Did you see where this article originated? SF Bay Area. Click on the link at the top where it says via Bay Area and the story is a little more detailed, nothing new, just more detailed. I just find it interesting it came from there from the Associated Press. I'd like to know how Gibbons is going to decide who the temporary members are since he can't seem to make a decision at all.

Posting malpractice info on a website does not tell the whole story. Read this from the California Business and Professions Code: "The Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, and the California Board of Podiatric Medicine shall include the following statement when disclosing information concerning a settlement:
"Some studies have shown that there is no significant correlation between malpractice history and a doctor's competence.To make the best health care decisions, you should view this information in perspective. You could miss an opportunity for high-quality care by selecting a doctor based solely on malpractice history.
When considering malpractice data, please keep in mind: Malpractice histories tend to vary by specialty. Some specialties are more likely than others to be the subject of litigation. The incident causing the malpractice claim may have happened years before a payment is finally made. Sometimes, it takes a long time for a malpractice lawsuit to settle. Some doctors work primarily with high-risk patients. These doctors may have malpractice settlement histories that are higher than average because they specialize in cases or patients who are at very high risk for problems. Settlement of a claim may occur for a variety of reasons that do not necessarily reflect negatively on the professional competence or conduct of the doctor. A payment in settlement of a medical malpractice action or claim should not be construed as creating a presumption that medical malpractice has occurred. You may wish to discuss information in this report and the general issue of malpractice with your doctor."
This sounds reasonable to me. The number of malpractice cases filed in Clark County alone during 2007 was 824. I believe we have less than 5,000 docs in the state. The number of malpractice cases filed in the entire state of California for fiscal year 2006-07 was 873 out of a total of 124,000 physicians who have California licenses and who are required to report. Something is rotten in Nevada and it's not fair to blame only the docs, the medical board, the health division, or the government.

If susan read the Nevada Revised Statutes and knew anything about medicine, she would know that to summarily suspend a physician would require findings that continued practice would endanger the health, safety, and welfare of his patients. Contrary to what she may believe, summary suspension is not an action that is used freely throughout the country as it requires evidence of immediate danger and is therefore, not legally supported in most cases. These practices were evidently going on for years and while I am outraged at them, the centers are no longer in operation and the board would find it difficult legally to summarily suspend. I also would like them to take some action and I agree the board members should go, but like it or not, we are still bound by laws and I'm sure that susan would want her due process rights protected. Investigate on an expedited basis and then take whatever discipinary action is required. I guess the major question would be - who is going to do the investigating?

I agree that public perception can be damaging and that everything should be done to make sure that those guilty in the Endoscopy case and that the docs who testified they lied in the mistrial that just happened should be punished. However, it is not true that other states suspend licenses pending outcomes of investigations or trials. A suspension would cause a report to the Data Bank, which would cause various problems to those found not guilty. It is very difficult to undo those problems and the report is on the record forever. Hospitals can suspend privileges, but state licensing boards cannot and do not suspend licenses until investigations are finished or unless the board decides that the doctor is an immediate danger to the public and even then, a hearing is held immediately and facts must be presented. Perhaps this course should have been taken instead of the "gentleman's agreement" for Desai to stop practicing. That was merely a PR ploy, and not a very good one since the rest of the docs are still practicing. As far as punishment for malpractice trial outcomes, just because a jury feels sympathy, doesn't mean that malpractice was committed. Our legal system is extremely flawed - in fact most countries don't use juries.

I couldn't care less about what the former Governer thinks or what some self-serving feminist at a university in Massachusetts has to say. I agree that our system needs fixing and there needs to be an overhaul, but I certainly don't want the feds in here either, given their stellar track record. Wake up people, this is the future of medicine. This is not just a Nevada problem - it is nationwide and we all helped contribute to it. We shop for the best priced medical care and not the best doctors (look at the Lasik ads on TV), we line the lawyer's pockets because we're unhappy over everything and they're more than happy to take the money (look at the fraud and conspiracy trial that ended in a mistrial), and we fail to take responsibility because it's easier to blame someone else. May not be the most popular opinion, but the truth is, medicine is a for-profit business and if you believe that doctors, or for that matter, lawyers, or university professors are any more ethical or moral than the common person on the street, you will be sorely disappointed.