American Board of Cosmetic Surgery Continues Progress in California
California law precludes physicians from advertising their board certification unless the board is a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or a board that posses requirements equivalent to those of the ABMS member boards. The California Act sets forth 19 regulatory requirements a board must establish through application to the Medical Board of California (MBC) in order to b e deemed equivalent. Through its Application, submissions, and presentations the ABCS established it met, and in many ways exceeded the 19 regulatory requirements, mandating the MBC approve its Application. Nevertheless, without reason or basis, the MBC denied ABCS's Application on November 4, 2005.
As a result of the MBC's baseless denial of ABCS's Application, the ABCS filed a Petition in the Superior Court of California, seeking a cou8rt order that the MBC comply with the Act and grant ABCS's Application. As you may know, on September 19, 2006 the Superior Court of California granted ABCS's Petition and specifically found the ABCS met, or exceeded, all the regulatory requirements of California's Act, conclusively establishing it to be "equivalent". Accordingly, the Court directed the MBC to set aside its decision and grant ABCS's Application for specialty board approval.
The MBC filed a Motion for New Trial seeking to have ABCS's Application remanded to the MBC for findings of fact to support its denial. After considering the entire administrative record, the Court denied MBC's Motion on December 12,2006. The Court concluded a remand would be unjust and futile because t"the Court determined that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a denial of ABCS's Application."
Despite two comprehensive orders of the Court, MBC filed a notice indicating its intention to appeal the Court's decision.
While I often deride the legal profession for spending valuable time and money on strictly partisan issues, this is an example of physicians doing the same thing for economic advantage.
As a result of the MBC's baseless denial of ABCS's Application, the ABCS filed a Petition in the Superior Court of California, seeking a cou8rt order that the MBC comply with the Act and grant ABCS's Application. As you may know, on September 19, 2006 the Superior Court of California granted ABCS's Petition and specifically found the ABCS met, or exceeded, all the regulatory requirements of California's Act, conclusively establishing it to be "equivalent". Accordingly, the Court directed the MBC to set aside its decision and grant ABCS's Application for specialty board approval.
The MBC filed a Motion for New Trial seeking to have ABCS's Application remanded to the MBC for findings of fact to support its denial. After considering the entire administrative record, the Court denied MBC's Motion on December 12,2006. The Court concluded a remand would be unjust and futile because t"the Court determined that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a denial of ABCS's Application."
Despite two comprehensive orders of the Court, MBC filed a notice indicating its intention to appeal the Court's decision.
While I often deride the legal profession for spending valuable time and money on strictly partisan issues, this is an example of physicians doing the same thing for economic advantage.
posted by Edward Lack MD at 11:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home