Board tables consent order in telemedicine disciplinary case, seeks AG advice

The board voted unanimously to table a proposed consent order involving reciprocal discipline for conduct that a Mississippi board found occurred during telemedicine encounters, saying it wants legal advice about whether the Connecticut consent order should explicitly address the underlying misconduct.

Attorney Joel Newton summarized the department's recommendation. He said the respondent self-reported that Mississippi disciplined her for treating patients via telemedicine without establishing a valid physician–patient relationship and for relying on a questionnaire instead of performing a physical examination. "The consent order that you have in front of you includes a reprimand and a $2,500 civil penalty. She has also successfully completed coursework and ethics," Newton said.

Board members raised several concerns: some said the consent order did not clearly reference the underlying conduct that led to reciprocal discipline; others asked whether the matter had been or should be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank; and several members worried that online prescribing platforms could expose Connecticut residents to care outside standard clinical oversight.

Doctor Green said he would prefer the consent order to make the board's expectations explicit about not repeating the underlying conduct. "I would like to send this back to find out what it is that we can put in a consent order in this reciprocal discipline situation that would indicate our expectation that this physician is not going to engage in the conduct that was underlying the discipline," Green said.

Attorney Newton said the board may include additional terms if it wishes and offered to add a "whereas" clause stating the respondent agrees that, if she prescribes in Connecticut, she will establish an appropriate physician–patient relationship; he said he would need to consult the respondent's counsel. Board members requested formal legal advice from the attorney general's office about what language the board can add and whether the department can seek additional terms. A departmental attorney filling in for the AG's office advised the board that it could either vote on the matter that day or continue the matter to get AG guidance.

After discussion the board moved to table the matter to the next meeting with the expectation the department would consult the AG's office and follow up with Attorney Newton before the next hearing. The roll-call vote to table was unanimous (13–0), and the board instructed staff to return the matter with legal advice and any amended consent-order language for further consideration.