Jose L. Ochoa, M.D. Defies Entire Febreze Advanced Odor Eliminator Air Effect Line

Can't sleep, need to go to the bathroom, but cannot get my legs to work.  So I did what any reasonable person would do... I browsed rulings posted on Justia.com -- and due to some strange lurking noted earlier in the day, I did a search on the much loathed Dr. Jose Ochoa of the Oregan Nerve Whatever Whatever, his cover for the outrageous pimpitude in which he has engaged over these lo, so many years, causing pain, suffering, heartache, and financial devastation to hundreds of people with CRPS.

As I often note, but only after complete exhaustion of my penchant for scientific rigor, having done a skin-scraping, a DNA-analysis, and a whiff-test: Dr. Jose Ochoa of the Oregon Nerve Center for the Denial of CRPS ("so long as you're payin'!") -- is a turd.

Anyway, if you're ever scheduled to see this man about a potential case of CRPS, or are ordered to do so should you be involved in litigating a settlement, well...

1.  Be sure you show up to the IME with your own videographer.
2.  And please, for goodness' sake, wash up a bit first.  That way Dr. Ochoa won't need to blow on the supersensitive skin on your CRPS-involved hand, or pluck at it, in order to remove a stray pubic hair.

If you're my sort of nerd, the kind that enjoys watching televised school board meetings, and enjoys Robert's Rules as bedtime reading, this ought to keep you happy for an hour or so.

Forgive me for not going over the turdish ways of this doctor -- I lack the energy, and suppose that, like the poor, we will always be beset by Ochoas.  If you wish to see past emotional purging rages about his unethical, self-serving practices, just put "Ochoa" in the search box, up there in the upper left.

Anyway, here's the link to some fun reading, which concludes (I'm not giving away any great secret) that it's not so much people bad-mouthing Dr. Ochoa that has eaten into his nausea-inducing income levels as a hired gun for the insurance industry -- no, it's the fact that he can produce no plausible science to support his outmoded claims, and that he does nothing any longer but make juries and judges dizzy by an infernal self-referentiality.

ENTIRE DOCUMENT, downloadable pdf format
Signed on 2/7/13 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty.


UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRJCT OF OREGON 
PORTLAND DIVISION 

OREGON NERVE CENTER, LLC, an 
Oregon limited liability company, and 
JOSE L. OCHOA, M.D., 
Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LAWLOR WINSTON, LLP, a Florida 
limited liability patinership, 
Defendant. 

HAGGERTY, District Judge: 
Case No.: 3:11-cv-01433-HA

OPINION AND ORDER 
Plaintiffs, Oregon Nerve Center, LLC, and Jose L. Ochoa, M.D. ("Ochoa") filed a single 
tmi claim against defendant, a Florida-based law firm, for intentional interference with economic 
relations. Defendant seeks summaty judgment on plaintiffs' sole claim on several grounds, 
including lack of personal jurisdiction and plaintiffs' inability to establish the elements of their 
claim. The comi held oral argument on defendant's motion on Januaty 31, 2013, and then took 
the matter under advisement. For the following reasons, defendant's Motion for Summary 
Judgment [64] is GRANTED.

© 2013 L. Ryan

Given My Recent Rabidity: "Compassion in Business"

Lifted shamelessly from The Charter for Compassion folks:

Olivia McIvor’s four part series on Building a Culture of Kindness – Part 1
Olivia McIvor’s four part series on Building a Culture of Kindness – Part 2
Olivia McIvor’s four part series on Building a Culture of Kindness – Part 3
Olivia McIvor’s four part series on Building a Culture of Kindness – Part 4

Compassion and Kindness in Business "In the midst of global crises such as pollution, wars and famine, kindness may too easily be dismissed as a soft issue or a luxury to be addressed after more urgent problems are solved.  But kindness is in the greatest need in all those areas, kindness toward the environment, toward other nations, and toward the needs of people suffering.  Simple kindness may be the most vital key to the riddle of how human beings can live with each other and care properly for this planet we all share." --  Bo Lozoff, founder of the Human Kindness Foundation. The above quote by Bo Lozoff is used by Charter Business Partner, Olivia McIvor, to start of the first part of a four part article: "Building on a Culture of Kindness."  Olivia is one of our business partners involved in the Charter's Business sector.  This sector is one of the newest to be added to out Charter programs.  Learn more about our partners, and take a look at  our Business Compassion Reader.  You'll find articles on leadership. ethics and how to apply compassion to organizations.

Have you seen Scott Reuben?

Another bit of housekeeping, this related to a promise to keep half-an-eye on ex-con physician Scott Reuben.  To read my previous posts on "doctor" Reuben, click HERE.  While we wait for him to make [up] the news again, here's the obvious question on many peoples' minds:

Big Pharma's Ghostwriters
Why Are These Fraudulent Papers Unretracted?
by MARTHA ROSENBERG

According to Science Times, the Tuesday science section in the New York Times, scientific retractions are on the rise because of a “dysfunctional scientific climate” that has created a “winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct.”

But elsewhere, audacious, falsified research stands unretracted–including the work of authors who actually went to prison for fraud!

Richard Borison, MD, former psychiatry chief at the Augusta Veterans Affairs medical center and Medical College of Georgia, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a $10 million clinical trial fraud[2] but his 1996 US Seroquel® Study Group research is unretracted.[3] In fact, it is cited in 173 works and medical textbooks, misleading future medical professionals.[4]


Scott Reuben, MD, the “Bernie Madoff” of medicine who published research on clinical trials that never existed, was sentenced to six months in prison in 2010.[5] But his "research" on popular pain killers like Celebrex and Lyrica is unretracted.[6] If going to prison for research fraud is not enough reason for retraction, what is? [Please read the rest of the article HERE.]



[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[2]  Steve Stecklow and Laura Johannes, “Test Case: Drug Makers Relied on Two Researchers Who Now Await Trial,” Wall Street Journal, August 8, 1997

[3] Richard Borison et al., “ICI 204,636, an Atypical Antipsychotic: Efficacy and Safety in a Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients with Schizophrenia,” Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 16, no. 2 (April 1996): 158–69

[4] Alan F. Schatzberg and Charles B. Nemeroff, Textbook of Psychopharmacology (New York: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2009) p. 609

[5] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data

[6] Scott Reuben et al., “The Analgesic Efficacy of Celecoxib, Pregabalin, and Their Combination for Spinal Fusion Surgery,” Anesthesia & Analgesia 103, no. 5 (November 2006): 1271–77.

Additional Sanctions Against Scott Reuben

Scott S. Reuben: Debarment Order

A Notice by the Food and Drug Administration on 11/16/2011

SUMMARY

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act permanently debarring Scott S. Reuben, M.D. from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Dr. Reuben was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Dr. Reuben was given notice of the proposed permanent debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Dr. Reuben failed to respond. Dr. Reuben's failure to respond constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this action.Show citation box

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• DATES:
• ADDRESSES:
• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
• I. Background
• II. Findings and Order

Scott Reuben "MD": His Unmitigated Gall

Twenty-six thousand patients die each year in the US from NSAID induced complications. Paul White, an A & A Editor, has estimated that billions of dollars of Cox-2’s were sold based on Dr. Reuben’s papers and he adds,  “For now, at least, neither the drug companies nor Reuben’s co-authors are officially sharing in the blame, but that’s expected to change."

“There’s a lot of responsibility to pass around,” White says. “It’s all being focused on Scott Reuben, but the reality is there are many other responsible parties." We will never know how many patients received NSAIDs during a very stressful and high risk time and how many may have been injured or died from Cox-2 related complications.

-- "Welcome to the Fraudosphere," PainPoints

The Affordable Care Act contains some interesting, little known provisions, among them a strengthening of the preexisting federal False Claims Act.  As one article put it, "experts warn that doctors need to be ready." Guffaw!


It was this expansion of liability that resulted in GlaxoSmithKline's $750 million in penalties for having sold "mixed-up products, diabetes drugs with too much or too little of the clinically effective ingredient," and for manufacturing drugs in "a nonsterile area of the facility that was used to make injectable drugs and [using] a water system contaminated with microorganisms."

In 2009, the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) in the first six months of operation recouped almost $3 billion in penalty payments.  The ACA provides $350 million over the course of a decade for the work of the HEAT Task Force.  That's a pretty decent return.

All of that reading and talk of fraud made me wonder what the inimitable Scott Reuben, MD might be up to these days, now that he's out of prison and all.

By the evidence, he is no closer to renouncing the self-serving tendencies that got him to the Big House of Correction to begin with.  He continues to offer the transparent excuse that he was out-of-control due to undiagnosed bipolar disease.  Undiagnosed (and unremarked upon) for well over a decade!  Even his wife, a psychiatrist, failed to pick up on it during all those years that he spent assiduously committing one of the worst known cases of medical and academic fraud.

I guess we should file the following document under "Unmitigated Gall," next to my previous ten posts about Scott Reuben, the Medical Madoff.


Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Civil Remedies Division


Scott S. Reuben, M.D.,
(O.I. File No.: 1-09-40105-9),
Petitioner,

v.

The Inspector General.
Docket No. C-11-664
Decision No. CR2481
Date:  January 6, 2012

DECISION


Petitioner, Scott S. Reuben, M.D., asks review of the Inspector General’s (I.G.’s)
determination to exclude him for five years from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid,
and all federal health care programs under section 1128(a)(3) of the Social Security Act
(Act).  For the reasons discussed below, I find that the I.G. is authorized to exclude
Petitioner and that the statute mandates a minimum five-year exclusion.

Discussion 
The sole issue before me is whether the I.G. has a basis for excluding Petitioner from
program participation.  Because an exclusion under section 1128(a)(3) of the Act must be
for a minimum period of five years, the reasonableness of the length of the exclusion is
not an issue.  Act § 1128(c)(3)(B); 42 C.F.R. § 1001.2007(a)(2).

The parties have submitted their written arguments (I.G. Br.; P. Br.), and the I.G. filed a
reply.  With his brief, the I.G. submitted four exhibits (I.G. Exs. 1-4).  In the absence of
any objections, I admit into evidence I.G. Exs. 1-4.


I directed the parties to indicate in their briefs whether an in-person hearing would be
necessary and, if so, to describe the testimony it wishes to present, the names of the
witnesses it would call, and a summary of each witnesses’ proposed testimony.  I
specifically directed the parties to explain why the testimony would be relevant.  Order
and Schedule for Filing Briefs and Documentary Evidence, Attachment 1 (Informal Brief
of Petitioner ¶ III) and Attachment 2 (Informal Brief of I.G. ¶ III) (Sept. 9, 2011).  The
I.G. indicates that an in-person hearing is not necessary.  Although Petitioner does not
directly respond to the question, he does not contend that an in-person hearing is
necessary and lists no potential witnesses.  I therefore conclude that an in-person hearing
is not required.

Petitioner must be excluded for five years because he was 
convicted of felony fraud in connection with the delivery of 
a healthcare item or service. 1

I make this one finding of fact/conclusion of law


Petitioner was a Massachusetts anesthesiologist who contracted with the drug
manufacturer, Pfizer, Inc., to conduct clinical studies on patients to determine the efficacy
of a certain drug in treating post-operative pain.  Pfizer paid for the studies.  Petitioner
subsequently claimed to have conducted the studies, administering the tested drug to 100
post-surgical patients and a placebo to another 100 post-surgical patients.  He published
papers in a scientific journal claiming to have achieved success with the tested drug.  In
fact, he had not enrolled any patients in any study, and he fabricated the “results.”  I.G.
Ex. 3 at 12-16.

On June 24, 2010, Petitioner pled guilty in federal district court for the District of
Massachusetts to one count of felony health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1347.  Under that
provision, a person commits health care fraud if, “in connection with the delivery of or
payment for health care benefits, items, or services,” he “knowingly and willfully
executes, or attempts to execute” a scheme 1) to defraud a health benefit program or 2) to
obtain, “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,” money
or property owned by a health benefit program.

The court accepted Petitioner’s plea and entered judgment against him. I.G. Exs. 2, 4.
In a letter dated June 30, 2011, the I.G. advised Petitioner that, because he had been
convicted of a felony offense related to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary
responsibility or other financial misconduct in connection with the delivery of a
healthcare item or service, the I.G. was excluding him from participation in Medicare,
Medicaid, and all federal health care programs for a period of five years.  I.G. Ex. 1.


Section 1128(a)(3) provides that an individual or entity convicted of felony fraud, theft,
embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct in
connection with the delivery of a health care item or service must be excluded from
participation in federal health care programs for a minimum of five years.  See 42 C.F.R.
1001.101(c).  Because Petitioner was convicted of felony health care fraud, he is subject
to exclusion.

Petitioner does not deny that he was convicted of felony fraud in connection with the
delivery of a health care item or service.  Instead, he attributes his misconduct to mental
illness, points out that his practice as a clinician is unblemished, argues that he has paid
his debt to society, and maintains that he is ready to resume his medical career.  These are
simply not bases for overturning a mandatory exclusion.

Conclusion
For these reasons, I conclude that the I.G. properly excluded Petitioner from participation
in Medicare, Medicaid and all federal health care programs, and I sustain the five-year
exclusion.


Carolyn Cozad Hughes
/s/
Administrative Law Judge



Photo credit:  Details