Friday, November 04, 2011

Is this Kool Smiles way of pretending they are paying back the millions defrauded or trying to head off some bad publicity in the works?

Can you consider  “patient shopping” a donated service?  Here is their Press Release for today:

Kool Smiles Donates $12.5 Million in Dental Services to Underserved Communities and Launches Facebook Campaign to Donate a Toothbrush for Every "Like"

ATLANTA, Nov 4, 2011  Kool Smiles is proud to announce that so far this year it has donated over $12.5 million in free dental services to underserved communities. In celebration, they are launching a new Facebook page. In addition to keeping the community engaged in its vision and efforts to increase accessible dental health nationwide, the page allows individuals to have an impact on the wellbeing of children in need. For every "Like" the Kool Smiles Facebook page receives, a toothbrush will be donated to an underserved child.

Quality dental care at a young age plays an important role in both the physical and psychological well-being of children and adults. Now, Kool Smiles is empowering every person who "likes" its efforts by donating a free toothbrush and is prepared to provide up to a million toothbrushes for a million healthy smiles.

Dr. Tung Thai Nguyen Pleads Guilty To Health Care Fraud-Greensboro, NC

  NC Dental Board Action 2009

Silva and Silva DMD Pllc 
(used to be Nguyen, Silva and Silva, P.A. D.M.D –dissolved 1-12-2011)
Silva and Silva, LLC
Dr. Enrico Silva
Dr. Ha Hguyen Silva
1505 West Lee Street
Greensboro, NC  27403
336-510-2600

November 4, 2011
From WMFY News

Greensboro, NC-- A Greensboro dentist has admitted to health care fraud. 

Thursday, the US Attorney's Office accepted a plea deal with Tung Thai Nguyen. Nguyen pleaded guilty to health care fraud charges in connection with false claims submitted to Medicaid.

Dr. Nguyen, 40, pleaded guilty, in A Winston-Salem federal court room,  to two counts of violating health care fraud and one count of violating 18 false entries in a matter involving a health care benefit program.

According to documents filed in Court, Dr. Nguyen submitted claims to the Medicaid program for dental restorations not actually performed. Dr. Nguyen also submitted a claim to the Medicaid program for the installation of one type of partial denture when he actually furnished a less expensive and different partial denture to the patient.

Nguyen will be sentence in February 2012. He faces the maximum possible penalty for a health care fraud violation, which is not more than ten years imprisonment, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a term of supervised release not to exceed three years. The maximum possible penalty for a false entry violation is not more than five years imprisonment, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a term of supervised release not to exceed three years.

The Court may also order the defendant to pay restitution to the health care benefit program.

The case was investigated by the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and the North Carolina Attorney General's Medicaid Investigations Unit and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Robert Hamilton.

So why are there no Medicaid dental mills in Florida?

Florida ranks near the bottom in access to dental care.  So why are the dental mills staying away; other than the denture places like Aspen? I’d like to hear your thoughts on why Florida is spared.
cckaddie@yahoo.com or post in the comment section.

5TH Circuit Court of Appeal Declares Florida Medicaid Fraud Statute 409.920(2) (A) Unconstitutional
from South Florida Health Care News 

This case deals with two very important subjects: The ability of Healthcare providers to market using practice management companies as well as reaffirming the principle in Florida that one cannot be criminally liable for filing a false claim by accident , error or negligence

Facts

In 2001, two Miami dentists contracted with a dental management company to open a dental office in Orlando Florida. The management company agreed to provide a turn-key dental facility. In addition, the dental management company would manage the business and marketing aspects of the practice including marketing the dental practice to Medicaid eligible recipients. In return the management company is paid between 42% and 43% of the compensation received by the dentists for their services.

In 2003, the state filed a 130 count information against appellees Sonia Guzman and Ana Maria Mendez and three co-defendants John Rubio, Ileana Martin-Fernandez and Gustavo Fernandez. Counts I and 2 charged all defendants with racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering in violation of section 895.03, Florida Statutes. Counts 3 — 55 charged various defendants with Medicaid provider fraud in violation of section 409.920(2) (a), Florida Statutes. Counts 56 — 129 charged various defendants with patient brokering by engaging in a split-fee arrangement in violation of section 817.505, Florida Statutes. Count 130 charged all defendants with violating the White Collar Crime Victim Protection Act, section 775.0844, Florida Statutes.

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Assess, Communicate, Decide; guidelines impossible for dentists working for corporate dental mills

The American College of Dentists (ACD) produces a card for the wallet that contains on one side the Core Values, which guide the ethical behavior of Fellows of the ACD, and on the reverse a list of questions called the ACD Test for Ethical Decisions, following the ACD acronym.

Assess
Is it true?
Is it accurate?
Is it fair?
Is it quality?
Is it legal?

Communicate
Have you listened?
Have you informed the patient?
Have you explained outcomes?
Have you presented alternatives?

Decide
Is now the best time?
Is it within your ability?
Is it in the best interest of the patient?
Is it what you would want for yourself?
This is a simplified but excellent reminder.

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Just saying...

Sugar plums can dance in one's head.

Just Saying…

per·ju·ry [pur-juh-ree]
noun, plural -ries.
to lie like a dog; the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry

  • Elements:
  • Oath - person must be under oath during his testimony;
  • Intent - you lied and you knew you were lying like a dog;
  • Falsity - must have made told or more lying statements, and;
  • Materiality – the lie could or would influence the legal proceeding

Section 1621 and 1623 of Title XVIII of the United States Criminal Code sections 1621 and 1623 deal with the crime of perjury.

Title XVIII of the US Criminal Code section 1623, makes it a Federal offense to knowingly make a false statement about a material matter while under oath before a Federal court.

State laws on perjury:

Kentucky CHAPTER 523 PERJURY AND RELATED OFFENSES

523.020 Perjury in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he makes a material false statement, which he does not believe, in any official proceeding under an oath required or authorized by law; or
(2) When he makes a material false statement which he does not believe in a subscribed written instrument for which an oath is required or authorized by law, with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions when such person is subscribing a warrant accusing his spouse of an offense under KRS Chapter 510.
(3) Perjury in the first degree is a Class D felony.

Kentucky Class D felony- not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years per charge  or in the case of perjury, per lie.

523.030 Perjury in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree when he makes a material false statement which he does not believe in a subscribed written instrument for which an oath is required or authorized by law with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions.
(2) Perjury in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

Class A misdemeanor – 3 to 12 months in jail per charger or in this case or perjury, per lie.

523.040 False swearing.
(1) A person is guilty of false swearing when he makes a false statement which he does not believe under oath required or authorized by law.
(2) False swearing is a Class B misdemeanor.

Class B misdemeanor – usually no jail time

523.050 Inconsistent statements.
(1) When a person has made inconsistent statements under oath, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single charge alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
(2) The highest offense of which a person may be convicted in such an instance shall be determined by hypothetically assuming each statement to be false. If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of the lesser degree. If perjury or false swearing would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of false swearing.

 

Perjury

A. Perjury is the intentional making of a false written or oral statement in or for use in a judicial proceeding, any proceeding before a board or official, wherein such board or official is authorized to take testimony, or before any committee or subcommittee of either house or any joint committee or subcommittee of both houses of the legislature. In order to constitute perjury the false statement must be made under sanction of an oath or an equivalent affirmation and must relate to matter material to the issue or question in controversy.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Just Saying…

There just has to be a very special place in HELL as well Jail for those who choose to conspire and lie to cover-up the heinous abuse of children.

Just saying…

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Marissa Kingery death settlement

This report says the Executive Director of the Ohio Dental Board “approved” the settlement.  What is God’s name did she have to do with anything, other than some responsibility into Marissa’s death in my opinion. 

How did such a conversation go anyway?  Did she say, “yeah, that’s a fair price”!!!

 

By Jack Shea Fox 8 News Reporter

6:14 p.m. EDT, October 28, 2011

LORAIN, Ohio—

The family of a Lorain County girl, who died while undergoing oral surgery, has settled a wrongful death lawsuit against the dentist who performed the surgery.

On December 21, 2010, 13-year-old Marissa Kingery, of Elyria, stopped breathing while having teeth removed at the Lorain office of Dr. Henry Mazorow.
An autopsy later concluded that Marissa's death was accidental, the result of complications from anesthesia administered before the surgery.

The lawsuit filed by the girl's family was settled by Dr. Mazorow's insurance company for one million dollars, to be shared by her parents and their civil attorney.

The Ohio State Dental Board helped negotiate the settlement, and then approved it.

Dental Board Executive Director Lili Reitz told Fox 8, "Our job is to ensure that dentists who are not safe, or who pose a threat, either remediate in the areas where they're deficient, or no longer practice."

[It’s a damn shame Ms. Reitz didn’t feel the same when Mazorow killed the other patient in 1997.  Sounds real noble Ms. Reitz, but your words are empty!]


On September 1, after consulting with the dental board, Dr. Mazorow agreed to retire at the age of 81.

[It took from December 2010 until September 1, 2011 for Mazorow to be forced into retirement?!  Also after 5 years, his record will be wiped clean as Ms. Reitz pointed out earlier this year!]



The case of Marissa Kingery was not the first time Mazorow had been sued for wrongful death. In 1997, 57-year-old Rosemary Johnson died from similar complications while undergoing surgery at the doctor's office. The case was settled out of court for $550,000.

Fox 8 News tried to talk to Dr. Mazorow about what happened to Marissa Kingery and Rosemary Johnson, but were unable to reach him.

Reitz said says the case illustrates the difficulty of regulating dentistry.
"What I have a hard time accepting is our limitations, and our limitations are the license of the individual, and whether or not that person should be, to hold a license, and if so, what needs to be done to ensure that they're safe."

[What’s so damn difficult about it, Ms. Reitz? ]

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Lessons to be learned from 1992 dental malpractice and murder case

$1.6 Million Awarded to 13 Patients of Convicted Dentist

October 08, 1992|MARLA CONE | TIMES STAFF WRITER

Thirteen patients of a Costa Mesa dentist who was convicted in 1984 of murdering three patients were awarded $1.6 million in damages Wednesday to be paid by a state insurance association, according to their attorney.

Dr. Tony Protopappas was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder after two women and a teen-age girl died during a five-month period from lethal doses of general anesthesia he administered during routine dental work. He is serving a 15-year term at a state prison.

The $1 million in damages and $600,000 in interest awarded Wednesday is in addition to $500,000 the plaintiffs were awarded from insurers in 1987, said their attorney, William Humphreys of the Santa Ana law firm of Horton, Barbaro & Reilly.

After Protopappas' arrest, his dental firm as well as his insurance company went bankrupt, so the claims were sent to the California Insurance Guaranty Assn., which is a statewide fund created by insurers to handle claims of companies that go bankrupt.