Dr. Colantonio's Hearing

To present both sides of this issue, we will print the reply of the parties named by Dr. Colantonio.

Peer-review and Hospital defamation/exploitation of doctors: Click here.

Amy Sorrel

AMA News

6 November 2009

Dear Ms. Sorrel;

A famous aphorism is that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The medical world's corrollary is that "One hospital administrator's disruptive physician is another man's patient advocate".

As President of SSI, I help represent the interest's of physicians who have been targeted for retribution for most commonly protecting our patients. Dr. Butler as a former president of and founder of SSI has worked tirelessly to protect physicians so victimized. He put you in contact with Dr. Colantonio who has been suspended for questioning the actions of an untrained and unsupervised physician extender who misplaced a tube thoracostomy ultimately killing a patient. I had my hospital privleges suspended after reporting the deaths of multiple patients to the State of SC at the hands of a "mercy killer" nurse. My surgical career has been interuppted for the great and radical offense of advocating as a physician the radical concept that as a doctor "thou shalt not kill" is a reasonable concept. These actions which at times stand in the way of corporate profit can result in the end of a doctor's medical career by being labeled as "DISRUPTIVE". It is inherently wrong, but it remains standard operating procedure in Board Rooms across america.

We may all agree that people who are deranged, abusive, unprofessional or serially antisocial may in fact be "disruptive", but the current state of affairs that without due process and with near absolute civil immunity, allows one businessman to arbitrarily and capriciously label another businessman as "disruptive" and with impunity to destroy the second business based upon mere allegations without proof is unfair, unjust, and un-American. It is also the law of the land. At any time a hospital CEO can with impunity utter the phrase "disruptive physician" and blackball any doctor who might stand in the way of corporate profit, such that once so listed and placed on the National Practitioner Data Bank, that physician is unlikely to ever practice their career again. Henry Waxman's dirty little law known as HCQIA is so utilized to exploit physicians and engage in serial mafioso-like quasi-extortion measures to keep doctors in line and create a functional state of terror where any doctor who would dare have the audacity to speak up for their patient, and against corporate profit, does so at great personal risk. This is medicine's ultimate dirty little secret-but again one man's "disruptive physician" is another man's "patient-advocate".

Please call if you would like to discuss further.

Sincerely,

BLAKE HARRISON MOORE, MD FACS CIME
President Semmelweis Society International
ph-803-749-7497; c-803-447-4565

January 28, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

c/o Ms. Garofalo

Mercy Hospital

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

As you instructed, I am writing to you to enumerate the procedural issues that we were

not permitted to discuss at the Pre-Hearing Conference because of the time limitations

that you placed upon Dr. Colantonio and me. I object to the time limitation and as Dr.

Colantonio’s legal counsel, I should have been afforded the time to personally discuss

these issues with you in person because I do not believe that this writing will accurately

reflect the importance of the issues that were not discussed. I also believe we should have

been given the opportunity to hear Mr. Rosenberg’s objections so that I could have

properly addressed them. The Bylaws require a Pre-Hearing Conference and we do not

believe it was completed. We object to this written form as a violation of the Bylaws and

Dr. Colantonio does not waive his right to object to this vehicle of communication.

At the outset, I must reaffirm Dr. Colantonio’s objection to your appointment to the Ad

Hoc Committee and as Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee. We respect and applaud

your decades of service provided to Mercy Hospital; however, it is our understanding

that according to the Bylaws you are not on the Active Staff because you do not regularly

admit patients to the Hospital. The fact that (1) there has not been a pediatric service at

Mercy Hospital for years, (2) for many years you have not and do not primarily manage

or consult upon patients on a regular basis, and (3) that you have not been present in the

Hospital for many years on any regular basis, should disqualify you from participating on

the Ad Hoc Committee. We ask that you resign from the Committee and that a new

Chairperson be selected.

We also reaffirm our objection to Ms. Garofalo representing you and any members of the

Ad Hoc Committee. It was quite clear at the Pre-Hearing Conference held on January 21,

2009, that Ms. Garofalo was representing more the interests of the Hospital than your

interests or the interests of the other members of the Ad Hoc Committee. The conflict

was clearly identifiable. I feel it is necessary to again remind you that your mandate is

protect both the interests of the Hospital and Dr. Colantonio. Please uphold your

responsibilities so that Dr. Colantonio is afforded a fair hearing process, free from any

bias or prejudice on the part of decisions made by the Ad Hoc Committee.

It is our understanding that Dr. Brisman has resigned from the Committee. Please

confirm our understanding. As for the remaining members of the Committee, Dr.

Colantonio has objected to Dr. Finklestein and Dr. Fox on numerous occasions over the

last year. Dr. Finklestein has made disparaging remarks about Dr. Colantonio at a

Hospital-sponsored medical staff party held in February 2008. We have also been advised

that Dr. Finklestein informed a surgeon at Mercy Hospital that the Anesthesia

Department has “taken a big hit financially because of Tony and we have to get rid of

him.” It is these types of remarks that disqualify Dr. Finklestein. It also suggests that no

one in the Anesthesia Department should be on the Ad Hoc Committee. It is these types

of issues that necessitate that there be voir dire of the Ad Hoc Committee members.

Your decision at the Pre-Hearing Conference was to not allow me to voir dire you and if

you do not permit me to voir dire the remaining panel members, please cite the section in

the Bylaws that precludes voir dire. Dr. Finklestein may have also been present at the

Medical Staff Meeting on February 11, 2007 where Dr. Colantonio was openly defamed

and disparaged by the attendees. Dr. Finklestein, although he may not be in direct

competition with Dr. Colantonio, it is quite clear that Dr. Finklestein desires Dr.

Colantonio’s termination to protect his financial situation and the protection of the

remainder of the Anesthesia Department. Dr. Finklestein is also partners with the

Chairman of the Anesthesia Department and as the only Anesthesia Department in the

Hospital, they are closely tied to the Hospital for their success. They certainly would not

voice a favorable decision for Dr. Colantonio. Dr. Finklestein may also be placed in the

position of weighing the testimony of one of his partners as we intend to call three or four

anesthesiologists to testify at the Hearing. In addition, Dr. Colantonio has complained

about certain anesthesiologists and the care delivered to certain patients by those

anesthesiologists (see pages 7, 33, 36, 63, and 67 of the documents already provided. Our

position is that no member of the Anesthesia Department should sit on the Ad Hoc

Committee.

As we have previously indicated, Dr. Fox expressed to a member of the Medical Staff a

highly negative opinion of Dr. Colantonio and questioned Dr. Colantonio’s sanity,

describing Dr. Colantonio as “crazy.” Additionally, Dr. Fox reported to this same staff

member that Dr. Colantonio had been suspended in the past from Mercy Hospital, which

is not true. Obviously, Dr. Fox has already formed a prejudicial opinion of Dr.

Colantonio. Dr. Fox is also Chairman of the Thoracic Department, appointed by the

Hospital, and he will protect that position over a favorable decision for Dr. Colantonio. In

addition, Dr. Fox is objectionable because one of the primary witnesses for Dr.

Colantonio will be Dr. Peter Chang. Because of complaints registered by Dr. Chang with

Administration regarding Dr. Fox and his partner, Dr. Andes, Dr. Fox has a personal bias

against Dr. Chang and recently threatened to suspend him from the staff of Mercy

Hospital. Dr. Fox would be called upon to weigh the testimony of a person against whom

he may have a personal bias. Finally, we intend to call Dr. Fox as a witness. Dr. Fox was

a witness to an exchange between Dr. Xenophontos and Dr. Colantonio during which Dr.

Xenophontos, in an unprovoked fashion, verbally attacked and accused Dr. Colantonio of

improper billing practices in front of other members of the medical staff.

There are over 700 physicians at Mercy Hospital and there is absolutely no reason to

stock the Committee with physicians who are virtually certain to vote to accept the

termination recommendation.

If you choose to remain on the Ad Hoc Committee, we do not waive our objection to

your participation; however, we anticipate your fair interpretation of the Bylaws. We

respectfully remind you that your mandate is to not only protect the rights of Mercy

Hospital but also protect Dr. Colantonio’s rights and uphold the Bylaws of Mercy

Hospital’s Medical Staff. As you are aware, our position is that the Bylaws clearly limit

the evidence and clearly limit witnesses and their testimony. Our request to limit

testimony is not an attempt to exclude relevant evidence and testimony but to exclude

matters that have been resolved so that time may be better spent on unresolved issues.

Discussing resolved issues also has a way of tainting the thought processes of those

making decisions. In addition, and most importantly, Dr. Colantonio must be provided an

opportunity to cross-examine the complainants, not only those that read the complaints

but those that have actually witnessed the alleged conduct. To allow written complaints

and not afford Dr. Colantonio the opportunity to cross-examine his complainant, this

would be a clear violation of not only the Bylaws, but also Federal Law, the Health Care

Quality Improvement Act. Documents are to be limited to those reviewed by the

Credentials Committee and the Medical Executive Committee. Testimony must be

limited to that reviewed by the Credentials Committee and the Medical Executive

Committee. Ms. Simmons’ letter to Dr. Colantonio, dated March 21, 2008, notes that the

MEC will present evidence relating to the charges and that the documents to be presented

include those documents provided at the Credentials Committee Hearing (November 27

and 28, 2007) and the MEC Hearing (December 11, 2007). She goes on to write, “Dr.

Colantonio has already received the relevant documents during the course of the

preliminary meetings.”

Written complaints are only permissible if the author participates in the Hearing and Dr.

Colantonio is afforded the opportunity to cross-examine that author. The Bylaws clearly

afford Dr. Colantonio the identification of witnesses. Please note that we are entitled

under Article VII, Section 3 to the “identification of any witnesses to the activities or

conduct of the practitioner.” Any allegations that post-date the initiation of the

disciplinary process are improper and we object to the inclusion of such allegations.

Dr. Colantonio did deliver and had delivered documents to Mr. Rosenberg on Thursday,

January 22, 2009, and Friday, January 23, 2009, via personal delivery and Fax. Please let

me know ASAP if Mr. Rosenberg or you have an objection to any of the documents.

Regarding issues we did not have the opportunity to review, I will itemize them and ask

for your ruling. As I am sending Mr. Rosenberg a copy of this communication, I expect

and request the same courtesy in return from Mr. Rosenberg should he object to any of

the documents delivered or any of the issues brought up in this letter. Please let me know

when Mr. Rosenberg’s objections are due to be communicated to you. Please note that

the items set forth below are not “discovery” items as has been referred to by Mr.

Rosenberg in past communications. The information and documents sought constitute the

minimum necessary to ensure a fair hearing process as guaranteed by the Bylaws, and

again, your mandate is to protect Dr. Colantonio’s rights and uphold the Bylaws. These

are procedural safeguards that provide members of the medical staff with a modicum of

due process as required by the Bylaws. It is my hope and expectations that your

involvement will prevent any further violations of the Bylaws.

1. We request any and all documents and/or memos generated by the November 2005 meeting with Mr. Sharkey and Dr. Rubenstein regarding Mr. Sharkey’s improper patient care and any documents and/or memos generated by the meeting that Dr. Colantonio requested and held with Dr. Cali and Dr. Zito the following day, the subject of which was Mr. Sharkey’s improper patient care. We request any and all documents generated by anyone as a result of information obtained from anyone regarding that above two meetings;

2. We request any and all notes, statements, and/or memos created by witnesses or anyone else in any way affiliated with Mercy Hospital or Catholic Health Services relating to any complaint, incident, or meeting about Dr. Colantonio;

3. If the documents referred to in #1 and #2 above are not in Dr. Colantonio’s QA, PI, or Credentials Folder, please identify where they should be filed;

4. We request specific notes in the patient charts that Dr. Yohai referred to that “did not relate to the clinical course of patients and violated the code of conduct.” Please provide the names of the patients and copies of the entire chart. Should this issue not be included in the present charges, please so notify me and we may disregard this request;

5. We request the identification of the patients and their charts that Dr. Yohai referred to relating to the two episodes of alleged “rushing of surgery.” Please provide the names of the patients and copies of the entire chart. Should this issue not be included in the present charges, please so notify me and we may disregard this request;

6. We request the identification of the patients and their charts that Dr. Yohai referred to when he stated, “Dr. Colantonio did not properly prepare patients for surgery.” Please provide the names of the patients and copies of the entire chart. Should this issue not be included in the present charges, please so notify me and we may disregard this request;

7. We request the name of the “physician advisor” in the “McCaffery” memo. We have been requesting this information for many months;

8. We request a copy of the complete Incident Reports that I completed and submitted in July 2007, at Dr. Yohai’s instruction, with regard to Mr. Sharkey’s improper care of Mr. Gryn and Mrs. Brennan;

9. We request notes and any documents generated by Dr. Reilly, or his staff, in relation to my July 2007 complaints regarding Mr. Sharkey’s improper patient care with respect to Mr. Gryn and Mrs. Brennan;

10. Dr. Colantonio reserves his right to identify experts at a later date depending upon testimony presented at the Hearing;

11. We request permission to “voir dire” all panel members under oath;

12. We request any 2007 Mercy Hospital documents (memoranda, standards, and/or guidelines, etc.) that explain:

(a) Consult policy;

(b) DNR policy;

(d) Ventilator order policy;

(e) CVL placement policy;

(f) PA supervision policy;

(g) Beeper policy;

(h) Use of bedside sonography policy;

(i) Intensivist policy;

(j) Restraint policy from 2003;

(k) House Officer policy from 2003;

(l) Complaint reporting policy;

(m) Visiting surgeon policy;

(n) Chest tube insertion policy;

(o) Hemodialysis catheter policy

13. Memos and/or letters or any and all documents regarding communications about Dr. Colantonio to or from the Mercy Hospital Security Department;

14. as we stated at the Pre-Hearing Conference, your decision to allow evidence up to 72-hours prior to the Hearing date is a clear violation of the Bylaws. Is your decision 72 total hours? We request that the 72 hours does not include Saturday, Sunday, Holidays, and the hearing date itself.

15. What will be the policy of submitting documents that we do know about now but have not submitted before “72-hour” Rule – are they precluded?

16. If documentary evidence or new testimony surfaces during the Hearing, we not only would object to such an outrage but we would request a minimum of seven days to respond. Please inform us as to how you will respond to our request.

17. We request any records of Extermination of Ants in the O.R. in 2007;

18. We request a copy of the letter sent by approximately 60-65 physicians, in 2008, complaining about poor patient care, violations of Bylaws, and violation of patient’s rights;

19. We request the attendance sheet for 2/11/08 medical staff meeting. The agenda of this meeting was to discuss what to do about the violations cited by the Joint Commission; however, the agenda was abandoned and Dr. Colantonio became the subject of the meeting. Dr was ridiculed and openly defamed. It is our position that anyone who attended the meeting should not be appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee;

20. If there are going to be time limits placed upon testimony, we request that they be enforced at the start of the Hearing;

21. Please clarify the clause in the Bylaws regarding the calling of rebuttal witnesses. The clause in the Bylaws has a typographical error and does not make sense.

22. Do we get rebuttal witnesses and/or an opportunity for rebuttal evidence?

23. We request the name and phone number of the Female “Stripper” who entertained the Male attendees at the Hospital Party in February 2008;

24. We request the attendance sheet from the above party;

25. We request a copy of my Re-credentialing application that I submitted in the Summer 2007 and my responses to questions # 2, # 4, # 7, # 12;

26. If an attorney reads from a document during cross-examination or direct examination of a witness, does that document have to be submitted prior to the Hearing or at that time?

27. If a witness may be reading from a document, does that document have to submitted to the other party before the Hearing begins or at the time that it is used by the witness?

28. We request a copy of the signed, final Minutes of the December 11, 2007 MEC meeting;

29. Please confirm that the documents provided to Dr. Colantonio in the past, namely the report of the Credentials Committee and the report of the MEC are already in evidence and do not need to be provided by Dr. Colantonio for use at the Ad hoc Committee Hearings;

30. We request missing “Bates Stamped” pages #145 and #146;

31. We object to the clause in the Bylaws that allows a majority of the Ad Hoc Committee to be present. We request that all members of the Ad Hoc Committee be present at all Hearing dates.

These requested documents and information are what we are entitled to under the

Bylaws. Each document requested relates directly to a claim/charge being made against

Dr. Colantonio. Our requests are not burdensome.

Dr. Colantonio will vigorously exercise all of his legal rights if the Hearing is conducted

unfairly and not in compliance with the Bylaws. A failure to provide due process to a

physician during a disciplinary hearing can result in loss of immunity conferred under

Federal and State Law.

Thank you.

Anthony Scher

Copy to Mr. Kevin Agoglia

Quality Assurance Material Protected by Public Health Law

April 27, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

This letter serves as notice to the Ad Hoc panel members and the Mercy Hospital Medical Executive Committee (MEC) that Mr. Anthony Scher is no longer representing me at the Corrective Action Hearing scheduled to begin, Tuesday, April 28, 2009.

As you are aware, you ruled, over Mr. Scher’s objection, that Mr. Kevin Agoglia, the attorney of my choosing, could not represent me at the Corrective Action Hearing. I struggled with a decision and I did my best to resolve the situation that you placed me into; however, I have recently come to the realization that Mr. Scher is not the appropriate attorney to represent me in this adversarial proceeding. Your ruling has placed me in an impossible position, I am now without an attorney to represent me, and I must represent myself. This is certainly not what I had wanted, nor what I require, to properly defend myself. Your ruling has placed me in this precarious position.

Please note, pursuant to the Mercy Hospital Bylaws [Article 8, Section 2 (c)], that because an attorney does not represent me, the Executive Committee may not be represented by an attorney, and Mr. Rosenberg may not attend the Hearing Process.

Page 2

In addition, there are other reasons for which Mr. Rosenberg may not attend. (1) He is not a participant in the Mercy QA process and as you ruled, over Mr. Scher’s objection, at the Pre-Hearing Conference, no one may attend the Hearing unless they are involved in the QA process; (2) I have not waived my right to confidentiality, these proceedings are confidential pursuant to NYS Law and therefore Mr. Rosenberg may not participate in the Hearing Process, may not read the transcripts, and you, the Hospital, or any of the witnesses may not share any information from the Hearing with Mr. Rosenberg, including this letter; and (3) Mr. Rosenberg represents eight of the named MEC witnesses in a defamation action I have brought against those individuals and his presence will only serve to disrupt the process, respectfully, more so than you have already done.

I will attend the Hearing tomorrow. Please provide me with a phone number whereby my staff, an O.R. nurse, or I may contact you should I be delayed because of a medical or surgical emergency. May I suggest your cell number, or the number of another Ad Hoc panel member, and a phone number at 245 Old Country Road, Melville, NY, that will be answered “after hours?” In addition, if you have not heard from me by 5 PM, please check with your answering service, or the answering service of one of the other panel members. This will provide multiple means of contacting you as a back up. Please check and see if your beeper (516-975-4597), and your cell phone, are functional at 245 Old Country Road.

Because I am forbidden from communicating directly with Dr. Curran, I have sent a copy of this letter to Dr. Marc DeSciullo, who I believe is Vice President and President-elect of the MEC, so that he may notify the MEC to prepare themselves to present their case against me tomorrow evening.

I understand that there may be a potential situation if you decide to disregard the Mercy Hospital Medical Staff Bylaws, State and Federal Laws, and Joint Commission Standards, by permitting Mr. Rosenberg to attend. Please contact me immediately if you are planning such a decision so that I may contact the appropriate entities in an attempt to protect my rights and the rights of my patients.

I would appreciate direct communication from you, and not Ms. Garofalo, as she is representing Mercy Hospital and I am involved in an adverse legal action against Mercy Hospital. Two ways to reach me are my cell number 516-521-8980 and my beeper number 516-291-1457. Please do not leave messages on my office phone voice mail and do not FAX to my office number because I am in the office only two days per week and I will not get the message until I am in the office. Alternatively, if you would rather not discuss issues with me over the phone, you may FAX to my home FAX number (516-248-3044) but please keep in mind that I may not read that FAX until after 10 PM.

Please contact Mercy Hospital, and their representatives, and inform them of this decision that has been forced upon me, and that they are not permitted to contact Mr. Anthony

Page 3

Scher for any reason regarding the proceedings or me, including the contents of this letter.

Two final notes, (1) your recent letter leads me to believe that you do not understand the Hearing process or the burden that is placed upon me. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and I do not believe you are getting the proper legal representation and as a physician-colleague, I suggest that you and the other panel members find another attorney(s) to eliminate any conflicts that may arise as the reason behind this lack of understanding; (2) I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you went back on your word, from the Pre-Hearing Conference, to have the Hearing at a “neutral” site and have approved the Hearing for a CHS location in Suffolk County. I find it very disconcerting that you are making it difficult for me and my witnesses to care for our patients. I will do my best, as will my witnesses, to get there on time, but certainly, traffic at that time of the day will play a critical role for everyone involved.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio, MD, FACS

cc: Robert Curran, MD (Pres. MEC), via Marc DeSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

May 10, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

This letter will serve as notice to you, and the other members of the Ad Hoc panel, of your violations of my confidentiality rights, and the confidentiality rights of patients, pursuant to U. S. Federal Law, New York State Public Health Law, New York State Education Law, Joint Commission standards, AMA guidelines, and the Mercy Hospital Medical Staff Bylaws (Bylaws).

I notified you, Mercy Hospital, and the Medical Executive Committee (MEC), that because of your illogical ruling, over my objection, to not allow me to be represented by the attorney of my choice, I would be representing myself at the Mercy Hospital Corrective Action Hearing and that, pursuant to the Bylaws, Mr. Rosenberg, or any attorney representing the MEC was not authorized to attend. The Bylaws clearly state that if the practitioner is not represented by an attorney at the Hearing, then the MEC may not be represented by an attorney. When I arrived at the Hearing, you allowed Mr. Rosenberg to be present, along with his associate, who is also not authorized to participate. You refused to allow me to state my objection on the record.

At the Preliminary Conference, you made it very clear and you ruled that Mr. Agoglia would not be permitted to represent me in this matter. You ruled that Mr. Agoglia’s presence would serve to intimidate witnesses because he is representing me in a Defamation suit against Mercy Hospital and some of its officials and physicians. You made it clear that this reason would preclude Mr. Agoglia’s representation even if

Page 2

Mr. Scher were not representing me at the time. You made it clear that you would not allow Mr. Agoglia to represent me for any reason and under any circumstance. Mr. Agoglia, who was present, was not allowed to come into the conference room and was sent home. Due to your clear, express (but incredibly unfair) ruling, I had no reason to anticipate that you would change your ruling. Since you deprived me of counsel of my choice, I notified you prior to the Hearing that I had decided to represent myself at the Hearing.

Instead of following the Bylaws and/or adjourning the Hearing to permit the MEC to select a physician or hospital official to present its case, you elected to go forward, permitting Mr. Rosenberg and his associate to continue representing the MEC at the Hearing. You did this despite the clear statement in the Bylaws that the MEC can only be represented by counsel if the practitioner is represented by counsel. By doing this, you not only violated the Bylaws, but more importantly, you also breached the confidentiality of the entire process since Mr. Rosenberg and his associate had absolutely no right to be at the Hearing. You continue to make a mockery of the Bylaws and the process itself.

You allowed the Hearing to proceed, and since “you can’t unbreak the mirror,” obtaining Mr. Agoglia’s representation at this time would be useless. The entire process has been tainted. The unexpected changing of your initial ruling, a significant decision and a material issue in the process, is not only disruptive to the process but I must now question every decision that you make since you change decisions for your own convenience and the MEC’s convenience without regard to fairness, not to mention disregarding my rights, the Bylaws, and my convenience. An orderly process cannot be conducted under these circumstances. My impression of the process so far is that it is a circus.

By permitting Mr. Rosenberg’s presence (and the presence of any unauthorized person), you continue to violate my right of confidentiality as well as patients’ rights to confidentiality. I will not be able to testify openly and completely with Mr. Rosenberg, or any unauthorized person, present.

At one point in the process (Preliminary Statement), you denied me another right granted to me under the Bylaws even though the MEC agreed with me. You are taking advantage of every opportunity you have to make it difficult for me and it is very obvious. You have a total disregard for the Bylaws, fairness, and common sense.

The fact that Dr. Fox and Dr. Finklestein just stand idly by while you repeatedly violate my rights and the rights of patients is also disturbing. One of the panel’s mandates is to protect the Bylaws and so far, you have made the Bylaws a worthless document.

Your failure to warn the witness of his violations of my rights, and those of patients, is also voraciously objectionable.

Page 3

In addition to the above egregious violations, there were many other violations of my rights pursuant to all of the above-mentioned Statutes, standards, and the Bylaws.

At the start of the Hearing, you did not allow me to state for the record all of my objections. You silenced me under threat of labeling me disruptive even though at the Prehearing Conference you ruled that we would discuss each individual document and

you, and the other members of the Panel, would hear arguments from both sides before accepting a document into evidence or rejecting it. You have thrust me into two roles – that of counsel and that of practitioner. Instead of just sitting back and letting my attorney do the objecting, you have created a situation whereby I may be viewed as disruptive just for attempting to assert my rights.

Similarly, during the Hearing, you refused to allow me to state for the record all of my objections, in a timely way, again under threat of being labeled disruptive. Improper questions were asked and answered, irrelevant testimony was provided that should not have been allowed, illegitimate evidence was introduced that should not have been accepted, and the Hearing was conducted in a manner violative of State and Federal Law and the Bylaws.

At the start of the Hearing, and repeatedly during the Hearing, you permitted evidence to be introduced without giving me an opportunity to object. You silenced me under threat of being labeled disruptive and improperly and inappropriately characterized my attempts at objecting as “interrupting.”

Since I have done nothing that can remotely be considered disruptive and since the entire Hearing is based on my alleged disruptive behavior, by constantly labeling me “disruptive” when I attempt to defend and uphold my rights, it is clear to me that you have already determined to sustain the MEC’s position without having heard my position and my defenses.

I was very uncomfortable and intimidated at the Hearing, mostly because I was not represented by an attorney, when the MEC had two attorneys (both unauthorized to be present), but also because of the location itself and especially with the presence of two armed guards always at my side wherever I went and always staring at me through the glass panels of both doors.

You even would not permit me to communicate with my covering doctor, hospital staff, and my office staff regarding critically ill post-operative patients. I had to beg you, on behalf of my patients, to allow me to keep in communication with those caring for my patients. You embarrassed, belittled, and ridiculed me. You repeatedly made it difficult for me to contact my covering doctor. You have no idea what a surgeon does and the responsibilities that they have toward their post-operative patients. You are placing the

Page 4

priority of this sham Corrective Action process over that of patients and their well-being. Again, you should be embarrassed over your conduct.

You repeatedly held conversations with Ms. Garofalo (also unauthorized to be present), which were loud enough to distract me, and at one point in the Hearing, I asked you to please be quiet, but the relatively loud and disruptive conversations continued. I would appreciate in the future if you would speak with your attorney during the breaks. In addition, when Ms. Garofalo is speaking, she is representing the Hospital and the

transcriber should record her comments. I have no idea what she is saying to you and I am not being given an opportunity to comment on her secret remarks to you. Her two roles obviously conflict with one another and disrupt the process even further. She should not be representing you (the Ad Hoc panel) and Mercy Hospital simultaneously.

I applaud your five decades of service to the community; however, as you are well aware, my position is that you should not be on the Ad Hoc panel, let alone Chair it. The Bylaws clearly state that members of the panel must be selected from the Full Active Staff of the Medical Staff. The Full Active Staff is defined in the Bylaws as a physician who regularly admits patients to the Hospital. Mercy Hospital has not had a Pediatric Department for over five years, and according to other pediatricians on staff, nurses in the hospital, Medical Records personnel, Admitting Office staff, and your own office staff, you do not admit patients to the hospital, you “rarely, if at all” consult on patients, and you “rarely go to Mercy Hospital anymore.” In fact, in my 15 years at the Hospital, I have never even seen you on any of the clinical wards, despite my presence there every day of the year and at all times day and night. Again, your actions are consistent with someone who disregards rules and regulations that are meant to create order and you should be ashamed of yourself.

My due process rights have been continuously and irreversibly violated. The basic and fundamental principles of fairness and common sense have been violated. The process has been and continues to be grossly unfair and irreparably damaged.

I understand that you may be coming to the end of a long and cherished career, and that you have special political ties to Mercy Hospital, Dr. Cali, Dr. Guerci, Dr. Cohn, Dr. Curran, and many political organizations; however, I do not believe that you understand the seriousness of this situation, not only for me, but for all physicians and other patient advocates. You may be setting a precedent here that will destroy the safe practice of medicine. You are “turning your back” on moral physicians and patient advocates. This is a time for you to be a physician, not a politician. The Oath you took as a physician should supersede and break any political ties that you have. Please remember that this Corrective Action process is in retaliation for my efforts to promote patient safety and improve quality of care.

Page 5

I will be present for the continuation of the Hearing on May 18, 2009, and I will once again represent myself because of this preposterous and precarious position you have placed me into and the situation that you have created with your absurd ruling and then the unreasonable and unilateral reversal of your ruling.

You instructed me at the Hearing to communicate with Ms. Garofalo, and not with you; however, your instruction is contrary to Rules of Ethics that I must follow and it does not make sense to me. You and I are not in an adversarial position; Ms. Garofalo (representing Mercy Hospital in the Defamation Action) and I are in an adversarial position. According to Rules of Ethics, I may not communicate with her without the express authorized permission from me, my attorney, her attorney and the other defendants, and their attorney(s). I will not communicate with Ms. Garofalo (she should not communicate with me) and I do not want her to communicate with me. As I have

previously informed you, I am also taking the position that since the MEC may not be represented by an attorney at the Hearing, then the Ad Hoc panel may not be represented by an attorney at the Hearing and Ms. Garofalo is not authorized to be present during the Hearing.

In addition, because Mr. Rosenberg, or any other attorney, may not be present for the Hearing, and anyone who divulges information to them is violating State and Federal Laws and the Bylaws, I will not communicate with Mr. Rosenberg and I do not want him to communicate with me. If you choose to share confidential information with Mr. Rosenberg, I intend to hold you responsible for violating my right to confidentiality and the rights of those patients involved in this process.

All communications with confidential information must be directly from, and to, the MEC. May I suggest Dr. Marc DiSciullo? I believe he is Vice-President of the MEC and he is not a defendant in the Defamation Action.

Any information that you, or the other Ad Hoc panel members receive, in any form of communication, regarding the process or me, must be immediately (within 24 hours) forwarded to me. As I am rarely in my office, please call me either on my cell 516-521-8980 or on my beeper 516-291-1457. The FAX number you should use is 516-248-3044. If you need to mail something, please mail to my office address above and call me to let me know to expect something so that I may go to the office to pick it up.

Finally, as I expect full confidentiality with this process, Dr. DiSciullo, or whomever the MEC decides should communicate with me and the Ad Hoc panel, is not permitted to share any confidential information obtained as a result of the Hearing process, with any defendant in the Defamation Action. All defendants in the Defamation Action must recuse themselves, from participating and being present in any way, with any and all discussions held regarding any matter having to do with the Hearing process. Those

Page 6

individuals who are given the privilege to listen to this information, may not share it with anyone outside of the room they are in when the MEC meets, assuming that everyone present is authorized to be there.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio

cc: Robert Curran, MD (President MEC), via Marc DiSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

Quality Assurance Material Protected by Public Health Law

April 28, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

This letter is in response to Ms. Garofalo’s letter dated April 27, 2009, which I received at 3 AM this morning and a voice mail from her secretary, left at 5:30 PM last night, which I received at 1 AM this morning. I ask again that you contact me since I may not communicate with Ms. Garofalo. In addition, her comments lead me to believe that she does not understand what doctors do, nor does she understand how we manage patients and our responsibilities to our patients.

I have not spoken with Mr. Agoglia about the Corrective Action Hearing Process since you refused, in February, to allow him to represent me. He was very upset and he may not wish to get involved at this point. In addition, I do not know if Mr. Agoglia is available for tonight’s Hearing.

I will be at the Hearing tonight and I will be representing myself because of the situation you created with your ridiculous decision.

Pursuant to the Mercy Hospital Bylaws, New York State and U.S. Federal Law, and Joint Commission standards, Mr. Rosenberg, or any other attorney, is not permitted to attend. The only individuals that are permitted into the room are individuals who are directly involved with the QA process.

Page 2

I understand that there may be a potential administrative, legal, and ethical situation if you decide to allow Mr. Rosenberg, or any other unauthorized individual, to attend, and they attend. Please contact me immediately if you are planning such a decision so that I may contact the appropriate entities in an attempt to protect my rights and the rights of my patients (cell 516-521-8980 and beeper 516-291-1457). I will be away from my FAX the entire day. My cell phone may not work in the hospital so please do not leave a message on the voice mail today. An O.R. nurse may be answering my pages, if I am in the O.R., so please be very discreet with the information that you give her.

I also suggest that you warn any witness that will testify tonight that they may be violating State and Federal Laws should they divulge confidential information without my consent or the patient’s consent. In addition, I suggest you, and the other panel members, get the proper legal counsel and advice before you allow this to transpire.

I am not waiving my right to confidentiality and if Mr. Rosenberg, or any other unauthorized individual, is present, I will consider publication of my confidential information a violation of my rights and a violation of State and Federal Laws, administrative violations, and ethical violations.

Please inform Mr. Rosenberg and Ms. Garofalo that they may also be subject to Rules of Ethics violations and are risking a complaint to the NYS Bar Association and/or the NCBA Grievance Committee. I believe you are familiar with that process.

Regarding any medical or surgical emergencies that I may be involved with on Tuesday afternoon/evening, I find Ms. Garofalo’s threats that the hearing will proceed without me, uncivil and disruptive. Is this your ruling? I ask you to please bring to her attention Article VIII, Section 2 (d), which clearly identifies the procedure for adjournments. I would think that a patient’s medical or surgical emergency is “good cause.” What are your thoughts?

I have not even had a chance to argue my position before you and any decision you make must be made after input from both sides at the same time. They are not permitted to communicate with you unless I am present or I receive a copy of a letter sent to you and permit me to respond.

I checked phone number 631-365-6482 last night. No one answered and there was no answering machine. A man’s voice came on after a few rings and said, “No one is answering the number you are trying to reach. Please call again later.” This will not suffice should I need to contact you this afternoon or this evening. I must insist that you provide me with a means to reach you in case I am delayed. At a minimum, the number you give me must have a working voice mail system.

Page 3

I have arranged for emergency coverage but I must still be available to certain other patients who I have recently operated upon. Please inform Ms. Garofalo of this duty we have as physicians and surgeons. Unlike our jobs, I am sure her job duties disappear after normal working hours. In addition, although I have made the best arrangements for coverage that I am able to make, I still do not have control over traffic although getting to Rockville Centre would have been easier than getting to Melville.

Despite the terrible position you have placed me into and the precarious situation you have created, I somewhat look forward to beginning the Hearing process this evening.

If you need to reach me, I left all of my numbers with your secretary Linda.

Thank you for your time and your attempts to get to the truth.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio

cc: Robert Curran, MD (Pres. MEC), via Marc DeSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

October 9, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital Medical Staff Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-705-1797

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Hearing at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

This letter is in response to Mrs. Garofalo’s letter dated October 6, 2009.

I am sending this letter addressed to you because I am not permitted to communicate with Mrs. Garofalo and in addition, pursuant to the Bylaws, she should not be participating in the Corrective Action Hearing Process.

Again, this is another letter that seems more appropriate coming from the attorney for Mercy Hospital or from the Medical Executive Committee (MEC). Did the MEC complain about my recent Fax (enclosed for your convenience)? If so, please provide me with the letter that they sent you. If they did not, do they agree with my suggestions and, if so, who is complaining? If this complaint is coming from the Ad Hoc Committee, then respectfully (1) please explain to me your change in attitude from June, which conflicts with your present attitude four months later; and, (2) please provide me with a copy of the similar intimidating and threatening letter you have sent to the MEC, warning them about any future “delays.”

The first paragraph of Mrs. Garofalo’s letter is filled with inaccuracies. I will just leave it at that. Mrs. Garofalo’s unethical behavior has been well documented and this is simply further material to add to that rather huge pile.

Rather than have Mrs. Garofalo attempt to read my mind, let me privilege you by sharing my thoughts with you … the Fax to Ms. Lam was not abusive (although, because you might unreasonably believe that it was, I will no longer communicate with the Medical Staff Office, please ask them to no longer communicate with me so that we will not have any misunderstandings in the future); the Report that Ms. Lam filed with the National

Page 2 of 4

10.9.09

Practitioner Data Bank is false and malicious and has caused me and my family great harm; this entire Bad Faith Peer Review process has caused a great deal of financial and emotional damage to me and my family; all of my Fax’s (and other communications) provide a great deal of relevant information; I was unaware of the “newly-decided” restriction of Hearing days and times; my suggestion of days and unlimited times was very helpful and quite genuine; I have never been unwilling with any part of this Process; I will continue to be very willing to participate in this process, under protest and repeated objections, no matter how much of a sham it continues to be; I am very desirous to proceed with this Hearing process in a fair, unbiased, and truthful manner; I am not interested in delaying the Process and I am looking forward to exposing Drs. Yohai, Zito, Roy Rubenstein, Xenophontos, PA Sharkey, and Nurses Vizza, Tichacek, Christoffers, and Gittens (and whomever else the MEC decides to bring as a witness), as the liars and malicious conspirators that they are; I want to proceed with the Hearing in as expeditious a manner as possible keeping in mind my primary obligation to my patients; and I have never been uncooperative.

You continue to breach my confidentiality as you permit unauthorized individuals, in violation of the Bylaws, to participate in the Hearing Process. I again, respectfully, ask you to stop Mrs. Garofalo from sending these inappropriate communications to individuals outside of Mercy Hospital and/or to individuals who are not valid participants in the Process.

In addition, please instruct everyone to please stop calling my home. It is very upsetting to my wife to have to speak with anyone from Mercy Hospital as they continue to maliciously attack my family and me. Even seeing Mercy Hospital on the caller ID creates a great deal of emotional stress for my wife and children. I understand you are interested in making this process as difficult and damaging as possible for me, but please try to leave my family out of it; there is no need to call me at home when you have multiple other numbers to reach me directly. As everyone knows, I answer my cell phone immediately whenever I am able to answer, I respond to my beeper pages immediately (or a nurse will respond if I am scrubbed in the OR), and I return all of my messages immediately.

The Hearing process continues to be a circus. You instruct me, despite the explanations that I have provided to you that are based upon ethical restrictions placed upon me, to communicate with Mrs. Garofalo; Mrs. Garofalo instructs me to communicate with the Medical Staff Office, although my communications are unreasonably interpreted as “abusive;” Mrs. Garofalo continues to be inappropriate and harassing both in-person and on paper; and you continue to refuse to communicate with me despite there not being any adverse position between us and the fact that attorneys should not be participating.

Page 3 of 4

10.9.09

Getting back to Mrs. Garofalo’s letter … are you restricting the Hearing process to only Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and restricting the times to between 5:00 PM and 10:00 PM? If so, this is a new ruling and I, respectfully, request that you send me something in writing, with your signature on it, stating so. I certainly will object to this new ruling and it is contrary to your previous decisions. I am sure you disagree with Mrs. Garofalo whose understanding of the medical profession is that there is no medical care provided in the evening and at night. She does not understand that physicians are available to their patients every day and all of the time, and that the Hospital is open 24/7. In addition, her reasoning of “[attending] to their medical practices,” does not make any sense. That would mean that Saturday and Sunday would be a better fit. I believe she takes me for an idiot; however, I must admit that I am an idiot when it comes to legal issues. I respectfully remind you that I am not represented by an attorney and will not be represented by an attorney because of the situation you placed me into, and has been well documented repeatedly in previous communications.

It was not my idea to go three months this Summer without a Hearing session, I did not cancel the September 23 date, I am not restricting my attendance to any day of the week or to any time of the day/evening/night, and I have never delayed 30 days in responding to any letter.

Why did it take nearly one month to respond to my suggestions of dates? I have been holding those dates open for the past month and I believe it is unfair to my patients, my colleagues, and my family, to tell me one month later that you did not intend to hold Hearing sessions on those particular dates because you object to the days of the week that I suggested. Please be kind enough in the future to inform me sooner if a date/day/hour is unacceptable.

If you are adopting Mrs. Garofalo’s letter, and taking such an abrasive attitude towards me, then I respectfully request to know who asked for the adjournment of the September 23 Hearing session? Please forward to me the letter written to you (pursuant to the Bylaws) requesting an adjournment and please forward to me your written ruling regarding your decision to adjourn the meeting.

Although Mrs. Garofalo is very intelligent, she lacks compassion, and she is abrasive and unrefined. Mrs. Garofalo seems quite upset in the tone of this most recent letter. She insults me, intimidates me, and threatens me. Please ask her to stop harassing me in an attempt to bully me. If she is upset over the recent dismissal of her twenty-eight count complaint about me, which she filed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the recent dismissal of a similar complaint about me, which she filed with the Office of Civil Rights (two malicious and false complaints that wasted tax-payer dollars in a nine-month Federal investigation), please explain to her that she will have more success sticking to facts. The U.S. Federal investigation concluded that there was no basis in fact for any of her complaints and she knew this at the time she filed the numerous and voluminous complaints. This must have all been quite embarrassing for her. Lies and fabrications will eventually always cause one’s demise.

Page 4 of 4

10.9.09

You have known all year (at least since February 2009) and have been reminded repeatedly that I do not know my “next month’s schedule” until mid-month the month before. Please do your best to “reel in” your attorney. I am not available the entire month of November for personal, medical, and professional reasons. Please ask Mrs. Garofalo to stop jumping to conclusions and falsely accusing me of unethical behavior. I am nothing like her and she knows nothing about me.

If you will be scheduling dates without any input from me, I respectfully request that you please provide me with enough time to request an adjournment, as provided under the Bylaws, and if an adjournment is not granted, I respectfully request that you provide me with enough time to approach the Nassau County Supreme Court with a request asking them to intervene and adjourn the Hearing on that particular date(s). If you are scheduling any dates in November 2009, please accept this letter as a request to adjourn any date scheduled in November 2009.

Please be guided accordingly.

Thank you and always with warmest regards.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio, MD, FACS

Enclosure (one page Fax to Ms. Lam dated 9.11.09 referenced in Mrs. Garofalo’s letter)

cc: Robert Curran, MD (President, MEC), via Steven Pinsky, MD (Officer, MEC)

FAX 516-705-1406

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

Quality Assurance Material Protected by Public Health Law

April 27, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

Page 2

Please contact Mercy Hospital, and their representatives, and inform them of this decision that has been forced upon me, and that they are not permitted to contact Mr. Anthony

Page 3

Scher for any reason regarding the proceedings or me, including the contents of this letter.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio, MD, FACS

cc: Robert Curran, MD (Pres. MEC), via Marc DeSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

May 15, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

Regarding the resumption of my Corrective Action Hearing scheduled for Monday, May 18, 2009, if I will be cross-examining Dr. Yohai on that day, I will need the items below to properly cross-examine him. Please be sure the MEC is able to obtain and bring the required and necessary documents so that the cross examination may proceed in an orderly and efficient manner.

(1) My complete Quality Assurance Folder – original documents;

(2) My complete Credentials Folder – original documents;

(3) My complete Personal Folder – original documents;

(4) My complete Personnel Folder – original documents;

(5) My complete Employee Folder – original documents;

(6) All documents reviewed by any physician, consultant, or attorney involved in this matter and all documents generated by that review;

(7) All documents presently in Dr. Yohai’s possession or in the possession of anyone who now is holding any and all previously held titles or positions by Dr. Yohai;

(8) All documents generated as a result of any investigations flowing from any of the documents cited in #6 and #7 above;

(9) All documents that are in the possession of anyone mentioned by Dr. Yohai in his testimony or mentioned in any of the documents submitted;

(10) The complete chart of any patient referred to by Dr. Yohai or mentioned in any of the submitted documents. Please let me know if you are having difficulty identifying which patients Dr. Yohai, or the documents, mentioned;

(11) Copies of any and all policies, rules, and/or regulations mentioned by Dr. Yohai, or referred to, in his testimony or mentioned in any of the submitted documents. Please let me know if you are having difficulty identifying which policies, rules, regulations, Dr. Yohai, or the documents, mentioned;

(12) Copies of any and all “Joint Commission” or “CMS” policies, rules, and/or regulations mentioned by Dr. Yohai in his testimony or mentioned in any of the documents submitted;

(13) Copies of any “literature citations” mentioned by Dr. Yohai in his testimony or mentioned in any documents submitted;

I reserve my right to make additional requests at any time. I re-assert all of my previously made objections. I reserve my right to make any additional objections.

Thank you very much and have a pleasant weekend.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio

cc: Robert Curran, MD (President MEC), via Marc DiSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

May 28, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

This letter will serve to communicate multiple issues. Initially, as you requested, this communication will serve to confirm the continuation of my Corrective Action Hearing scheduled for June 11, 2009, to begin at 5 PM.

There are a number of other issues that need to be addressed and resolved at this time.

The entire Ad Hoc panel must recuse themselves immediately. What happened at the last Hearing session was in essence a “mistrial.”

Dr. Stewart Fox’s insane behavior at the end of the Hearing was inappropriate and will have irreversible and irreparable effects on the process and those who have participated.

It is even more objectionable that you allowed Dr. Fox to ferociously shout at me, twice, as loud as he could, with his face as red as a tomato and his eyes bugging out with rage and hatred, “Shut up, shut up, you’re keeping me here!!” All in response to my trying to assert my rights when you silenced me, but permitted Mr. Rosenberg to make a comment; a comment that was exactly the comment that I was attempting to make seconds earlier before you quashed me. Dr. Fox’s wrath was palpable and if a table did not separate us, I think he would have punched me. Moments later, you allowed the same conduct and the same words to be shouted again, and although I did not think it was possible to be louder than the first time, it certainly was louder and even more frightful.

Page 2

I was made to feel fearful. I was abused, embarrassed, ridiculed, humiliated, and insulted. You did nothing to stop his conduct and allowed it to happen twice without demanding any control. I believe you were as shocked at his conduct as everyone else was. Even the guards did not know what to do. If I had shouted that way, they probably would have drawn their pistols.

Although Dr. Fox was cordial to me before leaving the room and he was cordial to me the next day in the ICU, I continue to object to his participation.

Even Mr. Rosenberg, whose participation I continue to object to, was permitted to shout without any restraint by you or any attempt on your part to control his behavior. Dr. Yohai was also permitted to convey his anger towards me in an inappropriate manner. I, on other hand, have never shouted and have kept my cool even though those around me are losing theirs.

I must ask you to please stop providing the panel members with your interpretation of the Bylaws without providing me an opportunity to respond. There were two times that you corrected the panel members, once was when Dr. Fox said that hearsay would not be permitted, and you stated that hearsay would be permitted. In fact, there is a clear clause in the Mercy Bylaws that protects physicians against hearsay testimony and hearsay is not permitted in these proceedings at Mercy Hospital.

The other was when Dr. Zauderer astutely noted that only portions of different files were being provided and he asked for my entire QA folder and all of the complete documents and you allowed Mr. Rosenberg to explain to Dr. Zauderer that the entire folder is not relevant and would not be submitted. Your approval of that position is preposterous. You went on to explain that I was provided an opportunity to review my QA file and obtain copies of requested documents but that is far from accurate.

Your bias is obvious.

At the beginning of my cross-examination of Dr. Yohai, when I asked to be sworn-in and placed under oath, Mr. Rosenberg’s co-counsel, whose participation I continue to object to, jumped from her seat and shouted, “I’ve got to use the bathroom.” You then stopped my cross-examination, ordered a recess, even though we could have continued without Ms. Levine, and then I saw you, your attorney, Mr. Rosenberg, and Ms. Levine discussing matters outside of the Hearing room. Ms. Levine never even went into the bathroom. That side meeting was inappropriate. Ex parte communications such as this are considered unethical. I demand to know exactly what transpired during that improper discussion. It seems obvious that you were getting instructions on how to proceed with my request because upon returning to the Hearing, you ordered me not to be sworn-in, without providing me an opportunity to express my opinion, my explanation, or any alternatives. Again, your decision is biased and outrageous.

Page 3

At another point, you stopped my attempt at cross-examination at the instructions of your attorney, Ms. Ardizzone. She said to you, “Stop this. Stop this now!” even though Mr. Rosenberg had not objected. I do not understand why the attorney representing you, the panel, and the hospital gives you instructions that you unilaterally follow without listening to my position and explanation or the opinion of the remainder of the panel.

The process continues to be a circus as evidenced by your consistently unfair rulings and your continuing to flip-flop on decisions that you have made depending upon whom it would favor. Limiting my cross-examination in effect eliminates my cross-exam and I object to your limitations placed upon that cross-examination. I am not being provided an opportunity to defend myself and to elicit all of the relevant testimony required to meet my burdens under the Mercy Bylaws, and State and Federal Laws.

Over my objection, you did not permit me to make any objections during Dr. Yohai’s unfettered and uninterrupted direct-exam (5.5 hours) but during my limited cross-exam (3 hours), you permitted Mr. Rosenberg to make continuous objections that interrupted and significantly reduced the actual time I had to question him. During direct-exam, you properly loosened the rules of examination for Mr. Rosenberg, but during my cross-exam, you repeatedly sustained Mr. Rosenberg’s objections on the grounds that my questions, “[are] not proper questions for cross-exam.”

You permitted hours upon hours of repetitive testimony, irrelevant testimony, false testimony, and illegal testimony during direct-exam; however, my cross-exam was improperly limited in time and scope.

Your ruling to not allow me to cross-examine Dr. Yohai on his testimony, but only on the documents submitted is simply absurd and makes no sense at all in any legitimate forum.

Your denial of my attempts to question Dr. Yohai on the false, incomplete, illegally redacted, and misleading documents that he and the MEC submitted, is equally absurd.

This letter will also serve to respond to your letter dated May 18, 2009. It was obvious from the comments made by the panel members at the Hearing that the committee members did not participate in your decisions, despite your saying so in that letter. Your understanding of what happened during my review of the QA files is inaccurate. There are numerous documents that I “flagged” that had nothing to do with communications between Mercy Hospital and the DOH, and they were not provided to me. I again object to not receiving those documents and I again demand that those documents be forwarded to me immediately. Regarding my request to review the originals, my reasoning is that I need the originals to show that Dr. Yohai is a liar. If the originals are provided, please be sure that any “post-it notes” are kept on the documents.

Page 4

I may not communicate with Ms. Garofalo, therefore, please bring my Personnel and Employee Folders to the next Hearing session. I will review the Folders during the Hearing. Please note that I was originally told that the Personnel and Employee Folders were included in my Credentials and QA Folders and that they were part of the files I “reviewed” on February 4, 2009. Please clear up this inconsistency.

Please note, regarding patient LJ, her family does not want any unauthorized individuals to review her chart. Therefore, Mr. Rosenberg is not authorized to review her chart. In fact, no one outside of the QA process and not associated with Mercy Hospital should be permitted to see or review her chart.

Finally, I object to your ruling to not permit me access to the documents requested in my letter dated May 15, 2009.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio, MD

cc: Robert Curran, MD (President MEC), via Marc DiSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

May 28, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

There are a number of other issues that need to be addressed and resolved at this time.

The entire Ad Hoc panel must recuse themselves immediately. What happened at the last Hearing session was in essence a “mistrial.”

Dr. Stewart Fox’s insane behavior at the end of the Hearing was inappropriate and will have irreversible and irreparable effects on the process and those who have participated.

Page 2

Although Dr. Fox was cordial to me before leaving the room and he was cordial to me the next day in the ICU, I continue to object to his participation.

Your bias is obvious.

Page 3

Your ruling to not allow me to cross-examine Dr. Yohai on his testimony, but only on the documents submitted is simply absurd and makes no sense at all in any legitimate forum.

Your denial of my attempts to question Dr. Yohai on the false, incomplete, illegally redacted, and misleading documents that he and the MEC submitted, is equally absurd.

Page 4

Finally, I object to your ruling to not permit me access to the documents requested in my letter dated May 15, 2009.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio, MD

cc: Robert Curran, MD (President MEC), via Marc DiSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

June 29, 2009 (5 pages)

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

The Ad Hoc Hearing continues to be a sham and a circus.

You mentioned in your opening statement, over my objection, that you are attempting to protect Mercy Hospital’s interest; although you are correct that Mercy Hospital, inappropriately, is playing a major role in your conduct and your decisions, I must remind you that the Bylaws give you the responsibility to protect the interests of the Medical Staff and the practitioner. It does not mention the Hospital and its Administrators.

Regarding your comment about documents that I “refused” to submit, you again have things backwards. I did not refuse to submit certain documents. On the contrary, it is Mercy Hospital that is refusing to submit material that is very relevant to my defense but quite embarrassing, and detrimental, for them, Dr. Yohai, and Dr. Zito. In time, I will submit everything that I have. You will see as the Hearing proceeds that Dr. Yohai and Dr. Zito are liars and they have created a misleading and inaccurate picture of what actually went on, for 15 years, by limiting the material they and the MEC submit, by submitting improperly redacted documents, and most extraordinarily, creating false documents and repeatedly lying.

You improperly denied me the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Yohai and you improperly limited any opportunity I had to question Dr. Yohai. Please refer to my letter dated June 10, 2009, which you and your attorney refused to accept at this session. Your attorney, Ms. Garofalo, continues to play games and you continue to allow her to play

Page 2 of 5

June 29, 2009

these games when you should be more concerned about getting to the truth. You yourself provided me with a letter at the previous session and your attorney had no objection at that time; however, I understand now, as happens at every session, the rules change. I am certainly not surprised. It is clear that when the rules favor the MEC, the rules are applied, but when the rules favor me, they are suspended. This entire Hearing so far has been a lesson on how to prevent the truth from being told. You should be ashamed at yourself. Although you might be an excellent pediatrician, your conduct is an embarrassment to the ethics that the medical profession stands for.

You continue to communicate with your attorney and make decisions, over my objection, without getting any input from the remainder of the panel. You refuse me the opportunity to poll the panel members who I believe might disagree with your ridiculous rulings.

You permitted testimony, over my objection, that was not related to the charges and you denied me the right to object in a timely fashion.

Your revised instruction regarding objections is not only in and of itself objectionable, but it is also absurd and does not make any sense. Even your own attorney revised your statement because it did not make sense. Even Mr. Rosenberg, who should not even be at the Hearing, was confused. Your conduct disrupts the process and creates an atmosphere of confusion. I object to your revisions and the way you change the rules as we attempt to move forward. You have no interest in getting to the truth. Your interests are clearly founded on the protection of liars – Dr. Yohai and Dr. Zito who have testified to date.

You continue to giggle childishly when I attempt to assert my rights. You nod off and fall asleep repeatedly. There are many other times when your mind wanders and you are not paying attention.

Because of your decision at the Pre-Hearing Conference, I was not entitled to the attorney of my choice and now I do not have an attorney. You continue to label me as disruptive when I attempt to assert my rights. You have placed me in a very difficult and insurmountable position.

In speaking with Jackie Lam, I confirmed that the Medical Staff Office received my June 10, 2009 letter on the morning of June 11, 2009. Fax confirmations also confirm receipt of the letter in your office and the offices of Drs. Fox and Dr. Finklestein on June 11, 2009. Dr. Zauderer indicated at the Hearing that he received the letter.

I continue to demand certain documents that I need to properly defend myself, including, but not limited to, complete copies of patients charts, policies, rules, regulations, guidelines, my QA folder, my Credentials Folder, my Employee Folder, my Personal Folder, my Personnel Folder. If you had any interest in getting to the truth, you would

Page 3 of 5

June 29, 2009

have those documents provided to me. You have the authority to have those documents made available to me and you should do so. I continue to object to not being allowed to

question witnesses on those documents even though the witnesses continue to refer to those documents, many of which do not even exist.

I continue to object to Mr. Rosenberg’s presence, Ms. Levine’s presence, and Ms. Garofalo's presence. Contrary to my position, even though you believe you have not removed my right to attorney representation, I, in any case, do not have an attorney and therefore, pursuant to the Bylaws, the attorneys are not permitted to attend these proceedings. I find it very difficult, stressful, and disruptive to proceed with the way you have decided to proceed and ask you again to proceed according to the Bylaws and remove attorney representation for all sides.

You permitted Ms. Garofalo to shout at me, “Stop badgering Dr. Rainsford,” when I was attempting to assert my rights in a soft, polite voice. I understand that it is embarrassing for you when I respond to a statement that you have made that does not make any sense or I make a comment about your unethical behavior, but if Ms. Garofalo has an objection, please have her calmly say so instead of shouting at me.

Mr. Rosenberg continues to make inaccurate and confusing comments that are blatantly wrong. Mr. Rosenberg even makes comments regarding proper medical management and conduct, and you permit those inappropriate comments, even though he is not a physician and not under oath.

It has come to my attention that you have forwarded letters addressed to you, to Mr. Rosenberg. This is clearly a violation of the process, as Mr. Rosenberg should not be participating in the process. Please stop this immediately.

I was denied, over my objection, the time I needed to properly cross-examine Dr. Zito. My time was improperly limited as was my scope of questions, both over my objections. I had thirty pages of questions to ask Dr. Zito and I only was able to get through six pages. You placed so much pressure on me in the last thirty minutes by counting down, every ten minutes, the time I had remaining to question Dr. Zito. It was distracting and very stressful. Your conduct reminded me of Dr. Lipsky’s conduct at the Credentials Committee Hearing. It is difficult enough trying to question a witness without the assistance of an attorney and with constant interruptions by you and Mr. Rosenberg, but your count down was inappropriate and ridiculous.

I should have been allowed plenty of leeway with Dr. Zito because he is one of the two main complainants in this process. Dr. Zito lied no less than fifty times during his testimony and what is even more disturbing is that he lied with an arrogant, contemptuous little leer, as if to say, “There’s nothing you can do about it.” It should be

Page 4 of 5

June 29, 2009

evident to you that Dr. Zito, and Dr. Yohai, conducted maliciously and grossly inadequate investigations prior to taking their adverse action against me.

You permitted Dr. Zito to have a conference with the MEC attorney during his testimony so that the MEC attorney could correct Dr. Zito’s testimony. That is wholly improper.

You continue to silence me when I attempt to assert my rights but you permit Mr. Rosenberg to make any comment at any time and about anything. In addition, when you speak with Mr. Rosenberg you are pleasant, kind, and mild-mannered; however, when you speak with me your tone of voice is angry, aggressive, and condescending and you commonly have your hand up, palm facing me, and arm outstretched, as if you are saying, “Stop right now.”

You continue to allow Mr. Rosenberg, over my objection, to instruct a witness while they are testifying.

Your mischaracterization of these proceedings as, “I’m here because of you and your problems,” improperly referring to me creating this sham of a proceeding, is not only biased and prejudicial but it is entirely inaccurate. This Corrective Action Proceeding was maliciously initiated by Mercy Hospital because they retaliated against me because of my complaints and concerns about serious patient care issues. Issues that were substantiated, and corrected, by the Department of Health and The Joint Commission, and have made Mercy Hospital a safer place for patients. The alleged “complaints” against me that are in my QA file are retaliatory and lies.

Your objection to my return trip to Ghana, West Africa, in August of this year is also biased and prejudicial. You did not make any comments when everyone else was stating their travel plans, although you “let loose” when I gave you my reasons for my inability to meet for one week in August.

You continue to change your stated position after “secret” consultations with your attorney (who also happens to be the Hospital’s attorney), during the process itself, without getting any input from the remainder of the panel.

Even Dr. Fox’s request to change the venue of the proceedings leads me to believe that, contrary to your previous remarks, you did not get the panel’s opinion regarding your refusal to change the venue, when I objected to the venue many, many months ago.

Finally, please note that these letters to you do not contain any confidential subject matter that was discussed at the Hearing. As such, your understanding that these letters violate anyone’s confidentiality is simply wrong. In addition, please keep in mind, “truth” is confidential and protected; “lies” are neither confidential nor protected. I may not get my

Page 5 of 5

June 29, 2009

“day in court,” but I hope that OPMC disciplines those who act with malice and lie, to prevent them, and others, from acting that way again.

As I have in the past, I will be sending this letter to the Medical Staff of Mercy Hospital to keep them abreast of the proceedings and to aid in protecting themselves in the future against Bad Faith Peer Review.

I look forward to our next Hearing session scheduled for September 23, 2009.

Please note that attached to this communication is a fifteen-page document (also dated June 29, 2009), addressed to you, recording my objections to Dr. Zito’s testimony and the documents submitted/referred to for that testimony and that document also amends my June 10, 2009 letter regarding Dr. Yohai’s testimony.

Also, please note that as I have explained to you in the past, I may not communicate with Ms. Garofalo.

Thank you and have a great summer!

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio, MD

cc: Robert Curran, MD (President MEC), via Marc DiSciullo, MD (VP MEC)

FAX 516-705-1290

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541

July 31, 2009

Greta Rainsford, MD

Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC Ad Hoc Committee

756 Front Street

Hempstead, NY 11550

Phone 516-481-6633

VIA FAX at 516-705-3730

516-705-2539

516-705-1797

516-564-5031

RE: Corrective Action Proceeding at Mercy Hospital regarding

Dr. Anthony Colantonio

Dear Dr. Rainsford,

This letter is in response to Mrs. Garofalo’s letter dated July 28, 2009. I am not sure whether she was writing the letter in her role as the attorney for the Ad Hoc Panel, the attorney for Mercy Hospital, or an attorney for the MEC. In any case, I will do my best to respond to all “parties.”

I am sending this letter addressed to you because I am not permitted to communicate with Mrs. Garofalo and, pursuant to the Bylaws, she should not be participating in the Corrective Action Hearings.

The confidentiality of the process was breached when Mercy Hospital initially lied to Channel 12 News and defamed me to millions of viewers and listeners. Then lied to Channel 2 News, Channel 4 News, Fox News, Channel 11 News, WINS 1010 Radio, Long Island Herald, Newsday, NY Post, NY Times, Garden City News, Garden City Life, and Catholic New York, to name a few. Then went on to defame me with full-page advertisements in major metropolitan newspapers, community circulars, medical staff newsletters, medical staff committee meetings, hospital staff newsletters, and “blogs.”

I was even defamed at a press conference, at EMT conferences, and medical staff meetings.

Page 2 of 4

7/31/09

Mr. Rosenberg, who also is not permitted to participate in the process, breached confidentiality when he published my QA file for all the world to read and then actually gave my entire QA file to a friend of his who was not in any way affiliated with Mercy Hospital and was not privileged to read the file, who then went on to publish it again. It was purely a malicious act meant to harm me.

You continue to breach my confidentiality as you permit unauthorized individuals to be present at the Hearings.

I do not believe the members of the Ad Hoc panel have any Confidentiality Rights as to their identification, their statements, their opinions, their conduct, or your rulings, which incidentally, they adopt as their own unless they dissent. The same holds true for the witnesses, I do not believe they have any Confidentiality Rights. Should you or your attorney have any information to the contrary, I would be glad to review it and reconsider my opinion. Certainly, if this process runs its course, there is no confidentiality as to the above with The Public Health Council, Nassau County Supreme Court, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, N.Y. Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court. I am ready to fight long and hard to get my privileges back.

As to the Ad Hoc panel members' volunteer status, that is their decision. I think they should be paid. Indirectly, they are already getting paid, but in addition to that indirect payment, they should each receive a reasonable hourly fee of about $600 per hour. I think Mr. Rosenberg alone is receiving that hourly wage even for his travel time. Moreover, Mr. Rosenberg should not even be there. Why shouldn’t the doctors be paid? Especially since my presentation alone will cover 70 to 300 hours.

My criticisms of your conduct and your statements, and of the panel members who do not dissent, are simply that, criticisms. If I had the attorney of my choice, or simply an attorney, he or she would be making the same criticisms. Please do not allow your attorney to brainwash you into thinking that it is I, the physician, writing the letters. My letters should be viewed as letters from the “attorney representing Dr. Colantonio if I had permitted him the opportunity to be represented by the attorney of his choice or any attorney.” Please ask Mrs. Garofalo to read the transcript of the Pre-Hearing Conference and she will understand why her opinion does not make any sense.

The bottom line is that we have a difference of opinion. One of many that will probably be decided by a third party, and probably appealed to fourth and fifth levels. This process will probably go on for another ten to twelve years and I will be there as long as I am alive. Mercy picked this fight, so fight we will, especially since Mercy escalated the war this month (please see the attached enclosures, i.e., two-page letter to Dr. DiSciullo dated 7/27/09 and one-page Fax to Jackie Lam dated 7/27/09). The MEC has the option to back-off at any time; I do not. I will not back down until I have exhausted every single remedy. Remember I am fighting not only for myself, but also for all patients and for all physicians, including you and your patients. Bad Faith Peer Review reduces the quality-of-care that patients receive.

Page 3 of 4

7/31/09

I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of a “transparency” project that I am working on so that if Mrs. Garofalo has an objection, she is given an opportunity to properly respond and take the necessary steps to prevent it, if she believes she is entitled to stop it. I will soon be launching a website that will provide assistance to physicians in identifying the safety of certain hospitals and how to protect oneself against Bad Faith Peer Review. Most of the documents that have been, and will be, submitted in my Corrective Action process, will be made available to those that visit the website. The website will also include survey results and opinions regarding physician satisfaction, nurse satisfaction, and patient satisfaction at Mercy Hospital. Obviously, hospitals where doctors and nurses are treated unfairly, advertising is false and misleading, and reviews are selectively and only partially reported, are also hospitals where quality-of-care takes a back seat to other interests. If you would like to provide me with your e-mail address, I will be sure that you are made aware of that launch when it occurs.

Your attorney (who also happens to be the Hospital attorney and also advises the MEC) has a different viewpoint of the proceedings. That’s fine and it is simply another difference in opinion that will be settled by other parties in due time. Your refusal to permit me to tape record and video record the proceedings would have avoided many of these differences of opinion but alas, you ruled I could not tape record or video record the proceedings.

I laughed when I read Mrs. Garofalo’s statement that you have listened to my presentation “intently.” What presentation? I have been silenced every step of the way. How does one listen to forced silence and manipulation of any defense “intently?” Mrs. Garofalo hasn’t even been present for all of the Hearings. Even when she was present, there were many times that she stepped out without there being a break in the process.

When I informed you that I was not going to be represented by an attorney because you decided I could not have the attorney representing me in my defamation suit to also represent me in the Hearings, you could have delayed the start of the Hearing but you did not. In fact, on that day, I received a threatening phone call from Mrs. Garofalo’s office staff warning me about the start of the hearing and that I was to attend the Hearing or the Hearing would move forward without me. Repeated letters have also echoed the same ultimatum and threats; however, I have been there physically every step of the way despite your decisions that have essentially made it impossible for me to defend myself.

Borrowing a line from Mrs. Garofalo’s most recent letter, just as “there have been significant gaps of time between hearing sessions that permit an attorney to prepare for this matter,” similarly, those same “gaps of time” could have been used by the MEC to prepare for their presentation. Your decision did not allow for any of that. Now I am up against three very intelligent and experienced attorneys and I am very intimidated to say the least.

Page 4 of 4

7/31/09

Again, this is simply a difference of opinion that will be settled by a third party and will be appealed and appealed again until we hopefully get to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regarding Dr. DiSciullo, please see the enclosed letters recently sent to the Medical Staff Office and Dr. DiSciullo. I am now sending future communications to Dr. Pinsky (another anesthesiologist and partner to all other anesthesiologists of the only anesthesia group in the Hospital), as I believe he is the next in line of MEC Officers. Maybe all anesthesiologists should recuse themselves from the entirety of the process? In addition, as I similarly asked you, please ask Mrs. Garofalo to stop sending these communications to Mr. Rosenberg.

I again ask you to not allow unauthorized individuals to be present at the Hearings. I will not be represented by an attorney on September 23, 2009 and, pursuant to the Bylaws, no attorney should be present and no parties represented by an attorney(s). Of course, I am sure you realize that the process has already been significantly and irreversibly tainted as of the first Hearing session; however, I suggest, and respectfully demand, that you at some point begin to follow the Bylaws.

Thank you and always with warmest regards.

Sincerely,

Anthony Colantonio, MD

Enclosures (three pages)

cc: Robert Curran, MD (President MEC), via Steven Pinsky, MD (Officer, MEC)

FAX 516-705-1406

Andrew Finklestein, MD

FAX 516-705-1290

Stewart Fox, MD

FAX 516-255-5020

Jeffrey Zauderer, MD

FAX 516-764-2541