Arguments about the scope of practice can cut both ways, however. Consider this: Did the Supreme Court of Kentucky arrive at a fair and equitable result from the standpoint of physical therapists in that state? How about from the viewpoint of orthopedic surgeons? Could orthopedic surgeons in other states argue that under the Dubin ruling, they, too, should be able to offer PT services by athletic trainers, as well as advertise and bill for such services?
Let us expand the Dubin ruling and consider a different scenario: Do you think a board of podiatric surgeons in some state could argue that Dubin permits podiatry practices to advertise and perform knee arthroscopic surgery, and bill for such? If not, does the ruling at least empower podiatrists to buy a MRI scanner, perform knee MRI scans and bill for the MRI scans, assuming the scans are read by a qualified radiologist?
Where should a court draw the line in such scope-of-practice arguments among medical professionals?
Click to expand...