Putnam General considered restoring surgeon's privileges so he could resign, keep record secret
New court documents reveal that Putnam General Hospital was willing to consider restoring surgical privileges to Dr. John Anderson King - even after a peer reviewer called King "a snake-oil salesman" and a "criminal."
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- New court documents reveal that Putnam General Hospital was willing to consider restoring surgical privileges to Dr. John Anderson King - even after a peer reviewer called King "a snake-oil salesman" and a "criminal."
In June 2003, Putnam General Hospital suspended part of King's surgical privileges.
Then, King negotiated with hospital officials to allow him to resign voluntarily.
King, an osteopathic surgeon, hoped the hospital would not publicize or file any documents or records questioning his medical abilities.
A Sept. 19, 2003, letter from Gordon H. Copland, a lawyer with Steptoe & Johnson who represented Putnam General, reveals King contacted hospital officials about keeping those records secret in the weeks following his suspension.
Copland wrote that Putnam General "would be willing to consider an agreement in which it provided no details not authorized by Dr. King, except in cases where it was legally mandated to do so."
The proposed agreement apparently did not work out.
While King was a staff physician at Putnam General from November 2002 to June 2003, he generated 124 medical malpractice lawsuits. Last year, the Hospital Corporation of America, which owned Putnam General at that time, paid about $100 million to settle those lawsuits.
The Copland letter was private until King attached it to a new lawsuit he filed on Jan. 28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against Lance Rollo, a Morgantown lawyer.
Rollo was one of several lawyers who represented King during his ongoing dispute with Putnam General.
Copland addressed his letter to Charleston lawyers Tony H. Giatris and Charles R. Webb, who represented King during the peer review process at Putnam General in the summer of 2003. The three lawyers met to discuss King's suspension a day before Copland sent the Sept. 19 letter.
"Among the options discussed was the possibility that the hospital and the [Putnam General] Medical Executive Committee agree to reverse the suspension of ... privileges, and Dr. King thereupon resign from the staff."
King was apparently concerned any formal action taken against him would jeopardize medical licenses he held in other states.
In his letter, Copland wrote, "This is a confidential communication intended to not only end the peer review issue, but prevent litigation between the parties."
Copland could not be reached at his office on Friday. Reached at his residence in Bridgeport on Saturday, Copland said, "I do not recall it [the letter]. So I do not have any comment before seeing it."
"As a matter of policy, the hospital does not comment on details of peer review proceedings, although it necessarily reports the outcomes, if adverse, to both the [National Practitioner] Data Bank and subsequent requesting institutions," Copland wrote.
"If the peer review proceeding were halted because Dr. King resigned, the subsequent institution would know that there had been no final determination as to whether there was a problem with Dr. King's practice.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- New court documents reveal that Putnam General Hospital was willing to consider restoring surgical privileges to Dr. John Anderson King - even after a peer reviewer called King "a snake-oil salesman" and a "criminal."
In June 2003, Putnam General Hospital suspended part of King's surgical privileges.
Then, King negotiated with hospital officials to allow him to resign voluntarily.
King, an osteopathic surgeon, hoped the hospital would not publicize or file any documents or records questioning his medical abilities.
A Sept. 19, 2003, letter from Gordon H. Copland, a lawyer with Steptoe & Johnson who represented Putnam General, reveals King contacted hospital officials about keeping those records secret in the weeks following his suspension.
Copland wrote that Putnam General "would be willing to consider an agreement in which it provided no details not authorized by Dr. King, except in cases where it was legally mandated to do so."
The proposed agreement apparently did not work out.
While King was a staff physician at Putnam General from November 2002 to June 2003, he generated 124 medical malpractice lawsuits. Last year, the Hospital Corporation of America, which owned Putnam General at that time, paid about $100 million to settle those lawsuits.
The Copland letter was private until King attached it to a new lawsuit he filed on Jan. 28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against Lance Rollo, a Morgantown lawyer.
Rollo was one of several lawyers who represented King during his ongoing dispute with Putnam General.
Copland addressed his letter to Charleston lawyers Tony H. Giatris and Charles R. Webb, who represented King during the peer review process at Putnam General in the summer of 2003. The three lawyers met to discuss King's suspension a day before Copland sent the Sept. 19 letter.
"Among the options discussed was the possibility that the hospital and the [Putnam General] Medical Executive Committee agree to reverse the suspension of ... privileges, and Dr. King thereupon resign from the staff."
King was apparently concerned any formal action taken against him would jeopardize medical licenses he held in other states.
In his letter, Copland wrote, "This is a confidential communication intended to not only end the peer review issue, but prevent litigation between the parties."
Copland could not be reached at his office on Friday. Reached at his residence in Bridgeport on Saturday, Copland said, "I do not recall it [the letter]. So I do not have any comment before seeing it."
"As a matter of policy, the hospital does not comment on details of peer review proceedings, although it necessarily reports the outcomes, if adverse, to both the [National Practitioner] Data Bank and subsequent requesting institutions," Copland wrote.
"If the peer review proceeding were halted because Dr. King resigned, the subsequent institution would know that there had been no final determination as to whether there was a problem with Dr. King's practice.
"The hospital would be willing to agree to follow its standard policy which does not provide for disclosure of details of peer review proceedings," Copland wrote.
Putnam General suspended some of King's privileges shortly after receiving a peer review report from Dr. Edward G. Dawson, the late University of California at Los Angeles physician, calling King "a snake-oil salesman" and a "criminal."
Shortly after Putnam General suspended King's surgical privileges, King left the hospital and moved out of West Virginia.
King later began practicing at medical clinics near Birmingham, Ala., where his mother still lives.
The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners revoked King's license after two Alabama patients filed suits alleging King overdosed them with painkillers in October 2006 and November 2006.
Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Board of Osteopathic Medicine scheduled an April 6 hearing about revoking King's medical license in that state.
King has already lost medical licenses in Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
King's licenses have expired, with no formal action taken, in New Jersey and Georgia. King still holds medical licenses in New York, Tennessee and Florida.
Over the years, King has regularly sued hospitals that suspended his privileges, as well as lawyers who represented him in suing those hospitals and state medical boards.
In 2005, King sued Robert Ross Coleman, an Alabama lawyer who knew King for 20 years, for allegedly misrepresenting him in his dispute with Putnam General.
After King sued Coleman in Tuscaloosa County, Ala., Coleman sent a letter to the Alabama State Bar on Aug. 8, 2005, stating, "Trouble seems to follow John wherever he goes. He was always a challenging and difficult client.
"Among several problems that are hard to erase is his lack of board certification in any specialty by either the AOA [American Osteopathic Association] or the American Medical Association....
"He has also had difficulty in at least three [medical] residency programs and previous medical staff peer review problems," Coleman wrote.
Coleman also represented King before the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners.
"King refused what I thought were reasonable options that the Board offered for an informal settlement," Coleman wrote, before Texas formally revoked his license.
Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-5164.
Post a comment