from youarewithinthenorms.com
NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC., SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS, MD, PH.D., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., M.B.A., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., IN THE SPIRIT OF LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, AISHA GARDNER, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
The excerpt in this article from KevinMD.com titled “Why medical boards are facing growing backlash for abusing power,” by Dr. Kayvan Haddadan, MD, critiques the abusive power and problematic conduct of some medical boards, arguing they often stray from established judicial principles. Instead of seeking truth through evidence and due process, these boards are accused of twisting facts and creating arbitrary standards to validate preconceived conclusions, especially by their prosecutors. This unchecked authority, the text claims, undermines justice for physicians, forcing settlements and harming the broader healthcare system by distracting from patient care.
From: Dr. Mark Ibsen, MD..
“Excellent articles and thorough exploration make me think about my “cases” from the Board of Medicine, which have created vast amounts of debt for me to overcome.
In a new form of “swatting“, the Board of Medicine has drained me of my wealth. They falsely accuse me of absurd cases, which cost me $ 20,000-$30,000 each to defend. I’ve had three of those in one year. Then, after winning all three of those cases, they referred me to the federal government, which subpoenaed me.”
Why pain doctors face unfair scrutiny and harsh penalties in California
BY
August 20, 2025
Dr. Kayvan Haddadan, MD, is a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician in Roseville, CA, with over 25 years of experience in the medical field. Haddadan emphasizes, “Bias against pain physicians: outdated rules and Unqualified Experts.”
This extensive article, published in KevinMD, critiques the growing trend of medical surveillance in healthcare, arguing that techniques developed for corporate intelligence and national security are now being used to criminalize medical practice, particularly in pain management, as it points out;
“Disciplinary processes are perceived as biased against pain physicians due to outdated regulations and the use of unqualified experts. A California Research Bureau study (2003–2013) found disparities in discipline, with pain physicians and minority groups facing higher scrutiny. In this study, an analysis of 125,792 physician records and 32,978 complaint records was carried out to identify any evidence of disparate treatment in disciplinary outcomes..
..The use of paid experts, often lacking current expertise in pain management, compounds the issue. These experts, compensated to evaluate physicians, may rely on gut feelings to satisfy their hiring party rather than individualized, evidence-based approaches endorsed by opioid guidelines. This mismatch results in prolonged investigations—averaging 1,167 days—and damages physicians’ reputations and practices, even when allegations are unsubstantiated.
EVIDENCE OF STATE SPONSORED REGULATORY RACISM
These findings by the California Research Bureau from 2003 to 2013 sadly suggest that certain groups, including pain physicians and minority physicians, may have faced higher levels of scrutiny. The research highlighted potential issues of systemic racism, discrimination, and structural inequities within the medical licensing and disciplinary system, which can lead to disparities in access to health care resources and unequal treatment of physicians.
“Guidelines, rooted in pre-2016 opioid prescribing standards, fail to reflect advancements in evidence-based pain management, such as multimodal therapies or patient-centered care. Paid experts, often lacking board certification or adequate experience in pain medicine, may misjudge practices like interventional procedures or opioid tapering, leading to unfair accusations of misconduct.”
Lack of due process: a system stacked against physicians
Pain physicians also report inadequate due process in disciplinary proceedings. The process begins with the Central Complaint Unit (CCU) reviewing complaints, which may escalate to formal charges (an accusation) and a hearing before an administrative law judge.
However, the reliance on experts with limited knowledge of modern pain management undermines fairness. These experts may misinterpret complex cases involving chronic pain, leading to biased recommendations. The high standard of proof, “clear and convincing evidence to a reasonable certainty,” prolongs investigations, leaving physicians in limbo without clear communication about allegations.
The lack of transparency is particularly acute for pain physicians, who may face vague accusations of “not following the standard of care” without specific evidence. The physician-majority board (comprising eight physicians and seven public members) may also perpetuate biases, as its members may not be well-versed in the nuances of pain management. There are instances where pain physicians have faced prolonged investigations for prescribing practices that align with current standards, underscoring the need for due process reforms to ensure impartial hearings and timely updates.
What role do prosecutors play in this problematic system for medical boards?
Medical boards often deviate from legal principles by failing to uphold justice rooted in evidence and due process. Instead, they may create their own narratives, twist facts, and set arbitrary standards for assessing physician conduct. This unchecked power makes them appear to operate without proper accountability, resembling entities that prioritize their own agenda over fair legal processes.
Prosecutors working for medical boards are often described as having a “one-track mentality.” They relentlessly pursue validation for their preconceived conclusions, frequently disregarding any evidence that contradicts their stance. This approach deviates from impartial fact-finding and can severely damage physicians’ careers, labeling any objection as “lack of remorse.” Their motivation is often to prove themselves “right” rather than to uncover the truth.
OR SEND
TO CASH APP:$docnorm
ZELLE 3135103378
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
BE SURE TO DONATE TO THE MARK IBSEN GOFUNDME DEFENSE FUND, WHERE THE SON ALWAYS RISES!!!
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
REFERENCES:
“…LAW DESIGNED IN VAGUENESS CAN BE DESIGNED TO BE INTERPRETED EITHER WAY…”
from docnorm’s rule number #5., norman j clement,rph., dds
He graduated from the Faculty of Medicine at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in 1995. He is affiliated with medical facilities such as Adventist Health, Rideout, and Marshall Medical Center. He is accepting new patients and telehealth appointments.
