Julie Fellmeth of CPIL – Trying to hide the Truth by joining several social networking sites!

Did Julie Fellmeth and Robert Fellmeth of CPIL hire Reputation Defender? Google Julie Fellmeth. Look at ALL the social networks Julie has recently joined. Why hide Julie? What is it that you are affraid of? The truth?

Mission Hijacked by Lobbyist

Mission Hijacked by Lobbyist

“The mission of the Medical Board is to protect health care consumers through the proper licensing and regulation of physicians and surgeons and certain allied health care professions and through the vigorous, objective enforcement of the Medical Practice Act, and to promote access to quality medical care through the Board’s licensing and regulatory functions.”

Most of the key elements in this mission statement of the Medical Board of California (MBC) have been unwittingly ceded to the lobbyist for The Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL). The hijacked components include, “…protect health care consumers,” “objective enforcement” and the promotion of “access to quality medical care.”

Public Protection
Demonizing doctors recovering from alcohol or drug problems is dated but very easy. Merely offering untruthful scenarios of patient harm grabs the attention of the salacious media. The story of any recovering doctor possibly doing something wrong is fascinating. The story of a thousand recovering doctors doing everything right isn’t worth a side bar on page eight. Untrue allegations of one doctor supposedly doing something bad warrants page one. Mobilizing professional victims and paranoid litigators and chauffeuring them into Medical Board meetings is colorful and scintillating. CPIL’s lobbyist has attended every Board meeting and repeated these themes. The result is that the Board is unduly influenced and like the repeating scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, has been taken over, implanted with falsehoods and aggrandized dramas.
The truth is that the very nature of the Physician Health and Diversion programs is prevention of physician impairment and possible patient harm. Early intervention prior to the risk of harm is the focus of these programs nationwide. The real risk of patient harm results from delayed intervention. Physicians with potentially impairing illness, at an early stage, typically function at a high level for a decade or more before impairment is evidenced. The existence of illness does not mean impairment is present. Taking away early intervention through the likelihood of adverse disciplinary action tends toward delayed diagnosis and increased risk. The Medical Board’s Mission to protect the public, therefore, is best served by a system that encourages early diagnosis and treatment. . The Medical Boards idea of a ‘proactive’ approach – combining “just say no” with educating medical students about Licensing consequences – while well intended, is minimally helpful. Unfortunately for the consumer, the Board has expressed a belief these miniscule steps will eliminate the problem.

OBJECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT
When CPIL works with other parties to, 1) solicit false Complaints, 2) divert Board resources away from legitimate Investigation and Enforcement activities, and 3) effectively pressure the Board to discipline ill doctors simply to avoid bad press, this results in a very dangerous, destructive and unjust process. As a nation, we suffer collectively when we discover such things as abuse of prisoners, justification for torture and the stripping of Civil Rights. Likewise do we suffer when we learn of doctors being harmed in this way by the Board? The case of the CPIL targeted physician is not an example of a bad doctor being disciplined, but an innocent man and his family persecuted and harmed by those who claim to protect the Public. The Target is the most investigated doctor in the entire history of the Medical Board. CPIL’s lobbyist continuously hounds the Board to Revoke his License. Dozens upon dozens of contrived Complaints have been filed and costly investigations conducted. The Deputy Attorney General (the Board’s own Prosecutor) even told the Board there wasn’t a single valid Complaint of patient harm by the Target. In spite of that, the Board was pressured into demanding a lengthy show trial and informed the Administrative Law Judge they wanted a License Revocation. The Board got a very harsh and questionable Decision; but since it wasn’t harsh enough, they simply Non-Adopted the Decision. The patient harm issue? One patient, prior to the Target’s entry into the Diversion recovery process had a breast reconstruction and got matched “c” cups versus the “d” cups she expected (six years after her surgery she filed a Complaint, and in 2001 she sued and her suit was dismissed with prejudice for no evidence of malpractice). That is it; as far from Objective Enforcement as can be imagined. Ultimately, after the Non-Adoption all for show Hearing, the Medical Board did revoke the license of the Target. While an expensive Appeal is available, the Board has communicated its intention to file additional Accusations and reject any favorable legal outcome by the Court. In February 2009, for example, the Board refused to accept the Target’s monthly payments for required Probation monitoring fees. Why on earth would they do that? Simply put, the Board planned to file another Accusation for failure to pay the required fees, a violation of Probation.
There is an old saying, “the victors write the history books”. All the public Enforcement documents on the Target will remain for all to view. CPIL will quote the most salacious and libelous of those to support their position that doctors in Diversion harmed patients. Those who read them and believe them will conclude he was a bad guy. There will be no rebuttal, and no factual “other side “presented. This public use of hyperbolic prosecutorial writing represents both an early victory for CPIL, and a continuing effort to demonize doctors through the publication of solely adversarial documents. CPIL now demands ALL complaints be published on the Medical Board web site and posted in the doctor’s place of employment. As usual, no rebuttal or other side allowed. The real potential for malicious abuse is obvious.

When the Board had a Diversion Program, there were doctors who faced Discipline for things like DUI’s, diverting drugs for personal use, and unauthorized use of scheduled substances. These cases were thoroughly and professionally investigated by the Board. If there was no patient harm and the doctor was cooperative, the doctor was directed away from Discipline into the Diversion program so they could get the help they needed and the process monitored. The doctor’s participation in Diversion was confidential, even though the full situation was known to the Board. Some parties had concerns over this level of confidentiality. Most States have a confidential tract for those who enter voluntarily in the absence of patient harm, and most states have Boards that refer without formal disciplinary action. In California, referrals from disciplinary action have always been public. CPIL and its media Lobbyist, KSR Strategy Group, incite Populist outrage over this topic. Manipulating the press and exciting the lynch mob is easy. The modern day version of the “off with their heads” approach can resonate with an uninformed or misinformed public. However, prior to the creation of Physician Health and Diversion programs, that was the rule. It was a counter productive approach that placed patients at risk.
When the only option for a doctor with a potentially impairing illness such as substance use disorder, psychiatric illness, etc. is discipline, the doctor is driven underground and afraid to acknowledge a problem. Those close to the doctor – friends, family, medical partners, and others – are reluctant to report since they don’t want to cause the doctor more problems. When a program exists that allows the doctor to receive help without fear of professional sanction or loss of livelihood, doctors are intervened on well before their illness reaches a state of being a potential risk to patients. In this more enlightened and accepted scenario, an otherwise excellent physician is salvaged and the public is protected. There are examples in other states that saw their referrals increase over 400% when they made a transition from a punitive to a supportive system.
This writer’s personal experience is a case in point. Working in a Los Angeles County hospital Alcoholism unit in the early 70’s, the patient population represented “the cream of skid row”. They were advanced in their illness, yet had a real potential for rehabilitation. There were former doctors among them. The stunning similarity of their stories is quite illustrative:
1. They all had the skid row nickname of “doc”.
2. They all had been highly skilled and respected doctors for many years.
3. Because the Board would revoke their License if it was known they had a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, they were all professionally hidden.
4. Eventually, their illness progressed to the point that even those hesitant to report could no longer keep the secret.
5. They all lost everything – family, career, social and legal standing. They were all consumed with guilt and shame, and subsequently deteriorated to a skid row existence.

6.Most rehabilitated and once again became productive members of society. Others died.

If CPIL gets their way, this scenario will be the norm. Along the way, CPIL will keep their hands in California’s wallet, while trumpeting their virtuousness, and pointing their vicious rhetoric at doctors in recovery. CPIL seeks, without understanding, to destroy what has been carefully developed and proven successful around the country. Their vision would set California back 30 years.

Finally, the Board has a responsibility to PROMOTE ACCESS TO QUALITY MEDICAL CARE in California. By withdrawing support for any kind of Physician Health or Diversion program, they limit this important objective. Currently, there are no Addictionologists or Addiction Psychiatrists among the Board Members, with a resultant lack of knowledge about the illnesses of Alcohol or Drug Dependency. Outside these groups, few doctors were trained to recognize, intervene and treat addictive illness. The Board’s lack of understanding in this arena of health care is problematic.
We must not mismanage and marginalize physicians with addictive illness. Through their personal treatment and recovery, they become experts in identifying and managing addictive illness. They provide superior care to their patients with these disorders. Through their acquired knowledge, they recognize the illness earlier than their untrained peers, and are able to intervene. The Nation’s health care costs are adversely impacted by undiagnosed and untreated addictions. Patients are damaged when doctors are reluctant to diagnose and treat the core problem that causes illness accident and organ damage. Family members also are adversely impacted when their addict isn’t diagnosed and treated.
Addictive illness affects about 10% of the American population. Our nation spends about $375 Billion dollars per year on these illnesses but, unfortunately, 99% of those monies go to failed policies on interdiction, incarceration, and cleaning up the mess. Our nation spends less than 1% of the money on education, prevention and treatment combined, although a study by Kaiser Permanente demonstrated that for every dollar we spend on education, prevention and treatment, we save $7 in services down the road. Who will lead America out of this abyss if not those who have recovered from the illness themselves?
Again, the author draws on decades of professional experience to illustrate the point. Running chemical dependency units in large and respected Medical Centers required the training of the Attending Staff Physicians. One particular training technique was very

useful: many patients who were treated on the unit had been long term patients of the Attending Staff and had multiple previous hospitalizations. We would bring a medical chart, comprising a 3 volume or more pile of documents, and review the obvious. Repeated notes of alcohol related damage and nothing related to alcoholism itself. Yet all the major medical problems were consequences of untreated alcoholism. The doctors were reluctant to bring up the issue, either due to having the 1) moral defect notion of alcoholism, or 2) believing an alcoholic not living on skid row wasn’t an alcoholic.

The British Medical Journal published a report of the efficacy of state physician health programs in its 11/08 issue. Sixteen states PHPs studied demonstrated a 78% total abstinence at an average of 7.2 years of monitoring. With further treatment for their illness for those who did relapse, the success rate exceeded 90% at five years. Of the 904 recovering doctors studied, there was one (1) incident of patient harm – over prescribing. What other chronic illness management offers that level of success?
Any system that takes a reflexively prejudicial stance and punitive approach to doctors in need of help diminishes the value and access of these practitioners to patients who need them. It is of paramount importance that California has a vibrant, healthy Physician Health Program. Such programs are an invaluable resource for the ill physician, the medical community and, most important, the patients we all serve.

FELLMETH FRAUD EXPOSED, AGAIN!!

“April 13, 2009

Patricia Harris, Acting Executive Director

Department of Consumer Affairs

1625 North Market Blvd Suite N112

Sacramento, CA 95834

RE: California Senate Bill 1441

Dear Ms. Harris:

I have watched with interest the situation with the Physicians Health Program in ill physicians as well as the communities they serve.

I am disturbed to hear that Registered Lobbyists for CPIL have offered what, on its surface, has the appearance of deliberately misleading and unfounded opinions.

I have served as Medical Director of the Mississippi Professionals Health Program (MPHP) since 1998. Prior to this Program’s modernization, Mississippi took a very punitive/disciplinary approach to any physician identified as having either addictive illness or psychiatric illness. Pre-1998, our Program received about 18 referrals per year, all of whom had been subjected to the board disciplinary process. There existed in our state an atmosphere of fear and silence. Potentially impaired physicians remained hidden with those in the best position to assist them were hesitant to do so.

Once the Mississippi Professionals Health Program came into effect and afforded physicians an avenue by which they could receive assistance without threat of adverse disciplinary action and public embarrassment, our Program saw referrals increase over 480%. In my 10 years experience with this Program, I am pleased to say that there have been no instances of patient harm by a monitored physician in our Program. This is in line with the data reported in the Domino Study a few years ago and more recently in the 11/08 British Medical Journal’s report of 16 state physical health programs. This recent study followed 904 monitored physicians an average of 7.2 years. It saw 78% of these physicians complete the monitoring without relapse. There was one (1) report of patient harm (over prescribing).

The public is best protected with a viable, healthy professionals health program is in existence to assist physicians with potentially impairing conditions. Illness and impairment exists on a continuum. The presence of illness does not in and of itself imply impairment. In fact, illness may precede overt impairment by decades.

For more information on the Federation of State Physician Health Program’s Public Policy regarding this matter, please refer to the Federation’s website.

Unfortunately, the public’s perception of recovering physicians, fueled by groups such as Citizens Advocacy Committee and the CPIL, create an atmosphere of public fear that is not supported by the data. It is my understanding that CPIL’s poster child, Brian West, M.D. did not, in fact, actually harm anyone while in the CA Diversion Program. I do not know the facts of this case but assuming that it is true, it is noteworthy.

I trust that cooler heads in California will prevail and re-establish a professional health programs to bring it back in line with what is occurring nationally and internationally. The citizens of California will be better served if this is accomplished.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

Sincerely,

 

Gary D. Carr, M.D., FAAFP

Diplomate ABAM

Medical Director, MPHP”

Click here to see letter

Non-Adoption: When the Punishment For No Crime Is Not Severe Enough

Non-Adoption: When the Punishment For No Crime Is Not Severe Enough

Most people will read the negative Press on the Target Physician, Non-Adoption, and will assume he got a fair trial. They will infer he had all the Civil Rights due an American citizen, and was allowed a full defense. After all, that is what the majority believe about the American Judicial system. However, they’d be wrong.

When someone earns an MD License in California, they get double jeopardy, or in the case of the Target Physician, triple jeopardy.

The Decision in the case of the Target Physician was Non-Adopted by the Medical Board of California (MBC). He was found to have committed gross negligence in the care of one patient. “Gross Negligence” – that sounds awful. Did he remove the wrong limb or organ? Did the patient die or become permanently disabled? NO!! She doesn’t like the size and shape of her breasts! After dozens of false accusations and Complaints of killing and maiming patients, that’s it!

The Target Physician has been the target of a disgruntled former patient, the D’Angelo Fellmeth family business (CPIL), and a questionable reporter for CBS/Sacramento. They have worked together to damage him in every way possible. D’Angelo Fellmeth used him to destroy the Physician Diversion Program . The reporter got awards. The former patient, who works for the reporter, lost her lawsuits and Appeals. All she gets is the opportunity to appear on TV with Mrs. Fellmeth and at Medical Board meetings with her lynch mob. Mrs. Julie Fellmeth used the good name and official publications of the University of San Diego to claim the Target Physician, while in the Diversion Program, harmed patients. However, this particular case occurred prior to his entry into Diversion. All of the other solicited false Complaints were investigated and thrown out for no merit.

How does double jeopardy apply here? The undisputed facts are : The Target Physician got two DUIs. Period. For MDs and non-MDs, that means having to deal with criminal Prosecution, defense and legal consequences. His DUI’s did not result in harm to others. He paid the price for his mistakes. This is where the double jeopardy arrives. With two DUI’s , an MD gets in trouble with the Medical Board. The Board has access to this information, and investigates whether there was harm to the public, or if this affected patient care. Defending against an Accusation by the Board is a very expensive, prolonged and painful process. It is also judicially lob-sided. The defenses afforded a criminal defendant are denied to MD’s. For example, the Target Physician was not allowed to bring up 1) the patient continued to see him after her breast surgery to consider additional unrelated procedures, and 2) the fact that the patient was connected to the disgruntled former patient who solicited false complaints. This hurt the Target Physician in two ways. First, these fact do not appear anywhere in the record. Second, by suppressing this information, the opposing Attorney was able to impune the Target Physician’s documentation of satisfaction expressed by the patient with his care.

Now there is triple jeopardy for the Target Physician. D’Angelo Fellmeth and company have made a mockery of Public Interest and Consumer Protection here. They routinely attack all Regulatory Boards, but the Medical Board has been a particularly profitable target for the Fellmeths. Mrs. Fellmeth appears regularly at Board meetings to chastise the Board, while simultaneously seeking lucrative Enforcement Monitor appointments. She is tireless in her efforts to reduce or eliminate the Civil Rights of Doctors. With her media Lobbyist, she plants insightful stories to pressure the Board to seize as many Licenses as possible. Using the old Ralph Nader techniques (Robert Fellmeth was a protégé of Ralph Nader in the 60’s), of creating voluminous, soporific reports combined with “purple prose rhetoric,” they have been effective in creating a false sense of risk and danger. Or as Mrs. Fellmeth likes to put it, “All doctors are dangerous!”

So now, the Target Physician faces triple jeopardy. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) gave the Target Physician a one year extension of Probation, a 30 day Suspension and a requirement to take the PACE program at UC San Diego. The PACE Program evaluates the competence of doctors. This Decision, in perspective, is a harsh but not devastating outcome. However, the Board, by it’s positing of Non-Adoption, wants to Revoke the Target Physician’s License to protect itself from further criticism. Often, Non-Adoption is used simply to financially break a doctor and force them to give up the fight. Appeals can cost millions and take years, while the doctor is deprived of their livelihood.

Young MD’s have no idea how a minor misdemeanor or even a family law issue can jeopardize their License. This dark factoid is not mentioned in Medical School. In the case of the Target Physician, the Consumer Protection Movement is severely damaged by such untruthful attacks and dark politics. Taking away the Licenses of decent, capable doctors is in no way in the Public Interest.

Julie Fellmeth’s methods of dark politics and media manipulation

The Diversion Program of California was hijacked by David Thornton, former Director of the California Medical Board. David Thornton appointed stealth Trial Lawyer Lobbyist Julie Fellmeth of CPIL as Diversion Monitor. Her 20 years of animosity towards Physicians and Diversion was legitimized and memorialized in her November 2004 biased audit. That is equivalent to hiring David Duke to audit the NAACP. Julie Fellmeth is a Lobbist for the Trial Lawyers, hiding behind the title of Consumer Advocate Lawyer. Fellmeth has a collaborator named Tina Minasian, who in turn has a victim posse she trots out to Hearings . Tina had a lower body lift. She was given written and verbal instructions not to resume smoking or put on weight. She did, then blamed and sued the MD for malpractice. It was as if she took her best pants in for alteration, put on enough weight to rip the seems, then wanted to hang the tailor. She lost the case. Her complaint to the Medical Board was investigated and thrown out. She set up a complaint soliciting web site regarding Target Physician, and would pressure and harangue callers to make false complaints to the California Medical Board, assuring them that filing false complaints carried no risk at all. The former Executive Director of the California Medical Board appointed Fellmeth as Enforcement Monitor. What Mrs Julie Fellmeth claims was the result of an “open and competitive” process was in fact done in secret w/out the knowledge of other more capable people. Please see the following websites which explains much of what has happened:

www.mbcconspiracy.blogspot.com Information on what happened to the California Diversion Program

www.standingup4truth.blogspot.com Information on the “Target Physician”

www.mbccorruption.blogspot.com Information about David Thornton, the former Director of the California Medical Board