Falsification is FRAUD by Lino Dial Part 4

Falsification is Fraud

Falsification is FRAUD
By Lino A. Dial M.D.

Judicial Hearing

A. Before the Hearing:

1. The doctor ( or Internist ) has been practicing Internal Medicine at the XXX Hospital in Vallejo, California, USA for several years.

Before that he had his Medical or Residency in Internal Medicine at the training hospitals of the University of California in San Francisco, at the Childrens' and Adult Medical Center of San Francisco and the U.S. Veterans Hospital.

2. The hospital privileges of the Internist was renewed every year without problems.

3. The problem with his hospital privileges started when a Surgeon falsified the hospital record of his patient.

It is recorded in Part - 1 of this presentation, the internist was the Physician-in-Charge of the old lady who was from the city of Central Point, in the State of Oregon, USA. He did not even know her because she was from another state. He only had one thing in mind: to do a good job in taking care of the old woman. When the surgeon falsified the hospital record of the patient, he became an intruder, an uninvited guest, like a burglar in someone's house. In Part - 1 , we already proved that the surgeon wanted money from the old lady because he sent a bill to her for his unwanted, unrequested, and unsolicited medical services ( I have copies of the bill ).

The image that comes to mind is a mechanic who breaks into the house of the old woman, fixes the carburetor of the car in the garage and the next day he sends her a bill for the unwanted and unsolicited services. The old lady simply says : " But sir, I did not ask you to fix my car !! "

Another image that comes to mind is a man with a gun, goes to the bank teller and says : " I want money ! "

What they all had in common is that they are intruders, uninvited, unwanted, and not welcome, to say the least.

The internist had read somewhere about a man named Matthew. He wrote a very good book. Chapter 25 of that book talks about the last day or our last day on earth. It is Judgment day. The Lord comes in all his glory. He gathers the nations or the peoples on earth like a shepherd who gathers his flock. He separates them into two groups, one to his right and the other to his left. Shepherds take care of sheeps and goats and he puts the sheeps on the right and the goats on his left. He tells the people on the right:

"Welcome to paradise, prepared for you since the beginning of time. I was hungry and you gave me food to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me water to drink, I was sick and you comforted me."

The people on the right ask: "Lord, when did we see you hungry and gave you food ? or thirsty and gave you water to drink, or sick and visited you ?" The Lord answers: "Whatsoever you did to the least or poorest of your brothers or sisters ( or family members, or neighbors or townmates ) that you did to me. "

Then the Lord tells the people on the left: "Away from me ! Go to Hell ! When I was hungry , you did not give me food to eat, When I was thirsty, you did not give me water to drink; when I was sick, you did not care for me. "

The people on the left ask: "Lord , when did we see you hungry and did not give you food ? or thirsty and did not give you water ? Or sick and did not care for you ?"

The Lord replies: "Whatsoever you did not do to the poorest of your brothers and sisters, that you did not do to me. Now, get out of my sight and go to the everlasting fire."

To the people on his right side he says: "Welcome to Heavenly Bliss in my father's house and have life eternal."

The old lady from Oregon was a poor woman. She was sick in the hospital and the internist was in-charge of her care. It was obvious that the surgeon was taking advantage of the old lady. With all his might he defended the civil and human rights of his patient. He did not even know her. He gave up everything, even his entire medical career, for the defense of the old lady. Suppose the woman died from the operation or procedure that the surgeon wanted to do, the internist will be blamed because he was the Attending Physician.

Question: How much is a human life ? Can you buy one ? Can you put a price tag on life ? The internist said to himself : " In my entire career as a physician, I will never earn enough money to pay for human life " . If she were your mother: How would you feel ?

4. As provided in the Medical Staff by-laws, these steps were done:

a. Letters and notices ( I have copies ):

1) Letters from the medical staff executive committee that there is going to be a judicial hearing.

By the way a judicial hearing in any hospital seldom happens. Maybe once in five or ten years or 20 or 30 years or never. A panel of physicians was formed. The panel was like a jury who will listen to the arguments from both sides, they can ask questions, and then make a recommendation.

Composition ( members ) of the panel :

1. The chairman of the panel was an Internist from Fairfield, California.
2. The second doctor was an Internist from Napa, California.
3. The third doctor was an Internist from Kaiser Hospital in Vallejo, Calif.
4. The fourth doctor was an Oncologist from Pinole, California.
5. The fifth doctor was a Pathologist from Vallejo, California.
6. The sixth doctor was an Internist and Cardiologist from Vallejo, Calif.

2) Letters from the hospital :

Several letters were mailed to the accused, the Internist. The letters to him contained :

1. The list of charges or accusations against him.
2. The parties involved : The hospital and medical Staff vs. the accused.
3. The place, time and date of the judicial hearing.
4. The people who will be present. The judge was from Sacramento, California. The Attorney who represented the hospital and the Medical Staff executive committee was a member of a big law firm on Market street in San Francisco, California. The accused, the Internist, could not afford an attorney so he asked a friend, a deacon in the Catholic church in Vallejo, California. He was a Chemical Engineer, a good chess player, had a good analytical mind; he spoke Tagalog, Pampangueno, and Visayan in addition to English. He agreed to attend the Judicial Hearing just to give moral support. It was also indicated that there will be an official court transcriber who will take notes and prepare the transcript of the hearing. She was from the transcribers firm in Oakland, California.

3) When everyone was properly notified, the first Judicial Hearing was scheduled.

The letters and notices were mailed to the accused, the Internist, by certified mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

5. Letters from the hospital.

6. The charges or accusations against the doctor ( Internist ) were the result the so-called investigation or peer review.

These were all typewritten and included in the list of exhibits or documents or evidences against the accused. What is noteworthy is that these results of investigation were frauds and falsehoods. The Medical Staff Executive Committee knew they were false and proven false during the investigation, but they went ahead and submitted them as exhibits or evidences to be taken up during the judicial hearing. There is a sentence at the bottom of the charges that states these are correct or true to the best of their knowledge. It was signed, of course. This satisfies the definition of malice or malicious, which means that a person knew that something was wrong but he went and did it anyway.

7. The most important point before the hearing was that the charges or accusations against the doctor ( Internist ) were false. The few examples were :

1) The accused doctor made a wrong interpretation of the electrocardio- gram of his patient.

This was a false accusation because he was not the doctor who did the action of interpretation but was done by someone else. This was fraud.

2) The accused doctor did not get a Cardiology Consultation on his patient.

This was another false accusation because he actually obtained a cardiology consultation . The cardiologist had a name which anyone could read. But the Medical Staff Executive Committee went ahead and made its accusation in writing and submitted it to be presented at the judicial hearing, as if it were true. This was malicious and of course another fraud, falsity and a falsehood.

3) The accused doctor did not have a diagnosis on the medical record of his patient.

This accusation was proven false also because there was a diagnosis in front of the medical record. That was the first thing any person would see on opening the medical record. Although this accusation was proven false before the hearing, the Medical Staff Executive Committee decided to submit it anyway as evidence against the doctor.

Top of Page

Home

Zambales