Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Orthopedic Laser topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Medical board rejects proposed consent order for orthopedists tied to OrthoLaser clinic
Summary
The Connecticut Medical Examining Board voted to reject a proposed consent order for two orthopedic surgeons tied to a Southington clinic that used a “cold” laser device operated by unlicensed staff. Members said the proposed $5,000 civil penalty was too low and raised conflicts and informed-consent concerns during a lengthy debate.
The Connecticut Medical Examining Board on Wednesday voted to reject a proposed consent order for Dr. Jonathan Betts and a companion order for Dr. Bissell relating to treatments delivered at OrthoLaser, a Southington clinic where unlicensed staff operated a laser device, the board heard.
The board’s action came after more than an hour of discussion about whether the device was a “medical” laser requiring licensed operators, whether patients had received informed consent, and whether the proposed $5,000 civil penalty and cease-and-desist language adequately addressed the department’s allegations.
Attorney Ed Mayer, representing Dr. Betts and Dr. Bissell, told the board that the machine was a “cold laser” and disputed the department’s position that the treatments amounted to the unlicensed practice of medicine. Mayer said the doctors sought legal advice before opening the facility and were told they did not need a license to operate it. “Both doctor Betts and doctor Bissell went out and got legal counsel on this,” Mayer said, and the parties had negotiated the consent orders “after so many years.”
Attorney Joelle Fezzina, representing the Department of Public Health, said the department’s investigation obtained the device manual, which described the system as intended for use in a “professional health care facility” and included language suggesting physician evaluation and adjustable clinical parameters. Fezzina noted safety and scope issues and that the device was classified in the vendor manual as a higher‑power laser than simple over‑the‑counter light devices.
Multiple board members pushed back. Doctor Green and Doctor Wolf both said the consent order’s $5,000 penalty was too small given the allegations that unlicensed individuals provided treatments and that the physicians had financial interests in the clinic. Miss Jacqueline (board member) raised concerns about the physicians’ financial interest and said, “something smells here.” Several board members argued the fine should be increased to $10,000 or that the department should pursue a stronger enforcement action.
After discussion, Miss Jacqueline moved to not approve the consent order; Doctor Wolf seconded. On roll call the motion to not approve passed. The board clerk called the roll with multiple members voting to not approve; the meeting transcript shows the motion carried and the consent order was not approved.
Next steps were not finalized during the meeting; the board chair asked department staff to note the discussion and indicated the board would expect the department to consider next actions, which could include reworking proposed terms or pursuing separate charges.
The vote was a clear signal the board was not satisfied with the department’s negotiated resolution in this matter. Board members cited the unanswered questions about device classification, the role and qualifications of clinic staff, and possible financial conflicts as reasons to reject the settlement.
