Medical Whistleblower Advocacy Network

Human Rights Defenders

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1



"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,

Is the immediate jewel of their souls.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;

'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him,

And makes me poor indeed."

William Shakespear - Iago, Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161

Dr. Rrogan at California Senate

Dr. Rogan at California Senate 2

Poliner Bad Faith Peer Review

Sham Peer Review Poliner

The consequences of bad faith peer review are devastating to both physicians and to the public. A physician's reputation and career can be ruined by sham.

In the 1980's the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) and the National Practitioner Data Base (NPDB) were established in an effort to identify negligent physicians via peer review and credentialing procedures. However, one targeted doctor, a general surgeon, Timothy Patrick, sued his accusers on the grounds that the review was designed to drive him out of business so competitors could co-opt his practice. Patrick won and was awarded a jury verdict of $650,000, which the court trebled. Concerned over legal liability hospitals and organized medical institutions pressed for national legislation providing liability protection to physicians who file complaints against colleagues and serve on peer review panels. The resulting measure, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, also established the National Practitioner Data Bank.

A board-certified interventional cardiologist, Dr. Lawrence Poliner, faced a threat of summary suspension and loss of his medical staff privileges after he was targeted with a bad faith peer review. This was a peer review allegedly because of substandard medical care but evidence at trial offered by Poliner showed that there was bias and personal animosity and hospital politics as the real motivations for the peer review.

Under the Heath Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA)  there was no standard for the provision of evidence against a doctor.

According to HCQIA, a professional review action must be taken –

(1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in furtherance of quality health care,

(2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter,

(3) after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved or after such other procedures as are fair to the physician under the circumstances, and

(4) in the reasonable belief that the action was warranted by the facts known after such reasonable effort to obtain facts and after meeting the requirement of paragraph (3)

Notably, Congress first considered a "good faith" standard for peer review.

On July 23,2008,  The US Court of Appeals the 5th Circuit, Reversed the judgement in the Dr. Poliner's case, thus granting absolute immunity to the defendants.  This was a case of bad faith peer review, and proof that absolute power, corrupts absolutely and invites abuse. In sham peer review the punishment is given to the targeted doctor whether he/she is guilty or not.  It actually doesn't matter whether the doctor is guilty or whether the evidence is true or not - there is no standard of evidential proof because there is no due process and the accusers have absolute immunity.

Tom Devine - Whistleblowers

Tobacco Whistleblower

Drug Companies Pay

“Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around.”
― Leo Buscaglia

Medical Whistleblower Advocacy Network


P.O. 42700 

Washington, DC 20015

MedicalWhistleblowers (at)


"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."  Confucius

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt- Excerpt from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic", delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910