38 C.F.R. § 47.2

Reporting to State Licensing Boards

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the policy of VA to report to State Licensing Boards any currently employed licensed health care professional or separated licensed health care professional whose clinical practice during VA employment so significantly failed to meet generally accepted standards of clinical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the safety of patients. The following are examples of actions that meet the criteria for reporting:

(a) Significant deficiencies in clinical practice such as lack of diagnostic or treatment capability; errors in transcribing, administering or documenting medication; inability to perform clinical procedures considered basic to the performance of one's occupation; performing procedures not included in one's clinical privileges in other than emergency situations;

(b) Patient neglect or abandonment;

(c) Mental health impairment sufficient to cause the individual to behave inappropriately in the patient care environment;

(d) Physical health impairment sufficient to cause the individual to provide unsafe patient care;

(e) Substance abuse when it affects the individual's ability to perform appropriately as a health care provider or in the patient care environment;

(f) Falsification of credentials;

(g) Falsification of medical records or prescriptions;

(h) Theft of drugs;

(i) Inappropriate dispensing of drugs;

(j) Unethical behavior or moral turpitude;

(k) Mental, physical, sexual, or verbal abuse of a patient (examples of patient abuse include intentional omission of care, willful violation of a patient's privacy, willful physical injury, intimidation, harassment, or ridicule); and

(l) Violation of research ethics.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 7401-7405; Section 204(b) of Pub. L. 99-166, 99 Stat. 952-953; Pub. L. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3743) [63 FR 23665, Apr. 30, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: Kransky v. United States (9th Cir. 2025).
Kransky v. United States (9th Cir. 2025). “18 §§ 4, 11(c), 13; see also 38 C.F.R. § 47.2 ; 63 F.R. 23664 -01. Finally, although Kransky alleges that the agents fabricated evidence, she adduces no facts that permit such an inference.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.