The Texas Medical Board Tolerates Child Molestors

So says this article in the Dallas Morning News.

After its last meeting, in late August, the board announced decisions on four sex-related cases. Two involved doctors whom judges had already sentenced for crimes against children. Two involved psychiatrists found to have had affairs with adult patients – potentially sexual assault under Texas law, but they've not been charged.

The child abusers were allowed to go on practicing medicine, though not with kids. The other two are working without restrictions.

It's all part of a broader pattern of tolerance for misconduct, a News analysis shows. Others who kept their licenses after the August meeting include two doctors convicted of lucrative federal crimes that put patients in harm's way; a neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong body part four times; a cardiologist found to have performed dozens of invasive procedures with little or no cause; and at least seven physicians linked to a death.

In the article, the Texas Medical Board explains this and other problems in their disciplinary process to the process itself.

The "further improvements" reference points back to 2002, when the newspaper series led to reform pledges – and to actual change. The board got money to expand its investigative and legal operations. It began examining malpractice claims, many involving patient deaths, which had been ignored for years. The number of cases resulting in discipline shot up. More doctors began to lose their licenses.

But while playing catch-up, the board also has faced a surge of new business. It granted almost 50 percent more licenses in the recently ended fiscal year than in 2002. The number of patients complaining to the board was up 35 percent.

Texas is "a favorable location to practice medicine" because of a relatively strong economy and caps on malpractice awards, board officials explained in a legislative funding request last year. The caps, which voters approved in 2003, also "may have resulted in patients who previously filed malpractice suits now turning to the state regulatory agency to resolve concerns about their care."

The TMB essentially says that with Texas having a good economy as well as favorable laws for doctors (see tort reform) that their resources are extended. In fact, I think there's a much simpler reason and that's corruption. The reason that the TMB doesn't punish bad doctors is because the TMB is filled with systemic corruption. Besides the four doctors mentioned in the piece that should have their license revoked, I'll add a few more that I know of. First, there's Dr. Dan Dugi of Cuero, Texas. In this early 2007 report, Dr. Dugi was caught by investigative reporters from Houston's KPRC of testing a drug not approved by the FDA without patients' permission.

Food and Drug Administration has launched an investigation into a mysterious medicine that was tested on patients in several small towns southwest of Houston, Local 2 Investigates reported Thursday.

The federal investigation centers around a complaint filed by a nurse anesthetist who reported that he witnessed the unapproved drug being given to patients without their knowledge or consent.

...

emphasized in an elaborate sales packet that Dugi provided to Local 2 Investigates.
Former CEO Buckner said, "When I asked him what was in this product as the active ingredient, he wouldn't disclose it, (saying) 'It's still patent pending, waiting for FDA approval,' and they couldn't share that information with us."

In the promotional literature provided to Local 2 Investigates, Dugi wrote that he had treated "well over 1000 patients" and he reported "a superior success rate" in over 90 percent of the patients he treated.

The sales pamphlet then contains 18 separate entries marked "Case Summary," spelling out how the drug performed when applied to those patients' wounds. Some of the documents are marked, "Confidential," but Dugi admitted to KPRC Local 2 that they were all his patients. Photographs and graphs illustrate the healing of the various wounds.

When KPRC Local 2 Investigates approached Dugi for answers, he invited the camera crew into a back room at one of his clinics, but he said very little.

"No filming! No filming!" Dugi said.

The main source on this story, Tim Goosby, had given all of this information and more to the TMB starting in 2003. Dr. Dugi continues in his position at Cuero Community Hospital to this day. The FDA has since removed the drug. Dugi is now being investigated by the U.S. Attorney in the area for crimes related to this and other events.

Then, there's the case of Dr. Mark Blotcky. Dr. Blotcky has had complaints to the board by three former patients that I've confirmed. The most recent complaint came within the last year. Complaints range from misdiagnosis, misuse of prescription drugs, as well as all sorts of corruption related charges related to his duties as an expert witness in the Dallas County family court system. Dr. Blotcky continues to be a practicing psychiatrist in Dallas today.

On the other side, the TMB often targets doctors for wrongdoing for marginal issues. For instance, there's the case of Dr. Bill Rea. Dr. Rea was investigated by the TMB following an anonymous complaint from a patient in 2005. Soon enough, it became obvious that the complaint was actually coming from Oxford Medical Insurance. Dr. Rea became a leader in the field of environmental medicine and was able to build his practice without accepting insurance. Dr. Rea employed the help of his roughly 30000 patients and many wrote and communicated to the TMB of his effectiveness. Still, the TMB continued to investigate Dr. Rea for the better part of three years.

I've also featured the cases of Dr. Chris Kuhne and Dr. Shirley Pigott . The TMB threatened to remove Dr. Pigott's license for not providing a set of medical tests in proper time to a patient. Dr. Kuhne had a similar situation with a patient that was changing doctors and asked for their records. When those records didn't arrive on time, the TMB went after Dr. Kuhne, in a case that wound up lasting about four years.

The long time head of the TMB disciplinary committee, Dr. Keith Miller, was removed about two years ago for charges related to corruption in his role on this committee. (It's this committee that decides punishments for the likes of Dr. Kuehne, Dr. Rea and Dr. Blotcky) In fact, TMB corruption was the subject of a Texas legislature hearings and the conclusions from the legislature were scathing.

Greetings! Three months of grueling preparation paid off handsomely as the Texas
Medical Board took one crushing blow after another from the questions of the legislators on the committee and from the testimonies from the physicians and others at the October 23, 2007 House Appropriations Subcommittee on Regulatory Hearing. This hearing was convened to investigate the abuse of power by the Texas Medical Board. It was a marathon session lasting 11-1/2 hours. Without this hearing we would not have been able to expose the corruption at the TMB. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Representative Fred Brown who, by holding this hearing, demonstrated indomitable courage and determination in the face of extreme political pressure to abandon it.

The hearing made it clear that there is an unholy cabal made up of Don Patrick, Executive Director, Mari Robinson, Director of Litigation and Enforcement, and Roberta Kalafut, President of the TMB, who have despoiled the TMB. There can be no reform without removing them from the board.

Both Kalafut and Patrick have either left the board, or in the case of Patrick retired, but Mari Robinson is still the Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board. Finally, at those hearings, Mari Robinson claimed that Dr. Chris Kuehne signed an affidavit admitting to sexual misconduct with a patient. Dr. Kuehne denied this charge to me and stated unequivocally that there is no such affidavit. Robinson, to this day, has never produced this affidavit. Since she was under oath in front of the legislature, if this is a lie, that would constitute perjury.

The article I linked at the start is the first article in a long time really lifting the veil of the TMB to come from the MSM. Still, it merely scratches the surface. It remains to be seen of the Dallas News, and the author of this piece, Brook Egerton, will stop here or follow up. There should be no shortage of stories if they choose the latter.

Dr. Anna Chacko the Disruptive Physician

UPDATE: Please also check out my new book, The Definitive Dossier on PTSD in Whistleblowers, for only $3.99, in which I dedicate chapter four entirely to the exploits of Dr. Anna Chacko. 

The term disruptive physician is likely one that a layman hasn't heard of. Yet, it is one that is fairly well known within the health care field. It is used by regulators including state medical boards, JCAHO, the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, as well as medical associations including the American Medical Association. Each has a policy for reporting a "disruptive physician" through the medical peer review process. The term disruptive physician is vague and ill defined. In fact, it can almost be summed up by the way Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined obscenity and pornography.

It's hard to define but I know it when I see it

A lot has been written about the traits that characterize a disruptive physician.

A physician's behavior may be defined as disruptive when it ceases to be normative: A disruptive physician can be the surgeon who berates colleagues, residents, and nurses for not performing to his or her standards, and yet constantly violates protocol, arrives early or late for procedures, and disappears at the most inopportune moments.[1] The internist who never uses drugs on the hospital formulary but refuses to serve on the pharmacy committee may be considered disruptive. The pediatrician, a favorite of patients' families, who never completes paperwork but lets it be known that the blame for a child not getting the care that the family believes is needed lies with the administration, nursing staff, and managed care providers who conspire together to prevent the doctor from practicing good medicine may also be considered disruptive. Such behavior takes its toll. Such disruptive physician behavior can undermine the morale of individual staff members, weaken the effectiveness of the medical team in delivering care to patients, spark lawsuits, make it difficult to hire and retain a good staff, and negatively affect the reputation of the institution as well as that of the entire profession. Results of a new survey show that when physicians exhibit disruptive behavior as this, it fuels the nationwide nursing shortage by affecting on-the-job satisfaction and morale for nurses: “The disruptive physician attempts to manipulate supervisors, staff, and patients.…[2]”

The disruptive physician attempts to manipulate supervisors, staff, and patients, often passive-aggressively defying their orders and requests or requiring endless repetition of the same that results in only grudging follow-through. Such physicians will have often “acted out” in some hostile manner. They exhibit verbal hostility, throwing of charts or instruments, hitting desks or computers, or slamming doors. Vague threats against staff, colleagues, and supervisors can also be attributed to such individuals, although these are usually in the form of threats of legal action or administrative action, and not physical harm. Although the physician's ability to handle the day-to-day job requirements appears satisfactory, he or she often shows poor judgment at work by ignoring established policy or performing tasks at the mere fringes of acceptability. Although the physician is often cordial to coworkers and others, he or she is also volatile and appears overly sensitive, and may even go through periods when he or she does not talk to coworkers because they are irritating.

There's also been plenty written about its effects on the work environment.

The New York Times on Tuesday examined how some physicians' negative behavior "contributes to medical mistakes, preventable complications and even death," in addition to "low morale, stress and high turnover" among hospital staff.

According to a survey of health care professionals at not-for-profit 102 hospitals from 2004 to 2007 conducted by Alan Rosenstein of VHA, 67% of respondents thought there was a connection between disruptive behavior and medical mistakes, and 18% said they knew of an error that occurred because of an "obnoxious" physician, the Times reports. One-third of the nurses in the study knew of a nurse who had left a hospital because of the behavior of a physician. In addition, a survey by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices found that 40% of hospital workers reported having been so intimidated by a physician that they did not share concerns about prescription orders and, as a result, 7% said they had contributed to a medication mistake.

The stigma from being labeled a "disruptive physician" can end careers and ironically enough, the charge of disruptive physician has been abused as a means of retaliation. In fact, I have run across several cases in which the charge of disruptive physician was used during the process of sham peer review as a means of retaliation by a corrupt process. (more on that later in the piece)

I say it's ironic because Dr. Anna Chacko, the subject of my ongoing expose series, is the textbook definition of a disruptive physician. It's ironic because there is a plethora of examples of hospital administrations abusing the term disruptive physician to go after a physician that is innocent. All the while, Dr. Anna Chacko has spent the better part of her near three decade career in medicine being nothing but disruptive and never had anyone formally charge her with this term. This is all very logical when you consider that Dr. Anna Chacko is a Psychopath. After all what is a psychopath in the workplace if not disruptive.

Before I go on, here's a quick recap for all first time readers. Dr. Anna Chacko is currently the head of radiology at the Pittsburgh VA. I began tracking her case after sources within the hospital reached out to me. They did this because in their estimation Dr. Chacko has been nothing short of a terror since arriving there in October of 2008. The hospital attempted to remove Dr. Chacko this past March and April, however Congressman Brad Miller reached out to the head of the VA himself, General Eric Shinseki, and the hospital's decision was overridden. Since beginning my investigation, I have spoke to prior colleagues from coast to coast and found that her current behavior is part of a pattern of behavior that causes terror and destruction everywhere Dr. Chacko happens to land. Prior to her stint at the Pittsburgh VA, Dr. Chacko spent fourteen months at St. James Hospital in Butte, Mt. Prior to that she spent about a year at Boston University Medical Center. Prior to that, she spent about six years as head of radiology in Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Ma., a suburb of Boston. Prior to that she spent time in various VA Hospitals as part of her military career. Here are some of the most egregious examples of Dr. Chacko's pattern of behavior as a "disruptive physician".

Upon arriving at St. James Hospital, Dr. Chacko wasted no time in attacking her colleague there Kristi George. George was the radiology manager at St. James. George was actually on vacation the first week of Dr. Chacko's employment. Dr. Chacko made comments about Ms. George's looks, her competency, and she systematically lied in order to impugn George's character and standing in the hospital. Dr. Chacko would often make snide and inappropriate comments about George to George's best friend at the hospital, Jeri Doyle. Doyle was not only Ms. George's best friend, but Ms. George was her boss.

Eventually, multiple witnesses heard Dr. Chacko promise Ms. Doyle that if she helped her (Dr. Chacko) get rid of Ms. George that Ms. Doyle would take over her position. Ms. Doyle is currently serving as radiology manager. Ms. George and Ms. Doyle now don't speak and are, let's just say, no longer friends. Meanwhile, Ms. George was eventually fired right after Dr. Chacko left St. James. Her firing, and everything that preceded it, was the subject of a civil claim between Ms. George, St. James Hospital, Dr. Chacko, and other parties, that was recently settled and is now under seal.

While at Lahey Clinic, Dr. Chacko would often bring in members of the radiology department into her office. Then, Dr. Chacko would ask one radiologist why another radiologist hates them. Then, Dr. Chacko would bring in the other radiologist and reverse the process. These questions were often based on wild misrepresentations or outright lies. No one in fact hated anyone else. Instead, Dr. Chacko would make this up in order to split the department.

In another case, Dr. Chacko bought several hundred thousand dollars worth of radiology equipment. The equipment was delivered and the salesperson was finalizing the deal when Dr. Chacko demanded to cancel the deal and take the equipment back. The salesperson was so livid that she could be heard screaming through the hospital, "you had no problem with our equipment when we paid for you to go to India (Dr. Chacko's place of birth)"

In one infamous incident,Dr. Chacko lit into a resident at a staff meeting calling her lazy, careless, stupid, etc. The staff, sat in horror, too amazed to speak up. They looked at each other in shock at the vitriol, and just as they were about to say enough, lets move on, she stopped and discussed another issue. But she swung that issue around to residents and then began the attack a new. The rest of the staff were too shocked to say anything and they looked around like “are we hearing this correctly, this is too much”. Everyone was whispering and about to say move on when she stopped and started on another item. The item was again artificially swung to residents in general and then on to the resident again. The staff again listened and were about to speak up and the cycle repeated itself 6 or 7 times, each time a shorter echo but no less personally violent. Each of the staff said the same thing: shameful. And they later felt shame and said later that they should have spoken up. From fear they held back a few seconds, she knew when to change the subject, and knew she could do it all conference long.

(I confirmed this incident with the subject of the attack, now a doctor in a hospital in Illinois, but lost contact with her before getting permission to use her name.)

Finally, when Dr. Chacko was removed from Lahey Clinic, she was removed forcefully by security. She could be heard screaming through the hospital, "kiss my big Indian ass "as she was dragged out.

Since Dr. Chacko began working at the Pittsburgh VA, her behavior is similar. There are several doctors at the VA that are legal resident aliens. Dr. Chacko is known to threaten to go to immigration and report them if they cross her. Dr. Chacko disallows the radiologists to have any personal conversations. Often, doctors hide in utility closets just to converse. In a bit of tragic irony, one source tells me that the chief tech and the administrative officer at the Pittsburgh VA were best friends for years. Then, the chief tech began siding with Dr. Chacko. Meanwhile, the administrative officer filed several formal complaints against Dr. Chacko. The two, the tech and the administrative officer, are now no longer on speaking terms and this source believes that the chief tech is now Dr. Chacko's spy trying to find information about the radiology department.

Finally, my source also tells me that Dr. Chacko has been filing a series of complaints against members of the department for a series of dubious problems.

In each case, Dr. Chacko's behavior goes to divide the hospital and the department she's supposed to lead. Friends are often put in a position to attack other friends. More than one source has complained of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after having to deal with Dr. Chacko. More than one has hired an attorney to deal with complaints leveled at them by Dr. Chacko. Sources describe climates of fear, distrust and extreme stress when they've worked with her. I have only scratched the surface on a thirty year career in which there are systematic examples of Dr. Chacko being a "disruptive physician".

She has worked in numerous states in numerous hospitals. Yet, she's never faced any formal discipline for being a disruptive physician. I earlier said this is ironic. That's because it's common place for the accusation of a disruptive physician to be used simply as a tool of retaliation. As I said, I have run across several cases in which this has happened. In one case, Dr. John Bagnato began investigating the major hospital in his hometown, Phoebe Putney. Dr. Bagnato found what he believed to be a systematic practice of overcharging and over billing of many of the indigent patients that Phoebe Putney. His investigation became a crusade and is now the subject of the documentary, Do No Harm. Dr. Bagnato told me that about a year he attempted to reinstate formal privileges at Phoebe Putney. Prior to that, he would only be at the hospital an average of once monthly. During this process, the hospital opened up a peer review investigation in which Dr. Bagnato was charged with, among other things, being a disruptive physician. As of the last time we spoke, those charges were still pending.

In another case, Dr. Stephen Taylor of Huntsville Vascular Surgery Inc. got into a financial dispute with the rest of his team. This dispute eventually lead one of his former partners to bring up a formal complaint that Dr. Taylor was a "disruptive physician". Dr. Taylor told me that he was making $750,000 yearly prior to the incident and once the charge wound up on his record he was only able to make between $50 and $75,000.

In another case that is frankly to complicated to recount here, Dr. Shirley Pigott was charged with being a "disruptive physician" because she didn't send a patient their test results in the required 15 days. (the test results were sent about a month after that time had expired)

When I started working on this series, the question I wanted most answered is how Dr. Chacko has gotten away with perverting the medical system for so long. After all, having a Psychopath run wild runs counter to everything we stand for. The answer to this question is extremely complicated and will need to be the subject of more than one blog post.

It's clear that the perversion of the term "disruptive physician" is central in answering that question. It is both tragic and shameful that Dr. Chacko has had a career that has taken her from Texas, to Boston, to Butte, Mt. and now Pittsburgh (as well as many places in between) and never has she been brought up formally on charges of being a disruptive physician. Given that it is common place for innocent doctors to be the subject of false "disruptive physician" charges, that is nothing short but an indictment of the corruption of the medical system at large.

It is, however, a situation that can be corrected. Both JCAHO, the Pennsylvania Medical Board, along with dozens of other regulators and medical associations need to be notified immediately of the overwhelming evidence that Dr. Chacko is a disruptive physician. The purpose of the creation of this term was to prevent exactly the environment that Dr. Chacko's behavior creates in each and every place she winds up working. Never has a case so obviously exposed the weaknesses and flaws of bad policy like that of the case of Dr. Anna Chacko and the term "disruptive physician".

Epilogue:

Here's the definitive dossier on Dr. Chacko.

The Nightmare of Dr. Shirley Pigott II

Introduction: The back story is far too long and complicated to explain here. So, if this is your first exposure to this story, here is the back story.

According to the Victoria Advocate, Dr. Shirley Pigott has been convicted of two felonies for evading arrest with a motor vehicle.

Shirley Pigott, former Victoria doctor, was convicted Thursday of two felonies for evading arrest with a motor vehicle.

The charges stem from a September 2007 traffic stop when she refused to cooperate with Department of Public Safety troopers and fled the stop twice, once at speeds of 100 mph, according to a news release from the Wharton County district attorney's office.

The jury acquitted her of aggravated assault of a public servant for attempting to force a DPS trooper out of her way with her vehicle, according to the news release.

Pigott faces two to 10 years in prison and is not eligible for probation. She elected to have the judge set punishment. The punishment hearing will be Oct. 30.

The conviction stems from this incident.



Now, like I said, the back story on this is too long to explain here. So, please check it out here again. (I'll assume everyone reading from here forward is aware of the back story)

Here's what is of note. This incident occurred in Wharton, Texas. Dr. Pigott's hometown is Victoria, Texas, about fifty miles away. The Victoria Advocate is the hometown newspaper of Dr. Pigott. This story along with another that reported Dr. Pigott's medical license suspension stemming from this incident are the only two mentions of Dr. Pigott in her hometown newspaper.

Judging by the comments, (30 and counting on this story and 69 comments from the previous story) every time she's mentioned it attracts viewers to their site. Dr. Pigott has tried to get the Advocate to publish her story on numerous occasions, and she's been denied each and every time. In fact, she's been mentioned more times by me, from Chicago, than her home town paper.

Both times her story was mentioned in the Advocate, she wasn't given a chance to tell her side. Dr. Pigott is in her 60's. She has no criminal history and she was a doctor for nearly thirty years until her license was suspended in March. The area in which Dr. Pigott was convicted has a history of corruption and a source tells me that more evidence will come out between now and sentencing at the end of September.

The Inside Story of ACORN 8

There is an old saying, "it's not the crime but the cover up". Martha Stewart is a good example. Her initial crime would have likely lead to a somewhat hefty fine had she admitted to it. Because she attempted to cover it up, she wound up going to jail.

The story of the formation of ACORN 8 can be summed up by a new saying, "it's the crime AND the cover up".

In May of 2008, it was first revealed to the board of ACORN that nearly a decade earlier Dale Rathke had embezzled about one million dollars from Citizens Consulting Inc., the financial services arm of ACORN, and Wade Rathke, the long time CEO of ACORN, along with 8 other lieutenants, had covered it up. As such, at the next board meeting, Karen Inman, board member from Minnesota, brought a motion to remove Dale Rathke from the organization as well as remove Wade Rathke from his post as CEO. The motion was seconded by about twenty other board members and motion eventually passed later in the meeting.

Because of the seriousness of the crimes, ACORN also decided to form an investigative committee. The committee was given the duty of investigating the embezzlement and anything related to it, so that such criminality would never happen again. The committee would consist of Ms. Inman, who would focus on legal issues. Marcel Reid , board member from Washington D.C., would focus on the organizational structure of ACORN. Meanwhile, Carol Hemingway would focus on financial issues.

For the next two months, the three ladies began investigating ACORN in order to make sure that any systemic and structural problems were removed. They found all sorts of anecdotal evidence that the organization was involved in much more criminality than simply the embezzlement. For instance, in an email, ACORN's attorney, Steve Bachmann. indicated to Inman that ACORN had been involved in ERISA violations. Bachmann indicated that ACORN employee pension funds were mismananged. Inman also found instances of lesser embezzlement. (between $6000 and $9000) She found instances in which affiliates that were 501 (C)3's were mingling their funds with those that were of other tax structures. (that's a tax violation because 501 (C)3's enjoy special tax protection that other organizations do not) Often, when people within ACORN would reveal past criminality, that admission would be followed by this quote "but that doesn't happen anymore". (which is interestingly enough what Mike Jones, Comptroller of CCI told Inman about the events that lead to another piece of criminality discovered outside this investigation)

Meanwhile, Marcel Reid found evidence that CCI, Citizen's Consulting Inc., was much more than merely the accounting and financial services arm of ACORN. She found evidence that CCI was the financial weigh station of all ACORN funds. Any monies, be it from charities or even government grants, would wind up at CCI first and then be transferred to anyone of several hundred ACORN affiliates. Reid even found evidence of co mingling and misuse of funds. There was again anecdotal evidence that earmarked monies weren't winding up where they were supposed to go. In other words, the government might give millions to fund health care projects in poor neighborhoods but it would wind up funding a media campaign.

What was missing was the financial evidence that would tie all of this together. That evidence lied in the financial statements of ACORN. In fact, Inman believed that a full forensic accounting audit would be necessary to get to the bottom of things. So, Ms. Inman decided to approach Liz Wolff, the Research Director of ACORN to request viewing the books.. When she came to see Wolff, Inman found her door closed. Minutes later, the door opened and walked out Wade Rathke, the same Wade Rathke that was supposedly removed from ACORN only months earlier. After meeting with Inman, Wolff refused to allow her to see ACORN's. books.

At roughly the same time, the board was also made aware that ACORN was about $2 million behind in state and federal taxes. Weeks later, both Karen Inman and Marcel Reid were witnessed to a meeting between the new CEO of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, Maude Hurd, who headed the ACORN board, and Alton Bennett of ACORN Housing. Lewis told the group that she had secured both a loan and a grant from Forest City, a loan of $1.5 million and a grant of $500,000. She wanted their approval to accept the deal. Ms. Hurd expressed reservations because the terms of the loan stated that if it ever fell behind the rate would jump to 18%. To which Bennett pronounced, "if your struggling to pay in any given month, ACORN Housing will make the payment." Hurd ultimately denied the request to allow the loan and instead ordered Lewis to gain approval of the entire board in order to approve the loan. (I chronicle the details of this loan and the backstory of what maybe a quid pro quo here)

Inman and Reid met privately following this exchange. They were very concerned by what they witnessed and they decided to immediately seek a temporary restraining order against destruction of any financial records related to the embezzlement, any communication between Wade and Dale Rathke regarding the embezzlement, and any other records related to the embezzlement. They eventually won this TRO and their lawyer indicated to them that the judge indicated that as BOARD MEMBERS THEY HAD A RIGHT TO SEE ACORN'S BOOKS.

The TRO would cost all sorts of money to maintain, however, and so if Reid and Inman wanted to see the books they would need to get a writ of mandamus. The writ was signed by eight board members, Reid, Inman, Adriana Jones, Fannie Brown, Robert Smith, Ivonne Strattford, and Stephanie Cannady.

Now, things became very contentious between these eight and the rest of ACORN. So, in early October, a negotiating committee was created between these eight and three other members of the board of ACORN. Reid, Inman, and Mobley represented the eight and the rest of ACORN was represented by three other board members including Frank Beatty of Las Vegas and Sonia Merchant of Massachusetts. The two sides met for the better part of a full day. They attempted to hash out their differences. After the meeting, Karen Inman, at least, felt as though real progress was made and she felt that things were heading in the right direction. Instead about two weeks later, they were all removed from the board of ACORN. Since they were no longer on the board, the judges interpretation of the law no longer applied either.

ACORN 8 was officially born. It's since grown and includes many more members than eight. The group is now determined to bring all of ACORN's criminality to light. Carol Hemingway, the individual in charge of investigating the financial portion of ACORN, the part that was missing in putting the pieces together (at least from the perspective of Karen Inman), is now the Treasurer of ACORN.

Whenever, either Reid and Inman, the most prominent members of ACORN 8, are interviewed people like Glenn Beck often dwell on their courage and heroism. I, for one, think that is beside the point. ACORN itself would love nothing more than to have Inman and Reid's heroism be the story. That would make this a human interest story. It isn't a human interest story. The story is very simple. The CEO's brother embezzled a million dollars from the organization. The CEO covered it up. Marcel Reid and Karen Inman were elected to investigate the matter and everything related to it. That's what they did. That was their fiduciary duty. That was their job. There's nothing heroic about doing your job. They did their job. In fact, they did it too well. As such, ACORN removed them from their board positions. You can draw your own conclusions but as my favorite Latin phrase goes, Res Ipsa Loquitor (the facts speak for themselves)

I, however, have a unique perspective to judge these lady's heorism and courage. That's because I have had the privilege of chronicling the stories of whistleblowers all over the country. Kevin Kuritzky brought to light crimes at Atlanta's Grady Hospital and his life has been ruined because of it. Dr. Blake Moore reported on a nurse at his hospital, Williamsburg Regional Hospital, that was acting as an "angel of mercy" and eventually the entire state of South Carolina did all they could to ruin his life. Jim Singer reported on serious malfeasance within Pennsylvania's Department of Child Welfare and he lost his license to practice psychology for more than two decades. Gerard Beloin reported on corruption in roofing contracts at his local high school, Goffstown High School, and he now lives in fear of his life. Dennis Lennox exposed corruption in the hiring of a prestigious Fellow at Central Michigan University and he was nearly expelled from school. Dr. Shirley Pigott attempted to expose corruption at the Texas Medical Board and she's since lost her license to practice medicine. In fact, the main reason I admire Sarah Palin is she was once a whistleblower. Blowing the whistle on corruption in any organization means that you are up against the establishment, a force more powerful than you. There are in fact very few acts more courageous than becoming a whistleblower. For that, these ladies deserve our respect, but their courage shouldn't be what this story is about. The criminality that forced them to become whistleblowers is what this story must be about.

The Nightmare of Dr. Shirley Pigott (Update)

Talk to most any competent and knowledgeable doctor and they are likely to tell you that one of the flaws of our entire health care system is that doctors negotiate with the insurance companies rather than having the individual negotiate with the insurance company. Think about that as I tell this story that starts with the video I am about to show. This is an arrest that happened September 29th, 2007. This started as a speeding ticket that ended with a violent confrontation.









The driver is Dr. Shirley Pigott. On this night she was headed to Houston Intercontinental Airport on Saturday, September 29, 2007, to attend the annual meeting of the American Academy of Family Physicians in Chicago. She was to meet Doug Curran MD, President of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, to discuss a grievance. At the time, she was alleging that he retaliated against her by having her investigated for what she described as a trivial complaint by his cohort on the BCBS Advisory, Keith E Miller MD, who was Chairman of the TMB Disciplinary Process Review Committee. She was stopped by two Texas State Police Officers, Alfred Ochoa and Daniel Terronez. The events of that night are unclear so here is her testimony of what happened that night.

07:53 minutes: Officer Terronez goes to his car, gets in, and backs up, with the obvious intent to wedge me in.

08:31 minutes: Ochoa: "Stop! You're going to cause a [sic] accident! What are you doing?!?" I realigned myself at a 45 degree angle from the highway.

09:16 minutes: Officer Terronez walks to the right rear of my car and begins bashing the window in with his heavy flashlight. This is no emergency according to the Texas Penal Code. According to the Texas Penal Code, he is using overwhelming force.

09:18 minutes: Terronez continues his violent attack. I haltingly start off..

09:19 minutes: Ochoa: "Stop! There's
traffic coming!" Terronez continues to bash in my right rear window
violently.09:21 minutes: I pull out onto the highway, moving faster. Terronez
does not even pause, although he is facing oncoming traffic, and should have
seen the rapidly approaching 18-wheeler barreling down upon us - particularly
because Ochoa was screaming about it.

09:30 minutes: Seeing the 18-wheeler, Ochoa
yells a side-splitting exclamation: "THERE'S TRAFFIC COMING!!! YOU'RE GOING TO
GET RUN OVER!!!"

09:45 minutes: Terronez does not even pause. On the contrary,
the video shows him running after my car striking it violently, forcing me to
flee as I told him I would!

09:49 minutes: I stomp on the accelerator and almost collide with the monster truck I had not seen nor heard. If the driver had not swerved left (without slowing) and I had not swerved right, I would have been obliterated by a semi-truck hurtling down the highway at 70 mph. My children would now be orphans. As I quickly accelerate, the truck can be seen on the video flying by. The Doppler sound effect confirms its top speed. When I reach 107 mph, the car smells like it's burning so I go no faster. I continue at 107 mph for 93 seconds until I see a place that may be open for business. I slow down and see that it's not.11:22 minutes: I accelerate back up to 55 mph until
I'm inside the Wharton City Limits and see other law enforcement officers waiting as I had originally requested.

15:12 minutes: I pull over beyond the parked patrol cars and wait for the officers. To my dismay, officer Ochoa and Terronez are the ones who approach me again. I requested for one of the new officers to question me. I wait for the other officers to gather around, then get out.

Just over a year later, she was charged with a first degree felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against an officer in the line of duty. The same day she was first charged, her husband, Dr. Dale Pigott, killed himself. She is now facing potentially spending the rest of her life in prison.



As you should have been able to tell, everything I have just said is part of a much longer story. All of this is either the paranoid rantings of Dr. Shirley Pigott, or she has been treated for nearly eight years like no American should, and she's about to face spending the rest of her life in jail.

If you believe Dr. Pigott, here is essentially what happened. For years, she, like most private family physicians, has done battle with her main insurance carrier, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, over proper payment. She eventually formed an alliance with other private family physicians all over the country in order to stand up the insurance company's heavy handed tactics in billing. The group she lead was making headway and as a result, BCBS formed an alliance with several powerful doctors in order to commit sham peer review against Dr. Pigott. Their attempts eventually fizzled out and failed, and then she was targeted with this particular arrest.



To understand the story, here is a list of most of the main characters and their role in it.


Dr. Doug Curran is private family physician in a modest area of Texas. He is also the former head of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians and continues to be one of three members of the super secret BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee. The TAFP is the Texas branch of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The AAFP is the most powerful special interest group representing family physicians. Dr. Curran serves on the super secret BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee with two other doctors, Dr. Keith Miller and Dr. Fred Merian. Dr. Miller is currently a private family physician in Center, Texas and he was during the events in question the head of the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Committee. That committee is in charge of judging cases of purported malfeasance by doctors in Texas. Dr. Fred Merian is the third person on the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee and he was during the time in question also the head of the Texas Medical Association. The TMA is the biggest association of doctors in Texas.

Dr. Shirley Pigott is a practicing private family physician for twenty five year private family physician in Victoria, Texas. She was also during the time in question an active member in the TAFP. . Dee Whittlesey was the "physician's advocate" for BCBS during the time in question. ) Dr. Pigott went through the process of medical peer review at the Texas Medical Board. This involved a process called an informal settlement conference. This was the TMB's equivalent of a hearing and this hearing was presided by Dr. Keith Miller. The committee rendered its findings in writing, and the process of appealing these findings went through a state agency called the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).



Dr. Doug Curran was once both head of Texas Academy of Family Physicians and one of three members of the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee. A few years back, he was featured in this print ad. Within months, this puff piece appeared on the internet. It featured some flattering comments from Dee Whittlesby of Blue Cross Blue Shield. Blue Cross Blue Shield carries the insurance for about one third of all Texans. As such, they have a regional monopoly for health insurance in Texas.

Now, remember what I said at the beginning. Dr. Curran is clearly in a conflict of interest. He's a member of some board on BCBS, he's featured in their advertisements, at the very same time he's head of the most powerful group representing doctors in Texas. In other words, he represents doctors at the same time he is in bed, so to speak, with the very insurance companies that he and the doctors he represents have to negotiate with.




All of this Dr. Pigott discovered during a nearly five year ordeal that was reaching its zenith when Dr. Pigott began driving toward Houston's airport to meet Dr. Curran to confront him again when she was stopped by two state police on September 29th, 2007.


For years Dr. Pigott had always had disputes with BCBS over billing.
Over the course of several meetings with other doctors in the profession, she found out that most private family physicians had similar experiences. Throughout the country members complained that they were being squeezed, intimidated, and targeted by insurance companies. Many members complained that the AAFP wasn't doing enough to represent their interests against insurance companies. After about a year, the group finally decided to stop complaining and do something about it. What eventually grew was a group of doctors that called themselves the "35 group" (because the group initially had 35 members). They formed an alliance of private family physicians that was going to demand action from the AAFP.

The "35 group"* came up with three mandates that they planned on presenting first at the state level and eventually nationally. The three mandates were as follows: 1)the AAFP was going to be more aggressive in representing the interests of family physicians, 2)it was not acceptable for insurance companies to refuse to pay for medically necessary office tests or minor procedures 3)a clearing house would be created for complaints of family physicians to be shared among members of AAFP.

These three mandates would serve as the bedrock for a new commitment for the AAFP to serve the interest of its private family doctor members more aggressively.

Dr. Pigott was put in charge of getting these three mandates through the Texas branch of the AAFP later that year in 2005. The proper procedure in the TAFP would for these three mandates to be debated in the Health Care and Managed Care Services Committee. The committee was enthusiastic about the three mandates and there was near unanimous agreement that this be moved to the full TAFP. Only one doctor argued against the resolutions - Dr. Doug Curran. Dr. Curran was not even a member of this particular committee. He was however the President Elect of the TAFP and decided to sit in on this particular hearing. At this time, Dr. Pigott had only heard of Dr. Curran, and this was her first direct contact with him. Despite Curran's dissension, the mandates passed and eventually they were passed in the national organization (AAFP) later that year.

In March of 2006, Dr. Pigott treated a peculiar patient. (due to the doctor/patient relationship the name obviously can't be revealed) The standard procedure that Dr. Pigott uses in her practice, initially, for a patient who wants her "health risks" evaluated is to take a medical history and order several basic lab tests. Then, when the tests come back, Dr. Pigott would meet with the patient to interpret the tests. It is this second appointment where Dr. Pigott would teach the patient what the tests meant and what the patient can do to improved her health risks. It is now that proper dieting, exercise, and frankly general lifestyle changes can be recommended based on the results of the tests. This particular patient didn't want any part of the second meeting. She sent Dr. Pigott's office a letter requesting that the tests be mailed to her, in violation of Dr. Pigott's policy. A second letter was more confrontational and threatened a complaint to the medical board if the tests weren't sent. According to a board rule, the patient has the right to receipt of those tests within 15 calendar days.

Because the behavior was so unusual, things unfolded before anyone realized. Dr. Pigott's administrative staff received the letters. The tests weren't sent because that is not the procedure. Dr. Pigott wasn't made aware of the letters until just more than 15 days had gone by. The tests were then sent out and no one thought about it again for a while.

In July of 2006, Dr. Pigott again prepared to present that year's mandates on behalf of the group of 35. These were several specific mandates in pursuit of accomplishing the goals of the mandates passed the previous year. Dr. Pigott expected this particular hearing to go fairly smoothly. She had been in contact with the TAFP for months, and each of the mandates had been announced to the organization. Dr. Pigott believed prior to the hearing that this would nothing more than a mere formality.

The hearing went nothing like she expected right from the start. The hearing was scheduled for two hours and it was an hour and forty five minutes before she was even allowed to speak. Each of her proposals was met with resistance. Members claimed that mandates were already being covered by other mandates, or that they had already been addressed. No matter what Dr. Pigott proposed, the committee had a confrontational response to it. Not only were each of the mandates killed but Dr. Pigott felt humiliated by the treatment of the committee. The person that was leading the charge in resisting each of these mandates was of course none other than Dr. Curran. Again, he wasn't even part of the committee, but rather decided to sit in as part of his duties as President.

Within months, several other things happened. First, Dr. Pigott was formally notified in writing of an upcoming informal settlement conference to settle a complaint by the previous patient who claimed that Dr. Pigott didn't return their lab reports in proper time.

Then, Dr. Curran appeared in the advertisement and puff piece I spoke about earlier.

Dr. Pigott found these two things to signal a gross conflict of interest. In fact, it likely violated the Texas Medical Practices Act's position on so called testimonial advertising. Dr. Pigott began reaching out to anyone that would listen. She went up the chain of command at not only the TAFP but the AAFP. She even reached out to Dee Whittelsey herself. She even made several attempts to contact Curran himself. She called Jim White and Doug Henley along with Whittelsey and Curran.

The responses ranged from no comment to simply that none of what she complained about was in fact a conflict of interest. Dr. Pigott was not satisfied. She decided to use listserve. Listserve is the intranet chat room for all members of the AAFP. She complained on listserve that she believed the advertisement, the article, along with Curran's confrontational behavior amounted to a conflict of interest.

Finally, Dr. Curran confronted Dr. Pigott directly by phone. During a twenty minute conversation, Curran vigorously defended his actions and refused to acknowledge any conflict of interest. Then, out of the blue Curran said this,

by the way, do you know I'm on the BCBS Texas Medical Advisor Commitee

By September of 2007, her case came up in the informal settlement conference in front of the disciplinary committee chaired by Dr. Keith Miller. Dr. Pigott expected nothing more than a minor slap on the wrist. After all, not sending out lab reports with 15 days (she says the lab reports got to the patient in about 20 days) is frankly the medical violations equivalent of j walking.Instead, Dr. Miller began questioning Dr. Pigott very heavily. Throughout the hearing Miller tried to get Pigott to admit to wrong doing. He asked questions like

isn't the failure to give lab reports a violation of your oath as a doctor

Dr. Pigott felt like a witness on cross examination. This simple hearing about a technical violation turned into an interrogation.

Of course, within weeks, the incident that started the story occurred.

There was typical around a six month lag time between the informal hearing and the written findings being issued and thus this portion wouldn't pick up until the beginning of March of 2007.

In one week, at the end of February and the beginning of March, three simultaneous though seemingly divorced (on the surface at least) events happened. First, she received a letter from the AAFP saying that her list serve privileges would be suspended. Then, Dr. Pigott attended a special hearing of the TAFP to discuss the concerns that she had raised about Dr. Curran. Since he had promised to cease all the activities that concerned her, Dr. Pigott had decided that it was no longer necessary to bring any mandates against him up for debate. Thus, when called, she merely said she was fine.

The TAFP, lead by Curran himself, then proceeded to charge three mandates against Dr. Pigott: 1)Dr. Pigott acted nastily and inappropriately toward Dr. Curran, 2)the Committee had treated Dr. Pigott appropriately at the 2006 meeting (when all of the mandates she brought to the floor were voted down), and 3)Dr. Pigott must write a letter to everyone she contacted regarding this matter and essentially make a mea culpa.

Then, when she got home from the meeting, she received the written findings from the TMB Disciplinary Committee. (keep in mind again that this is all over a patient not receiving lab results in fifteen but about twenty days) Here are some highlights.

Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based upon Respondent's unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to injure the public, in particular, the disruptive behaviors that could reasonably be expected to impact the quality of her patients' care, as described in Board Rule 190.8(2)(Q).(3) [c04-Vio Rule 165 – Med Recds] Section 164.051 (a)...For a period of one year from the date of the Board's entry of this Order, Respondent's practice shall be monitored by a physician

...

The Compliance Division of the Board shall designate the monitor and may change the monitor at any time for any reason. The monitor shall have expertise in a similar specialty area as Respondent. The Compliance Division shall provide a copy of this Order to the monitor, together with other information necessary to assist the monitor

....

The Compliance Division shall select records for at least 30 patients seen by Respondent during each three-month period following the last day of the month of entry of this Order

Thus, to conclude, for being late in getting lab results, Dr. Pigott

wasunprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to injure the public, in particular, the disruptive behaviors that could reasonably be expected to impact the quality of her patients' care

The punishment for this behavior included being monitored by a doctor appointed by the TMB and access to up to 30 patient's records. I believe the term draconian comes to mind when analyzing this punishment.At this point, Dr. Pigott finally realized for sure that something was rotten in Denmark, as Shakespeare might say. Dr. Pigott decided not to accept the findings. In her letter, Dr. Pigott disputed everything the disciplinary committee found and for the first time she used the term, sham peer review.

This incident is an egregious example of what is commonly termed sham peer review. Without conscience, certain members of the Board have defamed my character and have determined to cause me harm.

Sham peer review is a process by which medical peer reviews like the one that Dr. Pigott had just gone through get corrupted. They can be summarized by one simple phrase: judge, jury, and executioner. The corrupting forces usually not only bring the charges, but they are the ones presenting the charges, and also in a position to rule on them. (veterans of my work will remember the case of Dennis Lennox in which he faced his own cousin of sham peer review. The concept of judge, jury and executionor certainly applied to his case as well) In this case, while there is no proof, the patient was likely a plant, and the corrupting forces always planned to bring the case in front of Dr. Keith Miller so that he could issue this draconian charge.

She decided to investigate some of the players. The most important discovery was the discovery in the TMB website that listed in the bio of Dr. Keith Miller was his position in the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Board. She began making inquiries to members of the TMB, TAFP, AAFP, and BCBS itself. Everyone she spoke to neither confirmed or denied his position on this panel. She shared what she had found with the TMB attorney Katie Johnonius. Johnonius was unmoved, and thus the battle would now move to SOAH, the medical peer review version of appeals courts.

Once she discovered this new information, she took everything she had and hired Austin, Texas lawyer Clark Watts. Watts took what she gave him and approached Scott Freshour, head of litigation at the TMB. (the head of litigation would take over the case from here). Freshour and Watts agreed to a reduced penalty. This penalty removed most of the draconian language but still instituted a heavy fine and other stiff measures (continuing education, lighter monitoring, etc). Pigott refused to take this. Watts approached Freshour again and this time they settled on a $500 fine and 10 hours of continuing education in patient safetyThe Group of 35, family physicians from all over the country formed to try and do three things: 1)the AAFP was going to be more aggressive in representing the interests of family physicians, 2)it was not acceptable for insurance companies to refuse to pay for medically necessary office tests or minor procedures 3)a clearing house would be created for complaints of family physicians to be shared among members of AAFP. It was the job of each member of the group of 35 to go back to their respective state's Association of Family Physicians to gain momentum for each of these three mandates. Dr. Pigott was in charge of building consensus for these three mandates in Texas. One day, while representing the Group of 35 in a committee meeting within the TAFP, Dr. Pigott first ran into Dr. Doug Curran. He was the only holdout in an idea that Dr. Pigott was presenting on behalf of the Group of 35.


At about this time, Dr. Pigott was involved with a peculiar patient. The patient demanded their blood work without making another appointment. Then, the patient filed a complaint when the X rays weren't released within the allotted time which was supposed to be 15 days. The patient got about 45 days after the appointment.


This initial complaint eventually lead to Dr. Pigott appearing in front of the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Board then headed by Dr. Keith Miller. Dr. Miller also served on the BCBS advisory board at this time with Dr. Dough Curran. On nothing more than the ridiculous trumped up technicalities, the TMB disciplinary committee eventually heard her case early September of 2007. Eventually the committee made these fndings which included suspension of her license. At about the same time, Dr. Miller was removed from his position from the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Committee. (Dr. Miller resigned August 31st, 2007)

Miller’s resignation was due to the intense scrutiny of his abusive and tyrannical actions against physicians while on the TMB. It was also due to his relationship with Bridget Hughes, his Nurse Practitioner. Bridget Hughes, who was found to be a narcotics addict by the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners while employed by Miller, continues to work as Miller’s nurse practitioner at his office in Center, Texas. Hughes had her prescription writing ability suspended when she was disciplined by the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners (TBNE) on April 16, 2007 for stealing (50) triplicate prescriptions from her previous supervising physician employer and forging his name to obtain narcotics for her own use

Much of the evidence against Dr. Miller that eventually lead to his dismissal was introduced by Dr. Shirely Pigott herself. By then, Dr. Pigott had formed something called the Texas Medical Board Watch. This became one of the only watchdog groups over the TMB. Among the corruption discovered by Dr. Pigott is how the TMB looks the other way while Dr. Mark Blotcky systematically corrupts the Dallas County divorce and child custody system. They've also gone after Dr.'s Chris Kuehne and Dr. Bill Rea among a list of doctors that lists in the thousands.

Dr. Pigott, herself, was grilled in her own hearing in front of the TMB Disciplinary Committee. At one point, Dr. Miller proclaimed.

isn't the failure to give lab reports a violation of your oath as a doctor

By February of 2007, the TMB Disciplinary Comittee had delivered their findings. The initial punishment included suspension of her license, monitoring of her practice for a period of a year among several rather draconian punishments. Rather than accepting this punishment, Dr. Pigott countered with her own written response. In the response, Dr. Pigott accused the TMB of orchestrating a sham peer review against her. Dr. Pigott then hired Clark Watts, a lawyer who had once been a surgeon until he had a sham peer review orchestrated against him. She took all of the evidence against the TMB, Dr. Doug Curran and Dr. Keith Miller, and the multiple conflict of interests she discovered. The case was eventually settled with a slap in the wrist that included a few hundred dollar fine.

All of this would have finally had a happy ending for Dr. Pigott. That is until the arrest on September 29th, 2007.

Since her arrest, a new charge was brought against Dr. Pigott to the very same TMB Disciplinary Board. This time, as a result of her arrest and ultimate grand jury indictment, the TMB Disciplinary Committee, on March 24th of this year, suspended her license to practice medicine. The news of this suspension was carried in Dr. Pigott's local newspaper, the Victoria Advocate.

The action last week came after a determination that Pigott's continuation in the practice of medicine presents a continuing threat to the public welfare, according to a Texas Medical Board news release.

The action was based on Pigott's failure to comply with a previous board order, unprofessional and dishonorable conduct, and impaired mental status, according to the release.

This is all very peculiar because this particular story is the only time that Dr. Pigott appears in the Advocate. Even more peculiar is that the story has 69 comments, and counting, attached to it. That's an impressive number for a story in a major newspaper, let alone for some crime announcement in the local newspaper of a little town in Victoria. The comments are impassioned and they go both ways.


So, there is the story as condensed as I can tell it. Dr. Pigott now faces a trial date and is currently unemployed.

UPDATE:

Here the latest twist in the story.

The Stunning Hubris of the Texas Medical Board

Dr. Pigott,

The Texas Medical Board's policy regarding appeal by a complainant of the dismissal of a complaint is set out in Section 178.8 of the Board Rules.


Sincerely, Joan Donley,

CNITexas Medical Board

Joan Donley is an investigator with the Texas Medical Board. The complaint she refers to is a complaint filed against Dr. Mark Blotcky. Dr. Mark Blotcky is an psychiatrist that also works with the Dallas County Family Court System as a court appointed expert witness and psychiatrist in cases of child custody.

I have recently written three horrible stories about obscene amounts of corruption and criminality perpetrated by Dr. Mark Blotcky. In one story, Dr. Susan Diamond is accused of having Munchhausen by proxy by Dr. Blotcky even though he had never had Dr. Diamond as a patient. In another story, a child gains more than 20 pounds in about ten weeks when he is only 9 as a result of the prescription cocktail that Dr. Blotcky prescribed him. In the third story, he helped to orchestrate child abuse charges against a 270 pound man against his 12 year old son, even though he never files charges anywhere but the Dallas Family Court System.

As a result of these three stories, Dr. Shirley Pigott, who this email is addressed to, filed a formal complaint with the Texas Medical Board. This is the first time we have heard from Ms. Donley however another person responded to this inquiry so far. This was the Mari Robinson , and attorney and currently the Interim Executive Director. Here is what she said.

A thorough review of this matter has now been completed. An investigation was not filed because the initial review provided for in Sec. 154.058 does not indicate that the actions referenced in your complaint fall below the acceptable standard of care.

First of all what is interesting is that the head of the board is heard from about the status of the investigation before the lead investigator. The lead investigator said nothing when Mari Robinson sent this email to Dr. Pigott.

Second of all, think about just how the Texas Medical Board is treating Dr. Pigott. Does this sound like open and honest government? I should mention that none of the victims I wrote about were ever contacted during the course of the so called investigation that the Texas Medical Board claims to have conducted. The head of the board dismisses the investigation without an explanation. Then, the only thing the lead investigator communicates is pointing Dr. Pigott to some obscure rules if she wants to challenge their findings.

In other words, here is what this medical board has done so far. They have allowed this corrupt doctor to operate in exactly the manner I describe for years. He makes millions doing it. In the meantime, hundreds if not thousands of parents have lost custody of their children for no other reason than that system was totally, completely, and utterly corrupt. When overwhelming evidence is brought that shows that at the minimum he needs to be full investigated, they claim they have without doing a thing. Offer no service whatsoever. Impersonally point the person who brought the charges to some code rather than explaining exactly what they have done. That's not merely corrupt but frankly it is one of the most stunning acts of hubris I have ever witnessed.

Here is Mari Robinson's email, mari.robinson@tmb.state.tx.us

Here is Joan Donley... Joan.Donley@tmb.state.tx.us

The Texas Medical Board is chosen by the Governor. Here is Rick Perry's contact information.

Here is the contact information for the District Attorney of Dallas County, Craig Watkins.

Every single one of these folks has jurisdiction to stop all of this right now. Please ask them why they let it go on.

Why Is the Texas Medical Board Protecting Dr. Mark Blotcky

Introduction:

Since July, I have chronicled the corrupt practices of Dr. Mark Blotcky, a psychiatrist and expert witness in Dallas. Three witnesses came forward, Dr. Susan Diamond, Katherine Tranum, and Darcy Boatman. Furthermore, several more people left comments in response like this one from Dr. Fred Maese.

I have had a similar experience with Dr Blotcky when he was hired by my ex-wife's attorneys in 5-2007 to testify at Judge David Hantschen's court in Dallas that she had "Battered Woman's Syndrome" during our divorce case involving the custody of our 3 children. He pulled this diagnosis out of a hat even though none of the 4 accepted diagnostic criteria were not met. His supportive evidence came from very brief interviews of the elder children (ages 10 and 11)and her, and reports of the psychologist and psychiatrist that her attorneys had encouraged her to see, without ever corroborating the veracity of such information. The younger child has a learning difference and he can be made to say whatever an adult tells him to say. Daniel, the older one told him he loved me and wanted to spend more time with me. Dr Blotcky would get angry with him or ignore him if he said anything kind about me. The children were very upset that they were being taken to see this guy. He came across in court as an arrogant buffoon and I do not believe the Judge took him seriously. However, earlier in the case he also participated in a hearing against me at Judge
Nicholson's Court(the associate Judge, for the purpose of gaining a protective order against me, which was granted, causing untold pain for both the kids and myself as well as grossly elevating all fees (my case lasted 1.5 years and cost us approximately 2.5 million in legal fees).

The court appointed psychologist in our custody case was Dr Ray McClung, another "Blotcky"! He is an elderly gentleman whose ethics, negligence, incompetence, bias and greed I would be happy to expose. His prejudicial findings and recommendations were so far out there that he also came across as out of tune with the reality of the situation. Another paid "expert", charging whatever he wanted without the Judge making him accountable. In the end he also contributed to increasing the duration of the case and unnecessary pain to the kids and myself. His incestuous relationship with her attorneys (McCurley Law Firm) is hideous.I can tell you so much about what I call "The Sherry Lane Racket". We ended up with shared custody and I have extended standard possession on weekends 2,4 and 5 of each month as well as every Tuesday night for dinner. I love my children , I am a Cardiologist and like Dr Diamond, a huge target for this broken system!

I am considering filing a complaint with the Texas State Board of Psychologists and perhaps a lawsuit. Would this board react differently than the TSBME? What would you recommend? Has this Dr McClung been under the radar before? Thanks for any input, Dr Fred Maese MD FACC.

In the case of Dr. Diamond, Dr. Blotcky "diagnosed" her as having Munchausen by Proxy. This was a rather bizarre diagnosis since he did without ever examining her. No matter because once he rendered this diagnosis as an expert witness in court she didn't stand a chance and lost custody of all her children. In the case of Katherine Tranum, Dr. Blotcky put her son a cocktail of drugs that caused him to gain about 30 pounds over a ten week period when he was nine. In the case of Darcy Boatman, Mr. Boatman, who weighs approximately 270 lbs, was accused of child abuse against his then teen-age son. While this charge was leveled within the family court system, neither Dr. Blotcky nor his partner on this particular case, Dr. Benjamin Albritton, saw fit to report him to DCFS or the police and the D.A. in the area. For all of this, Dr. Blotcky routinely charges anywhere between $200-$400 per hour for his services.

Furthermore, Dr. Blotcky also gives seminars to attorneys in techniques for defending child molestors. In the early 1990's, Dr. Blotcky was employed at the Timberlawn Psychiatric Hospital. While there he dated and married another colleague, Dr. Lisa Crumpton, a child psychologist, who he began dating while she still doing her residency at Timberlawn. As such, he began dating her while he was her professor. On December 8, 1992, Dr. Crumpton committed suicide from a massive dose of Valium and anti-depressants.

...

Now then, upon publishing these three pieces, Texas Medical Board Watch took up the case of Dr. Mark Blotcky. The organization, headed by Dr. Shirley Pigott (herself featured in this story) filed a formal complaint against Dr. Blotcky with the Texas Medical Board.

The Texas Medical Board has gone through its own upheaval over the last year or so. The head of its disciplinary committee, Dr. Keith Miller, stepped down in September of 2007. (His corrupt exploits are featured here) In private practice, Dr. Miller employs Bridget Hughes, who herself has admitted to forging 50 schedule 2 prescriptions.

Since Dr. Miller left the TMB, the board appears to take its marching orders from Mari Robinson, the interim Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board. Robinson is an attorney by trade and in her thirties.

So far, the email correspondence that I have been privy to have Robinson as the front person in the "investigation" of Dr. Blotcky. The case assigned case # 09-0368 has been assigned to Joan Donley. Donley has been unavailable for comment. Robinson did brief Dr. Pigott on the status of the investigation a couple of days ago.

A thorough review of this matter has now been completed. An investigation was not filed because the initial review provided for in Sec. 154.058 does not indicate that the actions referenced in your complaint fall below the acceptable standard of care.

In other words, the TMB will take no further action against Dr. Blotcky as a result of these stories. Of course, it is difficult to believe that a "thorough review" occurred since none of the victims that I featured were ever contacted by anyone at the TMB. If you are familiar with any of the pieces I wrote, this should come as no surprise. That's because complaints were filed in each of the three cases already at the time each was victimized. In each of these cases, their complaints were similarly dismissed? As such, the only question remaining is why is the Texas Medical Board protecting Dr. Mark Blotcky.