Have regulators like the FDA or state medical boards taken action against Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox?

Checked on December 12, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.

Executive summary

Available sources in the provided set do not report any FDA enforcement action or state medical board discipline specifically targeting Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox; searches of FDA action roundups and state board disciplinary pages in the supplied results show coverage of many regulatory actions but make no mention of Neurocept or Paul Cox [1] [2] [3]. State medical board portals and guides explain how to find disciplinary records but the current results do not include a record for Dr. Paul Cox [4] [5].

1. What the federal record excerpts show — busy FDA reporting, no named hits for Neurocept or Paul Cox

Multiple FDA-focused roundups and action updates in the supplied results summarize approvals, designations, clinical holds and site inspections through 2025; those materials document that the agency routinely issues a variety of enforcement and regulatory actions, but the items provided (FDA action updates and specialty news recaps) do not mention Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox by name [1] [2]. That absence in these agency‑focused summaries is a factual gap in the present reporting, not proof of absence outside this dataset.

2. What state medical boards’ public systems say about finding discipline — methods, not specific cases

The supplied state-board pages and guides emphasize that disciplinary actions are public and searchable via each board’s enforcement or “recent actions” pages, and that the Federation of State Medical Boards collects such actions in the Physician Data Center [6] [7] [8]. Those sources explain how a member of the public would locate a physician’s disciplinary history but do not themselves list any sanction against Dr. Paul Cox within the results shown [7] [8].

3. Why the absence in this set does not equal confirmation of no action

Journalistic practice requires distinguishing the limits of the dataset from a definitive finding. The supplied search results include many FDA and board‑procedure pages but do not include exhaustive license searches, DocInfo extracts, or specific board orders for every physician or company [1] [4]. Therefore available sources do not mention whether any other federal agency notices, state board orders, or court filings concerning Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox exist beyond what’s in this collection.

4. How to verify more fully — public record steps grounded in these sources

The supplied materials point to authoritative routes for verification: check the FDA’s press releases and action updates and specialized FDA trackers [1] [2], and search state medical boards’ “recent actions” or enforcement documents pages as explained on the Medical Board of California and other boards [6] [7]. The Federation of State Medical Boards’ Physician Data Center and state license lookup tools are the recommended next steps for a definitive, jurisdiction‑by‑jurisdiction check [8] [4].

5. Competing perspectives and possible reasons for public silence

There are multiple, explainable reasons a company or doctor might not appear in FDA or board roundups: (a) there may be no formal action to report; (b) an action could be pending or confidential; or (c) relevant documents may be posted only on a particular state’s enforcement page or in the FSMB PDC rather than in the general news digests sampled here [1] [8]. The supplied FDA summaries show the agency does publish clinical holds and inspection outcomes when they are issued, indicating the agency is visible when it takes public actions [1].

6. Transparency limits and an implicit agenda to watch for

Regulators and boards generally present official actions publicly, but the supplied sources also show that disciplinary records can be fragmented across jurisdictions and time [8] [6]. That fragmentation can create information vacuums that third parties may exploit to imply wrongdoing or to imply exoneration. Absent direct references in these authoritative sources, claims of regulatory action against Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox should be treated as unsupported by the documents you provided [1] [6].

Limitations: This article uses only the documents and search snippets you supplied. Those sources do not include exhaustive state license searches, DocInfo extracts, or an explicit FDA enforcement notice naming Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox; therefore I cannot assert whether actions exist beyond these materials. Recommended next steps are to run direct searches of the FSMB Physician Data Center, the FDA’s press release and inspection pages, and the specific state medical board enforcement pages for any state where Dr. Paul Cox is or was licensed [8] [7] [6].

Want to dive deeper?
What FDA actions or warnings have been issued regarding Neurocept products since 2020?
Have any state medical boards disciplined Dr. Paul Cox for prescribing or promoting Neurocept treatments?
Are there ongoing FDA investigations or recalls involving Neurocept devices or drugs?
What lawsuits or settlements involve Neurocept or Dr. Paul Cox related to patient safety or marketing practices?
How do federal and state regulatory enforcement records show interactions with Neurocept and its executives?