Source: http://www.lasikdecision.com/?page_id=61
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:38:21+00:00

Document:
â€œMay 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 Bootheâ€™s.
1.1Â Â Â Pursuant to Rule 1904 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Dr. Boothe intends to conduct Discovery in this case under a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan that has been or will be submitted to the Court for its approval.
2.1Â Â Â Dr. Boothe, a natural person, is a private individual within the meaning of Texas law and is a citizen of the State of Texas, and at all times relevant hereto resided in Dallas County, Texas.
2.2Â Â Â Defendant Kraddick, a natural person, is a private individual within the meaning of Texas law and is a citizen of the State of Texas, and upon information and belief, is a resident of Dallas County, Texas.Â Upon information and belief, Kraddick can be served with service of process at his residence or at KISS-FM in Dallas County, Texas.
2.3.Â Â Â Defendant Raspberry, a natural person, is private individual within the meaning of Texas law and is a citizen of the State of Texas, and, upon information and belief, is a resident of Dallas County, Texas.Â Upon information and belief, Raspberry can be served with service of process at her residence or at KISS-FM in Dallas County, Texas.
2.4Â Â Â Defendant Mack, a natural person, is private individual within the meaning of Texas law and is a citizen of the State of Texas, and, upon information and belief, is a resident of Dallas County, Texas.Â Upon information and belief, Mack can be served with service of process at his residence or at KISS-FM in Dallas County, Texas.
3.1.Â Â Â This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter in this Petition as the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.
3.2.Â Â Â Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas under Â§15.017 Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because, upon information and belief, Defendants Kraddick, Raspberry and Mack reside in Dallas County, Texas.Â Venue is also proper in Dallas County, Texas under Â§15.017 Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because, upon information and belief, Defendants Kraddick, Raspberry and Mack reside in Dallas County, Texas.Â Venue is also proper in Dallas County, Texas under Â§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-FMâ€™s audience in Dallas County, Texas.
4.1Â Â Â At all times material to this lawsuit, Dr. Boothe has been a licensed medical doctor.Â Dr. Boothe owns and operates the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center.
4.2Â Â Â Prior to the defamatory radio broadcasts by the defendants, Dr. Boothe had enjoyed a successful medical practice for many years.Â As a result of his success, Dr. Booth (sic) and the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center became one of the nationâ€™s largest providers of Laser eye-care services.Â 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.
5.1Â Â Â Non-defendant, Clear Channel Worldwide, Inc., a/k/a Clear Channel Communications, owns operates and controls radio station KHKS-FM 106.1-KISS FM.Â Clear Channel is a diversified media company that operates in various business segments that include television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, outdoor advertising and live entertainment.Â The television and radio broadcasting segments include television and radio stations for which Clear Channel is the licensee and for which it programs and/or sells air time to television and radio stations in the Fort Worth and Dallas areas.Â Clear Channel and KISS-FM broadcast daily from Dallas, Texas, and are generally listened to throughout the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex and throughout the Sate (sic) of Texas. Its website is viewed around the world.
5.2Â Â Â Clear Channel also sponsors and maintain websites on the world wide web using the URL locatorsÂ www.1061kissfm.comÂ andÂ www.kiddlive.com, on which matters relating to its broadcasts are further published.
5.3Â Â Â Defendant Kraddick is a radio personality whose program is broadcast by Clear Channel.Â At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Kraddick was acting in his individual capacity and as an agent or employee or authorized representative of Clear Channel.
5.4Â Â Â Defendant Raspberry is a radio personality who regularly appears on Kraddickâ€™s radio show broadcast by Clear Channel.Â At all times relevant hereto, Raspberry was acting in her individual capacity and as an agent or employee or authorized representative of Clear Channel.
5.5Â Â Â Defendant Mack is a radio personality who regularly appears on Kraddickâ€™s radio show broadcast by Clear Channel.Â At all times relevant hereto, Mack was acting in his individual capacity and as an agent or employee or authorized representative of Clear Channel.
6.1Â Â Â 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.Â Dr. Bootheâ€™s advertisements have regularly appeared on Clear Channel Stations and, in particular, on KISS-FM.Â Dr. Boothe has also purchased an advertising link on KISS FMâ€™s homepage on the worldwide web located atÂ www.1061kissfm.com.
6.2Â Â Â Dr. Bootheâ€™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 areaâ€™s largest provider of refractive surgical procedures.Â 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 listenerâ€™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.Â 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.Â 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.
7.1Â Â Â Dr. Boothe incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Sections 1 through 6, above, as if set forth in their entirety herein.
7.3Â Â Â The â€œgistâ€ 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.Â 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.
7.4Â Â Â The reasonable interpretations as a reasonable listener would have, on the whole, from defendantsâ€™ false, scandalous, and defamatory statements and implications about Dr. Boothe from the broadcast include, but are not limited to those set forth above.
7.5Â Â Â The false information aired by the defendants as alleged in this Petition is defamatory, in that, as reasonably understood, the information tended harmed the character and reputation of Dr. Boothe, so as to lower him in the opinion and estimation of the community and in his profession and deterred other persons from associating or dealing with him.Â As a result of the defamatory statements, Dr. Boothe has suffered general and special damages.
8.1Â Â Â All previous allegations in this petition are re-alleged, incorporated and adopted as if set forth at length.
8.2Â Â Â The statements of the defendants have disparaged Dr. Bootheâ€™s business.Â As a result of the defendantsâ€™ business disparagement, the public image as to the quality of Dr. Bootheâ€™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.
8.3Â Â Â As a further result of the defendantsâ€™ 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.Â 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.Â Even more incredible is the fact that the defendants have intentionally and maliciously â€œbitten the hand that feeds themâ€ by disparaging Dr. Boothe in a reckless and malicious manner.
8.4Â Â Â As a result of the defendantsâ€™ business disparagement, Dr. Boothe has suffered general and special damages.
9.1Â Â Â All previous allegations in this petition are re-alleged, incorporated and adopted as if set forth at length.
9.2Â Â Â 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.Â These revenues paid to Clear Channel have directly or indirectly contributed to the financial support of the defendants.Â 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. Bootheâ€™s professional reputation.Â In so doing, the defendants acted intentionally or recklessly.Â Moreover, their actions were extreme and outrageous and caused Dr. Boothe severe emotional distress.
9.3Â Â Â In so acting, the defendantâ€™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.
9.4Â Â Â As a result of the defendantsâ€™ business disparagement, Dr. Boothe has suffered general and special damages.
10.1Â Â Â All previous allegations in this petition are re-alleged, incorporated and adopted as if set forth at length.
10.2Â Â Â The statements of the defendants disparaged the services of Dr. Boothe by making false and misleading representations of fact in violation of Title 2, Â§ 17.46(b)(8) of the Business and Commerce Code -Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
10.3Â Â Â As a result of the defendantsâ€™ violation of the Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act, Dr. Boothe has suffered general and special damages.
11.3Â Â Â Punitive damages against the defendants or, alternatively, additional damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act in an amount not to exceed $2,00,00.
11.5Â Â Â All other relief to which Dr. Boothe may be entitled.
Female: â€¦91 today, 73 now.Â Brought to you by Parts City Auto Leasing.
2nd Male: â€¦two, one, go.
Male: Does the Lasik doctor youâ€™re considering work out?
2nd Male: Ah, yeah, I hope so.Â I want him to be in good shape.
Male: Itâ€™s very important.Â 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!Â Heâ€™s got to be really tired, donâ€™t you think?
2nd Male: Ehhâ€¦ if heâ€™s done sixty-four thousand you know he doesnâ€™t have time to work out, you know, and get himself in top physical and mental condition.
Male: Heâ€™s probably about to go crazy.
Female: Heâ€™s probably developed arthritis in his hands.
Male: â€¦(inaudible) can afford that.
Female: That helps him develop the inner peace of mindâ€¦(inaudible) more comfortably.
Male: â€¦does Pilates now so heâ€™s in tip top physical and mental condition when he performs his surgery and maybe the Pilates is a small reason to be aâ€¦(inaudible) a reason to mention the Best Lasik surgeon in all of Dallas Ft. Worth.
2nd Male: It canâ€™t hurt.Â Iâ€™ve done it.
Male: Now itâ€™s uh blade free Lasik and theyâ€™re having a big seminar, uh, next Thursday night.Â Thatâ€™s a week from tonight.Â Dallas and Plano.Â You can watch the surgery being performed.Â I know that sounds like oh-my-god I canâ€™t watch that.Â Itâ€™s so nothing.Â I meanâ€¦(inaudible).
Auyoung, 26, posted a review on Google after having Lasik Eye Surgery at Boothe Eyecare and Laser Center in Plano. She says she didnâ€™t think the surgery went well, and wanted her money back for the work done on one eye. She says Dr. William Boothe refused.
â€œThis tarnishes his reputation,â€ explained Charla Aldous, Dr. Bootheâ€™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. â€œDr. Boothe has reason to believe that the motive behind this is coming from his competitors who are out to tarnish his name and reputation,â€ 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. Bootheâ€™s competitorsâ€™ lawsuits. This website has since been removed, howevever, it has been archived but will not be available here.
The spammer sells a service to hide negative comments from the public. Unfortunately for his clients, he does a poor job at that. He has tried to hide what people have said about the doctors. Back in 2006, a blogger atÂ matchent.comÂ observed how Stanley worked for doctors.
He has a lot of doctors (dentists, cosmetic surgeons, some â€œLASIKâ€ guys etc.) as customers, a quick search implicates some of them are trying to hide cases of malpractice and tax fraud.
A man identifying himself as â€œJim Ricksonâ€ 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 thisâ€¦ yet, so for now it is an educated guess.
I suspect thatÂ Dr. William A. Boothe, an eye surgeon in Plano, Texas specializing in LASIK has employed the services of â€œJim Ricksonâ€ to do whatever he can to deleteÂ commentsÂ posted at DoctorScorecard. If not Dr. Boothe himself, then someone very close to him has employed the services of spammers.
Now I canâ€™t see near or farâ€¦.everything is blurry and I can read up close ONE WORD AT A TIMEâ€¦.donâ€™t ask me to read a sentence or a street sign.
Yesterday, on May 19, â€œJim Ricksonâ€ called my home phone number. My wife answered and told him I couldnâ€™t take his call and hung up. He called backâ€¦ repeatedly. I finally picked up the phone. He asked me if I was â€œEarlâ€. I didnâ€™t answer his question, but instead asked him â€œWho is this?â€ He said something like â€œI specialize in defamation on the internet, removing itâ€¦ and adding it.â€ I asked him, â€œSo you engage in illegal activity?â€ I asked him again, â€œWho are you? What business are you with?â€ He answered â€œJim Ricksonâ€, but did not name his company. After I got him to spell out his name, I hung up the phone.
The email continues to spew lie after lie. Doing an easy search online revealed that he simply copied and pasted the disturbing write-up fromÂ another website. He obviously changed the name of the accused to my name.
Within hours of the email, many pages appeared online with the repulsive comments, mostly regarding sexually immoral acts, designed to hurt me personally. Ironically, I would never tolerate this kind of abuse to a doctor on this site. If a doctor feels that someone has lied about them, there areÂ simple guidelinesÂ which includes just sending us a simple email. We treat doctors with respect and want to protect them from libel and defamation. We have deleted libelous comments from this site.
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 detectedâ€¦ since itâ€™s illegal. Itâ€™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 helpâ€¦Â tell usÂ 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. Bootheâ€™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 noticed that you have slanderous material about me in your website. One entry indicates that they are not even a patient. My recommendation would be that you remove my name from the site.Â I spent a million dollars getting a site removed over three years ago.*Â Therefore you have to know that I have a lot of resolve to protect my reputation. I will start with the easy steps first and go from there. I would appreciate some correspondence in short order or I will proceed to the next step.
I didnâ€™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 spammerâ€™s real name.
According toÂ SpamHaus.org, Bill Stanley has ties to Romania and Austria. The email he sent with the alias â€œMatt Henleyâ€ 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 â€œMatt Henlyâ€ as an alias, he his trying to defame his character as well.
William Stanley / Ironserver.comÂ is listed as one of theÂ worldâ€™s top 200 spammers.
Negative comments he doesnâ€™t want you to seeâ€¦Â If you do a Google search for Dr. William A Boothe on Google, DoctorScorecard is shown as the #2 website, preceded only by Dr. Bootheâ€™s main business website.Unfortunately for Dr. Boothe, some patients wrote some negative comments about his business. Dr. Boothe doesnâ€™t want people to see what is at DoctorScorecard.
Dr. Bootheâ€™s emailâ€¦Â An email from Dr. Bootheâ€™s email address was sent just days before the spammer called. The email from Dr. Boothe threatened that he would â€œproceed to the next stepâ€. Getting the spammer to attack must be the â€œnext stepâ€ he was referring to.
LASIKDALLASBOOTHE.COMIn that lengthy blog about â€œDr. William Bootheâ€, there are numerous inconsistenciesâ€¦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 â€œoffshoreâ€ in Austria and has connections with Austria and Romania.
Description: Non-stop spammer and spam host, sells â€œbullet-proof hostingâ€ 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. Bootheâ€™s city. The blog was registered by Bill Stanley. It appears Dr. Boothe hired Bill Stanley to make spam sites on his behalf.
How is David Boothe related to Dr. William Boothe? How is Digital Reach related to the Boothes?Â Tell usÂ if you know.
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 itâ€™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.
If you are a lawyer or would like to help investigate this case, pleaseÂ contact us.
Donations could help cover court costs and investigations to prosecute the spammers and Dr. Boothe if we have enough evidence against him. You could support us by becoming an advertising sponsor for your business or website, as long as it fits well with this site. If you would like to donate, you would help usÂ keep this site up and running.
Bill Stanley, the spammer, with the help of his international team, is filling websites with hateful attacks about me and my family and even worseâ€¦ 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.
For everyone else: We stand up for your right to speak freely. Donâ€™t let anyone ever intimidate you to give up your rights.
I noticed that you have slanderous material about me in your website. One entry indicates that they are not even a patient. My recommendation would be that you remove my name from the site.Â I spent a million dollars getting a site removed over three years ago. Therefore you have to know that I have a lot of resolve to protect my reputation. I will start with the easy steps first and go from there. I would appreciate some correspondence in short order or I will proceed to the next step.
Some time ago, Dr. Boothe contacted me asking if I would consider removing some of the material then posted on lasiksucks4u.com. Iâ€™m not exactly sure of when it was, but given the creation date of the word document titled â€˜boothe responseâ€™ whereas my response was no, I would say February, 2007.
A sales agreementÂ was delivered to me via UPSÂ on October 16, 2007 with the name William Stanley as the sender.
On May 23 2008, I became aware of the posting onÂ www.doctorscorecard.com. Upon reading the post on Mr. Thurstonâ€™s blog titled â€œSpammers attacked site â€“ appears to be linked to a doctorâ€, I realized it was the same person he wrote about (Jim Rickson/William Stanley) that purchased lasikdecision.com.
The information in the â€˜doctorsâ€™ section on the backend of the site (admin area) had all of the doctors previously listed with the exception of Dr. William Boothe.
Hackers break into site â€“ which doctor paid them?
The hackers uploaded a trojan. The trojan appeared to give them the ability to edit several files on our server. The hackers accessed the site from an IP address in Dallas, TX. Plano, where Dr. Boothe has his business, is a northern suburb of Dallas. The hackers worked from the same area where theÂ Boothe Eye Care and Laser CenterÂ is located.
The files are what run the website. Itâ€™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. Bootheâ€™s scorecard page. When Google visited DoctorScorecard, it saw the instruction from the hackers telling Google to keep out of Dr. Bootheâ€™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. Itâ€™s still there, but itâ€™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.
The Boothe Eye Care & Laser Center in Plano, Texas advertises constantly on the radio in the Dallas area about Dr. Boothe being the â€œworldâ€™s most experiencedâ€ laser surgeon. Well, my wife was thinking about getting this done, and she did a little poking around on theirWeb siteÂ and noticed that they offered a FREE consultation, so she decided to go see if she was eligible.
(I should point out here that sheâ€™d pretty much made up her mind to do it, so this â€œclientâ€ was theirs to loose!) So, anyway, she made an appointment to go in and find out what all was entailed with this surgery, being pretty sure she wanted to do it, but a little anxious about it. Perfectly normal I would sayâ€¦ Everything seemed fine until she arrived to the office, where she learned she needed to pay $150 to have the consultation!
It should be noted that they advertise on the radio and internet that the consultation is FREE (um, see the image above). And she called them out on this, but their excuse was, â€œwell, the money goes towards the surgery if you decide to have it.â€ She actually got roped into giving them her credit card and taking a seat before she called me because she was so uncomfortable with the â€œbait and switchâ€ tactic they were employing.
When we talked she told me what was going on and I advised her to just go tell the woman she changed her mind, and that she didnâ€™t want the appointment and to refund the money. Somehow though, the lady talked her into staying (they must be awfully smooth to override a husband). So she went ahead with the consultation and determined that she is actually a candidate for eye surgery, after which came the high-pressure sales pitch!
Now, I donâ€™t know about you, but I find this type of behavior to beÂ outrageousÂ and completely out of character with what I would expect from a â€œdoctorâ€. I guess that Dr. Boothe must have hired people who used to sellÂ vacation packagesÂ orÂ used carsÂ to sell his eye surgery. But whatever the case, it isÂ absolutely unethicalÂ to pressure people into making a snap decision on a surgical operation. My guess is that they only continue this practice because no one is talking loudly about it, or because they canâ€™t cut through the noise of the Internet. Weâ€™ll see if this blog post does the trick, shall we?
But I soon found out I would not get to meet with Dr. Boothe unless I paid a $150 deposit toward the surgery! So, that was itâ€¦I was out of there!! They were herding people around like cattle and I couldnâ€™t wait to escape.
Heâ€™s very matter-of-factly condescending, and is quite capable of making you feel quite stupid in the event you have the audacity to disagree. So, he attempted to do the surgery and it hurt a lot. Iâ€™m not sure if he didnâ€™t use enough anesthetic, didnâ€™t wait long enough, or what, but it was terrible. My mother and I protested mid-surgery and left right away never to return again. Later I found a new family doctor in the area and decided to ask her what the eye issue could be. She said it wasnâ€™t an eye issue at all, it was an issue related to allergies. She said Boothe should have known this and redirected me to an allergist and should never have attempted surgery.
My counselorâ€™ (not a doctor) finally came and explained the procedure. I finally agreed (I shouldnâ€™t have) and showed up at 6:45 am for an 8:00 am surgery. I got to the waiting room at 7:35 with 4 people ahead of me. At 10:00 I was finally escorted to the surgery room AFTER more than 6 people who had arrived after me. At 11:00 I left the surgery, not performed, because they took every last person in the room before me. I asked, NO EXPLANATION. I told them why I was leavingâ€¦not one person spoke to me. This business is run like a cattlecall with very little regard to the individual.
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 youâ€™ll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so youâ€™d better hope you know the right questions to ask. Heâ€™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. Donâ€™t fall for this â€” you really need to take the time to research this and make sure youâ€™re making the right decision.
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 didnâ€™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 donâ€™t know what kind of physician they are supporting.
Now I canâ€™t see near or farâ€¦.everything is blurry and I can read up close ONE WORD AT A TIMEâ€¦.donâ€™t ask me to read a sentence or a street sign. the office tried to rush me into doing the second eye before the first healedâ€¦Then I would be almost blind in both eyes and unable to work DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN â€¦.he just wants your money and thinks heâ€™s above the law because he makes you sign the desclaimers. On the lasikâ€¦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 didnâ€™t let me read it. i CANNOT BELIEVE I WAS SO STUPID.
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 wouldnâ€™t work for what Iâ€™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.
Even the owner of DoctorScoreCard.com believesÂ Dr. Boothe hired someone to illegally threaten, defame and spam him.
This is the first doctor to resort to these unethical tactics. Most doctors are good and this one lone doctor does not represent the majority.Bill Stanley, the spammer, with the help of his international team, is filling websites with hateful lies about me and my family and even worseâ€¦ 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.
Here isÂ a long court documentÂ which asserts that Dr. Boothe was attempting to publish derogatory information about his competitors on the Web.
So, I guess people have to make their own mind up. But as for me, Iâ€™m not letting my wife subject her vision to this physicianâ€™s practice.
NOTICE:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHEDÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Lee v. Boothe, 235 S.W.3d 448, 2007 Tex. App.
SW3d 448,Â 10-03-07).Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Petition for Review Denied.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:Â Released for PublicationÂ October 29, 2007.
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court,Â CollinÂ County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No.Â 416-01562-04.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:Â Appellant patient broughtÂ suit against appellee doctor alleging claims that includedÂ violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices ActÂ (DTPA), assault, and fraud. The 416th Judicial DistrictÂ Court,Â CollinÂ CountyÂ (Texas), dismissed these claims on the ground that the patient had not filed an expert reportÂ as required byÂ Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein, Code Ann. Â§Â 74.351.Â The patient appealed.
procedure, was a health care claim that required expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care; and (3) theÂ fraud claim, based on the doctorâ€™s allegedÂ misrepresentation that the procedure would be free if heÂ did not correct her vision to 20/20, required expertÂ testimony to show that he failed to correct her vision, andÂ thus the claim centered on the quality of medicalÂ treatment.
OUTCOME:Â The trial courtâ€™s judgment was affirmed.
[14NI] UnderÂ Tex. Civ.Â Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. Â§Â 74.351,Â any person who has brought a suit asserting aÂ health care liability claim must, within 120 days of filingÂ the claim, provide an expert report for each physician or health care provider against whom the claim is asserted.Â Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. Â§ 74.351(a)Â (2006). IfÂ the claimant does not provide an expert report asÂ required, the trial court must, upon motion by theÂ defendant, dismiss the claim with prejudice.Â Tex.Â Civ.Â Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. Â§ 74.351(b).
[HN2] SeeÂ Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann.Â 74,001(a)(13)Â (2005).
[HN3]Â Â Â A plaintiff cannot avoid the requirements of Tex.Â Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 74 and its predecessorÂ legislation by attempting to recast a health care liabilityÂ claim as a different cause of action through artfulÂ pleading.
[HN4]Â Â Â Whether a claim is a health care liability claim is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo.
[HN5]Â Â Â In determining whether a claim is subject to theÂ requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch.Â 74, a court focuses on the nature and essence of the claimÂ rather than the way it was pleaded. The court considersÂ the alleged wrongful conduct as well as the dutiesÂ allegedly breached and whether expert testimony isÂ necessary to show breach of an applicable standard ofÂ care. However, a claim may be a health care liabilityÂ claim and not require expert testimony to prevail at trial.Â If the factual allegations are related to the medicalÂ treatment provided by the defendant and constitute anÂ inseparable part of the defendantâ€™s rendition of medicalÂ services, then the plaintiffs claim is a health care liabilityÂ Claim subjectÂ to the requirements of ch. 74.
[HN6]Â If the underlying nature of a claim is negligence inÂ the rendition of medical services, the plaintiff may notÂ recast the allegations as a Texas Deceptive TradeÂ Practices Act claim to avoid the statutory restrictions onÂ health care liability claims.
[HN7]Â Â Tex. Civ . Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. Â§ 74.004Â specifically prohibits claims under the Texas DeceptiveÂ Trade Practices Act for damages for personal injury orÂ death resulting, or alleged to have resulted, fromÂ negligence on the part of any physician or health careÂ provider.
COUNSEL: For APPELLANT: Mark M. Donheiser,Â MATHIS & DONHEISER, P.C., Dallas, TX.
For APPELLEE: Heather R. Johnson, John A. Scully,Â Diana L. Faust, Eric W. Hines, R. Brent Cooper,Â COOPER & SCULLY, P.C., Dallas, TX.
JUDGES: Before Justices Morris, Francis, Mazzant.Â Opinion By Justice Morris.
[*449] The trial court below dismissed appellant Tammie Kay Leeâ€™s claims because she failed to file anÂ expert report as required by chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Lee contends the trial courtÂ erred in dismissing her claims because they were not health care liability [*450] claims and, therefore, notÂ subject to the expert report requirement of chapter 74.Â After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial courtÂ properly dismissed Leeâ€™s claims. We affirm the trialÂ courtâ€™s judgment.
Tammie Kay Lee engaged the services of William A.Â Boothe, M.D. d/b/a Boothe Eye Care andÂ LaserÂ CenterÂ toÂ have the Interlasik procedure performed on both of herÂ eyes. According to Leeâ€™s petition, she had heard Bootheâ€™sÂ advertisements describing his services as â€œvirtually pain freeâ€ and promising the procedure was â€œabsolutely freeâ€Â if the patientâ€™s vision was not corrected to 20/20. LeeÂ stated that, based upon these representations, she decidedÂ to have the operation performed by Boothe.
when he approached her and â€œyanked her right eye openÂ and slammed the clamp on it, causing intense pain andÂ bruising.â€ When Lee screamed in pain, Boothe threatenedÂ to stop the procedure without completing it. Lee statesÂ she was afraid to leave the procedure partially performed.Â When Boothe continued with her other eye he againÂ allegedly used excessive force to open the eye andÂ â€œslammedâ€ the clamp into place. Lee asserts she was inÂ pain for up to three weeks after the procedure and theÂ operation did not correct her vision to 20/20. LeeÂ informed Bootheâ€™s office of her dissatisfaction with theÂ procedure. Bootheâ€™s office manager acknowledged theÂ 20/20 guarantee and agreed over the phone to give LeeÂ her money back. Lee alleges, however, that instead ofrefunding her money, Boothe sent her a form to releaseÂ all claims against him.
Lee brought this suit [**3] alleging claims forÂ breach of contract, violations of the Texas DeceptiveÂ Trade Practices Act, assault, and fraud. ApproximatelyÂ five months after Lee filed her original petition, BootheÂ moved to have her claims dismissed because the claimsÂ were for health care liability, and she failed to file anÂ expert report as required byÂ section 74.351 of the TexasÂ Civil Practice and Remedies Code.Â Lee acknowledged in her response to the motion that she did not file an expert report but argued her claims were not health care liabilityÂ claims and, therefore, not subject to the expert reportrequirement. The trial court granted Bootheâ€™s motion toÂ dismiss Leeâ€™s claims for violations of the DTPA, assault,Â and fraud. The court denied the motion with respect toÂ Leeâ€™s claim for breach of contract. Lee later moved toÂ have her claim for breach of contract dismissed withoutÂ prejudice, and the trial court granted Leeâ€™s motion. LeeÂ brings this appeal challenging the trial courtâ€™s orderÂ dismissing her claims for DTPA violations, assault, andÂ fraud.
[HN2] a cause of action against a healthÂ care provider or physician for treatment,Â lack of treatment, or other claimedÂ departure from accepted standards ofÂ medical care, or health care, or safety orÂ professional or administrative servicesÂ directly related to health care, whichÂ proximately results in injury to or death ofÂ a claimant, whether the claimantâ€™s claim orÂ cause of action sounds in tort or contract.
Id, Â§ 74.001(a)(13)Â (Vernon 2005).
Numerous opinions have been issued by both theÂ Texas Supreme Court and the Texas courts of appealsÂ holding that [HN3] a plaintiff cannot avoid theÂ requirements of chapter 74 and its predecessor legislationÂ by attempting to recast a health care liability claim as aÂ different cause of action through artful pleading.Â See,Â e.g., Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3dÂ 842, 851 (Tex. 2005); [**5]Â Murphy v. Russell, 167Â S.W.3d 835, 838-39 (Tex. 2005); Earle v. Ratliff, 998Â S.W.2d 882, 893 (Tex. 1999); MacGregor Med. Assn v.Â Campbell, 985 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. 1998); Walden v.Â Jeffery, 907 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. 1995); Gormley v.Â Stover, 907 Sff2d 448, 450 (Tex. 1995); Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 SW.2d 239, 242 (Tex. 1994); Boothe v.Â Dixon,Â 180 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.);Â Williams v. Walker, 995 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1999, no pet.).Â [HN4] Whether a claim is aÂ health care liability claim is a question of law we reviewÂ de novo.Â Dixon, 180 S. IV, 3d at 919.
See Walden, 907 S.W.2datÂ 448; Williams, 995Â S.W.2d at 74 1.
Lee argues her DTPA claims are not health careÂ liability claims because she is not alleging that BootheÂ violated a standard of care but that he failed to fulfill theÂ promises and guarantees made in his advertisements. LeeÂ contends her claims are similar to those inÂ Sorokolit v. Rhodes.Â In Sorokolit, the plaintiff alleged the defendantÂ doctor knowingly breached an express warranty of aÂ particular result and knowingly misrepresented his skillsÂ and the results he could achieve.Â See Sorokolit, 889Â S.W.2d at 242.Â The supreme court held the plaintiffsÂ DTPA claims were not health care liability claimsbecause they did not involve negligence.Â Id. at 242-43.Â SinceÂ Sorokolit,Â the supreme court has routinely noted theÂ limited scope of its ruling in that case and emphasizedÂ that [HN6] if the underlying nature of the claim isÂ negligence in the rendition of medical services, theÂ plaintiff may not recast his allegations as a DTPA [**7]Â claim to avoid the statutory restrictions on health careÂ liability claims.Â See MacGregor, 985 S.W.2d at 40-41.
In this case, Leeâ€™s factual allegations are, in essence, claims of negligence. All of Leeâ€™s injuries arise out of theÂ allegedly wrongful manner in which Boothe conductedÂ the operation on Leeâ€™s eyes. [HN7]Â Section 74.004 of theÂ civil practiceÂ andÂ remedies codeÂ specifically prohibitsÂ claims under the [*452] DTPA â€œfor damages forÂ personal injury or death resulting, or alleged to haveÂ resulted, from negligence on the part of any physician or health care provider.â€Â TEX. CIV PRAC & REM. CODEÂ ANN. Â§ 74.004Â (Vernon 2005). Because the underlyingÂ nature of Leeâ€™s alleged DTPA claims is negligence in the rendition of medical services, we conclude the trial courtÂ properly applied the requirements of chapter 74 when itÂ dismissed Leeâ€™s claims.
Lee next argues the trial court erred in dismissing herÂ Â claim for assault because Bootheâ€™s â€œphysical attackâ€ onÂ her was not an inseparable part of the rendition ofÂ medical services. We disagree. The â€œattackâ€ involvedÂ Bootheâ€™s alleged use of excessive force during anÂ operation. A determination of whether the force used byÂ Boothe was, in fact, excessive necessarily [**8] requiresÂ expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care andÂ whether that standard of care was breached. Accordingly,Â Leeâ€™s assault claim is a health care liability claim subjectÂ to the expert report requirements of chapter 74.Â SeeÂ Rubio, 185 S.W.3d at 851.Â We conclude the trial courtÂ properly dismissed Leeâ€™s claim for assault.
Finally, Lee argues the trial court erred in dismissing her fraud claim because the claim has nothing to do withÂ Bootheâ€™s rendition of medical services. Leeâ€™s fraud claimÂ is based on Bootheâ€™s alleged misrepresentation that heÂ would correct her vision to 20/20 or the procedure wasÂ free. The fact that Lee alleges Boothe made this misrepresentation knowingly does not affect theÂ underlying nature of the claim.Â See Dixon, 180 S. If. 3d atÂ 920.Â To show that Boothe violated his guarantee, LeeÂ must provide expert testimony to show that he failed toÂ correct her vision. Her claim, therefore, centers on themedical treatment provided by Boothe and the quality of that care. Again, the essence of Leeâ€™s claim is negligenceÂ in the rendition of health care.Â See Walden, 907 S.W.2d atÂ 448.Â The trial court did not err in dismissing Leeâ€™s fraudÂ claim for failure to file an expert [**9] report.
We conclude the trial court properly appliedÂ section 74.351 of the Texas Civil PracticeÂ andÂ Remedies CodeÂ toÂ Leeâ€™s claims for violations of the DTPA, assault, andÂ fraud. We affirm the trial Courtâ€™s judgment.
PRIOR HISTORY:Â On Appeal from the 199thÂ Judicial District Court. CollinÂ County,Â Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 199-2824-03.
DISPOSITION: REVERSEDÂ AND RENDERED inÂ part and REMANDED in part.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:Â Appellant doctor soughtÂ interlocutory review of an order from the 199th JudicialÂ District Court,Â Collin County (Texas), which denied theÂ doctorâ€™s motion to dismiss and motion for summaryÂ judgment on the ground that appellee patient failed toÂ comply with the expert report requirements ofÂ Tex. Civ.Â Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. Â§ 74.351(b)Â (2005).
and treatment. The patientâ€™s claim of misrepresentationsÂ regarding the release was intertwined with the doctorâ€™sÂ rendition of medical services. With respect to theÂ deceptive trade practices claim, the doctor did not makeÂ specific statements that could establish a knowingMisrepresentation or breach of an express warrantyÂ regarding the results of treatment.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial courtâ€™s denialÂ of the motion to dismiss and motion for summaryÂ judgment, rendered judgment in the doctorâ€™s favorÂ dismissing the patientâ€™s claims with prejudice, andÂ remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney feesÂ and costs of court incurred by the doctor.
[HN I] FormerÂ Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. Â§Â 74.351(a)Â provides that a healthcare liability claimantÂ must file an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120Â days after filing the claim. If a required expert report hasÂ not been served by the 120-day deadline, on propermotion by the defendant the trial court shall dismiss theÂ action with prejudice and award reasonable attorneyâ€™sÂ fees and court costs incurred by the defendant. Â§Â 74.351(b).
[HN2]Â Â Â Â Â Â The expert report requirements ofÂ Tex. Civ. Prac.Â & Rem. Code Ann. Â§ 74.351(b)Â apply to a patientâ€™sÂ claims, regardless of whether they are tort claims, whenÂ those claims come within the statutory definition of aÂ health care liability claim, defined as a cause of actionÂ against a health care provider or physician for treatment,Â lack of treatment, or other claimed departure fromÂ accepted standards of medical care, or health care, orÂ safety or professional or administrative services directlyÂ related to health care, which proximately results in injuryÂ to or death of a claimant, whether the claimantâ€™s claim orÂ cause of action sounds in tort or contract.Â Tex.Â Civ. Prac.Â & Rem. Code Ann. Â§ 74, 001 (a)(13)Â (2005).
[HN3]Â Â Â Â Â Â SeeÂ Tex.Â Civ.Â Prac.& Rein. Code Ann. Â§Â 74.001(a)(10)Â (2005).
[HN4]Â Â Â Â Â Â SeeÂ Tex. Civ,Â Prac. & Rein. Code Ann.Â 74.001(a)(19)Â (2005).
[HN5]Â Â Â SeeÂ Tex. Occ. Code Ann. Â§ 151.002(a)(13) (Supp.Â 2005).
a health care liability claim. One consideration in thatÂ determination may be whether proving the claim wouldÂ require the specialized knowledge of a medical expert.
[HN7]Â Â Â Â Â Â An allegation that a misrepresentation is madeÂ knowingly is not determinative when analyzing theÂ underlying nature of a claim to determine whether aÂ cause of action falls under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. CodeÂ Ann. ch. 74â€™s definition of a health care liability claim.
[HN8]Â Â Â Specific statements are necessary to establish aÂ knowing misrepresentation or breach of an expressÂ warranty regarding the results of medical treatment.
COUNSEL: For APPELLANT: Carol Elaine Davis,Â Edward P. Quillan, Quillin Law Finn P.C., Dallas, TX.
For APPELLEE: Robert C. Sullivan, Jr., Sullivan ParkerÂ & Cook, Dallas, TX; Kent Frank Brooks, law Office ofÂ Kent F. Brooks, DALLAS, TX; Mr. Tracey EdwardÂ Gajak, Sullivan, Parker & Cook, Dallas, TX.
JUDGES: Before Justices Wright, Moseley, and Lang.Â Opinion By Justice Moseley.
courtâ€™s order, render judgment dismissing Dixonâ€™s claims with prejudice, and remand this case solely for a determination nation of reasonable attorneyâ€™s fees and costs of court incurred by Boothe.
Based on Dixonâ€™s allegations, Dixon sought treatment for his vision from Boothe and underwent laser eye surgery in July 2001. His eyesight improved, but â€œthen dramatically deteriorated.â€ Dixon contacted Boothe, who told Dixon that lie needed â€œtouch upâ€ surgery. Boothe performed another laser surgery, after which Dixonâ€™s vision did not significantly improve and â€œbegan further deterioration.â€ Dixon reported this result to Boothe, who told Dixon a new procedure called â€œcustom abrasionâ€ would be approved within the next year and that this surgery would solve Dixonâ€™s problems. Boothe told Dixon he would be an â€œideal candidateâ€ for custom abrasion and he would refund Dixonâ€™s money on the two previous surgeries. [*917] Based on Bootheâ€™s representations that custom abrasion would be available and would solve Dixonâ€™s problems, Dixon and his wife executed a â€œRelease of All Claimsâ€ in November 2002. 1 In April 2003, Dixon contacted Bootheâ€™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.
IN CONSIDERATION of a reimbursement payment made to us in the sum of [$ 2,890], we, the undersigned being of lawful age, do hereby release [Boothe], and their successors, predecessors and agents, employees, partner and all those in privity with them form [sic] all claimes or causes of action which we now orÂ may hereafter have against the said [Boothe], included but not limited to claims arising out of Lasik eye surgery performed on Joe Dixon and claims not now known. We hereby declare that we fully understand the terms of this release and voluntarily accept the above stated sum for the purpose of making full and final settlement of our claim against [Boothe].
[**4] In his first amended petition, Dixon asserted claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the DTPA. Â 2Â As to the fraud claim, Dixon alleged Boothe made material representations to Dixon to induce him into obtaining the first and touch up laser eye surgeries and executing the Release of All Claims. As to the breach of fiduciary claim, Dixon alleged Boothe ?made misrepresentationsÂ toÂ PlaintiffÂ regardingÂ theÂ appropriateness of and availability of medical procedures to induce PlaintiffÂ into executing the ?Release of All Claims.? As to the DTPA claim, Dixon alleged Boothe ?engaged in an unconscionable course of action in misrepresenting the availability of future medical procedures to Plaintiff?; ?represented that an agreement conferred or involved rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve?; ?knowingly made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the need for corrective service?; ?failed to disclose information about goods or services that was known at the time of the transaction to induce Plaintiff into entering into a transaction that the consumer would not have entered into had the information been disclosed?; and ?further represented [**5] that Plaintiff had an astigmatism to ?upcharge? Plaintiff for the initial surgery.? Dixon requested actual, economic, and exemplary damages, pre- and postjudgement interest, attorney?s fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
2 Dixonâ€™s original petition is not included in theÂ record on appeal. Boothe contends that the onlyÂ difference between the original petition and theÂ first amended petition is that Boothe deletedÂ claims for medical negligence from the firstÂ amended petition. Neither party contends thatÂ Dixonâ€™s factual allegationsÂ inÂ his first amendedÂ original petition differed substantively from thoseÂ in his original petition.
Boothe filed a motion to dismiss and motion forÂ summary judgment and a first amended and supplementalÂ motion to dismiss. Boothe argued that all Dixonâ€™s claimsÂ were based on Bootheâ€™s medical treatment or medicalÂ opinion as to future events and thus were a recasting ofÂ medical negligence claims, which were subject toÂ dismissal for failure to file an expert report within theÂ deadline required [**6] byÂ section 74.351(b).Â InÂ addition, Boothe argued [*918] thatÂ Dixonâ€™s DTPAÂ claims were barred byÂ section 74.004Â because they were recast medical negligence claims.Â 3Â Boothe also arguedÂ that he was entitled to summary judgment because theÂ Release of All Claims barred all claims as a matter ofÂ law. He requested attorneyâ€™s fees and costs of court.Â Dixon responded to the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court deniedÂ Bootheâ€™s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment without specifying the groundsÂ onÂ which itsÂ decision was based.
3Â Section 74.004(a)Â provides: â€œNotwithstandingÂ any other law,Â Sections 17.41-17.63, Business &Â Commerce Code,Â do not apply to physicians orÂ health care providers with respect to claims forÂ damages for personal injury or death resulting, orÂ alleged to have resulted, from negligence onÂ theÂ part of any physician or health care provider.â€Â TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. Â§Â 74.004(a)Â (Vernon 2005).
In his single issue, Boothe argues that the trial courtÂ erred in denying his motion to dismiss because allÂ Dixonâ€™s claims were improperly recast medicalÂ negligence claims subject to dismissal for noncomplianceÂ with the expert report requirement ofÂ section 74.351(b).
[HNl] The version ofÂ section 74.351(a)Â that appliesÂ to this case provided that a healthcare liability claimantÂ 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, Â§ 10.01, 2003 Tex. Gen, Laws 847, 975,Â amended byAct of May 18, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch.Â 635, Â§ 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1590 (current version atÂ TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.Â Â§ 74.351(a)Â (VernonÂ Supp. 2005). If a required expert report has notÂ been served by the 120-day deadline, on proper motionÂ by the defendant the trial court â€œshallâ€ dismiss the actionÂ with prejudice and award reasonable attorneyâ€™s fees and court costs incurred by the defendant.Â TEX. CIV PRAC.Â & REM. CODEANN.Â Â§ 74.351(b) [**8] .
a cause of action against a health careÂ provider or physician for treatment, lackÂ of treatment, or other claimed departureÂ from accepted standards of medical care,Â or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related toÂ health care, which proximately results inÂ injury to or death of a claimant, whetherÂ the claimantâ€™s claim or cause of actionÂ sounds in tort or contract.
any act or treatment performed orÂ furnished, or that should have beenÂ performed or furnished, by any health careÂ provider for, to, or on behalf of a patientÂ during the patientâ€™s medical care,Â treatment, or confinement.
have been performed, by one [**9]Â licensed to practice medicine in this stateÂ for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patientâ€™s care, treatment, or confinement.
(B)Â Â directly or indirectly chargesÂ money or other compensation for thoseÂ services.
TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. Â§ 151.002(a)(13)Â (VernonÂ Supp. 2005).
419 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.)); seeÂ Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc., 49 Tex. Sup. J 19, 2005Â WL 2585490, at *4.Â Whether a claim is a health careÂ liability claim pursuant toÂ section 74.351 isÂ a question ofÂ law and is reviewed de novo.Â Buck v. Blum, 130 S.W.3dÂ 285, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Ponce v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., Ltd., 55 S. W. 3d 34, 36 [**11] (Tex. App.-El Paso 2001, pet. denied); Gomez v.Â Matey, 55 S.W.3d 732, 735 & n.2 (Tex. App.-CorpusÂ Christi 2001, no pet).
Boothe argues that Dixon improperly recast medicalÂ negligence claims to avoid dismissal. Boothe argues thatÂ all Dixonâ€™s claims are intertwined with Bootheâ€™s renditionÂ of medical services, which involved Bootheâ€™s diagnosisÂ of Dixonâ€™s medical condition and Bootheâ€™s medicalÂ judgment and advice as to the choice of medicalÂ procedures; the potential risks and complications such asÂ visual deterioration and candidacy for further medicalÂ treatment; and Dixonâ€™s alleged physical injury from theÂ two surgeries. We agree.
To prove that Bootheâ€™s diagnoses and treatment wereÂ toÂ Dixonâ€™s detriment,Â Dixon would have to provide proofÂ of his medical condition before and after the laserÂ surgeries and in relation to custom abrasion. Dixon mustÂ also prove Boothe undertook a mode or form of treatmentthat a reasonable and prudent member of the medicalÂ profession would not undertake under the same or similar circumstances and rely on expert medical testimony.Â SeeÂ Gomez, 55 S.W3d at 735Â (concluding allegations ofÂ â€œknowingâ€ misrepresentation [**12] regarding necessityÂ of hysterectomy a health care liability claim).Â Dixonâ€™sÂ claim that Bootheâ€™s misrepresentations regarding theÂ release were improper isÂ aninseparable part of Bootheâ€™sÂ rendition of medical services becauseÂ Dixonâ€™s claim restsÂ on alleged misrepresentations [*920] regarding medicalÂ care and treatment.Â See Parker v. CCS/Meadow Pines,Â Inc., 166 S. W 3 509, 513 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.)Â (concluding allegations of improper restraint relatedÂ to course of care or treatment a health care liabilityÂ claim);Â Williams v. Walker, 995 S. W 2 740, 741-42 (Tex.Â App.-Eastland 1999, no pet)Â (concluding allegations of assault and battery regarding use of medical procedureÂ without patientâ€™s consent a health care liability claim).
requirements of chapter 74 because Boothe knowinglyÂ made a false statement aboutÂ Dixonâ€™s condition. DixonÂ contends that this representation constitutes fraudÂ pursuant toÂ Shannon v. Law-Yore, 950 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.Â App. -Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied) . [** 13]Â InÂ Shannon,the plaintiff alleged specific fraudulent conduct inÂ connection with keeping him hospitalized, includingÂ deceiving him into rescinding requests for release,Â creating false records, misrepresenting that insuranceÂ would not cover his medical bills if he were releasedagainst medical advice, and misrepresenting his conditionÂ to others.Â Id.Â at 432-34.Â The plaintiff did not allegeÂ negligence in his treatment or medical malpractice.Â Id. atÂ 437.Â Â Â However,Â Â Â Â Â Â [HN7]Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â an allegation thatÂ aÂ misrepresentation is made â€œknowinglyâ€ is notÂ determinative when analyzing the underlying nature of aÂ claim.Â See Savage v. Psychiatric Inst. of Bedford, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 745, 752 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet.Â denied).Â Here, the underlying nature of the claim isÂ whether Dixon would be a candidate for custom abrasionÂ after two laser surgeries, which is a question of medical condition, diagnosis, and treatment.Â See idÂ Consequently,Â Shannon isÂ distinguishable.
Moreover, the only question at this stage is whetherÂ the underlying nature of each ofÂ Dixonâ€™s claims is aÂ health care liability claim; this is a threshold requirement,Â not a recovery requirement. [**14]Â See Murphy v.Â Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835, 838, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J 943(Tex. 2005)Â (per curiam). Consequently, Dixonâ€™s relianceÂ on cases regarding the submission of issues of fraud andÂ informed consent in medical malpractice cases isÂ misplaced.Â See Gaut v. Quast, 510 S.W.2d 90, 17Â Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 308 (Tex. 1974)Â (per curiam);Â Crundwell v.Â Becker, 981 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. App.-Houston (1st Dist.]Â 1998, pet denied); Melissinos v. Phamanivong, 823Â S.W. 2d 339 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1991, writ denied).
future procedure that was never performed;Â inÂ any event,Â they [**15] were not the [HN8] specific statementsÂ necessary to establish a knowing misrepresentation or breach of an express warranty regarding the results ofÂ treatment.Â See Mulligan v. Beverly Enters.-Tex., 954S.W.2d 881, 884 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997,Â no pet)Â (contrasting representations as to guaranteeing aÂ particular result to representations as to providing careÂ and service).
Finally, Dixon contends that any medical malpracticeÂ claim is the basis of his damages, not his claims in thisÂ suit. However, there are no separate damages pleaded asÂ [*921] between a fraudulent inducement claim and otherÂ claims. Moreover, proof of the economic value of theclaims released requires proof of those claims, that is,Â whether Bootheâ€™s medical and treatment of Dixon met the applicable standard of care.
We conclude that all Dixonâ€™s claims meet theÂ statutory definition of a â€œhealth care liability claimâ€ andÂ are thus subject to the expert report requirement ofÂ section 74.351(b),Â and we reject all Dixonâ€™s arguments toÂ the contrary. Accordingly, we resolve Bootheâ€™s issue inhis favor. Because of our resolution of Bootheâ€™s argumentÂ regardingÂ section 74.351(b),Â we need [* * 16] not addressÂ his argument regardingÂ section 74.004.Â BecauseÂ DixonÂ failed to file an expert report as required byÂ sectionÂ 74.351(b),Â we reverse the trial courtâ€™s order denyingÂ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment andÂ render judgment in Bootheâ€™s favor dismissingÂ Dixonâ€™sÂ claims with prejudice.
In his motion to dismiss and motion for summaryÂ judgment and in his prayer in his brief on appeal, BootheÂ requested attorneyâ€™s fees and costs of court, which areÂ mandatory under the statute when a claimant fails to fileÂ an expert report in a health care liability claim.Â See TEX.CIV PRAC. & REM CODE ANN. Â§ 74.351(b)(1).Â Accordingly, we remand this suit solely for aÂ determination of attorneyâ€™s fees and costs of courtÂ incurred by Boothe.
PRIOR HISTORY:Â Original Proceeding from theÂ 116th Judicial District Court. Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 03-10751.
DISPOSITION:Â Writ of Mandamus Denied.
JUDGES: Before Justices Wright, Oâ€™Neill, and Lang.Â Opinion by Justice Oâ€™Neill.
Relators contend the trial judge erred in denyingÂ their motion to compel arbitration. The facts and issuesÂ are well known to the parties, so we need not recountÂ them herein. Based on the record before us, we concludeÂ relators have not shown the trial judge abused hisÂ discretion.Â See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)Â [*2] ;Â Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-44, 35Â Tex. Sup. C1. J. 468Â (Tex. 1992)Â (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENYÂ relatorsâ€™ petition for writ of mandamus.
Description:Â 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. BOOTHEâ€™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.
Description:Â ON AUGUST 26, 2005, THE BOARD AND DR. BOOTHE ENTERED INTO AN AGREED ORDER ASSESSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $500. THE ACTION WAS BASED ON ALLEGATIONS THAT DR. BOOTHE FAILED TO TIMELY RELEASE THE PROPERLY REQUESTED MEDICAL RECORDS OF ONE PATIENT WITHIN 15 BUSINESS DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST.
Texas Medical Board (the â€œBoardâ€), duly in session, the matter.Â of the license of William Albert Boothe, M.D. (â€œRespondentâ€).
By the signature of the Respondent on this Administrative Order, Respondent waives theÂ right to appear at an Informal Show Compliance Proceeding and Settlement Conference pursuantÂ to Section 164.004, Medical Practice Act, Title 3, Subtitle B, Texas Occupations Code (â€œActâ€)Â and Board Rule 187.18 and all rights pursuant to Sections 2001.051 and 2001.054, TexasÂ Government Code, including, but not limited to, the right to notice and hearing, and insteadÂ agrees to the entry of this Administrative Agreed Order pursuant to Section 164.0025 of the ActÂ and Board Rule 187.14. John Heisler represented Board staff.
Respondent received all notice required by law. All jurisdictional requirementsÂ have been satisfied. Respondent waives any defect in notice and any further right to notice orÂ hearing under the Act or the Rules of the Board.
Respondent currently holds Texas Medical License No. F-9221. Respondent wasÂ originally issued this license to practice medicine inÂ Texas on August 23, 1981. Respondent isÂ also licensed to practice in the state of California.
Respondent is primarily engaged in the practice of ophthalmology and isÂ board certified in this specialty by the American Board of ophthalmology, a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties.
Â Respondent is 54 years of age.
Â Respondent has previously been the subject of one disciplinary action by theÂ Board which resulted in an Agreed Order entered onÂ August 26, 2005, providing for anÂ administrative penalty of $500 based on findings that Respondent failed to release medicalÂ records to a patient within 15 business days of receipt of the patientâ€™s request. As a result ofÂ Respondentâ€™s compliance, the Agreed Order was terminated on October 4, 2005.
Â Section 164.5 of the Medical Board Rules requires that a recording of everyÂ advertisement communicated by electronic media, and a copy of every advertisementÂ communicated by print media and a copy of any other form of advertisement shall be retained byÂ the licensee for a period of two years from the last date of broadcast or publication and be made available for review upon request by the Board or its designee.
Â Respondent was unable to obtain and produce copies of every advertisementÂ communicated over the previous two years from the last date of broadcast or publication byÂ print, electronic media or any other form of advertisement.
Â After the initiation of the investigation by the Board in this matter,. RespondentÂ terminated his business relationship with an independent advertising agency to whom heÂ delegated the responsibility of maintaining records of Respondentâ€™s advertisements during theÂ period of time set forth in the preceding paragraph.
Â Respondent has cooperated in the investigation of the allegations related to this Administrative Agreed Order. Respondentâ€™s cooperation, through consent to this AdministrativeÂ Agreed Order, pursuant to the provisions of Section 164.002 of the Act, will save money andÂ resources for the State of Texas. To avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense andÂ inconvenience of litigation, Respondent agrees to the entry of this Administrative Agreed, OrderÂ and to comply with its terms and conditions.
The Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter and Respondent pursuant to theÂ Act.
Section 164.0025 of the Act and Board Rule 187.14 authorize the Board to resolveÂ and make a disposition of this matter through an Administrative Agreed Order.
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 singleÂ payment by cashierâ€™s check or money order payable to the Texas Medical Board and shall beÂ 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. Respondentâ€™s failure to pay theÂ 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 theÂ Office of the Attorney General.
Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of the Act and other statutesÂ regulating the Respondentâ€™s practice.
Respondent shall inform the Board in writing of any change of Respondentâ€™s mailing or practice address within 10 days of the address change. This information shall be submitted toÂ the Permits Department and the Director of Enforcement for the Board. Failure to provide suchÂ information in a timely manner shall constitute a basis for disciplinary action by the BoardÂ against Respondent pursuant to the Act.
RESPONDENT WAIVES ANY FURTHER HEARINGS OR APPEALS TO THE BOARD ORÂ TO ANY COURT IN REGARD TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREED ORDER. RESPONDENT AGREES THAT THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.
before the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (the Board), duly in session the matter of theÂ license of William A. Boothe, M.D. (Respondent).
By the signature of Respondent on this Order, Respondent waived the right to appear atÂ an Informal Show Compliance Proceeding and Settlement Conference pursuant to TEX. OmÂ CODE, Title 3, Subtitle B, Â§164.004 and 22 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, Â§187.18 and all rights pursuantÂ to TEX. GOVT CODE, Â§2001.051 and Â§2001.054, including, but not limited to the right to noticeÂ and hearing, and instead agrees to the entry of this Order to resolve the matters addressed in thisÂ Order. Mark Martyn represented Board Staff.
Respondent currently holds Texas Medical License No, F-9221, Respondent wasÂ originally issued this license to practice medicine inÂ Texas on August 23, 1981 Respondent isÂ not licensed to practice in any other state.
Respondent performed Lasik eye surgery on J.T. in 2001 and 2002. On December 3, 2004, J.T. requested copies of his medical records from the Respondent and paid a fee of $25.00Â for the records. The record could not be immediately located. On January 8, 2005, J.T. was verbally informed that his records could not be located. On February 4, 2005, the records were found and released to J.T.
Respondent has cooperated in the investigation of the allegations related to thisÂ Agreed Order. Respondentâ€™s cooperation, through consent to this Agreed Order, pursuant to theÂ provisions of Section 164.002 the Act, will save money and resources for the State of Texas. ToÂ avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense and inconvenience of litigation,Â 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 actionÂ against Respondent based on Respondentâ€™s violation of a rule adopted under this Act.Â 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.
Section 164.001 of the Act authorizes the Board to impose a range of disciplinaryÂ actions against a person for violation of the Act or a Board rule. Such sanctions include:Â revocation, suspension, probation, public reprimand, limitation or restriction on practice,Â counseling or treatment, required educational or counseling programs, monitored practice, publicÂ service, and an administrative penalty.
Section 164,002(a) of the Act authorizes the Board to resolve and make a dispositionÂ of this matter through an Agreed Order.
SectionÂ 164.002(d) of the Act provides that this Agreed Order is a settlementÂ agreement under the Texas Rules of Evidence for purposes of civil litigation.
Respondent shall pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $500 within 60 daysÂ of the entry of this Order. The administrative penalty shall be paid in a single payment byÂ cashierâ€™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 theÂ Comptroller of Texas for deposit in the general revenue fund. Respondentâ€™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 be permitted to delegate prescriptive authority to a physicianÂ assistant and advanced practice nurse. Respondent shall be permitted to supervise physician assistant, advanced practice nurse, or surgical assistant.
RESPONDENT WAIVES ANY FURTHER HEARINGS OR APPEALS TO THE BOARD ORÂ TO ANY COURT IN REGARD TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEDÂ ORDER. RESPONDENT AGREES THAT THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.
I, WILLIAM A. BOOTHE, M.D., HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOINGÂ AGREED ORDER, I UNDERSTAND THAT BY SIGNING, I WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. IÂ SIGN IT VOLUNTARILY. I UNDERSTAND THIS AGREED ORDER CONTAINS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND THERE IS NO OTHER AGREEMENT OF ANY KIND, VERBAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE.
DATED:Â Â 7-Â 25- 2005,Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 2005.
Iâ€™ve been notified that Dr. Boothe is highly upset these documents have become public. Enough so that he hired someone to visit Mr. Hansonâ€™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. Bootheâ€™s attorneys that she would have Bryan Thornton arrested for trespassing if he stepped on to her property.
Problem #2: Bryan couldnâ€™t find a power cord out in the street.
LASIK is a surgical procedure intended to reduce a personâ€™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 â€œquackâ€?
Before undergoing a refractive procedure, you should carefully weigh the risks and benefits based on your own personal value system, and try to avoid being influenced by friends that have had the procedure or doctors encouraging you to do so.Â One of the best ways to learn about risks of laser eye surgery is to visit the patient web sites listed below.
2007-2008Â I would highly recommend not using Dr. Boothe.Â The man is rude, egotistical, arrogant, unprofessional, and uncaring.Â He yells at and threatens his employees within earshot of his patients (I witnessed this in the operating room, of all places).Â He has no personality and no people skills.Â The only thing youâ€™ll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so youâ€™d better hope you know the right questions to ask.Â Heâ€™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.Â Donâ€™t fall for this â€” you really need to take the time to research this and make sure youâ€™re making the right decision.
I sit in front of a computer all day, which I told Dr. Boothe.Â He told me I was a good candidate for LASIK, specifically the mono vision procedure.Â I definitely was not a good candidate.Â After having this procedure done, I could not read my computer screen at a normal distance â€” I had to sit practically right on top of my screen to see it.Â A normal viewing distance for a computer screen does not fall within the 18 inches or so that is considered the ideal reading distance.Â 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.Â Now I have to wear reading glasses, usually even when using my computer.Â I think heâ€™d tell you anything to get your money.Â 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.Â They did some quick simulation that lasted 30 seconds or less to supposedly give you a feel for what it will be like, but itâ€™s not a real world demonstration.Â 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.Â Independently each eye worked pretty well when Iâ€™d cover the other eye, but together they just drove me crazy.Â 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 â€˜good functional vision.â€™Â I can tell you that for me it was neither good nor functional.Â It was awful.
My right eye (for distance) was never right after the initial procedure, and they had to redo (they call it an â€˜enhancementâ€™) it after about 3.5 months.Â It was so bad that they had to prescribe glasses for me to use when driving prior to the redo.Â It seems to be fine now, but I had to start all over again with getting my brain used to the mono vision.Â 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.Â In general, I can now see much better than I did with mono vision.Â 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 didnâ€™t seem to care about this and didnâ€™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).Â He told me that I was seeing 20/15 that day in his office and that I should be â€˜damn happyâ€™ with my eyesight.Â I live in the real world, and it does not consist of staring at an eye chart from 20 feet away all day.Â 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.Â 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.Â The difficulties Iâ€™m having are real, but he didnâ€™t care.Â He was just concerned with meeting his contract obligation of 20/20 vision.Â He dismissed my concerns as me being a whiner and not knowing what I was talking about.Â Why would I complain about something that was not real?Â Itâ€™s not like I enjoy having a corneal flap cut multiple times and then having my eye blasted with a laser.Â 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 30XÂ better than any other vision correction method.Â I know what I heard.
He also herds people through his office like cattle.Â Expect to be there for at least 2 hours even for a simple follow-up visit.Â There are almost always dozens of people in the office at once waiting, and youâ€™ll get shuttled from room to room many times and wait in various waiting rooms during all of this.Â 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 treatmentÂ 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.Â He belittles employees infront of patients and peers. He uses profanity while doing this.Â Patients call frequently to the office to complain about this but he praises himself that he rules his office with an iron fist.Â (Something he is quite proud of).Â His employees are afraid of him but apparently need a job so sit back and take it.Â While this one didnâ€™t and I wish the others were able to do the same.Â As for his number of lasiks performed.Â He does 120-150 in one day.Â Ask which one you will be if you plan on scheduling.Â Advertising every 10 minutes on the radio brings in alot of people.Â Not too many patients come referred by others. Too bad they donâ€™t know what kind of physician they are supporting.Â If you doubt any of this visit the office and see how it goes.Â I recommend you see a doctor who gives his employees the respect you would expect him to give his patients.Â 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 restoreâ€¦..ruins your far sighted vision.Â 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 â€¦I would have 20/20 vision.
Resultâ€¦.the restorelens left me with blurred vision, halos, and I could only read a few words at a timeâ€¦.
I asked for my money back and I would go away.Â NO , I could not have my money backâ€¦I had to have the lasik and my vision wouldÂ be perfect.
Now I canâ€™t see near or farâ€¦.everything is blurry and I can read up closeÂ Â ONE WORD AT A TIMEâ€¦.donâ€™t ask me to read a sentence or a street sign.
DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN â€¦.he just wants your money and thinks heâ€™s above the law because he makes you sign the desclaimers.
On the lasikâ€¦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 didnâ€™t let me read it.Â Â i CANNOT BELIEVE I WAS SO STUPID.
Also the lasik correction was done poorly also and they recommended doing it againâ€¦That didnâ€™t happenâ€¦I was petrified of allowing that man to touch my eyes againâ€¦the next time , I might end up blindâ€¦as that is also in the fine print that you canâ€™t read.
Iâ€™m seeing a physician in another city , associated with high quality hospital â€¦to see if he can repair my vision..
BOTTOM LINEâ€¦if your needs require high full function vision for your workâ€¦.run the other way and donâ€™t have surgery unless you really have to â€¦God gave me one set of eyes and Dr. Boothe took one away.
Not givenÂ The lasik surgeon I chose does not meet the reputation thought. Long wait times, numbers mean more than quality and an unfriendly atmosphere along with a surgeon who has no personality have left me with subpar lasik at this point. I was told to give it a year but my review is based on my experience. I will follow up in 6 months and let you know if it gets better.Â I feel like when your wait 6 hours just for your pre surgery and 2.5 hours each followup you should get better service and have experience employees who have college degrees.
2006Â I have not and will not be a patient of this doctor. Reasons for this is one Iâ€™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 wouldnâ€™t work for what Iâ€™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 3Â 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 18â€³ 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 didnâ€™t seem to care about this and really didnâ€™t even want to listen. He told me that I was seeing 20/15 that day in his office and that I should be â€œdamn happyâ€ with my eyesight. I live in the real world, and it does not consist of staring at an eye chart from 20â€² away all day. The difficulties Iâ€™m having are real, but Dr. Boothe didnâ€™t care.
8/14/08 4 2 1 3Â 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 youâ€™ll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so youâ€™d better hope you know the right questions to ask. Heâ€™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. Donâ€™t fall for this â€” you really need to take the time to research this and make sure youâ€™re making the right decision.
8/14/08 1 1 1 1Â Dr. Boothe is cruel and abusive to his employees. The reason all of them are 20 yrs old is because anyone else would not put up with it. I am the wife of an ex-employee and I can tell you he prides himself on running his practice with an iron fist. (his words) He berates his employees in front of patients, doctors and peers. He performs 130 surgeries in a day, patients he gets from continuous advertising. He has a call center that answers his calls. It is definitely as described a cattle call and the employees are treated as the cattle.
7/15/08 1 1 1 2Â 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 â€œwhat the hey is going-on here?â€ 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 â€“ lasers flying around my eyes in this environment is unethical.
11/1/07 1 1 1 1Â I got lasik in April & once I paid, I was herded like a cow from room to room for 6 hours (mostly waiting) to get eye tests performed & then had the surgery the next day. After months of long appointments, I now have to have the procedure redone, one eye at a time. I went for my appointment, which included about 20 minutes of tests, I was there for over 4 hours. They told me they were booked till the end of Jan to do the surgery. When I called last week they told I could get in the following Monday. I was furious b/c this is only for my left eye, I will have to wait until a month after my left surgery to even schedule my right and then it will probably be another 3 months! The waiting rooms are full of disgusted clients. I have yet to see one happy customer. When I left I called the new patient line and said I wanted to have lasik and they told me to come in anytime that day for testing & they could perform the lasik the following day or any day thereafter that worked best for me.
5/8/07Â 1 1 3Â First off, Iâ€™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, didnâ€™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 Â 1 1 4Â This doctor runs his business like a cattle drive. Iâ€™ve never experienced such a high volume, impersonal procedure as I did having lasik performed by Dr. Boothe. Would discourage anyone from using him.
12/3/05Â 1 1 2Â HE WAS AS RUDE AS COULD BE AND MADE EVERYONE WAIT FOR HOURS. HE RUNS THE PLACE LIKE A CATTLE DRIVE. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE ARE YOUNG KIDS WHO ACT LIKE THEY ONLY WORK THERE BECAUSE THEY GOT FIRED FROM MCDONALDS. IT WAS ONE OF THE WORST EXPERIENCES OF MY LIFE.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.