Section 225 ILCS 60/22 of the Illinois Medical Practice Act lists Discipinary Actions.

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation may discipline an Illinois Doctor for the following reasons:

(225 ILCS 60/22) (from Ch. 111, par. 4400-22)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on December 31, 2017)
Sec. 22. Disciplinary action.
(A) The Department may revoke, suspend, place on probation, reprimand, refuse to issue or renew, or take any other disciplinary or non-disciplinary action as the Department may deem proper with regard to the license or permit of any person issued under this Act, including imposing fines not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, upon any of the following grounds:
(1) Performance of an elective abortion in any place,

locale, facility, or institution other than:
(a) a facility licensed pursuant to the

Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act;
(b) an institution licensed under the Hospital

Licensing Act;
(c) an ambulatory surgical treatment center or

hospitalization or care facility maintained by the State or any agency thereof, where such department or agency has authority under law to establish and enforce standards for the ambulatory surgical treatment centers, hospitalization, or care facilities under its management and control;
(d) ambulatory surgical treatment centers,

hospitalization or care facilities maintained by the Federal Government; or
(e) ambulatory surgical treatment centers,

hospitalization or care facilities maintained by any university or college established under the laws of this State and supported principally by public funds raised by taxation.
(2) Performance of an abortion procedure in a wilful

and wanton manner on a woman who was not pregnant at the time the abortion procedure was performed.
(3) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere, finding of

guilt, jury verdict, or entry of judgment or sentencing, including, but not limited to, convictions, preceding sentences of supervision, conditional discharge, or first offender probation, under the laws of any jurisdiction of the United States of any crime that is a felony.
(4) Gross negligence in practice under this Act.
(5) Engaging in dishonorable, unethical or

unprofessional conduct of a character likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public.
(6) Obtaining any fee by fraud, deceit, or

misrepresentation.
(7) Habitual or excessive use or abuse of drugs

defined in law as controlled substances, of alcohol, or of any other substances which results in the inability to practice with reasonable judgment, skill or safety.
(8) Practicing under a false or, except as provided

by law, an assumed name.
(9) Fraud or misrepresentation in applying for, or

procuring, a license under this Act or in connection with applying for renewal of a license under this Act.
(10) Making a false or misleading statement regarding

their skill or the efficacy or value of the medicine, treatment, or remedy prescribed by them at their direction in the treatment of any disease or other condition of the body or mind.
(11) Allowing another person or organization to use

their license, procured under this Act, to practice.
(12) Adverse action taken by another state or

jurisdiction against a license or other authorization to practice as a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, doctor of osteopathic medicine or doctor of chiropractic, a certified copy of the record of the action taken by the other state or jurisdiction being prima facie evidence thereof. This includes any adverse action taken by a State or federal agency that prohibits a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, doctor of osteopathic medicine, or doctor of chiropractic from providing services to the agency’s participants.
(13) Violation of any provision of this Act or of the

Medical Practice Act prior to the repeal of that Act, or violation of the rules, or a final administrative action of the Secretary, after consideration of the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board.
(14) Violation of the prohibition against fee

splitting in Section 22.2 of this Act.
(15) A finding by the Disciplinary Board that the

registrant after having his or her license placed on probationary status or subjected to conditions or restrictions violated the terms of the probation or failed to comply with such terms or conditions.
(16) Abandonment of a patient.
(17) Prescribing, selling, administering,

distributing, giving or self-administering any drug classified as a controlled substance (designated product) or narcotic for other than medically accepted therapeutic purposes.
(18) Promotion of the sale of drugs, devices,

appliances or goods provided for a patient in such manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the physician.
(19) Offering, undertaking or agreeing to cure or

treat disease by a secret method, procedure, treatment or medicine, or the treating, operating or prescribing for any human condition by a method, means or procedure which the licensee refuses to divulge upon demand of the Department.
(20) Immoral conduct in the commission of any act

including, but not limited to, commission of an act of sexual misconduct related to the licensee’s practice.
(21) Wilfully making or filing false records or

reports in his or her practice as a physician, including, but not limited to, false records to support claims against the medical assistance program of the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (formerly Department of Public Aid) under the Illinois Public Aid Code.
(22) Wilful omission to file or record, or wilfully

impeding the filing or recording, or inducing another person to omit to file or record, medical reports as required by law, or wilfully failing to report an instance of suspected abuse or neglect as required by law.
(23) Being named as a perpetrator in an indicated

report by the Department of Children and Family Services under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, and upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the licensee has caused a child to be an abused child or neglected child as defined in the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act.
(24) Solicitation of professional patronage by any

corporation, agents or persons, or profiting from those representing themselves to be agents of the licensee.
(25) Gross and wilful and continued overcharging for

professional services, including filing false statements for collection of fees for which services are not rendered, including, but not limited to, filing such false statements for collection of monies for services not rendered from the medical assistance program of the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (formerly Department of Public Aid) under the Illinois Public Aid Code.
(26) A pattern of practice or other behavior which

demonstrates incapacity or incompetence to practice under this Act.
(27) Mental illness or disability which results in

the inability to practice under this Act with reasonable judgment, skill or safety.
(28) Physical illness, including, but not limited to,

deterioration through the aging process, or loss of motor skill which results in a physician’s inability to practice under this Act with reasonable judgment, skill or safety.
(29) Cheating on or attempt to subvert the licensing

examinations administered under this Act.
(30) Wilfully or negligently violating the

confidentiality between physician and patient except as required by law.
(31) The use of any false, fraudulent, or deceptive

statement in any document connected with practice under this Act.
(32) Aiding and abetting an individual not licensed

under this Act in the practice of a profession licensed under this Act.
(33) Violating state or federal laws or regulations

relating to controlled substances, legend drugs, or ephedra as defined in the Ephedra Prohibition Act.
(34) Failure to report to the Department any adverse

final action taken against them by another licensing jurisdiction (any other state or any territory of the United States or any foreign state or country), by any peer review body, by any health care institution, by any professional society or association related to practice under this Act, by any governmental agency, by any law enforcement agency, or by any court for acts or conduct similar to acts or conduct which would constitute grounds for action as defined in this Section.
(35) Failure to report to the Department surrender of

a license or authorization to practice as a medical doctor, a doctor of osteopathy, a doctor of osteopathic medicine, or doctor of chiropractic in another state or jurisdiction, or surrender of membership on any medical staff or in any medical or professional association or society, while under disciplinary investigation by any of those authorities or bodies, for acts or conduct similar to acts or conduct which would constitute grounds for action as defined in this Section.
(36) Failure to report to the Department any adverse

judgment, settlement, or award arising from a liability claim related to acts or conduct similar to acts or conduct which would constitute grounds for action as defined in this Section.
(37) Failure to provide copies of medical records as

required by law.
(38) Failure to furnish the Department, its

investigators or representatives, relevant information, legally requested by the Department after consultation with the Chief Medical Coordinator or the Deputy Medical Coordinator.
(39) Violating the Health Care Worker Self-Referral

Act.
(40) Willful failure to provide notice when notice is

required under the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995.
(41) Failure to establish and maintain records of

patient care and treatment as required by this law.
(42) Entering into an excessive number of written

collaborative agreements with licensed advanced practice nurses resulting in an inability to adequately collaborate.
(43) Repeated failure to adequately collaborate with

a licensed advanced practice nurse.
(44) Violating the Compassionate Use of Medical

Cannabis Pilot Program Act.
(45) Entering into an excessive number of written

collaborative agreements with licensed prescribing psychologists resulting in an inability to adequately collaborate.
(46) Repeated failure to adequately collaborate with

a licensed prescribing psychologist.

Advertisements
Section 225 ILCS 60/22 of the Illinois Medical Practice Act lists Discipinary Actions.

Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Discipline

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation publishes a monthly report detailing disciplinary action taken by the Department. Each disciplinary report lists all licensees disciplined by the Department within a given month. It includes the name of the disciplined professional, the city where the licensee is registered, the discipline imposed and a brief description of the reason for the discipline. All monthly disciplinary reports are accurate on the date of issuance or initial date of publication. However, disciplinary actions may be subject to further court orders that may stay, affirm, reverse, remand or otherwise alter Division disciplinary orders. For the current status of a license, and a summary of discipline (if any), please refer to the various License Look-up features for Professionals or Businesses such as Credit Unions or Consumer Lenders and Banks or Mortgage Companies (and their staff).

Please note that a discipline that has been stayed or reversed will not appear in the summary of the discipline.

Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Discipline

Illinois Medical Practice Act Regulates Licensure and Discipline

Licensure The Act speci es many details regarding medical licensure, including: • Requirements for medical education and tness for licensure; • The term of each license and conditions for renewal; • Continuing medical education requirements; • Licensure fees and the purposes for which they may be used; and • General terms under which medical students, residents, and visiting physicians may practice. Discipline The Act also speci es many details regarding medical discipline, including: • Penalties for practicing medicine without a license or beyond the scope of one’s license; • What disciplinary actions may be taken by IDFPR, including restriction, suspension, or revocation of licenses; • 43 speci c grounds for discipline, ranging from gross negligence to record-keeping failures; • Fines that may be levied by IDFPR in addition to any disciplinary action; and • Requirements for con dentiality of all materials related to disciplinary proceedings.

Illinois Medical Practice Act Regulates Licensure and Discipline

What is the Illinois Medical Practice Act

The Illinois Medical Practice Act is an essential state law that governs the practice of medicine in our state; without it, any person regardless of quali cation could practice medicine in Illinois without restriction or penalty. Because medicine is an ever-changing eld, the Act is set to expire on a regular basis, enabling the legislature to ensure that the law keeps pace with the current state of medical practice. Unfortunately, this regular expiration has also allowed politicians and interest groups to use this indispensable piece of legislation as a tool for exercising political in uence.

What is the Illinois Medical Practice Act

Illinois Department of Financial Professional and Regulation sister state discipline.

Many doctors have licenses in more than one state.  Whether you have actively use your license or just have it just in case, a discipline in one state is likely to lead to a discipline in another.  The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation will often mirror the discipline of another state.  There is no hard and fast rule in the Illinois Medical Practice Act that Illinois MUST follow the discipline of another state.  Some states are harder on doctors than others.  Illinois is harder than some and more lenient than others.  Just becuase a state has disciplined you does not mean that you MUST get the same punishment in Illinois.  A doctor disciplined in one state has the right to a hearing in Illinois, not to dispute the fact that the doctor was disciplined (unless that is actually the case) but to show that the discipline in Illinois should be less restrictive.

Illinois Department of Financial Professional and Regulation sister state discipline.

Medical Staff Privileges-Don’t Resign without a Written Agreement

All doctors want to avoid the National Practitioner Data Bank, becuase it is routinely monitored by hospitals, state licensing boards, Medicare and Medicaid and insurance companies.  A discipline in the Data Bank can be fatal to a doctors career.  According to the Data Bank, a doctor must be reported for certain disciplines that last longer than 30 days, or for resigning from a Medical Staff to avoid an ongoing investigation of that doctors medical staff privileges.  Many doctors, when confronted by the hospital CEO or the Chair of their Department feel pressured to leave a medical staff without any written agreement.  Many times the CEO or Chair mean the doctor no harm.  Sometimes they do.  But even when no harm is intended, the CEO or Chair are not familiar with the reporting requirements of the Data Bank, and once the matter is brought the the hospital’s attorney, it is determined that a report must be made.  At that point it is too late.  Doctors must protect against such a report by getting an agreement in writing that there will be no report, BEFORE they resign.

Medical Staff Privileges-Don’t Resign without a Written Agreement

Doctor-Patient Confidentiality Under attack

 

This week the Supreme Court of the State of Washington heard arguments in a case that has profound implications for the doctor-patient relationship.

In the case, Volk v. DeMeerleer, a psychiatrist, Howard Ashby, was sued after a patient of his, Jan DeMeerleer, shot and killed an ex-girlfriend and her 9-year-old son before killing himself. (Mr. DeMeerleer also stabbed another son, who survived.) The estate of the victims, Rebecca and Phillip Schiering, took legal action, arguing that Dr. Ashby was liable because he had not warned the Schierings. A lower court ruled in Dr. Ashby’s favor on the grounds that Mr. DeMeerleer, who had occasionally voiced homicidal fantasies, had made no specific threats toward the Schierings during his treatment.

Throughout history, doctor-patient confidentiality has been a cornerstone of Western medical practice. The duty to keep patients’ information private is written into the codes of ethics of medical organizations, and is even in the Hippocratic oath: “What I may see or hear in the course of treatment,” it says, “I will keep to myself.”

Patients allow physicians into their private lives on the condition that the information we learn will not be used against them. I once took care of a business executive in the emergency room who had hired call girls during a weekend drug binge. When he saw a police officer outside his room, he quietly handed me an envelope containing a large amount of white powder. I wasn’t sure what to do with it, so I discarded it. For the next several hours the patient eyed me suspiciously, probably wondering whether I had ratted him out. But it never occurred to me to do so.

Of course, like all ethical imperatives, doctor-patient confidentiality is not absolute. Doctors have to disclose private information when it is clearly in the patient’s interest (documenting a drug allergy in the medical record, for example) or when it comes to complying with a court order (as in cases of child abuse). We must also betray confidentiality when it is in the “public interest” (reporting infectious diseases, for example).

The duty to warn third parties in danger is also an important exception to confidentiality. We publicly disclose the identities of sex offenders. We alert family members when hereditary diseases in our patients come to light. A colleague of mine once took care of a patient, a school bus driver, who received an implantable defibrillator after suffering cardiac arrhythmias. When my colleague advised the man to quit his job because of the potential risk to young children, the man refused, so my colleague reported him to the Department of Motor Vehicles. It was an action that my colleague felt very comfortable taking, even though it created an irreparable rift in that relationship.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

In the same vein, doctors have a duty to warn individuals who are threatened by their patients with bodily harm. This obligation was largely shaped by the seminal 1976 case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, in which the Supreme Court of California ruled that mental health professionals had a responsibility to protect the intended victims of their violent patients through direct warning or by notifying the police. As Justice Matthew Tobriner famously wrote in the majority opinion, “The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.” The case has served as a basis for law in 33 states obligating physicians to warn or protect third parties.

However, the Tarasoff case has generally been interpreted to confer an obligation to warn individuals who are specifically targeted by psychiatric patients. The lower court in Washington observed that Jan DeMeerleer communicated no threats toward the Schierings during his treatment. Predicting when violence will occur or where it will be directed is difficult under the most straightforward of circumstances. When the threat is not articulated, it is next to impossible.

The World Medical Association states that confidentiality may be breached when the expected harm of maintaining privacy is believed to be “imminent, serious” and “unavoidable.” This standard does not appear to have been met in the case before the Washington Supreme Court.

Breaching doctor-patient confidentiality in such situations will likely be self-defeating. Mentally ill patients may not seek treatment, and psychiatrists, saddled with new legal liabilities, may decline to treat them. We are more likely to minimize harm if the confidence of patients at the greatest risk for violence is maintained.

 

Doctor-Patient Confidentiality Under attack