Background for new people: As you know I filed claims for disability benefits from UNUM insurance company in January 1997 under an individual policy I had purchased in 1990 and a group policy that was a benefit of my employment at my hospital. I had been diagnosed tentatively with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia by my internist in April 1995 but was in denial. My condition deteriorated until I was having multiple problems including cognitive dysfunction, dizziness, visual problems, and a host of other symptoms. Still in denial, I became more and more depressed and upon hearing that I'd been named in a malpractice suit, became acutely suicidal in October 1996. Following intensive psychotherapy and at that point taking the time to learn all I could about this disease, I finally came to accept that I had it and filed for DI benefits. My policies both stated that I was entitled to full benefits if I was unable to be an Emergency Doctor and make 80% or more of my previous income. This was obviously no longer possible for me. After filing the claims I got the usual runaround, delays, lost paperwork, evasive and misleading answers from both of my adjusters. I was visiting friends and UNUM used the telephone numbers I had given them so they could reach me if there were problems getting my medical records to send private investigators out who followed me for almost 3 weeks in a 4 week period. They videotaped me walking, talking, driving, yawning and sleeping. Meanwhile 2 doctors from UNUM called my internist, psychiatrist and psychologist to discuss my claims. The first doctor, Dr. Jane Pringle said she was an internist, a Medical Director and second Vice President for UNUM. After talking to my doctors, Dr. Pringle wrote up versions of these conversations including fabricated statements that she tried to attribute to my doctors, claiming they told her I "latched" on to and "jumped" on to a diagnosis of CFS, and that the fact that I could drive my car PROVED I could perform fulltime as an ER doctor. Furthermore Dr. Pringle told my internist while she was on the phone that I was "difficult and litigous" and that UNUM did not believe in CFS. In a subsequent letter she tried to convince my doctor that if I would just have Cognitive Behavioral Therapy I would be cured, despite the fact that the article she sent did not substantiate this conclusion. The second doctor, Dr. Peter Mirkin, another second VP and Medical Director, spoke to my psychologist and psychiatrist and in his letter claimed my psychiatrist told him I had a "personality disorder" and that that was why I was angry at my insurance company. I subsequently found out the Dr. Mirkin doesn't even have a license to practice medicine in Maine. Both my internist and psychiatrist wrote letters to UNUM telling them they did not make these statements and re-iterating their opinions that I was disabled with CFS and had no other psychiatric diagnosis except reactive depression. I also got two second opinions regarding my diagnosis and career limitations. My claim continued to be denied despite multiple letters and requests for clarification by me. In addition to all the other letters I wrote to Insurance Commissioners, Attorney Generals, the DOJ, etc, I also filed a complaint against Dr. Jane Pringle with the Maine Board of Medical Licensure. In typical bureaucratic fashion they sent my complaint to Dr. Pringle for her side of the story. Her response was to tell the Medical Board that I had no right to file a complaint against her license because she was not practicing medicine and did not have a doctor/patient relationship with me. In total frustration I responded to this with a letter where I stated that she was right, we didn't have a doctor/patient relationship, we had the relationship of an extortionist and her victim. I figured I'd never hear from the Board of Medicine after that. Much to my surprise they granted a "closed door" hearing to determine if Dr. Pringle was indeed practicing medicine. Although they weren't particularly interested in my input, I was invited to attend and I drove to Maine with my brother. I asked if I could tape record the proceedings and was told "no" and in fact UNUM's people even made my brother open his briefcase halfway through the proceedings so they could be sure. At the end of the hearing I was forced to return Dr. Pringle's Curriculum Vitae and job description to her lawyer. I was told that if it was determined that Dr. Pringle was practicing medicine, the next step would be an "open hearing" similar to a trial when I would be represented by someone from the Attorney General's office, and I would be allowed to record the proceedings and have media there. As I reported before, and much to my surprise, the Board DID determine that Dr. Pringle was Practicing Medicine and would investigate further. Meanwhile I heard that UNUM's high priced New York lawyer had called some Board members several times to browbeat them but they wouldn't back down from their decision. Since the hearing in April, I know that another official complaint has been filed against Dr. Pringle and I also informed the Board of another one of her "patients" who was forced into an unfavorable settlement, forced to sign a gag order, and his attorney would not let him file an official complaint against Pringle. In both instances Dr. Pringle made similar comments about these people that were not supported by their treating physicians. So......I was disheartened but not totally surprised when I received the following letter yesterday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Dr. Morris, At its recent meeting, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine carefully considered all aspects of you complaint. The Board members reviewed your complaint, the doctor's written response and any appropriate records. The Board understands and appreciates the cause of you dissatisfaction but, after careful consideration and thorough discussion, concluded that the facts did not warrant disciplinary action by the Board as set forth in the Maine Medical Practice Act. The Board felt that although the doctor's conduct may not have demonstrated best practice, the conduct was not of sufficient magnitude or gravity to warrant discipline. I have enclosed a copy of the letter sent to Dr. Pringle from the Board concerning your complaint, as well as a copy of a page from the AMA's "Code of Medical Ethics" referenced in that letter. Again, we understand the concerns you have which caused you to request that the Board review this conduct. We appreciate having had the opportunity to do so and thank you for the effort you made to bring your concerns to the Board's attention. Sincerely, Anita Merrow Investigative Secretary --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the letter sent to Pringle: Dear Dr. Pringle, At its recent meeting, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine considered this complaint against you. The Board reviewed the complaint, your response, and any appropriate records. The Board determined that this matter should be dismissed because your conduct did not rise to a level requiring discipline, as set forth in the Maine Medical Practice Act. More clearly, the actions complained of, while certainly not best practice, were not of sufficient magnitude or gravity to warrant discipline. Since the Board has taken no disciplinary action against you, your Maine medical license remains in good standing. The Board did wish to advise you that physicians should adhere to the standard of ethics as outlined in the AMA's "Code of Medical Ethics", Opinion 8.02 (See Attached). Thank you for your cooperation in this process and your understanding of the need to examine this complaint, which was submitted to the Board in good faith by the complainant. Sincerely, Anita Merrow Investigative Secretary Attachment - Opinion 8.02 Ethical Guidelines for Medical Consultants. Physicians in administrative and other nonclinical roles must put the needs of patients first. At least since the time of Hippocrates, physicians have cultivated the trust of their patients by placing patient welfare before all other concerns. The ethical obligations of physicians are not suspended whe a physician assumes a position that does not directly involve patient care..... Opinion 8.03 is probably more relavent however - Conflicts of Interest: Guidelines. Under no circumstances may physicians place their own financial interests above the welfare of their patients. The primary objective of the medical profession is to render service to humanity; reward or financial gain is a subordinate consideration. For a physician unnecessarily to hospitalize a patient, prescribe a drug, or conduct diagnostic tests for the physician's financial benefit is unethical. If a conflict develops between the physician's financial interest and the physician's responsibilies to the patient, the conflict must be resolved to the patient's benefit. Subject: My response to the BOM and some commentary Naturally I was quite disappointed by this letter both because I had been expecting a public hearing, or at the very least some indication that the Board was going to investigate the other complaint and other victim, and monitor Pringle's further dealings as a consultant. I have also been reading two books, the first written in 1980, an analysis of the extent of Corporate Crime in America (very disturbing book) and the second called Lawyerland - candid discussions about what lawyers and judges think of other lawyers. In future posts I will quote you pertinent passages from these books but suffice it to say their opinions of each other are much lower than our opinions of them. So here's my response to the Board of Medicine: Judy Morris, MD 261 Bumstead Rd. Monson, MA 01057 June 23, 1998 Edward David, MD, JD Dan Sprague Kevin Cookson Anita Merrow State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine 137 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0137 Dear Board Members, Today I received a rather cryptic letter in the mail telling me that after consideration of the facts that you felt Dr. Pringle's behavior did not warrant disciplinary action. I find this rather hard to believe since I know that you had not only my evidence of intentional fraud and misrepresentation, attempts to disrupt my relationship with my physicians and to get them to change their diagnosis, but a complaint from another claimant and the name of a third who had been similarly mistreated in the handling of their claims by Dr. Pringle. I specifically remember someone, I think it was Dr. David, saying the next step in the process was an open hearing with Ruth McNiff acting as my representative. Now I know why I thought I should have tape recorder at this hearing. Based on the Code of Ethics you sent with this letter Dr. Pringle has clearly violated her Ethical Guidelines and has clearly NOT placed the concerns of myself and the two other claimants before all other concerns. Your own guidelines clearly state that the "ethical obligations of physicians are not suspended when a physician assumes a position that does not directly involve patient care." Furthermore, I suspect there is a provable conflict of interest at the basis of Dr. Pringle's behavior although, of course, since neither you nor UNUM will willingly share with me the details of her financial arrangements with the company I am left only to conjecture and what I have gleaned from my research, speaking with other claimants, and Dr. Pringle's behavior. Please send me a copy of the file materials concerning my complaint. I would like to see what other conversations and discussions transpired since our meeting in April and exactly how thoroughly my complaints were investigated. I also would like to know, what if anything is being done about Dr. Peter Mirkin, who considering he performed the exact same function as Dr. Pringle, is guilty of Practicing Medicine without a license which is a criminal offense under Maine laws. I appreciate the fact that you were willing to consider my complaint and had a hearing to determine that Dr. Pringle was Practicing Medicine when she "reviewed" my case. However, the curtness and secrecy of the dismissal of my allegations makes me wonder what is really going on. I would appreciate a more thorough explanation of how you arrived at the decision that Dr. Pringle's behavior did not warrant discipline since the fact that she has done this at least 3 times would seem to indicate that she will in fact continue in the same manner when she is dealing with other claimants if she is not held accountable for this conduct. Sincerely yours, Judy Morris, MD ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some comentary and thoughts: The first thing that comes to mind is "I'm scared." I know we are all scared, confused, dissillusioned and angry. But what I know is that with or without the services of lawyer my life for the next few years is going to be this confusing, frustrating, tiring roller coaster of alternating harassment by UNUM and maybe some small successes. I feel I only have two choices: 1) to keep living and continuing fighting, or 2) commit suicide. But I decided a year and a half ago that now that I know how to deal with the depression and exhaustion of my illness, I'll be damned if I'm going to give UNUM the satisfaction of driving me to suicide. That's it. There is no half way for me, as long as I'm able. I figure I'll be suffering any way, I must as well make it worth while, and fight the big fight. Fortunately I know that many of you will be there to help me in the trenches and defeats so we can rally and come back. I am terribly upset that the Board of Medicine chose to view my complaint in a vacuum instead of as a sentinal event for what are most likely more egregious things that are being done by this "doctor" but just don't happen to get reported to them. In fact I don't feel the Board adhered very well to Opinion 8.02 in holding patient's interests above all others. They had the opportunity here to send a message to the Pringles of the insurance world that some doctors still care and still have ethics. They had a chance to send a message against all the coercive tactics and gag orders being used by HMO's to bend doctors to their financial goals at the expense of patients. I know that this ruling, except for the expenses incurred by the New York lawyer will have absolutely no effect on what Dr. Pringle does except that maybe UNUM won't have her "evaluate" CFS/FM cases for a while, until the furor dies down. But someone else will do it. Based on the meager information the Board of Medicine has given me, I am left to wonder how their decisions are really arrived at. Sadly, Judydoc