ST. GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
#ETHN
- 10/31/2019—SURRENDER OF CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE.
- 10/16/2019—A FEDERAL JURY FOUND DR. LEE GUILTY FOR HIS ROLE IN A $12 MILLION SCHEME TO PROVIDE MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES TO MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES, UPCODE CLAIMS SUBMITTED TO MEDICARE, AND RE-PACKAGE SINGLE-USE CATHETERS FOR REUSE ON PATIENTS. SENTENCING IS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 19, 2020.
- 8/28/2019—FOURTH AMENDED ACCUSATION FILED AND PETITION TO. REVOKE PROBATION.
- 6/25/2019—THIRD AMENDED ACCUSATION FILED AND PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION.
- 1/25/2019—SECOND AMENDED ACCUSATION FILED.
- 8/06/2018—FIRST AMENDED ACCUSATION FILED.
- 10/19/2017—ACCUSATION FILED.
- 6/21/2014UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ISSUED AN ORDER IN CASE NO. 2:16-CR-11415-UA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. DONALD WOO LEE. DR. LEE SHALL NOT BE EMPLOYED WHERE HE WILL BE INVOLVED IN BILLING MEDICARE, MEDICAID, MEDI-CAL OR OTHER PUBLIC BENEFIT PROGRAMS.
- 5/11/2014—PRIOR PROBATION COMPLETED.
- 12/07/2012—THREE YEARS PROBATION WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
- 10/03/2012—SIX YEARS PROBATION WITH VARIOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. DURING PROBATION, DR. LEE IS PROHIBITED FROM SUPERVISING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS, EFFECTIVE 11/02/2012.
- 10/13/2011—ACCUSATION FILED.
- 8/2012—SUPERIOR COURT GRANTS PETITION FOR A WRITE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE BOARD TO RE-DETERMINE THE PENALTY IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S RULING. [SEE 12/07/2012 DECISION]
- 4/11/2011—PANEL A ADOPTS DECISION—FIVE YEARS PROBATION WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. COMMITTED GROSS NEGLIGENCE, REPEATED NEGLIGENT ACTS, DISHONEST ACTS, ALTERATION OF MEDICAL RECORDS, A WILLFUL OR CARELESS DISREGARD FOR THE HEALTH, WELFARE OR SAFETY IN THE CARE OF 11 PATIENTS IN MISSISSIPPI, EFFECTIVE 5/11/2011.
- 1/05/2010—ACCUSATION FILED.
Excerpt from Accusation dated 1/05/2010:
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Repeated Negligent Acts)
8. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code in that respondent engaged in repeated negligent acts. The circumstances are as follows:
Patient L.W. Factual Allegations
A. On or about May 19, 2004, patient L.W., a 79-year-old woman, first presented to respondent with a history of restless leg syndrome, hypertension, recurrent bladder cancer, lip cancer, hard palate cancer and recurrent colon polyps. She had a history of various surgeries, including left breast biopsy. A physical examination was performed but vital signs were incomplete. Aurology referral was planned based on the history of bladder cancer. Six of twelve of the patient's previous medications were refilled; no medication reconciliation was documented. There was no documentation that the patient's chronic medical conditions were being addressed. There was no laboratory workup with respect to the previous medications which required lab monitoring. There was no documentation that age appropriate screening and preventive measures were pursued. Subsequent to the initial visit, there was no documentation to follow up on the planned urology referral. Subsequent to the initial visit there is no documentation of an annual physical examination of patient L.W. and no documentation of interval screening tests, preventive measures or surveillance of the patient's ongoing health issues, including, but not limited to, mammography. On or about November 29, 2004, patient L.W. had a lumbar spine x-ray which disclosed evidence of osteopenia. There is no documentation in the patient chart of any follow up on this issue. Thereafter, on or about January 6, 2006, patient L.W. saw respondent, reporting that she had stopped all medications due to side-effects, including an episode of decreased mental status. Her pulse was 56 beats per minute(bpm). Respondent's note of a heart exam is illegible; there was no neurologic exam. Respondent's impression was fatigue and afib/sinus tachycardia. The plan included obtaining an EKG and starting a long acting beta-blocker. An EKG revealed sinus tachycardia with premature atrial contractions.
B. On or about January 13, 2006, patient L.W. saw respondent in follow up. A long acting beta blocker and an oral opiate were listed as medications. There were no indications listed for the opiate. The patient remained bradycardic at 56 bpm. No physical exam or repeat EKG was recorded. The beta-blocker was continued and a urology referral was noted.
C. On or about March 3, 2006, patient L.W. saw respondent in follow up. Her heart rate was 58 bpm. No physical exam was noted. An EKG that day showed sinus bradycardia at 59 bpm. The beta-blocker was continued.
D. On or about March 8, 2006, patient L.W. saw respondent for a surgery clearance for a hemorrhoidectomy. No current lab tests were documented. Respondent noted on the preoperative form that the patient had no known drug allergies even though respondent's chart reflected that the patient had previously noted several such allergies. The last chest x-ray (CXR) of November 28, 2005, was abnormal revealing right upper lobe pneumonia with recommendations for close follow up to exclude underlying pathology such as a mass. No interval CXR was noted. Respondent assessed patient L.W. as a low risk for cardiac complications.
E. On or about May 23, 2006, patient L.W. was seen in urgent care complaining of bilateral leg pain. She was seen by a physician assistant; the chart was co-signed by respondent. Patient L. W. denied injury or trauma but reported a history of restless leg syndrome well managed by clonazepam until recently. No pulse was recorded. A physical exam revealed no swelling, ecchymosis or erythema in the extremities. No musculoskeletal, vascular or neurologic exam was noted. The diagnosis was restless leg syndrome and the plan called for a trial of Requip.
F. On or about June 8, 2006, the patient was seen by a physician assistant requesting a neurology consultation. The physician assistant increased the dosage of Requip.
G. On or about June 14, 2006, the patient had a neurology consultation with Raja Boutros, M.D. and Lama Al-Koury, M.D. The diagnosis of restless leg syndrome was confirmed but further metabolic work up was recommended as was tapering the patient off benzodiazepines.
H. On or about July 20, 2006, patient L.W. saw a physician assistant, who refilled the Requip. No pulse was recorded. There was no documentation regarding the neurologists' recommendations.
I. On or about November 20, 2006, patient L.W., while reportedly asleep seated at her dining room table, fell onto the floor injuring her right hip. She did not seek medical attention but flew out of town for a funeral. She reported experiencing terrible pain during the trip and having to use a walker to ambulate.
J. On or about November 24, 2006, patient L.W. was seen in urgent care at respondent's office by physician assistant; respondent co-signed the chart. The patient complained of pain from hips to knees. Her current mediations were listed as Vicodin, Toprol, Requip and Clonazepan. No pulse was recorded in the vital signs charted. Physical exam revealed abnormalities in her gait as well as point tenderness in her back. X-ray film of the lumbar spine and bilateral hips revealed mild to moderate degenerative joint disease in both hips as well as a 5 mm anterior subluxation of L4 on L5. There was no fracture noted. The assessment was hip/back pain and plan for rest.
K. On or about December 26, 2006, patient L.W. was seen by respondent. No pulse was recorded. Celebrex was listed among the current medications. Respondent noted that there was no fracture on the initial x-ray; mild to moderate degenerative joint disease of bilateral hips was the radiologic impression. He noted tenderness at the right lumbar spine and treated the patient with a steroid/Marcaine (Kenalog) injection as well as a topical anesthetic (Lidoderm patch).
L. On or about January 8, 2007, the patient was seen by a physician assistant at respondent's office. Patient L.W. continued to complain of worsening pain despite treatment with oral narcotics, topical anesthetic and steroid injection. The physician assistant noted, " ... severe LBP pt. needs immediate pain relief....needs immediate relief from pain as her hope appears to be deteriorating...." Respondent co-signed the note. The management plan remained unchanged; no diagnostic tests were ordered. A referral was made for pain management.
M. On or about January 24, 2007, the patient was seen by Temecula Pain Management (physician assistant J. Lauerman, co-signed by Jack Druit, M.D.). Point tenderness was noted at the right greater trochanter and parasacral area. Gait, motor and neurological examinations were noted to be normal. A diagnosis of trochanteric bursitis was made with recommendations to increase the anti-inflammatory medication in combination with a right trochanteric bursa steroid injection.
N. On or about January 25, 2007, and February 13 and 20, 2007, patient L.W. was seen by respondent with complaints of persistent pain and difficulty walking. Physical examinations revealed continued tenderness. Treatment continued with oral opiates, oral anti-inflammatory agents and soft tissue/bursa injections despite persistent pain. An MRI was scheduled on a February 22, 2007, visit to "rule out the possibility of cancer or a ligament tear."
O. On or about February 23, 2007, an MRI ofthe lumbar spine was performed at Temecula Valley Advanced Imaging, revealing a right upper sacral fracture as well as a possible displaced left mid-sacral fracture. There were no vertebral fractures. A further MRI performed on or about February 24, 2007, of the right hip showed a right femoral neck fracture with ambulation. The findings were discussed with respondent by phone on February 26, 2007.
P. On or about February 27, 2007, patient L.W. was admitted to Rancho Springs Medical Center and underwent a right hip replacement surgery. The postoperative diagnosis from the orthopedic surgery was listed as right femoral neck chronic fracture. The patient had an unremarkable postoperative course with significant pain relief. Subsequently, the patient was admitted to a skilled nursing facility on March 1, 2007, for rehabilitation. She was discharged from the facility on March 9, 2007, able to ambulate 400 feet with a front wheel walker.
Patient L.W. Allegations of Negligence
Q. On or about May 19, 2004, and thereafter, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient L.W. when he failed to perform and/or document a complete initial history and physical of patient L.W.
R. On or about May 19, 2004, and thereafter, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient L.W. when he failed to perform and/or document an annual physical examination of patient L.W. and/or failed to otherwise perform and/or document interval screening tests, preventive measures or surveillance of the patient's ongoing health issues, including, but not limited to, mammography.
S. On or about November 29, 2004, and thereafter, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient L. W. when he failed to properly evaluate and follow up on evidence of osteopenia.
T. On or about January 6, 2006, and thereafter, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient L.W. when he failed to properly evaluate and follow up on the suspicion and/or diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
U. Between on or about November 24, 2006, and February 23, 2007, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient L.W. when he failed to properly evaluate and follow up 011 the patient's hip injury in the face of continuing patient complaints of pain and the ineffectiveness of his treatment modalities.
V. On or about May 19, 2004, and thereafter, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment ofpatient L.W. when he failed to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment of patient L.W., including, but not limited to, failing to properly document an initial history and physical examination, failing to properly document annual physical examinations, failing to properly document interval screening tests, preventive measures or surveillance of the patient's ongoing health issues, including, but not limited to, mammography, failing to legibly annotate chart entries, failing to properly chart vital signs and failing to properly chart patient allergies.
Patient J.M. Factual Allegations
W. On or about January 18, 2006, 77-year-old patient J.M. was seen by respondent. The patient had been previously seen by respondent. Respondent noted a history of lung cancer in 1996 and osteoporosis. A CXR was ordered and treatment for the osteoporosis was initiated. The CXR demonstrated abnormalities in the right lung. A CT scan of the chest was ordered; it was performed on or about February 6, 2006. The scan revealed a number of abnormalities in both lungs including scarring, right volume loss suggesting prior surgery, right effusion and a moderately sized hiatal hernia. Clinical correlation, comparison to previous imaging and a short three month follow up were recommended. There is no documentation of follow up on these recommendations.
X. On or about July 24, 2006, a further CT scan of the chest was performed which revealed several persistent abnormalities including a 2 cm left upper lobe irregular density or scarring, persistent right pleural effusions, and right lower lobe consolidative changes. Abnormalities to the right ribs and thoracic vertebra were also noted. There is no documentation of follow up on these abnormalities.
Y. On or about September 19, 2006, patient J.M. fell over his walker, striking his chest. He presented to the Rancho Springs Medical Center emergency department on or about September 21, 2006, with left chest pain, shortness of breath and hypoxemia requiring a high amount of oxygen to maintain saturation. The lung examination was abnormal; CXR revealed a left 7th rib fracture, bilateral infiltrates, cardiomegaly and congestive heart failure (CHF). Some lab values were abnormal, including a high white blood cell (WBC) count. An arterial blood gas (ABO) revealed significant hypoxia. The diagnosis was pulmonary contusion v. congestive heart failure, blunt trauma to the left chest and rib fracture. When the patient was taken off oxygen desaturation occurred. A CT scan of the chest was ordered which confirmed the rib fracture and showed a small left pneurnothorax, biapical parenchymal scarring and mild to moderate right lower lung atelectasis and/or consolidation and a large hiatal hernia.
Z. The patient was admitted on September 22, 2006, under the care of respondent. Respondent performed a history and physical; his progress note references a dictation which was not performed until December 13, 2006. Respondent's assessment was status post fall with rib fracture, hypoxia. His plan included observation and pain management. He ordered a rib brace, a physical therapy (PT) evaluation, pulse oximetry and room air abnormalities in function, bed mobility, transfers and gait. Limiting factors of shortness of breath, strength and endurance were noted. The patient needed significant supplemental oxygen during the evaluation. Twice daily PT was recommended. The ABG performed showed significant hypoxia. By telephone order at 2:15 p.m., respondent ordered the patient discharged home on oxygen with bronchodilators, oral antibiotics and oral narcotics. A final progress note charted two later on November 14, 2006, respondent noted that the patient's condition on discharge was fair with mild hypoxia secondary to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pain controlled via medication and a rib brace. Patient was discharged at 6:30 p.m. with an elevated pulse (113) and respirations (32). His oxygen saturation was 89% on 4 liters of oxygen, desaturating to 76% on room air.
AA. On or about September 26, 2006, patient J.M. saw respondent in follow up. The patient complained of not being able to eat, abdominal pain and nausea. No vital signs were recorded. Respondent documented lung and abdominal examinations as abnormal; his assessment was right upper quadrant tender/mild jaundice. He ordered an ultrasound to rule out gallstones and a laboratory test to evaluate liver function. He did not document any discussion of medical issues from the hospitalization.
BB. On or about September 27, 2006, an ultrasound at Temecula Valley Advanced Imaging Center revealed moderate bilateral hydronephrosis with a dilated bladder but no gallstone. The patient was instructed to go to the emergency room and respondent was contacted.
CC. On or about September 27, 2006, patient J.M. presented to the Inland Valley Medical Center emergency department where he was found to have respiratory insufficiency, urinary retention, dehydration, malnutrition, electrolyte abnormalities and low platelets. Difficulty swallowing fluids was also noted. The patient was admitted under the care of respondent pursuant to respiratory insufficiency, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and urinary retention.
DD. On or about September 28, 2006, respondent performed a history and physical; his assessment was urinary incontinence, dysphagia and consolidation of the lung. His plan included observation, intravenous fluids, bladder catheterization, swallow evaluation, supplemental oxygen, respiratory therapy, systemic steroids and antimicrobial therapy.
EE. On or about September 29, 2006, the patient underwent a swallow evaluation which disclosed severe dysphagia with pulmonary compromise and a high aspiration risk; recommendations included swallowing precautions, a modified diet, daily speech therapy and a pulmonary consultation. Respondent was out of town this date; a covering physician ordered home discharge with a visiting nurse for Foley catheter care, home PT, home oxygen and follow up with respondent in one week. Respondent did not dictate a discharge summary nor chart any assessment of the swallowing evaluation.
FF. On or about October 6, 2006, the patient's wife called respondent's office to complain that the patient was not doing well and that his breathing was getting worse. There is no correlating documentation in the patient's chart. There is no documentation in the chart from September 29, 2006, to October 16, 2006.
GG. On or about October 16, 2006, patient J.M. presented by ambulance to the emergency department at Rancho Springs Medical Center with a complaint of shortness of breath. He was admitted with sepsis syndrome, pneumonia, complicated urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, acute on chronic respiratory failure and multiple stage II pressure ulcers. Respondent performed a history and physical examination. Consultations were obtained. Cultures returned with drug resistant organisms in the lungs and urine; broad spectrum antibiotics, system steroids, respiratory therapy, noninvasive ventilation, wound care, feedings via nasogastric tube (NGT) and daily physical therapy were provided. Though some physical therapy goals were met, the patient remained quite debilitated. There was little change in the patient's severe dysphagia. Respondent discussed with the wife placing the patient in long term care but the family preferred home care. The patient was discharged home on October 25, 2006, with home intravenous antibiotics, NGT feedings, home oxygen, Foley catheter and multiple pressure ulcers requiring significant care. There is no documentation of post discharge medications or follow up plan. There is no documentation by respondent in the chart of post discharge care from October 25, 2006, to November 1, 2006.
HH. On or about November 1, 2006, patient J.M. presented to Rancho Springs Medical Center with respiratory distress requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the emergency department; he was thin, pale and poorly reactive. He was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A pulmonary consultation was obtained. The patient was treated with anticoagulation, steroids, bronchodilators, antibiotics, NGT feedings and wound care.
II. On or about November 6, 2006, the patient was transferred to respondent's care at the hospital. Subspecialists continued to follow the patient. The patient was on mechanical ventilation from on or about November 1 through November 10, 2006, He was transferred out of the ICU on November 15, 2006. Thereafter, on or about November 17, 2006, the patient experienced difficulty with the NGT feedings and was switched by respondent to total parenteral (intravenous) nutrition (TPN). A left arm peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was placed on November 18, 2006, for that purpose; when it failed later that day the catheter was switched to the right upper extremity. A new 20 to 30% left pneumothorax was seen by serial CXRs on November 18, 2006. On November 19, 2006, no pneumothorax was seen by CXR; respondent saw the patient that day and noted the patient was unchanged clinically and discharge was recommended. The patient was discharged with intravenous nutrition and 6 liters of supplemental oxygen. The nurse notes indicated that the patient's wife was contemplating hospice placement for the patient. Respondent's discharge summary dictated on December 13, 2009, does not address the issue of pulmonary embolism, the PICC line, the TPN treatment and the condition of the patient at discharge. The patient was discharged home on November 20, 2006. Many of respondent's notes on this admission were illegible.
JJ. On or about November 20, 2006, less than twenty-four hours after discharge, the patient presented to the Hemet Valley Medical Center emergency department with respiratory distress. He was found to have sepsis syndrome, pneumonia, complicated urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, acute on chronic respiratory failure and multiple stage II pressure ulcers. He was admitted under the care of another physician. He required ICU care, vasopressors, prolonged mechanical ventilation with tracheotomy, systemic steroids, broad spectrum antimicrobial agents, respiratory therapy, wound care, left chest tube insertion for progressive left pneumothorax and transfusions. He was managed by multiple specialists. He was discharged to a sub-acute unit on December 21, 2006, and expired on December 24, 2006. Respondent was not involved in his care on this final hospitalization.
Patient J.M. Allegations of Negligence
KK. Between on or about January 18, 2006, and July 24, 2006, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient J.M. when he failed to properly and timely follow up on chest imaging abnormalities in patient J.M., a post-lung cancer surgery patient.
LL. On or about September 22, 2006, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient J.M. when ordered patient J.M. discharged notwithstanding the patient's abnormal vital signs, abnormal laboratory tests, high oxygen requirements and lowered functional status.
MM. On or about September 29, 2006, respondent, as the primary care provider, was negligent in the care and treatment of patient J.M. when he failed to assure proper evaluation of the patient for discharge to his home environment in light of his ongoing need for oxygen and his dysphagia complicated nutrition needs.
NN. On or about October 25, 2006, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient J.M. when he failed to properly evaluate the patient for discharge, including evaluating whether the patient was stable for discharge and evaluating whether the family was capable of providing the required level of care after the patient was discharged home.
OO. On or about November 19, 2006, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient J.M. when he failed to properly evaluate the patient for discharge, including plans to follow up with the patient after discharge home and plans for end of life care.
PP. Between on or about September 22, 2006, and November 19, 2006, respondent was negligent in the care and treatment of patient J.M. when he failed to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to patient J.M., including, but not limited to, his failure to legibly document progress notes and his failure to timely dictate admission and discharge notes.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Altering Medical Records)
9. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2262 in that respondent altered or modified a medical record of a patient with fraudulent intent. The circumstances are as follows:
Patient L W .
A. The facts and circumstances alleged in paragraph 8 above are incorporated here as if fully set forth.
B. Between January 24, 2007, and January 29, 2008, respondent altered the medical record of patient L.W. for the office visit of December 26, 2006, to reflect the performance of a right hip examination. The change in the medical record was not dated and signed by respondent to show when the document was amended.
THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Dishonesty)
10. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), in that respondent engaged in dishonest conduct in altering or modifying a medical record of a patient. The circumstances are as follows:
Patient L.W.
A. The facts and circumstances alleged in paragraph 9 above are incorporated here as if fully set forth.
FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligence)
11. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b), of the Code in that respondent was grossly negligent. The circumstances are as follows:
Patient L.W.
A. The facts and circumstances alleged in paragraph 8 above are incorporated here as if fully set forth.
B. Between on or about November 24, 2006, and Februaiy 23, 2007, respondent was grossly negligent in the care and treatment of patient L.W. when he failed to properly evaluate and follow up on the patienfs hip injury in the face of continufog patient complaints ofpain and the ineffectiveness ofhis treatment modalities.
C. Between January 24, 2007, and January 29, 2008, respondent was grossly negligent when he altered the medical record ofpatient L.W. for the office visit of December 26, 2006, to reflect the performance of a right hip examination and failed to date and sign the medical record to show when the document was amended.
FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Failure to Maintain Adequate Records)
12. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2266 ofthe Code in that Respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records of medical services provided to patients. The circumstances are as follows:
Patient L.W.
A. The facts and circumstances alleged in paragraph 8 above are incorporated here as iffully set forth.
B. On or about May 19, 2004, and thereafter, respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records ofthe care and treatment ofpatient L.W., including, but not limited to, failing to properly document an initial history and physical examination, failing to properly document annual physical examinations, failing to properly document interval screening tests, preventive measures or surveillance of the patient's ongoing health issues, including, but not limited to, marmnography, failing to legibly annotate chart entries, failing to properly chart patient allergies.
Patient J.M.
A. The facts and circumstances alleged in paragraph 8 above are incorporated here as if fully set forth.
B. On or after September 22, 2006, respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records by failing to timely dictate an admission note inasmuch as the admission note was not dictated until December 13, 2006.
C. On or about September 29, 2006, respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records when he failed to dictate a discharge summary and when he failed to chart any assessment ofthe swallowing evaluation.
D. On or about October 25, 2006, respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records by failing to adequately document evaluation ofpatient J.M. for discharge.
E. On or about November 19, 2006, respondent failed to maintain adequate ru1d accurate records by failing to timely dictate a discharge note, and by failing to dictate an accurate discharge note and by failing to notate appropriate follow up plans for the patient.
F. Between on or about September 21, 2006, and November 19, 2006, respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records by repeatedly failing to legibly document the patient's chart.
SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct)
13. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234 in that [sic] engaged in unprofessional conduct. The circumstances are as follows:
A. The facts and circumstances alleged in paragraphs 8 through 12 above are incorporated here as if fully set forth.
Excerpt from Accusation dated 10/13/2011:
FACTS RE:UNLAWFUL USE OF X-RAY CDEXA AND
FLUOROSCOPY PERMIT, AND FRAUDULENT CREA TION AND
ALTERATION OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDING A FLUOROSCOPY PERMIT.
20. Respondent specializes in internal medicine.
21. At all times relevant, Respondent was the President, CEO, and sole owner of Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc., located at 31720 Temecula Parkway (a.k.a. Highway 79 South), Suite 200, Temecula, California 92592.
22. At all times relevant, Respondent was also the founder, owner, and Medical Director of Prime Partners IP A , which was located in the same office suite as Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc.
23. Prime Partners IPA contracted with Prime Partners Medical Group. Inc. to provide internal medicine services to the member patients ofthe HMOs with which Prime Partners IPA contracted.
24. In 2006, Respondent purchased, Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc., a DEXA machine, in order to be able to perform X-ray bone densitometry scans in his office.
25. Respondent was not a Certified Supervisor or Operator, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 114850, subdivision (i), i.e. he was not certified, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 114870, subdivision (e), to operate the DEXA machine or to supervise the operation of the DEXA machine. As such, he was aware that it was unlawful for him to operate the DEXA machine.
26. Two of Respondent's employees, Gina Bae and Cindy Estacio, each obtained, from the Radiologic Health Branch of the Department of Public Health ("DPH"), a "Limited Permit in X-ray Technology," authorizing them to perform procedures in "X-ray Bone Densitometry," and to use the title, "X-ray Technician." Said Limited Permits, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 114850, subdivision (g), were issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 115870, subdivision (c), authorizing issuance of "limited radiologic technology permits" to persons who qualify to become a "limited permit X-ray technician."
27. Respondent was aware that, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 10695, subdivision (a), and section 10690, subdivision (a), it was unlawful for his X-ray Technicians to perform DEXA bone scans without supervision by a Certified Supervisor or Operator who had been issued such certification by the Radiologic Health Branch of the DPH. However, as noted above, Respondent was not so certified.
28. In January, 2006, Respondent approached his colleague, Allen K. Chan, M.D. ("Dr. Chan"), a vascular surgeon, and asked if Dr. Chan would be willing to loan Respondent his Fluoroscopy X-ray Supervisor and Operator Permit No. RHC 160940 ("Fluoroscopy Permit"), in return for payment of the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Dr. Chan agreed, accepted the payment and provided Respondent with a copy of his Fluoroscopy Permit. Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit had an expiration date of February 28, 2007.
29. Respondent wrote, on a blank piece of paper, a purported handwritten "agreement." dated "1/06," which stated, "I Alan [sic] Chan agree to be supervisor of DEXA for Prime Partners Medical Group. Dr. Alan [sic] Chan has right to quit anytime if he wished to do [sic]." The document ("Agreement") was signed by Respondent and Dr. Chan.
30. Pursuant to section 30462 of Title 17 of the CCR, Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit did not authorize him to perform, or supervise, DEXA bone densitometry scans.
31. Moreover, the Radiologic Health Branch of the DPH requires that facilities utilizing the services of an off-site supervisor of X-ray services: (a) enter into a written agreement for said supervisory services, (b) possess a written "X-ray Policy and Procedure Manual" approved by the off-site supervisor, and (c) visit the site, on at least a quarterly basis, to observe the X-ray procedures, and to inspect and review specified matters.
32. At the time of the Agreement, Dr. Chan had not been trained in the operation of, or supervision of the operation of, DEXA bone densitometry scanning machines. Nor did he have any experience in the operation of, or the supervision of the operation of, DEXA bone densitometry scanning machines. After signing the Agreement and accepting the $1,000.00 payment, Dr. Chan never actually supervised a single DEXA scan in Respondent's office, nor did he perform any of the other duties of an off-site supervisor. Nevertheless, Respondent: (a) displayed Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit in his office, falsely representing that Dr. Chan was, in fact, serving as the off-site supervisor ofthe DEXA scans performed by Respondent's X-ray Technicians, and (b) sent the Fluoroscopy Permit to KMS Strategic Services, a.k.a Hemet Community Medical Group ("Hemet"), which was the management company for Prime Partners IPA. Hemet was responsible for drafting Prime Partners IP A 's contracts and for the credentialing of physicians who contracted with Prime Partners IP A. By sending the Fluoroscopy Permit to Hemet, Respondent falsely represented that his practice, Prime Partners Medical Group, which was under contract to Prime Partners IPA, had a proper Supervisor/Medical Director in place to supervise the DEXA scans Respondent was conducting.
33. On August 6, 2007, Respondent was contacted by Sophia Chang at Hemet. and was asked to provide a copy of Respondent's radiology license for credentialing purposes. That same day, Respondent sent a letter to Hemet, enclosing a copy of Dr. Chan's then-expired Fluoroscopy Permit and stating, inter alia, "Attached is a copy of the supervising physicians certificate (Dr Allen Chan) for the Bone Densiry machine which is being operated in my office. A contract is in place with Dr. Chan who has agreed to be the supervising physician pending the completion of my passing the state supervisor test which is currently in the process. Please note that the cert{ficate is expired but the updated one will be faxed to you as soon as I receive it."
34. Shortly thereafter, Respondent, with the assistance of employee Cindy Estacio, altered Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit, to make it appear that the permit was issued in Respondent's name and was current through February 28, 2009. He asked employee Tanya Uribe to fax the altered permit to Hemet, but she refused. Respondent tore the altered permit in half and threw it at Ms. Uribe.
35. Approximately one week later, Respondent asked Ms. Uribe to sign an affidavit that Respondent had prepared, purporting to have her state that Respondent did not alter Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit. Ms. Uribe refused. Ms Uribe resigned from her employment with Prime Partners Medical Group in November, 2007.
36. While employed by Respondent, between January, 2006 and November, 2007, Ms. Uribe witnessed Respondent performing DEXA scans himself on numerous occasions.
37. On February 23, 2011, in an interview with Board Investigator Jennifer Doll and others, Respondent falsely claimed that:
(a) Respondent never operated the DEXA machine himself;
(b) Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit qualified him to act as the Supervisor/Medical Director, supervising Respondent's use of the DEXA scans;
(c) From January, 2006 through approximately July of 2008, when he "resigned," Dr. Chan acted as the Supervisor/Medical Director of Respondent's practice;
(d) There is no legal requirement that a designated supervisor of DEXA scans must actually ever show up and be present to supervise the operation of the machine by the X-ray Technicians;
(e) Respondent did not pay Dr. Chan the $1,000.00 in 2006 at the time he borrowed Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit and wrote the Agreement; instead, he paid him the $1,000.00 in 2007 after learning that that the Fluoroscopy Permit Dr. Chan provided Respondent in 2006, at the time of the Agreement, had expired on February 28, 2007;
(f) The $1,000.00 payment was partly to get a copy of Dr. Chan's then-current Fluoroscopy Permit, partly in return for Dr. Chan's continued service as Supervisor/Medical Director, and partly "out of appreciation of what he's been [sic] done for us";
(g) Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit was not altered by Respondent, nor was it altered at his direction; instead, his employee, Cindy Estacio, made a copy of the document, replacing Dr. Chan's name with Respondent's name, for the sole purpose of showing Respondent what his own permit would look like ifhe obtained one, i.e., showing him that "this would be yours if you ever, you know, get it certified on this and don't have to hassle with it"; and
(h) Respondent believes that Dr. Festus Dada, with whom he was having business disputes, altered Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit and submitted it to Hemet "to try to got [sic] me in trouble in some directions."
FACTS RE SUBMISSION OF FALSE INSURANCE CLAIMS
A. Claims for Interpretation of DEXA Scan Results.
38. Patients GG, WP, BA and YD were referred to Respondent, by their own treating physicians, for DEXA bone densitometry scans. Upon such referrals, Respondent had his X-ray technicians perform the scan and forward the written report of the scan results to the respective patients' physicians for interpretation.
39. Despite the fact that Respondent did not provide any interpretation of the bone scan results for patients GG, WP, BA or YD, Respondent knowingly, and falsely, billed said patients respective health insurance providers and/or Medicare for interpretation of the bone scans.
B. Claims for Surgical Vein Procedures Not Performed.
40. In 2005 and 2006, Respondent performed non-surgical vein removal procedures in his office, with a machine identified as a Cutera XEO, which utilized a laser beam. With the patient under a local anesthesia applied to the surface of the skin, the procedure involves applying the laser beam to the surface of the skin, heating the vein until the vein collapses.
41. In 2005 and 2006, Respondent performed non-surgical laser vein removal procedures 1o on over twenty (20) patients. For each of these procedures, Respondent, through his billing contractor, Pinnacle Billing Service, fraudulently billed Medicare and/or each patient's health insurance provider three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), for a total in excess of sixty-thousand dollars ($60,000.00) utilizing the erroneous CPT Codes "36478" and "36479."
42. As a result of Respondent's fraudulent billing practices, as described in paragraph 40, he wrongfully received in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) in reimbursements.
43. Upon reviewing an insurance company check, payable to Respondent, for an amount that appeared excessive, Respondent's employee, Tanya Uribe, researched the CPT Code utilized by Respondent and determined that it was for a surgical vein procedure not performed by Respondent. She printed out a description of the procedure and showed it to Respondent, who looked at the printout and promptly threw it in the trash, without explanation.
44. In an interview with a Board investigator and others, on February 23. 201 L Respondent falsely claimed that he was unmvare of the erroneous billings until he vvas informed, in July of :W08, of same by Pinnacle Billing Service. (See parngraph 45, below.)
45. On July 10, 2008, Pi1macle Billing Service informed Respondent that it had discovered Respondent's wrongful use of the 36478 and 36479 CPT Codes and was, therefore, exercising its contractual right to terminate its contract with Respondent, citing Respondent's "improper and perhaps illegal conduct."
46. Despite actual knowledge, no later than July of 2008, that he had received substantial payments for a surgical vein removal procedure he never performed, Responde11t did not advise the affected patients, or Medicare, of the "billing error" until July of 2010. As of this date, no portion of those payments has been returned by Respondent.
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(General Unprofessional Conduct)
47. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234 of the Code in that he engaged in multiple acts of general unprofessional conduct. The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 20 through 46, which are incorporated by reference herein.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Violation of "Medical Practice Act")
48. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (a), of the Code in that he has violated the "Medical Practice Act," to wit:
(a) Code section 2052, by performing DEXA bone densitometry scans without proper ce1tification and authorization, a public offense; and
(b) Code section 2261, by: (i) creating documents which fraudulently represented that Dr. Chan was acting as Respondent's off-site supervisor of Respondent's DEXA bone densitometry scans, and (ii) fraudulently altering Dr. Chan's expired Fluoroscopy Permit to make it appear that the permit had been issued in Respondent's name and was current.
The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 20 through 36, which are incorporated by reference herein.
THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Dishonesty—Fraudulent Use of Another's Radiology Certificate)
49. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code in that he engaged in dishonest acts, to wit: the fraudulent use of another physician's Radiology Certificate. The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 20 through 33, which are incorporated by reference herein.
FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Dishonesty—Fraudulent Creation of Documents)
50. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code in that he engaged in dishonest acts, to wit: the fraudulent creation of a purported agreement, and subsequent correspondence, falsely representing that Dr. Chan was acting as Respondent's off-site supervisor of Respondent's DEXA bone densitometry scans. The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 20 through 33, which are incorporated by reference herein.
FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Dishonesty—Fraudulent Alteration of Another's Radiology Certificate)
51. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code in that he engaged in dishonest acts, to wit: the fraudulent alteration of another physician's Fluoroscopy Certificate. The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 20 through 35, which are incorporated by reference herein.
SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Dishonesty)
(Submission of False Claims for Interpretation of DEXA Scans)
52. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code in that he engaged in dishonest acts, to wit: the submission of false claims for interpretation of DEXA scans. The circumstances are set forih in paragraphs 38 and 39, which are incorporated by reference herein.
SEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Dishonesty)
(Submission of False Claims for Surgical Vein Procedures)
53. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code in that he engaged in dishonest acts, to wit: the submission of false claims for surgical vein procedures which Respondent did not perform. The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 40 through 46, which are incorporated by reference herein.
EIGHTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Dishonesty—Lying to Board re Use of DEXA Scans)
54. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code in that he engaged in dishonest acts, to wit: Respondent, on February 23, 2011, lied to the Board re:
(i) His performing DEXA bone densitometry scans without proper certification and authorization;
(ii) His fraudulent creation of a purported agreement and subsequent correspondence fraudulently representing that Dr. Chan was acting as Respondent's off-site supervisor of Respondent's DEXA bone densitometry scans;
(iii) His unlawful use of Dr. Chan's Fluoroscopy Permit; and
(iv) His fraudulent alteration of Dr. Chan's Flouroscopy Permit
The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 20 through 37, which are incorporated by reference herein.
NINTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct: Dishonesty)
(Lying to Board re Submission of False Claims for Surgical Vein Procedures)
55. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code in that he engaged in dishonest acts, to wit: he lied to the Board on February 23, 2011 re his knowledge, prior to July, 2008, that he submitted erroneous billings for surgical vein procedures which Respondent did not perform. The circumstances are set forth in paragraphs 40 through 45, which are incorporated by reference herein.
DISCIPLINARY CONSIDERATIONS
56. In a disciplinary action entitled "In the Matter of Accusation Against Donald Woo Lee. M.D ," Case No. 17-2007-183005, the Board issued a Decision, effective May 11, 2011, in which Respondent's Physician and Surgeon's Certificate was revoked. However, the revocation was stayed and Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate was placed on probation for a period of five (5) years with certain terms and conditions. Respondent was disciplined for, inter alia: altering the medical records of patient L.W. with fraudulent intent.
Excerpt from Accusation dated 1/25/2019: [SEE PREVIOUS ACCUSATION AND AMENDED ACCUSATION FOR CHANGES.]
INITIAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Patient A
7. On or about January 29, 2014, Respondent, an internist, saw Patient A, an 82-year-old male and his primary care patient. Patient A had fallen, landed on his left hand, and lacerated the anterior surface of his hand. Although Respondent addressed the laceration with sutures, he failed to order x-rays of the left hand, and failed to refer the patient to an orthopedics specialist. Respondent documented that he fixed a dislocation of Patient A's fifth finger by pulling the finger and popping it back into place. Respondent also ordered a seven-day supply of an antibiotic (Keflex) for the patient.
8. On or about February 5, 2014, Respondent reassessed Patient A. Although Respondent wrote that the wound was healing well, he failed to assess the neuromuscular function of the patient's hand and/or failed to adequately document that he did so.
9. On or about February 12, 2014, Respondent removed the sutures on the patient's left hand. Again, Respondent failed to perform a neuromuscular examination of the hand and/or failed to adequately document that he did so.
10. On or about February 24, 2014, Patient A called Respondent's office, reported that his left hand was swollen, and asked if he needed more antibiotics. Respondent then ordered a 10-day supply of an antibiotic (Augmentin) for Patient A without examining the patient.
11. On or about March 26, 2014, Respondent saw Patient A with complaints of pain and an inability to move the fingers of his left hand. However, Respondent failed to assess the neuromuscular function ofthe patient's hand and/or failed to adequately document that he did so. In addition, although Respondent advised Patient A to start exercising his left hand, he did not document the specific exercises he instructed the patient to perform.
12. On or about April 14, 2014, Patient A called Respondent's office and requested an x-ray of his left hand and a referral to a specialist because he could not make a fist or close his hand. Respondent then ordered x-rays of Patient A's left hand and referred the patient to an orthopedic surgeon.
13. On or about May 2, 2014, x-rays ofPatient A's left hand revealed fractures of the proximal phalanges ofthe third and fourth fingers. Respondent admitted during his interview with the Board that he never viewed the patient's x-rays.
14. On or about May 21, 2014, an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. J.P., assessed Patient A and on or about September 8, 2014, Dr. J.P. operated on the Patient A's left hand. Nevertheless, the patient did not regain normal function of his hand.
Pre-Signed Prescriptions
15. On or about October ,8, 2015, agents of the federal government searched Respondent's office at 10241 Country Club Drive, Suite H, Mira Loma, California 91752 and found blank prescription scripts pre-signed by the Respondent. On or about, June 5, 2018, an investigator of the Health Quality Investigations Unit of Califoinia's Division of Investigations interviewed Respondent. During the interview, Respondent admitted that the pre-signed prescriptions seized by the federal agents were his scripts. He further explained that he pre- signed prescriptions and left them in unlocked drawers in his offices to facilitate the ability of his medical assistants to order medications for his patients when he was absent. He further expiained that he thought the practice was legal and continued to engage in pre-signing blank prescriptions until at least in or around October 2015 when his Mira Loma office was searched by federal agents. In addition, a letter dated August 13, 2015, stated that Respondent had terminated the employment of one of his medical assistants, M.B., because she had ordered narcotics for patients with prescription scripts that had been pre-signed by him. Respondent's practice of pre-signing prescriptions presented a risk to patients who could have received medications that had the potential to be ineffective and/or harmful for them, including without limitation, as a result of their issuance by his medical assistants.
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligence)
16. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (b), in that he committed gross negligence. The circumstances are as follows:
17. The allegations irt paragraphs 7 through 15; inclusive, above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
18. On or about January 29, 2014, and thereafter, Respondent was grossly negligent when he failed to either perform neuromuscular examinations on Patient A (who had been injured from a fall), and/or failed to document that he performed such neuromuscular examinations.
19. On or about January 29, 2014, and thereafter, Respondent was grossly negligent when he prescribed an antibiotic to Patient A before examining him.
20. On or about January 29, 2014, and thereafter, Respondent was grossly negligent when he failed to order x-rays for Patient A during his first appointment with this elderly patient who had fallen and injured his hand.
21. On or about January 29, 2014, and thereafter, Respondent was grossly negligent when he failed to investigate and/or review the results of the x-rays he had ordered for Patient A.
22. On or about January 29, 2014, and thereafter, Respondent was grossly negligent when he failed to promptly refer Patient A, an elderly patient with a hand injury, to an orthopedic surgeon.
23. From at least in or around 2000 and thereafter, Respondent's practice ofpre-signing blank pre_scription scripts represents gross negligence, including without limitation, on or about April 15, 2015, and July.29, 2015, when his medical assistant illicitly used Respondent's pre-signed prescriptions, and October 8, 2015.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligence - Patient C)
24. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code sections 2234, subdivision (b), in that he co~mitted gross negligence related to the provision of medical services to Patient C. The circumstances are as follows:
Patient C
25. On or about January 30, 2016, Respondent saw Patient C, a 69-year-old woman with symptomatic vein disease of the bilateral lower extremities with a history of hypothyroidism and hypertension. Respondent failed to obtain an adequate history for Patient C, including her current list of medications at this visit. A receptionist asked Patient C to fill out her name and insurance information only. When she asked a member of his staff about HIP AA, the staff member seemed "confused," and she was not provided any information regarding privacy rights or asked to sign a form related to HIPAA. Initially, a nurse saw her and obtained minimal information from her. A technician then performed an ultrasound of her leg veins. Afterwards, she was brought to another room where Respondent and three other people were present and a table was setup to do a vein procedure on each leg. At that point, she felt very uncomfortable and wished to speak with her primary care physician before proceeding with the pocedures. Respondent told her that other doctors would not understand the vein procedures. Thereafter, the patient sought treatment from a different doctor who performed bilateral greater saphenous vein ablations and a series of separate sessions of sclerotherapy.
26. Respondent's records for Patient C fail to adequately document her past medical history and/or surgical history. Respondent also failed to perform and/or document an adequate physical exam, including examination of the patient's heart, lungs, abdomen and extremities as related to veins. Respondent's certified records include an unsigned form acknowledging receipt of privacy practices and a health questionnaire which was not filled out. During his interview with an investigator of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Respondent stated that he did not have much independent recollection of the patient, but that he did recall the unusual occurrence that the patient initially stated that she had tried conservative therapy with stockings, but then later stated that she had not tried stockings. Respondent stated he advised her to try conservative therapy first. He also stated that he would not normally do vein procedures the same day as the ultrasound and that he did not plan procedures on this patient at that initial visit.
27. Respondent's records for Patient C fail to document that the patient received any notification of the office privacy practices. Further, they lack an adequately complete past medical history for her. Respondent also failed to document. that the patient had a history of smoking and hypertension, and failed to record any vital signs for her. Her medications, allergies, smoking history were all not documented as well. Risk factors for peripheral vascular disease and cardiac disease are important for vein patients because this may influence treatment decisions. I f the patient has significant vascular disease it may harm them to ablate veins which may be needed in the. future for bypass surgery. The lower extremity pulses should also be examined because an abnormal exam may also influence the choice of compression therapy and decision fo perform a procedure. A patient with abnormal peripheral pulses may not be a candidate for compression therapy and/or ablation without further non-invasive testing.
28. On or about January. 30, 2016, and thereafter, Respondent was grossly negligent when he failed to provide and/or document the provision of office privacy practices to Patient C.
29. On or about January 30, 2016, and thereafter, Respondent was grossly negligent when he failed to perform and/or document an adequately complete history and physical exam for Patient C (a patient with vein disease).
THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Repeated Negligent Acts)
30. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (c), in that Respondent committed repeated negligent acts. The circumstances are as follows:
31. The allegations of the First Cause for Discipline are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
32. Each of the alleged acts of gross negligence set forth above in the First and Second 27 Causes for Discipline is also a negligent act.
FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Failure to Maintain Adequate Medical Records)
33. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2266 in that Respondent failed to maintain adequate and.accurate records related to the provision of medical services to a patient. The circumstances are as follows:
34. The allegations ofthe First, Second and Third Causes for Discipline, inclusive, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
35. In addition, Respondent failed to adequately document his medical care for the patients alleged herein, including without limitation, Patients A and C.
FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(General Unprofessional Conduct)
36. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, in that his actions and/or omissions represent unprofessional conduct, generally. The circumstances are as follows:
37. The allegations of the First, Second, Third ahd Fourth Causes for Discipline are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION
38. In a disciplinary action entitled, In the Matter of the Accusation Against Donald Woo Lee, MD., Case No. 09-2010-205998, the Board issued a decision, effective November 2, 2012, which placed Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate on probation for six (6) years with terms and conditions. A copy of The Board's Decision and Order in Case No. 09-2010- 205998 is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. Respondent is in violation of the terms and conditions of the disciplinary order in Case No. 09-2010-205998 as set forth below.
FIRST CAUSE FOR PROBATION REVOCATION
(Obey All Laws)
39. Term and condition number 6 of the disciplinary order states:
"Respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws, all rules governing the practice of medicine in California and remain in full compliance with any court ordered criminal probation, payments, and other 0rders."
40. Respondent has violated term and condition number 6 by violating the Medical Practice Act. The circumstances are as follows:
41. The allegations of the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes for Discipline are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
DISCIPLINARY CONSIDERATIONS
42. As set forth above, Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate was placed on probation for six (6) years with terms and conditions, in a decision, effective November 2, 2012, in Case No. 09-2010-205998. Respondent was disciplined in that case in connection with, inter alia: allegations of forgery and billing fraud.
43. In a disciplinary action entitled, In the Matter of the Accusation Against Donald Woo Lee, MD., Case No. 17-2007-183005,the Board issued a Decision, effective December 7, 2012, in which Respondent's Physician and Surgeon's Certificate was revoked. However, the revocation was stayed and Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate was placed on probation for a period of three (3) years with certain terms and conditions. Respondent was disciplined for, inter alia: altering the medical records of a patient with fraudulent intent.
|
