The Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts Jurisprudence Examination Answers
Medical students, physicians, attorneys, and most importantly, patients, will likely raise an eyebrow if they see medical board exam answers posted online. Such a reaction is certainly justified, and I leave it to the reader to judge the ethics of this themselves.
The answers are from July 2016, and physicians should verify that their jurisprudence exam does not substantialy differ from the one posted below prior to mailing the answers to the Board.
Question two has garnered significant interest of missouri medical license applicants and is therefore discussed.
Question two asks if the state medical board of Missouri grants a license for private clinical practice?
Answer: No, they only grant a license for work in a hospital - with two caveats.
First, the state medical board has historically had significant difficulty figuring out what constitutes a hospital. For example, in the case of Dr. Surendra Chaganti, the medical board confused an "outpatient day-time clinic" with a hospital, and tried to punish Dr. Chaganti for not seeing a patient while they were in the "hospital" for 11 days. The patient came each day to the day-time psychiatry therapy groups and then went home...
Thus, since the decision making authority is statutorily placed in the hands of the state medical board, one cannot with assuredly predict whether or not physicians will be allowed to work in a private clinic practice. To be safe, call it a "partial hospitalization clinic," and the physicians on the board may become confused again.
To get the answer correct on the test, one must mark false, "granting a temporary license is only permitted in hospitals.
I would like to hear your comments and suggestions. One thing that the state medical board members such as Jeffrey D. Carter, MD, David A. Poggemeier, MD, and Bradley D. Freeman, MD, do not often discuss is patient care. What I mean, is that instead of communicating in an effective matter regarding the care of many patients with breast cancer - the doctors empowered their attorney to file false claims about the ischemic times in court.
It may seem unprofessional to post this online - and it is - but I am doing with the deliberate intent of addressing something that physician applicants commonly search for. While perusing the internet for news, stories, and high quality information about the state medical board of Missouri, I noticed that many people were searching for "jurisprudence exam answers."
This means, that there are likely hundreds of Missouri physicians licensed by the Board who attempted to cheat on their "medical license application" jurisprudence examination.
The test is by no means difficult - and I would gladly see such a physician. However, the medical board is knowingly creating an exam that is both public and online. It probably is not to assess knowledge as much as it is to defend themselves in the event of litigation - where a physician would say "but, I did not know - and you never said anything."
Many state medical boards have denied physicians a right to a fair trial because the Board, as (1) investigator, (2) prosecutor, (3) expert witness, and initially as (4) judge, they show partiality.
The Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts shows partiality in investigating, prosecuting, testifying, and judging.
Your comments, suggestions, and criticisms regarding the legality and ethics of this post are welcome. However, I do kindly as you to consider the following article - the first of a series - regarding the Missouri Board of Healing Arts
Please feel free to share and discuss how I should respond to the regulatory situation in a more professional manner. The state medical board refused to listen to me over several years - they heard, but they refused to listen. However, I gladly welcome your questions, comments, and criticisms, and I apologize in advance if I do not respond in a timely manner.
Thank you for reading this post.