Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department of Public Health board declines to discuss optometrist fraud report after staff cautions against comment
Summary
At a Department of Public Health meeting, members declined to discuss a newspaper report that an optometrist in Bristol faces alleged Medicaid-fraud charges after staff warned an investigation and formal charging process would have to run first and that off-agenda discussion could prejudice a future hearing.
At a Department of Public Health meeting, the board declined to open a discussion about a newspaper report that an optometrist in Bristol was facing alleged Medicaid-fraud charges after staff cautioned that any investigation and charging process would be handled separately.
The chair raised the news item, asking whether the case would be within the board’s purview. The chair said, "I was reading something in the newspaper about an optom in Bristol who was had charges of Medicaid fraud," and asked whether the board would address it. Adenbaum (staff/counsel) responded that formal action would follow an investigation: "If there are charges brought by the department, before that could happen, an investigation would have to be conducted by the Department of Investigators. It could take weeks or months for any of that to get to you guys. ... If [charges are] filed with the public health hearing office," that is when the board would be formally made aware.
Adenbaum advised the members not to pursue informal discussion of the matter because it was not on the meeting agenda and because premature discussion could prejudice any future proceeding: "If you any for any further discussion of this matter, because it's not on the agenda, should probably be added to the agenda through a vote if you'd like to discuss it." Board members agreed they would not pursue the topic during the meeting.
Members also asked about the practical effect of a license surrender. The chair observed that if the practitioner surrendered the license there would likely be no need for a hearing: the chair said that if the practitioner "decided to surrender the license, then it probably wouldn't come before us anyway." Adenbaum agreed that a surrender would generally end the board's adjudicative role.
No formal action, charging decision, or disciplinary outcome was taken at the meeting. Staff’s explanation of investigatory and charging steps was the final procedural direction; members agreed not to reopen the subject without adding it to a future agenda.
