Common Questions for Newly Licensed Physicians in Pennsylvania
This article addresses common questions that new physicians, current physicians, and other medical professions (and those advising them) may have regarding medical licenses in the state of Pennsylvania.
July 10, 2017 at 07:19 PM
6 minute read
The State Board of Medicine regulates the practice of medicine through the licensure, registration and certification of members of the medical profession in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The board regulates medical doctors; physician assistants; radiology technicians; respiratory therapists; nurse-midwives; acupuncturists; practitioners of oriental medicine; perfusionists; behavioral specialists; and athletic trainers. The board also has authority to take disciplinary or corrective action against individuals it regulates. This article addresses common questions that new physicians, current physicians, and other medical professions (and those advising them) may have regarding medical licenses in the state of Pennsylvania.
The following professions require an individual to obtain a license through the State Board of Medicine: medical physician and surgeon, physician assistant, temporary physician assistant, nurse-midwife, nurse-midwife prescriptive authority, respiratory therapist, temporary respiratory therapist, athletic trainer, temporary athletic trainer, acupuncturist, physician acupuncturist, genetic counselor and provisional genetic counselor.
To acquire a license in any of the aforementioned professions, an applicant must complete an application, either online or in paper form, and submit the application to the board. If any questions arise regarding responses/answers to questions in the application, it is best to contact a health care attorney to ensure all questions are responded to accurately and proficiently.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Longtime Reed Smith Health Care Partner Opts for Solo Practice Over Retirement
3 minute read
Hospital Must Provide Pre-Complaint Discovery in Privacy Breach Case, Pa. Judge Rules
4 minute read
Judge Approves $25M Medical Monitoring Settlement Over Philips CPAP Devices
3 minute read
The Essential Role of Partnership Agreements in Health Care Private Practices
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
