Red flags?

[SgtThunderfistMD]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

.

 

[Raryn]

1) More than 5 years ago, I was arrested for a DWI (even though I did not blow and passed the field sobriety test). The charge was soon dismissed. I had the charge expunged, but understand that means little in medicine, and I will still report it on my ERAS.

2) I took an LOA in the middle of my second semester of M1 to do some research, came back and have done well since then.

The rest of my stats (boards, clerkships, research) are all very competitive for any anesthesia residency, probably above average for even the best programs.

My question is how much these two factors will limit me in my endeavors? I am trying to plan aways at places I want to go (B&W, Stanford), but am not going to waste my time there if odds are these red (maybe yellow?) flags are probably going to prevent me from getting an interview. I would rather spend my time doing aways at mid-tier programs in that case. I guess I am just concerned that a police ****-up is going to affect me, and then an LOA makes it seem like a trend or something. And I would rather not waste time at an elite program if odds are they are going to throw away my app anyways. Thanks in advance.

1) Was the charge dismissed or were you convicted (and then had THAT expunged)?

If you were just charged but never convicted of any crime, you don't need to disclose it. Anyone can be arrested, does not mean you were guilty of anything. OTOH, if you have been convicted (even if it was dismissed), you should probably disclose it.

2) Just disclose that your LOA was for research. People take LOAs all the time for research, and it won't be a big deal.

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[Law2Doc]

... People take LOAs all the time for research, and it won't be a big deal.

Not in the middle of M1 they don't, and so I disagree, this could be a big deal. There had better have been a phenomenal research opportunity that couldn't wait until a natural break point or I'm guessing "research" was something you added on top of whatever real reason you took time off, to make it sound less troubling or frivolous. If no additional explanation is forthcoming this could be a big red flag. Left to a PDs own suspicions, an applicant suddenly taking a leave of absence from early med school for "research" sounds really bad.

 

[tiedyeddog]

I don't understand why you would need to disclose a charge you were not convicted of. You were not found guilty of the crime, thus you did not do the crime in the eyes of the law. Also, how did you get something expunged if you were never found guilty of DWI?

There is no other way to spin it, I guess, for the research thing. Say it was for research but no one takes a LOA for research right in the middle of M1. Your school sends your transcripts out with your MSPE so if you failed a class PD's will likely see it... If you failed a class, fess up. Otherwise, you can keep going with this research thing.

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[tiedyeddog]

You can get the arrest itself expunged, so even "Dismissal" won't show up.

I figured I would have to report it since--if you look at the current "Ask a PD" thready, several PD's commented that you should just disclose to be safe. If they want to chime in, that would be great. The guy who asked a question there had a conviction>>expunged. I have a dismissal>>expunged.

Then again, I don't see why I would have to disclose a dismissal since it basically means (in the eyes of the law), I didn't do anything wrong.

If I were you I would talk to a lawyer about it. If you weren't convicted I don't see why it needs to be reported.

 

[Raryn]

You can get the arrest itself expunged, so even "Dismissal" won't show up.

I figured I would have to report it since--if you look at the current "Ask a PD" thready, several PD's commented that you should just disclose to be safe. If they want to chime in, that would be great. The guy who asked a question there had a conviction>>expunged. I have a dismissal>>expunged.

Then again, I don't see why I would have to disclose a dismissal since it basically means (in the eyes of the law), I didn't do anything wrong.

A conviction is very different from a dismissal. Legally, you have done nothing. Anyone can be arrested for anything, but if it doesn't hold up it doesn't hold up.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I agree. What you'll do in the future is simply answer the questions you are asked. Almost all of the time, they will ask you if you have ever been convicted of a crime, and you'll answer "no". Certainly that's all that ERAS asks. There's also a question on ERAS about whether you would have any limitations / problems with licensing, and you'll answer that "no" also.

ADDENDUM: I'm editing this post over a year later. This was terrible advice from me. The best answer is always to disclose. The issue here is answering the question "legally" vs "practically". From a legal standpoint, it's probably OK to answer these questions "no". But practically, when you're required to complete licensing paperwork, the boards usually have very expansive language that will require disclosure. Then, you're stuck declaring it, and risk upsetting your program / PD. So, bottom line, disclose everything up front.

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

It's unlikely you will ever be asked "have you ever been arrested?". But, if asked, then answer yes. ERAS doesn't ask about arrests. This really is not going to be an issue. The issue is when you have a conviction that is "expunged". You must report these.

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[tiedyeddog]

My friend, we have been repeating the same advice to you again and again. Either take the advice or talk to a lawyer.

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[22031 Alum]

Did the leave of absence come after course failures, before some imminent course failures, or because of some other reason, such as needing a break for emotional/mental health reasons or a family emergency? I'd think that would determine how much of a red flag it is. If you don't have any failures on your record leading to the LOA, then I'd imagine it's not much of a red flag at all- you took some time off and did some research (the posters and pubs help!), gaining clarity on your career goals in the process. I'm not an anesthesiologist though, so I can't give you intel on specific programs.

Sorry to necro this post, but now that I have consulted with a lawyer and confirmed that my DWI dismissal should not be put on my ERAS, can anyone actually answer the question I posed?

Does an LOA that turned into several poster pubs at national conferences and a pub, along with a clinical elective rotation with that PI, limit my chances of getting interviews for anesthesia at MGH/BW/BID/Stanford/UWashington/Columbia/etc? I need to start figuring out away rotations, and won't waste my time at these places if odds are I will get filtered out based on gaps in education. Step 1 was low 240's, decent amount of research, good LOR's, top 20 med school, probably around 50%ile of my class. Thank you in advance!

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[gyngyn]

There are no failures on my record before or after the LOA. It was iffy whether or not I would pass my first semester, but I am not sure that qualifies as "imminent", or if PD's would even know, since there is nothing on my record. Mental reasons definitely factored into my mediocrity, but nothing psychiatric/emotional/treatable other than a breath of fresh air and a kick in the ass.

Thanks for the responses!

Unscheduled breaks in training (for "research") are presumed to be the result of one (or more) of a number of common problems:
Medical problems (including psychiatric), relationship problems (family or SO), substance abuse, burn out/ambivalence or serious financial issues.

 

[jthedestroyr]

It's unlikely you will ever be asked "have you ever been arrested?". But, if asked, then answer yes. ERAS doesn't ask about arrests. This really is not going to be an issue. The issue is when you have a conviction that is "expunged". You must report these.

Just to bring this up, I just finished my paper work for residency and indeed this particular state did ask about arrest record, arrested etc. I believe that's why some programs ask, as it will be asked later for processing your licensing etc.

 

[jl lin]

It's unlikely you will ever be asked "have you ever been arrested?". But, if asked, then answer yes. ERAS doesn't ask about arrests. This really is not going to be an issue. The issue is when you have a conviction that is "expunged". You must report these.

A reputable lawyer in my area shared that an expunged arrest record does not need to be answered "yes" to--and that a "no" is fine if all the legal protocols were followed for expunging the record. He did say that the process can take a fair amount of time. Also, this may vary depending upon the state, I think. I am not a lawyer. It was interesting to hear him talk about it though. People can get arrested for all kinds of things and this can lead to misunderstandings and prejudicial thinking. No, a person shouldn't have to account "yes" for an expunged arrest that was dropped, which started, for example, with a jealous and angry GF trying to get back at her BF. Yea. This stuff happens. Drama that shouldn't have to be included in the person's record b/c it's BS. But the person has to get a lawyer that knows what she/he is doing and jump through all the hoops.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

A reputable lawyer in my area shared that an expunged arrest record does not need to be answered "yes" to--and that a "no" is fine if all the legal protocols were followed for expunging the record. He did say that the process can take a fair amount of time. Also, this may vary depending upon the state, I think. I am not a lawyer. It was interesting to hear him talk about it though. People can get arrested for all kinds of things and this can lead to misunderstandings and prejudicial thinking. No, a person shouldn't have to account "yes" for an expunged arrest that was dropped, which started, for example, with a jealous and angry GF trying to get back at her BF. Yea. This stuff happens. Drama that shouldn't have to be included in the person's record b/c it's BS. But the person has to get a lawyer that knows what she/he is doing and jump through all the hoops.

You are welcome to follow this advice if you want. If your arrest shows up on a background check (and let's not forget that the VA uses the FBI for their background checks) and it doesn't match your application, you will be required to go to the board to explain the discrepancy. And this will create a 2-3 month delay in your licensing. And if the board feels that your omission was significant, they may decline to give you a license. And when you tell them that a lawyer told you this was OK, they will tell you that they don't care.

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a BoM can ask you about arrests. But, if they have that right, there isn't much to do.

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[jl lin]

You are welcome to follow this advice if you want. If your arrest shows up on a background check (and let's not forget that the VA uses the FBI for their background checks) and it doesn't match your application, you will be required to go to the board to explain the discrepancy. And this will create a 2-3 month delay in your licensing. And if the board feels that your omission was significant, they may decline to give you a license. And when you tell them that a lawyer told you this was OK, they will tell you that they don't care.

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a BoM can ask you about arrests. But, if they have that right, there isn't much to do.

I know a person that went through this and is licensed and for him it doesn't come up. Now, this may be a state-thing. Best thing is to consult a reputable and informed attorney in your particular state. From what he was lecturing about, it can take some time and has to go through a judge then state trooper admin and then something else. I listened to most but not all of this. Anyway, the wisest thing in my mind would be to consult an attorney. In the example given of the gf making a false report on the bf, it's something that should not even be brought out, b/c all anyone needs is a question about the other person--once that information is put out there, it on some level causes some level of prejudice from others. It's like why certain information can be suppressed and not entered into a court record--b/c it will unfairly prejudice the jurors.

 

[jl lin]

Yup, I will definitely answer yes to the licensing. The lawyer I consulted (specialized in medical licensing) confirmed this, and also told me I can definitely answer no on the ERAS. His reasoning was that I can answer 'no' to the 'have you ever been convicted' question for obvious reasons, and I can answer 'no' to the 'anything in your past that can limit licensing' because I only have a dismissal and that should not delay licensing at all, since in the eyes of the law I did nothing wrong.

Did you seek out having the arrest expunged by a lawyer than knows and can show you what he is talking about? Again, it does take a long time, and if I remember correctly, it can be around a year or so to have the whole thing put in order--the whole process. If you haven't done this, then you answer "yes." If you have done this and it was done correctly--and again you have to talk to a lawyer in the state the arrest occurred--you have a legal right to answer "no" to the arrest record. If somehow it does come up, which if done right, it shouldn't, you still have the legal right to say "no," and no one can fault you for this, b/c this is what the process stipulates.

You have to have a highly experienced and reputable lawyer than really knows the law in the state and what he/she is talking about. You would be surprised how many lawyers are ignorant of certain things. Mostly, in my view, that is b/c of a lawyers newness (lack of experience) or limitations based on specialization or chosen focus. This lawyer talked about law students than said expungement is BS, and of course he said they should shut up b/c they don't know what they are talking about--and then those students didn't pass their bar. He stated that there is a reason why the law allows for this process, and the best I can remember about it is that it's similar to what I stated in previous response, about unfair, prejudicial influences.

It seems to me that getting the right lawyer is much like getting the right physician. I mean you have to trust this person with important things affecting your life. Best to do a lot research and such on the lawyer, and sometimes, yea. It costs money, but you have to shop around. Many people don't do this, and then they get what they get.

Good luck.

 

[gyngyn]

Our lawyer recommends disclosure if there is any doubt.

 

[Dral]

Wording is a pain sometimes. My state app asked if "you have ever been found guilty of felony, misdemeanor, or other legal matter (or something like that)." Heck, afaik, signing a speeding ticket is an admission of guilt.

I had something from when I was 17. I could not dig up records anywhere. I really tried hard. Anyway, I disclosed it and had my license about a month later. Legal counsel told me a minor thing many years ago is way better than being found guilty of being dishonest in 2015.

Take that for what it's worth.

 

[camedstudent23]

Did you seek out having the arrest expunged by a lawyer than knows and can show you what he is talking about? Again, it does take a long time, and if I remember correctly, it can be around a year or so to have the whole thing put in order--the whole process. If you haven't done this, then you answer "yes." If you have done this and it was done correctly--and again you have to talk to a lawyer in the state the arrest occurred--you have a legal right to answer "no" to the arrest record. If somehow it does come up, which if done right, it shouldn't, you still have the legal right to say "no," and no one can fault you for this, b/c this is what the process stipulates.

You have to have a highly experienced and reputable lawyer than really knows the law in the state and what he/she is talking about. You would be surprised how many lawyers are ignorant of certain things. Mostly, in my view, that is b/c of a lawyers newness (lack of experience) or limitations based on specialization or chosen focus. This lawyer talked about law students than said expungement is BS, and of course he said they should shut up b/c they don't know what they are talking about--and then those students didn't pass their bar. He stated that there is a reason why the law allows for this process, and the best I can remember about it is that it's similar to what I stated in previous response, about unfair, prejudicial influences.

It seems to me that getting the right lawyer is much like getting the right physician. I mean you have to trust this person with important things affecting your life. Best to do a lot research and such on the lawyer, and sometimes, yea. It costs money, but you have to shop around. Many people don't do this, and then they get what they get.

Good luck.

Expulsion means absolutely nothing in professional licensing. You will have to answer 'yes' to any question on licensing that asks about arrests or charges. On ERAS, you can answer 'no' since a dismissed charge shouldn't affect licensing.

 

[jl lin]

Expulsion means absolutely nothing in professional licensing. You will have to answer 'yes' to any question on licensing that asks about arrests or charges. On ERAS, you can answer 'no' since a dismissed charge shouldn't affect licensing.

It's not expulsion. It is expungement, and this is completely untrue. Once more, I would ask the concerned individual to seek the right legal council for this. As I said, the person I know that used expungement went to an attorney that knew what they were doing, went through the proper hoops--which apparently took quite a bit of time, and it has had no bearing upon the person's professional licensure whatsoever. Apparently it is a viable vehicle one can use for arrests and such; but there is a limit to how many times it can be done and there are other caveats to its use. In the state this person is licensed and come to think of it, the person is also professionally licensed in another state, the person may legally answer "no" to arrest--at least as it pertains to the particular arrest in question. If the person has other arrests and such, well, that's another deal. Again, the lawyer clearly stated that there is a limit to the use of expungement. You can't keep getting arrested and seeking out the long, drawn out remedy of expungement. It doesn't work that way. But for the arrest in question, to which the person sought the remedy of expungement, once the process is approved and completed, the person has the right to absolutely answer "no." This lawyer is highly respected and has been in practice for >25 years. The lawyer here knows what they are talking about.

 

[jl lin]

Wording is a pain sometimes. My state app asked if "you have ever been found guilty of felony, misdemeanor, or other legal matter (or something like that)." Heck, afaik, signing a speeding ticket is an admission of guilt.

I had something from when I was 17. I could not dig up records anywhere. I really tried hard. Anyway, I disclosed it and had my license about a month later. Legal counsel told me a minor thing many years ago is way better than being found guilty of being dishonest in 2015.

Take that for what it's worth.

If it is properly expunged through the right legal channels in the right manner, the person is NOT being "dishonest" in answering "no." It's a limited tool that is used, and it has to be reviewed by a judge and other administrative people in the legal system, which is part of why it takes so long.

It is not a measure available to everyone. There are specifics to who, what, when, and how it is done. The specifics can vary from state to state. There is also something that may attend with it, depending, known as 'actual innocence."

I believe it is something than can be used only once for the particular arrest or offense, and that even if it there is another unrelated crime, it's a one or possibly twice kind of deal. You have to speak to an experienced lawyer in the particular state. States vary on the particulars. Finally, if it does come up in any process, such as licensing, if you have had it done right and it was complete/approved by the judge and all necessary parties, you actually do have the right to say "No." They can't fault you for writing, "No." You met all the legal requirements for the expungement re: the arrest in question. The matter has been settled by the right legal people, law enforcement people, and the right legal method, and your lawyer has stated clearly that you have the right to state "No" with re: to the arrest, provided you don't have other arrests or criminal issues.

So this is not a remedy for persons with even a small pattern of legally problematic behaviors, and it usually works best for people that have really not engaged (are innocent) in the said activity. Your lawyer can step up and support you fully if there are any licensing issues or such; b/c he/she doesn't really want to be reported to the bar for giving you incompetent or straight out wrong information and advice. The lawyer has a license to practice law and a reputation, which she or he needs to protect. She or he has to stand by what they have done on behalf of the client, explained to the client, and have had the client sign. Get someone that knows about this and the law within your particular state. It may or may not be a remedy for someone. If they have a record or are not otherwise considered upstanding people, it will not be a viable option. Again the specifics can vary by state. Can't emphasize the importance of obtaining an experienced, reputable attorney that stands behind his or her knowledge of the law and work. When it comes to getting good legal support, you have to be ready to invest time in research and be willing to pay. I'm not saying the more expensive, the better; b/c this is also untrue. What I am saying is you are paying for their expertise and time, and ultimately you will get what you pay for--and if you don't do your own due diligence of researching sound attorneys, you may well lose out on time, money, and proper support. I really have to say, the lawyer of whom I speak is truly awesome, and though you will pay for the time, this person doesn't look to break anyone's bank.


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/expungement-of-criminal-records-basics-32641.html

P.S. Available forms or not, this is not something I would try to do on my own. Shoot I would not even have a senior law student or inexperienced lawyer handle this, let alone try to follow through all the hoops and processes on my own. If it is a viable option for a person, they need to find a lawyer that understands fully the whole legal process and will responsibility see it through--covering every aspect to the letter. This is really not the kind of thing I'd attempt as a DIY kind of thing--or even a lawyer that is unaware of how it works in the particular state. I've seen people rant and rave about how this is no remedy at all, and it simply isn't true; but it won't be used for just any person in just any situation. Clear criteria have to be met. The reason why lawyers in general, without having specifics, will say, "Just write in 'Yes' and deal with as you go," is that they can't commit on this w/o knowing the individual specifics and the specifics in the particular state. So they give a cover-all recommendation, to be safe. It's like SVT is a kind of coverall for many super ventricular dysrhythmias; i.e., many physicians include all of the many tachycardias that involve the atrioventricular node (AV node) under this classification.

Anyway, that's all I can say about it. 🙂

 

[SgtThunderfistMD]

.

 

[jl lin]

As I stated, I did speak with a lawyer. He is the #1 medical licensing lawyer on the East Coast. And you are incorrect on basically all points. An expulsion=expungement. And an expulsion/expungement will not hold up in licensing. Most states ask about ANY arrests even expunged ones, which I will have to answer "yes" to. Some states don't ask about arrests, and I won't have to answer "yes". Maybe your friend was in one of those places. But the expulsion had nothing to do with why he could omit it.

OK, for the umpteenth time, in the state of my example, absolutely you are 100% permitted to answer "no" to the issue of the particular arrest--if in fact it was only one arrest and it was properly expunged. The person who had this done has NOT had a problem with either license in two states. What's more, if for some reason it does show up and you answered "no," as you are allowed to do, you are not considered as lying or misrepresenting---you have the force of the process behind you--if it was done right and you have not had any other arrests or such. This is is an indisputable fact. It doesn't matter if your lawyer is the no. 1 medical licensing lawyer if he doesn't understand the process and how it works in the particular state in question. The lawyer to which I refer is also on the EC. There are many states on the EC. The paperwork and process is lengthy. I don't mean to be a stickler on this, but in fact it is true for the state I refer to--and it hasn't been a problem with re: to professional licensing in an adjacent state, where the professional holds a professional license as well.

Apparently some folks are misinformed or someone is confusing how it works in another state--this is why you have to be clear on how it works in the particular state. Again, you have to consult a reputable attorney that is experienced in this in the particular state in question. Once the process is completed, the paperwork clearly states that you may answer "no." It is not lying at the point. The process gives you the legal write to say "no," if there is no other issue of arrest or conviction, etc. It's for folks that have been caught in a bad situation, and it's unfair to hold the arrest, for example, against them b/c it's bogus. A judge and others in the processes have granted you the right to in fact nullify the arrest by saying "no." Once more, it is not something that can be used by everyone or used repeatedly, b/c one has to meet a bunch of criteria for its use.

and hitting head against the wall. Bottom line: IF by any means, the record pops up, and someone tries to say, "Ah. What about this? If "this" is the particular thing for which you received a legal expunging, you can't be dinged for answering "No," b/c a judge and law enforcement admin, and the legal process for that particular arrest says you can't. Basically it was looked at and found to be nullified, and you are not considered a "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" person for writing in "no." You are granted the right to say "No," by virtue of the legal approval and processing.

[Each jurisdiction whose law allows expungement has its own definitions of expungement proceedings. Generally, expungement is the process to "remove from general review" the records pertaining to a case. In many jurisdictions, however, the records may not completely "disappear" and may still be available to law enforcement, to sentencing judges on subsequent offenses, and to corrections facilities to which the individual may be sentenced on subsequent convictions.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement

Note that the above is referring to subsequent offenses. In the event of those, this record could be opened. Again, this legal remedy is of no value to those with a repeated pattern/s of offense.

Now, in the situation I give, inn particular, I am referring to an arrest record. As to the specifics for a conviction, that is more involved and I cannot speak to that based on the information given to me.

If one has a record or develops a record, especially for some arrest or crime of similar nature, the whole expunging will not have any real value; b/c there is a pattern and the expunging is basically a one time deal and your record before and after had better be cleaner than clean. The specifics of how in works in particular states varies, but even if a federal entity sees it and doesn't pass over it b/c of the legally applied process, when it is brought out, it's going to kind of make the inquiring party look like idiots if they make a deal out of it--especially if there is no criminal arrest or conviction or such prior to it or after it--b/c a judge had declared it as valid. So if someone wants to waste a lot of time and aggravation over it, fine, but apparently this hasn't been a problem for the person to whom I refer. He has not had it be an issue for professional licensing in either states. Of course, his record is otherwise pristine. That's really the ultimate key here. Well, two major things: one's overall record and whether the process has been legally handled correctly from beginning to end of the process, which again, appears to take a long time. I belief the person to whom and the lawyer said it can take about a year or so. So, apparently it is best to have have a good, knowledgeable attorney following the prescribed protocol and babysitting the process from beginning to end--someone who doesn't miss a step. She/he stays on top of it as the client waits for it to be fully cleared and completed.

Mama Mia!

 

[jl lin]

https://epic.org/privacy/expungement/

So apparently I am not wrong on all counts. Nah. The devil, as usual, is in the DETAILS.