curiousdoc-ga,
There have been quite a few lawsuits filed against the Texas State
Board of Medical Examiners, as well as related Boards, such as the
Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners.
Here are links to sites that mention and discuss these cases:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:B5tnDM8sf2wJ:www.tsbme.state.tx.us/faq/cpq.htm+OR+%22v+texas+state+board+of+medical%22&hl=en
Corporate Practice of Medicine
Garcia v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 384 F.Supp. 434 (W.D. Texas 1974)
F.W.B. Rockett v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 287 S.W.2d
190 (Tex. Civ.App.- San Antonio 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
Watt v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 303 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.
Civ. App.- Dallas 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.);
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:vEiXUm5D9uEJ:www.tsbme.state.tx.us/calendar/minutes/doc/2004/December04/Full%2520Board%2520Meeting%2520Minutes.htm+OR+%22v+texas+state+board+of+medical%22&hl=en
TEXAS STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
December 10, 2004
Laser Hair Removal Stakeholders Group v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners
Dr. Steven Finder, Dr. Kimberly Finder & Smooth Solutions, L.P. v. The
Texas State Board of Medical Examiners
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/Ramirez_v_BOME.htm
Standards for Reinstatement of a Revoked License
Ramirez v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 995 S.W.2d 915
(Tex.App. Dist.3 06/30/1999)
http://www.aaem.org/corporatepractice/flynn.shtml
The constitutionality of the predecessor statute to the Texas Medical
Practices Act was challenged in Garcia v. Texas State Board of Medical
Examiners, 384 F.Supp. 434, 436 (W.D.Tex.1974). In upholding the
constitutionality of the act, the court noted that the Texas statutes
were designed to preserve the vitally important doctor-patient
relationship and prevent possible abuses resulting from lay control of
corporations employing licensed physicians to practice medicine.
http://www.aslme.org/research/mayday/24.4/24.4i.php
"Pain Management: Texas Legislative and Regulatory Update"
In Balla v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, an appellate court
upheld the revocation of Dr. George Balla's medical license for
issuing "patient prescription orders for amphetamine and
amphetamine-like drugs through the mail ... without 'a proper medical
examination to determine if such drugs were medically necessary or
medically indicated for treatment of any illness or medical
condition.'" Although Dr. Balla's actions were clearly not acceptable,
one case does not provide direction for physicians who want to
practice medicine that is consistent with both accepted scientific and
medical standards and the less well defined standard of "public health
and welfare."
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op48morales/dm-423.htm
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
November 6, 1996
Re: Authority of the Board of Medical Examiners to regulate hyperbaric
oxygen therapy
This conclusion is further supported, in our view, by the rather
limited amount of case law referring to hyperbaric oxygen therapy, by
section 3.06(d)(1) of the act, and by Thompson v. Texas State Board of
Medical Examiners, 570 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. Civ. App.--Tyler 1978, writ
ref'd n.r.e.).
http://www.ctw.com/attorneys/detail.asp?ID=51
Snead v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 753 W.W.2d 809
(Tex.App.--Austin 1988, no writ.)
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/42_2/06_TXT.htm
BRINGING ORDER TO CYBERMEDICINE
In 1974, in Garcia v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas employed a public
policy rationale in order to find that a non-profit health association
violated the corporate practice of medicine doctrine.144 At issue in
Garcia [*PG471]was whether the Texas Secretary of State was justified
in refusing to grant of a corporate charter to the San Antonio
Community Health Maintenance Association (SACHMA) due to the fact that
one of SACHMA?s stated purposes was ?the employment of licensed
physicians.?145 The court affirmed the Secretary of State?s decision
to deny a charter, including the following statement outlining the
court?s policy concerns:
While it is no doubt true that this nation faces a grave shortage of
doctors, is the panacea to be found in the formation of non-profit
layman corporations? We think not . . . . To whom does the doctor owe
his first duty?the patient or corporation? . . . What is to prevent or
who is to control a private corporation from engaging in mass media
advertising in the exaggerated fashion so familiar to every American?
Who is to dictate the medical and administrative procedures to be
followed? Where do budget considerations end and patient care
begin?146
The court was clearly concerned with the aforementioned three policy
considerations?lay control over physicians, commercialization of
health care, and the division of a doctor?s loyalties?in holding that
SACHMA?s employment practices violated the corporate practice of
medicine doctrine
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:utXTsWDcVXwJ:www.aavsb.org/AnnualMeeting/2005Sept/Presentations/TopCases2005_Dale.doc+OR+%22v+texas+state+board+of+medical%22&hl=en
American Association of Veterinary State Boards -- Top Recent Regulatory Cases
Granek v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 2005 WL 1842743 (Ct.
App. TX 2005) Appellate Court upheld certain findings and sanctions
against an ophthalmologist and reversed and remanded others. The
reversed findings and sanctions were based upon a due process argument
due to the passage of 13 years from the date of the alleged boundary
violations. The court also rejected the licensee?s arguments that a
clear and convincing standard should be used, rather than a
preponderance burden. The court recognized the reliance by the board
as grounds for discipline on the hospital sanctions issued for the
licensee?s failure to treat a particular patient. Finally, the court
held that the board did not substantiate its sanctions imposed that
were not consistent with the ALJ recommendation. (ophthalmologist,
laches, sanctions)
You can find links to additional cases at this search results page:
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-04,GGLD:en&q=%22v+texas+state+board+of+medical%22
Similarly, search results for cases involving other medical boards in
Texas can be found here:
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-04,GGLD:en&q=%22v+Texas+State+Board+of+examiners%22++OR+%22v+texas+state+board+of+%2A+medical%22
The cases listed include:
Texas Orthopaedic Association and Andrew M. Kant v. Texas State Board
of Podiatric Medical Examiners
Ralston v. Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
CARP v. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY
Bloom v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists
I trust this list of cases and links fully answers your question.
However, please don't rate this answer until you are quite sure you
have everything you need. If there is anything else I can do for you,
just post a Request for Clarification, and I'm at your service.
All the best,
pafalafa-ga
search strategy -- Google searches on:
"v texas state board of medical"
"v Texas State Board of examiners" OR "v texas state board of * medical" |
Clarification of Answer by
pafalafa-ga
on
10 Oct 2005 14:51 PDT
curiousdoc-ga,
I'm not sure what you mean by the list seeming 'biased', but it is,
admittedly, short.
However, it is broadly reflective of information available on the
internet from a variety of sources. These include the TSBME site, but
also include a fair number of other sources as well.
Not every case that is filed or argued makes it into the legal
literature, where it can readily be searched and retrieved.
Generally, it is the more notable cases that are entered, particularly
as they go up the judicial chain to appeals courts or even to the
state or federal Supreme Court.
In recent years, there appear to only have been a relatively small
number of cases involving TSBME that were appealed beyond the initial
judgements, and became part of legal databases.
In addition to the cases already mentioned, I only found a few others:
==========
http://www.txhealthlaw.com/2004/07/revocation-of-physicians-license-was.htm
Hinkley v Texas State Board of Medical Examiners
June 10, 2004
Revocation Of Physician?s License Was Affirmed
P-doctor appealed the district court?s judgment affirming the decision
of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners to revoke his license to
practice medicine; the Board had adopted the recommendation of an
administrative law judge after a contested case hearing. In 1989,
after acknowledging that he was addicted to cocaine, P entered into an
Agreed Order with the Board that revoked P?s medical license but
stayed the revocation by placing him on probation. In 1998 & again in
1999, P provided urine samples that tested positive for prohibited
substances & the Board filed a complaint with the State Office of
Administrative Hearings which resulted in the revocation. Held:
Affirmed
Here is the text of the full opinion:
http://www.texasbarcle.com/materials/digests/opinions/16218.pdf
==========
==========
[the following two cases are from subscription legal databases, and
there is no direct link to an internet site for these opinions]
Grotti v Texas State Board of Medical Examiners
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN
October 6, 2005, Filed
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Lydia Grotti, M.D., appeals the district court's final
judgment affirming the final order of appellee, Texas State Board of
Medical Examiners (the Board), revoking her license to practice
medicine in Texas. Dr. Grotti claims that the final order (1) is not
supported by substantial evidence, (2) fails to state adequate
findings to support the Board's ultimate decision, and (3) is in
excess of the Board's authority. Dr. Grotti further contends that the
Board (4) violated the Open Meetings Act, (5) improperly adopted
findings that were rejected by the administrative law judges, and (6)
adopted the final order in violation of her due process rights. In her
seventh issue, Dr. Grotti maintains that certain evidence was
improperly excluded at her administrative hearing. Because we find no
error in either the final order or the Board's actions, we affirm the
district court's judgment.
Berezoski v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and Donald W. Patrick, M.D.
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN
July 15, 2004, Filed
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Dr. Robert N. Berezoski, appeals a district court judgment
affirming disciplinary action taken against him by the Texas State
Board of Medical Examiners (the Board). The Board originally
disciplined appellant in 1996 (the first order) following the death of
a patient in his care. Appellant appealed, and the district court
reversed and remanded (the first judgment). In 2002, the Board issued
a second disciplinary order on remand. Appellant appealed again, and a
different district court affirmed (the second judgment). Appellant
presents two issues on appeal. First, appellant argues that the second
order and second judgment were precluded by the first judgment due to
the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and "the law of
the case." Second, appellant argues that the second district court
erred because the Board's second order is not based on substantial
evidence. Because we reject both arguments, we will affirm the
judgment of the district court.
==========
Again, there does not appear to be much beyond these few cases.
If you have reason to believe I've overlook substantial amounts of
case material, please let me know your thinking on this. I'm always
at the ready to dig deeper.
pafalafa-ga
|
,
0 Comments
)