Doctor's license reinstated pending hearing in W.Va.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A judge reinstated a doctor's license on Thursday, a month after it was suspended when health officials accused his clinic of allowing unsanitary conditions and reusing needles.
Kanawha County Circuit Judge Charles King issued a preliminary injunction halting the suspension of Dr. Roland Chalifoux Jr.'s license until his case can be heard by the state Board of Osteopathic Medicine, which issued the suspension last month. The injunction allows him to resume practicing medicine immediately, King ruled.
The judge ruled the board “failed to show that Dr. Chalifoux engaged in practices which may pose a risk to the public.”
“There is a public interest in allowing Dr. Chalifoux's patients to seek and receive treatment from him,” King said.
Chalifoux operated Valley Pain Management in McMechen, in northern West Virginia. The board's decision forced Chalifoux, the only licensed doctor at the clinic, to shut it down and lay off five employees.
Board Executive Director Diana Shepard did not immediately return a message. The West Virginia Bureau of Public Health declined to comment.
Health officials said a probe found Chalifoux did not wear a surgical mask during epidurals and the clinic reused syringes on more than one patient and had other sanitation problems.
West Virginia's state epidemiologist, Dr. Loretta Haddy, said a patient contracted bacterial meningitis a day after undergoing a procedure at the clinic and that health officials were notified in October. Bacterial meningitis is contagious and can be fatal.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lawmakers press Veterans Affairs for improved access to rural health care
- Los Angeles police kill man in struggle captured on video
- Natural gas royalties lawsuit hinges on transaction date
- Rep. Schock of Illinois shoulders $40K cost of office renovation
- 2 W.Va. coal operators sentenced in scheme
- Astronauts complete extensive cable job in spacewalks
- Deadly bacteria release spurs concern at Louisiana lab
- Dead dog found in pickup truck in icy river
- No signs of deal on Homeland funding
- Nurse who survived Ebola virus says Dallas hospital failed her
- Supreme Court’s health care law ruling worries 34 states