| . |
| ... |
UCLA culture: conflicts of interest
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
UCLA EXPERT WITNESS Dr. Andrew Saxon and his co-author
Dr. Bruce Kelman
Mold defendants rely on medical-society position papers that
reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by scientists
who often workfor defense side in mold cases.
Do courts get accurate or skewed view of possible health
effects of indoor mold?
Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats
Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation
By DAVID ARMSTRONG
January 9, 2007
...The paper's third author was Andrew Saxon, then chief of
clinical immunology and allergy at the medical school of the
University of California, Los Angeles. He, too, has
served as a defense expert in numerous mold suits.
Dr. Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to testify in court, h
is rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a deposition he gave. Until he retired from
UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-defense expert was paid to the
university, and he says UCLA then gave him a little less than half of it.
Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000 to $500,000 a year
from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.
The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of
its paper.
Dr. Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document
under his letterhead. Labeled "confidential" and "share only with the ACOEM
board of directors," it told of his work as
a defense expert on one mold case.
The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, "have been
retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation relating to indoor
mold."
Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold cases.
Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper
was being written in August 2002,
there was concern within the society that the paper
was too friendly to defense interests.
Its authors were asked to modify the first draft's
tone "because of the concern about
possible misinterpretation of 'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief
system,' 'adherents may claim,' 'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged
disorder,'" according to a June 2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's
communicatio ns director. (The email was obtained
by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case, Karen Kahn.)
Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs, suggested
sending a draft for review to one particular mold authority, Michael Hodgson,
director of the occupational safety and health program at the U.S.
Veterans Health Administration. Dr....
Dr. Bruce Kelman
Mold defendants rely on medical-society position papers that
reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by scientists
who often workfor defense side in mold cases.
Do courts get accurate or skewed view of possible health
effects of indoor mold?
Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats
Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation
By DAVID ARMSTRONG
January 9, 2007
...The paper's third author was Andrew Saxon, then chief of
clinical immunology and allergy at the medical school of the
University of California, Los Angeles. He, too, has
served as a defense expert in numerous mold suits.
Dr. Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to testify in court, h
is rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a deposition he gave. Until he retired from
UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-defense expert was paid to the
university, and he says UCLA then gave him a little less than half of it.
Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000 to $500,000 a year
from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.
The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of
its paper.
Dr. Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document
under his letterhead. Labeled "confidential" and "share only with the ACOEM
board of directors," it told of his work as
a defense expert on one mold case.
The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, "have been
retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation relating to indoor
mold."
Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold cases.
Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper
was being written in August 2002,
there was concern within the society that the paper
was too friendly to defense interests.
Its authors were asked to modify the first draft's
tone "because of the concern about
possible misinterpretation of 'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief
system,' 'adherents may claim,' 'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged
disorder,'" according to a June 2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's
communicatio ns director. (The email was obtained
by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case, Karen Kahn.)
Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs, suggested
sending a draft for review to one particular mold authority, Michael Hodgson,
director of the occupational safety and health program at the U.S.
Veterans Health Administration. Dr....
Blog posts re UCLA
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and Medical
Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Andrew Saxon, author
of paper on harmlessness
of indoor mold
UCLA conflict of interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron to be
arraigned in burning death in
chemistry lab
UCSF
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and Medical
Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Andrew Saxon, author
of paper on harmlessness
of indoor mold
UCLA conflict of interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron to be
arraigned in burning death in
chemistry lab
UCSF
UC OKs paying surgeon $10 million in
whistleblower-retaliation case
The settlement ends a case brought
by the ex-head of UCLA's orthopedic
surgery department, who says the
medical school allowed doctors to
take industry payments that may
have compromised patient care.
By Chad Terhune
Los Angeles Times
April 22, 2014
University of California regents agreed to pay $10 million to the former chairman of
UCLA's orthopedic surgery department, who had alleged that the well-known medical
school allowed doctors to take industry payments that may have compromised patient
care.
The settlement reached Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court came just before
closing arguments were due to begin in a whistleblower-retaliation case brought by Dr.
Robert Pedowitz, 54, a surgeon who was recruited to UCLA in 2009 to run the orthopedic
surgery department.
In 2012, the surgeon sued UCLA, the UC regents, fellow surgeons and senior university
officials, alleging they failed to act on his complaints about widespread conflicts of interest
and later retaliated against him for speaking up.
UCLA denied Pedowitz's allegations, and officials said they found no wrongdoing by
faculty and no evidence that patient care was jeopardized. But the UC system paid him
anyway, saying it wanted to avoid the "substantial expense and inconvenience" of further
litigation.
As department chairman, Pedowitz testified, he became concerned about colleagues who
had financial ties to medical-device makers or other companies that could unduly
influence their care of patients or taint important medical research.
He also alleged that UCLA looked the other way because the university stood to benefit
financially from the success of medical products or drugs developed by its doctors.
One of the orthopedic surgeons that Pedowitz complained about testified at trial about
receiving $250,000 in consulting fees in 2008 from device maker Medtronic. In memos to
university officials, Pedowitz raised concerns about the financial dealings of other doctors
as well.
Inside the courtroom Tuesday, Pedowitz sat in the front row with his wife and daughter as
the judge told jurors that a settlement had been reached. He said he felt vindicated by
the outcome.
"These are serious issues that patients should be worried about," Pedowitz said in an
interview. "These problems exist in the broader medical system and they are not
restricted to UCLA."
The seven-week trial in downtown Los Angeles offered a rare glimpse into those potential
conflicts at a time when there is growing government scrutiny of industry payments to
doctors.
Starting this fall, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of President Obama's
healthcare law, requires public disclosure of financial relationships between healthcare
companies and physicians.
Many doctors and universities defend long-standing industry arrangements as essential
for carrying out cutting-edge research and top-flight medical education.
In a statement Tuesday, the UC regents said they "resolved this lawsuit to end a
prolonged conflict and permit UCLA Health Sciences to refocus on its primary missions of
teaching, research, patient care and community engagement."
The statement added that "multiple investigations by university officials and independent
investigators concluded that conduct by faculty members was lawful. Patient care was not
compromised."
This latest settlement eclipses a $4.5-million payout the UC regents made last year to
resolve a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by another UCLA surgeon.
Pedowitz, as part of his settlement, left the UCLA faculty, effective Tuesday. He had
agreed to step down as department chairman in 2010 after initially voicing his concerns
to top UCLA officials. He filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint in March 2011.
Experts in medical ethics say the UCLA case shows much more
needs to be done within academia and by government
regulators to address potential conflicts of interest in medicine.
Susan Chimonas, associate director of research at Columbia University's Center on
Medicine as a Profession, said some medical schools are still reluctant to take on
specialists who bring in considerable money from patients, medical research and patents
on breakthrough products.
"Institutions can be dependent on the money these big-earning specialties like orthopedic
surgery bring in," Chimonas said. "They are the cash cows and they can set their terms.
This is not the first time I've heard of medical schools having policies that are not well
enforced."
In an interview last week, the chief compliance officer at the
UCLA Health System flatly rejected the notion that the
university didn't enforce its policies or look fully into Pedowitz's
allegations. She also said industry ties are unavoidable at a big medical school and
rules are in place to prevent conflicts.
"We have processes in place to identify those relationships in a transparent fashion and
ensure they don't have any inappropriate influence on the actions of the university," said
Marti Arvin, chief compliance officer. "In order to meet our mission, it is important we have
both the brilliant minds we have at UCLA and collaboration with industry."
Arvin said the university "thoroughly and objectively investigated those allegations of
noncompliance raised by Dr. Pedowitz. We were able to determine the vast majority were
unsubstantiated."
She said two doctors fell short of university expectations in their handling of outside
income, but there was no violation of law or university policy in either instance.
Arvin cited the case of Dr. Nick Shamie, the orthopedic surgeon who testified at trial
about receiving $250,000 from Medtronic for consulting work. She said department policy
at the time didn't require Shamie to send that outside income through UCLA's faculty
compensation plan.
At trial, Pedowitz said he was deeply troubled by the large amount of money Shamie was
paid. He testified that he was particularly concerned that Shamie was trying to enroll
patients in a research study involving Medtronic at the time.
"I saw this as an obvious problem," Pedowitz testified.
In court, Shamie said he abided by university policy and didn't pursue the study further
because finding patients was too difficult. He couldn't be reached for additional comment.
The other physician cited by Arvin for a potential shortcoming was Dr. David McAllister,
vice chairman of clinical operations for the orthopedic surgery department.
He didn't report payments from the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, a nonprofit
tissue bank that does business with UCLA, because he didn't think disclosure was
required in that instance because it didn't involve a for-profit entity, Arvin said.
McAllister also declined to comment, referring a call to UCLA.
Shortly before Pedowitz joined UCLA in 2009, the university was already facing criticism
from Congress over the failure of a top spine surgeon to report nearly $460,000 in
payments he received from Medtronic and other medical companies while researching
their products' use in patients, government records show.
Dr. Jeffrey Wang, who left for USC Spine Center last fall, stepped down as head of
UCLA's spine program in 2009 after U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) publicized his
lapse in disclosure as part of a larger investigation into medical conflicts of interest.
Several patients are now suing Wang and UCLA in state court for negligence, fraud and
malpractice in connection with surgeries involving Medtronic's controversial Infuse bone
graft. UCLA said it doesn't comment on pending litigation. Wang couldn't be reached for
comment.
Shortly after raising his concerns, Pedowitz said, he was pressured to step down as
department chairman in 2010. Pedowitz said he was further retaliated against by being
denied patient referrals and prevented from participating in grants and other activities.
Before UCLA, Pedowitz worked at UC San Diego and as chairman of orthopedics and
sports medicine at the University of South Florida.
Mark Quigley, an attorney representing Pedowitz, said the case could have been avoided
if the UC system enforced the policies it already has in place.
"What good are all the policies if they protect the wrongdoers
and fail to protect the actual whistleblower?" Quigley said. "The
university wanted to cover it all up."
whistleblower-retaliation case
The settlement ends a case brought
by the ex-head of UCLA's orthopedic
surgery department, who says the
medical school allowed doctors to
take industry payments that may
have compromised patient care.
By Chad Terhune
Los Angeles Times
April 22, 2014
University of California regents agreed to pay $10 million to the former chairman of
UCLA's orthopedic surgery department, who had alleged that the well-known medical
school allowed doctors to take industry payments that may have compromised patient
care.
The settlement reached Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court came just before
closing arguments were due to begin in a whistleblower-retaliation case brought by Dr.
Robert Pedowitz, 54, a surgeon who was recruited to UCLA in 2009 to run the orthopedic
surgery department.
In 2012, the surgeon sued UCLA, the UC regents, fellow surgeons and senior university
officials, alleging they failed to act on his complaints about widespread conflicts of interest
and later retaliated against him for speaking up.
UCLA denied Pedowitz's allegations, and officials said they found no wrongdoing by
faculty and no evidence that patient care was jeopardized. But the UC system paid him
anyway, saying it wanted to avoid the "substantial expense and inconvenience" of further
litigation.
As department chairman, Pedowitz testified, he became concerned about colleagues who
had financial ties to medical-device makers or other companies that could unduly
influence their care of patients or taint important medical research.
He also alleged that UCLA looked the other way because the university stood to benefit
financially from the success of medical products or drugs developed by its doctors.
One of the orthopedic surgeons that Pedowitz complained about testified at trial about
receiving $250,000 in consulting fees in 2008 from device maker Medtronic. In memos to
university officials, Pedowitz raised concerns about the financial dealings of other doctors
as well.
Inside the courtroom Tuesday, Pedowitz sat in the front row with his wife and daughter as
the judge told jurors that a settlement had been reached. He said he felt vindicated by
the outcome.
"These are serious issues that patients should be worried about," Pedowitz said in an
interview. "These problems exist in the broader medical system and they are not
restricted to UCLA."
The seven-week trial in downtown Los Angeles offered a rare glimpse into those potential
conflicts at a time when there is growing government scrutiny of industry payments to
doctors.
Starting this fall, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of President Obama's
healthcare law, requires public disclosure of financial relationships between healthcare
companies and physicians.
Many doctors and universities defend long-standing industry arrangements as essential
for carrying out cutting-edge research and top-flight medical education.
In a statement Tuesday, the UC regents said they "resolved this lawsuit to end a
prolonged conflict and permit UCLA Health Sciences to refocus on its primary missions of
teaching, research, patient care and community engagement."
The statement added that "multiple investigations by university officials and independent
investigators concluded that conduct by faculty members was lawful. Patient care was not
compromised."
This latest settlement eclipses a $4.5-million payout the UC regents made last year to
resolve a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by another UCLA surgeon.
Pedowitz, as part of his settlement, left the UCLA faculty, effective Tuesday. He had
agreed to step down as department chairman in 2010 after initially voicing his concerns
to top UCLA officials. He filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint in March 2011.
Experts in medical ethics say the UCLA case shows much more
needs to be done within academia and by government
regulators to address potential conflicts of interest in medicine.
Susan Chimonas, associate director of research at Columbia University's Center on
Medicine as a Profession, said some medical schools are still reluctant to take on
specialists who bring in considerable money from patients, medical research and patents
on breakthrough products.
"Institutions can be dependent on the money these big-earning specialties like orthopedic
surgery bring in," Chimonas said. "They are the cash cows and they can set their terms.
This is not the first time I've heard of medical schools having policies that are not well
enforced."
In an interview last week, the chief compliance officer at the
UCLA Health System flatly rejected the notion that the
university didn't enforce its policies or look fully into Pedowitz's
allegations. She also said industry ties are unavoidable at a big medical school and
rules are in place to prevent conflicts.
"We have processes in place to identify those relationships in a transparent fashion and
ensure they don't have any inappropriate influence on the actions of the university," said
Marti Arvin, chief compliance officer. "In order to meet our mission, it is important we have
both the brilliant minds we have at UCLA and collaboration with industry."
Arvin said the university "thoroughly and objectively investigated those allegations of
noncompliance raised by Dr. Pedowitz. We were able to determine the vast majority were
unsubstantiated."
She said two doctors fell short of university expectations in their handling of outside
income, but there was no violation of law or university policy in either instance.
Arvin cited the case of Dr. Nick Shamie, the orthopedic surgeon who testified at trial
about receiving $250,000 from Medtronic for consulting work. She said department policy
at the time didn't require Shamie to send that outside income through UCLA's faculty
compensation plan.
At trial, Pedowitz said he was deeply troubled by the large amount of money Shamie was
paid. He testified that he was particularly concerned that Shamie was trying to enroll
patients in a research study involving Medtronic at the time.
"I saw this as an obvious problem," Pedowitz testified.
In court, Shamie said he abided by university policy and didn't pursue the study further
because finding patients was too difficult. He couldn't be reached for additional comment.
The other physician cited by Arvin for a potential shortcoming was Dr. David McAllister,
vice chairman of clinical operations for the orthopedic surgery department.
He didn't report payments from the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, a nonprofit
tissue bank that does business with UCLA, because he didn't think disclosure was
required in that instance because it didn't involve a for-profit entity, Arvin said.
McAllister also declined to comment, referring a call to UCLA.
Shortly before Pedowitz joined UCLA in 2009, the university was already facing criticism
from Congress over the failure of a top spine surgeon to report nearly $460,000 in
payments he received from Medtronic and other medical companies while researching
their products' use in patients, government records show.
Dr. Jeffrey Wang, who left for USC Spine Center last fall, stepped down as head of
UCLA's spine program in 2009 after U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) publicized his
lapse in disclosure as part of a larger investigation into medical conflicts of interest.
Several patients are now suing Wang and UCLA in state court for negligence, fraud and
malpractice in connection with surgeries involving Medtronic's controversial Infuse bone
graft. UCLA said it doesn't comment on pending litigation. Wang couldn't be reached for
comment.
Shortly after raising his concerns, Pedowitz said, he was pressured to step down as
department chairman in 2010. Pedowitz said he was further retaliated against by being
denied patient referrals and prevented from participating in grants and other activities.
Before UCLA, Pedowitz worked at UC San Diego and as chairman of orthopedics and
sports medicine at the University of South Florida.
Mark Quigley, an attorney representing Pedowitz, said the case could have been avoided
if the UC system enforced the policies it already has in place.
"What good are all the policies if they protect the wrongdoers
and fail to protect the actual whistleblower?" Quigley said. "The
university wanted to cover it all up."
"What good are all the
policies if they protect
the wrongdoers and
fail to protect the
actual whistleblower?"
Quigley said. "The
university wanted to
cover it all up."
policies if they protect
the wrongdoers and
fail to protect the
actual whistleblower?"
Quigley said. "The
university wanted to
cover it all up."
Dr. Saxon's coauthor Dr.
Kelman sued Sharon
Kramer for defamation.
Scientific testimony by
expert witness Harriet
Ammann was forbidden
by the judge. See Harriet
Ammann declaration.
Kelman sued Sharon
Kramer for defamation.
Scientific testimony by
expert witness Harriet
Ammann was forbidden
by the judge. See Harriet
Ammann declaration.
| . |
| ... |
UCLA culture: conflicts of interest
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
UCLA EXPERT WITNESS Dr. Andrew Saxon and his co-author
Dr. Bruce Kelman
Mold defendants rely on medical-society position papers that
reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by scientists
who often workfor defense side in mold cases.
Do courts get accurate or skewed view of possible health
effects of indoor mold?
Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats
Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation
By DAVID ARMSTRONG
January 9, 2007
...The paper's third author was Andrew Saxon, then chief of
clinical immunology and allergy at the medical school of the
University of California, Los Angeles. He, too, has
served as a defense expert in numerous mold suits.
Dr. Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to testify in court, h
is rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a deposition he gave. Until he retired from
UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-defense expert was paid to the
university, and he says UCLA then gave him a little less than half of it.
Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000 to $500,000 a year
from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.
The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of
its paper.
Dr. Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document
under his letterhead. Labeled "confidential" and "share only with the ACOEM
board of directors," it told of his work as
a defense expert on one mold case.
The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, "have been
retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation relating to indoor
mold."
Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold cases.
Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper
was being written in August 2002,
there was concern within the society that the paper
was too friendly to defense interests.
Its authors were asked to modify the first draft's
tone "because of the concern about
possible misinterpretation of 'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief
system,' 'adherents may claim,' 'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged
disorder,'" according to a June 2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's
communicatio ns director. (The email was obtained
by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case, Karen Kahn.)
Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs, suggested
sending a draft for review to one particular mold authority, Michael Hodgson,
director of the occupational safety and health program at the U.S.
Veterans Health Administration. Dr....
Dr. Bruce Kelman
Mold defendants rely on medical-society position papers that
reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by scientists
who often workfor defense side in mold cases.
Do courts get accurate or skewed view of possible health
effects of indoor mold?
Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats
Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation
By DAVID ARMSTRONG
January 9, 2007
...The paper's third author was Andrew Saxon, then chief of
clinical immunology and allergy at the medical school of the
University of California, Los Angeles. He, too, has
served as a defense expert in numerous mold suits.
Dr. Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to testify in court, h
is rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a deposition he gave. Until he retired from
UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-defense expert was paid to the
university, and he says UCLA then gave him a little less than half of it.
Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000 to $500,000 a year
from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.
The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of
its paper.
Dr. Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document
under his letterhead. Labeled "confidential" and "share only with the ACOEM
board of directors," it told of his work as
a defense expert on one mold case.
The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, "have been
retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation relating to indoor
mold."
Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold cases.
Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper
was being written in August 2002,
there was concern within the society that the paper
was too friendly to defense interests.
Its authors were asked to modify the first draft's
tone "because of the concern about
possible misinterpretation of 'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief
system,' 'adherents may claim,' 'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged
disorder,'" according to a June 2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's
communicatio ns director. (The email was obtained
by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case, Karen Kahn.)
Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs, suggested
sending a draft for review to one particular mold authority, Michael Hodgson,
director of the occupational safety and health program at the U.S.
Veterans Health Administration. Dr....
Dr. Saxon's coauthor Dr.
Kelman sued Sharon
Kramer for defamation.
Scientific testimony by
expert witness Harriet
Ammann was forbidden
by the judge. See Harriet
Ammann declaration.
Kelman sued Sharon
Kramer for defamation.
Scientific testimony by
expert witness Harriet
Ammann was forbidden
by the judge. See Harriet
Ammann declaration.
Blog posts re UCLA
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and Medical
Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Robert Pedowitz wins
$10 million for retaliation by
UCLA for blowing whistle on
industry payments to doctors
Dr. Eugene Washington,
dean of medical school
Dr. Andrew Saxon, author
of paper on harmlessness
of indoor mold
UCLA conflict of interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA culture: contempt and
racism?
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron to be
arraigned in burning death in
chemistry lab
UCSF
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and Medical
Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Robert Pedowitz wins
$10 million for retaliation by
UCLA for blowing whistle on
industry payments to doctors
Dr. Eugene Washington,
dean of medical school
Dr. Andrew Saxon, author
of paper on harmlessness
of indoor mold
UCLA conflict of interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA culture: contempt and
racism?
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron to be
arraigned in burning death in
chemistry lab
UCSF