Complaint against Dr.

Thomas Richard Beaver

Texas Medical Board Permit #41753

Allegations

1) Fraudulent Practice of Medicine outside the scope of a restricted Medical

License
2) Falsifying Government Records (Autopsy Reports)
3) Conspiracy to commit Fraud
4) Tampering with a Corpse

Doctor Thomas Beaver has engaged in the practice of medicine at the Texas
Tech University Health Science Center under a Faculty Temporary License,
issued by the Texas Medical Board.

A Faculty Temporary License is a Restricted Medical license for the purpose of

practicing medicine at a teaching hospital under the authority granted Texas
Tech Health Science Center by the Texas Medical Board, and as such is limited
to the practice of medicine in a professorial capacity.

The duties of a county medical examiner are performed as an appointed official

of the county, are statutory, are performed by a fully licensed physician and are
not within Texas Tech’s authority to convey to a physician practicing under a
Faculty Temporary License issued to the university.

Sometime in 2006 the Lubbock County Commissioners Court appointed Texas

Tech Professor Dr. Thomas Beaver as Chief Medical Examiner for Lubbock
County. The appointment was part of an on going conspiracy to commit fraud on
the citizens of Lubbock and surrounding counties that involved the Lubbock
County Commissioners Court, Lubbock County Hospital District and Texas Tech
Health Science Center. The purpose of the fraud was to have the bodies of those
who died and required an autopsy under C.C.P. 49.25, to be shipped to the
Texas Tech Health Science Center, to be used as teaching autopsies for the
pathology students.

History of the Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

In 1998 Lubbock County Medical Examiner Glen R. Groben and Jeffrey W.

Oliver of the Department of Pathology, Texas Tech University School of
Medicine, entered into an agreement to transfer bodies sent from the Medical
Examiners office, to the Texas Tech Health Science Center. (Dr. Glen R. Groben
was a professor with Texas Tech Health Science Center and a Lubbock County
Deputy Medical Examiner in name only.) The purpose of this agreement was
memorialized in the article below, which was published in the Archives of
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: Vol. 123, No. 5, pp. 375–376.

1
 Using Forensic Autopsies to Supplement Training for
Residents
Jeffrey W. Oliver, MD; Glen R. Groben, MD
Department of Pathology, Texas Tech University School
of Medicine, Lubbock, TX 79430
Deputy Medical Examiner, Lubbock County Medical
Examiner, Lubbock, TX 79430
To the Editor.—We read with great interest the article “Forensic Autopsy in a
Pathology Training Program,” by Djabourian et al, which appeared in the August 1998
issue of Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.1 In this article, the authors
describe a system in which hospital staff pathologists have been deputized by the county
coroner’s office to perform autopsies on in-house patients whose deaths fall under
forensic jurisdiction. These autopsies are used to supplement the declining number of
general medical and perinatal autopsies available for resident training at their
institution.
Paralleling the national trend, our institution has also noted a decrease in the number
of general medical autopsies during the past several years. To increase the caseload for
resident training, we have initiated contracts with other community hospitals to perform
autopsies there, in addition to trying to bolster autopsy requests from our own hospital by
greater communication with nursing and house staff. However, by far the most successful
measure we have taken is contracting with the county medical examiner’s office. Our
residents spend 6 months dedicated to full-time autopsy training, during which time they
perform all of the general medical and perinatal autopsies available, as well as forensic
cases from a large number of surrounding counties. The forensic pathologists determine
which cases are appropriate for residents to perform and are responsible for supervising
these cases. In addition, residents are allowed to watch and learn from homicides and
other high-profile cases that they do not actually perform themselves.
As the authors noted, forensic autopsies provide good training material for aspects of
pathology that are important, but for which many residency programs offer minimal
instruction. The pathology of blunt and sharp force injuries, gunshot wounds, traumatic
neuropathology, sudden infant death syndrome, asphyxia, and toxicology are just a few
of the topics that would be very difficult for us to teach without our contract with the
medical examiner.
There are currently 7 residents in our program, and during the 20-month period from
January 1997 through August 1998 they performed 151 forensic autopsies. We reviewed
the manner of death for each of these cases, revealing 82 (54%) natural deaths, 53 (35%)
accidental deaths, 15 (10%) suicides, and 1 (0.7%) undetermined manner of death. These
data underscore another important aspect of using forensic autopsies for training: there
is a tremendous wealth of natural pathology to be learned from forensic autopsies.
Natural deaths account for more than half of all forensic cases our residents perform,
and include cases in which a person died suddenly without a previously diagnosed
illness, infectious cases where public health is a concern, and in-custody natural deaths.
These cases have provided our residents great experiences with such pathologic
processes as sudden cardiovascular deaths, widespread metastatic disease, acquired

2
immunodeficiency syndrome and other infectious diseases, genetic diseases and
congenital malformations, cirrhosis, chronic pulmonary diseases, etc. Importantly, these
cases would in other circumstances be considered standard hospital-type autopsies, and
residents can learn as much from them as they would from standard hospital autopsies if
they perform similar clinical investigation, microscopic study, and clinicopathologic
correlation. Even the unnatural deaths very often have fascinating incidental findings
from which to learn general pathology.
************************************************************************

On October 31, 2000 the Lubbock County Commissioners Court awarded the
Lubbock Co. Autopsy Contract to Texas Tech Health Science Center. The terms
of the contract were published in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal and said article
is contained below.

************************************************************************
Tuesday, October 31, 2000
© 2000 - The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
TTHSC wins forensics contract
By DIRK FILLPOT
Avalanche-Journal
County commissioners hired Texas Tech's Health Sciences Center for forensic services
during a special meeting Monday.
Handling the contract Monday instead of its next regularly scheduled meeting Nov. 13
gives Tech officials adequate notice to begin preparing for the contract, Commissioner
Gilbert Flores said.

County Commissioner Gilbert Flores said Monday that he is pleased with the agreement
and is satisfied regarding matters of county liability and the potential for conflicts of
interest should Tech pathologists be asked to perform autopsies on the bodies of people
treated by Health Sciences Center personnel.

''I was assured there were no problems with liability issues or conflicts of interest,'' he
said.

Dr. David Hoblit, the county's medical examiner, informed commissioners this month that
he would not renew his company's contract with the county when it expires Dec. 31.
Commissioners extended Hoblit's contract for three months on Sept. 25.

Dr. desAnges Cruser, who conducted Tech's feasibility study into performing those
services for Lubbock County, said Monday that university officials projected it can satisfy
the contract for about $20,000 cheaper than Hoblit.

Hoblit's company was budgeted $345,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
Lubbock County will pay $325,000 a year to Tech's Health Sciences Center for autopsy
services. The Lubbock County Hospital District, also taxpayer funded, will provide
$140,000 annually. Hoblit's office received the same amount from the hospital district.
The amount Tech is to receive in fiscal year 2002 will remain the same, and won't increase
by more than 3 percent in fiscal year 2003, the proposed contract states.

Cruser said Tech will likely consider hiring an interim chief medical examiner, who county
commissioners must approve, for several months before finding someone to fill the post
permanently.

3
''I think we're certainly pleased that we have the green light to go forward,'' she said.
The contract is expected to be finalized this week after two Tech officials give their
approval, Cruser said.

Flores said, ''I'm excited that now we have the opportunity to work with Texas Tech.
They're very capable people. Texas Tech now has one more thing to offer our community
and the students in the state of Texas.''

Dirk Fillpot can be contacted at 766-8759

**************************************************************************************
Sometime shortly after awarding the Autopsy Contract to Texas Tech Health
Science Center, Lubbock Co. Commissioners appointed Texas Tech Professor
Jerry Spencer Chief Medical Examiner for Lubbock County. This appointment
appears to have been a ceremonial title only, as Lubbock County did not pay his
salary, or the salary of his staff, as required by the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure (C.C.P.), Article 49.25, Sections (2),(3),(4)

In 2003 it was discovered Dr. Spencer was removing items from bodies during
the autopsy and keeping them. After the disclosure of this questionable activity,
the Lubbock Co. Commissioners Court deferred to the authority of Dr. Dunn,
Chairman of the Texas Tech Health Science Center, Pathology Department. This
deference to Dr. Dunn is a clear admission that the Lubbock County Medical
Examiners Office exists on paper only and is in violation of C.C. P. 49.25.
************************************************************************
Thursday, October 2, 2003
Medical examiner's duties shift amid allegations over implants
BY KERRY DRENNAN
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL

Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer will be reassigned duties after allegations surfaced
that he removed breast implants and an internal birth control device during autopsies and
kept them in his office.

"I'll be speaking with Dr. Spencer (today) and reassigning responsibilities," Dr. Dale Dunn,
chairman of the Texas Tech Health Sciences Center pathology department, said. "There
are some cases that he will need to finish. We'll discuss further duties he will be
reassigned."

Tech officials said Tuesday that they have launched an internal review of Spencer but
declined to elaborate on the nature of the review.
Spencer is not the subject of disciplinary action, according to the TTUHSC Office of
General Counsel. He did not go to work Wednesday, according to Tech officials.
He has not returned calls seeking comment.

Spencer's colleague, Dr. Sridhar Natarajan, contacted the dean of the medical school after
hearing complaints over the past two weeks that Spencer retrieved an IUD and set of
breast implants during an autopsy and kept them in his office in plain view.

"There were multiple people with concerns," Natarajan said Wednesday. "It was an issue
that was brought up. If it's brought up to me, I have to direct it further."

Dunn said Spencer told him the implants were kept for teaching purposes.

4
"As a rule, the implants wouldn't be kept," Dunn said. "But in a teaching facility, for
purposes of demonstration, such items may be retained to show medical students or
residents."

The implants in question were taken from a woman who died in a traffic accident in
Amarillo. The autopsy was attended by three other people, including another doctor and a
medical student, the autopsy report states.

Implants occasionally are removed to check if they ruptured during impact, Dunn said. If
the implants do not need to be retained as evidence, they are not re-implanted and are
usually sent back with the body, he said.

District Attorney James Farren, who is prosecuting the case against a man allegedly
responsible for the woman's death, said he did not request that the implants be removed.
Dunn said he has not heard of any other cases where Spencer removed implants. He said
that in his opinion, the incident has been blown out of proportion.

Dunn said that when autopsies are conducted through the hospital or the Health Sciences
Center, families sign consent forms that tell them body parts may be used for teaching
purposes.

"I've known Dr. Spencer for many years, and I don't believe what is being cited is reflective
of his character," Dunn said. "I've not heard complaints from our residents in terms of the
teaching of Dr. Spencer."

Spencer has been chief medical examiner since 2001. He is employed by the Health
Sciences Center with an annual salary of $208,000. Lubbock County pays the Health
Sciences Center $334,750 per year to perform the duties of the Medical Examiner's Office.

kdrennan@lubbockonline.com
***************************************************************************************************************
The last paragraph in the above article reports the salary of Lubbock County
Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer was fully paid by Texas Tech’s Health
Science Center. Lubbock County only contracted with the Texas Tech Health
Science Center for the counties’ autopsies, as an Independent Contractor,
paying $334,750.00 for the autopsy services.

Additionally, in the first article, it was reported that the Lubbock County Hospital
District contributed $140, 000.00 to Texas Tech Health Science Center in the
2001 fiscal year, presumably for autopsies requested by the Lubbock County
Hospital District.

Texas Tech’s Health Science Center is part of the Lubbock County Hospital
District, so neither can, under its’ own accord, order or pay for an autopsy that
falls under the medical examiners jurisdiction. Under this type of agreement,
where the medical examiner is a ceremonial title only, Lubbock County would
revert back to the Justice of the Peace system for death inquest under the
authority of C.C.P. 49.01.

In the Texas Attorney General Opinion, 1969 # M-379, it found,

5
“A Commissioners Court operating a County hospital, pursuant to the
provisions of Articles 4478, et seq., V.C.S... may not legally pay a charge for
an autopsy unless ordered by the proper authorities pursuant to the
provisions of Article 49.01, et seq., V.C.C.P. “

Amended LO97-004
“Attorney General Opinion M-379 (1969), holding that a county hospital’s
statutory authority to provide “care” and “treatment” does not include
authority to perform an autopsy on a patient who died of natural causes, is
overruled.”

(The amended ruling pertains to deaths under a doctors care that are only
reportable to the Justice of the Peace or Medical Examiner)

Under the JP System, a justice of the peace has a mandatory duty to perform
inquests. Article 49.04 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a justice of the
peace to "conduct an inquest into the death of a person who dies in the county"
in certain circumstances. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 49.04(a) (Vernon Supp.
2004). The justice must conduct the inquest "immediately or as soon as
practicable after the justice receives notification of the death." Id. art. 49.05(a).

The Lubbock County Commissioners effectively dissolved the Lubbock County

Medical Examiners Office when they contracted with Texas Tech Health Science
Center for autopsy services in 2000, under C.C.P. art. 49.25, § 12 (transferring
all inquest-related powers and duties from a justice of the peace to a medical
examiner in a county with a medical examiner) the authority and duty to perform
inquests would then revert to the JP’s office under CCP art 49.04.

No Texas statute authorizes a county commissioner’s court the power to appoint

a physician to the position of Chief Medical Examiner of the county, when that
physician’s employer is a separate private, county, state or other agency. The
County Medical Examiner is a salaried, appointed position, which makes the
medical examiner solely answerable to the Commissioners Court. C.C.P. art.
49.25, § 1, 3 & 4

Attorney General Opinion LO97-004

Article 49.25, section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the medical examiner to
“devote so much of his time and energy as is necessary in the performance of the duties
conferred by this Article” We assume for purposes of this question that the medical
examiner is carrying out this responsibility, and that working for the hospital district in his
private capacity as physician will not interfere with his duties as medical examiner. The
board of managers of the hospital district has authority to appoint doctors to the staff and
to “employ such technicians, nurses and other employees of every kind and character as
may be deemed advisable for the efficient operation of the hospital or hospital system. “”
The hospital district may contract with the medical examiner in his private capacity to
perform tests or autopsies on hospital patients for hospital purposes and may pay him for
these services. We express no opinion about payment under any arrangement that may
have prevailed in the past.

6
The attorney general’s finding speaks to the medical examiner being a separate
county official as opposed to an employed physician of Texas Tech Health
Science Center performing the duties of a medical examiner which would, in
effect, be in name only. As indicated in the October 2, 2000 article by Dirk Fillpot
of the Lubbock Avalanche Journal

“…Cruser said Tech will likely consider hiring an interim chief medical examiner, who
county commissioners must approve, for several months before finding someone to fill
the post permanently..”.

It must be noted that shortly after Lubbock County formed their medical
examiners office on October 1, 1994, they sought an opinion from the attorney
general. The Lubbock County Commissioners and Lubbock County Hospital
District requested that State Senator John Montford present the following
question:

“Whether the salary and expenses of the medical examiners office are
authorized medical and hospital care expenses which can be funded by the
Lubbock county hospital district.” ID # 32192

On December 12, 1995 Attorney General Dan Morales issued opinion LO95-088,
which concluded the Lubbock County Hospital District could not fund expenses
of the Lubbock County Medical Examiners Office.

In 1996 Lubbock County asked the attorney general for a reconsideration of

opinion LO95-088. The resulting opinion was issued on February 19, 1997,
Letter Opinion No. 97-004, which held:

“Letter Opinion No. 95-088, holding that the Lubbock County Hospital District could not
fund the expenses of the medical examiners office, is affirmed. Letter Opinion No. 95-088
(1995). The hospital district was created to provide medical and hospital care to the
residents of the district and to assume full responsibility for providing such care to the
needy inhabitants of the district. The taxes it levies and collects may only be used for
hospital purposes. The purpose of the medical examiner’s office is to determine whether
the death of a person under certain circumstances was caused by an unlawful act or
omission, and since this is not a hospital purpose, the hospital district may not fund that
office.

The hospital district may contract with the medical examiner in his private capacity to
perform medical tests or autopsies on hospital patients for hospital purposes and may pay
him for those services, assuming that this arrangement will not interfere with the medical
examiner’s duties to the county as medical examiner. The county and the hospital district
may enter into a contract under the Interlocal Cooperation Act whereby the hospital
district would pay for services performed by the medical examiner in his capacity as a
physician performing tests for other physicians.”

On April 14, 1997, after the above Attorney General Opinion, Texas State
Senator Robert Duncan drafted and passed on voice vote S.B. 1623.

7
S.B. 1623
By: Duncan
Health & Human Services
4-14-97
As Filed

PURPOSE

As proposed, S.B. 1623 establishes the power of the Lubbock County Hospital District to provide
facilities and hospital-related equipment, supplies, and services to Lubbock County for the use of the
medical examiner's office.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

This bill does not grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1. Amends Section 10, Chapter 484, Acts of the 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967,
to require the board of managers, with the approval of the commissioners court, to provide to Lubbock
County, at the hospital district's expense, office space and hospital-related equipment, hospital-related
supplies, and hospital-related services for the use of the county medical examiner's office.

SECTION 2. Emergency clause.

Effective date: upon passage.

S.B. 1623 does not authorize the conveying of the duties of the Lubbock County
Medical Examiners Office to the Lubbock County Hospital District or Texas Tech
Health Science Center.

Nor does it allow The Lubbock County Hospital District to contract with Texas
Tech Health Science Center to perform its’ autopsies, which it is doing along with
Lubbock County.

The past and ongoing practice of diverting bodies contracted for autopsy by the
surrounding counties of Lubbock County, to the Texas Tech Health Science
Center, to be used as teaching cadavers, violates both Texas and Federal Law.
This is especially true of “In Custody Death” where Federal Civil Rights Statutes
are involved, which could come under RICO’s, Honest Services Contract Fraud.

The past and present practice of the Lubbock County Commissioner Court to
circumvent Texas law requiring an inquest under the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, articles 49.01 and 49.25 raises the same issues as those of the
surrounding counties, especially when “In Custody Deaths” are involved.
A paragraph in Attorney General Opinion LO97-004 clearly frames the issue:

The purposes of a hospital district thus relate generally to the treatment of the sick or
injured, and laboratory tests are performed there for the purpose of diagnosing and
treating the patients, not to determine whether a death was caused by an unlawful act.
Hospitals perform autopsies, but for different purposes and under different circumstances
than does the medical examiner. A hospital performs an autopsy on the body of a
deceased patient for medical purposes, such as evaluating the progress of a disease or

8
verifying the diagnosis. A medical examiner’s office has no contact with an individual prior
to his or her death under circumstances that require an inquest. If a medical examiner
believes that an autopsy is necessary, or if the district attorney requests an autopsy, the
medical examiner or a duly authorized deputy is to perform it immediately. Permission of
next of kin is not required for an official autopsy performed pursuant to an inquest, but it
is required for an autopsy performed under other circumstances.” Thus, the purposes of
the medical examiner’s office are not within the purposes of the Lubbock County Hospital
District, even though the two entities use similar laboratory procedures to carry out their
different functions.”

Here the Attorney General distinguishes between who has the authority to do an
autopsy and who does not. The medical examiner, by statute, has this authority.
A hospital needs the permission of next of kin before performing an autopsy.

After talking to several of the JPs in the surrounding counties, none were aware
of the Texas Tech Health Science Center using bodies, which they had sent to
the Lubbock County Medical Examiners Office, as teaching cadavers. It could
therefore be reasonable to assume no permission was given by the next of kin as
required by law.

It is with the above facts, that I file this compliant with the Texas Medical Board
regarding:

1) Fraudulent Practice of Medicine outside the scope of a restricted Medical

License
2) Falsifying Government Records (Autopsy Reports)
3) Conspiracy to commit Fraud and
4) Tampering with a Corpse

While acknowledging that violations of federal or state law alleged in this

complaint, and unrelated to the practice of medicine, are beyond the scope of the
Medical Board’s authority. These violations of law will be the responsibility of the
Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Criminal District Attorneys of all counties
affected by this criminal conspiracy.

Sincerely,

David Fisher