番茄社区

A Maine physician who had her medical license suspended for spreading false information related to COVID-19 has filed a legal complaint against the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine and its board members for allegedly violating her First Amendment rights, according to a .

Meryl J. Nass, MD, an internist based in the city of Ellsworth, filed the complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on Wednesday. The complaint claimed that the medical board and its board members violated her freedom of speech by suspending her medical license in January 2022 and ordering her to submit to a neuropsychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist after she made a number of false COVID claims in a video interview and on her website.

According to Nass's complaint, these disciplinary actions were "retaliatory conduct in violation of the First Amendment," and they were intended to have a "chilling" effect on her efforts to publicly share her views on the COVID vaccines and alternative treatments.

In Nass's January 2022 disciplinary case, the state medical board decided to suspend her license because she "constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services."

The medical board also stated that Nass reportedly lied about a patient having Lyme disease in order to prescribe them hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Nass also allegedly said at the time that she did not intend to comply with masking and vaccine orders during the pandemic, according to the disciplinary documents.

The investigation that led to the suspension started in December 2021, after a hospitalist reported her to the board.

Nass's complaint focused less on specific allegations and more on the board's recommendation that she undergo a neuropsychological evaluation. The complaint claimed this recommendation was not based on Nass having a mental illness or substance use disorder, and also asserted that the board could not justify the need for such an evaluation.

Nass alleged in her complaint that even the suggestion that she receive such an evaluation "tarnished her reputation." She also claimed that the state medical board's 2021 on COVID misinformation violated her First Amendment rights.

Nass said that the board's actions were "motivated by evil motive or intent" and that the board's conduct was "malicious, oppressive, outrageous, reckless, wanton, and willful, and demonstrated actual or implied malice."

In total, the complaint contained six counts, including alleged violations of the First Amendment, the state's constitution, and the state's Civil Rights Act.

Nass has requested compensation for punitive damages, and that that established the state medical board's authority to issue disciplinary actions be declared in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it was applied to Nass's case and the board's position statement.

She also requested that the court force the medical board to retract its position statement and permanently prevent the board from enforcing the law against physicians, including Nass.

In addition, Nass is asking for financial compensation for her legal fees and for a jury trial to hear all of the stated complaints.

Throughout much of her legal fight with the state board, Nass's legal fees have been paid by an anti-vaccine advocacy group connected to presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., according to reporting from .

Nick Sawyer, MD, MBA, an emergency physician in Sacramento, California, who has been a vocal advocate around discipline for physicians accused of spreading misinformation, told 番茄社区 that Nass's approach to this lawsuit is part of a playbook being used by physicians who have been disciplined for similar allegations.

"The bigger picture here is what Meryl Nass is claiming is that the medical board has no authority over her," Sawyer said, charging that physicians accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 are trying to change the rules, so they can say or do anything they want without facing disciplinary action.

Comment