In one paragraph. Everything on this site that states what a law requires is written from the statute, the administrative code, a board’s own position statement or a decided case — never from another company’s blog. A physician reviews it and is named. Where sources genuinely disagree we publish the disagreement instead of picking the answer that sells better. Where we have not verified something, we say so on the page rather than paraphrasing. And we sell the services these pages describe, which is declared here rather than buried.
These standards apply to every page on mdside.com that makes a factual claim about law, regulation or clinical practice: the fifty-two jurisdiction pages, the good faith exam pages, and the articles. Last reviewed 2026-09-03.
Where our facts come from
We use a strict source hierarchy. A claim is only published at the level it can be supported at, and the source is named on the page.
- Statute. The primary text, cited by section.
- Administrative code and board rules. The regulation as adopted, cited by rule number.
- A board’s own position statement, declaratory ruling or published guidance. Named and dated, and identified as guidance rather than as law.
- A decided case. Named, with the court and the date.
- Nothing else. We do not build a factual claim on a competitor’s page, a law-firm blog post, an industry chart or an AI summary. Those are useful for finding where to look; they are not a source.
This matters more in this market than it might elsewhere. Secondary sources here contradict each other constantly: a search on Nevada returns “does not strictly enforce corporate practice” and “prohibits corporate practice” on the same page of results, and one widely cited practice-authority chart disagrees with the professional association’s own map on New Jersey. Building on those is how a vetoed Texas bill ends up published as live law on several competitor sites.
When sources disagree, or the law is unsettled
We publish the disagreement. We do not resolve a genuine legal ambiguity in the direction that happens to favour buying our services. Three live examples, all currently on the site:
- Some counsel read California’s SB 351 to require patient-specific orders rather than standing orders. We flag that as an aggressive reading that is not settled, because it is.
- Arkansas is widely reported to require an in-person examination before aesthetic treatment. That is load-bearing for any remote model, so we tell readers to confirm it with the Arkansas State Medical Board directly — including against our own page.
- Florida’s Board of Nursing position on RN authority has moved recently. We describe the movement rather than asserting a settled answer.
The general rule: if we would have to overstate confidence to make the page more persuasive, the page stays less persuasive.
What we will not publish
- Unverified state summaries. For most of this site’s life, jurisdictions we had not researched carried a visible note saying the page asserted no state law. Padding those out to look complete would have made us the thing we are arguing against.
- Statistics we cannot substantiate. There are no exam counts, client counts, audit-pass rates or connection-speed figures anywhere on this site. Competitors publish all four. If we ever measure something and publish a method, it will appear with the method.
- Testimonials or reviews we cannot evidence. Four testimonials and a “4.9 out of 5 from 47 reviews” rating were removed from this site in September 2026 because we could not substantiate them.
- Competitors’ prices. We describe the pricing models in this market because the model matters. We do not reprint anyone’s figure, including our own — prices move, a stale figure is worse than none, and a price comparison teaches buyers to weigh the wrong variable.
- A ranking that puts us first. We publish the criteria instead and invite you to score us on them alongside everyone else.
- Legal advice. These pages are a working reference maintained by an operator. Confirm your obligations with healthcare counsel licensed where you operate.
Who writes and who reviews
Pages are drafted from primary sources and reviewed by Victor D. Cruz, MD — founder of MDside, licensed in Florida (ME117105) and New York — who is named on the pages he has reviewed, with the review date. A named reviewer is not decoration: it means somebody’s licence is attached to the claim.
Research and drafting are assisted by software, including large language models, and that assistance is why the source hierarchy above is enforced mechanically rather than trusted. Nothing is published on the strength of a model’s summary; every legal claim on this site is checked against the cited primary text. We think disclosing that is more useful than pretending otherwise, which is the current industry norm.
How often pages are reviewed
Every page carrying legal claims shows a last reviewed date. Pages are re-checked when we become aware of a change, and the changes we are tracking are published openly on the regulatory changelog. This area moves: in the last eighteen months a Texas bill was vetoed after being widely reported as law, California’s SB 351 took effect, Oregon’s SB 951 began to bite, Colorado added disclosure obligations, Indiana created a registration deadline, Vermont created a filing deadline, and the FDA changed hormone therapy labelling. A page without a review date is a page you cannot date.
Our conflict of interest, stated plainly
We sell the services these pages describe. Medical direction, PC-MSO structure, licensed providers, and good faith exams.
That is a real conflict and you should read everything here with it in mind. It is why the state pages cite their sources — so you can check us rather than trust us — why the buyer’s questions on the good faith exam page are written to be used on us, and why we do not publish a vendor ranking. For contrast: the most widely circulated “best good faith exam companies” ranking in this market is published by one of the companies it ranks, which awards itself the top score and discloses none of this.
Advertising and links
- We run no advertising on this site and take no payment for placement, links or mentions.
- Outbound links to statutes, boards and agencies are there because they are the source. We receive nothing for them.
- We name competitors where naming them is useful to a buyer. We do not link to them for SEO benefit in either direction, and we describe their published practices as at the date we read them.
Reporting a problem
If something here is wrong, tell us and we will fix it and say that we did. That process is set out in the corrections policy, and the fastest route is the contact page.
General information, not legal advice. Requirements differ by state and change often. Confirm your obligations with healthcare counsel licensed where you operate.