Addressing PE

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnatomyGrey12
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
LendMeYourDeers said:
I noticed that some that put up that whole video summary thing went dark/private in twitter and stuff

But also I heard from them directly about this.
Click to expand...
And Dr. Gimpel told me he would cancel level 2 PE if he could only get that pony he always wanted.

A tiny bit of snark, but it’s not really actionable to support these people/drum up the outrage at the NBOME if we have no evidence of this.

Truth be told, I’m inclined to believe you because the NBOME has consistently been ****ty and admin love to use “professionalism” as a cudgel with which to beat any student who toes the criticism line. Just can’t do anything unless these individuals reveal emails or tweets, even if they’re anonymous.
 
Steve_Zissou said:
And Dr. Gimpel told me he would cancel level 2 PE if he could only get that pony he always wanted.

A tiny bit of snark, but it’s not really actionable to support these people/drum up the outrage at the NBOME if we have no evidence of this.

Truth be told, I’m inclined to believe you because the NBOME has consistently been ****ty and admin love to use “professionalism” as a cudgel with which to beat any student who toes the criticism line. Just can’t do anything unless these individuals reveal emails or tweets, even if they’re anonymous.
Click to expand...
I get ya, I get ya. And I am too inclined to believe them, but I won't ask them for proof (just seems to be a really sensitive issue right now).

With that said, based on all the responses Gimpel has given (in the official we ain't canceling it message and those summary leaks) I absolutely see this in line with NBOME behavior

I guess for everyone else please get your PE refunds and keep reaching out to attendings, faculty, etc etc about this whole debacle
 
Wait the actual video was posted?? Or just the text summary?
 
The NBOME (Read: John Gimpel) is lashing out. It's natural behavior when arguing from an untenable position. He himself has to know that he is full of **** hence the dirty tactics.

The NBOME decided to die on the "it's the upmost mandatory safety issue" line of reasoning. Due to the NBME cancelling their exam, the NBOME doubling down, and Gimpel himself *****ically saying that MDs are now less safe and DOs are more safe, we now have a perfect storm of stupid. Terrible strategy by him.

John Gimpel, and by extension the NBOME, says the test is mandatory to protect the public but we are equal to MDs. It follows that MDs not taking the test means they are less safe in his eyes. Even better, the guy comes out and verbalizes that himself. He said the quiet part out loud. Time to get the outrage machine rolling on this.

He cannot take back what he said about MDs but he also cannot say it's not true but then justify us taking his stupid fake test. He has to pick one.
 
Neopolymath said:
The NBOME (Read: John Gimpel) is lashing out. It's natural behavior when arguing from an untenable position. He himself has to know that he is full of **** hence the dirty tactics.

The NBOME decided to die on the "it's the upmost mandatory safety issue" line of reasoning. Due to the NBME cancelling their exam, the NBOME doubling down, and Gimpel himself *****ically saying that MDs are now less safe and DOs are more safe, we now have a perfect storm of stupid. Terrible strategy by him.

John Gimpel, and by extension the NBOME, says the test is mandatory to protect the public but we are equal to MDs. It follows that MDs not taking the test means they are less safe in his eyes. Even better, the guy comes out and verbalizes that himself. He said the quiet part out loud. Time to get the outrage machine rolling on this.

He cannot take back what he said about MDs but he also cannot say it's not true but then justify us taking his stupid fake test. He has to pick one.
Click to expand...

Did he actually say MDs are now less safe, or is that just being inferred by what he said about PE?
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
Did he actually say MDs are now less safe, or is that just being inferred by what he said about PE?
Click to expand...
According to the summary text he not only said that, but also said he is going to have the NBOME make some sort of public statement about it to that degree as well

But that he needs to do it "diplomatically"

I wish we had access to the video
 
LendMeYourDeers said:
According to the summary text he not only said that, but also said he is going to have the NBOME make some sort of public statement about it to that degree as well

But that he needs to do it "diplomatically"

I wish we had access to the video
Click to expand...

Holy ****. That is unbelievable.
 
Jackaleauxpe said:
Why did he not record it himself and release it anonymously? There is no need for consent to do that.
Click to expand...
Depending upon where both parties were located, recording a conversation can be a felony! "Two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Since NBOE has offices in Chicago and Pennsylvania, there is a very good likelihood that Gimpel's consent would be required. This is a highly technical and complex topic, but caution and legal advise would be required.
 
ChicagoBear said:
Depending upon where both parties were located, recording a conversation can be a felony! "Two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Since NBOE has offices in Chicago and Pennsylvania, there is a very good likelihood that Gimpel's consent would be required.
Click to expand...
Not if it’s a group meeting.
 
AnatomyGrey12 said:
Not if it’s a group meeting.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the general understanding under the Federal rule, but Not necessarily in each state . Per 720 ILCS 5/14-1 (Illinois Compiled Statutes) - since one of the corporate offices is in Chicago.

"For the purposes of this Article, "private conversation" means any oral communication between 2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. A reasonable expectation shall include any expectation recognized by law, including, but not limited to, an expectation derived from a privilege, immunity, or right established by common law, Supreme Court rule, or the Illinois or United States Constitution."

Article 14 goes on for about 15 pages. The meeting was not open to the public, not even all DO schools or students - only a certain class. Did Gimpel intend the conversation to be of a private nature? That is a question of fact. You can make an argument either way. I tend to agree with you that it should not be a felony, but if your are going to go out on a limb and release it against Gimpel's express wishes, you might want to check with an attorney familiar with the state law, if Gimpel was in a Two Party State. In Illinois, this is a Class 4 felony with a penalty for a first offense of 3 years in prison. Obviously, a felony and an initial medical license don't mix, so I would be cautious.

Google indicates Gimpel's home and the executive office is in PA. Another two party state -

Title 18, Section 5703 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes reads

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication

(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or

(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

www.macelree.com

Are You Recording This?! A Primer on Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act | MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Technology, namely the ubiquitous cell phone, has made the ability to (stealthily) record otherwise private conversations much easier. In Pennsylvania, doing so will expose you to a potential felony violation of our Wiretap Act. Whether it’s the tech-savvy teen or the disgruntled spouse, many a...
www.macelree.com www.macelree.com
 
Last edited:
ChicagoBear said:
Yes, that is the general understanding under the Federal rule, but Not necessarily in each state . Per 720 ILCS 5/14-1 (Illinois Compiled Statutes) - since one of the corporate offices is in Chicago.

"For the purposes of this Article, "private conversation" means any oral communication between 2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. A reasonable expectation shall include any expectation recognized by law, including, but not limited to, an expectation derived from a privilege, immunity, or right established by common law, Supreme Court rule, or the Illinois or United States Constitution."

Article 14 goes on for about 15 pages. The meeting was not open to the public, not even all DO schools or students - only a certain class. Did Gimpel intend the conversation to be of a private nature? That is a question of fact. You can make an argument either way. I tend to agree with you that it should not be a felony, but if your are going to go out on a limb and release it against Gimpel's express wishes, you might want to check with an attorney familiar with the state law, if Gimpel was in a Two Party State. In Illinois, this is a Class 4 felony with a penalty for a first offense of 3 years in prison. Obviously, a felony and an initial medical license don't mix, so I would be cautious.

Google indicates Gimpel's home and the executive office is in PA. Another two party state -

Title 18, Section 5703 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes reads

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication

(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or

(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

www.macelree.com

Are You Recording This?! A Primer on Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act | MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Technology, namely the ubiquitous cell phone, has made the ability to (stealthily) record otherwise private conversations much easier. In Pennsylvania, doing so will expose you to a potential felony violation of our Wiretap Act. Whether it’s the tech-savvy teen or the disgruntled spouse, many a...
www.macelree.com www.macelree.com
Click to expand...
On Zoom it is broadcasted to all participants if a meeting is being recorded. If the NBOME wanted it private they would not have allowed it to be recorded.

A large zoom meeting with a school of students that is actively being recorded would have a hard time being argued as “Intended to be private.”

The NBOME goes around from school to school to do these presentations. They aren’t private meetings.

But ok Gimpel.
 
ChicagoBear said:
Yes, that is the general understanding under the Federal rule, but Not necessarily in each state . Per 720 ILCS 5/14-1 (Illinois Compiled Statutes) - since one of the corporate offices is in Chicago.

"For the purposes of this Article, "private conversation" means any oral communication between 2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. A reasonable expectation shall include any expectation recognized by law, including, but not limited to, an expectation derived from a privilege, immunity, or right established by common law, Supreme Court rule, or the Illinois or United States Constitution."

Article 14 goes on for about 15 pages. The meeting was not open to the public, not even all DO schools or students - only a certain class. Did Gimpel intend the conversation to be of a private nature? That is a question of fact. You can make an argument either way. I tend to agree with you that it should not be a felony, but if your are going to go out on a limb and release it against Gimpel's express wishes, you might want to check with an attorney familiar with the state law, if Gimpel was in a Two Party State. In Illinois, this is a Class 4 felony with a penalty for a first offense of 3 years in prison. Obviously, a felony and an initial medical license don't mix, so I would be cautious.

Google indicates Gimpel's home and the executive office is in PA. Another two party state -

Title 18, Section 5703 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes reads

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication

(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or

(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

www.macelree.com

Are You Recording This?! A Primer on Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act | MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Technology, namely the ubiquitous cell phone, has made the ability to (stealthily) record otherwise private conversations much easier. In Pennsylvania, doing so will expose you to a potential felony violation of our Wiretap Act. Whether it’s the tech-savvy teen or the disgruntled spouse, many a...
www.macelree.com www.macelree.com
Click to expand...

Plock v. Bd. of Educ. of Freeport School Dist, 545 F. Supp. 2d 755 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Plock v. Bd. of Educ. of Freeport School Dist, 545 F. Supp. 2d 755, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Illinois Eavesdropping Law

Individuals and organizations wishing to avoid having conversations recorded and replayed can no longer rely on the protections of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 and People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852, two unconsolidated cases, each...
www.natlawreview.com www.natlawreview.com

I would say that there is no chance any argument trying to silence someone making the recording available publicly would hold up in court. This likely could be a big case with regard to student rights and it would be easy to get a civil rights lawyer to pro bono it
 
Mad Jack said:

Plock v. Bd. of Educ. of Freeport School Dist, 545 F. Supp. 2d 755 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Plock v. Bd. of Educ. of Freeport School Dist, 545 F. Supp. 2d 755, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Illinois Eavesdropping Law

Individuals and organizations wishing to avoid having conversations recorded and replayed can no longer rely on the protections of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 and People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852, two unconsolidated cases, each...
www.natlawreview.com www.natlawreview.com

I would say that there is no chance any argument trying to silence someone making the recording available publicly would hold up in court. This likely could be a big case with regard to student rights and it would be easy to get a civil rights lawyer to pro bono it
Click to expand...

ACLU lol
 
Matthew9Thirtyfive said:
Yeah they might. This seems like the kind of thing they’d go for.
Click to expand...
A few thoughts:

1. Regarding the Freeport case cited above: The NBOME is a not for profit association, not a government body or agency or a public university. The First Amendment only prohibits governmental action that inhibits free speech. As a result, any argument about first amendment rights will fail. You would need a different argument for any successful lawsuit.

2. If the the NBOME recorded the meeting as someone mentioned above, it did so with the intent that the NBOME would control whether or not the contents of the meeting would be released - not the other participants. In all likelihood, neither the NBOME or the "dear doctor" gave anyone permission to record and publish the meeting. I know many people videotape almost everything and upload it - but in two party states, the legality of this can be a complicated matter highly dependent on specific facts. Just because objections aren't raised all of the time doesn't mean an objection can't be made.

3. Regarding the story that the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the state wiretap law: What wasn't posted was that within weeks, the Illinois Legislature passed a revised law to address the Court's concern. (The old law made taping law enforcement officers in public illegal. The new law allows taping of officers in public, but as an offset creates some exceptions to the requirements for law enforcement to obtain warrants for wire tapping citizens. It does not otherwise change the two party consent rule.)

4. As far as schools throwing around "professionalism" charges, tread carefully. Courts rarely get involved in school grading disputes or the professional opinions of licensing boards. They only get involved if a school or licensing body violates its own "due process" procedures - they are hesitant to substitute their judgement for that of the faculty or licensing board.

As a soon to be MD, I have no dog in this fight, but I feel for my "Bone Wizard Brethren", just be careful. I'm not a lawyer, but a family member has been involved a couple of times with the intricacies of two party consent. His words of advise: It's not as black and white as you think; the outcome is highly fact specific; just because everyone does it, is not an excuse; I can show you how to make 6 figures disappear quickly.
 
ChicagoBear said:
A few thoughts:

1. Regarding the Freeport case cited above: The NBOME is a not for profit association, not a government body or agency or a public university. The First Amendment only prohibits governmental action that inhibits free speech. As a result, any argument about first amendment rights will fail. You would need a different argument for any successful lawsuit.

2. If the the NBOME recorded the meeting as someone mentioned above, it did so with the intent that the NBOME would control whether or not the contents of the meeting would be released - not the other participants. In all likelihood, neither the NBOME or the "dear doctor" gave anyone permission to record and publish the meeting. I know many people videotape almost everything and upload it - but in two party states, the legality of this can be a complicated matter highly dependent on specific facts. Just because objections aren't raised all of the time doesn't mean an objection can't be made.

3. Regarding the story that the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the state wiretap law: What wasn't posted was that within weeks, the Illinois Legislature passed a revised law to address the Court's concern. (The old law made taping law enforcement officers in public illegal. The new law allows taping of officers in public, but as an offset creates some exceptions to the requirements for law enforcement to obtain warrants for wire tapping citizens. It does not otherwise change the two party consent rule.)

4. As far as schools throwing around "professionalism" charges, tread carefully. Courts rarely get involved in school grading disputes or the professional opinions of licensing boards. They only get involved if a school or licensing body violates its own "due process" procedures - they are hesitant to substitute their judgement for that of the faculty or licensing board.

As a soon to be MD, I have no dog in this fight, but I feel for my "Bone Wizard Brethren", just be careful. I'm not a lawyer, but a family member has been involved a couple of times with the intricacies of two party consent. His words of advise: It's not as black and white as you think; the outcome is highly fact specific; just because everyone does it, is not an excuse; I can show you how to make 6 figures disappear quickly.
Click to expand...

Hence seeking advice from a lawyer. There are places that will look at these kinds of cases pro bono and see if they have merit.
 
I would really love to hear from that one student from CA that was on here. She has went silent.
 
cbc86 said:
I will interpret it for those of you who are having trouble... “We will find a way to screw you over, no matter what it takes.”
Click to expand...
“We WILL NOT compromise when it comes to getting our money.”
57012E3E-D4AB-4BA1-94F0-58A26A6BA547.gif
 
Yup, just another vague, blue ball, press release that excoriates themselves as the culpable party and shifts blame on everyone but themselves. It's not surprising and yet another attempt at "listening," a skill that Gimpel and Co. might've been able to have if he had just only taken COMLEX Level 2 PE. This is just fluff, I expect nothing to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wxman
COMLEX Level 2 PE
Replies
9
Views
2K
EDThoracotomy
EDThoracotomy
J
NBOME - COMLEX PE
Replies
8
Views
2K
PandaBaer
PandaBaer
D
The return of the Level 2-PE in a year?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Goro
Goro
W
How is your school addressing aways?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Scrubs101
Scrubs101
C
Permanent Address for Residency Application
Replies
4
Views
717
Coltuna
C
Top