Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine

Article from The Valley Patriot Newspaper: “State Auditor’s Office Protects The Big Swamp From The Law.”

mllangan1 6 Comments

The article below by Dr. Bharani Padmanabhan was published in The Valley Patriot  in print in April.  Will update when it is available online.

Screen Shot 2018-05-12 at 3.43.21 PM

State Auditor’s Office Protects The Big Swamp From The Law

Bharani Padmanabhan MD PhD

People on food stamps are the lowest rung on the economic ladder, people who need charity just to eat. Going after poor people helps bureaucrats pretend they care about taxpayers. By targetting people on assistance, the state auditor’s office fools everyone by deflecting attention from its refusal to audit high crimes by the ‘elite’ reptiles in control of the Massachusetts swamp.

This week the state auditor’s office preened itself on identifying $10.7 million of Medicaid fraud. In absolute terms this $10.7 million is a hill of beans given that we lose $4 billion annually to healthcare fraud nationally. Given that Massachusetts’ fiscal 2018 healthcare budget is $21.7 billion, this $10.7 million is a convenient farce. Almost a rounding error at 0.049% of annual state health costs and 0.27% of the annual national fraud.

The auditor’s enabling statute, MGL ch. 11 § 12, declares: “Section 12. The department of the state auditor shall audit the accounts, programs, activities and functions directly related to the aforementioned accounts of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth, including those of districts and authorities created by the general court and including those of the income tax division of the department of revenue.” Note it says SHALL, not may if you feel like it.

The state auditor’s office goes after poor people to conceal the fact that the vast majority of our ‘departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities’ go totally unaudited. As a matter of common sense, where do you think the vast majority of the money disappears? Naturally we didn’t hear about the invisible State Police salaries from the state auditor either.

For three years now Dr Michael Langan and I have been trying to get the state auditor’s office to audit the state medical board and its illegal kickback relationship with the Massachusetts Medical Society. This effort involved emails and meetings in person with Deputy Auditor Ken Woodland and with Director William Keefe, who is with the Bureau of Special Investigations and allegedly the point person to combat white collar crime. As with everything to do with state government, reality is a bummer.

Dr Langan presented Keefe with hard evidence that showed Board lawyer Robert Harvey fabricated a false document to serve as a pretext for suspending a doctor’s license as punishment for refusing to pay extortion money to the medical society. A classic protection racket with license suspension as the Board’s form of breaking the victim’s leg. At a minimum it was Keefe’s duty to report Harvey to the SJC’s Bar Overseers for violating its Rules on Professional Conduct. Keefe did not.

Dr Langan presented Keefe with hard evidence that showed Asst. AG Bryan Bertram consciously lied to the court and concealed evidence of forensic fraud and obstruction. Exactly like the state lawyers did in the Sonja Farak case. At a minimum it was Keefe’s duty to report Bertram to the SJC’s Bar Overseers for violating the Rules and obstructing justice. He did not.

Dr Langan presented Keefe with hard evidence that showed a long-running procurement fraud and kickback scheme between the medical society and Board lawyers that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has been three years and the auditors have refused to audit, let alone report crime.

Two years ago I presented Deputy Auditor Woodland in person with documents showing the renting out of the Board by its lawyers to other doctors in order to ‘take out’ their competition. I also gave him documents showing the parking of tax dollars by the Board in a private foundation invisible to the public. A secret slush fund.

Here is Keefe’s response today (4/4/18): “Sir, As Ken and I have discussed with you and Michael, we will be looking into your concerns when we audit the agency. Bill Keefe.” So, when I report a crime, it is merely ‘my concern.’

It is very difficult to collect the documentary evidence but Dr Langan has done it. And the auditors are angry because now they cannot say they do not know.

Henry Morgenthau proved that everyone at the State dept. knew about the holocaust as it was unfolding and concealed the facts to avoid public pressure to save the Jews. Everyone at the state auditor’s office is no better.

The auditors know that these crimes by Board lawyers and the medical society caused numerous doctors to commit suicide in the prime of their life. These suicides occurred because the state auditor knew about the crimes and ongoing deaths of despair and did nothing. Same as the diplomats at State during the holocaust.

(Bharani Padmanabhan MD PhD is a multiple sclerosis neurologist. On July 12, 2017 the state medical board stole his license because he reported Medicaid fraud to the government. scleroplex@gmail.com)

Hats off to Dr. Padmanabhan for winning Newspaper’s Coveted 1st Amendment Award in exposing corruption at the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine –a puzzle piece the rest of the media needs to quit holding!

mllangan1 10 Comments

Article from the Valley Patriot Newspaper– Link Here

Representative DiZoglio, Dr. Padmanabhan Win Newspaper’s Coveted 1st Amendment Award

Screen Shot 2017-08-25 at 2.17.34 AM

Methuen State Representative Diana DiZoglio and Cambridge Doctor Bharani Padmanabhan were both bestowed one of the highest honors by The Valley Patriot newspaper last month, when they were each given the newspaper’s First Amendment Award.

Each year, The Valley Patriot’s 1st Amendment award is given to two individuals who show with their actions that they value the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. This award is given at our annual BASH in March.

Valley Patriot publisher Tom Duggan told the crowded room at the Firefighter’s Relief’s In (yes that’s s how it’s spelled) last month, that protecting and defending the first amendment was one of the most important things anyone in a free society can do.

“Winners of this award have made a significant difference in transparency in government, acted in a bipartisan way to protect the taxpayers, and gone above and beyond to defend and protect our right of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, and/or taking great risks to be a whistle-blower.”

“Each nominee tonight should be very proud of their Valley Patriot nomination whether they win or not.”

“In previous years, this award has been won by Massachusetts State Auditor Suzanne Bump, State Senator Kathleen O’Connor Ives, State Rep. Jim Lyons, and lifelong whistleblower Michael Sweeney (now the State Lottery Commissioner), who won the First Amendment Lifetime Achievement Award last year for his decades of exposing corruption in the City of Lawrence.”

Bharani-PadmanabhanDR. BHARANI PADMANABHAN

The first award tonight goes to Dr. Bharani Padmanabhan who has been exposing corruption in the medical industry for the last five years.

Dr. Bharani became a whistle blower when he found out that his Multiple Sclerosis patients at Cambridge Hospital were being misdiagnosed because medical professionals were faking reports of the brain scans of his and other doctor’s patients.”

“Dr. Bharani also got involved and defended free speech when the state tried to seal records in the Justine Pelletier case… a case where a sick child was kidnapped by the state, and whose parents were wrongly accused of abuse because… as we found out thanks to Dr. Bharani … Massachusetts state laws says that once a child becomes a ward of the state it is legal to conduct medical experiments on them. That’s 100% true,” Duggan said to the gasps of the crowd.

“So, when the state tried sealing the court records in the Pelletier case, Dr. Bharani filed a motion with the court on behalf of The Valley Patriot to have the records released to the public. Because he did that, those records were unsealed by a judge in Superior Court and we, the public, got to find out exactly how badly the Pelletier family and other families like them are treated by the medical community and the State of Massachusetts.”

“What’s more,” Duggan continued, “Dr. Bharani has been telling us for five years that the state’s Board of Registration in Medicine (called BORIM) was so corrupt that they had stripped him of his ability to bill his patients as retaliation for his whistle blowing at Cambridge Hospital. And if that was not bad enough, they are now trying to take his medical license despite the fact that he was cleared of any wrongdoing by Cambridge Hospital itself.”

“So, I went to the BORIM meeting and was absolutely stunned by what I saw. Now remember, I cover Lawrence so it takes a hell of a lot to stun me. This public board, which is paid for with public dollars and appointed by public officials, refused to allow public participation at a public meeting. They held parts of their meeting in secret, refused to allow the doctor to have a legal representative present during their secret hearing on his case and, even with the knowledge that a reporter was in the room, admitted publicly that they do not follow Roberts Rules of Order and do not allow transparency.”

“Honestly, after reading Dr. Bharani’s columns over the last few years in the pages of our paper, I was looking forward to learning the other side of this conflict. In fact, I fully expected to attend this meeting, hear the other side’s evidence against the doctor, and walk out of that meeting saying to him, “now that I know the other side, you are full of shit.’”

“But, instead, I walked out of there shaking my head that the corruption, lack of transparency, arrogance, and steamrolling being done by BORIM was actually worse than Dr. Bharani initially said it was. Clearly, if it wasn’t for Dr. Bharani, there’s a whole host of corruption in the medical field in Massachusetts that we would never know about.”

duggan-dizoglio96

STATE REP. DIANA DIZOGLIO

“Our second, 1st Amendment Award tonight goes to State Rep. Diana DiZoglio. Four years ago I submitted a bill to change the state’s public records law, because there is no punishment for officials who violate it. It was State Rep. Diana DiZoglio, along with our 2014 winner, Senator Katy Ives, who sat down with me, walked me through the process of how to get a bill passed, and then fought for our public records bill.”

“But, she not only fought for it publicly, she also worked behind the scenes to help us get this bill passed. Unlike some of the other legislators involved with this bill, not mentioning any names, Diana was actually proactive and didn’t act like some others who think I should feel blessed that she even takes my calls. She called me every single time she heard anything about the progress of the bill, she testified at subcommittee meetings, and kept an open line of communication with my office. And, unlike some other legislators, she invited me to The State House to meet with legislators who were trying to change the language of my bill so that we could explain together why it was so important punish officials who willingly violate our state’s public records law.”
Thanks to Diana, and to be fair many others, my bill got a unanimous vote in the House, a unanimous vote in the Senate and we are expecting Governor Charlie Baker to sign the bill into law this year.

“She was nominated last year and the year before, but this year I am proud to say that our winners are Methuen State Representative Diana DiZloglio and Dr. Bharani Padmanabhan!”

New Public Records Law revealing MA medical board counsel concealed criminal fraud for years; Major misrepresentations made by defense counsel to court. Falsehoods with no factual basis.

mllangan1 5 Comments
Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 5.40.38 PM
On June 3, 2016  Governor  Baker signed House Bill 4333 imposing greater accountability on state agencies  when responding to public records requests.  This includes shorter time frames to respond to requests (10-days for most), the provision of complete and legible records and appointing a Primary Records Access Officer to handle such requests.  The new Public Records Law also subjects agencies to sanctions for failure to comply.with the new law.
On  January 9, 2017  I submitted a Public Records Request  through the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) Website  for a dozen or so documents that had been submitted for board hearings but never directly addressed and containing textual content with evidence that was never weighed.   Moreover, many of the documents provided direct evidence of crimes (no other is evidence needed).
All of these documents were provided  to Board counsel Deb Stoller.
Today, Sunday March 12, is the beginning of daylight savings time. It also marks the beginning of  Sunshine Week, a national celebration started in  Florida 15  years ago to promote open government, transparency and accountability.   Transparency is about shedding light.  Transparency can bring accountability, and, often, meaningful reform.
Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 3.29.35 PMIn response to a request for documents submitted for specific board hearings the board has not provided a single satisfactory response.   They have not been able to  provide a single document that is chronologically consistent with it being considered at the board  hearing for which it was submitted.   I had no expectations they would and this was the precise point of my record request.  These are documents that should exist but do not exist. The vault is empty.    None of the documents are in the records because they were suppressed on arrival and never got to the full board.  They never considered any of it.  The records do not exist.
Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 5.39.29 PM It has now been over two months and this shows how transparency is not just about shedding light on what is there but what is not there–transparency can also illuminate contrivances and lies.  If these documents existed then they would have provided them long ago and this is all coming to light as a result of Public Records Division staff enforcing new  Public Records Law and they should be applauded for their integrity, honesty and genuine concern.    In a culture of deference, impunity and apathy where giving allowances are the rule rather than the exception this agency deserves an A+ amidst a sea of D’s and F’s.
 
Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 5.41.12 PM.png
The majority of documents provided have illegible or missing dates.   Undated documents have no value.   Analyzing any dataset requires  that  data-points be annotated with reliable timestamps that signify when the textual content was created and this is especially important with records that accumulate over time. Documents with message content passed on to others must be annotated with reliable timestamps that signify when the textual content was received and acknowledged by the receiver.
The  Board Records obtained June 2016  provided  pretty clear evidence that the documents were concealed .  The only documents with a decipherable date stamp included a  December 15, 2011 letter requesting an attached  “litigation packet” be provided to the board for consideration at a December 21, 2011 hearing,  The documents are all date stamped  January 17, 2012.  (nearly one month after the hearing).    AAG  Bertram dismissed the timestamp and claimed it did not reflect when it was entered into evidence but when it was scanned into the computerized records.  In truth they should be one and the same and if that is the case then where is the timestamp reflecting when it was  entered into evidence?    Bertram  claimed this occurs  after hearings not before.  It all defies common sense.
The January 9, 2017 request specifically requested a copy of the documents from the “administrative record” compiled for the December 21, 2011  hearing but in response they returned the same documents provided December 15, 2011 but date stamped January 17, 2012  –nearly a month after the hearing.
Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 3.01.29 AM
The simple and straightforward request was made again and an appeal was filed requesting provision of the documents requested. Thankfully the  Public Records Division staff attorneys have not accepted  the logical fallacies and half-truths presented to deflect and dismiss a simple and straightforward request for documents. Supervisor of Records Rebecca Murray Ordered the  board provide a revised response and we obtained every document related to the December 2011 “litigation packet” that exists and all of the materials that Bertram claims were retrieved from storage.  All of it can be seen here:
It is a dataset with an N of 1. The only document retrieved from storage is the original December 15, 2011 letter requesting the “litigation packet” be submitted for consideration at the December 21, 2011 hearing and all of it is date-stamped  January 17, 2012 and this precludes the existence of any earlier copies.   No other copies exist!
 Take a look at the letter and all of the pages of the “litigation packet” as they are pristine.  No notations, initials, dates, scribbles or signatures.   So how were these documents “considered” at the December 21, 2011 board hearing?  At almost 50-pages did they all huddle around it or pass it around the room.
The simple fact is they were never considered by the board.  They were sitting in a drawer for a month (my guess under a bunch of moon pies and diet cokes) and then put in the system well after the hearing so no one would notice.
 In his cover letter RAO Dolan reiterates the ridiculous claim that  the date-stamp reflects when it was “bulk-scanned ” into the electronic archives and not when it was “presented to the board.”   What would be the purpose of putting timestamps on documents that have no meaning?   This is a bald faced lie and I want to call him on it.   Evidence presented for any hearing must be submitted and entered into the record before not after hearings. This is common sense but to put this to rest we can turn to the  2012  Manual for Conducting Administrative Adjudicatory Proceedings  which outlines how administrative proceedings are conducted  by professional boards.  It was also edited by AAG Quinan, the Managing Attorney of the Administrative Law, Government Bureau–the Department AAG Bertram is part of    The  “administrative record” is listed as one of the “basic principles” in chapter 1  and is second only to  “due process” M.G.L. c. 30A, § 11(8).    An administrative record must be compiled for every board hearing and indexed.   “The record is everything that is properly before the decision maker in rendering the decision.”
The manual makes it crystal clear that evidence must be compiled before hearings and anything not compiled before the hearing must be excluded!  Bertram also claimed that  “board staff”  reviewed its records and minutes and retrieved  from “off-site storage” the “materials”   that were before the Board in December 2011.”

1 The Board’s staff has reviewed its records and confirmed this to be the case.

2 To be sure, and to put this matter to rest for the Court once and for all, the Board has retrieved from off­site storage those materials before the Board in December 2011. The documents that Dr. Langan claims were “suppressed” are in fact there—and this should not be surprising given the Board’s many orders since that time, all of which have disclaimed any reliance on the July 2011 PEth test.

3 The Board’s staff has confirmed this by reviewing its minutes and confirmed this to be the case.

It has now been confirmed that the only “materials”  that exist are the documents themselves  and they are dated January 17, 2012 and this does not confirm but refutes Bertram’s claims.   In sum not a single data-point exists to support this document was before the board on December 21, 2011.   Moreover, the document provides direct evidence of crimes (no other evidence is needed).

I have requested that Bertram either provide documentation to support his footnoted claims or reveal to the court the misrepresentations.   As a government attorney he is obligated to reveal falsehood and perjury and I requested he do so.  But instead of revealing  no materials from off-site exist to support his claims he notified the court of his misrepresentation that by “offsite storage” he meant “basement”

He mentioned nothing about these major misrepresentations and dug his heels in deeper claiming that board staff did indeed   “retrieve and review those documents” and claims his “footnote representation remains uncompromised.”    His footnote representations no longer remain uncompromised.  At this point I’d say they are pretty compromised–the false contrivances are in actual fact shattered.

The off-point Bertram letter can be seen here:   ( Attachment B (6) )   “Uncompromised is a poor choice of words Mr. Bertram as “shattered” or “demolished” would be more appropriate.
Bertram claimed agency level investigation confirmed documents were before the board in December of 2011

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 10.32.40 PM

Reviewing Records and Minutes

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 10.33.39 PM

Retrieving Materials

The Reality

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 5.51.35 PM

These documents provide direct evidence of crimes (no other evidence is needed).

Bertram was also asked to address the “chain-of-custody error” misrepresentation.  The documents show intentional fraud.  This is no error.    The laboratory fraud seen here is similar to that of Annie Dookhan but the documents here show both of the parties involved; a state physician health program and one of the labs contracted by state physician health programs nationwide.   Precise and detailed documentation of forensic fraud was provided to a state attorney in 2011 but she concealed the documents. . I pointed this out to Bertram from the beginning and I also told him of all of the suicides that have occurred because of bogus tests just like this one.  He did not seem to care.   I notified him of another one here in Massachusetts;  a good doctor and a good person who was also subject to falsified testing and injustice involving the same actors.   I am hopeful that the transparency being provided here will lead to accountability.   Both of these attorneys need to be held accountable.

An attorney must have a factual basis for alluding to, offering or relying on evidence and that factual basis may not be wishful thinking.  There are two requirements for a factual basis — an attorney’s subjective belief and objective evidence to support that belief.

It is now established that no objective evidence exists.  Not a shred of evidence exists.

Not a single date-point with  a reliable timestamp is chronologically consistent with these documents being before the board.

Please donate to my Gofundme-  At this point I really need funding to mount a quick and effective response to these new developments.   Exposing these crooked attorneys would be a great step forward for all of PHP reform.  Please help me out.

https://www.gofundme.com/PHPReform

Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 10.24.17 PM

.,

I am Offering Over $25,000 in cool prizes to anyone who can show past FSPHP President Sanchez did not commit at least 3 felonies based on documentary evidence alone! I claim the documents show direct evidence of multiple serious crimes –prove me wrong and the whole lot is yours!

mllangan1 7 Comments

screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-12-18-42-pm

According to Erich Fromm rational authority is based on competence, experience, and mutual respect.  Irrational authority is often disguised as benevolent paternalism and is designed to perpetuate or intensify conditions of inequality through the use or threat of force, deceptiveness, and secretiveness.

The Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP) has has operated as an unexamined authority for the past 25-years .  They have pushed practice and policy unquestioned and without opposition that has gravely harmed individual doctors, the medical profession itself and the public at large.  Everything they have done has been done to benefit themselves and their drug and alcohol assessment, testing and treatment affiliates in the provision of protections, power and profits.

Examining the specific practice and policy pushed reveals a body of false-claims making designed to facilitate the systemic use of coercion and threats, remove all due process protections and fundamental rights from physicians and prevent, block and eliminate the evidence.  This practice and policy collective has created a culture of impunity, immunity and deference that is able to successfully conceal ethical violations and crimes.  Uncovering their wrongdoing is a nearly impenetrable gauntlet. It is a system of institutional injustice that is undoubtedly a major contributor to the suicide epidemic in the profession.  They have been able to conceal the truth, avoid investigation and prevent punishment for years by removing themselves from all accountability and outside inquiry. Direct and specific questioning appears to be their Achille’s heel as the recent spat of articles critical of these programs is showing just how much of an illegitimate authority they really are.

In her rebuttal to Pauline Anderson’s article “Physician Health Programs: More Harm Than Good?” FSPHP President Doris Gunderson dismissed the accusations of fraud and abuse in one fell swoop as  “allegations rather than facts” and second hand anecdotes.  Countering allegations of an absence of oversight and regulation she states:

screen-shot-2016-01-13-at-9-56-37-am

“In fact, we operate under a microscope, answering to individual practitioners, medical boards, malpractice carriers, defense attorneys, state attorneys, medical societies, hospitals, medical schools and residency training programs. We are also accountable to patient safety entities and a Board of Directors.”

Untrue. Accountability demands both provision of information and justification for actions to outside entities capable of punishing misconduct. . What was done and why?  No such entity exists and no pathway for appeal or grievance redressal exists either. Zero accountability.  Ditto for the “PHP-approved” assessment and treatment centers. As cash only out-of-pocket facility they remove themselves from the prying eyes of insurers.

screen-shot-2016-01-13-at-9-55-47-amThe North Carolina PHP Audit  found the past FSPHP President and NC PHP director Warren Pendergast could not identify the qualitative or quantitative indicators used for “approving”  PHP-approved facilities. The best he could come up with is “reputation” and “word of mouth” yet state medical boards mandate evaluations of doctors at these  facilities and specifically exclude  non-“PHP-approved” facilities.This is enforced by the Federation of State Medical Boards Policy on Physician Impairment.  Each state managed by the FSPHP utilizes the same dozen or so facilities and each state medical board mandates it under threat of disciplinary action.  It is in fact a rigged game.

Denying accusations of coercion Gunderson states in her rebuttal to Anderson’s article:

“The detractors of PHPs interviewed for the article maintain that PHPs are coercive. Yet the report fails to mention that PHPs have no authority to mandate treatment and monitoring, suspend or revoke licensure, or otherwise discipline physicians.”

screen-shot-2015-10-07-at-7-11-18-pmThe report fails to mention it because it is more either/or logical fallacy based on the false dichotomy between “treatment” and “punishment” that is often used to promote the FSPHP mythology.  Although PHPs do not have the legal authority to mandate, suspend or revoke a license they have the functional authority to do so.   This is also dictated by public policy.  (ASAM Policy on Coordination Between Treatment Providers,  Professionals Health Programs, and Regulatory Agencies).

Legitimate authority articulates ethical, evidence-based, or internally consistent arguments when challenged.  Legitimate authority does not simply delegitimize one’s opponent and use logical fallacy and obfuscation to avoid addressing the substance of an argument. In her rebuttal Gunderson claims the NC Audit was favorable to them because no evidence of abuse was found.  This is akin to a serial killer claiming victory because no bodies were found in his dungeon replete with torture devices and restraints. State auditor Beth Wood set this straight when she told the BMJ in  Physician Health Programs Under Fire  that the holes were big enough in the program “you could drive a truck through them” and it would be “difficult, if not impossible, to defend” oneself against an incorrect assessment” as no ability to “appeal a diagnosis or assessment” existed.

screen-shot-2016-01-13-at-9-52-11-am“Compounding the problem, said Wood, was that “the chief executive and medical director were in total control of entire process.” They assessed allegedly impaired doctors, but when those assessments were contested, they were responsible for presenting complaints to the state medical board. The doctors concerned were not allowed to be present and were not allowed to see the programs’ medical reports on them.”

Multiple Barriers Removing Accountability at Multiple Levels

The  inability to obtain one’s own medical records or lab reports is the first obstacle one must overcome. The second barrier is that even if documents are obtained there is no one to give them to.  The third is the existence of “point people” who deflect, block and otherwise dismiss valid complaints.  The only oversight provided to the involved labs is an an accreditation agency, the  College of American Pathologists (CAP) They can investigate and correct but do not have the ability to sanction.

screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-1-13-29-pmOf the many hundreds of doctors I have spoken to and who have taken my survey not one has been able to obtain evidence of abuse.  It was either refused, censored or doctored.   I have obtained documentary evidence that is specific, detailed and unequivocal.

It is therefore critical it be recognized for what it shows and it is morally imperative that those involved be held to account as the documents illustrate clearly and undeniably a collusion between a state PHP and its drug testing lab to fabricate evidence.  The corruption is top-down as it involves another former FSPHP President Luis Sanchez and the VP of Laboratory operations at USDTL Joseph Jones.  As explicit and detailed as it is in revealing unequivocal  black and white crimes it has been ignored by the usual channels.

Research on street criminals suggests the certainty of punishment has the strongest deterrent effect (basically will I be caught) and the more people think they will be arrested for a crime the less likely they are to commit it. Criminals weigh their actions against possible gains and consequences and the risk of consequences in this system have been essentially zero.  Diagnosis rigging, coercion, threats and abuse are rampant because they have no fear of punishment.  The Chairman of the commission that examined the  causes of the 2008 financial collapse compared the  relatively small fines paid by corporations to “someone who robs a 7-Eleven, takes $1,000 and being able to settle for $25 and no admission of wrongdoing.” He added,“Will they do it again? Absolutely, because it pays.” This is like someone who robs a 7-Eleven, takes $1,000 and never gets caught so he goes to the next 7-Eleven and takes $2000 then hits as many 7-Elevens as he can for as much as he can.

Multiple Crimes, Multiple Felonies and Egregious Misconduct.  Fabrication, Falsification, Concealment and Perjured Evidence. Color-of-Law Abuse, Civil Rights Violations 

In June of 2011 I signed a patent-license agreement with a company to bring an epinephrine auto-injector to FDA approval  within three years.  It was recently mentioned in an NBC news article in the wake of Mylan’s Epipen price hike and the patent  documents can be seen here and a slideshare overview here.  This was successfully derailed the following month when I was asked by the state PHP to have an alcohol test.  This was for no apparent reason. I have never been accused of having an alcohol problem and my work performance at MGH was reported as “impeccable.” There were no issues in any arena.  The events are described in detail here, here, and here.

The blood test was reported positive to the medical board on July 19, 2011 as seen here:   positive-peth-july-19-2011    I requested records but PHS refused but relented in December 2011 and I obtained the   USDTL Litigation Packet  which contained a faxed request from PHS to the lab requesting my unique  identification number and a “chain-of-custody” be added to an already positive report See key docs here.:12:3:2011 Litigation Packet (Selected)

The records showed falsely created and fabricated evidence. Clear fraud. I filed a complaint with the College of American Pathologists CAPLetter.  They investigated and forced USDTL to correct the test as reported in an  October 4, 2012 letter from the lab to Sanchez. Instead of revealing the correction the two concealed the revision and reported “non-compliance”  two weeks later  and board took disciplinary action against my license.  In December 2012 CAP contacted me to followup on the outcome of the revised test which I was unaware of.   I informed them they did not tell me and confronted  PHS but they claimed no knowledge of it.. On December 11, 2012 Sanchez reports to the board that he just found out that the test was revised but it had nothing to do with the disciplinary action taken by the board..  Sanchez and Jones deny there was any correction 67-days earlier and stand by their guns.

In August of 2014 I was able to obtain the complete USDTL documents under new HIPPA-Privacy Rule for labs which removed PHS approval.  Full docs can be seen here:  August 6, 2014 to Langan with health materials.   The  October 4, 2012 correction from USDTL to Sanchez  contradicting Sanchez claim of not finding out about the correction until December is included.Note the language used in the  Letter claiming Sanchez was informed of the revised  test 67-days after he actually was.

Recently obtained documents under records reform act –  Langan PDF copy  They show documents entered as evidence date-stamped and entered into the administrative record after the hearings at which they were to be heard.   Multiple others missing and never addressed.   It is now clear that Stoller concealed all documents relating to PHS misconduct since December of 2011.

Specific and detailed evidence of criminal activity was provided to Board Attorney Deb Stoller over the course of more than five-years. This showed clear collusion between the state physician health program and one of their preferred national drug testing labs.  It is important to recognize the gravity of what this means.   I provided a state officer with evidence of crimes similar to Annie Dookhan–clear fabrication and collusion to fabricate evidence. She suppressed it.     This is much much worse than Annie Dookhan as the lab is used by state physician health programs across the country and over the past five-years their have been multiple suicides of doctors who have allegedly been given fabricated drug and alcohol tests just like mine.    Many of these doctors were given positive tests right before they were to complete a 5-year contract and this is a pattern that seems to be occurring as the rule rather than the exception.   Facing five more years of abuse some doctors have chosen to end their lives rather than continue with the PHP.

Specific and detailed evidence of the fraud was given to Deb Stoller over the course of five-years and she did nothing about it to protect Sanchez.   The impact of this is much greater and the consequences much more severe than what occurred with Dookhan.  As The documents clearly showed felony crimes this is egregious and indefensible.

screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-1-14-00-pmWhat is chilling is that this request to falsify evidence was done by fax and the lab complied with full knowledge that the positive-test would result in grave and possibly permanent consequences for someone.  The moral detachment of Jones is incomprehensible to me.  If I was offered a  million dollars at this moment to fabricate a drug test on some stranger I would not do it. I would not for any amount of money and I don not believe the majority of my friends would either.I also contacted Jones (  August 6, 2014 to Langan with health materials ) and told him of the severe consequences this was having for my family but he did not respond.   Had it not been for the new HIPAA -Privacy rule I would never have obtained these documents and without the record reforms act I would never have obtained the evidence implicating Stoller ( Langan PDF copy )

screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-1-13-52-pmIt is now time to enter phase two of exposing the corruption of PHPs. It is now necessary to necessary to relentlessly contradict the lies and falsehoods and and present the evidence with logic and clarity.    It is necessary to name names, point fingers and demand that direct and specific answers to direct and specific questions.  It is time to shine a bright light on the specific  unethical and illegal acts detailed here. They are the rule not the exception and the diagnostic rigging and forensic fraud make these more murders than suicides. This is a public health emergency.   By my estimates over 80% of those being monitored by PHPs do not even meet the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder or any other psychiatric disorder.  It is political abuse of psychiatry.

screen-shot-2016-04-26-at-10-58-19-pmLegitimate authority has a responsibility to be truthful to one’s words and deeds and policies need to be enforced in a consistent manner.  State PHPs are engaging in fraud in collusion with their preferred drug and alcohol assessment, testing and treatment centers.   They are giving diagnoses to individuals who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for a given diagnosis to provided unneeded treatment. They are financially exploiting doctors under threat of disciplinary action against there medical licenses.

screen-shot-2016-09-09-at-3-58-30-am

The Board claims no crimes were committed because no one has been charged with any crimes.  No, Dr. Sanchez has committed very serious crimes including multiple felonies. This can no longer be ignored. These crimes can be determined by the documentary evidence alone. They are self-evident.

To settle the matter once and for all I am offering over $25,000.00 in cool prizes to the first person who can disprove my claim that Dr. Sanchez committed multiple felonies.    My claim is that by simply looking at the dates and documents multiple felonies are clear.  They are not equivocal.  The first person to disprove this assertion may collect each and every item pictured below.  You can even write up a legally binding contract and I will sign it. There is something for everyone and if anyone has any questions about any of it feel free to ask.screen-shot-2016-09-09-at-7-26-42-pm

To summarize,  I can find multiple clear  felonies in the documents that need no further inquiry. They are black letter law and involve fraud, concealment, perjury and other crimes.  Policies and laws need to be enforced equally.   The Board cannot play favorites and give allowances to its friends when it comes to criminal activity.  Sanchez is licensed by the medical board just as I am and the screen-shot-2016-09-09-at-9-08-18-pmboard’s position on the fraudulent practice of medicine is quite clear.

One felony would be demand the board address what is seen here.  Multiple felonies make it inexcusable to ignore and if it is ignored it will be relentlessly addressed again and again and again.   As it is so difficult to obtain evidence it is necessary that this be addressed with full measure as a precedent.  People just like this are harming good doctors across the country and unless you are profiting from the drug and alcohol testing and treatment racket you should be disgusted at what is seen here.   The fact that Sanchez pontificates on the behavior of others makes this particularly egregious.  Moreover, Jones also tests newborns and other groups with these same tests.  If he is this unethical who knows what amount of damage has occurred.  Anyone of integrity and conscience should be outraged by what is seen here.  As it is one of the clearest and most specific examples of laboratory fraud I am going to be asking for help getting this out–it should be used to show how this type of drug and alcohol testing can be abused.

Direct and specific questions deserve direct and specific answers. This will need to be addressed directly as it is not going away and neither am I.   If cannot disprove fewer than three felonies than they need to be addressed.   Suspect similar point-people in other agencies protecting them.

If multiple felonies were not committed then  you would think at this very moment there should be people knocking on the door trying to get my attention so they can collect these prizes.    I don’t hear anybody knocking, do you?

screen-shot-2016-02-09-at-3-39-27-am

Prizes as Below

IMG_0179.JPG
img_0476
img_4773
img_0319
IMG_0495.JPG
img_0991-1
img_0326
crop0126
IMG_1488
img_0589
img_0586
img_0587
img_0585
image1
image014
image002
image006
image012
image010
IMG_1833
screen-shot-2015-09-26-at-6-13-12-pm
screen-shot-2016-10-10-at-7-10-24-pm
screen-shot-2015-08-31-at-12-18-59-am
img_1154
img_1176
img_1156
img_8993
img_8992
img_0576
IMG_1086
IMG_0284
IMG_0581
IMG_1010
IMG_8993
IMG_8994
IMG_0635
IMG_8993
IMG_0576
IMG_1010
IMG_0933
IMG_8996
IMG_8995
IMG_0584
IMG_8993
IMG_8994
IMG_8998
img_1846
img_1838
img_1152
img_1025
img_5688
img_1839
img_1838
img_1841
img_1829
img_1025
img_1020

Concealing crimes at the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine: Why is this swamp not being drained?

mllangan1 8 Comments

Screen Shot 2017-01-12 at 2.58.39 PM.png

 Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets- Robert De Niro

Massachusetts Public Records – House Bill 4333

On June 3, 2016, Governor Charlie Baker signed into law the first update to Massachusetts’s public records law since 1973.  The law seeks to make government entities more accountable, accessible, and efficient in their management of requests for information and mandates that each state agency delegate at least one employee to be a “records access officer.” The bill also imposes a shorter timeframe to respond to record requests. Agencies have a 10-day window to produce the requested documents or to respond and if they refuse or are unable to produce a record within 10 days they must notify the requestor and if an agency agrees to provide records outside the 10  day window it only has 15 days to do so.

When this Bill was signed I immediately requested a number of documents from the Medical Board as I assumed its implementation straightaway. They must have thought the same as on June 8, 2016, the very next day, I was provided every one of the documents I requested by Board paralegal Board Katy Condon but only one of them had a decipherable date stamp,the  December 3, 2011 “Litigation Packet” (pages 4-49). A “litigation packet” is generated in any and all forensic drug testing for legal purposes.  It documents when and where a specimen is at any point in time from collection to analysis.  It documents the specimen’s “chain-of-custody.”

The “Litigation Packet”was provided to Board counsel Deb Stoller  with a letter from my attorney requesting it be entered as evidence for a December 21, 2011 Board hearing.  The letter is dated December 15, 2011 but the date stamp on it and every page of the “litigation packet” appears to be  January 17, 2012. This was the copy provided by the Board in June. January 17th, 2012 is almost one month after the hearing.All of the other documents have illegible or absent dates.

screen-shot-2015-11-17-at-11-00-44-pm These documents were requested to determine if they were ever entered into evidence as none of them had ever been addressed. The date-stamps confirm they were not.  Requests to clarify the illegible dates have been curtailed and rebuffed with  the last response being  June 17, 2016 when  Katy Condon  E-mailed me that she was  “currently working on it.”

There is no evidence in the record that any of the documents requested were ever considered by anybody.  There is no evidence they were ever even acknowledged.

The “litigation packet” in addition to other documents show direct evidence of crimes.  No other evidence is needed.  The “litigation packet” proved the positive blood test reported by Sanchez  July 19, 2011 was not only invalid but falsely created by the state PHP and drug testing lab. He  reported it that very same day.  A  July 19, 2011`fax to the lab requests my  ID  number (#1310) be tacked onto an already positive test and a collection date be added to “reflect” that chain-of-custody” was maintained.   It wasn’t. A “chain-of-custody” is created in real time. A diagnosis cannot be “tailored” and a chain of custody cannot be “updated.” To do so is fraud but both seem to be standard operating procedure in the physician health swamp.  The lab followed the instructions with no apparent hesitation or concern as if it was a fast-food order.  “Have it your way” drug and alcohol testing.  The mechanics of lab fraud do not get much clearer than this.  Lab fraud does not get much clearer than this.  It is “dry labbing” in the same manner as Annie Dookhan. The crimes are serious and undeniable.  My offer of 25,000 $ to  anyone who can show that Sanchez committed less than three felonies  still has no contenders.  If less than three felonies were involved than someone would be knocking on my door and I don’t hear any knocking.

screen-shot-2016-02-09-at-3-40-26-am None of the sleazy misconduct here has  ever been addressed. This is not just evidence withheld but crimes concealed and the seriousness and severity of this needs to register somewhere.  The fact of the matter is a state attorney was made aware of felony crimes that were  committed by identifiable individuals in obvious conspiratorial collusion to falsely create evidence.  The intentions are clear. This is not accidental but deliberate. The documents were provided to a state employee who  instead of  reporting what they revealed, concealed them and never brought them up again. Sanchez  is a Board of Registration in Medicine licensee.  He must abide by the same rules and regulations and laws as everyone else.  Allowances and selective application of the law are not part of good governance.

Assistant AGO Bertram, however, refers to these documents as a “chain-of-custody” issue that was “disregarded.”  This is nothing more than willful ignorance.  Any schoolchild could recognize this. In response to the date-stamp on the documents close to one month after the hearing he claimed that documents are entered into the electronic database after hearings not before hearings.  Any reasonable person knows that evidence is entered prior to a hearing not before. By what logic is this argument even imagined?  I suppose in a place where diagnoses are “tailored” and you are able to “update” a chain of custody that one could submit evidence after the hearing at which it was supposed to be heard but this is the real world where fact, truth and evidence matter.  We don’t make it up as we go along.  An Administrative Record  is compiled for the proceeding not after the proceeding and a manual put out by his department in his own agency even corroborates the sequence.  The  2012 Manual for Conducting Administrative Adjudicatory Proceedings; Edited by  Assistant Attorney General Robert L Quinan Jr of the Administrative Law Division states:

Before the hearing, the presiding officer and all board members who expect to attend the hearing should review the administrative record as it has developed up to that point in the case including,,,, any documents that have been submitted prior to the hearing. Note, however, that any such materials that are not admitted into evidence at the hearing may not be relied upon by the board in its decision. M.G.L. c. 30A, § 11(4).
If a party intends to introduce a document into evidence at the hearing, copies of it should be provided to the other parties and to the presiding officer ahead of time. A document that was not provided to other parties, if complicated, may be disregarded by the presiding officer and excluded from consideration at his discretion. (The exclusion should be noted and a copy of the document placed in the record.) It is best that all exhibits be labeled prior to the hearing.

screen-shot-2016-02-02-at-2-08-09-amThe crimes here are not Annie Dookhan level  misconduct isolated to just Massachusetts either.  The documents sho collusion between a state physician health program and its drug-testing lab, a pattern that appears to be standard operating procedure as allegations of laboratory fraud as well as diagnosis fraud are coming in all across the country and the consequences of these tests can be grave.  These tests end careers and can end lives.  I know of multiple suicides due to allegedly false tests; many using this same test. The fact that the falsified test was requested by fax and complied with without  hesitation shows a chilling absence of empathy.  It is unconscionable.  These are more murders than suicides as it is an institutional injustice with no lifeline. No outside agency exists with authority to both investigate lab misconduct and provide punishment if it is found.

Stoller was provided direct evidence of crimes over five years ago. It is precise, clear and repugnant. How many careers have been derailed since that time?  How many innocent people have died by suicide since that time?  As a state agent it is Stoller’s  duty to report a crime when she sees a crime. A criminal investigation should have ensued. Overlooking corruption allows it to fester and spread and that is exactly what she did.  She concealed it.  This is top-down corruption also.  Sanchez is past President of the Federation of State Physician Health Pr0grams (FSPHP) and his accomplice is the VP of Laboratory Operations at the drug testing lab-an unethical tone-at-the-top if there ever was one.

Other documents have illegible and missing dates.   Full records from the lab were obtained in August of 2014 and these were also submitted  to Stoller for a hearing. But they have absolutely no date-stamp.   The documents reveal Sanchez was made aware the test he and the lab falsely created was invalidated by the lab  67-days before he claimed to have known and just two weeks before he reported “noncompliance”  to the Board.  A report to him from the lab dated October 4, 2012  provides direct evidence of perjury and concealment.  No other evidence is needed.

imageThese documents show crimes.  I have re-requested these records under HB 4333 as well as documents that Bertram claims “puts the matter to rest.” He claims they reviewed their “records” and “minutes’ for the December 21, 2011 hearing and all of this was “carefully considered.” This  begs the question has anyone else outside this circle ever even looked at these documents?  They were never considered and if the Board complies with HB 4333 the uncensored documents will add to the already overwhelming evidence that this is the case. It is certain that every illegible date uncovered will reveal a date sometime after the  hearing for which it was submitted.   The documents  retrieved from “off-site storage”  does not exist.  The Board has not used off-site storage since 2004 when they installed the Document Imaging Unit. This fact can be found in multiple annual reports and other documents.   The question are they trying to cover-up a cover-up of a cover-up?  Why is he going to such great lengths to protect criminals,  allow this racket to continue and inevitably cause a great deal of harm to many?   Rules of professional conduct forbid attorney’s from being complicit in fraud.  The obvious cannot be ignored.  These are crimes and both the commission and concealment of them are egregious. This is not simply a matter of withholding evidence but of concealing crimes and it puts both doctors and the public in immediate or eventual danger.

So the question is how much direct evidence of crimes do we need floating around before it raises any eyebrows?  How much proof is needed before someone does something about it rather than claim “it’s not my department?”   So far those with the authority and power to investigate and sanction these people have kept their heads in the sand and overlooking  corruption is complicity with corruption.  Those who tolerate the corrupt and give them allowances are themselves corrupt.  The obvious cannot be ignored.  Sunshine may be the best disinfectant but it does not work when the shades are kept down.  I expected that Governor Baker’s Move to control professional boards  would let some sunlight in but I was wrong.  Detailed and precise documentation of fabrication and falsification and concealment as well as other criminal activity was provided to the  Director of Constituent Services at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Health,  Helen Rush-Lloyd  who informed me she would put me in touch with the appropriate person on June 7th. She never did and no one has ever contacted me on the matter and followup up attempts have been ignored. What good is Public Records Reform if dates are illegible or the contents ignored?   How does controlling  professional boards benefit the public when those tasked with controlling them no only fail to address obvious misconduct but do not even acknowledge it?    How low must the moral compass go before anyone takes note of the obvious?    By not holding them accountable we can assure ourselves of more of the same.  The records provided by the Board can be seen here:  board-records-obtained-june-2016

screen-shot-2016-12-24-at-5-17-14-pm

cropped-screen-shot-2016-10-10-at-9-32-40-pm1

Please donate to DisruptedPhysician.com here:  https://www.gofundme.com/PHPReform

Defending MA BORM Deb Stoller’s Five-Year Concealment of Fraud–Nothing Left but Logical Fallacy and Lies

mllangan1 9 Comments

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 5.07.23 PM

“To be sure, and to put this matter to rest for the Court once and for all, the Board has retrieved from off site storage those materials before the Board in December 2011. The documents that Dr. Langan claims were “suppressed” are in fact there—and this should not be surprising given the Board’s many orders since that time, all of which have disclaimed any reliance on the July 2011 PEth test.”

“Documents are typically entered into the electronic repository after being used or after a proceeding not before”

—Assistant Attorney General Bryan Bertram who is defending the Board of Registration in Medicine (“Board”) before Justice Hines in my case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Related:  MA Board Attorney Deb Stoller’s Fraud Upon the Court

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 3.58.19 PMThe excerpt above is taken from the 2006 Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine  Annual Report and describes the Board’s  Document Imaging Unit.   The Document Imaging Unit scans agency documents into an electronic database and according to the Boards 2009 Annual Report has “allowed the agency to standardize and automate its processes for storing and retrieving documents.”   The  quotes above it are from Assistant AGO Bryan Bertram in response to recently acquired documents proving that Board attorney Deb Stoller was provided irrefutable, undeniable and  unequivocal evidence of forensic-fraud between the Massachusetts PHP (Physician Health Inc.) and a drug testing lab but concealed it and has been concealing it for over five-years.

The appeal to an imaginary storage unit and cart-before-the horse logic are just two of many absurdly illogical and nonsensical statements that he has used to defend the indefensible.

On June 8, 2016  I requested a handful of documents from the Board of Registration in Medicine under a new Records Reform Act that had up until now been refused.   146 pages of docs were received within 24 hours and can be seen here:   Langan PDF copy

Only one of the five documents had a legible date-stamp on it.   The rest were blurred and indecipherable. Requests for clarification have been stifled with the last response from the Board on  June 17th claiming they were “working on it. ”  Multiple subsequent inquiries have been ignored.  Verifying these dates should be simple and take a matter of minutes.  Why all the fuss?

The only document with a legible date stamp was a December 15, 2011 letter  from my attorney  requesting  an attached “litigation packet ” be considered at a December 21, 2011 Board proceeding.  (I had requested the “litigation packet” as one of the documents but had never seen the letter).    Needless to say it wasn’t.

 

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 7.29.02 PM

.

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 7.23.35 PM

Both the letter and the 47-page “litigation packet” are date-stamped   January 17, 2012.

The letter is addressed to physician health and compliance unit (PHCU) Board counsel Deb Stoller and cc’d to her underling Tracy Ottina.  The documents show clearly that the two were in possession of these documents  prior to a December 21st Board hearing.  They are date-stamped 27 days after the hearing and to support his claim that    “documents are typically scanned into the electronic repository after being used or after a proceeding, not before” Bertram uses the transcript of the same proceedings as an example as the December 21  document is date stamped  December 29 (8 days after the proceeding).  Apples and oranges.  Scanning a a transcript of a proceeding into the Board’s Digital Imaging Unit the following week is  understandable  but scanning a document that was submitted as evidence to be heard at that same proceeding  27-days after it took place and 18-days after the record of the proceeding was scanned is not.  It is very fishy for a number of reasons and defies common sense.

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 7.58.21 PM

But  Bertram claims the date-stamp is meaningless and wants to put the matter to rest once and for all.   In his  response opposing  a Motion to Produce Documents  (he does not want to produce them) he provides 3 footnotes (presumably to give an impression of legitimacy)  providing confirmation that the documents had been  carefully considered  at the December 21, 2011 proceedings by reviewing not only its minutes and records but procuring the original documents that were being stored off-site.

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.00.50 PM

Bertram also claims PHS has not committed any crimes because they have not been charged with any crimes.  This is called denying the antecedent or inverse error.  It is a logical fallacy where the consequent is an indicative conditional  claimed to be false because the antecedent is false. ( A, then B; not A, therefore not B).    

If it is raining, then the grass is wet.
It is not raining.
Therefore, the grass is not wet.

The argument is invalid because there are other reasons for which the grass could be wet such as spaying it with a hose.   There are multiple reasons for which someone who committed a crime has not been charged with a crime.

There is always a time-frame between the two and many who commit crimes never get caught.    Luck, stealth, cleverness, and multiple other variables might be involved.  Jimmy Savile molested and raped scores of children for decades and he was never caught.  As a major fundraiser for hospitals this fiend had free rein to prey on sick and helpless  little kids in hospital beds .

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 10.41.14 PM.png

They have not been charged with any crimes because the very agencies capable of charging them with crimes are ignoring or otherwise overlooking them for various reasons.  If I see someone being stabbed in the back  I can reasonably conclude they committed a crime. Savile got away with what he did because of a culture of deference. Because he was powerful others made allowances for him.  Monsters thrive in a culture of deference.

 

A Culture of Deference

According to Policy 94-002 (which has disappeared from the Board’s website) Board counsel for the Physician Health and Compliance Unit (PHCU) was created outside the Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (Board).  PHCU advises the board on issues related to drug and alcohol abuse and mental or physical impairment that may affect a doctor’s ability to practice and unit staff prepare and present cases to the board’s complaint and licensing committees to make sure identified impaired physicians comply with the terms of any rehabilitation agreements. According to Policy 94-002 the responsibilities of PHCU Board counsel include “serving as a hearing officer in some cases and resource in all cases involving physician health and compliance issues.”

The Board appoints a “hearing officer” to conduct an adjudicatory proceeding according to the procedures set forth in the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 30A. It is the hearing officers responsibility to make all decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence. Administrative procedure requires that hearing officers consider the probative value of the evidence and file it in the Administrative Record.

Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine PHCU Board counsel is run by attorney Deb Stoller with attorneys Robert Harvey and Tracy Ottina.  They have been given the power to act as “hearing-officers” on cases and present cases to the Board and  recommend disciplinary action.

Medical Boards provide deference to their physician health experts and their in-house compliance counsel who have been given the power of  judge, jury and executioners.

They give little thought or time to what is presented as predetermined fact. That the Board is not under any active supervision from the executive branch has been confirmed in writing to the Massachusetts Legislature by Governor Charles Baker in a letter accompanying his Bill (H.4188) which aimed to finally establish a framework for active supervision and oversight over the Board.

As independent units within the board who act as hearing officers and present cases the PHCU may be working with PHS in the same manner as the drug-testing labs engaging in laboratory fraud and the “PHP-approved” assessment and treatment centers that are “tailoring” diagnoses. It appears that Stoller and the PHCU is not representing the best interests of the Commonwealth  but those of the state physician health programs and under current management state PHPs represent the best interests of the billion dollar drug and alcohol assessment, testing and treatment industry.  The PHCU’s are clearly part of the racket.  It is a rigged game with a stacked deck existing within a culture of deference.

Obtaining the evidence is one barrier that has prevented exposure of this corruption. Another is the unwillingness of agencies available to hold them accountable. PHS has no oversight or accountability and the labs and assessment and treatment centers have minimal oversight. As these are non-FDA approved lab tests the FDA provides no oversight.   They  have  pushed public policy recommending  regulatory agencies provide deference to their authority and expertise.

This creates an organizational systems failure as the Board is deferring to the state physician health program and the states attorney Generals are deferring to the Board.   Each  complacent  in the integrity and good-faith of the agency before it.   This creates a complete organizational systems failure.

Governor Baker’s recent move to control professional boards seemed a promising step and I provided detailed documentation to the Director of Constituent Services at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Health,  Helen Rush-Lloyd ( Helen.Rush-Lloyd@state.ma.us   617-624-5223 ) who informed me on June 7 she would provide the name of the appropriate contact person to respond.  The email can be seen here: Physician Health and Compliance Unit.   Last I heard it was turfed to attorneys at the Board by whoever the appropriate contact person was and I have not been able to get a name.  As this too appears to be a dead-end it is important to find out who is responsible.  This is a system in which they often place their own people into positions where they can block, punt, deflect, dismiss and otherwise derail valid complaints.  For example they have a “point-person”on the Massachusetts Medical Society ethics committee who blocks valid complaints from ever reaching review.  They are turfed at the door and I would not be surprised if they placed one of their own or one of their apologists into this venue as well and this requires the provision of a name to see who is responsible and who should be held accountable.

The totality of evidence provides clear and convincing proof that PHCU Board counsel Deb Stoller has been suppressing evidence for years. The filed Administrative Record was missing every item I submitted including a critical document he claims was lost due to my “hand-delivery” of it.   I still cannot wrap my head around the connection between hand-delivery and losing it. I believe he’s so entrenched in his pervasive denial of facts and outside opinion and so used to shifting the burden and blaming me he couldn’t think of anything else.

One thing is for certain. The Board does not want to produce the records to Justice Hines. I realized this after I filed the “Motion to Expand the Record” as Bertram made it clear on multiple occasions the Board would not object to anything I filed with the Court to add to it.   Had I not known about the 10-day time limit to file the a motion to expand the record the Court would be limited the documents provided and none of mine were included. This is another administrative law trick frequently used to control the information that is seen.  If the December 2011 documents were considered then I would like to hear the logic.  The documents in question show black letter law crimes. They show specific crimes.   Any schoolchild could detect them.   The documents show flagrant forensic fraud  between Dr. Luis Sanchez and the VP of Lab Operations at USDTL Joseph Jones and this is  representative of the top-down corruption and unethical tone at the top that pervades this system.

None of the forensic fraud or perjury or concealment has ever been addressed by the Board and missing  evidence and unaddressed key arguments provide clear and convincing proof that Stoller has been concealing evidence for years.

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 5.51.35 PM

  Dr. Luis T. Sanchez, M.D. served as the Director of the Massachusetts physician health program, Physician Health Services (PHS) from 1998 until 2013.   He is past President (2005-2009) of their national organization, the Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP).

In  Disruptive Behaviors Among Physicians   stresses the importance of  of “clear expectations and standards”  and  values and codes-of-conduct in the practice of medicine and calls on physician leaders  “commit to professional behavior.”

One measure of integrity is truthfulness to words and deeds.  These people claim professionalism, ethics and integrity.  Colluding with a laboratory to intentionally misrepresent laboratory data is laboratory fraud and covered under Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code (Wire fraud 18 USC 1343, False Statements 18 USC 1001, Conspiracy 18-USC 371, False Claims 18-USC 287 and Obstruction of Justice 18-USC 1505). I believe all of these are applicable here. In addition Dr. Sanchez violated M.G.L 156 (B) Section 69 by making false statements to a state agency.  Later documents show clear evidence of his perjury and concealment.   August 6, 2014 to Langan with health materials.

The fact that medical boards and public health departments are aware of criminal acts being committed  by this “authority” and others like him yet do nothing to address its existence will inevitably lead to worse.  A culture of deference allows this type of behavior to fester and thrive for years and even decades.  If dictatorships can be defined as systems in which there is a prevalence of thinking in destructive rather than ameliorative terms then the the physician health movement fits.

Many of the  “PHP-approved attorneys” who ostensibly represent doctors who are under PHP monitoring but only do so within the boundaries of the PHPs wishes are former board attorneys and assistant AGOs.  My suspicion is that the PHPs have preferred attorneys they use within the AGOs administrative legal division and the agency at large is unaware of what happens within this system.

Lord Acton warned that we should not make moral allowances for powerful people just because they are powerful. If a common man murdered someone, Acton explained, he should hang. But when a king or queen murders, we make allowances for it. “I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science” Acton wrote.  The same dynamic applies here.

One thing is for certain.  There should be zero-tolerance for forensic fraud perpetrated by those in positions of power.   This is  worse than Annie Dookhan as her victims were abstractions.  She did not see the damage that resulted from her laboratory misconduct.

And as far as I can find, these documents are the most elaborate and complete representation of the mechanics of forensic fraud available and show the sequential steps between the requesting party and complicit lab.   The documents also show how easy laboratory misconduct is accomplished as well as the moral detachment of the involved parties.

Bertram knows these are crimes.

 I have also informed him that since 2011 there have been multiple suicides related to allegedly falsified alcohol tests at the same lab seen here and the ongoing concealment  of laboratory fraud is equally abhorrent as those who engage in it. I am unclear of his motive in defending a cover-up of forensic fraud in the wake of other lab scandals but  one other thing is for certain.  When  this racket is exposed the record will show who knew about it and when.  

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.07.24 PM

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.07.34 PM

The 146 pages provided within 24 hours is the package containing the December 11, 2011 docs and all the others with smudged dates.  I already have the documents but I need the dates.

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 4.03.22 PM.png

Bertram 11:16:15 e-mail requesting he address the issues

Bertram e-mail 11:16:15 requesting he address key arguments.

Bertram e-mail 12:7:15

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 7.24.18 AM

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 4.29.40 AM.png

Please donate–Making significant gains.

//funds.gofundme.com/Widgetflex.swf

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 3.11.12 PM

 

 

Screen Shot 2015-07-03 at 2.51.31 AM

Fraud Upon the Court

“Fraud Upon the court” occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985 states: “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

It has recently become evident that the  Director of the Board of Registration in Medicine’s Physician Health and Compliance Unit, attorney Deb Stoller,  has been unethically and unlawfully withholding and concealing documentary evidence that is not only exculpatory to  me but reveals that  Physician Health Services (PHS) engaged in misconduct and fraud.   She has essentially been concealing their crimes.

The “Administrative Record” filed by the Board was absent copious documentation of major importance and all of it was submitted through the care of Ms. Stoller.  The missing documents include multiple petitions and supporting documents that are neither irrelevant nor superfluous. Each of these documents contains sufficient indicia of reliability to meet probative value.Concealing material fact, misrepresentation and making false statements to a state administrative agency is unethical. It constitutes abuse of power and fraud.

Fraud on the court occurs where a party tampers with the fair administration of justice by deceiving “the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public” or otherwise abusing or undermining the integrity of the judicial process. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944).

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit skillfully defined the concept of fraud on the court in Aoude, supra at 1118, as follows: “A `fraud on the court’ occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”

Ms. Stoller is in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct including Mass.R.Prof.C. 3.4(c). Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel which states in part: A lawyer shall not: (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.

Mass.R.Prof.C Advocate Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal reads:
(a)A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false; (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal,; (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

And under Mass.R.Prof.C. 8.4(c, d, h. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reviews the Board’s decisions in part for constitutional error, see Mass.Gen.L. ch. 30A, Sec. 14(7), and is permitted to gather evidence “in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency [when those irregularities are] not shown in the record.” Mass.Gen.L. ch. 30A, Sec. 14(5). The Court may look beyond the record if it appears the agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision.

 

On a writ of certiorari, the court’s review “is confined to the record and is for the purpose of correcting legal error, [and therefore] the inquiry about the presence or absence of genuine issues of material fact, germane to summary judgment procedure, is inappropriate. . . . [The reviewing court] need only inquire whether the commission’s decision was ‘legally tenable and supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.”‘ Gloucester v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 408 Mass. 292 , 297 (1990), quoting Commissioner of Health & Hosps. of Boston v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 410 , 411 (1987). See G.L.c. 31, s. 2 (b); Mayor of Revere, supra at 319-322.

Fraud is distinguished from negligence, ignorance, and error by virtue of the fact that it is intentional; involving some level of calculation. Negligence is: “the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances.”   In a professional context, it is defined as: “conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm… it is characterized chiefly by inadvertence, thoughtlessness, inattention, and the like.”.  Fraud, in contrast, is not accidental in nature, nor is it unplanned.  Those who commit fraud know what they are doing and are deliberate in their efforts. They are also aware that it is unethical, illegal, or otherwise improper.

Fraudulent intent is established by examining the documentation of decisions and behaviors associated with those under suspicion. As explained in Coenen: “Manipulation of documents and evidence is often indicative of such intent. Innocent parties don’t normally alter documents and conceal or destroy evidence.”

As explained in Black’s Law Dictionary,  fraud is an intentional distortion of facts and truth for the purposes of inducing another to give up something of value that they possess or to relinquish a legal right that they might otherwise retain. It is additionally defined as a “false presentation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives and is intended to deceive another.”

I believe it is safe to conclude that the parties here participated in fraud.

The “litigation-packet” did not merely show “chain-of-custody” issues but forensic fraud. Misrepresenting invalid forensic test results as valid is the definition of forensic fraud. Ms. Stoller should have immediately assessed the “clear-weight” of this evidence, entered it into the docket for reconsideration and given me an opportunity to be heard. She did not.

The Federation of State Medical Board Policy specifically requires strict “chain of custody.” She violated the Board’s very own standards and then blocked me from returning to practice by putting barriers in place, refusing to allow independent evaluations and protracting the time –drawing this out in order to cause as much damage as possible to my family and me.

PHS has convinced the Board not to “second-guess” their decisions and apparently the Board has convinced state AGOs to not “second-guess” theirs; each presupposing the integrity of the individuals and validity of the decisions of the agencies in question. As a result complaints by doctors of serious crimes and abuse are ignored. Fact and truth do not matter as the agencies blindly support one-another. This removes all aspects of accountability including answerability and justification for one’s actions. It is a flawed system.

In the past the SJC has overturned the Board’s decisions on due process grounds, see, e.g., Morris v. Board of Reg. in Medicine, 405 Mass. 103, 110, 539 N.E.2d 50, 54 (1989) (vacating Board decision because proceedings “denied [the physician] fairness in a due process sense.”).

 

This interference with the administration of Justice, abuse of authority and denial of constitutional rights warrant the Board Orders be reversed, vacated and corrected. “The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.” (Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974). “[i]n a just society those who govern, as well as those who are governed, must obey the law.” (United States v. Leon, 104 S. Ct. 3430, 3457 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

The Courts have held that the Massachusetts and Federal Administrative Procedure Acts require both the agency and the court to consider the entire record, including testimony given at the hearing. In Friends of Edgartown Great Pond v. DEP, 446 Mass. 830, 845 (2006), the SJC recognized that the agency must consider the hearing evidence, finding the agency hearing complied with the Administrative Procedure Act requirements because “the record illustrates that over the course of the five-day hearing, the administrative law judge carefully considered all of the relevant evidence.”

The record compiled here illustrates that over the course of four years the Board not only failed to carefully consider any of the relevant evidence but most likely never saw any of it.

Our Constitution mandates that level of legal process due to reflect “respect enforced by law for that feeling of just treatment which has been evolved through centuries of Anglo-American constitutional history and civilization.” Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 162, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)

Ms. Stoller violated multiple professional regulations, ethics and the law in an ongoing campaign in which she blocked the administration of justice. By concealing the truth she prevented both exculpatory evidence favorable to my case and detrimental to the opposing party (involving misconduct and crimes from ever coming to light. It is quite clear the full Board never saw these documents. The fact that the latest Board action did not have any of the documents or petitions submitted over the past year is prima facie evidence of Fraud on the Court.  Ms. Stoller needs to be held accountable and I am requesting the SJC uses whatever power it has available to make certain this occurs. Ms. Stoller needs to be disciplined for her actions and this discipline needs to be commensurate with her crime.  In this case nothing less then disbarment and criminal charges would fit that bill.

Backfire Step 3: REFRAME –Fraudulent Concealment of Fabricated Forensic test correction, False Statements Under Color of Law : Need to hold accountable

mllangan1 4 Comments

Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 11.17.32 PMimgres-8

Laboratory developed tests (LDTs) have no FDA or CLIA oversight.  Avoiding regulatory oversight is just one of the ways those involved in the use of these tests avoid accountability.  Without answerability to third parties they have essentially removed themselves from consequences.

College of American Pathologists (CAP) accreditation is the sole avenue for complaint.  CAP does not sanction.  They only have the ability to educate lab to come under compliance with CAP standards under threat of loss of accreditation and it is under this threat that they can force a laboratory to correct both unintentional and intentional errors.  This is what was done in my case.

I filed a complaint with CAP in January of 2012.  The “Litigation packet ” showing forensic fraud was sent to CAP and I was informed that the investigation could take many months.    In October of 2012 I was suddenly reported to the Board of Registration in Medicine for  “noncompliance” with AA meetings (that were the sole and direct result of this test) and action was taken against my medical license which resulted in my suspension.

In December of 2012,  the Chief Investigator for CAP, Amy Daniels  called me to see how I was doing in light of the “amended” test.  She told me that the test had been invalidated on October 4, 2012.   I told her this was news to me as I was in the process of being suspended for “noncompliance” and called the Director of Operations at Physician Health Services (PHS) Linda Bresnahan who predictably told me she was unaware of any revision to the test.

But the very next day a letter was  sent out  signed by PHS Medical Director Dr. Luis Sanchez, M.D. stating that they had just  found out about the amended test on December 10. 2012, the day before when I called them.  Interestingly the letter acknowledged the invalidity of the test but  stated PHS and the BORM would  “continue to disregard” it.  Sanchez also made it a point in the letter to state they were  were not aware of any consequences resulting from it.  They denied any knowledge of an October 4, 2012 revision which would have been 67-days earlier than this acknowledgment and dismissal of the test.

In response to 93-A demand letters from my attorney for fraud, PHS, Quest and USDTL all refused to consider any damages by blaming my suspension on me.   They claimed my suspension was due to my “noncompliance” with attending AA meetings that was officially reported to the Board October 18, 2012.     The claimed the test that was used as a stepping-stone for all subsequent adverse events was completely irrelevant and had nothing to do with anything.    This is what is known as “moving the goalpost.”   What they did not know was that I would eventually be able to get the document proving they knew what they knew and when they knew it.

The response letters revealed important information that was previously only speculative with no way to prove.  Both labs, in defense, claimed that  the test was sent as “clinical” specimen at the request of PHS (an ultra vires out of scope act as they are a 503(B) charity. PHS is not a healthcare provider and is not authorized to practice medicine.

PHS and the labs were apparently unaware of the new HIPAA Privacy rule that requires labs to provide patients with their lab tests without approval from the agency ordering the test.  PHS had previously refused to provide labs by hiding under confidentiality and medical records regulations.

At first they refused but CAP and the DOJ -civil rights division forced USDTL to provide the document below dated October 4, 2012 informing Dr. Luis Sanchez of the amended test he reported in a signed letter to a state agency that he had just found out about December 10, 2012.  The letter undeniably shows Sanchez lied to a state agency in a written letter.  This is also a prima facie crime.  It is just one of many crimes that Board Attorney Deb Stoller has facilitated for PHS as her job is to ignore, suppress, minimize and deflect any criminal acts committed by PHS and protect them.  And this needs to be made public.  PHS needs to be held accountable.  So too do the actions of Ms. Stoller whose job as an agent of the state makes her involvement even more egregious than the perpetrators.

The documents below show a clear violation of M.G.L. 256 (B) Section 69 done under Color of Law.

Screen Shot 2014-11-10 at 1.34.48 PM

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.04.47 PM

Screen Shot 2015-04-07 at 4.52.21 AM

Screen Shot 2015-04-07 at 5.00.04 AM

Screen Shot 2015-04-07 at 5.00.40 AM

Screen Shot 2015-04-07 at 4.50.05 AM

Screen Shot 2014-11-10 at 1.34.48 PM

Screen Shot 2014-11-10 at 1.25.03 PM

False Statements Relating to Health Care Matters (18 U.S.C. § 1035) It is a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal a material fact, make any materially false statement, or use any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent writing or document in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services. 11 Chapter 2 ~ Summary of Fraud and Abuse Laws

Mail and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§1341 and 1343)  Statutes, which prohibit the use of the mails or the wires to further “schemes” to defraud

Perjury and False Statements

PERJURY BY WRITTEN INSTRUMENT. 

FALSE STATEMENTS (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

This statute prohibits the making of any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement to the United States or a government agency. This statute is exceedingly broad: It covers any statement or representation made to the government or any of its agents. A statement can be made either orally or in writing, and it can be sworn or unsworn.

Screen Shot 2014-11-10 at 1.36.13 PM

BTwgkTwCMAABmSA

Supression of Dissent: Basic Information

2. The keys to backfire

• “Reveal: expose the injustice, challenge cover-up

• Redeem: validate the target, challenge devaluation

• Reframe: emphasize the injustice, counter reinterpretation

• Redirect: mobilize support, be wary of official channels• Resist: stand up to intimidation and bribery”

via Helpful resources for those abused and afraid — via http://www.bmartin.cc .