No More Continuances for Disciplinary Hearings?

At the Disciplinary Process Review Committee on August 28th, an idea was floated that I actually do not have a problem with, if it is done properly.

The idea is the TMB staff would generally end the granting of continuance requests. Ms. Robinson, the Director of Enforcement and current Interim Executive Director, reported to the Committee that she does not think the TMB staff can grant continuance requests anymore because it compounds the problem of delays in the Informal Settlement Conference (ISC) process (see last post). The problem is the TMB staff schedules the ISC, the board members show-up and they do not have a full day of meetings because someone has a conflict and cannot be present. It wastes the time of the Board members, the staff and it forces the hearing to be rescheduled, which slows the ISC process.

My Thoughts: First, I would assume the TMB staff would continue to take into consideration like tragic unexpected events, like serious illness, death in the family, or like current events, natural disasters, when considering continuance requests. Of course, TMB staff will grant continuances for things like that. This is only reasonable and I would believe very rare.

Second, I fail to see why the continuance issue has been a big problem if the TMB staff is following its own rules and policy in the letters we get for scheduling ISCs. The initial letter tells us that we have five days upon receipt to contact the Board to advise them of a conflict. If people are contacting the TMB within that time period, I should think filling the slot would not be too much of a burden for the staff. This is especially true as, generally, the TMB staff is giving us a good amount of time warning of the scheduling of an ISC. Maybe people are abusing the process? I do not know the situation or why continuance are being granted outside the policy of the Board.

But I believe I have the solution if TMB staff really wants to up a stop to continuances, but for emergencies. The TMB staff can coordinate schedules, especially with those of who to appear frequency at the TMB. TMB staff can simply call or e-mail the doctor’s attorney (or the doctor, if the individual is so foolish to appear without one) suggesting three or so dates and allowing the parties to mutually agree on dates. This process should certainly lessen conflicts rather than the current process of the TMB scheduling dates without any communication to the other side. Moreover, since the TMB is already setting ISCs months in advance, the TMB should be able to agree on date far in advance. Using this process, I think it would be far more difficult for people to suddenly claim a date is no good. And if they do have conflicts, that is know far ahead of time and the parties can agree on a date that benefits all sides the problem is solved. This will reduce the number of continuance request and demonstrate to the doctor (and the doctor’s attorney) the TMB is willing to work with them. This is a win-win for both the Board and physicians.