Julie Fellmeth of CPIL harms children!

As cited on the MBC website under minutes: …stated that part of the mission of the Medical Board is the objective enforcement of the Medical Practice Act. She stated that when disciplinary action is taken because of choreographed hoax victims teamed with special interest lobbyists and media ambush teams, there is no justice and no objective enforcement. When a revocation is pre determined due to personal animus, the mission becomes a sham. Patient protection is harmed when the process is co-opted. She stated that she and her family were harmed because of vindictive enforcement taken by the Board. She introduced her children and stated that she and her children had been harmed for seven years due to actions of the Board.

Julie Fellmeth of CPIL is the Abramoff of California Politics

Here is more commentary about the corrupt DCA and company:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/24/2911778/former-speaker-bass-retains-drivers.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=1544188#Comments_Container

Karen Bass, Rosario Marin, Carrie Lopez, and Liz Figueroa are all proven to be corrupt government officials. Look at their connections and to whom they are beholden. The California Department of Consumer Affairs and Julie Fellmeth is the common thread between these criminals. Julie is the Abramoff of California politics. Where is Gerry Brown? Oh, right; he is defending them and running for governor. Where is the Federal Judiciary? Oh, right; they are unprosecuting Shirley Sherrod.

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

Robert Fellmeth – Public Interest Law – NOT! or (Get Real Mr. Fellmeth)

Itzel Berrio
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Response to Comments of the Center for Public Interest Law on Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure Regarding the Alternative Discipline Program on March 17, 2008

Dear Ms. Berrio :

Robert Fellmeth’s critique of the ADP has an all too familiar tone and agenda. He offers up his usual unchallenged attack, full of questionable and soporific detail, combined with an a priori position against the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP). This bait and switch approach of questioning ADP is merely a platform to attack LAP. This is typical Fellmeth/D’Angelo family business, protected under CPIL’s banner of public interest.

The methods used by CPIL to first demean, then demolish the Medical Board of California (MBC) Physician Diversion Program are now focused on LAP. The first and foremost tool is the repeated Big Lie. Fellmeth states their “audit “ revealed physicians in Diversion “harmed patients”. This is a cornerstone or Pillar of CPIL’s “Judicious Jihad”. After 25+ years of failed attempts to find a single instance of harm to a patient by a physician in Diversion, CPIL made one up. Using a disgruntled former patient whose lawsuits were thrown out of Court numerous times, CPIL established a Target Physician as emblematic of the Program’s failure to protect the public. The former patient combined her efforts with a CBS/Sacramento reporter to create and finance a false Complaint soliciting web site. With the help of CPIL’s media lobbyist, they developed inciteful stories which they gave to lazy, uncritical press organizations, stating a doctor who killed and harmed patients was allowed to continue to practice . These fed articles were then re-cycled by CPIL to create pressure on the MBC to end the Program.

In October of 2008, the Administrative Hearing of the Target Physician (the target physician of the 2004 Report ) ended. Highlights in the Hearing included prosecution witnesses testifying 1)they were pleased with the care and outcome of the Target Physician’s work , 2) they called the Complaint soliciting web site out of curiosity and were contacted by the disgruntled former patient, and 3) the former patient came to their homes, wrote out a false Complaint which she had them sign. The former patient told them to file a Complaint on behalf of those who were harmed, and that there was no risk in filing a false Complaint. At the Hearing, the Deputy Attorney General informed the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ,) that they were aware the Complaints were “contrived”.

So when Fellmeth writes about “abuses that have resulted at the hands of Physician participants in that program” we must look at the actual facts. Neither Robert nor Mrs. Julie d’angelo Fellmeth has EVER produced a single, legitimate victim.

However, CPIL was able to successfully promote and promulgate the notions of “zero tolerance” and “enforceable standards” along with their rigged “audit” in the attack on Diversion. Their “audit” of 2004 was in no way a valid audit. The lucrative appointment of Mrs. Julie Fellmeth as Enforcement Monitor was the result of a shady back door process. Shady and back door, due to the fact that the application process was hidden from more qualified parties until after Mrs. Fellmeth was appointed. An audit, to be valid, uses established benchmarks and the auditor is objective. The 2004 Report met neither of these criteria. A “zero tolerance” approach allowed CPIL to condemn the drug testing component altogether after finding a lone graduate who acknowledged “gaming” it (in fact, he eventually was detected, an appropriate intervention was made, and no patient harm occurred). CPIL’s application of “zero tolerance” could be effectively used to shut down any human endeavor.

CPIL attempted to equate any positive test result with a Relapse and condemn the program for not ejecting participants. As anyone with even the most basic substance abuse education knows, a detected positive isn’t a relapse, but rather a warning sign, which is the basis for an early intervention and relapse prevention. Extensive data from legitimate, long-term studies indicate these doctors are actually much safer than doctors in general. Recovering doctors are exceptionally and uniquely valuable to their patients and community. Senator Mark Ridley Thomas described the ones he met as “stellar individuals”. What a stunning contrast to CPIL’s demonizations and legalistic fictions!

CPIL has used its lobbying (Mrs. Julianne d’angelo Fellmeth is a Registered Lobbyist, and CPIL is the client of two additional lobbying firms) to gain other lucrative Enforcement Monitoring appointments and write Legislation. Currently, CPIL is the recipient of a large California Endowment Grant. Their stated purpose is to bring “diversity” to Regulatory Boards. But CPIL uses common terms to misdirect potential scrutiny. “Diversity” in their case means removing all Licensees from Licensing Boards. Instead, Joe-the-Plumber types, trained by CPIL, would evaluate Complaints and make decisions. CPIL would then have a field day with its overheated and unchallenged Prosecutorial rhetoric and be able to erode and eliminate as many legal protections as possible for Licensees. For example, Mrs. Fellmeth wants all Complaints to be published. That way, by the time the Joe-the- Plumber Board Members hear the Complaints, there would be built in added prejudice for reactionary and unjust decisions. Mrs. Fellmeth was rebuked by Senator Mark Ridley Thomas in the March, 2008 Meeting of the Senate Business and Professions Committee, for her utter disregard for the lives and well-being of physicians.. CPIL has been greatly enriched by attacking Licensing Boards. Around 1997, after a meeting of the MBC Liason Committee in San Diego, Mrs. Julianne Fellmeth remarked to a small group, “when CPIL started, all the good consumer issues were taken, so we decided to attack the Medical Board”. They have further enriched themselves by getting other lucrative Enforcement Monitor appointments, using their so-called “independent monitor” status. For the Fellmeths, the term independent monitor is synonymous with CPIL. They were paid insiders in the 2007 audit of MBC Diversion by the Bureau of State Audits (BSA), using their power to influence the conclusions of the Audit .

CPIL has worked for decades to place itself as the sole voice of public protection with respect to Regulatory Boards. They have made public protection a wedge issue. Either one is for public protection and must never question CPIL, or is against public protection. They have exploited the worst negative stereotypes as opposed to providing actual, relevant information. As such, CPIL has done tremendous damage, reducing the very credibility of Public Interest Law, and putting their affiliate organizations at risk.

The Bar needs to take CPIL’s Comments and rhetoric with a large grain of salt when deciding how to modify the ADP. Further, the value and future of LAP should never be left in the self serving hands of CPIL.

Respectfully Submitted

Public Interest Law – NOT! or (Get Real Mrs. Fellmeth)

Dear Mrs. Fellmeth:

For the past fifteen-plus years you have expounded on and on about openness vs secrecy. You have urged passage of laws that would make physician’s private medical records open to public scrutiny if they were receiving treatment for addictions or mental health issues, or participating in the soon to end Diversion Program. So, in the spirit of openness, how about being open about the fact that you are a Registered Lobbyist? Or that Ed Howard, too, is a Registered Lobbyist and you are his client? Please tell us about the work that KSR Advocates (another Registered Lobbying Group) has done to assist you in manipulating the media.

Why don’t you open up about how CPIL receives substantial donations from Trial Lawyers who sue MD’s, Healthcare Organizations and HMO’s? Your work against Doctors surely will benefit them tremendously.

The work you do to deny or limit MD’s constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure gives these lawyers – these cronies of yours – major advantages in Plaintiff law suits.

Please tell us about your secret and underhanded appointment in 2003 as Enforcement Monitor for Diversion. Other, more qualified, interested candidates were told to apply, then told they couldn’t, then told they were too late and the position had been filled by you. Clue us in about how this was aided by David Thornton. Tell us how you could be considered an Independent Monitor when your conclusions were foregone. Mrs. Fellmeth, Mrs. Fellmeth, the deeper one digs, the more Kafkaesque this becomes.

Your self assumed identity as a patient advocate is preposterous. Your collaborator, Tina Minasian, is a prime example. While claiming she’d been injured by a Doctor in the Diversion Program, she never mentions how she gained excessive weight and resumed smoking after major lower body surgery, in direct disregard of written and verbal orders. Outside of your fantasy world, evidence trumps accusations and media manipulations. After Minasian’s complaint to the Medical Board was thoroughly and professionally investigated, why was it rejected? Why was her Medical Malpractice case rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court of California and Minaisan ordered to pay court costs? Minasian’s self-proclaimed “Victim Posse” is equally merit-less, as are the multitudinous false complaints to the Medical Board she has solicited through her lynch mob mentality, incendiary web sites. Please tell us who pays for all this? We know you know.

The repeated lynchings in the press and other media against the Target Physician has been going on so long and is so egregious that the Medical Board’s own attorney appeared before the Board. In this unprecedented appearance, the Board’s Attorney (the Prosecutor) informed the Board that there was not a single valid complaint of Patient Harm. The Board’s own Attorney recommended the Board not take the case to trial, as it would be lost.

Mrs. Fellmeth, you like to emphasize “Zero Tolerance.” Should that be applied to you? Since benefiting plaintiff Trial Lawyers does not always equate with Public Protection, shouldn’t you have to be accountable? Let’s apply the same standard to you and Tina Minasian and demand that you disclose how your efforts benefit lawyers who sue doctors.