Opinion ID: 2182224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the doctor's bill

Text: This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent never ever paid Dr. Holt his medical bill of $430. The doctor testified that he had not been so paid. The testimony of the Respondent is that he did pay the doctor by virtue of an agreement with the doctor that resulted in the Respondent setting-off a part of the money due him (Respondent) in unrelated legal matters where the doctor was the Respondent's client. I find this to be totally untrue. Moreover, the evidence that the Respondent paid $100 to the doctor (on February 23, 1979) I find to be totally false and indeed, fabricated. First, as to the agreement to offset. The only evidence of an agreement comes from the testimony of the Respondent. The doctor, in his testimony, never mentioned anything whatsoever about any such agreement. He testified that he had not been paid. Significantly the Respondent never asked the doctor any questions about such agreement. Nor did he question him about payments to him. In fact, he never asked the doctor any questions at all. Nor did he call the doctor as his witness. As to the so-called offset the Respondent did not even know how much the doctor's bill was with respect to the Second Case. At first, he testified that it was $235 but he had previously admitted that it was $430. He later admitted it was $430. The Respondent could produce no writing to evidence the agreement. As to what the doctor owed him for the unrelated work that he had done for the doctor, the Respondent had no bills whatsoever. Nor could he even tell what his (unwritten) bills were to the doctor. He testified that at different times, we would agree on how much he could afford to pay me. As to the so-called payment of $100 to the doctor, I find that it simply did not exist. The Respondent testified that he paid $100 to the doctor for Jefferson's case (the Second Case) on February 23, 1979 and proved it by Respondent's Exhibit 23, a paper which purports to be a copy of a letter under date of February 23, 1979, sent by Respondent to the doctor. I find that no such letter was ever sent. I find that there was no such letter written. I find it to be a complete fabrication. The letter mentions that the Respondent encloses a check in the amount of $300 to be distributed as follows: ... $100 on fee for Stanley Jefferson. However the date of the check is not mentioned, nor the check number, nor the bank upon which it was drawn, and most significantly, the cancelled check was never produced by the Respondent. The Respondent never asked the doctor whether or not he had received any such check. The copy of the letter allegedly sent by the Respondent is typed but it bears no indication of the initials of the secretary who typed it. It may not have been typed by any secretary  it may have been typed by the Respondent himself  but the Respondent conceded that he had a secretary at the time in question  in fact he blamed her for mistakes as to other typings emanating from his office (for example, his assigning a mistake to his secretary when faced with a question as to why he failed to put both accident dates on his Respondent's Exhibit 7). Finally, the Respondent testified that the source of the $100 used to pay the doctor came out of my pocket, that is out of my pants. This court finds that Dr. Holt was never ever paid anything.