Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER
Dr. Jones is a new applicant to obtain a license practice medicine in the state of Utopia Examiners (a hypothetical 51st state of the United States). His application, however sits at the Utopia State Board of Medical while they investigate claims of malpractice that Dr. Jones had filed against him while practicing in another State. He demands some kind of decision, but the Board fails to act while it attempts (quite half-heartedly) to obtain information on those lawsuits in the other state. Six Months have gone by since Dr. Jones was informed they had received everything that they wanted from him, and yet no action has been taken on his application
Dr. Smith, on the other hand, is a physician licensed in the State of Utopia who is sued for malpractice four times in two years. His license is summarily suspended without notice or hearing based solely on the fact he had this sudden rash of lawsuits. He immediately demands a hearing and a showing of any evidence against him. The State Board of Medical Examiners, however, after six months of demands by Dr. Smith, fails to provide a hearing and his license remains suspended.
What are the constitutional rights of Drs. Jones and Smith in these instances? What constitutional rights, if any, are implicated by these cases? Are the two cases to be treated differently under the Constitution for any reason and if so why and how?
I am looking for three-part responses:
• Identify and discuss the constitutional rights of the hypothetical health care providers.
• Discuss how the constitutional rights you identify are, or are not, implicated by the hypothetical.
• Compare and contrast the two hypotheticals from a constitutional perspective.