Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Reinstatements And Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies foreign‑trained applicant, approves two reinstatements; flags ECFMG change and penalty-bill
Summary
The board declined to recommend licensure for a foreign‑trained applicant who did not meet the state’s equivalent‑training criteria and approved reinstatement for two physicians. Members also discussed an ECFMG policy change affecting Canadian graduates and a pending bill to raise maximum civil penalties.
At its meeting, the Connecticut Medical Examining Board declined to recommend licensure for an applicant who completed multiple fellowships but lacked the two years of ACGME‑accredited postgraduate training or supporting reference letters required under the state’s equivalent‑training regulations.
Celeste All Day of the practitioner licensing section presented the application. Board members raised concerns that the applicant had not completed two years of ACGME‑accredited residency training, was not board certified and had not provided a letter from a senior physician executive as required for an individual‑review petition. Doctor London explicitly said the applicant “does not meet the standard for licensure in Connecticut.” On roll call the board voted not to recommend licensure; members advised the applicant to provide a letter of reference and to reapply if additional documentation is available.
Separately, the board recommended reinstatement for Dr. Chan and for Dr. Cooney; both votes were recorded by roll call with no recorded objections. The reinstatements were presented as meeting statutory requirements for return to active practice.
In chair updates, Doctor Sauer and other members raised an informational item: an ECFMG (Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates) policy change that, effective July 1, brings Canadian graduates under the ECFMG certification process the same as other foreign‑trained applicants. Attorney Liz Bannon reminded the board that section 20‑10 of the state general statutes still envisions graduates from Canada in the statutory scheme for foreign‑trained applicants; she suggested the attorney general’s office may want to review the interaction between ECFMG policy and state statute.
Board member Miss Jacqueline also notified colleagues that a bill to raise the board’s maximum civil penalty from $10,000 to $25,000 had passed out of the public health committee and was awaiting action on the House calendar. She asked whether the board or department lobbyists could urge movement before the legislative session adjourned; the chair said she would inquire and asked members to consult the legislature’s website for committee membership.
The board’s licensing decisions and the ECFMG discussion underscore how federal or certifying‑body changes and state statute can interact with professional licensure rules. The board asked department staff to provide follow‑up information as requested by members.
