trust score
brand audit
user’s score
user reviews
AliasDr. WIlliam B. Weeks | GenderMale | Brand awarenessNone | SuspendedYes |
Suspension ReasonDrinking Alcohol | Suspending AuthorityNew Hampshire Board of Medicine | Social Media PresenceLow | Featured in the News?Yes |
Associated IndustryTechnology | Studied atWhitman College in Washington | Faced ControversiesYes | Faced Serious AllegationsYes |
Risk factor 0.66 | Linkedin william-brinson-weeks | Adverse media None | Accused of Misconduct |
Accused in 2011 | Negligence RiskMedium | Flight RiskLow | Money Laundering RiskLow |
Dr. WIlliam B. Weeks has a consumer rating of N/A stars from 0 consumer complaints and reviews indicating that most customers are NOT satisfied with their experience. Consumers unhappy with Dr. WIlliam B. Weeks most frequently mention bad support and high costs.
articles
images
social posts
videos
files
The New Hampshire Board of Medicine (“Board”) and William B. Weeks, MD (“Dr. Weeks” or “Respondent”), a physician licensed by the Board, do hereby stipulate and agree to resolve certain allegations of professional misconduct currently pending before the Board in accordance with the following terms and conditions in order to avoid the delay and expense of further proceedings and to promote the best interests of the public and the practice of medicine:
The Medical Administrative Rule (“Med”) 206 and 210, as well as RSA 329:17, 1; RSA 329:18; RSA 329:18-a; and other relevant laws, grant the Board the authority to look into and decide claims of professional misconduct made by doctors. In accordance with RSA 329:18-a, III, the Board has the authority to resolve these accusations through settlement at any point without holding a disciplinary hearing.
On June 6, 1990, the Board first gave Respondent permission to practice medicine in the State of New Hampshire. The license number of the respondent is 8374.
The Board was informed on February 9, 2011, and June 11, 2010, that Respondent had broken the terms of the alcohol-monitoring agreement twice.
In response, the Board looked into the matter and gathered data from multiple sources on the Respondent’s conduct.
Respondent provides that in the event of a disciplinary proceeding, proceeding Counsel would present the following evidence to show that Respondent committed professional misconduct as defined by RSA 329:17, VI (b):
Respondent is bound by a five-year contract that calls for monitoring Respondent’s alcohol consumption.
On or around January 28, 2011, the respondent had a positive phosphatidyl ethanol blood test.
Respondent acknowledged to himself that he had drunk alcohol in June 2010.
The Board determines that Respondent engaged in the behavior mentioned above and determines that Respondent violated RSA 329:17, VI, by doing so.
First posted2011 | SERP>10 | Sentimental AnaysisNegative | TypeReview |
LanguageEnglish | SuspendedYes | Suspension CauseAlcohol Abuse | Search VisibilityLow |
Top 3 negative keyword association :
Already have an account? login
Leave a Reply