ANYONE AT ANY TIME CAN LAUNCH AN ATTACK ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE

I recently came across this letter. My company protects professional license holders from just this sort of tragedy. I wanted to let all professionals that have any type of license an opportunity to read and pay attention. This can happen to you. Visit my website http://www.awaredirect.com/

October 23, 2007

Testimony for House Appropriations Subcommittee on Regulatory HearingRegarding the Texas Medical BoardDear Members of the Hearing Panel,Despite the efforts of the Texas State Medical Board, I am still Dr. Roland Chalifoux, Jr., a board certified neurosurgeon. Despite Dr. Kalafut’s tirade to the press in which she is quoted as saying "According to our standards in Texas, he is a continuing threat and would endanger the public, and we did not feel that he would be able to safely practice medicine again" in July 2005. I am sorry to contradict you and your agency, but your comments on my medical proficiency are incorrect. Besides returning to the practice of medicine (which you and other members of the TMB attempted to unfairly take from me), I have been requested to give lectures to medical students, interns, residents as well as talk at national specialty meetings on neurosurgical topics.I moved to Fort Worth in 1995 after finishing 10 grueling years of medical training which involved 4 years of medical school and six years of Neurosurgical residency.

Within two years, I was able to complete enough proficiency in surgical cases to receive Board Certification in my specialty.I practiced until July 19, 2002 when the TSBME "suspended" my medical license following a three-minute meeting of the Board’s hearing panel where I was suddenly given a list of 18 allegations (which had occurred 3-6 years earlier) of practicing below the standard of care. Three months later in front of an independent SOAH judge, 5 of these allegations were completely thrown out, due to hearsay, lack of evidence, or the Board’s failure to follow the rules of evidence.

Ironically, Dr. Patrick was recently quoted as saying that his Board always "follows the letter of the law." Just not in my case, he apparently failed to mention. During the hearing, the SOAH judge heard testimony in my defense from 25 experts, including hospital administrators, department chairmen, and the patients I had treated.The Board offered three paltry experts all chosen by Dr. Patrick, one of who was later found to have perjured himself and eventually lost his hospital privileges in Colorado; one who admitted he didn’t have experience in performing the kinds of cases I did and later stated, on the record, that my license should not be revoked; and a third physician, who himself has been the target of numerous lawsuits, one in particular accusing him of being a "ghost" surgeon ( the actual surgeon who does the operation while the doctor who found the patient watches, helps out) and another lawsuit charging the doctor with failing to obtain an intraoperative x-ray on a patient who subsequently had the wrong level operated because of the doctor’s negligence.

SOAH’s final findings, after months of investigation and review, included a recommendation that my license not be revoked. The case evidence also demonstrated that the testimony of the Board’s witnesses was 96% incorrect and consequently failed to prove that my treatment of patients was below the standard of care.

In spite of these findings in my favor, and despite SOAH being mandated by the legislature to make final determinations in cases between doctors and the Board, the TSBME blatantly disregarded SOAH’s findings, arrogantly usurped SOAH’s authority, and proceeded to revoke my license in July 2004 even while admitting in its final order ;

1) That for the period 1995-2002, my surgical/post surgical complication rate fell below the national average despite the fact that many of my patients were high risk patients

2) I had no improper motives with respect to the treatment of my patients and I was motivated to provide appropriate treatment for my patients; and,

3) I had to deal with post surgical complications caused by hospital staff errors

As a result of the TMB’s action, I left Texas with my wife and two young children and I went to West Virginia where, with the help of the chairman of the Dept. of Neurosurgery at West Virginia University who was also one of the 25 experts at my hearing; I was able to take a refresher course and within 6 months, was offered a position as a professor in WVU’s Dept. of Neurosurgery, contingent on the receipt of a license to practice medicine in West Virginia. I received an unrestricted license from West Virginia on June 30, 2005. West Virginia’s criteria for issuing my license included my full disclosure of the action the TSBME took against me in Texas.

It is also important to note that I continue to hold a valid license to practice medicine in the state of Michigan following that state’s medical board’s thorough review of the actions of the Texas State Medical Board.Despite the fact that the TSMBE had revoked my license and my family and I had left the state, Dr. Kalafut, the president of the Board in 2005, having gotten wind of my new venture went to the press in Texas and West Virginia in an effort to continue trying my case in the court of public opinion by making sensationalistic remarks to the media. Her arrogance at putting herself in a position to act as the authority for licensing doctors not just in Texas, but in other states is an outrage and is suggestive of a personal vendetta. Dr. Kalafut could freely proceed with her public defamation of my character because the Texas state legislature guarantees that board members cannot be held personally accountable for their words or actions when engaged in Board business. Board members’ activities, no matter how unscrupulous, are protected by complete immunity.

Having stripped me of my medical license in Texas, the Board, through its president’s actions, attempted to go outside its jurisdiction in an effort to have the last word on the status of my career. As evidenced by my licensure in West Virginia, and again in Michigan, the board must have been feeling vulnerable since their actions were essentially overturned by two other medical boards, the West Virginia Medical Board and the Michigan Board. As usual, the board resorted, in the end, to the one tool that had never failed them in their efforts to scare the public: the press.The Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Dallas Morning News are replete with stories in and around 2002 of Dr. Patrick’s crusade to use vigilante justice to "out" bad physicians in the state at any cost.

My branding by the TSBME was based on the unfortunate death of a patient with a Giant Brain Aneurysm, who had a very poor prognosis, with or without surgery; a patient with a large AVM whose condition improved dramatically after I performed delicate brain surgery and (who later testified on my behalf during the Board’s proceedings against me) who was not given her medication by a nurse, despite my orders to do so being documented in the patient’s chart; and lastly, a patient who had returned to the hospital a few days after her surgery needing a small leak to be repaired, an expected and not uncommon consequence of the surgery performed on her.It is quite obvious that the TMB under the direction of Donald Patrick MD and Dr. Kalafut was determined to rid themselves of me despite the fact that neither they nor their experts were able to prove that I was a serious threat to the public.

Dr. Kalafut’s actions demonstrate that they were even willing to cross state jurisdictional lines and resort to using the press to continue trying their case in the court of public opinion since their efforts against me failed with their own state administrative office (SOAH) and two other state licensing agencies.WHAT NEEDS TO OCCUR1) Define "clear, continuing threat to the public welfare."Do not allow the TMB to use allegations which are not occurring NOW when trying to "suspend" a doctorDr. Patrick in a media article prior to my 2002 suspension was quoted as saying that rule 187.57 Title 22 Part 9 of the Texas Administrative Code made it difficult for him to remove doctors. Dr. Patrick does not want to be bothered with the burden of proof yet in the American justice system, the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) Enforce accountabilityNo one from the TMB should be able to be immune and not held accountable for his or her words or actions during the transaction of Board business. The burden according to the Sunset Committee hearings in 2004 was to encourage accountability at the TMB. In addition, the legislature should not allow the TMB to use the media to try a physician. That is what a hearing in front of independent judges was developed for.In addition to Board members professionalism, the legislature should better scrutinize those individuals who have been appointed to the TMB. If the appointee fails to demonstrate proper credentials, he or she should be publicly disciplined and his or her license suspended. There have been several instances of Board member impropriety over the past few years and those members have been able to surreptitiously resign (i.e., Dr. Miller) from the board without any scrutiny of their activities or fear of discipline.

3) Develop a scoring check-list to be used by members of the Board when deciding upon a physician that will be undergoing discipline. By making the disciplinary process less an emotional, political process, every doctor will be treated equally. These types of score sheets could be formulated on the checklist model used by colleges when reviewing new applicants.An example of the inconsistent discipline meted out by the Board and taken from the TMB’s own website demonstrates that one physician who was late sending charts to be used in his disciplinary hearing was fined $10,000, yet another doctor, and a known colleague of a past Board member was fined only $2,500 for removing the wrong lung on a patient, which ultimately hastened her death.

4) The ISC Informal Settlement Conference is far from "informal". These conferences need to be transcribed so that the accused physician is not abused during the conference. In addition, those experts who do not agree with the findings of the accused physician need to be part of the ISC so that both the accused and the Board’s expert can explain their opinions to the three TMB Board members as well as better explain their positions. The accused needs to face his/her accuser expert witness. In doing so, true due process can occur. The ISC is supposed to be a time to have a collegial discussion about the allegation(s) in order to resolve the dispute and resume one’s career.

5) Review/ reopen cases during the past 5 years where the TMB has revoked a doctor’s license, especially in cases where the revocation is in conflict with SOAH’s recommendations.The accused on "death row" have a review mechanism that automatically triggers an appeal to their execution. A doctor who has lost his or her license has, in effect, received a professional death sentence. For this reason, it should become automatic that any license revocation be reviewed by an outside, independent group of qualified physicians to ensure that the physician is truly a threat to the public and not some political pawn. Due process and accountability must trump sensationalism and personal vendettas every time.

Submitted by:Roland F. Chalifoux Jr.DO80 12th Street Suite 307Wheeling, West Virginia 26003

11:49:00 AM
by Stephen
Delete
1 – 1 of 1