misdemeanor / felony charges, not convictions

[hsentar]

this friend of mine (female) has been accepted to both osteopathic and allopathic schools (she just got off the waiting lists at several schools) and is trying to decide where to go. She was told by one school that already ran a background check ( i don't know which one), that they found out that a few years ago she was charged with a felony, which was later downgraded to a misdemeanor, and then later dismissed, so no conviction. She didn't put it on AMCAS or AACOMAS because they only ask for convictions. the school said they'll still accept her but can't guarantee the charges won't affect her rotations / licensure in the future. what should she do? would a charge that was completely dismissed really affect her?


and no, the "friend" isn't me - I'm still on waiting lists and already filled out AMCAS and AACOMAS for next year

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MassTransport]

Yes, I've been advised by my pre-health committee that licensing boards are increasingly asking whether or not you've been charged with a crime, not just convicted. They use this as a way to gauge moral character or somesuch. I doubt it'll be a problem unless there's a lot of arrests, and even then...

The main problem is not with getting into a residency but with getting a license to enter residency or a license to practice medicine. Expunged records are still accessible by government entities like state licensing boards.

 

[hsentar]

so obviously one wouldn't want to put themselves through 4 years of medical school if they couldn't get a license. what should she do now?

 

[jochi1543]

so obviously one wouldn't want to put themselves through 4 years of medical school if they couldn't get a license. what should she do now?

Contact the licensing bodies in the states she could see herself potentially practicing.

 

[MassTransport]

Contact the licensing bodies in the states she could see herself potentially practicing.

Absolutely, that would be my suggestion if she's unsure. If the medical school is still willing to invest the resources to train her, then I suspect that it's a good sign.

 

[toxicgate]

This is absurd. If you are convicted, then that means you are guilty of something. If you are charged, that means there was suspicion enough for the courts to want to see if you are guilty of anything. IF the charges are dropped, then why the hell should anyone suffer any ramifications after? They are INNOCENT if charges are drooped. I mean, doesn't the legal system say that someone is innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around? So if they were never convicted, i should not see why residency programs should see that as a problem. There are tons of people that falsely accused in the US, are put on trial, have charges pressed, but then are found innocent, and the charges are dropped or expunged. Why would that perclude someone from getting a residency, just because they were charged with something. We have a legal system for a resason, to see if people are innocent or guilty.

This what bugs me about these kinds of threads, in which someone had some charges, and the charges were dropped or expunged. THEY ARE EXPUNGED or THROWN OUT for a reason. legally, you don't have to report expunged charges because they are just that. Why is that that AMCAS, or the AMA can say that you cant get a residency, or get into medical school because of some charges that were dropped or expunged?

 

[[pj]]

Hmm... AMCAS says that you don't need to disclose information if charges were dropped, etc. etc. But what's the point of this if they'll get people who were found innocent anyway?!

 

[MassTransport]

Just because you are asked to report it doesn't mean that it'll have a negative impact on you. I assume that state licensing boards understand the difference between a charge and a conviction, and that they are being simply trying to be thorough. It is a bit unsettling, though.

I found this on the Louisiana licensure site:

Applicants, who have ever, either as an adult or a juvenile, been cited, arrested, charged, convicted, or pled nolo contendere to any violation of any state or federal statute should be prepared to address the matter with the board. This includes matters that have been expunged or been subject to a diversionary program.

 

[leftmid]

Applicants, who have ever, either as an adult or a juvenile, been cited, arrested, charged, convicted, or pled nolo contendere to any violation of any state or federal statute should be prepared to address the matter with the board. This includes matters that have been expunged or been subject to a diversionary program. quote]


Thanks.

No need to worry about the charge. I've heard that many doctors still have their license after misdemeanor conviction. I am not sure about felony conviction though.

But the medical school that warn her about the "no guarantee" might be as worrisome as a nervous doc.

 

[punkindrublic]

I seriously doubt that an isolated incident where you're found not guilty or charges are dropped is going to prevent you from getting a medical license. I think they probably ask questions like this in case, say, you have a parent on the bench in your hometown, and had 10 cases of posession tossed out. That may be a problem. I think in the end it boils down to the board laying out one of the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs.

But seriously, JUVENILE offenses??? That's absolutely insane.

 

[jochi1543]

But seriously, JUVENILE offenses??? That's absolutely insane.

I don't think so. Juvenile offenses aren't just about buying booze underage - there are juvenile carjackers, kidnappers, robbers, rapists, murderers, too. I don't think it makes a difference whether you were 15 or 20.

 

[chickenlittle84]

I have sat in on one state medical licensing board meeting, and from what I saw there, I think your friend will probably be okay. She will probably be asked to explain what happened, and provided it was something non-violent, related to alcohol, drugs (i.e. being young and foolish), and that she can explain it in a huble, "I have learned something from this" kind of way, it shouldn't be a problem. There were at least two people the day I was there who had 2 DUIs from their college years who were able to get their licenses...I think it has to be something really bad for them to rob of your years of hard work...That being said, different states have different laws, so it is possible she will be limited in where she can practice.

 

[hsentar]

thanks for all the responses.

she looked up the laws in the states for which she wants to practice (mainly VA), and they only require you to report Convictions or if you entered a plea bargain.

Her charges were when she was 18 or 19 (i'm not really sure), but they definetely couldn't be completely expunged since she was no longer a minor - some record of her being charged/arrested will always be there.

I totally agree with toxicgate, she was falsely and ridiculously charged with the felony & misdemeanor (something to do with burning paper or grass, again, I'm not quite sure) and that's why they dropped the charges (nolle prosequi). No plea bargain or anything.

what sucks is if she wouldnt' be allowed to do rotations at certain places because of it or if she had to keep explaining the story over and over again - it could get expensive if she has to continually consult her attorney too.

its soo stupid IMO.

 

[punkindrublic]

I don't think so. Juvenile offenses aren't just about buying booze underage - there are juvenile carjackers, kidnappers, robbers, rapists, murderers, too. I don't think it makes a difference whether you were 15 or 20.

Except for the fact that the majority of states will try anyone over 14 who's been charged with one of these offenses as an adult. Remember the kid in FL who killed a friend imitating wrestling? Got life as a 12 year old (although thankfully higher courts realized that at 12, you don't have the same culpability you do as when you're older).

Basically, being forced to explain juvenile or nonconviction legal problems spits in the face of the way the legal system is set up, since you are presumed innocent. By forcing you to defend yourself against charges that were either ultimately sealed or found not to meet the burden of proof necessary to warrant a conviction, you're essentially going through double jeopardy by having to defend yourself against charges again.

 

[hsentar]

your absolutely right - having to re-defend yourself over and over again is absolutely ridiculous and almost illegal (you brought up double jeopardy).

Thanks for all the replies!