Report: #1382382

Complaint Review: Medical Examiners Board, State of Nevada

  • Submitted: Fri, June 30, 2017
  • Updated: Fri, July 28, 2017
  • Reported By: L.G. — Stateline Nevada USA
  • Medical Examiners Board, State of Nevada
    1105 Terminal Way # 301
    Reno, Nevada
    USA

Medical Examiners Board, State of Nevada Dr. Rachakonda, Mr. Heitt, and other Investigative Committee members Medical Board not doing its job Reno Nevada

*Author of original report: Nevada Medical Board's term "medical assistant/physician assistant"

*Author of original report: update

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

My partial 2016 letter (limited space here) to Nevada Medical Board.  They did not respond.

[Note: I'm currently posting here on this consumper complaint board because my Google post gets removed from the NV Med Board's business search pop-up.  Note: There are zero google reviews posted there for the NV Med Board?  Do those posts get deleted?

 

Dear Mr. Rachakonda, Mr. Heitt, and other Investigative Committee members of the Nevada Medical Board:

Is the Nevada Medical Board truly available to help the consumer or not? 

You write that my case is closed but you provide no specific findings in your investigation.

NRS 630.11 states there must be "reasonable basis for the complaint."  A medical expert in my case determined that the facial "damage is real" as shown in [my dated] photographs with "pronounced change"....

The Board apparently decided to overlook this fact and gave no reason why.  Please explain why the Board chose to do nothing with this information....patients will be harmed and providers and overseers who are expected to uphold a standard of ethics will not be held accountable.

I sought treatment from a licensed medical practitioner for one acne spot and was treated [excessively in areas other than target spot] by two technicians with no licenses....I request your responses:

 

NRS 630.305 involving:

1) aiding practice by unlicensed person.  I still have not been provided information from the Board or the dermatology office about either technician's certification/licensing information. (The Board finds that acceptable??)

2) delegating responsibility to unqualified person (unqualified for whatever reason--be it psychological, wrongful intent, drug-related, etc.)

 

NAC630.370 involving:

1) supervising physician is responsible for all medical activities of his or her physician assistant

 

NAC 630.360 involving:

performance of authorized medical services; identification; misrepresentation

--physician's assistant authorized to perform must be

1) commensurate with education, training, experience and level of competence

2) shall wear at all times while on duty a placard, plate, or insigne which identifies him or her as a physician's assistant

3) no physician's assistant may represent himself or herself in any manner which would tend to mislead the general public or the patients

 

NRS 630.306 involving:

1) deceptive conduct (such as a consent form/contract which does not disclose all possible facial changes from lasering job, or the fact that consent form does not comply with its promise that "photographs will be taken....Photographs may be used for educational purposes," yet neither of these dermatology office claims/promises occurred.

2) practice beyond scope of license

3) certain operation of medical facility [which would include laser machines]

4) engaging in unsafe or unprofessional conduct

5) failure to supervise medical assistant adequately

6) intoxication (was the technician under the influence of a drug, I wonder?)

 

NRS 630.3062 involving:

1) failure to allow inspection and copying of medical records (dermatology office put up barriers to my requests)

2) failure to file and obstructing required report (dermatology office unethically would not provide my lawyer with their malpractice policy information and I was therefore unable to proceed in pursuing a legal case)

 

NRS 630.3065 involving:

1) failure to perform legal obligation (as stated above, dermatology office would not provide my lawyer with their malpractice insurance information; consequently, no legal action could be taken on my part)

2) faliure to comply with law, subpoena or order

 

NRS 630.3067 involving:

1) insurer or physician required to report certain information concerning malpractice (as already stated, dermatology office obstructed my efforts to file a complaint)

 

When patients suffer from sub-standard medical practices, their complaints may be covered up by those in power rather than be adequately addressed....Nevada is lax in its lasering regulations in comparison to other states. JAMA and the AAD appear to be scrutinizing the evolving "treatment" practice of lasering and its hazards and its unknown, unreported, and non-researched consequences.  The ultimate goal is that all doctors honor their patients' trust and that they act ethically and responsibly in caring for their patients.

 

Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/30/2017 02:11 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/medical-examiners-board-state-of-nevada/reno-nevada-89502/medical-examiners-board-state-of-nevada-dr-rachakonda-mr-heitt-and-other-investigati-1382382. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author
0Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#1 Author of original report

Nevada Medical Board's term "medical assistant/physician assistant"

AUTHOR: - ()

The laser technicians signed off as "medical assistants" in the dermatology office paperwork, which is the same title these Nevada laws (NAC/NRS 630 codes) are referring to.

Respond to this report!

#2 Author of original report

update

AUTHOR: - ()

Dr. Alan Anthony writes on healthgrades.com that the techs aren't licensed, yet his and Dr. Salm's dermatology office claimed in writing that tech Samantha Reith was "Board Certified Aesthetician" practicing "medical aesthetics.”  Samantha Reith has no NV Board license.  Furthermore, NV “aestheticians” are prevented by law from lasering.  (The office would also not disclose even the name of another tech who lasered me.) Doctor's office brochure also stated "Vbeam laser treatments performed properly, by a trained physician, are safe and effective," which implies Vbeam laser treatments not performed by a trained medical doctor greatly increases patient risks, a topic in the medical literature that I submitted to the Nevada Medical Board from different medical/health resources.  The doctor subsequently referred me to a cosmetic surgeon because of the harm done.

If we cannot trust our Board to protect consumers, whom can we trust and what message does that send to doctors?  This is my second bad encounter over the years with the Board's inaction.  Understandably, the Board has a history of ranking poorly in the United States in comparison to other state medical boards for job performance towards the consumer.  I advocate for change.

Related complaints with regard to other organizations/people may already be filed on this ripoff.com website due to apparent widespread collusion in protecting doctors over consumers in this type of case.  Other organizations/names also of no or minimal help in my case were the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the Better Business Bureaus [Reno, Nevada; Chicago, IL; Washington, D.C]; the Federation of State Medical Boards; dermatologist Dr. Eric Smith in Placerville, California; JAMA-Dermatology; American Medical Experts, LLC.; Candella Corporation; Nevada Board of Cosmetology; media news sources associated with the 2004 investigative story on the Medical Board of Examiners for the state of Nevada; the American Board of Dermatology; Nevada senators; NV assemblywomen and assemblymen; Dr. Alan Anthony and Samantha Reith at Advanced Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology in Stateline, NV, where the lasering occurred; Dr. Brett Coldiron, previous AAD President, who wrote the "Elephant in the Room of Dermatology" article about this very subject (who provided no response to me); and Dr. Jeffrey Dover of Brookline, MA, who also declined a response but who was quoted on the AAD website as saying "Where we see a problem [with lasering] is lack of oversight, education, knowledge, and judgment...If one of those is missing, there's a potential problem. If all four of those are missing, you're really asking for trouble" (www.aaa.org/monthly/2014/September/safety-first#all pages).

Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.