Originally published: . Volume 6, No. 5. Source pages: 6.
HB 573 by Representatives Hazel, Hoffmann, and Jackson, put forth 33 pages of changes and additions to the methods for dealing with complaints in the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.
Among the many changes, the proposed law prohibits the LSBME from expending any funds, directly or indirectly, on any activity or function which is sponsored, supported, or in any manner associated with, in whole or in part, the Federation of State Medical Boards.
The proposal would provide that a member of the board to act as the supervising member for each complaint received by the board. The proposed law retains present law but clarifies the following causes: professional incompetency, medical incompetency, and unprofessional conduct.
Proposed law requires all complaints and investigations of alleged violations to be supervised by a board member. Further requires members of the LSBME to serve two months out of every calendar year as the supervising member.
The proposed law requires the dismissal of complaints which are not regulated under the jurisdiction of the LSBME or that lack probable cause to justify further investigation. While present law authorizes the LSBME, as part of a decision, consent order, or other agreed order, to require a license or permit holder or an applicant to pay all costs of the proceedings, and to pay a fine not to exceed the sum of $5,000, the proposed law limits the authorization to adverse decisions.
Proposed law provides for resolution of complaints and authorizes the supervising member to either refer the investigation for an informal settlement conference or file a formal written administrative complaint to initiate a formal adjudication proceeding before the LSBME.
Proposed law provides for dismissal of the complaint if the evidence gathered is insufficient to support the allegation that a violation has occurred and requires notice to be sent to the complainant and licensee.
The proposal provides that decisions by the LSBME in a case of adjudication are subject to rehearing, reopening, or reconsideration pursuant to a written motion filed no later than 10 days after service of the decision on the licensee if the decision is clearly contrary to the law and the evidence, the licensee has discovered evidence which he could not have obtained before or during the hearing, or there exist other good grounds for further consideration of the issues and the evidence in the public interest.
The new law would establish expert physician review panels to assist with complaints and investigations relating to medical competency by acting as expert physician reviewers.
The measure is pending in Health and Welfare.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.