• Bookmark


Corporate Values


Medboard.nv.gov has a consumer rating of 1 star from 2 reviews indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Consumers complaining about Medboard.nv.gov most frequently mention dermatology office problems. Medboard.nv.gov ranks 5th among Electronic Medical Records sites.

View ratings trends
How would you rate Medboard.nv.gov?
Top Critical Review

“Completely worthless medical board”

Bob H.

We submitted a complaint about an orthopedic surgeon in Henderson, Nevada, and they did nothing. The surgeon committed multiple acts of malpractice and is harming many other patients. High rate of infection and many repeat surgeries. The only thing that matters to the surgeon and St. Rose Sienna Hospital is the money.

See critical reviews

Reviews (2)




1 review
4 helpful votes
September 1st, 2019

We submitted a complaint about an orthopedic surgeon in Henderson, Nevada, and they did nothing. The surgeon committed multiple acts of malpractice and is harming many other patients. High rate of infection and many repeat surgeries. The only thing that matters to the surgeon and St. Rose Sienna Hospital is the money.

8 reviews
25 helpful votes
July 13th, 2017

I filed a bona fide medical complaint with the NV Medical Board in 2015. The Board had my material for ten months to tell me in the end that the case was closed. (NV allows only one year for a patient to file a malpractice claim, which my dermatologist/staff obstructed me from filing. Patients are therefore hindered in initiating a malpractice claim.)

Below is my partial 2016 letter that I subsequently emailed to the Board. Because the Board chose not to respond to my letter, I repeatedly tried posting it on the NV Medical Board "reviews" pop-up tab on Google. The Board continued to immediately delete the posting, however. (No other consumer "reviews" are available on this Google pop-up, interestingly.) So when I posted my letter on a couple different websites instead, the letter's accessibility also seemed to disappear from the Google search engine.

Here is my shortened 2016 letter that I wrote to the Board:

Dear Dr. Rachakonda, Mr. Heitt, and other Investigative Committee members of the Nevada Medical Board:

Is the Nevada Medical Board truly available to help the consumer or not?
You write that my case is closed but you provide no specific findings in your investigation.

NRS 630.11 states there must be "reasonable basis for the complaint." A medical expert in my case determined that the facial "damage is real" as shown in [my dated] photographs with "pronounced change"...

The Board apparently decided to overlook this fact and gave no reason why. Please explain why the Board chose to do nothing with this information... patients will be harmed and providers and overseers who are expected to uphold a standard of ethics will not be held accountable.

I sought treatment from a licensed medical practitioner for one acne spot and was treated [excessively in areas other than target spot] by two technicians with no licenses [although the dermatology office claimed in writing that tech was "Board Certified Aesthetician" practicing "medical aesthetics." The doctor's office brochure also stated "Vbeam laser treatments performed properly, by a trained physician, are safe and effective," which implies Vbeam laser treatments not performed by a trained medical doctor greatly increases patient risks, a topic that is in the medical/health literature that I submitted to the NV Medical Board. The doctor subsequently referred me to a cosmetic surgeon after the lasering job at his office.] I request your responses:

NRS 630.305 involving:
1) aiding practice by unlicensed person. I still have not been provided information from the Board or the dermatology office about either technician's certification/licensing information. (The Board finds that acceptable?)
2) delegating responsibility to unqualified person (unqualified for whatever reason--be it psychological, wrongful intent, drug-related, etc.)

NAC630.370 involving:
1) supervising physician is responsible for all medical activities of his or her physician assistant
[the dermatology office in its paperwork also called the technician "medical assistant"]

NAC 630.360 involving:
Performance of authorized medical services; identification; misrepresentation
--physician's assistant authorized to perform must be
1) commensurate with education, training, experience and level of competence
2) shall wear at all times while on duty a placard, plate, or insigne which identifies him or her as a physician's assistant
3) no physician's assistant may represent himself or herself in any manner which would tend to mislead the general public or the patients

NRS 630.306 involving:
1) deceptive conduct (such as a consent form/contract which does not disclose all possible facial changes from lasering job, or the fact that consent form does not comply with its promise that "photographs will be taken... Photographs may be used for educational purposes," yet neither of these dermatology office claims/promises occurred.
2) practice beyond scope of license
3) certain operation of medical facility [which would include laser machines]
4) engaging in unsafe or unprofessional conduct
5) failure to supervise medical assistant adequately
6) intoxication (was the technician under the influence of a drug, I wonder?)

NRS 630.3062 involving:
1) failure to allow inspection and copying of medical records (dermatology office put up barriers to my requests)
2) failure to file and obstructing required report (dermatology office unethically would not provide my lawyer with their malpractice policy information and I was therefore unable to proceed in pursuing a legal case)

NRS 630.3065 involving:
1) failure to perform legal obligation (as stated above, dermatology office would not provide my lawyer with their malpractice insurance information; consequently, no legal action could be taken on my part)
2) faliure to comply with law, subpoena or order

NRS 630.3067 involving:
1) insurer or physician required to report certain information concerning malpractice (as already stated, dermatology office obstructed my efforts to file a complaint)

When patients suffer from sub-standard medical practices, their complaints may be covered up by those in power rather than be adequately addressed... Nevada is lax in its lasering regulations in comparison to other states. JAMA and the AAD appear to be scrutinizing the evolving "treatment" practice of lasering and its hazards and its unknown, unreported, and non-researched consequences. The ultimate goal is that all doctors honor their patients' trust and that they act ethically and responsibly in caring for their patients.

[If we cannot trust our Board to protect consumers, whom can we trust and what message does that send to doctors? This is my second bad encounter over the years with the Board's inaction. Understandably, the Board has a history of ranking poorly in the United States in comparison to other state medical boards for job performance towards the consumer. I advocate for change.]

[Related complaints on the American Academy of Dermatology and possibly other organizations/people are currently filed on this sitejabber website due to apparent widespread collusion in protecting doctors over consumers with this kind of case. Other organizations/names also of no or minimal help in this matter were the Better Business Bureaus (Reno, Nevada; Chicago, IL; Washington, D. C); the Federation of State Medical Boards; dermatologist Dr. Eric Smith in Placerville, CA; JAMA-Dermatology; American Medical Experts, LLC.; Candella Corporation; the American Board of Dermatology; Nevada senators; NV assemblywomen and assemblymen; Dr. Alan Anthony and his office's fraudulently titled "Board Certified Aesthetician," Samantha Reith, who does "medical aesthetics" (as claimed in writing, with no known NV Board license number) at Advanced Cosmetic Surgery & Dermatology in Stateline, NV, where the lasering occurred; Dr. Brett Coldiron, previous AAD President, who wrote the "Elephant in the Room of Dermatology" article about this very subject (who provided no response); and Dr. Jeffrey Dover of Brookline, MA, who also declined a response but who was quoted on the AAD website as saying "Where we see a problem [[with lasering]] is lack of oversight, education, knowledge, and judgment... If one of those is missing, there's a potential problem. If all four of those are missing, you're really asking for trouble" (www.aaa.org/monthly/2014/September/safety-first#all pages); Nevada Board of Cosmetology; and media news sources associated with the 2004 investigative story on the Medical Board of Examiners for the state of Nevada.]

As I wrote the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), I would be happy to provide information and photos on my lasering case to help with medical research with which they claim to have an interest.

Dr. Alan Anthony responds on healthgrades.com that the techs aren't licensed, yet the information they provided me in writing was misleading. (The derm office would also not disclose even the name of another tech who lasered me.) Furthermore, NV aestheticians are prevented by law from lasering.

Q&A (0)

Questions? Get answers from the Medboard.nv.gov staff and other customers.

Posting guidelines
Typical questions asked:
  • How long does shipping take?
  • What is the return policy?
  • Where is the company located?

Sitejabber for Business

Gain trust and grow your business with customer reviews

How do I know I can trust these reviews about Medboard.nv.gov?

  • Sitejabber’s sole mission is to increase online transparency for consumers and businesses
  • Sitejabber has helped over 100M consumers make better purchasing decisions online
  • Suspicious reviews are flagged by our algorithms, moderators, and community members
Have a question about Medboard.nv.gov?

Is this your business?

Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and manage your listing.

Claim Your Business