The ruling pertains to my federal case against the Board. While parts of the case have been thrown out, it seems that I have been allowed to sue the members in their personal capacity.
What can I sue them for? As best I can tell, because I did not appeal the appeal court’s ruling in state court, I am essentially barred from suing the board for the conclusions of the hearing.
However, I have been allowed to continue the lawsuit regarding the Board’s order to have me undergo a psychological evaluation, since there was no evidence or discussion of any kind to support any type of mental disorder or substance abuse. I do not yet understand the implications of this. This order was the bulwark that allowed the board to suspend my license without a hearing, and led to a black mark against me in the National Practitioner Databank (NPD) that cannot ever be expunged. Which makes it almost impossible to get a future job, were I to seek one.
This judge contextualized what happened to me, discussing my background, my expertise, my advice to Congress and my quotes in major newspapers. This was in contrast to how the Board and the Assistant Attorneys General have repeatedly tried to characterize me, as a lazy and negligent practitioner, entirely wiping out my background. I almost cried when I read it.
The Board initially went after me for “misinformation.” When they eventually realized they were potentially subject to a First Amendment violation, they switched the charges around (twice) and went after me for various minor procedural things.
What the case seems to revolve around now is the very early Board actions, which were not part of the hearing since the misinformation charges were dropped and the order to undergo a psych eval has been mooted. The Board claimed their early efforts did not harm me. But of course they did—I had to immediately stop seeing patients with one day’s notice; I kept paying rent for a year, thinking things would resolve; I got a black mark in the NPD; and my reputation was destroyed—because most people figured that if there was smoke, there had to be a fire, somewhere.
An excerpt from today’s ruling is already online:

Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.