Geiers v Maryland – Let the Lawsuits Begin…  Geier Family Sues Sleazy Investigator, Prosecutor, and Corrupt/Inept Maryland Board of Physicians

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

 

It’s time for a laugh.

On Friday, December 21st, 2012, according to the Mayan calendar, the world was going to end.  But, when we all woke up the morning of the 22nd, the world was, and is, still here.  Perhaps there was an error, or maybe even a misunderstanding about that date.

Or, maybe the Mayans were referring to the Maryland Board of Physicians and their stumbling cronies, who, after all, fully believe that THEY are a world unto themselves.  Maybe the Mayans, a society that had far reaching understanding of the celestial picture, were, perhaps, speaking rhetorically.

Of course the Mayans never heard of the Maryland Board of Physicians, but, what the heck, I’ve been watching the Keystone Kop antics of the Maryland Board for almost two years.  Observing them, as it were, heading down their own path of destruction – the end of their own world; not only at the hands of the Maryland legislature, but now, soon enough, at the hands of the Maryland Court System.

In short, as like what happened to the California Medical Board, and the Texas Medical Board, there will be no survival, neither for the Maryland Board nor, its members and cronies.  It’s time for them to pay the piper.

One certain reality is that, despite the best efforts of the Maryland Board and its apparatus, including the full-on efforts of its crackpot Prosecutor Victoria Pepper, to destroy, in its entirety, the Geier family, using the Maryland Board administrative system – it didn’t happen.  And now, the Geiers have entered into the Maryland Court system, evidence of legal malice in hand, and the counter-attack has begun.

On December 21st, 2012, Mark, Ann, and David Geier fired their first legal salvo at the Maryland Board bureaucracy in the Montgomery County, Maryland Circuit Court, charging, for this suit alone (there are more coming), that the Defendants (1) intentionally violated their federal civil rights (pursuant to 28 USC § 1983),  (2) Violated the Maryland Confidentially of Medical Records Act, (3)  Publicity of Private Facts.

The suit stems from the Board’s actions on January 25th, 2012 where they issued an illegal public  “Cease and Desist” Order, falsely claiming that Mark Geier MD had been “practicing medicine without a license,” where Geier supposedly
renewed prescriptions for himself, his wife, and his son.  The Board, in violation of federal and state laws, had published both the medical conditions of the Geiers, and the names, and indications, of the prescriptions.

After the Geiers’ Maryland attorney advised the Board of its illegal actions, the Board claimed that it pulled its complaint down from it s website, removed, the medical information, and Amended the Order.  But not before it had issued the original story to local news (ABC News) and to the “skeptics,” whose angry network used the story to damage the Geiers’ reputation.  More, the Board never actually took the false complaint, with the medical information intact, down from their site.

One VERY interesting point emphasized in this lawsuit is the extent of the “Get the Geiers” mentality put forth by the Maryland Board in that during that process the Board completely ignored eight hundred (800) legitimate complaints filed by consumers against Maryland physicians, spending all of their time, energy, funds, and external resources, focusing on the Geiers.  More, their “Get the Geiers” attempt somewhat fizzled.  The Geiers are alive and well, doing what they do.

Here is the language from the lawsuit:

2. Defendants BOARD MEMBERS, in posting the original Order on the internet, published private facts about Plaintiffs and made those facts available to any person with access to the internet.
3. The information published was private medical information, including the names of the drugs prescribed to Plaintiffs and the specific conditions those prescriptions were intended to treat.  The conditions indicated in the Order were of an extremely personal nature, (text removed  to protect the Geiers). The disclosure of this type of information would undoubtedly be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
4. The Amended Order makes it clear that the private information published by Defendants in the original Order was not of legitimate concern to the public. The Amended Order conveyed the same allegations as the original Order, but did so without disclosing Plaintiffs’ private medical information.  In fact, Defendants BOARD MEMBERS regularly post documents on the BOARD’s website detailing charges or describing the treatment of specific patients with measures put in place to protect the identity of those patients.  Further, Maryland law and Board regulations clearly prohibit the disclosure of private medical information.
5. Defendant MS. PEPPER advised Defendants BOARD MEMBERS in the creation and publication of the Order and was an active part in the decision to publish the information.
6. Defendants acted with ill will and with the intent to injure Plaintiffs by exposing DR. GEIER’s personal medical information and that of his wife and son. As evidenced by the Amended Order, Defendants could have issued the original Order without including Plaintiffs’ private medical information.  Defendants have expended a significant amount of resources investigating and pursuing charges against DR. GEIER and MR. GEIER for their unpopular views, even at a time when the BOARD is under increased scrutiny for their refusal to follow the laws of the State of Maryland.  Indeed, the suspension of DR. GEIER’s license was touted by the BOARD as an accomplishment to the Legislature, even as the cases against DR. GEIER and MR. GEIER pended before the BOARD.  The Order was published prior to the completion of the Board’s investigation into the allegations it contained, prior to the filing of charges, and without a hearing.  The Order was a clear attempt to further discredit Plaintiff DR. GEIER, and ultimately, an ALJ determined that the subsequent charges should be dismissed.  By including all of the Plaintiffs’ personal medical information in the Order, Defendants intentionally added insult to injury by humiliating MRS. GEIER, DR. GEIER and MR. GEIER. 
7. Defendants BOARD MEMBERS’ inclusion of Plaintiffs’ personal medical information in the Order and the release of the Order to the public violated the Maryland Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, BOARD regulations and procedure, and the federal Constitution.  As such, these acts were ultra vires and outside the scope of Defendants’ duties as State personnel.
8. Defendant MS. PEPPER’s advice to Defendants BOARD MEMBERS in the creation and publication of the Order was outside the scope of her duties as an administrative prosecutor to screen cases for prosecution and safeguard the judicial process.
9. As a result of Defendants’ actions, some of Plaintiffs’ most private medical information was made available to the public and redistributed. This disclosure has caused Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation and embarrassment.
10. In addition, Plaintiffs were forced to engage in costly litigation to obtain a protective order that would have prohibited Defendants BOARD MEMBERS from republishing any additional information they obtained during their investigation into the allegations set forth in the Order.  Defendants BOARD MEMBERS vigorously opposed the issuance of such a protective order, which added to Plaintiffs’ expense.

It gets better…

Just below I have included an excerpt from what’s called the “Operative Facts” of this case against the Maryland Board.  What this excerpt shows is the malice of the Board and its operatives

32. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 31 by reference and request that they be made part hereof and further state:
33. Plaintiff MRS. GEIER is the wife of Plaintiff DR. GEIER and the mother of Plaintiff MR. GEIER.  She is a University of Maryland graduate who graduated with a BS degree in early childhood education.  She taught financially disadvantaged children for over twenty years before retiring.
34. Plaintiff MR. GEIER has a degree in biology from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.  Over the years, he has worked with Plaintiff DR. GEIER to conduct research and author dozens of scientific publications focused on the general proposition that thimerosal, a preservative used in some vaccines, can escalate the production of testosterone in genetically susceptible children.  MR. GEIER also lectures and advocates alongside DR. GEIER and previously assisted in DR. GEIER’s clinical practice.
35. Plaintiff DR. GEIER is a physician formerly licensed to practice medicine in the State of Maryland.  Prior to the suspension and permanent revocation of his Maryland medical license, DR. GEIER practiced medicine for more than thirty (30) years in the State of Maryland. He received both his MD and a PhD in genetics from George Washington University. DR. GEIER was an intern and Fellow in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1978 to 1979 and an assistant professor of the same at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine from 1978 to 1982. He has been a member of the Montgomery County Medicine Society since 1980.  In addition to his prolific research and numerous peer-reviewed articles, DR. GEIER served as the Director of Genetics for the Maryland Medical Laboratory, Inc. from 1977 to 1994, as the Laboratory Director of Molecular Medicine, Inc. from 1980 to 2003, as a member of the Montgomery County Medical Society’s Board of Directors, and as a Delegate to the Maryland State Medical Society. DR. GEIER was a Fellow and Founding Associate Member of the American College of Medical Genetics and is a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology. In 2009, DR. GEIER was selected to serve on the Legislative Council and the Payer Relations Committee of the Maryland State Medical Society. He has addressed the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences on six (6) occasions, the Government Reform Committee of the United States House of Representatives, the United States State Department Foreign Service Institute, and the Vaccine Advisory Committee of the United States Food and Drug Administration.  He is currently a leading voice in the fight to obtain a treaty that will ban mercury world-wide.  The treaty negotiations are being sponsored and organized by the United Nations Environmental Programme.  This treaty is opposed by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other public health organizations that advocate the use of thimerosal and vaccines.  In response to Dr. Geier’s leadership, approximately one hundred nations currently support the ratification of this treaty. 
36. In 2004, DR. GEIER and MR. GEIER developed a treatment protocol for children with autism based on their determination that, in some individuals, the injection of ethyl mercury, found in vaccines containing Thimerosal, generates autistic behavior and dramatically increases the production of the hormone testosterone.  High testosterone levels cause the onset of precocious puberty in these children.  By treating autistic children with the drug Lupron, DR. GEIER sought to lower these high testosterone levels and thereby ameliorate the autistic behavior.  DR. GEIER experienced consistent clinical success and improvement in the aggressive and dangerous behavior of his autistic patients, using this Lupron treatment protocol.
37. DR. GEIER’s and MR. GEIER’s criticism of the use of mercury in vaccines and their Lupron treatment protocol for autistic children are both controversial.^[1] Defendant BOARD MEMBERS vehemently disputed their views on these issues.  It was this dispute that led to the BOARD’s initial actions against DR. GEIER and, eventually, to the action that is the subject of this suit.
38. First, in April 2011, Defendant BOARD MEMBERS,^[2] voted to summarily suspend DR. GEIER’s license prior to allowing him an opportunity to be heard.  This summary suspension was later approved by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).  On March 22, 2012, the BOARD MEMBERS denied DR. GEIER’s exceptions to the ALJ’s opinion and upheld the summary suspension of his medical license.  DR. GEIER appealed the Board’s decision to summarily suspend his license to the Maryland Board of Review; however, this appeal has since been dismissed as moot based on the proceedings surrounding the permanent revocation of DR. GEIER’s license.
39. On May 16, 2011, the BOARD MEMBERS brought charges against DR. GEIER, this time seeking the permanent revocation of his Maryland medical license.   These charges were based on lay criticism of DR. GEIER’s treatment of autistic children with his Lupron protocol.  In addition, the BOARD MEMBERS included charges of exploiting the parents of said autistic children, improperly diagnosing patients, aiding an unauthorized person [MR. GEIER] in the practice of medicine, and various recordkeeping infractions.  An additional charge of making false statements in a renewal application was added on September 15, 2011.  DR. GEIER was given an administrative hearing on these charges, and an opinion from the ALJ recommended that DR. GEIER’s license be permanently revoked.  Interestingly, the ALJ held that the Lupron treatment protocol developed and used by DR. GEIER, which was the basis for the initial charges, was actually safe and effective; the ALJ’s recommendation for revocation was instead based largely on his alleged misrepresentation of credentials and recordkeeping deficiencies.  Defendant MS. PEPPER was the prosecuting attorney at this hearing.  On August 22, 2012, the BOARD MEMBERS permanently revoked DR. GEIER’s license.  DR. GEIER has requested judicial review of this decision.
40. Also on May 16, 2011, the BOARD MEMBERS issued charges against MR. GEIER for the unauthorized practice of medicine.  This charge was based solely on the allegations of one parent.  The ALJ’s opinion of March 7, 2012, ultimately found that the complaining parent was not credible and recommended that the charges against MR. GEIER be dismissed.  However, instead of dismissing the charges as recommended, the BOARD impermissibly reversed the credibility findings of the ALJ and fined MR. GEIER $10,000.  This decision is currently before the Maryland Board of Review.^[3]
41. On or about November 30, 2011, during legislative criticism of the BOARD based on the results of a routine Sunset Review, Defendant DR. ELDER told the Maryland Senate’s Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee that the BOARD was being “taken to the woodshed” despite the fact that it “works hard and does a good job protecting the public.”  [See Meredith Cohn, Outside Consultant Considered for Embattled Board of Physicians, Baltimore Sun, Nov. 30, 2011, attached as Exhibit 1]  As evidence of the BOARD’s hard work, DR. ELDER referenced the summary suspension of DR. GEIER’s license.
42. Despite public pressure for its well-known backlog of cases involving the improper and potentially dangerous conduct of many physicians (over 800 open complaints at the end of 2011), the BOARD MEMBERS once again moved quickly against DR. GEIER after learning that he might have authorized prescription refills for his family during his summary suspension.  There was no indication that DR. GEIER was a danger to the public or that he was doing anything other than authorizing refills of previously properly prescribed medication (which he was not).
43. On or about January 25, 2012, the Defendants BOARD MEMBERS issued a Cease and Desist Order, hereinafter referred to as “Order,” alleging that DR. GEIER had practiced medicine in violation of the order suspending his license.  The Order was signed by Defendant DR. ELDER. 
44. Pursuant to MD. Code Ann., Health Occ. § 14-411(h), the BOARD is required to disclose the filing of charges to the public.  However, at the time the Order was issued, no charges had been filed against DR. GEIER. [See Practitioner Profile dated March 21, 2012, showing no pending charges, attached as Exhibit 2]  In fact, the BOARD’s investigation into the complaint was still ongoing, and formal charges were not filed until June 12, 2012.  [See Charges, attached as Exhibit 3]
45. During an investigation of whether a person has engaged in the unauthorized practice of medicine, the BOARD is authorized to issue only a “nonpublic” cease and desist order.  Then, following an evidentiary hearing, an ALJ may recommend a “public” cease and desist order in addition to a penalty.  See COMAR 10.32.02.06(B). 
46. Without completing its investigation or providing DR. GEIER with an evidentiary hearing, Defendants BOARD MEMBERS unlawfully designated the Order as a public document.  On or about January 25, 2012, Defendants BOARD MEMBERS posted a link to the Order on its website homepage. [See screen shot, attached as Exhibit 4]
47. In the public Order, made available on the BOARD’s website, Defendants BOARD MEMBERS alleged that they had “received information” that DR. GEIER had “prescribed drugs to himself, his son and his wife after his license was suspended.”  [See Order, attached as Exhibit 5 at p. 2]  The Order further identified the names of the drugs that DR. GEIER had allegedly authorized, including parenthetical information identifying each Plaintiff for whom the drugs had been prescribed.  Footnotes were also inserted after all but one of the drugs in order to indicate the symptoms/conditions that the medications were designed to treat. The only drug that was not accompanied by a footnote was listed by its common name.  Its use and associated condition are well known to the public.  [See Exhibit 5 at p. 3]
48. By improperly inserting this information into the Order, Defendant BOARD MEMBERS made Plaintiffs’ private medical information available to any party reading the Order, including what medical conditions DR. GEIER, MRS. GEIER, and MR. GEIER suffer from and what medications they were prescribed as a result.  This type of information is required to be kept confidential by Md. Code Ann., Health Occ. §§ 14-410(a) and 14-411(b) and the Maryland Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. §§ 4-301, et seq.
49. On information and belief, Defendant MS. PEPPER aided and abetted the BOARD in its decision to post the aforementioned private medical information on the internet.  Moreover, she participated in the creation of the Order, the decision to make the order a public document, and the decision to post the order on the internet.
50. On information and belief, Defendant MR. SHAFER aided and abetted the BOARD in its decision to post the aforementioned private medical information on the internet.  Moreover, he participated in the decision to make the order a public document and the decision to post the order on the internet.
51. On or about February 6, 2012, Mr. Joseph A. Schwartz, III, a veteran Maryland attorney and lobbyist, sent a letter to the BOARD detailing the various ways in which Defendants BOARD MEMBERS had violated Maryland law by making the Order public and including Plaintiffs’ private medical information. Following receipt of this letter, on or about February 10, 2012, Defendants BOARD MEMBERS removed the link to the Order from the BOARD’s website. 
52. Despite the removal of the link, the BOARD’s website continues to support a webpage publishing the Order, which was still easily discoverable through an internet search as of December 10, 2012.  [See screen shots, Exhibit 6] 
53. On or about February 22, 2012, Defendants BOARD MEMBERS issued an Amended Cease and Desist Order (“Amended Order”). The Amended Order reiterated the original Order’s accusations against DR. GEIER but did so without the inclusion of Plaintiffs’ personal medical information. The Amended Order was signed by Defendant MR. PAPAVASILIOU.  [See Amended Order, Exhibit 7] 
54. Like the original Order, a link to the Amended Order was placed on the BOARD’s website. At the time the Amended Order was published on the internet, the investigation into the complaints against DR. GEIER was still incomplete, and DR. GEIER still had not been given a hearing.
55. The original Order was seen by members of the public and redistributed. ABC2 News in Baltimore, Maryland posted a link to the Order on its own webpage with a disclaimer that it had obtained all of its information from the BOARD.  [See screen shot, Exhibit 8] Though the offending page has since been disabled by ABC2 News, the original Order (rather than the Amended Order) is still posted and, at one time, the private medical information was accessible to any and all users of the website. [See Affidavit of Jessica Fu, attached as Exhibit 9]
56. On or about February 25, 2012, an internet “blogger” published an entry about the Amended Order. The comments portion of this article indicated that the author and others had seen and read the original Order with Plaintiffs’ private medical information.  [See screen shot, Exhibit 10] 
57. On or about August 13, 2012, an internet “blogger” published a story concerning the BOARD’s decision against MR. GEIER.  The fifth comment on this story, posted by “Science Mom,” used Plaintiffs’ private information from the original Order to ridicule the Plaintiffs.  [See screen shot, Exhibit 11] 
58. As a result of the publication of the original Order on the internet, Google search results for (removed for privacy reasons) now include links to the original Order and to the blogs mentioned above within the first ten (10) results. [See screen shot, Exhibit 12]
59. Plaintiffs never authorized any entity or person to provide the BOARD with their personal medical information.
60. At no time did Defendants BOARD MEMBERS have or request the authorization of any of the Plaintiffs to disclose or re-disclose any of their private medical information, whether or not that information was lawfully obtained.
61. Despite the zeal of Defendants BOARD MEMBERS and MS. PEPPER in pursuing the issue, the allegations contained in the Order were without merit.  On November 19, 2012, ALJ Marleen B. Miller issued a Proposed Decision addressing the charges that were originally alleged against DR. GEIER in the Order.  The ALJ found that the BOARD, represented by MS. PEPPER, failed to meet its burden of proof and recommended that the charges “NOT BE UPHELD.”  [See Order, attached as Exhibit 13 (emphasis in the original)] 
62. Even though Judge Miller’s opinion is completely based on witness credibility determinations, MS. PEPPER again asked the BOARD to overturn ALJ findings favorable to the Geiers. 
63. During the actions against them, Plaintiffs MR. GEIER and DR. GEIER recognized that the BOARD was biased against them and both moved for the BOARD MEMBERS to recuse themselves.  The BOARD MEMBERS refused to do so, resulting in final orders that impermissibly overturn findings of the ALJ and that issue punishments far harsher than warranted.
64. As of the filing date of this Complaint, the original Order, which includes Plaintiffs’ private medical information, is still available on the internet on a Board supported webpage at www.mbp.state.md.us/BPQAPP/orders/d2425001.252.pdf.  [See Exhibit 6]

The Maryland Board has exhausted all of its administrative remedies and now must face the music of the Maryland Court System and the Maryland legislature, including that legislature’s Sunset Review of its operation.

Besides the entire Maryland Board of Physicians, the Geiers sued:

JOSHUA J. SCHAFER (Board Investigator), 6010 Mannington Ave, Baltimore, Maryland 21206,

VICTORIA H. PEPPER   (Prosecutor), 1278 Battery Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21230,

 

Let the good times roll…

Stay tuned.

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate