A Press Release

I want to share a real example of an issue that affects more people than most realize: outdated public records that remain online without reflecting final legal outcomes.
In my case, a press release published by the Washington State Office of the Attorney General, describing a 2013 matter based on an initial accusation.
What is missing is the outcome.
That matter was later fully resolved:
• The conviction was vacated
• The finding of guilt was withdrawn
• The case was dismissed with prejudice
• The associated National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) report was voided, with a determination that the original action should not have been taken
In other words, the legal process did not uphold the original allegation. The matter was formally undone and concluded.
For additional context: the press release describes a "guilty plea”; however, the resolution involved a Newton plea—which is not an admission of guilt. The medical allegations described were also contested, with subsequent clinical findings not supporting that characterization. Any interim limitations referenced at that time do not reflect my current ability to practice.
I submitted a good-faith request asking that the publication be updated to reflect this final outcome—or at minimum include a brief notation for context.
Here is the response I received:
"It is our policy that changes are only made... where there are factual inaccuracies. The press release does not contain inaccuracies and is a correct statement of what happened at the time. We are not able to accommodate this request.”
I clarified that the issue is not historical accuracy—but present-day impact and omission of the final legal disposition.
The response:
"We fully understand your request and are not able to accommodate it... Your request was reviewed by the appropriate legal authority…”
So the position is clear:
If something was once true, it can remain published indefinitely—even if the final legal outcome reversed it.
That raises a serious question:
Is a record truly "accurate" if it omits the outcome that changed everything?
When a publication presents an accusation without the resolution that vacated and dismissed it, the result is not neutral—it is misleading by omission.
This is not about erasing history.
It is about ensuring that publicly indexed information reflects the full and final truth—not just the beginning of a story.
Because when the outcome is omitted, the public is left with a version of events that no longer reflects reality—and that has real consequences.
This issue extends beyond one case. Many individuals—especially professionals—remain tied to incomplete public narratives that fail to reflect final legal determinations.
Public information should inform—not mislead.
I remain hopeful that a reasonable solution can still be reached.
#PublicRecords #DueProcess #LegalIntegrity #WashingtonState #NPDB #DataAccuracy #ProfessionalReputation