2017 Advocates Medical Board Sunset Review Final

Table of Contents
Questions
40+ Years of Problems

With Californias Medical Board
Sunset Review 2017

Information Compiled For the Business & Professions Committees
by Patient Safety Advocates
Eric Andrist stopmicra@gmail.com
Marian Hollingsworth marian.hollingsworth@yahoo.com
This report is available for download at:

http://bit.ly/advmbcsunset
Clickable links appear in blue.

Version 1.2 (2/25/2017)
1
Table of Contents
Questions
In Short
This report contains:
Evidence that a Medical Board Member possibly had a conflict of interest when he
helped restore the license of a doctor who had been found responsible for sexual
misconduct with four female patients, including a minor, and whose license
reinstatement had already been refused once by an administrative law judge and a prior
Medical Board panel.
Evidence that the Medical Board allows r egistered sex offenders to practice medicine
(some due to a caveat in the law), and how theyve hidden some of this information from
the public. We will show you 28 doctors who have sexual misconduct charges who have
public documents missing from their online profiles. The Medical Board has admitted
that 15,000 public documents are unavailable online when a patient looks up their doctor.
Evidence that the Medical Board is closing the complaints of legitimate, harmed victims
of negligence by doctors. Their own evidence will show you that out of 8,679 complaints
that came in last year, only 19% of complaints receive a full investigation, and only 4% of
complaints result in the doctor being disciplined.
Evidence that the Medical Board is misleading the Business and Professions Committee
and the public when they promote how easy it is to use their license lookup website,
BreEZe. It is fraught with problems and is an archaic system in the 21st century.
Evidence that the Medical Board is breaking the California Public Records Act law. We
will show you how their staff attorney, Kerrie Webb denies CPRA requests in totality,
when the law requires her to redact confidential portions of a document and turn over the
rest. She then misquotes the law in her own defense, apparently in hopes that no one is
bright enough to check up on the information she provides.
Evidence that the Medical Board and their attorney skirt other laws and regulations,
subsequently misquoting laws and code sections to hopefully cover their tracks.
Evidence that the top 7 Medical Board Executives rake in nearly a million dollars a
year, while the board claims it lacks the funds to properly keep consumers safe, all the
while closing legitimate complaints. We will show you evidence that the board has a
history of this and was guilty of improperly closing complaints, in fact throwing them out,
in 1993.
2
Table of Contents
Questions
Table of Contents
(Click on any title or page number to take you to that page)
In Short 2
Table of Contents 3
The California Business & Professions Committee 5
The Medical Board of California 7
INTRODUCTION 10
BOARD MEMBER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 15

GnanaDev, Reddy, Reddy & Brown 16
Dr. Felix YipBoard Member 32
SEXUAL ASSAULT BY DOCTORS 38
Allowing registered sex offenders to practice 42
Doctors on the Sex Offender RegistryLicenses not revoked 43
CURRENT PROBLEMS 57
Failure to Protect 58
ACLU Investigates Political Bias by the Medical Board of California 67
Who is the Medical Board really protecting? 69
The MBC does not give enough complaint information to the public 72
The MBC vs the Contractors State License Board 74
Complaint Processing Times & Closed Complaints 77
5 Patient Complaint Stories Gone Wrong 78
Annette Ramirez 79
Cali Andrist 81
Dr. Keith P. Blair 84
Mario Guzman 89
Morgan Westhoff 91
Problems with BreEZe 94
Some Doctor Profile Pages Are Incomplete 106
The Case of Dr. Anthony Tun Lee 110
28 Sexual Misconduct Doctors with Missing Public Documents 115
3
Table of Contents
Questions
BreEZe Profiles are Confusing and Poorly Designed 127

Disciplinary Documents hard to comprehend 131
PUBLIC INFORMATION 132
A Law BrokenThe California Public Records Act 133
QUOTES YOU NEED TO HEAR 142
Dr. Dev GnanaDev, President 143
Dr. Michael Bishop, Board Member 144
Judge Katherine Feinstein, Board Member 145
Julie dAngelo Fellmeth, Center for Public Interest Law 149
EXECUTIVE STAFF 151
The Executive Staff 152
Executive Staff Salaries 154
POLICIES AND EXPERTS 156
MBC Attorney Allows Purging of Public Documents 157
7 Years or 35 months? Which is it? 159
Medical ExpertsWho Knows For Sure? 161
PERFORMANCE 167
THE QUESTIONS 169
EVIDENCE 172
100+ ARTICLESA HISTORY OF PROBLEMS 185
4
Table of Contents
Questions
The California Business & Professions Committee

Assembly (16)
Rudy Salas, Jr. (Chair) Dem 32 Contact Assembly Member Rudy Salas, Jr.
Capitol Office, Room 4016
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0032; (916) 319-2032
William P. Brough (Vice Chair) Rep 73 Contact Assembly Member William P. Brough
Dr. Joaquin Arambula Dem31 Contact Assembly Member Dr. Joaquin Arambula
Doctor Capitol Office, Room 5155
Catharine B. Baker Rep 16 Contact Assembly Member Catharine B. Baker

Richard Bloom Dem50 Contact Assembly Member Richard Bloom

David Chiu Dem17 Contact Assembly Member David Chiu

Jordan Cunningham Rep35 Contact Assembly Member Jordan Cunningham

Brian Dahle Rep01 Contact Assembly Member Brian Dahle

Susan Talamantes Eggman Dem13 Contact Assembly Member Susan Talamantes Eggman
Psychologist Capitol Office, Room 4117
Mike A. Gipson Dem64 Contact Assembly Member Mike A. Gipson

Timothy S. Grayson Dem14 Contact Assembly Member Timothy S. Grayson

Chris R. Holden Dem41 Contact Assembly Member Chris R. Holden

Evan Low Dem28 Contact Assembly Member Evan Low

5
Table of Contents
Questions
Kevin Mullin Dem22 Contact Assembly Member Kevin Mullin

Marc Steinorth Rep40 Contact Assembly Member Marc Steinorth

Philip Y. Ting Dem19 Contact Assembly Member Philip Y. Ting

Senate (9)
Senator Jerry Hill (Chair) Dem13 Contact Senator Jerry Hill
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4013
Senator Patricia C. Bates (Vice Rep36 Contact Senator Patricia C. Bates

Chair) State Capitol, Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4036
Senator Bill Dodd Dem03 Contact Senator Bill Dodd

Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4003
Senator Cathleen Galgiani Dem05 Contact Senator Cathleen Galgiani

Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4005
Senator Steven M. Glazer Dem07 Contact Senator Steven M. Glazer

Former advisor to Governor State Capitol, Room 5108
Jerry Brown Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4007
Senator Ed Hernandez Dem22 Contact Senator Ed Hernandez

Optometrist State Capitol, Room 2080
Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4022
Senator Josh Newman Dem29 Contact Senator Josh Newman

Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4029
Senator Richard Pan Dem06 Contact Senator Richard Pan

Doctor State Capitol, Room 4070
Recipient of the Physician Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4006
Humanitarian Award from the
Medical Board Of California
Senator Scott Wilk Rep21 Contact Senator Scott Wilk

Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 651-4021
6
Table of Contents
Questions
The Medical Board of California

Board Members
Dr. Dev GnanaDev, President Doctor Email
Denise Pines, Vice President Public Email
Dr. Ronald H. Lewis Doctor Email
Dr. Michelle Anne Bholat Doctor Email
Dr. Michael Bishop Doctor Email address he provided on his Form

700 does not seem to work.
Judge Katherine Feinstein (Retired) Public Email
Dr. Randy W. Hawkins Doctor Email
Dr. Howard R. Krauss Doctor Email
Kristina D. Lawson Public Email
Dr. Sharon Levine Doctor Email
Brenda Sutton-Wills, J.D. Public Email
David Warmoth Public Email
Jamie Wright, J.D. Public Email
Dr. Felix C. Yip Doctor Email
Vacant Position Public
Executive Staff
Kimberly Kirchmeyer Executive Director Email
Elizabeth Amaral Deputy Director Email
Kerrie Webb Staff Council Email
Vacant Chief of Licensing
Christina Delp Chief of Enforcement Email
Jennifer Simoes Chief of Legislation Email
Cassandra Hockenson Public Affairs Manager Email
Medical Board of California

2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95815
(916) 263-2389 phone
(916) 263-2387 fax
7
Table of Contents
Questions
In 1993, the Medical Board was caught destroying and ignoring citizen complaints.
24 years later, theyre still ignoring complaints, among other things.
Its time to blow the whistle on them again.
(LA Times January 22, 1993)
8
Table of Contents
Questions
(LA Times January 21, 2005)
At the very last Sunset Review of the Medical Board,

Senator Curren Price and Assemblyman Richard Gordon
called for the Board to be dissolvedthings had become that bad.
They havent improved, and the Medical Board needs to be held accountable.
(LA Times April 26, 2013)
9
Table of Contents
Questions
INTRODUCTION
(LA Times, May 13, 1990)
[Note: All of the in-line articles on the Medical Board of California are
indexed by date in the back along with over 100 more, with links to the full articles.]
10
Table of Contents
Questions
DEAR Business and Professions Chairmen Hill and Salas, Committee members, members
of the press and our fellow citizens.
In this report you will find a considerable amount of information that we have been gathering
for more than a year. Hundreds of hours of work went into our research projects and into the
writing of this report. While this report may appear long, weve made an effort to try to make it
easy to read, cited and linked, and as enjoyable as possible, considering the topic.
Unfortunately, in order to get this to you in time, we werent able to include everything we
wanted.
You will get a similar, though not as interesting, 438-page report from the Medical Board of
California that outlines their ongoing excuses as to why they claim they are unable to fully
protect Californians from dangerous doctors, under the guise of patient protection. We hope
youll keep in mind when you read their report and listen to their verbal excuses at the Sunset
Review, that these are the same excuses they have been making for more than 40 years (See
100+ ArticlesA History of Problems at the end of this document).
The executive staff of the Medical Board rake in very large salaries, while we as patient safety
advocates volunteer our time. The cost to travel to Sacramento for the Sunset Review and to
print and bind this report comes out of our own pockets, not the taxpayers.
We want to be very clear that we are not anti-doctor. We are very supportive and appreciative
of the majority of doctors who work tirelessly to heal patients and relieve their suffering.
However, there is much too large a percentage of doctors in this state who deserve to be
investigated for negligently harming or killing of patients and the Medical Board is turning a
blind eye to them far too often.
The Board claims that there were 8,679 complaints filed against doctors during the last fiscal
year. That number alone should concern everyone, especially since it doesnt begin to depict
the actual number of patients harmed; like those who were afraid to file a complaint, who
didnt know how or that they could, or were too sick to even attempt it. That means the
number of doctors in question is actually much, much higher. Weve all read accounts of
hospitals covering up for doctor mistakes, so understand that the problem is much larger than
what the Medical Board would have you believe.
While our original incentive to hold the Medical Board accountable for their actions (or more
likely, inactions), began by being wronged by them ourselves, our subsequent in-depth
research has led us to a place of respect and passion for patient safety, and concern that our
government agencies arent always doing their jobs properly. They cant be held accountable
for their actions if they hide information from the legislature and the public.
The Medical Board staff will no doubt be quick to refer to us as uninformed and annoying, and
do everything in their power to undermine our efforts and information. However, the evidence
speaks for itself and we have discovered a considerable amount of information despite the fact
that we were illegally denied Public Record Act Requests and most of our email requests to the
Board, no longer receive a response. Weve proven the Boards Executive staff wrong a number
of times using their own words. For example, weve been given a number of statutes that
11
Table of Contents
Questions
proved to be inapplicable to the information we were seeking. They seem to think were not
going to check into it, and I guess most people dont, so they just quote any old law with the
attitude that they are right and are not to be questioned.
The Medical Board of California has been in existence in some form or another since 1876
when the Legislature passed the First Medical Practice Act. The first Board of Examiners
meeting was held over 140 years ago in San Francisco on June 29, 1876.1 But even back then,
things werent all wine and roses as the various medical societies were often found in heated
arguments.2 In 1902, the state legislature repealed all prior Medical Practice Acts and enacted
a new law, creating an entirely new Board. But even then, enforcement stalled as expenses rose
above the Boards income.3
Sound familiar? Enforcement processing times are stalled today while they cry that they dont
have the funds to process the masses of complaints that come in. Yet, 115 years later,
enforcement, their most important duty, is lagging worse than ever. Their latest
report shows that a complaint takes an average 900 days to finalize.4 The Board and its staff
readily complain about not having enough money to pay investigators to process victims
complaints, even as Medical Board executives pull in nearly a million dollars in salary and
benefits every year.
Is anyone else wondering why theyre getting paid so much money when the Board is in such
terrible shape and all too often not protecting the public?
The Medical Board of Californias Enforcement Division, as it stands today, simply does not
work. At the October 2016 Quarterly Board Meeting in San Diego, Board member Dr. Michael
Bishop announced that the system is broken...its been broken from the start. Board Member
Judge Katherine Feinstein commented that 550 days is a very old case. If it were a criminal
case, it would be dismissed for violating speedy trial rights. Julie dAngelo Fellmeth, who has
been attending Board meetings for over 30 years, explained how SB 2375 was passed in 1990
which allocated money for the board to use for enforcement, but our Executive Branch has
never followed through on it. All the while, Board President, Dr. Dev GnanaDev, laughed and
made sure that everyone knows that he has ...no intention of taking any abuse from the
Business and Professions Committee at the Sunset Review. (See Quotes you Need to Hear
later in this report.)
The system has been broken for more than a century. The turn of the century has chimed twice
while our States Medical Board has floundered with enforcement of bad doctors and the
protection of our citizens. Four years ago, B&P Chairs Senator Curren Price and Assemblyman
Richard Gordon told us all that the Medical Board needed to be dissolved.5 However, the
Sunset Review Committee gave the Board yet another chance (after four previous chances at
Sunset Reviews) to fix their problems.
So did the Board fix these issues?
No, they didnt, nor can the Board be fixed the way its set up now. The lack of funding from
the State makes it impossible to retain competent investigators to deal with the closer-to
10,000 complaints received every year. The balance of the Medical Board is too heavily
strong-armed by the doctor majority Board members, and pro-doctor organizations like the
12
Table of Contents
Questions
California Medical Association, to really be concerned about protecting us, the citizens of
California. The Board knows that there are little to no repercussions for them doing a terrible
job and that the public has no recourse to appeal anything or any way to make sure the Board
is doing what theyre supposed to be doing in the first place. There is little to no real oversight
aside from these Sunset Reviews; they are allowed to just do as they please and hide behind
laws that they readily misquote. Lets be clear...
No Board, mandated to protect the citizens of this state, should

be made up of and run by the very group of people the citizens
are being protected from.
The Medical Board should be governed by consumers alone, and doctors should only be
utilized to help those consumers reach a decision on medical issues themselves. A doctor
should NEVER have the power to decide the professional fate or discipline of another doctor
or decide whether a consumers complaint is valid. Never.
That is why entities like the Los Angeles Police Department are governed by an all-public
police commission...not by other police officers.
We are respectfully calling for you to:
1. Restructure the Enforcement Division of the Medical Board and make sure
that it has enough money to properly investigate all legitimate complaints. It simply
does not work as it exists now and hasnt for far too long.
2. Call for an audit of the Medical Board of California by the State Auditor and
the Little Hoover Commission.
3. Call for an investigation into the possible conflicts of interest of Medical
Board President, Dr. Dev GnanaDev with Dr. Hari Reddy, Dr. Prem Reddy and
Governor Jerry Brown.
4. Require the Medical Board to follow all laws, and in particular the California
Public Records Act, which they readily and defiantly abuse. Consumers shouldnt
have to take them to court to get the public documents they are requesting.
5. Remove all doctors from the Board itself and replace them with a public board.
Create a panel of doctors that the public board members can utilize, when needed, for
their medical expertise only.
6. Stop believing the excuses of the Medical Board and its staff, because they
are all too often skirting the law and not being completely honest about it.
How many more consumers are going to have their legitimate complaints wrongly closed by
this doctor-dominated Board? How many more doctors are going to harm or kill a patient, or
sexually abuse them, only to end up with a slap on the wrist by their fellow colleagues that sit
on the Board (and who clearly influence the non-doctor members)? How many more millions
of dollars are going to be paid to executive staff members in salaries, when they can pick and
choose which laws and regulations they follow, ignore citizens, and all too often fail to protect
the consumers of this state?
The only acceptable answer to all of those questions needs to be, None.
13
Table of Contents
Questions
Keep in mind that you, as legislators, are not exempt from medical errors and may one day
need to file a complaint with the Medical Board. Recent patient harm statistics found that
440,000 people die from PREVENTABLE medical errors every year in this country.
Approximately 10%, or 40,000 of those victims of medical harm are California residents.
Death from medical errors is the third leading cause of death behind cancer and
heart disease.6
Dont wait until you or a loved one is harmed or killed by a negligent doctor and then try to get
this Medical Board to help you; although a complaint from a legislator would likely be handled
more efficiently than a citizens, and not be closed outright for no reason. Currently, only 19%
of complaints receive a full investigation, and only 4% of complaints result in the doctor being
disciplined.
Theres one simple thing you need to do as you look through this report or when you listen to
the Medical Boards excuses. Every time you hear a problem that prevents them, or even
yourselves, from doing the right thing, ask yourself
QUESTION 1: Are patients being protected as the first priority? Not how
does it protect doctors or the Medical Board...but is it protecting
CONSUMERS?
1-3 From Quackery to Quality Assurance: The First Twelve Decades of the Medical Board of California, by Linda A. McCready
and Billie Harris, pages 3-5
4 Medical Board of CaliforniaSunset Review Report 2016 page 92.
5 The Medical Board Could Lose Investigative Powers, Los Angeles Times, 4/25/2013
6 Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S. Johns Hopkins Medicine, May 3, 2016
14
Table of Contents
Questions
BOARD MEMBER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(Examiner.com, February 14, 2012)
15
Table of Contents
Questions
GnanaDev, Reddy, Reddy & Brown

**The information in this chapter appears here for informational purposes only. We
make no claims of guilt or innocence.**
[Please use this timeline to follow along.]
A possible conflict of interest appears to involve the sexual assault case of Dr. Hari
Narayana Ma Reddy, Dr. Prem Reddy, the CEO of Prime Healthcare (who is also the
brother-in-law of Dr. Hari Reddy according to MBC records [see below]), Dr. Dev
GnanaDev, the current Medical Board President and Governor Jerry Brown.
(From the Medical Board of California Decision for Dr. Hari Narayana Ma Reddy, Case No.
27-2010-207068 (Link) Why is it relevant to a complaint, who his brother-in-law is???)
According to BreEZe, all three doctors went to the same medical school in India: Sri
Venkateswara.* Dev GnanaDev and Prem Reddy graduated the same year, subsequently
traveling to the United States and eventually settling in the Inland Empire area.
[*NoteDr. Dev GnanaDevs bio on the Medical Board website (and other
websites) conflicts with his profile information in BreEZe (see below). His
MBC website biography states that he went to Kurnool Medical College in
Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India, even though his BreEZe profile states that
he went to Sri Venkateswara. The two schools are owned by the same entity
but are several hundred miles apart. That would be akin to saying UC San
Diego and UCLA are the same school due to their ownership, even though
they are several hundred miles apart. When we inquired of the Medical
Board as to this discrepancy, senior staff council, Kerrie Webb stated that
both are correct. Then why are there separate entries in BreEZe?]
16
Table of Contents
Questions
Google maps (Link)
(Email from MBC staff attorney, Kerrie Webb, trying to make it seem like schools that are over 200
miles apart are the same school. Email available upon request.)
How can both be correct, when they are entirely different campuses 200+ miles
apart? Would anyone reading this call UC San Diego and UCLA the same school? Is
Kerrie Webb protecting Dr. GnanaDev or the public? Seems very odd the Medical
Board cant even get their own Presidents information right. Was it a technical glitch
or was someone specifically trying to cover up information?
Question 2: How many other doctors have incorrect

information in BreEZe?
17
Table of Contents
Questions
(GnanaDevs biography from the Medical Board of California, Link)
(Information from BreEZeLink)
You might be thinking that maybe they only have one entry for Sri Venkatesvara that
includes Kurnool. But heres proof that Kurnool Medical College has its own entry.
18
Table of Contents
Questions
Hari Reddy followed suit and ended up in the Inland Empire as well, doing his residency
at the same hospital in San Bernardino where GnanaDev was working as chief of surgery
(Arrowhead Regional Medical Center). In 1999, Hari Reddy and GnanaDev both
attended Cal State San Bernardino, at the same time, in the same MBA business
program, receiving their degrees in 2001.
With all of these identical circumstances, it would seem highly unlikely that GnanaDev
and Hari Reddy didnt know each other when the following disciplinary case against Hari
came before the Medical Board.
Question 3: Did Dr. Dev GnanaDev know Dr. Hari Reddy before
he was appointed to the Medical Board? Did he know his
brother-in-law, Dr. Prem Reddy?
In 1999, Dr. Hari Reddy was arrested on criminal charges of sexual assault and his
license was revoked in 2003. It was determined that he was responsible for sexual
misconduct with 4 female patients (including a 16-year-old girl). In 2008, he petitioned
to have his license reinstated, but the request was denied by the Board.
(Dr. Hari Reddy, Link)
In May of 2010, Hari Reddy filed a second petition to have his license reinstated. In
August of 2011, his case was submitted to Panel B of the Medical Board. It was scheduled
for a hearing on February 2, 2012.
19
Table of Contents
Questions
In December of 2011, Governor Brown appointed Dr. Dev GnanaDev to the Medical
Board, despite a sensational scandal occurring at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center
where GnanaDev was serving as Medical Director. It was reported at the time that San
Bernardino County Supervisors raised their eyebrows at his new appointment. The Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC) confirmed that GnanaDev had missed his filing
deadline for his Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest. Apparently GnanaDev had a
history of filing inaccurate or incomplete conflict of interest forms. Gnanadev was then
assigned to Panel B, the very panel that would be deciding whether to reinstate the
license of his former classmate and colleague, Dr. Hari Reddy.
Question 4: Was it appropriate for Governor Brown to appoint

Dr. Dev GnanaDev to the Medical Board while a controversial
FBI investigation was occurring?
(From Dr. Hari Reddys Medical Board Decision, page 4.)
(Continued on the next page.)
20
Table of Contents
Questions
(Link)
The February hearing was Dr. GnanaDevs first medical board meeting and first panel.
Panel members are given documents to review ahead of time, so if he did his job
properly, he had to have known that the case of his classmate and colleague, Hari Reddy,
would be before him. Another Panel B member, Gerrie Schipske, was apparently not in
attendance for the hearing.
We asked the staff Medical Board attorney, Kerrie Webb, if Dr.

GnanaDev inquired into or recused himself from the hearing due
to this conflict of interest, and she refused to turn over any
information. (see #2 and #4 in the document below).
Why would she hide this information? Exemptions in GC 6254

are not mandatory. How is this protecting the public?
21
Table of Contents
Questions
(Email from Kerrie Webb to Eric Andrist dated August 26, 2016, available upon request.)
Notice that Webb tries to make it sound like the information is not public due to 6254(k).
But that code section doesnt render something non-public, it merely allows for an
exemption of that kind of information IF the agency can prove it should be non-public.
Regardless, the exemptions provided for in GC 6254 are not
mandatory and an agency can always allow for the document to
be distributed if they so choose and its in the publics interest to
see it. Kerrie Webb just denies everything.
A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in

effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be
broadly construed if it furthers the peoples right of access.
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Subdivision (b)(2)
Question 5: Should a board member be allowed to sit on a panel
22
Table of Contents
Questions
of a fellow doctor that they know?
Question 6: Should a Board member be required to overlook a

conflict of interest so as to not break a quorum?
Question 7: Why does Kerrie Webb deny all PRA requests that
can possibly fall under an exemption, when the law
does not provide for that?
Note: Above, Ms. Webb quotes GC 6254(k) which says,
Does not require, does not mean they are restricted from doing so. Kerrie then follows it
up with (even though it has nothing to do with the prior code section) GC 11512(c) which
states:
(Link)
None of that explains why Webb couldnt turn over the conflict of interest information we
requested. She states that the individual votes (as opposed to Panel Bs collective
decision, are not public. However, it says in the Board Member Administrative Manual
on page 17:
(Medical Board of California, Board Member Administrative Manual, page 16)
23
Table of Contents
Questions
A rollcall vote would indicate an individual vote of each member of the panel, not a
collective vote. Why would the panel votes be confidential in the first place? Even the
Supreme Court announces how each Justice votes!
Question 8: Shouldnt the Medical Board Panel votes be public

information?
B&P 2008 (see below) seems to allow for the President of the Board to sit on a panel
when there is a vacancy in the membership of the Board. At the time of Dr. Hari Reddys
hearing in February 2012, there were only 11 Board members, with 4 vacant positions.
Why didnt Board President Barbara Yaroslavsky sit on Panel B in place of Gerrie
Schipske, if Dr. GnanaDev had a conflict of interest? Or did he not even bring the conflict
up? Why didnt the appointing authority (the Executive Director) in GC 11512(c)
appoint someone? We cant find out because Kerrie Webb is hiding the information from
the public.
(Business and Professions Code 2008)
(Agenda for the Medical Board of California Meeting of February 2, 2012)
The MBC says it cannot reveal if Dr. Gnanadev mentioned a possible conflict of interest,
but did say that he voted on the panel.
24
Table of Contents
Questions
Question 9: Shouldnt a Board Members conflict of interest

information be public knowledge?
MBC Staff Counsel Kerrie Webb verified that Panel B member, Gerrie Schipske, did not
attend so Dr. Gnanadevs vote was required in order to have a quorum. However, it
appears that there are options that the Board could have taken to prevent a lack of
quorum, other than requiring GnanaDev to vote with a conflict of interest.
(Medical Board of California, Board Member Administrative Manual, page 12)
A few months later, in August of 2012, Dr. Gnanadev filed Articles of Incorporation with
the Secretary of States office to open a medical school in the Inland Empire. Also, an IRS
990 was filed for the school for the August 2012-June 2013 fiscal year, listing the address
(and Dr. GnanaDevs name), as 3300 E Guasti Road in Ontario California, which just so
happens to be the same address as Dr. Prem Reddys Prime Healthcare corporate
headquarters.
25
Table of Contents
Questions
(IRS Document) (Prime Healthcare)
Meanwhile, in the Fall of 2006, Dr. Prem Reddy (a Republican) made a $5,600 donation
to Jerry Browns (Democratic) political campaign. That was followed up by a $100,000
donation to Browns charity, The Oakland Military Institute in July of 2007. Reddy made
a $25,900 donation to Browns political campaign in February of 2010 and another in
August of 2010. Reddy family members and Prime Healthcare employees, Laxman
Reddy and Nagarjun Reddy, also donated $25,000 each to the Brown campaign in
October of 2010, bringing the grand total of Reddy donations to Jerry Brown to
$207,400.
Addendum on 2/19/2017: In looking at the Prem Reddy Family Foundation

donations, we also found that on 4/23/2013, they donated $30,000 to the Governors
Cup Foundation, Inc, whose pet charity is Governor Browns Oakland Military
Institute. That brings the grand total to $237,400.
(Link to full IRS document)
26
Table of Contents
Questions
(Drs. Prem and Venkamma Reddy with Governor Jerry Brown. Link)
On December 22, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown announced that he was appointing Dr.
GnanaDev to the Medical Board. The appointment turned out to be just in time for Dr.
GnanaDev to sit on the panel to determine whether to reinstate the license of Dr. Prem
Reddys brother-in-law, Dr. Hari Reddy. The panel and vote took place on February 2,
2012.
On March 23, 2013, the Medical Board formally announced that Dr. Hari Reddys
license, the man convicted of sexual misconduct with 4 women, including a 16-year-old
girl, was reinstated.
(From the MBC Decision for Dr. Hari Reddy, 7/07/2015)
27
Table of Contents
Questions
On April 1, 2014, Dr. Prem Reddy announced that he would be donating $40 million to a
school he would be building with Dr. Dev GnanaDev in Colton, California.
For all intents and purposes, it appears that the case of Hari Reddy could be a major
conflict of interest for Dr. Dev Gnanadev. The Business and Professions Sunset Review
Committee should investigate if this was indeed the case, and question Dr. GnanaDev
regarding his relationship with Dr. Hari Reddy, Dr. Prem Reddy, and Governor Jerry
Brown. Dr. GnanaDevs reputation at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center should have
been scandal enough to question putting him on the Medical Board, let alone his ties to the
Reddy family.

Drs. Prem Reddy & Dev GnanaDev at the announcement of their partnership for a new Medical School (4/2014). (Link)
Article: DOCTORS CRITICIZE POWER OF

ARMCS MEDICAL DIRECTOR
Two doctors from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center told the county Board of
Supervisors on Tuesday that the hospital's medical director has financial
conflicts of interests that have kept him from punishing bad doctors.
Dr. John Steinmann, an orthopedic spine surgeon at the county hospital, said
medical director Dr. Dev GnanaDev wields too much power over awarding and
relinquishing contracts and uses that power to reward himself and others
while patient care suffers.
"His ability to control physicians' contracts allows him to suppress
28
Table of Contents
Questions
appropriate action regarding physicians with whom he has a financial

interest," Steinmann said. "The power afforded to the medical director at
ARMC is simply not appropriate, nor are his alarming number of financial
conflicts of interest."
GnanaDev, who is both the hospital's medical director and a hospital

contractor, said he does not have a conflict of interest.
"All these allegations are false," he said. "Contracts are dealt by the hospital
CEO and the medical director. ... If the medical director did everything
himself or herself, that would be an issue."
Gnanavev, who was not at Tuesday's meeting, said the county has allowed the
hospital's medical director to also be a hospital contractor for the past
three decades.
"It's not me," he said. "That's the ARMC policy for 30 years. I'm only here nine
and a half years."
Hospital Director Patrick Petre, who also attended Tuesday's meeting,

described Steinmann's comments as "personality issues" and told the board
that outside reviews hold that the hospital provides quality care.
Last year, Steinmann sent a letter to GnanaDev and other officials, alleging
incompetence in the hospital's neurosurgery department. Another doctor,
anesthesiologist Keyvan Safdari, said Tuesday that he, too, believes
neurosurgery patients have received substandard care.
Steinmann on Tuesday alleged that GnanaDev has awarded contracts to himself

and others while not "providing commensurate clinical services." He said
GnanaDev and a section chairman in the neurosurgery department have "six-
or seven-figure contracts" but handle very few cases. Steinmann said that
hurts the hospital because resources aren't going where they should.
"The county should ... ensure that the contract money that is awarded to
departments at ARMC is being equitably divided in such a fashion to ensure
the retention and recruitment of the very best professionals," he said.
GnanaDev said Steinmann works at ARMC only part time. GnanaDev said he is
"not sure how much (Steinmann) really knows the reality of what goes on."
Petre said Tuesday the hospital will make changes to the medical director's
contract.
29
Table of Contents
Questions
"There's a lot of authority and power vested in the medical director," Petre
said. "It deserved some review."
He told the board that the revised contract will give more peer review
authority to the medical staff and give more contracting authority to the
hospital's chief executive.
Along with being the hospital's medical director, GnanaDev himself is a

contractor at the hospital - one of the chief concerns Steinmann raised. But
Petre gave no indication that would change.
"That's the way it's always been at Arrowhead," he said of GnanaDev acting as a
hospital official and a contractor. "This isn't something we've just done in
the last few years."
He said he could not be more specific about the changes to Gnanadev's

contract.
"I have not presented this to the board yet," Petre said in a telephone
interview Tuesday afternoon. "I'm not going to go into detail."
Frank Comunale, who served as the county hospital's medical director from
1979 to 1997, said the changes Petre mentioned are a sham.
"That's a lot of bull," he said. Contracts were "always supposed to be the CEO's
final say."
Petre also told the board Tuesday that the hospital plans next month to renew
almost all of the contracts with the medical corporations who provide care
at ARMC - the contracts Steinmann said are tainted.
The only contract that won't be renewed, Petre said, is the contract for
anesthesiology services. Safdari said that's "a classic case of retaliation
against a whistle-blower."
And Comunale said not renewing the anesthesiology contract - which is held
by one of Comunale's relatives - is "just a vendetta on GnanaDev's part."
Petre said he could not comment on why that contract would not be renewed.
"That type of information in a contract is confidential here at the hospital,"
he said. (The Sun, 5/11/2010)
30
Table of Contents
Questions
Article: FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES

Dr. Prem Reddy is an active political fundraiser who counts California Atty. Gen. Jerry
Brown among his friends.
In a recent interview, Reddy confirmed that his foundation donated $100,000 to the
Oakland Military Institute, a public charter school serving low-income youth that was
founded by Brown, former mayor of Oakland. Reddy says he is now trying to raise $500,000
for a new gymnasium at the school.
Because the hospitals Reddy has purchased were nonprofit entities when he bought them,
Brown's office has had to approve their switch to for-profit status. In February, the
attorney general's office approved the sale of Paradise Valley Hospital outside San Diego
to Reddy and his company, Prime Healthcare Services Inc., but did not disclose Brown's
connection with the buyer.
In an e-mail, Brown spokesman Gareth Lacy said Brown met Reddy once, at a November
fundraiser for the school in Los Angeles, where Reddy contributed the $100,000 through
his foundation. Lacy said Brown did not participate in the Paradise Valley decision and
saw no conflict of interest. He said the decision was made by three Brown deputies.
Ned Wigglesworth, a spokesman for California Common Cause, a political campaign reform
group, said Brown did not have to disclose the donation under law but should have.
"It smells bad," Wigglesworth said. "Obviously, at a minimum, it raises the appearance the
donor got something in exchange for his financial contribution."
Brown's office was expected to rule this week on Prime Healthcare's request for a change
in tax status for Anaheim Memorial Medical Center, which the company recently agreed to
buy.
Lacy said Brown had no plans to participate in the decision, but neither did he expect to
recuse himself from the case. (LA Times, 7/08/2007)
__________
31
Table of Contents
Questions
Dr. Felix YipBoard Member
Rich doctor.big donations to the Governor...paid by the pharmaceutical industry...bad

patient reviews. Sounds like a perfect candidate for the Medical Board, Right?
(Link)
In a similar situation to Dr. Dev GnanaDevs appointment to the Medical Board, we

find that Dr. Felix Yip also donated large amounts of money to Governor Jerry
Browns campaign shortly before and after being appointed to the Medical Board.
In June of 2012 Yip donated $25,900 and then 8 months later, Governor Jerry
Brown appointed him to the Medical Board on February 1, 2013. Yip then donated
twice more to Brown in 2014, for a grand total $54,100.
32
Table of Contents
Questions
(From the Secretary of State Cal-Access website.)
Question 10: Should someone be allowed to make large

donations to a political campaign in return for a place on a
State Board?
But surely Dr. Yip has other qualifications that make him qualified to protect
consumers.right?
Dr. Yip lives in an affluent area of the San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles.
He runs a urology practice in Monterey Park, CA. He has two Yelp accounts, both
with mostly bad reviews.
33
Table of Contents
Questions
Yelp Monterey Park Office elp Los Angeles Office

Y
Dr. Yip is appears to be a paid speaker for certain companies in the pharmaceutical
industry. ProPublicas Dollars for Docs website shows him raking in $30,842
from the pharmaceutical and medical device industry in 2013-14. $18,524 of that
came from the makers of a drug called Rapaflo (see quotation below). He has a 41%
brand-name prescribing rate which they consider Very frequent.
(From Dollars for Docs)
34
Table of Contents
Questions
Quote: So why is it that doctors are prescribing Rapaflo to patients

in record numbers if the American Urologic Association tells us that
less costly generic blockers are reasonable choices and even the
makers of Rapaflo cant say their drug is any better than the older
ones? Its because Activis wants them too. Its the same reason why
millions of Americans are conned into taking other expensive, branded
meds through direct-to-consumer ads: doctors who essentially
prostitute themselves for Big Pharma.
(from Say No to RAPAFLO! by Dr. Evan Levine,
cardiologist/author of What Your Doctor Wont (or Cant) Tell You.)
[Note: According to Dollars For Docs, Dr. Yip accepted payments from Rapaflo in the
amounts of $6,442 in 2013, $10,915 in 2014 and $1,167 in 2015 for a total of $18,524.]
(From Dollars for Docs)
Each Medical Board Member has to fill out a conflict of interest Form 700 every year.
Dr. Yip filled at least one out each year since 2013. Each time, though, he clicked the box
stating that he has No reportable interests on any schedule. (See below)
Other Board Members like Dr. Howard Krauss, have a Form 700 that is 20 pages long,
filled with entries for his medical business entities and other financial information. Yet
Dr. Felix Yip has nothing to report? NOTHING?
And no one on the Medical Board questioned this?
[Note: three additional Board members select that they have No reportable interests: Brenda
Sutton-Wills, David Warmoth and Dr. Michelle Bholat.]
Question 11: Shouldnt anyone who is required to fill out and

35
Table of Contents
Questions
file a Form 700 Conflict of interest form, be questioned if

they check No reportable interests?
A quick check of the California Secretary of States website shows that he owns a medical
business and has since 1997. What if one of the other doctors that works in his practice
were to have a disciplinary issue come up before the Board, and he didnt disclose that he
knew them? Like Dr. Brooke Harnisch?
(Link)
36
Table of Contents
Questions
[Here are links to his original 1997 Statement By Domestic Stock Corporation, and here
is his most current Statement of Information.]
So, why isnt this business entity listed on his Form 700 like Dr. Krausss? What else
could Dr. Yip be leaving off of his conflict of interest statement? Clearly, Dr. Yips
primary focus isnt his patients, so why was he a candidate to protect patients on the
Medical Board in the first place??
__________
37
Table of Contents
Questions
SEXUAL ASSAULT BY DOCTORS
The San Diego Union-Tribune, Marian Hollingsworth, June 22, 2016
38
Table of Contents
Questions
In early 2016, we embarked on a research project after we were given 4000 documents
and articles about doctors across the U.S. with charges of sexual misconduct, abuse or
rape. We went through every document and pulled out all the doctors from California,
ending up with over 400 in this state alone. We then began researching the facts and
created a spreadsheet, detailing the information which is available here.
Weve even helped a little with the Atlanta Journal Constitutions exceptional and
ongoing series Doctors and Sex Abuse.
(See also, 28 Sexual Misconduct Cases with Missing Documents)
Did you know?

The Medical Board of California is not required to report cases of sexual assault to
law enforcement, unless the case involves a minor, nor do they offer to do so of
their own accord in most cases. They often take the tact (in many situations) that
if theyre not required to do something, they dont do it, even if that goes against
their mandate to protect consumers.
Most people probably think that they can look up every registered sex offender
online. The Sex Offender Registry consists of 2 parts, one that the public can see
and one that they cant see. A person can be ordered to register as a sex offender,
but only certain sexual offences actually end up in the section that the public can
view. The other section is only visible to law enforcement and certain other
agencies. So a doctor (or anyone else) can be ordered to register as a sex offender,
but it might not be visible to the general public.
Also, a person can appear on another states sex offender registry, but not
necessarily on Californias. (Dr. Amarjit Chahil is such a doctor).
39
Table of Contents
Questions
Not all registered sex offenders are posted on the public Megans
Law Website. Pursuant to Penal Code section 290.46, only some
registrants can be posted online. Additionally, a registrant may
apply for exclusion from the Website, if he or she meets the
requirements set forth in Penal Code 290.46, subdivision (e).
(Link)
Since 2005, if a doctor is required to register as a sex offender, the MBC must
automatically revoke his license, albeit not permanently. There is a caveat in the
law for cases that fell between 1947 and 2005 (See the Rudy Bermudez Sex
Offender Law below). If a doctors case fell within that time period, they could go
to court and petition to get their license reinstated. If the court agrees, the MBC
has to reinstate their license. There are doctors who currently appear on the Sex
Offender Registry, whose profiles in BreEZe are completely clear if a member of
the public looks them up. (See Doctors on the Sex Offender RegistryLicenses not revoked.)
While the Medical Board can revoke the license of a sex-offending doctor, that
doctor is free to petition to get his license back after waiting just one to three
years.
According to the Manual of Model Disciplinary Orders and Disciplinary

Guidelines of the Medical Board of California, it appears that the only offense a
doctor can commit which warrants a permanent revocation of their license is to,
practice medicine with a business organization knowing that it is owned or
operated in violation of Section 1871.4 of the Insurance Code, Section 14107 or
14107.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or Section 549 or 550 of the Penal
Code.
In 2005, Rudy Bermudez, who was serving on the Medical Board of California at the
time, became irate when he saw his fellow board members restoring the licenses of
terrible sex-offending doctors. (See article below.)
40
Table of Contents
Questions
Article: How Well Does Your State Protect Patients?
California requires that a doctors medical license be revoked if he is a

felony-level registered sex offender.
The law grew out of the experiences Rudy Bermudez had while he was a member
of Californias medical board.
A former parole officer who had supervised sex offenders, Bermudez said he
disagreed repeatedly with physicians on the California board about whether
doctors who had gotten into trouble should be barred from medicine,
especially those who had molested patients.
When they were approving these individuals to regain their

licenses, it was really upsetting, he said.
Bermudez said the board was especially forgiving of doctors

who had gone to top-flight U.S. medical schools, like most
board members had. It was hard, Bermudez noticed, for these
doctors to kick someone out of medicine who had so much in
common with their own lives.
When Bermudez was later elected to the state legislature, he sponsored and
won passage of his bill to ban sex offender doctors from practice.
I wasnt going to have it anymore, Bermudez said. I was tired of watching

these cases go through. (From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2016)
41
Table of Contents
Questions
Allowing registered sex offenders to practice
(Link)
The Rudy Bermudez Sex Offender Law (BPC 2232)
In short, the law says:

The MBC must revoke the license of any doctor who has to
register as a sex offender any time after 1/1/1947 (except as in
#2).
They dont have to revoke the license of a doctor if the offense is a
misdemeanor.
If after 5 years of a doctor's revocation and 3 years after
discharge from parole, probation or both, and if it was between
the dates of 1/1/1947 and 1/1/2005, the doctor may petition the
superior court for a hearing to decide if he/she is no longer a
possible risk to patients.
IF the court finds that the doctor no longer poses a threat, and
42
Table of Contents
Questions
there are no other reasons for disciplinary action, the court can
reinstate the doctors license, which can include a probationary
license.
If the court finds that the doctor continues to pose a threat to
patients, there shall be no relief and the doctor cannot file for
relief again based on the same conviction.
Doctors on the Sex Offender Registry

Licenses not revoked
A consumer would expect that if they check up on their doctor on the Medical Boards
website, the information would be accurate and complete. But thats not always the case.
We have found evidence that not only are some doctors impossible to find on their
website, public documents are missing from doctor profiles, the information that a
doctor is a registered sex offender is not prominently placed on their profile, and
doctor-supplied information (like where they went to school) is not always correct. The
President of the Medical Board, Dev GnanaDevs, own profile does not list his correct
medical school.
The Medical Board staff is often slow in upgrading a doctors disciplinary information.
There are times when a patient can go to a doctors BreEZe page and see their record as
active and completely clear of any disciplinary actions, even though the Board has
disciplinary information on file. (see Problems with BreEZe). These types of problems
exist over multiple Boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs, even though most
of the boards are available on BreEZe.
Below are five cases of doctors, all registered sex offenders, whose BreEZe profiles are
incomplete and misleading.
Question 12: Shouldnt the profiles of doctors with sexual

misconduct violations, especially if they appear on the Sex
Offender Registry, be handled with more urgency and updates?
43
Table of Contents
Questions
DR. WILLIAM PFISTERER, RADIOLOGIST, WEST COVINA, CA
(Taken from BreEZe on 11/21/2016, AFTER the MBC changed his status to reflect that he has completed
probation. See screenshot below taken the previous April, which shows that for years, his profile showed as
completely clear. A patient still has no indication of his sexual offences unless they research further.)
(From the Sex Offender Registry)
44
Table of Contents
Questions
Figure A (Screenshot taken on April 2, 2016)
45
Table of Contents
Questions
DR. WILLIAM PFISTEREROn February 7, 1989, Dr. Pfisterer was convicted,

of two felony counts and one misdemeanor count of engaging in a lewd act with a child
under the age of 14. This conviction arose during a situation in July, 1988, in which he
engaged in eight instances of sexual touching of his eleven year old stepdaughter.
As a result of the conviction, he was sentenced to one year in jail and placed on five years
formal probation. He was allowed to serve the jail sentence through a work furlough
program which allowed him to work each day in a hospital radiology department and
spend the night in custody. He was released from work furlough after seven months and
also received an early termination of probation.
On September 20, 1994, his petition under Penal Code section 1203.4 was granted and
his plea was set aside and vacated, a new plea of not guilty was entered, and the criminal
complaint was dismissed.
He was, however, still instructed to register as a sex offender.
An Accusation filed against petitioner by the Medical Board in about January, 1991,
charging a violation of Business and Professions Code section 2236, conviction of an
offense substantially related to his qualifications, functions and duties as a physician.
Petitioner immediately admitted the charge and entered a stipulation in settlement. The
Board revoked his certificate, but the revocation was stayed and he was placed on five
years probation.
As per the Rudy Law, The MBC must have revoked his license in 2005 and he
petitioned the court to get his license reinstated. His BreEZe profile page should show
the 2005 revocation and the subsequent withdrawal, but it instead shows no
documents at all. (see Some Doctor Profile Pages Are Incomplete.) If you scroll
down and look at Dr. Timothy Liddys profile page, youll see that the Podiatric Board
posts all of the documents, while the Medical Board takes it upon itself to purge the
documents from public view.
Figure A above is a screenshot taken of Dr. Pfisterers BreEZe page on April 2, 2016. A
patient coming to this page at that time (or any time before) would have seen that his
license was current, and he had no Public Record Actions, and it in no way looked like
he was a Registered Sex Offender. MBC has since changed his page and added Probation
Completed as a secondary status at the top of the page, and 1 citation under Public
Record Actions; information that he completed his probation.
___________
46
Table of Contents
Questions
DR. EDGAR LLUNCOR, GASTROENTEROLOGIST, BELL, CA
47
Table of Contents
Questions
(From BreEZe as of 2/03/2017)
DR. EDGAR LLUNCORBy law, as a registered sex offender, Lluncors license

should show as REVOKED, not as delinquent with limits on practice. There are two
court orders for him to stop practicing medicine, but you wouldnt know that from his
BreEZe profile page.
Article: Bell doctor arrested in alleged sexual assault of patient
[Dr. Edgar Lluncor] was arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a patient

after a woman reported that she was attacked while seeking treatment for
stomach pains, police said.
Bell police detectives appealed for other potential victims and witnesses to
come forward after announcing that Dr. Edgar Lluncor was arrested Oct. 23,
[2013] at his clinic on suspicion of penetration with foreign object involving a
patient.
There have been two previous complaints against Lluncor, detectives learned
from the state medical board.
Sgt. Tom Rodriguez of the Bell Police Department said the alleged assault
occurred during a medical exam by Lluncor at his clinic on Florence Avenue.
Investigators said the woman was being treated by Lluncor for stomach pain
when he allegedly sexually assaulted her during the medical exam.
Bell detectives contacted the California medical board and learned of two
similar complaints against him, according to Rodriguez. Detectives conducted
interviews and collected the patients medical records. Lluncor was taken into
custody by Bell police and booked into the Bell City Jail, where he later posted
$100,000 bond. (Link)
__________
48
Table of Contents
Questions
DR. DAVID STIER, PEDIATRICIAN, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
ArticleIn re David Mark STIER on Habeas Corpus
In 1995, Dr. David Stier, a physician who resides in San Francisco, began
an internet and telephone relationship with a woman "in her forties," who
misrepresented to him that she was "a freshman at Princeton." He received
photographs of Jill, in which "she appeared at least 18" years old. In
February of 1996, while he traveled to a professional conference in North
49
Table of Contents
Questions
Carolina, he arranged to meet Jill at a hotel. In fact, the girl he met was
Jill's 14-year-old daughter Lauren. Stier and Lauren engaged in
"consensual sexual intercourse" during this single encounter.
Several years later, a criminal investigation ensued in North Carolina

during which Stier first learned the "truth of Lauren's identity, her age
[and] her mother's deception." As a result of the investigation, in March of
2000, he entered a guilty plea in North Carolina to the offense of "taking
indecent liberties with a minor" in violation of North Carolina [law].
Execution of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on supervised
felony probation for two years. The North Carolina judgment of
conviction does not specify that Stier must register as a sex offender,
but he acknowledged that as of at least February of 2007, his name appears
on "North Carolina's registration website," and thus "if he were residing
in North Carolina, he would be required to register there."
Stiers probation was thereafter transferred to San Francisco. He was

advised by his probation officer in California that he was required to
register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290, and he did so
thereafter. By 2002, he successfully completed his probation in the North
Carolina case, but continued to register as a sex offender as required.
His duty to register terminates by operation of North Carolina law on
March 10, 2010.
In 2003, Business and Professions Code section 2232 was enacted, which
provides that the Medical Board "shall promptly revoke the license of any
person who, at any time after January 1, 1947, has been required to
register as a sex offender pursuant to the provisions of Section 290 of
the Penal Code." In 2004, after Business and Professions Code section 2232
became effective, the California Medical Board commenced proceedings to
revoke his medical license due to his status as a sex offender registrant.
Stier filed a "petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 17, 2004,
which requested an order directing the Police Department of San
Francisco and the State of California to desist from requiring him to
comply with the sex offender registration requirements of section 290."
At a hearing on October 5, 2005, the Attorney General did not appear, and
the District Attorney withdrew opposition to the petition at the hearing.
The trial court issued the judgment granting the writ of habeas corpus.
(Id. at p. 72.)
50
Table of Contents
Questions
An appeal by the Attorney General followed. [The appeal court] reversed

the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to grant Stier the
opportunity to file an appropriate action.
The trial court directed the Attorney General to "show cause why [Stier]
should be required to register as a sex offender and provide a record
sufficient to resolve" the issue of whether the registration requirement
violates his equal protection rights. The Attorney General subsequently
filed an answer to the petition and a request for judicial notice of the
North Carolina Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry, which lists
Stier as a registered sex offender due to a conviction in Mecklenburg
County on March 6, 2000, for taking indecent liberties with a minor. In
response, the Attorney General filed a traverse.
Without conducting a hearing the trial court found that the A.G. was not
"similarly situated to someone convicted under section 261.5," which
imposes discretionary registration, and therefore his equal protection
"claim fails."
The court found that the [Attorney General] has failed to establish that
mandatory registration as imposed upon him violates equal protection
guarantees. (Link)
(Link)
These are the only two documents that appear in BreEZe. As you can see, there are no documents that fall
between the 2005 trial requiring Stier to remain a registered sex offender and the 2007 document stating
that he completed his probation and fully restored his license to clear status and free of probation
requirements. There are no documents showing that he went to court and received a verdict to restore his
license even though he remains on the sex offender registry.
When BPC 2232 went into effect, the MBC would have had to revoke his license until the court told them
otherwise, but there is no indication that happened based on the public documents available.
__________
51
Table of Contents
Questions
DR. TIMOTHY J. LIDDY*IN WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
[*NOTE] This case technically falls under the Board of Podiatric Medicine, but the case
has elements that are similar and relevant to the Medical Board. The Podiatric Board
chooses to post all public documents in BreEZe while the Medical Board purposefully
purges the same documents, with no laws or code sections to back up their actions. (See
MBC Attorney Allows Purging of Public Documents.)
DR. TIMOTHY J. LIDDYThe facts and circumstances underlying the

conviction are that Dr. Liddy sexually molested his 12-year-old niece approximately three
52
Table of Contents
Questions
times per week for approximately 10 months. The molestations occurred in various
locations, often times with other family members in close proximity. For example, the
first incident occurred in a bed in which the victim's brother was asleep. Other incidents
occurred in the back seat of a car while traveling, in his home and in the victim's home.
The molestations included skin to skin contact of the victim's breasts, buttocks and
vagina, and digital penetration of her vagina.
On July 2, 2002, in the Los Angeles Municipal Court, Dr. Liddy was convicted of
violating Penal Code section 288.5 (a) (Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child), a felony
substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of the licensed activity.
His sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for a period of five
years. Among the terms and conditions of his probation were the following: incarceration
for a period of 365 days to be served in a work furlough program; payment of a
$10,000.00 restitution fine; abstinence from alcohol; no association with the victim or
her family; remain out of the presence of minors; payment of restitution to the victim
and her family; and cooperation with the probation officer in a plan for drug abuse and
psychological counseling.
Respondent was also required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal

Code section 290.
(Link)
The Podiatry board filed an Accusation/Petition to revoke in January of 2005. As you can
see, it took them SIX YEARS to actually withdraw the accusation. However, the Podiatric
Board correctly shows ALL of the necessary public documents, while the Medical Board
of California would have purged the 2005 Accusation and subsequent Withdrawal. (See
MBC Attorney Allows Purging of Public Documents.)
53
Table of Contents
Questions
DR. KAMAL MATIAN, DENTIST, CANOGA PARK, CA
Article: Prosecutor
Says Dentist Accused of Sex
Assaults Lied on Stand
A Reseda dentist who led a second life as a "sex-crazed degenerate" molested
two women in his office last year and told blatant lies on the witness stand
to persuade a jury to acquit him of five counts of sexual assault, a
prosecutor said Monday.
54
Table of Contents
Questions
A three-week trial for Dr. Kamal Matian, 46, came to a close in Van Nuys
Superior Court with attorneys on both sides telling the jury that
credibility is at the center of the case.
Urging guilty verdicts because the two alleged victims certainly told the
truth, Deputy Dist. Atty. Renee F. Urman said Matian gave a "coached,
well-rehearsed performance."
Matian told "a story from Mars" to cover up his greatest violation, that of
using the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship to fulfill his
sexual needs, Urman said.
"Think of how vulnerable this person is, particularly a woman, lying back
in a chair," Urman told the seven men and five women on the jury.
Matian is accused of attacking a 19-year-old woman on Sept. 11, 1992, and a

38-year-old woman who said she went to the doctor in late February, 1992,
for help with severe tooth pain. Both women say they were assaulted in
Matian's office on the 18700 block of Sherman Way. The 19-year-old was
"shocked and afraid to resist because she was afraid he would hurt her
more," Urman said, explaining why the woman initially appeared unfazed to
a co-worker. Later, she was hysterical and unable to speak when police
stopped her as she ran away from Matian's office.
The other alleged victim, a North Hills woman, also testified that she was
attacked, but the focus of her testimony was on her problems with drugs and
legal authorities. The woman admitted that she was addicted to a narcotic
pain reliever at the time that Matian allegedly molested her. She also said
she would routinely call dentists listed in the Yellow Pages and claim to
be a patient in need of pain relievers, particularly the Vicodin that she
was addicted to. Additionally, the woman pleaded guilty to two felony
robbery counts in June, 1992, and she reported the attack only after
meeting with a dentist involved in a legal squabble with Matian. Because
she discussed her illegal activities under immunity from prosecution,
Urman said, "there was no reason for her to come up here to lie."
But defense attorney James E. Blatt disagreed, and spent the majority of his
closing arguments discussing possible motives for the women to concoct
the allegations against his client.
The North Hills woman who admitted a drug dependency is a "master

manipulator" who is the only person to leave the trial a winner, Blatt said,
creating an elaborate theory of how she used the system to receive a special
type of immunity that forever prevents prosecution on as many as 50 counts
55
Table of Contents
Questions
of fraudulently obtaining prescriptions.
"Anything she says from the witness stand is gone forever," even if
authorities discover her crimes through an independent source, Blatt said.
The former employee was chastised as being a gold digger who wanted Matian
to pay for part of her wedding in exchange for being named a godfather at
the ceremony.
"She got caught fabricating (her allegations) out of her desire for a big
wedding," Blatt charged. "Our thrust in the case is that it didn't
occur--simple and straightforward," Blatt said.
If convicted, Matian could be sentenced to more than 17 years in state

prison. (LA Times, 9/21/1993)
AN NUYS Dentist Convicted of Sexual Assault

Article: V
Dr. Kamal Matian, 46, was found guilty of three felony counts of attacking a
19-year-old worker. The panel determined that Matian committed false
imprisonment, sexual battery and rape by a foreign object. LA Times,
9/25/1993
And yet, hes free to practice medicine?
Question 13: Why hasnt the Medical Board revoked the licenses
of the 5 doctors listed in this report, since they all appear on the
sex offender registry?
Question 14: If the courts have restored their licenses, why has
the MBC purged the public documents showing that, and what
statute allows them to purge public documents?
56
Table of Contents
Questions
CURRENT PROBLEMS
FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, January 13, 1993
57
Table of Contents
Questions
Failure to Protect
The Medical Board of California has complained for years that the state has failed to allot
enough money to adequately fund investigations. That is the excuse given for being
unable to attract and retain competent investigators. Its also the excuse the MBC uses
for its investigations taking an average of two and a half to three years to complete.
However, the lack of funding is not an excuse for the Board failing to protect the public
from dangerous doctors. (See Julie dAngelo Fellmeth quotation)
Question 15: Where is the money that the Legislature allocated

for more investigators with SB 2375 (Presley) in 1990, and why
hasnt it been utilized?
For example, the Medical Board has allowed a number of doctors to get their licenses
back after they were revoked or surrendered for sexual misconduct. They have also
allowed doctors to continue practicing, even after they have been disciplined for the
death of a patient. Lots of other professions, including teachers, sports figures and police
officers, suspend employees without pay the moment there is a hint of any sexual
improprieties. The Medical Board ALWAYS gives a doctor the benefit of the doubt and
lets them continue to practice while they investigate. Here are a few cases [for more, see:
Sexual Assault by Doctors]
Question 16: How is it EVER appropriate for 1) a doctor to remain

practicing when accused of sexual misconduct, and 2) a doctor to
be able to get his license back when convicted of sexual
misconduct?
DR. ESMAIL NADJMABADI of Bakersfield surrendered his license in 2010

after he was found responsible for committing sexual misconduct with 6 female patients.
This was after complaints of sexual harassment at two different workplaces, Kaiser and a
nursing home. He pled no contest to sexual exploitation and was sentenced to 3 years of
criminal probation, and 60 days in work release program. Dr. Nadjmabadi
petitioned to have his license reinstated, and it was granted it in 2015.
58
Table of Contents
Questions
(Bakersfield.com, 7/22//2015)
(BreEZe)
DR. HARI REDDYs license was revoked in 2003 after he was found responsible
for sexual misconduct with 4 female patients, including a minor. He petitioned for
reinstatement, but it was denied in 2008. He appeared before Panel B of the Medical
Board in February of 2012 to again petition for reinstatement, and this time it was
granted. (See entire story of Dr. Hari Reddy and his possible relationship with Dr. Dev
Gnanadev).
59
Table of Contents
Questions
(Medical Board Press Release, 5/23/2003)
(BreEZe)
(From the MBC Decision for Dr. Hari Reddy, 7/07/2015)
60
Table of Contents
Questions
DR. ZACHARY COSGROVE of Bakersfield is another California physician who

was able to get his license reinstated. He was found responsible for sexual misconduct
with three patients. MBC documents report that Cosgrove was abusive to two other
women. One was kicked and punched when she threatened to report him; another
woman was told that she had better kill herself becausethats going to hurt less than
what Im going to do to you. Documents also reveal Cosgrove had an addiction to crystal
meth. Cosgrove surrendered his license in 2008. A reinstatement petition was denied in
2012. However, Cosgrove was able to appeal his license again before Panel A of the
Medical Board and his petition was granted in March of 2016.
(bakersfield.com, 12/22/2006)
61
Table of Contents
Questions
(BreEZe)
DR. ZIYAD GHABRA of Lancaster also had his license revoked for sexual
misconduct. It was back in 1993 after committing sexual misconduct with several
women, including an office worker and an employee applicant. He ended up with a plea
deal on two of the cases, serving 90 days in jail for one incident, and 1 year in jail plus
three years probation for another. After his petition for reinstatement was denied in
1998, he left the United States to work in Dubai for 9 years years and Syria for 2 years.
Ghabra returned to the U.S. in 2013 and petitioned the Medical Board of California to
have his license reinstated. Despite the fact that Ghabra has not practiced in the United
States for 24 years, his license was reinstated on the condition that he take classes with
the PACE program. His criminal convictions do not show up on his Breeze page.
(San Diego Reader, 1/09/2017)
62
Table of Contents
Questions
(BreEZe)
DR. NAGA THOTA, a pain specialist in El Cajon, was investigated after a 2012
article in the Los Angeles Times in which he admitted that at least 15 of his patients have
overdosed since 2005. In March of 2016, Dr. Thota was put on 7 years probation by the
Medical Board. A few months later, in August of 2016, the DEA raided Thotas office and
arrested him in a sex for drugs scheme. He has since pleaded guilty to 7 counts involving
demands for sexual favors in exchange for drugs. His sentence is pending. Apparently,
the MBC and DEA did not share information while undertaking their separate
investigations of Thota. On March 2, 2016, he was placed on 7 years probation with
terms and conditions, however, another accusation was filed against him on January 31,
2017.
(Patch.com, 9/01/2016)
63
Table of Contents
Questions
(BreEZe)
DR. NILOUFER DENNIS remains in practice in the San Diego area after she was
disciplined for the death of a mother of five. Dr. Dennis had allowed the patient to deliver
a 14-lb. stillborn, despite the fact that she had trouble delivering a previous 11-lb. baby.
Dennis apparently failed to realize symptoms of hemorrhaging. When another doctor
examined the patient, she was able to put her hand through the uterus into the abdomen
because the uterus had ruptured. During emergency, four liters of blood were found in
the patients abdomen. The mother of five died a few hours later in ICU. Dr. Dennis was
put on 5 years probation by the Medical Board.
(San Diego Reader, 8/22/2014)
64
Table of Contents
Questions
(BreEZe)
In San Diego, DR. JEFFREY ABRAMS was allowed to remain in practice throughout a
Medical Board investigation for sexual misconduct; the first complaint was received in January of
2014. By July of 2014, after a search warrant was executed, the investigators knew that Dr.
Abrams had 1300 sexually explicit pictures of patients on his cell phone. Despite this, the
investigator allowed Abrams to remain in practice because he was considered a flight risk. When
a complainant became frustrated with the Medical Board, she told her story to the ABC affiliate in
San Diego. Only after the story was aired did the Board suspend Abrams license. He was arrested
at the airport.
From the search warrant for Dr. Abrams. You can see in the description that as of July
2014, the Medical Board already knew about the case, and likely before. And yet, they
didnt suspend him from practicing until the end of October, 2014.
65
Table of Contents
Questions
[Note: BreEZe does not allow you to save the link to a doctors profile. If you copy the
link and try to send it to someone else, or link it in a document like this, their website
will time out and youll have to start over from the beginning. Yet another BreEZe flaw.
If the information available on BreEZe is public, there should be no reason to have a
timeout feature built into the website. See more at Problems with BreEZe]
66
Table of Contents
Questions
Investigates Political Bias by

Press Release: ACLU
the Medical Board of California
ACLU Releases Study on Preventing Unfair Prosecution of Abortion Providers
For Immediate Release : May 16, 2000

Issues : Reproductive Justice
Media Contact: (415) 621-2493 (press@aclunc.org)
The ACLU is releasing a study entitled "Preventing Unfair Prosecution of Abortion

Providers: An Investigation into Political Bias by the Medical Board of California" that
examines the case of Dr. Bruce Steir, who was referred by the Medical Board for criminal
prosecution after a patient died following a second-trimester abortion. In an effort to
determine why Dr. Steir was singled out for criminal prosecution, the report compares the
Medical Board's treatment of Dr. Steir to its treatment of other doctors whose patients died
in their care.
"The research shows that other doctors with more egregious cases were treated less harshly
than Dr. Steir,"
said Phyllida Burlingame, researcher and author of the study.
"It also shows that an anti-abortion activist who has had a close relationship with the
Medical Board was inappropriately involved in the case against him.
These findings suggest that political bias played a role in the board's unusually severe
treatment of Dr. Steir."
Dr. Steir was prosecuted for second-degree murder. In an independent analysis the
California Medical Association concluded that Dr. Steir's actions could not be
characterized as criminal act. However, faced with a jury trial in extremely conservative
Riverside County, the 69-year-old doctor pled guilty to the lesser charge of involuntary
manslaughter, for which he may receive up to a year in County jail. He awaits sentencing on
May 26. Dr. Steir is the first California doctor in over 25 years to face murder charges
stemming from an abortion-related death.
Dr. Steir, a San Francisco doctor, traveled to Southern California because women in
Riverside had an unmet need for abortion services. The anti-abortion movement has
attempted to limit California women's access to abortion by conducting a campaign to harass
doctors who provide abortions. This campaign includes an effort to impose harsh sanctions
on doctors for medical mistakes and to enact burdensome licensing laws on doctors' offices
and clinics where abortions are performed.
Some of the particular findings of the study, which looked at five years of disciplinary
records from death cases, include:
67
Table of Contents
Questions
The majority of doctors whose negligence contributes to

the death of their patients are not stripped of their
licenses by the Medical Board of California, let alone
criminally prosecuted;
The Medical Board shields itself from public scrutiny by

refusing to disclose information regarding its referral
of doctors to District Attorneys for criminal prosecution;
The Medical Board acted against Dr. Steir with extreme

haste and vigor - and with incorrect information;
An anti-abortion activist was inappropriately involved

in the Medical Board's case against Dr. Steir.
The study concludes: "Ultimately, the research shows that Dr. Steir deserved to
lose his license, but he did not deserve to be singled out for criminal
prosecution."
As a result of the study, the ACLU of Northern California calls for the Medical
Board to be open about its policies and procedures; to show fairness and
consistency in pursuing complaints against doctors; and to reform practices
and policies that allow bias to influence the Medical Board's actions. (Link)
__________
68
Table of Contents
Questions
Who is the Medical Board really protecting?

QuoteA public program of disclosure
that purports to provide information a
patient might find relevant about the
history and record of a physician,
but which for whatever reason falls short,
is worse than no disclosure
program at all.
An
inadequate program leads a diligent
patient into erroneously believing that
their physician was trouble-free, when
the physician may in fact have an
extensive record of problems.
An inadequate program of
public disclosure
leads a patient into an
incorrect belief that no
further investigation of
their physician is
warranted.
Joint Legislative Sunset Review
Committee, May 2002, Physician
Misconduct and Public Disclosure
Practices at the Medical Board of
California by Brian R. Sala, November
2008, page 23
69
Table of Contents
Questions
The Medical Board of California basically has one primary duty, as outlined in State
law:
QuoteProtection of the public shall be the highest priority for the

Medical Board of California in exercising its licensing, regulatory, and
disciplinary functions. Whenever the protection of the public is
inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection
of the public shall be paramount.Business & Professions Code Section
2001.1
Nowhere does it say that part of their duty is to protect doctors (or the Board itself) in
any way.
Sure, the board members and staff will be quick to tell you that in protecting a doctor
who is being disciplined, it protects patients as well and gives them more access to
doctors.
But does it always, or is that just an excuse to further the agenda of its doctor majority
board and their affiliations to the medical industry and lobby (i.e. The California
Medical Association)?
Hopefully after reading the material were supplying to you in this report, youll see
that the answer in almost every situation, is noin a lot of cases, they are NOT
protecting the public.
[Note: the Medical Board of Californias current President, Dr. Dev GnanaDev,
used to be President of of the CMA. The current CMA Chief Executive Officer,
Dustin Corcoran, serves on Dr. GnanaDevs Board for his new medical School,
CalMed, which is being funded in part by a $40 million donation by Prem
Reddys Prime Heathcare Foundation, who happens to be the brother-in-law to
Dr. Hari Reddy, a doctor brought up on sexual abuse charges (of 4 women) by
the Medical Board. One of Dev GnanaDevs first duties was to sit on the panel
that restored Hari Reddys license to practice medicine. See this section for
more on this story.]
Business and Professions code 2229 allows the Board and Administrative Law Judges
to take action that is related to aid in the rehabilitation of the licensee HOWEVER,
it goes on to say, and this is vitally important,
70
Table of Contents
Questions
Quote:
Where rehabilitation and protection are
inconsistent, protection shall be paramount.
They seem to forget that part, and often concentrate on the rehabilitation part, despite
the fact that it may not be in the best interest of protecting consumers.
Even the Mission Statement for the Board makes no mention of protecting doctors:
QuoteThe mission of the Medical Board of California is to protect health

care consumers through the licensing and regulation of physicians and
surgeons and certain allied health care professions and through the
vigorous, objective enforcement of the Medical Practice Act, and to promote
access to quality medical care through the Boards licensing and regulatory
functions.
The Medical Board will probably try to convince you that by giving bad doctors a
second, third (or more) chances at rehabilitation, they are making sure that they are
promoting access to quality health care; theyve been boasting about how well theyre
doing at the last several public meetings, and how impressed they are with the
presentation theyre putting together for the Sunset Review Committee. They love to
pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for all the good work they do,
in the midst of thousands of closed citizen complaints.
But the mission statement says their only duty is to promote access to quality medical
care through their licensing and regulatory functions...not through their
disciplinary actions.
Is the Board and its staff unaware of the law and their own mission statement, or do
they just not care?
When the law talks about other interests sought to be promoted, that would include
their ongoing protection of doctors who have done wrong, and they need to remember
that the protection of the public shall be paramount.
Its not an afterthought.
71
Table of Contents
Questions
The MBC does not give enough

complaint information to the public
The Veterinary Medical Board has a section on their website for Disciplinary actions
going back to 2010, that lists way more information on disciplined vets in one
easy-to-see place than anywhere the Medical Board has.
(See Example below from this link.)
In order to see similar information on the Medical Board Website, you have to first,
search for where they store it. From their main page, you first have to select
Publications, which is not the first place most would choose to see a list of
enforcement actions. Publications sounds like where youd go to find books and
pamphlets theyve written. Once you get there, you have to wade through a bunch of
information and stumble upon Disciplinary Actions/License Alerts. Click on that
and youre brought to a list of years to choose from. When you click on a specific year,
youre NOT taken to a list of disciplinary actions, youre instead given only one
choice: downloading an Excel spreadsheet. At this point, if you dont own a
spreadsheet program, or know how to use one, youre out of luck.
It would be far more consumer protective, which is whats mandated by law, to just
create a webpage that lists all the information from the spreadsheet, like the
Veterinary Board does.
72
Table of Contents
Questions
73
Table of Contents
Questions
The MBC vs the Contractors State License Board
When you compare the website information for a doctor with a pending
accusation to a building contractor with a pending accusation, one can find out a
LOT more information about the contractor than they can a doctor.
The Medical Board does not readily list any of the violations...they make
consumers work to find them. With the Medical Board, one has to actually click
through several links and then download a PDF version of the accusation, and
have a PDF reader on your computer to view it. Once you have it and can open it,
you have to wade through pages and pages of legalese to try and decipher what the
accusations actually are.
Conversely, the Contractors State License Board spells out the violations clearly,
and THEN allows you to download the PDF accusation.
Below is a screenshot of a doctors profile in the BreEZe system.
74
Table of Contents
Questions
[Note: The screenshots above and below are made up of 3 separate pages each (divided by the thick black
line). You cant see all of this information at once while on the website. ]
Below is a screenshot from a contractor on the the Contractors State License Board
website.
75
Table of Contents
Questions
Question 17: Why would it be appropriate to list a contractor's

disciplinary violations, but not a doctors? Are doctors
privileged?
__________
76
Table of Contents
Questions
Complaint Processing Times & Closed Complaints
2002
QuoteDuring its review of the medical
board, [the] committee found that
most complaints filed by
the public were closed
without a formal
investigation,
and that 65% of those who complained
were dissatisfied with its action.
Also, the number of disciplinary
actions taken by the board has fallen
even as complaints increased.
Patients May Get More Doctor Information, LA
Times, August 2002
2008
QuoteThe state board now takes an average of
2 years to resolve cases, which can put
patients at risk, critics say.
It takes an average of 934
days from the receipt of a
complaint to the completion
of judicial review,
according to the board's most recent
annual report. Lag widens in medical
complaints, LA Times, March 2008
77
Table of Contents
Questions
5 Patient Complaint Stories Gone Wrong

(Begins on the next page.)
78
Table of Contents
Questions
Annette Ramirez
(Processing Time and Closed Complaint)
(Note: Annette Lost her arms and legs after a routine surgery, so its hard for her to
now share her story in great detail with you. The first section below is the basics of
her story, the second section she typed out herself to provide to you.)
In August of 2012, 48-year-old Annette Ramirez went into the hospital for a
hysterectomy. She was happily married with children 8 and 12 years old. She
expected to go home the next day. Annette's operation was to be performed
laparoscopically, a type of minimally invasive surgery available for more than 25
years that has many benefits over conventional surgery. Instead of creating a large
opening to reach vital organs, a surgeon operates through several small incisions. A
camera is placed in one incision and instruments are inserted through the others.
The surgeon gets a view inside using a video monitor. But a known complication is
that the doctor may accidentally cut or slice an organ or body part, and for that
reason the patient must be monitored for signs of symptoms of complications
afterward.
During Annette's surgery, the surgeon unknowingly sliced her bowel.
Diligent postoperative care would have revealed that problem. But for more than 36
hours the nurses failed to report her abnormal vital signs, which were the classic
symptoms of a leaky bowel. Meanwhile, her doctors failed to adequately follow-up to
check her condition after surgery.
The result was that an infection spread through her system, causing Annette to go
into septic shock. In such instances, the body begins to shut down circulation to save
the brain, heart and other vital organs. This lack of circulation causes the death and
79
Table of Contents
Questions
destruction of tissue. In Annette's case, gangrene spread to her four extremities and
other parts of her body. The result in failure to diagnose her condition led to the
amputation of her arms and legs as well as the excision of flesh from multiple areas
of her body.
In the subsequent 18 months, Annette was in hospitals continuously. She underwent

more than 100 subsequent surgeries or skin grafts. Her family watched helplessly as
she experienced several near death events. Annette's story was featured in the Los
Angeles Daily News as well as in a four-minute video linked here. This four-minute
video depicts the horrific results that can be caused by medical negligence. Viewer
discretion is advised.
Annette Ramirez own words: I filed in Jan. 2015. I tried to call maybe 10 or
more times and kept getting passed around from person to person and then sent to a
voicemil that didn't return my messages. However, I then tried again on 07/25. I
finally did get a voicemail on 07/26 (which I have saved) basically telling me the case
was CLOSED. I have not had time after that due to many personal obligations, etc.
including just getting back from a two week trainng and certification for my service
dog. Anyways, since, they decided it was closed with no violation! They also said my
case was "redundant" as it had already been closed prior?! I only filed once! So, that's
the story, as crazy as it sounds.
(Note: Then with Annettes verbal permission, I contacted Christina Delp, Head of
Enforcement at the Medical Board to find out some information on her case,
especially why she was told it was redundant, when she had filed only one
complaint. The Medical Board hid behind their usual GC6254(f) exemption in the
law and provided nothing. However, Ms. Delp left Annette another message
verifying that her complaint was closed. She made no mention of the redundancy
aspect. I contacted Ms. Delp again to let her know this and there has been no reply.
As usual, the Medical Board works to keep things a secret and provide as little
information and help as possible (even though the California Public Records Act
Law requires them to be helpful) and then when they dont want to answer
anymore, they just stop!
_____
80
Table of Contents
Questions
Cali Andrist
(No Contact from MBC, Complaint Closed.twice)
Eric Andrist gave up his career in the entertainment business to care full time for his
mentally retarded sister, Cali Andrist, after their mother died of medical negligence
in 2003. In 2012, he took his sister to the ER with a terrible stomach ache and she
was dead 2 days later from gross medical negligence...in the very same hospital
where their mother died just 9 years prior.
The doctor in charge never diagnosed that she had a strangulated bowel that had
burst and was seeping toxins into her abdomen causing sepsis, and in fact, never
even did a physical examination of her. He prescribed medications that had multiple
contraindications (not only to each other, but to physical conditions he would have
noted during a physical examination, (like severe scoliosis). Two of the drugs caused
her aspirate a radioactive solution (for an unnecessary CT Scan) into her lungs which
then caused pulmonary edema and sent her into cardiac arrest.
The doctors lack of diagnosing the urgency of her condition caused him to delay the
reduction of her Coumadin (blood thinner) levels so that emergency surgery could be
done, something that was necessary the moment she stepped foot in the ER. Some 15
hours later, very little had been done for her including not giving her medication to
stop the horrendous pain she was in from the strangulated bowel. Eric had a private
autopsy done which revealed that his sister had died from complications of a
strangulated bowel, sepsis and pulmonary edema (note: she had no pulmonary
edema before the cardiac arrest, which was caused by the medications the doctor had
prescribed). The pathologist didnt have access to her medical records to know about
the aspiration and cardiac arrest, and the doctor didnt know about the results of the
autopsy. Combining the two, clearly shows a path to the doctors actions and
inactions causing her death.
81
Table of Contents
Questions
Eric was strong-armed into settling a lawsuit against the doctor and hospital and
filed a Medical Board complaint against the doctor on October 2, 2015. Six months
later, after hearing literally nothing at all from the Board, he sent them an email
inquiring on the status of his complaint. He received an email back stating that they
had decided to close his case because they found the doctors care was appropriate.
The letter made no mention of the actual causes of her death, and they did not secure
a copy of the private autopsy report to help them make a decision. They relied only
on the medical records that made no mention of a strangulated bowel, sepsis or
pulmonary edema as a cause of her death. In fact, the death certificate that they
issued lists none of those causes and was rejected by the County. The causes of death
on the death certificate to this day are still incorrect, due to another doctor not
knowing why she died.
No one from the Medical Board ever contacted Eric or interviewed him about his
case at any point like in the stories of Mario Guzman and Morgan Westhoff. He also
filed complaints against three nurses, and conversely, the Nursing Board contacted
him immediately and interviewed him at length. Both Boards fall under the umbrella
of the Department of Consumer Affairs, so why would one so readily interview the
complainant, and not the other?
Bewildered by the Medical Boards inaction, Eric contacted the hospital to see what
records they had provided to the Medical Board. As it turns out, they hadnt provided
ANY records to the Board. So what did they use to make a decision to close the
complaint? Pushing the staff at the Board for information (which they try to hide
behind confidentiality laws), he found out that they had gotten a copy of the records
from the doctor himself (or his lawyers) due to the fact that the he had to self-report
the lawsuit settlement to the Board (which they then hide from the public until a
doctor amasses at least 3 settlements).
The board refused to accept medical records from the complainant, requesting
permission through a legal form to get a clean copy from the hospital itself. But in
this case, the Board used the records from the doctor actually named in the
complaint. They had no way of knowing if the records were complete or if they had
been doctored in any way, since they were not a certified copy directly from the
hospital. It is much akin to OJ Simpson turning over his own blood sample results
taken by his own lawyers in the privacy of his own home.
Eric has become a very vocal patient advocate who compiles a blog of news articles
82
Table of Contents
Questions
about bad doctors across the U.S. He is also working on an expose to bring to light
over 400 doctors in California who have been accused of sexual abuse, and another
4000 doctors nationally. Ironically, his Medical Board complaint was closed when he
started requesting Public Record Act Requests from the Medical Board, and the
letter of closure came on the very same day that he was having issues with the
Boards lawyer, Kerrie Webb, when she was illegally refusing to provide him with
information. Ms. Webb has continually broken the California Public Records Act by
denying Eric access to public documents and then misquoting the law at him,
apparently hoping hed just give up and move on.
_____
83
Table of Contents
Questions
Dr. Keith P. Blair

(Processing Time & Too Little Discipline)
Marian Hollingsworths 86-year-old father, Dr. Keith P. Blair, had been active in
California healthcare for his entire career as a dentist and dental editor. He had been
the president of the San Diego County Dental Society, and the editor for the Dental
Society Bulletin, as well as the editor for the magazines published by the California
Dental Association and the International College of Dentists. He won awards for his
editorials on the ethics of the dental and medical professions, so it is ironic that Dr.
Blair would become the victim of deliberate medical harm. Before this, he had a good
quality of life living with his daughter Marian and her family. He was able to take
care of all his physical needs such as bathing, dressing, and eating. He actively
watched sports and politics on television. But all that changed in July of 2009.
Dr. Blair was admitted to a San Diego hospital to diagnose the source of back pain at
the insistence of his primary care physician. Without the consent or knowledge of
Marian as his power of attorney, Dr. Blair was given a cocktail of Haldol, Risperdal,
Ativan, Morphine and Tylenol with codeine. Haldol and Risperdal are both
antipsychotic drugs that carry black box warnings that they can cause serious side
effects and even death in elderly patients. These drugs caused a sudden, drastic
mental decline, causing him to hallucinate and talk out of his head.
Marian asked the primary care doctor if he had been given anything to cause this
unexpected change; he told her that it was not the result of any drug, but that it was
hospital or acute delirium, caused by the change of environment. The doctor
suggested that Dr. Blair spend some time in a nursing home so that he could get
physical therapy for his back; he said the mental status would return in a week or so.
84
Table of Contents
Questions
At the nursing home, however, Dr. Blair was given more Risperdal and Haldol, along
with double doses of Ambien, again all given without consent. Consent forms were
falsified by the nursing home doctor. Marian tried to contact the doctor multiple
times, but the doctor refused to return calls or speak with her at the facility. In the 18
days Dr. Blair spent at this facility, he suffered the drastic side effects of the
antipsychotic drugs such as sudden diabetes, low white blood cell count,
dehydration, and heart and kidney problems. He also contracted a MRSA eye
infection that spread to his lungs, fell 7 times in 12 days, and developed a stage II
bedsore. He was sent to the hospital after his 7th fall where it was determined he was
suffering heart and kidney failure. Marian and other family members were told that
the nursing home doctor was out of town on vacation, and that her husband was now
in charge of her. Again, Dr. Blair was given Risperdal without consent. His condition
continued to decline, and he died on September 5, 2009.
After her fathers death, Marian obtained the medical records and discovered what
really happened. She discovered that he had been given the antipsychotic drugs
without the required prior assessment and informed consent. The records revealed
falsified consent forms for the drugs and for physical restraints. The most disturbing
find was that the nursing home doctor had been there at the hospital, despite claims
from her husband and the nurses that she was on vacation. She had come in and
ordered Lantus, a diabetic drug that carries a warning it is not to be given to elderly
patients because it can cause expected cardiovascular events. Dr. Blair suffered a
cardiac event after being given Lantus, and almost died in the ICU. A few days later
he was better; a cardiologist documented that he could be released in a few days.
Right after that, the nursing home doctor came in to the hospital and falsified a Do
Not Resuscitate order. The doctor continued the Risperdal, and her husband
continued to cover for her.
Marian filed a complaint with the Medical Board of California in September of 2012
against the primary care doctor, the nursing home doctor, and the husband of the
nursing home doctor. Within six months, she was told that the primary care doctor
would get an educational letter but that there were no findings of substandard care
from the husband of the nursing home doctor. The complaint against the nursing
home doctor, however, would get a full investigation. In July of 2013, the
investigator called and interviewed Marian for about an hour and a half. She was
surprised to hear that the investigation had been transferred to the San Bernardino
District Office because the San Diego office was understaffed. Marian and the first
investigator spoke a couple of times, then Dr. Blairs case was given to a second
85
Table of Contents
Questions
investigator. By September of 2013, the new investigator told Marian that there
would be an accusation against the doctor, which would be posted on the Medical
Board website within 30-60 days. When that didnt happen, Marian called the
investigator and was told that the Attorney Generals office had questions, and that
there would be a delay. Marian was not allowed to speak with the AGs office about
the case.
Then in April of 2014, Marian received a letter from the investigator informing her
that the case had been settled with a Public Letter of Reprimand at a hearing that
Marian was never informed of, nor allowed to attend. The investigator said that the
hearing is between the MBC and the doctor, and that the complainant is not allowed
there. The doctor had been able to plea bargain down to a Public Letter of
Reprimand, which included the requirement to take some classes at UCSD PACE.
The classes the doctor was required to take was not revealed. Marian was told the
PLR would be posted in 30-60 days. When that didnt happen, Marian again
contacted the investigator, who told her that the AGs office was understaffed, and
that it would take a while for it to be written up. Marian contacted the AGs office to
see if this was true. She was told that not only is the AGs office NOT understaffed,
but that the Medical Board writes the Public Letters of Reprimand, and not the AG.
Thinking that the MBC investigator had not been truthful, Marian contacted
Kimberly Kirchmeyer, the Executive Director of the Medical Board, and was told that
it was more of a misunderstanding than a lie. She also said that it took time for the
doctor to take classes. At the Spring 2015 MBC board meeting, Ms. Kirchmeyer told
Marian that the public letter of reprimand would be up on the MBC Breeze website
very soon. A year had passed since the agreement was made for the doctor to
receive the Letter of Reprimand.
By October of 2015, the Letter had still not been posted on Breeze, so Marian again
contacted Kimberly Kirchmeyer, who said there had been a delay because the doctor
claimed the required courses had not been offered by PACE in more than a year.
Marian contacted PACE, and was told that not only were courses offered on a
quarterly basis, but that some were offered monthly; the PACE spokesman told
Marian that the doctor appeared to have been untruthful. Marian forwarded this
information to Kim Kirchmeyer and the Enforcement office.
At the following Medical Board meeting on October 29-30, Kimberly Kirchmeyer

and Christina Delp spoke to Marian, and told her they would be investigating the
doctor for not taking the classes. (Usually a failure to take required classes results in
an accusation against the doctor.) During this meeting Marian testified before the
86
Table of Contents
Questions
Medical Board regarding the Docs on Probation campaign by the Consumers

Union, which requested that doctors on probation for egregious cases be required to
inform their patients. The MBC voted unanimously against the campaign.
A week to the day after that meeting, the MBC posted the Letter of Reprimand
against the nursing home doctor. The reprimand was just for giving unnecessary
diabetic medicine and poor record keeping. There was no mention of any discipline
for the antipsychotic drugs or double doses of Ambien given without consent, or for
the falsified drug consent forms or falsified DNR. Marian felt that it was the most
pitiful, benign Public Letter of Reprimand she had ever seen. Marian later spoke
with Ms. Kirchmeyer, and was told the timing of the Letter of Reprimand was a
coincidence, and that the MBC is allowed to make exceptions for doctors.
In July of 2016, on a whim, Marian contacted both the San Diego and San
Bernardino district offices. She asked why some complaints like hers were
transferred to a different office. She was told that a complaint must have a specific
reason to be transferred, such as the doctor moving his practice. She was also told
that the San Diego office had never been understaffed, which conflicted with what
she had been told by the first MBC investigator. Marian then spoke to a supervisor at
the San Bernardino office, who looked up her complaint, and discovered that the
doctor had sent in proof of having taken classes on November 2, 2015, the first
business day after the MBC board meeting. The supervisor also told her the doctor
had also been ordered to take PACE classes in medical record keeping, prescribing,
and communications, classes which are offered quarterly. Marian had never been
told that these were the classes that were agreed upon. A surprising revelation was
that the supervisor told Marian that there never was a hearing, as the investigator
had told her, but rather an informal meeting with the doctor, her lawyers, and the
Attorney Generals office to negotiate a plea deal. Because of the plea deal, the three
classes are not part of the Public Letter of Reprimand and therefore are not part of
the public record. Other patients looking up this doctor will not know she had to take
PACE classes.
The entire complaint process left more questions than answers. Why was the
complaint transferred to the San Bernardino office if the San Diego office was not
understaffed? (The MBC President, Dr. Dev Gnanadev, lives there, and had gone to
the same medical school in India as the nursing home doctors husband. At the time
of the complaint, the nursing home doctor was in a position of influence at a Prime
Healthcare hospital, that is owned by Prem Reddy, a business partner of Dr.
Gnanadev. See conflict of interest information.) Why had the investigator told
87
Table of Contents
Questions
Marian there was an accusation or hearing when there hadnt been one? Why did the
MBC believe the doctor when she claimed the classes had not been offered? Why had
the MBC allowed the doctor to take a year and a half to take the classes -- and why
had proof of classes suddenly turned up as the MBC was about to launch an
investigation? Was she tipped off? Was this doctor given preferential treatment or is
this business as usual for MBC investigations?
The bottom line was that it took the MBC 3 years and 2 months to process Marians
complaint against the nursing home doctor. Complaints against two other doctors
were thrown out, citing standard of care. None of the doctors who deliberately
drugged Dr. Keith Blair without consent and falsified consent forms were ever held
accountable. All continue to practice internal medicine with the majority of their
patients being elderly.
_____
88
Table of Contents
Questions
Mario Guzman
(Lack of proper discipline, misled consumers)
(As detailed by his wife, Ludmila Parada) On January 11th, 2013, my husband, Mario
Guzman, was admitted at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara after presenting in the ER
with unmistakable signs of septic shock, acute multiple organ failure and
nontraumatic compartment syndrome on his left arm.
After undergoing emergency surgery, and given dialysis and suppressor therapy with
IV support, this healthy triathlete soon began to develop gangrene in all of his limbs
which resulted in amputations of all of his extremities. After more than four and a
half months in the hospital, my husband left Kaiser 60 pounds underweight,
paralyzed from the neck down, and with stumps instead of those legs used to bike
close to 70 miles on a regular weekend.
How could this have happened? Many blamed bad luck, but this was a very poor
explanation for such an outcome, especially when my husband had been updating
the staff at Kaiser Permanente in particular Dr. Elisabeth Calvellion the days
prior to his hospitalization. In fact, as early as January 8th, 2013 he could have easily
been treated and cured with less than $30 worth of tests and antibiotics when he
presented at her office, sick and feverish, with unmistakable signs of a septic ankle
joint. Instead, he was misdiagnosed as having the flu, without undergoing any sort of
blood tests or cultures to rule out a joint infection. Untreated, this infection spread
throughout his body resulting in septic and toxic shock three days later.
Further review of his medical record showed at least eleven instances in which both
89
Table of Contents
Questions
Dr. Calvelli and the staff at Kaiser Permanente could have easily treated and
diagnosed Mario. Instead, they consistently advised him to stay home and disregard
his symptoms. Dr. Calvelli in particular, delayed and purposely ignored his
communications, which prevented him from reaching the ER at least 10 hours
sooner. During arbitration, the doctor was unable to articulate the reasoning behind
her treatment plan, and it was clear that her annoyance at my husbands refusal to
have her as his primary care physician clouded her judgment, risking Marios life.
Despite losing our arbitration trial, the judge was unconvinced that Dr. Calvelli met
the standard of care, particularly on January 11th, 2013. Following his decision, I
submitted all of the documentation generated during the legal process, such as
Marios medical records, depositions and trial testimony, and I placed a formal
complaint against Dr. Elisabeth Calvelli with the Medical Board of California. After
an initial interview over the phone with the investigator assigned to our case, we
heard nothing from the board, despite our many attempts by email and phone. On
May 22nd, 2015 - more than eight months after I submitted the initial complaint, we
received a letter in the mail from the MBC, succinctly telling us that Dr. Calvellis
treatment of Mario was found to have been below the standard of care, and the
matter was sent to the Attorney Generals office for review. After almost six more
months of silence, we then received a letter from the Attorney Generals office in
which they stated that they were going to be closing the case due to lack of evidence,
despite the fact that the CA Medical board had found cause for disciplinary action.
To this date, Dr. Elisabeth Calvelli continues to practice with a completely clean
record, despite having been found negligent by the CA medical board. This in a case
in which a healthy, athletic 42-year-old man unnecessarily lost his limbs and his
ability to live independently because his doctor did not know when it was prudent to
prescribe common antibiotics.
He is now on disability benefits, costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in

Medicare costs every yearand the CA Medical board not only refuses to issue any
sort of disciplinary action, but also has sealed all of his records, preventing an
independent review of their decision. We feel that the California Medical board has
failed tremendously as a consumer protection agency, particularly after an NBC Bay
Area investigation about Marios case showed that almost 95% of patients
complaints are closed and sealed, with no explanations given.
_____
90
Table of Contents
Questions
Morgan Westhoff
(Closed complaint, Lack of Discipline)
Wade & Jennifer Westhoff filed a complaint with the Medical Board on April 8th,
2014 against four doctors who they felt deviated from the standard of care in the
death of one of their young twin daughters. The Medical Board confirmed receipt of
the complaints on April 14th.
Morgan Westhoff and her identical twin sister were each born with one of the more
common congenital heart defects. Morgans sister had a successful procedure to
correct the defect when the girls were 18 months old. The same procedure was
performed on Morgan, even though her doctor knew she had an abnormally high
blood pressure reading in the area where the procedure was to take place. That
indicated the procedure would be risky for her, as the instructions for the device
that was placed in her heart clearly stated the device should not be used in patients
with such blood pressure readings. Morgans device initially seemed to have been
inserted successfully, but while she was in the recovery room the device migrated
and became lodged in a major artery. The attempt to retrieve the device was
unsuccessful, and the obstruction of her artery caused cardiac arrest and
catastrophic brain damage that led to her death.
Wade discovered that one of the doctors and the Childrens hospital tried to cover
up the fact that the county coroner did NOT do an independent autopsy even
though said doctor told the Westhoffs (and the medical records show) that his
daughters death was accepted by the Coroners office.
In December of 2014, the Medical Board found no departure from the standard of
care for three of the doctors named. They did find enough evidence to further
91
Table of Contents
Questions
examine the conduct of the fourth doctor. A case manager was assigned and
conducted an interview of the Westhoffs in their home.
In April of 2015 (ironically just a few weeks after the Westhoffs settled their civil
case with two of the doctors), a case manager was assigned and conducted an
interview of the Westhoffs in their home, spending the good part of an entire day
discussing their case with her. That Medical Board case manager said something to
the Westhoffs that they will never forget:
Mr. and Mrs. Westhoff, I want you to know that based on what I have seen here in
the file, Morgans death should have NEVER happened. I am so sorry for your loss.
She went on to say, Now, my job is simply to gather the facts of the case so it can be
evaluated by our board to determine if there was departure from the standard of
care, large enough to bring discipline against the doctor. I want you to understand
that I have no decision making authority on any case, I am simply here to get your
version of what happened along with any notes, records, etc., to help us in the case.
The Westhoffs understood that the case manager was working with them to gather
the facts, and while she had no say in the outcome of the case, she sees complaints
every day against doctors, and surely knew a good case when she saw it. The
Westhoffs exchanged a few more voice mails with the investigator over the course
of 2015; the last they heard on the case was that the doctor was being called in by
the Medical Board to be interviewed face to face.
In November of 2015, the Westhoffs moved to Bend, Oregon to begin a new life and
leave the heaviness that they had experienced behind. They received a letter almost
a full 2 years later from the Medical Board dated March 15, 2016 explaining that
they had determined they would be unable to establish grounds for discipline
against the doctors license.
They were speechless, but not terribly surprised. Why? Because they had learned
over the last year from other victim stories, just how inept the Medical Board is in
carrying out its mission to protect the public. They feel that the Board is basically a
faux professional board that is allowing too many negligent doctors to practice
medicine in a manner that is injuring and killing too many patients in preventable
ways.
The doctor in the complaint lied and manipulated medical records to cover up the
92
Table of Contents
Questions
mistake he made in killing their daughter. He had no surgical back-up on campus

when a PDA Occluder became dislodged in their daughters aorta. The doctor said
he did have a surgeon on site, but the cardiothoracic surgeon admitted that he was
actually at a completely different hospital when the doctor named in the complaint
said he was on site and available. The doctor negligently manipulated multiple
catheters, ultimately breaking a wire in a way that resulted in catastrophic blood
loss. He negligently used a medical device inconsistent with the instructions for use
for the device, ignoring pulmonary pressure readings that should have ruled out
going forward with the procedure.
_____
Question 18: Shouldnt patients who file a complaint and have

their complaints closed, be able to appeal the process and see
exactly what went on during the processing of their complaint?
93
Table of Contents
Questions
Problems with BreEZe

Quote-[BreEZe is] a
disaster. It's confusing,
misleading, unbelievably
clunky and serves well as a
definition of
"user-unfriendly.
The website program is labeled
"BreEZe," the logo designed to
suggest it's "E-Z." It's anything
but...If you've created a consumer
website that consumers "have to get
used to," you've failed...Let's give the
Department of Consumer Affairs and
Accenture a new task: Design a
website that is primarily for
consumers. How do you make a bad
regulator even worse?, LA Times,
October 11, 2013
BreEze is anything BUT user-friendly. In fact, its quite the laughing stock. The
Medical Board has had to create online tutorials and a Verify a License consumer
campaign and set up booths in malls to show consumers how to use it. While the
Medical Board creates documents for themselves and their meetings that are OCR
ready, meaning you can open the PDF and search for words within the document as
opposed to the text being like a photograph, they dont make their enforcement
documents OCR ready. So, if you try to google for a doctors information, none of
those enforcement documents will come up. You instead have to use their antiquated
BreEZe software and hope you can figure it all out and find what youre looking for.
94
Table of Contents
Questions
(Sacramento Bee, 11/02/2015)
What the Medical Board and the Department of Consumer Affairs choose to ignore,
is the fact that not everyone has instant access to a computer, and even if they do,
often arent computer literate enough to wade through the problems inherent in
BreEZe. A lot of computer users, especially the elderly or disabled, have problems
even maneuvering through their email, let alone trying to figure out the problems
programmed into BreEZe. Let us illustrate.
First, while its easier to maneuver now than it has been in the past, and appears to
be faster than it previously was, it still takes 4 clicks and some typing to get from the
main Medical Board web page, to a doctors profile. Theyve added a small link to a
Quick Physician Name Search option, but it doesnt always work.
Later in this document we will show you how typing the exact spelling of a doctors
name in the Quick Physician Name Search option, does not find him.
How many doctors are unfindable using these simple search options?
95
Table of Contents
Questions
(Link)
The doctors name must be spelled identically to how its listed in BreEZe or it
wont come up. Anderson will not find Andersen. Typing Cook will not find
Cooke, so partial name searches dont always work either.
What if your doctors name was Dr. Sadashiv Rajadhyaksha...imagine the infinite
ways to spell it incorrectly! One letter wrong and it wont come up.
Websites all over the internet have better search capabilities than BreEZe.
Ancestry.com, for instance, allows you to reveal results based on how a name
sounds. It makes one wonder who selected and who approved the software
company that designed BreEZe.
96
Table of Contents
Questions
From ancestry.com
If you dont know the correct spelling of the doctors name, or their
middle name or initial, it makes it even harder to find it.
The PDF documents MBC produces are not OCR ready*, so you cant
use google to search for documents residing in BreEZe.
(*OCR ready means that the letter characters in the document are searchable as
opposed to just being a photograph of all the letters on the page.)
Lets look for Dr. William Pfisterer, a radiologist in West Covina,

California, who also happens to appear on the Sex Offender Registry.
This example is easy as there are only two choices, but what if you dont know the
doctors middle name or the correct spelling?
What if you only know the doctors name is S. Patel? There are close to 150 results
for S. Patel.
97
Table of Contents
Questions
If you dont know the first name at all, there are 3,377 Patel listings in BreEZe,
covering 113 pages, each with 30 names on it.
[Note: if the user doesnt select to change the dropdown box from 5 to 30,
youll have to click through each page of 5 results instead of fewer pages of 30
results.]
To make it even more confusing, BreEZe lists separately, all the variations of a
doctors name that theyve registered with a Board. The Board allows doctors the
option to use whatever name theyd like, even if it makes it harder for the public to
find that doctor. But, they dont list akas which is another problem explained later.
They also dont list the doctors city or specialty on the results page, which would be
extremely helpful in trying to narrow down the results. You cant tell from the page
below, where any of these doctors practice or what their specialty is. They list their
license number instead which is pretty much of no use. How many patients know
their doctors license number?
98
Table of Contents
Questions
My insurance company called and wants to send me to podiatrist Dr. Jerry Stein in
Burbank, California, and I want to look him up before I make the appointment.
I type in Jerry Stein.
Hmmmm...no results under Jerry Stein. Lets try Gerald.
99
Table of Contents
Questions
Oh good, theres two, but which one is it? Lets open both and see as we know hes in
Burbank. It sure would have been helpful if they had just listed the city in these
search results.
The first one is not in Burbank, and hes deceased. Wouldnt it have been nice if the
search results page had listed him as deceased, so we could have saved having to go
into this page unnecessarily?! On to the next one
The second one isnt him either, hes not a podiatrist and he is in Colorado. So, now
100
Table of Contents
Questions
what do I search for? I guess Ill have to look through ALL of the Steins.
Oh great, there are 6 pages of Steins which is nearly 180 choices...thats too many.
Long story short, I had to go into an advanced search function to find him under
podiatrists in Burbank. Come to find out, his name isnt Jerry, its Gersten, but he
does go by Jerry, sort of. To make matters worse, when I get to the office, his
business card spells his name Gerry, not Jerry. His business card doesnt list his
name as Gersten, or his license number.
101
Table of Contents
Questions
But, lets go back to the G page in the Stein search
(Continued on the net page.)
102
Table of Contents
Questions
There is no Gersten Steins listed. So, lets specifically type, Gersten Stein into the
search box...
103
Table of Contents
Questions
Heres the results:
Now if you click on the BreEZe logo at the top of the page (which most folks
probably wouldnt think to do), and go in through a different search portal, the
search will eventually bring him up.
But going in from the main MBC page, as most citizens would do, will not.
104
Table of Contents
Questions
Heres another case where the doctors name on his website, is nothing like his
name in BreEZe. So how is a patient supposed to look him up?
On his website it is Michael Feiz. In BreEZe, its Farzin Michael Feizbakhish.
The Medical Board allows doctors to use different versions of their names but its
not reflected in BreEZe and they dont cross-link the names they allow doctors to
use. If you put Michael Feiz into BreEZe, nothing comes up. If you happen to
know that his first name is really Farzin, and put in Farzin Feiz, that will bring it
up.
And then they wonder why people cant or wont use BreEZe.
QUESTION 19: Why is the Medical Board allowing this feature

for the doctor, when it makes it harder for the very patients
they are supposed to be protecting?
__________
105
Table of Contents
Questions
Some Doctor Profile Pages Are Incomplete

QuoteInstead of being told about a
doctors disciplinary background,
the Board thinks
consumers should
find out this
information themselves
by looking up their
doctors on a website
called BreEZe.
But BreEZe is not, in fact, a breeze to use;
even Board members have complained
about its clunky user interface.
We Need Transparency for Doctors, Safe Patient
Project, July 10, 2015
ArticleUnder
New Law, Medical Board Reveals
Some Doctor Discipline, Hides Rest
In 2003, the California Medical Association won a huge victory
in the state by persuading legislators to force the Medical Board
to remove public records from its online database after 10 years.
So, if a doctors actions resulted in the death of a patientor
two, or threeand the medical board punished that doctor, in 10
years it was as if those deaths had never happened, at least
according to Medical Board database. The families would
certainly remember the deaths, but the doctor would be free to
pursue a medical career with that bit of unseemly business
erased.
This resulted in the medical board removing public records from

its online database at a pace of more than 30 records per month.
106
Table of Contents
Questions
Patient safety advocates didnt like this. And they made various
efforts over the years to reverse the law. None succeeded until
2014 when the medical board proposed a change in the rules.
Assembly Bill 1886 was sponsored by Assemblywoman Susan
Talamantes Eggman, passed and signed by the governor. The new
rules went into effect when the calendar turned to 2015.
But the changes came with compromises. To make the CMA happy,
the bill was modified to exclude a variety of records from the
online database. Some records stayed in the database and others
came off. The result is that a physicians entire disciplinary
history will NOT be fully disclosed indefinitely in many cases.
These actions against a physician will be posted online

indefinitely:
Any final revocations, suspensions, or surrenders -- or
other equivalent actions taken by another state
including the related accusation.
Probation or other equivalent action ordered by the board or
another state, including the related accusation. Felony
convictions.
Misdemeanor convictions resulting in a disciplinary action
or accusation that is not subsequently withdrawn or
dismissed.
Civil judgments issued in any amount, whether or not vacated
by a settlement after entry of the judgment, that were not
reversed on appeal for a claim or action for damages for
death or personal injury caused by the physician and
surgeons negligence, error, or omission in practice, or by
his or her rendering of unauthorized professional
services.
Arbitration awards issued in any amount, for a claim or
action for damages for death or personal injury caused by
the physician and surgeons negligence, error, or omission
in practice, or by his or her rendering of unauthorized
professional services.
Revocation or termination of hospital staff privileges for
medical disciplinary cause or reason, as long as the
revocation remains in effect.
107
Table of Contents
Questions
These actions will be posted online for 10 years:

Public letters of reprimand issued by the board or another
state, including the related accusation.
Hospital staff privileges that have been revoked or
terminated but later restored.
These actions will be posted online for five years:

Malpractice settlements in the amount of $30,000 or more of
any claim or action for damages for death or personal injury
caused by the physician and surgeons negligence, error, or
omission in practice, or by his or her rendering of
unauthorized professional services. Note that these only
will be posted if a physician who is considered to be in the
high risk category has four or more settlements in five
years, or if a physician in the low risk category has three
or more settlements. Thats a very high bar, and I will write
about that in future posts.
These actions will be posted online for three years:

Citations issued within the last three years that have been
resolved by payment of the administrative fine or
compliance with the order of abatement.
These actions will be posted online only during the time when,
as the law states, the licensee is actively subjected:
Temporary restraining orders. Interim suspension orders.
Revocations, suspensions, probations, or limitations on
practice ordered by the board or the board of another state.
Current accusations filed by the attorney general.
Citations issued that have not been resolved or appealed
within 30 days.
As you can see, even with these new rules, there is still a lot of
information that will disappear from public view. The new rules
undoubtedly will result in new attempts by physicians and their
attorneys to negotiate with hospitals, plaintiffs, and the
medical board in ways that will allow them to avoid disclosure.
For example, the mere fact that hospital peer review actions have
108
Table of Contents
Questions
been subject to disclosure has discouraged hospitals from

conducting peer review and reporting those actions to the board.
Under new law, medical board reveals some doctor discipline, hides rest by William Heisel
Adding the documents back into BreEZe has been extremely slow and many doctors
profiles have been clear of any infractions for 13 years. There apparently was no
consideration of prioritizing cases so that doctors with egregious infractions got their
documents put back first. Even if the documents dont appear due to the restrictions
that were agreed to, often times the series of documents available compared to
whats missing, make for an incomplete picture of the doctors disciplinary
actions. If one document that appears talks about an accusation that is not available
to the public, it convolutes the real history of that doctor.
These problems currently exist on some profiles:

No documents exist at all
No documents appear in BreEZe, but do appear on the alternate Public
Documents page, that most citizens are likely unaware of.
Some documents appear while others are missing.
Documents that do appear are missing information (i.e. decisions appear,
but not the accusation.
(See 28 Sexual Misconduct Doctors with Missing Documents)
109
Table of Contents
Questions
The Case of Dr. Anthony Tun Lee
QuoteLee
was charged with
sexual battery by fraud,
sexual penetration by means
of fraudulent
representation of
professional purpose,
first-degree burglary and
two counts of lewd act on a
child under the age of 14,
Costello said. The girl was allegedly
molested in 2002 and in 2004, when she
was between the ages of 11 and 12, and on
March 15, 2006, when the doctor came to
the victims home.
Anaheim Gynecologist Charged for Molesting
Girl, March 24, 2006
This is a great example of a doctors profile page being incomplete.
This is Dr. Anthony Tun Lee from Anaheim, California. On March 23, 2006 he was
arrested and charged with sexual battery by fraud, sexual penetration by means of
fraudulent representation of professional purpose, first degree residential burglary of
inhabited dwelling, lewd acts upon a child under 14.
On or about July 11, 2008, he was sentenced to 3 years in prison, amongst other
things. According to Pennsylvania Medical Board Records, he was also required to
register as a sex offender. An internet search proves that he did register, and
remained on the registry long enough to have three photos taken of him at different
times.
110
Table of Contents
Questions
Link
Dr. Lee does NOT currently appear on the California Sex Offender Registry. To find
out why, we turned to the Medical Board of California for information, by using
BreEZe. Lets walk through the steps.
111
Table of Contents
Questions
112
Table of Contents
Questions
Clicking on Administrative Disciplinary Actions shows us that there was a

surrender of his license on 10/12/2006.
Clicking on Felony Conviction shows us information from the Superior Court

(with illegible characters).
113
Table of Contents
Questions
Clicking on Administrative Action taken by Other State or Federal Government

shows that action was also taken against him in Pennsylvania and New York.
Clicking on any of the links in the above three sections, SHOULD take you to a
list of PDF public documents available for download. However, heres where it
takes you if you click on any of the links in Dr. Lees profile:
[Return to list of other doctors with missing documents]
So how can that be? How can a doctor who has been convicted and thrown in jail for
sexually molesting a 14-year-old child, have no public documents?
__________
114
Table of Contents
Questions
28 Sexual Misconduct Doctors

with Missing Public Documents
QuoteStaff in the Discipline
Coordination Unit (DCU) has
restored nearly 7,000
disciplinary documents to the
Boards website to ensure
compliance with Assembly Bill
1886 (Eggman, Chapter 285,
Statutes of 2014). Staff will
continue efforts in 2017 to
complete this project as there
are approximately 15,000
additional
documents that need
to be restored.
Medical Board Staff Report, January 6, 2017
(See also, Sexual Assault by Doctors)
Lets think about that quotation.
MBC has had 3 years already to restore all the documents theyve hidden from
public view previously; approximately 22,000 if the numbers above are correct. It
took them 3 years to restore 7,000 of them, or of the total number of documents.
If they keep restoring them at that rate, that means that they wont all be restored in
full for another 6 years. So a good portion of the 22,000 doctors documents will
have been hidden from public view for almost a decade. Some of these documents
wont be visible to the public until 2023. Cant they all at least be uploaded to a
webpage that lists the files by the doctors last name?
115
Table of Contents
Questions
Question 20: Should the Medical Board be allowed to take

their time restoring these public documents, leaving
consumers without access to the information?
Question 21: Cant the Medical Board upload all the currently
missing documents, en masse, to a webpage with the doctors
listed in alphabetical order, so the documents are at least
available while they are restoring them?
Below you will find 28 doctors from our research project on California doctors with
sexual misconduct charges. All of the doctors listed have documents missing in
BreEZe. A consumer looking up any one of these doctors would get an
incomplete, or even a non-existent picture of their sexual misconduct.
It bears repeating what the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee said in
2002,
QuoteA public program of disclosure that purports to provide

information a patient might find relevant about the history and
record of a physician, but which for whatever reason falls short,
is worse than no disclosure program at all. An inadequate program
leads a diligent patient into erroneously believing that their
physician was trouble-free, when the physician may in fact have
an extensive record of problems. An inadequate program of public
disclosure leads a patient into an incorrect belief that no
further investigation of their physician is warranted. (Link, page
23)
We requested (through a Public Records Act Request) from the Medical Board of
California, a report showing all the doctor names and license numbers who have
had sexual assault charges of any kind in the last 10 years.
Kerrie Webb denied the request stating:
...the Information Systems Branch (ISB) would be required to write

programs to extract the information from two computer systems: CAS (2006
Oct 2013) and BreEZe (Oct 2013 present), and the data extracted would
116
Table of Contents
Questions
have to be checked for accuracy. Please note that when the Board is asked for
compilations, extracts, or summaries of information contained in public
records, the Board charges a statutory fee to cover the actual cost of
responding to the Public Records Act request pursuant to Government Code
section 6253(b) and Business and Professions Code section 161. ISB staff
estimates that it will take approximately four hours to write the program for
CAS; approximately nine hours to write the program for BreEZe; and
approximately two hours to check for accuracy. If you would like the Board
to conduct the programming and extraction, a cost estimate will be prepared
for you. (Email available upon request)
At the time, Kerrie didnt tell me how much it would cost me to pay to have THEIR
computers programmed so I could make a decision on whether to proceed. I then
sent her a request for a waiver on the cost, explaining that since my disabled sister
died (who I used to care for full time), and MBC denied the complaint against the
doctor who killed her, I hadnt been making much money. I even included a copy of
my IRS 1040 tax return to prove my tiny income.
She never replied. So she not only didnt follow the mandates of the CPRA, but
when I asked for a waiver of the charges, she didnt reply. Its very clear that it was
information she did not want to turn over to me.
It is impossible to believe that in the 21st century, the computers at the Medical
Board of California are so antiquated that they cannot produce a simple report like
this.
So, on February 9,2017 I wrote to Kerrie to find out how much it would be for them
to program their computer to spit out this report. She replied on February 10, 2017:
117
Table of Contents
Questions
Almost $1,100 just to get a report printed out of all the doctors in California with sexual
misconduct decisions. Thats just absurd! They need to get a refund from whoever
programmed their computers!
Is that protecting me as a consumer, or the doctors?
I then asked for and received a copy of the BreEZe computer manuals from DCA. In it I
was able to find a number of already-existing reports that would give me the information
I was requesting. But Kerrie Webb continued to spew reasons as to why she wouldnt
send me a list of doctors with sexual misconduct decisions. In the interim, we have
created our own online database software, for very little money, that can search for and
sort by any field in our database. But, were supposed to believe that the Government of
Californias computers cant do it cheaply and easily for a consumer?
We already have over 400 in our list in California alone, imagine how many more there
are in the MBC files that they wont turn over to us.
[Note: Even though we show documents as missing from BreEZe, we often have them anyway;
thats how we know they exist and should exist on the BreEZe website. Many of the documents
were secured in the past when they were published by the MBC and then later removed. (see
Problems with BreEZe.)]
If weve found this many (with missing documents) in our very limited research, imagine
how many other doctors information is missing. The Accusation is crucial information
and often missing.
118
Table of Contents
Questions
Question 22. How is the MBC protecting patients if they are

withholding documents that are public?
Question 23: Should a citizen have to pay almost $1100 to get a

report printed out that the MBC should easily have at their
fingertips?
Here are 28 doctors with sexual misconduct charges that have missing documents.
1. Beniwal, Mandeep 79753 2012 Petition to Revoke Probation is

missing
2. Castillo, Reuben 41190 Original Accusation missing as a single

document and as part of the Decision.
3. Chahil, Amarjit 53330 Appears on the Florida Sex Offender

Registry as of Nov 2016, but not in
California. BreEZe shows no reference
to his felony convictions, an accusation
to revoke his license in 2005, nor the
withdrawal to revoke (if it existed).
4. Chetkowski, Ryszard 47258 No documents appear on BreEZe

including this 1997 document.
119
Table of Contents
Questions
5. Chow, Hubert 45435 L.A. Superior Court issued an order in

2008 against Dr. Chow. No documents
appear in BreEZe reflecting this.
6. Davidi, Faramarz 51024 Original accusation is missing, and

does not appear as part of the decision.
No way of knowing what this doctor did
wrong.
7. DiRocco, Gregory 44951 No documents appear in BreEZe,

including this one and this one.
8. Etheridge, Claire 3992 Disciplinary action shows on BreEZe,

but when you click through the links, it
leads to no documents. LA Times
article
120
Table of Contents
Questions
9. Farhadian, Houshang 31355 No documents appear in BreEZe,

including this one.
10. Frank, Kenneth 38038 Convicted of raping two women, while

Breeze shows his license is revoked, the
only document available refers to a case
of failing to ventilate a patient. There is
no information on his rape charges or
conviction.
11. Friedman, Jeffrey 46244 Original accusation missing. The 1999

Decision briefly mentions on page 3,
Respondent admits that he exercised
poor judgment in entering into the
sexual relationship alleged in the
Accusation but then no accusation
appears anywhere for reference.
12. Green, Carl 26550 Original accusation missing and is not

attached to the decision which is
available.
13. Haselman, Timothy 54638 Served 120 days for sexual
121
Table of Contents
Questions
assault and ordered to register as a sex

offender (misdemeanor). This 1999
decision does not appear on BreEZe.
The 2000 decision which does appear,
does not contain the original accusation
or any explanation of the charges or
court verdicts.
14. Kerr, Douglas 69670 An earlier accusation dated 7/7/2014

does not appear in BreEZe.
15. Lall, Bharat 41044 Original accusation missing. No

information anywhere on what his
original infractions were. He was
accused of sexually assaulting 5 patients.
16. LaMarca, Donald 13959 Sexual abuse of male patient,

unauthorized disclosure of patients HIV
status, unconscionable billing practices.
As of early January 2017, no Accusation
information appeared in BreEZe. I
contacted them an asked for it, and was
originally only sent supplemental
accusations. I pressed further and now
the documents have been corrected. The
1995 document was originally 25 pages
and is now 100 pages. The 1992
122
Table of Contents
Questions
document was originally 10 pages and is

now 34 pages.
17. Lee, Anthony Tun 26677 See featured article above.
18. Lee, Don Alan 32487 Had sex with a patient, then the
patients husband murdered her. This
article says the MBC revoked his license
but a court ordered it restored. So where
are the documents?
19. Leon, Samuel 73337 Two decisions exist from 2012 and 2016,
but the original accusation is missing.
Neither document makes mention of
any of the sexual assault charges
mentioned in this article and this article.
If the accusation was withdrawn, it
should still appear along with the
withdrawal. There doesnt appear to be
any law that allows the Medical Board to
remove documents; it only calls for a
minimum of time to appear online. It
doesnt say to take it down after the
minimum (like hospital accusations do).
123
Table of Contents
Questions
20. Limbach, Charles 76437 No documents appear in BreEZe

including this document from 2000.
21. Lluncor, Edgar 37711 See featured story HERE.
22. Martin, Philip 45448 In May of 2016 we downloaded

documents from BreEZe on this doctor.
Now when you click through to the
Public Documents list, there are no
documents available. 2005, 2006, 2012
23. Mehrkhah, Hassan 39147 Original Accusation missing. No

information in existing document
detailing his sexual assault of 2 patients.
Also, page 6 is missing from the
decision, which is available in the State
Of New Yorks documents.
24. Miofsky, William 21248 Sexual assault of patients under
124
Table of Contents
Questions
anesthesia including a 12-year-old-girl.

Was declared a mentally disordered sex
offender and after 14 years in a mental
institution, went to work for the L.A.
County Health Department. No
documents appear in BreEZe.
25. Napolitano, Ralph 69492 MBC Hot Sheet from 2005 lists
probation, yet no documents appear in
BreEZe.
26. Pierce, Barry 50471 Original Accusation missing. We have

copies of 2 decisions (2002, 2008) even
though only one is listed in BreEZe.
27. Severt, Raymond 63482 BreEZe lists 3 actions, but only one
4-page decision is available? No Original
125
Table of Contents
Questions
accusation available.
28. Shore, Edward 7953 Original Accusation missing. Decision

and order following probation make no
mention of original disciplinary actions.
126
Table of Contents
Questions
BreEZe Profiles are Confusing and Poorly Designed

Even a doctors profile page in BreEZe is counterproductive. The website design was NOT
created to make it easy for consumers to find the information they need.
Please refer to the screenshot on the next page.
Section 1. Very few people are going to read this tiny print. Why in the world is it at the
top of the page in this prime real estate area? This is where you should find the doctors
name, license number, contact information, and all of their disciplinary actions if they
have any. Instead theres a whole paragraph about related licenses that only appear if
this particular license is related to another license.
Section 2. This is the information that should be at the very top, in much larger print.
However, the License Status information is often very confusing. The first License
Status line usually refers to the actual current status of the license. However, License
renewed and current is only talking about a doctor whose license fees are paid up. Many
doctor profiles will state both License Renewed & Current and on one of the following
lines it can say License Suspended. Well, which is it? Is it current or suspended? To
consumers, theyre not going to know the MBC jargon to know the difference. To me, the
example below looks like a contradiction of terms...how can the license be current
AND suspended? Why would whether a doctor was paid up on their dues be relevant
to anyone but the Medical Board staff itself?
(BreEZe)
Section 3. Check out the first line: The following information is self-reported by the
licensee and has not been verified by the Board.
Well, why the heck not? What good is the information to consumers if it isnt verified?
127
Table of Contents
Questions
We come to this website to check out information about doctors. But according to this,
the doctor could list and training or Board Certification they want, and it could be
inaccurate or false as far as the Medical Board is concerned. This section is totally useless
to consumers.
Section 4. As weve proven in other parts of this report, this section is highly
unpredictable. The Medical Board has itself admitted that only 7,000 of 22,000 public
documents previously removed from public view, have been restored, and it took them 3
years to do that many. That means its going to take another 6 years to restore the
remaining 15,000 documents. So when you come to BreEZe to look up your doctor, there
is no guarantee that a public document will even appear here, even if it exists somewhere.
Further, the MBC takes down and purges documents that other Boards (like the
Podiatric Board) feel its necessary to leave up. While there are regulations that call for a
minimum amount of time that a document is to appear online, there are no regulations
(except for one regarding hospital disciplinary actions) that require the MBC to take
down and purge documents. Previous chapters have outlined that there are doctors
currently practicing, who are registered sex offenders, whose profiles contain no
information in this section.
128
Table of Contents
Questions
129
Table of Contents
Questions
Here are a few more that are confusing.
130
Table of Contents
Questions
Disciplinary Documents hard to comprehend
IF a consumer is lucky enough to figure out how to find a disciplinary document in

BreEZe, and IF they have a program to view a PDF file and know how to use it, theyre
still going to be in for quite a time trying to figure out what a doctor did wrong for all the
legalese. These documents are not written in plain English, and the basic, pertinent
information is not right at the top where it needs to be.
The front page of a disciplinary document needs to be written with consumers in mind. It
needs to succinctly state the history of the case, in plain English, and lay out what the
charges against the doctor are. There should also be a timeline detailing every step of the
complaint. They can include all the legalese they want after that.
Even if you can maneuver through all of the legalese, the Medical Board staff doesnt
alway follow the same pattern of how they attach previous documents to the file. The
documents usually go from the most recent in the front to the oldest in the back. So a
Decision would be on top, followed by any Interim proceedings and orders or
suspensions, followed by an Amended Accusation if there is one, and then finally the
original Accusation. But far too many documents weve come across leave one or more of
those documents off. Weve seen cases where just a Decision is available, but the original
Accusation is missing. Or theres an Amended Accusation, but no original. These are all
public documents and the Board doesnt have the right to decide which public documents
to post and which ones not to post. They all need to be posted.
Lets walk through the Original Accusation of Dr. Hari Reddy, who weve already profiled
in this section.
The first page looks like an official judicial proceeding that youd see in court. The first
section talks about the Parties. The next section talks about Jurisdiction, with lots of
legal descriptions and code sections. You dont actually get to the First Cause for
Discipline until page 7. I can guarantee that most average consumers would be totally
lost before page 7.
131
Table of Contents
Questions
PUBLIC INFORMATION
The San Bernardino Sun, March 14, 2015
132
Table of Contents
Questions
A Law BrokenThe California Public Records Act
CodeIn enacting this chapter,

the Legislature, mindful of the
right of individuals to privacy,
finds and declares that
access to information
concerning the conduct of
the peoples business is a
fundamental and necessary
right of every person in
this state. (Government Code 6250)
I hope you read the article above that talks about how government agencies defy
the California Public Records Act (CPRA) because they are either unfamiliar with
how to properly process a request or dont want to turn the information over, and
know that most citizens dont have the financial resources to fight them in court
over it.
I [Eric Andrist] can prove this happens, because its happened many times with my
Public Records Act Requests to the Medical Board of California...mostly always
denied by their staff attorney, Kerrie Webb. Ms. Webb even wanted to charge me
$1100 to write computer software for a report I requested. When I asked for a fee
waiver because I dont make much money (I even sent her a copy of my tax return),
she refused to reply.
Keep in mind, exemptions in the CPRA are not mandatory. An agency can
disclose the information if they so choose. The exemptions exist to provide the
agency the ability to keep certain information confidential, IF the greater good is to
keep it from public view. But, in order to use an exemption, the CPRA requires that
an agency explains how the exemption is relevant, so that the requester can decide
whether to appeal their decision. If the agency merely says Were withholding this
document due to this exemption, and doesnt explain why, the agency is not only
133
Table of Contents
Questions
breaking the law but the requester has no information to decide whether the
agency is in the right to withhold.
When the Medical Board closed the complaint I filed against the doctor whose
actions helped lead to my disabled sisters death, I wanted answers from the them
about why they closed the complaint; I wanted to see if they had done their due
diligence on my complaint or if they were being vindictive or lazy. But they
wouldnt give me any answers, saying that their investigative process is
confidential.
So in essence, they can do whatever they want, including

doing things wrong or not at all, and the public has no
recourse to check on them and hold them accountable.
So, I filed a California Public Records Act Request so I could see exactly who
worked on the complaint, what was actually accomplished, or not accomplished,
and the qualifications of the experts who said the complaint should be closed. I
wanted to see their reasoning for closing the complaint.
What I got instead was a brick wall under the guise of GC 6254(f).
According to Staff Attorney, Kerrie Webb, that code section allows them, as an
agency that investigates complaints against licensed doctors, to withhold all
documents, in their entirety, related to that investigation. Kerrie Webb wrote me
on May 9, 2016 (ironically, my deceased sisters birthday), saying:
Government Code section 6254(f) provides a disclosure

exemption for records of complaints to or
investigations conducted by any state agency for
licensing purposes. The Board will not produce
records in response to this request as they relate to
the Boards investigation of a complaint.
Christina Delp, Chief of the MBC Enforcement Program reiterated their position on
June 8, 2016:
Senior Counsel Kerrie Webb, responded to your Public Records Act Request
134
Table of Contents
Questions
on May 9, 2016 and advised you that Government Code Section 6254(f),
provides a disclosure exemption for records of complaints to, or
investigations conducted, by any state agency for licensing purposes.
What neither of them seem to realize, though, is that the law really doesnt say that,
at least not in the way they want to convey when they dont want to turn over public
documents. They also didnt follow all the aspects of the CPRA that are required
when responding.
GC 6254(f) IS an exemption that allows for withholding of SOME documents. GC

6250 states:
In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to

privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the
conduct of the peoples business is a fundamental and necessary right
of every person in this state. Link
Also
1. The agency claiming the exemption MUST explain how the exemption
applies.
a. The Attorney Generals Office publishes a document titled, Summary of

the California Public Records Act 2004. Ive sent the Board this document
a number of times, but they clearly refuse to read it. In it, it very clearly
states:
When an agency withholds a record because it is exempt from disclosure,

the agency must notify the requester of the reasons for
withholding the record. Page 5, Part B, Claim of Exemption.
It goes on to say:
When a record contains exempt material, it does not necessarily mean

that the entire record may be withheld from disclosure. Rather, the
general rule is that the exempt material may be withheld but
the remainder of the record must be disclosed. Page 6, Part C,
Segregation of Exempt From Nonexempt Material.
135
Table of Contents
Questions
However, Kerrie Webb doesnt even bother to look at the document and see
if there is information that could be redacted and the rest sent, she just
denies the document all together. (See #3 below.)
b. I wrote to the First Amendment Coalition for some advice and their general
council, Chase Haslam wrote me back. He said:
I am sorry to hear you are having trouble obtaining the records you
requested. Under the Public Records Act (PRA), an agency must respond
to a PRA request, typically within 10 days, to let the person know whether
it has records in its possession that are responsive to the request. If
claiming an exemption, the agency must not only specify the
exemption but also explain how it applies. Govt Code 6253(c).
Based on your email, it sounds like the Medical Boards response is
deficient because it failed to explain how section 6254(f)
applies. Chase Haslam, for the First Amendment Coalition
The Medical Board has never explained their use of the GC 6254(f) exemption except
to say that the exemption itself is the explanation. I sent this email from Mr. Haslam
to Kerrie Webb, and as usual, she just ignored it.
2. The CPRA does not prohibit disclosure, it simply does not REQUIRE it.
Just because an agency is not required to do something, doesnt mean
they cant.
a. Californians Aware, The Center for Public Forum rights says:
Most CPRA exemptions are discretionary.The main exemption

section in the Act, for exampleGovernment Code 6254does not prohibit
disclosure of the records it lists, but simply provides that nothing in this
chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of them. Accordingly
officials misstate the law in many cases when they say, We cant give that
out. It depends on the particular rule governing particular types of
information. They may have the discretion to decide in favor of disclosure
in the public interest. (The CPRATop 10 points to remember about Handling a
Request & Top 10 Points to Remember about Exemptions from the Act, page 3)
136
Table of Contents
Questions
Public Records Act TrainingOffice of the Attorney General Page 45
3. The agency can redact confidential portions of a document and send

the rest, should they choose to use an exemption.
a. GC 6253(a) clearly states:
Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours
of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any
public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable
portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person
requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by
law. Page 19, Section 6253(a).
b. The Attorney Generals office writes:
The fundamental precept of the CPRA is that governmental records shall

be disclosed to the public, upon request, unless there is a specific reason
not to do so. Most of the reasons for withholding disclosure of a record are
set forth in specific exemptions contained in the CPRA. However, some
confidentiality provisions are incorporated by reference to other laws.
Also, the CPRA provides for a general balancing test by which an agency
137
Table of Contents
Questions
may withhold records from disclosure, if it can establish that the

public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.
There are two recurring interests that justify most of the exemptions
from disclosure. First, several CPRA exemptions are based on a
recognition of the individuals right to privacy (e.g., privacy in certain
personnel, medical or similar records). Second, a number of disclosure
exemptions are based on the governments need to perform its assigned
functions in a reasonably efficient manner (e.g., maintaining
confidentiality of investigative records, official information, records
related to pending litigation, and preliminary notes or memoranda).
If a record contains exempt information, the agency generally

must segregate or redact the exempt information and disclose
the remainder of the record.
If an agency improperly withholds records, a member of the

public may enforce, in court, his or her right to inspect or copy
the records and receive payment for court costs and attorneys
fees.
Public Records Act TrainingOffice of the Attorney General page 47
138
Table of Contents
Questions
However, the Medical Board, and specifically Kerrie Webb, blanketly deny Public
Record Act Requests in their entirety without bothering to redact portions that
should remain confidential, amongst several other regulations that they/she
ignores. When Ive sent her information proving shes wrong, she just ignores it.
The complaint I filed has to have a lot of information in it that isnt confidential.
Certainly the original complaint form that I filed isnt confidential, since I wrote it.
My sisters medical records arent confidential to me, as I have several copies and I
serve as her legal conservator. The names of the MBC employee that worked on
the complaint and the medical expert that supposedly reviewed the complaint,
shouldnt be confidential...how else are we supposed to be able to hold them
accountable or question their qualifications?
Question 24: How does a citizen know that the Medical

Board did any investigating at all on their complaint, if they
can never see the work they supposedly did?
Its not like the Medical Board hasnt been called on wrongly closing complaints
before. In January of 1993, the LA Times published an article, Staff Exposed
Dismissal of Doctors' Files : Investigation: Medical Board workers say they were
angered that bosses had swept away backlog of complaints. The whistleblowers
are called 'heroes.' The article exposed that hundreds of Medical Board cases had
been improperly dismissedand in many instances destroyedin an apparent
attempt to reduce a backlog that had prompted criticism from the Legislature.
The whistleblowers said a three-person management team marched into several
key offices in 1990 and began going through files. They said certain files were
tagged, indicating that they should be closed and in some cases destroyed. Those
that were targeted, they said, seemed to be the cases involving doctors free from
previous complaints or patients who had not followed up to see if the board had
pursued their complaints. You would see a stack of files two feet high on a
supervisor's desk one day and by the next hardly any would be left," recalled one
investigator. "
Why would the Medical Board, and specifically the head of their enforcement
division, Christina Delp, and their legal council, Kerrie Webb, clearly defy the
tenets of the Public Records Act, unless they were trying to hide something?
Remember, the only purpose of the Medical Board is to protect patients, not the
139
Table of Contents
Questions
doctors, and not the Board itself. So why would they be actively breaking the law,
and keeping these documents from the public?
Kerrie Webb also denied my request for salary information for the MBC Staff and
the Attorney General investigators. She told me that other offices deal with that
information.
However, the CPRA provides that if the information is relevant to one certain
office, but contained in other offices, the law provides that office the ability to
search those other offices for the information to provide to the requestor. (See GC
6253(c)(1) below.)
The California Public Records Act says (in regard to this):
GC 6253 (c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records,

shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine
whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of
disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and
shall promptly notify the person making the request of the
determination and the reasons therefor. In unusual
circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may
be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or
her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the
reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination
is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that
would result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the
agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency
determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the
agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records
will be made available. As used in this section, unusual
circumstances means the following, but only to the
extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the
particular request:
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested

records from field facilities or other establishments
that are separate from the office processing the
request. (3) The need for consultation, which shall be
conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency
140
Table of Contents
Questions
having substantial interest in the determination of the

request or among two or more components of the
agency having substantial subject matter interest
therein.
141
Table of Contents
Questions
QUOTES YOU NEED TO HEAR
FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, October 27, 1992
142
Table of Contents
Questions
The October 28th, 2016 meeting of the Medical Board produced some interesting
information. Here is a selection video clips and their transcripts. The entire meeting can
be seen here.
Dr. Dev GnanaDev, President
(Link to video clip)
[In response to Kathleen Nichols of the Department of Consumer Affairs talking about not being able
to hire and keep investigators and what solutions she suggests.]
Ms. Nicholls, I will be thrilled to take you with me when I go to the B&P Committee
[The Board laughs.]
...and basically let them know this is what THEYRE doing...not our doing. So, well be very
careful, but well let them know if they bug us.
[Then later...]
...I cant go say Well, we went from 260 to 400-something. That just looks like Whats
wrong with these people? What do they run? I mean, so thats really, very, very,
discouraging.
[Next clip: Dr. Sharon Levine is congratulating the staff for writing such a great Sunset Review
143
Table of Contents
Questions
Report. This is Dr. GnanaDevs Response to her.]
I can tell you, Dr. Levine, that after looking at what happened [at the last sunset review],
we are so thankful to you.
I have no intention of sitting there and taking abuse. [Laughing.] Let me
be very clear I absolutely have no intention of taking abuse.
Dr. Michael Bishop, Board Member
Dev, you know I have great respect for you, but I have to respectfully disagree with most of
what you just said.
[Dr. Dev GnanaDev laughs. Apparently, as the President of the Board, he cant fathom the seriousness of
the subject Dr. Bishop is bringing up and thinks its appropriate to laugh.]
I would say, you know, I have been on this Board for many years, and those of you who have
followed me knows that I speak my mind. And I ve heard this same response, this same
badgering of people...these people are being badgered again today...Im sorry, but I believe they
are...its not their fault.
144
Table of Contents
Questions
This system is broken, its been broken from the start...the answer has been
clear for many years.
Theyve come up here before us on multiple occasions and said We have a huge vacancy rate.
Dev, Im sorry but I can only do so many cases, and you cant just drop, you know, cut my hours
from 12 to 2 and say youre doing the same number of cases.its just not possible as an
anesthesiologist, and doctors cant do it either. And, I dont know how to get the message across
to the people that need to do this. Can we possibly invite some of the legislators to sit in with
the meeting next time? Have them listen to the public. Have them listen to these people.
[Referring to David Chriss and Kathleen Nicholls of the DCA]
Have them listen to us...because they dont. I mean, the transfer of people to the Department of
Justice was something that was cheap...it didnt make any difference at all. It has not changed
anything significantly. The answer is clear.they told us again and again. How many more
times or what are ways they can tell us...they need people. You can only run the plane if it has
gas in the engines...its going to crash into the middle of the ocean if it doesnt. It needs to be
fixed. I dont know how its to be fixed.thats just, thats my opinion. I have to, you know, I
just have to tell you the way I see it. We just dont have an answer other than that.
Judge Katherine Feinstein, Board Member
[Addressing David Chriss and Kathleen Nicholls of the Department of Consumer Affairs.]
145
Table of Contents
Questions
Admittedly I come to the Medical Board with a bit of a different background. I come with the
overriding commitment of justice delayed is justice denied. And Ive become concerned when
we are going through our discipline cases, and we are disciplining physicians for what we
determine to be misconduct that occurred in 2012...or 2014. We dont know what happened
between 2012 and today or 2014 and today. Have they...have things gotten worse? Have things
gotten better? And I guess if, my real question here is, if there...two questions...if there was one
thing that we could do, what would it be, and Im playing off Dr. Lewiss question a little bit
because, you know, Im not clear on all the relationships between the entities and the budget.
But, Im also seeing that people can be harmed...in these
...you know...550 days is a very old case. If it were a criminal case, it

would be dismissed for violating speedy trial rights.
We need to become more publicly active in really...b ringing the citizenry forward...because
theyre the ones that are impacted by this and by the delay.
[Addressing Gloria Castro, Senior Assistant Attorney General]
Ive been involved with Vertical Enforcement models in different situations throughout my
career. Ive found that they actually exist more on paper than they do in reality. And Im
wondering if youre able, not today, but to provide us with some numbers regarding cases that
actually begin with the same investigator and the same DAG, and end with the same investigator
and the same DAG. Because unless that is occurring, its not Vertical Enforcement. A nd, trading
from one person to another, ends up with your having to, um, have the new DAG get up to
speed...uh, same thing for investigators...the new investigator has to get up to speed. And, I do
think theres obviously a need, in case preparation or whatever, to work together, but, g iven the
slowness that has come with Vertical Enforcement, im not sure, I know its the law, but Im not
sure its a law that shouldnt be changed. I think some...for example, your pilot project on the
subpoena process.I gotta be honest with you...we did a case yesterday that ended up being
dismissed, in which...
...the DAG had filed a discovery motion for necessary evidence, four months
146
Table of Contents
Questions
before the hearing date. And...never obtained the evidence, didnt have the
evidence to move forward, and took no action to enforce the discovery order
in a four month period. Thats NO enforcement.
Thats not a matter of vertical or non-vertical, and legally theres nothing else we could...there
was no evidence. I mean, it wasnt even debatable that it was a case that could proceed. You
know, although these things sound good, you know, Vertical Enforcement has been the
buzzword in the justice community for 15 or 20 years, I have yet to see it work and Im yet to
be convinced that its working here. And it may well be hindering us. And it may be that we
need to start looking at other ways to deal with, with these cases in a more efficient way, cause
it seems to be slowing us down.
[Gloria Castro speaking] And Ill have to get that case name from you, Kim, the one that Miss Feinstein, or Judge
Feinstein just mentioned. I dont know if thats a Vertical Enforcement case, first of all. If were having difficulty
with evidence at trial
[Judge Feinstein speaking] No, no...no, no...please...let me make it clear. I understand what
difficulty with evidence at trial is. I dont understand what the point is of filing a motion and
then letting it sit for four months and not taking any steps to seek enforcement...so you dont
have any evidence. So...let me just make that clear. I mean, Im not overly impressed with...Im
not overly impressed yet. Okay? Hopefully thatll come.
147
Table of Contents
Questions
Julie dAngelo Fellmeth,

Center for Public Interest Law
(Link to video)
Julie dAngelo Fellmeth from the Center for Public Interest Law and the former Medical Board
Enforcement Monitor.
Ive been attending Medical Board meetings for 30 years, and I have heard
this exact problem repeated for 30 years.
We have sponsored dozens of bills to tweak and make changes to the Medical Boards
Enforcement Program. One of them, in 1990 I believe, was Senate Bill 2375 (Presley). And in
that bill, the legislature included intent language, that the people who investigate cases for the
Medical Board, should be paid the same as special agents in the Department of Justice. Those
are the investigators employed directly by the Attorney Generals Office.
That was included in a bill in 1990. This is 2016. That has never
happened. Ever.
Youre [indicating David Chriss and Kathleen Nicholls] getting the closest that Ive heard
anybody ever get to it. But thats the issue here. And thats one of the reasons, frankly, why we
have pushed for many, many years, to have the investigators transferred into the Department of
Justice, so that, that they would enjoy that pay increase. Thats the key problem in my view.
148
Table of Contents
Questions
And, the Legislature made its intent clear in 1990, its just that the folks
in the Executive Branch have never come through on it.
And so, I urge this Board to do anything in its power to make that vision of the Legislature
expressed in 1990, come true.
149
Table of Contents
Questions
EXECUTIVE STAFF
From the LA Times, October 27. 1992
150
Table of Contents
Questions
The Executive Staff

[Note: These are the only staff members weve had encounters with as of now.]
Quote: During the period between 1876 and

1901, the original Board of Examiners, and
the three Medical Boards established in
1878, issued a total of 8,535 certificates to
practice medicine at $5.00 each, which
represented an income of $42,675.
The costs of administration were

extremely low, a fact which could
have created a sizeable surplus in
the Boards treasury to be used for
the expansion of its activities.
Unfortunately, the Medical Practice

Act required that at the end of each
year all surplus funds of the Board be
reverted to the State. The Board
treasury remained depleted until the
fees for the next examination were
collected. This annual depletion of
the treasury occasioned repeated
assertions by Board members that lack
of funds severely restricted the
Boards ability to control the quality
of medical practice.
From Quackery to Quality Assurance: The
First Twelve Decades of the Medical Board of
California, by Linda A. McCready and Billie
Harris, pages 4-5
151
Table of Contents
Questions
Kimberly Kirchmeyer, Executive Director ($158,255.41 salary+benefits)

Seems to be selective about whom in the public she will respond to their
emails. While she does answer some consumers, she has never replied to an
email from Eric Andrist.
Regularly ignores problems with the Board and staff brought to her
attention.
Receives a large salary and benefits and then complains that the Board
doesnt have enough money to investigate and prosecute the publics
complaints.
See exhibit #1.
Kerrie Webb, Staff Counsel ($171,869.84 salary+benefits)

Has refused to turn over public records act documents quoting GC 6254(f)
without the required explanation of why the exemption is relevant and why
the documents should not be made public.
Has violated terms of the Public Records Act including not replying within
the required 10 days, not helping the requestor make a clear request, not
describing the location of the documents, and more.
Changed a Public Records Act request to an Informational Practices Act
request of her own volition without contacting the requester in order to
gain more time to handle the request. When shown proof that the original
CPRA request was viable, she ignored the information.
Regularly ignores questions and emails from the public.
See exhibit #2.
Christina Delp, Chief of Enforcement ($135,469.22 salary+benefits)

Has refused to turn over public records act documents quoting GC 6254(f)
without the required explanation of why the exemption is relevant and why
the documents should not be made public.
Regularly does not respond to calls and emails from the public.
Received private, non-Medical Board, complaint information from a former
co-worker at the Contractors State License Board (David Fogt).
See exhibit #3.
Note: A complaint was filed with the Department of Consumer Affairs against the
three employees named above on August 30, 2016, and DCA Assistant Chief Counsel,
Ryan Marcroft sent a letter out on September 9, 2016 in receipt of the complaint.
Additional information was sent to him on a number of occasions. Follow-up emails
enquiring on the status of the complaint, as recently as January 23, 2017 have gone
152
Table of Contents
Questions
unanswered.
Clearly the DCA ignores citizen complaints as readily as the Medical Board.
Executive Staff Salaries
According to the Budget Expenditure Report* for fiscal year 2015-2016, total wages and
benefits came to a total of $14,442,379. Of that amount, 6.84% goes to the top 7 staff
executives totalling $988,019.70, averaging $141,145 each. (*See Exhibits 1-3)
Kerrie Webb, the staff council, made $171,870 in salary and benefits in 2015, and yet
regularly breaks the law and helps to protect negligent doctors. She prevents citizens who
have filed complaints from seeing exactly why their complaints are mishandled,
protecting the MBC from any investigation into wrong-doing.
Californias median income for 2015 was $64,500. The average MBC executive staff
members salary is over double that, and yet the Medical Board has been under constant
scrutiny for not doing their job for over 3 decades.
Executive Staff Salaries (Based on 2015 information from Transparent

California*)
Kimberly KirchmeyerExecutive Director $158,255.41

Elizabeth AmaralDeputy Director $125,238.24
Kerrie WebbStaff Council $171,869.84
Curt WordenChief of Licensing $147,857.85
Christina DelpChief of Enforcement $135,469.22
Jennifer SimoesChief of Legislation $145,568.68
Cassandra HockensonPublic Affairs Manager $103,760.46
Total $988,019.70
Nearly $1 million is paid yearly to just the top seven Medical Board
Executives, even though they are not readily fulfilling their mission
(and the law) to protect the public.
Note: As of this writing, Kerrie Webb, MBC Staff Council, has illegally refused
to fulfill a Public Records Act request to provide a list of MBC/AG employee
153
Table of Contents
Questions
names and salaries. The CPRA provides that an agency can fulfill a request for
documents even if they have to go outside their own agency to get the
information. She instead, pawns it off onto other state agencies to provide,
ignoring what the CPRA says she should do. Instead she sent me something
that I didnt ask for. Here is what she said in her email (available upon request)
of November 8, 2016:
The Board does not have a document that contains the salary and
benefit information you are requesting regarding the Board staff, the
investigators, the Attorney Generals Office and everyone else who has
anything to do with the Medical Board. With regard to Board staff and
investigators, the Department of Consumer Affairs or the State
Controllers Office may be able to assist you. The Attorney Generals
Office may be able to assist you with regard to its employees. I have
attached the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget Expenditure Report, which
provides the totals for personal services.
Click HERE for evidence of how she is wrong in this matter. The CPRA
requires her to be helpful and do what she can to make a request happen. She
clearly has not read that section.
154
Table of Contents
Questions
POLICIES AND EXPERTS
ACLU, May 16, 2000
155
Table of Contents
Questions
MBC Attorney Allows Purging of Public Documents

[Note: I called on Awet Kidane, head of the Department of Consumer Affairs, to
look into this matter and received no reply.]
As previously mentioned, the Medical Board has admitted to purging public documents
that shouldnt be purged. This came about when we noticed that certain doctors who
were appearing on the Sex Offender Registry, were missing documents that outlined
their entire case.
Due to Rudy Bermudez sex offender Law (BPC 2232), if a doctor is required to register
for the Sex Offender Registry, it is an automatic revocation of his license. However, there
is a caveat in the law for cases that fell between 1947 and 2005; the defendant is allowed
to petition the court to get their license back if their case fell before 1/1/2005. If the court
says yes, the Medical Board has to give the license back. But until the court decides, the
Board would be required to file an Accusation to revoke the doctors license. If the court
agrees with the doctor and restores the license, the Board would then file a Withdrawal
of the Accusation. Both the Accusation and the Withdrawal are public documents.
Those documents are to remain available for public view, for one year as is stated in the
law:
California Code of Regulations 16 CA ADC 1354.5: The following

information, if known, will be disclosed upon request regarding any
physician and surgeon licensed in California: (b) Any public document
filed against any physician and surgeon, and any disposition thereof,
including but not limited to, accusations, decisions, temporary
restraining orders, interim suspension orders, citations, and public
letters of reprimand. Accusations which have been filed and later
withdrawn shall be retained in the board's files for a period of one year
after the accusation was withdrawn.
Notice that it does not say that the document MUST BE REMOVED after one year, it only
gives a MINIMUM amount of time that it must be in the boards files. It makes no
mention of removing the file or purging it.
However, Staff Attorney Kerrie Webb stated, Accusations that are withdrawn are
purged after one year pursuant to Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations section
1354.5(b).
156
Table of Contents
Questions
I then found the case of Dr. Timothy J. Liddy, a Podiatrist in Los Angeles California who is currently on
the Sex Offender Registry. Different from a doctor under the Medical Boards jurisdiction, his profile
included both the Accusation (for the mandatory revocation in 2005) and the subsequent Withdrawal
of the Accusation, as he apparently got a court to restore his license. So, I contacted the Podiatry Board
to find out why. They told me that they feel ...it is within our right to keep the documentation of the
court proceedings public information and posted on the web. We believe that these records should be
maintained indefinitely in the file room even if not posted on the web for public view and should be
available per request from the public at a fee.
Yet, Kerrie Webb, the attorney for the Medical Board reads the law and somehow sees that it allows
them to purge the records from public view! The Medical Board does not have the ability to legally
decide whether documents are public or not and when they should be destroyed. Once a public
document, always a public document. How is destroying these documents, protecting the public??
When I told Kerrie that the code section she quoted says nothing about purging records, and showed
her that the Board of Podiatric Medicine DOESNT purge their like records, she stopped replying,
which is her usual tactic. I cant begin to tell you how many times Kerrie Webb and other Medical
Board staffers have sent us code sections that were either irrelevant or did not say what they were
inferring them to say.
__________
157
Table of Contents
Questions
7 Years or 35 months? Which is it?
Should a doctor who had breached patient confidentiality get the same discipline as
a doctor who had committed sexual misconduct with four patients and had sex with
a minor?
Apparently, the Medical Board thinks they should, even though that violates their
own guidelines. The Board recommendations for physician discipline are outlined
in the Manual for Model Disciplinary Orders and Discipline Guidelines. The 2016
edition of the manual released on February 3, 2017 along with the previous one are
very specific that the MINIMUM discipline for a doctor found responsible for sexual
misconduct is 7 years.
Manual for Model Disciplinary Orders and Discipline Guidelines, 12th Edition, 2016, Page 23.
However, in September of 2016, the Board failed to follow its own

recommendations when it gave Dr. Ramon Fakhoury only 35 months probation --
less than half the recommended time -- after he was found responsible for sexual
misconduct with four female patients. This was an extreme departure for the MBC.
The patient assaults all took place at an urgent care clinic on the Loma Linda
University between June and July of 2011. The MBC was uncharacteristically quick
in filing an accusation against Dr. Fakhoury; within four months, in October of
2011. (Accusations normally take an average of 551 days, according to the recent
MBC statistics.) However, it took the MBC almost 5 years to decide on that 35
158
Table of Contents
Questions
month discipline.
During that time, Fakhoury was also charged and convicted of having sex with a
minor, and was sentenced to 3 years criminal probation and 6 months in jail; the
sex with a minor conviction was not mentioned in his MBC discipline. His trial for
sexual assault on 2 of the 4 Loma Linda patients ended in a mistrial; the case was
not retried. Under the terms of the stipulated settlement with the MBC, he now
must have a chaperone with female patients until the end of his probation.
The Discipline Guidelines also specify that Any proposed decision or settlement
that departs from the disciplinary guidelines shall identify the departure and the
facts supporting the departure. In other words, the MBC was supposed to give its
reasons and facts for giving Dr. Fakhoury less than half the recommended
probation. It failed to do so in the decision handed down in September of 2016.
Business and Professions Code section 2229
Compare Dr. Fakhourys case with that of Dr. Jose Angel Alfaro. Alfaro was disciplined in
2003 for what most people would think are minor violations. Dr. Alfaro was found to have
breached a patient of confidentiality, demonstrated a lack of sympathy...and
demonstrated an inability to maintain good working relationships with patients. His
discipline? 35 months...the same as Dr. Fakhoury. Granted, Fakhoury was also required to
take PACE classes on ethics and boundaries, and have a chaperone present for female
159
Table of Contents
Questions
patients -- but both doctors were given the same amount of probation. The MBCs primary
duty is to protect consumers in California. Which doctor posed the greater threat to
patients -- the one who lacked sympathy or the one who sexually assaulted women
patients?
__________
160
Table of Contents
Questions
Medical ExpertsWho Knows For Sure?
As I [EA] mentioned before, The Medical Board closed the complaint I filed in my
disabled sisters death case...twice. Both times they said the Medical Consultant found
that the doctor didnt depart from the standard of practice of medicine.
Keep in mind, I settled with the Doctor after filing a lawsuit against him. The only
reason I was forced to settle was because it was what they call in the legal business, a
straight MICRA case. MICRA is the 1974 law that Governor Jerry Brown signed into
law after the fake Medical Malpractice Insurance scare, perpetrated by Argonaut
Insurance. (See How MICRA came to be.) Because of that law, the value of my sisters
life was degraded to $250,000 in 1974 valued dollars (it would be worth more than a
million dollars if it had gone up with inflation like everything else). The defendants in
the case knew that the most Id get in court was $250,000, but knew I had a rock-solid
case, and chose to settle to avoid ongoing court costs. But we had a GREAT case that
proved negligence on the part of the doctor that I filed a Medical Board complaint
against.
That didnt matter to the Medical Board, though, or their Medical Consultant. They
didnt look at any of the evidence that I paid a small fortune for my lawyers to discover.
In fact, NO ONE from the Medical Board ever called and interviewed me after I filed my
complaint. NEVER. When I filed a Nursing Board complaint (which is still ongoing),
they called and interviewed me on the telephone to get my version of the story and
asked me to send them the evidence from my court case. When I filed a complaint
against the convicts (literally) that remodeled my kitchen, the Contractors State License
Board came out and interviewed me for several hours. (See the cases of Mario Guzman
and Morgan Westhoff as the Medical Board DID interview them in their cases.)
But the Medical Board of California, who was dealing with the death of my sister,
couldnt be bothered.
I was not even contacted within 10 days after filing my complaint as Business and
Professions Code 129 requires. In part, it says:
161
Table of Contents
Questions
So, it really makes one wonder who these Medical Consultants are, and what their
qualifications are. How does a member of the public know for sure that a consultant
even looked at their case?
When I filed a Public Records Act Request to see my complaint after it was closed, both
the Chief of Enforcement, Christina Delp and Staff Attorney, Kerrie Webb, denied my
request in totality (see A Law BrokenThe California Public Records Act), even
though by law they are to redact anything confidential and send the rest. Surely the
names of these consultants wouldnt be confidential information. Why would their
evaluation of my sisters medical records be confidential?
We all make mistakes, what if these consultants werent right? I mean, they didnt even
have all the necessary information to make a proper decision. The first MBC analyst
didnt ask for or consider the private autopsy I had done on my sister!
In the first letter I got from the MBC closing my complaint, they say,
...the Medical Board must be able to substantiate that the

physicians conduct departed from the standard of practice of
medicine in order to establish a violation of the Medical Practice
Act for negligence. Your complaint against Dr. Patel and the related
medical records were reviewed by the Boards medical consultant to
determine whether a departure from the standard of care and
treatment could be identified.
1. How can they substantiate ANYTHING when no one has even spoken to me to get
my side of the events. I was with my sister 24/7...the doctor most certainly
wasnt...he only came in for about 5 minutes, twice!
2. I certainly didnt write out everything that happened on the original complaint
form, fully expecting someone would call and interview me.
162
Table of Contents
Questions
3. I did mention on the complaint form that I had a private autopsy done, but the
Medical Board Analyst (CSA) didnt request it before sending the case to the
Medical Consultant. My sisters medical records dont state how she died
because they never diagnosed her real condition. We didnt find out until we got
the autopsy.
4. How could the opinion of ONE medical Consultant ever be the end-all opinion
as to whether the standard of care was deviated from. When you put together a
medical malpractice lawsuit, multiple doctors go over the records and come out
with differing opinions. When you file a Medical Board complaint, youre stuck
with the one opinion of the one medical consultant. What if he really didnt read
the records carefully because he was tired or drunk? What if he knows the doctor
in the complaint and doesnt want to get him in trouble? As consumers, we can
never get that information. We have no right to an audit of the complaint process
to make sure it proceeded properly.
According to our medical consultant, the medical records indicate

that the initial treatment and stabilization of Ms. Andrist by Dr.
Patel was appropriate.
1. I have no idea how they could come to that conclusion as the medical records
dont reflect that. It certainly doesnt explain how an Indian doctor with a very
thick accent came into the room, saw she was mentally retarded and wouldnt
even speak to her.he addressed everything to me. He never touched her, never
did a physical examination of any kind which would have revealed that she had
severe scoliosis, a condition that is a contraindication for one of the drugs he gave
her.
2. The MBC got my sisters medical records either from the doctor himself or his
legal counsel due to B&P Code 801.01, which required him to self-report the
malpractice lawsuit to the Medical Board. As part of that, he had to turn over his
copies of her medical records. So the MBC didnt get an unaltered and certified
copy of the medical records from the hospital, they got them from the very doctor
that is named in the complaint! Thats like OJ Simpson taking his own blood
samples in his own house, having his own doctor interpret them and turning them
over to the court.
3. Dr. Patels treatment and stabilization were NOT appropriate, but they didnt give
me a chance to give them any information to prove that. I could have outlined how
he prescribed a number of medications that she had contraindications for, two of
which caused her to aspirate a radioactive liquid into her lungs causing pulmonary
edema and sent her into cardiac arrest. I could have shown them how he
163
Table of Contents
Questions
prescribed antibiotics to be given immediately but never followed up on it and

they werent given for hours...they layed on her tray table next to her bed, unused.
Or how it was more important for him to criticize my sisters primary caregiver
then do a physical examination.
While the initial CT Scan suggested small bowel obstruction, it also

showed that gas or stool were seen in the colon, suggesting that an
obstruction, if present might be in early stages or somewhat partial.
1. IF present?? Not only was her bowel obstructed, it was strangulated. While she
laid there dying and in horrendous pain, this doctor made no concerted effort to
diagnose her one way or the other. Aside from the CT Scan, all of her symptoms
pointed to severe sepsis and a strangulated bowel. But they treated her for none of
that because they were worried about her heart rate, a condition she always had.
And was exacerbated by the Sepsis they werent diagnosing.
...and it was our medical consultants opinion that the care and
treatment provided by Dr. Patel did not depart from the standard of
practice of medicine.
1. I wonder if his opinion would have been as haphazardly rendered if it had been his
loved one who had died at the hands of this negligent and uncaring doctor.
...the providers determined Ms. Andrist was seriously ill on

presentation to the hospital with a small bowel obstruction and
sepsis. Ms. Andrist was given appropriate IV medication and received
surgical and gastrointestinal consults to manage her condition. In
accordance with the MCs findings, this complaint did not warrant a
field investigation and was closed.
1. Wow...she was seriously ill on presentation to the hospital. And here I thought
she was perfectly well when the ambulance brought her in. NOWHERE in the
medical record of over 1000 pages, do they EVER emphatically diagnose a small
bowel obstruction or sepsis. The few times sepsis is mentioned it is preceded by
suspect, or possible. Because they truly didnt diagnose sepsis, they failed to
give her the life-saving antibiotics during the golden hour that could have saved
her life while she waited for surgery to correct the STRANGULATED bowel that
they never diagnosed...even with 2 CT Scans. If they had diagnosed sepsis,
antibiotics would have been started IMMEDIATELY, and the record clearly shows
164
Table of Contents
Questions
they werent. So how did this MBC Medical Consultant come up with the fact
that she emphatically had these two conditions when she didnt????
2. She was NOT given appropriate consults. Had they been appropriate, they would
have diagnosed sepsis and a strangulated bowel and sent her either to surgery or
the ICU. Instead they sent her to the telemetry unit and failed to give her pain
medication while she writhed and screamed in pain from the strangulated bowel
for 15 hours.
3. So it was this so-called Medical Consultant who made the decision that this case
didnt warrant any further information. How many of you reading this now, would
like to have this consultant on a complaint that you file on behalf of one of your
loved ones who is harmed or killed?
165
Table of Contents
Questions
PERFORMANCE
Physician Discipline in California: A Code Blue Emergency, Robert C. Fellmeth, April 5, 1989
166
Table of Contents
Questions
Medical Board expert, Julie dAngelo Fellmeth has witnessed the Medical Board of
California complain about the lack of funds to investigate complaints in a timely manner
since 1990. However, their own statistics dont back up that claim.
In the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the Boards budget was $33 million. That same year, the
board received 10,495 complaints and levied 366 disciplines. By the 2008-2009 fiscal
year, the budget had grown to $50M, but the complaints that year dropped to 7,663 with
309 disciplines.
The last fiscal year 2015-2016, saw a budget increase to$62M, which is almost double
what it was at beginning of this century. The complaints are about the same (8,679) and
the percentage of investigations culminating in a discipline (388) are about the same as
well. There were two early years in this century where the Board received more than
11,000 complaints, but the discipline rate was still less than 320.
The bottom line is, the Medical Board is whining about not having enough money to hire
investigators, even though the number of complaints and disciplines have not increased
significantly. While the Medical Board budget has doubled, the number of doctors
licensed in the state has increased by only about 25%. And despite the increase in budget,
the amount of time it takes to fully investigate a complaint has ballooned to an
AVERAGE of 907 days. Doctors and consumers both have to wait 2- to 3 years for the
Medical Board and Attorney Generals office to complete a complaint and levy discipline,
if necessary.
What the Medical Board has most likely not admitted to this Sunset Review Committee is
that its budget has almost doubled since the 1999-2000 fiscal. It has gone from $33
Million to $62 Million. However, the MBC's own statistics from the Annual Reports
indicate that even while the budget has grown over the years, the time to complete an
investigation has increased as well. The Medical Board now claims it takes an AVERAGE
of 551 days to get a investigation to an accusation, and an AVERAGE of 907 days to reach
a discipline or close a case. Only 19% of the complaints submitted to the Medical Board
were given a full investigation last year, and only 4% of the complaints received resulted
in any discipline.
In comparing the budgets and the number of complaints over the years, an interesting
pattern has emerged: no matter how many complaints were received, the
number of disciplines levied never went above 400. In the 2001-2002 fiscal
year, there were 11,218 complaints filed with only 261 disciplines; The 2002-2003 fiscal
year had 11.556 complaints and only 323 disciplines.
167
Table of Contents
Questions
In the last few years, however, the number of complaints has actually fallen; it has varied
from 6,500 to more than 8,000 while the budget continued to grow. And yet, the
Medical Board claims there is never enough money to meet its increasing needs.
Granted, legal costs and salaries have increased since 2000, yet the MBC's ability to
investigate the complaints of medical harm has not. The state of California needs to audit
the Medical Board to see where the millions of dollars in its budget are going.
The bottom line is that the state of California should expect more than 19% of its
complaints to get a thorough investigation. Harmed patients and their families do not go
to the trouble of filing a complaint over so called "frivolous" issues such as their doctor
being rude. This report has outlined cases where doctors who sexually assault patients,
allow a patient to bleed to death, or overdose their patients on opioids are still allowed to
keep their licenses.
The people of California deserve more protection from medical harm for their $62
million. The only way to properly investigate the efficacy of this Medical Board is to have
an audit.
Question 25: How is the MBC spending its money? Is paying the
executives huge salaries worth it when consumer complaints are
being closed right and left?
168
Table of Contents
Questions
THE QUESTIONS
JUSTIA US LAW, May 21, 2001
169
Table of Contents
Questions
(Clicking the link will take you to that question within this document.)
1. Are patients being protected as the first priority? Not how does it protect doctors or the
Medical Board...but is it protecting CONSUMERS? (Link)
2. How many other doctors have incorrect information in BreEZe? (Link)
3. Did Dr. Dev GnanaDev know Dr. Hari Reddy before he was appointed to the Medical
Board? Did he know his brother-in-law, Dr. Prem Reddy? (Link)
4. Was it appropriate for Governor Brown to appoint Dr. Dev GnanaDev to the Medical Board
while a controversial FBI investigation was occurring? (Link)
5. Should a board member be allowed to sit on a panel of a fellow doctor that they know?
(Link)
6. Should a Board member be required to overlook a conflict of interest so as to not break a

quorum? (Link)
7. Why does Kerrie Webb deny all PRA requests that can possibly fall under an exemption,
when the law does not provide for that? (Link)
8. Shouldnt the Medical Board Panel votes be public information? (Link)
9. Shouldnt a Board Members conflict of interest information be public knowledge? (Link)
10. Should someone be allowed to make large donations to a political campaign in return for a
place on a State Board? (Link)
11. Shouldnt anyone who is required to fill out and file a Form 800 Conflict of interest form, be
questioned if they check No reportable interests? (Link)
12. Shouldnt the profiles of doctors with sexual misconduct violations, especially if they appear
on the Sex Offender Registry, be handled with more urgency and updates? (Link)
13. Why hasnt the Medical Board revoked the licenses of the 5 doctors listed in this report,
since they all appear on the sex offender registry? (Link)
14. If the courts have restored their licenses, why has the MBC purged the public documents
showing that, and what statute allows them to purge public documents? (Link)
15. Where is the money that the Legislature allocated for more investigators with SB 2375
(Presley) in 1990, and why hasnt it been utilized? (Link)
170
Table of Contents
Questions
16. How is it EVER appropriate for 1) a doctor to remain practicing when accused of sexual
misconduct, and 2) a doctor to be able to get his license back when convicted of sexual
misconduct? (Link)
17. Why would it be appropriate to list a contractor's disciplinary violations, but not a doctors?
Are doctors privileged? (Link)
18. Shouldnt patients who file a complaint and have their complaints closed, be able to appeal
the process and see exactly what went on during the processing of their complaint? (Link)
19. Why is the Medical Board allowing this feature for the doctor, when it makes it harder for
the very patients they are supposed to be protecting? (Link)
20.Should the Medical Board be allowed to take their time restoring these public documents,
leaving consumers without access to the information? (Link)
21. Cant the Medical Board upload all the currently missing documents, en masse, to a
webpage with the doctors listed in alphabetical order, so the documents are at least
available while they are restoring them? (Link)
22. How is the MBC protecting patients if they are withholding documents that are public?
(Link)
23. Should a citizen have to pay almost $1100 to get a report printed out that the MBC should
easily have at their fingertips? (Link)
24. How does a citizen know that the Medical Board did any investigating at all on their
complaint, if they can never see the work they supposedly did? (Link)
25. How is the MBC spending its money? Is paying the executives huge salaries worth it when
consumer complaints are being closed right and left? (Link)
171
Table of Contents
Questions
EVIDENCE
LA Times, July 15, 1993
172
Table of Contents
Questions
Exhibit #1
Source:
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2014/state-of-california/kimberly-h-kirchme
yer/
Back to article
Exhibit #2
Source:
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2015/state-of-california/kerrie-d-webb/
Back to Article
173
Table of Contents
Questions
Exhibit #3
Source:
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2015/state-of-california/christina-m-delp/
Back to Article
174
Table of Contents
Questions
Exhibit #4
Link to a copy of the original
Back to article
175
Table of Contents
Questions
Exhibit #5
Exhibit #6
Back to article
176
Table of Contents
Questions
Exhibit #7
Back to article
177
Table of Contents
Questions
Exhibit #8
The Rudy Bermudez Sex Offender LawBPC 2232
California Business and Professions Code Section 2232 provides:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), the board shall promptly
revoke the license of any person who, at any time after January 1, 1947, has
been required to register as a sex offender pursuant to the provisions of
Section 290 of the Penal Code.
(b) This section shall not apply to a person who is required to register as a
sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code solely because of a
misdemeanor conviction under Section 314 of the Penal Code.
(c) (1) Five years after the effective date of the revocation and three
years after successful discharge from parole, probation, or both
parole and probation if under simultaneous supervision, an
individual who after January 1, 1947, and prior to January 1, 2005,
was subject to subdivision (a), may petition the superior court, in the
county in which the individual has resided for, at minimum, five years
prior to filing the petition, to hold a hearing within one year of the
date of the petition, in order for the court to determine whether the
individual no longer poses a possible risk to patients. The individual
shall provide notice of the petition to the Attorney General and to the board at the
time of its filing. The Attorney General and the board may present written and
oral argument to the court on the merits of the petition.
(2) If the court finds that the individual no longer poses a possible risk
to patients, and there are no other underlying reasons for which the
board pursued disciplinary action, the court shall order, in writing,
the board to reinstate the individual's license within 180 days of the
date of the order. The board may issue a probationary license to a
person subject to this paragraph subject to terms and conditions,
including, but not limited to, any of the conditions of probation
specified in Section 2221.
(3) If the court finds that the individual continues to pose a possible
risk to patients, the court shall deny relief. The court's decision shall
be binding on the individual and the board, and the individual shall
be prohibited from filing a subsequent petition .
178
Table of Contents
Questions
Exhibit #X
(This information appears together for informational purposes only. We
make no claims as to its authenticity or to any indication of guilt or
innocence.)
DR.
DR. PREM DR. GOVERNOR
HARI REDDY REDDY DEV GNANADEV JERRY BROWN Notes Evidence Evidence
Dr. Hari
Dr. Prem Reddy's
Reddy's Brother-in-la
Brother-In-Law w
Possible
Connection:
Dev GnanaDev
graduates from a
Connection: Sri Venkatewara
Hari and Prem, affiliated
who will University in
eventually Kurnool, India, in NOTE: Dev
1973 Prem Link Dev's CV
become 1972. The school GnanaDev's
brothers-in-law, Prem Reddy is a little over 200 school is wrong
graduate from Graduates miles from where in BreEZe. It
same college. from Sri Hari and Prem lists Sri
Venkatewar attended school. Venkatewara
a University Dev attended instead of the
in India in from 1966-1972 school in
1973. (as per his CV). Kurnool.
Hari Reddy Prem Reddy

Graduates from immigrates
Prem
1976 Sri Venkatewara to the US Hari Link
Immigrates
University in with his
India in 1976. wife.
NOTE: San
Dr. Dev Bernardino
GnanaDev moves County
to the Inland Hospital was
Empire (from closed down
Arizona) to begin when
1980 practicing Arrowhead Link Video
medicine at San Regional was
Bernardino built and that
County Hospital new hospital
(Arrhowhead became the
Regional Medical "County"
Center). Hospital.
Prem Reddy
moves from
NY to the
High Desert
1981 of California Link
with his wife
to start a
medical
practice.
1995-1998 Dr. Hari Reddy Chief, Trauma HariPage

Connection: Link
Hari participates in Services, at San 2
179
Table of Contents
Questions
1987-2001 residency Hari Reddy Bernardino

Dev program at San working in County Hospital
Bernardino the same (Arrowhead
County Hospital city, same Regional Medical
(Arrhowhead hospital, at Center) See Dev's
Regional the same CV above.
Medical Center). time as Dr. 1987-2001
1995-1998 Dev
GnanaDev.
Dr. Hari Reddy

sexually molests
multiple (5)
1997-1998 Article
patients, one of
which was a
minor.
Dr. Prem
Reddy
Dr. Hari Reddy arrested for
1999 Page 3 Prem arrest
arrested on assaulting
criminal chargs another
of sexual assault doctor.
Graduates with Graduates with

an MBA in Connection: an MBA in
Business Same course, Business Hari Link
1999-2001 Dev Link
Administration same school, Administration Page 3
from Cal State same time from Cal State
San Bernardino. San Bernardino.
Oakland Military
2001 Institute founded Link
by Jerry Brown.
Dr. Hari Reddy

Accused by
Medical Board of
3/27/2001 Page 3
California of
sexual
Molestation.
MBC files 2nd

7/15/2002 amended Page 2
accusation.
MBC revokes Dr.

5/23/2003 Hari Reddy's Article
medical license.
Receives the
"Physician
2/2005 Recognition Link
Award" from the
MBC.
Dr. Hari Reddy

applies for
5/31/2006 Page 2
reinstatement of
his license.
Republican, Connection: Jerry Brown runs

Oct/Nov
Dr. Prem Donation to for Attorney Link
2006
Reddy, Brown's General, an office
180
Table of Contents
Questions
donates campaign that nominates

$5600 to (members of most of the
Democrat opposing political Medical Board.
Jerry Brown parties)
for CA
Attorney
General.
Connection:
Shows they knew
each other prior
Dr. Prem to GnanaDev
Reddy takes Dr. Dev taking seat on the
6/30/2007 Link
part in the GnanaDev takes Medical board.
"Cure a Little part in the "Cure This is an
Heart a Little Heart Indian-based
Foundation" Foundation" health
dinner dinner organization.
Connection:
Governor Jerry
Brown's Oakland
Military Institute
Dr. Prem project receives
Reddy first of three
donates large donations
7/8/2007 Article
$100,000 to from Dr. Prem
Governor Reddy right
Jerry before Medical
Brown's Board is to decide
Oakland on Hari Reddy's
Military first request for
Institute. reinstatement.
MBC considers
reinstatement
11/1/2007 of Dr. Hari Page 1
Reddy's
license.
MBC and an
Administrative
law judge deny
1/14/2008 Pag 13
Dr. Hari
Reddy's
reinstatement.
Dr. Prem
Reddy
donates Connection:
$25,900 to Donation to Jerry Brown runs
5/2/2010 Link
Governor Brown's for Governor.
Jerry campaign
Brown's
Campaign
Dr. Hari Reddy

applies a 2nd
5/17/2010 time for | Page 3
reinstatement of |
his license. \/
Dr. Prem
Reddy Connection:
donates Donation to
8/9/2010 Link
$25,900 to Brown's |
Governor campaign |
Jerry \/
181
Table of Contents
Questions
Brown's
Campaign
Laxman &
Nagarjun
Reddy of
Prime
Healthcare
donate
$25,000
each to Jerry
Brown's
10/1/2010 Link
campaign.
Laxman
(Lex) is
Prem's |
brother-in-la |
w (and |
possibly |
related to |
Hari.) \/
Dr. Dev
GnanaDev's
hospital raided
by Federal
11/4/2010 agents. Doctors | Article Article
criticize his |
power and \/
conflicts of Takes office Jan
interest. 3, 2011
2nd
reinstatement
request heard
by
Administrative
Investigati
7/1/2011 Law Judge,
on Article
who
| recommends
| reinstatement
| with
\/ stipulations.
Judge's
recommendatio
n submitted to
MBC Panel B
(sans Dev
Federal
GnanaDev), Investigati
8/5/2011 Investigation
panel declines on ending
nearing an end.
judges
recommendatio
n and sends
case for a
hearing.
Jerry Brown
vetoes Senate Bill
408, which would
have required
10/10/2011 hospitals to apply Article
to CDPH for new
license during
any majority
change of
182
Table of Contents
Questions
owndership
interest or
control; was
prompted by
purchase of
Alvarado
Hospital by Prime
Healthcare.
Connection:
Gov Brown
appoints
GnanaDev to
Medical Board
Gov Jerry Brown
Dr. Dev shortly after a
appoints Dr. Dev Appointme
12/22/2011 GnanaDev Federal
GnanaDev to nt
appointed to Investigation
Medical Board.
Medical Board at GnanaDev's
shortly after a hospital, and
federal flurry of
investigation of disrespect from
his hospital. his colleagues.
Dr. Prem
Reddy
sponsors the
Connection:
documentar Gov Jerry
The subject of the
y film: Brown's father is Documenta
~2012 documentary is Page 11
"California the subject of a ry
Governor Jerry
State of documentary.
Brown's father.
Mind: The
Legacy of
Pat Brown"
Bloggers question
Jerry Brown's
appointment of
1/2/2012 Dev GnanaDev's Article
to MBC amidst all
the conflicts at
ARMC.
[Note] MBC
lawyer, Kerrie
Webb says that
one member of
Connection:
Panel B was
MBC refuses to
Dr. Dev absent and that
reinstate Reddy's
Gnanadev sits on forced the rest
2/2/2012 license, then Agenda
Panel B deciding of the members
when Dev comes
Dr. Hari Reddy's the outcome of into a position
on board, it's
license Dr. Hari Reddy's of not recusing
reinstated.
reinstatement is case. There is no themselves or
being considered indication of him there wouldn't
by the Medical trying to recuse have been a
Board. himself. quorum.
Question: Is
there any
relation
between any of
5/7/2012 Article
Dr. Dev these players
GnanaDev steps and
down as medical administrative
director of ARMC. law judge,
183
Table of Contents
Questions
Dr. Prem
Reddy files Note: Articles of Note: IRS
with Dr. Dev incorporation as documents show
Prem Reddy
GnanaDev* of 08/28/2012 do
participating as
to create a Dr. Dev not mention Prem of 2012 with
501c3 called GnanaDev files to Reddy's name. Prime IRS 990 for
8/28/2012 S.O.S. Info
"California create a 501c3 The organization Healthcare's 2012
University called "California was originally address on Guasti
Of Science University Of called "Eastern in Ontario
California. See
and Science and California College
IRS form 990.
Medicine" Medicine" of Medicine."
(Cal-Med) (Cal-Med)
MBC reinstates
Dr. Hari
Reddy's
3/23/2013 medical Decision
Dr. Hari Reddy's License placing
license is him on 7 years
reinstated. probation.
Connection:
After GnanaDev
reinstates Prem
Reddy's
brother-in-law's
Dr. Prem license, Prem
Prem
Reddy donates a lot of
4/1/2014 Donation
donates $40 money to his new
article
million to medical school,
Dr. Dev Dr. Dev even though
GnanaDev's GnanaDev GnanaDev's
new medical announces new hospital is still
School in medical School in under federal
Colton, CA Colton, CA investigation.
Dr. Prem
Reddy
Family Connection:
Foundation Governor Jerry
donates Brown's Oakland
$100,000 to Military Institute Sac Bee
2/4/2015 Page 3
Governor project receives Governor Article
Jerry large donation Brown's Military
Brown's from Dr. Prem Institute project
"Oakland Reddy. receives another
Military large donation
Institute." from Prem Reddy.
Dr. Dev
GnanaDev Governor Brown
6/4/2015 reappointed to reappoints Dev Link
the Medical GnanaDev to the
board. Medical Board.
Dr Dev GnanaDev
becomes
president of the
7/28/2016 Link
Medical Board
despite his
checkered past.
184
Table of Contents
Questions
100+ ARTICLES
A HISTORY OF PROBLEMS
[Note: it is NOT the responsibility of the MBC to worry about something being too much of a burden on
doctors. Their responsibility is to consumers, not doctors. See paragraph 4.]
The Sun, Editorial, 2/01/2016
185
Table of Contents
Questions
Date PDF Article Title Blurb Original Link
4/5/1989 Code Blue Report Physician discipline in Link

California is a code blue
emergency. The system cannot
and does not protect
Californians from incompetent
medical practice. It is effectively
moribund.
4/15/1990 Doctors Are Frustrated, Of the thousands of inquiries the Link
Thwarted in Their Efforts at medical board receives, its few
Housecleaning investigators are able to be
aggressive on only a few more
blatant offenders.
5/13/1990 Medical Board Is DOCTOR DISCIPLINE CRISIS. Link
Empowered to Investigate Underfunded, overwhelmed
Doctors' Misconduct, state medical review board in
Incompetence gridlock.
5/13/1990 Medical Board Lagging in After a jury convicted Dr. Milos Link
Disciplinary Action : Klvana of second-degree murder in
Doctors: A judge's rebuke of the deaths of eight newborns and a
state agency's role in Klvana fetus, the judge who heard the case
case underscores criticism called it "a testament to the abject
from other sectors. failure" of the Medical Board of
California, the state agency charged
with protecting the public from
incompetent and negligent
physicians. Evidence of Klvana's
gross malpractice had been piling up
for nearly a decade before he was
brought to justice. At his sentencing
in February to a 53-year prison term,
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Judith C. Chirlin said the medical
186
Table of Contents
Questions
board must "accept responsibility for

at least some of the deaths," because
of its repeated failures to investigate
the doctor properly and stop him
from practicing medicine.
6/4/1990 Disciplining of Doctors The report by the Office of Link
Lags, U.S. Study Claims Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Health and
Human Services also criticizes
California's "fragmented"
disciplinary process,in which
responsibility for physician
discipline is shared by several
state agencies.
In a series of articles published
last month, The Times
documented significant
shortcomings of California's
doctor disciplinary system,such
as hundreds of uninvestigated
patient complaints and long
delays in concluding cases.
Officials of the Medical Board of
California have acknowledged
many specific deficiencies but
maintain that their overall
performance is good.
8/31/1990 Assembly OKs Measure Referring to the state's doctor Link
Making It Easier to disciplinary system as
Discipline Doctors "comatose now for about a
decade," Speier told the
Assembly that the legislation
would "bring it back to life.
9/6/1990 Doctor Who Was Stripped Cosmetic surgeon Dr. Michael Link
of His License Gets Elam, stripped of his medical
Reprieve license last month by state
regulators, has won an
187
Table of Contents
Questions
11th-hour judicial reprieve that

lets him keep practicing--under
tight restrictions--while he
contests the punishment.
10/17/1992 Limits on Disciplining In a brief order, the justices Link
Physicians Upheld: Courts: refused to review a state Court
State justices let stand of Appeal decision last July
ruling that barred action barring discipline against
against doctors who have doctors unless the state can
sex with patients unless it is prove they took advantage of
proven that they took their status to induce their
advantage of their status. patients to have sex. The
appellate ruling now becomes
binding in trial courts
throughout the state.
10/27/1992 Medical Board Director Executive Director Ken Link
Quits Under Pressure: Wagstaff, who has frequently
Government: Criticism been the target of criticism from
centered on his handling of consumer groups and
disciplinary actions against legislators, said he was leaving
doctors the Medical Board of California
because he no longer had the
confidence of a majority of the
agency's 19-member governing
board.
1/13/1993 Calif. Ranked 37th in California ranks 37th in the Link
Disciplining Doctors; nation in disciplining doctors
Medicine: Consumer group for incompetence and abusive
urges reforms to attack behavior,according to a report
incompetence and released Tuesday by Public
negligence. Citizen, a consumer advocacy
group that has long criticized
state medical boards for being
too soft on negligent physicians.
Although California edged up
from 38th place in 1990 and new
state laws have given boards
188
Table of Contents
Questions
more disciplinary power, the

report calls for further
improvements in a system that
once was a model for the nation.
1/22/1993 Staff Exposed Dismissal of When top law enforcement Link
Doctors' Files : officials at the Medical Board of
Investigation: Medical California ordered the dismissal
Board workers say they in 1990 of hundreds of
were angered that bosses complaints against doctors,it
had swept away backlog of did not take long for word to
complaints. The spread throughout the agency.
whistleblowers are called The news, several investigators
'heroes.' said Thursday, sent a wave of
revulsion through the
rank-and-file agents who saw
themselves as the front-line
defense against bad doctors in
California."You have the public
filing complaints and we're
destroying them.That's
asinine," one said. "When you
get into the situation where
there is wholesale destruction of
records, everybody knows that's
wrong."
Fearing reprisals from top
management if they spoke out,
outraged investigators
complained instead to their
union and the University of San
Diego's Center for Public
Interest Law, which serves as a
private watchdog of state
licensing boards.
5/16/1993 New prescription for As a result, California now has one of Link
recurring ailment: the most open physician disclosure
California Medical Board policies in the nation. Starting in
wisely moves to allow about a month, anyone will be able to
189
Table of Contents
Questions
access to information about call (800) 633-2322 to obtain a wide

physicians range of information about a doctor,
including any legal or disciplinary
actions against him/her. And if
legislation by Sen. Robert Presley
(R-Riverside) passes this session, as it
should, consumers will be able to find
out even more, including whether a
physician has lost permission to
practice at a hospital.
7/15/1993 Medicine for Problem Several months ago the board got a
Doctors : State Medical new executive director and some new,
Board had better quickly more consumer-oriented members--a
heal itself good start at reform.But now the
board acknowledges that after a
Laguna Beach hospital suspended the
staff privileges of internist Ronald J.
Allen, 31, following his second arrest
in 14 months on charges involving
drugs or alcohol,the report "sat on a
clerk's desk for a month" and was
never entered into a board computer.
Had it been handled properly, the
report would have triggered an
investigation that just might have
pressured the doctor into a substance
abuse program for physicians, a
board official said. Perhaps there was
no guarantee that board action
would have saved lives, but that
possibility certainly would have been
worth having.
10/21/1993 State lags in disciplining The number of serious Link
doctors, consumer group disciplinary actions against
says physicians last year in
California was barely half the
national average and less than
one-seventh of the disciplinary
190
Table of Contents
Questions
actions taken by the Oklahoma

medical board, which was the
nation's most active.
12/4/1993 Judge Blocks Part of Ruling in favor of doctors' Link
Doctors' Disclosure Law: privacy rights, a Sacramento
Medicine: Ruling prevents Superior Court judge barred the
board from revealing Medical Board of California on
discipline that was Thursday from disclosing
recommended but not disciplinary recommendations
taken. it has made against physicians.
1/8/1994 Daughters of dead couple A Laguna Beach doctor who Link
and friends say Dr. Ronald collided head-on with a car
Joseph Allen should not carrying a Mission Viejo family,
have been licensed for killing both parents, should not
driving or practicing have possessed a driver's license
medicine. nor a medical license, according
to claims against the state filed
by the family's daughters and
other survivors of the crash.
2/22/1994 Medical Board to Test Some within the medical Link
Formula on Complaints : community contend that the
Discipline: The system will criteria in the proposed formula
screen for seriousness of may unfairly discriminate
offense and characteristics against the state's many
of physicians. Some say it's foreign-educated doctors,
discriminatory. doctors who are not board
certified and those in particular
age categories.
3/19/1994 Medical Board Head Calls As part of ongoing efforts to Link
for End to Doctors' Funding make the California Medical
Board more consumer oriented,
the board's executive director
said Friday that he
would prefer to have its work
funded by state taxpayers
instead of physician licensing
fees.
191
Table of Contents
Questions
8/15/1994 Doctor's License Is The Medical Board of California Link

Suspended for 1 Year by ordered a one-year license
Medical Board : Abortion: A suspension for a Los Angeles
women's group says the doctor accused of gross
penalty is too lenient for negligence and incompetence in
physician charged with the deaths of two young women
incompetence in two who underwent abortions at his
deaths. clinics.
1/8/1995 State malpractice disclosure According to a Times computer Link
system points up flaws: analysis of the board's hot line
Health: Medical Board information, only 47 of the
officials acknowledge more thousands of physicians who
cases should be reported to had practiced in California had
hotline to alert the public judgments against them in
excess of $30,000. But medical
board officials acknowledge
that they should have many
more cases on file--and that the
public is getting shortchanged.
3/21/1995 Abortion Patient's Death But the Medical Board's Link
Shows License System 4-year-old case against
Flaws : Medicine: Longtime Gandotra, 45, was lost in the
O.C. resident, a convicted system, buried in a file that sat
felon, kept practicing while in the state attorney general's
state board inquiry was office for nearly two years. The
forgotten. case never even made it to a
disciplinary hearing.
4/16/1995 Medical Board Needs to The latest outrage by the Link
Intervene Faster : Medical Board of
Revamped System of California,involving a woman
Policing Health-Care who might not have died had the
System, Setting Priorities Is disciplinary process functioned
Long Overdue well,shows that the
governmental agency that is
supposed to police the state's
health-care establishment still
192
Table of Contents
Questions
has a way to go on the road to

reform.
5/25/1995 Doctor Tied to 2 Deaths The Medical Board of California has Link
Loses License : Abortions: revoked the medical license of
His credentials had been controversial Dr. Leo F. Kenneally in
revoked in earlier a case tied to the abortion-related
disciplinary actions, but he deaths of two women and serious
was allowed to continue injuries to five others.The license
practicing on probation. revocation is without condition,
unlike heavily criticized actions by the
board in the past that allowed
Kenneally to continue practicing
despite a series of disciplinary actions
stemming from the physician's
practice.
8/29/1995 Poor prescription for MD THE Medical Board of Link
misconduct California was sick for years -
slow moving, unresponsive,
even incompetent.In 1991,
however, Gov. Wilson appointed
a new consumer affairs
director, Jim Conran of Orinda,
who vowed to regulate the
regulators. By 1993, there were
signs of a turnaround. But the
19-member panel, which
oversees doctors, is like a
patient with a chronic illness, it
seems.Just when you think it's
on the road to recovery, it
suffers a relapse, and you ask
yourself: Can't these people ever
get it right?
9/18/1995 Drug Abuse by Doctors a It's been six years since a computer Link
Malady of the System : monitoring the rate at which doctors
Medicine: Some physicians prescribe narcotics kicked out the
overprescribe--and use name of Dr. Stephen Cech. But the
193
Table of Contents
Questions
substances themselves. It's disciplinary hearing for the Westlake

a threat, but one with low Village general practitioner, who was
priority, regulators say. sanctioned for writing fraudulent
prescriptions and using drugs in
1980, will not be held until next
March.
7/14/1996 Why Bad Doctors Seldom State Medical Board is pledged Link
Have to Take Their to protect the public but rarely
Medicine acts unless confronted by a
felony or a fatality.
10/4/1996 Ruling a blow to some By a unanimous vote, the high Link
doctors/License board wins court ruled that the Medical
access to formerly Board of California can force a
confidential files hospital to turn over personnel
files as well as peer review
reports of staff members
suspected of misconduct or
incompetence.
10/30/199 Obstetrician Rebuked for An obstetrician accused last Link
6 Negligence, False Records year of botching the deliveries
of two infants did not mishandle
the births, although she later
falsified medical
records in one of the cases, the
state's licensing body has ruled.
The board's action ends a case
that originally attracted media
attention when a state
investigator and a patient's
attorney accused Khan of
leaving a Santa Ana hospital to
have her hair done while the
patient and fetus were in
distress.
The baby, Albert Sanchez, born
deaf, blind and brain-damaged,
194
Table of Contents
Questions
will require institutionalization

for the rest of his life.
5/8/1997 Assembly Panel OKs Bill on A bill to put doctors' secret Link
Doctors' Records/But disciplinary records on the
malpractice payments Internet has passed its first
wouldn't go on Internet legislative test -- but without a
key provision that would allow
consumers to find out about a
physician's malpractice
settlements.
10/9/1997 Doctors Suing State Over Scared that disgruntled patients Link
Online Postings will use the Internet to track
them down and hara them, a
group of California doctors filed
suit this week to bar state
regulators from posting their
addresses online.
10/24/1997 S.F. abortion doctor was on In 1991, the medical board Link
probation for past sought to revoke Steir's
violations probation after Steir allegedly
lied in an application to practice
at a Kaiser Permanente facility,
Martinez said. Steir had failed
to report that he had been
disciplined before, he said. The
hospital turned down his
request for staff privileges,
Martinez said.The same year,
another accusation arose
stemming from a 1988 case
involving a 31-year-old Bay
Area woman who was five
months pregnant. Board
records show that Steir had
unknowingly perforated the
woman's uterus during an
abortion. She was later
195
Table of Contents
Questions
admitted to Pacific Presbyterian

Medical Center in The City,
where she needed a bowel
resection and a repair of the
perforation, the records
said.Medical board
investigators began amassing
more claims against Steir and in
1993 he was given another five
years' probation.
1/18/1998 More Data About Doctors However, the information is Link
Now on Internet brief.Take the example of Dr.
Patrick Chavis of Lynwood. The
site reveals that the medical
board has suspended his license
and filed an accusation
(equivalent to a charge), that he
has not yet had a hearing or
been found guilty of any
charges, and that his staff
privileges were revoked by
Suburban Medical Center in
Paramount.But it does not
reveal what he is accused of.
Chavis was accused by the
medical board last year of
seriously injuring two patients
and keeping them at different
times in his own home, and of
abandoning a third
patient--groggy from
liposuction surgery--in his
office. That patient later died at
a Lynwood hospital. The
physician has denied the
allegation of gross negligence.
3/21/1998 Doctor Arrested After A recently suspended doctor with a Link
Abortion of 26-Week Fetus long history of medical complaints
196
Table of Contents
Questions
has been arrested on suspicion of

murder after performing an abortion
that left his patient bleeding
uncontrollably and a 26-week-old
fetus in the trash at a Van Nuys
clinic.Goei's disciplinary history
began when he was found guilty May
4, 1979, of using a fictitious name in
his practice without a valid permit.
He was placed on a one-year
probation.
On June 25, 1984, Goei was found
guilty of gross negligence and
incompetence for wrong diagnoses
and unnecessary surgeries. Once
again, he was placed on a
one-year probation. In 1992, Goei
was disciplined by the board for
"knowingly making" a false medical
document. That time, according to
state records, he was placed on three
years' probation.
5/16/2000 ACLU investigates political The ACLU is releasing a study Link
bias by the Medical Board entitled "Preventing Unfair
of California Prosecution of Abortion
Providers: An Investigation into
Political Bias by the Medical
Board of California" that
examines the case of Dr. Bruce
Steir, who was referred by the
Medical Board for criminal
prosecution after a patient died
following a second-trimester
abortion. In an effort to
determine why Dr. Steir was
singled out for criminal
prosecution, the report
compares the Medical Board's
197
Table of Contents
Questions
treatment of Dr. Steir to its

treatment of other doctors
whose patients died in their
care.
5/22/2000 Physician, Reveal Thyself Consumers increasingly want to Link
check out their doctors'
backgrounds, but organized
medicine and consumer
advocates don't always agree on
what information should be
public.
8/9/2000 Bad Doctors Going Instead, according to the state Link
Unpunished / State medical board investigation, Kaiser's
board says S.F. Kaiser tried physician-in-chief at the time,
to hide physician's mistakes Dr. Philip Madvig, and its
administrator, Frank Alvarez,
negotiated a secret deal
allowing McEnany to leave the
hospital quietly and go to
Wisconsin. In that state, where
colleagues and patients had no
idea of his previous troubles, he
ended up with one of the highest
surgical mortality records in the
state.
8/14/2000 Unmasking 'Questionable' The national report, coauthored by Link
Doctors Wolfe and released last week, listed
28,000 actions taken against doctors
from 1990 to 1999. It concludes that
the United States has an inadequate
system for protecting Americans
against medical misdeeds, and that
state disciplinary boards are too
lenient.
1/6/2002 Patients don't get full story Dr. Robert L. Hillyard failed to Link
on doctors / Many order an eye exam that could
have prevented a premature
198
Table of Contents
Questions
malpractice verdicts not on infant from going blind, an

state board's Web site Orange County jury ruled.
Castro Valley doctor Wing Chin
refused to give a dying cancer
patient sufficient pain
medication, an East Bay jury
decided. And a Pasadena jury
found that Dr. Cecilia T. Lin
erred by not immediately
delivering a baby when a
woman checked into a hospital,
nine months pregnant with
vaginal bleeding and high blood
pressure. The girl was born
three days later with brain
damage. In all three cases,
jurors ordered the doctors to
pay more than a million dollars
in damages, amounts large
enough to be reported in major
newspapers. But the Medical
Board of California -- which
licenses, monitors and
disciplines physicians statewide
-- said last month all three
doctors had spotless records.
1/7/2002 Medical Board Lacks Some Not all doctors who are ordered Link
Discipline Records to pay damages to patients end
up paying the price on their
records, according to a
newspaper investigation that
found only some cases ever
make it into the Medical Board
of California's records.
One-third of 66 reviewed cases
were entered into the agency's
computer database, according
to the San Francisco Chronicle.
199
Table of Contents
Questions
However, all of the cases'

verdicts and arbitration awards
were widely reported by the
media in the last three years.
4/7/2002 Doctors Without The board doesn't check court Link
DisciplineHow doctors filings for lawsuits against
can hurt patients and get physicians.
away with it. If it did, it would have found
that after he became a new
doctor at
Centinela Hospital in Los
Angeles, Rutland and his
partners were
sued at least five times by family
members who lost babies or
mothers or wives during
surgery.
4/13/2002 The Medical Board of Now, we are focused on the Link
California (MBC) is in BIG Medical Board.It is not a time to
trouble... be nice.
This time, though, we are not
interested in the appointed
members. The STAFF IS THE
PROBLEM. Personally, Im for
firing everyone in the building
fumigating the place and
starting over completely.Weve
told them, and told them, and
told them.. They simply didnt
listen.
5/12/2002 Opening doctors' records Under increasing fire for keeping Link
gets OK/Medical Board complaints and legal actions against
votes to support new bill doctors secret, the Medical Board of
California voted unanimously
Saturday to push for legislation that
would make the board's records of
medical malpractice settlements
200
Table of Contents
Questions
available to the public for the first

time.
5/13/2002 More Data on Doctors The Medical Board of California has Link
Backed voted to support public disclosure of
all medical malpractice settlements
involving physicians, which would
significantly expand public access to
information about doctors.
5/17/2002 Full disclosure for patients DOES A patient have a right to know Link
if his or her doctor lost or settled a
malpractice case -- and the
circumstances of the case? Not under
current state practices. Fortunately,
that may be about to change, now
that the Medical Board of California
has voted unanimously to embrace
legislation that would greatly expand
the public's access to doctors' records.
5/27/2002 My Permanent Record Recently the Medical Board of Link
California, which regulates and
licenses physicians, proposed making
the names of all physicians who had
settled malpractice settlements
available to the public. The board's
action was in response to a request by
the San Francisco Chronicle (the very
same organization that brings you
this column) to release this
information. Initially the Board
thought it would be reasonable to
release names if there had been three
or more settlements of $30,000 or
more, or a single settlement of
$150,000 or more. But because no
one could agree on a cutoff amount,
the board decided to release the name
201
Table of Contents
Questions
of every doctor who had settled a

malpractice suit since 1997.
8/2/2002 Patients may get more The bill, which still must clear the Link
doctor information Assembly, would allow patients to get
a fuller picture of a doctor's legal
history from the Medical Board of
California before undergoing
treatment, said state Sen. Liz
Figueroa (D-Fremont), the bill's
author.
10/1/2002 Law lets patients see Starting next year, the Medical Board Link
malpractice of California will tell patients if a
settlements/State Medical doctor has agreed to three to four
Board will reveal if a doctor settlements, depending on the
has been repeatedly sued doctor's specialty, within a
10-year-period.
11/16/2002 Complaint against Redding The Medical Board of California was Link
doctor made in '92 / Board alerted a decade ago to possible
closed case filed by East wrongdoing by a Redding heart
Bay man specialist who urged a Bay Area man
to have unnecessary bypass surgery
in 1992.The board, which last week
unsuccessfully moved to suspend
Moon's medical license along with the
license of the Redding cardiologist
who was to perform Elizalde's
surgery, closed the case despite the
written misgivings of Elizalde's Bay
Area specialist, Dr. David Anderson.
12/23/200 Red Tape Hampered Probe Between the time the first Link
2 of Doctor patient complained about Dr.
Jules Mark Lusman's penchant
for prescribing addictive
narcotics and when the cosmetic
surgeon was
forced to give up his California
medical license, five years came
202
Table of Contents
Questions
and went. "It takes too long,

there are too many steps, and
very few complaints end up with
any discipline," said Julianne
D'Angelo Fellmeth,
administrative director of the
University of San Diego's Center
for Public Interest Law, which
has monitored the board and
pressed for reforms.
12/24/200 State's oversight of doctors The state's Medical Board isn't Link
4 blasted/Report criticizes doing enough to protect the
Medical Board as slow, public from bad doctors,
secretive according to a report ordered by
the state, which found that it
takes years for the agency to
investigate complaints, and the
public is kept in the dark in the
meantime.
1/21/2005 Medical Board Faces California's system of Link
Revision or Death disciplining physicians may
soon face radical surgery amid
concerns that complaints drag
on for years before
resolution and that doctors in
detox programs are not
carefully monitored.
2/2/2006 Move may tighten rules for The new rules would tighten Link
state licenses existing state law that allows
the state's eight medical schools
to hire physicians from outside
California temporarily without
making them first meet the
requirements for a license.
12/18/2007 Addicted doctors still Troubling cases in which Link
practice while in rehab doctors were accused of
botching operations while
203
Table of Contents
Questions
undergoing treatment for drugs

or alcohol have led to criticism
of rehab programs that allow
thousands of U.S. physicians to
keep their addictions hidden
from their patients.
1/25/2008 Rehab program out for Doctors who abuse alcohol or Link
doctors drugs should no longer be
allowed to enroll in a
confidential, state-monitored
rehabilitation program, the
president of the Medical Board
of California said at a summit
Thursday
3/17/2008 Lag widens in medical The state board now takes an Link
complaints average of 2 1/2 years to resolve
cases, which can put patients at
risk, critics say.
4/23/2008 State medical board Consumer group says the Link
ranking falls agency disciplined fewer
doctors in 2007. A board
spokeswoman says that is not a
true measure of quality.
10/14/200 Doctors group suing state The association representing Link
9 over medical board California's 35,000 doctors said
furloughs today it is suing the state,
arguing that the furlough of
workers at the state medical
board, which licenses and
investigates physicians, is
putting both doctors and the
public in harm's way.
11/7/2009 When Caregivers Harm: Under pressure, Murphy Link
Problem Nurses Stay on the resigned in May 2005. Within
Job as Patients Suffer days, Kaiser alerted Californias
Board of Registered Nursing [2]:
This nurse is dangerous. But the
204
Table of Contents
Questions
board didn't stop Murphy from

working elsewhere, nor did it
take steps over the next two
years to warn potential
employers of the complaints
against him. In the meantime,
Murphy was accused of
assaulting patients at two
nearby hospitals, leading to
convictions for battery and
inflicting pain, board and court
records show.
7/14/2009 Schwarzenegger sweeps out Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Link
nursing board replaced most members of the
state Board of Registered
Nursing on Monday, citing the
unacceptable time it takes to
discipline nurses accused of
egregious misconduct. He fired
three of six sitting board
members-- including President
Susanne Phillips.
2/3/2010 California Medical Board The panel says it was wrong to allow Link
admits allowing troubled Dr. Christopher Dotson Jr., who had
doctor to monitor another been on administrative probation, to
supervise the probation of Dr.
Andrew Rutland, who allegedly
mishandled an abortion.
The California Medical Board put a
doctor with a flawed disciplinary
history in charge of monitoring
another troubled doctor who, while
under supervision, allegedly
mishandled an abortion leading to a
patient's death. On Tuesday, the
board acknowledged it had made a
mistake.
205
Table of Contents
Questions
3/1/2010 Eliminating the California About two years ago,the California Link
Diversion Program Medical Board, which licenses its
physicians, decided to end its
diversion program for
substance-abusing physicians.That
unanimous decision was set in motion
by an extremely revealing 2004 audit
of that program.
4/8/2010 California lags behind most California's medical board is Link
states in disciplining less likely than those in other
doctors, report finds states to revoke doctors' licenses
or take other serious
disciplinary action,according to
a consumer advocate's report
released this week. California
ranked 41st among boards in all
50 states and the District of
Columbia in taking serious
disciplinary action against
doctors last year, according to
the report released Monday by
Public Citizen, a
Washington-based consumer
group.
4/13/2010 California: Good place to be In its annual ranking of state Link
a bad doctor? medical boards and how much
bite they put into policing bad
doctors
California narrowly escapes
ranking in the Bottom Ten. It
ranks, instead, in the Bottom
Eleven.
9/5/2010 California doctors run afoul California has at least eight Link
of state board but keep physicians who have tangled
working with the state
206
Table of Contents
Questions
medical board three times or

more and still have permission
to treat
patients, a Bee review of the
board's disciplinary database
shows.
9/11/2010 A prescription for bad Physicians take a solemn oath Link

doctors to first do no harm. But in
California, shortcomings in the
board that polices doctors
threaten to undermine that
promise.
10/28/201 Audit raises questions On Nov. 5, 2010, the Medical Link
0 about Brown's AG office Board of California will discuss
a new audit that finds state
government could do a better
job of disciplining bad doctors.
5/4/2011 Curing the state's medical Woefully understaffed and Link
regulation system regularly robbed of budget
funds, the Medical Board of
California needs to go public
about the decimation of its
enforcement capabilities.
8/9/2011 California Is Delinquent in The state of California has Link
Disciplining Dangerous become delinquent in
Doctors disciplining doctors with
documented poor records,
Public Citizen said in a letter
sent today to California Gov.
Jerry Brown urging him to take
the necessary steps to correct
the dangerous shortcomings of
the state medical board.
8/9/2011 Letter Regarding I am writing you about two Link
Performance of Medical related, serious concerns
Board of California involving the Medical Board of
207
Table of Contents
Questions
California (also referred to as

Medical Board):
A. The delinquent manner in
which the Medical Board is
enforcing the states medical
practice act and, therefore, not
protecting California patients
from a large number of
physicians with demonstrably,
and previously proven, poor
records
B. The worsening overall
disciplinary-action
performance of California over
the past 13 years compared with
that of other states
8/10/2011 California medical board Of the California doctors who Link
fails to discipline 710 escaped state discipline, 35%
troubled doctors had more than one disciplinary
action from another entity,
according to the Public Citizen
report.
8/10/2011 California failed to Hundreds of California doctors Link
discipline hundreds of who lost their hospital
dangerous doctors privileges for malpractice,
incompetence, and other serious
errors have never been
disciplined by state regulators,
and the Medical Board of
California doesn't seem all that
interested in finding out who
they are,a consumer group has
told the governor.
10/26/201 Flaws found in state The Dental Board of California Link
2 consumer protection accused Choi of incompetence
enforcement and repeated negligence. At the
time, the boards recommended
208
Table of Contents
Questions
minimum penalty for those

charges was five years of
probation and, where
appropriate, 30 days
suspension, remedial education
and practice restrictions. But
the dentist didnt get that.
Despite admitting
responsibility, in the words of
his settlement, Choi bargained
with the Dental Board and
received three years of
probation and remedial
education without any
restrictions on his practice. Choi
continued seeing patients and
administering anesthesia as
though nothing had happened.
He still has a license today.
10/26/201 Register analysis offers Every board and bureau under the Link
2 window into consumer Department of Consumer Affairs
protection process publishes a list of recommended
penalties for the major violations
they enforce. But while department
officials say the agencies generally
follow their own
recommendations,there's nothing in
the law that actually requires them to
do so even in the most serious cases.
11/15/2012 The prescription drug toll Proposed state legislation Link
would require more detailed
reporting on doctors and
fatalities.
12/9/2012 Pain specialist's probation The Medical Board of California Link
was cut short put Dr. L. Scott Stoney on
probation for 10 years for
209
Table of Contents
Questions
excessive prescribing, falsifying

records and other offenses.
It was a stiff sanction by the
agency's standards. But when a
judge recommended that
Stoney's probation be lifted
three years early, the board did
not object.
12/9/2012 Doctors tried to turn in one According to court records, Link
of their own physicians in the community
and the parents of patients
hooked on pills complained to
the Medical Board of California
for years that Diaz was
recklessly prescribing drugs.
But Diaz was not stopped until
this year--after 17 of his patients
had died of overdoses or related
causes, coroner's records show.
12/11/2012 Medical Board of California While there has been a decline Link
oversight a case of broken in the boards investigations
windows? into the most serious allegations
regarding patient safety and
physician performance,theres
an even steeper drop in
inquiries into lower level
infractions.
12/15/2012 Reckless prescribing of The medical board has Link
narcotics endangers repeatedly failed to protect
patients, eludes regulators patients from reckless
prescribing by doctors, a Los
Angeles Times investigation
found. At least 30 patients in
Southern California have died of
drug overdoses or related
causes while their doctors were
under investigation for reckless
210
Table of Contents
Questions
prescribing. The board

ultimately sanctioned all but
one of those 12 doctors, and
some were criminally charged _
too late to prevent the deaths.
1/12/2013 Legislator vows action on He said he was particularly Link
reckless prescribing of concerned that the medical
addictive pills board's enforcement staff is
smaller than it was a decade
ago, even as the number of
physicians in California has
increased to more than 102,000,
and that the board now opens
40% fewer misconduct
investigations per year than it
did 10 years ago.
2/2/2013 Doctor who admitted A West Hollywood psychiatrist Link
dealing drugs to get his who pleaded guilty to felony
license back drug dealing after pills he
prescribed turned up for sale on
Craigslist will be able to get his
medical license back in a year
under an agreement announced
Friday by the Medical Board of
California.
3/10/2013 Do no harm: Kill the A former meth user who was Link
medical board convicted on federal criminal
charges for drug dealing will be
treating California patients
again within a year under an
agreement recently announced
by the California Medical
Board. Pilots, lawyers or
professional athletes would
have lost their jobs for
life.California's
physician-controlled medical
211
Table of Contents
Questions
board, however, has become a

political protection racket for
the state's worst physicians.
4/11/2013 Legislators threaten to kill Lawmakers warn that they will Link
state medical board let the agency expire next year if
it doesn't become more
aggressive in taking action
against dangerous doctors.
4/12/2013 Lawmakers Threaten to After listening, for years, to Link
Sunset the State Medical complaints that the Medical
Board over Dangerous Board of California (MBC) has
Physicians" not protected consumers from
dangerous doctors, state
lawmakers threatened to shut
the board down next January 1
when it comes up for sunset
review.
4/25/2013 Lawmakers seek to strip The Medical Board of California Link
medical board of would be stripped of its power to
investigative powers. investigate physician misconduct
under a sweeping reform plan by
legislators who say the agency has
struggled to hold problem doctors
accountable.The medical board has
come under fire for failing to
discipline doctors accused of harming
patients, particularly those suspected
of recklessly prescribing drugs.
4/25/2013 Medical Board of California Legislators propose turning over Link
could lose investigative investigations of doctors to the state
powers attorney general's office, leaving the
board to deal with licensing.
4/26/2013 Legislature should pull plug The board's enforcement record Link
on inept Medical Board of is dismal. Since 2007 California
California has typically ranked among the
worst states in terms of serious
disciplinary actions per 1,000
212
Table of Contents
Questions
licensed physicians; the public

interest group Public Citizen
reported in 2011 that the board
had failed to take action against
more than 700 physicians
whose privileges had been
reduced or revoked by hospitals
or other clinical settings,
including 102 who had been
found to pose an "immediate
threat" to patients.
8/20/2013 Thousands of doctors A USA TODAY investigation shows Link
practicing despite errors, that thousands of doctors who have
misconduct been banned by hospitals or other
medical facilities aren't punished by
the state medical boards that license
doctors.
10/11/2013 How do you make a bad It's a disaster. It's confusing, Link
regulator even worse? misleading, unbelievably clunky and
serves well as a definition of
"user-unfriendly." The website
program is labeled "BreEZe," the logo
designed to suggest it's "E-Z." It's
anything but. In the past, patients
trying to find out if their M.D. had a
disciplinary record with the board --
and trying to access that record --
had to navigate through, at most, five
or six mouse clicks. Now it takes 11 or
12... if they can even follow the path.
2/9/2014 Checking a doctor's record Today, there are a number of efforts Link
to make meaningful data about
doctors available to the
public.However, it remains a
hodgepodge that consumers must
piece together.
213
Table of Contents
Questions
4/10/2014 JAMA Forum: Hiding in The last few years have not been Link
Plain Sight: Medical Boards easy for a number of state
and the Publics Health medical boards.In December
2010, the New Haven
Independent faulted the
Connecticut Medical Board for
permitting physicians to
practice who had lost their
licenses elsewhere. That same
month, the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch criticized the
Missouri Medical Board for
sending frequent, confidential
letters of concern that go in a
physicians file but carry no
repercussions in lieu of more
serious disciplinary actions.
7/15/2014 Critics complain the The California Medical Board Link
California Medical Board oversees Chao's license. Julie Fellmeth
takes too long to discipline watches the board. "Doctors can kill
doctors you if they are negligent, impaired or
reckless," Fellmeth said. She is the
senior attorney and the
administrative director for Public
Interest Law. "I have monitored the
board for 27 years," she said.
In the Fagan case, records show the
board did not discipline Chao.The
board said it could not find anyone to
say the doctor's effort fell below the
standard of care.
7/22/2014 Legislature puts California The state board tasked with licensing Link
acupuncture board on and regulating Californias roughly
notice 11,000 acupuncturists has faced
trouble before a cheating and
bribery scandal rocked the board in
1989. Now, amid criticism that the
California Acupuncture Boards
214
Table of Contents
Questions
priorities give short shrift to

consumer protection, state
lawmakers are moving for an
overhaul and lobbing a pointed
message at its executive officer to get
in line.
12/5/2014 Medical Board takes license The DEA took notice when Link
years after warning signs Bickman an anesthesiologist
typically in the operating room
rather than sitting with patients
and writing prescriptions
became the sixth highest
prescriber of hydrocodone in
California. Eventually, in 2011,
the DEA took action by stripping
Bickman of his ability to
prescribe addictive drugs.But
Bickman remained fully
licensed in California. The
medical board started
investigating him in late 2012
but did not take his license away
until just last month,according
to Medical Board of California
records.
4/27/2015 California High Court To The California board, supported Link
Consider Limits on by a series of lower court
Regulators' Access to rulings, says getting a court
Prescription Database order could stall the release of
records, imperiling patient
safety. And it argues the
comparison to private medical
records is not apt.
7/13/2015 Patients ought to find out Marian Hollingsworth: The Link
more about doctors problem is that physicians are
not required to tell you they are
on probation. They have to tell
215
Table of Contents
Questions
their insurance companies and

the hospitals where they have
privileges, but not their
patients. And the Medical Board
wants to make sure it stays that
way.
8/28/2015 Einstein, Secrecy and the Recently, California activists Link
Medical Board of California have encouraged the MBC to
require that physicians who
have been placed on probation
inform their patients, old and
new, of the existence and terms
of that probation. Current
regulations do not demand this,
and the MBC is the entity that
has the authority to take up the
cause of the California
consumer; the MBC should stop
protecting offending doctors
over unsuspecting patients.
10/19/2015 Your doctor's on probation: Across California, nearly 500 Link
Should you be told? physicians and surgeons are on
official probation for a variety of
offenses, including substance abuse,
medical negligence and sexual
misconduct. This group makes up
only a sliver 0.3 percent of more
than 130,720 doctors and surgeons
practicing in California. But they can
potentially see and treat hundreds of
thousands of patients.
10/30/201 Do you want to know if The vast majority of doctors in Link
5 your doctor is on California have clean records.
probation? But about 500 less than half a
percent don't. They're on
probation with the Medical
Board of California for
216
Table of Contents
Questions
wrongdoing that often entails

substance abuse, gross
negligence, overprescribing or
fondling their patients. A
smattering of the cases involves
poor record-keeping, while
others entail criminal
convictions.
11/2/2015 Doctors on probation: California doctors on Link
Medical board still disciplinary probation dont
weighing how to inform have to notify their patients. At
patients least for now. In an 11-1 vote, the
Medical Board of California
turned down a request that all
doctors placed on probation for
varied offenses including
sexual misconduct, drug or
alcohol abuse, or medical
negligence be required to tell
their patients, verbally and in
writing.
2/1/2016 California Medical Board Serrano Sewell said that Link
Should Stop Shielding Bad requiring patient notification
DoctorsEditorial could place too much of a
burden on doctors, prompt more
to demand administrative law
judge hearings rather than
agreeing to probation and
heres our favorite affect the
patient-physician relationship.
3/11/2016 California Struggles With Three years after lawmakers Link
Delay In Doctor Discipline; threatened to pull the plug on
Despite Effort At Reform, the Medical Board of California
Cases Are Taking Longer To over slow enforcement of doctor
Resolve discipline, the problem is worse.
Formal accusations filed in the
last fiscal year took an average
217
Table of Contents
Questions
of 532 days to complete. That's

up nearly 11 percent from 2013,
when the Legislature mandated
reform. Settlements took an
average of nearly three years,
up 12 percent. Court hearings
and appeals add further delay.
218

2017 Advocates Medical Board Sunset Review Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Advocates Medical Board Sunset Review Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

40+ Years of Problems

Sunset Review 2017

This report is available for download at:

Clickable links appear in blue.

The California Business & Professions Committee 5

The Medical Board of California 7

BOARD MEMBER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 15

BreEZe Profiles are Confusing and Poorly Designed 127

THE QUESTIONS 169

100+ ARTICLESA HISTORY OF PROBLEMS 185

The California Business & Professions Committee

Catharine B. Baker Rep 16 Contact Assembly Member Catharine B. Baker

Richard Bloom Dem50 Contact Assembly Member Richard Bloom

David Chiu Dem17 Contact Assembly Member David Chiu

Jordan Cunningham Rep35 Contact Assembly Member Jordan Cunningham

Brian Dahle Rep01 Contact Assembly Member Brian Dahle

Mike A. Gipson Dem64 Contact Assembly Member Mike A. Gipson

Timothy S. Grayson Dem14 Contact Assembly Member Timothy S. Grayson

Chris R. Holden Dem41 Contact Assembly Member Chris R. Holden

Evan Low Dem28 Contact Assembly Member Evan Low

Kevin Mullin Dem22 Contact Assembly Member Kevin Mullin

Marc Steinorth Rep40 Contact Assembly Member Marc Steinorth

Philip Y. Ting Dem19 Contact Assembly Member Philip Y. Ting

Senator Patricia C. Bates (Vice Rep36 Contact Senator Patricia C. Bates

Senator Bill Dodd Dem03 Contact Senator Bill Dodd

Senator Cathleen Galgiani Dem05 Contact Senator Cathleen Galgiani

Senator Steven M. Glazer Dem07 Contact Senator Steven M. Glazer

Senator Ed Hernandez Dem22 Contact Senator Ed Hernandez

Senator Josh Newman Dem29 Contact Senator Josh Newman

Senator Richard Pan Dem06 Contact Senator Richard Pan

Senator Scott Wilk Rep21 Contact Senator Scott Wilk

The Medical Board of California

Denise Pines, Vice President Public Email

Dr. Ronald H. Lewis Doctor Email

Dr. Michelle Anne Bholat Doctor Email

Dr. Michael Bishop Doctor Email address he provided on his Form

Judge Katherine Feinstein (Retired) Public Email

Dr. Randy W. Hawkins Doctor Email

Dr. Howard R. Krauss Doctor Email

Kristina D. Lawson Public Email

Dr. Sharon Levine Doctor Email

Brenda Sutton-Wills, J.D. Public Email

David Warmoth Public Email

Jamie Wright, J.D. Public Email

Dr. Felix C. Yip Doctor Email

Vacant Position Public

Elizabeth Amaral Deputy Director Email

Kerrie Webb Staff Council Email

Vacant Chief of Licensing

Christina Delp Chief of Enforcement Email

Jennifer Simoes Chief of Legislation Email

Cassandra Hockenson Public Affairs Manager Email

Medical Board of California

(LA Times January 22, 1993)

(LA Times January 21, 2005)

At the very last Sunset Review of the Medical Board,

(LA Times April 26, 2013)

(LA Times, May 13, 1990)

So did the Board fix these issues?

No Board, mandated to protect the citizens of this state, should

We are respectfully calling for you to:

BOARD MEMBER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST