Reported to Impaired Physicians Organization!

[AnesNavy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I agree... get a lawyer. You will have to report this and/or treatment on the license application for every state you apply to. Better to be safe than sorry. Please keep us up to date on the outcome. Good luck.

 

[michaelrack]

The psychiatrist made 2 statements:

1. (To the OP): You are fine and look better than you ever have.
2. (To the impaired physician's organization): You are a danger to your future patients.

Seems to me that one of these is false. .

The psychiatrist said the OP was fine "right now" - so both statements are potentially true (for example, euthymic phase of bipolar disorder).

 

[Law2Doc]

The psychiatrist said the OP was fine "right now" - so both statements are potentially true (for example, euthymic phase of bipolar disorder).

The other possible alternatives (not that I'm saying this is the case) are that the psychiatrist was being agreeable as part of placating a clearly disturbed patient, or that the OP remembers the circumstances very differently than what actually happened, as part of their symptoms. We obviously want to give OP the benefit of the doubt because they are the one posting here, but as devils advocate, think about what advice you guys would be giving if instead the psychiatrist were to post asking hypothetical advice about how to deal with a graduating med student who was clearly disturbed or dangerous...

 

[45408]

I'm quite certain that I can. A simple google search for "sue doctor for libel" turns up thousands of results, some of which actually appear relevant. Bottom line: If you make false statements in print or by word of mouth that end up causing someone damages that is libel or slander (respectively.) Doctors don't get a pass from this.

There were 1.6 million results, and my first pass through several pages of results showed one relevant finding, which basically said, "No, you can't sue your psychiatrist for making a diagnosis that they thought was accurate."

I'm also pretty sure that a protected reporting system is not held to the same kinds of rules and regulations as putting something "in print."

How can knowingly making a false statement be in good faith?

So now the psychiatrist is lying to the state medical board? That's bordering on perjury.


All that said, I would hate for someone to go through medical school and then have their career sunk by an overeager psychiatrist who thinks s/he *might* be harmful to future patients, based on no particular hard evidence. I think lawyering up is absolutely necessary, and I hope this was all a big scare over nothing.

 

[turkeyjerky]

The other possible alternatives (not that I'm saying this is the case) are that the psychiatrist was being agreeable as part of placating a clearly disturbed patient, or that the OP remembers the circumstances very differently than what actually happened, as part of their symptoms. We obviously want to give OP the benefit of the doubt because they are the one posting here, but as devils advocate, think about what advice you guys would be giving if instead the psychiatrist were to post asking hypothetical advice about how to deal with a graduating med student who was clearly disturbed or dangerous...

That's like the 4th post you've made attempting to impeach the OP--I don't think anyone else wants to carry on down that route. Why do you keep hijacking threads to support those in positions of power? Is it so irksome to you that people have a forum to post their concerns?

 

[Law2Doc]

That's like the 4th post you've made attempting to impeach the OP--I don't think anyone else wants to carry on down that route. Why do you keep hijacking threads to support those in positions of power? Is it so irksome to you that people have a forum to post their concerns?

First, I haven't posted on this thread for well over a week. Second, as I said in multiple posts, I was playing devils advocate, because everyone else was presuming a certain side of the story without all the facts. Third, the value of any discussion board is having multiple views. Threads where everyone agrees on everything don't tend to advance discussion much and die in two posts, which is why i played devils advocate here. As for "hijacking" a thread, all my posts have been on topic, the only one hijacking is your last post focusing on me...

 

[BobA]

All these people talking about getting a lawyer don't understand how impaired physician programs and medical boards work. I suspect these posters are well meaning, but lack true knowledge of how the system works.

First, in many states YOU are liable to lose your license if you think a colleague could be impaired and you fail to report them. It is your legal, and ethical, duty to report impaired physician colleagues. Now, it'd probably be best if you could get them to report themselves, but in many states it's ultimately your responsibility.

Second, (conservatively) 1/10 physician will be impaired at some point in their career. Most never enter impaired physician programs. Of those reported, only the most egregious lose their licenses. Almost all are allowed to practice medicine, some while being monitored for their health.

Third, getting referred to a physician health program isn't necessarily a bad thing. The OP will get evaluated by another examiner (likely an excellent psychiatrist with a background working with impaired physicians), who will make treatment recommendations. If the OP is stable, and their illness never impacted their work, then it's unlikely that monitoring would be recommended. If monitoring is recommended, it may just mean seeing a psychiatrist and/or therapist regularly and having them send in reports. Honestly, this is probably in their best interest anyway.

Fourth, there is very little a lawyer can do in the situations other than earn some of your money. The medical board has broad powers to determine who needs monitoring and who doesn't. A lawyer isn't going to prevent someone from entering a monitoring program- if the board wants you to be monitored, you're going to be monitored. A lawyer might be helpful if you got a DUI and were reported. Then maybe having a lawyer fight the DUI so that it's off your record could help your case with the board. Similarly if you're reported for malpractice, etc. But otherwise a lawyer isn't going to do anything, and could make the situation adversarial and have a bad outcome.

Lastly, impaired physician programs are there to help potentially impaired physicians practice medicine. You should be thankful for them. In states that do not have impaired physician programs (like California, I believe) you simply can't get licensed or there's no course for remediation if you do have a mental health/legal/substance abuse problem. By and large, the programs keep more people practicing than eliminate people from practicing.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

.

 

[HondoCrouch]

All these people talking about getting a lawyer don't understand how impaired physician programs and medical boards work. I suspect these posters are well meaning, but lack true knowledge of how the system works.

First, in many states YOU are liable to lose your license if you think a colleague could be impaired and you fail to report them. It is your legal, and ethical, duty to report impaired physician colleagues. Now, it'd probably be best if you could get them to report themselves, but in many states it's ultimately your responsibility.

Second, (conservatively) 1/10 physician will be impaired at some point in their career. Most never enter impaired physician programs. Of those reported, only the most egregious lose their licenses. Almost all are allowed to practice medicine, some while being monitored for their health.

Third, getting referred to a physician health program isn't necessarily a bad thing. The OP will get evaluated by another examiner (likely an excellent psychiatrist with a background working with impaired physicians), who will make treatment recommendations. If the OP is stable, and their illness never impacted their work, then it's unlikely that monitoring would be recommended. If monitoring is recommended, it may just mean seeing a psychiatrist and/or therapist regularly and having them send in reports. Honestly, this is probably in their best interest anyway.

Fourth, there is very little a lawyer can do in the situations other than earn some of your money. The medical board has broad powers to determine who needs monitoring and who doesn't. A lawyer isn't going to prevent someone from entering a monitoring program- if the board wants you to be monitored, you're going to be monitored. A lawyer might be helpful if you got a DUI and were reported. Then maybe having a lawyer fight the DUI so that it's off your record could help your case with the board. Similarly if you're reported for malpractice, etc. But otherwise a lawyer isn't going to do anything, and could make the situation adversarial and have a bad outcome.

Lastly, impaired physician programs are there to help potentially impaired physicians practice medicine. You should be thankful for them. In states that do not have impaired physician programs (like California, I believe) you simply can't get licensed or there's no course for remediation if you do have a mental health/legal/substance abuse problem. By and large, the programs keep more people practicing than eliminate people from practicing.

Anyone who says you should go in front of a medical board without a lawyer is a damn fool.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation, a physician should always have professional representation when dealing with a medical board. The stakes are far too high for a physician and you will regret it if you dont have legal representation.

The boards just love to have physicians represent themselves because they know you are scared and can be rail-roaded.

Never forget, medical boards are not your friend.

 

[JerryMeister]

good luck answering those YES questions on every medical license application you will see for the rest of your life, NOT TO MENTION THE HELL YOU WILL GO THROUGH IN TRYING TO GET AFFORDABLE MALPRACTICE INSURANCE BECAUSE YOUR PERSONAL MISERY WILL ONLY BEGIN THERE.
Hondo Crouch is dead spot on correct....it happened to a friend of mine and he STILL can't get malpractice insurance despite being clean for 12 years....now he's selling real estate. DON'T JUST GET A LAWYER, GET THE BEST ONE YOU CAN FIND AND FIGHT THIS....the medical boards and insurance companies could not care less about addiction or mood disorders being a "medical disease" process....THEY WILL ONLY SEE YOU AS A RISK NOT WORTH TAKING A CHANCE ON!

 

[JerryMeister]

.

 

[JerryMeister]

That's like the 4th post you've made attempting to impeach the OP--I don't think anyone else wants to carry on down that route. Why do you keep hijacking threads to support those in positions of power? Is it so irksome to you that people have a forum to post their concerns?

boo hoo hoo...waaaaaaaa......do you need a warm bottle of milk or a blankie?

 

[BobA]

Anyone who says you should go in front of a medical board without a lawyer is a damn fool.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation, a physician should always have professional representation when dealing with a medical board. The stakes are far too high for a physician and you will regret it if you dont have legal representation.

The boards just love to have physicians represent themselves because they know you are scared and can be rail-roaded.

Never forget, medical boards are not your friend.

Just for your edification - the person would never "go before the board" to get into the impaired physicians program. It's usually just a meeting with the physician who runs the impaired physician program, and then a referral to a psychiatrist for an evaluation and possible treatment. One only "goes before the board" if they don't follow what the program administrator says.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Just for your edification - the person would never "go before the board" to get into the impaired physicians program. It's usually just a meeting with the physician who runs the impaired physician program, and then a referral to a psychiatrist for an evaluation and possible treatment. One only "goes before the board" if they don't follow what the program administrator says.

And if I'm not mistaken, you don't have to answer "yes" and disclose this for the rest of your life. It's an anonymous process for physicians.

 

[Perrotfish]

First, I haven't posted on this thread for well over a week. Second, as I said in multiple posts, I was playing devils advocate, because everyone else was presuming a certain side of the story without all the facts. Third, the value of any discussion board is having multiple views. Threads where everyone agrees on everything don't tend to advance discussion much and die in two posts, which is why i played devils advocate here.

How does playing devil's advocate help the OP? Do you think you're going to convince the OP that she is impaired? How is accusing her of lying/having poor insight going to alter her approach to the situation?

You do do this a lot. Someone gets fired from residency and you say 'maybe you deserved it'. Someone is dismissed from medical school and you say 'maybe you were a bad student'. Someone comes on upset that they were unjustly reported to the impaired physicians organization and you say 'maybe you were impaired'. Well, yes, maybe, but if that's true then there's nothing to be done and no advice to be given. The forum is here for the sake of the person asking the question. To give them advice, we need to assume that they're right and the person accusing them is wrong. If their residency/school/psychiatrist right and the poster just has poor insight then there's no reason to post at all, because there's no advice you can give the poster other than to accept whatever verdict is handed down. It might be a different situation if there's something to be gained from cooperating rather than fighting back, for example a student or resident who feels they are unjustly being asked to repeat a year. However when someone is fired, dismissed, or facing a lifetime of big brother style psychiatric monitoring I don't see what the OP would gain if you somehow argued them into believing they were in the wrong.

Also, as a lawyer, it seems like there's a lot you could add to these discussions without playing devil's advocate. For all the people here saying 'get a lawyer' I would guess most of them have never had any real contact with the legal system. I know I haven't. For someone fighting this kind of accusation what kind of lawyer do you want? Where would you go to get a good referral? When would you want to see them? What would you want to ask them? How much should you be prepared to spend? What else could you do to put yourself in the best possible light? In the meantime would you want to continue to see this psychiatrist? Should you discuss the situation with you family, friends, or dean or would that make the situation worse rather than better? That would be a lot more helpful then questioning the OP's story. OP needs a counsel for the defense, not another prosecutor.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

There is some confusion on this thread.

First, in most states, the Impaired Physician reporting system / board is different than the actual licensing board. So, being reported to the former is not something that directly jeopardizes your license, nor is it anything that the board will hear about unless a serious issue is uncovered.

Second, getting a lawyer is likely not helpful. You can't "fight" this. Whatever group is charged with monitoring physician impairment has wide latitude to interview / investigate any physician they want. You are unlikely to be allowed to bring a lawyer to any meeting, as it's not a formal legal process.

The system is designed to protect the public, and help impaired physicians. The point is to allow physicians to refer / report any of their colleagues whom they fear may be impaired, without risk of retaliation. If the OP is not impaired (which sounds like the case), nothing will come of this. It will NOT be reportable to anyone in the future. Although the process is different in each state, it should be completely confidential and protected by QA. Talking to a lawyer might help, simply clarifying what the rules are (but that will likely be reviewed by the person who interviews you).

I do agree that the person who reported the OP seems overly trigger happy. Perhaps there is more to the story -- if not, I doubt I would have reported. There is also the question of HIPAA, and whether one physician can report another with concerns raised in a medical appointment (again, this will be state specific, although I expect that many states will allow this, much like reporting abuse).

Bottom line, if there is nothing more to the story, the OP will be interviewed, and the case closed. Nothing more will come of this.

 

[Law2Doc]

@ perrotfish:

I didn't post until multiple people postulated that there was no other possibility other than that the psychiatrist went overboard. I threw out an opposing possibility, as devils advocate, as I have often done on SDN. Discussion boards only work if multiple viewpoints exist. If everyone agreed that the psychatrist was way out of line, (which certainly might be the case, but doesnt have to be) perhaps the OP would feel better, but very little of the subsequent discussion would have occurred. Does it really "help" the OP to spend money in a lawyer in the event the psychiatrist perhaps was within her safe haven of what she's allowed to report? Note that another poster above has noted that "perhaps there is more to the story", so it's not like I'm the only one to entertain that possibility.

One of the biggest issues SDN has is that its threads too often deteriorate into a pep rally, with everyone rallying behind an OP, regardless of whether it's a tenable or the most probable position. It could just as easilly have been the psychiatrit posting on here asking advice on whether to report the OP, and the crowd would have just as eagerly backed her position. Posters who are willing to present alternate realities, although often not popular, do serve a value in fostering discussion.

As for lawyer issues, assuming arguendo that OP needs a lawyer, which i m not sure is the case, these things are local in nature, so your local bar association is probably the most fruitful source of referrals. Expect a lawyer to charge by the hour, at a cost which will again vary by geographic region, but you can bet it will be a couple hundred dollars an hour or more for someone with actual experience.

 

[Perrotfish]

I didn't post until multiple people postulated that there was no other possibility other than that the psychiatrist went overboard. I threw out an opposing possibility, as devils advocate, as I have often done on SDN. Discussion boards only work if multiple viewpoints exist. If everyone agreed that the psychatrist was way out of line, (which certainly might be the case, but doesnt have to be) perhaps the OP would feel better, but very little of the subsequent discussion would have occurred. Does it really "help" the OP to spend money in a lawyer in the event the psychiatrist perhaps was within her safe haven of what she's allowed to report? Note that another poster above has noted that "perhaps there is more to the story", so it's not like I'm the only one to entertain that possibility.
.

I think you need to ask whether the viewpoint you're giving could actually result in different, usable advice for the person who began the thread. A good example of a thread that needs an opposing viewpoint is someone that's complaining about their 'jackass' resident, nurse, or attending. The opposing viewpoint (maybe the OP is provoking this bad behavior) does go against the crowd but it also leads to a different but useful solution (suggestions to the OP about how to make themsevles a better medical student).

However sometimes, like in this thread, I don't see what the opposing viewpoint gets the OP. It generates discussion, but the discussion doesn't generate any useful advice. You're not the only one to there might be more to the story, just like you're not the only one to think there might be more to the story of an unjustly fired resident or an unjustly dismissed medical student. Hoever these are cases where that doesn't lead to any useful advice: there is no percentage in compromise, so no one else comments on that possibility.

I don't disagree with the devil's advocate role as a general rule, just for certain situations.

 

[Law2Doc]

...

I don't disagree with the devil's advocate role as a general rule, just for certain situations.

while I get your point generally, the whole point of presenting a devils advocate viewpoint is to take a position many don't agree with, so you really cannot designate certain situations where you don't like it's use -- by definition those will be the only situations where the person would actually be playing devils advocate.

 

[PikminOC]

Any updates?

 

[PikminOC]

Bump

 

[gutonc]

Why? The thread has been good and dead for over two years. Why do you keep necro-bumping these things?