A Brief Note On The State Board Members Essay

1065 Words Nov 17th, 2015 null Page
Indemnification may be needed to adequately protect state board members. In Dental Examiners, the Supreme Court choose not to address whether board members could be personally liable for monetary damages as individuals, but they did suggest it was possible. Scholars have found that individual damages against board members is likely given antitrust law on this subject. This raises real concerns because it may make it harder for the state to recruit board members if potential members fear they could be subject to lawsuits for personal damages. Indemnification represents a method to protect members by ensuring they would not be personally liable for damages. In Dental Examiners, the Supreme Court mentioned that indemnification was a possible way to ensure that board members were protected and scholars have agreed with that notion. This response could also be combined with any of the other possible responses to ensure that state boards are protected Some boards may already have indemnification, but a review could be done to ensure that all the boards at risk are covered. The Kansas Torts Claims Act may provide protection, but its language is unclear as it refers to “damages caused by the negligent or wrongful act,” and so a review of indemnification statues may be needed to ensure board members do not have to individually pay damages.
Increasing Supervision The third possible response is to increase supervision of state boards. The goal of increasing supervision…

Related Documents