What's the worst thing that can happen if a DO impersonates an MD?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
shamwowzer said:
Slippery slope fallacy for the win. DO/MD, if board certified in a given field, have small (if any) differences in scope; and in specialties like ENT, cardiology, etc there is no difference because OMT snake oil isn't used.
Click to expand...

fair enough. but I still think people should be using the credentials they earned and nothing else. if you can just interchange these things what's the point of even having different degrees??
 
rog411 said:
fair enough. but I still think people should be using the credentials they earned and nothing else. if you can just interchange these things what's the point of even having different degrees??
Click to expand...

Haha that's an entirely different beast of a conversation.
 
NeuroLAX said:
Haha that's an entirely different beast of a conversation.
Click to expand...

yeah, lol. it definitely is. i think we need to simplify the titles in medicine. there are just so many of them now that i feel like most people have no clue what anyone's really means anymore. but until we agree to a way to do that, let's stick to the ones we actually earned.
 
rog411 said:
fair enough. but I still think people should be using the credentials they earned and nothing else. if you can just interchange these things what's the point of even having different degrees??
Click to expand...


When DO was started it was cause someone clearly disliked where allopathic medicine was headed and wanted another option. Other countries do have alternative forms, that are still similar...and are licensed professions. Problem is they failed to market it, and so the general public (and tv show producers) have no clue what DO even is.

Bottomline, its just another loophole right back into the same practice of medicine.

That's my take.
 
CDI said:
When DO was started it was cause someone clearly disliked where allopathic medicine was headed and wanted another option. Other countries do have alternative forms, that are still similar...and are licensed professions. Problem is they failed to market it, and so the general public (and tv show producers) have no clue what DO even is.

Bottomline, its just another loophole right back into the same practice of medicine.

That's my take.
Click to expand...

I'd hate to reference the Dr. Oz show, but a prime example of this ignorance is the episode that was recently brought to my attention where two DOs were on the show, one demonstrating an HVLA technique, and another demonstrating a form of minimally invasive pain management. The DO that performed the HVLA got a bunch of surprised responses from the audience and Dr. Oz, as if it was something that looked barbaric and painful.
 
A lot of armchair lawyers in here thinking they can sue for random stuff they wouldn't even have standing for, let alone any damages.

Find me an example of a DO who had formal repercussions for presenting himself as an MD and I'll eat the notes I'm reading right now. Theoretically it's not allowed legally, but practically...

Also FYI MD's can do OMM, unrestricted medical license is unrestricted broski's. Harvard had a course for a while (I dunno if they still do) where you go and do a training course in it. Plenty of (ACGME) PM&R residencies include that type of stuff during their residency for entertainment value.

Although DO's claiming to have exclusive realm over "OMM" is pretty silly because a lot of that stuff is copy pasted from physical therapists just with different names.
 
Last edited:
Textbookversion said:
A lot of armchair lawyers in here thinking they can sue for random stuff they wouldn't even having standing for.

Find my an example of a DO who had formal repercussions for presenting himself as an MD and I'll eat the notes I'm reading right now.
Click to expand...

You can sue for anything in the US. Coffee too hot?
 
CDI said:
You can sue for anything in the US. Coffee too hot?
Click to expand...

That just shows how little you know about the law.

She had very serious burns btw, and the coffee was ridiculously hot. Her lawsuit was very, very justified because McDonald's corporate policy was dangerous. They changed it based on that lawsuit, and their coffee is now dramatically safer leading to fewer accidents and injuries.

But okay just go ahead and laugh off those silly lawyers.

Not to mention this example has a "cause of action" (she was the person who was hurt) and "damages" (she sustained physical injuries that were caused by McDonalds, that required medical attention). Neither of those are present in the case of a DO wearing a hospital badge with MD on it. There are no damages, and you have no standing/cause of action/any place in court because you aren't the patient being treated by that person. The degrees and training are equivalent there is no way you'd win anything ever other than a giant bill for the doctors legal expenses for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
 
Interesting case:
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1466.81-5343.html

Brandwein vs. California medical Board

"Dr. Brandwein claimed that the regulation requiring osteopaths to display the title D.O. outside their office is a violation of equal protection because the Medical Board has no comparable regulation. The district court dismissed this claim without discussion. Since members of the public may assume that all physicians hold an M.D. degree, the state, as suggested above, has an interest in making sure that they are informed of a physician's actual educational background. Therefore, the regulation clearly appears to satisfy the rational relation test"
 
Last edited:
Textbookversion said:
That just shows how little you know about the law.

She had very serious burns btw, and the coffee was ridiculously hot. Her lawsuit was very, very justified because McDonald's corporate policy was dangerous. They changed it based on that lawsuit, and their coffee is now dramatically safer leading to fewer accidents and injuries.

But okay just go ahead and laugh off those silly lawyers.

Not to mention this example has a "cause of action" (she was the person who was hurt) and "damages" (she sustained physical injuries that were caused by McDonalds, that required medical attention). Neither of those are present in the case of a DO wearing a hospital badge with MD on it. There are no damages, and you have no standing/cause of action/any place in court because you aren't the patient being treated by that person. The degrees and training are equivalent there is no way you'd win anything ever other than a giant bill for the doctors legal expenses for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Like I implied before...you can file a lawsuit over anything and find a way to win, its America.

Hot coffee...unacceptable! Next up, filing a lawsuit cause laptops are called "lap"tops and they cause heat when placed on someones lap which causes infertility. Or better yet, filing a lawsuit for a "Footlong" sub being less than a "foot" and causing malnutrition as a result. (Oh...wait...)
 
DrBowtie said:
Interesting case:
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1466.81-5343.html

Brandwein vs. California medical Board

"Dr. Brandwein claimed that the regulation requiring osteopaths to display the title D.O. outside their office is a violation of equal protection because the Medical Board has no comparable regulation. The district court dismissed this claim without discussion. Since members of the public may assume that all physicians hold an M.D. degree, the state, as suggested above, has an interest in making sure that they are informed of a physician's actual educational background. Therefore, the regulation clearly appears to satisfy the rational relation test"
Click to expand...

Bam!

So, you're saying educational background actually matters to the public (and or a judge) after all? Ground breaking!
 
NeuroLAX said:
I found this from Oregon as grounds for suspending, revoking, or refusing to grant license, registration, or certification:

"Using the name of the licensee under the designation doctor, Dr., D.O. or M.D., D.P.M., Acupuncturist, P.A. or any similar designation in any form of advertising that is untruthful or is intended to deceive or mislead the public."

So, it looks like it would be grounds for punitive action, at least in Oregon. My state (FL) has similar language, particularly in 458.331.1(d), although it is more vague than Oregon.



I'm not sure how common of a practice this is, but I've seen it elsewhere as well.
Click to expand...

I am in Oregon, and there should be a lot of physicians in trouble. I know many DO physicians in a hospital system that has the computer paperwork always spit put MD after their name. It is like a person said earlier, the hospital is just too lazy to change the system to allow MD and DO, so they made all the physicians MD.

The first time I saw it, I was really confused, there was a physician that I KNEW he was a DO, and the computer listed him as MD. I had to ask someone why.

I have seen NPs and DNPs that are labeled as such, so I think it is just MD and DO that were merged.


dsoz
 
Rofl, if the coffee had been too cold she would have sued for bad customer service
 
ToldYouSo said:
Rofl, if the coffee had been too cold she would have sued for bad customer service
Click to expand...

:uhno:

You're missing the fact that she sustained bodily injury by the scalding temperature of the coffee. I doubt that she would have sued over cold coffee. She would have walked inside and demanded a new (properly prepared) coffee.
 
DrBowtie said:
Interesting case:
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1466.81-5343.html

Brandwein vs. California medical Board

"Dr. Brandwein claimed that the regulation requiring osteopaths to display the title D.O. outside their office is a violation of equal protection because the Medical Board has no comparable regulation. The district court dismissed this claim without discussion. Since members of the public may assume that all physicians hold an M.D. degree, the state, as suggested above, has an interest in making sure that they are informed of a physician's actual educational background. Therefore, the regulation clearly appears to satisfy the rational relation test"
Click to expand...

Fascinating reading.
 
There are definitely potential repercussions for portraying yourself as an MD if you're a DO (same if an MD claimed to be a DO). I don't remember what those are exactly, but I remember reading about it in one of our little medical jurisprudence courses.

dsoz said:
I am in Oregon, and there should be a lot of physicians in trouble. I know many DO physicians in a hospital system that has the computer paperwork always spit put MD after their name. It is like a person said earlier, the hospital is just too lazy to change the system to allow MD and DO, so they made all the physicians MD.
Click to expand...

That's different than a physician setting up an office, writing MD on the sign, and telling people he's an MD. It's the hospital system choosing or setting up a computer system that's not able to properly handle credentials. I doubt there'd be liability there, but if there was, I'd expect it'd be on the hospital, not the physician.

I worked in a hospital that automatically said that you informed "Dr. ________" of results or that something had been done when you electronically charted that you had communicated the findings to the provider responsible for the patient, even when it was a PA or NP. That made me cringe a little more than any instances where I saw "MD" automatically linked to all physicians, but I always tacked on their actual credentials after their name, as awkward as that made it look.
 
Textbookversion said:
But okay just go ahead and laugh off those silly lawyers.
Click to expand...

Those money hungry lawyers are the reason why we now live in a country where no one is willing to take any personal responsibility and always finding someone else to put the blame on for everything that happens to them... Did something happen to you? Come on down to XYZ legal firm we'll find someone to sue!!
 
NeuroLAX said:
:uhno:

You're missing the fact that she sustained bodily injury by the scalding temperature of the coffee. I doubt that she would have sued over cold coffee. She would have walked inside and demanded a new (properly prepared) coffee.
Click to expand...

She did take the coffee, get in her car, and stick the cup in between her legs and was later burned when she slammed on the breaks and the coffee spilled. I dont know I always thought that case was pretty frivolous.
 
NeuroLAX said:
:uhno:

You're missing the fact that she sustained bodily injury by the scalding temperature of the coffee. I doubt that she would have sued over cold coffee. She would have walked inside and demanded a new (properly prepared) coffee.
Click to expand...

The bigger question is, would she have sued if it weren't a multi billion dollar company and was just a tiny mom and pop coffee shop? Would any lawyer have even been interested then? I think not.
 
rog411 said:
The bigger question is, would she have sued if it weren't a multi billion dollar company and was just a tiny mom and pop coffee shop? Would any lawyer have even been interested then? I think not.
Click to expand...

If I suffered the same burns as Ms. Liebeck (NSFW case photo here), then I would sue the owners/company regardless of their net worth.
 
Member 331305 said:
If I suffered the same burns as Ms. Liebeck (NSFW case photo here), then I would sue the owners/company regardless of their net worth.
Click to expand...

I bet if you made that coffee yourself you'd sue the company that made the stove, cause obviously the stove made the coffee too hot... or maybe you wanna sue the gas company, cause there's too much gas in the stove... or maybe you wanna sue the guy who discovered fire, cause the fire is the root cause, isn't it... oh wait.

no reason to think that it's in any way your fault for putting a flimsy cup you know contains hot liquid very close to your skin in an unstable way such that it could easily break open and spill all over your legs potentially burning them because that's what hot liquids do when applied to skin... no way... that would require you to actually use your common sense.
 
Last edited:
rog411 said:
I bet if you made that coffee yourself you'd sue the company that made the stove, cause obviously the stove made the coffee too hot... or maybe you wanna sue the gas company, cause there's too much gas in the stove... or maybe you wanna sue the guy who discovered fire, cause the fire is the root cause, isn't it... oh wait.
Click to expand...

McDonald's lost the case because it served a 190oF product without sufficient warning labels to an unassuming customer. That is negligence on the part of the company. Since this is not a J.D. forum, I'll just direct you to a summary of the case if you want to learn more.
 
altruistss said:
At the end of the day you are known by your residency training . Nobody really cares about DO and MD at that point. Grow up
Click to expand...


"Dear general public/clueless patient, we have two residents on call today, would you prefer being treated by the MD or the DO?"

"What's a DO?"

People care.
 
CDI said:
"Dear general public/clueless patient, we have two residents on call today, would you prefer being treated by the MD or the DO?"

People care.
Click to expand...

Depends: am I addicted to pain meds?
 
rog411 said:
just wait until the hospital puts MD on the DNP badges too for the same reason 😛
Click to expand...

THEY BETTER NOT. DNP = shortcut to being a wanna-be physician. sorry. been told by too many people that it's the "easier" way to go, even though it's the NURSING model. They can call themselves "doctors" all they want, but not PHYSICIAN or SURGEON.
 
CDI said:
"We prescribe all the same pain meds."

"So what's the difference?"

"One is a DO. One is a MD."

"Like House, M.D.?"

"Yes, like House, M.D."

"Ok. I want that one."
Click to expand...

I guess you missed that'n. I won't blame ya since the "less informed" and the sarcastic often say largely the same types of things here: so hard to tell. 😀
 
Lysilegluleu said:
I guess you missed that'n. I won't blame ya since the "less informed" and the sarcastic often say largely the same types of things here: so hard to tell. 😀
Click to expand...

I just figured the dumb reply deserved a dumber response. I thought thats how it works with these threads. Are you implying that my stupidity is inferior to your stupidity?
 
Nah, nor the reverse; I don't wanna assume anything based on a mutual dumbness exchange. All fun and games sir/ma'am. 😎
 
Member 331305 said:
McDonald's lost the case because it served a 190oF product without sufficient warning labels to an unassuming customer. That is negligence on the part of the company. Since this is not a J.D. forum, I'll just direct you to a summary of the case if you want to learn more.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing about the law. I just think that the ruling was absurd. If the coffee was at 190F she should have felt that it was hot when picking up the cup, and put it aside until it cooled sufficiently. Instead, she decides to put this flimsy coffee cup, which she knows contains hot liquid, in between her legs, very close to her skin and groin, and proceeds to yank it open. That is something that common sense should have prevented her from doing. Why didn't it occur to that it might be a bad idea to manipulate a container filled with hot liquid of unknown and potentially scalding temperature in such a way that it could easily spill all over her body? Did she not know that hot liquid can burn her skin?

If you ask me, McDonalds wasn't negligent in serving the coffee "too hot", she was the one really negligent because she mishandled the coffee. I don't agree with the "lack of sufficient labeling" argument. If people don't know that hot liquids can burn them.... I don't know what to say. I feel sad for the state of the public right now.
 
rog411 said:
I'm not arguing about the law. I just think that the ruling was absurd. If the coffee was at 190F she should have felt that it was hot when picking up the cup, and put it aside until it cooled sufficiently. Instead, she decides to put this flimsy coffee cup, which she knows contains hot liquid, in between her legs, very close to her skin and groin, and proceeds to yank it open. That is something that common sense should have prevented her from doing. Why didn't it occur to that it might be a bad idea to manipulate a container filled with hot liquid of unknown and potentially scalding temperature in such a way that it could easily spill all over her body? Did she not know that hot liquid can burn her skin?

If you ask me, McDonalds wasn't negligent in serving the coffee "too hot", she was the one really negligent because she mishandled the coffee. I don't agree with the "lack of sufficient labeling" argument. If people don't know that hot liquids can burn them.... I don't know what to say. I feel sad for the state of the public right now.
Click to expand...

Poor logic for a future physician.
 
rog411 said:
I'm not arguing about the law. I just think that the ruling was absurd. If the coffee was at 190F she should have felt that it was hot when picking up the cup, and put it aside until it cooled sufficiently. Instead, she decides to put this flimsy coffee cup, which she knows contains hot liquid, in between her legs, very close to her skin and groin, and proceeds to yank it open. That is something that common sense should have prevented her from doing. Why didn't it occur to that it might be a bad idea to manipulate a container filled with hot liquid of unknown and potentially scalding temperature in such a way that it could easily spill all over her body? Did she not know that hot liquid can burn her skin?

If you ask me, McDonalds wasn't negligent in serving the coffee "too hot", she was the one really negligent because she mishandled the coffee. I don't agree with the "lack of sufficient labeling" argument. If people don't know that hot liquids can burn them.... I don't know what to say. I feel sad for the state of the public right now.
Click to expand...

The concern was that 190oF is too hot for coffee to be served. That's why McDonalds lost after multiple attempts to settle. At first glance it's an extremely frivolous lawsuit, but there's more to it than, "hurr durr stupid woman spilled coffee on herself hurr durr"

THEY BETTER NOT. DNP = shortcut to being a wanna-be physician. sorry. been told by too many people that it's the "easier" way to go, even though it's the NURSING model. They can call themselves "doctors" all they want, but not PHYSICIAN or SURGEON.
Click to expand...

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaa relax little pre-med. The comment you were replying to was likely facetious.
 
Also the fact that mickey ds had over 700 other complants about burns from their coffee. They knew there was an issue with the coffee. Their manual said to heat the coffee to 190 degrees F. How is this not negilgent??
Also no one actually knows how much money she received (the 2.7 mil number was dropped and her and mickey ds settled for an undisclosed amount out of court) so arguing about the sum being too much or too little is pointless.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
It just annoys me when people pick that coffee lawsuit as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, because it wasn't. They were sending the coffee out borderline boiling hot which is absurd.

There are tons of great examples of how ridiculously litigious America is, that isn't one of them.

Also to get back on topic the general idea here is you shouldn't pretend to be an MD as a DO, but nobody is going to hassle you if it's on your hospital issued stuff due to the way they set up their system.
 
shan564 said:
It's the SDN way
Click to expand...

DO vs. MD thread? Hot coffee responses? DNPs??? LAWSUITS????

At3aV.gif
 
R2YOXo6.gif

This thread definitely got derailed a while ago.

If you knowingly substitute one degree for another on things that you have control over you could, technically, get in trouble for it. The reality likely is that it would only be brought up in addition to a much more serious offence if at all.

If your hospital is too lazy to find out that they've (gasp!) hired a DO and put the wrong initials on the lab coat and in the EMR, they can get blamed for any problems in the future. You usually get a form asking what you'd like on your lab coat anyways, so this isn't a problem.

An NP or PA will usually be Mr. X or their first name to patients. You'll never find me calling them a doctor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
What's the one thing to do to get into a competitive IM program?
Replies
1
Views
874
FalconSlice
FalconSlice
S
MD & DO How can I transfer to a different school?
Replies
3
Views
792
Goro
Goro
S
MD & DO What if I do nothing this summer?
Replies
8
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
Mr.Smile12
MD & DO [STAT News] Medicare proposes ‘efficiency’ pay cuts that would hit highly paid specialists the most
Replies
7
Views
1K
amoxicillin_resistant
amoxicillin_resistant
hiiiihi
Can I put Letters to the Editor as a peer-review publication if the journal explicitly states that it undergoes peer review?
Replies
9
Views
2K
NotAProgDirector
NotAProgDirector
Top