Collateral Consequences of a Physician’s Arrest

Physicians who are arrested face a multitude of other issues. They will face possible termination from their job. But, also they will face issues with the Georgia Composite Board. It is very important to understand that those who are arrested may hire a firm like us and enter into an informal resolution to avoid formal proceedings, additional costs, and potentially more severe sanctions with the Composite Board. It is important to be aware of other possible consequences of such stipulations, including the following:

1. NPDB Reports. Licensing boards are generally required to report such these informal agreements involving physicians to the National Practitioners Data Bank (“NPDB”). (See45 CFR § 60.8). Hospitals and other entities are required or permitted to check the NPDB during the physician credentialing process. An NPDB report can permanently tarnish a physician’s record and career, unless it is removed, and it may also result in the additional actions outlined below.
2. Reciprocal Actions by Other State Licensing Boards. Many if not all state licensing boards automatically impose reciprocal sanctions against providers who were sanctioned in another state; thus, the action in one state may result in similar actions in other states in which the provider is licensed. That, of course, compounds the physician’s problems.
3. Adverse Action by Other Agencies. Other agencies may initiate their own investigation based on the board’s order. For example, an order with terms relevant to prescribing practices can trigger an investigation by the state pharmacy board. A stipulation involving inappropriate conduct with the patient might lead to criminal charges by the local law enforcement agency. Although such collateral investigations are fairly rare and are usually limited to situations involving egregious facts, there is no guarantee that the physician will be able to avoid lengthy and costly investigations or proceedings by other agencies.
4. Adverse Employment Action. Employment contracts often condition employment on an unrestricted license and require the provider to disclose or represent that the provider has not been the subject of adverse licensure action. Depending on the language of the contract and the mood of the employer, a seemingly innocuous board order may result in loss of employment. At the very least, it will likely undermine the provider’s position with the employer.
5. Adverse Credentialing Actions. Like employment contracts, hospitals or other facilities consider adverse licensure actions in their credentialing decisions. Depending on the medical staff bylaws and credentialing policies, licensure stipulations may allow the hospital or facility to deny, suspend, restrict, or terminate a provider’s medical staff membership or privileges, thereby limiting the provider’s practice options. Such adverse credentialing actions may also adversely affect the physician’s employment or relationships with payers who are affiliated with the hospital.
6. Adverse Publicity. In most states, the licensing board is permitted or required to publish the action. Colleagues, patients and others in the community are likely to learn of the stipulation, resulting in professional embarrassment, diminished reputation, and loss of business.
7. Malpractice Insurance. Depending on underwriting requirements, a board order may adversely affect the provider’s ability to secure or maintain professional liability insurance or the premiums charged for such insurance.
8. Litigation. Finally, the stipulation may result in civil lawsuits. The stipulation may spark suits by plaintiffs affected by the underlying concerns. In addition, plaintiffs’ lawyers may attempt to use the stipulation in subsequent litigation against the provider. Even though the stipulation will likely be irrelevant and inadmissible to most malpractice cases, it can still cause discomfort and increase the costs of defense.

Given the potential penalties, providers should carefully consider the consequences of any consent order entered into with the Board. If there is no effective defense to the allegations, the provider may have little choice but to agree to an appropriate stipulation to minimize costs and avoid potentially worse sanction; however, the provider should attempt to negotiate the terms in the stipulation to minimize his or her exposure. For example, the board might be willing to agree to a private censure or public reprimand instead of imposing restrictions or conditions on licensure. Alternatively, the provider might be able to modify the stipulation to confirm that it does not constitute a restriction on the license, does not limit the physician’s practice, and there was no harm or risk to patients. The provider might try to include other provisions that mitigate the harm or minimize the need for future disclosures. As appropriate, the provider should work with a knowledgeable attorney to help evaluate the risks and craft the stipulation in a manner to minimize the damage it will undoubtedly cause. For a consultation, contact us today.