In 2003, then Senator Figueroa , with the assistance of Ed Howard, passed legislation that was the beginning of the end for the Physician Diversion Program and the creation of the Medical Board Enforcement Monitor position for Mrs.Fellmeth. The EF qualifications were designed so only Mrs.Fellmeth would be eligible. Today, she trumpets the EF position was awarded as a result of "open, competitive bidding". She never mentions that Ed Howard is a CPIL Lobbyist and member of the CPIL satff. Ms.Figueroa is a member of the Board of Public Citizen, chaired by Robert Fellmeth.
Apparently, Ms.Figueroa has a truth issue in other areas, too.
Recent tabloid articles by ProPublica, usually a respected Public Interest Journalism source, on these issues appears more like a CPIL conduit. It seems timed to support the budget request by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) for $30,000,000+ to add enforcement positions and make the process of enforcement less encumbered by Due Process or Equal Protection for Healing Arts practitioners. The financial gain for Mrs.Fellmeth and CPIL should be out in the open (eg. What's her involvement in the DCA "Enforcement Academy" and what is she being paid?).
INTRODUCTION TO ASSAULT ON DIVERSION
There is a vocal triad of malice directed towards physicians with a poison dart aimed directly into the heart of the Medical Board’s Diversion Program.
A hate spewing provocative web site, a tabloid newspaper, salacious television coverage, a physician Diversion program facing extinction, and a Medical Board vacillating between appeasement and avoidance. Outspoken victims, an adversarial monitor, and shadowy figures lurking in the background. Sounds like the storyboard for the latest cable TV dramatic series. In reality, it is a real life drama being played out within the California Medical Board’s Diversion Program Legitimate voices are not being heard, and the stakes are high for dedicated physicians and the public.
In July of 2007, the Medical Board voted unanimously to discontinue Diversion. The unanimous vote was oddly curious in light of the fact that several board members were well known proponents of the program. Here is where the story starts becoming mysterious and duplicitous.
There are three groups working together, so far in semi-secret: the adversarial monitor – always vocal of her dislike and distrust of every physician, the professional victims-seeking fame and legal lottery riches, and the shadow players-bureaucrats with bruised egos and trial lawyers looking to ease the ability to sue doctors. Their actions appear well coordinated and may have crossed the line of criminal conspiracy.
The adversarial monitor, Julie D'angelo Fellmeth, manipulates facts and is readily available to all media who are interested in supporting her foregone conclusions, achronistic memory and blatant distortion of facts. This creates alarm within the infrastructure of Diversion and stirs up the community. She has never testified under oath, nor has she been cross examined. She has contact with the professional victims and the shadow players, but this fact is never brought out into the open. Her personal vendetta (agenda) is hidden.
The professional victims appear on television to complain about a physician, and are part of a hate and incitement website. They never provide a complete picture of the facts. “Tina” never discloses how she told her mother she had cancer in order to get mom to foot the bill for her cosmetic belly reconstruction. She never has had to acknowledge that her bad surgery outcome was caused by her smoking and unhealthy lifestyle (despite warnings), or that she lost her malpractice lawsuit. Additionally, she has never had to take ownership of the fact that she receives financial support and other inducements for being a public victim. Victim number two is similar; she never had to acknowledge the cause of her undesired outcome (if you smoke, it reduces the abdominal circulation and causes poor healing and bad scarring.) The “Widower”, victim number three, never admits that his wife actually died of a second breast cancer, nothing at all related to her plastic reconstructive surgery.
If one paints oneself as a medical victim, one does not have to take personal responsibility and gets to point a finger with impunity. If being a victim fits the agenda of others and brings the promise of personal gain, then all the better. There is the promise of reward with no threat of punishment. That is, unless those who are actively seeking the truth for the ethical purpose of serving the greater good takes a close look.
Major crimes are solved by following the trail of money. In this case, it takes money to set up a hatemongering website. It takes money to send out mass anonymous mailings to solicit complaints from patients. Victims have expenses. Who is supplying the resources?
The first shadow player is an attorney who can no longer claim, as he likes to in print ads, that he’s “never lost a malpractice case.” Staying out of view, he can provide money and resources to set up the website that blatantly accuses a specific doctor of killing and maiming patients. His written threats against the doctor stop just short of advocating terrorism against said physician. Supborning false complaints to the Medical Board is routine business. If he can create enough trouble, he may be able to appeal his lost malpractice suits.
The second shadow player is the retired director of the Medical Board (David T. Thornton). He brought the adversarial monitor, Julie Fellmeth, on board as Enforcement Monitor, knowing full well her agenda. He even arranged for her to be paid by the Board. As the former Chief of Medical Board Enforcement, he kept his personal agenda hidden until he appeared together on television with Fellmeth. In what many insiders regard as bizarre and surreal, he stated that had he been director of the board when the unsubstantiated accusations were made against the target physician, he would have revoked the doctor's license single handedly. (Dave Thornton has repeatedly told others that he will do everything and anything in his power to destroy the Target Physician. Some evidence of his vendetta is how he released the Target Physician's confidential Diversion file, etc...)
The media laps it up – the Fellmeth feed, the lies, the distortions, touting this shameful tabloid coverage as investigative reporting. No one digs deeper for the real and true story. Here is the blueprint. Follow the money.
A hate spewing provocative web site, a tabloid newspaper, salacious television coverage, a physician Diversion program facing extinction, and a Medical Board vacillating between appeasement and avoidance. Outspoken victims, an adversarial monitor, and shadowy figures lurking in the background. Sounds like the storyboard for the latest cable TV dramatic series. In reality, it is a real life drama being played out within the California Medical Board’s Diversion Program Legitimate voices are not being heard, and the stakes are high for dedicated physicians and the public.
In July of 2007, the Medical Board voted unanimously to discontinue Diversion. The unanimous vote was oddly curious in light of the fact that several board members were well known proponents of the program. Here is where the story starts becoming mysterious and duplicitous.
There are three groups working together, so far in semi-secret: the adversarial monitor – always vocal of her dislike and distrust of every physician, the professional victims-seeking fame and legal lottery riches, and the shadow players-bureaucrats with bruised egos and trial lawyers looking to ease the ability to sue doctors. Their actions appear well coordinated and may have crossed the line of criminal conspiracy.
The adversarial monitor, Julie D'angelo Fellmeth, manipulates facts and is readily available to all media who are interested in supporting her foregone conclusions, achronistic memory and blatant distortion of facts. This creates alarm within the infrastructure of Diversion and stirs up the community. She has never testified under oath, nor has she been cross examined. She has contact with the professional victims and the shadow players, but this fact is never brought out into the open. Her personal vendetta (agenda) is hidden.
The professional victims appear on television to complain about a physician, and are part of a hate and incitement website. They never provide a complete picture of the facts. “Tina” never discloses how she told her mother she had cancer in order to get mom to foot the bill for her cosmetic belly reconstruction. She never has had to acknowledge that her bad surgery outcome was caused by her smoking and unhealthy lifestyle (despite warnings), or that she lost her malpractice lawsuit. Additionally, she has never had to take ownership of the fact that she receives financial support and other inducements for being a public victim. Victim number two is similar; she never had to acknowledge the cause of her undesired outcome (if you smoke, it reduces the abdominal circulation and causes poor healing and bad scarring.) The “Widower”, victim number three, never admits that his wife actually died of a second breast cancer, nothing at all related to her plastic reconstructive surgery.
If one paints oneself as a medical victim, one does not have to take personal responsibility and gets to point a finger with impunity. If being a victim fits the agenda of others and brings the promise of personal gain, then all the better. There is the promise of reward with no threat of punishment. That is, unless those who are actively seeking the truth for the ethical purpose of serving the greater good takes a close look.
Major crimes are solved by following the trail of money. In this case, it takes money to set up a hatemongering website. It takes money to send out mass anonymous mailings to solicit complaints from patients. Victims have expenses. Who is supplying the resources?
The first shadow player is an attorney who can no longer claim, as he likes to in print ads, that he’s “never lost a malpractice case.” Staying out of view, he can provide money and resources to set up the website that blatantly accuses a specific doctor of killing and maiming patients. His written threats against the doctor stop just short of advocating terrorism against said physician. Supborning false complaints to the Medical Board is routine business. If he can create enough trouble, he may be able to appeal his lost malpractice suits.
The second shadow player is the retired director of the Medical Board (David T. Thornton). He brought the adversarial monitor, Julie Fellmeth, on board as Enforcement Monitor, knowing full well her agenda. He even arranged for her to be paid by the Board. As the former Chief of Medical Board Enforcement, he kept his personal agenda hidden until he appeared together on television with Fellmeth. In what many insiders regard as bizarre and surreal, he stated that had he been director of the board when the unsubstantiated accusations were made against the target physician, he would have revoked the doctor's license single handedly. (Dave Thornton has repeatedly told others that he will do everything and anything in his power to destroy the Target Physician. Some evidence of his vendetta is how he released the Target Physician's confidential Diversion file, etc...)
The media laps it up – the Fellmeth feed, the lies, the distortions, touting this shameful tabloid coverage as investigative reporting. No one digs deeper for the real and true story. Here is the blueprint. Follow the money.
The Medical Board of California and the Future of its Diversion Program
From: Richard Fantozzi, MD, President, Medical Board of California
On July 26, 2007, the MBC voted unanimously to abolish its current Diversion Program for substance abusing licensees, effective June 30, 2008. I have had positive feedback from several individuals from within our state as well as from other states concerned about similar issues, but, because the decision has been greeted with dismay in some quarters, I would like to share with you the basis for the board’s action and its future plans regarding impaired physicians.
In 1980, the California Legislature enacted a law requiring the Medical Board to “seek ways and means to identify and rehabilitate physicians with impairment due to abuse of dangerous drugs or alcohol, so that physicians so afflicted may be treated and returned to the practice of medicine in a manner which will not endanger the public health and safety.” It needs to be noted that the public health and safety was not to be compromised as a result of this new law. In the same statute, the Legislature created within the Medical Board a new “Diversion Program” which would “divert” substance abusing physicians from the disciplinary tract and instead monitor their behavior and medical practice while they recover from their addiction. Participants, most of who participate in absolute confidentiality, enter into a contract with the program in which they agree to abstain from drugs/alcohol and to comply with program rules. The program utilizes a number of mechanisms, including random drug testing, required attendance at group therapy meetings, and required “work site monitors,” when participants are allowed to practice medicine to determine participant compliance with the terms of the contract. Since its inception, the program has been administered by board employees, assisted by a large cadre of service providers (local specimen collectors, group meeting facilitators, and testing laboratories) and volunteers across the state. The Bureau of State Audits reflected 14 fulltime Medical Board staff and a budget of $1.4 million. The real number of individuals with expertise to operate this program was more than 100, most of them providing service at no cost. If some reasonable cost was put in for those individuals, the budget would be far more than what is seen in the audit, which shows the more true size and scope of the Diversion Program.
During the first decade of the programs existence, the State Auditor General examined the performance of the program three times and reached troubling conclusions. In 1982, 1985, and 1986, the Auditor General consistently found that the program was not adequately monitoring participants and failed to terminate the participation of physicians who did not comply with their contracts. Obviously, failure to monitor a substance abusing physician would expose the patients of that physician to great risk. Additionally, the Auditor General found that the Medical Board had failed to establish clear standards for the program and did not adequately oversee the program.
After each audit, the board attempted to improve the program by implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General. However, 18 years elapsed before the next external audit of the Diversion Program. In November 2004, the Medical Board Enforcement Monitor released the findings of her investigation of the program, findings that were consistent with those of the Auditor General nearly two decades earlier. Specifically, the monitor found that: 1) the program did not adequately monitor the substance abusing physicians who are participating in it, 2) the monitoring mechanisms used, particularly its drug testing programs and work site monitoring standards, were ineffective and inadequately administered, 3) the Medical Board had failed to establish policies that are consistently followed by the Diversion Program in terms of consequences for relapses and criteria for termination from the program and, 4) the Medical Board did not adequately oversee the program.
Disturbingly, and very sad to me, the Enforcement Monitor found that the program’s lax administration enabled participants to “game” its monitoring mechanisms. Drug testing was not always performed randomly, but at times was regularly done on days that could be anticipated by participants who could adjust their behavior accordingly. The program failed to establish sufficient standards and qualifications for “work site monitors” such that a non-physician hired and fired by a participant could be approved to oversee that participant’s practice of medicine. The vast majority of worksite monitors and treating psychotherapists failed to file the required reports of their observations and the program was so chronically understaffed that many of these problems were no detected, much less addressed.
In its 2005 response to Enforcement Monitor’s report, the California Legislature imposed a June 30, 2008 “sunset date” on the Diversion Program. In other words, the Legislature gave the board two additional years to remedy the serious deficiencies identified by the monitor. The Legislature also ordered its own auditors, the Bureau of State Audits (BSA), to examine the performance of the program during the first half of 2007, to ensure that any changes made by the board were effective in improving the program. The Medical Board, working with executive staff, hired a new program administrator and increased its budge an additional $500,000 in 2005-06 for new staffing and resources for the Diversion Program.
The BSA audit was released on June 7, 2007. Consistent with four earlier audits, the BSA found that the program’s monitoring of its substance abusing participants remained inconsistent; its oversight of the drug testing program and its service providers (especially worksite monitors) was inadequate; and the Medical Board had not properly overseen the program. In response to the BSA’s survey regarding the program’s drug testing system, one participant replied, “mine wasn’t very random. I was able to game it for several years and almost “graduated” while still using.” This mirrored to the board the human element that would never allow us to reach a standard of zero tolerance. This was the standard set without exception by the enforcement monitor and others. Essentially, the Medical Board has to warranty to all consumers that they are completely safe to see participants in the Diversion Program, and they will not suffer from participants’ addictions.
On July 26, 2007 the Medical Board met to decide the fate of the Diversion Program. We listened thoughtfully to over two hours of public comment. Physician professional associations urged us to retain the program as part of the board; while victims of botched surgeries performed by Diversion Program participants urged abolition of the program, as did the former Enforcement Monitor. Following another two hours of debate, the board voted unanimously to end the program as it currently exists, and I urged, and we agreed, to convene a presidential summit later this year to discuss ways to implement the “diversion” concept while protecting patients.
We, the 2007 Medical Board, inherited the problems of the Diversion Program but could not resolve them despite our best efforts. We would not ignore the results in the current BSA audit as well as previous failed audits, anymore than we could ignore the testimony of the patients who had been injured by Diversion Program participants while being denied an opportunity to protect themselves from those participants shielded by the secrecy provided by the Diversion Program.
We also could not ignore the board’s statutory mission. When the Diversion Program was created in 1980, the Medical Board’s highest priority (as then expressed in Business and Professions Code section 2229) was “physician rehabilitation” and the “diversion” concept seemed consistent with that priority. However, the Medical Board’s statutory mandate changed with the 1990 passage of SB 2375 (Presley) and its amendments, section 2229. Public protection is inconsistent with physician rehabilitation, public protection is paramount. The operation of a diverting program which demonstrably does not adequately monitor substance abusing physicians, while concealing their participation from patients, is obviously inconsistent with that mission.
Since we made our decision, I have heard expressions of dismay and bewilderment from some in the physician community who characterize the vote as a “rejection of the recognition that addiction is a disease.” Our action has nothing to do with whether addiction is a disease. It has only to do with whether the Diversion Program protected patients, and five out of five external audits had found that it did not. That, very simply, is why the Medical Board could not continue to operate the Diversion Program.
At the upcoming summit, the Board will welcome the input of interested parties like the general pubic, the California Medical Association, the California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California Psychiatric Association, the Center for Public Interest Law, and patient advocacy groups. We intend to re-examine the threshold issues: 1) whether – and under what conditions – confidential “diversion” from discipline is possible within a public protection mandate; and 2) whether such a program should be operated by a state agency or a private entity. I also want to suggest that we consider the possibility that there be a statewide program for all healthcare professionals and possibly all professionals within our state that administers policies directed at this issue. We look forward to these challenges.
INDEPENDENT DIVERSION MONITOR - NOT!
In June 2007, the California Medical Board and its Diversion Program were audited by the State and an “independent monitor.” The audit arrived at a number of conclusions, including the frightening possibility of discontinuing the Diversion Program under the guise of better protecting the public from harm caused by substance abusing physicians.
Before any decisions by lawmaker or the Board can be considered, it is crucial to obtain the correct information in order to separate the facts from the aggrandizement and deceptiveness of certain vocal Diversion opponents.
Fact: the “independent monitor” designation is a misnomer and misleads readers of the audit report. This “monitor” is Julie Fellmeth, an employee of the Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL). She obtains her salary by routinely finding fault with state regulatory agencies.
Ms. Fellmeth is famous for manipulating public forums and the media for the purpose of demonizing physicians seeking help. Ms. Fellmeth has repeatedly and publicly stated that all physicians are dangerous and the Board fails, in general, to protect the public. She further asserts that the Board’s Diversion Program is “broken and can’t be fixed.” These are decades old rants, examples of CPIL’s self interest, disguised as righteous consumer protection. Ms. Fellmeth’s insinuation of herself onto the Board as Enforcement Monitor, and now as “independent monitor,” has given her unjustified influence. Her voice is too large on these issues and rarely is there a counter voice to point out how her malicious assertions have never been remotely matched to the facts.
Fact: the Board’s Diversion Program has been an effective tool for early intervention and monitoring of physicians. Successful graduates of Diversion provide unique benefits to society and to patients. Their recovery enables them to guide patients to proper addiction assistance. Further, they are in the position of being able to continually educate and influence their peers within the medical community regarding addiction diagnosis and treatment. They are also able to recognize, sooner than anyone else, who among their peers might be in need of help.
If Ms. Fellmeth has her way, physicians with alcohol and drug problems would have their licenses revoked immediately. Further, she wants free license to view participant’s confidential health and treatment records so she can fan the flames of public fears and feed the media with dramatic and misleading stories that support her foregone conclusions.
Fact: creating fear and demonizing helps CPIL stay in business.
The audit primarily revealed issues related to documentation. This is fixable.
True story: a physician is injured in a car accident, in which his wife is killed. He becomes addicted to pain medication prescribed for his injuries. He self refers to Diversion, where he gets help for his addiction. Additionally, in his series of evaluations, he is referred for Psychiatric treatment for Depression and Post Traumatic Stress from the accident. He receives monitoring and support for five years in Diversion. He gains recovery and is able to work and give back to his community. Without Diversion, there is no telling how many patients might have been harmed.
Fact: Addiction is a disease!! It deserves treatment, not punishment.
Fact: The Diversion Program has a proven track record of simultaneously rehabilitating physicians and protecting the public from harm. Fix the administrative problems and allow Diversion to continue its most valuable work.
FANTOZZI'S IGNORANCE EXPOSED AND WHY
Richard Fantozzi, President of the Medical Board, wrote a memo to explain/justify the Board’s decision to terminate the Diversion Program. His apologia contained a litany of pure Fellmeth feed: misrepresentations and unchecked accusations, mixed with feigned sadness. His text rehashes CPIL assertions as facts, and describes “victims” who “prove” a participant in Diversion acted with malfeasance.
In truth, the Board was hoodwinked by Julie Fellmeth. Around for decades, Fellmeth flourishes by repeating fictitious accusations, borrowing from the distant past and presenting it as current and seeking media attention whenever and wherever possible. She appears at any venue that will further her agenda. The Board is new and takes what Fellemeth says as facts. Here is a sample of Fellmeth works:
Victim number one, Tina, is now a public figure. She, Fellmeth, and David Thornton (the retired former Executive Director of the Board itself), appear together for media events. Tina claims she was disfigured by their Target Physician. The actual facts of the case are completely different than what they assert, and include the following facts:
1. Tina’s bad outcome was caused by continued smoking, gaining weight, and drinking alcohol excessively following the surgery, despite clear instructions to the contrary.
2. Tina sued the Target Doctor for malpractice and LOST her case. Her own experts could not support her case.
3. With the assistance of her disgruntled Plaintiff Attorney (who heretofore advertised that he had never lost a case), she filed false complaints to several Boards, safe in the knowledge that there is no penalty for doing so.
4. She has, with outside financial support and incentives, established a slanderous web site in order to solicit complaints against the Target Physician. Additionally, an anonymous mailing was sent to ALL the Target Physician’s patients, directing them to the site.
What Licensed professional, including those on the Board, wouldn’t have numerous complaints under these circumstances?
The oft mentioned current and past “audits” are another example of Fellmeth propaganda. The last three “audits” were either written entirely by Fellmeth and her CPIL interns or unduly influenced by her. The “audits” were rigged to support the priori agenda of CPIL. The designation of Fellmeth as Independent Monitor is an affront to reason and truth. Her theatric use of Tina is merely one example of a typical tactic.
Fellmeth’s long term, unsavory collusion with David Thornton deserves very close scrutiny. He placed her on the Board with full knowledge of her agenda and tactics, and even arranged for her to be paid. He kept the alliance secret until they appeared together on television. There he provided his own misrepresentation and thus created risk for the Board. Timing it close to retirement, his personal risk was nil.
In the near future, at the Stakeholders Meeting, he and Fellmeth are likely to appear with their own proposal to take over Physician Monitoring.
There are real victims here, starting with the People of California, who will be less protected by a purely punitive approach to physician monitoring. Self referring Physicians will avoid involvement. This has already begun to occur.
Doctors in Diversion are not dangerous, based solely on the need for help. Surveys conducted in the 90’s compared Physicians in Diversion to Physicians in general in California. The findings showed interesting differences: Doctors in diversion averaged fewer malpractice suits, and tended to rank higher in their medical school classes.
They do not deserve to be demonized or treated like felons on parole.
The next real victim is the current Diversion Program. Deprived of resources to conduct outcome studies, understaffed and muzzled in responding to the lies of CPIL, it is now a whipping boy. The California program is one of the best programs in the country, looked up to for innovation and leadership.
The Target Physician is a victim in the truest sense. This Physician’s children are being harassed, the family was forced to relocate and live in fear. This is but an abridged version of what the witch hunt has produced. Take a look at the mailing that was sent to all the Target Physician’s patients and the website. If you are reading this and are licensed, imagine what you would be facing if this was directed at you. With Diversion ending, the Target Physician is blamed by many within the Medical Board and Diversion Program and continues to be their political football. The Medical Board knows the accusations made about the Target Physician are untrue, but they continue to torture him because they can.
CPIL will continue their destructive efforts as long as they are allowed to participate without challenge or exposures. As long as the Board, the public and the media accept, at face value, the CPIL’s fictions, policy makers will be doomed to make decisions they will deeply regret.
In truth, the Board was hoodwinked by Julie Fellmeth. Around for decades, Fellmeth flourishes by repeating fictitious accusations, borrowing from the distant past and presenting it as current and seeking media attention whenever and wherever possible. She appears at any venue that will further her agenda. The Board is new and takes what Fellemeth says as facts. Here is a sample of Fellmeth works:
Victim number one, Tina, is now a public figure. She, Fellmeth, and David Thornton (the retired former Executive Director of the Board itself), appear together for media events. Tina claims she was disfigured by their Target Physician. The actual facts of the case are completely different than what they assert, and include the following facts:
1. Tina’s bad outcome was caused by continued smoking, gaining weight, and drinking alcohol excessively following the surgery, despite clear instructions to the contrary.
2. Tina sued the Target Doctor for malpractice and LOST her case. Her own experts could not support her case.
3. With the assistance of her disgruntled Plaintiff Attorney (who heretofore advertised that he had never lost a case), she filed false complaints to several Boards, safe in the knowledge that there is no penalty for doing so.
4. She has, with outside financial support and incentives, established a slanderous web site in order to solicit complaints against the Target Physician. Additionally, an anonymous mailing was sent to ALL the Target Physician’s patients, directing them to the site.
What Licensed professional, including those on the Board, wouldn’t have numerous complaints under these circumstances?
The oft mentioned current and past “audits” are another example of Fellmeth propaganda. The last three “audits” were either written entirely by Fellmeth and her CPIL interns or unduly influenced by her. The “audits” were rigged to support the priori agenda of CPIL. The designation of Fellmeth as Independent Monitor is an affront to reason and truth. Her theatric use of Tina is merely one example of a typical tactic.
Fellmeth’s long term, unsavory collusion with David Thornton deserves very close scrutiny. He placed her on the Board with full knowledge of her agenda and tactics, and even arranged for her to be paid. He kept the alliance secret until they appeared together on television. There he provided his own misrepresentation and thus created risk for the Board. Timing it close to retirement, his personal risk was nil.
In the near future, at the Stakeholders Meeting, he and Fellmeth are likely to appear with their own proposal to take over Physician Monitoring.
There are real victims here, starting with the People of California, who will be less protected by a purely punitive approach to physician monitoring. Self referring Physicians will avoid involvement. This has already begun to occur.
Doctors in Diversion are not dangerous, based solely on the need for help. Surveys conducted in the 90’s compared Physicians in Diversion to Physicians in general in California. The findings showed interesting differences: Doctors in diversion averaged fewer malpractice suits, and tended to rank higher in their medical school classes.
They do not deserve to be demonized or treated like felons on parole.
The next real victim is the current Diversion Program. Deprived of resources to conduct outcome studies, understaffed and muzzled in responding to the lies of CPIL, it is now a whipping boy. The California program is one of the best programs in the country, looked up to for innovation and leadership.
The Target Physician is a victim in the truest sense. This Physician’s children are being harassed, the family was forced to relocate and live in fear. This is but an abridged version of what the witch hunt has produced. Take a look at the mailing that was sent to all the Target Physician’s patients and the website. If you are reading this and are licensed, imagine what you would be facing if this was directed at you. With Diversion ending, the Target Physician is blamed by many within the Medical Board and Diversion Program and continues to be their political football. The Medical Board knows the accusations made about the Target Physician are untrue, but they continue to torture him because they can.
CPIL will continue their destructive efforts as long as they are allowed to participate without challenge or exposures. As long as the Board, the public and the media accept, at face value, the CPIL’s fictions, policy makers will be doomed to make decisions they will deeply regret.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
The 2007 BSA audit of the Medical Board’s Diversion Program cost the State of California over $800,000. This is a bizarre amount for an effort that should have cost in the neighborhood of $50,000.
Mrs. Fellmeth and her Interns billed for their hours. If one reads the CPIL’s web site, one learns that CPIL offers Interns the opportunity to actually work on CPIL projects. Another part of their website states that CPIL is entitled to collect fees for what they do regarding State Regulatory Agencies.
Evidently, CPIL’s destructive involvement with the Medical Board is also a fabulous cash cow. Their self-label of “independent monitor” is untruthful at the least. CPIL limited the focus on their “audit” solely to areas that support their a priori biases, providing no benchmarks for comparison but instead manipulated events. They applied a standard of “zero tolerance,” AND, the Program was not allowed to respond to any allegation. All the while, CPIL gets the mother’s milk of Attorney's, billable hours.
The Medical Board owes the People of California an accounting. At minimum, they must demand full disclosure of fees paid to CPIL, its employees and Interns for the 2004 and 2007 audits. Furthermore, the Board must demand an independent, objective analysis of these so-called audits. If, as many contend, these fees were ill-gotten, they should be disgorged back to the People of California. California consumers deserve nothing less.
Mrs. Fellmeth and her Interns billed for their hours. If one reads the CPIL’s web site, one learns that CPIL offers Interns the opportunity to actually work on CPIL projects. Another part of their website states that CPIL is entitled to collect fees for what they do regarding State Regulatory Agencies.
Evidently, CPIL’s destructive involvement with the Medical Board is also a fabulous cash cow. Their self-label of “independent monitor” is untruthful at the least. CPIL limited the focus on their “audit” solely to areas that support their a priori biases, providing no benchmarks for comparison but instead manipulated events. They applied a standard of “zero tolerance,” AND, the Program was not allowed to respond to any allegation. All the while, CPIL gets the mother’s milk of Attorney's, billable hours.
The Medical Board owes the People of California an accounting. At minimum, they must demand full disclosure of fees paid to CPIL, its employees and Interns for the 2004 and 2007 audits. Furthermore, the Board must demand an independent, objective analysis of these so-called audits. If, as many contend, these fees were ill-gotten, they should be disgorged back to the People of California. California consumers deserve nothing less.
DECODING CPIL
The Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL), utilizes a number of tactics from the early years of Ralph Nader and his “Nader’s Raiders.” In those days, an army of volunteers would work night and day, cranking out attacks against their target du jour, in the form of thick reports, often so dense as to be unreadable. The volunteers were not lawyers operating under the obligations and responsibilities of their professional licenses, but were young, impressionable, idealistic law school graduates. They were coached to grind their targets down until the other side conceded under a relentless barrage of verbiage.
Cut to CPIL today and their official stance against the Medical Board’s Diversion Program. They have produced an abundance of voluminous, soporific reports, written by students and interns, filled with what Nader’s early critics dubbed, “Purple Passioned Invective.” Additionally, CPIL uses a coded language to establish their negative attack perspective, which gains and manipulates media attention. Those unfamiliar with these guerilla tactics are easily drawn in and often confused or overwhelmed.
The following are quotes from CPIL followed by the translations. This will help the reader to understand the actual meaning of CPIL-SPEAK:
1. “Doctors need to take time from work to focus on rehabilitation. Then they can provide evidence of rehabilitation and seek reinstatement.”
On the surface, this sounds reasonable but what they are actually saying is the following: CPIL wants any kind of support or Diversion abolished. Instead, CPIL demands immediate license Suspension and then Revocation. Revocation lasts a minimum of three years. Reinstatement is an additional Board legal process that typically takes another year and a half, and is rarely successful. CPIL would challenge any evidence of rehabilitation by demanding the improvable.
Impact: All cases now easily resolved for the benefit of the Public, would be extensively and expensively litigated. Studies of Revoked Doctors show high rates of suicide following Revocation, and few are able to return to medicine. Doctors would avoid seeking help at all costs, until problems become much more severe. Physician Health and Diversion programs provide early intervention, at a time when there is virtually no risk of harm to patients.
The economic impact to the Board would be adverse. Over 80% of the Board’s current budget goes to Enforcement and Discipline. Less that 2% goes to Diversion. Without such a Program, litigation costs would dramatically increase.
2. “…the secret program of the Medical Board…”
Translation: CPIL wants to be able to read the confidential Medical and Psychiatric records of Physicians in order to fashion scandalous stories for the media. CPIL’s disingenuous approach belies several important facts, including: Doctors who enter Diversion as Self-Referrals are routinely screened for complaints and pending actions. Entering Diversion does no stop any action related to patient harm (negligence, incompetence, etc.). Doctors who enter Diversion through a Statement of Understanding (SOU) are referred solely on the basis of substance or mental health issues, not for patient harm. The Agreements specify that any action related to patient care will proceed. The records of Self-Referrals and SOU referrals are confidential, yet do not provide for confidentiality regarding patient harm. Enforcement Referrals result from Action on a Licensee. Their records, as CPIL well knows, since the interns are forced to read them in their search for media feed, are a matter of Public Record.
Impact: Denial of basic patient rights would establish an insurmountable barrier to entry for a Doctor seeking help. It is also illegal.
3. “We have evidence a Doctor in Diversion harmed patients”
These words, from the 2004 Report, represent the core of CPIL’s condemnation of Diversion. They assert the Doctor was committing malpractice and injury directly resulting from alcohol problems, while being hidden away in Diversion. Mrs. Fellmeth points to this as the reason such a program must be abolished. She feeds this to the print and broadcast media as fact, and they take is so.
Once again, the actual facts are less dramatic and alarmingly at odds with her accusations. The three alleged victims: Tina Minasian, Becky Anderson, and Sharon Mikulecky. All are now public figures regarding Diversion. Their pictures are public, and the Board President now uses these cases in his defense of terminating Diversion.
Tina Minasian lost her malpractice case, both at Trial and on Appeal. The Appeals Court ruled against her on every single point, commenting that her Appeal was based entirely on character assassinations and misrepresentations. For years she has maintained a website devoted to soliciting false complaints against the Target Physician. She harangues anyone making contact with her through the site to make false complaints to the Board. She is active on blogs, making outlandish, libelous claims and accusations.
Becky Anderson left the care of the Target Physician healing normally. In direct disregard of doctor’s orders, she smoked, which adversely affected and reversed her healing process. She then went to another Doctor who removed the mesh, allowing her stomach to protrude. Photos are presented to the Press as though caused by the Target Physician’s actions, when in fact, they were not.
CPIL never mentions this! The press never reveals that her protrusion was caused by anther Doctor. The patient was infected with hepatitis prior to her contact with the Target Physician, and her health problems are due solely to an unhealthy and high risk life style.
Mr. Mikulecky’s wife died. CPIL maintains she died because of the Target Physician, when in fact she died of Breast Cancer. The cause of death was totally unrelated to her Plastic Surgery. Her complaint was Dismissed with Prejudice.
4. “Drunken doctor in Diversion delivers baby…” (Union-Tribune in San Diego)
Translation: Prior to entry into Diversion, the baby was delivered, the doctor was intoxicated, and the delivery (like all his deliveries) was successful. The CPIL tactic here is to rearrange facts and timelines to suggest the doctor did this while in Diversion. In a different case, the current Official Victim #1, continuously cited by CPIL as proof that Doctors in Diversion harm patients, is another example of this tactic. The Target Doctor did not harm the patient, and the surgery occurred when the Doctor was not in Diversion. The records are public.
5. “Doctors game the system…”
Translation: See translation #3 above. This is a continuation of the same tactic. More than a decade ago, Urine Collections were more predictable. This was corrected years ago, but CPIL likes to use an instance in the past, globalize it and indict the current Program and everyone in it.
6. CPIL likes to bandy about terms like “…bites of the able” and “zero tolerance”
Translation: By the frequent repetition of terms from Criminal Law, the Doctor seeking help and the process of helping doctors is seen through a criminal lens. Doctors in Diversion are not bad people, trying to get good. They are ill, trying to get well.
7. “Failed Audits”
Translation: CPIL conducts “audits” based solely upon its preconceived, hostile positions. Interns (note: CPIL is located on the campus of the private University of San Diego) create massive reports that are only allowed to acknowledge the negative. The 2004 Report has been likened to the KKK reporting on the NAACP. For this, CPIL sent the Board a whopping bill. In the Report, CPIL claimed that a Doctor in Diversion harmed patients. However, their evidence were merely vague accusations unsupported by fact. As a former Prosecutor, Mrs. Fellmeth realized this but knew that as a Public Interest Lawyer she would not be challenged. The President of the Board accepts her words as truth in toto. The Press and Media do the same.
7. “Public Interest”
Translation: CPIL is a self described center for public interest law. Mrs. Fellmeth is a lawyer, licensed and obligated to serve the truth. Her positions regarding Diversion are never neutral or in the service of public interest. They are predetermined, untruthful and worse, adversarial. Translation: the real public intereste might be best served by auditing the auditors.
Impact: A confused and browbeaten Medical Board that has decided to take the path of least resistance, resulting in a terrible decision; A toxic pall over a successful program that serves the public interest; Doctors with substance problems will be forced underground; eventually, great harm to the public.
The Board itself is composed of a majority of Members who are less educated than the general public about addiction. Many Physician Members are prejudiced against addicts. Their training as Physicians gave them a hostile-dependent and extreme view of addicted patients. On one hand, the public teaching hospitals depend on addicted patients. These patients have diseases and conditions that are rarely seen in a private patient population. Residents and Interns want to focus solely on the medical complications of addiction while ignoring the addiction itself. As a result, their encounters are difficult and unsatisfying. They develop and carry negative judgments and stereotypes about addicts. In training hospitals, they see only the later stages of addiction and its devastations. It is from these experiences that they view Doctors in Diversion.
The goals of CPIL are:
1. To abolish any kind of Board endorsed and supported Program to monitor and support Physicians seeking help.
2. If #1 can’t be met, then CPIL wants any endorsed Program to be so punitive, restrictive, and rigid as to be unpopulated. They want every aspect to have a criminal focus.
3. To continue to relentlessly attack Physicians and the Board while getting paid.
In the late nineties, at a Diversion Liason Committee meeting in San Diego, Mrs. Fellmeth laid out her position. She stated, physicians are inherently dangerous, and those with alcohol and drug problems should not be allowed to practice, period. After the meeting, in an aside to those gathered around her, she elaborated. When CPIL was new, all the good Consumer issues were taken. CPIL needed a reason for being around. So they decided to attack the Medical Board. CPIL had its Corvair.
The methods of attack are pure Naderism. And just as Nader himself has devolved into a cultural and political oddity, the “judicious Jihad” of CPIL has become a kind of consumer fascism. “Secrecy” has become a self-perpetuating tool of attack. As it is applied to Diversion, it is absolute, despite being counter to Public Interest.
Lost in the debate is the profound benefit of recovered Physicians, to their patients and to society. They are uniquely able to recognize the disease earlier and intervene. They are also better able to confront colleagues and other professionals early, before they become a risk to themselves or others. Their value totally overshadows the false argument they are in danger.
WHO IS THE LITTLE GUY AND WHAT IS PUBLIC INTEREST?
Sol Price was never a “little guy.” As founder and owner of Price Club (eventually bought out by none other than Costco), he had money and influence. The one thing he lacked was a liquor license. He wanted to sell huge quantities of discounted liquor in his Big Box stores, but the ABC and Public Health Advocates had a problem. Given the well established, objectively based connection between the availability of cheap alcohol and community harm, there was a Public Interest issue. The issue revolved around the association between increased liquor sales and adverse public harm, like alcohol related illness, increased crime, traffic injury and death, family disruption, domestic violence and child abuse, to name a few.
But Mr. Price, an entrepreneur, saw it differently. To him, this was merely a special interest State Board – a competitor – getting in his way. Fortunately, he got his friend, Robert Fellmeth to represent him. Fellmeth was able to cast his problem as a “Public Interest” problem and get him his license to sell vast quantities of cheap booze. A grateful Mr. Price, thanked him by endowing the Price Chair, which continues to support the Fellmeths. CPIL’s agenda was established.
Many view CPIL’s services as the antithesis of Public Interest. The decades long attack on the Medical Board and especially on physicians in need of help is anything but Public Interest. But CPIL is superb at manipulating the media. Julie Fellmeth insinuates herself into television and newspapers by feeding glib “talking points” which oddly, have never been scrutinized or questioned.
Behind the scenes, CPIL has inserted itself into the Medical Board as an “Independent Monitory.” CPIL interns are required to write one-sided reports about the Board and the Diversion program. CPIL masks adversarial law as advocacy law. In adversarial law, one sidedness is okay. After all, there is at least an opposing attorney and a judge for counter balance. Advocacy law requires an actual pursuit of truth, a requirement CPIL has chosen to ignore since day one.
The Diversion program is muzzled in its response to rigged audits. The new Board is being sandbagged by CPIL’s parade of bogus victims. CPIL has of late, appeared to have expanded its questionable tactics by an alliance to destroy the target physician. According to CPIL, the target MD is proof that doctors in diversion harm patients. Somehow, this overcomes the actual lost fact that in almost thirty years, Diversion Physicians have never harmed a patient. Graduates of diversion provide unique and crucial services to their community. Physicians entering Diversion have fewer complaints, investigation and malpractice suits than physicians in general. It is ironic that the gathering of these statistics was formally halted in the 1990’s, during the watch of Dave Thornton, another Fellmeth crony.
CPIL appears to have allied itself with the attorney who represented one of the alleged “victims.” This attorney has likely provided the resources for anonymous mailings and complaint solicitations aimed at the target physician. Here, the agenda is to generate enough complaints to re-open the case he lost. Then he can once again claim that he has never lost a medical malpractice case.
Where is the Public Interest??? Calling all Medical Board Members who capitulated to questionable, if not downright sleazy tactics of an entity with no real purpose except its own self aggrandizement: You utilize critical thinking every day in treating and diagnosing patients. By choosing to sit on the board, you have been entrusted to serve the greater good for your entire profession. Do not abandon your deeply held sense of right and wrong. Diversion is a crucial resource to your profession, which is high pressured and intense. Do not be cowed and do not be hoodwinked. Educate yourselves as to what is true. Maintaining Diversion is clearly right for your profession and the public interest.
FELLMETHWORLD - IT'S BROKEN AND CAN'T BE FIXED
What do a Poppy seed bagel, diabetes, small Asian women and legitimate medical care have in common? Hint: it’s not a pitch from Seinfeld the Movie (we wish!). It means that if you are a Physician in Diversion, or its successor, and you get a positive drug test – no matter what the circumstances (including false positives) – then you are automatically out of work, and/or may have to face a Petition to Revoke Probation.
One of the most pernicious attacks on Doctors in Diversion is the utilization of the trite code words “zero tolerance,” to really mean applying an absolute standard to attack these Physicians. Mrs. Fellmeth has sold this idea to politicians, journalists and the Board itself. In her dual roles as unchallenged prosecutor and unregistered lobbyist, she insists this is the only way the public can be protected.
It’s all just business to her. She makes her living (and she made a lot on this one) by challenging state board programs. If we step back and put on CPIL’s cloak, it makes perfect sense. Demand an utterly impossible, rigid and baseless standard, and CPIL stays in business well into the future. Politicians who like to appear “tough” look good; journalists and media wonks who are lazy and want to produce easy stories that incite fear and hatred get awards. The real truth is mundane – Doctors in these programs are there through early intervention, when they are high functioning and safer than doctors in general.
Zero tolerance has been a reliable way to demonize. Refer to any detected positive drug test as a relapse, demand the doctor be kicked out of Diversion and turned over to Enforcement. Poppy seed bagel, small Asian women, legitimate medical care – they can all trigger positives – it doesn’t matter in a zero tolerance environment. Never mind that Diversion has developed and utilizes an excellent triage for dealing with this. Never mind that a detected incidence of use isn’t a relapse.
A detected incidence of use prior to relapse is exactly what an effective program should monitor. The facts behind a positive test result need to be fully and competently evaluated. Early detection and intervention prevents relapses. A relapse is defined as, a resumption of use after treatment and recovery has been established, and necessarily includes recurrence of the classic symptomatology: loss of control, compulsive use and adverse consequences. In CPIL’s Gulag, approach, any detected or reported use must be severely punished. As is CPIL’s custom, all use equals danger, and only the harshest punishment suffices.
As recovery professionals become more informed and skilled in their good works, an ever increasing number of people – and professional licensees in particular who are especially vulnerable to such behaviors due to the abhorrent stressors in their lives – are benefiting. However, rehabilitation and recovery is a process with many pitfalls and mysteries. Tying the hands of practitioners who are devoted to assisting in the recovery and rehabilitation of useful members of our society who, for whatever reasons, have become entangled in the incredibly complex web of addiction serves no useful purpose.
On the contrary, it limits as a society to return to practice many desperately needed professional individuals who would otherwise experience full recovery and contribute greatly to our collective welfare.
So why not apply zero tolerance to CPIL or the Highway Patrol? The Highway Patrol is responsible for keeping highways safe. Interstate 5 has unsafe drivers and regular injuries and deaths. A recent State Audit (Feb 2008) was very critical. Applying zero tolerance to a situation where there is real damage and death to Californians, do we conclude the Highway patrol is “broken and can’t be fixed”?
A core Ethical Principle of and attorney like Mrs. Fellmeth is to “Serve the Truth.” Applying zero tolerance to her would result in sanctions, maybe even disbarment proceedings. Requiring her to disgorge her ill-gotten fees paid by the Board would have to be seriously considered. Then she could start on restitution to the scores of people she has harmed.
Zero tolerance is one more shard of CPIL fabrication and mythology designed to further its own ends. It’s jargon, nothing more, and as applied in Fellmethworld, it increases risk to the public, and establishes a barrier to safety. Let’s banish this antiquated, scientifically unsupportable and outlandishly trite catchphrase and relegate “Zero Tolerance” to the trash bin of medical history that includes bloodletting, leper colonies and insane asylums.
THE WAR ON CONFIDENTIALITY
Now that the California Physicians Diversion is ending, does that mean the attacks and story ends? NO! The attacks have already morphed and will continue. The tactics of Fellmeth, er, uh, I mean Gaston, will persist even though she – I mean he – appears to be losing control of the mob. The common goal of Gaston and the mob now, is to make any new program so punitive and damaging that no one will enter voluntarily. Further, there will be a relentless attack on any form of confidentiality. Treatment and Program records will become raw meat. They will be distorted, twisted and used to support the fiction of the dangerous beast/Doctor.
The Diversion Summit on January 24, 2008, is the case in point. Angry denunciations of the sole Target Physician, the Diversion Program and the Medical Board itself by CPIL and the self-proclaimed “victims” received the usual desired media attention. These tactics are both illustrative and portentous.
The confidential records of the sole Target Physician have already been illicitly obtained and fully exploited. Distorted magnifications have been fed to the media to advance their well coordinated efforts. As presented by CPIL’s Criminal Prosecutor, Mrs. Fellmeth, they go unchecked and unchallenged. In her relentless demonization of doctors, this Prosecutor has no obligation to present obvious and exculpatory evidence or deal with the burden of proof. There are no Defense Attorneys allowed and no Judge to weigh the facts. So, she gets to behave like a prosecutor in criminal court, but no one else is granted similar privileges.
So once again, CPIL’s language needs to be decoded. The unquestioned, unexamined use of language and terms from Criminal Prosecution creates and establishes the Frame for those outside or unfamiliar with these issues. Repeated, deliberate use of terms such as, “…Zero tolerance…” and “…bites of the apple…” are inflammatory rhetoric, utterly unsupported facts. The plural of accusation is neither evidence nor proof. CPIL’s evidence of harm is the biased and much maligned 2004 CPIL report has and continues to disintegrate when examined in real Court rooms, whether the Court room is a Civil Court, dealing with malpractice suits based entirely on character assassination or an Administrative Court dealing with solicited complaints and accusations. In fact, the current Board case is so dirty the Deputy Attorney Generals in Sacramento won’t have any part of it in spite of the fact the Board is their client. They farmed it out to Deputy Attorneys in San Francisco, who refused to prosecute and sent it right back to Sacramento.
Media reports of accusations against the Target Physician are another case in point. “He got someone to forge signature cards for his AA attendance” is a statement found all over the place. Here are the facts. They Physician was referred to an out-patient program. One of their requirements was to attend 90 AA meetings in 90 days and get a meeting card signed. He attended 90+ meetings, but only had 88 signatures. His Office Manager offered to sign the card and he accepted. The signed card has disappeared. To the zero tolerance CPIL Prosecutor, this is more than enough to revoke the Physician’s License, label the Diversion Program a failure, close it down now and forever. To those of us willing to look deeper, it is utterly irrational.
The sequel to the close of Diversion hasn’t yet been written. Gaston and the angry mob will do their utmost to ensure that whatever replacement program evolves will be dreadful. The rest of us need to focus on presenting the actual facts. The actual facts totally support the establishment of another Program to provide early intervention for high functioning professionals prior to risk.
Are those in Diversion criminally dangerous or are they more like Senator Mark Ridely-Thomas’ words “stellar individuals”? Is actual protection of the public compatible with limited confidentiality? In the current Diversion Program, there is indeed. Being in Diversion has NEVER provided a shield for Complaints related to Patient Care (eg. Repeated acts of Gross Negligence, Incompetence). Board cases referred to Diversion as either Statement of Understanding (SOU) or as an Enforcement Decision are thoroughly, scrupulously and capably investigated by the Boards own professional Investigators.
How have things reached this point? There is a very simple answer. Mrs. Fellmeth has been working at this for 15+ years. Long ago, CPIL designated Doctors and the Boards a their Corvair. Because she’s been around so long she owns the Frame. The current Board, having no history, never questioned her. The supporters were in hibernation – a Perfect Storm. CPIL collected a big scalp. They are now relevant and powerful – no longer merely a small Center of modest accomplishment.
Fortunately, the tide is turning. Political and Legislative support is growing. The Media is beginning to look at the other side of the story. The rest of the Country is paying attention, not merely channeling the Fellmeth Feed. Maybe, just maybe the real Beast will be brought into the light.
AND THE EMMY FOR WITCH HUNTS AND THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION GOES TO....
"…Kurtis Ming, of CBS News, Sacramento, who is being exposed for airing faulty, biased and unchecked reports. One of these was titled, “Medical Mistakes, State Failures.” A cornerstone of that report contained interviews with three alleged “victims” of malfeasance by a Diversion participant physician. Kurtis’s story was dramatic and compelling, but unfortunately lacked one detail: THE FACTS! Here is part of what Ming did not bother to report:
Victim #1 lost her malpractice case in court. It was also lost on appeal. Her own expert witnesses would not testify to her benefit.
CPIL’s dark politics were never once addressed. Ming simply passed along typical Fellmeth Feed, and never questioned anything Mrs. Fellmeth said.
Kurtis Ming received an Emmy for his media attack on the Target Physician and the Diversion Program. Screaming former patients claiming injury, a public alliance of David Thornton (Medical Board Executive director and Former Head of Enforcement for the Board) and Mrs. Julienne Fellmeth, of CPIL, forced the confused and misdirected Medical Board to terminate a three decades old program that was considered a national model for early intervention, physician health and patient safety.
Ming never revealed that the wife of Victim #3 died of breast cancer, not from plastic surgery. And worse, Ming never revealed that this case was dismissed with prejudice. There are two possibilities for Ming’s omissions: either he suppressed the truth for dramatic effect or he is ridiculously lazy and incompetent.
Mrs. Fellmeth has never been required to substantiate her accusations and Ming never delved into the truth. At CPIL – the Fellmeth family business – Mrs. Fellmeth merely has to drape her baseless accusations around the banner of consumer protection and no one has questioned her. Until now.
The three “alleged” victims that get dragged out, tarted up and paraded in front of any form of media that will give air time are Mrs. Fellmeth’s “smoking gun.” She has testified to legislative committees and to the board that these victims are proof that doctors in Diversion harm patients.
As the actual facts emerge about these “victims,” the smoking gun vanishes. Victim #1 has lost her appeal as well as the original suit. Victim #2’s complaint to the Medical Board was thrown out. More than 200 false complaints to the Board, generated by Victim #1’s venomous website have also been thrown out. These accusations are purely political!
In light of the real facts of this story, there are a number of remedies required:
1. Kurtis Ming should be required to return his Emmy and publicly apologize.
2. CBS, Sacramento, should give equal air time for an honest follow up story, acknowledging the errors in the Ming report.
3. Mrs. Fellmeth should be removed as a monitor for the Diversion Program and be remanded to return the monies paid to her, CPIL, and its Interns, for the rigged audit of 2007 and her bogus report of 2004. If criminal wrongdoing is found, she should be sanctioned by the State Bar and prosecuted.
4. Other print journalists, notably Aurelio Rojas, of the Sacramento Bee, and Daffodil J. Altan, of the OC Weekly, should be ordered to print full retractions of their articles which were pure Fellmeth Feed.
This would be a good start….
CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW (CPIL): CONSUMER ADVOCATE OR DECEITFUL SUBTERFUGE!
A reasonable person would assume that an organization with the words “public interest” in their name, would be dedicated to the greater good on behalf of the consumer.
When CPIL was formed, individuals who believed all the good causes were already taken, made a conscious decision to go on permanent attack against the California Medical Board. From day one of its existence, CPIL has promoted the ideas that, 1.) all Physicians are inherently dangerous, and 2.) Physicians seeking help to recover from addiction should have their licenses revoked. An aggressive stance against the medical community was just what they needed to justify their very existence. Without a permanent enemy, why stay around? Without a constant stream of vitriol, disguised as consumer concern, they would lose their funding. No more cushy jobs in the legal gadfly business.
In reviewing CPIL’s accomplishments on their self promoting website, it is easy to see that they have accomplished little. So, in order to remain in operation, CPIL has aimed their vitriol towards demonizing physicians and, particularly, the Medical Board’s Diversion Program. With a retinue of advocacy law students, forced to write in support of CPIL’s agenda in order to get their good grades, they crank out the propaganda, and if there is nothing current to write about, no worries, it is easy to rehash the distant past.
Julie Fellmeth shows up at every kind of Liaison Committee meeting, Legislative Committee meeting, Board meeting and meeting, meeting, meeting, stating CPIL agenda as facts.
THE FELLMETH FEED
Taking all available public records, CPIL feeds its smear campaign to reporters who are too lazy to check the facts, or consider the nature of the source. Part of the Fellmeth methodology is to alter the time frame for events (the remote past is presented as the present). For example, the Union Tribune reported, “Drunk Doctor in Diversion Delivers Child.” Sounds scary, however no mention was made that the delivery was successful and that this incident occurred PRIOR to the Doctor’s entry into Diversion!
Stories such as this are gold mines for CPIL, because there is no one challenging these spurious allegations and no requirement on the part of CPIL for accountability or truthfulness. CPIL has never reported the simple, profound fact that Physicians in Diversion never harm patients. NEVER! There is not a single case on record. But of course, that is not nearly as interesting or dramatic as salacious sound bites, no matter how untruthful and harmful.
Another well practiced Fellmeth tactic is to self-righteously demand access to confidential Health records of Physicians in Diversion. This way, the mother lode for private records, the rebuffed CPIL labeled Diversion, “The Secret Medical Board Program,” ignoring the fact that there are laws (and CPIL knows this – they are a legal firm) preventing public disclosure of confidential Medical and Psychiatric records.
Advocacy lawyers should serve the truth, not merely pursue a personal agenda. We all lose when this is allowed to flourish without checks and balances. CPIL has discovered, historically, that they get to spew their toxin completely without challenge. They have learned that if you say it enough, people will take what you say as fact.
CPIL is working for the interest of the Trial Lawyers
Raise the Ante/Lower the Bar
Cpil depends on donations since they don’t Litigate
Certain Trial Lawyers (eg Arkin/Glovsky) would like it to be easier and even more lucrative to sue Physicians, Health Care Organizations and HMO’s
CPIL’s emphasis on no confidentiality and zero tolerance would greatly help Trial Lawyers
CPIL keeps a secret Donor List
Question: is CPIL a defacto Lobbyist for Trial Lawyer Interests???
Julianne D'Angelo Fellmeth is a registered lobbyist as far back as 2001.
Cpil depends on donations since they don’t Litigate
Certain Trial Lawyers (eg Arkin/Glovsky) would like it to be easier and even more lucrative to sue Physicians, Health Care Organizations and HMO’s
CPIL’s emphasis on no confidentiality and zero tolerance would greatly help Trial Lawyers
CPIL keeps a secret Donor List
Question: is CPIL a defacto Lobbyist for Trial Lawyer Interests???
Julianne D'Angelo Fellmeth is a registered lobbyist as far back as 2001.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment