Source: http://sfsbm.org/wiki2/index.php?title=Discliplinary_Proceedings_against_Eleazar_M._Kadile_Part_I:_Charges
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:33:27
Document Index: 791980871

Matched Legal Cases: ['§448', '§448', '§448', '§448', '§448', '§448', '§448']

Discliplinary Proceedings against Eleazar M. Kadile Part I: Charges - Society for Science-Based Medicine Wiki
Discliplinary Proceedings against Eleazar M. Kadile Part I: Charges
1 STATE OF WISCONSIN BEFORE THE MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD
2 COUNT I
3 COUNT II
6 COUNT V
7 COUNT VI
8 COUNT VII
9 COUNT VIII
10 COUNT IX
11 COUNT X
4. During the year 1995, and in subsequent years, respondent caused to be distributed and published to the public a brochure advertising his services as a physician, which brochure stated: "Relentless study of allergy and the environment led to his board certification in Environmental Medicine. In 1992, he received a Fellowship from that same organization." There is no other description of the "board" or "organization" which purported to certify respondent or award him a "Fellowship." By failing to state the full name of the board which certified him in "environmental medicine," respondent violated Â§ Med 10.02(2)(w), Wis. Adm. Code, and committed unprofessional conduct.
5. In the same brochure, respondent advertises as follows: "Our Certified Clinical Nutritionist is available to discuss nutritional needs with you." In fact, respondent had no person on his staff or associated with his practice who is certified under Â§Â§448.70 to 448.94, Wis. Stats. A representation that such person is a "Certified Clinical Nutritionist" tends to represent the person as certified in a nutrition-related field, and is therefore prohibited by Â§448.76, Stats. The brochure statement constitutes a violation of Â§ Med 10.02(2)(o), Wis. Adm. Code, in that it is misleading, deceptive, and prohibited by law; respondent's violation constitutes unprofessional conduct.
6. Respondent caused or authorized to be published in the August 17, 1996 (Sunday) Green Bay Press-Gazette, a general circulation newspaper, an advertisement which stated that a "typical" patient treated with chelation therapy reported that his coronary artery blockage was halved by respondent's chelation therapy, and that "chelation therapy is an effective way to not only combat, but reverse some of the effects of atherosclerosis." Such advertising is false, misleading or deceptive contrary to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(o), Wis. Adm. Code and constitutes unprofessional conduct.
15. Respondent prescribed and administered disodium EDTA chelation for this patient. 60 such chelation treatments were administered in Respondent's office between 12/3/91 and 5/12/94. Respondent represented to the patient's insurance carrier that the chelation was needed for mercury and lead levels in the patient. This statement is not supported by any test results or other charted entries for this patient. The statement was false and known by respondent to be false when made, and such statement constitutes unprofessional conduct under Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code.
Such risks are not justified by any benefits of such therapy in any patient without lead poisoning or other condition for which EDTA is approved by the FDA. Its use by a physician for circulatory problems, arteriosclerosis or for removal of metals other than lead and other heavy metals is an unacceptable risk to the patient, and is unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
18. Respondent's conduct as described herein tended to constitutes a danger to the health, welfare and safety of the patient and therefore constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Wis. Stats. Â§448.02(3) and Wis. Adm. Code Â§ MED l0.02(2)(h).
19. Respondent's patient chart is below minimum standards for the profession, in that it does not provide a clear and legible record of his differential diagnosis of the patient and do not provide to a subsequent treating practitioner a reasonably clear statement as to what the patient's condition and prognosis are. Such records place the patient at risk of increased harm because if they are needed in an emergency and respondent is not personally available because of travel, illness, or death, there is no way a subsequent treating physician can know what the patient's history, medications, and past treatment are. A minimally competent physician would keep a chart which legibly states the patients signs and symptoms, the diagnosis, and the plan for further testing (including rationale) or treating the patient. Respondent's charting practices are unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
20. The above described treatments were not, in fact, preceded by an explanation of the alternative viable medical modes of treatment and the risks and benefits of these treatments, and thus they were provided without adequate informed consent of the patient, all in violation of Â§ Med 10.02(2)(u), Wis. Adm. Code. Such conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct under the Code and statutes.
27. Obtaining or attempting to obtain any professional fee or compensation in any form by fraud or deceit constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Wis. Stats. Â§448.02(3) and Wis. Adm. Code Â§ MED l0.02(2)(m).
29. Respondent conducted lead tests which showed the patient to have a lead level within normal limits. Respondent then wrote a letter to "to whom it may concern" stating that the patient was "toxic" with lead. Respondent knew that this letter would be used in an attempt to obtain insurance benefits, and knew that the statement was incorrect. Such conduct is unprofessional under Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code.
33. Respondent administered chelation therapy to this patient, and informed the patient's cardiologist that he was doing so. However, in so informing the cardiologist, respondent stated, among other things, that he would be following the protocol of the "American College of Advancement in Medicine." Further, respondent stated that he wanted the cardiologist to know that "Chelation diminishes platelet aggregation" [i.e. that it makes red blood cells "slippery" (this is often referred to as "thinning" the blood, and the agents which do this are popularly known as blood thinners)]. Respondent requested that the cardiologist be prepared to adjust the patient's medication, particularly the CoumadinÂ® (warfarin) which the cardiologist had prescribed and which has the same effect upon red blood cells. Respondent failed to state in his letter that the ACAM protocol also calls for the addition of heparin to the chelation mixture, also a blood "thinner" (and to state how much would be administered to the patient); respondent also failed to state or otherwise inform the cardiologist of all of the ingredients of the chelation infusion. Such failure created the unacceptable risk of allowing the patient's blood to become too "thin," thus increasing the risk of internal bleeding or of stroke. Respondent also failed to monitor tests for blood clotting times closely in the patient, in violation of the ACAM protocol. All of this was unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
36. Respondent's conduct as described herein tended to constitutes a danger to the health, welfare and safety of the patient and therefore constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Wis. Stats. Â§448.02(3) and Wis. Adm. Code Â§ MED l0.02(2)(h).
37. Respondent's records indicate that he did not add heparin to the patient's chelation infusion until late in the patient's treatment. Respondent's statement to the cardiologist were thus false and constituted unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code. Respondent's records contain no justification for either omitting, or for later adding, heparin to the chelation mixture.
38. Chelation is ineffective for the treatment of arteriosclerosis, and respondent's use of this treatment for this condition constituted an attempt to gain a fee by fraud or deceit contrary to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code.
39. Respondent diagnosed excessive amounts of certain metal and trace elements in the patient by means of a "urine EDTA challenge" test. There is no such test which is accepted in medicine. The use of such a test was an attempt to obtain a professional fee by fraud or deceit, contrary to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code. The use of such an ineffective test also violated Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code, in that it created the unacceptable risk of suggesting that the patient had conditions which he did not, in fact, have, and that the patient would thus undergo unnecessary treatment which could mask or aggravate other disease states.
40. Respondent's patient chart is below minimum standards for the profession, in that it does not provide a clear and legible record of his differential diagnosis of the patient and do not provide to a subsequent treating practitioner a reasonably clear statement as to what the patient's condition and prognosis are. Such records place the patient at risk of increased harm because if they are needed in an emergency and respondent is not personally available because of travel, illness, or death, there is no way a subsequent treating physician can know what the patient's history, medications, and past treatment are. A minimally competent physician would keep a chart which legibly states the patients signs and symptoms, the diagnosis, and the plan for further testing (including rationale) or treating the patient. Respondent's charting practices are unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code. Additionally, this chart contains entries which are clearly out of order, appears to have missing pages, and appears to have been altered after the fact, apparently for purposes of either obtaining third party payment, or obstructing the Board's investigation of this matter. Such conduct is also unprofessional conduct under Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code.
41. The above described treatments were not, in fact, preceded by an explanation of the alternative viable medical modes of treatment and the risks and benefits of these treatments, and thus they were provided without adequate informed consent of the patient, all in violation of Â§ Med 10.02(2)(u), Wis. Adm. Code. Such conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct under the Code and statutes.
52. On or about 5/4/92, respondent signed a letter addressed "to whom it may concern" stating that the patient had high levels of zinc, iron, molybdenum, phosphorus, platinum and tin." There is nothing in the patient's chart to support this statement. Respondent knew that the letter would be used to attempt to obtain payment or reimbursement from Medicare. Respondent's conduct constitutes making a false statement in practice with fraudulent intent, or was an attempt to obtain a professional fee by fraud or deceit, in either event it was unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code.
54. At a later time, respondent also prescribed Seldane-DÂ® for this patient, although Seldane-D contains 120mg of pseudoephedrine, and is therefore contraindicated in patients on thyroid replacement, in that in combination these drugs act synergistically and can cause the heart to go into supraventricular tachycardia, a potentially fatal condition.
D. Such risks are not justified by any benefits of such therapy in any patient without lead poisoning or other condition for which EDTA is approved by the FDA. Its use by a physician for circulatory problems, arteriosclerosis or for removal of metals other than lead and other heavy metals is an unacceptable risk to the patient, and is unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
57. Respondent's conduct as described herein tended to constitutes a danger to the health, welfare and safety of the patient and therefore constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Wis. Stats. Â§448.02(3) and Wis. Adm. Code Â§ MED l0.02(2)(h).
58. Respondent's patient chart is below minimum standards for the profession, in that it does not provide a clear and legible record of his differential diagnosis of the patient and do not provide to a subsequent treating practitioner a reasonably clear statement as to what the patient's condition and prognosis are. Such records place the patient at risk of increased harm because if they are needed in an emergency and respondent is not personally available because of travel, illness, or death, there is no way a subsequent treating physician can know what the patient's history, medications, and past treatment are. A minimally competent physician would keep a chart which legibly states the patients signs and symptoms, the diagnosis, and the plan for further testing (including rationale) or treating the patient. Respondent's charting practices are unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
59. The above described treatments were not, in fact, preceded by an explanation of the alternative viable medical modes of treatment and the risks and benefits of these treatments, and thus they were provided without adequate informed consent of the patient, all in violation of Â§ Med 10.02(2)(u), Wis. Adm. Code. Such conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct under the Code and statutes.
61. In fact, her laboratory tests and/or signs and symptoms did not support any such diagnosis. Respondent prescribed SynthroidÂ® and Armour Thyroid for this supposed condition. Respondent also ordered an RA-I uptake test, which uses radioactive iodine. This test was not indicated, as the patient's TSH was normal, and it put the patient at unnecessary risk of exposure to radioactivity. Additionally, respondent had previously prescribed iodine for the patient, thus making the test invalid, even if it were clinically appropriate.
63. Respondent's treatment of this patient constituted a danger to the patient in that failure to treat the patient's cholesterol created an unacceptable risk of heart attack for the patient. A minimally competent practitioner would have placed the patient on a low cholesterol diet and cholesterol-reducing medication immediately. Respondent's conduct was unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
68. Respondent's conduct as described herein tended to constitutes a danger to the health, welfare and safety of the patient and therefore constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Wis. Stats. Â§448.02(3) and Wis. Adm. Code Â§ MED l0.02(2)(h).
69. Additionally, respondent's treatment of the patient by use of chelation therapy, which had no effect upon her cholesterol, constituted excessive and ineffective treatment, and for respondent to continue this treatment even after it failed to reduce her cholesterol constituted an effort to obtain a fee by fraud or deceit, and was unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code.
70. Respondent's physical examinations of the patient were also below minimum standards. For example, respondent's examination records indicate "n/a" in a space provided for breast examinations. Failure to do such an examination puts the patient at unacceptable risk for having a tumor go undiscovered, or for failing to detect edema which could indicate any number of serious conditions. A minimally competent physician routinely and regularly examines the breasts of female patients during physical examinations of the patient. Such omissions were unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
71. Respondent diagnosed the patient as having food allergies, but then failed to do standard testing for such allergies such as elimination diet. The patient's complaints of itchy feet and rhinitis were attributed by respondent to food allergies, with no data to support such a conclusion. In fact, the patient was taking a large number of substances including bee pollen, creekweed and other herbs, and other substances which can cause allergic reactions such as itchy skin and rhinitis. The patient was also taking niacin, which is well known to cause itchy skin. A minimally competent practitioner would have had the patient cease taking these substances to see if that improved her condition. Further, a minimally competent practitioner would have advised the patient to stop taking unnecessary supplements and substances because of their potential to mask symptoms of disease, and to cause disease or other conditions adverse to health. Respondent's conduct was unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h) and (m), Wis. Adm. Code.
72. Respondent's patient chart is below minimum standards for the profession, in that it does not provide a clear and legible record of his differential diagnosis of the patient and do not provide to a subsequent treating practitioner a reasonably clear statement as to what the patient's condition and prognosis are. Such records place the patient at risk of increased harm because if they are needed in an emergency and respondent is not personally available because of travel, illness, or death, there is no way a subsequent treating physician can know what the patient's history, medications, and past treatment are. A minimally competent physician would keep a chart which legibly states the patients signs and symptoms, the diagnosis, and the plan for further testing (including rationale) or treating the patient. Respondent's charting practices are unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
73. The above described treatments were not, in fact, preceded by an explanation of the alternative viable medical modes of treatment and the risks and benefits of these treatments, and thus they were provided without adequate informed consent of the patient, all in violation of Â§ Med 10.02(2)(u), Wis. Adm. Code. Such conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct under the Code and statutes.
74. On 6/7/00, respondent began treating Andrew E., a child who was born in 1995. The mother's chief complaint was that the patient had multiple allergies and asthma. Respondent's chart reveals the following history: the child was prescribed Defendol (echinacea, cat's claw, and astragalus) _ capsule/day, and a ProventilÂ® inhaler which was said to be needed "not very often." The mother stated that the child was allergic to "milk, cats, dogs, horses, horsebarns, cefzil, prelone." An "environmental survey" refers to allergies of 2 years duration, wheezing, and the desire of the mother to control asthma without steroids. The mother's written responses to the "environmental survey" are that in the fall of 1995 the patient had "milk sensitivity" and in the winter of 1997 or spring of 1998 he developed asthma, resulting from an exposure at a relative's house. A recent flare-up was noted as having occurred in May, 2000. The mother stated that the patient had been diagnosed with asthma by a Dr. Hayes and prescribed Proventil; both diagnosis and prescription had been affirmed later by a Dr. Loewen. The mother wrote that the Proventil did help ease the wheezing, but was "not a satisfactory long-term solution." The child was said to experience wheezing, fever/cold symptoms for 1 _ weeks following exposures, behavioral problems with food allergies, nose rubbing, and cough, and that these were caused by pet hair and dander, milk, dairy products, and food colors. However, he could go weeks without symptoms. The patient was noted to have been breast fed to 8 months, to have spit up often but not been colicky or ever had severe diaper rash, and to have had eczema and rashes. The child's diet was reviewed, as were a number of common irritants such as tobacco smoke and household products. The survey notes that the patient's family has dogs and a cat, said to be outside animals, and that the neighbors have horses. "Allergy" without further elaboration was noted in the father, brother, aunt, and grandparent, and the father, aunt, and grandparent were noted to have a food or drug allergy but there was no mention of what that allergy might be. There is no detailed discussion of the events leading up to the patient's reactions, and no discussion of the eczema.
81. By billing for RAST and sublingual immunotherapy, respondent violated Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code; such conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct.
85. The above acts and omissions violate Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code, and constitute unprofessional conduct under the Code and statutes.
86. Respondent's patient chart is below minimum standards for the profession, in that it does not provide a clear and legible record of his differential diagnosis of the patient and does not provide to a subsequent treating practitioner a reasonably clear statement as to what the patient's condition and prognosis are. Such a record places the patient at risk of increased harm in that if it is needed in an emergency and respondent is not personally available because of travel, illness, or death, there is no way a subsequent treating physician can know what the patient's history, medications, and past treatment are. A minimally competent physician would keep a chart which legibly states the patients signs and symptoms, the diagnosis, and the plan for further testing (including rationale) or treating the patient. Respondent's charting practices are unprofessional conduct pursuant to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(h), Wis. Adm. Code.
87. The above described treatments were not, in fact, preceded by an explanation of the alternative viable medical modes of treatment and the risks and benefits of these treatments, and thus they were provided without adequate informed consent of the patient, all in violation of Â§ Med 10.02(2)(u), Wis. Adm. Code. Such conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct under the Code and statutes.
all of which constitute obtaining or attempts to obtain compensation by fraud or deceit, contrary to Â§ Med 10.02(2)(m), Wis. Adm. Code.
Retrieved from "http://sfsbm.org/wiki2/index.php?title=Discliplinary_Proceedings_against_Eleazar_M._Kadile_Part_I:_Charges&oldid=3394"
This page was last modified on 15 February 2014, at 15:47.