Court dismisses nurse practitioners’ lawsuit challenging definition of ‘doctor’
A lawsuit brought by three healthcare practitioners with doctorates in their field has been dismissed by a U.S. District Court in California. The trio were challenging a state law that bans allopathic and osteopathic practitioners from using the term “doctor” unless they are a physician, arguing it was unconstitutional.
A court ruled the challenge to the 1937 law had no legal basis, as there’s a distinction between a medical doctor and person having a doctorate in a nursing field. The intent of the law is to help the public avoid confusion as to what level of education their provider has obtained, the court confirmed.
The judge assigned the case, Jesus G. Bernal, rejected that the restrictions violated the First Amendment, which allows for commercial speech to be regulated in the best interest of the public.
“The record and common sense support the conclusion that Section 2054, [the 1937 state law], directly advances California’s substantial interest in protecting consumers from misleading advertising by medical professionals,” Bernal wrote in the ruling.
In making his decision, the judge cited research from the American Medical Association (AMA) that found 39% of surveyed patients were confused by titles and believed, erroneously, that someone with a doctorate in nursing was comparable to a medical doctor.
The AMA released its own statement on the court’s decision, praising it for halting “scope creep,” which they argue threatens “patient safety and undermine[s] physician-led, team-based care.”
The lobby group said Bernal’s ruling defends the “practice of medicine,” which is something conducted by physicians. Its state arm, the California Medical Association, filed a brief with the court opposing the lawsuit, requesting its dismissal.
Too many professional titles
In its statement, the AMA reiterated the importance of ensuring the distinction between nurse practitioners and physicians remains apparent—especially given the excessive number of professional titles that allow for a person to be called “doctor,” with a degree such as a PhD or DNP.
“With nearly 200 unique combinations of acronyms next to primary care health professionals’ names, the potential for patient confusion over who is treating them has only grown since California first required that only MDs and DOs could use the terms 'doctor' or 'Dr.,' the organization wrote. “And the California law isn’t unique, with Indiana, Minnesota and Tennessee among the states that have such truth-in-advertising laws.”
According to the AMA, their research showed that 45% of U.S. adults find it challenging to identify who is or is not a “medical doctor” when looking at marketing materials, even when official titles and credentials are listed with services.
Further, it added that its surveys found that 91% of Americans “strongly support and prefer” that a physician—as opposed to a nurse practitioner or physician assistant—be in charge of their care team, “especially in the event of a complication or a medical emergency.”
The case, Palmer et al. v. Bonta et al., is now being taken by the plaintiffs to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the lower court’s decision will be either upheld or vacated, should it be taken up for review.
Chad is an award-winning writer and editor with over 15 years of experience working in media. He has a decade-long professional background in healthcare, working as a writer and in public relations.