Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Reviews Disciplinary Decisions Of the Missouri Dental Board From The Second Half Of 2016

/in /by

The Missouri Dental Board (the Board) issued five disciplinary decisions in the second half of 2016. Periodically reviewing disciplinary decisions allows a licensee to learn how the governing body decides disciplinary actions. The Board’s decisions have some precedential value to them. Consequently, the Board should try to rule on disciplinary actions consistent with its decisional history. As an ardent advocate for professional licensees in both Missouri and Kansas, Attorney Danielle Sanger carefully scrutinizes disciplinary rulings from licensing boards so she can effectively represent her clients who are facing professional discipline before those tribunals.

A dentist who operated under several Limited Liability Company (LLC) names submitted a joint stipulation of facts as well as a joint disciplinary order. The state of Missouri and the dentist reached a settlement agreement related to allegations made by the state relating to Medicaid Fraud. An investigator from the Board interviewed some of the dentist’s patients and interviewed the dentist. The investigator found billing irregularities and infection control problems. The Board filed a disciplinary action, and the parties reached a settlement. The parties agreed that the dentist could continue to practice provided that the dentist passes a jurisprudence examination within 12 months of the ruling as well as agree to regular meetings with the Board as well as advise healthcare facilities with which the dentist was associated of the Board’s decision.

Another dentist and the Board agreed upon waiving a hearing before the Administrative Hearings Commission as well as the Board and approved a resolution. The Board received a complaint from a pharmacy in Kansas City regarding prescriptions for hydrocodone. The Board employed an investigator to perform a sweep of pharmacies and the dentist’s history of writing prescriptions. The investigator found that the dentist wrote prescriptions for patients who did not require them or a family member of an employee. The dentist claimed the prescriptions were for dental pain, except one prescription. The investigator learned that the dentist diverted the prescriptions to himself. The dentist subsequently admitted having a drug and alcohol problem. He attended treatment programs voluntarily. The parties agreed the dentist should be on probation for five years. The dentist agreed to continue with the Board’s wellness program as well as submit to random drug testing and alcohol screening.

The Board revoked one practitioner’s license. According to the order issued by the Board, the dentist defaulted at the administrative hearing after being duly served with notice to appear. The dentist failed to appear. Additionally, the dentist failed to appear before the Board for a final hearing. Accordingly, the Board entered an order of default and consequently revoked the dentist’s license to practice in Missouri.

In another disciplinary action, the dentist and Board entered into a joint stipulation. The factual allegations involve the dentist prescribing a drug for his wife that was beyond the scope of his practice.  This lead to an additional investigation. The investigator found that the dentist wrote prescriptions that were not properly recorded. Additionally, the investigator found the dentist did not conduct weekly spore testing and did not have sufficient continuing education credits. The dentist rectified the deficiencies in his record keeping. Accordingly, the parties agreed that the dentist should be censured for his failures.

Lastly, a dentist and the Board agreed to a censure when the dentist did not document all prescriptions written for her patients. The prescriptions were either not documented at all or insufficiently documented, thus requiring censure.

Do Not Face Any Disciplinary Board Alone

A professional licensee must not take the threat of disciplinary action lightly. You must consult an experienced and successful professional licensing attorney before even responding to the allegations or an investigator comes to speak to you. Call Kansas Professional Licensing Defense Attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 if the Board contacted you. Attorney Sanger is dedicated to protecting the livelihood of dentists and other professional licensees in Kansas and Missouri.

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discusses A Physician’s Responsibility To Debunk “Fake News” Presented By A Patient

/in /by

One does not have to search too hard today for claims of “fake news” passed off as actual events. Social media has been rife with false claims of factual situations for some time. Unfortunately, such claims crept into our Presidential election, and mainstream media suffered accusations of passing off fake news as fact. The medical profession is not immune from patients being misled by fake news stories. A simple “Google” search can yield seemingly official results, marked with an imprimatur of legitimacy. Internet search results should inspire a person to ask their physician questions and not accept the results as a substitute for a trained medical professional’s opinion.  Consequently, doctors and other healthcare professionals must take care to debunk misinformation presented by their patients. Their failure to do so could lead to claims of unethical behavior and malpractice. Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger represents healthcare professionals facing allegations of unethical conduct.

The notion of fake news is baffling in many ways. Why promulgate false information? To what end? Joel Cooper, D.O. suggests that people or institutions who generate fake news are trying to manipulate people financially, economically, or politically without regard for the potentially harmful consequences people who believe the fake news can suffer. No one is immune. Dr. Cooper related how the medical device company Theranos created an impression across the medical community that their new product could somehow deliver accurate blood analysis without drawing as much blood from patients as typically required. The claims proved false, yet before Theranos’ claims could be disproved, doctors and other healthcare professionals were buying in.

If physicians can buy into fake news, it is not hard to imagine that a member of a vulnerable population could suffer the same fate, with potentially disastrous consequences.  People who suffer from chronic or fatal diseases, desperate to find a cure, could easily be trapped by unscrupulous claims for a substance providing a miracle cure. Another good example and one which garners much debate is the question of childhood vaccinations.  Many sources claim conclusively that traditional childhood vaccinations cause autism, according to Dr. Cooper, notwithstanding the fact that scientific research proves the hypothesis wrong. Similarly, Dr. Cooper relates that many people in need of taking a cholesterol drug refuse to take a statin only because someone on social media claimed that someone they know suffered a rare side effect from the medication.  Because of the misinformation, the patient refuses to take the drug that can prevent heart disease leading to an early death.

What can be done to combat this problem? Dr. Cooper suggests honest and open communication with their patients and spending time with them to dispel their fears and concerns. Failure to do so can undermine the doctor’s ability to treat the patient with “evidence-based” diagnostic and treatment modalities. Dr. Cooper does not discourage patients from asking questions. In fact, he wants to foster good communication to address his patients’ concerns. Dismissing the patient’s question can be seen as arrogant by the patient cause the patient to refuse to communicate with their physician. Dr. Cooper argues that communication and fostering a higher level of trust is the antidote to the poison of misinformation. Dr. Cooper also argues that doctors owe a duty to the public to work hard to dispel fake news stories. He suggests taking to social media as a method of opening the lines of communication between the public and medical profession.

Failure to Dispel Fake News Stories Early Can Cause Future Problems

Encourage your patients to ask questions. Open, and frank dialogue builds trust between patient and healthcare provider. Failure to do so can result in claims of malpractice and unethical conduct. If you have fallen victim to claims of unethical conduct, call Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 today to schedule a consultation. Attorney Sanger has devoted her professional life to defending professional licensees who face discipline.

The United States Surgeon General Addresses Healthcare Professionals’ Obligation To Combat Opioid Abuse

/in /by

In August of 2016, Vivek H. Murthy, M.D., M.B.A., the United States Surgeon General, circulated an impassioned letter to physicians and other healthcare providers in the United States imploring practitioners to work diligently to combat the opioid epidemic endangering our nation. There can be little debate something must be done to stem the tide of overdoses and deaths in our neighborhoods. This problem affects us all because socio-economic status does not limit opioid abuse. Consequently, practitioners must be acutely aware of over-prescribing painkillers and remain vigilant about detecting drug seeking behavior. Failure to do so may lead to claims of unethical prescribing of medication and malpractice allegations. Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger is dedicated to fighting claims made against health care providers for unethical behavior.

Dr. Murthy’s letter succinctly lays out the recent history of the progression of opioid abuse in our country.  In the 1990s, physicians received encouragement to treat patients’ pain with prescription medication aggressively. While the source of information is unclear, Dr. Murthy criticizes drug companies for an extensive and misleading marketing campaign claiming that prescription opioid-based narcotics were not habit forming.  Data reveals that physicians’ efforts to treat their patients’ pain with prescriptions were unsuccessful. Since 1999, opioid-related deaths have quadrupled, and the number of prescriptions for painkillers has risen concurrently. Regrettably, physicians’ attempts to reduce or eliminate pain have failed. Americans statistically report the same amount of chronic pain today as twenty years ago. Dr. Murthy states that 2 million people in the United States suffer from opioid addiction disorder. The rise in this number causes an attendant increase in heroin abuse, HIV, and hepatitis C infections among intravenous drug users.

Dr. Murthy writes that solving the problem is not easy but argues that physicians and healthcare providers are uniquely positioned to reverse opium’s grip on our society. Combating the problem, Dr. Murthy opines, begins with clinicians balancing treatment for the patients’ pain with the prospect that any patient can become addicted.  Dr. Murthy divined a three-part plan to treat pain effectively while preventing or deterring addiction.  First, healthcare providers must educate themselves on opiate addiction as it relates to prescription narcotics and methodologies for treating pain. Secondly, medical practitioners must screen their patients for opiate addiction and refer them to appropriate treatment plans. Lastly, Dr. Murthy advocates treating opiate addiction as a medical problem like a chronic illness rather than a moral failing on behalf of the affected individual.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a pamphlet designed to educate practitioners as to the best practices for treating pain, detecting drug-seeking behavior, and options for patients exhibiting symptoms of opioid use disorder. Dr. Murthy suggested that healthcare professionals avail themselves of the CDC’s reference materials to assist clinicians with prescription issues, both long and short term, and treatment options. The CDC recommends treating acute pain with opioid-based medicine for a course of three days, but no longer than seven days. The real balancing act enters the equation when patients are claiming they suffer from chronic rather than acute pain. Physicians must counsel their patients that long-term painkilling medication is not effective to treat the symptoms and can lead to addiction. Dosing also requires the physician to analyze the patient’s prognosis carefully. The doctor should prescribe the lowest dose and avoid contemporaneous prescriptions of benzodiazepines while a patient is taking opiates for pain.

For More Information, Contact the Sanger Law Office today

If you are a healthcare professional in Kansas or Missouri and are facing professional discipline, rely on Missouri Professional Licensing Defense Attorney Danielle Sanger to vigorously and aggressively defend you. Attorney Sanger possesses the skill and experience to defend your license to practice medicine. Contact Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Talks About Dry Needling In Kansas

/in /by

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts scheduled a public meeting to discuss an amendment to the state’s physical therapy regulations. The Board is seeking public comment and testimony regarding the physical therapy treatment known as “dry needling.” The public hearing is scheduled for February 7, 2017. Dry needling is a relatively new and controversial treatment akin to acupuncture but is not identical to acupuncture. As of this writing, 25 states have permitted dry needling as a practice by physical therapists. States such as Tennessee, New York, Idaho, Hawaii, and South Dakota forbid the practice by physical therapists. Missouri has yet to rule on the issue. Performing functional dry needling (FDN) without express statutory or regulatory authority may be an ethics violation.  Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger has extensive experience representing physical therapists, and other healthcare professionals, facing disciplinary action.

FDN is a modality for myofascial release. The therapist uses a slender, dry, sterile needle to penetrate the skin and go directly to a trigger point.  The practice is useful for treating muscles, ligaments, and tendons as well.  Practitioners use FDN to treat neuromuscular pain and have done so successfully in numerous cases. Therapists have reported success with FDN to relieve pain in which traditional practices such as manipulation failed to provide relief. The theory behind the treatment is what separates it from acupuncture. FDN is based upon western medicine’s understanding of the anatomy and scientific study. The two disciplines reportedly differ on diagnostic criteria, needle manipulation, and insertion points as well.

Proponents of the practice are vociferous in their praise and advocacy for permitting the practice. One source noted a physical therapist found that FDN works faster and has a greater track record of success for patients than traditional physical therapeutic modalities. The therapist characterized the patient’s increased mobility as “dramatic.” On the other hand, FDN was criticized for causing greater harm when an Olympic hopeful lost out on the chance to compete in the 2006 games due to dry needling causing a punctured lung.  FDN’s benefits seem to outweigh the risks, and the resistance seems to be coming from currently licensed acupuncturists.

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts proposes to amend K.S.R. 100-29-18 though 20. The proposed section 18 would allow physical therapists licensed in Kansas to practice FDN if the measure passes. The physical therapist must pass the prescribed educational requirements to use FDN on patients. The proposed legislation prohibits on-line, and self-study as a means to become certified in the practice. Additionally, the physical therapist must pass a practical and written examination before the Kansas Board of Healing Arts certifies the physical therapist in FDN treatments if such a course was not a mandatory component of medical study before becoming licensed. Once certified, the therapist is only permitted to practice FDN in those anatomical areas in which the practitioner is certified.  Furthermore, the proposed legislation prohibits the therapist from delegating dry needling to a non-certified individual.

The proposed section 19 involves the informed consent of the patient. The therapist must obtain the informed consent in writing from the patient before performing the procedure. The therapist must obtain written informed consent from the patient for each anatomical location upon which the therapist proposes to carry out the procedure.  Additionally, the therapist must maintain precise and accurate records regarding the areas in which the patient received FDN.

Experience Fighting For Professional Licensees

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is a committed and ardent advocate for professional licensees. Call Attorney Sanger at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation if you are facing professional discipline or are the subject of an investigation into unethical practices in Kansas or Missouri. Attorney Sanger’s experience and determination can protect your livelihood.

Missouri and Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Describes Ethical Duties Of Medical Personnel Related To Concussions In Youth Sports

/in /by

The recently released movie “Concussion” starring Will Smith as a retired professional football player whose life is destroyed because of traumatic brain injury from repeated concussions is a sad true-to-life story. The story told in “Concussion” is not an isolated incident. Many headlines are made these days from ex-football players such as Junior Seau, who committed suicide after his career, and Kevin Turner who succumbed to a disease similar to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, commonly referred to as “Lou Gehrig’s disease”) in 2016 from suffering too many hits to the head. While football garners the bulk of the headlines related to head injuries, with good reason, other sports have similar concussion dangers. Soccer players, for instance, are at risk to suffer a concussion. So too are hockey players. Medical personnel in both Kansas and Missouri must follow the state-established protocols before a student-athlete returns to competition. Following the concussion rules will not guarantee the future safety of the athlete.  Consequently, subsequent injuries could lead to claims of misdiagnosis, malpractice, and ethical violations in some circumstances. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger is a zealous advocate for professional licensees and will fight to protect you from claims of ethical violations.

At the high school level, proper care and prevention start with awareness of the potential for injury. Gone are the days of dismissing a bump on the head as simply “getting your bell rung.” High school athletic trainers, who must be licensed in Kansas and Missouri, are the first line of intervention and treatment. Athletic trainers are always on the lookout for head injuries. Head injuries can be concealed and are not always obvious. Athletic trainers receive education on how to spot head injuries and what interventions are necessary. Appropriate responses include immediately removing a person from the game and commencing testing. The player may return to action if cleared by the trainer, if not, state-sanctioned concussion protocols take over.

Missouri has a seven-step program that an athlete must pass before returning to play. At the outset, a physician must sign a return to play form before playing again.  Each step of the seven must be completed before moving to the next step. First, the athlete must rest completely. That means no sports and no school or a reduced school schedule for a period that could last several days. The next step is returning to classes full time. Then, the student-athlete may begin light exercise. The athlete may not begin exercising until they are asymptomatic and a physician has authorized the student to do so. At this step, the student may walk or ride a bicycle with no exertion. The student may not begin lifting weights. Once that step is complete, then the student may begin running without equipment in the gym or on a track. After that, the athlete may participate in non-contact drills, followed by full practice. Assuming the student remains asymptomatic, then the athlete is allowed to return to play in a game.  The protocol advises that the student progress one step per day and not try to accelerate the process.

Unfortunately, following this protocol will not guarantee the player will remain healthy. Even one concussion can have serious effects going forward, and a clean bill of health based on diagnostic testing is no guarantee of safety. Therefore, doctors, athletic trainers, coaches, parents, and the student-athlete all bear the burden of making sure each player safely competes.

Consult With An Experienced Professional Licensing Attorney If You Have Questions About Potential Liability From Concussion Related Injuries

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger possesses vast experience in representing healthcare professionals. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation to learn your rights and responsibilities if you are involved in evaluating or treating student-athletes for concussions.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discusses Intersection Of Video Surveillance And A Patient’s Right To Privacy

/in /by

In Kansas and Missouri, video surveillance is more pervasive than ever. Surveillance cameras were once only found in convenience stores and retail outlets as a means to curtail robbery and shoplifting. With the advent of less expensive yet highly sophisticated surveillance equipment, you should expect to be captured by the eye-in-the-sky. Video monitoring can be found in places in which you would not expect surveillance such as doctors’ offices, dentists’ offices, and therapists’ offices. Conducting surveillance of the movements of patients in a setting in which the right to privacy is sacrosanct at first blush seems to be the ultimate invasion of privacy. However, the health care provider need not sit idly by if unscrupulous employees or patients plunder their business and may take steps to prevent or record criminal behavior. If you are a healthcare provider in Kansas or Missouri, professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger can guide you toward creating a safe environment which does not compromise the privacy of your patients while maintaining the security of your business.

The electorate in Kansas and Missouri enacted similar criminal statutes prohibiting invasion of a person’s privacy through electronic means by capturing audio, or photographic depictions of a person in a place in which the person would believe is private. A criminal invasion of privacy in either state by capturing a person’s likeness involves filming someone in a state of undress or in such a manner as to see through clothing or under it. The statutes focus on prohibiting recording people unwittingly. These laws do not prevent recording people with their consent or in areas in which they do not reasonably expect absolute privacy. Consequently, a surveillance camera in the examination room that captures a person undressing or in a state of undress would violate the statute and be grounds for criminal prosecution. In 2011, a Long Island, NY physician faced criminal charges for installing cameras in exam rooms. The cameras captured the doctor sexually assaulting his female patients. Such behavior is quite obviously criminal and violative of any ethical rule.

Recording common hallways, cash registers, checkouts, medicine cabinets and the like would not be cause for criminal sanction under the current statutory scheme in either jurisdiction. The more probing question is whether doing so violates patients’ rights to privacy, amounting to an ethics violation.  The short answer is: it depends on the circumstances on how the cameras and the recorded information is used, bearing in mind the obligation to prevent unauthorized access to recorded materials.

Medical and mental health practitioners understand that the duty to maintain the privacy of their patients is sacrosanct.  The healthcare professional may face ethical sanctions for a violation of privacy. Additionally, the healthcare professional may suffer ethical penalties for committing unprofessional behavior or acts that call into question whether the public may trust the healthcare provider. Consequently, any covert recordings that compromise a patient’s rights to privacy may amount to an ethical violation. Hypothetically, if a physician’s surveillance system captured a patient’s medical records, the physician could be in danger of facing an ethics inquiry because the patient has a right to privacy in the information contained within those records. Further complicating matters is the question of storage and surveillance video maintenance. The healthcare provider must maintain the video records in a manner that does not disclose private patient information. Consequently, healthcare providers must guard against illegal access to electronic video files.

Consult With An Experienced Professional Licensing Attorney Before Installing Surveillance Cameras In Your Office

In most instances, maintaining surveillance cameras in a healthcare providers’ office will not create an ethical violation, especially if the providers conspicuously posts a notice of surveillance in common areas. Do not act before having all of your questions resolved. Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger possesses vast experience in representing healthcare professionals. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation to learn how you can ethically protect your business assets.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Examines The Intersection Of Architecture And Ethical Responsibilities

/in /by

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Reminds Radiologists Of Their Ethical Obligations When Testifying

/in /by

Professionals from all walks of life can lend their expertise to the judicial system as an expert witness. In Kansas and Missouri, as well as in other courts across the country, courts allow experts to give evidence about matters of which they have superior knowledge that the average person, i.e. juror. The expert must be qualified to give an opinion based upon their academic study and practical training. In fact, anyone can be an expert witness and the expert witness responsibility is to educate the jury or judge about a topic.  To prove that point “Mona Lisa Vito” from the comedy My Cousin Vinny comes immediately to mind. Ms. Vito, however, was not bound by ethical rules as are professional licensees. The failure to adhere to the ethical standards of a profession when testifying is cause for professional discipline. Great care must be given, therefore, to the rules when testifying. If you must contact a professional licensing attorney if you are facing professional discipline based on testimony, you have given in court.

The American College of Radiologists (ACR) is a professional organization to which licensed radiologists belong. The ACR published the ethical rules a radiologist must follow when performing her duties. The ACR also promulgated ethical considerations for radiologists when testifying as an expert witness. The radiologist expert witness must review these rules before testifying. It is advisable that the radiologist digests these rules soon after they have been retained to testify. Learning the rules early in the process will avoid ethical questions during the discovery phase of the case, such as a deposition or during the trial itself.

Testifying requires bearing in mind several considerations the ACR believes is necessary to uphold the ethical standards of the profession. Even though the expert witness is retained by one of the parties to a case, the ACR requires the radiologist to remain fair and impartial at all times. The ACR stated its desire to have unbiased witnesses testify. Impartial witnesses lend instant credibility to the expert’s opinion. Additionally, the radiologist must be familiar with the standard of care in the community, if the case involves medical liability, such as in a malpractice case.  Additionally, the expert must review all of the necessary materials to be well educated on the subject matter which is the topic of the testimony. The radiologist should review all original copies of images to be certain that the image is the highest quality available. If not, the radiologist must review clean and clear copies of the original.

One of the duties of an expert witness is to provide an opinion and be fully prepared to defend their position.  Consequently, the ACR demands that the expert must make certain the opinion is scientifically valid. Additionally, the opinion must be one that is capable of peer review and has been tested. Most importantly, the radiologist must correctly apply the scientific theory correctly to the facts of the case.  The expert has an obligation to testify about his or her limitations on their personal knowledge as well as the general acceptance in the medical community of her opinion.

Compensation of the expert is always a live issue. Compensation must be reasonable and reflect the time and effort put into the case. Testifying on a contingent basis, i.e. getting paid only if the party who retained the expert is successful is unequivocally unethical.  ACR members must also be aware that peers may review their testimony from the ACR.

A Professional Licensing Attorney Understands The Role Of An Expert Witness

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is dedicated to defending you if you face professional discipline. You should contact Attorney Sanger immediately if you received notice that you face professional discipline. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation.

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discuss The Opioid Crisis In Dentistry

/in /by

The American Dental Association (ADA) takes an active role in bringing awareness to its members about treating dental pain with prescription painkillers. The ADA recently discussed dentists’ responsibility to uncover drug-seeking behavior as well as emerging trends on how to handle patients with a sensitivity to or a history of opioid addiction.  The failure to adequately address the potential for opioid addiction has the potential to create an ethical dilemma for the practitioner.  If you are a dentist encountering professional discipline in Kansas or Missouri for prescribing narcotics to patients, then you need to contact a seasoned professional licensing attorney to fight for you.

The ADA concisely set forth the role of the dental professional relative to pain management and the potential for addiction. Access to leftover causes a significant portion of the opioid epidemic or unused prescriptions are falling into the wrong hands. The ADA warns its members to avoid prescribing painkillers for a period longer than necessary. For instance, the ADA indicated that dentists should prescribe painkillers for 2 to 3 days after implant surgery. If possible, the precise dosage should be given. Studies have proved that some flexibility is required with the prescription dosages because some patients genuinely need the medicine, twenty-four percent (24%) of patients reported that they continued to take the painkillers for more than ten days after the surgery.

Overprescription is a problem as well. Some patients, as stated above, experience excessive pain and require a longer course of pain medication. Notwithstanding, prolonged pain is indicative of an underlying medical problem such as an infection. Infections can be treated with antibiotics and once alleviated; the pain should subside. Consequently, the patient no longer needs the painkiller. The ADA considers good dental practice to be one in which the dentist prescribes a short course of painkillers and carefully examines the patient and evaluates the need to prolong the course once the prescription has ended.

The ADA considers dentists to be in a unique position in their patients’ lives to assess drug abuse. Dentists should evaluate their patients’ behavior and determine whether the patient is actively seeking drugs. The dentist can educate their patient and help that person obtain necessary services to combat any addiction problem.  To that end, the ADA encourages its members to engage in a discourse designed to discuss the patient’s substance abuse history.  The ADA is advocating for dentists to receive remuneration for this service. Currently, dentists cannot bill for these interludes because they are not part of the dental hygiene regimen.  A recent survey showed that twenty-three percent of patients reported a history of substance abuse when screened during a visit. Practitioners then had the chance to refer their patients to other health care providers. The study proves that early intervention can prevent continued opioid dependence.

The ADA takes an unequivocal stance on drug seeking behavior. The ADA has opined that a dentist violates the dental code of conduct by prescribing opioid-based medication to an addicted patient. Additionally, the dentist has an ethical obligation to discuss the dentist’s suspicion of drug abuse and offer referrals for treatment. The ADA suggests that the dentist should be delicate when addressing this issue with their patient. Also, the ADA encourages its members to elicit help from their staff in identifying drug addicted patients. The ADA recognized that patients sometimes open up to staff more readily that to the dentist. Accordingly, the staff is in a unique position to inform the dentist of what they learned and determine the appropriate course of action.

Beware of the signs of addiction

If you or a member of your staff are facing professional discipline in Kansas or Missouri from prescribing painkillers, you need an experienced and dedicated professional licensing attorney to fight for you. Call Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation. Attorney Sanger has dedicated her professional life to protecting yours.

Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Explains The Use Of An Emergency Order Of Suspension

/in /by

On November 4, 2016, the Board of Healing Arts of the State of Kansas (the “Board”) took an extraordinary measure when filing a complaint against a Doctor of Osteopathy licensed in Kansas seeking suspension of the physician’s license to practice medicine. In addition to filing the complaint, the Board filed an ex parte motion to suspend the medical practitioner’s license without a hearing immediately. The Board infrequently exercises this emergency power but did so in this case successfully. The officer presiding over the issue for the Board ordered the doctor’s license immediately suspended and ordered the doctor to stop practicing medicine forthwith pending a final determination on the merits of the case. You must contact an experienced Kansas professional licensing attorney if you are the subject of any complaint before the Board of Healing Arts as soon as possible to commence the defense of your livelihood.

In the practice of law, ex parte refers to only one party presenting its case to a judicial officer without notice to the opposition and an opportunity to be heard by the judicial officer. Ex parte motions are not the norm. Rather, they are used in rare circumstances and only in emergency situations. The rulings made by the judicial officer pursuant to an ex parte order are temporary and preserve the status quo or put an end to a potentially hazardous situation until such time as the parties can schedule an evidentiary hearing on the issue to be litigated.

The subject of the ex parte order must be served with the order, which is effective immediately upon issuance. In addition to the order, the licensee must receive a notice of rights. The notice of rights informs the subject of the decree to the statutory right of appeal to a district court judge. Time is limited. The aggrieved party has 30 days in which to file a petition for review of an ex parte order.

In the November 4, 2016, decision by the judicial officer from the Board, the decision on ex parte order was redacted. Therefore, every factual allegation cannot be disclosed at this time. Notwithstanding, the decision does inform the reader that the physician was the subject of a consent order from a previous petition for discipline heard by the Board. The licensee, ostensibly, failed to adhere to the terms of the consent decree. At the time the second petition for discipline was filed, the physician continued to practice medicine actively.

The decision references statutory and regulatory authority for making its order. The judicial officer acknowledged the authority of the licensing authority to file its ex parte motion under a state statute and regulation. Kansas law permits the licensing authority to petition the Board to take temporary disciplinary action for unprofessional behavior that has endangered or is likely to endanger the lives and safety of others as defined in the state regulations. The Board may issue temporary relief if the Board finds cause to believe that grounds exist for disciplinary action and the “continued practice will cause an imminent danger to public health and safety.”

The presiding officer of the Board hearing the ex parte motion ruled in the Board’s favor. The presiding officer found that continued practice of osteopathic medicine by the doctor endangers the public safety and therefore suspended the license.

Do Not Delay If You Are Served With Temporary Orders

If you face professional discipline in Kansas,  and the Board filed an ex parte orders against you, do not delay. You must respond immediately. You need an experienced and dedicated professional licensing attorney to fight for you. Call Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 and inform Attorney Sanger about your emergent need because your license was suspended.