Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Action topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board finds MD not guilty on diagnosis charge but guilty on assisting unlicensed practice, orders ethics course
Summary
After a contested hearing about an IV hydration clinic, the State Board of Medical Licensure cleared Dr. Richard E. Cook of one charge but found him guilty on two other counts related to assisting unlicensed practice and unprofessional conduct; the board ordered completion of a board‑approved medical ethics course.
The State Board of Medical Licensure held a disciplinary hearing May 22 on allegations related to an IV hydration clinic where Dr. Richard E. Cook served as a contracted medical director. The case focused on three charges: failure to satisfy prescribing rules (charge 1), assisting the unlicensed practice of medicine (charge 2), and unprofessional conduct (charge 3).
Board counsel presented invoices showing supplies and compounded products ordered in Dr. Cook's name, standing order sets bearing his signature and date, and clinic medical records for multiple patients. Counsel argued that the model at issue (a nurse‑owned IV clinic using asynchronous intake plus standing orders) amounted to delegation that did not meet Mississippi requirements for a valid practitioner‑patient relationship and that the licensee's role improperly enabled non‑physicians to diagnose or prescribe.
Dr. Cook testified he served as a 1099 medical director under contract with a staffing/operations company and an RN‑owned clinic, that his role was primarily administrative and protocol development, and that he did not personally evaluate or treat the clinic's patients in the clinic setting. He said he terminated his relationship with the company when he learned the nurse practitioner had listed him as a collaborating physician without his agreement; he also provided continuing education documentation and a clean NPDB record.
After deliberation in executive session the board announced the following findings: not guilty on Count 1 (prescribing rule violation); guilty on Count 2 (assisting unlicensed practice) and Count 3 (unprofessional conduct). The board ordered Dr. Cook to complete a board‑approved medical ethics course within six months. The board instructed staff to coordinate details of the course and any follow‑up reporting requirements. The board made no separate monetary sanction public at the meeting.
The action reflects the board's interpretation that signing standing order sets and allowing orders and compounded supplies to be procured and used under the licensee's credentials can, in context, constitute assistance to non‑physicians practicing medicine beyond authorized delegation. Dr. Cook will work with the executive director on how to complete the ethics requirement.
