Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Physicians are aware of the mantra “Do No Harm.” There’s a Virginia-based advocacy group also called Do No Harm. One of its missions is to erase identity politics in medical education and clinical practice. It has filed 150 discrimination complaints to the Office of Civil Rights under the US Dept of Education. And with the assistance of the Pacific Legal Foundation, it just filed a lawsuit against the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners. Actually, the lawsuit is against Governor John Bel Edwards, in his official capacity as the executive who nominates/selects medical board members.
The gist of the lawsuit is this.
Louisiana passed a law in 2018, Act 599, which specifies the governor must consider candidates ethnicities when making appointments from four entities: LSU Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, LSU Health Sciences Center at New Orleans, Louisiana Hospital Association, and a consumer list of candidates without background medical expertise (laypersons). Every other member from the four entities must have a minority background, such that at least two of the four seats will be filled by minority candidates during the next appointment cycle.
The Act does not define a minority.
Other requirements for physician members are straightforward: “resident of state for more than six months, currently licensed and in good standing to engage in practice of medicine in Louisiana, actively engaged in the practice of medicine in Louisiana, five years of experience in practice of medicine in Louisiana after licensure, not convicted of a felony, not been placed on probation by the Board.”
In the lawsuit, Do No Harm alleged the statute enables the exclusion of non-minority candidates, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The lawsuit catapult enabled liftoff after the Supreme Court decision last year ending affirmative action in higher education. There, Students for Fair Admission, Inv. versus President and Fellows of Harvard College, held “Harvard’s and UNC’s (University of North Carolina’s) admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion.
Become a member to receive ongoing support and protection from our experts
Automate a review collection & posting workflow to shield your online reputation
Back to the Louisiana lawsuit. It’s not the only one. Do No Harm has also sued Medical Board of California requiring CME courses cover implicit bias training, arguing it violates participants rights to free speech.
In 2019, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 241. As of January 1, 2022, all continuing medical education courses in California must include discussion of “implicit bias.” But the efficacy of implicit bias training in reducing disparities and negative outcomes in healthcare is controversial in the medical community and lacks evidence. Because of that controversy, because they prefer to teach different, evidence-based subjects, and because they do not want to espouse the government’s view on implicit bias, Plaintiffs Azadeh Khatibi and Marilyn Singleton, as well as at least one member of Plaintiff Do No Harm, do not want to be compelled to include discussion of implicit bias in the continuing medical education courses they teach.
Rather than respect the freedom and judgment of continuing medical education instructors to choose which topics to teach, California law now requires the Medical Board of California to enforce the mandate that all continuing medical education courses include discussion of implicit bias. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the government cannot compel speakers to engage in discussions on subjects they prefer to remain silent about. Likewise, the government cannot condition a speaker’s ability to offer courses for credit on the requirement that she espouse the government’s favored view on a controversial topic. This case seeks to vindicate those important constitutional rights.
Also in the firing line include governor of Tennessee (addressing Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners) and the medical journal Health Affairs. The common denominator is using race as the distinguishing feature in selecting candidates for leadership roles or positions.
Given that the US Supreme Court has re-defined the contours of what is permissible, oversight organizations are changing direction or messaging. For example,
Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), told Medscape Medical News that the organization recommends medical boards include appointees who “reflect the demographics of the state” and are “drawn from different regions…and diverse specialties.”
FSMB’s board membership policy further states that “sex, race, national or ethnic origin, creed, religion, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, or age above majority should not preclude an individual from serving on the board.”
While being drawn from different specialties and different regions are ways to define diversity, that is not the colloquial meaning which has permeated public discourse in the recent past. It will be interesting to see how many, if any, of such lawsuits work their way to a decision. And whether some organizations will update their policies in advance to render the matter moot.
What do you think?
Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.
Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.
Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.
In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.
Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2023 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With decades of combined experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.
It is safe to acknowledge that racism still exists in some forms in some places in the United States. Is it as pervasive as antisemitism. No.
Do institutions particularly medical schools and residency programs take steps to avoid antisemitism? No. There are decades of history of antisemitic behavior on the part of medical schools. One conversation with a colleague of mine from the 1970s revealed that he had been interviewed at a medical school in 1975, and was told by the interview, that they had a quota that only 5 Jews were to be admitted to that medical school.
I am aware of a situation in a particular college with a particular professor where Jewish students received lower grades.
I am aware of a situation where a surgical residency director made sure that Jewish interns did not get promoted to the second year of surgical residency in that program.
Racism clearly exists. But is it systemic and pervasive? No.
At this point we need to stop the divisive nonsense and treat all people equally.
Medical boards are run by attorneys. Physicians on those boards are told what to do. They apparently have little say. If they speak out, they are replaced on the board.
Where does that leave physicians? The boards are charged with protecting the public. But who protects the physicians from the boards, which are openly hostile to physicians?
What about diversity among medical boards? Would they stand up to such scrutiny? Doubtful.
Can we please return to some degree of meritocracy in medicine?
I assume the intent of to the legislation (Law 599) is to require the Governor install people of color or other ethnicities to be placed on medical licensing boards, instead of whites. Good luck on finding them. Even if the Governor finds some, these harried individuals are likely to be immersed into earning a living and filling out the multiplicity of documentation now required for all doctors.
Then there’s Covid. Covid (and school closures) was a direct attack against low-income family childhood education. An entire generation of children was lost. Mostly caused by teachers’ unions.
Even with so-called relaxed standards for minority admission, there is still an apparent need for candidates to have the ability to solve quadratic equations and distill, memorize and parrot back concepts of organic chemistry on exams. There have always been a lower number of students (aside from Asian and Jewish) who were willing or able to put in the work necessary to get that far.
Then there’s the family requirement: It is almost impossible for single, uneducated mothers to obtain enough income to raise one or more children, from different sperm donated fathers to a level of accomplishment necessary to turn in an application to a medical, dental, podiatric, chiropractic or osteopathic college. And certainly not physical therapy or registered nursing.
If Government wants to try to obtain more candidates for higher education, it is necessary to stop demonizing men (read fathers) and control teachers unions to force them to allow charter schools.
This leads to the ultimate conclusion: These laws requiring inclusion are merely a form of “theater” by Democrats. They know that Governors’ will not find these candidates. It’s just for political show: A really tasteless, bad joke.
Michael M. Rosenblatt, DPM
Dr. Rosenblatt, Until now, I have always looked for and enjoyed reading your responses to these blogs. One request, please. Please, let’s leave politics out of these. As distasteful as you obviously find Democrats, Republicans are no better. “Slime” seems to be a requirement to run for and be elected to office, IMHO.
This country almost seems to be a pendulum which is currently swinging the other way. Yes, discrimination and prejudice remain in this country. We, as people, have not matured enough to be able to see beyond skin color, religion, sexual preference, and anything else that may make us different, to see the person and abilities underneath. That, coupled with the apparent “permission” to openly display incredible nastiness and down-right hatred, makes for a very sad situation. However, I personally believe that affirmative action, while well-meaning and definitely needed to “get the ball rolling” is, perhaps, overextended in today’s times. I could be mistaken. I feel that applications to schools, boards, etc, should be totally anonymous, with no reference whatsoever to race, religion, sexual status/preference, et al. Again, IMHO.
DEI = Destroy Excellence Initiative