 |
Dear Colleagues,
My "Disruptive Physician" Corrective Action Hearing began April 28, 2009, and is scheduled to continue on May 18, 2009.
There are no quality of care issues that form the basis for the review. The primary issues to be discussed are my "interpersonal
relationships" with two ICU nurses, one ICU Physician Assistant, and one ICU pulmonologist. These "interpersonal relationship"
issues were founded in my complaints about poor quality of care in the ICU of Mercy Hospital in Rockville Centre, New York.
Complaints that the Hospital Administration was ignoring for over two years and led to patient deaths. The most
serious complaints were about a Hospital Physician Assistant who was performing invasive procedures (central lines, chest
tubes, Swan-Ganz catheters, hemodialysis catheters, and pacemakers) without proper training and supervision. The Hospital
is attempting to terminate me in retaliation for my complaints despite the fact that the Department of Health and the Joint
Commission identified that my complaints were credible, accurate and required "immediate" attention. That P.A. no longer works
at the Hospital (2005 - 2008). I've been on staff at Mercy Hospital for 16 years (since 1993).
I'd like to keep you informed about the progress of this process in the hopes that it might create an interest in your
Medical Staff Organization and maybe you'll be able to prevent this from happening at your institution.
My suggestion is that we begin by adopting a National Standard for Medical Staff Bylaws and we try to standardize
how those Bylaws are treated in the courts of law of every State in the Union. This will take years to accomplish but I think
we need to get started now before the private practice of medicine has "arrested beyond any reversible state." My
idea is that Bylaws incorporate the US Constitution (Federal funds are used daily in the Hospital) and are legally accepted
as a Contract between physicians and the Hospital. Please let me know your thoughts and ideas.
Secondly, we must revise the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) because it is unconstitutional in its treatment
of physicians. It removes all of our rights. In the interim, we must somehow get State and Federal judges to properly interpret
HCQIA. Again, please let me know your thoughts and ideas.
Please see below for my most recent communication to the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee that will be judging my
behavior at Mercy Hospital. We keep digging our own graves and we keep stabbing each other in the back. Maybe if we all learned
to work together and help one another, we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in right now and maybe private practice
would be flourishing instead of dying. Patient care would certainly improve because we would not fear retaliation when reporting
our concerns.
Please forward this to all of your physician contacts.
Invite me to speak to your Medical Staff, Medical Society, or Specialty Society. The talk is free, the content priceless.
Sincerely,
Anthony Colantonio, MD, FACS
____________________________________________________________________________________
Anthony Colantonio, MD, FACS
General and Vascular
Surgery of Long Island
Diplomat, American Board of Surgery
520 Franklin Avenue
Garden City, New York 11530
Phone
516-746-3310
Fax 516-746-5610
May 11, 2009
Greta Rainsford, MD
Chairperson, Mercy Hospital MEC
Ad Hoc Committee
756 Front Street
Hempstead, New York 11550
Phone 516-481-6633
Fax
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 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. 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 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 fa ct, 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 p romote
patient safety and improve quality of care.
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 attorne y 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 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, MD, FACS |
|
