Fact Checking Claims About Rand Paul’s Professional Background

Claims about malpractice lawsuits are true, but certification claims aren’t so simple.

By
35

A viral tweet claims that Sen. Rand Paul was sued twice for malpractice while he was a working eye doctor, and that his certification was obtained under dubious circumstances.

The post received further attention after being shared on Facebook.

Paul has been sued for malpractice on two occasions; Paul was found not liable by a jury in one case and settled for $50,000 in the other.* Both patients sued Paul for not delivering sufficient care.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
35
By
Comments (35)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. linda

    Rand is one of those guys whose constant pathetic chase after a camera is just irritating. I really don't care what kind of dr he is because I never would go to him.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ Both patients sued Paul for not delivering sufficient care.” If anything that probably means he did the right thing.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    The board certification system for physicians isn't by any means perfect; almost no human endeavor, over time, ever is. But it is a VASTLY better, more rational, and more useful system than many other professions have, including my own.

    (Such is my judgment, despite the fact that my state of licensure, Texas, has one of the few, and probably the best, state-wide board certification program for lawyers. My certification as a civil trial lawyer by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization is the single most meaningful credential I have. But I was first certified in 1987, in the program's early days; and my brothers and sisters at the bar have, in general, been even less receptive and more obstructive about any sort of meaningful board certification process nationwide than even Rand Paul has been.)

    That Rand Paul tried to create his own competing system speaks volumes as to what a frivolous, silly man he is — a crank, just like his daddy. That he failed so spectacularly confirms that he's an ineffectual crank.

    To borrow from the words of Darrell K. Royal, Rand is like the cockroach. It's not what he picks up and carries off that's the problem. It's what he falls into and messes up.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Trump moved the Overton window over on this kind of thing so far over that even if Rand Paul was found to have secretly remove people's eyes in his practice and sell them for money he used to illegally pay for the abortions of the six different porn stars... then he'd only have some splaining to do...


    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      I know you're going to yell at me for saying this, but it needs to be said:

      Your ability to make *literally everything* about Trump is truly, deeply funny.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Your ability to make *literally everything* about ME is truly, deeply funny.

        Collapse
  5. Mary Stine

    Thanks, Alec! While I would not want to be Mr. Paul's neighbor, and I usually find him annoying, I am grateful for one of his statements at least. He made the statement a couple of years ago that he was in support of medical marijuana for children with intractable diseases like epilepsy and cancer, and that he felt it was beyond cruel to deny them this option. I agree.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Thank you.

    More proof that Rand Paul, like other Grand Old Putin party Trump loyalists, is a narcissistic self-indulgent unaccomplished loser

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      ?!?!?

      I'm not Rand Paul's biggest fan. But this...doesn't get you where you seem to be going.

      Collapse
  7. Eric L

    Anybody who thinks two malpractice claims is questionable for a physician simply doesn't understand modern medicine.

    "By the age of 65 years, 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties and 99% of those in high-risk specialties were projected to face a claim."

    "The projected career risk of making an indemnity payment was also large. [...] by the age of 65 years, the risks [of making an indemnity payment] had increased to 19% [of physicians in low-risk specialities] and 71% [for high-risk specialities]."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204310/

    Ophthalmology is considered 'low-risk' in this study (which surprised me). However it is still very very predictable for Sen. Rand to have had a couple of malpractice claims by now.

    My wife once refused to fullfill someone's prescription for opiates as a first year resident... the patient broke their TV in a fit of rage and threatened to sue the hospital for damages. The rumor was the hospital gave him a Walmart gift card to go towards a new TV... but I'd hate to think someone acted like this was a smudge on my wife's first year of work.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      ^^^This.

      I have some huge issues with Rand Paul, but this isn't one of them.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Chris L

        Agreed. There are so many things to hate about Rand Paul, but this is just reaching. Just go for the low-hanging fruit.

        Collapse
  8. James B

    It gets so tiring listening to Rand Paul’s constant bitching about anything that’s not in direct admiration of his views. Starting his own board is pure Paul. He’s nothing more that the cranky neighbor down the street shaking his fist at little kids for squealing with delight while they ride their bikes. Paul and Bernie deserve each other but the rest of us don’t deserve them.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      I think Paul "constant bitching about anything that's not in direct admiration of his views" is uncharitable, but more-or-less fair. He's clearly very ideological and comes across as such including at times I don't think it's appropriate.

      But I don't think the above facts actually make him look bad.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        The malpractice claims mean absolutely nothing. But that he tried to subvert his specialty's board certification system is significant in my view. That he had, and let lapse, his own legitimate board certification in his specialty isn't the point. That he let his pique drive him to do something stupid and foolish in an attempt to subvert is specialty's board certification system is meaningful, and demonstrates not that he's a bad doctor, but that he's a stupid fool.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Lawrence C Berg

          That's that type of nonsense that sustains the swamp. Have you considered that the recertification is just a blatant ripoff to squeeze members for additional fees?
          What is the purpose of the recertification other than to extort fees? How much you want to bet that no additional testing and validation of skills is required....just send a check.

          If I am right and not validation of skills or evaluation of performance is required to recertify, kudos to Sen Paul for challenging this nonsense.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat @ Tavi Hall

            I suspect that board requires at a minimum some ongoing educational component. I'd want my doctor to keep up with ongoing research.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            "How much you want to bet that no additional testing and validation of skills is required....just send a check."

            I'll take your bet. Name a neutral stakeholder and judge for our bet to whom we can each mail $100. I propose Mr. Dent, if he'll agree to serve.

            I'd feel guilty taking your money except for the fact that you've been so rude.

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Bill B

    So Paul is actually a BS artist from the ground up! Good to know.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      Huh?

      Like, seriously, did you read this?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill B

        Sure. He was sued for malpractice and he made up his own certification board. What am I missing?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CVS

          1. That nearly every Doctor is sued for malpractice at some point, and two cases, only one of which was even *kind of* successful, is well below average.

          2. He made up his own certification board, but that he'd previously been certified by the board recognized by the state, and he just didn't re-certify, and that it wasn't required in the state but purely voluntary and it had no impact on his work.

          Frankly, this whole thing is an obvious nothingberger. I'm not a huge Rand Paul fan and I absolutely detest his father. But that doesn't mean any of this is substantive. It's *plainly* not.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            George.Skinner

            The certification board issue is really the one that says a lot about who Rand Paul really is. When I read "recertification every 10 years", I see a requirement for professionals to ensure their continuing competence in an evolving field of science and medical practice. The way Rand Paul reacted to that just doesn't seem professional.

            Collapse
        2. Petrean_04

          I dunno, just the fact that he won one of the lawsuits, settled the other for a piddling amount, and the additional context that these lawsuits are pretty common against doctors (which the first commenter goes into more detail about above). Your interpretation of this fact check is very uncharitable, to say the least.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill B

            Probably because I really don’t like Rand Paul.😀

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Kevin C. Smith

    Excellent fact check! Crazy allegations...

    Collapse