Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lawsuits’ Category

It turns out that Southern University is indeed a public body.

And so are any of its committees assigned to carry out or to recommend university policy, according to a ruling by 19th Judicial District Judge Richard Moore, III, denying Southern’s Exception of No Cause of Action.

A no-brainer, right?

Well, not if you accept the argument of attorneys representing the university in a pending lawsuit over the decision by the university’s system-wide Grievance Committee to enter into an executive session without benefit of an official motion or vote by the committee members and despite the request of the four Southern employees that the meeting be open to the public.

Southern’s motion was filed as a result of a lawsuit by Dr. Christy Moland, Dr. Elaine Lewnau, Dr. Terrilynn Gillis and Dr. Marilyn Seibert, four university professors either fired, demoted or reduced in pay, and LouisianaVoice publisher Tom Aswell after the plaintiffs claimed that a CLOSED-DOOR MEETING by the grievance committee on March 18 was illegal.

In Monday’s hearing on the motion, Southern’s attorneys put up a rosy argument, saying that according to what Arthur Smith, III, attorney for the four professors, was saying, anytime an individual is assigned by the administration to carry out any function, their actions would constitute a public body.

Had Southern prevailed, then any public body, from the governor’s office down to the smallest town council, could hide behind that maneuver in order to keep the public uninformed of its actions.

But the grievance committee is not an individual. In fact, it is comprised of more than a dozen “individuals” who sit as a committee to hear grievances and to make recommendations to the university administration.

As such, the committee’s recommendations constitute official actions designed to set policy or official actions for the university to carry out.

At the March 18 hearing, all four professors requested that the hearing be conducted in an open forum but then, without a motion or vote to do so, Dickerson called an executive session, saying the hearing was not a public meeting and the committee was not a public body even though any decision it may make is clearly defined as an official action by a public body under state law. Dickerson’s saying otherwise does not change that.

Louisiana Revised Statute 42;4.1 THROUGH 42.13, the state’s Open Meetings Law, clearly defines a “Public Body,” and then goes on to say “A committee formed by the public body is considered a public body, e.g., an executive committee.”

Having established that point, the next issue would be the state’s OPEN MEETINGS LAW, which says, “In order for a public body to enter into an executive session, a vote of 2/3 of members present at an open meeting, for which proper notice was given pursuant to R.S. 42:19, is necessary — along with an accompanying statement of the reason for entering into the executive session. The vote of each member on the motion to enter into executive session along with the reason for entering the executive session must be recorded and entered into the minutes. (emphasis added)

So, the “Grievance Committee” violated the state’s open meetings statutes which require public hearings of grievances should those filing grievances request a public hearing, which all four in fact, did request.

The same section says:

Further, the public body may not enter into executive session for the purposes of this discussion, if the individual requests that the matter be discussed in an open meeting. (emphasis added).

Committee chairperson Marla Dickerson, in calling the closed session, ejected not only LouisianaVoice, but also the four professors and their legal counsel (Smith) as well as the legal counsel for the university itself (Winston Decuir), thus preventing legal counsel for each side from hearing any testimony by witnesses.

In his ruling, Judge Moore said, “…the Grievance Committee…is making recommendations to the President-Chancellor as to whether employment should be maintained and, if so, the amount of compensation. The…type of committee action is too important to be made in a dark room, where no one other than committee members know what factors are being considered. The actions taken by the Grievance Committee served to slam the door on…(the) Louisiana Constitution and our democratic process. For all these reasons and considerations, the exception of no cause of action filed by Southern University is overruled.”

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

LSU basketball coach Will Wade has been REINSTATED and all those Tiger Athletic Foundation (TAF) supporters can breathe a sigh of relief.

But does anyone even remember the shabby treatment of STEVEN HATFIELD by LSU? Did anyone ever protest the disgraceful manner in which he was shown the door? Well, a handful of SCIENTISTS did protest Hatfield’s firing, but who listens to scientists anyway? Certainly not Donald Trump.

Hatfield, for those who may not remember, was an expert on biological warfare who, along with about 30 others, found themselves on the FBI’s list of “persons of interest” in connection with its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. Apparently, this honor was bestowed upon him because he had once passed through Fredrick, Maryland, where the anthrax envelopes were mailed from. Actually, he worked as a biodefense researcher for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick—enough to make him a “person of interest.”

Even though the FBI repeatedly said that Hatfill was not a suspect in the case, it nevertheless directed the university to prohibit Hatfill from participating in any projects financed by the Justice Department.

LSU meekly complied without asking the FBI for a shred of evidence. The university denied that its decision was influenced by the fact that LSU received substantial funds from the Justice Department for programs that trained law-enforcement and public health officials to handle bioterrorism attacks and similar crises.

Not satisfied with firing Hatfield, LSU went a step further in firing his boss, STEPHEN GUILLOT, director of the National Center for Biomedical Research and Training and the Academy for Counter-Terrorist Education.

And our legislators wonder why so many professors are looking at Louisiana in their rear-view mirrors.

Can you say “extortion”?

Hatfill had the last laugh, however, settling his LAWSUIT against LSU and the federal government for $4.6 million.

The odyssey of a former LSU BAND DIRECTOR got more ink than the injustices inflicted upon Hatfield.

The Baton Rouge SUNDAY ADVOCATE was liberally PEPPERED with stories SPECULATING with breathless anticipation the next steps for Wade and LSU. The gnashing of hands and wringing of teeth even carried over to Monday with yet another story that DICK VITALE had returned to a Baton Rouge radio show to discuss the monumental ongoing saga that, to rabid LSU fans at least, carries all the weight of say, the selection of a new Pope.

Yet, only minimal coverage was given to the manner in which LSU canned hurricane scientist IVOR VAN HEERDEN following his criticism of the U.S. Corps of Engineers because his public statements were “hurting LSU’s quest for federal funding across the board.”

Now that’s the humanitarian approach: go right for the bottom line.

The fact that van Heerden’s criticism was vindicated when tests of steel pilings revealed the very deficiencies, he had described that led to the levee breaches during Hurricane Katrina did nothing to prompt LSU to rush to reinstatement.

So, he did the obvious: he FILED SUIT filed suit against LSU in 2010 for wrongful termination.

LSU, if nothing else, is consistent. It doggedly defended the lawsuit, even after losing one key ruling after another until Jed Horne, a columnist for THE LENS, a New Orleans online news service, wrote:

Journalists and members of the LSU community who are aware of the ongoing persecution are disgusted and somewhat mystified that the university has chosen to go after van Heerden, rather than quietly settle this shameful case. It seems especially odd in light of the state’s increasing vulnerability to catastrophic storms and van Heerden’s proven expertise in anticipating their wrath—not to mention the high cost of protracted litigation as Gov. Bobby Jindal makes devastating cuts to the university’s budget.

Finally, after throwing $435,000 of taxpayer funds down a rat hole to defend the suit (benefiting no one but the state’s defense attorneys) LSU finally decided to settle in February 2013 for an undisclosed amount. Again, taxpayer dollars but this time the court concealed from public view the amount of the settlement, itself a disturbing trend when public dollars are involved.

While the local media in Baton Rouge have given extensive coverage to the travails of poor Will Wade (six-year, $15 million contract), not a nano-second of air time nor a single sentence has been devoted to the manner in which the LSU Dental School swept a multi-million-dollar scandal under the rug by firing the whistleblower who revealed that a joint replacement device developed by Dr. John Kent, head of the LSU School of Dentistry’s Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, was defective. That the deficiencies resulted in excruciating pain and at least eight suicides wasn’t enough to prevent the department from ruining the career of DR. RANDALL SCHAFFER.

But thank God Will Wade has been reinstated.

Following drastic budget cuts to higher education in general and LSU in particular by the Bobby Jindal administration and his lap dog legislators, it was decided that LSU President JOHN LOMBARDI  John Lombardi had to go for his failure of leading LSU to its “true vision and leadership.” Lombardi had opposed some of Jindal’s PROPOSALS, a cardinal sin, it turned out.

One of the things that sealed Lombardi’s fate was his hesitancy to endorse the surrender of the LSU Medical Center via a contract containing 55 blank pages. The beneficiary of Jindal’s generosity, by the way, was a sitting member of the LSU Board of Supervisors who headed the outfit that took over University Medical Center in Shreveport. But no conflict there, apparently.

Also loath to approve the giveaway of one of the finest teaching hospital systems in America were LSU Health Care System head Dr. Fred Cerise and Interim Louisiana Public Hospital CEO Dr. Roxanne Townsend. On July 17, 2013, there was a meeting at which the privatization of the state’s system of LSU medical centers was pitched.

Both Cerise and Townsend were present at that meeting and both EXPRESSED THEIR RESERVATIONS. Members of the Board of Supervisors who were at the meeting “indicated they want LSU’s management to pursue this strategy,” according to a two-page summary of the meeting prepared by Cerise.

With days, two of the most respected members of the LSU medical community were gone. Fired.

But LSU has Will Wade back in the fold and all is well.

Following drastic budget cuts to higher education in general and LSU in particular by the Bobby Jindal administration and his lap dog legislators, it was decided that LSU President JOHN LOMBARDI had to go for his failure of leading LSU to its “true vision and leadership.” Lombardi had opposed some of Jindal’s PROPOSALS, a cardinal sin, it turned out.

And who could ever forget the humiliation the LSU Board heaped upon legendary football coach Charles McClendon by making the man wait in his car back in 1979 while the board decided his fate? He was canned because he couldn’t beat Bear Bryant. Well, guess what? No one else was beating the Bear either. If that is the barometer for a coach’s survival at LSU, then no coach’s job is safe as long at Nick what’s-his-name is at ‘Bama.

And the ham-fisted manner in which Athletic Director Joe (Duke lacrosse death angel) Alleva handled the LES MILES firing had all the delicacy and subtlety of Jack the Ripper.

But Will Wade is back and that makes everything okay.

Until the other shoe drops from the ongoing FBI investigation, as it almost surely will.

Read Full Post »

The hits keep on coming.

The long-awaited investigative audit of the DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s Office’s Local Agency Compensated Enforcement (LACE) program is finally out after considerable legal wrangling between the Legislative Auditor and the sheriff’s office that, apparently, still is not over.

But the bottom line is the sheriff’s office took yet another hit just five years after an earlier INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT revealed that a former deputy’s private company had run half-a-million dollars in background checks through the sheriff’s office.

The latest AUDIT is far less damaging but nevertheless illustrates a pattern of lax oversight of the LACE program by former Sheriff Rodney Arbuckle who abruptly RESIGNED last March 16 in anticipation of the latest audit.

Thanks to the Haynesville Shale, Arbuckle had been able to administer a payroll of $11.2 million, three times that of neighboring Sabine Parish and $3.3 million more than Natchitoches Parish, which has nearly twice the population as DeSoto.

All of which circles back to the current audit that shows that 23 deputies were paid more than $15,000 for 335 hours of LACE details they may not have worked in the five-month period of January 1 to June 2, 2017.

Although $15,000 is not a particularly mind-boggling amount, even for such a short period of time, interviews with three former deputies reflected a deliberate policy by the department that encourage an atmosphere of payroll fraud and malfeasance.

That, in itself, was most probably the root cause of the Sheriff Jayson Richardson’s decision to employ legal efforts to prevent the Legislative Auditor’s office from gaining access to the department’s personnel records even though it created the appearance that the sheriff’s office may have been attempting to hide embarrassing or incriminating information.

“During the course of our audit, a Legislative subpoena was issued for personnel files of the current Sheriff, Jayson Richardson, and 12 former and current DPSO deputies,” the report reads. “The Sheriff contested the subpoena by means of a declaratory judgment filed in DeSoto Parish.” Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera filed an exception of venue but in a classic example of home cooking, a local court ruled against the auditor’s office. Purpera then filed an Exception of Non-Joinder of Proper Parties (an omission of one or more persons who should have been made a plaintiff or defendant). Again, there was an adverse ruling by the court which ruled that the Louisiana Legislature was not a necessary party in the matter in a determined effort to protect Richardson’s office. The LLA requested supervisory writs from the Second Circuit, which were granted on February 14, 2019. Following decisions from the courts of review, a trial on the merits will proceed before the trial court. “We may issue a supplemental report after the litigation is concluded,” the report said,” the report said.

“The DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s Office (DPSO) has participated in DeSoto Parish’s Local Agency Compensated Enforcement (LACE) program to enhance traffic safety and generate revenue for many years,” the report said. “The LACE program is administered by the District Attorney (DA) for the 42nd Judicial District. The Criminal Court Fund reimbursed DPSO $45.00 per hour for off-duty deputies (i.e., deputies working at times other than their regularly-scheduled work hours) to write tickets and also reimbursed DPSO $10 per hour for operating costs and wear and tear on DPSO’s vehicles for the hours worked through February 2017. However, there was no written contract or agreement between the DA and DPSO to conduct LACE details.

“DA Gary Evans told us he relied on DPSO to manage the LACE program when he began his first term as district attorney in January 2015; however, two years later, he learned other DAs managed their own LACE programs and used pretrial diversion (PTD) programs to fund them. This prompted DA Evans to create a PTD program for LACE traffic citations and discontinue participation in the LACE program funded by the Criminal Court Fund in March 2017.

“DPSO participated in the DA’s new LACE program from March 23, 2017 to June 2, 2017. A dispute arose as to whether the Criminal Court Fund or the DA should pay DPSO $107,140 for LACE details worked in March, April, and May 2017. Former Sheriff Rodney Arbuckle told us that he paid his deputies for LACE details they worked and was entitled to reimbursement from the DA, who was now diverting LACE tickets. The DA countered that DPSO did not perform all services as invoiced and that he does not owe DPSO reimbursement. The DA did not reimburse DPSO and DPSO stopped working LACE details on June 2, 2017.”

The reported noted that the 42nd Judicial District Criminal Court Fund reimbursed participating law enforcement agencies for the time spent on LACE details through March 2017 when Evans created a pre-trial diversion (PTD) program for LACE traffic citation and discontinued participation in the program funded by the Criminal Court Fund.

DPSO had few written policies on procedures for LACE details during the period covered by the audit, lending to an atmosphere of abuse and falsified time sheets, time sheets approved by then-Captain of Patrols Richardson.

Because LACE details paid more than other off-duty details such as security, there was active competition for open LACE spots, the report says, adding that four current and former deputies who worked LACE were told to “get on and get off” I-49 quickly so that the next deputy could begin his or her LACE detail.

State auditors attempted to speak with deputies but only three former deputies agreed to interviews.

Following are the LLA’s summation of what the former deputies told auditors:

  • Former Lt. Stephanie White told us that she was paid for hours she claimed on LACE details that she did not work on Interstate 49. She further said that she was never told that she had to be on Interstate 49 for her entire LACE shift and ran personal errands after she left the interstate before returning the digiTICKET device. She stated that, in September 2017, former Sheriff Arbuckle asked her before we began our investigation if LLA was going to find any problems with the LACE details; she said she informed him that the deputies did not work all of the hours claimed.
  • Former Deputy Dennis Buckingham said that he was trained to work LACE details by claiming one hour per citation written without regard to hours actually worked. He further said that he wrote numerous citations during the first hours of his LACE shift and then went home for the remainder of his shift. Because he may not have worked all the hours on his LACE time sheet, he may have been paid for hours he did not work.
  • Former Deputy Alphonsa Carter stated that she received compensation for hours she did not work. She stated although she knew it was common practice for other deputies to claim an hour for each citation written and not work full shifts, she should not have done wrong just because they were.

Buckingham filed a written response to the audit in which he denied that he admitted to being paid for lace hours he did not work, although he reiterated that he was instructed to claim a full hour for every ticket written.

“Four former deputies told us that one former deputy routinely called in as starting work for LACE details although the deputy remained at home for several hours after ‘starting’ the LACE detail,” the report said.

“If these deputies claimed time and were paid for hours not actually worked on LACE details, they may have violated state law,” it said. “Additionally, since DPSO billed by the hour for the use of its patrol units for LACE details, DPSO may have over-billed the DA for that same period.”

Richardson’s response, written by James Sterritt, an attorney for the Shreveport law firm Cook, Yancey, King and Galloway, said that the sheriff’s department “became aware of several inconsistencies” while assisting the LLA with information during the audit. “That information led to three deputies being placed on administrative leave,” Sterritt said. “All three resigned shortly afterwards.

At the same time, Sterritt, said that a comparison of deputies’ timesheets to digiTICKET log reports “may not provide a complete picture of time actually worked by deputies performing LACE details. Thus, the hours designated in the report as ‘over-payments’ may have been overestimated.” Sterritt said that when superiors become aware of improper conduct by a deputy, “that deputy is properly disciplined”

 

Read Full Post »

Trying to decipher which was the first to employ Gestapo-like extortion as a means of controlling licensees is like solving the chicken-or-the-egg riddle, but there’s no question that the methods employed by the Louisiana Board of Dentistry and the Louisiana State Medical Licensing Board are eerily similar.

Both employ highly questionable investigative methods, both impose stiff fines followed by even more outrageous fines if the licensee displays any will to resist what may even be bogus charges, and both make generous use of the most effective punishment: revocation of licenses—taking away the victim’s very means of earning a livelihood.

And both also occasionally force recalcitrant dentists and physicians to attend costly rehab clinics either in addition to or in lieu of license revocations. And those rehab clinics can cost as much as $30,000 a month.

Sometimes, a professional is sent to a facility that has its own abuse problems. Take the case of Slidell dentist KENNETH STARLING, who, in addition to having to pay an $8,000 fine, was sent by the dental board to a place called Palmetto Addition Recovery Center in Rayville in Richland Parish in 2010.

But PALMETTO, it turned out, was involved a 2009 lawsuit after one of its staff members, Dr. Douglas Wayne Cook, became sexually involved with one of the center’s patients.

And even while at Palmetto, the dental board continued targeting him. Could that be because he practiced in the same town as influential board member Dr. Edward Donaldson?

And while the practices of the dental board have been publicized often by LouisianaVoice, the state medical board essentially plays by the same rules. And, just as with the dental board, the name of Palmetto Addiction Recovery Centers surfaces on a regular basis in report after report, along with Pine Grove Recovery Centers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Physicians’ Health Foundation of Louisiana.

I have chosen to delete the names and locations of the following examples, but the cases serve as examples of an uneven playing field, often dependent upon on the physician in question:

  • Following his arrest on charges of distribution and possession of controlled and dangerous substances in 2005, Dr. ________submitted to substance abuse evaluation at Palmetto. “Apparently, the physician had submitted to chemical dependency treatment on two prior occasions. Upon his discharge from Palmetto, he underwent residential treatment at Pine Grove. His license was reinstated in 2009 but in 2013, the board received information indicating that the physician “had returned to the use of controlled or other mood-altering substances.” In 2018, after being placed on indefinite probation in 2014, his license was “reinstated without restriction.”
  • ___________entered a plea of guilty to one count of Medicaid fraud in 2002 and subsequently underwent in-patient chemical dependency evaluation for cocaine abuse. Following completion of his criminal penalty, he was referred to Physician Health Foundation’s Physician Health Program (PHP). Following his reinstatement in 2008, he was disciplined again in 2018, this time placed on probation for unspecified violations.
  • _________________ was diagnosed in 1999 with cocaine and alcohol addiction and in 2000 was referred to Talbott Recovery Campus in Atlanta, Georgia through Physicians’ Health Foundation and later to Fontainebleau Treatment Center in Mandeville. His license was reinstated in 2006 but in 2007, he again came under scrutiny for drug abuse and was again referred to a PHP monitoring program and he was placed on probation by the board for a 10-year period in 2008. He was reinstated “without restriction” in 2018.
  • ________________ entered a plea of guilty to one count of health care fraud in 2009. In addition to criminal penalties, the board suspended his license for 90 days, placed him on probation for five years, and fined him $3,000. Following his reinstatement in December 2009, it was subsequently learned in 2011 that he had been issuing prescriptions of narcotics, including OxyContin, from his home and vehicle since May 2009 under the auspices of a practice site not approved by the board. The board again suspended his license, this time for six months and he was placed on probation for 10 years.
  • _________________ voluntarily entered into a two-week program at DePaul Hospital in New Orleans for cocaine dependency in 1995 and 1996 before transferring to Talbott Marsh in Atlanta. The board in 1998 ordered him into additional treatment in PHP at Palmetto and placed him on probation for five years. In 2003, he was again placed on five-year probation for failure to comply with requirements set forth in the 1998 order. His license was reinstated “without restriction” in 2018.

But when a Lafayette NEUROSURGEON becomes involved in suspected arson and subsequently enters a plea of guilty to one count of felony obstruction of justice, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners is strangely silent.

Dr. Nancy Rogers was arrested in 2012 in connection with the fire at Levy-East Bed & Breakfast in Natchitoches, a blaze that caused $500,000 in damage to the unoccupied building. No motive has been given for the fire, but investigators determined it to have been intentionally set.

But in the case of Dr. ARNOLD FELDMAN of Baton Rouge, the board came down especially hard.

In a terse December 20, 2018, LETTER TO FELDMAN, board Executive Director Vincent Culotta, Jr., wrote, “Per the decision and order of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners dated April 13, 2015, the amount due is as follows:

  • Cost of proceeding—$456,980.60
  • Administrative fine—$5,000
  • Total: $461,980.60.

This is not intended as a treatsie on Feldman’s guilt or innocence, but it’s rather difficult to fathom what “proceedings” could cost nearly $457,000 but that’s the way the dental and medical examiners boards operate. While members of both boards are appointed by the governor, they are apparently accountable to no one and able to set fines and costs at whatever amounts they wish.

Feldman served briefly as a member of the Physicians’ Health Foundation until he started asking questions that made certain people uncomfortable. Four months later, he found himself in the board’s crosshairs. But during his short tenure, he learned that the medical board funnels about a million dollars a year into the foundation. Apparently, there is no accounting for those funds.

Moreover, he said, the so-called “independent judges” hearing cases for possible board disciplinary action are paid by the board investigator’s office, which creates something of a stacked deck going into the process—not to mention an obvious conflict of interest.

Physicians aren’t the only ones to encounter an uncooperative medical board. The Legislative Auditor was forced to SUE the board in order to obtain board records so that it could perform its statutorily-mandated job of auditing the board’s financial records.

Senate Bill 286, the so-called physicians’ Bill of Rights, passed the SENATE by a unanimous 36-0 vote last year but never made it to the floor of the House after being involuntarily deferred in committee.

But a rare unanimous DECISION by the U.S. Supreme Court exactly two months later, on February 20, could impact the way these boards mete out exorbitant fines.

Even though the high court’s ruling on Timbs v. Indiana is considered a blow aimed at criminal justice reform, particularly in the so-called policing for profit through asset forfeiture, its effects could spill over into the way civil fines are handed down by regulatory bodies.

The ruling, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, falls back on the Eighth Amendment that guarantees that no “excessive fines” may be imposed, a concept that dates back to the Magna Carta and later embraced by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

It will be interesting to see if any dentist or physician victimized by either of these boards files legal action based on the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling.

If someone does, it could be a game changer.

Read Full Post »

Is it a mere coincidence that Louisiana has the FIFTH-WORST dental health in the nation? Or that our state has the eighth-worst oral health or the worst dental habits and care?

Could the fact that we rank dead last in the percentage of adults who visited a dentist in the past year somehow correlate with the fact that Louisiana is also dead last in the number of dentists per capita? Or second-worst in the percentage of adults with low life satisfaction due to oral condition?

Or could it be that the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry is just more interested in assessing fines and penalties as a means of amassing funds to perpetuate its existence than it is in promoting good dental health?

In 2010, the Louisiana Board of Dentistry revoked the license of Dr. Ryan Haygood of Shreveport. He was forced to endure a four-day hearing he describes as a “kangaroo court,” during which he had no rights and no due process.

“While this sounds unbelievable and extreme,” he told the Senate Commerce Committee last April, “the courts have agreed.”

A three-dentist panel found him guilty on eight specifics under two separate charges. In addition to taking his license to practice, the panel assessed him with more than $173,000 in fines and legal and investigative fees.

Incredibly, the conviction included several charges that the board had already dismissed and on the other charges, the board produced no evidence against him.

It took years, but the revocation was overturned by a unanimous ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The court, in a strongly-worded rebuke of the dental board, said, “We hold this conduct is violative of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act and Dr. Haygood’s due process right to a neutral adjudicator and a fair hearing.

In 2011, Haygood filed suit against the board attorney, its investigator (who has since has his own private investigator’s license revoked), two unlicensed investigators and several local dentists who he said conspired with the board to take his license

Haygood, in his Senate testimony, said that in November 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal cited the aforementioned Fourth Circuit ruling which suggested the potential of a corrupted investigation and a strong inference that members of the board engaged in the conduct attributed to Dr. Ross Dies (a local competitor of Haygood). If some of the allegations regarding Dies’ behavior are proved, the court added, they “would strongly suggest that Dies’ conduct was motivated less by altruistic concern for the public than animus to suppress a competitor. They would also prove that other board members agreed with Dr. Dies to engage in conduct to accomplish those objectives.

In December 2017, Caddo district court Judge Michael Pitman said:

This court reviewed many e-mails and correspondence between members of the board and the investigation team and the attorneys handling the matter before the board. I did so in-camera. Those matters are under seal because of the confidential nature of the investigation. But the things in those correspondence(s) were rather shocking with the unprofessionalism that was shown during this investigation, and I won’t go into specifics because those matters are under seal, but I was shocked at some of the things I read, some of the unprofessionalism that took place during this investigation by the board members, attorneys, so on and so forth…

The bottom line is there were—the proceedings that too place in this investigation were shocking. I just can’t think of another word to describe it. It was absolutely shocking.

Yet, despite overwhelming evidence of the board’s employment of a private investigator whose license was under threat of revocation (and eventually was revoked), despite testimony of destruction of records by the board, and despite former board employee Diana Chenevert’s meeting with investigators from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on four different occasions during which she provided details of these, as well as citing examples of threats, extortion, and anti-competitive activities of the board, and despite having been told by OIG personnel that arrests were eminent, nothing happened.

In fact, in a January 25, 2018, letter to State Sen. Barrow Peacock, State Inspector General Steven Street said, among other things, “the evidence did not support criminal charges against any current or former Dental Board employees, board members or contractors.”

To read the full text of Street’s incredulous letter, go HERE.

Apparently, Street saw nothing wrong with the manner in which the board extorts money from dentists or the manner in which it conspired with the LSU School of Dentistry to ruin the career of one Dr. Randall Schaffer. To read his story, go HERE.

It’s not much of a stretch to say that Street has become something of a caricature of the clueless Sgt. Schultz character on Hogan’s Heroes who was best-known for his oft-repeated line, “I see nothing, I see nothing.”

Schaffer is the one who, back in 1989, realized that a joint replacement device for temporomandibular jaw (TMJ) sufferers developed at the LSU Dental School and being marketed by a Houston company named Vitek, was defective.

When Schaffer, then a resident at LSU, became aware of the 100 percent failure rate of the device, he informed Dr. John Kent, head of LSU’s School of Dentistry’s Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, who had developed the device.

But Kent had been given stock in Vitek and was earning royalties of 2 percent to 4 percent on the sale of Vitek products, so the word of disfigurement, excruciating pain and at least eight suicides was unwelcome news. The obvious solution was to get rid of Schaffer and shut him up.

Today, Schaffer lives in Iowa, driven out of Louisiana by the Dentistry Board which joined with LSU to persecute the messenger even as 675 patients combined as a class for discovery purposes, leaving the state exposed to about $1 billion in legal liability.

Schaffer, you see, was named as a witness and consultant in the class action case and the Board of Dentistry retaliated by launching its investigation of Schaffer

In 1992, the first case was settled for $1 million.

Meanwhile, the board continued with its unique method of imposing its own brand of justice on dentists who it deemed troublesome or a threat. And of course, the board took no corrective actions regarding Dr. Kent and his joint replacement device.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »