| ........ |
UCLA Lawsuits 2 /Court cases
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Blog posts re UCLA
lawsuits
Blog posts re UCLA
2013-2014 Urology rankings
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and Medical
Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Andrew Saxon, author of
paper on harmlessness of
indoor mold
UCLA Cull case
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron to be
arraigned in burning death in
chemistry lab
UCSF
lawsuits
Blog posts re UCLA
2013-2014 Urology rankings
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and Medical
Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Andrew Saxon, author of
paper on harmlessness of
indoor mold
UCLA Cull case
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron to be
arraigned in burning death in
chemistry lab
UCSF
Blog posts re UCLA lawsuits
UCLA Cull case
UCLA Patient Advocates--African American doctor settles discrimination suit
UCLA Patrick Harron to be arraigned in burning death in chemistry lab
UCLA Cull case
UCLA Patient Advocates--African American doctor settles discrimination suit
UCLA Patrick Harron to be arraigned in burning death in chemistry lab
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."
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."
"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."
UCLA and Researcher Agree to Settle Wrongful-Termination
Lawsuit [Enstrom case]
The Chronicle of Higher Education
March 6, 2015 by Charles Huckabee
The University of California at Los Angeles has reached an agreement with James E.
Enstrom, a controversial environmental-health scientist who was laid off in
2012, that will rescind his termination and give him a cash settlement and access
to university resources for his research. Mr. Enstrom had alleged in a lawsuit that the
university wrongfully terminated him because of his unpopular views about certain air
pollutants.
Under the settlement, which was first reported by the campus newspaper, the Daily
Bruin, and confirmed by a UCLA spokesman, Mr. Enstrom will be paid $140,000 and will
have the title of “retired researcher.”
The UCLA spokesman, Phil Hampton, said in a written statement that the university
continued to deny Mr. Enstrom’s allegations but had agreed to the settlement to avoid
the costs of a trial. Mr. Enstrom told the Daily Bruin that he was not entirely satisfied
with the settlement but thought it was the best compromise possible.
Lawsuit [Enstrom case]
The Chronicle of Higher Education
March 6, 2015 by Charles Huckabee
The University of California at Los Angeles has reached an agreement with James E.
Enstrom, a controversial environmental-health scientist who was laid off in
2012, that will rescind his termination and give him a cash settlement and access
to university resources for his research. Mr. Enstrom had alleged in a lawsuit that the
university wrongfully terminated him because of his unpopular views about certain air
pollutants.
Under the settlement, which was first reported by the campus newspaper, the Daily
Bruin, and confirmed by a UCLA spokesman, Mr. Enstrom will be paid $140,000 and will
have the title of “retired researcher.”
The UCLA spokesman, Phil Hampton, said in a written statement that the university
continued to deny Mr. Enstrom’s allegations but had agreed to the settlement to avoid
the costs of a trial. Mr. Enstrom told the Daily Bruin that he was not entirely satisfied
with the settlement but thought it was the best compromise possible.
The Firing Of Dr. James Enstrom: The Dangers of Bucking Fashionable Science
CA air resources logo
Whistleblower targeted for exposing junk science
February 13, 2014
by Katy Grimes
Part I of a series. View Part II here:
Bucking the highly fashionable notion that California’s air pollution is deadly, Dr.
James Enstrom was one of only a few scientists willing to blow the whistle on the
fraudulent science perpetrated at the California Air Resources Board.
It is often said the cover up is worse than the crime. Dr. Enstrom is living proof.
An attempt to muzzle scientific debate and academic freedom on a University of
California college campus is at the root of the wrongful termination lawsuit of Dr.
James Enstrom.
Enstrom challenged the scientific research that the California Air Resources Board
and California Legislature used to enact policies regulating diesel fuel emissions.
And then he was fired from his job of 35 years at University of California, Los
Angeles.
Enstrom exposed the cover-up of “junk environmental science.” He also outed a
phony scientist at the California Air Resources Board, and the Legislature’s
subsequent adoption of regulations stemming from the fake science.
Consequently, the university gave Enstrom his walking papers rather than admit
they were wrong, and risk losing the gravy train of ongoing public grants and
funding.
Enstron did not fall in line
Enstrom received his Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford University, and later earned his
M.P.H. in epidemiology from UCLA.
Most recently, he vehemently objected to the CARB’s aggressive state regulations,
developed by complicit scientists at universities, funded by lucrative government
research grants.
Enstrom published peer-reviewed research in 2003 showing that second-hand
cigarette smoke doesn’t kill people.
Then he published another politically incorrect, peer-reviewed study in 2005, which
showed that fine particulate matter does not kill California residents—the basis of
California’s restrictions on diesel engines because of their contributions to
particulate air pollution health effects.
In his 2005 study of American Cancer Society data, Enstrom found no scientific
evidence to support CARB’s assertion that very fine particulate matter smaller than
2.5 microns causes a variety of disease outcomes, including cancer and asthma.
The California Air Resources Board ignored his findings, despite his study, which
specifically showed no evidence of premature deaths in California due to exposure
to PM2.5.
Enstrom also proved that University of California science professors exaggerated
the health effects of diesel particulate in California, knowing the results would be
used by the CARB to regulate diesel-engine vehicles.
Enstrom outed the lead “scientist” employed by CARB, Hien Tran, who falsely
claimed to have a Ph.D. from UC Davis. Tran had purchased the Ph.D. for $1,000
from a diploma mill. CARB still employs Tran as a scientist, despite his degree hoax.
Enstrom said UCLA retaliated, and told him his research “is not aligned with the
department’s mission” at UCLA, as justification for his dismissal after 35 years.
Tran’s research was used by CARB and the Legislature to impose drastic, heavy-
handed regulations on owners of diesel engine vehicles.
Enstrom has factually and boldly promoted his studies because he says most of the
government policies about air quality regulations come from poor or incorrect
science. It has survived intense challenge of its facts from many eminent experts in
the field who have been unable to find errors in Enstrom’s methods or findings.
Enstrom said he is not alone in questioning “junk environmental science,” nor is the
CARB alone in ignoring studies like his..
contd HERE