Which LASIK Surgeon Does CRSQA Recommend in San Diego ?
Roger
1. Introduction.
2. Malpractice and Medical Malpractice Complaints naming a "Glenn
Kawesch" as the Defendant.
3. List of Doctors Researched as Defendants on Monday September 9,
2002.
4. "Not an Advertisement" Statement.
5. What I Want from the Refractive Surgery "profession".
==> INTRODUCTION
is the URL for the Center for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance.
I wondered ~ who does Glenn Hagele and CRSQA recommend in the San
Diego area ?
So I took a look ==>
http://www.usaeyes.org/surgeons/states/california.htm
http://www.usaeyes.org/surgeons/glenn_kawesch.htm
Hmmm ... CRSQA recommends Glenn Kawesch.
VERY interesting.
I took a trip to the courthouse today. I entered the names of several
doctors in the computer, in the Civil section.
I would characterize my investigation as THOROUGH but not EXHAUSTIVE.
Do you know, of the several prominent refractive surgeons I researched
today September 9, 2002, who has the most cases filed at the San Diego
courthouse, naming them as the Defendant?
Glenn Kawesch.
From
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=quality
here's a definition - for the word QUALITY - that seems relevant ...
Superiority of kind: an intellect of unquestioned quality.
Degree or grade of excellence: yard goods of low quality.
So Glenn, I wonder, exactly what kind of "Quality" is the Center for
Refractive Surgery "Quality Assurance" ... assuring ?
==> Legal Complaints naming a "Glenn Kawesch, MD" as the Defendant.
Search Parameters:
* The documents listed here are the result of a search performed on
the computer in the "General Civil" (Not "Small Claims") Section of
the San Diego Courthouse at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California
on Monday September 9, 2002.
* The one document with an "N" prefix is purportedly archived at the
North County courthouse on Melrose in San Marcos.
* "Category of Case" is as described on the San Diego Courthouse
computer.
* "Filing Date" is as described on the San Diego Courthouse computer.
* Case Numbers GIC764982 and GIC779106 name the same plaintiff, and
are listed here because the categories of case are different: the
former cites "Malpractice", the latter case cites "Fraud."
* The Plaintiff listed on Case Number 724772 has another case filed,
Number 718290. However, the Category of Case listed on the computer is
the same in each case (Malpractice). Therfore I left the case that
was filed earlier off the tabular listing.
CASE NUMBER CATEGORY OF CASE Filing Date
GIC774078 Medical Malpractice September 7, 2001
GIC787221 Malpractice April 24, 2002
GIC764982 Malpractice April 2, 2001
GIC779106 Fraud December 4, 2001
GIC793085 Medical Malpractice July 25, 2002
724772 Malpractice October 7, 1998
GIC753609 Medical Malpractice August 25, 2000
GIC764538 Medical Malpractice March 26, 2001
GIC748269 Malpractice May 16, 2000
GIC753043 Malpractice August 15, 2000
GIC782738 Medical Malpractice February 6, 2002
N79316 Malpractice September 30,
1998
727331 Malpractice January 15, 1999
728995 Malpractice March 15, 1999
728997 Malpractice March 15, 1999
729568 Negligence April 2, 1999
GIC743137 Malpractice February 8, 2000
GIC757257 Medical Malpractice November 1, 2000
GIC760421 Medical Malpractice January 8, 2001
GIC775955 Medical Malpractice October 10, 2001
GIC787421 Medical Malpractice April 26, 2002
GIC788174 Medical Malpractice May 8, 2002
GIC789393 Medical Malpractice May 29, 2002
GIC794779 Medical Malpractice August 22, 2002
GIC768248 Medical Malpractice May 31, 2001
25 Separate Cases. 24 Distinct Plaintiff's.
Glenn Hagele, exactly how is it that you define "Quality Assurance",
again ?
==> List of Doctors Researched as Defendants on Monday September 9,
2002
Suffice it to say that the search was THOROUGH but not EXHAUSTIVE.
==> This is not an advertisement for any of the following persons or
organizations:
"Doctor" Michael Gordon
Glenn Kawesch, M.D.
Glenn Hagele
CRSQA
"Doctor" Thomas Tooma
"Doctor" Robert Maloney
"Doctor" Roger Steinert
==> What I Want from the Refractive Surgery "profession".
1. Practice 100% ethical informed consent.
For example, that means "Doctor" Gordon tells new patients about his
own "casualties" - persons who have experienced significant damage to
their eyes after LASIK performed by "Doctor" Gordon. It also means
telling new patients about complications experienced by other
surgeons. For example, "Doctor" Tooma has a patient who went
completely blind in one eye, after LASIK performed by Tooma; this
incident resulted in a case being filed at the Orange County
courthouse. The court documents describe "partial blindness", but ...
the dude can't see out of the eye. I call that ~ blind in one eye.
Since the "doctors" are not forthcoming about what happened in that
particular case, what we know for sure is that, following the trauma
of speculum, suction ring, micro-keratome, and excimer laser, one of
that patient's eyes stopped functioning. The rumor is that one of the
primary blood vessels "blew out", but, whatever "Doctor" Tooma's hunch
may be on the subject, he hasn't shared it with me ... yet.
100% ethical informed consent means that: "Doctor" Gordon tells ALL
his pre-ops that what happened to "Doctor" Tooma's
patient-that-is-blind-in-one-eye COULD HAPPEN TO THEM.
Another example. One of the cases on-file at the San Diego courthouse
names one "Doctor" Binder in a case where a patient went blind in one
eye after RK surgery. In that case, Number 484693, on page 4 of the
First Amended Complaint, it is stated that, "It was explained by Dr.
Binder that the procedure was relatively simple and risk-free."
Doesn't sound very low-risk to me.
In other words, in my opinion, "Doctor" Gordon, "Doctor" Binder, et
al, need to refrain from describing their corneal alteration
procedures as "safe."
http://www.lajollanews.com/News/2002/May/News1670.shtml
Somehow I get the feeling that the "Doctors" would prefer that these
cases remain buried in the basements of their respective courthouses.
2. Make treating the patients who have been harmed a top priority.
For example, one of "Doctor" Tooma's patients continues to have
microscopic metal dust embedded in their cornea. In addition, that
patient has constant eye-pain, and when that patient uses their eyes,
the pain becomes excruciating.
That patient saw "Doctor" Steinert for a confocal microscope exam. He
didn't say anything about large quantities of microscopic metal dust.
The dust was revealed in a subsequent corneal confocal exam.
Now, the "Doctors" are afraid to make a statement regarding the
correlation between the metal dust embedded in that patient's cornea,
and their constant eye pain.
Therefore, I will issue the Roger Bratt Challenge: will a refractive
surgeon step forward and volunteer to have microscopic metal dust
embedded in their cornea ? And, large quantities of it ? If not, WHY
NOT ? Are you afraid it will HURT ? Are you afraid it will IMPAIR
YOUR VISION ? Are you afraid it will CRIPPLE YOU ? Well, that's the
effect the metal dust has had on the patient in question.
Actually, we have already been told by another refractive surgeon that
occasionally micro-keratome blades do come covered with SLIMY METAL
DUST, and that the proper thing to do in such cases is to RETURN THE
BLADES TO THE MANUFACTURER. Not use them to perform LASIK.
I suspect that "Doctor" Tooma performed LASIK with just such a dirty
micro-keratome blade ...
A) "Doctor" Tooma, in my opinion, is too un-courageous to DO THE
RIGHT THING and admit his mistake and help the patient with the metal
dust
B) "Doctor" Maloney, in my opinion, was more interested in protecting
"Doctor" Tooma than helping a patient with excruciating post-LASIK eye
pain ... he could have ordered a confocal exam, early post-op, when
the removal of the dust would have been easier. Instead, he walked
into the exam room, said, "I can't help you" to the patient with the
microscopic metal dust embedded in their cornea, and walked out of the
exam room.
C) "Doctor" Steinert, in my opinion, is more interested in protecting
"Doctor" Tooma and the LASIK gravy train, than helping a woman living
with constant eye-pain, which onset at the time of her LASIK, although
"Doctor" Steinert is supposed to be a MAJOR LASIK EXPERT.
In other words, in my opinion, 3 famous VIP LASIK "Doctors" would
rather have a woman patient spend the rest of her life living with
constant, excruciating eye pain, than do the right thing ~ which, in
my opinion, would be to put together a dream-team to THOROUGHLY
investigate every available medical option for that patient.
And all because, in my opinion, those 3 famous VIP LASIK "Doctors" -
Tooma, Maloney, and Steinert - would rather protect their LASIK
gravy-train, and have fat bank accounts, than simply do the right
thing, and help a woman patient with constant excruciating eye-pain
... which onset at the time of her LASIK surgery, performed by VIP
LASIK surgeon "Doctor" Thomas Tooma.
Are you getting tired of hearing about it ? What would you do if you
knew of someone in such a predicament ? Would you try to get help for
them ? Or would you turn your back ?
In my opinion, "Doctor" Tooma, "Doctor" Maloney, and "Doctor" Steinert
have decided to turn their back.
And Tooma, I am told, is a Seventh Day Adventist. Doesn't eat meat,
doesn't drink, goes to church on Saturdays. Etcetera.
Well, Adolf Hitler was nice to children. The blond ones.
In short, what I want from the refractive surgery profession is that
they help patients with bad outcomes, and catastrophic outcomes, such
as the one with the microscopic metal dust embedded in her corneas.
It's a simple enough request.
This patient was described as "Julie" at Surgical Eyes; here is the
URL for that post:
http://surgicaleyes.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=636293455&f=6334052921&m=3334062921&r=4334062921#4334062921
In closing, I should acknowledge the "doctor" who, in my opinion,
introduced me to corneal disease: San Diego, California LASIK Surgeon
"Doctor" Michael Gordon ~
http://www.geocities.com/michaelgordonmd
Sincerely,
~ Roger ~
Roger E. Bratt
Brent Hanson
I would like to commend you for your excellent research. You
demonstrated that Glenn Hagele has made fraudulent claims regarding
his CRSQA "certification".
-- Glenn Hagele certified Glenn Kawesch.
-- Glenn Kawesch has been sued a zillion times for malpractice.
-- Glenn Kawesch has been charged by the IRS with tax fraud (which you
did not mention in your post)
Glenn "Hagele" = Glenn "Kawesch"
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>25 Separate Cases. 24 Distinct Plaintiff's.
>
>Glenn Hagele, exactly how is it that you define "Quality Assurance",
>again ?
The full requirements of an applicant to become certified are
available at
http://www.usaeyes.org/surgeons/certification_request.html, however
the pertinent requirement is:
"Within the last five years, applicant may not have had more than one
paid malpractice claim of $30,000 (thirty thousand dollars) or more
for every 500 refractive surgeries performed."
For those of you without a calculator handy, this is a 99.8% "success"
rate. I put "success" in quotes because there are often patients who
are dissatisfied with their results but do not sue.
According to the National Practitioners Data Base, Dr. Kawesch has had
fewer than eight paid malpractice claims of $30,000 or more during his
entire career. According to Dr. Kawesch and affirmed by the
California Medical Board, Dr. Kawesch has provided more than 30,000
refractive surgeries.
When we require that not more than one in 500 patients could have a
successful malpractice suit of over $30k, that would mean as many as
60 successful claims could be made against someone who has provided as
much surgery as Dr. Kawesch.
You have noted 24 lawsuits, most of which are accusations that have
not yet been proven or paid. By percentages, this does not seem out
of the ordinary. In raw numbers this seems catastrophic. This is one
of the challenges when evaluating extremely high volume surgeons. It
is also one of the challenges affecting refractive surgery.
Needless to say, we are concerned when a situation exists such as the
situation involving Glenn Kawesch. Our Quality Standards Advisory
Committee (QSAC) will be meeting next quarter to determine what
maximum limit of successful malpractice claims is appropriate.
Truthfully, when we were formed and created our standards, we did not
envision a single surgeon performing over 30,000 surgeries and thus
our standards were not designed to accommodate such an eventuality.
This is why QSAC will recommend updates to our standards soon.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
glenn....@usaeyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Hanson) wrote:
>Roger,
>
>I would like to commend you for your excellent research. You
>demonstrated that Glenn Hagele has made fraudulent claims regarding
>his CRSQA "certification".
>
No claims I have made about our certification are fraudulent. You
really should consider who, how, and where you call someone or some
organization a fraud.
Alan Smithee
--
Produced by Alan Smithee
Scott Seidman
Quality Assurance) wrote in news:3d7e8194...@news.concentric.net:
> "Within the last five years, applicant may not have had more than one
> paid malpractice claim of $30,000 (thirty thousand dollars) or more
> for every 500 refractive surgeries performed."
>
> For those of you without a calculator handy, this is a 99.8% "success"
> rate. I put "success" in quotes because there are often patients who
> are dissatisfied with their results but do not sue.
>
>
No, this is not a 99.8% success rate. Malpractice and success have little
to do with each other (which is why you have success in quotation marks).
You can have an extremely negative outcome despite complete medical care of
the highest quality.
--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply
Roger
organizations:
Scripps
Glenn Hagele
Glenn Kawesch
"Doctor" Thomas Tooma
"Doctor" Perry Binder
TLC
"Doctor" Jeffrey Machat
===================================================================================================
Glenn, in my opinion, it's calculations like yours that are allowing
the Vision Holocaust to occur, constituted of RK, PRK, and LASIK
patients who were, in ALMOST ALL CASES, in my opinion, deliberately
deceived by their eye "Doctors" - tens of thousands of Americans
living with constant and in some cases excruciating eye pain, and/or
in most cases with severely diminished visual function.
I reckon Adolf Hitler needed sidekicks - someone to "run the numbers",
someone to put a "stamp of legitimacy" on the terror HE was spreading.
Glenn, that you choose to put a "stamp of legitimacy" on the
refractive surgery industry is, in my opinion, a statement about your
own self, Glenn, and about what you value most - money, not health.
I noticed you didn't answer my question, Glenn - I detect that you
didn't tell us what kind of "quality" you are assuring - low, medium,
or high quality.
Another question, Glenn - how many of the plaintiffs in the cases
listed do you think would have experienced damage to their eyes if
they hadn't had LASIK performed by Kawesch - or any other "doctor" ?
Yes, it is true - LASIK "doctors" do frequently out-lawyer the
patients who experience damage to their eyes after LASIK performed by
those doctors.
But that doesn't change the fact that the damage never would have
occurred if those patients hadn't had LASIK.
As far as "why post" about San Diego LASIK surgeons on sdnet.general,
2 reasons:
1) it's on-topic, given that it's about San Diego "doctors" and their
patients (if you were expecting a report about the Poodle Exposition
at the Del Mar Fairgrounds - SORRY !), and
2) because many people don't find sci.med.vision until it's too late.
The best way to treat refractive surgery complications is to prevent
the refractive surgery from occurring in the first place, by making
the patients aware of the true casualties, and the true character of
the "doctors" performing the surgery - doctors who, time and time
again, under-represent the risks, and over-represent the benefits, as
admonished by the FDA and FTC 3 times in the mid-90's, and once again
in the 'OO's, I believe. "Doctors" who represent to their patients
that the surgery they are considering is "safe", just as Binder
implied to the RK patient referenced above - that patient lost the
vision in one eye - just as Tooma implies "safety" and "no
complications" in his verbal statements to patients - one of whom has
lost the vision in one eye, one of whom lives with constant,
excruciating eye pain.
Please note - it is quite possible that the patient referred to as
"Julie" COULD BE treated - except that to do so starts with the
admission that Tooma left metal dust embedded in her corneas.
"Doctors" have admitted on a number of occasions that a frequent side
effect of LASIK is metal dust embedded in the cornea, which they
"generally consider to be of little effect". (I have heard one of
Tooma's staff-people make such an assertion. Another patient also
stated affirmatively to me that TLC "Doctor" Jeffrey Machat made a
similar to them. A corneal confocal specialist made a similar
statement.)
It's important to note that, for most patients, "safe" precludes the
instance whereby vision is lost in one eye, or the patient's life is
lived with constant eye-pain post-op. It's important to note that the
LASIK "doctors" have a different definition of safety, which they fail
to make clear to the patients - the definition that will get the
patient to say "yes" to the surgery - the definition that will make
the "doctor" wealthier, in terms of the size of their bank account.
On this, the one year anniversary of September 11, 2001, I believe it
is important to acknowledge that the terror experienced by people with
bad refractive surgery outcomes is no less real, and no less severe,
than the terror experienced by people who were injured in the attacks
a year ago. In fact, modern medicine has more mature solutions for
most of the persons injured in the attacks a year ago, than it does
for the persons who experience damage to their eyes after refractive
surgery.
You may say in defense, "Well, hardly anybody has died from refractive
surgery", to which I would answer, sarcasm intended, "Congratulations,
"Doctor", you didn't kill the patient - you merely sent them off to
spend the rest of their life listening to Books on Tape."
Since Americans now have a heightened awareness of the concept of
Terror, I believe it is important to acknowledge that there is a group
of American citizens who are abusing both the trust-worthiness implied
by their medical licenses, and the trust of their patients, to spread
Terror among Americans. I am referring, of course, to the LASIK
industry.
Oh, and, I KNOW, I KNOW, HMO's are under increasing pressure to turn a
profit. Why, a Scripps doctor has even shared with me the fact that -
well, let me say that a Scripps doctor stated affirmatively to me that
Scripps is consistently running in the red - not making a profit. I
understand the pressure on Scripps management to "make a buck". So,
Scripps personnel have resorted, not just to (in my opinion) defending
their fellow terror-spreading LASIK surgeons, but to doing LASIK
themselves. To which I would reply - it is not appropriate for
DOCTORS or medical organizations to balance their budgets on the
broken corneas of their patients.
Sincerely,
~ Roger ~
Roger Bratt
IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE ?
NoSuch...@bigfoot.com
Holy crap, Roger Bratt! If only you would get a clue, you could be so
much more effective, and you could seem so much less pathetic.
Instead of extensive, off-topic rants, you could simply post a brief,
urgent suggestion to direct people considering LASIK to your website(s).
Instead of making yourself look like a pathetic, outrageously
grandstanding jackass, you could have the decorum and perspective to
abstain from wrapping yourself in the shroud of the genuine tragedy that
occurred a year ago today, to people who did not willingly choose to
risk their lives or their health.
There is absolutely NO comparison between these events, and you should
be drowning in abject shame at having dared to even mention the events
of this date in the same post as your rant.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>This is not an advertisement for the following persons or
>organizations:
>Scripps
>Glenn Hagele
>Glenn Kawesch
>"Doctor" Thomas Tooma
>"Doctor" Perry Binder
>TLC
>"Doctor" Jeffrey Machat
>
>===================================================================================================
>
>Glenn, in my opinion, it's calculations like yours that are allowing
>the Vision Holocaust to occur, constituted of RK, PRK, and LASIK
>patients who were, in ALMOST ALL CASES, in my opinion, deliberately
>deceived by their eye "Doctors" - tens of thousands of Americans
>living with constant and in some cases excruciating eye pain, and/or
>in most cases with severely diminished visual function.
>
>I reckon Adolf Hitler needed sidekicks - someone to "run the numbers",
>someone to put a "stamp of legitimacy" on the terror HE was spreading.
"Vision Holocaust" "Adolf Hitler"
Mr. Bratt, what little credibility you had has now vanished into the
ether. How anyone can be so insensitive to the millions of lives lost
in the Holocaust because of Hitler and those who believed as he did is
beyond my comprehension.
You compare the tortured death and displacement of millions of Jews,
gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, and others at the hands of a racist
anti-Semite military government to the relative nuisance inflicted on
a tiny minority of people who choose an elective surgery and don't
have the result they want. You are alive to bitch and moan about your
elective decision. Those to whom you compare your petty inconvenience
do not enjoy such a luxury.
Gary Anderson
Look Brent,
I would be very interested in hearing about the legal and financial problems
of any LASIK surgeon. I think that it is enlighting to see how much money
comes in for what level of risk.
I don't understand your motivation to continually denigrate anyone who is
not vehemently against refractive surgery.
-- Gary
"Brent Hanson" <admini...@lasikcourt.com> wrote in message
news:29a4a131.02091...@posting.google.com...
Rajeev Kumar S
me you will win all the cases that you appear for . LOL :)
"Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance"
<glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote in message
news:3d7e8194...@news.concentric.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002
Scott Seidman
Quality Assurance) wrote in news:3d7f6e53...@news.concentric.net:
> Mr. Bratt, what little credibility you had has now vanished into the
> ether. How anyone can be so insensitive to the millions of lives lost
> in the Holocaust because of Hitler and those who believed as he did is
> beyond my comprehension.
Actually, Glenn, this does get a little interesting.
We have a training program in place for every researcher who asks a subject
to sign an informed consent. This training program covers the motivation
and history of informed consent.
High up in this motivation is the need to prevent humans from becoming
involved in experiments like those of Mengele.
While the analogy being raised here is largely inappropriate, it is
appropriate for people signing informed consents (as well as those
soliciting such signatures) to be aware that the motivation behind such
forms lies partially in Nazi experimentation.
Roger
organizations:
Newport Beach, California LASIK Surgeon "Doctor" Thomas Tooma
TLC
Chicago Laser Center
Ask LASIK Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Excerpt from LASIK SOS.com, at
http://www.lasiksos.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, when I was standing on the sidewalk outside "Doctor" Tooma's
clinic, one of "his people" asked me "what I wanted". I enumerated 2
things that I want:
A) 100% Ethical Informed Consent
B) That the LASIK Industry make helping the patients they have harmed
a top priority.
"Doctor" Tooma's employee agreed that both of those requests were
legitimate. That is, he agreed with me that you really should educate
yourself about LASIK before undergoing the surgery.
One of the best ways to educate yourself about LASIK is to expose
yourself to the written statements of thousands of LASIK patients that
are living with un-resolved corneal disease that onset at the time of
their respective LASIK surgeries. There are a few places on the
Internet where such people gather. I therefore suggest that any
person considering LASIK expose yourself to the sight of life with
LASIK complications. Of course, these websites and online forums can
also help people with LASIK complications. As a matter of fact, both
of the clinically useful medications that I take for my own LASIK
complications - Ultram, which is basically a painkiller, not unlike
Vioxx, and Salagen, a drug which increases my tear production - were
suggested to me by other patients. Then my General Practitioner wrote
the prescription. That is not the way Ophthalmology is supposed to
work.
==> The Surgical Eyes Bulletin Board
http://surgicaleyes.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic
==> The Chicago Laser Center Bulletin Board
http://chicagolasercenter.com/clcbbs/
==> Ask LASIK Docs
http://asklasikdocs.com/cgi-local/forum/board.cgi
==> USENET Newsgroups, "sci.med.vision" and "alt.lasik-eyes"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sci.med.vision&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=alt.lasik-eyes&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en
7. Other Websites - About LASIK
The Surgical Eyes Foundation
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/
Websites About TLC:
The TLC Laser Eye Malpractice Foundation
http://www.tlcmalpractice.org
TLC Surgeons
http://www.tlcsurgeons.com/
Another Very Informative Patient Website ~ LASIK Disaster
http://www.lasikdisaster.com/
A Website with some Interesting Medical Article Excerpts ~ LASIK
Letters
http://www.lasikletters.com/
A Website where Patients Name their Surgeons ~ Ask LASIK Patients
http://www.lasikpatients.com/
The United States Food and Drug Administration ~ A great place to
search for the word "LASIK" ...
http://www.fda.gov/search.html
http://www.fda.gov/search.html
PUBMED - The National Institutes of Health in collaboration with the
National Library of Medicine have placed a database with 12 Million
medical articles on-line ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
Roger
"Judge rejects bid to halt practice of eye surgeon"
by Matt Krasnowski, Copley News Service
"LOS ANGELES - A judge yesterday rejected the government's
attempt to immediately stop well-known San Diego laser eye surgeon
Glenn Kawesch from practicing, pending a hearing in January on
permanent revocation of his licence, saying prosecutors did not meet the
"extraordinary" standard needed for such an order."
"After the decision by Administrative Law Judge Samuel Reyes, the
state must now wait through a "cooling off" period of at least 15 days
before again seeking the suspension. A June 24 hearing was set,
during which the state will attempt to prove Kawesch schould be
suspended on the grounds that he has damaged patients' vision."
"As part of his decision, Reyes noted that Kawesch, 41, agreed not
to practice laser surgeries on most of his patients until after the next
hearing."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A subtitle from the same article in the June 8, 2002 San Diego Union Tribune ==>
"Eye surgeon also faces IRS probe"
"The highly unusual immediate suspension petition was filed because
Deputy Attorney General Cindy Lopez, acting on behalf of the Medical
Board of California, contended that Kawesch was a "danger to the
public." "
" "He has a pattern and practice of harming patients," Lopez said."
Bill in Colorado
says anything directly - notice how he never replies? It's always a
script. I would like to know if there a real person out there, or if this
is just some automated emailer. This just may be a bot.
Roger wrote:
> This is not an advertisement for any of the following persons or
> organizations:
<personal rant and diatribe snipped>
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Kawesch did not have his license restricted during this hearing last
month and that the ALJ found the sight of all subject patients had
actually improved since the surgeries. A full hearing to evaluate all
details is tentatively scheduled for January.
Linda
> What is interesting is that Roger never once comes out of this shell and
> says anything directly - notice how he never replies? It's always a
> script. I would like to know if there a real person out there, or if this
> is just some automated emailer. This just may be a bot.
>
Roger is a crusader for truth, justice and the American way. How can
you expect him to have time to respond to lowly plebs like us?
Regards, Linda
Bill in Colorado
Looks like I got some competition from Roger! Shucks!
Alan Smithee
all seen enough.
Alan Smithee
Alan Smithee
Roger
http://www.lasiksos.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Statement: This is not an advertisement for any of the
following persons or organizations:
"Doctor" Michael Gordon
"Doctor" Thomas Tooma
"Doctor" Roger Steinert
TLC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. VIP FRAUD.
In my own pre-op consultations with "Doctor" Gordon, I said something
along the lines of, "What's the downside of this here LASIK ?"
"Doctor" Gordon said, "Well, I've had laser surgery, and I use a few
eyedrops now and then."
What would you do if you went to a dentist and asked a question about
a root canal - and he told you about his experience with getting a
crown put in ? You might think that that dentist is dishonest.
That is exactly how I feel about "Doctor" Gordon. In my opinion,
"Doctor" Gordon lied to close the sale. But the story doesn't stop
there.
Some time after I had LASIK, "Doctor" Gordon went on national
television to discuss LASIK. Appearing with "Doctor" Gordon was
"Doctor" Roger Steinert, one of the VIP LASIK surgeons in the Boston
area. In the context of a show on LASIK, "Doctor" Steinert presented
his experience with "Doctor" Gordon, to convince the audience that,
"LASIK is Safe." There's only one little problem.
"Doctor" Gordon and "Doctor" Steinert performed PRK on each other.
Not LASIK.
While we're talking about VIP Fraud, let's discuss "Doctor" Tooma. As
I have stated, "Doctor" Tooma has a patient on whom he performed
LASIK in January 1999. That patient has experienced chronic eye pain
since that time - pain which becomes excruciating when that patient
uses their eyes. That patient has since been discovered to have large
quantities of microscopic metal dust in their
Shortly afterwards, another patient, whose initials are T.J., visited
"Doctor" Tooma for a pre-op consultation. T.J. stated affirmatively
to me that "Doctor" Tooma told her he had no complications. Although,
at that time, "Doctor" Tooma had one patient with a quite catastrophic
complication. In my opinion, "Doctor" Tooma lied when he told T.J.
that he "had no complications."
Unfortunately, the plot thickens. The patient with the metal dust
embedded in their cornea, and the constant eye-pain, participated in a
clinical trial when they had their LASIK. That clinical trial was
conducted in conjunction with a local university. When we called that
university to request a copy of the record of that patient's
participation in that clinical trial, we were told that there was NO
RECORD of that patient's participation in that clinical trial. It
appears to me that "Doctor" Tooma removed that patient's record from
the clinical trial.
Subsequently, given that that patient's surgery was performed using a
Technolas 116 and that Technolas is owned by Bausch & Lomb, I perused
the Bausch literature. Lo and behold, there's "Doctor" Tooma himself
in the Bausch annual report.
Now, I'm a design engineer. I know that equipment manufacturers loan
expensive equipment to potential customers.
I'm also a human being. And common sense tells me that you don't get
your picture in an annual report by being loaned an expensive
ophthalmic laser workstation, and using it to cripple a patient. You
can, however, get your picture in an annual report by borrowing the
surgical workstation, and reporting back that "it works great."
Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. The patient with the constant
pain and the metal dust went to see "Doctor" Steinert for help.
That's right, the patient flew across the country, to get help with
LASIK complications. At that time, "Doctor" Steinert had access to a
Tomey Confoscan confocal microscope. He examined that patient's
corneas. He then returned the confocal microscope to Fortune
Technologies. I subsequently spoke to "Dave McLellan", at Fortune
Technologies. He stated affirmatively that he specifically remembered
the machine he had loaned to "Doctor" Steinert . He also stated
affirmatively that, when the machine was returned to him, all patient
records were deleted.
That patient subsequently was examined by an experienced corneal
specialist, with many years of experience using confocal microscopes
to look at human corneas. He told that patient that he saw a huge
amount of microscopic metal debris embedded in their cornea.
So, what did "Doctor" Steinert see ? Nothing ? In that case,
although he is a VIP refractive surgeon, he is a newby when it comes
to corneal microscopy. Or, something far more sinister. You see,
there's a word for deleting or altering patient medical records. It's
called "spoliation". In the state of Massachusetts, where "Doctor"
Steinert practices "medicine", spoliation of medical records is
grounds for revocation of one's medical license.
In my opinion, "Doctor" Steinert saw the metal debris embedded in the
patient's cornea. In my opinion, instead of helping the patient,
"Doctor" Steinert risked the loss of his own medical license, to
protect "Doctor" Tooma.
In my opinion, that's not all "Doctor" Steinert was protecting. He
was protecting the entire LASIK gravy train. You see, should it ever
be made public that LASIK regularly leaves metal dust embedded in
patient corneas, LASIK will be history.
I do not use the term "VIP" LASIK surgeon lightly. For sure,"Doctor"
is one of the most experienced refractive surgeons in San Diego.
"Doctor" Tooma's staff states affirmatively that he has performed
30,000 LASIK procedures himself, without making it clear whether that
includes enhancements. "Doctor" Steinert himself is one of the most
experienced refractive surgeons in the Boston area.
In other words, I have just finished describing the dastardly deeds,
not of some cut-rate fake-degree shyster, but of some of the most
prominent names in the LASIK industry.
Are you sure you want to trust your corneal health to these people ?
Please note, they're among the "best in the business."
Alan Smithee
we've all heard enough by now.