Text Size

A A A  

Is It Reportable? Reporting Scenarios Webcast

The Is It Reportable? Reporting Scenarios Webcast was held on November 16, 2021.

Event Materials: Presentation Slides (with answers) (PDF - 555 KB)

Reporting Scenarios

Dr. S, a board-certified dentist, owns and operates a small dental clinic in Florida. She also holds a dental license in Maine. Due to her busy schedule, Dr. S forgot to renew her Maine license, which was required to be renewed by March 2021. Once Dr. S' Maine license lapsed, the Maine Dental Board's licensing system automatically suspended the license without confirmation or approval from the state licensing board and placed the license in inactive status.

A few months later at her clinic in Florida, Dr. S was treating a senior citizen for an emergency tooth extraction, which required placing the patient under general anesthesia. The patient experienced severe complications and went into cardiac arrest. The patient sustained a chronic disability and required long-term hospitalization.

After a thorough investigation, the Florida State Licensing Board (the Board) informed Dr. S that she was facing discipline due to the Board's claim that her "...negligence resulted in the harm of a patient." On May 1, 2021, Dr. S signed an agreement with the Board to suspend her Florida license to practice dentistry for a period of 20 days. At the end of 20 days, Dr. S could request to have her license reinstated. The Board reported the suspension to the NPDB as an initial action.

On May 21, 2021, Dr. S petitioned the Board to have her license reinstated. The Board granted Dr. S' request and issued a board order placing Dr. S on probation for two years. The Board also issued Dr. S a $1,000 administrative fee to pay for the investigation and the Board's legal costs. Both the fee and probation can be found on the Board's website. The Board submitted an initial report to the NPDB for the probation and fee. Dr. S disputed the report with the NPDB stating that the fee is not reportable because it is non-disciplinary.

Dr. L is an oncologist at the Eding Clinic, a clinic that provides a wide range of medical services and employs 30 other medical professionals. Dr. L and the Eding Clinic are insured by XYZ Liability Insurance Company. Dr. L was treating Patient A for abdominal pain. Although several tests were performed on Patient A, Dr. L failed to find a cause for the pain and simply prescribed an over-the-counter painkiller. One month later, Patient A returned to the Eding Clinic with complaints that the pain had gotten worse. Dr. L eventually diagnosed Patient A with colon cancer. Patient A suffered injury to his colon, which required a number of surgeries. The injury could have been avoided with more advance notice of the diagnosis and earlier treatment.

Patient A hired an attorney. The attorney wrote to the Eding Clinic a notice of intent to sue and requested compensation. The notice stated:

Due to the delayed diagnosis and negligence of the Eding Clinic and the doctor who treated Patient A for abdominal pain at Eding, Patient A suffered serious injury. Patient A is seeking $5,000 in damages for the injuries suffered.

Upon receiving the notice of intent to sue, Dr. L worried about the effect that the bad publicity from a lawsuit could have on her practice, so she decided to settle the claim out of her own pocket. Dr. L paid Patient A the $5,000 in exchange for a written statement from Patient A releasing Dr. L of all legal liability related to the incident.

A week after Dr. L paid the $5,000 to Patient A, she submitted a claim to XYZ Liability Insurance Company. XYZ Liability Insurance Company had a policy that reimbursed policy holders from out-of-pocket expenses up to $5,000, and it sent Dr. L a $5,000 check.

Dr. X is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Memorial Hospital. He became the subject of a medical staff peer review after complications arose during several of his laparoscopic surgeries. Memorial Hospital sent a sampling of his cases for external peer review to determine whether there was breach of standard of care in his cases. The external peer review outcomes indicated that 75% of his cases did not meet the standard of care. The Medical Executive Committee decided to implement a review of Dr. X's laparoscopic practice to include proctoring of his next 15 cases. While the proctor can make recommendations, the proctor had no authority to take over the cases or veto Dr. X's decisions in those cases.

Several months later, Memorial Hospital received a complaint from a staff member about Dr. X. The staff member was uncomfortable with Dr. X's request that she change the documentation of certain details of a difficult delivery in the patient's medical records. Memorial Hospital began an investigation by interviewing staff and meeting with Dr. X about this specific incident of changing certain details in a patient's medical records. Shortly thereafter, Dr. X submitted his resignation from the medical staff at Memorial Hospital. At the time of his resignation, Dr. X had not yet completed his proctoring requirement.

Quick Links