Does this sound like defamation to you?
Eliot Spitzer is being sued for libel for writing about a huge insurance broker. Here's what he wrote:
"Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks."
Spitzer sued for libel over his Slate column
By Jonathan Stempel
Aug 22, 2011
Reuters
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was hit with two libel lawsuits seeking $90 million by former Marsh & McLennan Cos (MMC.N) executives over a column posted on Slate.com about an insurance bid-rigging scandal.
The lawsuits arose from Spitzer's Aug. 22, 2010, column, "They Still Don't Get It," advocating prosecution of corporate wrongdoers and defending his own enforcement activity against Marsh and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG.N)
William Gilman, a former Marsh executive marketing director, and Edward McNenney, a former Marsh global placement director, contended that they were defamed by the column, which appeared thee months after a judge threw out their convictions on felony antitrust charges. Neither is named in the column.
Slate.com is owned by Washington Post Co (WPO.N), and its parent Slate Group LLC is a defendant in both cases.
Gilman filed his $60 million lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, while McNenney filed papers seeking $30 million with the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Both cases were filed on Friday and made public on Monday.
Spitzer, in a phone interview, declined to comment after the first of the lawsuits, Gilman's, became public. Rima Calderon, a Washington Post spokeswoman, declined to comment.
Gilman had worked at Marsh for 28 years and McNenney for 14 years when Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, in 2004 opened a probe into the company's practices -- including alleged kickbacks for steering of clients to favored insurers.
Marsh, then the largest U.S. insurance broker, agreed in January 2005 to pay $850 million in a civil settlement with Spitzer, and eight insurance executives including Gilman and McNenney were indicted eight months later in the probe.
Both men were found guilty in February 2008, but the presiding judge threw out that conviction in July 2010, citing new evidence. That case was dismissed in January. The other indicted executives either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed. Twenty-one others pleaded guilty. [ID:nN14291031]
"SCAPEGOATS"
In his complaint, Gilman said Spitzer defamed him in writing, stating that "Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks."
Gilman also said Spitzer defamed him in writing by stating that "many employees of Marsh" have been "convicted and sentenced to jail terms," when none had.
Spitzer had written the column shortly after an editorial critical of him in The Wall Street Journal.
"While Mr. Spitzer's statements do not refer to Mr. Gilman by name," Gilman's complaint said, "Mr. Gilman is readily identifiable as the subject of the defamatory comments."
"Mr. Spitzer was well aware of his own allegations as attorney general and the resolution of those allegations in favor of Mr. Gilman and yet, recklessly disregarded these facts," the complaint said.
Punitive damages account for half the amounts sought in each lawsuit. "I don't know what possessed him to make the statements that he made," Jeffrey Liddle, a lawyer for Gilman and McNenney, said in an interview, referring to Spitzer.
In June, Gilman and McNenney accused Marsh in a separate lawsuit of colluding with Spitzer to make them "scapegoats" and avert potential criminal charges against the company. That case seeks to recover unpaid compensation and other damages.
Last month, Time Warner Inc's (TWX.N) CNN canceled Spitzer's low-rated television talk show "In the Arena," after less than one year on the air. [ID:nN1E7651A4] Spitzer resigned as New York's governor in March 2008 after a scandal in which it was revealed that he had hired a high-priced prostitute.
The cases are Gilman v. Spitzer et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-05843; and McNenney v. Spitzer et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109628/2011. The earlier lawsuit is Gilman et al v. Marsh & McLennan Cos et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-08158.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Dave Zimmerman and Matthew Lewis)
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Federal administrative law judge says Kaiser’s unfair labor practices figured as silent, menacing reminders
Kaiser Roseville Workers to Vote in Union Election Re-do
Administrative judge overturned the fall 2010 vote.
By Seth Sandronsky
Roseville Patch
Aug. 19, 2011
The National Labor Relations Board has canceled the union election results last fall of 43,000 Kaiser Permanente service-technical employees across California, including 989 workers at Kaiser Permanente Roseville. In that statewide vote, Kaiser workers, 61 percent to 39 percent, chose to stay with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - United Healthcare Workers West instead of joining the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW).
However, in a 34-page decision, federal Administrative Law Judge Lana Parke ruled that SEIU violated workers’ rights on multiple counts. In one instance of “improper election conduct,” SEIU said that workers would have to give-away agreed-to wage and benefits gains if they voted for NUHW, action that Kaiser did in fact take, propelling a federal court to rule that the non-profit HMO repay with interest the affected employees.
“Kaiser’s ULPs [unfair labor practices] figured as silent, menacing reminders that Kaiser not only could, but already had, unilaterally withheld benefits when other employees had chosen to be represented by NUHW,” Parke wrote.
There are a total of 3,050 full-time Kaiser employees and 317 full-time doctors working at the Roseville facility, said Edwin Garcia, a Kaiser Roseville spokesman.
Last fall’s Kaiser election was the biggest in the NLRB’s 70-year history.
Elizabeth Brennan, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, said Kaiser has maintained all regular raises, health care and retirement benefits of the SEIU-UHW members involved in the union election last September through October.
“Kaiser workers will make a decision based on what’s best for their livelihoods, and that is to stay with SEIU-UHW,” Brennan said.
SEIU’s take-over, or trusteeship, of UHW in late January 2009, a 150,000-member California local affiliate of the national union, gave birth to the NUHW.
Lisa Engles, 44, is a medical assistant at Kaiser Roseville, and a Roseville resident. She said her experience during the fall 2010 Kaiser election was an “uphill battle” for the NUHW.
SEIU had more resources available, and easier access to workers versus that for NUHW, making the election a “David and Goliath type of thing,” Engles said. However in Roseville, most workers voted for the NUHW, according to her.
“This is huge” that the NLRB overturned last year’s Kaiser union election, an exception to the federal labor board’s usual practice, Engles said. The NLRB is set to complete the re-run vote by the end of September, which “doesn’t give us a lot of time" to educate workers who will vote for the second time in a year for a union to represent them, she said...
Administrative judge overturned the fall 2010 vote.
By Seth Sandronsky
Roseville Patch
Aug. 19, 2011
The National Labor Relations Board has canceled the union election results last fall of 43,000 Kaiser Permanente service-technical employees across California, including 989 workers at Kaiser Permanente Roseville. In that statewide vote, Kaiser workers, 61 percent to 39 percent, chose to stay with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - United Healthcare Workers West instead of joining the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW).
However, in a 34-page decision, federal Administrative Law Judge Lana Parke ruled that SEIU violated workers’ rights on multiple counts. In one instance of “improper election conduct,” SEIU said that workers would have to give-away agreed-to wage and benefits gains if they voted for NUHW, action that Kaiser did in fact take, propelling a federal court to rule that the non-profit HMO repay with interest the affected employees.
“Kaiser’s ULPs [unfair labor practices] figured as silent, menacing reminders that Kaiser not only could, but already had, unilaterally withheld benefits when other employees had chosen to be represented by NUHW,” Parke wrote.
There are a total of 3,050 full-time Kaiser employees and 317 full-time doctors working at the Roseville facility, said Edwin Garcia, a Kaiser Roseville spokesman.
Last fall’s Kaiser election was the biggest in the NLRB’s 70-year history.
Elizabeth Brennan, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, said Kaiser has maintained all regular raises, health care and retirement benefits of the SEIU-UHW members involved in the union election last September through October.
“Kaiser workers will make a decision based on what’s best for their livelihoods, and that is to stay with SEIU-UHW,” Brennan said.
SEIU’s take-over, or trusteeship, of UHW in late January 2009, a 150,000-member California local affiliate of the national union, gave birth to the NUHW.
Lisa Engles, 44, is a medical assistant at Kaiser Roseville, and a Roseville resident. She said her experience during the fall 2010 Kaiser election was an “uphill battle” for the NUHW.
SEIU had more resources available, and easier access to workers versus that for NUHW, making the election a “David and Goliath type of thing,” Engles said. However in Roseville, most workers voted for the NUHW, according to her.
“This is huge” that the NLRB overturned last year’s Kaiser union election, an exception to the federal labor board’s usual practice, Engles said. The NLRB is set to complete the re-run vote by the end of September, which “doesn’t give us a lot of time" to educate workers who will vote for the second time in a year for a union to represent them, she said...
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Study: Only 1 in 5 malpractice cases see payout
"...[J]ust a tiny fraction of the patients harmed by medical mistakes actually file claims."
Perhaps doctors would make fewer tragic mistakes if they were held accountable more often.
Study: Only 1 in 5 malpractice cases see payout
By MIKE STOBBE
The Associated Press
August 17, 2011
Only 1 in 5 malpractice claims against doctors leads to a settlement or other payout, according to the most comprehensive study of these claims in two decades.
But while doctors and their insurers may be winning most of these challenges, that’s still a lot of fighting. Each year about 1 in 14 doctors gets sued, and most physicians and virtually every surgeon will face at least one malpractice lawsuit in their careers, the study found.
That represents a significant emotional cost for doctors, said study co-author Amitabh Chandra, an economist and professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government
"They hate having their name dragged through the local newspaper and having to go to court," he said.
The study might seem to support a common opinion among doctors that most malpractice lawsuits are baseless, but the authors said the truth is more complicated than that.
They noted influential earlier research in New York state concluding that just a tiny fraction of the patients harmed by medical mistakes actually file claims.
Trial lawyers say it’s tough to take a malpractice case to court. Suits tend to be filed on contingency, meaning lawyers collect only if they win. There are very high up-front costs for hiring expert witnesses and preparing a case. Doctors, hospitals and their insurers often have significant money and legal firepower. Some states also have caps on malpractice awards. So, usually, only very strong cases with high expected payouts are pursued.
Given the expense and other difficulties involved in winning, it’s doubtful most claims are filed on a greedy whim, the researchers said.
Perhaps doctors would make fewer tragic mistakes if they were held accountable more often.
Study: Only 1 in 5 malpractice cases see payout
By MIKE STOBBE
The Associated Press
August 17, 2011
Only 1 in 5 malpractice claims against doctors leads to a settlement or other payout, according to the most comprehensive study of these claims in two decades.
But while doctors and their insurers may be winning most of these challenges, that’s still a lot of fighting. Each year about 1 in 14 doctors gets sued, and most physicians and virtually every surgeon will face at least one malpractice lawsuit in their careers, the study found.
That represents a significant emotional cost for doctors, said study co-author Amitabh Chandra, an economist and professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government
"They hate having their name dragged through the local newspaper and having to go to court," he said.
The study might seem to support a common opinion among doctors that most malpractice lawsuits are baseless, but the authors said the truth is more complicated than that.
They noted influential earlier research in New York state concluding that just a tiny fraction of the patients harmed by medical mistakes actually file claims.
Trial lawyers say it’s tough to take a malpractice case to court. Suits tend to be filed on contingency, meaning lawyers collect only if they win. There are very high up-front costs for hiring expert witnesses and preparing a case. Doctors, hospitals and their insurers often have significant money and legal firepower. Some states also have caps on malpractice awards. So, usually, only very strong cases with high expected payouts are pursued.
Given the expense and other difficulties involved in winning, it’s doubtful most claims are filed on a greedy whim, the researchers said.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Bladder cancer advocacy network
Bladder cancer advocacy network
June 5, 2011
Hard choices
By ludovic
June 5, 2011
In Newly diagnosed
Shared with the public
I'm 86 years old and in
general good health. I had a
TURP on April 23, tumor
removed from a thin-walled
diverticulum on the right side
of bladder. Biopsy at the time
revealed I also have
adinocarcinoma. I am
preparing to undergo
segemental cystocopy to
remove the diverticulum and
adjacent bladder wall where
tumors are located.
I chose this procedure over a
radical cystoscopy because
quality of life is important. If
successful, I will still be able to
pee normally, (albeit more
frequently).
The question posed by my
surgeon: "If I find it not
possible to complete the
partial, do you prefer I
continue on to do a radical or
do I close you up?"
Hypotetically, knowing what
you now know and you were
86, what would you answer?
BTW, were I to elect for a
radical, which urinary
diversion would you
recommend?
...By ludovic
July 3, 2011
Thank you to all who offered
opinions and advice based on
your own experiences. They
were, of course, of
tremendous value in electing
the course for me to follow.
Firstly, I have to express my
thanks to and admiration of
the skills in both diagnosis
and surgery of Dr. HUATHIN
KHAW , the specialist who has
taken care of my uroligical
needs for about 17 years at
Kaiser Permanente in San
Diego.
Secondly, I have to attest to
his humility and empathy by
reporting that he readily
organized an appointment
with another urological
specialist for a second opinion
before deciding on the final
course of action.
Thirdly, based on his finding
that the adino tumors
appeared to be located only
in and close to the
diverticulum and his
assessment of the area
available to him to excise
them and still leave adequate
tissue for stitching and
reclosing the bladder, we
agreed to go with a
diverticulectomy and partial
cystectomy.
The surgery, held on June 18,
lasted for 5 hours and
resulted in his removing the
diverticulum plus a
happily-small 10% of my
bladder. Subsequent path
results showed tumors gone
and margins clear of cancer,
as were the nearby lymph
nodes.
For the time being, I am
cancer-free and suffering a
diminishing amount of
discomfort following removal
of a drain tube and catheter,
and the slow healing (I'll be 87
later this month) of the
incisions.
I've noted, with increasing
thankfulness for my own good
fortune, the anguishing
choices some sufferers have
had to make in respect of the
cost of the treatment they
require. As a member of the
Kaiser Permamente Senior
Advantage program, the only
contribution I have been asked
to make is a $200 per night
hospital charge. My surgery
and the subsequent
state-of-the-art nursing help,
plus all needed supplies and
follow-up visits for device
removal, etc. have been at no
charge. For those who may
not qualify for such a
program, I can only say that I
am totally amazed that any
right-thinking US citizen,
except those who own shares
in healthcare insurance
companies, would vote
against a political party that
advocates free healthcare for
all paid for from general
taxation.
June 5, 2011
Hard choices
By ludovic
June 5, 2011
In Newly diagnosed
Shared with the public
I'm 86 years old and in
general good health. I had a
TURP on April 23, tumor
removed from a thin-walled
diverticulum on the right side
of bladder. Biopsy at the time
revealed I also have
adinocarcinoma. I am
preparing to undergo
segemental cystocopy to
remove the diverticulum and
adjacent bladder wall where
tumors are located.
I chose this procedure over a
radical cystoscopy because
quality of life is important. If
successful, I will still be able to
pee normally, (albeit more
frequently).
The question posed by my
surgeon: "If I find it not
possible to complete the
partial, do you prefer I
continue on to do a radical or
do I close you up?"
Hypotetically, knowing what
you now know and you were
86, what would you answer?
BTW, were I to elect for a
radical, which urinary
diversion would you
recommend?
...By ludovic
July 3, 2011
Thank you to all who offered
opinions and advice based on
your own experiences. They
were, of course, of
tremendous value in electing
the course for me to follow.
Firstly, I have to express my
thanks to and admiration of
the skills in both diagnosis
and surgery of Dr. HUATHIN
KHAW , the specialist who has
taken care of my uroligical
needs for about 17 years at
Kaiser Permanente in San
Diego.
Secondly, I have to attest to
his humility and empathy by
reporting that he readily
organized an appointment
with another urological
specialist for a second opinion
before deciding on the final
course of action.
Thirdly, based on his finding
that the adino tumors
appeared to be located only
in and close to the
diverticulum and his
assessment of the area
available to him to excise
them and still leave adequate
tissue for stitching and
reclosing the bladder, we
agreed to go with a
diverticulectomy and partial
cystectomy.
The surgery, held on June 18,
lasted for 5 hours and
resulted in his removing the
diverticulum plus a
happily-small 10% of my
bladder. Subsequent path
results showed tumors gone
and margins clear of cancer,
as were the nearby lymph
nodes.
For the time being, I am
cancer-free and suffering a
diminishing amount of
discomfort following removal
of a drain tube and catheter,
and the slow healing (I'll be 87
later this month) of the
incisions.
I've noted, with increasing
thankfulness for my own good
fortune, the anguishing
choices some sufferers have
had to make in respect of the
cost of the treatment they
require. As a member of the
Kaiser Permamente Senior
Advantage program, the only
contribution I have been asked
to make is a $200 per night
hospital charge. My surgery
and the subsequent
state-of-the-art nursing help,
plus all needed supplies and
follow-up visits for device
removal, etc. have been at no
charge. For those who may
not qualify for such a
program, I can only say that I
am totally amazed that any
right-thinking US citizen,
except those who own shares
in healthcare insurance
companies, would vote
against a political party that
advocates free healthcare for
all paid for from general
taxation.
Appeals court strikes down health overhaul requirement that most Americans must buy insurance
The way I see it, Americans shouldn't have to die or be physically damaged simply because they don't have healthcare. Also, they shouldn't end up financially devastated by illness or injury.
This means we all have to chip in to provide health care for all. Having everyone buy health insurance is one way of doing this. But if this isn't possible, then the only solution I can see is a single-payer system.
Appeals court strikes down health overhaul requirement that most Americans must buy insurance
By Associated Press
August 12, 2011
ATLANTA — A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional...
This means we all have to chip in to provide health care for all. Having everyone buy health insurance is one way of doing this. But if this isn't possible, then the only solution I can see is a single-payer system.
Appeals court strikes down health overhaul requirement that most Americans must buy insurance
By Associated Press
August 12, 2011
ATLANTA — A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional...
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The new "Let them eat cake!"
The new "Let them eat cake!"
10 shocking, illuminating moments that prove just how out of touch the powerful really are
By David Sirota
Salon.com
"Let them eat cake" is a phrase composed of four simple, easy-to-remember words, which is probably why it became so emblematic of a larger set of ideas. "Suck it up and cope" is a phrase made up of five similarly simple and memorable words, which is why it may well replace "Let them eat cake" in the annals of history.
Yes, "Suck it up and cope" -- that is what billionaire Charlie Munger said that the unemployed, the homeless and the impoverished should do as their lives are torn apart by the recession.
Of course, had he said the same thing about bailed-out banks, his now-infamous line might have just seemed like the innocuous rant of a crotchety geezer who might be a little too zealous about old-school principles. But no, Munger made the remark during a 2010 speech to University of Michigan students in which he first lauded bankers as people who "saved your civilization" and then urged all Americans to bow down and "thank god" that the bailouts preserved the financial industry's profits.
And so we end this feature with a worthy successor to "Let them eat cake": "Suck it up and cope."
10 shocking, illuminating moments that prove just how out of touch the powerful really are
By David Sirota
Salon.com
"Let them eat cake" is a phrase composed of four simple, easy-to-remember words, which is probably why it became so emblematic of a larger set of ideas. "Suck it up and cope" is a phrase made up of five similarly simple and memorable words, which is why it may well replace "Let them eat cake" in the annals of history.
Yes, "Suck it up and cope" -- that is what billionaire Charlie Munger said that the unemployed, the homeless and the impoverished should do as their lives are torn apart by the recession.
Of course, had he said the same thing about bailed-out banks, his now-infamous line might have just seemed like the innocuous rant of a crotchety geezer who might be a little too zealous about old-school principles. But no, Munger made the remark during a 2010 speech to University of Michigan students in which he first lauded bankers as people who "saved your civilization" and then urged all Americans to bow down and "thank god" that the bailouts preserved the financial industry's profits.
And so we end this feature with a worthy successor to "Let them eat cake": "Suck it up and cope."
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Kaiser doctor accused of not reporting sex abuse
Kaiser is a bit like the Catholic Church, it would seem, protecting its own at the expense of those it is supposed to care for.
Kaiser has also protected a doctor who altered a report by another doctor.
Kaiser doctor accused of not reporting sex abuse
By COURTNEY PERKES
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
August 2, 2011
The chief of family medicine at Kaiser Permanente in Orange County faces discipline by the California Medical Board for allegations that he failed to report to the state that another doctor was sexually abusing patients.
The board, in documents made public Tuesday, accuses Dr. Lance Charles Brunner of "willful failure" to alert state authorities three different times after Dr. David Hung Do was sanctioned by the Southern California Permanente Medical Group.
Article Tab: image1-Kaiser doctor accused of not reporting sex abuse
ADVERTISEMENT
State law requires reporting within 15 days of any loss of staff privileges based on medical discipline tied to actions "detrimental to patient safety or to the delivery of patient care."
John Stratman, a Kaiser spokesman, disputed the board's allegations and said on Tuesday a report was filed as required by law. He said he did not know the date and that Kaiser would "vigorously defend" Brunner.
In April, the medical board revoked Do's license after five Kaiser Permanente patients alleged that he examined them inappropriately between 2006 and 2008.
One of Do's patients came to see him for a prescription for a seasickness patch. Do touched her breast and put his bare hand down her pants, touching her genitals, according to the medical board. The patient reported the incident to Kaiser.
In deciding to revoke Do's medical license, the administrative law judge hearing the case described Do as a sexual predator. He has pleaded not guilty to four criminal counts of sexual battery and a pretrial hearing is scheduled for September.
In the case of Brunner, the board documents allege three instances during the internal disciplinary process where Brunner failed to alert the state as required by law. The first was after Do was removed from treating patients in June 2008 while under investigation for inappropriate touching.
In August, Do was terminated and given the right to a hearing. In February of 2009, an arbitration hearing was held and Do was allowed to submit a letter of resignation. His resignation was reported to the medical board in late March, nine months after he was barred from seeing patients.
State law allows for a fine for failure to report to the state, the board documents say.
To check a doctor's disciplinary record, visit medbd.ca.gov
Kaiser has also protected a doctor who altered a report by another doctor.
Kaiser doctor accused of not reporting sex abuse
By COURTNEY PERKES
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
August 2, 2011
The chief of family medicine at Kaiser Permanente in Orange County faces discipline by the California Medical Board for allegations that he failed to report to the state that another doctor was sexually abusing patients.
The board, in documents made public Tuesday, accuses Dr. Lance Charles Brunner of "willful failure" to alert state authorities three different times after Dr. David Hung Do was sanctioned by the Southern California Permanente Medical Group.
Article Tab: image1-Kaiser doctor accused of not reporting sex abuse
ADVERTISEMENT
State law requires reporting within 15 days of any loss of staff privileges based on medical discipline tied to actions "detrimental to patient safety or to the delivery of patient care."
John Stratman, a Kaiser spokesman, disputed the board's allegations and said on Tuesday a report was filed as required by law. He said he did not know the date and that Kaiser would "vigorously defend" Brunner.
In April, the medical board revoked Do's license after five Kaiser Permanente patients alleged that he examined them inappropriately between 2006 and 2008.
One of Do's patients came to see him for a prescription for a seasickness patch. Do touched her breast and put his bare hand down her pants, touching her genitals, according to the medical board. The patient reported the incident to Kaiser.
In deciding to revoke Do's medical license, the administrative law judge hearing the case described Do as a sexual predator. He has pleaded not guilty to four criminal counts of sexual battery and a pretrial hearing is scheduled for September.
In the case of Brunner, the board documents allege three instances during the internal disciplinary process where Brunner failed to alert the state as required by law. The first was after Do was removed from treating patients in June 2008 while under investigation for inappropriate touching.
In August, Do was terminated and given the right to a hearing. In February of 2009, an arbitration hearing was held and Do was allowed to submit a letter of resignation. His resignation was reported to the medical board in late March, nine months after he was barred from seeing patients.
State law allows for a fine for failure to report to the state, the board documents say.
To check a doctor's disciplinary record, visit medbd.ca.gov
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)