Board of Medical Examiners should post physicians’ information online

But I have a different beef with the board, and there’s no disputing this one. Two years ago, the board decided to remove information about malpractice judgments and settlements from its Web site … because, by golly, it was making some doctors look bad.

That information was a quick and easy way to see if someone had a slew of malpractice cases or one piddling $5,000 settlement that was more than likely nothing more than go-away money. It had been easy to access, but after June 2005 the helpful information disappeared. Poof.

Instead, the public can call the medical board and ask for the history of no more than two doctors per day. I learned this the day I tried to get the malpractice history of a handful of doctors whose names had surfaced in the federal investigation of doctors and lawyers allegedly working to drive up insurance costs in personal injury cases. Two doctors only today, call back tomorrow.

The board’s reasoning for removing malpractice information from its user-friendly Web site at www.medboard.nv.gov? The Nevada Legislature doesn’t require it to be posted … and it was making some doctors look bad.

Now there’s no legal prohibition against providing the information. After all, they did it for three years and it’s still available by phone.

The current Board Chairman Dr. Javaid Anwar argued the board should only put information on the Web site required by the Nevada Legislature. So if you want to check your doctor’s education and malpractice history, you can call 888-890-8210 and someone will quickly rattle off the information. But it would take a better note-taker than me to get it all down, particularly the synopsis of the malpractice cases.

So were the medical members of the Board of Examiners awash in malpractice cases in 2005? No.

Anwar, an internist, had one $10,000 malpractice settlement.

Dr. Stephen Montoya, the then-president and an obstetrician and gynecologist, had three, a $12,000 settlement in 1984, a $156,000 settlement in 1986 and a $250,000 settlement in 1989.

Dr. Joel Lubritz, ear, nose and throat specialist, had one in 1994 for $150,000.

Dr. Sohail Anjum, a cardiologist, had three. One in 1996 settled for $400,000. Another in 1996 settled for $700,000 and a third in 2000 for $50,000.

Drs. Charles Held and Cindy Lamerson have no malpractice settlements.

But when the decision was made two years ago to make the information more difficult to obtain, Montoya joined with Anwar in proposing to stick with only what the Nevada Legislature requires.

Montoya’s rationale: Many physicians are concerned about the information contained on the Web site regarding malpractice claims and settlements because it makes them appear like bad physicians.

Give the public a little credit. We can distinguish between a $5,000 nuisance suit and a $500,000 settlement. Or one settlement versus 22.

The Board of Medical Examiners is supposed to protect the public. Well, folks, part of protecting the public is providing information.

Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, is receptive to changing the law to require this information be placed back on the Web site. “The Legislature shouldn’t have to tell board and commissions how to design their Web sites,” she said Tuesday. “The more information that’s included, the better it is. There’s no sense not to make it available electronically if you can call up and get it.”

Buckley could take steps to change the law.

But why should the public have to wait until 2009?

This is something the board should be ashamed it’s not doing now. The board shouldn’t have to require the Legislature to “force it” to provide malpractice information.

The membership of the Board of Medical Examiners has changed since that wrong-headed vote in June 2005. Doesn’t anybody there today feel like they should reinstate the information because it’s the right thing to do?

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.