Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves companion consent orders, including $10,000 civil penalties, in unlicensed laser-practice cases
Summary
The Department of Public Health approved two companion consent orders resolving allegations that unlicensed individuals used an orthopedic laser device for pain treatment; the revised orders include $10,000 civil penalties and the department said the laser practice has been closed since about August 2024.
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Department of Public Health practitioner licensing board voted to approve revised consent orders in two companion matters involving unlicensed use of an orthopedics laser device.
Attorney Fezzina, representing the department, told the board the revised consent orders include a civil penalty of $10,000 and that "the laser practice has been closed since, in or about August 2024." The matter had been before the board previously and members at that time had expressed a preference for a larger civil penalty; the parties agreed to the increased amount in the revised orders.
Counsel for the respondents, Attorney Ed Mayer, said the doctors and staff involved had believed licensing was not required for the model they used and that the ortholaser in question is an "FDA cleared device." Mayer said the respondents pursued the modality as a nonopioid option for pain management and that they had obtained legal and facility-level advice while setting up the practice.
Board members questioned the timing and noted the respondents had appeared before the board previously. Several members said the revised penalty was appropriate given the history. The board approved the consent order in the first matter by roll-call and then approved the companion consent order; the votes were recorded in the meeting minutes.
The orders resolve allegations about unlicensed practice and include the civil penalties and monitoring provisions spelled out in the consent documents. The board did not discuss additional licensing requirements in session; the department representative explained that the facility-side staff had previously advised the respondents concerning licensing applicability.

