Saturday, August 20, 2005
How the TSBME is arbitrary and capricious and needs to be brought to justice
August 20, 2005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Re: Charleston Gazette Editorial “Is doctor dangerous?”
The Charleston Gazette has acted irresponsibly regarding its editorial on Dr. Chalifoux. The overwhelming tone of the editorial is that the residents of West Virginia should accept what the Texas Medical Board says about Dr. Chalifoux without any regard to the facts, hence, truth of his situation in Texas. Instead, the editors want the public to suspect that WVU and its world renown neurosurgery dept. should be the ones that are questioned for “hiding” the fact that they along with the West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine made a concerted effort to look at the facts from Texas, find that they were not consistent with “revoking” a medical license, allow him to prove himself with a fully structured six month “refresher” course syllabus , and once he fulfilled the requirements, offer him a full unrestricted license to practice in West Virginia.
The editors at the Gazette should know that the agency responsible for licensing an osteopathic physician like Dr. Chalifoux is the West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine (WVBOM), not the MD State Board of Medicine. The WVBOM has been legislated by the West Virginia legislature with this licensing responsibility and Dr. Chalifoux’s situation in Texas was not taken lightly. Agreements between WVU, WVCOM and WVBOM were completed to ensure that Dr. Chalifoux would be thoroughly monitored during this “refresher” course.
The same scenario however did not occur in Texas. In fact, contrary to the Charleston Gazette, Dr. Chalifoux was initially “suspended” by the TSBME for 18 alleged complaints which were defended by 2 retired neurosurgeons as opposed to Dr. Chalifoux’s 20 experts including Dr. Bailes and Fukushima from WVU. At Dr. Chalifoux’s State Office of Administrative Hearing, five (5) complaints were immediately thrown out for lack of evidence. Of the remaining 13 complaints, 12 were essentially adjudicated leaving Dr. Chalifoux with 1 complaint. There was 1 issue with two of the 12 patients but the other allegations within those two complaints were also adjudicated. Of the 83 allegations brought up against Dr. Chalifoux, the state’s experts defended 5 allegations (6%). Regarding the rest of the allegations, both the TSBME and the state’s experts were incorrect in their allegations 96%. What does that say about the TSBME’s credibility? As a result of this, the judges recommended that Dr. Chalifoux be proctored for a year or 100 cases whichever came first. They never recommended “Revocation” since they felt that Dr. Chalifoux was safe, honest, and a good doctor, and could be rehabilitated to practice. It was the TSBME who decided to put their spin and overruled SOAH (currently under appeal). At the TSBME revocation hearing, one of the TSBME members, Dr. Pate, stated emphatically that “an unfortunate patient’s death is not a reason to revoke someone’s medical license”. This is interesting since one of the TSBME members, Dr. Kirksey’s former partner John Oswalt MD, unfortunately removed the wrong lung from a patient who died as a result of this and paid a fine of $2,500.
The Charleston Gazette has had these facts since its first story in July 2005 but is unwilling to perform its civic duty to educate West Virginian’s to the truth as to how this doctor lost his license in one state but received one in West Virginia. The TSBME needs to be accountable for its actions with facts, not rhetoric and hearsay.
Re: Charleston Gazette Editorial “Is doctor dangerous?”
The Charleston Gazette has acted irresponsibly regarding its editorial on Dr. Chalifoux. The overwhelming tone of the editorial is that the residents of West Virginia should accept what the Texas Medical Board says about Dr. Chalifoux without any regard to the facts, hence, truth of his situation in Texas. Instead, the editors want the public to suspect that WVU and its world renown neurosurgery dept. should be the ones that are questioned for “hiding” the fact that they along with the West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine made a concerted effort to look at the facts from Texas, find that they were not consistent with “revoking” a medical license, allow him to prove himself with a fully structured six month “refresher” course syllabus , and once he fulfilled the requirements, offer him a full unrestricted license to practice in West Virginia.
The editors at the Gazette should know that the agency responsible for licensing an osteopathic physician like Dr. Chalifoux is the West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine (WVBOM), not the MD State Board of Medicine. The WVBOM has been legislated by the West Virginia legislature with this licensing responsibility and Dr. Chalifoux’s situation in Texas was not taken lightly. Agreements between WVU, WVCOM and WVBOM were completed to ensure that Dr. Chalifoux would be thoroughly monitored during this “refresher” course.
The same scenario however did not occur in Texas. In fact, contrary to the Charleston Gazette, Dr. Chalifoux was initially “suspended” by the TSBME for 18 alleged complaints which were defended by 2 retired neurosurgeons as opposed to Dr. Chalifoux’s 20 experts including Dr. Bailes and Fukushima from WVU. At Dr. Chalifoux’s State Office of Administrative Hearing, five (5) complaints were immediately thrown out for lack of evidence. Of the remaining 13 complaints, 12 were essentially adjudicated leaving Dr. Chalifoux with 1 complaint. There was 1 issue with two of the 12 patients but the other allegations within those two complaints were also adjudicated. Of the 83 allegations brought up against Dr. Chalifoux, the state’s experts defended 5 allegations (6%). Regarding the rest of the allegations, both the TSBME and the state’s experts were incorrect in their allegations 96%. What does that say about the TSBME’s credibility? As a result of this, the judges recommended that Dr. Chalifoux be proctored for a year or 100 cases whichever came first. They never recommended “Revocation” since they felt that Dr. Chalifoux was safe, honest, and a good doctor, and could be rehabilitated to practice. It was the TSBME who decided to put their spin and overruled SOAH (currently under appeal). At the TSBME revocation hearing, one of the TSBME members, Dr. Pate, stated emphatically that “an unfortunate patient’s death is not a reason to revoke someone’s medical license”. This is interesting since one of the TSBME members, Dr. Kirksey’s former partner John Oswalt MD, unfortunately removed the wrong lung from a patient who died as a result of this and paid a fine of $2,500.
The Charleston Gazette has had these facts since its first story in July 2005 but is unwilling to perform its civic duty to educate West Virginian’s to the truth as to how this doctor lost his license in one state but received one in West Virginia. The TSBME needs to be accountable for its actions with facts, not rhetoric and hearsay.
// posted by texas shammed @ 4:58 PM 
