LASIK surgeon loses license to practice medicine in California
Sandy
Troubleshooter Investigation Launches State's Probe Against Kawesch
SAN DIEGO -- A prominent San Diego eye surgeon has one month to wrap
up his medical business.
Dr. Glenn Kawesch has lost his license to practice medicine in
California. A Troubleshooter investigation launched the state's probe
against Kawesch, which officially ended Wednesday with revocation of
his license.
The state medical board decision, published Wednesday morning, said
Kawesch engaged in dishonest business practices serious enough to lose
his medical privileges in California.
Last year, Kawesch pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges and still
awaits sentencing. His license revocation is official June 18.
"Inside Edition" recently featured Kawesch for the LASIK surgery he
performed on pop star Jessica Simpson.
Kawesch sold his San Diego practice to Dr. Kerry Assil last fall.
Kawesch opened an office in the Los Angeles area and another office in
San Diego.
Former Kawesch patients can contact the Assil & Flowers Vision
Institute at (858) 554-0799.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Yup. He won the battle, but lost the war.
Kawesch recently had all patient care related charges levied against
him by the California medical board dismissed without hesitation by
the judge, but they yanked his license because of his tax fraud
conviction.
What is interesting is that another high profile California surgeon
was convicted of Medicare fraud and is sitting in federal prison, but
has NOT had his license taken away.
Go figure.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
LASIK Fraud
Glenn Kawesch in the past. Hagele does not protect the public from bad
doctors. The California has played the role that Hagele has claimed as his
own.
You can read the gory details about how Hagele promoted and defended this
doctor here: http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa_surgeons_may_be_hazardous.html
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance certification process
works. It works because doctor certification is constantly being
re-evaluated and is subject to removal.
Initially we review 125 consecutive refractive surgery patient
outcomes, credentials, and conduct other background evaluations. If
the doctor meets or exceeds our requirements, a certification is
issued, but it does not end there.
To maintain certification, every three months every CRSQA Certified
Refractive Surgeon is re-evaluated based upon direct input from the
doctor's patients. Additionally, about every other year we review
another 125 consecutive refractive surgery patients.
Because of this constant oversight, if there is a problem we are
likely to learn about it. If that problem warrants, we have the
ability and resolve to respond.
While we never publicly reveal the detailed results of a review or the
justification for our response, this doctor was decertified about a
year and a half ago.
At the time the California Medical Board issued a medical license,
this doctor met its standards. At the time we certified this doctor,
he met our standards. The California Medical Board has found that the
doctor no longer meets their standards and is removing his license to
practice medicine. Similarly, we found that this doctor no longer met
our standards and removed certification. We acted a year and a half
before the medical board.
Dr. Kawesch is still certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology.
Interestingly, Hanson has nothing to say about this fact. Instead he
berates CRSQA, even though we decertified the doctor over a year ago.
serebel
Nowhere is it stated that he screwed up anyone's vision but of course
you don't mention that.
SErebel
Bryce Carlson
read the entire report on him from the California State Medical Board.
In their report, the Board dismissed each and every patient complaint
leveled against Kawesch as totally without merit, and noted again and
again that he consistently acted in a competent and professional
manner with respect to patient care. No, the problem with Kawesch was
not his skill or ethics in the actual practice of medicine, but rather
his judgment and morals in the way he ran his business and lived his
life. Kawesch is a charismatic personality who saw himself as a
Christian Troy-like character (from Nip/Tuck). He thought of himself
as a player and a playboy who could live fast and play loose and get
away with it. He was wrong, and now he's learning just how wrong.
There's a lesson here.
Bryce Carlson
DoctorMyEye
one.
My best friend from optometry school worked with Dr. Kawesch, and he
really grew a fond respect for him for a long period of time. The
patient claims against Dr. Kawesch were dismissed, but the tax-evasion
issue created a duplicity in the eyes of the medical board that they
chose to make an issue.
If Dr. Kawesch lost his license because of LASIK, all LASIK surgeons
in California should surrender their licenses.
bryca...@socal.rr.com (Bryce Carlson) wrote in message news:<14e1a0fe.04052...@posting.google.com>...
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>
> Nowhere is it stated that he screwed up anyone's vision but of course
>you don't mention that.
To be fair to Keller, neither does the San Diego news reporter.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
There does seem to be an uneven application of the rules here. I also
suspect, although I do not have first-hand knowledge, that there will
be some appeal to this decision by the California Medical Board.
Sandy
In an apparent world first, a regulatory agency is attempting to
prevent an ophthalmologist practising altogether as a result of
allegations of negligence involving LASIK and PRK.
Glenn A. Kawesch MD, who practises in San Diego, California, US faces
allegations of gross negligence and incompetence arising from his
treatment of nine patients.
Until recently, most medicine regulators on both sides of the Atlantic
have focused on ethical issues. Such regulators have, by and large,
ignored issues related to clinical competence, allowing disgruntled
individual patients to sue physicians for malpractice in a civil
court.
With the Kawesch case, however, the Medical Board of California — one
of the world's largest regulators of physicians — has set a precedent
in attempting to prevent an ophthalmologist from practising altogether
because of alleged clinical incompetence involving refractive surgery.
If found guilty, the medical board can revoke Dr Kawesch's licence and
compel him to pay the costs of the inquiry. Those costs could run into
the hundreds of thousand of dollars.
In addition to questioning his clinical competence, the Medical Board
has also claimed Dr Kawesch should forfeit his licence for alleged
dishonesty and corruption. In 1997, Dr Kawesch agreed not to
participate in a number of US government-sponsored health insurance
programmes to settle federal government allegations that he had
submitted false insurance claims. As part of the settlement agreement,
Dr Kawesch denied any liability or damage.
In the local media and in court, lawyers for Dr Kawesch have
steadfastly denied all the allegations against him. They contend the
Medical Board has targeted Dr Kawesch unfairly because of his profile
– he has performed laser surgery on 30,000 eyes in 20,000 patients
since 1996.
Lawyers for Kawesch also have assembled a team of refractive surgeons
who believe Dr Kawesch practised according to the appropriate standard
of care in all cases. They also insist Dr Kawesch never committed any
wrongdoing involving insurance claims.
In most of the cases, the Medical Board has accused Dr Kawesch of
performing LASIK or PRK on patients for whom it was contra-indicated.
In three cases involving PRK, the Board has alleged the surgery was
contra-indicated primarily because the patients had kerataconus. In
three other cases involving LASIK, the Board has alleged that LASIK
was contra-indicated because the patients had a cataract.
The Board also alleges Dr Kawesch failed to manage appropriately the
postoperative care of a seventh patient who received bilateral LASIK
and a PRK enhancement in one eye.
The Board has also alleged that Dr Kawesch committed negligence
against an eighth patient for failing to ensure the adequacy of an
optometric work-up by one of his optometrists and for failing to
detect the patient's cataract before carrying out LASIK.
The Board has also alleged that Dr Kawesch committed negligence in
performing LASIK on a ninth patient with severe keratoconus.
The full hearing of the case against Dr Kawesch is scheduled for
January when experts for both sides are expected to clash for as long
as a month.
Dr Kawesch has already won the first round of the case against him. In
a preliminary one-day court hearing in June, the Medical Board failed
to convince a judge to suspend Dr Kawesch's licence immediately on the
basis of Dr Kawesch's handling of six of the nine patients.
In making their bid to suspend Dr Kawesch's licence, the Board lawyers
argued Dr Kawesch was a danger to patients.
At the preliminary hearing, two experts for Dr Kawesch and one expert
for the Board sparred over Dr Kawesch's clinical evaluation and
decision: to perform PRK on the three patients with keratoconus; to
perform LASIK on the patient with severe keratoconus; and to perform
LASIK enhancement surgery on two of the patients with cataracts and
astigmatism.
In the six cases, the expert for the Board contended Dr Kawesch
departed from the accepted standard of care. In a number of the cases,
however, the medical board expert was forced to admit that "where to
draw the line as to when refractive surgery is absolutely
contra-indicated versus relatively contra-indicated is therefore
equally difficult".
The experts for Dr Kawesch contended the refractive surgery was
appropriate in all circumstances, particularly at the time when they
were performed. One expert also argued that most patients with
keratoconus would have to have a corneal transplant anyway.
While agreeing that LASIK is not appropriate for patients with
cataract-induced visual compromise, one expert believedDr Kawesch
performed LASIK appropriately for the patients' unrelated astigmatism.
In an eight-page rebuke of the Board, the judge stated it had failed
to show that allowing Dr Kawesch to continue to practice until a full
hearing would "endanger the public health, safety or welfare".
By contrast, the judge noted that a suspension would "have a
significant and negative impact" on Dr Kawesch's practice and his
ability to retain existing patients.
In refusing the suspension, the judge said Dr Kawesch and his experts
were more persuasive than the expert for the Medical Board.
The judge said Dr Kawesch "and his experts possess signficant
qualifications and experience in the pertinent procedures" and
"presented credible opinions that contradict" the Board's expert.
The judge also noted that many of the opinions of Dr Kawesch's experts
were often supported partially by those of the Board's expert.
The judge added that the number of patients cited by the medical board
in seeking the suspension represented "a very small portion" of the
tens of thousands of patients treated by Dr Kawesch.
In the circumstances, the judge refused to suspend Dr Kawesch's
licence after concluding that "the likelihood of injury to [Dr
Kawesch] in issuing the interim order outweighs the likelihood of
injury to the public in not issuing the order".
EuroTimes will continue to monitor the case.
Dr. Leukoma
news:1f704412.04052...@posting.google.com:
The message I got out of this was that the judge ruled in favor of the
defendant in a court of law.
DrG
LASIK Fraud
recently wrote: "If Dr. [Glenn] Kawesch lost his license because of LASIK,
all LASIK surgeons in California should surrender their licenses." Dr.
Minarak implied that Dr. Kawesch's standard of care is consistent with all
lasik surgeons in California. Perhaps it is, but let's examine the record:
===============================================
http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/glenn_kawesch_02.pdf
Doctor Refuses To Speak With Troubleshooter
SAN DIEGO -- The California attorney general's office has filed an
accusation against the license of San Diego LASIK surgeon Dr. Glenn Kawesch,
the 10News Troubleshooter reported.
The complaint charges Kawesch with "gross negligence" in the care and
treatment of a patient. It charges Kawesch with "repeated negligent acts" in
his treatment of five patients.
It also charges Kawesch with "dishonest and corrupt acts" involving his
settlement of a civil complaint alleging he altered medical and surgical
charts and fabricated various test results.
In 1997, Kawesch settled that case, denying liability, but the agreement
excluded him from participating in Medicare, Medicaid and the CHAMPUS
program for four years.
The attorney general's complaint asks for the "revoking" or "suspending" of
Kewesch's physician and surgeon's license.
Dr. Kawesch would not talk with the Troubleshooter about the accusation.
But his attorney, Michael Lipman, said in a fax: "Dr. Kawesch denies the
allegations in the Accusation and contends that his medical treatment was
allegations in the Accusation and contends that his medical treatment was
appropriate in all respects. We intend to vigorously defend against the
Accusation and believe that we will ultimately prevail."
===============================================
No wonder Glenn Hagele condemned Dr. Minarik with his posting at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22bulletin+board%22+and+doctormyeye.com+g
roup:alt.lasik-eyes&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.lasik-eyes&safe=off&selm=tc
9p701ms3af0gsap70bprcdbhviufrn7n%404ax.com&rnum=2
"For nonsense, politics, posturing, misinformation, rhetoric, and
entertainment value, you have the BBS operated by Ken Minarik, OD at
http://www.doctormyeye.com/bulletinboard/index.php."
Dr. Leukoma
news:Xns94F153FB55C...@204.127.199.17:
On second reading, I guess Kawesch was the plaintiff?
The point is that he had his day in court.
DrG
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>The message I got out of this was that the judge ruled in favor of the
>defendant in a court of law.
The fact that the doctor was exonerated of all patient care related
accusations is much less important to Keller than that the accusations
were made. Having an independent judge find the claims warrantless is
not a truth that Keller is able or willing to acknowledge.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
presented, but an independent judge agreed that the claims were
warrantless.
Bryce Carlson
California State Medical Board addressing the charges against Kawesch
by several patients that his medical care was substandard or
constituted malpractice, and in each and every case the Board
determined that there was no merit, whatsoever, to the charges. My
guess is that once the media got rolling with their exposé on
Kawesch's ethics lapses regarding his business shenanigans, a few
patients with what they believed were unnecessary bad outcomes decided
to jump on the bandwagon. At first, the Board seems to have supported
these accusations, but upon close examination it concluded they were
without merit. People who know Kawesch say he is a good doctor with a
big brain, a small heart, and a lust for money, power and celebrity.
Bryce Carlson
DoctorMyEye
More often than not, you and I are on the same side of many issues.
But, when you look at the Kawesh accusations and the end result, you
can see the disconnect between the accusations and the final verdict.
Even in Sandy's "reading into the record" of Kawesh's "crimes" it is
noted that he "missed" a cataract on one in 30,00 eyes and performed
LASIK on 3 eyes that were then diagnosed with keratoconus. I think
that a witch hunt is a witch hunt, and every refractive surgeon who
does big numbers can only hope and pray that ONLY a few are
undiagnosed "cones". Every optometrist in a large busy practice tries
his damnest to not miss early glaucoma or signs of keratoconus, but
they will miss a few. This is often deemed not to be malpractice, but
instead simple human error in judgement.
I hold the opinion that all refractive surgery has risks, but this
case turned into a witch hunt. The guy evaded paying his taxes, which
is why he lost his license. Any of us, in any profession, stand to
lose our professional license if we engage in tax evasion. It is the
law, regardless of your "side" in the refractive surgery debate.
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hage...@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<e42va0963o45cnsmh...@4ax.com>...
r5
> Not only did Dr. Kawesch deny all the patient care allegations
> presented, but an independent judge agreed that the claims were
I'm sure that "fraud" is aware of this, but he has to cherry
pick quotes in order to make it look like he has a valid
argument. Yawn...
LASIK Fraud
driven through 30,000 green lights?
Or, how about this? Is it okay for me to accidentally shoot three people at
the pistol range because I managed to get 30,000 rounds correctly down range
on the paper target?
Sorry, Dr. Minarik, but when you are in the business of performing totally
unnecessary elective surgery AND you are advertising your ability to get the
job done right, GROSS MISTAKES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Dr. Minarik, your brief drive as the "Ralph Nader" of the LASIK industry has
gone into the ditch.
r5
> Let's see, if I drive through three red lights that is okay, because I have
> driven through 30,000 green lights?
Bad analogy. Why are you equating an unforeseen lasik
complication with a crime such as intentionally running
a red light or worse, aiming a gun at a person? Surgeons
don't approach their craft by planning on intentionally
botching a few procedures. If surgeons did, they would have
a mile long line of dissatisfied patients waiting to
sue them for malpractice.
Sandy
Bryce, would you agree with the Medical Board's findings that my
surgeon did not deserve discipline? We can start with the fact that
he provided zero informed consent, saw topos of dry corneas that were
still warped from 25 years of RGP wear prior to surgery and did it
anyway, didn't stop when the blade jammed, only prescribed a
once-every-four-hour steroid drop for Grade IV DLK, did an enhancement
on an eye which was going through wildly fluctuating refractions in
the two weeks prior AND while I was using Dexamethasone drops...the
list goes on and on and on. What's your opinion of that? Do you
think the Medical Board disciplines all of the doctors deserving it?
Rebecca
> People who know Kawesch say he is a good doctor with a
> big brain, a small heart, and a lust for money, power and celebrity.
I was interested to note that he has paid adverts for himself on
Google as second opinion in complicated cases. Does anyone know if he
has been doing any complex retreatment work?
serebel
That's because he is a lawyer with a severe mental defect, probably
from not winning any cases in years.
SErebel
serebel
If a lasik doc does'nt pay his paperboy on time Sandy goes ballistic
and Brent files another frivolous lawsuit.
SErebel
Bryce Carlson
Bryce Carlson wrote in message news:
> > Well, what I know is that I read the entire final report of the
> > California State Medical Board addressing the charges against Kawesch
> > by several patients that his medical care was substandard or
> > constituted malpractice, and in each and every case the Board
> > determined that there was no merit, whatsoever, to the charges. My
> > guess is that once the media got rolling with their exposé on
> > Kawesch's ethics lapses regarding his business shenanigans, a few
> > patients with what they believed were unnecessary bad outcomes decided
> > to jump on the bandwagon. At first, the Board seems to have supported
> > without merit. People who know Kawesch say he is a good doctor with a
> > big brain, a small heart, and a lust for money, power and celebrity.
> >
> > Bryce Carlson
>
> Bryce, would you agree with the Medical Board's findings that my
> surgeon did not deserve discipline? We can start with the fact that
> he provided zero informed consent, saw topos of dry corneas that were
> still warped from 25 years of RGP wear prior to surgery and did it
> anyway, didn't stop when the blade jammed, only prescribed a
> once-every-four-hour steroid drop for Grade IV DLK, did an enhancement
> on an eye which was going through wildly fluctuating refractions in
> list goes on and on and on. What's your opinion of that? Do you
> think the Medical Board disciplines all of the doctors deserving it?
In my opinion, there is no question that you were the victim of
substandard care, Sandy. However, there is a big difference between
the Board deciding that a doctor guilty of providing substandard care
nevertheless does "not deserve discipline," and the Board concluding
that there is no merit, whatsoever, to the charges leveled against him
(as was the case with Dr. Kawesch). I have read the individual
patient charges against Kawesch, as well as the Medical Boards's
expert analysis, and based on that I agree with the Board's
determination that Kawesch acted competently and appropriately in each
case.
Bryce
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Additionally, the other people at the intersection did not go through
an informed consent process that told them Hanson was going to drive
through the three red lights in the intersection they were about to
enter.
A very bad analogy that IMO does not at all support Hanson's position.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>> > Not only did Dr. Kawesch deny all the patient care allegations
>> > presented, but an independent judge agreed that the claims were
>>
>> I'm sure that "fraud" is aware of this, but he has to cherry
>> pick quotes in order to make it look like he has a valid
>> argument. Yawn...
>
>That's because he is a lawyer with a severe mental defect, probably
>from not winning any cases in years.
>
>SErebel
I think there is some confusion here. At least on my part.
Brent Hanson is posting as "LASIK fraud" in this forum. To my
knowledge he is not a lawyer. Considering the manner in which he
conducted his libel suit against me and the circumstances of the court
tossing it as without merit, I don't see how he could possibly be a
lawyer.
Perhaps you are thinking of another person who created an anti-LASIK
website, concealed his ownership of that website, then offered to
refer patients to a lawyer.
serebel
Ok, he's just another loonie as Sandy,et.al.
SErebel
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Take it for what its worth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Jessica Simpson endorses eye surgeon's laser therapy!
New York May 25, 2004 2:47:08 PM IST
Pop sensation Jessica Simpson was so impressed by the vision
correction therapy of a Los Angeles eye surgeon that she immediately
agreed to promote his treatment.
According to ratethemusic.com Dr. Glenn Kawesch's laser therapy helped
clear Jessica's vision and in return the star agreed to endorse his
treatment.
The beautiful singer will be seen in print ads for the doctor with the
punch line, "Everything looks beautiful."
http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=38951&cat=Entertainment
DoctorMyEye
"click thru" Google ad has appeared daily along side this "discussion"
of his license. You can read more about the Jessica Simpson story on
his website:
Another irony here is that Dr. K will end up a hero in many peoples
eyes when the appeal of his license revocation hits the Circuit Court.
His thorough co-operation with the FBI and the IRS have allowed them
to come down heavily on the illegal tax shelters that were being
"hustled" onto the suddenly cash-rich LASIK surgeon community. My
insider says he was duped into believing that these scams were
legitimate tax shelters, and he helped expose a lot of lies and
deception that make him look like very small potatoes. In many tax
cases the line between "tax shelter" and "tax evasion" is the crook
that sold the false shelter.
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hage...@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<m327b0tvc85400vig...@4ax.com>...
Glenn - USAEyes.org
tax shelter. In fact, I recall several ophthalmologists discussing
the merits of this shelter years ago.
Dr. Kawesch was advised by both an CPA and a tax attorney when he
invested in this shelter. I don't know if "duped" is an appropriate
term, but it would appear that somebody didn't do their homework. Of
course, it was only after-the-fact that the IRS determined it was
abusive. Dr. Kawesch has told me himself that he had cooperated with
the IRS and others from the first day they knocked on his door.
I'm just making a speculation here, but if Kawesch was cooperating
with the IRS clandestinely, this would be a reason to settle claims
made against him rather than go into court. If he was asked under
oath any questions about his involvement with the IRS, he would have
been in a rather sticky situation.
If he wins his appeals, I believe the California Medical Board will
appear to be an vindictive government body ran by the will of the
press. It seems vindictive to me when they lose hands down multiple
claims against him that relate to patient care - their jurisdiction -
then come back and say they don't like the way he did his taxes.
Well, time will tell.
ycdbsoya
Glenn,
K's greed did him in. It's a shame that you don't recognize this. If
you have followed his story you will see that he is way too smart to
be "duped" into the sitch he was in. Rather, I am sure he saw it as an
opportunity with a minimal chance of getting caught, kinda like the
old LASIK 3% complication rate.
He is not well-liked or respected by his fellow opthalmologists. As I
said in a previous post, he's a businessman - not a doctor. His lust
for and pursuit of material things, power and celebrity have landed
him where he is now. Now he'll start narking on his fellow MD's to try
and save his skin. Good Guy, huh?
Check his brother's site. His brother bashes other opths right on the
site, and then tries to turn this around into why you should see him
than the other docs. Ethical family, huh? The apples don't fall far
from the tree or themselves.
Time will tell, indeed.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>opportunity with a minimal chance of getting caught, kinda like the
>old LASIK 3% complication rate.
I've never discussed this particular part of the issue with him, but
if a CPA and lawyer came to me with a plan they said was legal and
would significantly reduce my taxes, I'd do it. I think most of us
would too.
>He is not well-liked or respected by his fellow opthalmologists.
I have found that the greater the distance from the competitor, the
less the animosity. This is pretty much true of all doctors who have
financially successful practices. The competition for patients and
dollars in ophthalmology is sometimes fierce to the point of
stupidity, IMO.
Long before your time, there was a Florida surgeon who trained and
comanaged with optometrists, ran a very efficient practice, used the
newest technology and techniques, he (ohmygosh) advertised, and
performed a very, very, very high volume of cataract surgeries. So
high that one year he was the largest provider of cataract surgeries
for patients who lived in the state of Michigan, even though he was in
Florida. (Snowbirds) His outcomes were comparable to other good
surgeons, and often better.
This high-volume business model was counter to the opinion of the old
guard on what was appropriate. In many times and in many ways this
doctor was vilified. He was called a "buccaneer" and it was implied
that he was a pirate, plundering patients from other (old guard)
doctors.
As an aside, this doctor co-founded the Society for Excellence in
Eyecare (SEE) with similar minded ophthalmologists. As an inside joke
to that buccaneer label, SEE has traditionally had its meetings in the
Caribbean and Bahamas. You've gotta have a sense of humor in this
business.
In San Francisco a surgeon was one of the first to implant intraocular
lenses in cataract patients. He was flashy, high volume, financially
successful, and even owned his own hospital, which was unheard of at
that time.
In those days, most doctors were prescribing those goofy looking thick
glasses for cataract patients, instead of implanting IOLs. The
manufacturer of the IOLs the San Francisco doctor used provided a
batch that were not sterile. In the malpractice suit that followed,
an official representative of the American Academy of Ophthalmology
testified under oath that anyone implanting an intraocular lens was
clearly guilty of malpractice and that he, the doctor/witness and AAO
representative, would never do it himself.
It took years, but eventually everyone saw that these two doctors were
not quite villains, but innovators in an industry that didn't like
this kind of innovation. They were targets for everything that the
industry didn't like going on around them. In fact, both greatly
advanced patient care and many of the success ophthalmology has today
can be directly traced back to these two doctors.
Long-term, everything worked out. Unfortunately, you don't eat
long-term.
I don't know what is going to be the final outcome for Glenn. Kawesch,
but I can say that I would not wish the financial and emotional
turmoil he has gone through on my worst enemy. Of course, I wouldn't
wish what you have gone through with your vision on my worst enemy
either. I am hopeful that both he and his patients will ultimately
have solutions to their problems.
>As I
>said in a previous post, he's a businessman - not a doctor.
All are both these days. It is the balance between the two that is
important. It is also important for all patients to remember to look
for this balance.
Sandy
Hagele is almost defending Kawesch in this "Blinded by Greed" thread.
Hagele seems to be saying Kawesch was envied by other surgeons and was
simply caught up as an innocent by his CPA, etc.
This is near the end of the article written in last year's
Union-Tribune. Kawesch defrauded Medicare BEFORE he ever did LASIK. He
had a prior history. Was he simply "caught up" in something his CPA
cooked up when billing Medicare for services never performed? There
is no defending him. And yet Hagele makes analogies
to other surgeons he says were "ahead of their time"..
Kawesch Faces Prison, Fines for Tax Evasion
by Cheryl Clark
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
May 9, 2003
"Kawesch was charged in 1995 with submitting false Medicare claims,
fabricating test results and falsifying insurance codes to receive
payment for services that were unnecessary or never performed,
according to state documents.
He paid $225,000 in fines and was excluded from government
reimbursement programs for four years."
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>Hagele is almost defending Kawesch in this "Blinded by Greed" thread.
>Hagele seems to be saying Kawesch was envied by other surgeons and was
>simply caught up as an innocent by his CPA, etc.
Keller, it is not necessary to "seem" to read what I "seem" to have
written or "almost" said. Just read the words. I am presenting facts
about Dr. Kawesch and my opinions regarding those facts. As a general
rule, I'm perfectly capable of stating what I wish to say in a manner
that reasonable people will understand, without needing you to "seem"
to find other meanings I "almost" said..
ycdbsoya
around. BBW, Salz, Nordan, just around SoCal to name a few "famous"
ones that would not be threatened by the success of K's practice. In
San Diego, ask Miller, Blinder, Gordon, peeps at Shiley and the VA and
they will all tell you the same thing. In short, K cheapened and
sullied the entire profession with his McLasik approach.
And yes, Sandy is absolutely correct when she states K has a past
record of indiscretions. Medicare fraud, modifying test results, false
advertising.
God only knows what he has NOT been caught for. Old Chinese proverb:
"If one fish in the pot stinks, the whole pot stinks."
You did the right thing by ripping his CRSQA cert. You did not do the
right thing by keeping him around in light of the severity of the
charges he faced.
Yes, we live in a democracy where innocence is presumed. But, when a
reprobate like K continues to flaunt the law and violate individual's
health in the name of money, you just know. You just know.
Don't embarrass yourself by defending this scum.
serebel
>
> Hagele is almost defending Kawesch in this "Blinded by Greed" thread.
> Hagele seems to be saying Kawesch was envied by other surgeons and was
> simply caught up as an innocent by his CPA, etc.
>
>
Ok sandy, we can read what Glenn posts for ourselves, we don't need
spin doctor narration.
SErebel
wavefront information
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hage...@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<99m9b09fg9s81khnq...@4ax.com>...