In the past 10 years, the California Medical Board has reinstated the licenses of doctors who were convicted of sexually assaulting patients, defrauding insurance companies of millions and hiring hitmen to kill their wives.
Although some doctors spent as much time in prison as they did in medical school, they were most often able to show rehabilitation and given a second chance to treat patients.
“There are some things that people have done, and I don’t care how remorseful you are, you shouldn’t get your license back,” said Julie D’Angelo Fellmeth, a San Diego attorney hired by the state in 2003to report on the board’s enforcement practices.
The Orange County Register examined records of 123 doctors who sought reinstatement in the past decade after they lost their licenses for misconduct or negligence. More than half were able to satisfy a judge and the medical board that they were fit topractice. Among the 66 who were reinstated, 16 got into trouble again.
(Scroll down for information on Thomas Tartaro)
Among those was Dr. Andrew Rutland, an Anaheim obstetrician/gynecologist who could lose his license for a second time after the death of another patient.
The board has accused Rutland of gross negligence after a patient died last summer following an abortion procedure. The board had first taken Rutland’s license in 2002 after the death of a newborn from a botched forceps delivery. In recommending restoration of Rutland’s license to the board five years later, a judge wrote, “He continues to empathize with his patient’s pain and sorrow over the loss of her child.”
Rutland was one of a dozen doctors who were reinstated after losing their licenses for negligent patient care. But the records show that even doctors convicted of felonies and sentenced to prison were able to win reinstatement.
• Beverly Hills psychiatrist Mark Kaplan was arrested in 1993and charged with bilking the worker’s compensation system out of $30 million. Prosecutors said Kaplan hired “cappers” to recruit thousands of laid off workers from unemployment lines. He would then file phony injury claims and bill for medical services that were never provided.
In 1995, Kaplan pleaded no contest to four counts of insurance fraud and conspiracy andsurrendered his medical license. He was sent to Folsom State Prison.
After four years in prison, Kaplan’s first application for reinstatement was rejected. In 2004, on his second try, he was successful. A judge cited his volunteer work with addicts, religious counseling and references who called him a “changed man.” TodayKaplan practices in Los Angeles.
• Carlsbad dermatologist Vincent Nicholas Galluzzi pled guiltyin 1997 to hiring an undercover police officer in an unsuccessful attempt to kill his ex-wife. According to board records, Galluzzi paid the cop a deposit of $1,000 and gave him his ex-wife’s address and photo. The woman was not harmed, but Galluzzi was convicted and the medical board revoked his license in 1998.
Galluzzi was sent to R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, state records show. He was released in 2000 and spent three years on parole before reapplying for his license. In making his case, he explained his anger over costly spousal support payments, expressed remorse for his crime and said he didn’t realize until after his arrest that he suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder.
A judge hearing his request wrote, “The kind of aggressive feelings he had toward his ex-wife were never focused on his patients (or anyone else.)” The medical boardreinstated his license in 2004. Galluzzi now practices in Modesto.
• El Centro neurologist Thomas Tartaro was accused by the medical board of sexually abusing female patients, often telling them to remove their clothing for an exam and then rubbing his genitals against their buttocks and suggesting sex acts. Prosecutors charged him with eight counts of sexual battery; his probation report said that another eight victims declined to press charges.
“This officer can think of nothing worse that a doctor could do to his patients,” a probation officer wrote in a pre-sentencing report.
Tartaro pled no contest in 1994 to one felony charge of sexual battery on a restrained victim, a deal which allowed him to avoid state prison, records show. A judge sent Tartaro to the Imperial County Jail for 90 days instead. His license was revoked in 1995.
When Tartaro sought reinstatement of his license five years later, he said he had been addicted to prescription drugs that he received as samples. He underwent treatment for drug abuse, volunteered by reading to the blind, and testified that he would always feel guilt.
A judge found Tartaro showed “extreme remorse” for his crimes, “exemplary fortitude” in overcoming his addiction, and had maintained his “medical acumen.” The board reinstated him in 2002 but barred him from practicing on female patients during his 10 years of probation.
Tartaro’s reinstatement outraged one dissenting board member so much that, after he was elected to the state assembly, he authored a law banning felony sex offenders from practicing medicine. Tartaro, however, still has his medical license.
Tartaro and Galluzzi did not respond to requests for an interview. Kaplan also declined an interview, but told a reporter: “I do not see how the public at large could benefit from this (story).”
Linda Whitney, executive director of the medical board, said in a written statement that its reinstatement process provides the “most objective and independent method” of determining which doctors are rehabilitated.
“On balance and in the fullness of hindsight, I believe our board has lived up to its public protection mandate in this process far more than not,” Whitney said.
Rudy Bermudez, the former medical board member who wrote the sex offender law, put it differently.
“I think some of it goes to the doctor-God syndrome,” Bermudez said. “The board means well but hasn’t always done well.”
STANDARDS FOR REINSTATEMENT
When disciplining doctors, state law emphasizes a goal of rehabilitation, but says “protection of the public shall be the highest priority.” When those two are “inconsistent,” the law says “protection shall be paramount.”
“Why should we throw out all that society has invested into a doctor without giving a doctor a second chance?” said Peter Osinoff, a prominent Los Angeles attorney who specializes in representing doctors before the board. “If 99 percent of them can benefit society, it’s very worthwhile to reinstate these physicians.”
Doctors must wait three years after losing their licenses to reapply again, although sometimes settlement agreements allow them to seek reinstatement after two. In contrast, California attorneys who are disbarred must wait five years to reapply.
State law allows either a panel of the board or an administrative law judge to consider the request. The board has opted to have all cases go before a judge, who issues a proposed decision that must be approved by the board. Doctors have the right to appeal.
The law instructs judges to consider the original offense, the doctor’s actions since the discipline, rehabilitative efforts, reputation for truthfulness and professional ability. A doctor may not apply while incarcerated or on probation.
Other large states have similar criteria, although Texas allows doctors to reapply after only one year. In New York, decisions are made based on “remorse, re-education and rehabilitation,” said Seth Rockmuller, an attorney for the state.
During the hearing, the doctors seeking reinstatement testify. They face cross examination by attorneys for the medical board. The doctors have the burden of proof to show they have been rehabilitated and are fit to practice medicine.
Many judges’ refusals to reinstate cite a doctor’s denial about past events and failure to accept responsibility.
For instance, Olufemi Ogunmola of Rancho Palos Verdes had his license revoked in 1986 after he was convicted of two counts of rape. Board documents say Ogunmola raped the women during their pelvic exams. Despite now “living an extraordinary life” he was turned down for reinstatement four times because he was in denial that he’d committed a horrible crime, the judge concluded.
Only a handful of doctors committed crimes so troubling that the board felt they outweighed rehabilitation, the records show.
Ronald M. Howard, who was convicted in 1992 of sexually abusing a 15-year-old patient in San Bernardino County, had admitted to sexually abusing about 75 patients – male and female – dating back to medical school, according to board records.
In 2002 a judge refused to reinstate him, citing a psychologist who said his sexual deviancy for 34 years had become deeply ingrained in the fabric of his personality. “It is difficult to conceive of a riskier environment for petitioner than the practice of medicine,” the judge wrote. “There is simply no practical method for ensuring requisite protection of the public if petitioner’s certificate were restored.”
Felicia Cohn, a medical ethicist at UC Irvine, said while some doctors’ misconduct may be shocking, the board’s case-by-case review and follow-up monitoring seems reasonable.
“I want to believe that rehabilitation is possible and a valid goal,” she said. “If these physicians can demonstrate that they truly are rehabilitated and we can trust them with our health and our lives again, they should have that second chance.”
SEVEREST PUNISHMENT
In the last 10 years, the medical board has taken the licenses of 1,017 doctors, according to state records.
The most common reason was negligence, with 282 cases, followed by drug or alcohol abuse (163) and mental illness (133). Sexual misconduct accounted for 113 cases and 68 doctors lost their licenses for conviction of a crime.
Among those who were reinstated,25 had lost their licenses after they were convicted of a crime, including six for selling drugs or illegally prescribing them, nine for insurance fraud, and three for sexual abuse of patients. In addition to Galluzzi, the dermatologist, another doctor served 20 years in prison for seeking to have his wife killed.
Many of the crimes were fueled by drug or alcohol abuse, including an Apple Valley doctor who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter after he drove the wrong way on the freeway while under the influence of drugs. State law requires doctors to report to the board any felony charges as well as misdemeanor and felony convictions.
The doctors can hit rock-bottom after loss of a license, both emotionally and financially, Osinoff said.
Dr. Nagesh Shetty, a Huntington Beach internist who had his license revoked in 2000 after he was convicted of three counts of tax fraud, worked bagging groceries for $7.40 an hour before his reinstatement in 2005, board documents show. Other doctors who were eventually allowed to practice again worked at a hamburger stand, in a slaughter house and answering phones at a medical office.
“What’s taken away from them is their identity,” Osinoff said. “It’s more than a license to practice. It’s who they are. It is absolute devastation.”
Dr. Thomas Dosumu-Johnson of Los Alamitos had his license revoked in 1990 after he was caught in a drug sting. According to a temporary restraining order obtained by the board that year, the doctor had repeatedly prescribed large amounts of narcotic drugs and stimulants to undercover agents who told him they planned to re-sell them on the black market.
He sought treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. His charges were reduced to misdemeanors and his conviction was later expunged. He regained his license in 2001 and has been “open with others about his mistakes, and, in so doing has enabled this tragedy to serve as a unique learning experience,” a judge wrote.
Dosumu-Johnson said he’s retiring from medicine to pursue Christian ministry, but is glad he had the opportunity to complete his medical career.
“It’s been a good ride and it’s time to say goodbye,” he said. “It’s been useful. I’m very, very grateful and the medical board has been fair.”
While Dosumu-Johnson appears to demonstrate the law’s goal of rehabilitation, the reinstatement of Tartaro, the doctor accused of sexually abusing multiple patients, raised questions about protection of the public.
Fellmeth, the attorney who audited the medical board’s disciplinary practices, also works at the University of San Diego’s Center for Public Interest Law. The center took the unusual step of filing a brief imploring the board not to allow Tartaro to treat patients again after he got out of jail.
“He’s got a white coat on,” she said. “They trusted him. Many of them testified when he was being sentenced that they’ll never trust a doctor again.”
Fellmeth said doctors typically have the money to hire top attorneys who can immediately steer them toward rehabilitative efforts that are persuasive to judges and board members.
After his election to the state Assembly a year after Tartaro’s reinstatement, former medical board member Bermudez wrote legislation with him in mind.
The 2005 law permanently revokes the license of doctors for as long as they remain registered felony sex offenders. Those convicted before 2005 can be reinstated after five years if a Superior Court judge finds they pose no safety threat to patients, the law says.
“No one is owed a medical license,” Bermudez said. “You earn it. It’s a privilege to be a physician in California.”
After the new law took effect, the board moved to revoke Tartaro’s license again, arguing that he is still required to register as a sex offender.
Tartaro had petitioned the criminal court and had his conviction expunged. The petition to revoke his license remains pending while the board reviews lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the law, said board spokeswoman Candis Cohen.
IN TROUBLE AGAIN
After doctors are reinstated, they are put on probation and may be required to have another doctor monitor their practice, undergo clinical training or be barred from prescribing controlled substances.
Most of the 16doctors who have faced discipline again after reinstatement were accused of failing to comply with terms of their probation, including failing to pass required exams or failing to have a chaperone when examining female patients. One doctor was caught lying on reports to the board. Another surrendered his license when he relapsed back to cocaine use. Another received a public reprimand, the most minor form of discipline, for misdiagnosing a patient’s appendicitis.
Rutland is the only reinstated doctor in the last 10 years to face board discipline again for accusations of gross negligence stemming from the death of a patient.
Ying Chen, 30, suffered a toxic reaction to local anesthesia on his operating table at an abortion clinic in San Gabriel last July. Following her death, the board accused Rutland of not knowing the appropriate dose of anesthesia and failing to properly resuscitate her. In January a judge barred Rutland from performing surgery, pending a hearing this summer where the board will seek revocation of his license.
Rutland has denied in legal documents that he was negligent. His attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
Both Osinoff, the attorney who represents the revoked doctors, and Fellmeth agree that the small number of subsequent discipline cases indicates good decisions by the board.
“It seems like they’re making the right calls in most cases,” Fellmeth said. “That’s kind of comforting.”
Said Osinoff, “Most of the time, there’s not a recurrence of the conduct that led to the revocation. The reason for that is they’ve been so hammered by this process that they never want to go through this again.” (LINK)—11/08/2010
MEDICAL BOARD RECORD—C 29053 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS—License Surrendered; Administrative action taken by other State or Federal Government
EFFECTIVE 08/31/04 HAWAII BOARD ASSESSED DR. NASSE A FINE AND SUSPENDED HIS MEDICAL LICENSE. EFFECTIVE 12/09/10 REVOCATION OF HAWAII MEDICAL LICENSE BASED ON ACTION TAKEN BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA.
Doctor Accused
State Medical Board alleges gross negligence after overdose death
The state Medical Board has accused an Ojai psychiatrist of gross negligence in treating patients, including one who died from a drug overdose, complaints that could lead to revocation or suspension of the veteran doctor’s medical license. In a written “accusation” filed recently, the Medical Board of California has maintained that Dr. John Nasse Jr., 76, was negligent in treating five patients, including an Ojai Valley man who died in 2006 from an overdose of three drugs prescribed by Nasse.
Nasse is accused of repeated acts of gross negligence in four of the cases, and a failure to maintain proper records in a fifth case. Treatment occurred from 2005 until 2008, according to the state filing.
One case involved a “patient” who was an undercover investigator for the Medical Board, according to the state filing by the attorney general’s office, which represents the Medical Board.
In the Jan. 28 filing, the Medical Board notes that Nasse, a doctor in California since 1967, has not yet had a hearing or been found guilty of any charges.
Nasse said in a brief interview last week that he and his lawyer are negotiating a settlement of the case. “These things are in the process of negotiation,” he said. “It’s way up in the air. I can’t discuss any more. I can say nothing at this point."
Nasse did say that he is offering a defense to the charges.
This case is the second state Medical Board action against Nasse in the last decade. He was accused in 2001 of "gross negligence, repeated negligent acts, incompetence and dishonest and corrupt acts” in regards to treatment of one patient between 1987 and 1997.
To resolve that case, Nasse stipulated that the board could establish a factual basis for those charges, and he gave up his right to con-test them.
His medical license was revoked. But in a settlement agreement, that severe penalty was replaced by five years of probation against his license, a 15-day license suspension, 60 hours of community service annually, passage of an ethics course and payment of $2,000 to cover investigative costs, according to state records.
Nasse also was fined and his medical license suspended in the state of Hawaii in 2004, according to records on file in Sacramento.
In the current case, Nasse is accused of repeated acts of negligence in the treatment of Ms. C, a patient with multiple sclerosis and back and hip problems, who needed pain medication.
Beginning in 2005, Nasse prescribed hydrocodone 48 times in 30 months, in 100-tablet increments, far exceeding appropriate dosage levels, the state maintains.
Nasse’s “prescribing of hydrocodone in excessive amounts, failure to consult with Ms. C’s pain management physician to ensure that she did not abuse hydrocodone, or refer her to her pain management physician constituted acts of gross negligence and an extreme departure from the standard of care” required by the state medical code, according to the accusation.
“The prescription of benzodiazepines (anti-anxiety medications) to a patient who has a history of alcohol abuse and chloral hydrate (sed ;age risks a potentially lethal outcome and constitutes gross negligence and an extreme departure from the applicable medical standard of care.”— California State Medical Board
In a 2006 case, Mr. J., died of a drug overdose "due to” a combination of three anti-depressant drugs prescribed by Nasse, the state maintains.
Nasse’s “failure to obtain tricyclic blood levels to establish the effective levels of the medications, and per-form a drug screen to deter-mine what other drugs the patient was taking constituted repeated acts of negligence,” according to the accusation.
Then, in 2007, when a Medical Board investigator posed as a patient, Nasse failed to conduct a comprehensive initial examination and evaluation.“ Still, the doctor purportedly prescribed the drug. Diazepam, a tranquilizer and muscle relaxant, for the investigator, then failed to set up a follow-up examination within 30 days.
That scenario demonstrates gross negligence and repeated acts of negligence, the state maintains.
Again in 2007, in another case cited by the state, Nasse treated a Ms. T, who had been suffering from depression and alcohol abuse. About seven weeks into that treatment, the patient was admitted to Ojai Valley Community Hospital. She had a .217 blood-alcohol level and was having seizures. She also had an anti-epileptic drug in her system, investigators report.
The Medical Board maintains that Nasse prescribed Ms. T anti-anxiety medicines 19 times in one year, and it concludes:
"The prescription of benzodiazepines (anti-anxiety medications) to a patient who has a history of alcohol abuse and chloral hydrate (sedative) usage risks a potentially lethal outcome and constitutes gross negligence and an extreme departure from the applicable medical standard of care."
Nor did Nasse refer Ms. T to a neurologist for her seizures or consult with her previous psychiatrist to determine her psychiatric history, the state maintains.
Nasse also failed to maintain adequate and accurate records for a fifth patient, the state finds.
The lawyer representing the Medical Board could not be reached for comment about how soon the case may be heard, or resolved; Nasse would not identify his own attorney. (LINK) — 2/17/2010
MEDICAL BOARD RECORD—93-346 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS—none listed as of 03/17/2016
ER doctor tries to talk his way out of DWI
SANTA FE – Deputies arrested emergency room doctor and former congressional candidate Miles Nelson on Monday night for aggravated DWI and careless driving in Santa Fe.
A Santa Fe County Sheriff’s deputy said Nelson nearly hit a teenage driver before rolling his truck and crashing on the side of the road.
Deputies found Nelson’s truck upside down on Old Santa Fe Trail down the road from Harry’s Roadhouse, where Nelson said he was coming from.
The Sheriff’s Office was responding after a waitress from the restaurant called 911 about a drunk customer trying to leave.
Lapel video shows Nelson hanging upside down by his seat belt after the rollover crash.
Nelson made the news more than ten years ago as a Democratic Congressional candidate. He ran and lost the Democratic nomination to Richard Romero, who then lost against Republican Heather Wilson.
“I’m going to cut you out of the seat belt alright?” a deputy told Nelson on Monday night.
Deputies had to cut his seat belt off to pull him out of the totaled truck.
“You’re here. It’s scary,” Nelson told a deputy.
“It’s scary that I’m here?” she asked.
“Yeah,” he responded.
“Why is that?” the deputy questioned.
“Because I’m going to be arrested,” Nelson said.
He said he drank two beers at Harry’s Roadhouse but in the video it appears he could barely walk or stand up.
“Smells like you’ve had a few more than two,” a deputy told Nelson as he tried to give him a field sobriety test.
The Sheriff’s Office said Nelson drove the wrong way on the road, nearly hitting a 16-year-old driver coming in the opposite direction. He swerved back into his lane, rolling over and crashing.
“I need you to stand up,” a deputy told Nelson. “Can you stand up by yourself and not fall?”
“Yeah,” he responded.
“Okay, well you’re not doing it too good,” a deputy said as Nelson stumbled.
The deputy gave up with the field sobriety test because Nelson kept falling.
Instead, he handcuffed Nelson.
“I am like… two minutes from my house. I’m a physician… and I have… responsibilities,” Nelson said. “I would really like that you, like let me go home.”
“That ain’t gonna happen, guy,” the deputy said.
“You don’t see how big a deal this is to me?” Nelson said.
“You know… you almost hit a guy head-on right here?” the deputy responded. “What would you had done as a physician if you’d a hit him head-on and killed him, or maimed him for life? You almost hit a [16-year-old] kid. He witnessed everything. Look at your truck. Your truck’s totaled. That can be repaired or replaced. You killin’ that kid because you’re over in the incoming lane. There’s skid marks of you over in the incoming lane. So, no I’m not going to let you go home.”
A breath test showed Nelson was three times over the legal limit.
The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office will forward the case to the State to investigate whether a bartender over-served Nelson.
Harry’s Roadhouse Owner Harry Shapiro said Nelson had two drinks there and when it became obvious he was too drunk to drive, employees called a cab.
Shapiro said Nelson refused the cab and even with the kitchen closed, employees tried to offer him soup and bread to delay his departure.
When Nelson continued to refuse and insisted on driving himself home, Shapiro said employees called 911.
Shapiro said Harry’s Roadhouse “accepts responsibility” and takes this very seriously.
Nelson did not want to comment.
He pleaded not guilty in court and does not have a history of DWI. (LINK) — 03/17/2016
Glendale doctor admits to illegally selling painkiller prescriptions, faces 20 years in prison
A Glendale doctor who illegally sold prescriptions for an addictive painkiller to undercover investigators agreed to plead guilty to a federal drug trafficking charge, federal officials said.
Manasseh Nwaigwe faces 20 years in federal prison after he admitted in court records to illegally distributing hydrocodone, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.
He agreed to give up his medical license and turn over to the government $97,437 in cash he earned selling illegal prescriptions, federal court records show.
Last May, Nwaigwe sold prescriptions for 90 pills of hydrocodone, 90 pills of clonazepam and promethazine with codeine — a narcotic cough syrup used to make what’s known on the streets as “purple drank” or “sizzurp” — to two undercover officers, who each paid him $90, court records show.
Neither officer had a medical need for the drugs.
Two months later, the officers returned with a third undercover investigator. Each of them handed over $90 for the same prescriptions, according to court records.
According to state medical board records, Nwaigwe failed to ask questions about their medical history or examine them beyond listening to their chests and backs.
“Doctors who choose illegal profits instead of dispensing sound medical care are no better than street corner drug dealers,” U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker said in a prepared statement.
In February, the state medical board suspended Nwaigwe’s medical license after he was accused of sexually assaulting a patient and overprescribing the “dangerous” drugs to 15 patients, including the undercover officers.
Last year, a patient visited Nwaigwe twice for her back pain and anxiety. During the second visit last July, Nwaigwe allegedly reached into her sweatpants and touched her inappropriately without explaining why, according to board records.
He subsequently asked her on a date and reportedly prescribed her anxiety, pain, blood pressure and cough medications, though she never complained about pain or a cough.
Records show that he later told Los Angeles police that he was checking for a tumor “or anything of that nature.”
Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges in the sexual assault case due to insufficient evidence, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.
But before those allegations surfaced, the Drug Enforcement Agency had already started investigating Nwaigwe’s prescribing practices.
Nwaigwe is due in court next month. (LINK) — 05/11/2016
State medical board suspends license of Glendale doctor accused of sexual assault, overprescribing
A Glendale physician accused of sexually assaulting a patient and overprescribing “dangerous” drugs to 15 patients — some of whom were undercover officers — was suspended last month from practicing medicine, records show.
Manasseh Nwaigwe is also accused of failing to comply with the terms of his probation with the Medical Board of California, which stemmed from a 2012 conviction for failing to file income-tax returns.
Kimberly Kirchmeyer, the board’s executive director, filed a petition last week that seeks to revoke Nwaigwe’s medical license. An administrative hearing on the case has not yet been scheduled.
Nwaigwe’s attorney could not immediately be reached for comment.
Last year, a patient visited Nwaigwe twice for her back pain and anxiety. During the second visit last July, Nwaigwe allegedly reached into her sweatpants and touched her inappropriately without explaining why, according to board records.
He subsequently asked her on a date and reportedly prescribed her anxiety, pain, blood pressure and cough medications, though she never complained about pain or a cough.
Records show that he later told Los Angeles police that he was checking for a tumor “or anything of that nature.”
Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges in the case due to insufficient evidence, according to Ricardo Santiago, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.
Before the sexual assault allegations surfaced, the Drug Enforcement Agency had started investigating Nwaigwe’s prescribing practices.
Nwaigwe, who worked in East Los Angeles, allegedly prescribed two undercover officers hydrocodone, a pain medication, as well as clonazepam, an anxiety medication, and promethazine with codeine cough syrup without properly examining them.
“During most of these visits, (Nwaigwe) sat in his chair and wrote notes and barely spoke to the patients,” according to board records.
A couple months later, three police officers obtained the same prescriptions from Nwaigwe, who allegedly failed to ask questions about their medical history or examine them beyond listening to their chest and back.
A representative of the DEA could not immediately be reached.
A medical board expert subsequently reviewed the records of a dozen random patients, who were reportedly prescribed the same medications — a combination of Norco or Vicodin, along with Klonopin or Valium, and Phenergan with codeine — each time they went to see Nwaigwe. Together, those patients logged roughly 225 visits.
“(Nwaigwe) prescribed dangerous, controlled-substance medications at nearly every visit for each patient without any regard to the complaint,” records stated.
Nwaigwe’s medical license was already set to expire at the end of March, unless it’s renewed, according to board records.
“We wanted to make sure that he wasn’t allowed to practice immediately because we felt he was a danger to the public,” said Cassandra Hockenson, the board’s public affairs manager. (LINK) — 03/15/2016
28. Respondent Philip Siegel, M.D., is subject to disciplinary action under 2234 on the grounds of unprofessional conduct, as defined in section 2236 of the Code, in that he was convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualification, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon as more particularly alleged hereinafter:
A. On July 28, 1998, in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, in the case of People v. Philip Siegel, Case No. PE03870, respondent was convicted on his own guilty plea, of one felony count of sexual exploitation by a physician in violation of Business and Professions Code section 729(a), and four misdemeanor counts of sexual battery in violation of Penal Code section 243.4 (d).
B. As a result of the guilty plea, among other things, respondent was sentenced to 3 years formal probation, was ordered to spend 9 days in jail, was ordered to register with local law enforcement as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290, and was ordered to participate and complete counseling, rehabilitation and treatment program, among other things.
Patient Jacquelyn N.
6. Respondent Philip Siegel, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action on account of the following:
A. On or about May 16, 1997, this patient presented at the Winchester Walk-In Clinic located on 41125 Winchester Road, Suite A-1, Temecula. The patient complained of shortness of breath and provided a history of asthma. Respondent examined the patient and prescribed an antibiotics, a Maxair inhaler, and a cough medicine. Respondent suggested the patient return for an EKG exam.
B. On or about May 19, 1997, the patient returned to the clinic for the EKG. The patient checked-in at the reception area and was instructed to wait in an examining room where she sat on the examining table. She was wearing a pair of shorts and a “T” shirt. Approximately five minutes later, respondent entered the examining room and stood next to the patient. Respondent placed his right hand on top of the patient’s right thigh, and began to “walk” his fingers towards the patient’s vagina. The patient forcibly removed respondent’s hand from her thigh. Respondent then read the patient’s chart and told the patient go across the hall for the EKG.
C. In the EKG room, respondent told the patient to lie down on the table and to unclasp her bra. Respondent attempted to unhook the patient’s bra, but the patient told him she would do it herself. While attempting to place the EKG leads on the patient, respondent grabbed the patient’s left breast with his right hand. It took respondent approximately 4 minutes to place the EKG leads on the patient’s body.
D. Respondent talked about sexual topics as he was performing the EKG. Respondent asked the patient about her sexual life, how long it had been since she last had sex, and whether the patient missed having sex. Respondent said he loved sex and thought about sex all the time. Respondent told the patient he had a lesbian roommate who would not allow him to watch sexual acts between the roommate and her lesbian lover. Respondent took approximately 5 minutes to perform the EKG.
E. After the EKG, respondent suggested the patient have a pap smear which the patient declined. Respondent also suggested the patient submit to routine lab work. While drawing blood from the patient, respondent continued to talk about sexual topics. He told the patient she had “deep veins” and that he liked things “deep.” Respondent also talked about his lesbian roommate again. He also told the patient men have to be careful about female sexual partners these days because the woman could “scream rape.” Respondent also told the patient she was a beautiful woman and she would have no problem finding a man.
Patient Angela P.
11. Respondent Philip Siegel, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action on account of the following:
A. Between about February 1997 and about April 1997, respondent provided services as a physician for this patient. During this period, respondent saw the patient approximately six times, all at the Winchester Walk-In Clinic located at 41125 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. The patient’s history was numerous surgeries following a work-related injury,pain and numbness of the left lower back and abdominal area. On the first visit, respondent looked at the patient’s surgery scars and prescribed valium.
B. In about late February or early March 1997, the patient went to the clinic to go over some laboratory results with respondent. On this visit, respondent told the patient that she had some nerve damage and that a pelvic exam was necessary. He gave the patient a gown, told her to get undressed and he left the room. A few minutes later,respondent returned. Respondent wore a glove on his lefthand but his right hand was ungloved. Respondent performed a Pap smear with a round dish and “Q-Tips”. There was no nurse present.
C. When respondent was finished the Pap smear here moved the glove from his left hand. Respondent then placed his left hand on the patient’s abdomen and without any lubrication or a speculum, he inserted three fingers of his ungloved right hand in the patient’s vagina. The patient cried out in pain and told respondent he was hurting her. Respondent then inserted two fingers of his ungloved right hand into the patient’s vagina. The patient again cried out in pain. Respondent then inserted one finger into the patient’s vagina and “started to play around” by moving his finger back and forth. Respondent asked the patient if it felt good for him to move his finger around inside the patient’s vagina.
D. After a few minutes, respondent switched hands and inserted one finger of his ungloved left hand into the patient’s vagina. Respondent then reached into the patient’s gown and began fondling the patient’s breast and nipples with his right hand. Respondent fondled the patient’s breast for about five minutes and “played around” in her vagina for about ten minutes all the while asking the patient whether it felt good. Respondent also asked the patient whether she liked it when “a man was on top of her or on her back.” The patient asked respondent to stop but he did not. The patient sat up and pushed respondent away to get him to stop. Respondent left the room and the patient got dressed, picked up her x-rays and laboratory reports and ran out of the room crying.
E. Sometime after the pelvic exam, the patient telephoned respondent to complain that she had an allergic reaction to a codeine medication respondent had prescribed for her. The patient told respondent she needed immediate help and provided respondent her address. About an hour and a half later, respondent arrived at the patient’s home. The patient was alone in the house. Respondent did not examine the patient but gave the patient three shots and some medication to control her vomiting. A few minutes later, respondent asked the patient if she felt better. About 20 minutes later, respondent began asking the patient questions involving sex. Respondent asked the patient if she had ever masturbated and whether she was having sex with her roommate.
Patient Barbara S.
16. Respondent Philip Siegel, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action on account of the following:
A. In or about January 1997, respondent began providing services as a physician for this patient at the Winchester Walk-In Clinic, Temecula. During the patient’s first visit, respondent performed a Pap smear with a female nurse present. Respondent wore gloves but took off the gloves before the third “Q-Tip” scraping. While obtaining the third scraping, respondent brushed his ungloved hand against the patient’s vagina area.
B. Approximately two weeks later, the patient returned to the clinic with a complaint of asthma, stomach problems, bladder infection and cramping. Respondent asked for a urine specimen and performed a pelvic exam. No nurse was present for the pelvic exam.
C. About three weeks later, the patient returned to the clinic with a complaint of migraine headaches. The patient was accompanied by her fiance. During this visit, the patient told respondent she wanted an HIV test because she was sexually involved with a former female roommate. Respondent said he “could get into this.” Respondent began asking about the patient’s sexual activity with her former roommate and other female partners. Respondent also asked the patient if the patient could find a sexual partner for him. Respondent then turned to the patient’s fiance and asked him how often he had sex with the patient. When the patient’s fiance responded, respondent told him he was a lucky man.
D. About two weeks later, the patient returned to the clinic with a complaint of yeast infection. Respondent performed a pelvic exam. After the pelvic exam, respondent began asking the patient questions about her sex life. Respondent asked whether the patient was sexually active and how often she had sex. Respondent also asked whether the patient “hurt"during sexual intercourse and whether the patient was engaging in anal sex.
Patient Erika V.
21. Respondent Philip Siegel, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action on account of the following:
A. Since about 1992, this patient has been receiving medical services at the Winchester Walk-In Clinic located at 41125 Winchester Road, Temecula. In about January or early February 1997, respondent began treating the patient at the clinic. On the first visit with respondent, the patient complained of weight·gain and wanted to be put on a diet. Respondent performed a physical examination, performed some tests, and took a history which included questions about the patient’s sex life. Respondent asked the patient whether she was sexually active and whether she had pain during sexual intercourse. After the examination, respondent gave the patient his business card and hand-wrote his pager number on the card. Respondent asked her to call him for the test results.
B. Approximately two days later, the patient called the pager number respondent had provided. Respondent returned the page and left three messages on the patient’s answering machine. The messages stated it was "very important” for the patient to call back. Before the patient could return the call, respondent called again. He told the patient that he was leaving work and wanted to know if the patient would have dinner with him at Cocos. The patient declined and said she wanted her test results. The next evening, respondent called the patient and again asked the patient to go to dinner with him. Some time later, respondent again called the patient and left a message on the patient’s answering machine. He asked the patient to go to lunch with him.
c. Approximately eight or nine days after the visit with respondent, the patient returned to the clinic for her test results. Respondent reviewed the patient’s test results with her. During this visit, respondent told the patient he was not married. Respondent commented on the patient’s hispanic last name and stated his ex-wife was Hispanic. Respondent prescribed Phentermine.
D. Approximately two weeks later, the patient returned to the clinic. The patient was wearing a red cotton dress, about mid-calf length, with buttons on the [front] from the neck down to the hem of the dress. The patient told respondent she did not like Phentermine and wanted to be placed on a low calorie diet. Respondent did not weigh the patient but told the patient she did not look overweight. He prescribed Prozac.
E. During the visit, respondent tapped the patient’s shoulder and told her she would have to undo her dress. The patient assumed respondent wanted to listen to her heart so she unbuttoned the two top buttons of her dress. Respondent however handed the patient a gown and told the patient she would be more comfortable in the gown. The patient declined the gown. Respondent placed the stethoscope on the patient’s bare breast. While respondent listened to the patient’s heart, his hand rested on the patient’s breast for about 30 seconds.
F. Respondent next told the patient that an abdominal exam was necessary. There was no female nurse in the room. As the patient was about to lie down on the examining table, respondent began to unbutton two buttons near the patient’s crotch area. The patient sat back and asked respondent why he was unbuttoning her dress. Respondent again handed a gown to the patient and told her to put it on so “he could have the freedom to do what he needed to do."Respondent then sat on a chair waiting for the patient to undress. The patient refused the gown, refused to undress and eventually left.
A Folsom osteopath was sentenced to 180 days in jail for sexually assaulting two patients, according to Sacramento Superior Court records.
Dr. John Stephen Wogec, who worked at clinics in Folsom and Granite Bay, surrendered his license to practice medicine as a condition of his sentencing, said Deputy District Attorney Donnell Slivka.
Wogec, 41, pleaded no contest last week to furnishing a controlled substance without a prescription, sexual battery, and sexual exploitation of a patient. After his release he must serve 180 additional days through the sheriffʼs work-furlough program. He also must register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life.
According to court records, one assault occurred last year and another in May. Prosecutors said that in the earlier incident, Wogec lured a woman to his office at night, saying he was going to give her drugs he had no authority to provide. Once she was in the office, he assaulted her.
“He took advantage of his position as a doctor,” Slivka said. (LINK) — 08/29/2003
From a Medical Board of California document:
4. Accusation: On August 18, 2003, the Board filed an Accusation against petitioner (Dr. John Wogec) in Case Number 2002-05-0511, to discipline his license under section 2234 (general unprofessional conduct with patients JW and KP); section 726 (sexual misconduct with patient JW); and section 2236, subdivision (a) (conviction of crimes that are substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a physician and surgeon, as described in Finding 3). The Accusation detailed petitioner’s conduct with KP and JW, as briefly summarized below.
a. KP was an established patient. During a January 21, 2002 appointment to discuss complaints of muscle spasm, intestinal problems and dehydration, petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct, including asking what KP would do if he kissed her; kissing her on the mouth and asking “did that do anything for you?”; placing KP’s hand on his crotch and asking “do you feel this?”; and apologizing when KP pulled her hand back.
b. JW was a new patient who had her first appointment with petitioner at 10:30 a.m. on May 8, 2002, at his Folsom Urgent Care Clinic. She had a history of Vicodin dependency and had recently undergone surgery. JW asked petitioner if he could provide her with a Vicodin “taper” program, to eliminate the addiction she had experienced after the surgery. Petitioner told her that he needed a special license to “detox” her and that it would be illegal for him to give her a taper prescription for Vicodin. JW then asked petitioner to check the stitches on her low belly for possible infection. In doing so, petitioner removed several stitches that were rubbing against JW’s underwear. He commented on her rose tattoo and told her she had no fat on her belly and was a beautiful woman. Petitioner offered JW the telephone number of a local detoxification program. He then offered to provide her some Vicodin samples, which he needed to retrieve from his Granite Bay office. Petitioner · suggested that JW return to the office in the evening to pick the samples up. In doing so, he expressed concern that he could lose his license if he gave JW Vicodin and he asked her not to tell anyone about it.
On May 8, 2002, at 9:00 p.m., petitioner called JW and told her to meet him at the Folsom clinic at 10:00 p.m. He arrived shortly after. Petitioner unlocked the clinic, had JW come inside and locked the door. Petitioner took JW to an examination room and instructed her to remove all of her clothing so he could “make sure that you are not a cop and not wearing a wire.” Petitioner again stated he could lose his license. JW tried to assure him that she was not wearing a wire and said his request to disrobe was “weird.” Petitioner told JW that the “only way I’m letting you out of here is to make sure you are not wearing a wire.” JW then removed all of her clothing except her underwear, covering her chest. When she protested removing her underwear, petitioner insisted that she do so. Petitioner had JW bend over so he could visually check her “gluteal cap butt crack” for a body wire. He then instructed her to sit in a chair so he could further inspect her body. He pushed her legs apart, placed his hands on and into the folds of her vagina. JW got up, dressed, said she wanted to leave and no longer wanted the Vicodin. Petitioner asked if he could kiss her and blocked her exit when she said no. He was apologetic and said she could have the Vicodin if he could kiss her. After JW again said “no,” petitioner insisted she take the Vicodin and he continued to block her exit. JW was frightened and said she would be willing to forgive and forget if he would. Petitioner put some Vicodin samples on the counter, opened the door and began to hug JW. As she walked away, he insisted she kiss him. Petitioner then unlocked the main door, “shoved” the Vicodin at JW and forcibly kissed her. JW was fearful. She left, went home, informed her boyfriend and then called the police.
On May 15, 2002, JW placed a recorded, pretext call to petitioner at the request of the Folsom Police. During the call, petitioner apologized for his behavior. He said he had been told that “‘urgent cares’ get targeted by the cops” and that he should “look everywhere (laughing).” When asked why he had touched her, petitioner said “it was strictly professional … I would love to touch you.” When JW asked if she could make a regular appointment and get more Vicodin, petitioner said he would like her to come to his office that night and dance naked for him. Petitioner said he was sexually attracted to JW, who could turn him into the DEA and destroy him. After some discussion, petitioner agreed to provide Vicodin to JW. She was to meet him at 9:30 that night at the clinic. He asked her to" … stop and buy some condoms" on her way to the clinic.
Following arrest, petitioner admitted substantial aspects of his conduct with JW. (LINK) — 02/22/2016
Dental board seeks to revoke local dentist’s license
Dr. Bethaniel Jefferson’s license temporarily suspended
AUSTIN - The head of the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners says she will push to permanently revoke the license of a dentist accused of waiting four hours to get medical help for a sedated toddler who suffered seizures.
The dental board temporarily suspended the license of Dr. Bethaniel Jefferson, of Spring, within days of learning of the January incident, Kelly Parker, executive director of the dental board, said.
“Staff believes that Dr. Jefferson’s actions have shown that she is a threat to the public,” Parker wrote in a statement. “The Texas State Board of Dental Examiners’ mission is to protect the public’s health and safety.”
The attorney for the family of 4-year-old Nevaeh Hall says the family plans to sue the dentist after the girl suffered brain damage. Hall cannot walk and is fed using a feeding tube.
Dental board discipline documents reviewed by Channel 2 investigative reporter Jace Larson say Jefferson waited hours to call for help after Hall suffered seizures.
Jefferson gave Hall “oral medication instead of contacting emergency personnel,” the document reads. It then alleges Jefferson “delayed several hours before contacting emergency personnel.”
Parker says her office will not be offering Jefferson any type of agreement to keep her license. Dentists are often able to keep their license in the end if they agree to go to training, pay a fine or have their license temporarily suspended.
That will not be an option in this case, Parker says.
Jefferson’s case is scheduled to go before an administrative law judge March 28 and 29. The judge will make a recommendation to the dental board. That won’t likely happen until July or later.
The board will make a final determination about Jefferson’s license. The board could accept the administrative law judge’s recommendation or make another decision.
Jefferson can then accept the dental board’s decision or choose to take the matter to district court.
Jefferson’s dental license will stay suspended throughout this process.
HISTORY OF DISCIPLINE
In 2012, Jefferson was reprimanded by the dental board after she didn’t properly sedate a young patient. In 2005, she was reprimanded after she didn’t keep proper track of a patient’s blood pressure and pulse.
“This doctor is a danger to the lives and safety of people who might seek to take their children” to be treated by her, the Hall’s family attorney, Jim Moriarty, told Channel 2 Wednesday.
Jefferson has not returned Channel 2’s calls for comment.
The Halls family held a news conference Thursday morning to warn Houston families about the dangers of what can happen in the dental chair.
This story will be updated with that information.
A Channel 2 investigation in February found a small number of patients have died at dentists’ offices after being sedated or going under anesthesia.
A least six dentists since 2010 have been disciplined for their conduct after a patient died, dental board records reviewed by Channel 2 show. The actual number of patients who have died as a result of a dental procedure is not tracked.
MEDICAL BOARD RECORD—121101 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS—none listed as of 03/13/2016
Two local doctors could face charges after their children are left in a car
A local pediatrician is facing child endangerment charges after police said she left her two young children in a vehicle while she worked.
Dr. Christie Yee was arrested Tuesday after police said she left her nine-month-old baby and two-year-old toddler in a car for more than an hour as she worked.
Dr. Yee is a pediatrician at GMA Healthcare Providers, located at 4909 Centennial Plaza Way.
The mother of one of her patients said she can’t understand why a pediatrician, who should know better, would leave her children in a car.
“I was very shocked to hear what happened. I mean this is someone who I trust my child with, who I ask questions, who helps with the healthcare of my child,” said Katie Nowell, Dr. Yee was her son Jack’s pediatrician.
Nowell said she has a lot of questions about her son’s former healthcare provider.
“Is this the first time she left her kids in the car or has this happened before in the past? Maybe when I’ve been there with my son seeing her for an appointment? It just makes you wonder,” Nowell said.
According to the Bakersfield Police Department Dr. Yee and her husband do not have a history with Child Protective Services.
A Department of Consumer Affairs report stated Dr. Yee’s license to practice medicine was renewed and is current.
Dr. Yee does not have any malpractice claims against her or any blemishes on her record.
Attempts to contact Dr. Yee on Wednesday were unsuccessful.
Neighbors said the family is unsocial and often keeps to themselves.
“The kids never came outside. I mean they never interacted with anybody,” Rick Kendrick, lives across the street from Dr. Yee.
The children are now in the custody of Child Protective Services after police attempted to first take the children to their father at home.
“The conditions were just deplorable and weren’t conditions that we would release kids into,” said Sgt. Gary Carruesco, Bakersfield Police Department.
Carruesco said it appeared as if the father was living in his car.
He said the father is also a doctor.
“To go to a doctor, someone who, like I said, you place your trust in with your children, to have done something like this you don’t know who to trust anymore,” Nowell said.
Police said the father is Dr. Thomas Pham Ama* who works in the same office as his wife, GMA Healthcare Providers.
The case has been turned over to the District Attorney’s Office and both parents could face neglect or endangerment charges. (LINK) — 03/09/2016
*Could not find any information on the internet on Thomas Pham Ama.
MEDICAL BOARD RECORD—23308 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS—License renewed & current; no actions listed in on the Medical Board Website as of 03/01/2016; documents exist in the “archive section.”
From a Medical Board of California document:
(Excerpt)
A. On or about August 29, 1996, Patient A.K. saw respondent [Lawrence W. Hall] in his medical office regarding complaints of a recurrent vaginal yeast infection, dysuria,abdominal pain, vulvar itching, and scaly ears.
D. During the events which followed, no nurse or other employee of respondent’s was present in the examination room.
E. Respondent inquired of the patient’s family history and checked her eyes, ears, and throat. He then started to lift the patient’s shirt and asked her to remove her shirt. After pulling her shirt over her head, respondent, who had a stethoscope, proceeded to"check her back.“
G. Respondent then asked the patient to lie down and to place her hands behind her head. Respondent again checked both of the patient’s breasts. Respondent then pushed the gown down, while the patient covered the upper part of her body with her shirt, and checked her abdomen.
H. After also checking the patient’s vaginal area, respondent asked the patient to lie on her left side so that he could check her rectal area. The patient complied. Respondent then went behind the patient and spread apart her buttocks and began rubbing her rectal area with his finger.
I. While the patient was still lying on her left side, respondent continued to spread her buttocks apart and began to rub her vaginal area. Respondent asked her whether there was any soreness. The patient told him that she had a raw spot due to itching she had been experiencing.
J. Respondent then moved his hand to her clitoris where he began massaging her clitoris in a circular motion. The patient became tense with shock and confusion. At that moment, respondent stopped touching her clitoris.
K. Respondent then reached over and grasped one of the patient’s leg and began feeling the lower part of her leg as if he was checking it. He next began rubbing the patient’s leg up and down and in a passionate manner. Respondent then bent down and kissed the patient’s ankle. At this point, the patient jerked up and told him "this interview is over,” an expression which came to her mind because she has used it in her place of employment when terminating an interview.
L. Upon hearing those words, respondent dropped the patient’s leg, returned to an area that he uses to write chart entries, and stated that he was sorry. He asked her to wait for the urinalysis results, indicated that he was going to have her cholesterol checked and her blood checked for diabetes, and then left the room.
M. Around five minutes later and after the patient had gotten dressed, respondent returned, behaved as if nothing inappropriate had happened, and told her that there was not much that could be done about her yeast infection. The patient then confronted respondent, indicating that she had trusted him.Respondent stated to her again that he was sorry, and apologized for his “clumsiness.” The patient immediately left his office and informed a nurse thereabout this incident.
N. Later that same day, respondent telephoned Patient A.K. at her home, stated that her skin condition was dermatitis, and indicated that he would call in a prescription to treat her recurring yeast infection. Respondent again apologized. He stated to her that he had been in practice for 25 years and nothing like that had ever happened before this incident. He told her that he was very attracted to her and that he trusted her. Respondent told the patient that if she divulged his behavior, his career would be ruined. (LINK) — 11/09/2000
State Board Charges Doctor With Negligence in Botched Abortions
Investigators say two women suffered internal injuries. The former Studio City physician will contest the allegations.
State medical investigators have accused a former Studio City doctor of botching abortions on a 17-year-old girl and a 20-year-old woman, leaving them with perforated uteri and other internal injuries.
Authorities charged that Dr. Saihb S. Halil did not finish a 1987 abortion on the teen-ager and sent her home without telling her he accidentally cut her uterus and colon and left part of the fetus inside her.
The following year, Halil, 44, perforated the 20-year-old’s uterus twice and cut her bowel without realizing he had done so, officials alleged. The woman needed two corrective operations at a hospital, they said.
The Medical Board of California, the state agency that disciplines doctors, filed charges of gross negligence and incompetence against Halil on April 29, the first step toward suspending or canceling his physician’s license.
Halil could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Robert H. Gans, did not return phone calls. But Halil has notified the medical board that he will contest the charges.
In addition to the cases the state is pursuing, Halil has been named as the defendant in lawsuits charging that he bungled the care of two other women, one of whom died the day after delivering a baby.
The other woman charged in her suit that a Halil abortion left her sterile. After the surgery, she said, he made sexual overtures toward her.
A native of Egypt, Halil received his medical degree at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico and later was a resident in obstetrics and gynecology at Royal Victoria Hospital in Canada, according to state records.
After the lawsuits were filed, he moved to Puerto Rico and is undergoing an unusual second Obstetrics and Gynecology residency at a clinic in the port city of Mayaguez, according to American Medical Assn. records.
Vicki Belkin Halil, a San Fernando Valley woman who identified herself as a relative of Halil, said he is “redoing his residency… . He’s starting all over again in ob-gyn.” She declined to answer most other questions.
Neal Fialkow, a lawyer who handled two lawsuits against the doctor, said, “I hope he does better this time than the first.”
State investigators said Halil failed to conduct a basic examination of the 17-year-old or establish how advanced her pregnancy was before beginning an abortion on her in 1987.
During the procedure, Halil perforated the girl’s uterus and nicked her colon. After stopping the abortion, he did an ultrasound that showed her fetus was maimed but “not … completely evacuated,” according to the state’s complaint.
Halil failed to tell the girl that she was injured internally, that part of her fetus remained and that she should seek immediate remedial surgery elsewhere, authorities said.
Three days later, surgeons at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center had to give the girl a temporary colostomy and repair damage to her uterus and colon, a section of which had to be removed, state officials said.
Following the surgery, the teen-ager sued Halil in Los Angeles Superior Court, charging that he was negligent. She won “at least $250,000” in an out-of-court settlement, according to a knowledgeable source who asked not to be identified.
In a deposition filed as part of that suit, Halil said he was not sure if the girl’s uterus was perforated when he discharged her from the Los Angeles women’s clinic where he then worked.
He claimed he told the girl her fetus had not been completely removed and that she should go to the county hospital immediately because the remains could produce a life-threatening infection. But he said he was not sure if she understood.
In another case cited by the state, Halil allegedly perforated the uterus and bowel of a 20-year-old woman, but failed to realize it.
Halil did not evaluate the woman after the abortion and allowed her to be discharged from the clinic by unlicensed personnel, said state Deputy Atty. Gen. Elisa B. Wolfe, who is handling the case against Halil.
The day after the 1988 abortion, the woman underwent surgery at Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center to repair her uterus and bowel. Less than a month later, she was readmitted for more surgery, this time to clear a bowel obstruction and reduce swelling around her appendix.
Besides the state charges, Halil was the target of civil lawsuits in connection with his treatment of two other women.
In one, the family of Mercedes Soriano said she died in 1991 after Halil and two hospitals allegedly failed to treat a condition called eclampsia, which causes convulsions, swelling and high blood pressure in late pregnancy.
The hospitals filed court responses denying the charges, but Halil apparently has not retained an attorney in that case, according to court documents.
The other suit was filed by a 19-year-old woman who charged that Halil used unsterilized scissors from an office desk to cut her uterine tissue during a 1988 abortion.
She also said Halil did not give her enough anesthesia and refused to halt the procedure despite her screams of pain. (LINK) — 07/02/1993
From a Medical Board of California document:
Patient Vivian Quiriquiri
VII
On November 2, 1987, Vivian Quiriquiri (“Quiriquiri”) went to La Clinica Feminina to have an abortion. Respondent [Saihb Sinuhe Halil] saw Quiriquiri and gave her a pelvic examination. Quiriquiri was approximately eighteen weeks pregnant.
VIII
In order to achieve the necessary dilation for the abortion, respondent inserted laminaria into Quiriquiri’s cervix and directed her to return the next day.
When she returned on November 3, Quiriquiri was given some documents to sign, which she did. She did not read the documents first because she was told that her procedure was ready to begin and she was instructed to give the forms to her friend to complete, which she did. As a result, the address on the patient form, XXXX XXXXX XXXX #XXX, Los Angeles, California, was not correct. However, the telephone number was.
IX
At no time did respondent or any other clinic employee talk with Quiriquiri about the abortion or about the risks attendant on the procedure.
X
Respondent did not perform a pre-operation physical examination of Quiriquiri.
Quiriquiri was put under general anesthetic. She awoke one time during the procedure. When she awoke the second time, respondent was present and the procedure was ended.
XI
Quiriquiri asked respondent if she were okay. He responded that she was fine and that, if she had any severe bleeding, she should go to the county hospital.
In fact, Quiriquiri was not fine. Respondent had failed to remove the entire fetus and he had perforated Quiriquiri’s uterus.
Quiriquiri was discharged from the clinic without respondent’s further evaluating her condition. She was given prescriptions for pain relief and an antibiotic.
XII
Quiriquiri had members of her boyfriend’s family and friends with her at the clinic. Neither she nor any of them were told that the abortion was incomplete or that Quiriquiri’s uterus had been damaged. They were not told that she might be bleeding internally nor that she should be taken to a hospital for further treatment.
Respondent did not make arrangements for Quiriquiri to be admitted to any hospital nor did he transfer her care to another physician.
XIII
For two days after the procedure, Quiriquiri experienced increasing pain and fatigue. Finally, on November 6, 1987, Quiriquiri returned to the clinic to see respondent. By then, she was so weak that she was unable to walk. She had to be transported to the clinic in a wheelchair.
Respondent superficially examined Quiriquiri and told her that she would have to go to the hospital. Respondent did not perform any tests, .such as an hematocrit, to evaluate Quiriquiri’s condition. Respondent still did not tell Quiriquiri what he had done to her during the abortion.
Respondent did attempt to have paramedics take Quiriquiri to the hospital, but the paramedics thought that she was stable and refused to transport her. Respondent did not tell the paramedics of Quiriquiri’s injuries nor or the possibility that she was hemorrhaging internally.
Respondent started an IV on Quiriquiri and released her to go to the hospital telling her that there would be a doctor waiting for her at the county hospital.
XIV
When the Quiriquiri party arrived at the hospital, no one was aware that they were coming. Ultimately, Quiriquiri was seen by staff doctors and emergency surgery was performed on her.
Before surgery, her chances of survival were estimated at 50-50.
XV
During surgery it was determined that there was a large tear in Quiriquiri’s uterus which was hemorrhaging and that the head and torso of the fetus had been pushed from the uterus into the abdomen. A section of the colon had been ruptured, was was gangrenous and had to be removed.
Because of the continuing bleeding and the spilled feces, there was an abdominal infection. Because of the infection, Quiriquiri’s renal and pulmonary functions were affected. Quiriquiri had to be placed in ICU for three days following surgery because her condition had deteriorated so badly as a result of the delay in obtaining treatment for her.
XVI
Respondent claims that, when he determined that the uterus might have been perforated, he immediately had an ultra sound performed on Quiriquiri which showed that there was “retained product in utero but no apparent perforation of (the) uterus.”
Aside from respondent’s notes, there was no evidence that such an ultrasound was ever performed. Moreover, the damage to the uterus was so extensive and the intrusion into the abdomen so far-reaching, respondent had to have known with certainty what he had done. This was not a simple, inadvertent perforation.
XVII
Respondent claims that he told Quiriquiri that her uterus had possibly been perforated and that she had to go to the hospital. He states that she did not want to go to the hospital because she did not want her family to know about the abortion.
According to respondent, he thought that by the time Quiriquiri left the clinic, she had agreed to go to the hospital and would go there.
XVIII
However, respondent states that he continued to be uncomfortable about Quiriquiri and that, when he spoke with someone at county hospital the next day and learned that Quiriquiri had not been seen there, he attempted to locate her. When his efforts were unsuccessful because the phone “number was wrong, the address given was also nonexistent, 112 respondent then sent a telegram to Vivian "Kuirikuiri” at 828 Santa Inez Apt 324, Los Angeles, California 90026.
It is not at all clear how respondent could have determined that the address given in the patient records was non-existent unless he drove to the location, and there is no evidence that he did.
However, it made no difference whether the patient information was correct or not, since the telegram was sent to Ms. “Kuirikuiri” at a street address and apartment number different from those in the patient’s records.
Moreover, the message in the telegram refers to test results and not the need for Quiriquiri to obtain prompt hospital care. The telegram was never received by Quiriquiri.
XIX
Respondent’s claims that Quiriquiri was informed of the need for her to go to the hospital was denied by all other relevant witnesses and simply does not square with the evidence or reason.
Respondent gave Quiriquiri two prescriptions for her to take over the following days. If Quiriquiri were going from respondent’s clinic to the hospital, such prescriptions would not only be unnecessary, they would be contra-indicated.
Further, it is simply unbelievable that, if Quiriquiri and her friends actually knew that the abortion was incomplete and part of a dead fetus remained in Quiriquiri’s body and that it was possible that her uterus had been ruptured and that she might be bleeding internally, they would not to go to the hospital for further help.
Moreover, even if Quiriquiri had refused to go to the hospital initially, when it became clear that she was seriously ill and required further attention, she would have gone directly to the hospital to seek treatment for a known problem, as respondent says he had directed; she would not have returned to respondent for help.
Although Quiriquiri’s patient notes from La Clinic Feminina reflect respondent’s version of the events surrounding Quiriquiri’s abortion, their reliability is highly questionable.
The inescapable conclusion is that respondent is not being honest when he claims to have informed Quiriquiri of her injuries and need to go to the hospital.
XX
In November, 1988, respondent was still working at La Clinica Feminina.
Patient Martha Henriquez
XXI
On November 26, 1988, Martha Henriquez (“Henriquez”), went to La Clinica Feminina for an abortion. Henriquez was given a consent form to sign, but neither respondent nor any employee of the clinic went over the consent with her, and she was not aware that perforation of the uterus and the bowel were possible complications of an abortion.
XXII
Henriquez was given general anesthetic and respondent performed the abortion. During the procedure, respondent perforated Henriquez’s uterus twice and her intestines once.
XXIII
When Henriquez awoke from the anesthetic, she was in severe pain. When Henriquez complained to the “nurse” about the pain, she was told that pain was normal.
XXIV
About an hour after she woke up, Henriquez was told she could leave the clinic. Respondent did not evaluate Henriquez before she was released. She was not tested to determine if she were bleeding internally. She was not told that her uterus might have been perforated nor was she directed to seek further-treatment at an acute care facility. She was given some pain pills.
XXV
The pain that Henriquez was experiencing increased over the hours after surgery. Her boyfriend attempted to reach respondent for more than two hours. When those efforts were unavailing, she went to Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital where emergency surgery was performed.
XXVI
During surgery it was determined that there were two large perforations of Henriquez’s uterus and one of her intestines. These injuries were caused by respondent during the abortion he performed on Henriquez.
The uterine perforations had sealed, but the injury to the bowel had resulted in the spillage of stool into the abdominal cavity and severe peritonitis.
XXVII
Henriquez was discharged from the hospital after ten days. She was readmitted to the hospital ten days later and further surgery was performed to deal with the complications of peritonitis and bowel obstructions which originated from Henriquez’s abortion injuries. She remained hospitalized until the end of the month.
XXVII
In August, 1989, respondent was interviewed by a Board investigator. At that time, respondent admitted that he had perforated Henriquez’s uterus.
XXIX
In December, 1988, respondent worked at the Women’s Medical Center of Los Angeles (“WMC”) where his primary responsibility was performing abortions.
Patient Theresa Gipson
XXX
On December 28, 1988, Theresa Gipson (“Gipson”) went to WMC for an abortion. At the time, Gipson was twenty-two weeks pregnant. Gipson first saw a doctor who was unwilling to perform the abortion because of the advanced state of the pregnancy and who referred Gipson to respondent who agreed to perform the procedure.
XXXI
On December 28 and again on December 29, respondent inserted laminaria into Gipson’s cervix to dilate it in preparation for the abortion. On December 30, respondent removed the laminaria and attempted the abortion.
XXXII
Prior to the surgery, Gipson had initialed a surgical consent form which had been presented to her by one of the WMC clerical staff with the instructions that she was required to initial it. Neither respondent nor anyone else at the clinic went over the form with Gipson to explain it to her or to insure that she understood and accepted the risks attendant upon undergoing an abortion, particularly a second trimester abortion.
XXXIII
Respondent did not perform any pre-operative physical examination of Gipson prior to commencing the surgery.
Respondent gave Gipson an injection for pain and to relax her and began the procedure. Gipson was not given a cervical or paracervical block or other anesthetic.
XXXIV
Gipson was placed on her back on an examining table with her legs in stirrups and her was abdomen draped with material. Respondent sat on a stool placed between her legs.
At various times during the procedure, there were two or three other people in the room with Gipson and respondent.
None of those people had a clear view from where they stood of the patient’s vaginal area.
However, the medical assistant who assisted respondent during the surgery was standing behind respondent while he worked, and products of conception, blood, and other tissue removed from Gipson were in plain sight of the other medical personnel.
In addition, they could observe the instruments with which respondent chose to work and could infer from the motions of his arms and body what he was doing with each of those instruments.
XXXV
It is not clear what initially went wrong or how far into the procedure trouble began, although very little of the fetus had been removed. What is clear is that soon Gipson was in extreme pain, screaming and begging respondent to stop. Her cries were audible outside the room.
The pain was accompanied by the loss of an unusually large volume of blood. However, respondent did nothing to assess the quantity of his patient’s blood loss or to otherwise evaluate her condition throughout the procedure.
XXXVI
Because of the patient’s extreme pain and blood loss, respondent had to know that he had, at a minimum, seriously ruptured Gipson’s uterus. However, despite the inescapable fact that the abortion had gone horribly wrong, respondent continued with the procedure.
He did nothing to monitor or evaluate the patient’s condition. He did have additional pain medication administered.
XXXVII
Using forceps, respondent grasped tissue within Gipson and tore it from her body. In this manner, he removed her right ovary and fallopian tube. Respondent also pulled part of the uterus through the vagina so that it was hanging from Gipson’s body. This was observed by others in the room.
At one point, respondent grasped the forceps with both hands, braced his foot against the side of the examining table and attempted to tear the hanging flesh free.
When the forceps bent or reversed and were no longer useable, respondent demanded scissors. Respondent was provided with non-sterile desk scissors which could not possibly have been mistaken for surgical scissors and which he had to know were not sterile. None-the-less, he used the scissors to cut free the uterine tissue.
XXXVIII
Finally, respondent stopped working on Gipson and instructed the office manager to arrange for Gipson to be admitted to a hospital.
There was a delay because respondent did not have privileges at the first hospital he instructed the office manager to call and the second one he chose no longer accepted patient care.
Finally, East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital (“ELADH”) agreed to admit Gipson. Respondent told the office manager to drive Gipson to the hospital, which was a 25-minute trip away., and to take one of the medical assistants along. Respondent would not allow the paramedics to be called.
XXXIX
By the time Gipson arrived at ELADH, she was in critical condition from loss of blood. An hour later, she went into hypovolemic shock. Eventually, Gipson received 10 units of blood.
XL
There was an unnecessary and dangerous delay in Gipson’s admission and treatment because respondent was not at the hospital to take charge of her care. Although respondent had said that he would meet them at the hospital, instead he remained at the clinic, performed two more abortions and saw at least one other patient before going to the hospital.
XLI
Surgery was not performed on Gipson until three hours after she had been sent to the hospital.
Surgery revealed that Gipson’s right ovary and fallopian tube were missing, her left fallopian tube was damaged, a largely intact fetus was in her abdominal cavity, a third of Gipson’s uterus was missing, and her small intestine was damaged, requiring removal of a four foot section of it.
XLII
After surgery, Gipson wanted to know what had happened to her. The other doctors attending her declined to talk to her and referred her to respondent for information. Respondent lied to Gipson both about how he had injured her and also about the consequences of those injuries; in particular, he did not tell her that he had rendered her sterile. As far as Gipson knew from respondent, he was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.
XLIII
Gipson’s recovery from the complications of the abortion was slow both physically and emotionally. She returned to see respondent for post surgical follow-up for quite some time.
Respondent encouraged Gipson to rely on him for comfort and advice. The clinic staff was instructed that Gipson was not to have to wait to see respondent.
XLIV
At first, Gipson was overwhelmed with guilt and felt alienated from her friends and family. She needed a confidant, and respondent worked hard to be that special friend. Respondent called Gipson often to see how she was doing and invited her to call him as well, which she did on occasion. Respondent also recommended to Gipson that she write down her feelings and share those chronicles with him.
XLV
At first, all contact between Gipson and respondent occurred during office visits and over the telephone. After about two months, at respondent’s suggestion, he and Gipson met at a restaurant. Respondent told Gipson about his domestic problems.
At this meeting, respondent was more overt and physical in his attentions to Gipson, resting his hand on her thigh as they sat at the table and kissing her on the mouth. This conduct upset her.
Gipson returned to the office to see respondent a final time; when respondent again kissed her, Gipson was completely disenchanted and discontinued all association with respondent.
Ultimately Gipson sued respondent for malpractice. (LINK) — 06/08/1995
Recent Comments