The Board may issue a license to practice medicine, osteopathy, chiropractic, and podiatric medicine to any candidate who has submitted satisfactory evidence verified by affidavits that he:
1. Is 18 years of age or more;
2. Is of good moral character;
3. Has successfully completed all or such part as may be prescribed by the Board, of an educational course of study of that branch of the healing arts in which he desires a license to practice, which course of study and the educational institution providing that course of study are acceptable to the Board; and
4. Has completed at least 12 months of satisfactory postgraduate training in one program or institution approved by an accrediting agency recognized by the Board for internships or residency training. At the discretion of the Board, the postgraduate training may be waived if an applicant for licensure in podiatry has been in active practice for four continuous years while serving in the military and is a diplomate of the American Board of Podiatric Surgery. Applicants for licensure in chiropractic need not fulfill this requirement.
In determining whether such course of study and institution are acceptable to it, the Board may consider the reputation of the institution and whether it is approved or accredited by regional or national educational or professional associations, including such organizations as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Liaison Committee on Medical Education, Council on Postgraduate Training of the American Osteopathic Association, Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation, College of Family Physicians of Canada, Committee for the Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools, Education Commission on Foreign Medical Graduates, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, or their appropriate subsidiary agencies; by any appropriate agency of the United States government; or by any other organization approved by the Board.
Code 1950, § 54-305; 1952, c. 211; 1954, c. 626; 1972, c. 824; 1975, c. 508; 1982, c. 605; 1985, c. 605; 1988, cc. 89, 132, 765; 2013, c. 144; 2015, c. 525; 2017, cc. 59, 117.
Notes of Decisions
Last v. Virginia State Bd. of Med., 421 S.E.2d 201 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 110× “Last appeals a decision of the Circuit Court of Arlington County upholding the Virginia State Board of Medicine's (Board) [1] interpretation and application of Code § 54.1-2930, a state medical licensure statute.”
Griffett v. Ryan, 443 S.E.2d 149 (Va. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Geduldig met the educational and examination requirements for licensure in Virginia prescribed in Code § 54.1-2930. This statute states in relevant part: The Board [of Medicine] may admit to examination for licensure to practice medicine.”
Parikh v. Fam. Care Ctr., Inc., 641 S.E.2d 98 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Code § 54.1-2930, which specifies whom the Board of Medicine may admit to examination for licensure to practice medicine in Virginia, applies to individuals, not corporate entities.”
Gray v. Graves Mountain Lodge, Inc., 494 S.E.2d 866 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See also Code §§ 54.1-2930, -2932. In yet other parts of the Code, chiropractors are separately listed with physicians for various purposes.”
Last v. Virginia State Bd. of Med., 23 Va. Cir. 94 (1991).
· cites it 14× “Plaintiff’s appeal grounds include claims that (1) defendant ("the Board") wrongly interpreted and applied the 1988 amendment to Virginia Code Section 54.1-2930(4); and (2) that the Board’s action in denying plaintiff a Virginia license violated substantive due process afforded…”
Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2930(4): 2 cases
Last v. Virginia State Bd. of Med., 421 S.E.2d 201 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
“Last appeals a decision of the Circuit Court of Arlington County upholding the Virginia State Board of Medicine's (Board) [1] interpretation and application of Code § 54.1-2930, a state medical licensure statute.”
Last v. Virginia State Bd. of Med., 23 Va. Cir. 94 (1991).
“Plaintiff’s appeal grounds include claims that (1) defendant ("the Board") wrongly interpreted and applied the 1988 amendment to Virginia Code Section 54.1-2930(4); and (2) that the Board’s action in denying plaintiff a Virginia license violated substantive due process afforded…”
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.