Mr. Webb is a member of the Texas Medical Board. He practices criminal law in Houston.
Dear Mr. Webb,
I am still alive and well and am committed more than ever to reforming the Texas Medical Board.
The board should move toward a different way to evaluate complaints. This is not something which could be done overnight and should, I believe, start with volunteer physicians. Eventually, every physician in the state (licensed or not, under orders or not) as a condition for licensure, should participate unpaid in free CME toward this end. The board should oversee the process.
The board would make the following provisions:
1. There must be a failsafe way to ensure that every complaint, jurisdictional or not, is logged in and assigned a case number. The case numbers must be sequential and unchangeable; the complaints initially should be separated into one of two categories: jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional
2. Whether or not the board has jurisdiction should be determined by one criterion only: Is the physician licensed? If the physician is licensed, the complaint is jurisdictional and should be filed under "Jurisdictional complaints".
3. Non-jurisdictional complaints should also be assigned sequential and unchangeable case numbers and go to volunteer physician reviewers to determine:
a. their "significance" or "relevance"
b. the answer to the question "could the health of Texans be improved if this complaint were addressed effectively?"
c. what group(s), or state or private entities could be approached to address the complaint properly? a House Committee? another state agency? a federal agency? the FBI?
d. the board would oversee the process by making sure that each non-jurisdictional complaint is appropriately addressed depending on its significance.
4. Jurisdictional complaints should be handled similarly: they should be assigned sequential and unalterable case numbers, logged in, and go to volunteer physician reviewers to determine:
a. their "significance" or "relevance"
b. the answer to the question "could the health of Texans be improved if this complaint were addressed?"
c. what group(s), state or private entities, could be approached to address the complaint most effectively?
d. what process(es) should be used to address the complaint?
I reference Amendments IV, VI, and XIV of the United States Constitution.
Amendment VI of the United States Constitution states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Complaints against a physician's license initiate quasi-criminal proceedings, so there is great potential for abuse. The board, in my opinion, in its duty to fulfill its mission, has a duty to protect physicians from abuse, but has utterly failed to do so.
Amendment XIV states, in part:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment IV states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Process changes which the board has the power to make include:
1. Every complaint should be accompanied by a probable cause affidavit and the complainant identified.
2. The complainant should propose a solution such as:
a. talking to the physician face to face alone or with a mediator
b. can the complainant identify a process which if corrected could have prevented the problem?
c. can the respondent physician identify a process which if corrected could have prevented the problem?
3. The physician should propose a solution.
4. The board should move in the direction of acting on the complainant's and physician's proposals.
5. Invite physicians and patients to bring their successes to the whole board for recognition
6. Encourage the media to report on significant successes.
I would like to present an overview of this to the board at its next meeting during the time allotted for public testimony.
The Texas Medical Board is under considerable public scrutiny within Texas and nationally. Taking steps like I have described would set a positive precedent nationwide for reform.
I have taken the liberty of posting this letter on my scribd site and on my blog.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
Texas Medical Board Watch
Texas Phoenix 007
scribd Shirley Pigott MD
361-894-6464 home
361-652-9474 cell
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
SECOND NOTICE OF OPEN RECORDS REQUEST FOR FIRST FIVE MINUTES OF DPS VIDEO FROM SEPTEMBER 29, 2007
SECOND NOTICE OF OPEN RECORDS REQUEST FOR FIRST FIVE MINUTES OF DPS VIDEO FROM SEPTEMBER 29, 2007
Shirley Pigott MD
301 Woodway
Victoria, Texas 77904
February 25, 2010
Jennifer C. Cohen
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Dept. of Public Safety
(512) 424-2890
Ms Cohen,
Thank you for your timely first response to my earlier inquiry made February 20th. If you meant it as some sort of explanation for your refusal to comply, however, I don't consider it adequate.
Kindly address me as a physician in any future correspondence. I am uncomfortable with your familiarity.
Please consider this letter as a second notice of formal request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act, the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code. I consider your deliberate delay to be obstruction of justice.
I am not prepared to provide you with any legal opinion about the applicability of a direct order from Federal Judge Keith Ellison to DPS to provide an individual with requested information under open government laws. I believe you are prohibited by law from providing me with a legal opinion either, as only the Office of the Texas Attorney can fulfill that public role formally. So rather than you and I discuss whether or not DPS is obligated by state or federal law to comply with state or federal law, let's defer to an opinion from his office. No doubt you would take the position that you don't have to do anything I ask, because your doing so might implicate DPS in criminal coverup. You can argue that with Attorney General Abbott, but please don't bother me with it.
I am concerned that you are attempting to mislead me as to confidentiality laws. Since you have not disclosed anything to me which is not public information, it is my decision whether or not I may disclose it to third parties. We apparently disagree on this as well, so kindly and promptly please seek an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General. Until you have the opinion in hand, I ask that you remove your threatening footnotes.
My understanding of the role of a General Counsel for a government agency is to keep your agency from violating applicable laws. Please inform me if you do not consider that to be your role with DPS.
This is a resubmission of the same request I made earlier with my emphasis that your time to comply is running out. Considering the conduct of the officers involved, it is urgent that we remind this department of its duty with respect to investigations.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
www.texasmedicalboardwatch.com
www.texasphoenix007.blogspot.com
http://www.scribd.com/Shirley%20Pigott%20MD
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM, OGC Webmaster wrote:
Ms. Pigott,
The Department of Public Safety General Counsel is Stuart Platt; however, I will be coordinating the response to your below request. Initially, please note that the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 552) applies to federal agencies, not to state agencies. The Texas Public Information Act (PIA) (Gov't Code Ch. 552) applies to governmental bodies in this state, and your request will be considered under this act.
Further, the Department does not have a single custodian of all records. Rather, the section which originally generates the requested records is generally the custodian of such records. As a matter of clarification, please be advised that the Department does not certify documents, nor do we provide business records affidavits. If you wish to authenticate documents for admission in court, please submit a subpoena to the custodian of the requested records.
Additionally, the injunction attached to your request was issued in the case of Keith Wayne Schmidt v. DPS. It does not appear to be related in any way to the incident for which you are seeking information. Please clarify how this injunction is related to your request.
Jennifer C. Cohen
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Dept. of Public Safety
(512) 424-2890
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
From: Shirley Pigott MD [mailto:shirleypigottmd@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:10 AM
To: PIO - Texas DPS; Bonnie Kaderka Texas Medical Board Open Records
Subject: Re: Freedom of information requests concerning DPS Officers Alfred Ochoa and Daniel Terronez, and the events of September 29, 2007
Dear Ms Block,
Please consider this letter as a formal request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act, the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code.
Kindly identify the individual who is DPS custodian of open records and who is the DPS General Counsel that will review my request.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Thank you for your immediate time and attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, PIO - Texas DPS wrote:
Thank you for your open records request. I have forwarded it to the DPS General Counsel’s office, and they will send a response within 10 business days. For more information on the Public Information Act, please see Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code, available at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/pdf/GV.552.pdf.
Respectfully,
Texas Department of Public Safety
Public Information Office
From: Shirley Pigott MD [mailto:shirleypigottmd@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 1:41 AM
To: PIO - Texas DPS
Cc: Shirley Pigott MD Texas USA
Subject: Freedom of information requests concerning DPS Officers Alfred Ochoa and Daniel Terronez, and the events of September 29, 2007
Dear Ms Block:
Please consider this letter as a formal request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act, the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code.
On the night of September 29, 2007, I was stopped by DPS Officer Alfred Ochoa, ostensibly for speeding 9 mph over the posted speed limit. Unbelievably, events ensued which led to felony indictments against me being issued on January 8, 2008. The evening of January 7, 2008, my husband of 39 years, a professor of organic chemistry at Victoria College, who, I believe, had been warned in advance of the outcome, committed suicide.
Judge Randy Clapp granted me a motion to compel the production of a certified true, correct, and complete copy of the video, but the Wharton County DA gave me an uncertified copy which lacked the first few seconds or minutes.
DPS is required both by federal and state law to provide me with the evidence I have requested. I have attached an order issued by Federal Judge Keith Ellison which makes it clear that DPS must comply with the law in this situation.
DPS videos, as you know, are triggered to begin when an officer turns on his lights and siren. The video I received begins with dispatch citing my name, which was their response to Officer Ochoa 'running my plates'. The first critical exculpatory moments, which would show Officer Ochoa turning on his lights and siren while tailgating me at 74 mph, are missing.
Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with a certified true and correct copy of the first five minutes of the official DPS video, beginning at the beginning, ie, when it was triggered by Officer Ochoa turning on his lights and siren.
Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with any and all documents, field notes, transcripts, emails, telephone records, dispatch records, memoranda, dispatch tapes, audio tapes, video tapes, CDs or DVDs, written or recorded statements, or any other evidence concerning the incident with Officer Ochoa on September 29, 2007, that have come into your possession, including but not limited to any and all files you have in your possession or in the possession of any employee of the Texas DPS.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with any and all written policies and procedures or guidelines concerning, guiding, directing, or controlling the Texas DPS Officers which may dictate or suggest the mode and manner of carrying out their duties and expected behavior in dealing with or addressing the public during a traffic stop. This request is for the written policies and procedures or guidelines that were applicable and in effect on September 29, 2007.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with the complete personnel file concerning or pertaining to Officers Ochoa and Daniel Terronez.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with the complete employment and disciplinary file concerning or pertaining to Officer Ochoa and Officer Daniel Terronez.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with copies of any and all documents, photographs, images, emails, memoranda, letters, written communications, videotapes, audio recordings, or digital recordings of any kind showing, reflecting, or evidencing the scene, activities, or events in or surrounding any concern, inquiry, report, or complaint filed against Officer Ochoa or Terronez or any of the other officers, supervisors, deputies, or other employees of the Texas DPS who came in contact with me on September 29, 2007.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with a list all traffic stops, including warnings or citations made by Officers Ochoa or Terronez in the history of their employment at DPS where the alleged speed was less than 10 mph in excess of the posted speed limit.
This request is for any documents or tangible evidence that you may have or that you may have the ability to secure in performing your duty to investigate the conduct and actions of Officers Ochoa and Terronez. I must remind you that it is a crime to destroy or hide any of the exculpatory evidence requested herein or to advise, assist, or coach any other person to destroy or secret exculpatory evidence. Your proper role as an investigator, consistent with your legal obligation to afford the accused the presumption of innocence, is to secure, protect, and preserve all of the evidence, including any and all exculpatory evidence. Considering the conduct of the officers involved, it is urgent that we remind this department of its duty with respect to investigations.
If you refuse to comply with this request, then immediately explain your refusal to do so.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Thank you for your immediate time and attention in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Shirley Pigott MD
Texas Medical Board Watch
Texas Phoenix 007
361-894-6464 home
361-652-9474 cell
Shirley Pigott MD
301 Woodway
Victoria, Texas 77904
February 25, 2010
Jennifer C. Cohen
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Dept. of Public Safety
(512) 424-2890
Ms Cohen,
Thank you for your timely first response to my earlier inquiry made February 20th. If you meant it as some sort of explanation for your refusal to comply, however, I don't consider it adequate.
Kindly address me as a physician in any future correspondence. I am uncomfortable with your familiarity.
Please consider this letter as a second notice of formal request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act, the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code. I consider your deliberate delay to be obstruction of justice.
I am not prepared to provide you with any legal opinion about the applicability of a direct order from Federal Judge Keith Ellison to DPS to provide an individual with requested information under open government laws. I believe you are prohibited by law from providing me with a legal opinion either, as only the Office of the Texas Attorney can fulfill that public role formally. So rather than you and I discuss whether or not DPS is obligated by state or federal law to comply with state or federal law, let's defer to an opinion from his office. No doubt you would take the position that you don't have to do anything I ask, because your doing so might implicate DPS in criminal coverup. You can argue that with Attorney General Abbott, but please don't bother me with it.
I am concerned that you are attempting to mislead me as to confidentiality laws. Since you have not disclosed anything to me which is not public information, it is my decision whether or not I may disclose it to third parties. We apparently disagree on this as well, so kindly and promptly please seek an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General. Until you have the opinion in hand, I ask that you remove your threatening footnotes.
My understanding of the role of a General Counsel for a government agency is to keep your agency from violating applicable laws. Please inform me if you do not consider that to be your role with DPS.
This is a resubmission of the same request I made earlier with my emphasis that your time to comply is running out. Considering the conduct of the officers involved, it is urgent that we remind this department of its duty with respect to investigations.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
www.texasmedicalboardwatch.com
www.texasphoenix007.blogspot.com
http://www.scribd.com/Shirley%20Pigott%20MD
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM, OGC Webmaster
Ms. Pigott,
The Department of Public Safety General Counsel is Stuart Platt; however, I will be coordinating the response to your below request. Initially, please note that the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 552) applies to federal agencies, not to state agencies. The Texas Public Information Act (PIA) (Gov't Code Ch. 552) applies to governmental bodies in this state, and your request will be considered under this act.
Further, the Department does not have a single custodian of all records. Rather, the section which originally generates the requested records is generally the custodian of such records. As a matter of clarification, please be advised that the Department does not certify documents, nor do we provide business records affidavits. If you wish to authenticate documents for admission in court, please submit a subpoena to the custodian of the requested records.
Additionally, the injunction attached to your request was issued in the case of Keith Wayne Schmidt v. DPS. It does not appear to be related in any way to the incident for which you are seeking information. Please clarify how this injunction is related to your request.
Jennifer C. Cohen
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Dept. of Public Safety
(512) 424-2890
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
From: Shirley Pigott MD [mailto:shirleypigottmd@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:10 AM
To: PIO - Texas DPS; Bonnie Kaderka Texas Medical Board Open Records
Subject: Re: Freedom of information requests concerning DPS Officers Alfred Ochoa and Daniel Terronez, and the events of September 29, 2007
Dear Ms Block,
Please consider this letter as a formal request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act, the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code.
Kindly identify the individual who is DPS custodian of open records and who is the DPS General Counsel that will review my request.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Thank you for your immediate time and attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, PIO - Texas DPS
Thank you for your open records request. I have forwarded it to the DPS General Counsel’s office, and they will send a response within 10 business days. For more information on the Public Information Act, please see Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code, available at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/pdf/GV.552.pdf.
Respectfully,
Texas Department of Public Safety
Public Information Office
From: Shirley Pigott MD [mailto:shirleypigottmd@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 1:41 AM
To: PIO - Texas DPS
Cc: Shirley Pigott MD Texas USA
Subject: Freedom of information requests concerning DPS Officers Alfred Ochoa and Daniel Terronez, and the events of September 29, 2007
Dear Ms Block:
Please consider this letter as a formal request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act, the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code.
On the night of September 29, 2007, I was stopped by DPS Officer Alfred Ochoa, ostensibly for speeding 9 mph over the posted speed limit. Unbelievably, events ensued which led to felony indictments against me being issued on January 8, 2008. The evening of January 7, 2008, my husband of 39 years, a professor of organic chemistry at Victoria College, who, I believe, had been warned in advance of the outcome, committed suicide.
Judge Randy Clapp granted me a motion to compel the production of a certified true, correct, and complete copy of the video, but the Wharton County DA gave me an uncertified copy which lacked the first few seconds or minutes.
DPS is required both by federal and state law to provide me with the evidence I have requested. I have attached an order issued by Federal Judge Keith Ellison which makes it clear that DPS must comply with the law in this situation.
DPS videos, as you know, are triggered to begin when an officer turns on his lights and siren. The video I received begins with dispatch citing my name, which was their response to Officer Ochoa 'running my plates'. The first critical exculpatory moments, which would show Officer Ochoa turning on his lights and siren while tailgating me at 74 mph, are missing.
Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with a certified true and correct copy of the first five minutes of the official DPS video, beginning at the beginning, ie, when it was triggered by Officer Ochoa turning on his lights and siren.
Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with any and all documents, field notes, transcripts, emails, telephone records, dispatch records, memoranda, dispatch tapes, audio tapes, video tapes, CDs or DVDs, written or recorded statements, or any other evidence concerning the incident with Officer Ochoa on September 29, 2007, that have come into your possession, including but not limited to any and all files you have in your possession or in the possession of any employee of the Texas DPS.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with any and all written policies and procedures or guidelines concerning, guiding, directing, or controlling the Texas DPS Officers which may dictate or suggest the mode and manner of carrying out their duties and expected behavior in dealing with or addressing the public during a traffic stop. This request is for the written policies and procedures or guidelines that were applicable and in effect on September 29, 2007.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with the complete personnel file concerning or pertaining to Officers Ochoa and Daniel Terronez.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with the complete employment and disciplinary file concerning or pertaining to Officer Ochoa and Officer Daniel Terronez.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with copies of any and all documents, photographs, images, emails, memoranda, letters, written communications, videotapes, audio recordings, or digital recordings of any kind showing, reflecting, or evidencing the scene, activities, or events in or surrounding any concern, inquiry, report, or complaint filed against Officer Ochoa or Terronez or any of the other officers, supervisors, deputies, or other employees of the Texas DPS who came in contact with me on September 29, 2007.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Texas Open Records Act and Government Code Section 522, please provide me with a list all traffic stops, including warnings or citations made by Officers Ochoa or Terronez in the history of their employment at DPS where the alleged speed was less than 10 mph in excess of the posted speed limit.
This request is for any documents or tangible evidence that you may have or that you may have the ability to secure in performing your duty to investigate the conduct and actions of Officers Ochoa and Terronez. I must remind you that it is a crime to destroy or hide any of the exculpatory evidence requested herein or to advise, assist, or coach any other person to destroy or secret exculpatory evidence. Your proper role as an investigator, consistent with your legal obligation to afford the accused the presumption of innocence, is to secure, protect, and preserve all of the evidence, including any and all exculpatory evidence. Considering the conduct of the officers involved, it is urgent that we remind this department of its duty with respect to investigations.
If you refuse to comply with this request, then immediately explain your refusal to do so.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Thank you for your immediate time and attention in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Shirley Pigott MD
Texas Medical Board Watch
Texas Phoenix 007
361-894-6464 home
361-652-9474 cell
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Letter to ProPublica in response to thanks for joining their Reporting Network.
ProPublica
Dear Amanda,
I'm glad you asked about ideas for projects ProPublica should undertake.
The subject of "sham peer review" or "bad faith peer review" of medical professionals is in dire need of attention from skilled investigative journalists like those at ProPublica.
I began Texas Medical Board Watch in 2006 because I suspected I was the victim of sham peer review by the Texas Medical Board.
Sham peer review, known alternatively as bad faith peer review, is difficult to identify for sure, because even we doctors can be fooled as to the degree of the sham. Imagine how difficult it is for a medical board staffed mostly by lawyers without any experience in the practice of medicine, a jury, reporters, or the public to learn the truth. Texas Medical Board Watch and Texas Phoenix 007 (other names I've assumed) have developed a network of whistleblowers, medical and otherwise, who have been retaliated against because we exposed public and private corruption.
My material is published in emails, on scribd, Texas Phoenix 007, Medscape (Medscape > Physician Connect > Discussions > Non-Clinical > Open Forum > Disruptive Physician, but not in the mainstream media. You can find a few slanderous press releases from the Texas Medical Board on their site.
Mike Volpe has written five pieces about me.
Craig Malisow of the Houston Press, I think, smelled a rat when he wrote his story. Hairballs impressed me, because, in spite of the fact that he did not interview me prior to publishing it, his take is just about 100% correct. I congratulated him on that, but have not been able to persuade him to explore the issues any further. I am convinced that he has no idea the significance of the story he is sitting on.
Just how significant is retaliation against physician whistleblowers? The mission of Texas Medical Board Watch states it:
... to monitor performance of the Texas Medical Board and assure that it fulfills the mission assigned it by the Texas Legislature: Protect the health of Texans
The Board often abuses its power. Until peer review is fair, healthcare reform will remain an elusive goal.
Some of the doctors I now network with consider ourselves to be experts in sham peer review. We have ideas for medical board reform which we believe can assure that peer review is fair. The backbone of such a system would be a requirement that all physicians participate in peer review, unpaid, for continuing medical education credit, as a condition of licensure.
I tried explaining this to the current Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board Mari Robinson, but she won't listen. I have other beefs with Robinson, including allegations against her of a pattern and practice of criminal activity.
On February 6, 2009, I testified before the whole medical board at its regularly scheduled meeting, during the time allotted for public testimony, for the ten minutes assigned to me, on "Open Government: The Uncomfortable Challenge".
For ten long minutes I told every board member and every staff person who attended the meeting details about "state and federal crimes of which I am personally aware that have been committed by Mari Robinson."
Immediately prior to my testimony, Joel Simon Hochman MD also testified for about ten minutes. He told the whole board of no less than eighteen anonymous frivolous complaints against him he had fought and won.
The person who possibly is the most forthright and honest member of the medical board, Tim Webb, hurried out while I walked to the microphone. Mr. Webb and I had communicated several times personally and he was quite aware of my issues with Ms Robinson. Although Mr. Webb is still listed on the website of the TMB as a member, he apparently did not attend the February board meeting. Has he resigned and left the state? A preliminary investigation shows an answering service and a website which lists three contact emails that all bounce.
Two weeks later, the board brazenly notified me that it intended to suspend my license.
Four weeks after that, on March 24, 2009, on an emergency basis, my license was suspended. Jill Wiggins, former Public Information Officer, sent a press release stating as much and that the TMB had determined me to be "mentally impaired" and my behavior was "dishonorable and disloyal".
Ms Wiggins does not seem to be on TMB staff any longer, as I cannot find any references to her on the TMB website for 2010. The new Public Information Officer is Leigh Hopper, 512-305-7018 or leigh.hopper@tmb.state.tx.us.
I am developing a theory about the real origin of our national healthcare crisis. It relates to the takeover of healthcare by corporate interests due to government-mandated unfair competition. The private practice of medicine is restrained by Sherman Anti-trust, but insurance is not. The "equation" is unbalanced and insurance has won.
I believe it began in 1944 when the United State Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act applied to insurance. The insurance industry was becoming a national force and its lobbyists persuaded Congress to pass McCarran-Ferguson in 1945. McCarran-Ferguson exempts insurance from anti-trust. It is this unfair economic advantage which has enabled insurance companies to take over the practice of medicine. Most industries can only dream about sharing confidential private data, but the insurance industry does it with relish on a daily basis.
This extraordinary imbalance of power enabled Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, for example, to place its boy, Fred Merian MD, as president of the Texas Medical Association; its boy, Doug Curran MD, was president of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians; its boy, Keith E Miller MD, was chairman of the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Process Review Committee.
I was sham peer reviewed because I exposed the conflict of interest of Doug Curran and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Doug Curran bribed Keith Miller to get my medical license suspended.
How do I know? In a moment of unbridled arrogance, Doug Curran told me so.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Amanda Michel wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for joining ProPublica's Reporting Network. We just finished ProPublica's Super Bowl Blitz, a two week effort to find out which members of Congress got tickets to the Super Bowl and how they got them. More than fifteen news organizations jumped aboard as collaborators, as did a bunch of journalists and other members of the Reporting Network. You can read the final story here and see the project's results here.
We'll notify you when we launch our next project. In the meantime, if you've got ideas for us to pursue, please send 'em my way.
Best,
Amanda Michel
Dear Amanda,
I'm glad you asked about ideas for projects ProPublica should undertake.
The subject of "sham peer review" or "bad faith peer review" of medical professionals is in dire need of attention from skilled investigative journalists like those at ProPublica.
I began Texas Medical Board Watch in 2006 because I suspected I was the victim of sham peer review by the Texas Medical Board.
Sham peer review, known alternatively as bad faith peer review, is difficult to identify for sure, because even we doctors can be fooled as to the degree of the sham. Imagine how difficult it is for a medical board staffed mostly by lawyers without any experience in the practice of medicine, a jury, reporters, or the public to learn the truth. Texas Medical Board Watch and Texas Phoenix 007 (other names I've assumed) have developed a network of whistleblowers, medical and otherwise, who have been retaliated against because we exposed public and private corruption.
My material is published in emails, on scribd, Texas Phoenix 007, Medscape (Medscape > Physician Connect > Discussions > Non-Clinical > Open Forum > Disruptive Physician, but not in the mainstream media. You can find a few slanderous press releases from the Texas Medical Board on their site.
Mike Volpe has written five pieces about me.
Craig Malisow of the Houston Press, I think, smelled a rat when he wrote his story. Hairballs impressed me, because, in spite of the fact that he did not interview me prior to publishing it, his take is just about 100% correct. I congratulated him on that, but have not been able to persuade him to explore the issues any further. I am convinced that he has no idea the significance of the story he is sitting on.
Just how significant is retaliation against physician whistleblowers? The mission of Texas Medical Board Watch states it:
... to monitor performance of the Texas Medical Board and assure that it fulfills the mission assigned it by the Texas Legislature: Protect the health of Texans
The Board often abuses its power. Until peer review is fair, healthcare reform will remain an elusive goal.
Some of the doctors I now network with consider ourselves to be experts in sham peer review. We have ideas for medical board reform which we believe can assure that peer review is fair. The backbone of such a system would be a requirement that all physicians participate in peer review, unpaid, for continuing medical education credit, as a condition of licensure.
I tried explaining this to the current Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board Mari Robinson, but she won't listen. I have other beefs with Robinson, including allegations against her of a pattern and practice of criminal activity.
On February 6, 2009, I testified before the whole medical board at its regularly scheduled meeting, during the time allotted for public testimony, for the ten minutes assigned to me, on "Open Government: The Uncomfortable Challenge".
For ten long minutes I told every board member and every staff person who attended the meeting details about "state and federal crimes of which I am personally aware that have been committed by Mari Robinson."
Immediately prior to my testimony, Joel Simon Hochman MD also testified for about ten minutes. He told the whole board of no less than eighteen anonymous frivolous complaints against him he had fought and won.
The person who possibly is the most forthright and honest member of the medical board, Tim Webb, hurried out while I walked to the microphone. Mr. Webb and I had communicated several times personally and he was quite aware of my issues with Ms Robinson. Although Mr. Webb is still listed on the website of the TMB as a member, he apparently did not attend the February board meeting. Has he resigned and left the state? A preliminary investigation shows an answering service and a website which lists three contact emails that all bounce.
Two weeks later, the board brazenly notified me that it intended to suspend my license.
Four weeks after that, on March 24, 2009, on an emergency basis, my license was suspended. Jill Wiggins, former Public Information Officer, sent a press release stating as much and that the TMB had determined me to be "mentally impaired" and my behavior was "dishonorable and disloyal".
Ms Wiggins does not seem to be on TMB staff any longer, as I cannot find any references to her on the TMB website for 2010. The new Public Information Officer is Leigh Hopper, 512-305-7018 or leigh.hopper@tmb.state.tx.us.
I am developing a theory about the real origin of our national healthcare crisis. It relates to the takeover of healthcare by corporate interests due to government-mandated unfair competition. The private practice of medicine is restrained by Sherman Anti-trust, but insurance is not. The "equation" is unbalanced and insurance has won.
I believe it began in 1944 when the United State Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act applied to insurance. The insurance industry was becoming a national force and its lobbyists persuaded Congress to pass McCarran-Ferguson in 1945. McCarran-Ferguson exempts insurance from anti-trust. It is this unfair economic advantage which has enabled insurance companies to take over the practice of medicine. Most industries can only dream about sharing confidential private data, but the insurance industry does it with relish on a daily basis.
This extraordinary imbalance of power enabled Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, for example, to place its boy, Fred Merian MD, as president of the Texas Medical Association; its boy, Doug Curran MD, was president of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians; its boy, Keith E Miller MD, was chairman of the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Process Review Committee.
I was sham peer reviewed because I exposed the conflict of interest of Doug Curran and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Doug Curran bribed Keith Miller to get my medical license suspended.
How do I know? In a moment of unbridled arrogance, Doug Curran told me so.
Sincerely,
Shirley Pigott MD
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Amanda Michel
Hi,
Thank you for joining ProPublica's Reporting Network. We just finished ProPublica's Super Bowl Blitz, a two week effort to find out which members of Congress got tickets to the Super Bowl and how they got them. More than fifteen news organizations jumped aboard as collaborators, as did a bunch of journalists and other members of the Reporting Network. You can read the final story here and see the project's results here.
We'll notify you when we launch our next project. In the meantime, if you've got ideas for us to pursue, please send 'em my way.
Best,
Amanda Michel
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Making government work through your state medical board and elected representatives
Meetings of state medical boards are public meetings (open to the public) and should be attended by those people with a stake in health care. That's just about everyone, but it particularly applies to doctors and elected officials (and their staff). Doctors and their patients are the ultimate stakeholders. Elected officials should attend from time to time either in their roles as representatives of a constituent or in their roles of providing oversight. Their obligations to constituents require the legislator to make sure the process works as it is supposed to work. State agencies instruct legislators "not to interfere in a particular case", but that's wrong. They must 'interfere' enough to ensure that the process is fair.
An elected legislator takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not a state agency. It's the Constitution that protects the people from oppression by the state.
Those testifying before their state medical board will probably be asked to identify a topic in advance. They should become familiar with the state's Medical Practice Act.
Elected legislators can assist in reporting violations of the open government laws of a state agency to the Texas Attorney General. An expressed interest by your elected legislator can do wonders to improve TMB compliance with the law.
The TMB is an agency of the Executive Branch, which is overseen by the governor. As part of the checks and balances provided by our constitution and republican form of government, the TMB is also overseen by the legislature.
Government employees frequently try to escape responsibility for doing their jobs by saying things like "that's his job, not mine". They may direct you to someone else and then 'lose interest', particularly if they were never interested in the first place.
Lawyers have convinced legislators and their staff falsely that once a lawyer is retained, the legislator is somehow released of responsibility. This removes public oversight and is a major reason lawyers are so crooked. The framers of the constitution had no intention of letting private lawyers with their own personal agenda interfere with the workings of government. When have you ever seen a private attorney try to facilitate the workings of government? Lawyers actually threaten legislators with prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law for giving "legal advice". When it works to a lawyer's benefit, almost anything is 'legal advice'; when it works against a lawyer's personal agenda, the same thing is not. Weigh everything a lawyer says because they frequently mislead.
Without oversight of government functioning by elected representatives, we have taxation and other government oppression without representation.
If the Texas Medical Board cared one whit about the public health, they would step in when another state agency (in my case, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Office of the Texas Attorney General, through the Wharton County DA) starts beating up one of its licensee's. They should do this because they care about the rights of the doctor, but even more because they care about the doctor's patients. The failure of a state medical board in that regard should be called into account by the legislature, operating through oversight committees, such as the Texas House Committee on Public Health and the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services.
The average citizen should develop access to the oversight process through his own elected state representative and senator. A senator or representative who is serious about his oath to defend the constitution will facilitate citizen oversight of government. The senator or representative should NOT take his directions from the executive branch (ie the state agency). His loyalty should be to his constituent. Any other loyalties are a conflict of interest.
If a citizen is seeking protection from an oppressive or unresponsive state agency, he might look to any of several sources:
1. The Texas Department of Public Safety is an agency of this state created to provide public safety services to those people in the state of Texas by enforcing laws, administering regulatory programs, managing records, educating the public, and managing emergencies, both directly and through interaction with other agencies.
2. Direct contact with a board member of the agency. It is very difficult to contact a medical board member in Texas, and this deprives Texans of a way to make government work.
3. Contact with his own elected legislator. The staff of elected officials don't know all the answers and should be willing to learn along with the constituent. Their obligations and loyalties must always be to the constituent. When a staff person doesn't know the answer or understand a process, the constituent should be able to access the legislator himself. Be on guard that the staff person may be getting directions from another staff person who is no more knowledgeable OR from the state agency itself which has an inherent conflict of interest in hiding its oppression or unresponsiveness.
4. A citizen advocate or watchdog organization such as Texas Medical Board Watch.
This is also posted on scribd. View my other documents there.
Making Government Work Through Your Medical Board and Elected Representatives
Check out Medscape > Physician Connect > Non-clinical discussions > Open Forum > The Disruptive Physician
and
Jesus Rodriguez-Aguero MD v Texas Medical Board
An elected legislator takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not a state agency. It's the Constitution that protects the people from oppression by the state.
Those testifying before their state medical board will probably be asked to identify a topic in advance. They should become familiar with the state's Medical Practice Act.
Elected legislators can assist in reporting violations of the open government laws of a state agency to the Texas Attorney General. An expressed interest by your elected legislator can do wonders to improve TMB compliance with the law.
The TMB is an agency of the Executive Branch, which is overseen by the governor. As part of the checks and balances provided by our constitution and republican form of government, the TMB is also overseen by the legislature.
Government employees frequently try to escape responsibility for doing their jobs by saying things like "that's his job, not mine". They may direct you to someone else and then 'lose interest', particularly if they were never interested in the first place.
Lawyers have convinced legislators and their staff falsely that once a lawyer is retained, the legislator is somehow released of responsibility. This removes public oversight and is a major reason lawyers are so crooked. The framers of the constitution had no intention of letting private lawyers with their own personal agenda interfere with the workings of government. When have you ever seen a private attorney try to facilitate the workings of government? Lawyers actually threaten legislators with prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law for giving "legal advice". When it works to a lawyer's benefit, almost anything is 'legal advice'; when it works against a lawyer's personal agenda, the same thing is not. Weigh everything a lawyer says because they frequently mislead.
Without oversight of government functioning by elected representatives, we have taxation and other government oppression without representation.
If the Texas Medical Board cared one whit about the public health, they would step in when another state agency (in my case, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Office of the Texas Attorney General, through the Wharton County DA) starts beating up one of its licensee's. They should do this because they care about the rights of the doctor, but even more because they care about the doctor's patients. The failure of a state medical board in that regard should be called into account by the legislature, operating through oversight committees, such as the Texas House Committee on Public Health and the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services.
The average citizen should develop access to the oversight process through his own elected state representative and senator. A senator or representative who is serious about his oath to defend the constitution will facilitate citizen oversight of government. The senator or representative should NOT take his directions from the executive branch (ie the state agency). His loyalty should be to his constituent. Any other loyalties are a conflict of interest.
If a citizen is seeking protection from an oppressive or unresponsive state agency, he might look to any of several sources:
1. The Texas Department of Public Safety is an agency of this state created to provide public safety services to those people in the state of Texas by enforcing laws, administering regulatory programs, managing records, educating the public, and managing emergencies, both directly and through interaction with other agencies.
2. Direct contact with a board member of the agency. It is very difficult to contact a medical board member in Texas, and this deprives Texans of a way to make government work.
3. Contact with his own elected legislator. The staff of elected officials don't know all the answers and should be willing to learn along with the constituent. Their obligations and loyalties must always be to the constituent. When a staff person doesn't know the answer or understand a process, the constituent should be able to access the legislator himself. Be on guard that the staff person may be getting directions from another staff person who is no more knowledgeable OR from the state agency itself which has an inherent conflict of interest in hiding its oppression or unresponsiveness.
4. A citizen advocate or watchdog organization such as Texas Medical Board Watch.
This is also posted on scribd. View my other documents there.
Making Government Work Through Your Medical Board and Elected Representatives
Check out Medscape > Physician Connect > Non-clinical discussions > Open Forum > The Disruptive Physician
and
Jesus Rodriguez-Aguero MD v Texas Medical Board
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
