparently is contradicting its own rules? 14th amendment generic argument? Come on, enlighten us with your knowledge, flood the thread with your impressive skills and argumentative thinking on the lawsuit. Of course, that is something an inept mind like yours cannot even fathom to do.

Your turn boy.;)


If I get a warning, infraction, it won't affect my pay nor my ability to make a living.;)

Why are you so combative? Do you want to talk about it?

[Tipton]

If I get a warning, infraction, it won't affect my pay nor my ability to make a living.;)

Who exactly would THAT apply to? Is anyone really affected by an infraction here?

[RussianJoo]

Who exactly would THAT apply to? Is anyone really affected by an infraction here?

if the infraction is serious enough valueMD administrators will call your school and let them know how you're behaving. then it's possible to be kicked out of your med school, for unprofessional behavior. I know of a few students at my school who were called in to speak with the dean on this matter, while they weren't expelled they were given a warning and I am sure if they continued they would have been. valuemd admins and mods mean business on here. I was even told by an admin that they will call your hospital if you're a resident or attending as well. and everyone knows how important being professional is to our career, and thus these phone calls are not taken lightly. Also these threads a lot of times are watched by not only school administrators and deans but also by the professors themselves. And when people post about cheating or post exam "hints" those comments aren't taken lightly either. And don't think for a second that your identity is hidden on here. it's not that hard to find out who you are if you follow that persons' posts for a bit, especially if you go to their school.

[med etudiant]

I think Chuck Norris was called in once or twice on a student as well. It wasn't pretty.

[Aviv Imanuel]

I was talking about myself. Literally speaking. Some people just totally freak out of an infraction, like if their life's would depend on it. My point is that, this is just entertainment, no more, no less. :)

Who exactly would THAT apply to? Is anyone really affected by an infraction here?

[azskeptic]

There is no stigma but being polite counts also?


I was talking about myself. Literally speaking. Some people just totally freak out of an infraction, like if their life's would depend on it. My point is that, I will not get a pay cut nor anything similar, in other words, this is just entertainment, no more, no less. :)

[Tipton]

I guess the significance of my most recent infraction has colored my view if their possible influence. Honestly my boss would probably give me an "atta boy!" if I was violating TOS here. But that's not the usual here.

[Arkie]

I guess the significance of my most recent infraction has colored my view if their possible influence. Honestly my boss would probably give me an "atta boy!" if I was violating TOS here. But that's not the usual here.

Can I get a tuition cut if I get some infractions?

[Shiz77]

Unfortunately Genossa's generalizations of carib med students holds true for the general public and even many doctors. Those of you in the 'Big 4' are not really immune from these views, outside valuemd and state medical boards, you are lumped in with the rest of the non big 4 schools when it comes to caribbean doctor stereotypes. I even remember distinctly an episode of Frasier, a reference to popular media, where he goes to see a Caribbean doctor and just scoffs at his advice.

I would have expected more from Genossa considering the amount of time he has spent on valuemd, but sadly that is not the case.

[Aviv Imanuel]

I hope this marathonic post explains why I think the allegations in the suit are generic and subject to be dismissed. It took me some time to put it all together.

I used to read every Supreme Court Reporter, Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and Pacific reporter that gets printed each week or so. Litigants keep making the same mistakes case after case after case.

The majority of litigants follow this outline:
(a) They file a complaint against the government replete with truthful allegations,
(b) The D.O.J. attorney answers the complaint with a motion to dismiss under either FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim means that the complainant has not provided evidence upon which the judge can grant relief. Under 12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction means that the complainant has not rebutted (with evidence) the presumption of sovereign immunity the government carries.
(c) The D.O.J. attorney files a motion for a protective order against discovery and the court grants it.
(d) The judge dismisses the matter or finds summary judgment in favor of the government without allowing discovery of any kind. The litigant has been beaten by a "presumption" and didn’t even recognize it. There is a presumption that "government always acts correctly" (within the law) and the litigant must REBUT their presumption.
A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. Presumptions arise where evidence to support an allegation is wanting, and they are indulged to supply the want of proof of a more direct character and cannot be resorted to where such proof is available. A presumption will necessarily relate only to matters upon which the record fails to speak. See Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 US 8, 51 L.Ed. 345, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep 236; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall US 350, 21 L.Ed. 959.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as "the taking of something for granted" or :evidence that points to the probability of something," and points out that in law it is defined as "the inference that a fact exists, based on the proved existence of other facts." If the "record" was always a faithful and accurate story of each step taken, from the incipient to the final stages of confrontation with the opposing party, to bring the subject matter and the parties before the court, there would be no occasion to using presumptions. If jurisdiction could be obtained by a perusal of the record itself, the courts would not "presume" anything to the contrary. Presumptions arise where the record is silent upon some fact or cannot be restored to in opposition to its plain terms.
In civil cases there are essential elements of a cause of action that a plaintiff must allege and prove if he is to prevail, and as to these elements he has the burden of proof. The allocation of the burden of proof is regulated by local rules and substantive law. Burden of proof is to be distinguished from the burden of going forward with the evidence.
The general rule in civil cases is that the party charged with the task of maintaining the burden of proof must established his case by a preponderance of the evidence. There is a long-standing presumption that "Government always acts within the law and is always right." This, in reality, means that government can do just about anything it wants to an individual and in the event the individual decides he has had enough mis-treatment/abuse/rights violated (marv) and decided to go to court to get an order to stop the MARV, he has a problem. The court will dismiss the matter because of the above stated presumption (Government always acts within the law and is always right). Litigants think they had made a claim when they alleged violations of law in the complaint and cited the statutory and case law support for your position. The "state a claim upon which relief could be granted" phraseology means PROVIDE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE COURT CAN LOOK AT AND BASE RELIEF UPON. When we FAIL to include EVIDENCE in the document (complaint) that we make the allegations then we have "failed to state a claim".
When litigants allege wrongdoings (violations of your rights), cite lots of statutory and caselaw support for their position all they are doing is arguing. Citing lots of statutory and caselaw support is not evidence. Remember, in a civil suit against a non-government person there usually is granted a period for discovery to bring evidence forward. When you sue government you need to bring forward all of your evidence up front in the complaint because there will be no discovery and when you do not bring the evidence along in the complaint your allegations will be dismissed for "failure to state a claim" upon which the court can grant relief.
When we fail to provide the EVIDENCE in our pleadings we fail to rebut the presumption of correctness held by the government and recognized by the courts. We need to give the court something upon which they can grant relief. I will again make the claim that we too often give the judiciary hell and unjustly criticize them when the problem lies at our own feet. We are the problem. I suppose you want to know how I learned this. I learned this and many other things from judges and peers. We need to listen when the judge is either speaking to us or telling us something via his written order.
A judge told me that when a moving party has oral argument and does not know what is in the pleading he will automatically deny the motion or petition. He wants the litigators to be well prepared and be proficient in arguing their pleadings. They do not like someone to consume their time with stupidity or incompetence. So the mere fact of mentioning in their pleading that the Arkansas Board of Medicine is not following their own rules, is per se, not evidence enough.



I expect some rebuttals.

[Arkie]

I hope this marathonic post explains why I think the allegations in the suit are generic and subject to be dismissed. It took me some time to put it all together.

I used to read every Supreme Court Reporter, Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and Pacific reporter that gets printed each week or so. Litigants keep making the same mistakes case after case after case.

The majority of litigants follow this outline:
(a) They file a complaint against the government replete with truthful allegations,
(b) The D.O.J. attorney answers the complaint with a motion to dismiss under either FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim means that the complainant has not provided evidence upon which the judge can grant relief. Under 12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction means that the complainant has not rebutted (with evidence) the presumption of sovereign immunity the government carries.
(c) The D.O.J. attorney files a motion for a protective order against discovery and the court grants it.
(d) The judge dismisses the matter or finds summary judgment in favor of the government without allowing discovery of any kind. The litigant has been beaten by a "presumption" and didn’t even recognize it. There is a presumption that "government always acts correctly" (within the law) and the litigant must REBUT their presumption.
A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. Presumptions arise where evidence to support an allegation is wanting, and they are indulged to supply the want of proof of a more direct character and cannot be resorted to where such proof is available. A presumption will necessarily relate only to matters upon which the record fails to speak. See Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 US 8, 51 L.Ed. 345, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep 236; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall US 350, 21 L.Ed. 959.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as "the taking of something for granted" or :evidence that points to the probability of something," and points out that in law it is defined as "the inference that a fact exists, based on the proved existence of other facts." If the "record" was always a faithful and accurate story of each step taken, from the incipient to the final stages of confrontation with the opposing party, to bring the subject matter and the parties before the court, there would be no occasion to using presumptions. If jurisdiction could be obtained by a perusal of the record itself, the courts would not "presume" anything to the contrary. Presumptions arise where the record is silent upon some fact or cannot be restored to in opposition to its plain terms.
In civil cases there are essential elements of a cause of action that a plaintiff must allege and prove if he is to prevail, and as to these elements he has the burden of proof. The allocation of the burden of proof is regulated by local rules and substantive law. Burden of proof is to be distinguished from the burden of going forward with the evidence.
The general rule in civil cases is that the party charged with the task of maintaining the burden of proof must established his case by a preponderance of the evidence. There is a long-standing presumption that "Government always acts within the law and is always right." This, in reality, means that government can do just about anything it wants to an individual and in the event the individual decides he has had enough mis-treatment/abuse/rights violated (marv) and decided to go to court to get an order to stop the MARV, he has a problem. The court will dismiss the matter because of the above stated presumption (Government always acts within the law and is always right). Litigants think they had made a claim when they alleged violations of law in the complaint and cited the statutory and case law support for your position. The "state a claim upon which relief could be granted" phraseology means PROVIDE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE COURT CAN LOOK AT AND BASE RELIEF UPON. When we FAIL to include EVIDENCE in the document (complaint) that we make the allegations then we have "failed to state a claim".
When litigants allege wrongdoings (violations of your rights), cite lots of statutory and caselaw support for their position all they are doing is arguing. Citing lots of statutory and caselaw support is not evidence. Remember, in a civil suit against a non-government person there usually is granted a period for discovery to bring evidence forward. When you sue government you need to bring forward all of your evidence up front in the complaint because there will be no discovery and when you do not bring the evidence along in the complaint your allegations will be dismissed for "failure to state a claim" upon which the court can grant relief.
When we fail to provide the EVIDENCE in our pleadings we fail to rebut the presumption of correctness held by the government and recognized by the courts. We need to give the court something upon which they can grant relief. I will again make the claim that we too often give the judiciary hell and unjustly criticize them when the problem lies at our own feet. We are the problem. I suppose you want to know how I learned this. I learned this and many other things from judges and peers. We need to listen when the judge is either speaking to us or telling us something via his written order.
A judge told me that when a moving party has oral argument and does not know what is in the pleading he will automatically deny the motion or petition. He wants the litigators to be well prepared and be proficient in arguing their pleadings. They do not like someone to consume their time with stupidity or incompetence. So the mere fact of mentioning in their pleading that the Arkansas Board of Medicine is not following their own rules, is per se, not evidence enough.



I expect some rebuttals.

http://www.quarter-mile.net/images/haha/cats/TL;DR.jpg

[Aviv Imanuel]

Well, didn't you ask me to talk about it, here it is in a less combative format. Give it a try, it will teach you a thing or 2;)


http://www.quarter-mile.net/images/haha/cats/TL;DR.jpg

[FOID]

Play nice everyone. A general warning to all: any further violations of the Terms of Service will result in immediate infractions. No courteous PMs will be sent.

[futureboy]

I hope this marathonic post explains why I think the allegations in the suit are generic and subject to be dismissed. It took me some time to put it all together.

I used to read every Supreme Court Reporter, Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and Pacific reporter that gets printed each week or so. Litigants keep making the same mistakes case after case after case.

The majority of litigants follow this outline:
(a) They file a complaint against the government replete with truthful allegations,
(b) The D.O.J. attorney answers the complaint with a motion to dismiss under either FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim means that the complainant has not provided evidence upon which the judge can grant relief. Under 12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction means that the complainant has not rebutted (with evidence) the presumption of sovereign immunity the government carries.
(c) The D.O.J. attorney files a motion for a protective order against discovery and the court grants it.
(d) The judge dismisses the matter or finds summary judgment in favor of the government without allowing discovery of any kind. The litigant has been beaten by a "presumption" and didn’t even recognize it. There is a presumption that "government always acts correctly" (within the law) and the litigant must REBUT their presumption.
A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. Presumptions arise where evidence to support an allegation is wanting, and they are indulged to supply the want of proof of a more direct character and cannot be resorted to where such proof is available. A presumption will necessarily relate only to matters upon which the record fails to speak. See Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 US 8, 51 L.Ed. 345, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep 236; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall US 350, 21 L.Ed. 959.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as "the taking of something for granted" or :evidence that points to the probability of something," and points out that in law it is defined as "the inference that a fact exists, based on the proved existence of other facts." If the "record" was always a faithful and accurate story of each step taken, from the incipient to the final stages of confrontation with the opposing party, to bring the subject matter and the parties before the court, there would be no occasion to using presumptions. If jurisdiction could be obtained by a perusal of the record itself, the courts would not "presume" anything to the contrary. Presumptions arise where the record is silent upon some fact or cannot be restored to in opposition to its plain terms.
In civil cases there are essential elements of a cause of action that a plaintiff must allege and prove if he is to prevail, and as to these elements he has the burden of proof. The allocation of the burden of proof is regulated by local rules and substantive law. Burden of proof is to be distinguished from the burden of going forward with the evidence.
The general rule in civil cases is that the party charged with the task of maintaining the burden of proof must established his case by a preponderance of the evidence. There is a long-standing presumption that "Government always acts within the law and is always right." This, in reality, means that government can do just about anything it wants to an individual and in the event the individual decides he has had enough mis-treatment/abuse/rights violated (marv) and decided to go to court to get an order to stop the MARV, he has a problem. The court will dismiss the matter because of the above stated presumption (Government always acts within the law and is always right). Litigants think they had made a claim when they alleged violations of law in the complaint and cited the statutory and case law support for your position. The "state a claim upon which relief could be granted" phraseology means PROVIDE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE COURT CAN LOOK AT AND BASE RELIEF UPON. When we FAIL to include EVIDENCE in the document (complaint) that we make the allegations then we have "failed to state a claim".
When litigants allege wrongdoings (violations of your rights), cite lots of statutory and caselaw support for their position all they are doing is arguing. Citing lots of statutory and caselaw support is not evidence. Remember, in a civil suit against a non-government person there usually is granted a period for discovery to bring evidence forward. When you sue government you need to bring forward all of your evidence up front in the complaint because there will be no discovery and when you do not bring the evidence along in the complaint your allegations will be dismissed for "failure to state a claim" upon which the court can grant relief.
When we fail to provide the EVIDENCE in our pleadings we fail to rebut the presumption of correctness held by the government and recognized by the courts. We need to give the court something upon which they can grant relief. I will again make the claim that we too often give the judiciary hell and unjustly criticize them when the problem lies at our own feet. We are the problem. I suppose you want to know how I learned this. I learned this and many other things from judges and peers. We need to listen when the judge is either speaking to us or telling us something via his written order.
A judge told me that when a moving party has oral argument and does not know what is in the pleading he will automatically deny the motion or petition. He wants the litigators to be well prepared and be proficient in arguing their pleadings. They do not like someone to consume their time with stupidity or incompetence. So the mere fact of mentioning in their pleading that the Arkansas Board of Medicine is not following their own rules, is per se, not evidence enough.



I expect some rebuttals.

15+ year litigation attorney here. Per the court docket I reviewed yesterday, the medical board and other defendants filed an answer, not a motion to dismiss. I did not review the answer because it would have cost me money to view it. The plaintiff (AUA) is still not out of the woods, though, because the board can still can file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) or a motion for summary judgment under FRCP 56(c) after discovery is complete. The judge, Susan Webber Wright, set a trial date in November 2009. Judge Wright is probably best known nationwide as the judge who dismissed the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit filed against then-President Clinton.

I generally agree that this case will be very difficult for AUA to win, although AUA has made some interesting arguments in support of its legal theories. It's just hard to prove constitutional violations. Additionally, there are a couple of things that jump out at me about the suit. AUA may have a problem showing it has standing to bring the suit. In order to bring suit, a litigant usually (with some exceptions) needs to show he/she/it has suffered an actual wrong that can be redressed in court. Courts do not resolve merely hypothetical questions. In this case, I would think that AUA would have been better served if one of its students actually applied for an Arkansas license, been denied, and exhausted whatever administrative appeals/procedure, etc., if any, that may exist. AUA may be able to get around the standing issue anyway, but having an actual license denial would have solidified its argument.

The second thing I noticed is that while the complaint talks about a conspiracy between LCME, AMA, and the state licensing board to keep certain US citizens out of the parctice of medicine, none of those entities were named as defendants, and no antitrust violation claim was asserted. That would have been interesting. I am not an antitrust lawyer, though, so there may have been valid reasons, legal and/or strategic, that an antitrust claim was not asserted.

Genossa, while I agree that this is a tough case for AUA, I have a few comments regarding your post, at the risk of further boring the non-lawyers reading this. I do not agree that judges routinely prohibit plaintiffs suing the government from engaging in discovery (exchange of witnesses, documents, and other evidence). It's pretty rare for a judge to do this. The parties have a right to demand information from each other in a civil suit, and FRCP 26(a) even mandates that parties automatically identify witnesses and turn over documents without the other side making a discovery request. I also disagree with your interpretation of FRCP 12(b)(6) (motion to dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted). The burden is not on the plaintiff in such motions, it is on the movant (here, it would be the medical board) to show that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to relief. All facts asserted in the complaint are assumed to be true for purposes of the motion. It's actually a tough hurdle for the defendant(s). Also, I don't think that it's necessarily presumed that the government acted properly (though statutory immunity is a hurdle that some plaintiffs need to jump over), but it is true that a plaintiff suing the government has the burden to prove its claims, as it would if it were not suing the government.

Just my $0.02.

[bstone]

Extremely interesting to read your views, futureboy. Please keep us all updated. Regarding the issue of applying, being denies, appeals, etc- isn't that a mute point in light of the AK med board stating outright that no license application would be accepted from an AUA graduate?

[Arkie]

Extremely interesting to read your views, futureboy. Please keep us all updated. Regarding the issue of applying, being denies, appeals, etc- isn't that a mute point in light of the AK med board stating outright that no license application would be accepted from an AUA graduate?

Just to clear things up a bit: AK = Alaska, AR = Arkansas.

I also look forward to hearing more from this guy (futureboy). Seems to know his stuff. ;)

2 of the plaintiffs are recent graduates who were outright denied by residency programs in AR based on AUA being on the state's new Disapproved List.....if that isn't sufficient, I don't know what is.......why would anyone waste their time fighting a losing battle? <<We have loans that are accruing interest every time we take a breath>> The ASMB states that nobody from AUA (and many other schools) can practice there...no exceptions...unlike some states that will at least consider applicants case-by-case.

[Aviv Imanuel]

Thanks for your post, it is refreshing to have someone who can see why some of us are not so hyped up on these matters. It is good to know why we disagree in such an eloquent manner!

Thanks!;)



15+ year litigation attorney here. Per the court docket I reviewed yesterday, the medical board and other defendants filed an answer, not a motion to dismiss. I did not review the answer because it would have cost me money to view it. The plaintiff (AUA) is still not out of the woods, though, because the board can still can file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) or a motion for summary judgment under FRCP 56(c) after discovery is complete. The judge, Susan Webber Wright, set a trial date in November 2009. Judge Wright is probably best known nationwide as the judge who dismissed the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit filed against then-President Clinton.

I generally agree that this case will be very difficult for AUA to win, although AUA has made some interesting arguments in support of its legal theories. It's just hard to prove constitutional violations. Additionally, there are a couple of things that jump out at me about the suit. AUA may have a problem showing it has standing to bring the suit. In order to bring suit, a litigant usually (with some exceptions) needs to show he/she/it has suffered an actual wrong that can be redressed in court. Courts do not resolve merely hypothetical questions. In this case, I would think that AUA would have been better served if one of its students actually applied for an Arkansas license, been denied, and exhausted whatever administrative appeals/procedure, etc., if any, that may exist. AUA may be able to get around the standing issue anyway, but having an actual license denial would have solidified its argument.

The second thing I noticed is that while the complaint talks about a conspiracy between LCME, AMA, and the state licensing board to keep certain US citizens out of the parctice of medicine, none of those entities were named as defendants, and no antitrust violation claim was asserted. That would have been interesting. I am not an antitrust lawyer, though, so there may have been valid reasons, legal and/or strategic, that an antitrust claim was not asserted.

Genossa, while I agree that this is a tough case for AUA, I have a few comments regarding your post, at the risk of further boring the non-lawyers reading this. I do not agree that judges routinely prohibit plaintiffs suing the government from engaging in discovery (exchange of witnesses, documents, and other evidence). It's pretty rare for a judge to do this. The parties have a right to demand information from each other in a civil suit, and FRCP 26(a) even mandates that parties automatically identify witnesses and turn over documents without the other side making a discovery request. I also disagree with your interpretation of FRCP 12(b)(6) (motion to dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted). The burden is not on the plaintiff in such motions, it is on the movant (here, it would be the medical board) to show that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to relief. All facts asserted in the complaint are assumed to be true for purposes of the motion. It's actually a tough hurdle for the defendant(s). Also, I don't think that it's necessarily presumed that the government acted properly (though statutory immunity is a hurdle that some plaintiffs need to jump over), but it is true that a plaintiff suing the government has the burden to prove its claims, as it would if it were not suing the government.

Just my $0.02.

[Arkie]

Thanks for your post, it is refreshing to have someone who can see why some of us are not so hyped up on these matters. It is good to know why we disagree in such an eloquent manner!

Thanks!;)

I've been called a lot of things, but ineloquent was not one of them (until now). :( :teardrop:

[handy388]

I have a feeling what will end up happening is AUA loses the suit and more states ended up adapting such a list.

[futureboy]

Just to clear things up a bit:
2 of the plaintiffs are recent graduates who were outright denied by residency programs in AR based on AUA being on the state's new Disapproved List.....if that isn't sufficient, I don't know what is........

This may be enough, but I'm not sure. I would need to do further research on the standing issue. The attorneys probably checked it out before filing suit, but you never know. It would have been better to have someone who applied and was denied, but maybe there wasn't anyone available, or anyone who was willing to do it. If you are a party to a (civil) lawsuit, you usually have to answer questions at a deposition -- not too fun.

[Shiz77]

Any updates?

[Arkie]

Futureboy said that the trial date is set for November 2009...probably wont hear much until then.

[bstone]

Futureboy said that the trial date is set for November 2009...probably wont hear much until then.

Unless they settle. How likely is that?

[Rossgrad2011]

I have a feeling what will end up happening is AUA loses the suit and more states ended up adapting such a list.

Exactly what I said a few pages ago

Or something new will be set as criteria and the ones not banned will get approved and these on Theban list will try and fail

I just hope this suit doesn't get public (media) attention because the populace is very narrowminded and doesn't care about the diff bw the banned and non banned colleges

Or the best case scenario for the banned list is case to case which sucks dishing out100-150k and not having any idea if u will get in

[futureboy]

Any updates?

There is nothing new on the court docket to report. Here is some additional information about the case from the docket not provided in my previous posts:

U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:09-cv-00306-SWW

Date Filed: 04/27/2009
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question [the jurisdiction of federal courts in civil cases is generally limited to (1) federal question (arising under the laws or constitution of the United States), or (2) diversity (amount in controversy of $75,000 or greater, and no plaintiff can be the citizen of the same state as any defendant).]

5/20/09 docket entry: INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 7/27/2009; Rule 26(f) Report due by 8/10/2009; COURT Trial [trial in front of the judge with no jury] set for 11/23/2009 09:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom # 1D before Judge Susan Webber Wright. Signed by C. Norwood at the direction of the Court on 5/20/09. (mcn) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

The above docket entry says that the report to the court about the parties' voluntary discovery disclosures is due 8/10/09. The parties are required to have a conference (communicate) with each other about the disclosures by 7/27/09. The parties basically decide what information/documents they will share voluntarily, and what they'll fight about. It is not likely that something will happen before these dates -- as the saying goes, the wheels of justice turn slowly. However, the November trial date in this case is a pretty quick trial date, relatively speaking.

[azskeptic]

If you have Pacer you can look at lawsuits from several players in the Offshore school industry (not state board lawsuits). Sort of enlightening on some..one is a RICO lawsuit in Florida, another is in Massachusetts.

[futureboy]

Unless they settle. How likely is that?

Generally speaking, 90-95% of cases (or more) settle before trial, so the odds favor settlement. However, this case is a bit different because the plaintiffs (school and students ) are challenging the medical board's entire licensing procedure for foreign medical school graduates. This fact, and the fact that the plaintiffs have a pretty tough case, make is less likely that there will be a settlement. There is a chance, though, that the board may realize that its policy is too restrictive, and may rethink its blanket exclusion of students from certain schools. The most likely settlement would would involve the board agreeing to grant a license on a case-by-case basis to graduates of non-approved schools.

[Kronos]

The most likely settlement would would involve the board agreeing to grant a license on a case-by-case basis to graduates of non-approved schools.

Seeing how intransigent these boards have been in past years, I doubt this would happen... but I feel this would be a great step in the right direction. Case by case is so much better than blanket approval/disapproval. Hopefully AUA takes a lighter tack when it comes down to the wire and is open to a settlement like this for all schools and not just themselves.

[azskeptic]

States can't settle things that could put people at risk. My guess is that this case will be thrown out due to lack of clarity (after having an attorney read it to me it was his opinion) Hard to know though....law is fascinating to watch.

Seeing how intransigent these boards have been in past years, I doubt this would happen... but I feel this would be a great step in the right direction. Case by case is so much better than blanket approval/disapproval. Hopefully AUA takes a lighter tack when it comes down to the wire and is open to a settlement like this for all schools and not just themselves.

[Kronos]

This is so true... purely from a PR standpoint, it looks bad to "settle" this case since we are talking about doctors here. The public would not take it well.

[Arkie]

This is so true... purely from a PR standpoint, it looks bad to "settle" this case since we are talking about doctors here. The public would not take it well.

Do you really think that the general public would care about a few AMERICAN CITIZENS from AUA practicing medicine in Arkansas? Students who did well on their coursework, passed all of their board exams, and went through extensive training in AMERICAN residency programs? Honestly, I think the public would be furious if they knew that foreign medical graduates who are NOT even US citizens are getting preferential treatment over USIMGs. It's ridiculous. Even the dean of UAMS has spoken out against the ASMB deciding to follow the California list...this WILL result in less competition for residency positions in Arkansas...maybe even unfilled positions. Many students from UAMS leave the state following graduation. If they keep restricting licensure, they're going to face an even more critical physician shortage than they already have.

In the end, I think that's EXACTLY what the ASMB wants: a serious physician shortage. Every time a baby boomer physician retires and a USIMG is denied licensure, their prestige and earnings go up. ;)

[DOCplucinski]

If you have Pacer you can look at lawsuits from several players in the Offshore school industry (not state board lawsuits). Sort of enlightening on some..one is a RICO lawsuit in Florida, another is in Massachusetts.
i don't know anything about law and i'm not disagreeing with you but i feel like AUA wouldn't go after this kind of thing if they didn't know what they were doing. NS the president is a lawyer himself specializing in medical licensing. whatever happens happens but i just think that there has to be something that AUA has that makes them think they really have a good shot at winning the case.

[Kronos]

In the end, I think that's EXACTLY what the ASMB wants: a serious physician shortage. Every time a baby boomer physician retires and a USIMG is denied licensure, their prestige and earnings go up. ;)

I see what you are saying, but you might be giving them too much credit .... the level of cognitive dissonance on licensing issues for USIMGs is staggering. Even with the huge physician shortage in Arkansas, ASMB won't connect the dots to the licensure situation with unapproved schools, even if they were putting out ready and willing citizens to practice.

[Kronos]

i feel like AUA wouldn't go after this kind of thing if they didn't know what they were doing.

That's how SMU students felt when our school applied for CA licensure back in 2005... :mad:

[futureboy]

States can't settle things that could put people at risk.

The Arkansas medical board could change their administrative rules regarding the licensure of foreign medical school graduates as a part of a settlement. The board would have to follow the proper procedures (whatever they may be) for revising the rules, though.

[nevisbutterfly]

Caribbean Medical School, Students Sue State Medical Board on Arkansas Medical News Inc. (http://www.arkansasmedicalnews.com/news.php?viewStory=758)

Article just released.

If you are board certified in your field and completed the ACGME residency program is that qualified? According to the Arkansas Medical Board the answer is "NO".

Board certification is the "gold standard" in any given medical profession.

[UHSADOC]

Delisting & Discrimination Legal Fund:
And....why CARICOM IMGs Must support AUA:

I think all CARICOM Med schools should join and support AUA with this lawsuit, hopefully that will send a clear message to state boards, that CARICOM MDs are as good if not better than many LCME type medical programs and MDs. This is another clear case of discrimination from medical board.

California is the next in line. All CARICOM IMGs should start a Legal Fund and support AUA and other CARICOM Medical schools that are "delisted"

The "CA List" et al. doesn't make anysense, we all know what it takes to become ECFMG certified. You have to get your MD, PASS step 1, Pass Step 2CK and Pass 2CS. Which is EXACTLY the same process LCME MDs go through in the states !!!

[Aviv Imanuel]

What do you mean California is next in the line? The Arkansas case has not even been decided yet, you say that after you have a favorable decision , a win. Anyone can sue for all that matters, you can go ahead and sue California, you me anyone who wants to.




Delisting & Discrimination Legal Fund:
And....why CARICOM IMGs Must support AUA:

I think all CARICOM Med schools should join and support AUA with this lawsuit, hopefully that will send a clear message to state boards, that CARICOM MDs are as good if not better than many LCME type medical programs and MDs. This is another clear case of discrimination from medical board.

California is the next in line. All CARICOM IMGs should start a Legal Fund and support AUA and other CARICOM Medical schools that are "delisted"

The "CA List" et al. doesn't make anysense, we all know what it takes to become ECFMG certified. You have to get your MD, PASS step 1, Pass Step 2CK and Pass 2CS. Which is EXACTLY the same process LCME MDs go through in the states !!!

[bstone]

Sclafani said the school was willing to pay for the board's expenses to come to Antigua to investigate it. He said Arkansas has a shortage of trained personnel in numerous areas of medicine and health care, so it shouldn't be limiting its access to trained medical personnel.

Very interesting. AR bans AUA because they say that AUA doesn't meet their standards, but then refuses an all-expense-paid-trip to actually investigate.

[Magen-MD]

I haven't been able to read the full article because I need the subscription but here is the link Medical school suing board (http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/apr/29/medical-school-suing-board-20090429/)

This is from the AUA forum.

Medical school suing board
Graduates denied licenses in state
BY CAROLYNE PARK ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

A medical school in the Caribbean islands is suing the Arkansas State Medical Board and its 12 board members for not allowing its graduates to become licensed physicians in Arkansas.

The lawsuit on behalf of American University of Antigua and four former and current students was filed late Monday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

American University of Antigua is one of 53 schools in Central America, the Caribbean and Africa that are on a list of “disapproved” medical schools approved by the medical board last year. The board developed the list in an effort to identify foreign medical schools so questionable in quality that their graduates shouldn’t be allowed to practice medicine in Arkansas.

But the university claims the board violated its own rules in developing the list “in favor of damaging and discriminating against AUA and other medical schools in the Caribbean region,” according to the lawsuit.

Further, it claims the board is violating the 14th Amendment rights of American citizens who are students at the school by preventing them the “right to practice the professions of their choice and in the right to apply for and to obtain a license to practice medicine in Arkansas without due process of law and without equal protection of the laws.”

The plaintiffs include Ar- kansas natives Amber Milward of Bentonville and Justin T. Harney of Crossett. Both are students at the university and plan to return to Arkansas to practice medicine after they graduate, according to the lawsuit.

Graduates Shreekanth Cheruku of Whitestone, N.Y., and Anjan Patel, of Pennsville, N.J., are also plaintiffs.

The medical board hasn’t yet filed a response to the lawsuit. Bill Trice, the board’s attorney, didn’t return phone messages left with his Little Rock office Tuesday.

New York attorney Leonard Sclafani and the Schults Law Firm of Little Rock are representing the university, its graduates and students.

Sclafani said this is the first lawsuit they’ve filed against a state medical board, although there are other states that deny medical licenses to its graduates.

“We filed against Arkansas because they’re particularly egregious in the way they went about following this trend,” he said. “Other states have done it in a gentler fashion.”

At its June 2008 meeting, the Arkansas medical board voted to use the Medical Board of California’s list of “approved” and “ disapproved” schools as its main guide in deciding which schools should be on Arkansas’ disapproved list.

Arkansas’ list includes schools that either aren’t recognized by California or that are on that state’s disapproved list. Several other states also use California’s list as a guide, including Mississippi, Vermont, Alaska and New Mexico.

At the June meeting, Dr. Trent P. Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas board — who is recovering from injuries suffered in a bomb blast in the driveway of his West Memphis home Feb. 4. — said most states don’t have the resources to review foreign medical schools themselves.

“California is the only state that does its own site reviews of medical schools, and its list in many cases is the gold standard for which schools [state medical boards] will allow and not allow,” he said at the meeting.

The lawsuit argues the board violated its own rules by disapproving the university without conducting its own investigation, or relying on any investigation by a sister state medical board.

“They have no basis to say we’re disreputable,” Sclafani said. “They don’t know anything about us. They haven’t done any site visits, they haven’t asked us for any information.”

American University of Antigua was founded in 2004 by a group of American doctors and medical professionals, according to the lawsuit. It was then sold to Manipal University, a privately owned university in India.

It has no connection to American University in Washington, D.C.

The medical school hasn’t undergone the approval process for California, and isn’t on its approved or disapproved list, Sclafani said. The university was approved by New York’s medical board after undergoing an extensive review process and plans to apply for approval in Florida and California, he said.

This is loaded. Wow!

Which are the other 53 disapproved ones?

[Magen-MD]

Delisting & Discrimination Legal Fund:
And....why CARICOM IMGs Must support AUA:

I think all CARICOM Med schools should join and support AUA with this lawsuit, hopefully that will send a clear message to state boards, that CARICOM MDs are as good if not better than many LCME type medical programs and MDs. This is another clear case of discrimination from medical board.

California is the next in line. All CARICOM IMGs should start a Legal Fund and support AUA and other CARICOM Medical schools that are "delisted"

The "CA List" et al. doesn't make anysense, we all know what it takes to become ECFMG certified. You have to get your MD, PASS step 1, Pass Step 2CK and Pass 2CS. Which is EXACTLY the same process LCME MDs go through in the states !!!

You are right! You are a real statesman. And AUA will now realise too, that IMGs face the same challenges and one cannot be la vie d'avi, so to speak, and play politics of recognition to institutions that have been the course of the establishment of academic status quo for the longest time. The reality is AUA in not in USA. Therefore, a foreign institution. Facing the same challenges that all others have to face. Voila!

It is no doubt that CALICOM institutions are producing even better MD. If anyone can dispute this...Why don't they take, for instance, the best of McMaster University or McGill or other USA institutions and the best of Windsor/SABA/Ross/UHSA and others, not even including St Georges and compare their perfomance in USMLE 1. End of story. You will discover that these caribbean schools will most likely, out perform the so called LCME schools. Why don't they do that?

Why institutions keep holding on to politics of education than the actual education, I have no clue. That beats me!

[futureboy]

I just checked on the AUA vs. Arkansas medical board case. There is nothing new on the docket to report.

[futureboy]

This is a post I submitted to the Medical news of Arkansas (Apparently, their staff needs to review it before it's posted):

The reliance of Arkansas (and the other states that follow California) on the California list is particularly misplaced because California doesn't actually conduct substantial systematic evaluations of ALL of the Caribbean schools, either. California just PRESUMES that schools are inadequate unless proven otherwise. The schools are classified as either (1) approved (after application and a site visit), (2) disapproved (applied and were rejected), or (3) neither approved nor disapproved (never applied for approval). California does not grant a license to graduates of schools in either of the last two categories.

So basically Arkansas will automatically deny a license to graduates of Caribbean schools that were never evaluated by anyone at all, including California. If California actually did systematic site visits at all the Caribbean schools as part of its evaluation and compiled information about the schools that can be shares with other states, the reliance on the California list would make some sense. As it stands now, however, it makes no sense at all.

Additionally, I have issues with the criteria California uses to approve/deny schools. I suggest that anyone with an interest in this topic review the California medical board reports approving the SABA medical school and denying approval of the St. Matthews medical school. These reports are posted on the California board's web site (the last time I checked). With St. Matthews, the board seemed to be satisfied with the education provided its students. However, the board focused on things like whether the campus buildings were owned or leased (they were leased), admissions standards, administrative issues (particularly in the clinical rotation program), and the tracking of their graduates (alumni). While these are valid concerns, I wouldn't think they should cause the disapproval of the school if the education and facilities are otherwise adequate.

While there are some suspect schools, the majority of Caribbean schools adequately prepare physicians for entrance into residency programs. It is a shame to deny licenses to graduates of decent Caribbean schools because of an irrational fear of being overrun by unqualified Caribbean school graduates.

For the record, I am not affiliated in any way with any Caribbean medical school.

[Chopdoc]

The "CA List" et al. doesn't make anysense, we all know what it takes to become ECFMG certified. You have to get your MD, PASS step 1, Pass Step 2CK and Pass 2CS. Which is EXACTLY the same process LCME MDs go through in the states !!!

Close...but not really. The "LCME MDs" went to an LCME school...obviously. You can't leave that out in the description of the process then toss it in later as if it is incidental. They didn't just "get their MD". The steps alone cannot and should not alone be the measure. Nor ahould any post-graduate training or certifications. Schools do need to be "certified" or "accredited" as having met a standard IMHO. And that standard needs to go well beyond whether or not their students pass the USMLE or whether or not they have a library on campus etc.

It is an important point and one that must be addressed. No doubt the "system" is broken, but one must look at it realistically anyway.

[bstone]

Somali security minister killed in explosion - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_re_af/af_somalia)

And yet their med school is still "approved" by CA.

[azskeptic]

Well, if peace was your criteria there would be hundreds of schools that wouldn't make the grade including areas of NY and NJ.

Somali security minister killed in explosion - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_re_af/af_somalia)

And yet their med school is still "approved" by CA.

[bstone]

Well, if peace was your criteria there would be hundreds of schools that wouldn't make the grade including areas of NY and NJ.

NY and NJ have functioning governments. Somalia does not. That is the major difference.

[Arkie]

NY and NJ have functioning governments. Somalia does not. That is the major difference.

Talk about a malfunctioning government: California nears financial meltdown as revs tumble | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55974820090610)

:lol:

[bstone]

Talk about a malfunctioning government: California nears financial meltdown as revs tumble | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55974820090610)

:lol:

I wonder if the CA Medical Board will have the budget cut enough to disable their ability to do such extensive site visits.

[Arkie]

Oh, I'm sure having a bankrupt state government will delay future site visits.

[lacarthic]

Now is the time to sue California. Strike while the iron is hot!! They have no money to defend themselves. LOL

[handy388]

You are right! You are a real statesman. And AUA will now realise too, that IMGs face the same challenges and one cannot be la vie d'avi, so to speak, and play politics of recognition to institutions that have been the course of the establishment of academic status quo for the longest time. The reality is AUA in not in USA. Therefore, a foreign institution. Facing the same challenges that all others have to face. Voila!

It is no doubt that CALICOM institutions are producing even better MD. If anyone can dispute this...Why don't they take, for instance, the best of McMaster University or McGill or other USA institutions and the best of Windsor/SABA/Ross/UHSA and others, not even including St Georges and compare their perfomance in USMLE 1. End of story. You will discover that these caribbean schools will most likely, out perform the so called LCME schools. Why don't they do that?

Why institutions keep holding on to politics of education than the actual education, I have no clue. That beats me!

that's because Carribean medical schools are basically prolonged board prep course plus random clincial rotations thrown together. residency directors know that.

Given the same amount of time to prep for the step, US students wouldn't necessarily do worse.

[med etudiant]

that's because Carribean medical schools are basically prolonged board prep course plus random clincial rotations thrown together. residency directors know that.

Given the same amount of time to prep for the step, US students wouldn't necessarily do worse.


What Caribbean school did you go to? None.

So...do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

[handy388]

What Caribbean school did you go to? None.

So...do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

yeah, my evidence is called the marketing material of every single carribean school, about how much they "teach to the board". how about the so called "5th semester"? Find me a US school with something like the 5th semester.

[med etudiant]

One semester does not make the entire four years "a prolonged board prep class."

You have what -7 posts? I've been here a bit longer- and subsequently know more about these schools.

SGU, AUC, Saba and Ross could rival some U.S schools- 5th semester or not.

[nevisbutterfly]

The 5th semester is really done in the summer and is enhancement (like board review, clinical skills etc) US medical students sit by the pool during the summer instead of attending classes. However, if the US medical student fails a course in the second year, then they get to find a summer school at another medical school to make it up. Certain medical schools will have a make-up class in the summer for those that failed and people come from many different medical schools to get credit. Saw it done in biochem and a couple of other classes. If they fail the USMLE, they get to sit out and attend a board review class in order to re-take the USMLE. Of course this is done in many US medical schools - but not all. Saw people at UAMS in of all places Arkansas have to do this.

When the USMLE Step 1 was given for the first time at UAMS they had around a 25% fail rate on the first year. UAMS freaked out and did something about it. USMLE replaced the FLEX. This was so concerning that it hit the newspapers. UAMS offers a board review class for people taking USMLE Step 1 and 2 and encourages students to attend in the summer between Med 1 and Med 2.

Chairman (http://www.uams.edu/physiology/eduadv/ED06/step106.htm) (LINK) College of Medicine USMLE Step 1 Review Spring

AAMC: Summers (http://services.aamc.org/smc/) list of schools with make-up classes
But some FMG's cannot get a license in AR even though they never repeated a class or failed Step 1.Summer Makeup Course Program Listing of US Medical Schools

This all make perfect sense to me??????

[Aviv Imanuel]

Good idea, why don't you give it a try?


Now is the time to sue California. Strike while the iron is hot!! They have no money to defend themselves. LOL

[RussianJoo]

So any news? did they have a trial yet? what's been happening? any news on the progress of this law suit?

[Aviv Imanuel]

The latest per the discoveries of futureboy was a November date. Tho following is a paste from futureboy's post....

.S. District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:09-cv-00306-SWW

Date Filed: 04/27/2009
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question [the jurisdiction of federal courts in civil cases is generally limited to (1) federal question (arising under the laws or constitution of the United States), or (2) diversity (amount in controversy of $75,000 or greater, and no plaintiff can be the citizen of the same state as any defendant).]

5/20/09 docket entry: INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 7/27/2009; Rule 26(f) Report due by 8/10/2009; COURT Trial [trial in front of the judge with no jury] set for 11/23/2009 09:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom # 1D before Judge Susan Webber Wright. Signed by C. Norwood at the direction of the Court on 5/20/09. (mcn) (Entered: 05/20/2009)




So any news? did they have a trial yet? what's been happening? any news on the progress of this law suit?

[RussianJoo]

cool thanks for the info...

[MedMan87]

Now is the time to sue California. Strike while the iron is hot!! They have no money to defend themselves. LOL

LOL this made me laugh.,

[tennisball80]

What's the current situation of this case now?