DUI which was dismissed >10yrs ago, need to report on license registration?

[MaxFink]

Hi,

Will be finding out residency match shortly and was wondering if I need to report this on the license paperwork.

I have read the other threads about this topic without arriving at a conclusion.

So I had DUI charges dismissed against me 10yrs ago after I completed an alcohol education course.

The training license forms in 2-3 of the states where my top choices are have this Question:

"Have you ever been convicted of a violation, plead Nolo contendere, or entered a plea bargain to any federal, state or local statue, regulation, or ordinance or are any formal charges pending; including use of illicit substances or operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. (Please include any offenses which have been expunged from your record)"

I plan on seeking legal counsel and calling the medical licensure departments in the states where I am interested. I want to do this prior to talking to the PD where I match.

What do you guys think? Do I have to disclose? Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Top Gun]

Yes, you should disclose it.

 

[Smurfette]

If they want you to report expunged things, they want you to report the dismissed DUI.

It was 10 years ago. Assuming you've kept your nose clean since, this is not likely to prevent you from getting licensed. You may need to provide further explanation, however (i.e. that you completed an alcohol education course and have been an angel since, etc.).

 

[reno911]

I am not a lawyer, but based on how I am reading what you, wrote you would not have to disclose it.

If it was dismissed, then by definition you did not get convicted, plead no contest, or make a plea bargain.

It says that you should include things that are expunged. However, to me it would seem that it means that if you had a conviction, no contest, or plea bargain expunged, then you would have to disclose that. However, you had none of those things expunged, so that doesn't apply either.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that you had to do something (i.e., take a course) to get the "dismissal". That doesn't sound like a dismissal to me. So maybe the problem is that you are using the wrong word to describe what happened to you.

Asking an attorney is the right answer here.

 

[Paddington]

Training licenses are easy to get, bro. They won't deny your application over something like that if you've got a residency spot. So I would go ahead and disclose it.

 

[deleted87716]

No-brainer. Disclose it.

It probably won't hurt you. However, if you don't disclose it and it's later discovered, you will have lied on your application, and will likely lose your license and be fired.

Your call.

 

[michaelrack]

Training licenses are easy to get, bro. They won't deny your application over something like that if you've got a residency spot. So I would go ahead and disclose it.

If he does disclose it now, he will need to disclose it for the rest of his career

 

[gutonc]

If he does disclose it now, he will need to disclose it for the rest of his career

And if he doesn't disclose it now and it is discovered (like if he matches at a program with a VA where they do FBI background checks) he won't have a career (outside of Starbucks).

 

[gutonc]

Hi,

Will be finding out residency match shortly and was wondering if I need to report this on the license paperwork.

What do you guys think? Do I have to disclose? Thanks

While the rest of your post was an interesting read, once I got past the title and first paragraph, I had the answer.

Disclose it. The end.

 

[michaelrack]

And if he doesn't disclose it now and it is discovered (like if he matches at a program with a VA where they do FBI background checks) he won't have a career (outside of Starbucks).

agree

 

[goingpsych]

I was in the same position as you about a year ago and tried my best to make the wisest decision. From taking into consideration a few of the things I found here and on the internet, speaking to an attorney, taking into consideration of what a few other attorneys (on a law forum where they provided advice to simple questions), and using my own judgement, I chose it was the wisest to disclose it.

In my situation, I had a DUI about 10 years ago, and as a result went to DUI traffic school, did the required community service, paid my fee's and also had it expunged soon thereafter.

This is something that still does somehow show up on your records (maybe certain agencies will not have access but other higher agencies like the state medical board and fbi/etc will be able to see it no matter if it was dismissed/expunged/etc). This is what I was told by a few attorneys. Also, if it has been dismissed/expunged and you haven't gotten in any other trouble since, I was told there really isn't anything to worry about. Having said all that, I did end up disclosing it along with a required honest explanation of what it was and what i did to resolve the issue and learn my lesson. I had no problems in obtaining approval.

 

[MaxFink]

I was in the same position as you about a year ago and tried my best to make the wisest decision. From taking into consideration a few of the things I found here and on the internet, speaking to an attorney, taking into consideration of what a few other attorneys (on a law forum where they provided advice to simple questions), and using my own judgement, I chose it was the wisest to disclose it.

In my situation, I had a DUI about 10 years ago, and as a result went to DUI traffic school, did the required community service, paid my fee's and also had it expunged soon thereafter.

This is something that still does somehow show up on your records (maybe certain agencies will not have access but other higher agencies like the state medical board and fbi/etc will be able to see it no matter if it was dismissed/expunged/etc). This is what I was told by a few attorneys. Also, if it has been dismissed/expunged and you haven't gotten in any other trouble since, I was told there really isn't anything to worry about. Having said all that, I did end up disclosing it along with a required honest explanation of what it was and what i did to resolve the issue and learn my lesson. I had no problems in obtaining approval.

PM sent

 

[reno911]

I was in the same position as you about a year ago and tried my best to make the wisest decision. From taking into consideration a few of the things I found here and on the internet, speaking to an attorney, taking into consideration of what a few other attorneys (on a law forum where they provided advice to simple questions), and using my own judgement, I chose it was the wisest to disclose it.

In my situation, I had a DUI about 10 years ago, and as a result went to DUI traffic school, did the required community service, paid my fee's and also had it expunged soon thereafter.

This is something that still does somehow show up on your records (maybe certain agencies will not have access but other higher agencies like the state medical board and fbi/etc will be able to see it no matter if it was dismissed/expunged/etc). This is what I was told by a few attorneys. Also, if it has been dismissed/expunged and you haven't gotten in any other trouble since, I was told there really isn't anything to worry about. Having said all that, I did end up disclosing it along with a required honest explanation of what it was and what i did to resolve the issue and learn my lesson. I had no problems in obtaining approval.

Your situation doesn't sound like a "dismissal". Of course, if this is what happened to OP, then his was probably not a dismissal either (despite his use of the term).

The best advice is to just ask an attorney.

 

[MaxFink]

actually the term 'dismissal' is the term that is part of the language used in the state law for what it does with the charge once the educational course is completed successfully.

 

[Textbookversion]

You probably don't need to disclose it imo. Go talk to a lawyer this isn't legal advice from me.

Don't ask doctors for legal advice. They don't know anything. It'd be like asking a lawyer for medical advice, they are clueless.

Having something expunged is massively different than having something dismissed. Gigantic difference. The post by smurfette in this thread exemplifies why you should never ever get legal advice from a doctor.

Also I hate people that drive under the influence. Zero excuse. Scumbag move.

 

[michaelrack]

Don't ask doctors for medical advice. They don't know anything..

Doctors know a little bit about medicine

I know you meant don't ask doctors for legal advice..

 

[dragonfly99]

I would consult an attorney. If it never even got to trial/was dismissed, maybe nobody (FBI, state boards, etc.) can see it even happened? I don't know.
I think if there is any, any doubt or possibility someone could find out later, you should just tell/expose yourself. I think with it being so long ago, and you having a clean record since that time, there is little reason to think someone would deny you a license. If you are perceived as a liar/duplicitious later when someone finds out about this, that could have many and far-reaching consequences. It might be just better to get this all out in the open and disclose it.
However, I would really think spending the $ on legal advice from a lawyer who practices in those state(s) would be very much worth the money you spend.
Once that information is out there, if you put it out there you are going to have to disclose it likely on all the state medical board applications you put in forever and ever, most likely.

 

[xrevision]

If there was an arrest, it will come up on FBI records.

 

[deleted87716]

You probably don't need to disclose it imo.

And your opinion is based on what, exactly?

This isn't rocket science. A DUI is serious business. Even if you (the OP) don't take it seriously, you'll undoubtedly encounter somebody else who does.

You want to know what a lawyer thinks? OK. Here ya' go. --> http://www.bobkeeferlaw.com/library/88_consequences_of_A_Virginia_DUI_DWI_Conviction.pdf

 

[45408]

If there was an arrest, it will come up on FBI records.

Just curious, what are you basing this claim on? I've been told that certain types of convictions, once expunged, are completely gone, without a trace.

For the OP.....talk to a lawyer. It's definitely not worth making a mistake here. I'm not as sure as everyone else that you should "go ahead and disclose it," because I think it could be an obstruction to you down the road for licensing.

 

[xrevision]

Friend is a detective for LAPD. Says once you've been finger printed there will always be record of your arrest in the FBI. He does a lot of background checks for prospective officers and even if your record was expunged it comes up. So contact a lawyer regarding what you should do, but if it were me I would disclose it.

 

[marty mcfly]

Regarding expungement and FBI background checks, it is state-specific. These SDN boards seem to forget that our legal system is very much dependent on the state. Some states require that upon entering an order of expungement, the state must both destroy its own record of the conviction/charge and also have the FBI database destroy the record. Other states only destroy the state record but do not have an effect on FBI database. The idea that "the FBI will always have your record" is false.

To the OP- it sounds like you had something like a "deferred sentence" or similar. Since you did not plead guilty, nolo contendere, or enter a plea bargain, then you would not mention it on your application. A dismissal is not included in the question, so clearly, you should not mention that aspect. The issue is to how you/they define your plea- maybe it could be considered a plea bargain. Got to go to an attorney for that.

 

[Textbookversion]

And your opinion is based on what, exactly?

This isn't rocket science. A DUI is serious business. Even if you (the OP) don't take it seriously, you'll undoubtedly encounter somebody else who does.

You want to know what a lawyer thinks? OK. Here ya' go. --> http://www.bobkeeferlaw.com/library/88_consequences_of_A_Virginia_DUI_DWI_Conviction.pdf

He wasn't convicted. Thanks though for reinforcing my point.

 

[deleted87716]

He wasn't convicted. Thanks though for reinforcing my point.

It's his career.

By all means, talk to a lawyer. They can be wrong, too.

 

[BobA]

Hi,

Will be finding out residency match shortly and was wondering if I need to report this on the license paperwork.

I have read the other threads about this topic without arriving at a conclusion.

So I had DUI charges dismissed against me 10yrs ago after I completed an alcohol education course.

The training license forms in 2-3 of the states where my top choices are have this Question:

"Have you ever been convicted of a violation, plead Nolo contendere, or entered a plea bargain to any federal, state or local statue, regulation, or ordinance or are any formal charges pending; including use of illicit substances or operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. (Please include any offenses which have been expunged from your record)"

I plan on seeking legal counsel and calling the medical licensure departments in the states where I am interested. I want to do this prior to talking to the PD where I match.

What do you guys think? Do I have to disclose? Thanks

If you didn't disclose, wouldn't you worry that it would come out some day? What if it did?

If you do disclose-they aren't going to deny your license because of this - at most they would want you to have an evaluation, and possibly monitoring (eg, random urine drug screens).

Although it is true that once disclosed you'll have to keep disclosing it for life.

 

[xrevision]

On licensing in california they specifically ask for any arrests.

 

[jkhamlin]

Hi,

Will be finding out residency match shortly and was wondering if I need to report this on the license paperwork.

I have read the other threads about this topic without arriving at a conclusion.

So I had DUI charges dismissed against me 10yrs ago after I completed an alcohol education course.

The training license forms in 2-3 of the states where my top choices are have this Question:

"Have you ever been convicted of a violation, plead Nolo contendere, or entered a plea bargain to any federal, state or local statue, regulation, or ordinance or are any formal charges pending; including use of illicit substances or operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. (Please include any offenses which have been expunged from your record)"

I plan on seeking legal counsel and calling the medical licensure departments in the states where I am interested. I want to do this prior to talking to the PD where I match.

What do you guys think? Do I have to disclose? Thanks

Why don't you just do an FBI background check on yourself and see what the feds can turn up? It only costs $18 (plus postage and cost of fingerprinting, usually around $5). Cheap insurance in case you're considering not disclosing.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/background-checks

 

[jl lin]

Friend is a detective for LAPD. Says once you've been finger printed there will always be record of your arrest in the FBI. He does a lot of background checks for prospective officers and even if your record was expunged it comes up. So contact a lawyer regarding what you should do, but if it were me I would disclose it.

This is not necessarily true according to my lawyer buddy, and he's one pretty smart dude. At the most, says that if it was expunged correctly, any remaining record would say expunged. You wouldn't believe the silly stuff he has carefully shared--like domestic arguments, for example, where one spouse wants to get the other spouse, so they blow things out of proporiton and get the other spouse arrested for making "terroristic threats" or assaulting them, when there was really nothing to it.

But a DUI, IDK. Fpr your situation, you're better off speaking to a reputable attorney.

And really, someone with something to lose, like a a license to practice law, is not going to advise you on a message board. Come on.

The best of luck though.

 

[xrevision]

"Convictions
: Note that convictions adjudicated in
juvenile courts or convictions two
years or older under Health and Safety Code se
ctions 11357(b), (c), (d), (e) or section
11360(b) need not be repor
ted. Convictions ex
punged or set aside pursuant to section
1203.4 of the California Penal Code or equivalent non-Califo
rnia law MUST be disclosed.
If in doubt as to whether a conviction should
be disclosed, it is best to disclose the
conviction on the applic
ation. The Board rece
ives information regarding convictions that
have been expunged. "

Taken from the application for licensure for california. Go seek a lawyer.

 

[jl lin]

"Convictions
: Note that convictions adjudicated in
juvenile courts or convictions two
years or older under Health and Safety Code se
ctions 11357(b), (c), (d), (e) or section
11360(b) need not be repor
ted. Convictions ex
punged or set aside pursuant to section
1203.4 of the California Penal Code or equivalent non-Califo
rnia law MUST be disclosed.
If in doubt as to whether a conviction should
be disclosed, it is best to disclose the
conviction on the applic
ation. The Board rece
ives information regarding convictions that
have been expunged. "

Taken from the application for licensure for california. Go seek a lawyer.

Yes, it's saying "conviction," not arrest or dropped charges; but I agree. The poster needs to see a reputable lawyer about this. To me a conviction is one thing, unless it was overturned by new evidence or whatever. An arrest, however, is totally another. People get arrested a lot for BS things. I can make a claim against you of say, violence or "terrorist threat," and the law enforcement would arrest you. Now whether the charge stands is an entirely different matter; but the fact that a person was arrest is BS. Heck, you'd would have had people from the 60's and 70's, who are docs now, that would have had trouble becoming docs b/c of protests--or Green Peace or PETA types that would be blocked from med school because of arrests..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49doGw9TPDc

The guy in this youtube video may have been annoying and should have just shut the heck up, but the arrest is a bit ridiculous. You'd think the PO wouldn't have wanted the extra paperwork and time in court for this nonsense; but whatever. Sure any one of us here would have problably just shut up and then moved on. It's still ridiculous that this PO decided to play bad azz though.

Point is, regardless, you can be arrested for anything--even jaywalking. If it's dropped and expunged, it should be left the heck alone, b/c expungement processes have to go through judges and the state police, etc. It's not like someone can just say, "wipe this off my record." Also, I think my lawyer friend told me that it can only be done once or twice--it's a limited thing, and it wouldn't necessarily be approved. (Don't remember all the exacts on what he said.) But I do remember the other information I shared and that he said expungement is a long process, and it has to be approved. If an arrest is dropped or something doesn't stand, and another judge, etc has approved an expungement, that really should be enough to say, you have the right to leave it off of future information.

(No offense, but Ca is a bit of a wackadoodle state to me.) What happens after an arrest totally depends of the facts and a number of other factors. Expunged arrest records and such have their place, and should be respected, b/c they have all ready been evaluated by officals after the fact as well. A person shouldn't be tried and subjected to defend himself/herself in society for something like an arrest that was dropped or the like and then approved through expungement. But whatever. Hopefully by now the OP has gotten his/her answer from a good attorney.

 

[IamnotFreud]

If you didn't disclose, wouldn't you worry that it would come out some day? What if it did?

If you do disclose-they aren't going to deny your license because of this - at most they would want you to have an evaluation, and possibly monitoring (eg, random urine drug screens).

Although it is true that once disclosed you'll have to keep disclosing it for life.

That really depends on which state you are trying to get licensed. Apparently there was a case in Tx where a resident was denied a license precisely bc of this- a DUI. He sued apparently and won, but it took him 2 years. I would say get a lawyer and ask them regarding this.

I also don't quite get why once we graduate we can't get a universal license to practice in all states. You would think that since it's the same country, the medical laws would sort of apply for all states no?

 

[deleted87716]

I also don't quite get why once we graduate we can't get a universal license to practice in all states. You would think that since it's the same country, the medical laws would sort of apply for all states no?

States rights.

A Federal license would require Federal oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[IamnotFreud]

States rights.

A Federal license would require Federal oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

What would be wrong with that? I guess I may not be sufficiently well informed of the perils that a federal license would bring. Care to elaborate?

Also I guess I also don't get why certain states have such much more stringent requirements than others. Where I did internship it was a breeze, where I'm going to be doing residency, it's a painful process.

 

[Raryn]

States rights.

A Federal license would require Federal oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

What's funny is we already have federal oversight... to get a DEA number. It wouldn't be much harder to transition that to a federal license with the state licensing boards just acting as enforcement agencies for physician misconduct, but the states (much less the licensing boards) would never go along with that. They'd rather make you pay your money directly into state coffers.

 

[deleted87716]

What would be wrong with that? I guess I may not be sufficiently well informed of the perils that a federal license would bring. Care to elaborate?

I trust my state government a lot more than I trust the Feds. YMMV.

The DEA laws are a great example of how the Feds screw things up. Just look at the laws regarding electronic prescribing of controlled substances. This is the same government that is supposedly pushing e-prescribing and EHR.

 

[vistaril]

If you didn't disclose, wouldn't you worry that it would come out some day? What if it did?

If you do disclose-they aren't going to deny your license because of this - at most they would want you to have an evaluation, and possibly monitoring (eg, random urine drug screens).

which is a HUGE deal....for starters, a formal evaluation is hellishly expensive. Second, if he is then referred on for enrollment in a state monitoring program, this is going to be both expensive and *VERY* inconvenient for at least a few years. It's also going to have a significant negative impact on his life in that he will be required to be completely abstinent from alcohol for years when there is no evidence he has an ongoing problem with alcohol(as opposed to just making one bad decision over a decade ago)....

another issue with state monitoring programs is that when you apply for licensing in another state you often have to start over and re-enroll in their program, or least do some extra work. For example, if this guy enters into a contract in his state once he gets his license, and he is put on a 4 year contract, then when he applies for licensure in another state 3 years and 6 months later the other state probably isn't going to say "oh, you have 6 months to go". They are probably going to give him at least 2-3 years for monitoring in their program. I've heard of people who have never messed up once in their monitoring program but because they move every 3-4 years have been formally monitored for going on a decade.

Basically, if you're enrolled in a state professional monitoring program at the beginning of your career it will have potential negative consequences in a lot of ways 20-25+ years down the road.....everytime you apply for new hospital credentialing, everytime you apply for a different state license, etc. It may also cost you more money in terms of things like malpractice insurance. Not to mention endless participation in the state monitoring program(fees + testing costs) are going to run well into 4 figures a year.

Im not saying the person should not disclose it. I'm saying that disclosing it *may* get the ball rolling towards a process that is going to be a huge burden to him(in terms of inconvenience and money and time) for a decade or more. It has the potential to not be a 'small' thing/detail.

 

[2000 Man]

.

 

[jkhamlin]

What would be wrong with that? I guess I may not be sufficiently well informed of the perils that a federal license would bring. Care to elaborate?

Also I guess I also don't get why certain states have such much more stringent requirements than others. Where I did internship it was a breeze, where I'm going to be doing residency, it's a painful process.

Seriously? Has the Fed EVER ran anything well?

 

[whonotwhatnot]

I've been there (am there), same time frame and everything, dismissed and all. Disclose it. The state I'm in did warn us that they do FBI background checks and specifically stated something along the lines of: "If you've ever been arrested, please state so and tell us the details. It is better to be truthful for this matter, please do not lie on your application, it will be held *highly* against you if we find out you're lying. Common responses of applicants who've not disclosed previous arrests yet we found out otherwise are 1) It was so long ago I forgot about it 2) It was expunged/dismissed 3) My lawyer advised me not to disclose it 4) I didn't think it'd matter."

Anyway, after I got my residency match my family and I were VERY happy. Within the next week I get an e-mail from the Prog Coordinator asking me to fill out the hospital(s) and preliminary state applications and the question comes up! So my family was still happy for me and I was alone internally in this battle. I asked for NO ONES advice and followed my gut and checked the YES and wrote a short paragraph right next to the question stating the details. The next few days the PC emails me to apply for a state license and that it'd be in my best interest to be truthful to the state board. I had thought that it would no longer be an issue since I had just admitted my shortcoming but there it was again! The question! This time they asked for additional information. I took it upon myself to write them a personal statement regarding this matter and again, all my friends calling stating "we did it!! we matched!!", my family also "Hey! Congrats!" and deep down inside I like... yea... yep... in an unsure manner. After much prayer and several omens I felt at peace and happy that I was honest with the medical board and about 2 weeks later I got the congratulatory e-mail from the state boards and the next day the official permit in the mail. I could not have been happier.

Lastly, after an exhaustive apartment search in my new city I nailed down what complex I wanted to live in. Fast forward a few hours, I'm filling out the application and they did ask "have you ever been convicted of a felony, sex crime, etc?" and since my DUI was a misdemeanor I selected "NO". After finalizing the application and paying the security deposit the apartment realtor asked me if I had any questions and I stated: "No, but I do want to clear something up. Question #X did ask for previous felonies and I selected 'No', however I was convicted of a misdemeanor DUI 10 years ago, I was a teenager, bla bla..." and she SURPRISED me by saying "Oh yea, I know. It's here on the background check I ran on you 10 mins ago. That's no problem, it was so long ago, but I appreciate your honesty -- you're a doctor now, and thank you for your honesty and being forthcoming about your past. Humanity is not about our faults, it's how you respond to them." and she literally showed me the printed sheet w/ my dismissed misdemeanor DUI info, a few traffic tickets, etc!

Long story short -- even in an Apartment background check your past arrests may come up. Imagine if your state uses FBI and other proven background check services?

 

[Shinken]

I can't believe people still argue so much about this. It's really a no-brainer. DISCLOSE IT.

 

[vistaril]

I can't believe people still argue so much about this. It's really a no-brainer. DISCLOSE IT.

the problem is that disclosing it could impose unneccessary and burdensome(and hindering)requirements on this person. State physician monitoring boards(and the people who work at them and get paid by them) are in the interest of making sure physicians do well and protecting the public, but they are also in the interest of keeping their job. And maintaining current staffing levels requires maintaining so many people in their programs. I've seen on more than one occasion a doctor(usually residents) get enrolled in a monitoring program 'just to be safe' when their only infraction was something like getting a dui a bunch of years ago. And that's a big deal because that person will need to take random drug/alcohol screens(inconvenient and costly), check in everyday to see if they need to test(inconvenient), pay annual or biannual or quarterly or whatever fees(costly) and maintain other requirements of the program. Additionally, a person who likely doesn't have an alcohol use disorder is prohibiting from drinking any alcohol for years(after all thats what the testing is for)......how many people who drink socially wouldnt find that burdensome? And the worst of it all is when the person finishes residency in 3-4 years they will likely have a little bit of time left on their contract, and when they change states they likely won't get full credit for the time upon transfer and will be re-enrolled in their new states program(because after all they are in a monitoring program already for some reason) Oh, and there malpractice is going to be more because they are in one of these programs.

If you don't have a substance use disorder(and it doesnt appear the OP does), one should do everything possible to avoid getting in one of these programs. It is not a small thing by any means.

If it is a dui that was dismissed and there is some interepretation on what to put, I would advise leaving it off. If they come back and question you on it I don't think they are going to punish you that severely for leaving off a dismissed dui many years ago. Likely they will just treat you like you listed it in the first place. There is a good chance nothing will come of it though.

 

[2000 Man]

the problem is that disclosing it could impose unneccessary and burdensome(and hindering)requirements on this person. State physician monitoring boards(and the people who work at them and get paid by them) are in the interest of making sure physicians do well and protecting the public, but they are also in the interest of keeping their job. And maintaining current staffing levels requires maintaining so many people in their programs. I've seen on more than one occasion a doctor(usually residents) get enrolled in a monitoring program 'just to be safe' when their only infraction was something like getting a dui a bunch of years ago. And that's a big deal because that person will need to take random drug/alcohol screens(inconvenient and costly), check in everyday to see if they need to test(inconvenient), pay annual or biannual or quarterly or whatever fees(costly) and maintain other requirements of the program. Additionally, a person who likely doesn't have an alcohol use disorder is prohibiting from drinking any alcohol for years(after all thats what the testing is for)......how many people who drink socially wouldnt find that burdensome? And the worst of it all is when the person finishes residency in 3-4 years they will likely have a little bit of time left on their contract, and when they change states they likely won't get full credit for the time upon transfer and will be re-enrolled in their new states program(because after all they are in a monitoring program already for some reason) Oh, and there malpractice is going to be more because they are in one of these programs.

If you don't have a substance use disorder(and it doesnt appear the OP does), one should do everything possible to avoid getting in one of these programs. It is not a small thing by any means.

If it is a dui that was dismissed and there is some interepretation on what to put, I would advise leaving it off. If they come back and question you on it I don't think they are going to punish you that severely for leaving off a dismissed dui many years ago. Likely they will just treat you like you listed it in the first place. There is a good chance nothing will come of it though.

This is crappy advice. It is always better to be honest than to risk looking like you are being less than truthful.

And I'll tell you what, it's a hell of lot more expensive to NOT be granted a license because you were not honest than to disclose the DUI and have to participate in a monitoring program for a period of time.

I have been in a monitoring program and while it can be inconvenient at times the alternative is much more inconvenient (i.e. not being able to practice medicine). So what you can't drink alcohol. Life is just fine without it, even better.

Vistaril, you're a pysch resident right? I can't believe you are handing out this kind of advice to people....

 

[whonotwhatnot]

This is crappy advice. It is always better to be honest than to risk looking like you are being less than truthful.

And I'll tell you what, it's a hell of lot more expensive to NOT be granted a license because you were not honest than to disclose the DUI and have to participate in a monitoring program for a period of time.

I have been in a monitoring program and while it can be inconvenient at times the alternative is much more inconvenient (i.e. not being able to practice medicine). So what you can't drink alcohol. Life is just fine without it, even better.

Vistaril, you're a pysch resident right? I can't believe you are handing out this kind of advice to people....

You couldn't have said it better. Vistaril's advice is a abysmally ignorant and then some.

 

[vistaril]

This is crappy advice. It is always better to be honest than to risk looking like you are being less than truthful.

And I'll tell you what, it's a hell of lot more expensive to NOT be granted a license because you were not honest than to disclose the DUI and have to participate in a monitoring program for a period of time.

I have been in a monitoring program and while it can be inconvenient at times the alternative is much more inconvenient (i.e. not being able to practice medicine). So what you can't drink alcohol. Life is just fine without it, even better.

Vistaril, you're a pysch resident right? I can't believe you are handing out this kind of advice to people....

1) the idea that the alternative in this case is not practicing medicine is almost certainly false. The OP had a DUI many years ago dismissed. It would be very easy to argue that omitting this was in good faith. After all, it was dismissed and it was a DUI charge(dismissed) many years ago. Stop acting as if there is some current or recent active legal issue that suggests a substance use issue. No state medical board is going to not grant him his license if he leaves this off, which we are having a debate about anyways as if it is something that falls under the question.

2) The costs of being in a monitoring program are massive. You could easily be looking at six figures in cost over the course of one's career. A lot of this is from having to report this on malpractice insurance applications for a long long long time(in some cases indefinately), and then being thrown in a different risk group. I would much rather not include something like a DUI many years ago that was dismissed when it is a grey area as to if it is even appropriate to include such a thing than consent to potentially being out that kind of money.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

It's fair to say that there isn't a 100% correct answer to this question/situation. Each state has separate laws about what needs to be disclosed -- some require that only "convictions" be disclosed, and some require that all "charges", even those dropped, are disclosed. Even with that, the definition of "convictions" is somwhat murky, and whether something that was settled / diversion / expunged / etc is considered a "conviction" differs by state. And, if you're applying for a license in a state that considers your situation a "conviction" but the event happened in another state where it's not a conviction, the licensing state can apply it's rules to your situation.

So, there's a potential downside to both options. You could disclose the DUI. In that case, you'd have some risk of slowing down your license application, and some chance of getting put into a diversion program. The former is likely (as the board will likely want details). The latter will depend on how long ago it was. If you get pulled over for a DUI after partying for match day, you will certainly be put in a diversion program. If you get pulled over 10 years ago and have no issues since, there's a good chance you won't.

If you don't disclose it, then it depends on whether they find out about it via another source (like a background check). If they do, they may consider the omission, even if minor, an inaccuracy on your application. It's possible that they will simply let you "fix things". It's also possible that they will reject your application outright, and ban you from applying again for some period of time. Or, they could give you a license with stipulations -- like someone needs to check your records for accuracy. Or, you might be put in the diversion program where, had you disclosed it, you might not have.

No one knows. Each board and each person's situation will be different. But if you do get your license either denied or revoked, that IS reportable FOREVER to every single board you apply to in the furture. And you can bet that will cause increased scutiny and trouble in the future.

So, IMHO it's a much better idea to come clean with the BOM around all of these things. Chances are that something in the distant past like this will make no difference. You're very unlikely to be put into diversion program. If you are, then you can be quite certain that state would have seriously penalized you for not listing it.

All that said, it's your choice of which road to go down. Just make sure you always choose the same road. That's another problem -- if you don't disclose it now and nothing happens, then disclose it to another state in the future (perhaps because their wording makes it clear that you have to), and then they check with your first state's BOM who says "what conviction?", you could be in for a world of hurt.

 

[whonotwhatnot]

It's fair to say that there isn't a 100% correct answer to this question/situation. Each state has separate laws about what needs to be disclosed -- some require that only "convictions" be disclosed, and some require that all "charges", even those dropped, are disclosed. Even with that, the definition of "convictions" is somwhat murky, and whether something that was settled / diversion / expunged / etc is considered a "conviction" differs by state. And, if you're applying for a license in a state that considers your situation a "conviction" but the event happened in another state where it's not a conviction, the licensing state can apply it's rules to your situation.

So, there's a potential downside to both options. You could disclose the DUI. In that case, you'd have some risk of slowing down your license application, and some chance of getting put into a diversion program. The former is likely (as the board will likely want details). The latter will depend on how long ago it was. If you get pulled over for a DUI after partying for match day, you will certainly be put in a diversion program. If you get pulled over 10 years ago and have no issues since, there's a good chance you won't.

If you don't disclose it, then it depends on whether they find out about it via another source (like a background check). If they do, they may consider the omission, even if minor, an inaccuracy on your application. It's possible that they will simply let you "fix things". It's also possible that they will reject your application outright, and ban you from applying again for some period of time. Or, they could give you a license with stipulations -- like someone needs to check your records for accuracy. Or, you might be put in the diversion program where, had you disclosed it, you might not have.

No one knows. Each board and each person's situation will be different. But if you do get your license either denied or revoked, that IS reportable FOREVER to every single board you apply to in the furture. And you can bet that will cause increased scutiny and trouble in the future.

So, IMHO it's a much better idea to come clean with the BOM around all of these things. Chances are that something in the distant past like this will make no difference. You're very unlikely to be put into diversion program. If you are, then you can be quite certain that state would have seriously penalized you for not listing it.

All that said, it's your choice of which road to go down. Just make sure you always choose the same road. That's another problem -- if you don't disclose it now and nothing happens, then disclose it to another state in the future (perhaps because their wording makes it clear that you have to), and then they check with your first state's BOM who says "what conviction?", you could be in for a world of hurt.

Thank you for such honest and genuine advice -- I'm sure many will read your words and choose the right path.

 

[IJL]

It's fair to say that there isn't a 100% correct answer to this question/situation. Each state has separate laws about what needs to be disclosed -- some require that only "convictions" be disclosed, and some require that all "charges", even those dropped, are disclosed. Even with that, the definition of "convictions" is somwhat murky, and whether something that was settled / diversion / expunged / etc is considered a "conviction" differs by state. And, if you're applying for a license in a state that considers your situation a "conviction" but the event happened in another state where it's not a conviction, the licensing state can apply it's rules to your situation.

So, there's a potential downside to both options. You could disclose the DUI. In that case, you'd have some risk of slowing down your license application, and some chance of getting put into a diversion program. The former is likely (as the board will likely want details). The latter will depend on how long ago it was. If you get pulled over for a DUI after partying for match day, you will certainly be put in a diversion program. If you get pulled over 10 years ago and have no issues since, there's a good chance you won't.

If you don't disclose it, then it depends on whether they find out about it via another source (like a background check). If they do, they may consider the omission, even if minor, an inaccuracy on your application. It's possible that they will simply let you "fix things". It's also possible that they will reject your application outright, and ban you from applying again for some period of time. Or, they could give you a license with stipulations -- like someone needs to check your records for accuracy. Or, you might be put in the diversion program where, had you disclosed it, you might not have.

No one knows. Each board and each person's situation will be different. But if you do get your license either denied or revoked, that IS reportable FOREVER to every single board you apply to in the furture. And you can bet that will cause increased scutiny and trouble in the future.

So, IMHO it's a much better idea to come clean with the BOM around all of these things. Chances are that something in the distant past like this will make no difference. You're very unlikely to be put into diversion program. If you are, then you can be quite certain that state would have seriously penalized you for not listing it.

All that said, it's your choice of which road to go down. Just make sure you always choose the same road. That's another problem -- if you don't disclose it now and nothing happens, then disclose it to another state in the future (perhaps because their wording makes it clear that you have to), and then they check with your first state's BOM who says "what conviction?", you could be in for a world of hurt.

This is good advice.

 

[ioh]

I throw my hat in the ring with everyone who advised you to disclose it. The advice from aProgDirector is excellent, and explains why many of us would err on the side of caution (that and the comment about ending up with a career at Starbucks, kudos gutonc).

 

[dozitgetchahi]

the problem is that disclosing it could impose unneccessary and burdensome(and hindering)requirements on this person. State physician monitoring boards(and the people who work at them and get paid by them) are in the interest of making sure physicians do well and protecting the public, but they are also in the interest of keeping their job. And maintaining current staffing levels requires maintaining so many people in their programs. I've seen on more than one occasion a doctor(usually residents) get enrolled in a monitoring program 'just to be safe' when their only infraction was something like getting a dui a bunch of years ago. And that's a big deal because that person will need to take random drug/alcohol screens(inconvenient and costly), check in everyday to see if they need to test(inconvenient), pay annual or biannual or quarterly or whatever fees(costly) and maintain other requirements of the program. Additionally, a person who likely doesn't have an alcohol use disorder is prohibiting from drinking any alcohol for years(after all thats what the testing is for)......how many people who drink socially wouldnt find that burdensome? And the worst of it all is when the person finishes residency in 3-4 years they will likely have a little bit of time left on their contract, and when they change states they likely won't get full credit for the time upon transfer and will be re-enrolled in their new states program(because after all they are in a monitoring program already for some reason) Oh, and there malpractice is going to be more because they are in one of these programs.

If you don't have a substance use disorder(and it doesnt appear the OP does), one should do everything possible to avoid getting in one of these programs. It is not a small thing by any means.

If it is a dui that was dismissed and there is some interepretation on what to put, I would advise leaving it off. If they come back and question you on it I don't think they are going to punish you that severely for leaving off a dismissed dui many years ago. Likely they will just treat you like you listed it in the first place. There is a good chance nothing will come of it though.

Yeah, exactly. I know some docs who have to go through these 'programs' due to bad choices they may have made long ago, and trust me - they're a gigantic pain in the ass.

The best advice to the OP is to consult a competent, top notch attorney. Get good legal advice on this and go from there. Asking other doctors about what to do here is akin to lawyers asking each other about whether their chest pain is a cause for concern etc. Just suck it up and go to the people who have the training and experience to give you proper advice. Don't get yourself roped into programs like this if you can avoid it.

 

[vistaril]

Yeah, exactly. I know some docs who have to go through these 'programs' due to bad choices they may have made long ago, and trust me - they're a gigantic pain in the ass.

The best advice to the OP is to consult a competent, top notch attorney. Get good legal advice on this and go from there. Asking other doctors about what to do here is akin to lawyers asking each other about whether their chest pain is a cause for concern etc. Just suck it up and go to the people who have the training and experience to give you proper advice. Don't get yourself roped into programs like this if you can avoid it.

agreed....these programs are excellent(and lifesavers one could argue) for practitioners with serious chemical addictions.

But they are very costly(in terms of time and money mostly indirect), they will limit your career flexibility and options in many ways, and they will always stay with you. A few posters have acted like enrolling in such a program is no big deal, and that is simply disastrous advice.