Main Menuhttp://www.vegasdesi.com/wp-admin/themes.php?page=options-framework#options-group-11

Charges Filed Against Dr. Ravi Ramanathan

The Investigative Committee (IC) of the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners issues its formal complaint against Dr. Ravi Ramanathan, owner of the Family Doctors of Green Valley.

The complaint alleges the Dr. Ramanathan is not certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties, or any other entity, in pain management. His specialty listed with the Board is family practice.  From 2008to 2012, Dr. Ravi Ramanathan provided medical care, including diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain for patients.

The established guidelines for the treatment of chronic pain, including the use of controlled substances, establish that physicians have a responsibility to minimize the potential for abuse and diversion of controlled substances and to follow related pain treatment policies.

The guidelines require, at a minimum, that a medical history and physical examination be obtained, evaluated and documented in the patient’s medical record. The medical record should document the nature and intensity of the pain, current and past treatments for pain along with history of substance abuse, and the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of a controlled substance.

It is alleged that Dr. Ramanathan failed to follow the model guidelines in his medical care and treatment of certain patients.

The complaint alleges that one of the patient’s medical records lack any documentation and/or evidence demonstrating the nature and intensity of the patient’s pain, the effect of pain on the patient’s ability to function and the presence of recognized medical indications for the use of controlled substances. Dr. Ramanathan failed to discuss diversion and substance abuse with this particular patient, failed to request that patient submit to a urine drug screen, failed to require that patient enter into a written treatment plan and failed to discharge patient.

Dr. Ramanathan’s other patient’s medical chart lacks sufficient medical documentation to justify ongoing pain treatment. Patient’s medical chart lacks consultations, studies, labs or treatment plans to quantify any objectivity to ongoing treatment and success or failure of treatment.

According to yet another patient’s medical records, Dr. Ramanathan did not perform a physical exam on Patient’s shoulder to determine the existence and location of continued pain. A review of patient’s medical records evidences that Dr. Ramanathan failed to perform musculoskeletal exams on patient, failed to refer patient for diagnostic testing, and failed to develop a treatment plan for a patient.

 

Dr. Ravi Ramanathan

 

Investigative Committee has charged Dr. Ramanathan with the following –

Medical Records Violation – Dr. Ramanathan failed to maintain accurate and/or complete medical records relating to the diagnosis, treatment and care of patients listed in the complaint.

Malpractice – Dr. Ramanathan failed to use the reasonable care, skill or knowledge ordinarily used under similar circumstances when treating the patients listed in the complaint, when he failed to follow the model guidelines when prescribing controlled substances.

Practicing Beyond the Scope of Training – Dr. Ramanathan is not trained in pain management and was performing services that he was not competent to perform or which were beyond the scope of his training.

Prohibited Professional Conduct – Nevada law provides that engaging in any conduct that the Board has determined is a violation of the standards of practice established by regulation of the Board is grounds for initiating disciplinary action against a licensee.

The medical records for patients do not document the nature and intensity of the pain, the effect of the pain on physical and psychological function, the medical records do not document the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of controlled substances.

Based on the Investigative Committee report, Dr. Ravi Ramanathan is subject to discipline by the Board and gave him notice that he may file an answer to the complaint herein within twenty (20) days of service of the complaint.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked as *

*

shares