Source: http://www.lasikdecision2.com/?page_id=61
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:38:05+00:00

Document:
“May 1st., 2015 On this day, William A. Boothe, M.D. (a true Texas legend in the eyes of many) retired and closed his practice. Dr. Boothe often bragged of having been the busiest LASIK surgeon in world. At most recent count, he is reported to have done over 150,000 LASIK procedures.
LaserCare still touts Boothe as the all-knowing pioneer of the refractive industry. From what I noticed researching LaserCare using search engines, it seems very similar to Boothe’s.
3.2. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas under §15.017 Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because, upon information and belief, Defendants Kraddick, Raspberry and Mack reside in Dallas County, Texas. Venue is also proper in Dallas County, Texas under §15.017 Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because, upon information and belief, Defendants Kraddick, Raspberry and Mack reside in Dallas County, Texas. Venue is also proper in Dallas County, Texas under §15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in Dallas County, Texas in that the broadcasts that are the subject of this action were transmitted to KISS-FM’s audience in Dallas County, Texas.
4.2 Prior to the defamatory radio broadcasts by the defendants, Dr. Boothe had enjoyed a successful medical practice for many years. As a result of his success, Dr. Booth (sic) and the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center became one of the nation’s largest providers of Laser eye-care services. At all times material to these claims, Dr. Boothe enjoyed an excellent reputation in his community, in his profession, and at the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center.
5.4 Defendant Raspberry is a radio personality who regularly appears on Kraddick’s radio show broadcast by Clear Channel. At all times relevant hereto, Raspberry was acting in her individual capacity and as an agent or employee or authorized representative of Clear Channel.
5.5 Defendant Mack is a radio personality who regularly appears on Kraddick’s radio show broadcast by Clear Channel. At all times relevant hereto, Mack was acting in his individual capacity and as an agent or employee or authorized representative of Clear Channel.
6.1 For a substantial period of time preceding this lawsuit, Dr. Boothe and the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center have purchased large blocks of advertising from Clear Channel. Dr. Boothe’s advertisements have regularly appeared on Clear Channel Stations and, in particular, on KISS-FM. Dr. Boothe has also purchased an advertising link on KISS FM’s homepage on the worldwide web located at www.1061kissfm.com.
6.2 Dr. Boothe’s advertising on Clear Channel and on KISS-FM prominently refer to the fact that Dr. Boothe has performed tens of thousands of eye surgeries and that he and the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center are the area’s largest provider of refractive surgical procedures. Dr. Boothe has expended a large amount of money developing an advertising campaign which identifies him as a highly experienced ocular surgeon and which creates an association in a listener’s mind between Dr. Boothe and the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center on the one hand and the tens of thousands of refractive surgeries that Dr. Boothe has performed on the other. The purpose of this association is to identify Dr. Booth (sic) as experienced and competent and the Boothe Eye Car (sic) and Laser Center as a desirable place to have refractive surgery performed. Because of the volume of advertising purchased by Dr. Boothe, virtually any KISS FM listener can and does make a mental association between the tens of thousands of procedures performed by Dr. Boothe and the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center.
7.3 The “gist” of the radio broadcast was calculated and designed by the defendants to leave the listener with an entirely false and untrue impression that Dr. Boothe was not a highly skilled physician and that his surgical abilities were substandard. These untrue statements of and about Dr. Boothe have defamed him in his personal and professional life, thus causing his personal and professional harm, embarrassment, humiliation and other condensable damages.
7.4 The reasonable interpretations as a reasonable listener would have, on the whole, from defendants’ false, scandalous, and defamatory statements and implications about Dr. Boothe from the broadcast include, but are not limited to those set forth above.
8.2 The statements of the defendants have disparaged Dr. Boothe’s business. As a result of the defendants’ business disparagement, the public image as to the quality of Dr. Boothe’s professional services has been lessened which, in turn, has likely caused persons who would have otherwise purchased his services not to purchase his services.
8.3 As a further result of the defendants’ business disparagement, the marketing campaign that Dr. Boothe has funded to increase public awareness as to the quality of his services has been greatly diminished and the large sums of money paid to Clear Channel by Dr. Boothe to conduct his marketing campaign have been wasted. Incredibly, much of the money that Dr. Boothe has spent in his marketing campaign has been with Clear Channel, and has directly or indirectly funded Clear Channel and the compensation of Kidd Craddock (sic), Kelly Raspberry and Al Mack. Even more incredible is the fact that the defendants have intentionally and maliciously “bitten the hand that feeds them” by disparaging Dr. Boothe in a reckless and malicious manner.
8.4 As a result of the defendants’ business disparagement, Dr. Boothe has suffered general and special damages.
9.2 Clear Channel has maintained a course of action in which it regularly accepted thousands of dollars from Dr. Boothe for advertising which it knew was being expended for the purpose of building his reputation and his business. These revenues paid to Clear Channel have directly or indirectly contributed to the financial support of the defendants. Nonetheless, the defendants set upon a course of action to lessen the value of the advertising Dr. Boothe purchased from Clear Channel and to lower Dr. Boothe’s professional reputation. In so doing, the defendants acted intentionally or recklessly. Moreover, their actions were extreme and outrageous and caused Dr. Boothe severe emotional distress.
9.3 In so acting, the defendant’s conduct was so extreme and so outrageous in character as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and should be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
9.4 As a result of the defendants’ business disparagement, Dr. Boothe has suffered general and special damages.
10.3 As a result of the defendants’ violation of the Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act, Dr. Boothe has suffered general and special damages.
Female: …91 today, 73 now. Brought to you by Parts City Auto Leasing.
2nd Male: …two, one, go.
Male: Does the Lasik doctor you’re considering work out?
Male: It’s very important. Not just be in good physical shape you want him to be in good mental condition.
Male: I get nervous when I hear this one ad that runs on the radio, I hear the guy go Dr. Show-and-Tell-It performs sixty-four thousand of these! He’s got to be really tired, don’t you think?
2nd Male: Ehh… if he’s done sixty-four thousand you know he doesn’t have time to work out, you know, and get himself in top physical and mental condition.
Male: He’s probably about to go crazy.
Female: He’s probably developed arthritis in his hands.
Male: …(inaudible) can afford that.
Female: That helps him develop the inner peace of mind…(inaudible) more comfortably.
Male: …does Pilates now so he’s in tip top physical and mental condition when he performs his surgery and maybe the Pilates is a small reason to be a…(inaudible) a reason to mention the Best Lasik surgeon in all of Dallas Ft. Worth.
2nd Male: It can’t hurt. I’ve done it.
Male: Now it’s uh blade free Lasik and they’re having a big seminar, uh, next Thursday night. That’s a week from tonight. Dallas and Plano. You can watch the surgery being performed. I know that sounds like oh-my-god I can’t watch that. It’s so nothing. I mean…(inaudible).
Auyoung, 26, posted a review on Google after having Lasik Eye Surgery at Boothe Eyecare and Laser Center in Plano. She says she didn’t think the surgery went well, and wanted her money back for the work done on one eye. She says Dr. William Boothe refused.
“This tarnishes his reputation,” explained Charla Aldous, Dr. Boothe’s attorney.
CBS 11 wanted to talk to Dr. Boothe, but he referred us to Aldous, who says the Lasik Eye Surgery Dr. Boothe performs is very competitive and that they want to find out who is behind the negative post. “Dr. Boothe has reason to believe that the motive behind this is coming from his competitors who are out to tarnish his name and reputation,” explains Aldous.
Have you found disparaging remarks about you on websites other than those by refractive surgery patients? I remember lasik-eyesurgery-lawsuits.com, a website set up several years ago listing all of Dr. Boothe’s competitors’ lawsuits. This website has since been removed, howevever, it has been archived but will not be available here.
A man identifying himself as “Jim Rickson” has demanded that I shut down the website. He threatened that if I did not do as he demanded, he would retaliate. This blog will document what he has done, who he is, and what doctor he appears to be working for.
Disclaimer: I cannot prove any of this… yet, so for now it is an educated guess.
I suspect that Dr. William A. Boothe, an eye surgeon in Plano, Texas specializing in LASIK has employed the services of “Jim Rickson” to do whatever he can to delete comments posted at DoctorScorecard. If not Dr. Boothe himself, then someone very close to him has employed the services of spammers.
Now I can’t see near or far….everything is blurry and I can read up close ONE WORD AT A TIME….don’t ask me to read a sentence or a street sign.
Yesterday, on May 19, “Jim Rickson” called my home phone number. My wife answered and told him I couldn’t take his call and hung up. He called back… repeatedly. I finally picked up the phone. He asked me if I was “Earl”. I didn’t answer his question, but instead asked him “Who is this?” He said something like “I specialize in defamation on the internet, removing it… and adding it.” I asked him, “So you engage in illegal activity?” I asked him again, “Who are you? What business are you with?” He answered “Jim Rickson”, but did not name his company. After I got him to spell out his name, I hung up the phone.
This spammer never asked us to delete or edit comments from any specific doctor. Why? I think because Dr. Boothe has paid him to carry out these activities and Dr. Boothe does not want to be easily detected… since it’s illegal. It’s illegal because it is obviously defamation, libel, harassment, and now property damage.
Today, a team of spammers defaced the website. The attacks came from Romania, Vietnam, China, Mexico, Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and USA (Keene, New Hampshire). Fortunately, we have safe guards in place for exactly such an attack so all of the spam has been removed from the site. However, I fully expect them to keep trying. So for short periods of time you might see some spam get through on the site until we get it corrected. We would appreciate your help… tell us if you see something unusual on the site and we will investigate.
there are a several comments that completely not true and are very hurtful to Dr. Boothe’s reputation. Some of the comments are not even from patients. Is it possible to have our profile completely removed? We would prefer if Dr. Boothe was not listed on your website at all.
I didn’t respond to the email. I felt his email was threatening and he did not state how the comments about him were slanderous. If he could have stated how the comments about him were slanderous, the comments would have been removed.
Bill Stanley appears to be the spammer’s real name.
According to SpamHaus.org, Bill Stanley has ties to Romania and Austria. The email he sent with the alias “Matt Henley” was sent from IP 80.96.120.30 (stud.usv.ro), which is in Romania.
His efforts helped get hundreds of arrests in Romania. Bill Stanley, the spammer with ties to Romania, is probably continuing his abuse by claiming to be Matt Henley, the eBay employee. Bill Stanley must hate Matt Henly for getting many Romanian spammers arrested. By using “Matt Henly” as an alias, he his trying to defame his character as well.
William Stanley / Ironserver.com is listed as one of the world’s top 200 spammers.
Negative comments he doesn’t want you to see… If you do a Google search for Dr. William A Boothe on Google, DoctorScorecard is shown as the #2 website, preceded only by Dr. Boothe’s main business website.Unfortunately for Dr. Boothe, some patients wrote some negative comments about his business. Dr. Boothe doesn’t want people to see what is at DoctorScorecard.
Dr. Boothe’s email… An email from Dr. Boothe’s email address was sent just days before the spammer called. The email from Dr. Boothe threatened that he would “proceed to the next step”. Getting the spammer to attack must be the “next step” he was referring to.
LASIKDALLASBOOTHE.COMIn that lengthy blog about “Dr. William Boothe”, there are numerous inconsistencies…Dr. William Boothe was born in Quebec, Ontario, Canada, on March 28, 1938.Dr. William Boothe (1950-2007), born in San Diego, California, came from a family of modest income.LOL! If he were born in 1899, Dr. Boothe is over 100 years old!?
He claims to operate “offshore” in Austria and has connections with Austria and Romania.
Description: Non-stop spammer and spam host, sells “bullet-proof hosting” to other spammers to host spam websites. Stanley is an American from Texas.
Digital Reach and Dr. William A Boothe are both located in Plano, Texas. The blog is about Dr. Boothe. The blog links to a business in Dr. Boothe’s city. The blog was registered by Bill Stanley. It appears Dr. Boothe hired Bill Stanley to make spam sites on his behalf.
Now, spam is getting posted on DoctorScorecard by Bill Stanley. They are defacing the pages of other doctors on this site. Fortunately, the spam is getting deleted as fast as it’s being placed on the site. But the spammers are destroying property and that is a crime. They are also adding libel and posting defamation about other doctors.
Bill Stanley, the spammer, with the help of his international team, is filling websites with hateful attacks about me and my family and even worse… he is damaging the reputations of innocent doctors on this site by posting false information about them, which we have been deleting all day. The spammer is committing crimes of harassment, defamation, libel, and destruction of property.
Hackers break into site – which doctor paid them?
The files are what run the website. It’s where the code is located, which allows the site to display doctor information to you when you search for it. The hackers made some telling edits to the files. Everything they touched was related to Dr Boothe and no other doctor.
For example, they changed the robots.txt file to disallow the search engines, like Google, from visiting Dr. Boothe’s scorecard page. When Google visited DoctorScorecard, it saw the instruction from the hackers telling Google to keep out of Dr. Boothe’s scorecard page. As a result, Google no longer shows his scorecard if you search for Dr. Boothe. We found the change and removed the code the hackers put in place, but it was too late. Google has already buried comments written by the public about Dr. Boothe. It’s still there, but it’s not on the first couple pages of search results any more. So the hackers had some success in hiding what people are saying about Dr. Boothe. All of the information is still here at DoctorScorecard, but Google is no longer showing it to the public in its top results.
procedure, was a health care claim that required expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care; and (3) the fraud claim, based on the doctor’s alleged misrepresentation that the procedure would be free if he did not correct her vision to 20/20, required expert testimony to show that he failed to correct her vision, and thus the claim centered on the quality of medical treatment.
OUTCOME: The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
[HN5] In determining whether a claim is subject to the requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 74, a court focuses on the nature and essence of the claim rather than the way it was pleaded. The court considers the alleged wrongful conduct as well as the duties allegedly breached and whether expert testimony is necessary to show breach of an applicable standard of care. However, a claim may be a health care liability claim and not require expert testimony to prevail at trial. If the factual allegations are related to the medical treatment provided by the defendant and constitute an inseparable part of the defendant’s rendition of medical services, then the plaintiffs claim is a health care liability Claim subject to the requirements of ch. 74.
[*449] The trial court below dismissed appellant Tammie Kay Lee’s claims because she failed to file an expert report as required by chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Lee contends the trial court erred in dismissing her claims because they were not health care liability [*450] claims and, therefore, not subject to the expert report requirement of chapter 74. After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial court properly dismissed Lee’s claims. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Tammie Kay Lee engaged the services of William A. Boothe, M.D. d/b/a Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center to have the Interlasik procedure performed on both of her eyes. According to Lee’s petition, she had heard Boothe’s advertisements describing his services as “virtually pain free” and promising the procedure was “absolutely free” if the patient’s vision was not corrected to 20/20. Lee stated that, based upon these representations, she decided to have the operation performed by Boothe.
when he approached her and “yanked her right eye open and slammed the clamp on it, causing intense pain and bruising.” When Lee screamed in pain, Boothe threatened to stop the procedure without completing it. Lee states she was afraid to leave the procedure partially performed. When Boothe continued with her other eye he again allegedly used excessive force to open the eye and “slammed” the clamp into place. Lee asserts she was in pain for up to three weeks after the procedure and the operation did not correct her vision to 20/20. Lee informed Boothe’s office of her dissatisfaction with the procedure. Boothe’s office manager acknowledged the 20/20 guarantee and agreed over the phone to give Lee her money back. Lee alleges, however, that instead ofrefunding her money, Boothe sent her a form to release all claims against him.
Lee brought this suit [**3] alleging claims for breach of contract, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, assault, and fraud. Approximately five months after Lee filed her original petition, Boothe moved to have her claims dismissed because the claims were for health care liability, and she failed to file an expert report as required by section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Lee acknowledged in her response to the motion that she did not file an expert report but argued her claims were not health care liability claims and, therefore, not subject to the expert reportrequirement. The trial court granted Boothe’s motion to dismiss Lee’s claims for violations of the DTPA, assault, and fraud. The court denied the motion with respect to Lee’s claim for breach of contract. Lee later moved to have her claim for breach of contract dismissed without prejudice, and the trial court granted Lee’s motion. Lee brings this appeal challenging the trial court’s order dismissing her claims for DTPA violations, assault, and fraud.
[HN2] a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant, whether the claimant’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract.
In this case, Lee’s factual allegations are, in essence, claims of negligence. All of Lee’s injuries arise out of the allegedly wrongful manner in which Boothe conducted the operation on Lee’s eyes. [HN7] Section 74.004 of the civil practice and remedies code specifically prohibits claims under the [*452] DTPA “for damages for personal injury or death resulting, or alleged to have resulted, from negligence on the part of any physician or health care provider.” TEX. CIV PRAC & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.004 (Vernon 2005). Because the underlying nature of Lee’s alleged DTPA claims is negligence in the rendition of medical services, we conclude the trial court properly applied the requirements of chapter 74 when it dismissed Lee’s claims.
Lee next argues the trial court erred in dismissing her claim for assault because Boothe’s “physical attack” on her was not an inseparable part of the rendition of medical services. We disagree. The “attack” involved Boothe’s alleged use of excessive force during an operation. A determination of whether the force used by Boothe was, in fact, excessive necessarily [**8] requires expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care and whether that standard of care was breached. Accordingly, Lee’s assault claim is a health care liability claim subject to the expert report requirements of chapter 74. See Rubio, 185 S.W.3d at 851. We conclude the trial court properly dismissed Lee’s claim for assault.
Finally, Lee argues the trial court erred in dismissing her fraud claim because the claim has nothing to do with Boothe’s rendition of medical services. Lee’s fraud claim is based on Boothe’s alleged misrepresentation that he would correct her vision to 20/20 or the procedure was free. The fact that Lee alleges Boothe made this misrepresentation knowingly does not affect the underlying nature of the claim. See Dixon, 180 S. If. 3d at 920. To show that Boothe violated his guarantee, Lee must provide expert testimony to show that he failed to correct her vision. Her claim, therefore, centers on themedical treatment provided by Boothe and the quality of that care. Again, the essence of Lee’s claim is negligence in the rendition of health care. See Walden, 907 S.W.2d at 448. The trial court did not err in dismissing Lee’s fraud claim for failure to file an expert [**9] report.
We conclude the trial court properly applied section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to Lee’s claims for violations of the DTPA, assault, and fraud. We affirm the trial Court’s judgment.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant doctor sought interlocutory review of an order from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County (Texas), which denied the doctor’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on the ground that appellee patient failed to comply with the expert report requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b) (2005).
and treatment. The patient’s claim of misrepresentations regarding the release was intertwined with the doctor’s rendition of medical services. With respect to the deceptive trade practices claim, the doctor did not make specific statements that could establish a knowingMisrepresentation or breach of an express warranty regarding the results of treatment.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, rendered judgment in the doctor’s favor dismissing the patient’s claims with prejudice, and remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney fees and costs of court incurred by the doctor.
[HN I] Former Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. § 74.351(a) provides that a healthcare liability claimant must file an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days after filing the claim. If a required expert report has not been served by the 120-day deadline, on propermotion by the defendant the trial court shall dismiss the action with prejudice and award reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the defendant. § 74.351(b).
[HN2] The expert report requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b) apply to a patient’s claims, regardless of whether they are tort claims, when those claims come within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim, defined as a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant, whether the claimant’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74, 001 (a)(13) (2005).
[HN7] An allegation that a misrepresentation is made knowingly is not determinative when analyzing the underlying nature of a claim to determine whether a cause of action falls under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 74’s definition of a health care liability claim.
court’s order, render judgment dismissing Dixon’s claims with prejudice, and remand this case solely for a determination nation of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred by Boothe.
Based on Dixon’s allegations, Dixon sought treatment for his vision from Boothe and underwent laser eye surgery in July 2001. His eyesight improved, but “then dramatically deteriorated.” Dixon contacted Boothe, who told Dixon that lie needed “touch up” surgery. Boothe performed another laser surgery, after which Dixon’s vision did not significantly improve and “began further deterioration.” Dixon reported this result to Boothe, who told Dixon a new procedure called “custom abrasion” would be approved within the next year and that this surgery would solve Dixon’s problems. Boothe told Dixon he would be an “ideal candidate” for custom abrasion and he would refund Dixon’s money on the two previous surgeries. [*917] Based on Boothe’s representations that custom abrasion would be available and would solve Dixon’s problems, Dixon and his wife executed a “Release of All Claims” in November 2002. 1 In April 2003, Dixon contacted Boothe’s office, but was informed that Boothe did not see patients after one year. Subsequently, Dixon learned that he was not a candidate for the initial surgery or the touch up surgery and, as a result of the two surgeries, he [**3] was not a candidate for custom abrasion.
2 Dixon’s original petition is not included in the record on appeal. Boothe contends that the only difference between the original petition and the first amended petition is that Boothe deleted claims for medical negligence from the first amended petition. Neither party contends that Dixon’s factual allegations in his first amended original petition differed substantively from those in his original petition.
Boothe filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and a first amended and supplemental motion to dismiss. Boothe argued that all Dixon’s claims were based on Boothe’s medical treatment or medical opinion as to future events and thus were a recasting of medical negligence claims, which were subject to dismissal for failure to file an expert report within the deadline required [**6] by section 74.351(b). In addition, Boothe argued [*918] that Dixon’s DTPA claims were barred by section 74.004 because they were recast medical negligence claims. 3 Boothe also argued that he was entitled to summary judgment because the Release of All Claims barred all claims as a matter of law. He requested attorney’s fees and costs of court. Dixon responded to the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court denied Boothe’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment without specifying the grounds on which its decision was based.
3 Section 74.004(a) provides: “Notwithstanding any other law, Sections 17.41-17.63, Business & Commerce Code, do not apply to physicians or health care providers with respect to claims for damages for personal injury or death resulting, or alleged to have resulted, from negligence on the part of any physician or health care provider.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.004(a) (Vernon 2005).
In his single issue, Boothe argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because all Dixon’s claims were improperly recast medical negligence claims subject to dismissal for noncompliance with the expert report requirement of section 74.351(b).
[HNl] The version of section 74.351(a) that applies to this case provided that a healthcare liability claimant must file an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days after filing the claim. Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 205, § 10.01, 2003 Tex. Gen, Laws 847, 975, amended byAct of May 18, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 635, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1590 (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005). If a required expert report has not been served by the 120-day deadline, on proper motion by the defendant the trial court “shall” dismiss the action with prejudice and award reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the defendant. TEX. CIV PRAC. & REM. CODEANN. § 74.351(b) [**8] .
any act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by any health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.
have been performed, by one [**9] licensed to practice medicine in this state for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s care, treatment, or confinement.
Boothe argues that Dixon improperly recast medical negligence claims to avoid dismissal. Boothe argues that all Dixon’s claims are intertwined with Boothe’s rendition of medical services, which involved Boothe’s diagnosis of Dixon’s medical condition and Boothe’s medical judgment and advice as to the choice of medical procedures; the potential risks and complications such as visual deterioration and candidacy for further medical treatment; and Dixon’s alleged physical injury from the two surgeries. We agree.
To prove that Boothe’s diagnoses and treatment were to Dixon’s detriment, Dixon would have to provide proof of his medical condition before and after the laser surgeries and in relation to custom abrasion. Dixon must also prove Boothe undertook a mode or form of treatmentthat a reasonable and prudent member of the medical profession would not undertake under the same or similar circumstances and rely on expert medical testimony. See Gomez, 55 S.W3d at 735 (concluding allegations of “knowing” misrepresentation [**12] regarding necessity of hysterectomy a health care liability claim). Dixon’s claim that Boothe’s misrepresentations regarding the release were improper is aninseparable part of Boothe’s rendition of medical services because Dixon’s claim rests on alleged misrepresentations [*920] regarding medical care and treatment. See Parker v. CCS/Meadow Pines, Inc., 166 S. W 3 509, 513 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (concluding allegations of improper restraint related to course of care or treatment a health care liability claim); Williams v. Walker, 995 S. W 2 740, 741-42 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1999, no pet) (concluding allegations of assault and battery regarding use of medical procedure without patient’s consent a health care liability claim).
requirements of chapter 74 because Boothe knowingly made a false statement about Dixon’s condition. Dixon contends that this representation constitutes fraud pursuant to Shannon v. Law-Yore, 950 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. App. -Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied) . [** 13] In Shannon,the plaintiff alleged specific fraudulent conduct in connection with keeping him hospitalized, including deceiving him into rescinding requests for release, creating false records, misrepresenting that insurance would not cover his medical bills if he were releasedagainst medical advice, and misrepresenting his condition to others. Id. at 432-34. The plaintiff did not allege negligence in his treatment or medical malpractice. Id. at 437. However, [HN7] an allegation that a misrepresentation is made “knowingly” is not determinative when analyzing the underlying nature of a claim. See Savage v. Psychiatric Inst. of Bedford, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 745, 752 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied). Here, the underlying nature of the claim is whether Dixon would be a candidate for custom abrasion after two laser surgeries, which is a question of medical condition, diagnosis, and treatment. See id Consequently, Shannon is distinguishable.
Moreover, the only question at this stage is whether the underlying nature of each of Dixon’s claims is a health care liability claim; this is a threshold requirement, not a recovery requirement. [**14] See Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835, 838, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J 943(Tex. 2005) (per curiam). Consequently, Dixon’s reliance on cases regarding the submission of issues of fraud and informed consent in medical malpractice cases is misplaced. See Gaut v. Quast, 510 S.W.2d 90, 17 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 308 (Tex. 1974) (per curiam); Crundwell v. Becker, 981 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. App.-Houston (1st Dist.] 1998, pet denied); Melissinos v. Phamanivong, 823 S.W. 2d 339 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1991, writ denied).
Finally, Dixon contends that any medical malpractice claim is the basis of his damages, not his claims in this suit. However, there are no separate damages pleaded as [*921] between a fraudulent inducement claim and other claims. Moreover, proof of the economic value of theclaims released requires proof of those claims, that is, whether Boothe’s medical and treatment of Dixon met the applicable standard of care.
We conclude that all Dixon’s claims meet the statutory definition of a “health care liability claim” and are thus subject to the expert report requirement of section 74.351(b), and we reject all Dixon’s arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, we resolve Boothe’s issue inhis favor. Because of our resolution of Boothe’s argument regarding section 74.351(b), we need [* * 16] not address his argument regarding section 74.004. Because Dixon failed to file an expert report as required by section 74.351(b), we reverse the trial court’s order denying motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and render judgment in Boothe’s favor dismissing Dixon’s claims with prejudice.
In his motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and in his prayer in his brief on appeal, Boothe requested attorney’s fees and costs of court, which are mandatory under the statute when a claimant fails to file an expert report in a health care liability claim. See TEX.CIV PRAC. & REM CODE ANN. § 74.351(b)(1). Accordingly, we remand this suit solely for a determination of attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred by Boothe.
JUDGES: Before Justices Wright, O’Neill, and Lang. Opinion by Justice O’Neill.
Relators contend the trial judge erred in denying their motion to compel arbitration. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown the trial judge abused his discretion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) [*2] ; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-44, 35 Tex. Sup. C1. J. 468 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.
Description: ON NOVEMBER 30, 2007, THE BOARD AND DR. BOOTHE ENTERED INTO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGREED ORDER REQUIRING DR. BOOTHE TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $1,000. THE ACTION WAS BASED ON DR. BOOTHE’S FAILURE TO RETAIN COPIES OF ALL ADVERTISEMENTS USED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE LAST DATE OF BROADCAST OR PUBLICATION AND TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD UPON REQUEST.
Texas Medical Board (the “Board”), duly in session, the matter. of the license of William Albert Boothe, M.D. (“Respondent”).
By the signature of the Respondent on this Administrative Order, Respondent waives the right to appear at an Informal Show Compliance Proceeding and Settlement Conference pursuant to Section 164.004, Medical Practice Act, Title 3, Subtitle B, Texas Occupations Code (“Act”) and Board Rule 187.18 and all rights pursuant to Sections 2001.051 and 2001.054, Texas Government Code, including, but not limited to, the right to notice and hearing, and instead agrees to the entry of this Administrative Agreed Order pursuant to Section 164.0025 of the Act and Board Rule 187.14. John Heisler represented Board staff.
Respondent has previously been the subject of one disciplinary action by the Board which resulted in an Agreed Order entered on August 26, 2005, providing for an administrative penalty of $500 based on findings that Respondent failed to release medical records to a patient within 15 business days of receipt of the patient’s request. As a result of Respondent’s compliance, the Agreed Order was terminated on October 4, 2005.
After the initiation of the investigation by the Board in this matter,. Respondent terminated his business relationship with an independent advertising agency to whom he delegated the responsibility of maintaining records of Respondent’s advertisements during the period of time set forth in the preceding paragraph.
Respondent has cooperated in the investigation of the allegations related to this Administrative Agreed Order. Respondent’s cooperation, through consent to this Administrative Agreed Order, pursuant to the provisions of Section 164.002 of the Act, will save money and resources for the State of Texas. To avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense and inconvenience of litigation, Respondent agrees to the entry of this Administrative Agreed, Order and to comply with its terms and conditions.
Respondent shall pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1000 within 90 days of the date of the entry of this Order. The administrative penalty shall be paid in a single payment by cashier’s check or money order payable to the Texas Medical Board and shall be submitted to the Director of Enforcement for the Board for routing so as to be remitted to the Comptroller of Texas for deposit in the general revenue fund. Respondent’s failure to pay the administrative penalty as ordered shall constitute grounds for further disciplinary action by the Board, and may result in a referral by the Executive Director of the Board for collection by the Office of the Attorney General.
Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of the Act and other statutes regulating the Respondent’s practice.
Respondent shall inform the Board in writing of any change of Respondent’s mailing or practice address within 10 days of the address change. This information shall be submitted to the Permits Department and the Director of Enforcement for the Board. Failure to provide such information in a timely manner shall constitute a basis for disciplinary action by the Board against Respondent pursuant to the Act.
Respondent has cooperated in the investigation of the allegations related to this Agreed Order. Respondent’s cooperation, through consent to this Agreed Order, pursuant to the provisions of Section 164.002 the Act, will save money and resources for the State of Texas. To avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense and inconvenience of litigation, Respondent agrees to the entry of this Agreed Order and to comply with its terms and conditions.
Section 164.051(a)(3) of the Act authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent’s violation of a rule adopted under this Act. Respondent failed to comply with Section 165.2 of the Rules of the Board, which provides the requirements for timely and appropriate release of medical records and the documentation requirements regarding medical records that may be withheld.
Respondent shall pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $500 within 60 days of the entry of this Order. The administrative penalty shall be paid in a single payment by cashier’s check or money order payable to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and shall be submitted to the Director of Compliance for the Board for routing so as to be remitted to the Comptroller of Texas for deposit in the general revenue fund. Respondent’s failure to pay the administrative penalty as ordered shall constitute grounds for further disciplinary action by the Board, and may result in a referral by the Executive Director of the Board for collection by the Office of the Attorney General.
I’ve been notified that Dr. Boothe is highly upset these documents have become public. Enough so that he hired someone to visit Mr. Hanson’s place of residency to copy the hard drive on his computer. Mr. Hanson is under court order not to divulge any information regarding his lawsuit with Dr. Boothe. The information was received prior to court order.
Problem #1: The home owner warned Dr. Boothe’s attorneys that she would have Bryan Thornton arrested for trespassing if he stepped on to her property.
Problem #2: Bryan couldn’t find a power cord out in the street.
LASIK is a surgical procedure intended to reduce a person’s dependency on glasses or contact lenses. The goal of this Web site is to provide objective information to the public about LASIK surgery.
Where can I go to find a LASIK surgeon in North Dallas who is not a “quack”?
2007-2008 I would highly recommend not using Dr. Boothe. The man is rude, egotistical, arrogant, unprofessional, and uncaring. He yells at and threatens his employees within earshot of his patients (I witnessed this in the operating room, of all places). He has no personality and no people skills. The only thing you’ll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so you’d better hope you know the right questions to ask. He’s really only interested in getting your money and offers you a discount if you get your procedure done the same week you have your first consultation. Don’t fall for this — you really need to take the time to research this and make sure you’re making the right decision.
I sit in front of a computer all day, which I told Dr. Boothe. He told me I was a good candidate for LASIK, specifically the mono vision procedure. I definitely was not a good candidate. After having this procedure done, I could not read my computer screen at a normal distance — I had to sit practically right on top of my screen to see it. A normal viewing distance for a computer screen does not fall within the 18 inches or so that is considered the ideal reading distance. I absolutely was not a good candidate for mono vision, and I eventually had to have it reversed so that now both eyes are for distance. Now I have to wear reading glasses, usually even when using my computer. I think he’d tell you anything to get your money. I knew this was a risk going in with this procedure, but no one in his office (including Dr. Boothe) ever really explained to me what a compromise it is to have mono vision. They did some quick simulation that lasted 30 seconds or less to supposedly give you a feel for what it will be like, but it’s not a real world demonstration. You will not see as well at any distance (with both eyes open) as you would with progressive lenses, the main problem being mid-distances past 2-3 feet or so. Independently each eye worked pretty well when I’d cover the other eye, but together they just drove me crazy. I was told later by one of his doctors after having this procedure done that what they shoot for with this is giving you what they call ‘good functional vision.’ I can tell you that for me it was neither good nor functional. It was awful.
My right eye (for distance) was never right after the initial procedure, and they had to redo (they call it an ‘enhancement’) it after about 3.5 months. It was so bad that they had to prescribe glasses for me to use when driving prior to the redo. It seems to be fine now, but I had to start all over again with getting my brain used to the mono vision. However, it just never worked for me, and they reversed my mono vision by turning my left eye into a distance eye about 6 months after the initial procedure. In general, I can now see much better than I did with mono vision. In general, my distance vision is much better now, particularly outdoors during the day in sunlight.
However, four months after the mono vision reversal I am still having some difficulties with my vision indoors and outdoors at night as a result of my left eye (one reversed from being a reading eye) in anything other than bright lighting (I can cover my left eye and the problems go away), but Dr. Boothe didn’t seem to care about this and didn’t even want to listen (at least his other doctors I first met with that day did listen before passing me on to see Dr. Boothe). He told me that I was seeing 20/15 that day in his office and that I should be ‘damn happy’ with my eyesight. I live in the real world, and it does not consist of staring at an eye chart from 20 feet away all day. I told him I could see pretty well outdoors in bright light but that I could see better indoors in many situations when I used to wear glasses. Things are just not as sharp and clear with my left eye in these situations, and I seem to have some nearsightedness with it still and see ghosting/shadowing/doubling of bright objects. The difficulties I’m having are real, but he didn’t care. He was just concerned with meeting his contract obligation of 20/20 vision. He dismissed my concerns as me being a whiner and not knowing what I was talking about. Why would I complain about something that was not real? It’s not like I enjoy having a corneal flap cut multiple times and then having my eye blasted with a laser. He also basically called me a liar when I told him the first person I met with at my initial consultation (actually their finance person) told me that LASIK would allow you to see 30X better than any other vision correction method. I know what I heard.
He also herds people through his office like cattle. Expect to be there for at least 2 hours even for a simple follow-up visit. There are almost always dozens of people in the office at once waiting, and you’ll get shuttled from room to room many times and wait in various waiting rooms during all of this. It also seems that a lot of the people you talk to have had to have their eyes redone for whatever reason, and many of the people I talked to who had the mono vision procedure done were also having a lot of difficulty with it.
No treatment I have read over other comments and would like to confirm that as a former employees wife Dr. Boothe is an out of control employer. He belittles employees infront of patients and peers. He uses profanity while doing this. Patients call frequently to the office to complain about this but he praises himself that he rules his office with an iron fist. (Something he is quite proud of). His employees are afraid of him but apparently need a job so sit back and take it. While this one didn’t and I wish the others were able to do the same. As for his number of lasiks performed. He does 120-150 in one day. Ask which one you will be if you plan on scheduling. Advertising every 10 minutes on the radio brings in alot of people. Not too many patients come referred by others. Too bad they don’t know what kind of physician they are supporting. If you doubt any of this visit the office and see how it goes. I recommend you see a doctor who gives his employees the respect you would expect him to give his patients. Good results are achievable by good and up to date equipment.
His hourly employee recommended the restore lens and followed up by lasik because the restore…..ruins your far sighted vision. I saw Dr. Boothe for 2 minutes..he showed me a card with small print and said I would be able to read the card with no problem …I would have 20/20 vision.
Result….the restorelens left me with blurred vision, halos, and I could only read a few words at a time….
I asked for my money back and I would go away. NO , I could not have my money back…I had to have the lasik and my vision would be perfect.
DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN ….he just wants your money and thinks he’s above the law because he makes you sign the desclaimers.
On the lasik…they did not want me to read the warnings but I had to write in my own handwriting that i read and understood it but they didn’t let me read it. i CANNOT BELIEVE I WAS SO STUPID.
Also the lasik correction was done poorly also and they recommended doing it again…That didn’t happen…I was petrified of allowing that man to touch my eyes again…the next time , I might end up blind…as that is also in the fine print that you can’t read.
I’m seeing a physician in another city , associated with high quality hospital …to see if he can repair my vision..
BOTTOM LINE…if your needs require high full function vision for your work….run the other way and don’t have surgery unless you really have to …God gave me one set of eyes and Dr. Boothe took one away.
2006 I have not and will not be a patient of this doctor. Reasons for this is one I’ve talked to the staff and source will not be name. This doctor has committed malpractice in his employees eyes but threatens them with legal action of a non-disclosure agreement they have sign. He has also fallen asleep during surgery (This can be confirmed by his staff). He also treats his staff like they are slaves and not human beings, yes they are getting paid but even I wouldn’t work for what I’m hearing them say he calls them and the way he treats them. He is always firing his office staff because of incompetency when he is the one who is incompetent. Today he has had two of his staff walk out of the surgery room and quit. One being a technician and another being an ophthalmologist. His office is also out of regulations concerning health laws. I highly do not recommend going to this doctor.
8/14/08 3 1 1 3 I told Dr.Boothe I sit at a PC all day and was told I was a good candidate for LASIK, specifically for mono vision. I could not read my PC screen at a normal distance and had to sit right on top of my screen to see it. A normal viewing distance for a computer screen does not fall within the 18″ that is considered the ideal reading distance. I was not a good candidate for mono vision, and I eventually had to have it reversed for distance only. I still have difficulties indoors with my left eye (the one reversed from beig a reading eye)in anything other than bright lighting (I can cover my left eye and the problems go away), but Dr. Boothe really didn’t seem to care about this and really didn’t even want to listen. He told me that I was seeing 20/15 that day in his office and that I should be “damn happy” with my eyesight. I live in the real world, and it does not consist of staring at an eye chart from 20′ away all day. The difficulties I’m having are real, but Dr. Boothe didn’t care.
8/14/08 4 2 1 3 He is egotistical, arrogant, unprofessional, and uncaring. He yells at and threatens his employees within earshot of his patients. He has no personality and no people skills. The only thing you’ll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so you’d better hope you know the right questions to ask. He’s really only interested in getting your money and offers you a discount if you get your procedure done the same week you have your first consultation. Don’t fall for this — you really need to take the time to research this and make sure you’re making the right decision.
7/15/08 1 1 1 2 During each procedure nothing is expalined. During the surgery Boothe became verbally abusive to a co-worker and berated him in the surgery room with 20 pateints waiting. I almost got-up and shouted “what the hey is going-on here?” Booth is threatening to replace a guy during the surgery. I was next in line getting ready to be worked-on by a guy who was fearing for his job and then by a doctor angry with his staff – lasers flying around my eyes in this environment is unethical.
5/8/07 1 1 3 First off, I’m a medical office manager of 10 physicians so I know what I am talking about. This physician and the way he treats his patients is not acceptable. He is rude and arrogant. No bed side manner at all! He arrived in my room for my 1st visit, didn’t even look at me, he reviewed my chart, discussed with the nurse what he was going to do and was gone in less than 3 minutes. Follow up visit was less than 2 minutes even tho I waited 2 hours to be seen. He runs his practice like a production line. The last 2 comments about him and the cattle drive are right on. I have told everyone I meet about the horrible experience I have had, and let me tell you I have heard from quite a few people with basically the the same stories. How he gets away with how he runs his clinic is beyond me. If you want a physician to give you one on one attention and compassionate care, DO NOT GO TO DR BOOTHE!
5/8/06 1 1 4 This doctor runs his business like a cattle drive. I’ve never experienced such a high volume, impersonal procedure as I did having lasik performed by Dr. Boothe. Would discourage anyone from using him.

References: §15
 §15
 §15
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 10
 § 1
 § 74
 § 74
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 74
 v.