Since the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) recently started archiving cases, It is prudent to preserve and share their findings for public education. The SBRHA eventually succeeded and reprimanded Dr. Adem on April 17, 2014, for a single act of dishonesty six years after the fact. Dr. Adem did not harm any patient. Also, Dr. Adem expressed remorse at forging a signature on a letter that accurately described his safe and effective provision of patient care. There is no reason to not feel comfortable having Dr. Adem place a stent in a person’s coronary artery.
In contrast, there are those physicians in Missouri that may not have as high of moral standards or competency as Dr. Adem. A group of eight physicians oversees the SBRHA. Their actions against Dr. Adem manifested their (1) incompetence in evaluating care rendered to patients, (2) repeated incompetent evaluation of care, (3) unethical conduct as they made multiple efforts to deceive the Honorable Commissioner Sreenu Dandamudi, and (4) their repeated unethical conduct as they knowingly tried to discipline Dr. Adem for care that their witness thought was reasonable.
Unlike Dr. Adem, these dishonest regulators never expressed remorse at their dishonest, unethical, or incompetent conduct. Perhaps doctors on the SBRHA should have competently determined whether the medical care was appropriate before launching a $100,000+ case vs. Dr. Adem.
Was it necessary for the SBRHA to spend over $100,000 and commit numerous dishonest, unethical acts while reading no clinical practice guidelines to accomplish the discipline? No patients were harmed or protected by this litigation, and Dr. Adem was, as of 2013, remorseful for his actions.
One might wonder if the doctors that commissioned the dishonest acts by the SBRHA were "bad doctors," or at least regulatorily-incompetent. Unfortunately, there are no effective safeguards to prevent this kind of routine regulatory misconduct. Presenting this information to the public will hopefully motivate persons to improve the quality of medical regulation. Medical regulators should not repeatedly engage in conduct that is "unfathomable and deeply disturbing."
Comments and suggestions are welcome.