Source: http://drbuttartruth.org/charges.php
Timestamp: 2018-02-19 11:43:53
Document Index: 705897071

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 90', '§ 150', '§ 150', '§ 150', '§ 150', 'art.\n14', '§ 90', '§ 90', '§ 90', '§ 90', '§ 150', '§ 90', '§ 90', '§ 150', '§ 150']

Dr. Buttar Truth | NC Medical Board Charges Against Dr. Rashid A. Buttar
NC Medical Board Charges Against Dr. Rashid A. Buttar
Notice of Charges 1
Notice of Charges and Allegations - 1 PDF - November 21, 2007
Patient A - Brenda W - PDF
Patient B - Lourdes K - PDF
Patient C - Jeff K - PDF
Patient D - Darlene A - PDF
Response to Charges - 1 - PDF - December 4, 2007
CHCA Health Care Access - PDF - April 29, 2008
Correspondence Regarding Ex Parte Communication - Link - August 8, 2008
Memorandum Regarding Ex Parte Communication - Link - August 8, 2008
Motion to Declare a Mistrail - Link - September 15, 2008
Petition for Judicial Review - PDF - February 17, 2009
Notice of Charges 2
Notice of Charges - 1 AMENDED - PDF - March 10, 2009
Motion to Stay Proceedings and Response - PDF - March 25, 2009
Attorney Letter - PDF - March 26, 2009
Dr. Buttar's Affidavit - PDF - May 22, 2009
Notice of Charges - 2 - PDF - September 9, 2009
Response to Charges and Allegations - 2 - PDF - January 2010
Consent Order - PDF - March 26, 2010
More information visit NCMedBoard.org
In the new notice of charges, the NCMB has dropped the clearly "false allegations" against Dr. Buttar, specifically of never having examined or visited or evaluated or seen the patients in question. These original charges, which have now been dropped, were noticeably and conspicuously inflammatory and a major alleged reason for prosecuting Dr. Buttar in the first place, based on the NCMB's premise of "patient safetyâ€�.
The first hearing and examination of the plain and simple evidence disproved their allegations, showing them to be blatantly unfounded and fabricated. The NCMB, in an obvious attempt to discredit Dr. Buttar, was in possession of and examining the medical charts in question for over 18 months before allegations were made and charges were filed and made public.
Now, after having the charts for over 3 years, they have finally dropped the only "real" evidence in this case. The same evidence that was planned to be used against Dr. Buttar (which in 18 months was never adequately reviewed), proved that Dr. Buttar was innocent of the false allegations made by the NCMB against him.
The mistrial due to ex parte is of further concern. The agenda of the NC Medical Board prosecutors, who were well aware of this departure from professional conduct yet waited to disclose it to the defense for a full 2 months after the facts were known to them, is suspicious.
Considering all this, as well as the previous 10 year history of the NCMB in persecuting Dr. Buttar based on NO complaints and NO cause, as well as Dr. Buttar's prominent role in helping pass legislation in 2003 to control the abusive power of the NCMB against doctors (Bill 886, Due Process for Physicians), the intention of the NCMB has become highly suspicious and overly concerning.
The NCMB has proceeded to prosecute this clearly non-existent case based upon 4 complaints by parties who all admitted to never having met Dr. Buttar previous to the first hearing. Furthermore, all these 4 parties have a clear financial motive. Since the filing of the original case, the NCMB has decided to drop 1 of the 4 complaints, after Dr. Buttar was awarded a financial judgment against the complainant.
In addition, all of the actual patients (not complainants) upon which this case is based are documented to have been appreciative and thankful of the treatment and care provided by Dr. Buttar, with objective evidence proving the efficacy of the treatment they received. Subjective improvements are also well documented, including that the patients outlived the prognoses given by their conventional oncologists.
Lastly, the mission and purpose of the NCMB is to ensure patient safety. The 3 remaining cases the NCMB tried were all concerning patients who were considered "terminal". There has clearly been NO patient harm, which was even admitted to by the ONLY ONE expert witness used by the NCMB. The "alleged" financial harm is even more ludicrous because now the NCMB is trying to dictate economic policy.
If Dr. Buttar's treatments were NOT effective, he would NOT be enjoying the privilege of taking care of people from 33 different countries. His practice would not be thriving and increasing in size were the allegations of the NCMB based on any fact. The lack of economic viability would have closed down Dr. Buttar's practice long ago if there were any truth to the false allegations made by the NCMB.
The blunt truth is that Dr. Buttar has exceeded the non-descript, vague, unclear and often contended upon definition of "standard of care". This has threatened the status quo, the "good old boy" network in the medical hierarchy in the great state of NC. This, along with the fact that Dr. Buttar teaches other doctors from around the world, that he protects patient and doctor rights by helping to change the law in NC, that he was President of the NC Integrative Medical Society for 6 years, and that he has been an outspoken critic against the NCMBâ€™s abusive conduct towards good doctors and their attempts to restrict patient rights, has incited the medical hierarchy in the local region.
Under pretense of public safety, the medical hierarchy has released their GESTAPO agency, using the complaints of 4 non-patients all based on financial motive, to wage a war against Dr. Buttar who they clearly consider a threat and enemy of the NCMB and the NC Medical Society. The NCMB has used its power for a personal and professional agenda: to eliminate competition for the medical hierarchy.
This "competition" that the NCMB seeks to eliminate is more sought out by patients, provides better outcomes, has far lesser side effects and offers a better quality of life than what the traditional and obsolete medical hierarchy can provide. The evidence of this surrounds us every single day.
The NCMB gave a very clear message in response to the patients who testified to the success of their treatment under Dr. Buttar. These were patients whose conventional "standard of care" treatments had failed and who were sometimes labeled as "terminalâ€�. This proves that the agenda of the NCMB was everything else BUT patient safety. If patient safety were the primary concern of the NCMB, they would be embracing Dr. Buttar and his colleagues, â€œbegging" them to teach the rest of the medical providers in the great state of NC how to help more patients achieve a better outcome than they currently are receiving through the obsolete "standard of care".
Jump to Charges
In re: Rashid Ali Buttar, D.O.,
MOTION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL
NOW COMES the Respondent, Rashid Ali Buttar, D.O., and moves Janelle A. Rliync,
M.D., President of the Board, for an Order declaring a mistrial of the proceedings before the Panel which heard cvidence in the above matter on April 23-24, 2008 and in support of their Motion shows to the Board as follows:
1. On Wednesday, April 23, Dr. Kirby, who is on staff with the Medical Board and
who participated in the investigation and preparation of Dr. Buttar's case, had an ex parle
comnlunication with 1-1. Arthur McCulloch, M.D. in the Board brake room during a recess in the formal proceedings. Dr. McCulloch is a member of the Panel assigned to hear evidence and to issue a recommended decision in this case.
2. Dr. Kirby gave Dr. McCulloch materials on Complimentary and Alternative
Medicine as follows:
1. Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Marc S Micozzi.
2. Alternative Medicine: An Objective Assessment Edited by Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD.
3 The Duke Encyclopedia of New Medicine by the Center for Integrative Medicine at Duke University.
4. A wcbsite with the address: http://nccain.nili.~ov/clinictarila ls/alltrials.htin which lists "All NCCAM Clinical Trials" by either disease or treatment.
3. Counsel for Dr. Butiar is also informed and believe that Doctors Kirby and
McCulloch engaged in exparte discussions of the evidence in Dr. Buttar's case
4. It is evident that Dr. McCulloch reviewed the books and internet site over night
because on Thursday, April 24 he asked Dr. Wilson, an expert witness for Dr. Buttar, questions that related to some of these materials,
5. Marcus Jimison and Thomas Mansfield. Counsel for the Medical Board, became
aware of the exparte communication sometime on Thursday during the hearing. Counsel did not disclose this information to Dr. Buttar's attorneys so that it could be made a part of the record of the hearing. Mr. Jimison did cross-examine Dr. Buttar and refer to some of the same materials in his cross-examination.
6. Messrs. Jin~isona nd Mansfield first notified counsel for Dr. Buttar of the ex pane
communications between Dr. Kirby and Dr. McCulloch on May 19,2008, almost a month after the close of the hearing. In the intervening weeks, counsel for the Medical Board consulted with outside counsel and obtained an opinion that the exparie contact between Dr. Kirby and Dr. McCulloch was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. NCGS 150B-40 (d), which states:
(d) Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter authorized by law, a
member of an agency assigned to make a decision or to make findings of fact and
conclusions of law in a contested case under this Article shall not communicate,
directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact or question of law, with
any person or party or his representative, except on notice and opportunity for all
parties to participate. This prohibition begins at the time of the notice of hearing. An agency member may communicate with other members of the agency and may have the aid and advice of the agency staff other than the staff which has been or is engaged in investigating or prosecuting functions in connection with the case under consideration or a factually-related case. This section does not apply to an agency employee or party representative with professional training in accounting, actuarial science, economics or financial analysis insofar as the case involves financial practices or conditions.
7. The expane communications in violation of the above referenced statute were
prejudicial to Dr. Buttar because they deprived him of his right to confront and cross-examine
witnesses and evidence considered by the finder of facts in the hearing of the charges in this case This error is in violation of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions, the law and procedure mandated by our legislature, and the fundamental concepts of fairness rooted in our judicial system.
8. Dr. Buttar reserves his right to file written exceptions to the Recommended Decision
of the Hearing Panel pursuant to NCGS 90-14.5, prior to a final decision by the Board in this matter.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully prays that Dr. Jenelle A. Rhyne as President of
the North Carolina Medical Board and presiding officer of the Hearing Panel grant this Motion for a Mistrial of the proceedings which took place before the Hearing Panel on April 23-24,2008 and Order that any retrial of these charges be before an administrative law judge pursuant to NCGS
150B-40 (e),
Respectfully submitted, this the 15 day of September, 2008.
KIIOX, Brotherton, Knox & Godfrey
Post Office Box 30848
Charlotte, N.C. 28230-0848
Phone: (704) 372-1 360
Fax: (7041 372-7402 ~,
eknox@knoxlawcenter. corn
I, Lisa G. Godfiey, Attorney for Respondent, certify that I have this day served a copy of the
foregoing MOTION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL on the following individual. a copy of same
via e-mail, addressed as follows:
VIA E-MAIL Marcus. Jimison@NCMEDBOARD.ORG
Mr Marcus B. Jimison
Post Office Box 20007
Raleigh, NC 2761 9-0007
This the 15 day of September, 2008.
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28230-0848
(704) 372-1360
FAX: (704) 372-7402
VIA E-MAIL Marcus.Jimison@NCMEDBOARD.ORG
& FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Mr. Marcus B. Jimison
Re: North Carolina Medical Board vs. Rashid Ali Buttar, D.O.
We are in receipt of your letter of August 5, 2008. We do not recall your discussing a re-opening of the evidence before the panel of Drs. Rhyne, Walker and McCulloch. Given the nature of the ex parte communication between Drs. Kirby and McCulloch, we do not believe that this panel is qualified to decide the proper remedy for the errors that occurred during the hearing of May 23 and 24, 2008. If you have any case law or statutory authority to suggest otherwise, please provide it to us. It would not make sense to ask those who did not follow the rules to review their own conduct.
Rather, if we are unable to resolve this matter through a Consent Order, we would propose to present testimony to the full Board regarding the improprieties that took place. We plan to call the following witnesses:
(1) Dr. Kirby
(2) Dr. McCulloch
(3) Dr. Rhyne
(4) Dr. Walker
(5) Marcus Jimison
(6) Thomas Mansfield
We would propose to present this testimony when the full Board considers the recommen-dation of the panel. As of yet, we have not seen any proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. Under N.C.G.S. Â§ 90-14.5(c), we will be given an opportunity to file written exceptions to the recommended decision made before the hearing panel and to present oral arguments to the Board. As we told you on the telephone, both Eddie and I have substantial conflicts for the month of September. It was our understanding that you were going to determine whether a special meeting of the Board could be called sometime during the month of October. Before you set a date for that meeting, please contact our offices to determine our trial schedules. I am currently on the Lincoln County trial calendar for the week of October 27, 2008, but do not have any other trials during that month. Eddie has a Mecklenburg County trial beginning the week of October 6, 2008.
Because we anticipate calling you and Tom Mansfield as witnesses, we wanted to give you ample opportunity to obtain outside counsel in this matter. You had indicated in an earlier telephone conversation that you had already sought the advice of an outside attorney, so I assume you have somebody who is familiar with the facts and the law of the situation and can step in to assist you.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding a proposed consent resolution to this matter in the next few days.
/S/ Lisa Godfrey
LGG/kgf
TO: HEK
FROM: LGG
RE: BUTTAR v. MEDICAL BOARD
WHAT IS THE REMEDY FOR THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DR. KIRBY AND DR. McCULLOCH DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE THREE MEMBER PANAL OF THE MEDICAL BOARD ON APRIL 23 AND 24, 2008?
On May 19, 2008 we received a call from Marcus Jimison and Thom Mansfield. At that time, they disclosed to us that on Wednesday, April 23, Dr. Kirby, who is on staff with the Medical Board and who participated in the investigation and preparation of Dr. Buttarâ€™s case, had an ex parte communication with Dr. McCulloch in the Board brake room during a recess in the formal proceedings. Dr. Kirby gave Dr. McCulloch materials on Complimentary and Alternative Medicine. At this point we do not know the content of any discussions that took place, but the materials that Dr.Kirby provided to Dr. McCulloch were as follows:
1. Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Marc S. Micozzi.
3. The Duke Encyclopedia of New Medicine by the Center for Integrative Medicine at Duke University.
4. A website with the address: http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/alltrials.htm which lists â€œAll NCCAM Clinical Trialsâ€� by either disease or treatment.
It is evident that Dr. McCulloch reviewed these materials over night because on Thursday, April 24 he asked Dr. Wilson, an expert witness for Dr. Buttar, questions that related to some of these materials.
Counsel for the Medical Board became aware of the ex parte communication sometime on Thursday during the hearing. Counsel did not disclose this information to Dr. Buttarâ€™s attorneys or bring it to the attention of the President of the Medical Board who was the presiding officer at the hearing. Counsel for the Medical Board did cross-examine Dr. Buttar and refer to some of the same materials in his cross-examination.
When Marcus Jimison and Thom Mansfield disclosed this information to us on May 19, they said that the reason they had waited to tell us was that they had gotten an opinion of outside counsel on whether or not the communications between Dr. Kirby and Dr. McCulloch were prohibited by NCGS 150B-40 (d). This section states:
Marcus and Thom told us that in the opinion of their outside counsel, the communications between Doctors Kirby and McCulloch did violate the above statute.
In the case of Mission Hospitals, Inc. v. N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, 658 S.E. 2d 277 (Ct. of App. March 18, 2008), the Court addressed the prohibition on ex parte communications in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Mission Hospitals involved a decision by the Director of Division of Facilities Services of NCDHHS (Agency) to grant a â€œno-reviewâ€� Certificate of Need to Asheville Hematology and Oncology Associates. Mission Hospital petitioned for a contested case hearing before the Agency. The ALJ who heard the case issued a recommended decision affirming the original Agency decision. After a hearing before the Director of the Agency, the decision was reversed.
It came to light that counsel for the Mission Hospital had some ex parte communications with the Director prior to the issuance of his decision. Asheville Hematology appealed and the Court of Appeals held:
(1) Director of Agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by engaging in ex parte communications with hospital immediately before reversing ALJ's recommended decision;
(2) Director's actions prejudiced treatment center's substantive rights; and
(3) Agency's decision violated the APA by not stating specific reasons for not adopting certain findings of fact by the ALJ.
658 S.E. 2d 277. The Court found that the ex parte communications in violation of the statute (in this case NCGS 150B-35) constituted an error of law under NCGS 150B-51 (b). This error of law effected the outcome because it denied the opposing party the right to cross-examine witnesses or evidence offered to the decision maker in the case. As the Court reasoned:
N.C. Gen.Stat. Â§ 150B-29 provides rules of evidence for agency proceedings. In relevant part, it states:
Evidence in a contested case, including records and documents, shall be offered and made a part of the record. Factual information or evidence not made a part of the record shall not be considered in the determination of the case, except as permitted under G.S. 150B-30.
N.C. Gen.Stat. Â§ 150B-29(b) (2005). The referenced exception in N.C. Gen.Stat. Â§ 150B-30 allows for official notice of certain facts provided that:
The noticed fact and its source shall be stated and made known to affected parties at the earliest practicable time, and any party shall on timely request be afforded an opportunity to dispute the noticed fact through submission of evidence and argument.
N.C. Gen.Stat. Â§ 150B-30 (2005).
658 S.E. 2d at 283.
The remedy for this violation was to reverse and vacate the decision and remand the matter to the Agency for a new hearing. Id. The Court specifically refused to adopt the appellantâ€™s suggestion that Court adopt the original decision in favor of the appellant.
Another recent decision that should be considered in this case is Faber v. NC Psychology Board, 153 NC App. 1, 569 S.E. 2d 287 (2002). In this case, a psychologist appealed the decision of the Psychology Board suspending his license for engaging in a romantic relationship with a patient.
Just as with the Medical Board, the Psychology Board received a patient complaint and assigned a staff psychologist (Dr Yardley). to investigate. Dr. Yardley presented a report to the Board on whether there were sufficient grounds to bring formal charges against Dr. Farber. Prior to the formal hearing, Dr. Faber filed a petition and asked that certain Board members be disqualified because they had received information from Dr. Yardley that may have prejudiced them in hearing evidence at the formal hearing. The Board denied the petition and all members heard the case in the formal hearing. They issued a decision suspending Dr. Faberâ€™s license.
On appeal to the Wake County Superior Court the decision was vacated on the grounds that Dr.Yardleyâ€™s ex parte communications improperly commingled the investigative and adjudicative functions of the Board.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court on the grounds that the ex parte contact in this case did not specifically violate NCGS 150B-40 (d) because it took place before the Notice of Hearing on the formal charges was issued. NCGS 150B-40 (d) specifically limits the prohibition on ex parte communications to the period after the time of the Notice of Hearing.
In the Buttar matter, the ex parte communications clearly took place after the Notice of Hearing was issued. Thus, our case is distinguishable from Faber on its facts and reasoning in the Mission Hospitals case should apply.
Based on the facts of this case and the law cited above the possible remedies for the violation of NCGS 150B-40 (d) are:
(1) A new hearing before the full Medical Board â€“ with the 3 members who sat on the Panel that heard the case in April excluded from the hearing and all deliberations; or,
(2) Under NCGS 150B-40 (e), if the Board determines that it can not hear the case, the Board can apply to the Office of Administrative Hearings to appoint an administrative law judge to preside over a new hearing.
Reference: Patient A
Brenda WXXXXX
Date of Birth: 4/15/57
49 year old white female patient presented on July 20, 2006 with chief complaint of stage 4 cancer, initially diagnosed in October, 2003 with Cervical Cancer. History included Radical Hysterectomy, Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in August 27, 2003 with 1/14 nodes being positive. By September of 2003, pt had completed 25 sessions of radiation therapy. After completion of radiation therapy, pt had regular check ups every 6 months. In April 2004, patient began having right sided pain and saw family physician. Ultra sound and CAT scan revealed metastasis to liver and lung. Referred to MD Anderson and had chemotherapy which included Carboplatin treatment x 2, administered every 4 months. Pt completed last treatment June, 2006. July 2006, reevaluated at MD Anderson, and noted to have liver enzymes elevated. Patient was referred to hospice and recommended pain control. Pt sought us out due to the fact she was not willing to give up. Patient was under the care of Dr. Buttar from July 20, 2006 through August 17, 2006. Despite impending organ failure as identified by Dr. Buttar, pt and ptâ€™s daughter wished to continue to fight and not give up. She was admitted to the hospital on August 17, 2006 and died August 19, 2006.
Each numbered item below is the NCMBâ€™s expert reviewerâ€™s comments on the charts. Each bulleted item is our response, with references to the medical charts showing the facts.
- Dr. Peterson:
1. NCMB Expertâ€™s (Dr. Peterson) opinion on Treatment – Below standard of practice/care
Â· Patient with Stage 4 metastatic ovarian cancer, refractory to conventional therapy including:
o Multiple rounds of Chemotherapy
o Multiple rounds of Radiation therapy.
o Referred to Hospice.
Â· Presented with early organ failure with impending hepatic failure.
Â· Sought treatment from Dr. Buttar.
Â· Patient left previous doctors because they had â€œgiven up on meâ€�. Patient was looking for â€œa chanceâ€�.
Â· Patient had failed all other therapies and was NOT willing to simply give up and die!
Â· Results clearly BEYOND the standard of care.
o Patient requested treatment when no one else was willing to try.
o Treatment was administered with daughter being fully aware that prognosis was poor due to:
Â§ Multiple rounds of chemotherapy, refractory to treatment.
Â§ Multiple rounds of radiation therapy, refractory to treatment.
Â§ Impending multi-organ system failure
o Extended quality of life, albeit only for a short period.
o We helped the patient to maintain her dignity in allowing her to make her own choice of continuing to fight rather than give up.
2. Dr. Peterson states the patient chart does not follow the Problem Oriented Medical Record method known as SOAP.
Â· C1a – C1b: SOAP format is clearly used.
Â· C2a – C2b: SOAP format is clearly used.
Â· C4a, C4b: SOAP format is clearly used.
Â· C6a, C6b: SOAP format is clearly used.
Â· C7a: SOAP format is clearly used.
Â· C11a, C11b. SOAP format is clearly used.
3. â€œThe standard of care would have been referral to hospice for palliation.â€�
Â· C7a: 8/14 Progress Notes clearly state that the patient was adamant about continuing treatment.
Â· Discussion between Dr. Buttar and daughter on more than one occasion discussing reality of situation due to impending multi-organ failure.
Â· Daughter requested Dr. Buttar continue with treatment and thanked him for continuing to try, despite dire prognosis, due to multi organ system failure due to iatrogenic causes secondary to chemotherapy.
4. â€œDr. Buttar clearly engaged in a fruitless exercise w/ therapy of no benefit in what appears to be nothing but an attempt to extract money in exchange for fake hope.â€�
Â· Dr. Peterson has clearly established he is NOT an expert in assessing our approach to cancer.
Â· Dr. Petersonâ€™s â€œcannedâ€� response to each patient shows he was either biased, did not read the charts, or is incapable of assessing benefit of our treatment.
Â· Patient clearly had benefits, exemplified with better pain management, improved ambulation, and increased energy.
Â· A1b: No claims of a cure were ever given. Patient signed a consent which states: â€œno claim to cure cancer with these therapies has been made to meâ€�
Â· C7a: 8/14 Progress Notes clearly state that the patient was adamant about continuing treatment, even in light of her deteriorating condition.
Â· By definition, there is NO such thing as false HOPE. HOPE indicates having the possibility of a desired outcome. By Dr. Petersonâ€™s indicated definition and use of the word HOPE, all HOPE would be false.
5. â€œNo physician contact documented.â€�
Â· I1: 7/26 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient. When ever IRRâ€™s done, Dr. Buttar always consults with patients and addresses any issues or questions patients have.
Â· I2b: 8/3 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· C7a: 8/14 Dr. Buttar had office visit with patient and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· I2a: 8/15 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· In addition, at least 3 separate detailed conversations with patientâ€™s daughter regarding patients poor prognosis, conducted while NP was seeing patient.
Â· Most other office visits were with nurse practitioner but Dr. Buttar was present for most of those visits. However, due to increased rate of office visit for Dr. Buttar, NP would see the patient to keep charges lower and Dr. Buttar would come in and visit with the patient. Notes were made by NP.
- Dr. Mann:
1. â€œNo indication that Dr. Buttar actually saw or examined the patient.â€�
Â· I1: 7/26 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· In addition, at least 3 separate detailed conversations with patientâ€™s daughter regarding patientâ€™s poor prognosis, conducted while NP was seeing patient.
Â· Most other office visits were with nurse practitioner but Dr. Buttar was present for most of those visits. However, due to increased rate of office visit for Dr. Buttar, NP would see the patient to keep charges lower and Dr. Buttar would come in and visit with the patient, answer any questions, etc.. Notes were made by NP.
2. â€œRepetitive labs including serum lipids in particular without justification or explanation of how the results were guiding therapy.â€�
Â· Doing complete panel with lipids was cheaper test than separating test. Patient was not charged for serum lipids.
Â· Cancer patients as with other chronic disease, exhibit lower serum lipids. Increase in lipid profile appears to be a good prognostic marker for our treatment regimen.
Â· It is clear Dr. Mann is NOT an expert in the integrative approach to treating cancer.
Â· D1 – D16: Requirement for monitoring renal function, hepatic function, electrolytes, and hemoglobin counts in a cancer patient are HIGHLY relevant, especially when they are aggressively being treated for a stage 4 cancer with multiple IV regiments daily.
o Labs HIGHLY necessary to monitor patient safety
o Labs HIGHLY necessary to assess patient response
o Labs necessary to assist in guiding treatment intensity
Â· G1 –G11: Cancer panels necessary to establish immune function, with detailed explanation in charts provided
o G1, G10, G11: explanation of significance of level of uncontrolled cellular proliferation monitoring in immunocomprimised pts.
o Immune function – CD 19, CD 56 counts
o Immune function – NKHT3 + Immunocompetent Natural Killer Cells, NK Cell activity, NK cell activity/cell
o G3 G4, G11: Lymphocyte Subpopulation profile – CD2, CD4, CD8, CD 3, CD 26
o G8, G11: Cell cycle Analysis and dsyregulation in oncogenesis
o G6,G7, G11: Apoptosis and subsequent suppression of apoptosis in cancer explained in detail
3. â€œNotes written by NP Jane Garcia contain some indication of guidance by Dr. Buttar toward the end of the patientâ€™s life.â€�
Â· C2b: 7/24: Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· I1: 7/26: IRR Treatment performed by Dr. Buttar. When ever IRRâ€™s done, Dr. Buttar always consults with patients and addresses any issues or questions patients have.
Â· I2b: 8/3: IRR Treatment performed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C4b: 8/3: Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C5: 8/8: RN Pennington notes labs were discussed with Dr. Buttar
Â· C6b: 8/10: Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C7a: 8/14 Dr. Buttarâ€™s Progress Notes for an examination he performed
Â· C7b: 8/15/06 Dr. Buttarâ€™s note of consult with consulting oncologist.
Â· C10: 8/15: RN Pennington notes patient discussed with Dr. Buttar. Dr. Buttar gives Verbal Order for treatment.
Â· I2a: 8/15: IRR Treatment performed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C11b: 8/16: Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C12: 8/17: Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
4. â€œImmunologic studies ordered. Results not interpreted in the record.â€�
Â· C11a: 8/16/06 office visit, Ca Panel of 7/20/06 discussed and documented.
Â· Standard policy in our office for office visits includes:
o Through review of all lab work with the patient.
o All information is explained with further details provided to the patient of any thing the patient does not fully understand.
o Copies of all tests are given to the pt at the conclusion of any office visit where tests were reviewed.
5. â€œIntestinal health screen ordered and obtained. No interpretation.â€�
Â· The Comprehensive Diagnostic Stool Analysis had NOT been completed by the laboratory prior to the patientâ€™s last office visit
Â· Therefore, it was not available for interpretation or to review with the patient at the time of the visit.
6. â€œLymphatic massage ordered. No indication it was performed.â€�
Â· B7: A Lymphatic Massage was ordered as per reference
Â· We do not perform lymphatic massage in our clinic.
Â· Patient had the treatment scheduled by our office with the certified lymphatic massage therapist and given the time and place to go.
Â· It was up to the patient to keep their appointment at another facility. If the procedure was not performed, it was due to a patient compliance issue.
7. â€œPlaced on Nutri-Energetics Infoceluticals Protocol. Jusitification and results not recorded.â€�
Â· The Nutri-Energetics System is an advanced biotechnology for the analysis and repair of the human body energetic field based on quantum physics. The system integrates research from the fields of physics, quantum biology, mathematics, acupuncture and Western and Chinese medicine.
Â· H3: There are no results recorded of this treatment.
Â· Patients generally request this treatment from us.
8. â€œPhilbert Infra Respiratory Reflex Procedure performed – justification, and results not recorded.â€�
Â· I1: Procedure note with O2 saturation clearly recorded showing Pre –Treatment and Post Treatment O2 Sats.
o Results clearly recorded,, showing immediate clinical response to treatment, assessed with respiratory reserve and O2 saturations.
Â· I2a: Procedure note with O2 saturation clearly recorded showing Pre –Treatment and Post Treatment O2 Sats.
Â· I2b: Procedure note with O2 saturation clearly recorded showing Pre –Treatment and Post Treatment O2 Sats.
9. â€œThe various procedures seem in keeping with alternative and complementary care practices and seem safe to the extent known. Some are not described in terms of methods and intended effects.â€�
Â· This is a general statement made based on speculation. It will be responded to in a general manner, since there is nothing specific to counter.
Â· In 17 years, Dr. Buttar does NOT have a single formal patient complaint against him.
Â· All complaints initiating these charges by the NCMB have:
o NEVER even met Dr. Buttar at any time
o NEVER had ANY form of communication with Dr. Buttar at any time
o A clear financially based incentive to complaint against Dr. Buttar, which even the NCMB investigator recognized and acknowledged during his visit with Dr. Buttar
Â· All treatment methods and effects ARE described to the patient in implicit detail.
Â· If we did NOT explain â€œmethods and intended effectsâ€�,
o We would have real complaints from real patients, not family members or other doctors.
o We would NOT have patients coming back to us
o We would NOT have patients referring other patients to us.
10. â€œThe medical record does not use SOAP.â€�
Â· C1a – C1b: SOAP is clearly used.
Â· C2a – C2b: SOAP is clearly used.
Â· C4a – C4b: SOAP is clearly used.
Â· C6a – C6b: SOAP is clearly used.
Â· C7a – C7b: SOAP is clearly used.
Â· C11a – C11b: SOAP is clearly used.
11. Early notes co-signed by Dr. Buttar, later notes are not.
Â· C2b: 7/24 Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· I1: 7/26 IRR Treatment performed by Dr. Buttar
Â· I2b: 8/3 IRR Treatment performed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C4b: 8/3 Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C5: 8/8 RN Pennington notes labs were discussed with Dr. Buttar
Â· C6b: 8/10 Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C7b: 8/15 Dr. Buttar notes patient discussed with Dr. Holbert,
Â· C10: 8/15 RN Pennington notes patient discussed with Dr. Buttar. Dr. Buttar gives Verbal Order for treatment.
Â· I2a: 8/15 IRR Treatment performed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C11b: 8/16 Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Â· C12: 8/17 Jane Garciaâ€™s Progress Notes, co-signed by Dr. Buttar
Reference: Patient B
Lourdes KXXXXXX
Date of Birth: 7/12/52
51 year old W female who presented to Dr. Buttarâ€™s clinic on April 29, 2004 with chief complaint of stage 4 ovarian cancer. Initial Diagnosis was made on 8/13/02 of adenocarcinoma of the ovary, with staging in 2002 being Stage III-C. Patient underwent a suboptimal BSO with tumor debulking. Ptâ€™s history included a TAH in July 2000 with ovaries were left. After dx with ovarian cancer, patient underwent 8 treatments of chemotherapy (Taxol/Carboplatin) from 9/9/02 until 4/3/03. Ca 125 continued to rise from 202 to 715. CAT scans showed persistent 2.5.cm mixed radio dense mass on the bladder. By 6/25/03, CA 125 marker had risen to 1292. On 7/25/03, chemotherapy was changed to weekly doses of Topotecan. In 8/03, repeat CAT scan revealed lesion in liver
In 9/03, chemotherapy was again changed, this time to Doxil on a monthly schedule. By 12/03, chemo was discontinued because of no significant improvement and also due to patient experiencing and unable to tolerate side effects. By 4/15/04, CA 125 markers had been elevated to 10,028 (normal 0-35). That same month, 2 weeks later, on 4/29/04, patient presented to us after family physician referred patient. Pt began treatments at Dr. Buttarâ€™s clinic on May 17, 2004 and received less than 1 month of treatment using Dr. Buttarâ€™s protocol.
Patient was discharged from our practice due to noncompliance and failure to make payments and was last seen in Dr. Buttarâ€™s clinic on June 11, 2004. Despite patient being non-compliant with treatment schedule, diet, etc., CA 125 markers dropped from 10,028 in April to 6,219.3 in May, clearly establishing efficacy of Dr. Buttarâ€™s treatments. Arrangement and scheduling for patient to return to her primary care physician were made and documented. Patient reportedly died sometime in November, more than 5 months after we had seen her.
1. â€œTreated by Dr. Buttar with alternative therapies without success.â€�
Â· Above statement is FALSE.
Â· B3a: Patient presented with a history of Stage 4 metastatic ovarian cancer, with most recent Ca 125 level of 10,028.1 documented during initial history.
Â· D1: LabCorp Test : Cancer Antigen (CA) 125 - 10,028.1 on April 15, 2004.
Â· A1: Patient requested and signed consent for treatment on April 29, 2004
Â· J1: Patient started Dr. Buttarâ€™s IV treatment protocol on May 17, 2004 after full evaluation to assess ability to tolerate treatment.
Â· D20: LabCorp Test CA 125: 6,219.3, Dated June 11, 2004
o Clearly, patient was refractory to ALL previous chemo administered over almost 2 years.
o In LESS THAN 4 weeks, patientâ€™s CA125 drops by almost 4,000. This is objective proof that our treatment worked better than ANY other treatment the patient had previously undergone.
2. NCMB Expertâ€™s (Dr. Peterson) opinion on Treatment – Below standard of practice/care
Â· Largest drop in Ca 125 after Dr. Buttarâ€™s treatment
o Before Dr. Buttarâ€™s treatment: Ca 125 of 10,028.1
o After Dr. Buttarâ€™s treatment: Ca 125 of 6,219.3
Â· Reference: D1, D20, D27
o Clearly, above and beyond the standard of care
3. NCMB Expertâ€™s (Dr. Peterson) opinion on Records – Below standard of practice/care, because SOAP not used.
Â· SOAP notes are clearly used throughout the medical record.
Â· Reference:
o C1a, C1b, C2: SOAP is clearly used.
o C3a – C3b: SOAP is clearly used.
o C5a – C5b: SOAP is clearly used.
o C6: SOAP is clearly used.
4. NCMB Expertâ€™s (Dr. Peterson) Overall Opinion – Clearly below standard of practice/care.
Â· Non-compliant patient with Stage 4 metastatic ovarian cancer, refractory to conventional therapy. Referred to Hospice.
Â· Sought treatment from Dr. Buttar. Results clearly show significant drop in cancer markers in LESS THAN 4 weeks (treatment from May 17, 2004 until June 11, 2004), when conventional chemotherapy CLEARLY failed over a sixteen month period.
Â· Dr. Peterson indicates he does NOT know what this treatment is. By his own admission, he is not an expert on this subject and therefore is NOT qualified to make a peer review in this case.
Â· Failure for the â€œexpertâ€� to recognize a drop of 4000 points in CA 125 as significant evidence of
5. Dr. Peterson states the patient chart does not follow the Problem Oriented Medical Record method known as SOAP.
Â· C3a – C3b: SOAP is clearly used.
Â· C5a – C5b: SOAP is clearly used.
Â· C6: SOAP is clearly used.
6. â€œLike the prior 3 patients, there is no evidence that Dr. Buttar or any physician at his clinic ever interviewed or examined Ms. KXXXXXX.â€�
Â· B3a: 4/29 Jane Garciaâ€™s notes countersigned by Dr. Buttar
Â· B5a – B6: 5/11 Dr. Buttar conducted a physical examination & wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· H2: 5/11 Dr. Buttar made notes on a bone density scan
Â· C1b: 5/19 Jane Garciaâ€™s notes countersigned by Dr. Buttar
Â· I1a: 5/19 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· C3b: 5/27 Jane Garciaâ€™s notes countersigned by Dr. Buttar
Â· I1b: 5/27 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I2a: 6/3 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· C6: 6/21 Dr. Buttar had office visit with patient & wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· I2b: Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· C7: 6/25 Dr. Buttar gave a verbal order concerning patient to Nina Wall.
Â· C10: 6/30 Dr. Buttar engaged in an email consult with Jane where he gave treatment orders
7. â€œShe was treated with alternative therapy consisting of vitamins, IgG (?), IRR injections (?). All unproven. This is clearly not the standard of care.â€�
Â· Treatment of this patient was NOT conducted with vitamins.
Â· Vitamins and other substances are used to SUPPORT the patients.
Â· We do NOT treat patients with vitamins. We use them to SUPPORT them while they are undergoing detoxification.
Â· We use vitamins to maintain good physiology and give the patient what they need but are lacking in their diet.
Â· This statement shows Dr. Petersonâ€™s ignorance of integrative medicine.
Â· All principals and protocols used are covered in the following courses:
o AMESPA (Advanced Medical Education and Services, Physician Association) Course– AMA Cat 1, CME course, of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member since itâ€™s inception in 2005
o ABCMT (American Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology of which, Dr. Buttar currently serves as Chairman of the Board) – Introduction to Clinical Metal Toxicology Course, of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member sine 1999,
o ACAM (American College for Advancement in Medicine) Heavy Metal Course of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member in the past
o ICIM (International College of Integrative Medicine) Heavy Metal Course of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member in the past
o AAEM (American Academy of Environmental Medicine) Heavy Metal Course of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member in the past
Â· Reference article published in Life Extension 2/03 Title: Anti-Cancer Foods and Supplements, paragraph 4 â€œThe National Cancer Institute (NCI) issued an unprecedented number of press releases in the year 2002 stating that the diet has a major impact on cancer.â€� Page 61 of same article states the following â€œSupplements versus foodâ€� â€œFood contains all the nutrients the human body needs. And if we eat the right kind of food, weâ€™ll get them. The problem is we donâ€™t.â€� â€œBenefit of supplements. They are concentrated and you know how much youâ€™re getting (if the supplement is from a reputable company). The vitamins we recommend are pharmaceutical grade vitamins.
Â· Reference Case Studies in Advance Medicine by John C. Cline MD, BSc, Applying functional medicine in Clinical Practice. â€œWhen the advanced medicine practitioner begins to treat the chronically ill patient, one of the most important treatment strategies is to optimize nutrition in order to provide support for the bodyâ€™s natural detoxification mechanisms.â€�
8. â€œShe was treated with alternative therapy consisting of vitamins, IgG (?), IRR injections (?). All unproven. This is clearly not the standard of care.â€�
Â· IgG 2000 DF, a Xymogen product, from product insert, â€œrepresents a breakthrough in immunoglobulin supplementation. It is a highly concentrated non-dairy source of serum-derived immunoglobulin antibodies and immune-proteins. It possesses 3 times more IgG and total immunoglobulin than colostrums and has twice as much cysteine, an important amino acid for maintaining glutathione levels. It also delivers 15 times the level of transferrin and Lactoferrin than colostrums alone and one daily dose supplies over 2000mg of IgGâ€�
9. â€œShe was treated with alternative therapy consisting of vitamins, IgG (?), IRR injections (?). All unproven. This is clearly not the standard of care.â€�
Â· Dr. Peterson indicates he does not know what this treatment is
Â· IRRâ€™s are NOT a treatment for cancer
Â· IRR is the infraspinatus respiratory reflex treatment, as published in the American Journal of Family Practice to increase oxygen capacity and respiratory reserve.
Â· Cancer is an anaerobic metabolizer. Increasing aerobic metabolism from the predominant anaerobic metabolism characteristic in oncogenesis has been shown to be highly beneficial to cancer patients.
Â· We are simply improving patient oxygen utilization
Â· Each IRR procedure is documented, with VS, and O2 saturation Pre –Treatment and Post Treatment are recorded, showing immediate results post procedure.
10. â€œThe standard of care would have (been) a chemotherapy trial or hospice referral.â€�
Â· Patient underwent 16 months of chemotherapy prior to presentation to Dr. Buttar.
Â· Dr. Peterson, by this statement, indicates he is not an expert on this subject and therefore is NOT qualified to make a peer review in this case.
Â· We practice ABOVE the â€œstandardâ€� of care, which is CLEARLY shown by the results:
11. â€œNo physician contact documented.â€�
Â· H2: 5/11 Dr. Buttar made notes on a EKG
1. â€œThe patient continued to experience progression of her cancer despite the therapies provided by Dr. Buttar.â€�
Â· Above statement is FALSE. Reviewer has perjured himself.
Â· B3a: Patient presented with a history of Stage 4 metastatic ovarian cancer, with most recent Ca 125 of 10,028.1 documented during initial history.
Â· D1: LabCorp Test : Cancer Antigen (CA) 125 10,028.1 on April 15, 2004.
Â· A1: Request and consent for treatment on April 29, 2004
Â· J1: Patient started Dr. Buttarâ€™s IV treatment protocol on May 17, 2004
o In LESS THAN 4 weeks, patientâ€™s CA125 drops by almost 4,000.
o This is objective proof, despite patient being non-compliant, that our treatment worked better than ANY other treatment the patient had previously undergone.
Â· The issue of non-compliance:
o C3a: Documentation under the Subjective portion of progress note where , pt admits to partial compliance of parasite protocol.
o C4: Note to chart that pt had not started Rx for Cipro
o C5b: Documentation under Plan of progress note pt is counseled re non compliance
o C6: Documentation under Subjective portion of progress note regarding lengthy discussion re non-compliance
Â· D27: Chronological timeline from 08/13/02 - 06/11/04, showing patientâ€™s response to overall treatment.
o Largest drop in Ca 125 after Dr. Buttarâ€™s treatment
2. â€œConsistent with care provided by allopathic practitioners using complementary modalities – generally safe, limited evidence for efficacy.â€�
Â· As already referenced (D1, D20, D27), results of this patientâ€™s treatment are BEYOND any care provided by allopathic practitioners using any modalities.
3. â€œPatient received over 200 infusions of a variety of cofactors, trace elements and other substances of benign nature.â€�
Â· IV treatments are administered via a protocol established to change the underlying physiology of the patient from an acid to alkaline state with an emphasis in increasing aerobic metabolism from the predominant anaerobic metabolism characteristic in oncogenesis.
Â· IV infusion given based on protocol, as per the AMESPA Course, which is an ACCME approved, AMA Category 1 CME course.
Â· Patientâ€™s response to IV treatment is documented in the nursing notes on a daily basis to assess any adverse clinical status or side effects of treatment.
4. â€œNo side effects recorded.â€�
Â· Patientâ€™s response to IV treatment is documented in the progress notes, as well as nursing notes by nursing staff, on a daily basis to assess any adverse clinical status or side effects of treatment and per protocol is brought to the provider immediately.
Â· There were no such adverse effects or clinical status change in this patient and therefore, there is nothing documented.
Â· Each subjective component in the progress notes details the patientâ€™s response to all treatment.
Â· C1a: Under Subjective portion of SOAP note, documentation of ptâ€™s response to all treatments.
Â· C3a: Under Subjective portion of SOAP note, documentation of ptâ€™s response.
Â· C5a: Under Subjective portion of SOAP note, documentation of ptâ€™s response.
Â· C6: Under Subjective portion of SOAP note documentation of ptâ€™s response.
5. â€œNo mention of improvement or change mentioned.â€�
Â· Each subjective component in the progress notes details the patientâ€™s response to all treatments.
Â· C1a: ov of 5/19/04 under Subjective of SOAP note pt states had less pain in right side from initial visit.
Â· C3a: ov of 5/27/04 under Subjective of SOAP note pt states; Today started feeling like myself again. Woke up this am with a spark-feel like myself again, more energy, pain on right side better (much), can now sleep on right side. Appetite not much , but still eats, maintained weight at 150 lbs.
Â· C5a: Under Subjective of SOAP note , documentation of ptâ€™s response.
Â· C6: Under Subjective of SOAP note, documentation of ptâ€™s response.
Â· C8: Under Subjective of SOAP note, documentation of ptâ€™s response.
Â· As already referenced (D1, D20, D27), results of this patientâ€™s improvement are clearly documented.
6. â€œPatient billed for 12 biofeedback treatments which are not described in the notes as to the nature of the training, the rationale for the therapy and the effects of the training.â€�
Â· K1 – K21: form of treatment and effects of treatment, as well as specific anatomical regions affected by treatment are documented.
7. â€œThere was no full note by Dr. Buttar.â€�
Â· B5a – B5b: 5/11 Dr. Buttar conducted a physical examination & wrote detailed Progress Notes
8. â€œOne of Jane Garciaâ€™s note was not countersigned and was undated, five were countersigned by Dr. Buttar.â€�
Â· As we understand, the NC Medical Practice Act (during that time period) did not require NP notes to be countersigned
Â· C8: That it was undated was a clerical error that had no negative outcome. If the date of the Progress Note was ever in question, a quick look in our scheduling program would clarify.
10. â€œSeveral notes by Ms. Garcia were difficult to read.â€�
Â· Agreed.
11. â€œTwo forms were included for patient self assessment of symptoms and one assessment of clinical condition. They were unlabelled, and one was undated, neither were signed.â€�
Â· B1a - B1b: self assessments of the patient dated 4/22/04
Â· B2a - B2b: 4/22/04, is part of the patientâ€™s initial package
12. â€œNo correlation of therapy with changes in laboratory values or clinic status during the two months of her care with Dr. Buttar.â€�
Â· D2 – D26: Requirement for monitoring renal function, hepatic function, electrolytes, and hemoglobin counts in a cancer patient are HIGHLY relevant, especially when they are aggressively being treated for a stage 4 cancer with multiple IV regiments daily.
o D20: Documentation of CA 125 for efficacy of treatment
Â· G1 –G17: Cancer panels necessary to establish immune function, with detailed explanation in charts provided
o G9, G10: explanation of significance of level of uncontrolled cellular proliferation monitoring in immunocomprimised pts.
o G6, G11: Lymphocyte Subpopulation profile – CD2, CD4, CD8, CD 3, CD 26
o G1, G9, G13: Cell cycle Analysis and dsyregulation in oncogenesis
o G3, G12: Apoptosis and subsequent suppression of apoptosis in cancer explained in detail
13. â€œSeveral forms were unlabeled as to what parameters they were recording.â€�
Â· There was no specifics to what the reviewer was referring to. All lab forms are either appropriately labeled or organized in the correct section of the chart.
14. â€œThe record does not use SOAP.â€�
Â· C1a, C1b: The SOAP format is clearly used.
Â· C3a, C3b: The SOAP format is clearly used
Â· C5a, C5b :The SOAP format is clearly used
Â· C6: The SOAP format is clearly used.
15. â€œSpecific therapies non-harmful but not fully justified. Some therapies (biofeedback) not described or justified.â€�
Â· Dr. Mann indicates by this statement that he does NOT understand the physiological basis and justification of our treatment. He is not an expert on this subject or in the treatment of cancer and therefore is NOT qualified to make a peer review in this case.
16. â€œRepetitive testing of lipids and iron and iron binding capacity is questionable.â€�
Â· It is clear Dr. Mann is NOT an expert in the integrative approach to treating cancer
Â· D2 – D26: Requirement for monitoring renal function, hepatic function, Iron, TIBC, % saturation, Ferritin, electrolytes, and hemoglobin counts in a cancer patient are HIGHLY relevant, especially when they are aggressively being treated for a stage 4 cancer with multiple IV regiments daily.
Â· Lipids, Fe, TIBC, %saturation, Ferritin, Chem. profile ordered after 5th anionic surfactant treatment according to standard protocol, as established by multiple medical societies, including:
o ACAM (American College for Advancement in Medicineâ€™s) Heavy Metal Course of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member in the past
o ICIM (International College of Integrative Medicineâ€™s) Heavy Metal Course of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member in the past
o AAEM (American Academy of Environmental Medicineâ€™s) Heavy Metal Course of which Dr. Buttar has been a faculty member in the past
17. â€œDr. Buttar did not document his own examination of the patient but did countersign most of his NPâ€™s notes.â€�
Â· B5a: 5/11 Dr. Buttar conducted a physical examination & wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· H2: 5/11Dr. Buttar made notes on a EKG
Reference: Patient C
Jeff KXXXXXX
Date of Birth: 2/13/61
43 y.o. W male who presented on Feb 16, 2004 with c/c of Adrenal Carcinoma, initially diagnosed in September 2003, status post surgical resection in Oct 2003 with left nephrectomy, adrenalectomy and splenectomy, along with extensive lymph node dissection. Pt presented with a 59 pound weight loss. Prior to diagnosis of cancer, patient had significant hx of abdominal surgery in October 2002 with resection of greater than 4cm of sigmoid colon with placement of a colostomy. Three months later, in Feb 2003, pt had colostomy takedown.
Underwent 16 treatments of radiation, although advised to have 28. Pt stopped after becoming very sick and was unable to tolerate further treatments. Pt told by oncologist that chemotherapy would not be an option and was reportedly given less than 6 months to live. On Feb 3, 2004, the first post operative cat scan showed questionable lesion in lung (5mm), as well as a new lesion in the liver measuring 2 ½ cm. Patient presented to us with stage 4 Adrenal Cancer and was under the care of Dr. Buttar from February 16, 2004 until June 9, 2004 and was last seen in our clinic on June 11, 2004. Patient died on September 18, 2004 from a pulmonary embolus, more than three months after treatment had been completed by Dr. Buttar.
Â· Natural Killer Cell activity more than doubled after treatment by Dr. Buttar
o Before treatment: Natural Killer Cell Activity: 8.6 LU
o After treatment: Natural Killer Cell Activity: 20.8 LU
Â§ A 150% increase in in NK Cell Activity
Â· Reference: G17,G18,G19,G27
Â· Clearly Above and Beyond the standard of care.
Â· If Dr. Peterson does NOT understand the relevance of increasing CD 19 and CD 56 count (NK Cell) activity in cancer patients, he substantiates himself that he is NOT qualified to review this case.
2. â€œEDTA chelation therapy has no benefit in treating cancer.â€�
Â· First, we do NOT treat cancer with EDTA.
Â· We DO treat heavy metal toxicity with EDTA.
Â· The incidence of heavy metal toxicity with cancer is highly statistically significant.
Â· If the cancer patients shows heavy metal toxicity, as they usually do, we REMOVE the metals.
Â· According to the conventional cancer literature, 75% to 95% of cancer patients have some type of toxicity. The etiology of most cancers stems from increase in oxidative stress due to some sort of toxicity.
Â· Sample References showing correlation of heavy metals in cancer patients – Have more than a hundred others.
o Metal Metabolism Of Neoplastic Cells: Alterations That Facilitate Proliferation? Critical Review Oncology & Hematology, Volume 42, No. 1, April 2002, pg 65-78
o Iron Chelation Induced Senescence-like Growth Arrest In Hepatocyte Cell Lines: Association of TGF-beta1 Mediated p27superKip1 Expression, Biochemistry Journal, April 11, 2002
o Antiproliferative And Apoptotic Effects Of Iron Chelators On Human Cervical Carcinoma Cells, Gynecological Oncology Volume 85, No. 1, April 2002, pg 95-102
o Ninety Percent Reduction In Cancer Mortality After Chelation Therapy With EDTA, Journal of Advancement in Medicine, Volume 2, No. 1-2, Spring-Summer 1989
3. â€œIn addition, numerous labs drawn that are of no clinical relevance such as â€œurine toxic metalsâ€�,â€�steatocritâ€�, â€œLactoferrinâ€�, â€œLysozymeâ€�.
4. E1: Urine Toxic Metals is a urine element analysis used for the assessment of toxic element statue, monitoring detoxification therapy, and identifying or quantifying renal wasting conditions. The incidence of heavy metal toxicity with cancer is highly statistically significant.
Â· F2: Steatocrit, lactoferrin, lysozyme are part of the CDSA( Comprehensive Stool Analysis/Parasitology x1 test which is performed to assess many digestive and absorptive functions occurring within the gastrointestinal tract as well as providing an overview of the microfloral balance, intestinal ecology, immunology and general intestinal health.
Â· D1 – D51: Requirement for monitoring renal function, hepatic function, electrolytes, can hemoglobin counts in a cancer patient are HIGHLY relevant, especially when they are aggressively being treated for a stage 4 cancer with multiple IV regiments daily.
Â· G1 –G27: Cancer panels necessary to establish immune function, with detailed explanation in charts provided
o G1, G9, G18 – explanation of significance of level of uncontrolled cellular proliferation monitoring in immunocomprimised pts.
o G3,G4,G11, G12, G21,G22 - Lymphocyte Subpopulation profile – CD2, CD4, CD8, CD 3, CD 26
o G7, G16, G24 - Cell cycle Analysis and dsyregulation in oncogenesis
o G5, G14, G23 - Apoptosis and subsequent suppression of apoptosis in cancer explained in detail
5. â€œThe standard of care would be treatment with chemotherapy such as Mitotane or enrollment in a clinical trial versus palliative care alone.â€�
Â· C2a: Pt was told chemotherapy was not an option by oncologist.
Â· Dr. Buttarâ€™s treatment was ABOVE and BEYOND the standard of care.
Â· While under Dr. Buttarâ€™s care, pt did not require pain control.
Â· Patient lived beyond expected and predicted life span by oncologist
Â· Patient died of a documented pulmonary emboli, NOT cancer.
6. â€œNo physician contact documented.â€�
Â· C2a: 2/16 Dr. Buttar conducted examination and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· C4a,b: 3/24 Dr. Buttar conducted examination and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· C5a, C5b: 4/7 Dr. Buttar conducted examination and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· C6a, C6b: 4/7 Dr. Buttar conducted examination and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· C9: 5/4 Dr. Buttar conducted examination and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· C12a: 5/25 Dr. Buttar conducted examination and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· C13: 6/9 Dr. Buttar conducted examination and wrote detailed Progress Notes
Â· I1b: 3/15 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient. When ever IRRâ€™s done, Dr. Buttar always consults with patients and addresses any issues or questions patients have.
Â· I1a: 3/23 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I2b: 3/30 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I2a: 4/6 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I3: 4/14 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I4a: 4/20 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I4b: 4/27 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I5a: 4/28 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I5b: 5/4 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I6b: 5/11 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I6a: 5/18 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I7b: 5/25 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I7a: 6/1 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
Â· I8a: 6/9 Dr. Buttar performed an IRR treatment on patient
1. â€œThe point of the chelation therapy is not stated in the record.â€�
Â· Failure of the reviewer, the NCMB or designated â€œexpert witnessâ€� to be up to date on the medical literature is not Dr. Buttarâ€™s responsibility.
2. â€œRecords: This is the weakest part of the care. There are no records of justification of the treatments given except for what appear to be pre-packaged paragraphs describing the rationale for testing for heavy metal toxicity and immune function. This information is not described in terms specific tests and procedures for this patient.â€�
Â· This is correct. Since the rationale is always the same, it is pre-packaged to save time and effort. Metals increase oxidative stress. Oxidative stress leads to DNA mutation and Immunosuppression. DNA mutation leads to oncogenesis. Immunosuppression leads to suppression of apoptosis. All this leads to cancer.
Â· C4b: Immune function, results heavy metal testing
Â· C7b: Immune function(Cancer Panel)
Â· C12A: Immune function (Cancer Panel)
Â· E1-E7b: Urine toxic Metals
Â· G1-G27: Immune function (Cancer Panel)
3. â€œThere is no written assessment of the patientâ€™s response to the infusions and chelation therapy.â€�
Â· C4a, C4b: Dr. Buttar documented patientâ€™s response to all treatments under the Subjective portion of the Soap note
Â· C5a: Documentation of patientâ€™s response to all treatments under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note
Â· C6a: Documentation of patientâ€™s response to all treatments under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note.
Â· C7a:Jane Garcia, NP documented patientâ€™s response to all treatment under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note.
Â· C9: Dr. Buttar documented patientâ€™s response to all treatments under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note.
Â· C10a:Jane Garcia, NP documented patientâ€™s response to all treatments under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note.
Â· C11a: Jane Garcia,NP documented patientâ€™s response under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note.
Â· C12a: Dr. Buttar documented patientâ€™s response under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note.
Â· C12b: Jane Garcia,NP documented patientâ€™s response under the Subjective Portion of the SOAP note.
Â· C13: Dr. Buttar documented the patientâ€™s response under the Subjective portion of the SOAP note.
4. â€œMost of the notes are written by Jane Garcia, ANP, are often out of order, are occasionally countersigned by Dr. Buttar and do not reflect ongoing examination of the patient or observed changes in his clinical status, linked to his therapy or otherwise.â€�
Â· When medical records given to NCMB, records and progress notes were in order.
Â· ,C12b: Dr. Buttar either wrote or co-signed ALL but one Progress Note )
o C2a: Signed Progress Note
o C4a: Signed Progress Note
o C5b: Signed Progress Note
o C6b: Signed Progress Note
o C8: Signed Progress Note
o C9: Signed Progress Note
o C10b: Signed Progress Note
o C11b: Signed Progress Note
o C12a: Signed Progress Note
o C13: Signed Progress Note
Â· C5a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C6a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C7b : Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C9: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented.
Â· C10b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C11b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings noted
Â· C12a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C12b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C13: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C4a: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C5a: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C6a: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C7a: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C9: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C10a: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C11a: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C12a: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C12b: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
Â· C13: Under the Subjective portion of each SOAP note, specific comments by the patient are documented
5. â€œThe record does not use SOAP.â€�
Â· C2a: 2/16/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C2b: 2/23/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C4a – C4b: 3/24/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C5a – C5b: 4/6/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C6a-6b : 4/20/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C7a,C7b,C8: 4/28/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C9: 5/4/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C10a – C10b: 5/13/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C11a – C11b: 5/18/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C12a: 5/25/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
Â· C12b: 6/2/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY
Â· C13: 6/9/04 - SOAP note is CLEARLY used
6. â€œOverall: below standard of practice/care, particularly in terms of documentation of the attending awareness of patient status, justification for therapies chosen, and awareness of effects of such therapies.â€�
Â· C13: Dr. Buttar Signed all his progress notes and co-signed all of the Mid Level Providerâ€™s notes.
o C3a: Signed Progress Note
o C3b: Signed Progress Note
o C4b: Signed Progress Note
o C7: Signed Progress Note
o C9b: Signed Progress Note
Â· C4b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C7b :Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C9: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C10a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
Â· C11b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note, exam, findings documented
9. â€œIn addition to the above issues, there are several examples of repetitive blood sampling with questionable utility.â€�
Â· D1 – D51: Requirement for monitoring renal function, hepatic function, electrolytes, can hemoglobin counts in a cancer patient are HIGHLY relevant, especially when they are aggressively being treated for a stage 4 cancer with multiple IV regiments on a daily basis.
10. â€œ-weekly assessment of immune function from 2/25 – 5/10 without written comment or interpretation of the results or adjustment of therapy.â€�
Â· Assessment of immune function was completed 3 times in this patient
o G1 – G8: Once prior to initiation of treatment on Feb 25, 2004
o G9 – G17: Once during the treatment on Apr 20, 2004
o G18 – G25: Once towards the end of the first phase of tx, on May 10, 2004
Â· Clinical interpretation and comments are discussed in the Assessment and Plan of the OV when tests became available for review.
Â· G27 is a running comparison that was given each time to the patient and reviewed in detail with the patient.
Â· Copy of G27 given to patient at time of review.
11. â€œ-intravenous infusions 03/03/2004 to 06/11/2004 without comment on change in clinical status or side effects or justification for further infusions.â€�
Â· IV tx are administered via a protocol established to change the underlying physiology of the patient from an acid to alkaline state with an emphasis in increasing aerobic metabolism from the predominant anaerobic metabolism characteristic in oncogenesis.
Â· Ptâ€™s response to IV treatment is documented in nursing notes on a daily basis to assess any adverse clinical status or side effects of tx and per protocol, is brought to the provider immediately
Â· There was no such adverse effect or clinical status change in this patient, and therefore, there is NOTHING documented. You canâ€™t document something if it did NOT occur.
Â· J4 – J16 documents - All normal evaluations documented, with vital signs, including before and after blood pressures, weight, and pulse and respiratory rates were documented, as per our clinic protocol.
12. â€œ-multiple blood draws for labs from 3/18/ to at least 6/11/2004 for electrolytes, liver and kidney functions, iron studies and lipid levels which changed very little, were not justified in the notes, were often out of order, and were ordered about once per week, again without documentation or justification.â€�
Â· Fortunately, this patient was doing well, but often, this is not the case.
o We monitor all patients closely.
o If we had NOT monitored, an adverse event could have occurred and the NCMB would be investigating the LACK of proper monitoring.
o All labs are kept in order and were in order when charts were given to the NCMB.
Â· C3: Note Documentation of Labs performed on 2/24/04, 3/17/04, 3/25/04, 4/5/04, and 4/8/04 for comparative analysis of renal, hepatic function, electrolytes, iron levels, hemoglobin/ hematocrit levels.
o As stated above labs are done to monitor patient safety, assess patient response, and assist providers in guiding treatment of patient.
Â· C4b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C5a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C6a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C6b: Documentation of Labs performed on 4/01/04, 4/13/04, 4/15/04, and 4/19/04 for comparative analysis
Â· C7a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C7b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C9: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C10a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· Of labs performed on 5/3/04, 5/7/04, and 5/11/04 for comparative analysis
Â· C10b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C11a: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings documented
Â· C11b: Continuation of documented findings
Â· C12b: Under (O) Objective of SOAP note findings are documented
13. â€œThe main deficiencies are in the areas of documentation of justification for treatments, repetitive serum tests, and lack of a sense of management of this patient using assessment linked with rationale for treatment. The standard of care is below average in this case.â€�
Â· C2a: There is a definite plan of treatment as listed under the A/P portion of the SOAP note.
o This was the patientâ€™s initial visit.
o Plan of treatment continued at each subsequent office visit as documented under the A/P of each SOAP note.
o This is definitely within the standard of care.
Â· C2b: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment / Plan of Soap note
Â· C4a - C4b: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment / Plan of Soap note
Â· C5b: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
Â· C6b: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
Â· C7b,C8: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
Â· C9: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
Â· C10b: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
Â· C11b: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
Â· C12a,C12b: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
Â· C13: Documentation under (A/P) Assessment/Plan of Soap note
RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS
NOW COMES the Respondent, Rashid All Buttar, D.O., and responds to the charges and
allegations served on him on January 8,2008, as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 is an allegation of law and not of fact and is, therefore, denied.
2-4.. Admitted.
5. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 5, it is admitted that Patient A presented to the Respondent with a diagnosis of cervical cancer which had metastasized to her liver and lungs at the time she started treatment with him.
6. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 6, it is admitted that Patient B was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2002 which, at the time of surgery, had spread throughout her abdomen and liver. In 2002 and 2003, she underwent chemotherapy which was unsuccessful and, in April 2004, was directed to the Respondent by her family doctor.
7. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 7, it is admitted that Patient C had a diagnosis of adrenal carcinoma which had metastasized to his lungs.
8. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 8, it is denied that Patient D presented to the Respondent for treatment of colon polyps. Rather, she was referred by her mother for treatment of heavy metal toxicity (which had been diagnosed by hair analysis) and treatment of pain in her lower left side.
9. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 9, the Respondent states that, at the time of Patients A, B and C's deaths, he was not treating them and has no personal knowledge as to their causes of death. The Respondent is informed and believes that Patients A and B succumbed to their cancer, and that Patient C died of a pulmonary embolism.
10. Denied. With regard to Patient A, the Respondent's records do not reflect how she was referred to him for treatment. However, the Medical Board's investigation states that Patient A's daughter referred her mother to the Respondent for treatment of cervical cancer which had metastasized to the lung and liver, and for which conventional medical treatment had been discontinued due to lack of efficacy. Patient A signed a consent to treatment (which was witnessed) that specifically admitted that no claim from the Respondent to cure cancer with therapies had been made. With regard to Patient B, the Respondent's records reflect that this patient was referred to the Respondent by her family physician and, prior to beginning treatment with the Respondent, Patient B signed a consent to treatment that specifically admitted that no claim from the Respondent to cure cancer with therapies had been made. With regard to Patient C, it appears that he was self-referred to the Respondent through a web search. He also signed a consent to treatment in which he specifically agreed that no claim to cure cancer with the Respondent's therapies had been made to him.
11. Denied. The Respondent will present scientific evidence before the Board of the efficacy of all treatments rendered in his practice to Patients A, B and C. Further, N.C.G.S. $ 90- 14(a)(6) specifically states that: "The Board shall not revoke the license of or deny a license to a person solely because of that person's practice of a therapy that is experimental, nontraditional, or that departs from acceptable and prevailing medical practices unless, by competent evidence, the Board can establish that the treatment has a safety risk greater than the prevailing treatment or that the treatment is generally not effective,"
12. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 12, the first sentence is con~pletely and totally denied. Concerning the allegations in the second sentence regarding the costs of treatment for individual patients, the billing statements for each of the patients vary and the total amount billed for each patient is reflected thereon. Concerning the third sentence of this allegation, it is specifically denied that the Respondent ordered therapies in an attempt to drive up billings. Rather, he ordered therapies as were necessary (in his judgment) to the treatment of the patients. In addition, it is specifically denied that he ordered tests and lab work with no rational medical relationship to the patients' cancer diagnoses. Rather, he ordered tests and lab work which were (in his professional opinion) necessary to the treatment of these patients. Finally, with regard to the allegations of the fourth sentence of paragraph 12, it is specifically denied that the tests and lab work ordered by the Respondent were never adequately justified or linked to the patients' diagnoses and clinical conditions or, in some cases, never interpreted. All tests and lab work were necessary in the judgment of the Respondent to the treatment of the patients, and all were used in connection with the treatment of these patients, Furthermore, all rationale used to treat above-mentioned patients has been taught in an ACCME accredited, AMA Category 1 CME approved course.
13. The allegations of all of the sentences of paragraph 13 are specifically denied. All testing and lab work was, in the opinion of the Respondent, necessary for the treatment of his patients.
14. The allegations of all sentences of paragraph 14 are specifically denied. Patients A, B and C all clinically showed efficacy of treatment and objective evidence of improvement.
15. The allegations of paragraph 15 are specifically denied. Patients A, B and C were seen at least once per week by the Respondent and, on many occasions, more than once per week.The Respondent and his nurse practitioner, together, often saw these patients and notes would be taken by the nurse practitioner. All patient treatments and decisions were made by the Respondent. All the instances when the nurse practitioner saw patients, her notes were reviewed and countersigned by the Respondent. The Respondent followed all Medical Board standards and guidelines for the supervision of his nurse practitioner, who was fully qualified to perform all tasks and duties that she undertook at the direction of the Respondent.
16. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 16, it is specifically denied that the Respondent ever promised Patient C that his treatments had a " 100% success rate." With regard to the amounts of the charges for Patient C, the Respondent's billing records have been submitted to the Medical Board and speak for themselves. It is admitted that, prior to his death, Patient C attempted to pay a final bill by check, and it is admitted that Patient C's spouse stopped payment on that check. It is further admitted that the Respondent's staff witnessed numerous angry phone conversations between Patient C and his wife, who was not supportive of the Respondent's treatment. Patient C specifically related to the Respondent on two separate occasions that he was depressed over the fact that his wife cared more about her financial status than his life.
17. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 17, it is admitted that, after Patient C's spouse stopped payment on a check that Patient C had written to the Respondent, Patient G's account (after his death) was referred to a collection agency.
18. Denied. The billing statements for Patient B have been submitted to the Medical Board and they speak for themselves. Patient B was seen on at least a weekly basis, if not more
often, by the Respondent. All of the notes written by the Respondent's nurse practitioner were reviewed and countersigned by the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent personally examined this patient, and his notes reflect evidence of clinical improvement over the course of her treatments.
19. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 19, the billing statements for Patient B (which have been submitted to the Medical Board) speak for themselves. It is admitted that the Respondent's practice did seek collection from Patient B's estate for a balance outstanding at the time of her death. Except as specifically admitted, the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 19 are denied.
20. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 20, the billing statements for Patient A have been submitted to the Medical Board and speak for themselves. Both as to the dates of treatment and amount of charges, it is admitted that Patient A received treatment for approximately one month, and that she came to the Respondent with advanced cancer after conventional treatments had failed. The Respondent's treatment of Patient A was not limited to the administration of hydrogen peroxide. A complete list of treatments administered by the Respondent is contained in the billing statements for this patient. It is admitted that Patient A paid $360.00 by credit card for her initial office visit and made an advance payment of $12,000 against which other tests and treatments were credited. The total number of office visits for this patient is documented in the billing records, as is additional billing amounts. It is admitted that, at the conclusion of her treatment, certain items were returned which resulted in a credit and refund. The Respondent saw Patient A on a number of occasions without charging her. It is admitted that the Respondent's nurse practitioner made notes of office visits at which the Respondent and the nurse practitioner were in attendance. On occasions in which the nurse practitioner examined Patient A independently, her notes were reviewed and countersigned by the Respondent, All diagnoses and treatments were reviewed and ordered by the Respondent. Except as specifically admitted, the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 20 are denied.
21. Concerning the allegations of paragraph 21, it is specifically denied that the Respondent treated Patient D for colon polyps. In fact, Patient D presented with a complaint of heavy metal toxicity, and that was specifically the condition for which she sought treatment. The Respondent did not personally meet with Patient D. However, she was treated by a nurse practitioner under the direct supervision of the Respondent. The nurse practitioner's notes were reviewed and countersigned by the Respondent. The Respondent authorized and supervised all treatment of Patient D, which was appropriate. Patient D was eventually discharged from the practice due to the fact that, after paying by credit card for services rendered, on numerous occasions she attempted to reverse credit card charges claiming that she never received the services that had, indeed, been rendered. This did result in an ongoing dispute with Patient D because she attempted to obtain services from the Respondent without intending to pay for those services. Except as specifically admitted, the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 21 are denied.
22. The allegations of paragraph 22 are specifically denied. Under N.C.G.S. Ã‚ 90- 1A(3), "integrative medicine is a diagnostic or therapeutic treatment that may not be considered a conventionally accepted medical treatment and that a licensed physician in the physician's professional opinion believes may be of potential benefit to the patient, so long as the treatment poses no greater risk of harm to the patient than the comparable conventional treatments." The Respondent is an integrative medicine physician. In addition, under N.C.G.S. $ 90-14(a)(G), "the Board shall not revoke the license of or deny a license to a person solely because of that person's practice of a therapy that is experimental, nontraditional, or that departs from acceptable and prevailing medical practices unless, by competent evidence, the Board can establish that the treatment has a safety risk greater than the prevailing treatment or that the treatment is generally not effective." The allegations of the Board's complaint against the Respondent do not state that the Respondent's treatments posed a safety risk greater than the prevailing treatment, nor do they show that the Respondent's treatment was generally not effective. In fact, the Respondent's treatment was documented in some individual patient files as being more effective than the standard treatment of those individual patients and the Respondent will supply medical and scientific proof that the treatments used by him on patients are effective in treating various conditions.
23. The allegations of paragraph 23 are denied. The Board has presented no allegations or proof that the Respondent's treatments are a safety risk greater than the prevailing treatment, nor any proof that they are generally not effective.
24. The allegations of paragraph 24 are denied. The Respondent did not directly solicit any of the patients cited in the Medical Board's charges. In fact, patients arc routinely referred by other patients or their physicians to the Respondent. All patients, and particularly cancer patients, sign a statement recognizing that the Respondent does not make any specific representations about his treatments or their effect on cancer. All patients also sign clear financial policies which state that patients are directly responsible for all charges.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests:
(1) That the charges and allegations against him be dismissed;
(2) That the Board take no disciplinary action against him after hearing the evidence on
the charges presented.
Knox, Brotherton, b o x & Godfrey
Phone: (704) 372- 1 360
I, Lisa G. Godfrey, Attorney for Respondent, certify that I have this day served a copy of the
foregoing RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS on the following
individual, a copy of same via e-mail, addressed as follows:
VIA E-MAIL Marcus.JimisonOPCMEDBOARD. ORG
Raleigh, NC 276 19-0007
This the day of February, 2008.
In re: Rashid Ali Buttar, D.O., Respondent
NOTICE OF CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS; NOTICE OF HEARING
The North Carolina Medical Board (hereafter, Board) has preferred and does hereby prefer the following charges and allegations:
1. The Board is a body duly organized under the laws of North Carolina and is the proper party to bring this proceeding under the authority granted it in Article 1 of Chapter 90 of the
3. During the times relevant herein, Dr. Buttar practiced medicine in Cornelius, North Carolina.
4. Patients A through C presented to Dr. Buttar with a diagnosis of cancer.
5. Patient A presented to Dr. Buttar with a diagnosis of cervical cancer.
7. Patient C presented with a diagnosis of adrenal cell cancer.
8. Patient D presented to Dr. Buttar with a history of colon polyps.
9. Patients A, B and C would eventually succumb to their cancer.
10. Patients A, B and C, desperate for any hope to combat their disease, came to Dr. Buttar because of Dr. Buttar's representations that the therapies he offered would be effective in their battle against cancer. Dr. Buttar's representations were false, and were made by Dr. Buttar with full knowledge of their falsity.
11. Dr. Buttar provided therapies to Patients A, B and C that were unproven and wholly ineffective. The therapies consisted primarily of intravenous administration of a variety of substances, none of which has any known value for the treatment of cancer. The substances included EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), chromium, certain vitamins, and hydrogen-peroxide.
12. Dr. Buttar charged exorbitant fees for his ineffectual therapies. The total cost of the intravenous injections and other therapies for these cancer patients at times ranged in the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars. Not only would Dr. Buttar order and have administered unproven and ineffectual therapies for Patients A, B and C in an attempt to drive up his billings, he would also order numerous tests and lab work for these patients that had no rational, medical relationship to the Patients' cancer diagnosis. Moreover, many tests and lab work that were ordered by Dr. Buttar were never adequately justified in the medical records of the patients, were never linked to the patients' diagnoses or clinical condition, and in some instances never interpreted.
13. There is no evidence that any of the extensive and expensive laboratory data obtained on Patients A, B, C and D were used for treatment decisions. In essence, the medical records indicate that the extensive testing and lab work for Patients A, B, C and D were not ordered for any medical or clinical purpose, but were instead ordered in an attempt to drive up costs.
14. Patients A, B and C seemed to be treated on an indistinguishable or arbitrary protocol regardless of their individual diagnosis. None of the Patients (A â€“ D) showed any evidence of response or benefit to the treatments they received at Dr. Buttarâ€™s office. All Patients received frequent, expensive treatments that had no recognized scientific evidence of any validity whatsoever on almost a daily basis without any evidence of sustained improvement.
15. The medical records of Patients A, B, C and D also do not indicate that Dr. Buttar ever examined or followed any of the patients. All four patients were seen and treated mainly by Dr. Buttar's nurse practitioner. Despite having little, or no personal interaction with Patients A, B, C and D, Dr. Buttar nonetheless charged thousands of dollars to each patient for his services.
16. Dr. Buttar charged Patient C over $32,000.00 for treatments he knew to be ineffectual. Immediately prior to his death, Patient C sent a check to Dr. Buttar, for partial payment, in the amount of $6,700.00. Before Dr. Buttar could cash the check, Patient C's widow cancelled the check because she felt that Dr. Buttar's treatments were useless even though Dr. Buttar had promised her and her husband that his treatments had a "100% success rate."
17. After Patient C's widow cancelled the $6,700.00 check, Dr. Buttar referred Patient C's account to a collection agency. The amount that Dr. Buttar sought from Patient A's widow exceeded $25,000.00, which included the unpaid portion of Patient C's bill, interest, and a 25% collection fee.
18. Patient B was treated by Dr. Buttar for a period of two months, from April 2004 to June 2004. During this two month period, Dr. Buttar charged Patient B in excess of $30,000.00 for
ineffectual therapies that included injections of intravenous vitamins and other substances, chelation therapy with DMPS (Dimercapto-propane sulfonate) and EDTA, Philbert Infra Respiratory Reflex Procedure and Ondamed biofeedback. All of Patient B's clinical notes were written by his nurse practitioner, and for an extended period of time, Dr. Buttar's nurse practitioner exclusively saw and treated Patient B.
19. Prior to her death, Patient B paid Dr. Buttar $10,258.00. Dr. Buttar has sought collection from Patient B's estate the remaining $19,765.00 of his charges.
20. Patient A was treated by Dr. Buttar for one month beginning in July, 2006. Patient A came to Dr. Buttar after a radical hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy all failed to halt the spread of her cancer, which by July 2006 had spread to her liver and lungs. Dr. Buttar's treatment of Patient A was to administer hydrogen peroxide intravenously. Patient A paid $12,360.00 to Dr. Buttar for an initial fee. Over the next month, Patient A would have nineteen (19) other office visits with Dr. Buttar and pay an additional $18,000.00, for a total of $27,820.00 (Patient A's family received a refund of $2,540.00). The average cost of Patient A's office visits for Dr. Buttar (to receive IV hydrogen peroxide) was $1,464.00. All examinations and office visit notes for Patient A were written by Dr. Buttar's nurse practitioner. Although Patient A was billed for "physician attendance and supervision," it is unclear from Patient A's medical record whether Dr. Buttar ever examined Patient A or provided much of any supervision to his nurse practitioner.
21. Patient D presented to Dr. Buttar with a history of colon polyps. Dr. Buttar initiated chelation therapy for Patient D without ever seeing the patient or establishing a diagnosis. Patient D was seen only by Dr. Buttar's nurse practitioner and not on all visits. Most of the documentation regarding Patient D has to do with billing issues. There is no diagnosis, no treatment plan defined, and no repeat evaluation of Patient D directly. Patient D's clinical notes consist of six (6) pages, but her financial and laboratory related items consist of some sixty (60) pages. In sum, there is no documented history or examination on repeat visits for Patient D, no stated working diagnosis, and no rationale for the treatment plan. However, there is extensive diagnostic testing without medical justification or indication.
22. Dr. Buttar's treatment of Patients A, B, C and D constitutes unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to, departure from, or the failure to conform to, the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice, or the ethics of the medical profession, irrespective of whether a patient is injured thereby, within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 90-14(a)(6), and grounds exist under that section of the North Carolina General Statutes for the Board to annul, suspend, revoke, or limit his license to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board or deny any application he might make in the future.
23. Dr. Buttar's treatment of Patients A, B, C and D constitutes unprofessional conduct in that he provided a therapy, whether it be characterized as experimental, nontraditional, or a
departure from acceptable and prevailing medical practices, that nonetheless has a safety risk greater than the prevailing treatment or that the treatment is generally not effective within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 90-14(a)(6), and grounds exist under that section of the North Carolina General Statutes for the Board to annul, suspend, revoke, or limit his license to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board or deny any application he might make in the future.
24. Dr. Buttar's conduct in regard to Patients A, B, C, and D constitutes Dr. Buttar providing services to a patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 90-14(a)(12), and grounds exist under that section of the North Carolina General Statutes for the Board to annul, suspend, revoke, or limit his license to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board or deny any application he might make in the future, and furthermore, upon a finding of the exploitation, the Board may order restitution be made to the payer of the bill, whether the patient or the insurer, by the physician, provided that a determination of the amount of restitution shall be based on credible testimony in the record.
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 90-14.2, it is hereby ordered that a hearing on the foregoing Notice of Charges and Allegations will be held before the Board, or a panel thereof, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 20, 2008, or as soon thereafter as the Board may hear it, at the offices of the Board, 1203 Front Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, to continue until completed. The hearingwill be held pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 150B-40, 41, and 42, and N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 90-14.2, 14.4, 14.5, and 14.6. You may appear personally and through counsel, may cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in your own behalf. You may, if you desire, file written answers to the charges and complaints preferred against you within 30 days after the service of this notice.
The identities of Patients A through D and the date and place of treatment of these patients are being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 90-8. However, this information will be provided to you upon your request.
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 150B-40(c)(5), it is further ordered that the parties shall arrange a pre-hearing conference at which they shall prepare and sign a stipulation on pre-hearing conference substantially in the form attached hereto. The prehearing stipulation shall be submitted to the undersigned no later than seven days prior to the hearing date.
The right to be present during the hearing of this case, including any such right conferred or implied by N.C. Gen. Stat. Â§ 150B-40(d), shall be deemed waived by a party or his counsel by voluntary absence from the Boardâ€™s office at a time when it is known that proceedings, including deliberations, are being conducted, or are about to be conducted. In such event the
proceedings, including additional proceedings after the Board has retired to deliberate, may go forward without waiting for the arrival or return of counsel or a party.
This the 20th day of November, 2007.
Janelle A. Rhyne, M.D.