|
|
|
|
|
Search
03/04/2026
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
RE: Liberty Restored - Indictments Against TX Podiatrists Dismissed (Walter W. Strash, DPM)
From: Connie Lee Bills, DPM, Stephen Leonard, DPM
Dr. Strash, I applaud your courage. I can't imagine the heartbreak that ordeal caused you, your practice, and your family. Best wishes.
Connie Lee Bills, DPM, Mount Pleasant, MI
It was with a heavy heart that I read the ordeal you experienced at the hands of the corrupt FBI/DOJ, for I was also threatened by them in 1999. Congratulations on fighting and not surrendering.
I won't go into detail, but they tried, and did, go after several doctors in the Tampa Bay area for obscure violations of the Stark law. This was conducted under the Clinton/Janet Reno tenure. The prosecutor they appointed to Tampa Bay declared openly at a legal conference that his office would go after about 300 doctors. He further stated that 100 would be dropped, 100 would plead, and 100 would be incarcerated. I was fortunate to have had very good documentation and was not pursued. However, others were not so fortunate and their lives were changed forever.
The irony here is that while the FBI was busy investigating honest, dedicated doctors, some of the 9/11 terrorists were learning to fly planes out of the Venice, FL airport.
Stephen Leonard, DPM, Spring Hill, FL
Other messages in this thread:
03/05/2026
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Lawrence J. Kansky, DPM, Esq
Congratulations to Dr. Strash and Dr. Leonard for surviving false allegations and false charges by the FBI and the DOJ.
In 2007, I was investigated by the DEA and State of PA. This resulted in false criminal charges being alleged against me, which devastated me. While I did not receive much support from the podiatric community except from Thomas P. Jiunta, DPM, I did receive great support from the MD surgical community, including from my orthopedic surgeon friend.
My family provided tremendous support, as did the judge who charged me. This judge called me the day after he charged me in his courtroom, and told me, “Don’t quit, I know who the bad doctors are in Luzerne County, and you are not one of them.” I asked this judge why he cared so much about me and his reply was, “Because...
Editor's note: Dr. Kansky's extended-length letter can be read here.
03/03/2026
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
RE: Liberty Restored - Indictments Against TX Podiatrists Dismissed
From: Walter W. Strash, DPM
Two years ago, my life took an unexpected and irreversible turn. The day had begun like any other—driving to work, listening to a podcast, immersed in the familiar rhythm of routine. By afternoon, that ordinary day had given way to something unimaginable. An FBI agent arrived at my office in the middle of a busy clinic day and presented me with a Target Letter and, with stark finality, said, “You’re going to be indicted.” In that instant, time seemed to divide into before and after. Nothing would ever be the same again.
The days that followed were a blur of urgency, uncertainty, and resolve. I met with a local attorney and soon learned that I had been granted the rare opportunity to appear before the Grand Jury. The notice gave me only four days to prepare. Prayerfully, my wife and I worked side by side, assembling a comprehensive “Grand Jury Packet” for each of the twenty-three jurors—documents that reflected not only the facts, but the truth of my professional conduct and...
Editor's note: Dr. Strash's extended-length letter can be read here
02/13/2026
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Michael S. Nirenberg, DPM
I am writing to provide an update on a ruling in Maine that involved my forensic podiatry testimony. This ruling is limited to Maine, is non-binding everywhere else, and does not reflect the standing of forensic podiatry as a discipline. In State v. Brackett (2026 ME 9), the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated a murder conviction, ruling that my testimony regarding sock-clad footprint comparison should not have been admitted. In brief, I testified to "moderate" evidential support using a recognized forensic verbal scale. I never called it a "match." Those words were the prosecutor's, not mine. I was not consulted during the appeal, so these distinctions were never presented to the justices.
The court's suggestion that forensic podiatry lacks recognition is incorrect. The discipline is recognized by the International Association for Identification—the world's largest forensic organization—along with other forensic bodies and scientific publications. Moreover, the UK's Forensic Podology Code of Practice, developed with the UK Forensic Science Regulator, mandates the methodology I employed. I drafted a Petition for Rehearing refuting every point in the ruling, however, as a non-party expert witness, I am unable to file it with the court.
In a Wisconsin homicide case, also involving bloody sock-clad footprints, the defense raised the same challenges. In this case, the conviction was affirmed on appeal, with the Court of Appeals finding the forensic podiatry testimony "relevant and the product of reliable principles and methods" and concluding that challenging its admission "would be wholly frivolous." As President of the American Society of Forensic Podiatry, I remain committed to growing this field through research, education, and training. This ruling reinforces why this work matters.
Michael S. Nirenberg, DPM, Crown Point, IN
12/22/2023
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Paul Kesselman, DPM
This news bulletin from Becker's Payer Issues provides a very rationale reason for doctors to fear these replacement plans. Their advertising on TV and Radio during open enrollment should be even further restricted and is downright disgustingly misleading. The audience is told what they want to hear (how they can save money) but is never told at what cost.
The physicians and hospitals need to have the gumption to simply say NO! We are not going to take in anymore! If you have no respect for yourself, continue to take contracts which are 50% or less of Medicare. If not, then stand up and say no, you're not going to tolerate being abused and taken advantage of. If you don't stand up for yourself, who will?
Paul Kesselman, DPM, Oceanside, NY
06/29/2017
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Don R Blum, DPM, JD
It is interesting how, in this case, the court rejected a DPM from being an expert against the orthopedist, but in a previous case that was in PM News, the court allowed the non-practicing orthopedic spine surgeon to be an expert against a DPM. It makes one wonder about the system.
Don R Blum, DPM, JD, Dallas TX
11/24/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Michael L. Brody, DPM
This ruling is not and should not be a surprise. HIPAA violations are investigated by OCR (The Office for Civil Rights) inside of HHS (for more details on this, visit (hhs.gov/ocr/office/).
The first paragraph on that page states, "Federal civil rights laws and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, together protect your fundamental rights of non-discrimination and...
Editor's note: Dr. Brody's extended-length letter can be read here
05/24/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS) - PART 1B
From: Paul Kesselman, DPM
This Ohio DPM unfortunately brought upon himself the wrath of our illustrious public government. He failed in a number of ways as I and others have previously commented.
To answer Dr. Markinson: if you can't show up for work one day because of illness, family emergency, or whatever reason, you should have a staff member at the office; or at least arrange for a neighbor, friend, store owner next door to place a simple sign, closed due to.... will return on.... When you sign up to be a DMEPOS provider, you are no longer a...
Editor's note: Dr. Kesselman's extended-length letter can be read here.
05/24/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Pete Smith, DPM, George Jacobson, DPM
After following this thread for the past week, I am concerned about all of us who have a DME and decide to take a week off for vacation or a day off to attend a kid's graduation, or a board meeting, or just go fishing! I have not read the regulations that deeply, but would like to know what happens, what I need to do when my office closes, or I am not physically present even though the 'posted' hours say I am? Must I post my vacation days, etc.?
Is there a form to change our office hours of record, without redoing the complete application? I now presume that we will be posting a note for the dates closed, any time we are out of the office, sick, or are done early ("Closed early last patient seen at 3 pm today."). The criminals will love knowing that no one will be in the building from Nov. 22-30 (Thanksgiving week).
05/23/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Bryan C. Markinson, DPM
I appreciate both Dr. Kesselman's and Richard Boone's comments about the technically legal but immoral "to the letter" of the law decision in this case. I never thought prejudice was an issue here. Much more alarming to me is the fact that any colleague trying to legitimately participate in the DME programs, who unfortunately has a heart attack on Sunday night, and must close his office on Monday, must absolutely remember that he told the government he is open on Mondays. If he or she is able to remember that while worrying about their own sudden death, they then have to worry about getting the appropriate sign on the door "closed for heart attack" before the field officer from the government shows up at the door.
In view of Dr. Kesselman's and Dr. Boone's comments, one cannot be assured that the scenario I describe is not totally outrageous, and even more so, that strict interpretation of the law would not exempt the doctor in such circumstances. This all to protect someone from not being able to pick up their diabetic shoes? In closing, I know for sure that top levels of APMA read PM News daily. Is this not crazy enough for at least a comment, a response, or something?
05/22/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Richard W. Boone, Sr. Esq.
Anyone concerned about the supposed religious prejudice involved in the revocation of the Ohio podiatrist's DME enrollment would be well advised to read Dr. Paul Kesselman's thoughtful analysis of the situation. Dr. Kesselman is absolutely correct in his analysis and conclusions. This was not a case of prejudice but, rather, an accurate application by a federal judge of the federal law to the undisputed facts. In other words, under federal law, the ALJ had no choice but to reach the conclusion he reached and affirm the revocation of enrollment given the record which was before him.
But Dr. Kesselman's brilliant commentary failed to make the one teaching point which I believe needs to be made out of this sad tale: Physicians who accept federal or state monies are no longer the absolute rulers of their own domains as they once were. The Ohio podiatrist in this case made one big error which cost him his enrollment: He mistakenly thought he had the right to run his practice in a manner which best suited his own needs and desires. In doing so, he chose to ignore (or never bothered to read) the federal regulations governing DME providers which he swore to follow when he accepted the federal money paid for durable medical devices. His own ignorance or disregard of those regulations was the cause of his disenrollment.
As the federal government is becoming a larger and larger factor in the payment issues of the healthcare industry, situations like those in this case are going to become more common rather than less common. If you do not follow the federal regs to the letter and dot every "I" and cross every "T", you will have to pay the penalty. And, unfortunately, it makes no difference whether you intended to violate the regs. All the government needs to do is to prove that you violated them. Once that is accomplished, your motives become legally irrelevant. Sadly, it's no longer the "physician-patient" relationship which is important. It's the "physician-patient-government" relationship which counts.
05/21/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Paul Kesselman, DPM
The last few days have been especially troublesome surrounding an ALJ decision on our colleague from Ohio. For me to remain silent on a member’s dis-enrollment for reasons recently leveled by some colleagues against this ALJ, has been rather difficult if not unconscionable. As a proud member of the Jewish faith, I have never shunned from speaking out when these types of accusations are made.
One can ask any member of my ICPM class of 1981. When a now deceased “infamous” faculty member chose to use his bully pulpit to make some anti-Semitic comments on the eve of the holiest day of the...
Editor's note: Dr. Kesselman's extended-length letter can be read here.
05/17/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Joseph Borreggine, DPM
 |
Supplier Standard #7 Signs |
This is good way way to follow the supplier standard #7 under DME guidelines. This prevents you from having issues if you ever have a surprise visit from a DME investigator. Also, update your hours of operation on PECOS as well to reflect any hours of operation change and include your lunch break.
05/16/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS) - PART 1B
From: Randall Brower, DPM
These judges are so out of touch with reality on the ground with physician practices. There is no absolute morality or common sense. A compassionate common sense person, judge, inspector had to know the days in question were holidays.* But all government and judicial persons care about are the letter of the law not the spirit. I'm not wishing ill, but maybe I am...I truly hope that judge and inspector at some point in time injures their foot and ankle, goes to a physician for a DME device who had their DME license revoked...and gets sent out to Hanger or another supplier where there is a three-week wait for an appointment. The rules for suppliers were written independently from the rules governing physicians who dispense DME.
I called Noridian with a concern that according to supplier guidelines, an order must be in the chart from the requesting physician. I told them that I was the requesting physician and that it was silly to write an order to myself and in fact, a physician writing an order to himself may constitute fraud or a Stark violation, etc. They agreed that these two sets of rules were written with no thought for the physician who is also the DME supplier. They did tell me that as long as I put in my note the reason and need for DME, that would suffice. I had others in my organization call and confirm this as well. There is written proof of this in a Noridian Q&A section on Noridian's website to back me up. It still seems that despite all of these hoops, Medicare can do as it pleases and judges are complicit.
*Editor's Note: To be accurate, one of the days of the inspection was pre-holiday, and the second was during the holiday.
05/16/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS) - PART 1A
From: Fred Huss, DPM
If it weren't, sadly, so real you'd think this story came from the ONION, and check out the ALJ's last name. By Jewish law, as I am aware, you are not allowed to have your establishment open or have employees, Jewish or not, work on those holidays.
05/15/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (IN THE COURTS)
From: Bryan C. Markinson, DPM
To all my colleagues who are DME and/or diabetic shoe providers: Yesterday, in PM News, a brief synopsis of a case in Ohio involving CMS and a DPM was posted. I went to the HHS web site. The full text of the decision is at this link. I am posting this to make everyone aware of how ridiculous this case is, and I will do all I can to get APMA to respond to this outrageous and discriminatory technicality that can happen to anyone. Read it and see what he government has in store for doctors.
|
| |
|
|
|
