************** precedent. cannabis. ecstasy. medical school with criminal convictions?

[giffol]

I know a Dr. ************** with a criminal drug trafficking history for cannabis and ecstasy (including using minors as agents in their sales) who was able to get licensed in Michigan, Tennessee, and Florida--this is all in public records from South Florida. I myself also have a cannabis and other (worse) drug history and convictions which is also in public records and thus cannot be hidden from medical school admission committees. For me, is it still worth applying to med school? Will I still be able to get a license and practice (due to precedence set by ************** case)? Are the requirements for medical licensing getting harder or easier? Does legal precedence matter in terms of licensing boards? I just want to confirm that I am not wasting my time or money applying to med school? And what if I relapse and restart using marijuana? Am I better off becoming a drug and alcohol (AODA) counselor?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[guytakingboards]

I'd say extremely slim to no chance you'd make it all the way to being a practicing physician with that history. There would be issues at nearly every step, anyone which could derail the entire effort.

Legal precedence means nothing. The medical boards are not obligated to give you a chance just because someone else got one. Their primary mission is to protect the public and if they deem you a risk, you're done.

Side note: I have significant questions about your goals or insights into a medical career if the alternative option is drug and alcohol counselor. Nothing against the latter career at all, but the two careers are completely different. Medicine is a grueling 7-13+ year pathway. Not well educated on the drug counselor training but I don't imagine it requires more than a bachelors degree or 6-12mo of training.

 

[Goro]

I know a Dr. ************** with a criminal drug trafficking history for cannabis and ecstasy (including using minors as agents in their sales) who was able to get licensed in Michigan, Tennessee, and Florida--this is all in public records from South Florida. I myself also have a cannabis and other (worse) drug history and convictions which is also in public records and thus cannot be hidden from medical school admission committees. For me, is it still worth applying to med school? Will I still be able to get a license and practice (due to precedence set by ************** case)? Are the requirements for medical licensing getting harder or easier? Does legal precedence matter in terms of licensing boards? I just want to confirm that I am not wasting my time or money applying to med school? And what if I relapse and restart using marijuana? Am I better off becoming a drug and alcohol (AODA) counselor?

How old were you when these incidents happened? Can you elaborate on each conviction?

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Until like 2008 most medical schools did not even conduct background checks. Presumably the President/Dean is old enough to have gotten accepted before then.

I’ll give it to you straight. I have struggled this cycle (no acceptances) with something that is bad but not as bad as what you described

Not saying don’t apply because if you don’t you may forever regret “what could have been.” But it will be a long road and the finish line may never be crossed

Edit: misread title as “president” not “precedent”

 

[gonnif]

https://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Louis_Riccardo.html​

Reviews​

Showing 3 of 3​

doctor is a felonious criminal with mental illness​

Self-verified patient of Dr. Louis J ******** - Posted on March 26th, 2021​

This doctor is a FELONIOUS CRIMINAL with multiple MARIJUANA (possessing greater than 20g, distributing, manufacturing, etc) and driving on suspended/revoked license related convictions from Broward, Miami-Dade, and Lee counties in Florida. He covered up his mental illness and also these convictions in order to get his medical licenses and privileges in the hospitals he works in, including the hospital where he messed up on my relative. He has a long history of lying, cheating, and deceiving. He is not even an internal medicine doctor. He is an osteopathic family practice doctor who could not pass all of his COMLEX exams (osteopathic version on MD licensing exams) in the first attempt. But he calls himself a "hospitalist" and continues to practice despite being a criminal who doesn't deserve a medical license.
Show Rating Breakdown

ignorant doctor​

Self-verified patient of Dr. Louis J ******** - Posted on February 20th, 2021​

very ignorant doctor. don't even want to tell you what he did to my relative... but now i understand why he makes the mistakes he makes. he couldn't pass his exams (osteopath's version of usmle's) in first attempt. wondering if he was on pot or something when he was seeing my relative. after all he has a lot of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and driving on suspended relative convictions/charges from south florida (broward county).
Show Rating Breakdown

Patient​

Self-verified patient of Dr. Louis J ******** - Posted on September 12th, 2019​

I feel my care could have been better if my doctor had actually walked into my room! I feel like I never saw him and when I did he spent little time listening to me.

 

[wysdoc]

I know a Dr. ************** with a criminal drug trafficking history for cannabis and ecstasy (including using minors as agents in their sales) who was able to get licensed in Michigan, Tennessee, and Florida--this is all in public records from South Florida. I myself also have a cannabis and other (worse) drug history and convictions which is also in public records and thus cannot be hidden from medical school admission committees. For me, is it still worth applying to med school? Will I still be able to get a license and practice (due to precedence set by ************** case)? Are the requirements for medical licensing getting harder or easier? Does legal precedence matter in terms of licensing boards? I just want to confirm that I am not wasting my time or money applying to med school? And what if I relapse and restart using marijuana? Am I better off becoming a drug and alcohol (AODA) counselor?

@giffol What was your point or purpose in posting these doctor reviews? All med school applicants do have to disclose criminal history and have a background check run before enrolling in medical school if accepted. Criminal history could have a negative effect on your application for sure.

 

[gonnif]

Until like 2008 most medical schools did not even conduct background checks. Presumably the President/Dean is old enough to have gotten accepted before then.

I’ll give it to you straight. I have struggled this cycle (no acceptances) with something that is bad but not as bad as what you described

Not saying don’t apply because if you don’t you may forever regret “what could have been.” But it will be a long road and the finish line may never be crossed

Edit: misread title as “president” not “precedent”

Dr Louis_Riccardo is a DO presumably applied in 2006 or 07 (graduated in 2012) and there wasnt a criminal background check done then.

 

[YCAGA]

You guys are being baited a little too easily, although I know this is one of the more spicy topics that comes up on SDN.

This post seems like a troll/smear campaign against this doctor. The SDN account posting has never posted, there is absolutely 0 news coverage on this doctor, and the reviews from vitals.com are pretty clear review bombing attempts. The two reviews from 2021 do not even try to hide their similar writing style and list of charges/complaints.

Tbh I think OP posted this to get this doctor's name combined with "drug convictions" higher up in Google searches. Unfortunately SDN does have pretty good SEO, but maybe that is because Google knows medical school owns my soul.

So who do we think it is with the vendetta? Ex-lover? Disgruntled former partner? Kid who didn't get their college paid for?

 

[KnightDoc]

You guys are being baited a little too easily, although I know this is one of the more spicy topics that comes up on SDN.

This post seems like a troll/smear campaign against this doctor. The SDN account posting has never posted, there is absolutely 0 news coverage on this doctor, and the reviews from vitals.com are pretty clear review bombing attempts. The two reviews from 2021 do not even try to hide their similar writing style and list of charges/complaints.

Tbh I think OP posted this to get this doctor's name combined with "drug convictions" higher up in Google searches. Unfortunately SDN does have pretty good SEO, but maybe that is because Google knows medical school owns my soul.

So who do we think it is with the vendetta? Ex-lover? Disgruntled former partner? Kid who didn't get their college paid for?

FWIW, I totally agree with you and reported the thread when I first noticed it as a potential violation of the TOS, but whoever receives such reports apparently disagreed since the thread is still up.

 

[jhmmd]

I know a Dr. ************** with a criminal drug trafficking history for cannabis and ecstasy (including using minors as agents in their sales) who was able to get licensed in Michigan, Tennessee, and Florida--this is all in public records from South Florida. I myself also have a cannabis and other (worse) drug history and convictions which is also in public records and thus cannot be hidden from medical school admission committees. For me, is it still worth applying to med school? Will I still be able to get a license and practice (due to precedence set by ************** case)? Are the requirements for medical licensing getting harder or easier? Does legal precedence matter in terms of licensing boards? I just want to confirm that I am not wasting my time or money applying to med school? And what if I relapse and restart using marijuana? Am I better off becoming a drug and alcohol (AODA) counselor?

Precedents usually refer more to Supreme Court rulings/court rulings, not medical school acceptance/rejection.
As far as medical licensing requirements, they have remained the same for several years now AFAIK.
Re: the second bolded point, again I think you are mixing up licensing (det. by medical professionals) with the court.

I would reach out to your target medical school and speak with someone in admissions. Be candid and ask them the same questions that you asked us. I hate to tell people what they can and cannot do but if you are already planning to relapse it is kind of a moot point.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

True but precedent always matters. For example, if a board has licensed most people with a certain legal record but then refuses to license somebody with a similar record, a case could be brought on multiple grounds including but not limited to civil rights act of 1964, Americans with disabilities act of 1990 etc.

 

[jhmmd]

True but precedent always matters. For example, if a board has licensed most people with a certain legal record but then refuses to license somebody with a similar record, a case could be brought on multiple grounds including but not limited to civil rights act of 1964, Americans with disabilities act of 1990 etc.

Red herring. These are laws, not just court cases.

 

[jhmmd]

Before you guys jump on me
1) Link 1
2) Link 2

 

[Goro]

True but precedent always matters. For example, if a board has licensed most people with a certain legal record but then refuses to license somebody with a similar record, a case could be brought on multiple grounds including but not limited to civil rights act of 1964, Americans with disabilities act of 1990 etc.

What did I tell you about speaking about things you have no knowledge of???

 

[YCAGA]

What did I tell you about speaking about things you have no knowledge of???

To be fair they have more experience with the legal system than most SDN users (please don't get me mods)

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

What did I tell you about speaking about things you have no knowledge of???

To be fair they have more experience with the legal system than most SDN users (please don't get me mods)

Not like I’m the only one thinking it.

Do State Medical Board Applications Violate the Americans... : Academic Medicine

d District of Columbia) was performed at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School in 2005. Questions referencing physical or mental health or substance use were identified by a team of physicians and reviewed and categorized based on the ADA and...

journals.lww.com

A National Analysis of Medical Licensure Applications

The 1990 enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and subsequent case law have established that medical board screening of physician licensure applicants for histories of mental illness or substance use may constitute discrimination. This study examines how physician licensure...

jaapl.org

“Conclusions​

Most state medical licensing applications contain questions that ask about the physical or mental health and substance use of physician applicants. Many licensing applications appear to be in violation of the ADA, even 19 years after enactment of the regulation. These questions do not elicit responses by which professional competence can be judged. The presence of these questions on licensing applications may cause physicians to avoid or delay treatment of personal illness.”

 

[jhmmd]

Not like I’m the only one thinking it.

Do State Medical Board Applications Violate the Americans... : Academic Medicine

d District of Columbia) was performed at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School in 2005. Questions referencing physical or mental health or substance use were identified by a team of physicians and reviewed and categorized based on the ADA and...

journals.lww.com

A National Analysis of Medical Licensure Applications

The 1990 enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and subsequent case law have established that medical board screening of physician licensure applicants for histories of mental illness or substance use may constitute discrimination. This study examines how physician licensure...

jaapl.org

“Conclusions​

Most state medical licensing applications contain questions that ask about the physical or mental health and substance use of physician applicants. Many licensing applications appear to be in violation of the ADA, even 19 years after enactment of the regulation. These questions do not elicit responses by which professional competence can be judged. The presence of these questions on licensing applications may cause physicians to avoid or delay treatment of personal illness.”

I agree w/the mental illness part as that is genetic, and it can be argued that substance use/abuse is as well, but "discrimination" on the basis of substance use seems ridiculous
Phyisician licensing boards are free to ask about substance use. That is not discrimination. Claiming that disclosing these things creates barriers to treatment is not a valid point, because talking about it/disclosing such information brings it to light and encourages people to seek treatment/others can prompt those individuals to seek treatment.

Asking if substance use has been treated is part of a re-application for licensure, I believe.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I agree w/the mental illness part as that is genetic, and it can be argued that substance use/abuse is as well, but "discrimination" on the basis of substance use seems ridiculous
Phyisician licensing boards are free to ask about substance use. That is not discrimination. Claiming that disclosing these things creates barriers to treatment is not a valid point, because talking about it/disclosing such information brings it to light and encourages people to seek treatment/others can prompt those individuals to seek treatment.

Asking if substance use has been treated is part of a re-application for licensure, I believe.

I think that should be able to ask about it too but I also don’t think that one terrible mistake 7 or 8 years before applying for license should be a nonstarter. Especially if the person has a record of maintained treatment.

 

[jhmmd]

I think that should be able to ask about it too but I also don’t think that one terrible mistake 7 or 8 years before applying for license should be a nonstarter. Especially if the person has a record of maintained treatment.

Well it depends on what you mean by "terrible mistake." If that mistake is a felony, don't you think that that should be "a non-starter?"

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Well it depends on what you mean by "terrible mistake." If that mistake is a felony, don't you think that that should be "a nonstarter?"

I think if it’s on the felony level or a crime of moral turpitude (larceny, assault, fraud etc.) then it should be disqualifying.

 

[jhmmd]

Also--where is the OP?

 

[jhmmd]

I think if it’s on the felony level or a crime of moral turpitude then it should be disqualifying.

Don't mince words. Moral turpitude =/= felony. What does "felony level" mean to you? Either something is a felony, or it isn't. Not trying to be argumentative but you're not being very clear.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Don't mince words. Moral turpitude =/= felony. What does "felony level" mean to you? Either something is a felony, or it isn't. Not trying to be argumentative but you're not being very clear.

I meant felony, not sure why I added level.

 

[jhmmd]

I meant felony, not sure why I added level.

Ok

 

[LizzyM]

Criminal background checks have been required for the past 15-20 years depending on the state the school is in. Having something ping on your CBC is not an absolute disqualifier for matriculation but it could be, particularly if you should have disclosed but did not (in essence, you are dismissed before matriculation for a lie of omission on your application rather than for the crime itself).

People who attended medical school more than 20 years ago, or who attended medical school abroad, may not have been subjected to questions about criminal conduct at the time they applied. In addition, there are crimes that take place after an applicant has matriculated and while a licensing board may move to pull or limit a license to practice medicine after an arrest/conviction, there can be instances where the physician continues to practice after having been accused of misconduct.

 

[KnightDoc]

I meant felony, not sure why I added level.

What about a felony that is pled down to a misdemeanor? Is that no longer a felony, even though it happened, because for convenience the system did not pursue the charge to a conviction? Are the only felonies that should be non-starters the ones where the person is too stubborn to take the plea, or where the conduct is so egregious that a plea is not offered?

 

[jhmmd]

What about a felony that is pled down to a misdemeanor? Is that no longer a felony, even though it happened, because for convenience the system did not pursue the charge to a conviction? Are the only felonies that should be non-starters the ones where the person is too stubborn to take the plea, or where the conduct is so egregious that a plea is not offered?

1. If a felony became a misdemeanor, then it counts as a misdemeanor.
2. Not sure why "not pursuing a charge" would be due to convenience (or inconvenience)
3. SDN is not for legal advice and for the record, all criminal convinctions show up on a background check. It doesn't matter if you pled guilty or not guilty--what counts is a conviction. Conviction means you were charged and found guilty.

Whether or not a plea was offered is irrelevant if the person is found guilty of a crime and convicted.

 

[KnightDoc]

1. If a felony became a misdemeanor, then it counts as a misdemeanor.
2. Not sure why "not pursuing a charge" would be due to convenience (or inconvenience)
3. SDN is not for legal advice and for the record, all criminal convinctions show up on a background check. It doesn't matter if you pled guilty or not guilty--what counts is a conviction.

Understood, hence the question. So a felony is not a felony, even though the crime was committed, because a prosecutor is willing to give a break, perhaps to a first time offender, and reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. Not because the person is not guilty of the felony, but because a prosecutor chose, for convenience (the time and effort required for a trial) to accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge (misdemeanor).

If the profession cares about screening out felons, giving passes to those who actually did commit felonies, and were caught, but were offered pleas is not a very effective screen. It's actually kind of arbitrary, since some jurisdictions are probably much more liberal in offering deals than others (e.g., a big, crime ridden city versus a smaller, more conservative, tough on crime hamlet, etc.).

But, I guess, it is what it is, because once a case is reported, the reader has no way to know whether a misdemeanor was a misdemeanor, or a felony that was pled down. I'm just asking how people feel, because the felony that was pled down was still a felony, regardless of the fact that a prosecutor chose to take a lesser win and move on to the next case.

 

[jhmmd]

Understood, hence the question. So a felony is not a felony, even though the crime was committed, because a prosecutor is willing to give a break, perhaps to a first time offender, and reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. Not because the person is not guilty of the felony, but because they choose, for convenience (the time and effort required for a trial) to accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge (misdemeanor).

If the profession cares about screening out felons, giving passes to those who actually did commit felonies, and were caught, but were offered pleas is not a very effective screen. It's actually kind of arbitrary, since some jurisdictions are probably much more liberal in offering deals than others (e.g., a big, crime ridden city versus a smaller, more conservative, tough on crime hamlet, etc.).

But, I guess, it is what it is, because once a case is reported, the reader has no way to know whether a misdemeanor was a misdemeanor, or a felony that was pled down. I'm just asking how people feel, because the felony that was pled down was still a felony, regardless of the fact that a prosecutor chose to take a lesser win and move on to the next case.

1. Re: first bolded point--you misunderstand me. Found guilty = found guilty; no if ands or buts.
2. Re: second bolded point--This is where the law comes in. You have to trust the court that they are helping weed out people who should not be doctors. 🤣
3. It's not arbitrary--see #2. Not sure where you are getting this from. It's true that in big cities there is more crime and thus more criminal convictions. It's not true that these convictions are necessarily arbitrary (non sequitor).
4. 3rd bolded point--You're implying that certain prosecutors are lazy. It's their job to figure out which cases deserve a plea and which don't. Prosecutors are govt. employees (deliberately) so that they don't have incentive to create bias like you're implying.

I'm not sure what angle you're coming at this from. If the law determined that a felony should be reduced to a misdemeanor (and this is rare), then that person still has a conviction on their record. Felonies are rarely pardoned and usually overturning a felony requires an executive pardon.

 

[KnightDoc]

1. Re: first bolded point--you misunderstand me. Found guilty = found guilty; no if ands or buts.
2. Re: second bolded point--This is where the law comes in. You have to trust the court that they are helping weed out people who should not be doctors. 🤣
3. It's not arbitrary--see #2. Not sure where you are getting this from. It's true that in big cities there is more crime and thus more criminal convictions. It's not true that these convictions are necessarily arbitrary (non sequitor).
4. 3rd bolded point--You're implying that certain prosecutors are lazy. It's their job to figure out which cases deserve a plea and which don't. Prosecutors are govt. employees (deliberately) so that they don't have incentive to create bias like you're implying.

I'm not sure what angle you're coming at this from. If the law determined that a felony should be reduced to a misdemeanor (and this is rare), then that person still has a conviction on their record. Felonies are rarely pardoned and usually overturning a felony requires an executive pardon.

Actually, I'm not implying that prosecutors are lazy -- I'm flat out saying it. Maybe not lazy, but certainly overworked and underpaid, and doing what they have to in order to move their cases along, as opposed to taking the time to prosecute and convict many who commit felonies where there is overwhelming evidence to support a conviction.

You also misunderstood my point about big cities. It wasn't more crime = more convictions. It was more crime = more pleas, because they don't have the capacity to try every case, and reduced charges are the incentive that guilty people are given to accept a conviction without a trial.

As far as busy courts and prosecutors caring about weeding out unfit potential future candidates for a medical license, I have serious doubts that makes the Top 100 List of things they worry about when managing their cases.

My angle is that we are all quite adamant about convicted felons being unfit by definition, while ignoring the fact that those convicted of misdemeanors that resulted from felonies being pled down are every bit as unfit. Maybe felons also deserve a chance?

A prosecutor using discretion not to prosecute is very different from a crime not being committed, and the decision is often based on expediency or convenience rather than justice. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute criminals. They are given discretion because they are not properly resourced to actually do their jobs. Not because legislatures define what is a felony and what is a misdemeanor, and then actually want random government employees to substitute their judgment for lawmakers by deciding who "deserves" to not have the law apply to them, as written, and who does.

 

[jamaica jan sun princess]

The latter half of this thread is peak SDN.

 

[KnightDoc]

The latter half of this thread is peak SDN.

And the first part is pure trolling, as evidenced by the fact that a name was named, OP created the account specifically to make the post, and hasn't been seen since. This is what we do! The only mystery is why the mods didn't kill and delete the thread as soon as it was created.

 

[gyngyn]

This thread has long since jumped the shark (if there even was a shark to begin with).
It has therefore been closed.