14 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the video record.
15 The time is 910 a.m., May 1, 2008. May the court
16 reporter please swear in the witness at this time.
17 CLAUD KERN WILDENTHAL, M.D., Ph.D.,
18 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
19 EXAMINATION
25 Q. Good. Can you state your name for the record.
0002
1 A. Claud Kern Wildenthal.
12 Q. Okay. You've had your deposition taken on many
13 occasions?
14 A. On several occasions.
15 Q. How many occasions?
16 A. I don't know the exact number. More than five,
17 less than ten.
18 Q. Okay. Somewhere between the five and ten
19 times?
20 A. That would be my best guess.
21 Q. Have you testified in court?
22 A. I have.
23 Q. And how many occasions?
24 A. Two lawsuits, as I recall.
25 Q. Two times in which you've been sued?
0003
1 A. One time in which I've been sued and one time
2 in which I was seeking an injunction.
3 Q. In by what?
4 A. In which I was seeking an injunction.
5 Q. Okay. So you understand today you are
6 testifying just as if you were in a court of law?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. You understand the penalties of perjury
9 attached to your testimony?
10 A. Of course.
11 Q. If you do not tell the truth?
12 A. Of course.
------------
25 Q. Are you on any medications today that may allow
0006
1 you not to answer or provide me with your best testimony
2 today?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Is there any other reason why you wouldn't be
5 able to provide me with your best testimony today?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. What is your date of birth?
8 A. July the 1st, 1941.
9 Q. What is your Texas driver's license number?
10 A. I don't know the answer to that.
11 Q. Do you have it with you?
12 A. I do not.
13 Q. Did you drive here today?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Did you leave your driver's license in the car?
16 .
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. Did you drive without a license here today?
19 A. No, sir.
20 Q. Where is it?
21 A. It's in my briefcase.
22 Q. Where is your briefcase?
23 A. It's in the room where we assembled here at the
24 law firm.
25 Q. So will you agree to get that for me at a lunch
0007
1 break or something?
2 A. I don't know that I could agree to anything
3 without asking my lawyer's opinion about that. (??? Taking the fifth already?)
4 Q. So you need to ask your lawyer whether you can
5 give me your driver's license number?
6 A. That's correct.
---------------
6 Q. The five to ten prior occasions that you've
7 been deposed, let's back that up. When was the last time
8 you were deposed?
9 A. I don't recall exactly. It's been several
10 years.
11 Q. Was it in connection with you being president
12 of the university?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. What kind of case was it?
15 A. I don't recall the last case. So I couldn't
16 answer that exactly. (Given the nature of the allegations here is no way he could forget the fact that he is being sued, for reasons described below. Watch him duck, dodge, and weave.)
17 Q. You don't remember any of the allegations?
18 A. I remember -- I'm sorry. Allegations?
19 Q. Yes, sir.
20 A. I don't recall that there were -- I'm not sure
21 what you mean by allegations.
22 Q. Was the university a defendant in a lawsuit in
23 which you were deposed?
24 A. In some cases, the university was the defendant
25 in the lawsuit in which I was deposed.
0009
1 Q. Do you remember any of the allegations in any
2 of the cases in which you were deposed?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. Tell me about those cases, please.
5 A. Well, there have been cases of assertions of
6 inappropriate or termination of employment. That's
7 probably the most common. There have been cases
8 involving malpractice, medical malpractice.
9 Q. Can you recall any allegations other than
10 termination of employment or malpractice cases in which
11 you have been deposed?
12 A. Yes, sir. (Starting to get his memory back.)
13 Q. What else?
14 A. I was deposed in a civil matter between two
15 individuals in which it was believed that I had some
16 information that was relevant to the case, and UT
17 Southwestern Medical Center was not a party to that case. (He didn’t just have information. The lawsuit was about his actions.)
18 Q. What were the allegations between those two
19 individuals?
20 A. That was some years ago, and it had to do with
21 the terms of a gift that was being offered to the
22 university.
23 Q. Was that a will contest?
24 A. No, sir.
25 Q. Have you been deposed in any other
0010
1 cases?
2 A. Yes. In fact I have been deposed with regard
3 to one will contest. .
4 Q. Anything else?
5 A. That's all that I can recall.
-----------------------
Q. Do you remember any other plaintiff names in
25 any of the other cases in which you have been deposed?
0011
1 A. I do not remember the names of the plaintiffs,
2 no.
3 Q. Do you remember the name of the case in which
4 you were deposed regarding a will contest?
5 A. The name of the -- of the plaintiff?
6 Q. Any party.
7 A. The contested will had to do with a woman named
8 Pauline wine bearing ER's will. (misspell)
9 Q. What were the allegations in that case?
10 A. The allegations were -- had to do with which
11 will of the various Willis that Mrs. Wine bear had
12 drawn should prevail.
13 Q. Allegations concerning your behavior in that
14 case?
15 A. Not that I recall.
16 Q. You don't recall any allegations about your
17 behavior in that case?
18 A. Not as a part of the lawsuit, no, sir.
19 Q. Do you recall any allegations about you being
20 at the scene her death immediately or at or near the time
21 that she expired even before the medical examiner or
22 funeral home showed up rummaging through her possessions?
23 A. I was at her residence shortly after her death.
24 I don't know how that related to the arrival of people
25 who took her body, and there were allegations that I
0012
1 supposedly rummaged through her papers.
2 Q. Not only her papers, but her jewelry and cash,
3 correct?
4 A. No, that's not correct.
5 Q. That's incorrect?
6 A. That is incorrect.
7 Q. Okay. There were no allegations of those
8 sorts?
9 A. Not to my knowledge that there were any
10 allegations that I rummaged through her cash or her
11 jewelry. There were allegations that I rummaged through
12 her papers and in looking through her papers, there was
13 some cash that was there that I observed, as did others
14 who were there.
15 Q. Are there pending did I any pending claims
16 against you currently that you're aware?
17 A. No, sir.
18 Q. You are not aware of any pending lawsuits now?
19 ?
20 A. The only lawsuit that I'm aware of is the one
21 we're engaged in now.
------------
3 Q. Do you know who Wendy Reeves is?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Who is Wendy Reeves?
6 A. Wendy Reeves is a woman who has given a great
7 deal of art and other philanthropic gifts to a variety of
8 institutions through trusts that she was the president
9 of.
10 Q. And now they aring's certainly pending
11 outstanding claims against the university and you
12 personally related to gifts that she has made to the
13 university, correct?
14 A. Not to my knowledge.
15 Q. You're unwaiver any claims that are pending
16 either in Luxembourg or Europe pending against you and
17 the university?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Is that your testimony?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Are you aware of any pending criminal
22 indictments or criminal investigations pending against
23 you, Dr. Wildenthal?
24 A. No, sir.
25 Q. Have you heard any rumors of any pending
0014
1 indictments or criminal investigations against you?
2 A. No, sir.
3 Q. Have you ever heard of such pending rumors or
4 any investigations against you in your entire career?
5 A. I'm sorry. Investigations or indictments did
6 you say?
7 Q. Yes, sir.
8 A. Which?
9 Q. Either.
10 A. I am not aware of any pending indictments
11 against me, and I don't know what you would define as an
12 investigation.
13 Q. Have you ever heard of any criminal
14 investigations against you, sir?
15 A. I have never heard of any criminal
16 investigations against me.
17 Q. Do you have serve on any boards related to or
18 associated with Wendy Reeves's foundation?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. What boards do you serve on related to Wendy
21 Reeves?
22 A. There are two foundations that are related to
23 Wendy Reeves. One is incorp. the in New York, and one is
24 incorporated in Texas.
25 Q. What are the --
0015
1 A. I'm not certain of the exact names, but I
2 believe they are the Wendy M Reeves or the Emory and
3 Wendy Reeves foundation.
4 Q. Aren't you chairman or the executive director
5 of some high ranking official in either or both of those
6 foundations?
7 A. I'm a member of the board and either president
8 or chairman. I'm not sure of the exact title of both of
9 those. (Sounds like Willis Maddrey. They name each other as presidents of various boards, and they have no idea what they are doing, and don’t even remember their titles or responsibilities. And this was one of UTSW’s primary donors!)
10 Q. And you're not -- let me back up. You're
11 chairman or president?
12 A. I'm not sure of the exact title.
13 Q. Not through with my question, sir.
14 A. Beg your pardon.
15 Q. There's a difference, you would agree, between
16 the president and the chairman of the board of directors;
17 is that correct?
18 A. I don't know in these particular foundations
19 what the title of the head of the foundation is.
20 Q. My question, sir, with all due respect is -- is
21 there a difference between the role and responsibilities
22 and duties of a president and the chairman of the board
23 of directors?
24 MR. STEINDORF: Objection; form.
25 A. I am not aware of the difference between did
0016
1 the -- the distinctions between that and these particular
2 foundations. I'm not certain how those titles are used
3 in these foundations. (And he’s the President or the Chairman of the Board. He doesn’t remember which.)
------------------
18 Q. And is the medical school or the Medical Center
19 the primary beneficiary of both foundations?
20 A. No, sir.
21 Q. Is the Medical Center a beneficiary of either
22 foundation?
23 A. The medical school has not received anything
24 from either of the two foundations.
25 Q. That wasn't my question?
0017
1 A. Could you explain your question, then.
2 Q. My question is: Is it a beneficiary?
3 A. It -- the foundation board will decide who the
4 beneficiaries are of their -- and no such decisions have
5 been made.
6 Q. Are there any documents setting for the the
7 purpose for which the foundation was formed?
8 A. The foundation -- which foundation are you
9 referring to?
10 Q. Either one.
11 A. Yes, I'm -- I think there are documents, yes,
12 sir.
13 Q. Okay. And let's talk about the Texas
14 foundation.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. What was that foundation -- what was the
17 purpose for the formation of that foundation?
18 A. The purpose of that foundation is to provide
19 philanthropic contributions to any of four designated
20 potential beneficiaries.
21 Q. Okay. Related to what?
22 A. I beg your pardon? Related to what? What --
23 Q. Philanthropic needs for -- related to arts?
24 Related to health and medicine? Related to indigent
25 care? Related to concern Wildenthal's home on Hanover
0018
1 street? Related to what?
2 A. The documents with regard to the Texas Reeves
3 foundation don't designate the beneficiaries, and I'm not
4 sure what the specific purposes at each beneficiary are
5 designated as. I'd have to review that.
6 Q. Okay. Is it your testimony under oath today as
7 you sit here that you don't know why each foundation was
8 created?
9 A. No, sir, that's not my testimony.
10 Q. Okay. So you cannot be more specific other
11 than stating under oath that they were set up for
12 philanthropic purposes?
13 A. No. I believe my testimony was and is that
14 they were set up to provide assistance to four designated
15 organizes.
16 Q. Okay. And what designated organizations are
17 those?
18 A. Those are the Dallas museum of art, William and
19 Mary college, the Dallas symphony orchestra, and
20 Southwestern Medical Foundation.
---------------------
5 Q. Are there any -- have any claims been made
6 either in Europe, Luxembourg or anywhere across the
7 assess or in the United States regarding any will contest
8 regarding the divisions of those trust funds?
9 A. I -- there are legal contests in Europe with
10 regard to the division of funds to the philanthropic
11 beneficiaries as opposed to the son of Mrs. Reeves.
12 Q. Have you been named individually in any of
13 those cases?
14 A. I believe I have.
15 Q. Okay. So when you testified earlier whether I
16 asked you if you were aware of any pending lawsuits or
17 any other lawsuits and you testified no, that was an
18 incorrect answer, wasn't it?
19 A. I'm not certain exactly what the question and
20 my answer was. So I -- I would have to review that to be
21 sure that was be an incorrect answer.
22 Q. When I asked you if you were -- had any claims
23 or related litigation pending or related to Wendy Reeves
24 and you said no, that was an incorrect answer. Agreed?
25 A. I don't recall that that was the way that you
0020
1 phrased your question.
2 Q. If that was I way I phrased my question --
3 A. Could --
4 Q. Let me ask you, sir. If a that was the way I
5 phrased my question and your answer was no, was that an
6 incorrect or misleading answer? ?
7 MR. STEINDORF: Objection; form.
8 A. Could we just review what the question was
9 apartment on answer?
10 Q. No. My question was if that was the way I
11 asked my question and your response was no, would you
12 agree with me that that was an incorrect or misleading
13 answer?
14 A. I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand exactly
15 what you're asking. And --
16 Q. It's not a difficult question, sir.
17 A. Well, it's difficult because I'm not --
18 Q. It's difficult if you're not telling the truth
19 the?
20 A. I'm telling the truth, sir.
21 MR. STEINDORF: I'm going to instruct you
22 not to answer this question.
23 Q. Dr. Wildenthal, if my question was: Was there
24 any pending or current litigation regarding Wendy Reeves
25 and your answer was no, would you agree with me that that
0021
1 was an inaccurate, incorrect, or misleading answer?
2 MR. STEINDORF: Same instruction.
3 A. Under the --
4 MR. STEINDORF: Same instruction, Doctor.
5 I've instructed you not to answer the question?
6 Q. Are you refusing to answer that question?
7 A. Under the advice of my attorney, yes.
8 Q. Do you think your attorney instructed you not
9 to answer that question because he don't want to hear the
10 answer?
11 MR. STEINDORF: I'm going to instruct you
12 not to answer that question.
13 Q. That question, as well, are you refusing to
14 answer?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Who has made claims against you? Wendy
17 Reeves's son?
18 A. Could you define for me what you mean by made
19 claims against me?
20 Q. What don't you understand about that question?
21 A. I don't understand the -- what is defined as
22 making claims against me.
23 Q. Well, have any allegations of any type of
24 improprieties been made against you for influencing the
25 way that Ms. Reeves has left her money or her estate or
0022
1 divided her estate or anything of the sort?
It seems as if he is caught up in “Will Contests.” These are cases where shortly before the death of a donor he managed to change the will of a donor in order to re-direct the money. Those are the allegations. I don’t know how it is going.
This is the former head of UT Southwestern? Hard to determine who is worse him or Anderson.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't really matter if the lawyer is sleazy. It doesn't affect the merits of what is being discussed. Nobody is arguing that his main attorney is a saint or that she should be running Parkland.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to post Wildenthal and others' sworn testimony and public documents. Twice when the focus went UT Southwestern they immediately responded with an obscene personal attack. That will not be tolerated here.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing sleazy here is the way UT Southwestern responds to posts. The personal attack is just a way to divert the discussion from Wildenthal's testimony.
ReplyDeleteDoes UT Southwestern believe that Wildenthal committed perjury? If he didn't, what do you think of his testimony? Does it sound honest?
After reading his testimony I would say UT Southwestern donors should beware of solicitations to donate money to them. Do you want them rummaging through your drawers, looking for cash and jewelry when you die, when your body is still warm, your family hasn't arrived, nor has the medical examiner?
ReplyDeleteHe swears he doesn't remember being sued. When the cases are brought up he suddenly remembers the details. You don't forget things like that, especially since his actions in the Wendy Reve's case have previously been published on Dallas internet sites. It's no secret.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't even rcall the deposition, until he was caught. why is he drawing a million dollar per year salary if he's retired?
ReplyDeleteI do think that if you can bring Wendy Reeves into this that the prior removed post about Charla Aldous is fair. Better to stay on point. This has nothing to do with Parkland and you invite criticism of the attorneys conduct when you make posts like the current one. This becomes fair game. All of the attorneys at Baron and Budd who donated money to John Edwards campaign are nervous because of a federal campaign law probe. If John Edwards is indicted for misusing his campaign funds those in Dallas who helped supply the money are going to be targets as well.
ReplyDeleteIt has a lot to do with UT Southwestern. Parkland is not the only entity with compliance problems.
ReplyDeleteI have worked at both Parkland and Presby and was there when Aldous sued people as individuals for trying to stop a dangerous doctor. I am glad to see that others are now asking questions about her role in this blog. if she is involved with The Doctor that lowers the value of what he is saying. Complete pond scum.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous 12:29
ReplyDeleteYou are a great example of what we are complaining about. When a woman is better than you in court, she is doing her job. Your only defense to this is to bad mouth her. You are no gentlemen and obviously not a good Christian.
Although I did not vote for or believe in his policies, I don’t know how or what Edwards has to do with this blog.
You are obviously attempting to change the thread’s topic. Why? Is there something you can’t defend or trying to hide? Therefore your tactics makes me think this blog’s thread is correct.
I don't think Ms. Aldous is involved in any way with this blog. More importantly, I think she has opposed to it.
ReplyDeleteSo why are you bring up the woman?
This is a man who was the head of UT Southwestern. If you read thru the testimony, you will see how deceptive he his.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous July 8, 2010 2:34 PM
ReplyDeleteThank you for proving our comment about how sleazy the UT Southwestern / Parkland Hospital side has become. You now are calling people "pond scum".
Don't you have anything intelligent to say?
This post is a great example of how UT Southwestern talk about people that disagree with them. I now can understand where the Employee Retaliation claim came from.
ReplyDeleteWhite trash, pure white trash. No matter how much money the UT Southwestern management makes, they still will always be white trash.
ReplyDeleteAlright, Stop everyone.
ReplyDeleteStay on topic or we will start deleting comments.
@July 8, 2010 12:29 PM
ReplyDeleteFor those of us who missed it, what was the removed post about?
It looks like this Claud Wildenthal shouldn't be allowed at your death bed.
ReplyDeleteThe deleted post was similar to the pond scum comment. Not something that a newspaper or any other media would allow. The pattern has become clear. When there is something negative at UTSW that is posted they make up ridiculous personal attacks so that people do not comment on what was posted, and go off on a tangent.
ReplyDeleteThis was not the only time that Wildenthal was accused of getting someone to change their will shortly before they died, without the families awareness.
ReplyDelete@July 8, 2010 2:34 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat cases are you talking about? I remember there was one where a doctor's privileges were taken away but he won that case against the hospital and the chair of the committee--I think he was awarded several million. That wasn't a case against a dangerous doctor. Just wanting to know.
I can understand people's frustration, especially from a minority perspective. UTSW leaders live the high life while treating those less fortunate like guinea pigs, and the minority patients bear the brunt of it.
ReplyDeleteThere was something about this in the Dallas Observer. Detailed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this testimony of Wildenthal, it made me sick. why is he so indirect? Why is he so evasive about lying when he was caught? This is the kind of culture UTSW has had since he was president--one of corruption, greed, fraud,etc
ReplyDeleteAfter reading his testimony he seems like a liar and a bufoon.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the significance of the drivers license questioning?
ReplyDeleteWhen i think of all the wonderful doctors I know who received their trainig from utsw in the past - some many many years ago and are no longer with us, a few were family to me, people I loved and who they have passed away and i don't like to see their legacy tarnished by the current leadership.
ReplyDeletesee new comments on 7/6 section. more legal trouble?
ReplyDeletethese people need to come out so needs the peopel who have been fired in the past
ReplyDeleteTwo cases of Wildenthal changing the last will and testament of dying UT Southwestern donors? Yuck. Is the one misspelled as Wine Bear really Ms Wineberg?
ReplyDeleteHOw does a University PResident find himself at the death bed of a donor? With or without the paper shuffling, cash lifting reports this is not normal behavior.
ReplyDeleteNow Parkland itself has put out a message for employees in it's newsletter that they can have their wills adjusted to leave money to Parkland. They even included the wording to put in your will if you want to add it. Thanks, but no thanks. My $$ will go to my loved ones.
ReplyDeleteNot only was the UTSW President alone at the bedside of donors as theybwere dying, he had a system in place to inform him when that would likely happen. That's part of the reason for the VIP list. What is very telling is that he missed their funerals, even though they gave many millions and changed their wills. The excuses he gives would be comical if they weren't so sad. "I was caught in traffic," etc.
ReplyDelete4:53 I nearly choked on my lunch today when I saw the call to parkland employees to consider putting parkland in their wills! I don't even trust them to get my paycheck right. So first they want me to work for the executive bonuses and now they think I should leave them in my will. Is this April 1st??? HA!
ReplyDelete6:01 Was that not the creepiest thing ever. They even provided the legal wording to put in the will. Talking about feeling like having vultures suddenly appear/circle over your head...
ReplyDeleteAnd now, now that we made it thru Joint Commission, we get to be drilled with magnet status prepping. Suddenly, after ignoring Nurses during Nurses week, they want nurses to rally around them for magnet status???
I think Parkland has much to overcome before thinking about magnet status. Talk to staff nurses of hospitals who have acheived magnet status. Ask how it has helped them in the long run. Do some online searches and read about hospitals who have acheived magnet status and what the staff thinks about it after the fact. Magnet status is not about making or keeping employees happy and content. It is a label to be used for marketing purposes.
ReplyDeleteIf Parkland wants to acheive magnet they are going to need to keep the WISH NPs hidden away. If you dont know what its about read the comments on previous page.
ReplyDeleteI came home from work and told my kids they were out of my will, Parkland is in. Does this mean I get to have one of the Parkland Executives at my deathbed?
ReplyDeleteMagnet is a marketing / pr thing, you use nursing staff to acheive it
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, in the same announcement, PMH is also suggesting that besides the will, we can also rearrange our retirement fund or life insurance so some money goes to PMH. Seriously, PMH, you're eyeing workers' LIFE insurance???
ReplyDeleteWhy do wealthy people of Dallas keep throwing their money and their titles at this guy? He has no idea what he is doing. He can't remember the name of the foundation that he is president of, doesn't remember what his duties are, or what titles he holds. How can he effectively manage? These people just assume he is trustable. But if you don't what it is you are supposed to be doing, your are not likely to get it done.
ReplyDeleteThis would make a great book or movie, with characters like, Kern "Black widow" Wildenthal and Ron "three swipes" Anderson.
ReplyDeleteVery good. Kern the black widow who hangs around the death beds of dying patients on morphine, and gets them to secretly change their last will and testament, and Anderson, with blades of steel that can cut off someone's leg, bone and all, with just three swipes of the knife!
ReplyDelete7:02, 7:06 very well done. very very well done. My applause.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting aside to this blogspot would be an expose on workplace bullying. It would be a great story for some professional journal or even the morning news if they had the guts, or texas monthly, D magazine or The Wallstreet journal. There are plenty of current and ex employeees who are probably eager to tell their stories, and most importantly, these issues are not just politics and HR matters, they involve real patients and familys lives.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a patient at Parkand and I was needing to have surgery - not emergency surgery, but something planned in advanced and I was not in the hospital as an inpatient. I assume I would have scheduled a seperate pre-op appointment to have routine labs drawn, xrays, etc. Then I would come back on the day of my surgery and be admitted.
ReplyDeleteAt what point would I meet the attending surgeon and anesthesiology person, or would I?
At what point would I sign the cosnet for surgery, actually have the specific risks, etc explained to me. Since I am not an emergency case, when would these encounters occur for me?
Am I told what that the majority of my surgery will be by Resident X with Attending Dr Z there to oversee, or am I told nothing about Attending Dr Z, unless I see his name on my consents?
What about anesthesia, I haven't seen anything about that dept on this blog. Are they a seperate dept from surgery?
Most "emergencies" at Parkland are not really emergencies. It can take months to get an appointment in the surgery clinic. Then it can take months to obtain test such as a CT scan. On this website is a memo from surgery chairman Bob Rege, discussing that after a biopsy proving that someone has cancer it still takes over a month to schedule the patient for surgery. This is enough to cause the patient to lose their life.
ReplyDeleteThese inefficiencies that create avoidable bottlenecks were discussed in the HMA
report from 2003, and remain unaddressed. As a result, patients with conditions that would normally be seen in an office and scheduled for surgery, are compelled to wait until their condition is more severe, and then they go to the ER. Federal law prohibits turning an emergency patient away. That is why these "emergency cases" often don't go to surgery for days - they are not really emergencies.
There is plenty of time for the surgeons to meet their obligation to see the patients, and to verify and document the need for surgery (as required by federal billing laws). In my experience, that happens less than 50% of the time.
You are not likely to see an attending anesthesiologist either, until you are in the OR, pretty much sedated, and after the point of no return. Notes of a meeting between the Chair of GI - Endocrine Surgery and the Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology (a separate department) have been posted here.
ReplyDeleteThe anesthsiologist's own notes said, "at first EL was uncomfortable with the Parkland Way, residents teaching residents," but he has become more accustomed to it. So, that is also their philosophy.
Consent processes were changed, as documented here, after federal authorities notified Ron Anderson that Parkland was about to lose the right to receive Medicare or Medicaid funding because in a random surveyor generAl surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and head and neck surgery zero percent of patients had a valid, legal informed consent form in the chart. In most cases the consent form was not even completed until after the operation, if at all. The letter to Anderson and other documents are on this website.
It just seems like in Andersons testimony he keeps using emergency cases as an excuse as to why faculty was not notified.
ReplyDeleteEL became so accustomed that he never showed up again and took trauma call from his call room!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right!
ReplyDeletequestion to 9:55- so that person would stay in his call room and later sign charts as if he was present during trauma cases?
ReplyDeleteYes. One time I was in the ICU. A patient with a massive liver injury came in while he was on call. Patient went to the OR. The patient arrived in the ICU, and needed an arterial line and a central venous line inserted, so I did that. When I went to write a note I saw that EL already had written a note claiming to have inserted them. Also, the liver bleeding was not adequately addressed, and this 20 something father of two bled to death shortly after arrival to the unit. The next day the ICU was livid. She told me that a senior resident scrubbed and took the mid level resident through the case. EL was just standing around, never bothered to participate.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, he didn't want to sign off on the patient's chart. They kept sending it to me to sign as the surgeon. I refused. But in looking through the chart I saw the patient's medical bill. It was over $33,000, including EL's surgical fee, even though he didn't participate in the operation, and his fee for inserting a arterial and central line in the patient.
For the two hours that the patient was able to be kept alive with massive bleeding while hemorrhaging from his uncontrolled liver injury, EL never peeked his head into the ICU. When the patient died, he delegated the residents to talk to the family.
OH MY GOD! That is a horrible terrible tragedy. That is the worst of the worst. WISH people are starting to speak out, why aren't we hearing from more nurses in the trauma / surgery division??????? This makes me sick.
ReplyDeleteTrue. EL always bragged about sleeping all night while being on "trauma call" while he was signing charts the next day
ReplyDeleteYou took care of the patient for two hours while he bled to death in the intensive care unit? Why didn't you take him back to the operating room yourself?
ReplyDeleteAfter I voiced concerns that patients were being taken to the OR without informed consent (subsequently borne out by the Medicaid/Medicare investigation), Bob Rege, Ron Anderson, and Michael Silhol took away my privileges. This violated a no-retaliation court injunction. UTSW and PMH were brought in front of a judge for contempt of court. They asked that the contempt charge be thrown out. The court refused. They appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. They didnt dismiss the contempt charge. Awaiting trial. Meanwhile, not allowed into OR, even though so short staffed that they put residents on call as the attending half the time.
ReplyDelete