Forums » Politics and Healthcare

VA Scandal-2: Medical Board Fraud and Antitrust

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    May 18, 2014 4:16:05 PM PDT


    MARCH 30, 2014
    The Virginia Board of Medicine Violated the Antitrust Laws by Jarod Bona


    Last week was a big antitrust week for the new law firm of Bona Law PC. First, it was the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting, where antitrust lawyers from all over the world descend upon Washington, DC to obsess over antitrust and competition for several days. Second, I was writing an antitrust brief in a significant antitrust case.

    Finally, I argued at a motion-to-dismiss hearing in the caseDr. Yvoune Kara Petrie, DC v. Virginia Board of Medicine, et al. I represent Yvoune Petrie, a doctor of chiropractic, in an antitrust lawsuit (Sherman Act, Section 1) against the Virginia Board of Medicine and several of its board members. Update: We survived the motion to dismiss."

    With my clients request and permission, I thought I would tell you a little more about it"."

    A Growing number of leaders in healthcare are beginning to realize the VA Scandal is a misnomer. It is more appropriately termed Healthcare Scandals exposed. The V.A. Scandal probably came to national attention as it was exploited for partisan politics. The Scandal at the VA is probably not much different than the scandal at UMKC-Pathology, and that is not much different than other scandals which intermittently rock hospitals around the country.  Another factor that may have brought the VA Scandal to national attention is the relatively large size of the VA system compared to other hospitals such as UMKC. The system that led to the UMKC-Pathology Scandal is no different than that of the VA. In addition, the Medical Board attempted to reprimand the whistleblower documenting months of poor cancer care for women who had lumpectomy specimens. They did not make preliminary investigations to show that the DIO was lying about the documentation of "Ischemic Time." Which they will not often find in the surgical pathology reports from Nov 2010 to June 2011 because as I told the ACGME, the breast specimens often sat on the counter for a couple to a few hours. After one hour, the receptor status starts to change and these women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer likely did not get the correct treatment. Taking a group of physicians to court and claiming that numerous highly-respected physicians are violating antitrust laws takes courage. Read more from this brave attorney here.

    The above excerpt was selected under my understanding of the fair-use of copyright law, if copyright concern please contact

    Many physicians will claim he is unethical, or out for money. However, what the medical boards typically do not advertise, is that they commit crimes worse than those they reprimand. 

    Medical Board Fraud

    Peer Review Fails Repeatedly

    1. Dr. Antoine Adem -2012 -2014+: reprimanded for providing good medical care by the Missouri Medical Board who committed six counts of fraud against him.

    2. VAScandal: Peer review also failed in the VA. This probably came to more attention because the GOP has used it for their political campaign againnst the ACA. Regardless of your political affiliation, you are welcome to share your comments here. 

    3. UMKC Pathology Department 2010 - 2014+ - DIO lied to Amy Beane of the ACGME and claimed they documented the ischemic time of patient's tumors. No investigation was made to review the reports from that time period to verify this claim. Dr. Snodgrass was later reprimanded by the medical board for filing this claim, which they, without investigation, asserted to be false. If the ACGME or the Missouri Medical Board were to review the lumpectomy reports from November 2010 to June 2011, they would realize that the reports do not contain the claimed "ischemic time," also known as the "time to formalin fixation," as the DIO from UMKC in Kansas City claimed that they often did.

    4. Missouri Medical Board Reprimanded Doctor for Providing FDA-approved Excellent Medical Care - 1990's - see below for more details.

    5. Medical Board bullied the woman in this video:  and cost her many thousands of dollars, which they did not pay her. The Medical Boards claim patient safety, while committing fraud, repeatedly reprimanding good care, and want more of the States Money and absolutely no accountability for their decisions. 

    6. Texas Medical Board: Bullied Dr. Buryzinski for performing medical research with the FDAs approval. They have conflated standard clinical practice with clinical research. Their conduct suggests that it may be beneficial if someone with clinical trial experience serves on medical boards. 

    7. RoboRob a case of slander by his peers: Prominent UA doctor taunted as 'Robo Rob' says settlement clears him.

    8. Texas Medical Board: Potential conflicts of interest in filing reprimands, and apparently the medical board reprimanded a radiologist without first reviewing the x-rays to determine whether or not they exhibited metastatic cancer.  in defense of the President of the Texas Medical Board: I would commend her on (1) making decisions outside her ABMS specialty, as I once taught a night float radiologist how to examine CT Scans of the Head for midline shift after trauma; and then (2) claiming that she trained at Johns Hopkins. Some people have maligned her stating that she trained at a clinic outside of Johns Hopkins and thus it doesn't count. Such statements are petty, and completely miss the issues of medical regulation and patient safety. In my humble opinion, if her hospital states that it was affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, as the hospital I trained at for a year in North Carolina, Carolinas Medical Center claimed it was affiliated with University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, then it should be reported as such. 

    9. Oklahoma University Medical School, Pediatrics Department: Altered the score of one of the medical students that they did not like and dismissed him from the residency. In addition, the Oklahoma University Medical School had to pay him in court. 

    10. Missouri Medical Board: Reprimanded a cardiothoracic surgeon for a terrible error that the nurse caused one week after the surgery. (link pending)=____

    11. Report from Maryland: Maryland stole this man's medical license based on politics.

    With the advent of the internet, patient safety advocates are getting a closer look into the details of medical regulation. That they do a great job many times. In addition, they have a side that harms patients. More reports are continually surfacing and being obtained from the archives detailing how medical boards harass doctors for "by the books," "excellent," "FDA-approved medical care," and don't follow the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics. With an upcoming supreme court decision, it is important that we are ***Transparent*** for appropriate decision making. 

    Medical Boards committing Fraud & Harassing Doctors for Good Care reported in #TX #SD #VA #MO. #VAScandal #SCOTUS

    Reading the Medical Board Court Cases is more action packed than most reality TV Shows. So pull up a chair, and get cozy. 

    Bringing you the real world of medical regulation,

    from (1) fraud to (2) inappropriate sexual conduct, to (3) patient harm, to (4) reprimanding excellent patient care. 

    Drama fans, medical educators, and policy regulators will likely find this a useful resource. Furthermore, with the current physician shortage, it will be upon patients to advocate for reform in medical regulation. If they cannot afford to see a doctor, it isn't necessarily because of Obama Care. It may be secondary to a medical board reprimanding a doctor for providing good medical care, or for them determining that a doctor does not have good moral character. 

    Surely there is no one perfect, but if that is the standard which physicians must be at for their entire life (past and future), then we will likely see patients die without care. Personally, I find saving lives through appropriate medical care to be incredibly rewarding, but there are a number of factors that determine medical regulation. Furthermore, these factors are continually in flux, and it is up to patients and patient-advocates to ensure that the policies favor patient safety and not merely provide absolute immunity to physicians. 

    An excellent reference with many medical ethics cases is the American Medical Association's Virtual Mentor. However, the ethics cases do not cover how the system can redress and stop fraud by medical boards. The aim would not be to punish people for serving on medical boards, except in cases where they commit fraud and reprimand good medical care. Patients who are harmed want justice, and society needs to discuss if malpractice is the means to that, or whether actions by medical boards is the means. Many times poor outcome is not related to the quality of the provided patient care and society needs to be made aware of this. Medical Boards, patient advocate societies, and lawyers probably should work collaboratively to establish and equitable and fair system.

    An article that I enjoyed reading is found here. It asks numerous prudent questions, questions that may never be answered.  

    VM -- Professional Self-Regulation in Medicine, Apr 14 ... Virtual Mentor #meded

    Attached are my comments from the case of "RoboRob," a derogatory term, not uncommonly used by those on peer review bodies to insult someone they do not like. 

    Thank you for sharing. I am collecting cases of failed peer-review from around the country. Topics include blatant fraud committed by medical boards, reprimanding physicians for FDA-approved, "by the books," "excellent medical care." There was a case in Missouri where Dr. Antoine Adem was brought to court for providing appropriate patient care. The Medical Board could have spent one hour reviewing the cardiac stent guidelines to realize he had been providing good medical care. Instead of doing that the Medical Board committed six counts of fraud v. him. I will be adding a link to this story to the collection.
    Your report from Arizona, the Missouri Medical board Fraud, and several other cases provide detail into an organization that has not had, and does not want accountability. Scandal rocks the V.A. and peer review repeatedly failed . There have been over 100,000 view of the article written by Yinka Vidal on the lack of accountability of peer-review groups and administrative bodies within healthcare.

    Vidal's work predated the Institute of Medicine's report on medical error by several years, and he was initially ridiculed for his observations of systematic patient harm in healthcare. The lack of accountability of medical boards and hospital administration have silence front-line workers, permitted pockets of corruption. After the Medical Board committed six counts of fraud v. the cardiologist Dr. Antoine Adem for good medical care. They went home without reprimand and received payment for their unprofessional, unethical, and unfathomable conduct. Do not take my word for it, read what the Judge wrote. Court excerpts and links to court cases along with commentary demonstrating a shocking lack of medical knowledge, in addition to fraud, by those on peer-review committees might be a concern to many.

    If you or someone you know has witnessed sham peer review, patient harm accepted by the medical board based on academic title, or the reprimanding of whistleblowing without investigating, then please share your comments.

    The #VA article is found at

    Kind regards,

    JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association American Medical Association (AMA) #PtSafety Joint Commission Resources Federal Trade Commission SCOTUSblog #SCOTUS #FTC #hcsm



    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at March 25, 2015 4:15:08 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 16, 2014 10:38:57 AM PDT
    Arnold S Relman from NEJM

    From the New England Journal of Medicine, 
    Dr. Arnold S. Relman comments on professional regulation.
    Here is a case, where the attending was out of the country for several months, and a graduate from a medical school, who had not trained in residency, started seeing patients without supervision, and then Ran up a Medicare bill of $200,000!
    1. From August 28, 1994 through January 30, 1998, 1,873 Medicaid claims for 502 individual patients were filed under Abanishe’s provider number.[1]  The total billed was $201,046.76; the total paid by Medicaid was $51,040.45.[2]
    [1]Pet’r Ex. 5, 6.


    Something that many physicians are not trained in during medical school are the ethics of professional regulation. They are naively led along that if they do the right thing, they will remain out of trouble with regulatory agencies. No one is perfect and always does the right thing. For example,a  speeding ticket is breaking the law, is unethical for a physician, and unprofessional, but doing it once is probably not related to patient care.

    More importantly doctors in-training are taught that if they provide good care of patients, and follow ethical and regulatory guidelines they will not encounter troubles with the medical boards. 

    This is not necessarily due, and in my review of medical board cases I wanted to share the good and the bad so that people will have a better idea, and a medical analysis regarding the ethics of professional regulation. I state a medical analysis, because not many physiciains read medical board actions and discussions for years. Most physicians are afraid of the medical board, possibly because they have absolute immunity. Some lawyers are defending physicians against the medical boards and suing them for anti-trust. Well, I will add more commentary with potential policy implications  related to medical boards. Through the internet, physicians and patients now have the opportunity to be heard. This is something that medical boards were not traditionally familiar with. However, we must remember to put patient care first, and when medical boards reprimand good care, and prevent patient care through their regulation, patient advocates need to investigate and work with state representatives and senators.

    Most people have some form of accountability for their decisions. An exception is those persons who "serve," on medical boards. As several case examples will show, medical boards reprimand good care in addition to bad care. Furthermore, the care that they have occasionally reprimanded as "bad," is not abstruse and any physician should be able to determine whether it is appropriate. 

    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at March 25, 2015 4:19:05 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 16, 2014 11:42:01 AM PDT

    Everything for the patient.  

    This post was edited by Brett Snodgrass at June 16, 2014 11:42:14 AM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 16, 2014 11:56:13 AM PDT

    This doctor may have lost their medical license, but, in my opinion,  their odious behavior warrants criminal prosecution.

    However, due to the odious nature of this offense, it doesn't require a medical degree to reprimand this person. The MD or DO on a medical board would presumably be used to give insight into cases of whether the doctor was following current guidelines, excetra. 

    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at March 25, 2015 4:20:17 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 17, 2014 8:13:49 PM PDT

    Here is a case where the Medical Board ruled in favor of patient safety. One need not have a doctorate degree to reprimand this physician. Having physicians on a licensing board should be used in cases where "common sense," may not be enough.

    There is more from the FSMB here.

    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at March 25, 2015 4:20:54 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 17, 2014 8:23:21 PM PDT

    Here is a case where the medical board attempted to reprimand this physician for excellent medical care.
    If medical boards are reprimanding, or trying to reprimand "by the books," "simple," "non-abstruse," "FDA-approved," medical care, then one might ask the following questions

    1. Do we need doctors to serve on the medical board

    2. Why don't the doctors on the medical board perform their due diligence

    3. Is absolute immunity of medical board members helping board members, or patients?

    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at March 25, 2015 4:21:23 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 28, 2014 3:22:24 AM PDT
    • We also rank very high in rates of fraud and misconduct committed by medical boards. We need legislative advocacy. According to the medical board, every medical student in the state is practicing medicine without a license when they form a "diagnosis," after seeing the patient.
      Laws need to state that clinical diagnosis of practicing without a license is when the diagnosis of another physician is rendered not as an opinion, but as a the diagnosis that is informed to the patient and presented as such, and without commentary by the physician who is the patients provider.
      These are the things that medical boards are engaging in and you never know when an administrator will give you bad evals for asking them a single question, and when they will equivocate an honest reply with blaming.
      Would it surprise you that the medical board in MO (and they probably aren't alone,) committed six counts of fraud trying to reprimand Doctor Antoine Adem for GOOD medical care. 
      These physicians on the medical board didn't spend one hour looking up the stent guidelines, not did they simply call Dr. Adem and say, "hey, can you explain the case to me." The Unaccountable medical board attorneys are encouraged by tv unaccountable medical board members to win, apparently to ignore patient harm, even if it occurred repeatedly.
      The VA Scandal is not limited to the VA, but could occur in any hospital in the USA. 
      We need to reform medical boards somewhat. You may mock, but MO isn't alone, TX appears* to be engaged in abuse of discretion. In MO. The judge said that the Board of Registration for the Healing Arts conduct was "unfathomable and deeply disturbing," 
      The AMA currently opposes the FTC in their effort v the NC dental board.
      They say that patient safety is the reason, but it appears to be to abuse discretion. Yes, patient harm is significant, but boards capriciously evaluate physicians moral character. For example, a resident beat the sh!+ out of someone, was arrested, and taken to jail, has a mug shot online. The resident is of good moral character with the board because the resident claimed exactly what the Chair wanted. Nonetheless, if the Board investigated, they would find that the claim of "documenting fixation time often in lumpectomy specimens (told to the ACGME)" is false.
      So never being arrested is considered more unethical than beating the sh!t out of someone. 
      Do you think Medical Board Members should be held accountable and financially liable when they reprimand "by the books," "FDA-approved care." 
      They are destroying another physicians life because they didn't spend an hour looking up the clinical guidelines.
      My aim is that they are held accountable and have some risk, some personal need to render just and equitable decisions when evaluating their peers. Instead, as it stands, board members committ fraud, reprimand good medical care, and refuse to investigate (to even check), potential patient harm that was ongoing for months.
      This is not about me, but this is an issue of patient safety. For example, reprimanding good medical care and committing fraud doesn't help anyone, yet it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation, and it could be prevented by 1 board member spending 1 hour reviewing the guidelines. Furthermore, they do not permit cross-examination of their claims prior to litigation, an essential feature of peer-review groups according to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics. 

      User Attached image

      Please pardon the language that may resemble an expletive. 
      There is more here
      Thank you kindly,
      No one will probably touch this topic, but we need physician leaders to step up and identify fraud and reprimanding simple, by-the-books, excellent care in the hospital administration, peer review groups and medical boards.
      It isn't asking that much if medical board members: "don't reprimand excellent, by the books care, or you might be held liable." 
      If a medical student can figure out the case in an hour, then board members of another specialty should 
      1. Identify the concern, decide &/or if not certain
      2. Call the physician and say, would you please explain the therapeutic rationale for your medical decision making. Or perhaps they could ask the doctor to write a letter with the rationale. If the judge can figure out the medical board is committing fraud & misrepresenting Medical information, then medical board members can monitor their rubber stamp more closely. 

      User Attached image

    • Jun 27
      Brett Snodgrass, MD
    • Brett Snodgrass, MD Preventive Medicine
    • If you were the medical doctor who provided by the books, "FDA-approved," "excellent medical care." To this patient, would you want to spend ten hours and two thousand dollars teaching the medical board's attorney, in front of the judge, why your medical care was ~perfect?
      The medical board walks away unscathed and they used the government's money to reprimand excellent medical care. 
      State medical boards that work diligently to keep people from practicing medicine based on a personal conflict, for which resulted in a electronic communication disturbance, was not even a misdemeanor, are probably harming patients. 
      The idea that physicians must provide evidence of "good moral character," to be a physician is drastically flawed. 
      Consider if the Depaetment leader lied to the ACGME about the department. Stating that the care they provided was "by the books" and excellent. 
      The Board would likely assume what they say is true based on academic title. By the way, writing that you are compliant with safe patient practices, is NOT the same as doing it.
      For example, if you tell the ACGME that they don't need to investigate, ~"we are documenting the ischemic time," no need to review our actual surgical pathology lumpectomy reports, they won't investigate.
      So who has good moral character, the one who lied and covered up patient harm, or the person who reported the harm. Patients could be receiving the wrong cancer treatment (w/out trastuzumab), and possibly dying early, 
      Would you be silent about this? 
      If many patients were potentially harmed and then a physician lied saying "oh no, we provide good care, and write the ischemic time down," but the reports from that time do not have the ischemic time, then should you speak up or be silent? 

      User Attached image

    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at March 25, 2015 4:24:49 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 28, 2014 3:24:03 AM PDT

    ndercover agents from the California Medical Board allegedly expose a pediatrician committing insurance fraud and providing illegal prescriptions. Why is the medical board running errands for the police?

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 28, 2014 3:25:42 AM PDT

    I'm sure that running a medical board isn't easy, thus I offer this information for a necessary and prudent discourse that is essential in order to figure out how to fix the system.

    Here is a claim that a lawyer made against a doctor. Why do we have doctors on the medical board if they don't review the clinical validity of these claims before they are filed in court. 

    Reprimanding "by the books," "FDA-approved," Medical care is probably not helping people. 

    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at March 25, 2015 4:25:25 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    June 28, 2014 3:27:15 AM PDT

    Here is from reports of Fraud by the Maryland Medical Board,


    There are many more to come, and physicians are becoming upset with medical regulation that favors academic title to patient safety, that consider too many letters in the mail more important than people dying. 


    MDreport: Stealing a medical license: Maryland style


    Don't worry, I am not trying to pick on Missouri, but they are far from the only state medical board acting worse than many ofMO Medical Board Fraud v Dr Adem those they reprimand

    This post was edited by Brett Snodgrass at June 28, 2014 3:32:51 AM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    July 8, 2014 6:08:36 PM PDT

    As long as Administration is completley immune from their decicisions, we can anticipate more VA-like conduct



    This post was edited by Brett Snodgrass at July 8, 2014 6:09:57 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    July 15, 2014 7:18:04 AM PDT
    This is a comment I made on Google Plus to the White House. I do not anticipate many will read it, but if one does not try they will never succeed. 
    Please, also bring accountability to healthcare administration. Instead of helping those without medical insurance, or helping those who can't afford to eat, the medical board in Missouri spent 100,000 dollars of tax-payer money to sue Dr. Antoine Adem for providing good medical care. In addition, the medical board committed six counts of fraud v Dr. Adem. The medical board could have spent one hour to review the cardiac stent guidelines and realized he was providing good medical care. Instead, they made no investigation into his conduct, the lawyers committed six counts of fraud, wasted 100,000 dollars of tax payers money, caused his patients to go without medical care, cost Dr. Adem approximately 100,000 of his money, and the board went home being paid for this conduct without reprimand or compensating Dr. Adem for their harassment and bullying of him. This isn't the only time they have tried to reprimand good medical care. Please hold medical board members accountable for their decisions. Thank you kindly. -Brett Snodgrass, MD 
 is the link to the court case at the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission. Thank you. 

    This post was edited by DrSocial Admin at July 16, 2014 1:40:22 AM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    July 16, 2014 4:24:42 PM PDT

    Interesting that some think that Medical Boards should have no accountability for their actions, in spite of the Board's actions actions

    1. Committed fraud, six times versus one cardiologist Dr. Antoine Adem. Court case at the length. The judge said the medical board's conduct was "unfathomable," "perverse," and more. There is nothing protecting patients about this. These physicians are sending their lawyers off to commit fraud, are not doing their job by reprimanding good medical care. Anyone can reprimand a physician for raping a patient. If doctors are not going to apply their medical knowledge to their job serving the medical board, then why do we need them, or doctors for that matter on the medical board.

    2. After trying to reprimand Dr. Adem for providing good medical care, and committing fraud against him six times, and then depriving patients of care so they could try and reprimand Dr. Adem in court, they ultimately went home both paid and without reprimand.
    They reprimanded a cardiologist who they committed fraud against six times for forging a letter x1, and then did not reprimand themselves. The Medical Board wasted 100,000 dollars wasting 100,000 dollars of tax-payer dollars prosecuting Dr. Adem for providing "by the guidelines," medical care. Thus, the medical board both

    2a. Harassed Dr. Adem,
    2b. Committed Fraud six times
    2c. was negligent and did not use their medical knowledge to do their job.
    2d. Deprived patients of medical care amidst the shortage of physicians
    2e. Wasted $100,000 of tax-payer dollars
    2f. Received payment for their unethical, unprofessional nefarious conduct
    2g Made no reparation to Dr. Adem for acting like senseless gorillas trying to clobber him with fraudulent information.
    2h. Did not reprimand themselves for a more serious offense than that committed by Dr. Adem.

    3. No physician on the medical board bothered to spend a single hour reviewing the cardiac stent guidelines, and instead tossed the case to their attorney. Why do we need physicians on medical boards if they cannot read the stent guidelines and need the judge to do it for them?

    4. Poor communication on behalf of the medical board. A physician on the medical board could have easily picked up the phone. called Dr. Adem at a n agreed-to time and said

    "Dr. Adem would you please explain to me your therapeutic rationale. I cannot give you an answer today, but I would like to speak with you about your medical reasoning before the Board makes any further decisions."

    Instead the Monkeys on the Medical Board tossed the case to the attorneys who ran at him mindlessly.

    5. The following website contains 12 cases of unethical medical board conduct and more is being added daily. THere are 13 cases if you consider North Carolina's recent harassment of a physician for lying about having sex with her husband. There is a physician shortage, and people will likely die without preventive medical care, especially the poor. Given that, the medical board members are despicable and without moral compass as they would rather let patients die
    than permit a physician who lied about having sex provide patient care.

    Furthermore, the Medical Boards do NOTHING proactively to help physicians be complaint with the broad and selectively interpreted laws. This is in stark contrast to the FDA, CMS, who gives physicians a year to get in complaince. It is disgusting that the medical board would pressure some nervous woman to where she is feared for her life and her career, pressing her about having sex, not even harming anyone, and then reprimand her. Medical boards are becoming about as intelligent and professional as a drunken fraternity club. There is nothing respectable about their harassment of doctors for providing good medical care.

    If you would like to share your comments on Medical Board fraud, harassment, bullying of doctors, reprimanding FDA-approved care, then please see the following website: VA Scandal-2: Medical Board Fraud and Antitrust

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    July 17, 2014 5:22:22 AM PDT
    Dear Patients,
    Please, if you are willing, and have time, provide you kind consideration to how medical regulation should be conducted. The question is important because it affects the ability of many people to obtain a healthcare.

    1. Physicians should be of good moral character. Physicians are people too, and sometimes they make mistakes. For those mistakes that have to do with fraud, but fraud related to writing letters, what should be done when a Good Doctor who helped many patients forges a letter when his boss changes because his prior boss did not like him? This is fraud. The law grants him reprimand.

    However we can always change the laws. So please consider the following. The lawyers working for the medical, the responsibility if the doctors on the medical board, committed six counts of Fraud v Dr. Antoine Adem. Again Dr. Aden committed one fraud

    Who should lose their medical license?
    1. Dr. Adem only, because he is a subordinate and it's not okay for him to break the current laws.
    2. The medical board members only, they are our leaders and should be held to a higher standard. Instead, they engaged in despicable conduct, far worse and more numerous than that which De. Adem did.

    3. Dr. Adem And the Medical Board Members.

    4. Neither, Patients come first, if he was providing good care, then it is not appropriate for the medical board to kill patients through a lack if care simply so they can punish him.
    In Addition , it is dumb law and the medical board wasted 100k if tax payer dollars and cost Dr. Adem $100,000 of his own money for providing good patient care.
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    July 17, 2014 10:47:27 PM PDT

    Why is the Medical Board Committing Fraud? 


    Why is the Missouri Medical Board committing fraud? Is a lack of legal liability responsible for the Medical Board's negligence and repeated acts of reprimanding good medical care? If the medical board members could be personally sued through antitrust litigation, would they spend an extra hour a year contemplating not committing fraud, and thus saving the government at least one hundred thousand dollars per year? This post presents a root cause analysis of the errors that led the Missouri Medical Board to commit six acts of fraud versus Dr. Antoine Adem for having provided patients with good medical care. 

    The likely reason that the board committed fraud six times against Dr. Antoine Adem is due to prejudice. The Missouri Medical Board thought that they knew the stent guidelines. I suggest this root cause analysis of the medical board's error because it is very pertinent to the practice of medicine, medical regulation, and my own aims to resume "clinic." The Medical Board did not review the literature during their decision making process but relied on the following:

    1. A negative evaluation of Dr. Adem written by his ignorant boss;

    2. The Board's experience with a similar case of coronary stenting that was characterized by the placement of stents in a vessel with less than 50% occlusion, was malpractice, and not indicated. The cardiovascular doctor placed merely to make money.

    The board incorrectly presumed that Dr. Aden's case was identical to the aforementioned malpractice.

    The Medical Board did not review the medical literature, did not review the stent guidelines, nor did they ask/listen-to Dr. Adem's therapeutic rationale.
    Due to the failure of the medical board to have their physicians exercise evidence-based decision making, they wasted $100,000 of tax-payer dollars, committed fraud six times, were paid and not reprimanded for their unethical and unprofessional conduct, and likely harmed patients through the deprivation of care and stressing an already stressed healthcare system.

    Summary: The Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts did not appreciate the key difference between the two cases, which was the size of the coronary arteries. If the coronary artery diameter is less than 4 mm, then a stent may be indicated, even if the degree of luminal obstruction is less than 50%. However, the case of malpractice occurred when stents were placed in vessels larger than 4 mm with less than 50% luminal obstruction.


    Will medical boards continue to committ fraud, harass doctors for providing good medical care, and refuse to investigate patient harm, the United States Supreme Court will soon decide. Comments and suggestions are welcome. 





    Medical Licensing and Discipline in America: A History of the Federation of State Medical Boards - Kindle edition by David A. Johnson, Humayun J. Chaudhry. Professional & Technical Kindle eBooks Only 25.99


    Medical Licensing and Discipline in America: A History of the Federation of State Medical Boards by David A. Johnson Medical Licensing and Discipline in America: A History of the Federation of State Medical Boards by David A. Johnson



    Buy This book

    This post was edited by Brett Snodgrass at July 17, 2014 11:14:14 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    July 22, 2014 4:01:29 PM PDT

    This post is related to antitrust and is from the NEJM archives. Development of Medical Ethics MEDICAL ethics, so-called, had very earthy origins. It stemmed not from theorists who speculated airily on the nature of the good, but from hardheaded, practical men who faced ugly, concrete situations. The framework of medical ethics lay not in philosophy but in sociologie phenomena, especially those leading to guild organization. A guild was an association of workers banded together to protect their common interests and to destroy competition. The technic was to obtain a strict monopoly enforced by the powers of the state. The guild in return for this monopolistic position guaranteed the competence of the workmen, established standards of . ---- Is the monopoly still as necessary today? What do you think? -BrettMD


    Brett Snodgrass to #FTC Greetings, I would like to speak with someone at the #FTC about my complaint. I have had my identify stolen so many times. sigh. We need to bring the State Medical Boards to justice for their crimes. They are entity of the state to uphold the statutes and protect the public. They have absolutely no oversight, and they are not held accountable for patient safety. If they were held accountable for patient safety they would be fired when the error rate in hospitals increases. The Medical Boards have failed the people of every state and ths occurs at least a million times per year. State Medical Boards are one of the most, if not the most incompetent government agency. Few other agencies commit fraud and are paid for it.
    #MedEd #hcsm #PtSAfety #Fraud #incompetence #RefusalToInvestigate#UMKC #Pathology #Lumpectomy #Specimens #Fraud #gossip #PtSafety
    #antitrust #SCOTUS
    They are a state agency to protect patients and do you think they are doing a good job. 12 million deaths due to errors per year and the Medical Board reprimands the reporting of patient harm at UMKC? The UMKC DIO lied to Amy Beane of the ACGME and the medical board could have verified this in three hours. Instead of doing their job Missouri Division of Professional Registration
    they reprimanded me for reporting patient harm. This is without investigating.#Telemedicine #Telehealth

    This post was edited by Brett Snodgrass at August 10, 2014 6:59:40 PM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 2, 2014 8:58:56 AM PDT

    October 14, 2014:  medical regulation background that sets the stage for the trial. 

    The Health Care Industry: Where Is It Taking Us?


    Adding to the competition and cost in our health care system is the recent rapid increase in the number of practicing physicians, most of whom are specialists. In 1970 there were 153 active physicians per 100,000 members of the population; in 1980 there were 192; and the number for 1990 was estimated to exceed 220.9 Among these new practitioners, the number of specialists is increasing more rapidly than that of primary care physicians. When doctors were in relatively short supply two or three decades ago, they worried less about their livelihood. Now, as the economists would say, we are in a buyer's market, in which not only underused hospitals but also specialists — available in increasing, sometimes even excessive, numbers — are forced to compete for the diminishing number of paying patients who are not already part of the managed care network.

    How have all these developments affected the practice of medicine? In the first place, they have resulted in more regulation of the private practice of medicine by third-party payers, who are trying to control costs. There is more interference with clinical practice decisions, more second-guessing and paperwork, and more administrative delays in billing and collecting than ever before, as third-party payers attempt to slow down cost increases through micromanagement of the medical care system.

    Second, doctors are increasingly threatened by malpractice litigation as a strictly business relationship begins to replace the trust and mutual confidence that traditionally characterized the doctor–patient relationship.

    Third, the courts, which formerly kept the practice of medicine out of the reach of antitrust law, now regard the physician as just another person doing business, no longer immune from antitrust regulation. In 1975 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that found that the business activities of professionals were properly subject to antitrust law.10 As a consequence, physicians can no longer act collectively on matters affecting the economics of practice, whether their intent is to protect the public or simply to defend the interests of the profession. Advertising and marketing by individual physicians, groups of physicians, or medical facilities, which used to be regarded as unethical and were proscribed by organized medicine, are now protected — indeed, encouraged —by the Federal Trade Commission.

    Advertisements now commonly extol the services of individual physicians or of hospital and ambulatory facilities staffed by physicians. Most of them go far beyond simply informing the public about the availability of medical services. Using the slick marketing techniques more appropriate for consumer goods, they lure, coax, and sometimes even frighten the public into using the services advertised.

    I recently saw a particularly egregious example of this kind of advertising in the Los Angeles Times.A freestanding imaging center in southern California was urging the public to come for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies in its new "open air" imager, without even suggesting the need for previous examination or referral by a physician. The advertisement listed a wide variety of common ailments about which the MRI scan might provide useful information — a stratagem calculated to attract large numbers of worried patients whose insurance coverage would pay the substantial fee for a test that was probably not indicated.

    Before it was placed under the protection of antitrust law, such advertising would have been discouraged by the American Medical Association (AMA) and viewed with disfavor by the vast majority of physicians. Now it is ubiquitous, on television and radio, on billboards, and in the popular print media. Of course, not all medical advertising is as sleazy. Many respectable institutions and reputable practitioners advertise in order to bring their services to the public's attention. But in medical advertising there is a fine line between informing and promoting; as competition grows, this line blurs. Increasingly, physicians and hospitals are using marketing and public relations techniques that can only be described as crassly commercial in appearance and intent.

    Advertising and marketing are just a part of the varied entrepreneurial activities in which practicing physicians are now engaged. Perceiving the trend toward the industrialization of medicine, sensing the threat to their access to paying patients from hospitals, HMOs, and other closed-panel insurance plans, and feeling the pressures of competition from the growing army of medical practitioners, doctors have begun to think of themselves as beleaguered businesspersons, and they act accordingly. I occasionally hear from physicians expressing this view. For example, a doctor from Texas recently sent me a letter saying: "Medicine is a service business, despite the fact that it deals with human beings and their health problems.... Physicians are an economic entity, just like the corner service station." Although I suspect many of his colleagues would not appreciate the analogy, I am afraid that too many would agree with the writer's opinion about the primacy of economic considerations in medical practice. In that respect, they would support the oft-expressed views of the leaders of the for-profit hospital industry. For example, the executive director of the Federation of American Hospitals (the trade association of the investor-owned chains) wrote in a letter published in the Journal 10 years ago: "I fail to see a difference between health services and other basic necessities of life — food, housing, and fuel — all of which are more oriented to the profit motive than is health care."11

    Of course, the private practice of medicine has always had businesslike characteristics, in that practicing physicians earn their livelihood through their professional efforts. For the vast majority of physicians, however, professional commitments have dominated business concerns. There was always more than enough work for any physician to do, and few physicians had to worry about competition or earning a livelihood. Furthermore, it had long been generally accepted that a physician's income should derive exclusively from direct services to patients or the supervision of such services, not from any entrepreneurial activities.

    All that seems to be changing now in this new era of medical entrepreneurialism and health care marketing. Increasing numbers of physicians have economic interests in health care that go beyond direct services to patients or the supervision of such services. The AMA, which formerly proscribed entrepreneurialism by physicians, now expressly allows it, with some caveats, apparently recognizing that a very substantial fraction of practitioners supplement their income by financial interests in all sorts of health care goods, services, and facilities.

    The arrangements are too numerous and varied to describe in full here, so I shall simply cite some of them, a few of which I have already alluded to: (1) practitioners hold limited partnerships in for-profit diagnostic-laboratory facilities, to which they refer their patients but over which they exercise no professional supervision; (2) surgeons hold limited partnerships in for-profit ambulatory surgery facilities to which they refer their own patients; (3) office-based practitioners make deals with prescription-drug wholesalers, who supply them with drugs that the physicians prescribe for their patients and for which they charge retail prices; (4) physicians purchase prostheses at reduced rates from manufacturers and make a profit in addition to the professional fees they receive for implanting the prostheses; and (5) practitioners own interests in imaging units to which they refer their patients. Most of the free-standing imaging units are owned by investor-owned businesses, but some were originally owned by radiologists in private practice who have told me that they were persuaded to form joint partnerships with their referring physicians because these physicians threatened to refer their patients elsewhere.

    Such arrangements create conflicts of interest that undermine the traditional role of the doctor.12 In the minds of some physicians, the old Samaritan tradition of our profession has now given way to the concept of a strict business contract between doctor and patient. According to this view, good physicians are simply honest and competent vendors of medical services who are free to contract for whatever services they are willing to provide and patients or their insurers are willing to pay for. Society has no more stake in the practice of medicine than in the conduct of any other business activity, and therefore no right to interfere with the terms of the private contract between doctor and patient."


     Commentary references:

    Is it equitable for unaccountable medical board members to commit fraud whilst doctors that were providing good care are maliciously attacked by these unethical physiciains. The medical board committed six counts of fraud v. Dr. Antoine Adem for providing good medical care. This isn't the only time that they have engaged in such unethical and unprofession conduct. 


    October 14, 2014: regulatory background. 

    Nearly every doctor in the country is working diligently to oppose the FTC and good lawyers such as Jarod Bona are bravely working to uphold the law.

    They are supposed to ensure quality, but permitting certain doctors to oversee fraud, & according to the medical board's reasoning, they should be as liable as the rest of us. I support transparency, but selectively reprimanding doctors with permanent revocation of licensure helps no one. First, of all, I was 100 miles from patients, and if the Board was concerned about patient care, then they would have investigated months* of poor care. Here is the reference that, by the board's reasoning of "oversight responsibility," the medical board members are not innocent in the eyes of medical regulation. 

    The Following report describes the Missouri Medical Board's case nature of reprimanding.
    7. In June 1978, Brockenbrough left Baltimore to practice at the University of Pennsylvania and was able to obtain licensure based on his recent FLEX. He was a thoracic surgery resident and assistant instructor in surgery. He had no licensure or malpractice problems during his time in Pennsylvania.
    8. In September 1980, Brockenbrough moved to Los Angeles, California, to practice. He practiced with hospital privileges at 12 or 13 different hospitals for 17 years.
    The Malpractice Claim
    9. In 1981, Brockenbrough faced the only malpractice claim of his career. The claim involved a woman suffering from reflux esophagitis. The patient was unable to sleep because when lying flat she would get heartburn from a reflux of stomach contents.
    10. During the surgery to correct the condition, the patient coughed due to insufficient anesthesia, and the tube that Brockenbrough inserted into the esophagus perforated the esophagus.
    11. Brockenbrough made the patient n.p.o. and treated the perforation with antibiotics and IV fluids. Brockenbrough visited the patient the morning after the procedure, and she was “doing fine.” 
    12. Someone transferred the patient from the intensive care unit and fed her lunch. The food passed through the perforation to cause infection. 

    13. Brockenbrough operated again to correct the problem, but the patient died weeks later due to complications from an incorrect dosage of morphine administered by a nurse.

    #unfathomable. Someone fed the person. The medical board reprimanded Dr. Brockenbrough. 
    #Legislative #Judicial 
    Doctors aren't perfect, but reprimanding & denying a doctor a license primarily because someone feeds a person with an ***esophageal performation*** is not equitable. 


    The AMA used to oppose Medicare, but my impression is now they largely think it is a good thing for both doctors and society. Thus, I implore other physicians not to let the AMA's opposition to the Federal Trade Commissiondissuade you from voicing public support in their upcoming United States Supreme Court of America case. The AMA opposed the FTC back in the 1970s regarding advertising. 

    Third, the courts, which formerly kept the practice of medicine out of the reach of antitrust law, now regard the physician as just another person doing business, no longer immune from antitrust regulation. In 1975 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that found that the business activities of professionals were properly subject to antitrust law.10 As a consequence, physicians can no longer act collectively on matters affecting the economics of practice, whether their intent is to protect the public or simply to defend the interests of the profession. Advertising and marketing by individual physicians, groups of physicians, or medical facilities, which used to be regarded as unethical and were proscribed by organized medicine, are now protected — indeed, encouraged —by the Federal Trade Commission.

    I would argue that the late Dr. Relman has a "Harvard-view," of medical practice & peer review. 
    Not all #AAMC training programs are equitable such as #Harvard and#UCDavis. When the Program Director does not know the difference between a sign and a symptom, and reprimands the resident for their own shortcoming, without any descriptive documentation, the assessment is disparaging, and might be considered abusive by some. In such cases it is important to get a #Lawyer involved early. 
    Next, when covering the topic of peer-review, it is important to distinguish 

    1. Disciplinary peer-review: primary aim to punish someone: typical of pathology departments, and the hospital medical executive committees, with "disruptive doctors." Some physicians get upset when they see administrative negligence harming women month after month. They have done everything within their ability to protect patients from the department's poor care, but cannot do it constantly. 
    2. Surgical Morbidity and mortality: & sometimes internal medicine & other specialties. These types of #PeerReview has constructive purposes, and it is important to not conflate the two as they are drastically different in purposes and effect.

    Some physicians suggest that peer-review will be affected by anti-trust activities. In reality it should be. However, to defend the unethical practice of the current "peer review, aside form M&M," many doctors say that performance improvements will not go forward. Interestingly, outside of morbidity & mortality-type peer-review, many committees tacitly collude and drastically abuse their power of immunity. Many of the peer-review(non M&M) are not conducted in compliance with the AMA-code of medical ethics. I added my comments to the website, but they were likely too cutting and removed. As a physician, I think it is important to be objective, and if the actions that were conducted were cutting, then cutting words would be most apt to describe them. 

    12. Someone transferred the patient from the intensive care unit and fed her lunch. The food passed through the perforation to cause infection. 

    13. Brockenbrough operated again to correct the problem, but the patient died weeks later due to complications from an incorrect dosage of morphine administered by a nurse.
    As you can see from the above, this is only one of many examples where the Missouri Medical Boar demonstrated a lack of common sense, equity, fairness, and objective concern for the patient who is left without affordable care. The number of cases of medical board misconduct are growing, and in my humble opinion, the federal government should either (1) let physicians sue individual medical board members for their fraudulent crimes as Dr. Antoine Adem should be entitled to, or (2) provide quality control, oversight, and accountability of medical regulation. When one state's actions have immediate effect in every other state, the action is synonymous with a "monopoly," and the states should be held accountable to federal antitrust laws. 

    Kindest regards,


    This post was edited by Brett Snodgrass at August 2, 2014 9:02:56 AM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 6, 2014 8:52:34 AM PDT

    Medical Board Fraud reported in California. The prosecuting attorney committed fraud in a manner similar to the Missouri Medical Board. What we need for patient safety, is better monitoring of physicians, earlier monitoring, gather more data, before repeatedly ignorantly reprimanding good medical care. Medical Board fraud isn't secondary to the attorney, or the incompetence of the Board Members, the current system is unaccountable, harmful to patients, and not helpful as they claim. Assign Board Members that will be accountable for their decisions. NOt those that want to be able to commit six acts of fraud and not pay a single penny to those that they harmed. 


    Medical Board Brutality - The Plot Thickens...

    Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    Thursday, August 25th, 2005

    Last Friday, August 19th, 2005 I sent out a newsletter called "Medical Board Brutality."  It was about the newest antics of the California Medical Board Staff - an organization, I believe, to be completely corrupt - and not worth saving.  Like the story about Hercules and the Aegean stables, the best thing that could happen is for someone to re-route the Sacramento river right through 1426 Howe Avenue (the medical board offices) - and for the same reason....

    The responses were startling.  In short, my disdain for the Administrative Law System, and the way it is abused against licensed health professionals, is SHARED worldwide.

    I want to thank all of those who responded with a letter to the Presiding Judge of the Appeals Court.  If you haven't yet sent yours in, please do so.  You can get the details about what to do by clicking here

    In short, my earlier newsletter details an assault against a "lay representative" helping people through the Administrative law process. Charles Benninghoff had complained to an Administrative Law Judge that  the Medical Board, and the prosecutor in the case, had "biased" the State's witness - a violation of the agency's own rules of conduct - and the State retaliated against Benninghoff, claiming he was "practicing law without a license..."

    The Medical board went to a "friendly" Superior Court Judge and got an order seizing Benninghoff's office, leaving his clients in the lurch.  Benninghoff filed an Appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeals - and here we are.

    So, how is the plot thickening?

    Well, the situation is WORSE than I originally indicated.  The corruption is far deeper, and far more extensive, than I thought.  It extends deep into the bowels of the California Attorney General's (AG) office.  Sit back, and read this...

    It turns out that the whole case against Charles Benninghoff centers around two letters, so-called "legal opinions" of two employees of the Attorney General's office, one named Alfredo Terrazas, and the other, Robert McKim Bell...

    So, who are these people? 

    First I'll tell you who Alfredo Terrazas is.

    Those of you who have been long time readers of my newsletter will remember the series about the infamous "California Medical Board v. Sinaiko" case - and the huge cost, and embarrassment, it caused the California Medical Board over the seven years it took to complete.  It was the "Sinaiko" case that first brought the wrath of the California Legislature on the staff, in the form of an official "Enforcement Monitor." 

    The "star" of the show, on the Medical Board's side, during the "Sinaiko" case, the man that lost the biggest case in the medical board's history, was prosecutor Alfredo Terrazas.  It was his "legal opinions" and his grasp  of the law (or lack of it), that was so contemptuously shot down by the California Court of Appeals. Terrazas's case, and his concept of what constituted health care, and his concept of the the law surrounding health care, brought together the largest, angriest, and most diverse, group of opposition I've ever seen anywhere.  And, it was deserved.

    The hallmark of the "Sinaiko" case was Terrazas's flagrant prosecutorial misconduct laid out in a fifty-one page document I'm going to give you access to right here.  But the keynote was Terrazas's continued use of a "fake" witness (Samantha Simons), with a "fake" complaint.  You can read about it, and view the documents , by clicking here.

    Like in the situation Benninghoff complained about, Terrazas not only sought to "influence" the State's witnesses in the case, but he, against the orders of a Judge, slipped the"fake" document, by the "fake" witness, into the presentation to the appointed Medical Board members as "Exhibit #21."

    In other words, there is a long history of abuse of the system, and misconduct on the part of the Medical Board staff and the AGs assigned to that function.  And, Mrs. Terrazas's little boy Freddy is right in the forefront.

    Why is this important?  Read on...

    As you may remember, the support network for "Sinaiko" ended up including not just the North American Health Freedom Movement, and the Progress in Medicine Foundation, but the Center for Public Interest Law (the group that actually WROTE the California Medical Practices Act), the California Medical Association (CMA), The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), the Union of American Physicians & Surgeons (UAPD), and many others - just too many to name here.

    Unlikely bed-fellows - on most days.

    The "Sinaiko" case brought factors together, in California, which significantly changed the way medicine is regulated.  For, the general feeling was that the whole situation surrounding the "Sinaiko"  case was just plain wrong.  The finger pointing was, for the most part, ALL at Alfredo Terrazas.

    The cause of all of the "Sinaiko" commotion was the misconduct, and decidedly "bigoted," and clearly "anti-due process" legal opinions, and maneuvering, of Alfredo Terrazas.  Simply, (1)  Terrazas felt that it was improper for a defendant (in this case, Sinaiko) to be able to defend himself/herself.  He convinced an Administrative Law Judge, named Ruth Astle (who slept through much of the hearings) to disallow any of Sinaiko's top-of-the-line "expert witnesses," basically, because they DISAGREED with his witnesses, and he, Terrazas, claimed that (go ahead and laugh), that "only medicine that was generally accepted in the mainstream was allowed in California - everything else was health fraud."

    The California Appeals Court, in the "Sinaiko" case, I think, must have thought that they'd run across a total nut case when they read Terrazas's arguments - for their reaction, and their ruling, was appropriate to that finding.

    With Terrazas, it's not about justice, or disciplining bad doctors, its about "winning."  

    Terrazas bragged to Sinaiko's first attorney that "I never lose a case.  I use the 'death of a thousand cuts' attack.  I make as many accusations as possible so that even if you win on 999,  I still win on one.   And, I'm going to take your client's license to practice medicine away from him."

    Shula Edelkind, the Executive Director of the Progress in Medicine Foundation, the group that raised the money for the "Sinaiko" defense, also gathered information to help Sinaiko.  One of the most interesting documents (fifty-one pages long) I've seen come out of the case is called:

    "Request for a Formal Investigation of: Mr. Alfredo Terrazas, State Bar # 78403, Deputy Atty Gen of CA, 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA  94612-3049, (510) 622-2220, for misconduct in his prosecution of the case of Medical Board of California v. Robert Sinaiko, MD"

    In that Terrazas did the following: False Statement of Fact, Concealed Material Information, Misquoted Scientific Materials, Misquoted the Testimony, Produced Inappropriate “Experts”,  Misquoted and Misread the Medical Charts of Patients, Betrayed the Confidentiality of the Patients, Made Inappropriate Assumptions as to the Aim of Therapy, Cited as Authority a Decision that had been Overruled, Introduced into Evidence Materials Barred from Consideration, Colluded with Another to Deceive the Court, Used Slander, violated the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 7-13, Attempted to Show “Guilt by Association,” Took Advantage of Defense Naiveté ....

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 18, 2014 3:34:20 AM PDT
    @TimothySandefur @PacificLegal @CatoInstitute

    If the individual medical board members acted with interest of the State and not of themselves, then why did they not investigate and reprimand each of the medical board members for
    1. Committing fraud x6 v. Dr. Antoine Adem
    2. Demonstrating a lack of competent medical knowledge.

    Every physician schould know how to review the guidelines to evaluate the medical care in very simple cases. A medical student could have determined that the care provided by Dr. Antoine Adem was appropriated. Instead, the unaccountable medical board members tossed the case to their attorneys and had them commit fraud x6 v. Dr.Adem.

    @TimothySandefur @PacificLegal @CatoInstitute

    The claim of patient safety doesn't support the need for antitrust. The medical board isn't responsible for population health which they have caused a net harm to by limiting the number of physicians, many of whom have better records and qualifications than the board members. In addition they have failed miserably to reduce medical errors.

    The medical board members frequently review other practitioners with great partiality, and they refuse to reprimand themselves for incompetence. In addition, they refuse to reprimand themselves for overseeing the commission of six counts of fraud v. Dr. Antoine Adem. Their "need," for antitrust is highlighted by consideration of the often-careless, low-quality nature of their medical regulation. They repeatedly reprimand doctors for "by-the-books," "excellent," "FDA-approved," medical care. It shouldn't be a surprise that many of the present board members want immunity. We need to appoint people that take their job seriously, do not repeatedly reprimand good medical care, put patients before prestige, and collectively demonstrate the medical knowledge of a second year medical student or above.

    @TimothySandefur @PacificLegal @CatoInstitute

    If current physicians on State Boards want immunity to commit fraud, and selectively interpret and enforce the rules and statutes, then I humbly suggest that we can do better.
    We can do better than killing 1000 patients per day by beginning to apply peer review with equity and accountability in the form of liability.

    Who does their job and says: I will go to work, commit fraud x6, bully doctors with more training than myself, demonstrate incompetence and repeatedly reprimand doctors for providing good medical care, reprimand those doctors who report patient harm and I still should be paid for it.?

    Parenthetically, the board members are paid $50 per day, but their lawyers are paid about $110 per hour. Why are we paying lawyers to exclusively run State Boards. The financial impetus is for them to not review the case, to not utilize common sense, to not review the guidelines, and to send their lawyer on another frivolous lawsuit that does nothing to improve patient safety or the quality of care.

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 18, 2014 3:37:11 AM PDT
    Medical Board Doctors are clearly deluded with #narcissism. They want unlimited power without accountability. They commit numerous, perverse, malicious acts that are worse than that which the doctors they reprimand have committed. They use the State's money not to investigate patient harm, but to reprimand the reporting of it!

    The medical board would like say that bullying people is unethical. Similar to how they bullied Dr. Antoine Adem out of $100,000 in legal funds when they could have spent one hour reviewing the clinical practice guidelines. What good are medical boards for patient safety if they prejudge based on limited evidence. Accepting without critical scrutiny lies from the DIO to the ACGME about patient care, definitely highlights systematic problems in healthcare. I'm not the first to notice that if you speakup they will be quick to call it unprofessional. Parenthetically SCOTUS has upheld three cases of free speech v. States in the last year. 1. A whistleblower from a southern state, 2. Right to sue states for political speech they claim is false, and 3. Right to protest at abortion clinics;

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 18, 2014 3:40:11 AM PDT
    This is the second page from Dr. Adem's case where the medical board committed six acts of fraud against him in order to deceive the judge.
    The court documents can be found at
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 18, 2014 3:41:01 AM PDT
    This is fraud from the Texas Medical Board in they fraudulently filed a "false advertising."

    Overall he said future studies are needed, repeatedly stated that their are side effects, and the Texas Medical Board nonetheless reprimanded him for "false advertising."

    Why should they not, they are completely immune, they can commit as much fraud as they like and no one can do anything. Is it really that surprising that 35 states have received threats or actual violence has been attempted. I wouldn't do that because I think it is morally wrong, but it's hard to think much well of the medical board members, quite possibly amongst the most corrupt and perverse members of society. Reprimanding the reporting of patient harm without investigating.
    This post was edited by Brett Snodgrass at August 18, 2014 3:44:35 AM PDT
    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 18, 2014 10:00:13 AM PDT

    State Medical Board regulation should be more similar to this.'

    Instead the Medical Board Members in Missouri Pre-judge or predetermine what data to gather, what to investigate, and what to reprimand. For example:

    The State Medical Board committed six counts of fraud v. Dr. Adem for providing good medical care. The Medical Board Members commit crimes more heinous, than those they reprimand. In addition, a clinic has loaned me many thousand dollars to sue the medical board. The State Medical Boards desperately need federal oversight. Whoever said that it was a "good idea," to give a group of physicians absolute immunity and no oversight was probably narcissistic. Kind regards

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 18, 2014 10:01:47 AM PDT

    #Fraud #FraudWatch +American Medical Association (AMA) 
    +American College of Cardiology 

    Greetings, as Telemedicine moves forward, we need to do something effective about Medical Boards such as Missouri. They commit fraud and then reprimand other doctors, such as Dr. Antoine Adem for lesser moral wrongs. They have completely lost sight of the purpose of physicians. They have no accountability for public health, for overall patient safety. They ignorantly and incompletely reprimand doctors for 
    both good medical care and numerous other incompetently documented claims.

    Consider the case of Dr. Antoine Adem, who was helping patients, providing good medical care, healing the sick. The Missouri Medical Board, ignorantly, and probably somewhat maliciously refused to spend one hour to review the cardiac stent guidelines and reprimanded Dr. Adem six times in court. In addition the Missouri Medical Board caused patients in the State to go without medical care while they spent $100,000 plus of the States Money committing fraud. Eventually he was reprimanded for forging a signature. Okay, it is wrong. He did provide good patient care though. What is most perverse. Is that the Medical Board Members demonstrated incompetence, unethical, and unprofessional conduct when they commissioned the act of fraud against him x6. Whatever physician thinks that Medical Boards should be immune to commit fraud and repeatedly reprimand good medical care as they have repeatedly done should be evaluated for being a sociopath, and undergo a series of personality inventories, on various days. The lawyer on the medical board did not even know what PubMed is, and he was trying to say that I was not competent. The Medical Board staff is only paid $50 dollars per day, and the lawyer is paid 110 per hour. The Medical Board Members should be expected to use their medical training to prevent, and not enable the harassment of multiple doctors who were providing good medical care. Furthermore, if the physicians who "serve," on the State Medical Board were interested in the affairs of the State and did not co-opt their position of authority for their own interests, they would reprimand themselves for fraud x 6. 

    Medical Board Members are still forgoing their medical training and reprimanding doctors for providing by-the-books, FDA-approved, Medical care. 
    State Medical Boards need to be limited in their authority. Per the Judge, the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts committed six counts of fraud v. Dr. Antoine Adem and they did not reprimand themselves or their own medical licenses for either fraud or incompetence.

    • Moderator
    • 1955 posts
    August 19, 2014 3:45:39 AM PDT

    This is the link to the Burzynski case and the related fraud. Would any reasonable person file a claim of inappropriate advertising? These crooks on the Texas Medical Board have no active state oversight and no regard for the law. 

    #news #SCOTUS #antitrust #law #NC #dental #ABMS #MOC #MOL
    Had enough medical board fraud yet