Colorado § 12-240-110 - Qualifications for licensure.

§ 12-240-110. Qualifications for licensure.

(1) Subject to the other conditions and provisions of this article 240, the board shall grant a license to practice medicine to an applicant only upon the basis of:

(a) The passing by the applicant of an examination approved by the board;

(b) The applicant's passage of examinations conducted by the National Board of Medical Examiners, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Federation of State Medical Boards, or any successor to those organizations, as approved by the board;

(c) Any combination of the examinations provided in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this section approved by the board;

(d) Endorsement, if the applicant for licensure by endorsement satisfies the requirements of the occupational credential portability program.

(2) No person shall be granted a license to practice medicine as provided by subsection (1) of this section unless the person:

(a) Is at least twenty-one years of age;

(b) Is a graduate of an approved medical college; and

(c) Has completed either an approved internship of at least one year or at least one year of postgraduate training approved by the board.

Source: L. 2019: Entire title R&RE with relocations, (HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1182, § 1, effective October 1; (1)(b) amended, (SB 19-193), ch. 406, p. 3588, § 11, effective October 1. L. 2020: IP(1) and (1)(d) amended, (HB 20-1326), ch. 126, p. 540, § 27, effective June 25.

Editor's note: (1) This section is similar to former § 12-36-107 as it existed prior to 2019.

(2) Before its relocation in 2019, this section was amended in SB 19-193. Those amendments were superseded by the repeal and reenactment of this title 12, effective October 1, 2019. For those amendments to the former section in effect from July 1, 2019, to October 1, 2019, see SB 19-193, chapter 406, Session Laws of Colorado 2019.

Cross references: For the short title ("Red Tape Reduction Act") and the legislative declaration in HB 20-1326, see sections 1 and 2 of chapter 126, Session Laws of Colorado 2020.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Hospitals not Licensed to Practice Medicine.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

This section lays down the conditions under which one may be licensed to practice medicine. Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

Under this section, "a license to practice medicine shall be granted by the board to an applicant" who meets certain requirements. Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

Requirements of this section work in conjunction with the requirements of § 12-36-107.6. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Saddoris, 825 P.2d 39 (Colo. 1992).

Past events. A plain reading of subsection (2) allows the board to consider past events in determining whether an applicant should be denied a medical license on grounds of unprofessional conduct. Hall v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 876 P.2d 77 (Colo. App. 1994).

Board has wide discretion in deciding whether to deny a license, and decision shall be upheld if it was related to the applicant's conduct and abilities, was not an abuse of discretion, and was not manifestly excessive in relation to the needs of the public. Hall v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 876 P.2d 77 (Colo. App. 1994).

II. HOSPITALS NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE.

A license to practice medicine does not contemplate hospital operations as coming within its terms. Purcell v. Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph, 147 Colo. 478, 364 P.2d 184 (1961); Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

This enactment is an expression of the legislative will that hospitals and doctors require different licenses. Purcell v. Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph, 147 Colo. 478, 364 P.2d 184 (1961); Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

These licenses authorize related but different activities, and the issuance of the one does not permit operation under the other. Purcell v. Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph, 147 Colo. 478, 364 P.2d 184 (1961); Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

The general assembly plainly and unequivocally has treated these pursuits as separate and distinct, requiring different licenses. Purcell v. Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph, 147 Colo. 478, 364 P.2d 184 (1961); Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

A licensed physician is the principal when performing medical services in a hospital. Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

The hospital and its employees subserve him in his ministrations to the patient, he having the sole and final control in the matter of diagnosis, treatment and surgery. Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

Possessed of this authority, it follows that his actions as doctor are his responsibility. Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

Since the relationship between physician and patient is personal, a hospital which employs physicians on its staff is not liable for the negligence of a physician in the discharge of his professional duty. It is powerless under the law to command or forbid any act in the practice of his profession unless it knows or should know of the want of skill of such physician. Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).

Hospital is not liable for actions of resident physicians who are employed by the hospital even though not licensed by the state. Rodriquez v. City & County of Denver, 702 P.2d 1349 (Colo. App. 1984).

Unless it employs those whose want of skill is known, or should be known, to it, or by some special conduct or neglect makes itself responsible for their malpractice, it cannot be held liable therefor. Moon v. Mercy Hosp., 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962).