So, what does this have to do with "Ongom?"  And what's "Ongom?"

"Ongom," or in its full case name, "Ongom v. State of Washington Department of Health, Office of Professional Standards." is the most important Court decision in the history of "Administrative Law" in the United States.  Why?  Because it changed the rules, making it much tougher for State prosecutors to harass health, or any licensed, or unlicensed, professionals by using, and abusing, the system.  Much, much, tougher.  In short, it changed the "level of evidence" required to discipline professionals. 

How?  Like this - There are three levels of evidence standards used in the US Court System.  From the lowest to the highest they read like this:  (1)  "Preponderance of Evidence,"  (2)  "Clear and Convincing Evidence," and (3)  "Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."  Generally, the first two are used in Civil Court cases, whereas the last is used in Criminal Court cases.

For years the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard was used in State Administrative law hearings.  But since "Ongom" that's no longer permitted.  The higher standard, the "Clear and Convincing Evidence" standard must be used.  What's the difference?  A lot.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "Preponderance of Evidence" as "The greater weight of the evidence; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue instead of the other.  This is the burden of proof in a civil trial, in which the jury is instructed to find for the party, that on the whole, has the stronger evidence, however slight the edge may be."

Then, Black's Law Dictionary defines "Clear and Convincing Evidence" as "Evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.  This is a greater burden than preponderance of the evidence, the standard applied in most civil trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the norm for criminal trials."       

But what does this mean, practically, for health professionals?         

Well, for one thing, it means that,  as of April 23, 2007, the date of the US Supreme Court decision in "Ongom," anything, and everything, on quackwatch.com is not usable in a State Administrative Hearing - nor can it be used even to bring charges, or an accusation against a health professional.  A prosecutor, a Board, or State employee, knowingly using such unacceptable evidence is risking their personal assets, for such an action can, and should, be used to breach their "immunity."