- Board investigator’s implied threat of sanctions excludes use of his interview of licensee as evidence in criminal case
- Vermont board would take 23% fiscal hit by signing on to interstate compact
- Unprofessionalism, sloppiness, and rudeness of surgeons linked to patients’ post-op complications
- Low public awareness found in online survey about discipline of doctors
- Board’s flawed case was not unreasonable, court finds in denying fees and costs
The Court of Appeals of Oregon, in an April decision, settled uncertain case law regarding the standard of proof necessary to prove fraud or misrepresentation against a licensee, settling on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which requires only evidence showing that such conduct is more likely than not.
The content you are trying to access is only available to members. Sorry.