The board is authorized to restrict, suspend or revoke the license or limit the right to practice of a physician or take any other action in accordance with section
19a-17, for any of the following reasons: (1) Physical illness or loss of motor skill, including, but not limited to, deterioration through the aging process; (2) emotional disorder or mental illness; (3) abuse or excessive use of drugs, including alcohol, narcotics or chemicals; (4) illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of medicine; (5) possession, use, prescription for use, or distribution of controlled substances or legend drugs, except for therapeutic or other medically proper purposes; (6) misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact in the obtaining or reinstatement of a license to practice medicine; (7) failure to adequately supervise a physician assistant; (8) failure to fulfill any obligation resulting from participation in the National Health Service Corps; (9) failure to maintain professional liability insurance or other indemnity against liability for professional malpractice as provided in subsection (a) of section
20-11b; (10) failure to provide information requested by the department for purposes of completing a health care provider profile, as required by section
20-13j; (11) engaging in any activity for which accreditation is required under section
19a-690 without the appropriate accreditation required by section
19a-690; (12) failure to provide evidence of accreditation required under section
19a-690 as requested by the department pursuant to section
19a-690; (13) failure to comply with the continuing medical education requirements set forth in section
20-10b; or (14) violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation established hereunder. In each case, the board shall consider whether the physician poses a threat, in the practice of medicine, to the health and safety of any person. If the board finds that the physician poses such a threat, the board shall include such finding in its final decision and act to suspend or revoke the license of said physician.
(P.A. 76-276, S. 3, 22; P.A. 77-614, S. 354, 610; P.A. 80-484, S. 15, 176; P.A. 81-471, S. 7, 71; P.A. 90-211, S. 10, 23; P.A. 91-105, S. 3, 4; P.A. 92-40; P.A. 94-71, S. 7; P.A. 99-284, S. 34; P.A. 01-50, S. 3, 4; P.A. 05-275, S. 21; P.A. 14-231, S. 46.)
History: P.A. 77-614 added Subdiv. (8) allowing restriction, suspension or revocation of license etc. for violations of chapter or related regulations, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-484 replaced “certificate of registration” with “license” and deleted Subdiv. (7) prohibiting advertising which may deceive the public, renumbering Subdiv. (8) accordingly; P.A. 81-471 deleted reference to “certificate” in Subdiv. (6); P.A. 90-211 added failure to adequately supervise a physician assistant as ground for disciplinary action; P.A. 91-105 amended section to require the board to make determination concerning any threat presented by a physician to the health and safety of patients; P.A. 92-40 inserted new Subdiv. (8) concerning failure to fulfill obligations resulting from participation in the National Health Service Corps, renumbering former Subdiv. (8) as (9); P.A. 94-71 inserted new Subdiv. (9) concerning failure to maintain professional liability insurance or other indemnity against liability for professional malpractice and renumbered former Subdiv. (9) as (10); P.A. 99-284 inserted new Subdiv. (10) re failure to provide profile information, renumbering former Subdiv. (10) as (11), and made technical changes; P.A. 01-50 added new Subdivs. (11) and (12) re accreditation requirements and redesignated former Subdiv. (11) as Subdiv. (13), effective July 1, 2001; P.A. 05-275 added new Subdiv. (13) including failure to comply with continuing medical education requirements of Sec. 20-10b as ground for disciplinary action and redesignated existing Subdiv. (13) as Subdiv. (14); P.A. 14-231 deleted references to Sec. 19a-691.
Cited. 207 C. 346; 208 C. 492; 223 C. 618; 228 C. 651. Standard of proof in cases involving physician discipline before the Connecticut Medical Examining Board is by a preponderance of the evidence. 309 C. 727.
Cited. 24 CA 662; judgment reversed, see 223 C. 618; 37 CA 694. Physician disciplinary proceedings, unlike attorney discipline proceedings, are governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act in Ch. 54, and the preponderance of the evidence standard is the appropriate standard of proof in Ch. 54 proceedings. 129 CA 575.
Cited. 40 CS 188.
Notes of Decisions
Pet v. Dep't of Health Servs., 638 A.2d 6 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 17× “Selig testified about the Department’s charges that the plaintiff violated General Statutes § 20-13c in connection with his employment of patients, his management of the ‘transference phenomenon,’ his alleged sexual contact with patients, his conduct of a ‘sexological…”
Solomon v. Connecticut Med. Examining Bd., 859 A.2d 932 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 8× “On February 20, 2001, the department of public health (department) presented the defendant with a motion for summary suspension of the plaintiffs license to practice medicine in this state, pursuant to General *856 Statutes § 19a-17 (a) (7) (B) 1 and brought charges against him…”
Pet v. Dep't of Health Servs., 542 A.2d 672 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “1 The department alleged that the plaintiff, Donald Pet, a psychiatrist, had violated General Statutes § 20-13c 2 by, inter alia, not providing proper psychiatric care and treatment to certain patients.”
Dragan v. Connecticut Med. Examining Bd., 613 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiff violated General Statutes § 20-13c by prescribing certain controlled drugs for Connor ‘in amounts exceeding therapeutic or other medically proper purposes.”
Dragan v. Connecticut Med. Examining Bd., 591 A.2d 150 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiff violated General Statutes § 20-13c by prescribing certain controlled drugs for Connor “in amounts exceeding therapeutic or other medically proper purposes.”
Doe v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 727 A.2d 260 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 4× “On that day, the department filed charges against the plaintiff that alleged that the plaintiff had engaged in illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of medicine in violation of General Statutes § 20-13c (4), 4 and requested that the board take appropriate…”
Towbin v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 801 A.2d 851 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 3× “” The courtproperly distinguished General Statutes § 20-192 from General Statutes § 20-13c, which governs the actions of the Connecticut medical examining board.”
Seery v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 554 A.2d 757 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
“te society or any county society or any physician or hospital shall within thirty *541 days, and the board or any individual may, file a petition when such society, physician or hospital or said board or individual has any information which appears to show that a physician is or…”
Fink v. Magner, 988 F. Supp. 70 (D. Conn. 1997).
· cites it 5× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 20-13c includes, among others, the following grounds for restriction, suspension or revocation of a physician's right to practice: “illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of medicine.”
Fink v. Magner, 988 F. Supp. 74 (D. Conn. 1997).
· cites it 5× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 20-13c includes, among others, the following grounds for restriction, suspension or revocation of a physician’s right to practice: "illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of medicine.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-13c(7): 2 cases
Fink v. Magner, 988 F. Supp. 70 (D. Conn. 1997).
“Conn.Gen.Stat. § 20-13c includes, among others, the following grounds for restriction, suspension or revocation of a physician's right to practice: “illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of medicine.”
Fink v. Magner, 988 F. Supp. 74 (D. Conn. 1997).
“Conn. Gen.Stat. § 20-13c includes, among others, the following grounds for restriction, suspension or revocation of a physician’s right to practice: "illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of medicine.”
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.