Maryland Considers Background Checks for Doctors

By Michael Klazema on 11/3/2014

According to a recent report from the Baltimore Sun, the Maryland Board of Physicians is in talks to propose new legislation for doctor background checks in the state. Interestingly, such a law is not already on the books in Maryland.

The legislative proposal that the Maryland Board of Physicians is considering has been in development since this summer, and would require all doctors working in the state to undergo criminal background checks. All physicians would have to pass a background check in order to earn a license to practice within Maryland, while the legislation would also stipulate periodic repeat checks for already-licensed doctors.

The inspiration for the legislation came earlier this year, when a Maryland doctor was accused of sexually assaulting an urgent care patient. The doctor had been practicing medicine in Maryland for the better part of two decades, and had even been a family practice physician in Catonsville.

After he was accused of assault, it came to light that the doctor had a serious criminal conviction on his record, from a 1987 case in which he raped a woman at gunpoint. The man was sentences to 10 years in prison for the crime, a sentence for which he only served four years before being released for good behavior. By 1996, he was in Maryland working as a doctor.

The man has since surrendered his license to practice medicine, a concession for which criminal investigators have agreed to drop charges in the recent sexual assault case. However, while this particular predator of a doctor may be out of the medical practice picture, at least in Maryland,he root of the problem still exists: a lack of background checks for doctors in the state.

The Baltimore Sun says that Maryland is one of 13 states that still do not require background checks for practicing doctors. Strangely, many other workers in the healthcare sphere, including nurses, therapists, and others, are required to go through background checks in Maryland. Those rules just don't apply to doctors.

And while the state board does ask physicians to disclose arrests or criminal convictions on their applications for licenses to practice, that doesn't necessarily mean that all doctors are honest about their pasts. The aforementioned doctor, for instance, only disclosed that he had assaulted someone; he didn't admit that the assault in question was rape with threat of a deadly weapon, and it's difficult to believe that the state would have licensed him with knowledge of such a crime.

As a result of all of this, the Maryland Board of Physicians is pushing for legislation that would make background checks a licensing requirement in the state. The measure is expected to garner a lot of support, and will likely ultimately end up being law.

The question, then, is why it took so long for something like this to become law. Why aren't we making sure that the people most trusted with our healthcare are trustworthy individuals? Why is there a double standard where nurses have to go through background checks to be licensed, but doctors to not? Why aren't hospitals and clinics doing their own background checks to make sure that no dangerous individuals are working within their walls? The thought that there is even one state without background checks for doctors is frightening; the fact that there are 13 states without that requirement is simply inexcusable.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.