Depressed, going into residency in NC, terrified of the NCPHP

[thedepressedwarning]

On the resident's licensing form in North Carolina, the following question exists:

"In the past five (5) years, have you had, or have you been told you had, a mental health or physical condition (not referenced above) which in any way limits or impairs or, if untreated, could limit or impair your ability to practice medicine in a competent or professional manner?"

I am going to North Carolina for residency. I have a diagnosis of depression and ADHD. I'm being seen by a psychiatrist, I've never been admitted to a hospital for psych reasons, I have zero issues with drugs and alcohol, and can get a letter saying I'm stable/safe to practice.

In other words, I should be answering that question yes and say I am being successfully treated for depression. If I answer no, I am lying.

I am guessing if I answer yes, I will be referred to the NCPHP for questioning. The problem is every single thing I've read about the North Carolina Physician's Health Program (NCPHP) says it is a corrupt institution designed to squeeze money out of physicians even if they are stable, albeit with a mental illness. Physicians are forced to attend out-of-state inpatient drug treatment facilities even when they have no drug problems. The penalty for disagreeing is losing their license. An audit ordered by the state found no oversight and the potential for rampant abuse. At least one lawsuit is pending. I'm a broke med student. I can't afford a month of needless inpatient treatment when I've never needed it before. I will fail every drug test because of my legally-prescribed stimulant. In the past, a letter from my PCP was sufficient. I am guessing in NC, that's a sign of a problem.

What the hell do I do? I can't tell my brand new PD, "HEY! I might not be able to get a license because an insane cabal gets high on penalizing doctors for being depressed." Do I call an NC lawyer and get a consultation?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[HomeSkool]

I've got depression and ADHD, I've been licensed in a state that uses effectively identical verbiage in its licensing process, and I've never had any problem whatsoever. They're worried about schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. My guess is that, like me, you would be able to practice both competently and professionally even if you were untreated. If depression and ADHD are your only mental health problems and they're well controlled, you are perfectly fine answering "no" to that question.

 

[thedepressedwarning]

I've got depression and ADHD, I've been licensed in a state that uses effectively identical verbiage in its licensing process, and I've never had any problem whatsoever. They're worried about schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. My guess is that, like me, you would be able to practice both competently and professionally even if you were untreated. If depression and ADHD are your only mental health problems and they're well controlled, you are perfectly fine answering "no" to that question.

I can function without any treatment. It's just less enjoyable to be around me.

What do I do when I fail a random drug test because I'm taking the medicine I'm being prescribed and I haven't told the state anything is wrong?

 

[HomeSkool]

I can function without any treatment. It's just less enjoyable to be around me.

What do I do when I fail a random drug test because I'm taking the medicine I'm being prescribed and I haven't told the state anything is wrong?

You haven't told them you're not taking meds, just that you wouldn't hurt people or start acting unprofessionally if those meds were absent. They're not asking you to divulge your HIPAA-protected information and they're not interrogating you about garden-variety complaints, they're asking whether you have a grievous mental health problem that could cause you to harm others.

From the sound of things, you should answer "No" to the state licensure question -- i.e., no, you do not have a condition that would lead you to harm another person (because you don't) -- and notify HR when you do your pre-employment drug test that you're taking a medication that'll show up. All my HR department made me do was take a picture of the medication's label with the prescribing physician's info visible so they could confirm it was legit, and I never heard another peep. Just tell it to them matter-of-factly: "I'm treated for ADHD, I take Adderall (or whatever), what do you need from me to confirm this is legit when it shows up on my piss test?" You've got nothing to hide and you've done nothing wrong, so don't act like you're on trial.

 

[AdmiralChz]

It’s more asking about incapacitating conditions or those that would likely impact your daily work.

You really shouldn’t be worrying about this, at all, unless you have severe catatonic depression or SI. If that’s the case then one needs to get help first and worry about licensure later. This isn’t a very useful thought exercise.

 

[AdmiralChz]

What do I do when I fail a random drug test because I'm taking the medicine I'm being prescribed and I haven't told the state anything is wrong?

No one tests for prescription drugs (other than opiates) in drug screens. So unless your doctor has been prescribing you meth, heroin or barbiturates, you’ll be fine.

You’re way, WAY overthinking this one

 

[Raryn]

No one tests for prescription drugs (other than opiates) in drug screens. So unless your doctor has been prescribing you meth, heroin or barbiturates, you’ll be fine.

You’re way, WAY overthinking this one

This is wrong. You're right that opiates come up on a typical UDS but so do benzos (commonly prescribed, not an issue for the OP) and amphetamines. The amphetamine assay on a typical UDS will absolutely pop positive with ADHD drugs. Hell, it's such a ****ty assay it will even pop positive for NSAIDs and nasal decongestants. Then the confirmatory assay will confirm the ADHD drugs (but not the NSAIDs or decongestants).

That said, if OP undergoes a UDS for purposes of work, all he'll need to do is inform whoever testing him that he is on a validly prescribed ADHD medication, make sure he's seen his physician within the last 3 months, and give them the name of the prescriber. No one cares.

 

[Doctor Christmas]

On the resident's licensing form in North Carolina, the following question exists:

"In the past five (5) years, have you had, or have you been told you had, a mental health or physical condition (not referenced above) which in any way limits or impairs or, if untreated, could limit or impair your ability to practice medicine in a competent or professional manner?"

I am going to North Carolina for residency. I have a diagnosis of depression and ADHD. I'm being seen by a psychiatrist, I've never been admitted to a hospital for psych reasons, I have zero issues with drugs and alcohol, and can get a letter saying I'm stable/safe to practice.

In other words, I should be answering that question yes and say I am being successfully treated for depression. If I answer no, I am lying.

I am guessing if I answer yes, I will be referred to the NCPHP for questioning. The problem is every single thing I've read about the North Carolina Physician's Health Program (NCPHP) says it is a corrupt institution designed to squeeze money out of physicians even if they are stable, albeit with a mental illness. Physicians are forced to attend out-of-state inpatient drug treatment facilities even when they have no drug problems. The penalty for disagreeing is losing their license. An audit ordered by the state found no oversight and the potential for rampant abuse. At least one lawsuit is pending. I'm a broke med student. I can't afford a month of needless inpatient treatment when I've never needed it before. I will fail every drug test because of my legally-prescribed stimulant. In the past, a letter from my PCP was sufficient. I am guessing in NC, that's a sign of a problem.

What the hell do I do? I can't tell my brand new PD, "HEY! I might not be able to get a license because an insane cabal gets high on penalizing doctors for being depressed." Do I call an NC lawyer and get a consultation?

I would suggest if you are drug tested, and not all programs drug test, that you tell the person before hand that you have prescription medication and bring the bottle/prescription with you. In my initial program we were all drug tested before the month or so before residency started, and I had just had surgery with a prescription for a 2 week course of opioids. I straight up told them - I have a prescription of Norco for my recent surgery, here's my doc's info if you need it, it will likely be +. Had no issue. I guess the issue comes up if and when it comes up positive and they are wondering why. An effective offense is typically the best defense.

 

[LucidSplash]

This is wrong. You're right that opiates come up on a typical UDS but so do benzos (commonly prescribed, not an issue for the OP) and amphetamines. The amphetamine assay on a typical UDS will absolutely pop positive with ADHD drugs. Hell, it's such a ****ty assay it will even pop positive for NSAIDs and nasal decongestants. Then the confirmatory assay will confirm the ADHD drugs (but not the NSAIDs or decongestants).

That said, if OP undergoes a UDS for purposes of work, all he'll need to do is inform whoever testing him that he is on a validly prescribed ADHD medication, make sure he's seen his physician within the last 3 months, and give them the name of the prescriber. No one cares.

Agree with this. There's a couple different assays out there. The one my institution uses I found out (to my surprise) will also give a false positive amphetamine for OTC H2 blockers. Like my ranitidine. It still wasn't a big deal, they are aware of the issue and just send it for a confirmatory test.

And I also agree with what has been said about answering the question. They are asking if you have a condition "which in any way limits or impairs or, if untreated, could limit or impair your ability to practice medicine in a competent or professional manner." From what you have said, the answer is no.

 

[AdmiralChz]

This is wrong. You're right that opiates come up on a typical UDS but so do benzos (commonly prescribed, not an issue for the OP) and amphetamines. The amphetamine assay on a typical UDS will absolutely pop positive with ADHD drugs. Hell, it's such a ****ty assay it will even pop positive for NSAIDs and nasal decongestants. Then the confirmatory assay will confirm the ADHD drugs (but not the NSAIDs or decongestants).

That said, if OP undergoes a UDS for purposes of work, all he'll need to do is inform whoever testing him that he is on a validly prescribed ADHD medication, make sure he's seen his physician within the last 3 months, and give them the name of the prescriber. No one cares.

Fair I suppose, still think it’s a bit much to be worried about this. But that’s just me.

 

[gutonc]

Fair I suppose, still think it’s a bit much to be worried about this. But that’s just me.

It is in fact a bit much to be worried about. But @Raryn's point was that, if he's on Adderall, he's going to piss positive for meth. So the OP needs to be proactive in saying "I'm on Adderall, here's a copy of my script and the name of the doc that Rx'd it". At that point, he's done and can move on with his intern year, because you are correct that nobody cares about that.

 

[Mass Effect]

The state of NC is coming close to violating the ADA with that question worded in that way.

 

[Quizlet04]

The state of NC is coming close to violating the ADA with that question worded in that way.

Close but no cigar. The NCPHP could argue it is making efforts to provide reasonable accommodation for mental illness by offering therapy and services. If you go to their website, it seems so soothing and friendly. The issue would be debating what is reasonable while losing your entire source of income.

 

[Raryn]

The state of NC is coming close to violating the ADA with that question worded in that way.

As the OP eluded to, the state of NC can be a bit of a hardass when it comes to this specific issue.

Medscape: Medscape Access

If the OP had read this article (or similar), I can see why they're worried. It's rational to be worried. But anxiety is common, ADHD is common, and depression is common, and lots of physicians are licensed with all of those things all the time. Just mark that your sx won't interfere with your job, be honest before any drug screen, and move on.

 

[Mass Effect]

Close but no cigar. The NCPHP could argue it is making efforts to provide reasonable accommodation for mental illness by offering therapy and services. If you go to their website, it seems so soothing and friendly. The issue would be debating what is reasonable while losing your entire source of income.

As the OP eluded to, the state of NC can be a bit of a hardass when it comes to this specific issue.

Medscape: Medscape Access

If the OP had read this article (or similar), I can see why they're worried. It's rational to be worried. But anxiety is common, ADHD is common, and depression is common, and lots of physicians are licensed with all of those things all the time. Just mark that your sx won't interfere with your job, be honest before any drug screen, and move on.

I maintain the state of NC is coming very close to violating the ADA by asking about symptoms in the absence of treatment. That has nothing to do with current functioning nor current impairment. It's a sneaky way to ask more detailed questions they shouldn't be asking and while they may be able to get away with it, it's still coming very, very close to crossing that line. Would love for someone to challenge them.

A National Analysis of Medical Licensure Applications

http://black-bile.com/resources/08+JAAPL+Licensure+Applications+and+ADA.pdf

 

[TableMD]

How revolting that what I am assuming is an otherwise professional and competent fellow colleague, who is responsibly addressing a common mental health condition, even has to think/stress about this.

I hope you are able to get the information you need to ease past this hurdle in a comfortable manner

 

[DrDude2004]

I'd be depressed too if I was headed to NC. (just kidding of course.. kind of)

I answered no to that question and provided script as mentioned by folks above in a different state. No problems.

 

[HomeSkool]

How revolting that what I am assuming is an otherwise professional and competent fellow colleague, who is responsibly addressing a common mental health condition, even has to think/stress about this.

I hope you are able to get the information you need to ease past this hurdle in a comfortable manner

Did you read the preceding discussion? The general consensus is that the OP doesn't need to think/stress about this, and that his worry is both irrational and unfounded. The NC medical board couldn't care less that he has depression and ADHD, they just want to know if he's psychotic and dangerous (or at risk of becoming so), and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask those applying for licenses to practice medicine on the state's population.

 

[Mass Effect]

Did you read the preceding discussion? The general consensus is that the OP doesn't need to think/stress about this, and that his worry is both irrational and unfounded. The NC medical board couldn't care less that he has depression and ADHD, they just want to know if he's psychotic and dangerous (or at risk of becoming so), and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask those applying for licenses to practice medicine on the state's population.

Actually, unless the state makes that distinction, it's not at all reasonable. They don't get to know what symptoms/illnesses people have just because they're a medical board, unless it directly affects their ability to do their job. The state is out of line.

 

[LucidSplash]

Actually, unless the state makes that distinction, it's not at all reasonable. They don't get to know what symptoms/illnesses people have just because they're a medical board, unless it directly affects their ability to do their job. The state is out of line.

But that’s exactly what the question asks. If there’s anything that does or could limit their ability to do their job. That’s the way the question is phrased. And since the OP doesn’t, he gets to answer no.

 

[HomeSkool]

Actually, unless the state makes that distinction, it's not at all reasonable. They don't get to know what symptoms/illnesses people have just because they're a medical board, unless it directly affects their ability to do their job. The state is out of line.

I agree with you that the question as worded runs counter to current legal interpretations of the ADA, which disallow questions about past conditions. I was pointing out to TableMD that his revulsion over the OP's worry is silly since the OP's worry was unfounded in the first place. It's like my wife getting mad at me for making our son cry over an A-, when in fact I only asked whether or not he got an F.

I do think it's reasonable to ask about current impairment. Past mental health problems are off limits according to the ADA, but current ones aren't. As far as asking about the potential for impairment if treatment lapses, I lack the background knowledge to have an informed opinion about whether such a question would run counter to the ADA.

 

[Doctor Christmas]

Did you read the preceding discussion? The general consensus is that the OP doesn't need to think/stress about this, and that his worry is both irrational and unfounded. The NC medical board couldn't care less that he has depression and ADHD, they just want to know if he's psychotic and dangerous (or at risk of becoming so), and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask those applying for licenses to practice medicine on the state's population.

I find it fascinating that there is all this hype about wellness and concerns re: burnout. Well stuff like this leads to burnout and lack of wellness! Having to worry about his health condition affecting his career potentially. The medical community as a whole should fight back against unfairness, inappropriate oppressive requirements, etc. If the OP had mental health issues he should be able to address them with his doctor, and should not be worried that a medical board can screw him and his career over. This precise fear is what leads to lack of reporting of mental health issues in the medical community and can potentially lead to negative physician outcomes like suicides, worsening of mental health, burnout etc.

 

[HomeSkool]

I find it fascinating that there is all this hype about wellness and concerns re: burnout. Well stuff like this leads to burnout and lack of wellness! Having to worry about his health condition affecting his career potentially. The medical community as a whole should fight back against unfairness, inappropriate oppressive requirements, etc. If the OP had mental health issues he should be able to address them with his doctor, and should not be worried that a medical board can screw him and his career over. This precise fear is what leads to lack of reporting of mental health issues in the medical community and can potentially lead to negative physician outcomes like suicides, worsening of mental health, burnout etc.

*sigh*

 

[Mass Effect]

But that’s exactly what the question asks. If there’s anything that does or could limit their ability to do their job. That’s the way the question is phrased. And since the OP doesn’t, he gets to answer no.

No, the question specifically asks "which in any way limits or impairs or, if untreated, could limit or impair your ability to practice medicine in a competent or professional manner."

Let's take a person with debilitating OCD who's a surgeon. Asking "does your condition currently limit or impair your ability to practice surgery?" A treated person would answer no and would be truthful. Take that same surgeon could be asked "if untreated, would your condition limit or impair your ability to practice surgery?" That surgeon would have to answer yes because without treatment, it was a debilitating condition. But that has nothing to do with his CURRENT level of impairment, which is what the ADA requires. So legally, the state of NC is out of line. They need a challenge to comply with federal regulations.

I agree with you that the question as worded runs counter to current legal interpretations of the ADA, which disallow questions about past conditions. I was pointing out to TableMD that his revulsion over the OP's worry is silly since the OP's worry was unfounded in the first place. It's like my wife getting mad at me for making our son cry over an A-, when in fact I only asked whether or not he got an F.

I do think it's reasonable to ask about current impairment. Past mental health problems are off limits according to the ADA, but current ones aren't. As far as asking about the potential for impairment if treatment lapses, I lack the background knowledge to have an informed opinion about whether such a question would run counter to the ADA.

My interpretation would be that it does. Granted, I'm not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer and to a lay person the wording may be just fine, but to any expert in the mental health field, that question absolutely does not meet the standards of federal law.

 

[siliso]

It’s a ridiculous question though which would be factually answered “yes” by anyone with myopia, hypertension, diabetes....sure they could. Anything could. I’d give it a no if you are capable of functioning untreated, anyway.

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

That’s better than my state which simply asks if you have ever been diagnosed or treated with a mental illness... period. Impacts your life insurance policy rates, disability insurance, malpractice, and it requires extra paperwork each step along the way. Yet no questions about diabetes for surgeons accreditation.

 

[Mass Effect]

That’s better than my state which simply asks if you have ever been diagnosed or treated with a mental illness... period. Impacts your life insurance policy rates, disability insurance, malpractice, and it requires extra paperwork each step along the way. Yet no questions about diabetes for surgeons accreditation.

This can absolutely be challenged in court. Your state is in violation of the ADA, no question.

 

[AdmiralChz]

This can absolutely be challenged in court. Your state is in violation of the ADA, no question.

Good luck with that. Just get documentation and move on. Or spend thousands challenging it in court. Hard choice!

 

[chocomorsel]

I swear I have filled out multiple licensing paperwork and credentialing paperwork that asks “if you have ever been diagnosed.

I have held six licenses and been credentialed at about double the hospitals.

It’s so common but invasive a question that I don’t even think about it anymore. I feel it’s none of their business even if I had Bipolar or Schizophrenia but was successfully treated.

Lots of states should be sued then.

 

[Mass Effect]

Good luck with that. Just get documentation and move on. Or spend thousands challenging it in court. Hard choice!

It's happened before and it should continue to happen until every state follows federal law.

I swear I have filled out multiple licensing paperwork and credentialing paperwork that asks “if you have ever been diagnosed.

I have held six licenses and been credentialed at about double the hospitals.

It’s so common but invasive a question that I don’t even think about it anymore. I feel it’s none of their business even if I had Bipolar or Schizophrenia but was successfully treated.

Lots of states should be sued then.

Yes, they should, but they're not because no one wants to go to the trouble of challenging them.

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

Good luck with that. Just get documentation and move on. Or spend thousands challenging it in court. Hard choice!

In my case, I don’t fall under this but I know many people who forgo treatment as a result. They have to suffer and be at higher risk because they are unfairly screened against. No questions asking a surgeon if he has epilepsy, yet someone’s mild depression is held against them.

 

[Goro]

Did you read the preceding discussion? The general consensus is that the OP doesn't need to think/stress about this, and t 89hat his worry is both irrational and unfounded. The NC medical board couldn't care less that he has depression and ADHD, they just want to know if he's psychotic and dangerous (or at risk of becoming so), and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask those applying for licenses to practice medicine on the state's population.

I think what Table was getting at was that in the US unfortunately, we have an attitude that mental illness is viewed as such a bad thing that even people who have successfully overcome or manage their issues, no matter how successful they are, are worried about how it will be perceived by others.

We get a lot of posts in SDN like these in all the forums.

I sure wish we could get into the heads of the American public that Mental illness is not a sign of bad character or weak will power.

I have a dog in this fight myself, having been treated for chronic depression twice in my life, and having had to see a therapist about it maybe five different times on top of that.

 

[chocomorsel]

In my case, I don’t fall under this but I know many people who forgo treatment as a result. They have to suffer and be at higher risk because they are unfairly screened against. No questions asking a surgeon if he has epilepsy, yet someone’s mild depression is held against them.

They need to get treatment and keep it to themselves. Hell what antidepressant drugs are they screening for anyway? State Boards and Hospitals over reach too much.

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

They need to get treatment and keep it to themselves. Hell what antidepressant drugs are they screening for anyway? State Boards and Hospitals over reach too much.

That’s what some providers do. Residents are stuck though, not worth jeopardizing a training license.

 

[chocomorsel]

That’s what some providers do. Residents are stuck though, not worth jeopardizing a training license.

True. However, what are they testing for? Let me google that.

 

[Raryn]

True. However, what are they testing for? Let me google that.

They don't test for antidepressants. But if you ever get caught lying, you are royaly screwed.

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

True. However, what are they testing for? Let me google that.

It’s not a “gotcha” on a drug test. If they catch you lying they can take your license. I don’t know how they track it, but they catch people somehow.

 

[chocomorsel]

It’s not a “gotcha” on a drug test. If they catch you lying they can take your license. I don’t know how they track it, but they catch people somehow.

Understand. But how are they gonna catch you about your own private health issues? Unless you are running your mouth or someone close to you reports it?
They catch people but I suspect it’s on other ****. Like revoked licenses, revoked privileges, etc.

Next time this happens to someone they need to sue then. Since apparently it’s an ADA violation in the first place.

 

[Raryn]

To be fair to them, I was curious and looked up the NC board's actual position

ARTICLE SUMMARY
• Licensees should not forgo treatment for depression for fear of medical board interference
• Licensees who are stable under treatment typically do not need to reveal their diagnosis to the Board at renewal
• Licensees who are stable under treatment for depression may skip the NCMB renewal question on medical conditions

 

[Mass Effect]

To be fair to them, I was curious and looked up the NC board's actual position

That doesn't absolve them of asking the question in the first place for initial licenses. It's still a violation.

 

[michaelrack]

while some state medical boards do violate ADA, under out constitutional system the states have broad police (not relevant here) and public health/safety powers - specifically states do regulate the practice of medicine (rather than the feds). A strong 10th amendment argument could be made regarding state medical boards being able to violate ADA.

 

[Apollyon]

To be fair to them, I was curious and looked up the NC board's actual position

Yeah, that says "renewal". I dealt with the NC med board. They suck. I guess they still suck.

 

[Doctor Christmas]

Yeah, that says "renewal". I dealt with the NC med board. They suck. I guess they still suck.

They also have an extensive licensing application form - I am licensed in several states and their application seems like a nightmare. It seems they want you to account your activities since high school and to the month or something crazy like that!

 

[Mass Effect]

while some state medical boards do violate ADA, under out constitutional system the states have broad police (not relevant here) and public health/safety powers - specifically states do regulate the practice of medicine (rather than the feds). A strong 10th amendment argument could be made regarding state medical boards being able to violate ADA.

I don't see the 10th Amendment argument about being able to violate federal law. Federal law supersedes state law. It's only when there is no federal law that states get to decide for themselves.

Rulings in court have been against the states when it comes to the state bar:

"Other cases against licensing boards alleging Title II discrimination have turned on the content of application questions. In Ellen S. v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, an applicant for admission to the bar sued the Florida Board claiming that application questions pertaining to an emotional disorder violated the ADA.[1] The district court for the Southern District of Florida held that a defendant need not have knowledge of the plaintiff’s disability in order to violate the ADA.[2] The court further held that questioning the applicant as to whether she had ever sought treatment for a nervous, mental, or emotional disorder or had been diagnosed as having such a condition violated Title II.[3]"

"Similarly, in Clark v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, a federal district court held that a Virginia bar application question, asking whether an applicant had been treated for mental illness or had obtained counseling in the past five years, violated the ADA.[1"

www.adasoutheast.org/ada/.../legal/professional_licensing_disability_ADA_TitleII.doc

 

[michaelrack]

I don't see the 10th Amendment argument about being able to violate federal law. Federal law supersedes state law. It's only when there is no federal law that states get to decide for themselves.

Rulings in court have been against the states when it comes to the state bar:

"Other cases against licensing boards alleging Title II discrimination have turned on the content of application questions. In Ellen S. v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, an applicant for admission to the bar sued the Florida Board claiming that application questions pertaining to an emotional disorder violated the ADA.[1] The district court for the Southern District of Florida held that a defendant need not have knowledge of the plaintiff’s disability in order to violate the ADA.[2] The court further held that questioning the applicant as to whether she had ever sought treatment for a nervous, mental, or emotional disorder or had been diagnosed as having such a condition violated Title II.[3]"

"Similarly, in Clark v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, a federal district court held that a Virginia bar application question, asking whether an applicant had been treated for mental illness or had obtained counseling in the past five years, violated the ADA.[1"

www.adasoutheast.org/ada/.../legal/professional_licensing_disability_ADA_TitleII.doc

1. the case you sited was for a law board/bar. 2. federal law only supercedes state law when the law involves a power delegated to the federal government by the US constitution.

 

[Mass Effect]

1. the case you sited was for a law board/bar. 2. federal law only supercedes state law when the law involves a power delegated to the federal government by the US constitution.

1. I know. I said that in my post.

2. Discrimination qualifies.

 

[TableMD]

Yea so I did read all the posts. Everyone brings their biases to a situation like this so here is mine: I am in primary care and I often have to help patients overcome their bias against mental health treatment, and therefore am against anything that would place a stigma on mental health vs cataract surgery or a uti.

I think that the only interest that a state board should have in a physician’s health is if they have a condition that currently causes impairment. “Do you currently suffer from a medical condition that in its present form, impairs your ability to practice medicine?”

If you are using your medication, glasses, wheel chair, etc, and are not impaired from practcing medicine the answer is no. Reading the NC Board question the way it is written does not have that clear delineation, and it tacks on this “if untreated” hypothetical that opens the door to having to explain one’s personal medical information to a board that has no right to know. I was sleep deprived during my ICU time. If I didnt treat that condition, by sleeping, then yes I would be impaired too.

 

[Smurfette]

Perhaps arguing it would be upheld by the courts.
However, few people have the time or money to fight the medical board.
Plus there's the whole "s/he's the one who sued the medical board to get a license" factor that may make people skittish to hire you. And publicly searchable court documents that will state your mental health issue as the reason why you sued; most people want to keep that stuff private, yet suing the medical board will certainly be very public.

 

[Mass Effect]

Perhaps arguing it would be upheld by the courts.
However, few people have the time or money to fight the medical board.
Plus there's the whole "s/he's the one who sued the medical board to get a license" factor that may make people skittish to hire you. And publicly searchable court documents that will state your mental health issue as the reason why you sued; most people want to keep that stuff private, yet suing the medical board will certainly be very public.

I was never diagnosed with a mental illness. After I graduate fellowship, I may actually take on one or two of these boards out of principle for my colleagues. If more people would, we'd help the problem and the stigma tremendously.

 

[michaelrack]

1. I know. I said that in my post.

2. Discrimination qualifies.

regarding #2, rational discrimination is allowed. However, procedural due process must be followed and the prospective licensee must be given a hearing etc.