Lasikdecision.com: LASIK Complications & More!

Articles

Dr. William A. Boothe

Dallas, Fort Worth, and Plano, Texas

2010, Boothe Continues To Intimidate Those Critical of His Performance (or lack of?)

Online Surgery Review Catches Eye Of Eye Doctor

SOURCE

Janet Auyoung opens a laptop, pulls up her review and starts reading "My experience with Dr. Boothe was horrible."

She vented her frustrations online, and goes through a review she recently wrote "I wasn't given enough numbing medicine so I could feel everything during the surgery."

But her words in cyber world could come back to haunt her in the real world. "It was pretty much the worst thing I could have imagined," explained Auyoung "I can't see signs that I should be able to see. It makes it difficult when I'm driving."

Auyoung, 26, posted a review on Google after having Lasik Eye Surgery at Boothe Eyecare and Laser Center in Plano. She says she didn't think the surgery went well, and wanted her money back for the work done on one eye. She says Dr. William Boothe refused.

Just a few weeks ago Auyoung was served legal papers and could possibly be sued for her online review. Court documents say she has to attend a deposition to see if there is even enough evidence to file a lawsuit.

"This tarnishes his reputation," explained Charla Aldous, Dr. Boothe's attorney.

CBS 11 wanted to talk to Dr. Boothe, but he referred us to Aldous, who says the Lasik Eye Surgery Dr. Boothe performs is very competitive and that they want to find out who is behind the negative post. "Dr. Boothe has reason to believe that the motive behind this is coming from his competitors who are out to tarnish his name and reputation," explains Aldous.

Dallas attorney Michael McCabe, who is with the Munck Carter Lawfirm says these types of lawsuits are becoming more and more common. He explains that you can express your opinion as long as it doesn't turn into defamation. "Can you be sued for it? Yes, if you are out there making defamatory statements online you very well might be sued for it."

When asked specifically about freedom of speech, McCabe said, "Well, it doesn't come without limits, there are limits to freedom of speech. If you make defamatory statements that won't be protected by freedom of speech."

Auyoung refuses to remove her post. "I didn't make up a single thing in that review." She's willing to take the fight from the web to the courtroom she says to protect her freedom of speech and yours. "I feel like if you are good doctor your reputation should speak for itself, you shouldn't have go and find reviews online and bully people to stop writing reviews."

Boothe has since dropped the complaint.

 
Dr. William Boothe, Texas LASIK doctor intimidates yet another person who speaks out against him. Attorney Loftin hits the nail on the head 2 minutes 42 seconds into video!   Boothe Intimidates and threatens LASIK patient Janet Auyoung with a lawsuit for writing a negative review about her experience.

CBS11 Video is available (Copy and paste 'Loftin on Boothe, Vandersloot' into searchbox) or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it."> HERE
 

Texas LASIK Doctors - Know Thy Competitor

Dallas-Ft. Worth Area Refractive Surgeons,

Have you found disparaging remarks about you on websites other than those by refractive surgery patients? I remember lasik-eyesurgery-lawsuits.com, a website set up several years ago listing all of Dr. Boothe's competitors' lawsuits. This website has since been removed, howevever, it has been archived but will not be available here.

Why do these LASIK eye doctors have a criminal spammer making websites for them?

SOURCE

Dr. William Boothe
Dr. Robert Maloney
Dr. Dello Russo

The following video shows one of the records kept by Spamhaus - ROKSO:

http://www.spamhaus.org/Rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK6778



 

The spammer sells a service to hide negative comments from the public. Unfortunately for his clients, he does a poor job at that. He has tried to hide what people have said about the doctors. Back in 2006, a blogger at matchent.com observed how Stanley worked for doctors.

He has a lot of doctors (dentists, cosmetic surgeons, some "LASIK" guys etc.) as customers, a quick search implicates some of them are trying to hide cases of malpractice and tax fraud.

Ever wonder why your page ranks on search engines are lower than what you expected?

Take notice on whose ranks are tops on those search engines:

Spammer makes threats to shut down site

Copied with permission from DoctorScoreCard.com (phone numbers have been edited out)

A man identifying himself as "Jim Rickson" has demanded that I shut down the website. He threatened that if I did not do as he demanded, he would retaliate. This blog will document what he has done, who he is, and what doctor he appears to be working for.

Disclaimer: I cannot prove any of this... yet, so for now it is an educated guess.

My educated guess

I suspect that Dr. William A. Boothe, an eye surgeon in Plano, Texas specializing in LASIK has employed the services of "Jim Rickson" to do whatever he can to delete comments posted at DoctorScorecard. If not Dr. Boothe himself, then someone very close to him has employed the services of spammers.

Here is a sample comment an anonymous patient posted about Dr. Boothe:

Now I can't see near or far....everything is blurry and I can read up close ONE WORD AT A TIME....don't ask me to read a sentence or a street sign.

the office tried to rush me into doing the second eye before the first healed...Then I would be almost blind in both eyes and unable to work

DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN

Page 2 - Dr. William A. Boothe's Lawsuits/Civil Matters
Page 3 - Texas Medical Board Information for Dr. William A. Boothe
Page 4 - Boothe v. Hanson
Page 5 -
Dr. William A. Boothe, Rated

What was the threat?

Yesterday, on May 19, "Jim Rickson" called my home phone number. My wife answered and told him I couldn't take his call and hung up. He called back... repeatedly. I finally picked up the phone. He asked me if I was "Earl". I didn't answer his question, but instead asked him "Who is this?" He said something like "I specialize in defamation on the internet, removing it... and adding it." I asked him, "So you engage in illegal activity?" I asked him again, "Who are you? What business are you with?" He answered "Jim Rickson", but did not name his company. After I got him to spell out his name, I hung up the phone.

He continued calling our home repeatedly (from his number of xxx-xxx-xxxx) and left a message on our answering machine saying "Earl, I'm not going away."

My wife promptly changed our home phone number. The calls stopped.

The email

Last night I received the following email:

The email continues to spew lie after lie. Doing an easy search online revealed that he simply copied and pasted the disturbing write-up from another website. He obviously changed the name of the accused to my name.

Defamation posted online

Within hours of the email, many pages appeared online with the repulsive comments, mostly regarding sexually immoral acts, designed to hurt me personally. Ironically, I would never tolerate this kind of abuse to a doctor on this site. If a doctor feels that someone has lied about them, there are simple guidelines which includes just sending us a simple email. We treat doctors with respect and want to protect them from libel and defamation. We have deleted libelous comments from this site.

This spammer never asked us to delete or edit comments from any specific doctor. Why? I think because Dr. Boothe has paid him to carry out these activities and Dr. Boothe does not want to be easily detected... since it's illegal. It's illegal because it is obviously defamation, libel, harassment, and now property damage.

Today, a team of spammers defaced the website. The attacks came from Romania, Vietnam, China, Mexico, Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and USA (Keene, New Hampshire). Fortunately, we have safe guards in place for exactly such an attack so all of the spam has been removed from the site. However, I fully expect them to keep trying. So for short periods of time you might see some spam get through on the site until we get it corrected. We would appreciate your help... tell us if you see something unusual on the site and we will investigate.

Who made the threat?

On May 9, 2008, an email was sent by Dave Boothe (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

I noticed on your website that we could send an email if we were not happy with comments posted about our doctor on your website.

there are a several comments that completely not true and are very hurtful to Dr. Boothe's reputation. Some of the comments are not even from patients. Is it possible to have our profile completely removed? We would prefer if Dr. Boothe was not listed on your website at all.

Feel free to email me or call our office at xxx-xxx-xxxx (ask for David Boothe) to discuss options reguarding the comments on your website.

thank you very much

-David Boothe

I did not reply or call David Boothe.

On May 10, 2008, an email was sent by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.):

Subject: re: dr boothe

I noticed that you have slanderous material about me in your website. One entry indicates that they are not even a patient. My recommendation would be that you remove my name from the site. I spent a million dollars getting a site removed over three years ago.* Therefore you have to know that I have a lot of resolve to protect my reputation. I will start with the easy steps first and go from there. I would appreciate some correspondence in short order or I will proceed to the next step.

[*My comment to Earl's post above: Boothe's statement "I spent a million dollars getting a site removed over three years ago." refers to Boothe's lawsuit against Brent Hanson. My understanding was that Boothe and Hanson both could not discuss anything related to that case. It seems Boothe ignored the court's order.]

I didn't respond to the email. I felt his email was threatening and he did not state how the comments about him were slanderous. If he could have stated how the comments about him were slanderous, the comments would have been removed.

Identity of caller

As stated earlier, the next communication was from many phone calls on May-19-2008 from a man identifying himself as:

"Jim Rickson"

Doing some searching online reveals that this is an alias used by a major spammer.

Court records show that this man was taken to court by ripoffreport.com

court records

Text from image:

WILLIAM “BILL” STANLEY, an
individual; WILLIAM “BILL” STANLEY
d/b/a DEFAMATION ACTION.COM;
WILLIAM “BILL” STANLEY d/b/a
COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; WILLIAM
“BILL” STANLEY aka JIM RICKSON;
WILLIAM “BILL” STANLEY aka MATT
JOHNSON; ROBERT RUSSO, an
individual; ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a
COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; ROBERT
RUSSO d/b/a DEFENDMYNAME.COM;
ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a QED MEDIA
GROUP, L.L.C.; QED MEDIA GROUP,
L.L.C.; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a
DEFENDMYNAME.COM; QED MEDIA
GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a
COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM;
DEFAMATION ACTION LEAGUE, an
unincorporated association; and INTERNET
DEFAMATION LEAGUE, an
unincorporated association

 

  • Jim Rickson is clearly an alias for Bill Stanley.
  • Bill Stanley appears to be the spammer's real name.



According to SpamHaus.org, Bill Stanley has ties to Romania and Austria. The email he sent with the alias "Matt Henley" was sent from IP 80.96.120.30 (stud.usv.ro), which is in Romania.

On ZDNetAsia, Matt Henley is shown to work for eBay in their anti-fraud department. The real Matt Henley was quoted as saying:

A huge percentage of the fraud we were seeing was from Romania.

His efforts helped get hundreds of arrests in Romania. Bill Stanley, the spammer with ties to Romania, is probably continuing his abuse by claiming to be Matt Henley, the eBay employee. Bill Stanley must hate Matt Henly for getting many Romanian spammers arrested. By using "Matt Henly" as an alias, he his trying to defame his character as well.

William Stanley / Ironserver.com is listed as one of the world's top 200 spammers.

Why I believe Dr. Boothe is employing this spammer

  1. Negative comments he doesn't want you to see... If you do a Google search for Dr. William A Boothe on Google, DoctorScorecard is shown as the #2 website, preceded only by Dr. Boothe's main business website.

    Unfortunately for Dr. Boothe, some patients wrote some negative comments about his business. Dr. Boothe doesn't want people to see what is at DoctorScorecard.

  2. Dr. Boothe's email... An email from Dr. Boothe's email address was sent just days before the spammer called. The email from Dr. Boothe threatened that he would "proceed to the next step". Getting the spammer to attack must be the "next step" he was referring to.
     
  3. Dr. Boothe is shown favorably on many websites registered by Bill Stanley. There are many sites created on the internet for Dr. William A Boothe by Bill Stanley.

    SpamHaus.org has a huge collection of data on this spammer. Spamhaus lists just about everything you would want to know about Bill Stanley. (Link is tricky to open... open once. Answer Yes. Close and open link again. Then the site should show you everything.)

    Description: Non-stop spammer and spam host, sells "bullet-proof hosting" to other spammers to host spam websites. Stanley is an American from Texas.

    From Texas? That's where Dr. Boothe is located as well.

    He claims to operate "offshore" in Austria and has connections with Austria and Romania.

    Stanley works with other criminal method spammers to set up "off-shore" hosting, mostly in Romania.

    Yep, we have received a lot of spam on our site today from Romania.

    He is constantly searching for fresh hosting and continuously sets up accounts with Internet providers in Austria, Romania and the US. He normally either uses the account to host his 'Ironserver' spam service on, or sometimes gets (BGP) routing for his own (RIPE-allocated) IPs on which he then hosts spam service sites.

    He is constantly being terminated by hosts. Each time he is terminated he leaves without paying his hosting bills.

    Stanley claims he is not traceable by the authorities.

    Here is a small sample of the many sites that Bill Stanley, the spammer, has registered:

    drwilliamboothelasik.com
    aboutdrwilliamboothe.com
    allaboutdrboothe.com
    BOOTHE-LASIK.COM

    According to SpamHaus, here are more domains either owned by or being promoted by Stanley's spam gang:

    bootheeyecare.com
    boothelasercenter.com
    boothelasikcenter.com
    BOOTHELASIKDIRECTORY.COM
    BOOTHELASIKEYECARE.COM
    BOOTHELASIKINFO.COM
    BOOTHELASIKNEWS.COM
    LASIKBOOTHE.COM
    LASIKDALLASBOOTHE.COM

    My favorite site is:

    drwilliambootheblog.com

    Dr. Boothe's blog

    In that lengthy blog about "Dr. William Boothe", there are numerous inconsistencies...

    Dr. Willam Boothe was born in the German town of Sweath, Germany on March 16, 1924.

    Dr. William Boothe was born in Quebec, Ontario, Canada, on March 28, 1938.

    Dr. William Boothe was born in Smyrna, Georgia, in 1950.

    Dr. William Boothe (1950-2007), born in San Diego, California, came from a family of modest income.

    Dr. William Boothe was born in the village of Cairo, near Egypt, in 1899. After spending his youth in his native Africa, which was at the time part of the African tribe Chowart.

    LOL! If he were born in 1899, Dr. Boothe is over 100 years old!?

Why would Dr. Boothe want all of these sites with his name in it?

Answer: To manipulate search engines (like Google) to not pay attention to the valid sites where there are negative comments about him. Drown the real websites out with a bunch of crap. Unfortunately for Dr. Boothe, some search engines are not so easily fooled, at least in the case of Google.

Hmmm, since all the facts about Dr. Boothe are messed up so badly, how can we know he is associated with all these spam sites?

We know that Bill Stanley, the spammer, registered the sites for him, according to SpamHaus.org.

On the blog for Dr. Boothe, there are a bunch of links on the top of the page going to digitalreachinc.com.

Digital Reach Inc.

Where is Digital Reach?

Digital Reach and Dr. Boothe


Digital Reach and Dr. William A Boothe are both located in Plano, Texas. The blog is about Dr. Boothe. The blog links to a business in Dr. Boothe's city. The blog was registered by Bill Stanley. It appears Dr. Boothe hired Bill Stanley to make spam sites on his behalf.

How is David Boothe related to Dr. William Boothe? How is Digital Reach related to the Boothes? Tell us if you know.

Now, spam is getting posted on DoctorScorecard by Bill Stanley. They are defacing the pages of other doctors on this site. Fortunately, the spam is getting deleted as fast as it's being placed on the site. But the spammers are destroying property and that is a crime. They are also adding libel and posting defamation about other doctors.

What are we doing?

The site will remain online. We stand up for you to protect your right to speak freely about your experiences.

We will contact the FBI. One reason for making this blog so detailed is to share it with them.

What can you do?

If you notice spam on the site, please tell us.

If you are a lawyer or would like to help investigate this case, please contact us.

Donations could help cover court costs and investigations to prosecute the spammers and Dr. Boothe if we have enough evidence against him. You could support us by becoming an advertising sponsor for your business or website, as long as it fits well with this site. If you would like to donate, you would help us keep this site up and running.

Also, please tell us if you have or find additional information that could help in our investigation.

Conclusion

This is the first doctor to resort to these unethical tactics. Most doctors are good and this one lone doctor does not represent the majority.

Dr. Boothe: When you read this, I suggest you contact Bill Stanley, the spammer, and tell him to stop damaging your reputation more than you already have done for yourself.

Bill Stanley, the spammer, with the help of his international team, is filling websites with hateful attacks about me and my family and even worse... he is damaging the reputations of innocent doctors on this site by posting false information about them, which we have been deleting all day. The spammer is committing crimes of harassment, defamation, libel, and destruction of property.

For everyone else: We stand up for your right to speak freely. Don't let anyone ever intimidate you to give up your rights.

Rate your doctor!

FBI notified

by Earl Thurston Email

Did Dr. Boothe Violate An Injunction?

In the above referenced email sent to Mr. Thurston:
On May 10, 2008, an email was sent by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it."> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ):

Subject: re: dr boothe

I noticed that you have slanderous material about me in your website. One entry indicates that they are not even a patient. My recommendation would be that you remove my name from the site. I spent a million dollars getting a site removed over three years ago. Therefore you have to know that I have a lot of resolve to protect my reputation. I will start with the easy steps first and go from there. I would appreciate some correspondence in short order or I will proceed to the next step.

The above references a lawsuit between Boothe and Brent Hanson (see below). Each has an injunction issued by the state to not discuss any mention of the case.


Why I Know The Above Is True

I am the previous owner of lasiksucks4u.com and the owner of LasikDecision.com.

 

Some time ago, Dr. Boothe contacted me asking if I would consider removing some of the material then posted on lasiksucks4u.com. I’m not exactly sure of when it was, but given the creation date of the word document titled ‘boothe response’ whereas my response was no, I would say February, 2007.

 

On October 9 2007, I received a phone call from a person identifying himself as Jim Rickson. He claimed he was a damaged LASIK patient from Austria who was interested in purchasing lasiksucks4u.com. His claims were that Austrian defamation laws were tougher in Europe, and that he wanted a website that existed for some time because he wanted to remain anonymous.

 

I sold him the website.

 

A sales agreement was delivered to me via UPS on October 16, 2007 with the name William Stanley as the sender.

 

On May 23 2008, I became aware of the posting on www.doctorscorecard.com. Upon reading the post on Mr. Thurston’s blog titled “Spammers attacked site – appears to be linked to a doctor”, I realized it was the same person he wrote about (Jim Rickson/William Stanley) that purchased lasikdecision.com.

 

I went to the backend/server of lasiksucks4u and the website itself throughout the weekend (the site has been down since 05/24). On the site, with the exception of Drs. Nevyas and Nevyas-Wallace, all of the links showed a 404 error, meaning the pages were no longer available.

 

The information in the ‘doctors’ section on the backend of the site (admin area) had all of the doctors previously listed with the exception of Dr. William Boothe.

 

I hereby state this is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that these statements are made subject to penalties relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.


Hackers break into site - which doctor paid them?

Obtained from DoctorScoreCard

07/02/09

A month ago, hackers once again attacked the site. We believe that the hackers are once again working for Dr. Boothe, an eye doctor that performs LASIK in Plano, TX. We immediately fixed the website vulnerability that allowed the hackers access. I did not document it immediately because I wanted to wait and see if the hackers would try anything else and it appears they have stopped. Our corrective actions must have worked.

What did the hackers do?

The hackers uploaded a trojan. The trojan appeared to give them the ability to edit several files on our server. The hackers accessed the site from an IP address in Dallas, TX. Plano, where Dr. Boothe has his business, is a northern suburb of Dallas. The hackers worked from the same area where the Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center is located.

What did the hackers edit in the server files?

The files are what run the website. It's where the code is located, which allows the site to display doctor information to you when you search for it. The hackers made some telling edits to the files. Everything they touched was related to Dr Boothe and no other doctor.

For example, they changed the robots.txt file to disallow the search engines, like Google, from visiting Dr. Boothe's scorecard page. When Google visited DoctorScorecard, it saw the instruction from the hackers telling Google to keep out of Dr. Boothe's scorecard page. As a result, Google no longer shows his scorecard if you search for Dr. Boothe. We found the change and removed the code the hackers put in place, but it was too late. Google has already buried comments written by the public about Dr. Boothe. It's still there, but it's not on the first couple pages of search results any more. So the hackers had some success in hiding what people are saying about Dr. Boothe. All of the information is still here at DoctorScorecard, but Google is no longer showing it to the public in its top results.

What do other search engines show for Dr. Boothe?

When I searched for him on Yahoo today, I clicked on one of the results shown. I was surprised to see that the website about Dr. Boothe was trying to upload a trojan to my computer.

Dr. William Boothe website tries to upload trojan

Luckily, my anti-virus program caught it.

Would you want to trust your health to a doctor that pays hackers to hide what the public says about him?

 

 


Disturbing Sales Tactics (and More) at Dr. William Boothe’s “Boothe Eye Care & Laser Center” in Plano, Texas

 

SOURCE

The Boothe Eye Care & Laser Center in Plano, Texas advertises constantly on the radio in the Dallas area about Dr. Boothe being the “world’s most experienced” laser surgeon. Well, my wife was thinking about getting this done, and she did a little poking around on their Web site and noticed that they offered a FREE consultation, so she decided to go see if she was eligible.

(I should point out here that she’d pretty much made up her mind to do it, so this “client” was theirs to loose!) So, anyway, she made an appointment to go in and find out what all was entailed with this surgery, being pretty sure she wanted to do it, but a little anxious about it. Perfectly normal I would say… Everything seemed fine until she arrived to the office, where she learned she needed to pay $150 to have the consultation!

It should be noted that they advertise on the radio and internet that the consultation is FREE (um, see the image above). And she called them out on this, but their excuse was, “well, the money goes towards the surgery if you decide to have it.” She actually got roped into giving them her credit card and taking a seat before she called me because she was so uncomfortable with the “bait and switch” tactic they were employing.

By the way, now that I do a little research, Dr. Booth has a TERRIBLE rating on DoctorScoreCard.com. Just 4 out of 10! But I’ll get to that in a moment…
 

On With the Story…

When we talked she told me what was going on and I advised her to just go tell the woman she changed her mind, and that she didn’t want the appointment and to refund the money. Somehow though, the lady talked her into staying (they must be awfully smooth to override a husband). So she went ahead with the consultation and determined that she is actually a candidate for eye surgery, after which came the high-pressure sales pitch!

At this point, she had the information we needed to make an informed decision, and she told them that she wanted to talk it over with her husband before moving forward, at which time they told her that the pricing she had been given prior to the consultation was only good while she was in the office. If she left and then wanted the surgery it was going to cost $200 more because the pricing would no longer be valid!

Now, I don’t know about you, but I find this type of behavior to be outrageous and completely out of character with what I would expect from a “doctor”. I guess that Dr. Boothe must have hired people who used to sell vacation packages or used cars to sell his eye surgery. But whatever the case, it is absolutely unethical to pressure people into making a snap decision on a surgical operation. My guess is that they only continue this practice because no one is talking loudly about it, or because they can’t cut through the noise of the Internet. We’ll see if this blog post does the trick, shall we?

Some Bad, Bad Experiences

So, why should anyone trust a doctor who begins his relationship with clients this way? Frankly, I can’t answer that question. I wouldn’t. But in my investigation after the fact, things got much worse. Here are some direct quotes from DoctorScoreCard.com about other people’s experiences with Dr. Boothe:

  • From someone who had a similar experience to my wife’s:
     

    But I soon found out I would not get to meet with Dr. Boothe unless I paid a $150 deposit toward the surgery! So, that was it…I was out of there!! They were herding people around like cattle and I couldn’t wait to escape.

  • From someone who had tear duct surgery:
     

    He’s very matter-of-factly condescending, and is quite capable of making you feel quite stupid in the event you have the audacity to disagree. So, he attempted to do the surgery and it hurt a lot. I’m not sure if he didn’t use enough anesthetic, didn’t wait long enough, or what, but it was terrible. My mother and I protested mid-surgery and left right away never to return again. Later I found a new family doctor in the area and decided to ask her what the eye issue could be. She said it wasn’t an eye issue at all, it was an issue related to allergies. She said Boothe should have known this and redirected me to an allergist and should never have attempted surgery.

  • From a former employee of Dr. Boothe’s who Dr. Boothe is suing:
     

    It bothers me to see a man who has almost blinded people, talks to his staff in the manner he does and hides behind his papers. if you dont want people to say bad things about you, or disstroy your reputation then maybe you should do your job, maybe you should get off your high horse and rejoin reality and treat people as humans and not door mates, it truely makes me wonder how you treat your family.

  • By someone who claims to have felt treated like cattle:
     

    My counselor’ (not a doctor) finally came and explained the procedure. I finally agreed (I shouldn’t have) and showed up at 6:45 am for an 8:00 am surgery. I got to the waiting room at 7:35 with 4 people ahead of me. At 10:00 I was finally escorted to the surgery room AFTER more than 6 people who had arrived after me. At 11:00 I left the surgery, not performed, because they took every last person in the room before me. I asked, NO EXPLANATION. I told them why I was leaving…not one person spoke to me. This business is run like a cattlecall with very little regard to the individual.

  • This one from a patient with multiple problems:
     

    I would highly recommend not using Dr. Boothe. The man is rude, egotistical, arrogant, unprofessional, and uncaring. He yells at and threatens his employees within earshot of his patients (I witnessed this in the operating room, of all places). He has no personality and no people skills. The only thing you’ll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so you’d better hope you know the right questions to ask. He’s really only interested in getting your money and offers you a discount if you get your procedure done the same week you have your first consultation. Don’t fall for this — you really need to take the time to research this and make sure you’re making the right decision.

  • This supposedly from another employee:
     

    I have read over other comments and would like to confirm that as a former employees wife Dr. Boothe is an out of control employer. He belittles employees infront of patients and peers. He uses profanity while doing this. Patients call frequently to the office to complain about this but he praises himself that he rules his office with an iron fist. (Something he is quite proud of). His employees are afraid of him but apparently need a job so sit back and take it. While this one didn’t and I wish the others were able to do the same. As for his number of lasiks performed. He does 120-150 in one day. Ask which one you will be if you plan on scheduling. Advertising every 10 minutes on the radio brings in alot of people. Not too many patients come referred by others. Too bad they don’t know what kind of physician they are supporting.

  • Here is another very bad complaint:
     

    Now I can’t see near or far….everything is blurry and I can read up close ONE WORD AT A TIME….don’t ask me to read a sentence or a street sign. the office tried to rush me into doing the second eye before the first healed…Then I would be almost blind in both eyes and unable to work DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN ….he just wants your money and thinks he’s above the law because he makes you sign the desclaimers. On the lasik…they did not want me to read the warnings but I had to write in my own handwriting that i read and understood it but they didn’t let me read it. i CANNOT BELIEVE I WAS SO STUPID.

  • Another client complaining about their treatment:
     

    The lasik surgeon I chose does not meet the reputation thought. Long wait times, numbers mean more than quality and an unfriendly atmosphere along with a surgeon who has no personality have left me with subpar lasik at this point. I was told to give it a year but my review is based on my experience. I will follow up in 6 months and let you know if it gets better. I feel like when your wait 6 hours just for your pre surgery and 2.5 hours each followup you should get better service and have experience employees who have college degrees.

  • And the complaints range back to at least 2006:
     

    This doctor has committed malpractice in his employees eyes but threatens them with legal action of a non-disclosure agreement they have sign. He has also fallen asleep during surgery (This can be confirmed by his staff). He also treats his staff like they are slaves and not human beings, yes they are getting paid but even I wouldn’t work for what I’m hearing them say he calls them and the way he treats them. He is always firing his office staff because of incompetency when he is the one who is incompetent. Today he has had two of his staff walk out of the surgery room and quit. One being a technician and another being an ophthalmologist. His office is also out of regulations concerning health laws. I highly do not recommend going to this doctor.

  • Even the owner of DoctorScoreCard.com believes Dr. Boothe hired someone to illegally threaten, defame and spam him.
     

    This is the first doctor to resort to these unethical tactics. Most doctors are good and this one lone doctor does not represent the majority.

    Dr. Boothe: When you read this, I suggest you contact Bill Stanley, the spammer, and tell him to stop damaging your reputation more than you already have done for yourself.

    Bill Stanley, the spammer, with the help of his international team, is filling websites with hateful lies about me and my family and even worse… he is damaging the reputations of innocent doctors on this site by posting false information about them, which we have been deleting all day. The spammer is committing crimes of harassment, defamation, libel, and destruction of property.

    For everyone else: We stand up for your right to speak freely. Don’t let anyone ever intimidate you to give up your rights.

Further reading:

So, I guess people have to make their own mind up. But as for me, I’m not letting my wife subject her vision to this physician’s practice.

Dr. William A. Boothe
Page # 2
Page # 3
Page # 4
Page # 5
All Pages

 


William A. Boothe Lawsuits/Civil Matters

Jane Doe v. Boothe - graphic and unedited     Brumit v. Boothe     Boothe v. Kraddick     Guaderrama v. Boothe     Tyson v. Boothe     Dixon v. Boothe      Robinson v. Boothe.pdf     Tammy Lee v. Boothe.pdf

Every effort has been made to check the accuracy of the following documents which were converted to Rich Text Format.  


 

 

Court

Civil District Court

Case Number

9407139F

Case Description

DAMAGES

File Date

Jul 19 1994

Estate Status

Creation Code

C

Record Status

1

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff(s)

 

 

COURT
Court

CASE

RECORDTYPE

PROCESSDA1

3

9407139F

P

071994

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

199407

GUADERRAMA, CARMEN

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant(s)

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

9407139F

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

071994

ACTIVEDAT1

199407

NAME

BOOTHE,WILLIAM A

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

Court

Civil District Court

Case Number

0005663E

Case Description

DAMAGES

File Date

Jul 25 2000

 

Creation Code

C

Record Status

1

 

 

 

Plaintiff(s)

 

 

 

Court

3

Case

0005663E

RECORDTYPE

P

PROCESSDA1

072700

200007

NAME

DRAKE,GRACELYN FAITH

 

 

Defendant(s)

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0005663E

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

072700

 

ACTIVEDAT1

200007

NAME

ADMINISTAFF,INC

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0005663E

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

072700

ACTIVEDAT1

200007

NAME

BOOTHE,WILLIAM A ETAL

 

 

               

 

 


 

Court

Civil District Court

Case Number

9607923H

Case Description

DAMAGES

File Date

Aug 5 1996

Estate Status

Creation Code

C

Record Status

 

 

Plaintiff(s)

 

 

COURT

CASE

 

PROCESSDA1

3

9607923H

P

080596

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

199608

SHANNON,FRANCES LYNN

 

 

 

Defendant(s)

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

9607923H

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

080596

ACTIVEDAT1

199608

NAME

BOOTHE,WILLIAM A MD

 

 

 

 


 

 

Court

Civil District Court

Case Number

9403788A

Case Description

DAMAGES

File Date

Apr 19 1994

Estate Status

Creation Code

C

Record Status

 

1

 

 

Plaintiff(s)

 

 

COURT

CASE

 

PROCESSDA1

3

9403788A

P

042094

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

199404

BOOTHE,WILLIAM A MD

 

 

 

Defendant(s)

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

9403788A

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

042094

ACTIVEDAT1

199404

NAME

LARIC,RUSSELL DBA

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

9403788A

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

042094

ACTIVEDAT1

199404

NAME

LARTHOM,MEDICAL CORP

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

9403788A

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

042094

ACTIVEDAT1

199404

NAME

MICRO,SUPPLY COMPANY

 

 

 

 


 

 

Court

Civil District Court

Case Number

0105434I

Case Description

DAMAGES

File Date

Jul 3 2001

Estate Status

Creation Code

C

Record Status

1

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff(s)

 

 

 

COURT
Court

CASE

RECORDTYPE

PROCESSDA1

3

0105434I

P

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

200107

ROBINSON, JOHN ETAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT
Court

CASE

RECORDTYPE

PROCESSDA1

3

0105434I

P

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

200107

ROBINSON, KATHLEENCARMEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT
Court

CASE

RECORDTYPE

PROCESSDA1

3

0105434I

P

020102

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

200202

ROBINSON, JOHN ETAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT
Court

CASE

RECORDTYPE

PROCESSDA1

3

0105434I

P

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

200107

ROBINSON, JOHN ETAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT
Court

CASE

RECORDTYPE

PROCESSDA1

3

0105434I

P

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

200107

ROBINSON, KATHLEEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT
Court

CASE

RECORDTYPE

PROCESSDA1

3

0105434I

P

020102

ACTIVEDAT1

NAME

 

200202

ROBINSON, JOHN ETAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant(s)

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

BOOTHE EYECARE & LASE

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

BOOTHE EYECARE & LA

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

BOOTHEWILLIAM A MD D

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

BOOTHE,WILLIAM MD PA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

020102

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

WORDELMAN,DENAE DELAE

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

BOOTHE EYECARE & LASE

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

BOOTHE,WILLIAM A MD D

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

070301

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

BOOTHE,WILLIAM MD PA

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT

3

CASE

0105434I

RECORDTYPE

D

PROCESSDA1

020102

ACTIVEDAT1

200107

NAME

WORDELMAN,DENAE DELAE

 

 




Page 1

 

 

1 of 7 DOCUMENTS

 

TAMMIE KAY LEE v. WILLIAM A. BOOTHE, M.D., D/B/A BOOTHE EYE
CARE AND LASER CENTER

 

07-0950


SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS


2008 Tex. LEXIS 354


April 4, 2008, Order Pronounced

 

NOTICE:                DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED                  Lee v. Boothe, 235 S.W.3d 448, 2007 Tex. App.

                                                                                                                LEXIS        7878 (Tex. App. Dallas, 2007)

OPINION              

 

PRIOR HISTORY: [*I]                                                                OPINION

                                                                               

From Collin County; 5th district (05-06-00776-CV, 235

SW3d 448, 10-03-07).                                                                         Petition for Review Denied.

 

 

 

 

Page 1

 

 

 

2 of 7 DOCUMENTS

 

TAMMIE KAY LEE, Appellant v. WILLIAM A. BOOTHE, M.D., D/B/A BOOTHE
EYE CARE AND LASER CENTER, Appellee

 

No. 05-06-00776-CV


COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS


235 S. W. 3d 448; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7878


October 3, 2007, Opinion Issued

 

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Released for Publication October 29, 2007.

Petition for review denied by Lee v. Boothe, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 354 (Tex., Apr. 4, 2008)

 

PRIOR HISTORY: [**I]

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 416-01562-04.

 

CASE SUMMARY:

 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant patient brought suit against appellee doctor alleging claims that included violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), assault, and fraud. The 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County (Texas), dismissed these claims on the ground that the patient had not filed an expert report as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein, Code Ann. § 74.351. The patient appealed.

 

OVERVIEW: The patient engaged the doctor's services to have a laser procedure performed on her eyes. She alleged that the procedure caused her pain and did not correct her vision to 20/20. The patient argued that her claims were not health care liability claims and that therefore she was not required to file the report required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. § 74.351. However, the court held that: (1) the DTPA claims were health care liability claims, notwithstanding the patient's allegation that the doctor failed to fulfill promises and guarantees made in his advertisements, because the underlying nature of these claims was negligence in the rendition of medical services; (2) the assault claim, involving the doctor's alleged use of excessive force during the

procedure, was a health care claim that required expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care; and (3) the fraud claim, based on the doctor's alleged misrepresentation that the procedure would be free if he did not correct her vision to 20/20, required expert testimony to show that he failed to correct her vision, and thus the claim centered on the quality of medical treatment.

 

OUTCOME: The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

 

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes

 

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

 

[14NI] Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. § 74.351, any person who has brought a suit asserting a health care liability claim must, within 120 days of filing the claim, provide an expert report for each physician or health care provider against whom the claim is asserted. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (2006). If the claimant does not provide an expert report as required, the trial court must, upon motion by the defendant, dismiss the claim with prejudice. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. § 74.351(b).

 

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability Healthcare Providers

 

[HN2] See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. 74,001(a)(13) (2005).

 

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability >

 

Page 2

 

 

 

235 S.W.3d 448, *; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7878, * *I

 

Healthcare Providers

[HN3]   A plaintiff cannot avoid the requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 74 and its predecessor legislation by attempting to recast a health care liability claim as a different cause of action through artful pleading.

 

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > De Novo Review

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > Fact & Law Issues

Torts, > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

 

[HN4]   Whether a claim is a health care liability claim is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo.

 

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

 

[HN5]   In determining whether a claim is subject to the requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 74, a court focuses on the nature and essence of the claim rather than the way it was pleaded. The court considers the alleged wrongful conduct as well as the duties allegedly breached and whether expert testimony is necessary to show breach of an applicable standard of care. However, a claim may be a health care liability claim and not require expert testimony to prevail at trial. If the factual allegations are related to the medical treatment provided by the defendant and constitute an inseparable part of the defendant's rendition of medical services, then the plaintiffs claim is a health care liability Claim subject to the requirements of ch. 74.

 

Torts > Business Torts > Unfair Business Practices > General Overview

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

 

[HN6] If the underlying nature of a claim is negligence in the rendition of medical services, the plaintiff may not recast the allegations as a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim to avoid the statutory restrictions on health care liability claims.

 

Torts > Business Torts > Unfair Business Practices > General Overview

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

 

[HN7]  Tex. Civ . Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.004 specifically prohibits claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for damages for personal injury or death resulting, or alleged to have resulted, from negligence on the part of any physician or health care provider.

 

COUNSEL: For APPELLANT: Mark M. Donheiser, MATHIS & DONHEISER, P.C., Dallas, TX.

 

For APPELLEE: Heather R. Johnson, John A. Scully, Diana L. Faust, Eric W. Hines, R. Brent Cooper, COOPER & SCULLY, P.C., Dallas, TX.

 

JUDGES: Before Justices Morris, Francis, Mazzant. Opinion By Justice Morris.

 

OPINION BY: JOSEPH B. MORRIS

 

OPINION

 

[*449] The trial court below dismissed appellant Tammie Kay Lee's claims because she failed to file an expert report as required by chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Lee contends the trial court erred in dismissing her claims because they were not health care liability [*450] claims and, therefore, not subject to the expert report requirement of chapter 74. After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial court properly dismissed Lee's claims. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

 

I.

 

Tammie Kay Lee engaged the services of William A. Boothe, M.D. d/b/a Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center to have the Interlasik procedure performed on both of her eyes. According to Lee's petition, she had heard Boothe's advertisements describing his services as "virtually pain free" and promising the procedure was "absolutely free" if the patient's vision was not corrected to 20/20. Lee stated that, based upon these representations, she decided to have the operation performed by Boothe.

 

Lee alleges that when [**2] she was in Boothe's office to undergo the operation, she was rushed through the pre-operative procedures and not given the proper topical anesthetic on her eyes. Lee further alleges that Boothe was upset when he performed the procedure on her because of a mistake made involving an earlier patient. According to Lee, Boothe was "out of control"

 

Page 3

 

 

 

235 S.W.3d 448, *450; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7878, **2

 

 

when he approached her and "yanked her right eye open and slammed the clamp on it, causing intense pain and bruising." When Lee screamed in pain, Boothe threatened to stop the procedure without completing it. Lee states she was afraid to leave the procedure partially performed. When Boothe continued with her other eye he again allegedly used excessive force to open the eye and "slammed" the clamp into place. Lee asserts she was in pain for up to three weeks after the procedure and the operation did not correct her vision to 20/20. Lee informed Boothe's office of her dissatisfaction with the procedure. Boothe's office manager acknowledged the 20/20 guarantee and agreed over the phone to give Lee her money back. Lee alleges, however, that instead of refunding her money, Boothe sent her a form to release all claims against him.

 

Lee brought this suit [**3] alleging claims for breach of contract, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, assault, and fraud. Approximately five months after Lee filed her original petition, Boothe moved to have her claims dismissed because the claims were for health care liability, and she failed to file an expert report as required by section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Lee acknowledged in her response to the motion that she did not file an expert report but argued her claims were not health care liability claims and, therefore, not subject to the expert report requirement. The trial court granted Boothe's motion to dismiss Lee's claims for violations of the DTPA, assault, and fraud. The court denied the motion with respect to Lee's claim for breach of contract. Lee later moved to have her claim for breach of contract dismissed without prejudice, and the trial court granted Lee's motion. Lee brings this appeal challenging the trial court's order dismissing her claims for DTPA violations, assault, and fraud.

 

II

 

[HN I] Under section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, any person who has brought a suit asserting a health care liability claim must, within 120 [**4] days of filing the claim, provide an expert report for each physician or health care provider against whom the claim is asserted. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM CODE ANN. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). If the claimant does not provide an expert report as required, the trial court must, upon motion by the defendant, dismiss the claim with prejudice. [*451] Id. §

74.351(b). A health care liability claim is defined as:

 

[HN2] a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant, whether the claimant's claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract.

 

Id, § 74.001(a)(13) (Vernon 2005).

 

Numerous opinions have been issued by both the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas courts of appeals holding that [HN3] a plaintiff cannot avoid the requirements of chapter 74 and its predecessor legislation by attempting to recast a health care liability claim as a different cause of action through artful pleading. See, e.g., Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842, 851 (Tex. 2005); [**5] Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835, 838-39 (Tex. 2005); Earle v. Ratliff, 998 S.W.2d 882, 893 (Tex. 1999); MacGregor Med. Assn v. Campbell, 985 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. 1998); Walden v. Jeffery, 907 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. 1995); Gormley v. Stover, 907 Sff2d 448, 450 (Tex. 1995); Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 SW.2d 239, 242 (Tex. 1994); Boothe v. Dixon, 180 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); Williams v. Walker, 995 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1999, no pet.). [HN4] Whether a claim is a health care liability claim is a question of law we review de novo. Dixon, 180 S. IV, 3d at 919.

 

[HN5] In determining whether a claim is subject to the requirements of chapter 74, we focus on the nature and essence of the claim rather than the way it was pleaded. See Rubio, 185 S.W.3d at 851. We consider the alleged wrongful conduct as well as the duties allegedly breached. Id. We also consider whether expert testimony is necessary to show breach of an applicable standard of care. See Boothe, 180 S.W.3d at 919. However, a claim may be a health care liability claim and not require expert testimony to prevail at trial. See Murphy, 167 S.W.,3d at 838. If the factual allegations are related to the medical treatment [**6] provided by the defendant and constitute ?an inseparable part of [the defendant?s] rendition of medical services,? then the plaintiff?s claim is a health care liability claim subject to the requirements of chapter

 

 

 

Page 4

 

 

235 S.W.3d 448, *451; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7878, **6

 

74. See Walden, 907 S.W.2d at 448; Williams, 995 S.W.2d at 74 1.

 

Lee argues her DTPA claims are not health care liability claims because she is not alleging that Boothe violated a standard of care but that he failed to fulfill the promises and guarantees made in his advertisements. Lee contends her claims are similar to those in Sorokolit v. Rhodes. In Sorokolit, the plaintiff alleged the defendant doctor knowingly breached an express warranty of a particular result and knowingly misrepresented his skills and the results he could achieve. See Sorokolit, 889 S.W.2d at 242. The supreme court held the plaintiffs DTPA claims were not health care liability claims because they did not involve negligence. Id. at 242-43. Since Sorokolit, the supreme court has routinely noted the limited scope of its ruling in that case and emphasized that [HN6] if the underlying nature of the claim is negligence in the rendition of medical services, the plaintiff may not recast his allegations as a DTPA [**7] claim to avoid the statutory restrictions on health care liability claims. See MacGregor, 985 S.W.2d at 40-41.

 

In this case, Lee's factual allegations are, in essence, claims of negligence. All of Lee's injuries arise out of the allegedly wrongful manner in which Boothe conducted the operation on Lee's eyes. [HN7] Section 74.004 of the civil practice and remedies code specifically prohibits claims under the [*452] DTPA "for damages for personal injury or death resulting, or alleged to have resulted, from negligence on the part of any physician or health care provider." TEX. CIV PRAC & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.004 (Vernon 2005). Because the underlying nature of Lee's alleged DTPA claims is negligence in the rendition of medical services, we conclude the trial court properly applied the requirements of chapter 74 when it dismissed Lee's claims.

 

Lee next argues the trial court erred in dismissing her  claim for assault because Boothe's "physical attack" on her was not an inseparable part of the rendition of medical services. We disagree. The "attack" involved Boothe's alleged use of excessive force during an operation. A determination of whether the force used by Boothe was, in fact, excessive necessarily [**8] requires expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care and whether that standard of care was breached. Accordingly, Lee's assault claim is a health care liability claim subject to the expert report requirements of chapter 74. See Rubio, 185 S.W.3d at 851. We conclude the trial court properly dismissed Lee's claim for assault.

 

Finally, Lee argues the trial court erred in dismissing her fraud claim because the claim has nothing to do with Boothe's rendition of medical services. Lee's fraud claim is based on Boothe's alleged misrepresentation that he would correct her vision to 20/20 or the procedure was free. The fact that Lee alleges Boothe made this misrepresentation knowingly does not affect the underlying nature of the claim. See Dixon, 180 S. If. 3d at 920. To show that Boothe violated his guarantee, Lee must provide expert testimony to show that he failed to correct her vision. Her claim, therefore, centers on the medical treatment provided by Boothe and the quality of that care. Again, the essence of Lee's claim is negligence in the rendition of health care. See Walden, 907 S.W.2d at 448. The trial court did not err in dismissing Lee's fraud claim for failure to file an expert [**9] report.

 

We conclude the trial court properly applied section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to Lee's claims for violations of the DTPA, assault, and fraud. We affirm the trial Court's judgment.

 

JOSEPH B. MORRIS

 

JUSTICE

 

 


 

Page 1

 

3 of 7 DOCUMENTS

 

WILLIAM A. BOOTHE, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BOOTHE EYE
CARE
& LASER CENTER, Appellant v. JOE DIXON, Appellee

 

No. 05-04-01260-CV

 

COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS

 

180 S. W.3d 915; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10341

 

 

December 13, 2005, Opinion Filed

 

 

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:                [**1] Released for
Publication January 17, 2005.

 

PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court. Collin County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 199-2824-03.

 

DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND RENDERED in part and REMANDED in part.

 

CASE SUMMARY:

 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant doctor sought interlocutory review of an order from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County (Texas), which denied the doctor's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on the ground that appellee patient failed to comply with the expert report requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b) (2005).

 

OVERVIEW: The patient asserted claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and deceptive trade practices. He alleged that his vision deteriorated after the doctor performed eye surgery and that the doctor knowingly made misrepresentations as to future treatment in order to obtain a release. The doctor argued that the patient's claims were based on medical treatment or medical opinion as to future events and thus were a recasting of medical negligence claims, which were subject to dismissal for failure to file an expert report within the deadline required by § 74.351(b). The court found merit in the doctor's argument, concluding that the underlying nature of the claim was whether or not the alleged representations regarding future treatment were accurate, which was a question of medical condition, diagnosis,

and treatment. The patient's claim of misrepresentations regarding the release was intertwined with the doctor's rendition of medical services. With respect to the deceptive trade practices claim, the doctor did not make specific statements that could establish a knowing Misrepresentation or breach of an express warranty regarding the results of treatment.

 

OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, rendered judgment in the doctor's favor dismissing the patient's claims with prejudice, and remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney fees and costs of court incurred by the doctor.

 

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes

 

Evidence > Testimony > Experts > Qualifications

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healtheare Providers

[HN I] Former Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. § 74.351(a) provides that a healthcare liability claimant must file an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days after filing the claim. If a required expert report has not been served by the 120-day deadline, on proper motion by the defendant the trial court shall dismiss the action with prejudice and award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by the defendant. § 74.351(b).

 

Evidence > Testimony > Experts > Qualifications Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability >

 

 

Page 2

 

180 S.W.3d 915, *; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10341, **1

 

 

Healthcare Providers

[HN2]      The expert report requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b) apply to a patient's claims, regardless of whether they are tort claims, when those claims come within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim, defined as a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant, whether the claimant's claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74, 001 (a)(13) (2005).

 

Evidence > Testimony > Experts > Qualifications

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability Healthcare Providers

[HN3]      See Tex. Civ. Prac.& Rein. Code Ann. § 74.001(a)(10) (2005).

 

Evidence > Testimony > Experts > Qualifications

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

[HN4]      See Tex. Civ, Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. 74.001(a)(19) (2005).

 

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

[HN5]   See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 151.002(a)(13) (Supp. 2005).

 

Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Pleadings > Complaints

Evidence > Testimony > Experts > Qualifications

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

[HN6]   Artful pleading cannot avoid the requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351 when the essence of a suit is a health care liability claim. To determine whether a cause of action falls under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rein. Code Ann. ch. 74's definition of a health care liability claim, a court examines the claim's underlying nature. If the act or omission alleged in the complaint is an inseparable part of the rendition of health care services, or if it is based on a breach of a standard of care applicable to health care providers, then the claim is

a health care liability claim. One consideration in that determination may be whether proving the claim would require the specialized knowledge of a medical expert.

 

Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Pleadings > Complaints

Evidence > Testimony > Experts > Qualifications

Torts > Malpractice & Professional Liability > Healthcare Providers

[HN7]      An allegation that a misrepresentation is made knowingly is not determinative when analyzing the underlying nature of a claim to determine whether a cause of action falls under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 74's definition of a health care liability claim.

 

Contracts Law > Contract Conditions & Provisions > Express Warranties

Torts > Business Torts > Fraud & Misrepresentation > Actual Fraud > General Overview

[HN8]   Specific statements are necessary to establish a knowing misrepresentation or breach of an express warranty regarding the results of medical treatment.

 

COUNSEL: For APPELLANT: Carol Elaine Davis, Edward P. Quillan, Quillin Law Finn P.C., Dallas, TX.

 

For APPELLEE: Robert C. Sullivan, Jr., Sullivan Parker & Cook, Dallas, TX; Kent Frank Brooks, law Office of Kent F. Brooks, DALLAS, TX; Mr. Tracey Edward Gajak, Sullivan, Parker & Cook, Dallas, TX.

 

JUDGES: Before Justices Wright, Moseley, and Lang. Opinion By Justice Moseley.

 

OPINION BY: JIM MOSELEY OPINION

 

[*916] In a single issue, William A. Boothe, M.D., individually and dib/a Boothe Eye Care and Laser Center, challenges the trial court's order denying Boothe's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on grounds that Joe Dixon failed to comply with the expert report requirements of section 74.351(b) of the civil practice and remedies code. See TEX. CIV PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN § 74.351(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005). Because we conclude that Dixon's claims are "health care liability claims" making them subject to section 74.351(b), we resolve Boothe's issue in his favor, reverse the trial

 

 

 

Page 2

 

 

 

180 S.W.3d 915, *916; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10341, **1

 

court's order, render judgment dismissing Dixon's claims with prejudice, and remand this case solely for a determination nation of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of court incurred by Boothe.

[**2] I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Based on Dixon's allegations, Dixon sought treatment for his vision from Boothe and underwent laser eye surgery in July 2001. His eyesight improved, but "then dramatically deteriorated." Dixon contacted Boothe, who told Dixon that lie needed "touch up" surgery. Boothe performed another laser surgery, after which Dixon's vision did not significantly improve and "began further deterioration." Dixon reported this result to Boothe, who told Dixon a new procedure called "custom abrasion" would be approved within the next year and that this surgery would solve Dixon's problems. Boothe told Dixon he would be an "ideal candidate" for custom abrasion and he would refund Dixon's money on the two previous surgeries. [*917] Based on Boothe's representations that custom abrasion would be available and would solve Dixon's problems, Dixon and his wife executed a "Release of All Claims" in November 2002. 1 In April 2003, Dixon contacted Boothe's office, but was informed that Boothe did not see patients after one year. Subsequently, Dixon learned that he was not a candidate for the initial surgery or the touch up surgery and, as a result of the two surgeries, he [**3] was not a candidate for custom abrasion.

 

1.        The release of All Claims provides, in pertinent part:

 

 

IN CONSIDERATION of a reimbursement payment made to us in the sum of [$ 2,890], we, the undersigned being of lawful age, do hereby release [Boothe], and their successors, predecessors and agents, employees, partner and all those in privity with them form [sic] all claimes or causes of action which we now or  may hereafter have against the said [Boothe], included but not limited to claims arising out of Lasik eye surgery performed on Joe Dixon and claims not now known. We hereby declare that we fully understand the terms of this release and voluntarily accept the above stated sum for the purpose of making full and final settlement of our claim against [Boothe].

 

WE FURTHER state that the foregoing release has been carefully read; and we understand the contents thereof and have signed the same as our own free act and have not been influenced in making this settlement by any representative of the party or parties released.

 

WE FURTHER understand that the provisions of this release are contractual and not mere recitals?

 

 

 

[**4] In his first amended petition, Dixon asserted claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the DTPA.  2 As to the fraud claim, Dixon alleged Boothe made material representations to Dixon to induce him into obtaining the first and touch up laser eye surgeries and executing the Release of All Claims. As to the breach of fiduciary claim, Dixon alleged Boothe ?made misrepresentations  to  Plaintiff  regarding  the  appropriateness of and availability of medical procedures to induce Plaintiff  into executing the ?Release of All Claims.? As to the DTPA claim, Dixon alleged Boothe ?engaged in an unconscionable course of action in misrepresenting the availability of future medical procedures to Plaintiff?; ?represented that an agreement conferred or involved rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve?; ?knowingly made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the need for corrective service?; ?failed to disclose information about goods or services that was known at the time of the transaction to induce Plaintiff into entering into a transaction that the consumer would not have entered into had the information been disclosed?; and ?further represented [**5] that Plaintiff had an astigmatism to ?upcharge? Plaintiff for the initial surgery.? Dixon requested actual, economic, and exemplary damages, pre- and postjudgement interest, attorney?s fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

 

 

 

Page 4

 

 

180 S.W.3d 915, *917; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10341, **5

 

2 Dixon's original petition is not included in the record on appeal. Boothe contends that the only difference between the original petition and the first amended petition is that Boothe deleted claims for medical negligence from the first amended petition. Neither party contends that Dixon's factual allegations in his first amended original petition differed substantively from those in his original petition.

 

      Boothe filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and a first amended and supplemental motion to dismiss. Boothe argued that all Dixon's claims were based on Boothe's medical treatment or medical opinion as to future events and thus were a recasting of medical negligence claims, which were subject to dismissal for failure to file an expert report within the deadline required [**6] by section 74.351(b). In addition, Boothe argued [*918] that Dixon's DTPA claims were barred by section 74.004 because they were recast medical negligence claims. 3 Boothe also argued that he was entitled to summary judgment because the Release of All Claims barred all claims as a matter of law. He requested attorney's fees and costs of court. Dixon responded to the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court denied Boothe's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment without specifying the grounds on which its decision was based.

 

3 Section 74.004(a) provides: "Notwithstanding any other law, Sections 17.41-17.63, Business & Commerce Code, do not apply to physicians or health care providers with respect to claims for damages for personal injury or death resulting, or alleged to have resulted, from negligence on the part of any physician or health care provider." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.004(a) (Vernon 2005).

 

[**7] II. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO FILE EXPERT REPORT

 

In his single issue, Boothe argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because all Dixon's claims were improperly recast medical negligence claims subject to dismissal for noncompliance with the expert report requirement of section 74.351(b).

 

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

 

 

[HNl] The version of section 74.351(a) that applies to this case provided that a healthcare liability claimant must file an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days after filing the claim. Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 205, § 10.01, 2003 Tex. Gen, Laws 847, 975, amended by Act of May 18, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 635, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1590 (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005). If a required expert report has not been served by the 120-day deadline, on proper motion by the defendant the trial court "shall" dismiss the action with prejudice and award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by the defendant. TEX. CIV PRAC. & REM. CODEANN. § 74.351(b) [**8] .

 

[HN2] The expert report requirements of section 74.351(b) apply to a patient's claims, regardless of whether they are tort claims, when those claims come within the statutory definition of a "health care liability claim," defined as:

 

a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant, whether the claimant's claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract.

 

Id. § 74.001(a)(13) (Vernon 2005). [HN3] "Health care" is defined as:

any act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by any health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient's medical care, treatment, or confinement.

 

Id. § 74.001(a)(10) (Vernon 2005). [HN4] "Medical care" is defined as:

 

any act defined as practicing medicine under Section 151.002, Occupations Code, performed or furnished, or which should

 

 

Page 5

 

180 S.W.3d 915, *918; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10341, **8

 

have been performed, by one [**9] licensed to practice medicine in this state for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient's care, treatment, or confinement.

 

Id. at § 74.001(a)(19) (Vernon 2005). [HN5] "Practicing medicine" means

 

     [*919] the diagnosis, treatment, or offer to treat a mental or physical disease or disorder or a physical deformity or injury by any system or method, or the attempt to effect cures of those conditions, by a person who:

 

(A)  publicly professes to be a physician or surgeon; or

 

 

(B)  directly or indirectly charges money or other compensation for those services.

 

TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 151.002(a)(13) (Vernon Supp. 2005).

 

[HN6] Artful pleading cannot avoid the requirements of section 74.351 when the essence of the suit is a health care liability claim. Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S. W. 3d 842, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 19, 2005 WL 2585490, at *7 (Tex. 2005) ("It is well settled that a health care liability claim cannot be recast as another cause of action to avoid the requirements of the MLIIA"); Garland Cmty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S. W 3 541, 543, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J III (Tex. 2004); MacGregor Med. Assn v. Campbell, 985 S. W 2 38, 40, 42 Tex. Slip. Ct. J 101 (Tex. 1998). To [**10] determine whether a cause of action falls under chapter 74's definition of a health care liability claim, we examine the claim's underlying nature. Id. (citing Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 S. W. 2d 239, 242, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J 680 (Tex. 1994)). If the act or omission alleged in the complaint is an inseparable part of the rendition of health care services, or if it is based on a breach of a standard of care applicable to health care providers, then the claim is a health care liability claim. Id. at 544 (citing Walden v. Jeffer)~ 907 S. W.2d 446, 448, 38 Tex. Sup, Ct. J. 374 (Tex. 1995)). One consideration in that determination may be whether proving the claim would require the specialized knowledge of a medical expert. Garland Cn7ty Hosp., 156 S. W 3 at 544 (citing Rogers v. Crossroads Nursing Serv., Inc., 13 S. W3d 417,

419 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.)); see Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc., 49 Tex. Sup. J 19, 2005 WL 2585490, at *4. Whether a claim is a health care liability claim pursuant to section 74.351 is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Buck v. Blum, 130 S.W.3d 285, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Ponce v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., Ltd., 55 S. W. 3d 34, 36 [**11] (Tex. App.-El Paso 2001, pet. denied); Gomez v. Matey, 55 S.W.3d 732, 735 & n.2 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet).

 

B. Discussion

 

Boothe argues that Dixon improperly recast medical negligence claims to avoid dismissal. Boothe argues that all Dixon's claims are intertwined with Boothe's rendition of medical services, which involved Boothe's diagnosis of Dixon's medical condition and Boothe's medical judgment and advice as to the choice of medical procedures; the potential risks and complications such as visual deterioration and candidacy for further medical treatment; and Dixon's alleged physical injury from the two surgeries. We agree.

 

To prove that Boothe's diagnoses and treatment were to Dixon's detriment, Dixon would have to provide proof of his medical condition before and after the laser surgeries and in relation to custom abrasion. Dixon must also prove Boothe undertook a mode or form of treatment that a reasonable and prudent member of the medical profession would not undertake under the same or similar circumstances and rely on expert medical testimony. See Gomez, 55 S.W3d at 735 (concluding allegations of "knowing" misrepresentation [**12] regarding necessity of hysterectomy a health care liability claim). Dixon's claim that Boothe's misrepresentations regarding the release were improper is an inseparable part of Boothe's rendition of medical services because Dixon's claim rests on alleged misrepresentations [*920] regarding medical care and treatment. See Parker v. CCS/Meadow Pines, Inc., 166 S. W 3 509, 513 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (concluding allegations of improper restraint related to course of care or treatment a health care liability claim); Williams v. Walker, 995 S. W 2 740, 741-42 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1999, no pet) (concluding allegations of assault and battery regarding use of medical procedure without patient's consent a health care liability claim).

 

Nevertheless, Dixon contends that his cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation in procuring a release of health care liability claims is not within the report

 

 

Page 6

 

180 S.W.3d 915, *920; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10341, ** 12

 

requirements of chapter 74 because Boothe knowingly made a false statement about Dixon's condition. Dixon contends that this representation constitutes fraud pursuant to Shannon v. Law-Yore, 950 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. App. -Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied) . [** 13] In Shannon, the plaintiff alleged specific fraudulent conduct in connection with keeping him hospitalized, including deceiving him into rescinding requests for release, creating false records, misrepresenting that insurance would not cover his medical bills if he were released against medical advice, and misrepresenting his condition to others. Id. at 432-34. The plaintiff did not allege negligence in his treatment or medical malpractice. Id. at 437.   However,       [HN7]          an allegation that a misrepresentation is made "knowingly" is not determinative when analyzing the underlying nature of a claim. See Savage v. Psychiatric Inst. of Bedford, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 745, 752 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied). Here, the underlying nature of the claim is whether Dixon would be a candidate for custom abrasion after two laser surgeries, which is a question of medical condition, diagnosis, and treatment. See id Consequently, Shannon is distinguishable.

 

Moreover, the only question at this stage is whether the underlying nature of each of Dixon's claims is a health care liability claim; this is a threshold requirement, not a recovery requirement. [**14] See Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835, 838, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J 943 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). Consequently, Dixon's reliance on cases regarding the submission of issues of fraud and informed consent in medical malpractice cases is misplaced. See Gaut v. Quast, 510 S.W.2d 90, 17 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 308 (Tex. 1974) (per curiam); Crundwell v. Becker, 981 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. App.-Houston (1st Dist.] 1998, pet denied); Melissinos v. Phamanivong, 823 S.W. 2d 339 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1991, writ denied).

 

Relying primarily on Sorokolit, Dixon next argues that statements amounting to specific promises of cure or a particular result are actionable under the DTPA. In Sorokolit, 889 S.W. 2d at 240, a surgeon "guaranteed and warranted" a specific result, instructing the plaintiff to select a picture and promising, following surgery, her breasts "would look just like those in the picture she selected." Here, in contrast, Boothe's alleged representations were that Dixon was an "ideal candidate" for custom abrasion that would "resolve his problems." Thus, the alleged representation related to a possible

future procedure that was never performed; in any event, they [**15] were not the [HN8] specific statements necessary to establish a knowing misrepresentation or breach of an express warranty regarding the results of treatment. See Mulligan v. Beverly Enters.-Tex., 954 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet) (contrasting representations as to guaranteeing a particular result to representations as to providing care and service).

 

Finally, Dixon contends that any medical malpractice claim is the basis of his damages, not his claims in this suit. However, there are no separate damages pleaded as [*921] between a fraudulent inducement claim and other claims. Moreover, proof of the economic value of the claims released requires proof of those claims, that is, whether Boothe's medical and treatment of Dixon met the applicable standard of care.

 

CONCLUSION

 

We conclude that all Dixon's claims meet the statutory definition of a "health care liability claim" and are thus subject to the expert report requirement of section 74.351(b), and we reject all Dixon's arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, we resolve Boothe's issue in his favor. Because of our resolution of Boothe's argument regarding section 74.351(b), we need [* * 16] not address his argument regarding section 74.004. Because Dixon failed to file an expert report as required by section 74.351(b), we reverse the trial court's order denying motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and render judgment in Boothe's favor dismissing Dixon's claims with prejudice.

 

In his motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and in his prayer in his brief on appeal, Boothe requested attorney's fees and costs of court, which are mandatory under the statute when a claimant fails to file an expert report in a health care liability claim. See TEX. CIV PRAC. & REM CODE ANN. § 74.351(b)(1). Accordingly, we remand this suit solely for a determination of attorney's fees and costs of court incurred by Boothe.

 

JIM MOSELEY

 

JUSTICE

 


 

Page 1

 

 

4 of 7 DOCUMENTS

 

IN RE BOOTHE EYE CARE & LASER CENTER, WILLIAM A BOOTHE, M.D.,
PA, WILLIAM A. BOOTHE, U.S. PERSONNEL IX, LP., & U.S. PERSONNEL,
INC., Relators

 

No. 05-05-01019-CV

 

COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS

 

2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5862

 

July 28, 2005, Opinion Issued

 

 

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:                Released for
Publication August 31, 2005.

 

PRIOR HISTORY: Original Proceeding from the 116th Judicial District Court. Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 03-10751.

In re Boothe Eye Care & Laser Ctr., 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2502 (Tex. App. Dallas, Apr. 4, 2005)

 

DISPOSITION: Writ of Mandamus Denied.

 

COUNSEL: For RELATOR: Stephen F. Fink, Anthony J. Campiti, THOMPSON & KNIGHT, L.L.P., Dallas, TX.; Bryan P. Neal, THOMPSON & KNIGHT, P.C.

 

For RESPONDENT: Judge, 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Dallas, TX.

 

For REAL PARTIES: Kenneth H. Molberg, WILSON, WILLIAMS, & MOLBERG, P.C., Dallas, TX.

 

JUDGES: Before Justices Wright, O'Neill, and Lang. Opinion by Justice O'Neill.

 

OPINION BY: MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

 

OPINION

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Opinion by Justice O'Neill

 

Relators contend the trial judge erred in denying their motion to compel arbitration. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown the trial judge abused his discretion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) [*2] ; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-44, 35 Tex. Sup. C1. J. 468 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relators' petition for writ of mandamus.

 

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

 

JUSTICE


Dr. William A. Boothe
Page # 2
Page # 3
Page # 4
Page # 5
All Pages


 

TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD Information for Dr. William A. Boothe

 

PUBLIC VERIFICATION / PHYSICIAN PROFILE

PHYSICIAN INFORMATION

NAME:  WILLIAM ALBERT  BOOTHE    MD  DATE: 07/15/2008

THE INFORMATION IN THIS BOX HAS BEEN VERIFIED

BY THE TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD

License Number: F9221 

Issuance Date: 08/23/1981 

Expiration Date of Physician?s Annual Registration Permit: 02/28/2009 

 

Registration Status: ACTIVE  Registration Date: 06/18/1984 

Disciplinary Status: SEE PREVIOUS ORDER  Disciplinary Date: 12/20/2007 

Licensure Status: NONE  Licensure Date: NONE 

 

Mailing Address:

DALLAS , TX   75287 

Medical School of Graduation:

At the time of licensure, TMB verified the physician?s graduation from medical school as follows: 

4812 - UNIV OF TEXAS, SOUTHWESTERN MED SCH, DALLAS

Medical School Graduation Year: 1981

TMB Actions and License Restrictions

The Texas Medical Board has taken the following board actions against this physician. (Also included are any formal complaints filed by TMB that are currently pending before the State Office of Administrative Hearings).

View the documents containing action taken by the Board against this individual.

Action Date:  12/20/2007

Description:  STATUS CLEARED 12/20/2007.

Action Date:  11/30/2007

Description:  ON NOVEMBER 30, 2007, THE BOARD AND DR. BOOTHE ENTERED INTO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGREED ORDER REQUIRING DR. BOOTHE TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $1,000. THE ACTION WAS BASED ON DR. BOOTHE'S FAILURE TO RETAIN COPIES OF ALL ADVERTISEMENTS USED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE LAST DATE OF BROADCAST OR PUBLICATION AND TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD UPON REQUEST.

Action Date:  10/04/2005

Description:  STATUS CLEARED 10/04/2005

Action Date:  08/26/2005

Description:  ON AUGUST 26, 2005, THE BOARD AND DR. BOOTHE ENTERED INTO AN AGREED ORDER ASSESSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $500. THE ACTION WAS BASED ON ALLEGATIONS THAT DR. BOOTHE FAILED TO TIMELY RELEASE THE PROPERLY REQUESTED MEDICAL RECORDS OF ONE PATIENT WITHIN 15 BUSINESS DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST.

Investigations by TMB of Medical Malpractice

Section 164.201 of the Act requires that: the board review information relating to a physician against whom three or more malpractice claims have been reported within a five year period. Based on these reviews, the following investigations were conducted with the listed resolutions.

Action Taken: DISMISSED   Date: 04/02/1998

Status History

Status history contains entries for any updates to the individual?s registration, licensure or disciplinary status types (beginning with 1/1/78, when the board?s records were first automated). Entries are in reverse chronological order; new entries of each type supersede the previous entry of that same type. These records do not display status type. Should you have any questions, please contact our Customer Information Center at 512-305-7030 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Status Code:  CL Effective Date:  12/20/2007

Description:  SEE PREVIOUS ORDER

 

Status Code:  RB Effective Date:  11/30/2007

Description:  UNDER BOARD ORDER

 

Status Code:  CL Effective Date:  09/23/2005

Description:  SEE PREVIOUS ORDER

 

Status Code:  RB Effective Date:  08/26/2005

Description:  UNDER BOARD ORDER

 

Status Code:  AC  Effective Date:  06/18/1984

Description:  ACTIVE

 

Status Code:  DQ  Effective Date:  06/01/1984

Description:  DELINQUENT-NON PAYMENT

 

Status Code:  AC  Effective Date:  09/01/1981

Description:  ACTIVE

 

Status Code:  LI  Effective Date:  08/01/1981

Description:  LICENSE ISSUED

 

2007

 

LICENSE NO. F-9221

IN THE MATTER OF

THE LICENSE OF

WILLIAM ALBERT BOOTHE, M.D.

BEFORE THE

TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD

 

ADMINISTRATIVE AGREED ORDER

On the  30  day of November,    2007, came on to be heard before the

Texas Medical Board (the "Board"), duly in session, the matter. of the license of William Albert Boothe, M.D. ("Respondent").

By the signature of the Respondent on this Administrative Order, Respondent waives the right to appear at an Informal Show Compliance Proceeding and Settlement Conference pursuant to Section 164.004, Medical Practice Act, Title 3, Subtitle B, Texas Occupations Code ("Act") and Board Rule 187.18 and all rights pursuant to Sections 2001.051 and 2001.054, Texas Government Code, including, but not limited to, the right to notice and hearing, and instead agrees to the entry of this Administrative Agreed Order pursuant to Section 164.0025 of the Act and Board Rule 187.14. John Heisler represented Board staff.

With the consent of Respondent, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and enters this Administrative Agreed Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board finds that:

1.                   Respondent received all notice required by law. All jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied. Respondent waives any defect in notice and any further right to notice or hearing under the Act or the Rules of the Board.

2.                   Respondent currently holds Texas Medical License No. F-9221. Respondent was originally issued this license to practice medicine in Texas on August 23, 1981. Respondent is also licensed to practice in the state of California.

3.                   Respondent is primarily engaged in the practice of ophthalmology and is board certified in this specialty by the American Board of ophthalmology, a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties.

4.                    Respondent is 54 years of age.

5.                    Respondent has previously been the subject of one disciplinary action by the Board which resulted in an Agreed Order entered on August 26, 2005, providing for an administrative penalty of $500 based on findings that Respondent failed to release medical records to a patient within 15 business days of receipt of the patient's request. As a result of Respondent's compliance, the Agreed Order was terminated on October 4, 2005.

6.                    Section 164.5 of the Medical Board Rules requires that a recording of every advertisement communicated by electronic media, and a copy of every advertisement communicated by print media and a copy of any other form of advertisement shall be retained by the licensee for a period of two years from the last date of broadcast or publication and be made available for review upon request by the Board or its designee.

7.                    Respondent was unable to obtain and produce copies of every advertisement communicated over the previous two years from the last date of broadcast or publication by print, electronic media or any other form of advertisement.

8.                    After the initiation of the investigation by the Board in this matter,. Respondent terminated his business relationship with an independent advertising agency to whom he delegated the responsibility of maintaining records of Respondent's advertisements during the period of time set forth in the preceding paragraph.

9.                    Respondent has cooperated in the investigation of the allegations related to this Administrative Agreed Order. Respondent's cooperation, through consent to this Administrative Agreed Order, pursuant to the provisions of Section 164.002 of the Act, will save money and resources for the State of Texas. To avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense and inconvenience of litigation, Respondent agrees to the entry of this Administrative Agreed, Order and to comply with its terms and conditions.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Board concludes that:

1.         The Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter and Respondent pursuant to the Act.

2.         Section 164.051(a)(3) of the Act authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent's violation of a rule adopted under this Act, specifically, Board Rule 164.5(d), requiring Respondent to retain records of all advertisements promulgated over the previous two years from the last date of broadcast of any advertisement

3.         Section 164.0025 of the Act and Board Rule 187.14 authorize the Board to resolve and make a disposition of this matter through an Administrative Agreed Order.

4.              Section 164.002(d) of the Act provides that this Administrative Agreed Order is a settlement agreement under the Texas Rules of Evidence for purposes of civil litigation.

 

ORDER

 

Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board ORDERS that Respondent shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:

1.         Respondent shall pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1000 within 90 days of the date of the entry of this Order. The administrative penalty shall be paid in a single payment by cashier's check or money order payable to the Texas Medical Board and shall be submitted to the Director of Enforcement for the Board for routing so as to be remitted to the Comptroller of Texas for deposit in the general revenue fund. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative penalty as ordered shall constitute grounds for further disciplinary action by the Board, and may result in a referral by the Executive Director of the Board for collection by the Office of the Attorney General.

2.         Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of the Act and other statutes regulating the Respondent's practice.

3.         Respondent shall inform the Board in writing of any change of Respondent's mailing or practice address within 10 days of the address change. This information shall be submitted to the Permits Department and the Director of Enforcement for the Board. Failure to provide such information in a timely manner shall constitute a basis for disciplinary action by the Board against Respondent pursuant to the Act.

4. This Order shall automatically terminate upon the payment of the administrative penalty by Respondent as outlined in Ordering Paragraph No. 1.

RESPONDENT WAIVES ANY FURTHER HEARINGS OR APPEALS TO THE BOARD OR TO ANY COURT IN REGARD TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREED ORDER. RESPONDENT AGREES THAT THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.

THIS ORDER IS A PUBLIC RECORD.

I, WILLIAM ALBERT BOOTHE, M.D., HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING ADMINISTRATIVE AGREED ORDER. I UNDERSTAND THAT BY SIGNING, I WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. I SIGN IT VOLUNTARILY. I UNDERSTAND THIS ADMINISTRATIVE AGREED ORDER CONTAINS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND THERE IS NO OTHER AGREEMENT OF ANY KIND, VERBAL, WRITTEN OR

OTHERWISE.

 

 

 DATED:

 

 

WILLIAM ALBERT BOOTHE, M.D. Respondent

 

2005

 

LICENSE NO. F-9221

 

IN THE MATTER OF

THE LICENSE OF

WILLIAM ALBERT BOOTHE, M.D.

BEFORE THE

TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD



 

AGREED ORDER

 

On this the  [26]  day of  [August] 2005, came on to be heard
before the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (the Board), duly in session the matter of the
license of William A. Boothe, M.D. (Respondent).

By the signature of Respondent on this Order, Respondent waived the right to appear at an Informal Show Compliance Proceeding and Settlement Conference pursuant to TEX. Om CODE, Title 3, Subtitle B, §164.004 and 22 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, §187.18 and all rights pursuant to TEX. GOVT CODE, §2001.051 and §2001.054, including, but not limited to the right to notice and hearing, and instead agrees to the entry of this Order to resolve the matters addressed in this Order. Mark Martyn represented Board Staff.

Upon the recommendation of the Board's staff and with the consent of Respondent, the Board makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and enters the Order as set forth herein:

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board finds that:

1.      Respondent received all notice required by law. All jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied. Respondent waives any defect in notice and any further right to notice or hearing under TEX. Occ. CODE ANN, Title 3, Subtitle B (Vernon 2004) (the Act) or the Rules of the Board.

2.      Respondent currently holds Texas Medical License No, F-9221, Respondent was originally issued this license to practice medicine in Texas on August 23, 1981 Respondent is not licensed to practice in any other state.

3.      Respondent is primarily engaged in the practice of ophthalmology. Respondent is board certified in this specialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties.

4.      Respondent is 52 years of age.

5.      Respondent has not previously been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board.

6.      Respondent performed Lasik eye surgery on J.T. in 2001 and 2002. On December 3, 2004, J.T. requested copies of his medical records from the Respondent and paid a fee of $25.00 for the records. The record could not be immediately located. On January 8, 2005, J.T. was verbally informed that his records could not be located. On February 4, 2005, the records were found and released to J.T.

7.      Respondent has cooperated in the investigation of the allegations related to this Agreed Order. Respondent's cooperation, through consent to this Agreed Order, pursuant to the provisions of Section 164.002 the Act, will save money and resources for the State of Texas. To avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense and inconvenience of litigation, Respondent agrees to the entry of this Agreed Order and to comply with its terms and conditions.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Board concludes that:

 

1.         The Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter and Respondent pursuant to the Act.

2.         Section 164.051(a)(3) of the Act authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based on Respondent's violation of a rule adopted under this Act. Respondent failed to comply with Section 165.2 of the Rules of the Board, which provides the requirements for timely and appropriate release of medical records and the documentation requirements regarding medical records that may be withheld.

3.      Section 164.001 of the Act authorizes the Board to impose a range of disciplinary actions against a person for violation of the Act or a Board rule. Such sanctions include: revocation, suspension, probation, public reprimand, limitation or restriction on practice, counseling or treatment, required educational or counseling programs, monitored practice, public service, and an administrative penalty.

4.      Section 164,002(a) of the Act authorizes the Board to resolve and make a disposition of this matter through an Agreed Order.

5.      Section 164.002(d) of the Act provides that this Agreed Order is a settlement agreement under the Texas Rules of Evidence for purposes of civil litigation.

 

ORDER

 

Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board ORDERS that:

1.      Respondent shall pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $500 within 60 days of the entry of this Order. The administrative penalty shall be paid in a single payment by cashier's check or money order payable to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and shall be submitted to the Director of Compliance for the Board for routing so as to be remitted to the Comptroller of Texas for deposit in the general revenue fund. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative penalty as ordered shall constitute grounds for further disciplinary action by the Board, and may result in a referral by the Executive Director of the Board for collection by the Office of the Attorney General.

2.      Respondent shall be permitted to delegate prescriptive authority to a physician assistant and advanced practice nurse. Respondent shall be permitted to supervise physician assistant, advanced practice nurse, or surgical assistant.

3.      Upon payment of the Administrative penalty the Order will automatically terminate.

RESPONDENT WAIVES ANY FURTHER HEARINGS OR APPEALS TO THE BOARD OR TO ANY COURT IN REGARD TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREED ORDER. RESPONDENT AGREES THAT THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.

THIS ORDER IS A PUBLIC RECORD.

I, WILLIAM A. BOOTHE, M.D., HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AGREED ORDER, I UNDERSTAND THAT BY SIGNING, I WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. I SIGN IT VOLUNTARILY. I UNDERSTAND THIS AGREED ORDER CONTAINS THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND THERE IS NO OTHER AGREEMENT OF ANY KIND, VERBAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE.

 

DATED:  7- 25- 2005,         2005.

William A. Boothe, M.D. Respondent


Dr. William A. Boothe
Page # 2
Page # 3
Page # 4
Page # 5
All Pages

A Concerned Person Writes:

I received an email on May 1, 2008 regarding Dr. Boothe's practice, which I hope for the public's sake can be corrected:

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.lasikdecision.com from: name withheld

"I have documentation that Dr Boothe has and uses on occassion expired surgery supplies in his lasik and lense replacement surgeries. He also does not clean his surgery room. You can see dry liquids from patients on beds."



Boothe v. Hanson

In early 2005, Brent Hanson posted documents on my forum relating to Dr. Boothe. When Mr. Hanson notified me asking to have them removed, I did so at his request. Recently I updated my website with the following documents for several reasons:

As a matter of public safety, facts (regardless of) should not be withheld.

Like Mr. Hanson, I have been silenced through the courts. It is my firm belief that our rights have been severely denied.

 

BOOTHE v. HANSON - PDF Documents

 

I've been notified that Dr. Boothe is highly upset these documents have become public. Enough so that he hired someone to visit Mr. Hanson's place of residency to copy the hard drive on his computer. Mr. Hanson is under court order not to divulge any information regarding his lawsuit with Dr. Boothe. The information was received prior to court order.

 

On June 25, 2005, I received an email with the following:

 

 

Dr. William Boothe - Your LASIK dollars at work:

Date: 10-21-2005 - Person: Bryan Thornton - Mission: Perform a forensic search of Brent Hanson's computer for incriminating documents regarding Dr. William Boothe that were published on lasikdecision.com - Reported cost: $10,000

Problem #1: The home owner warned Dr. Boothe's attorneys that she would have Bryan Thornton arrested for trespassing if he stepped on to her property.

Solution #1: Copy the hard drive out in the street in front of the house.

Problem #2: Bryan couldn't find a power cord out in the street.

Solution #2: Buy a portable power source.

 

 

 


From My Archives

This information was taken from my archives. LasikQuack.com was a website fought to be removed from the web by Dr. Boothe. The site had information not really any different than what's out there now...

Learning about LASIK

LASIK is a surgical procedure intended to reduce a person's dependency on glasses or contact lenses. The goal of this Web site is to provide objective information to the public about LASIK surgery.

LASIK stands for Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis and is a procedure that permanently changes the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye, using an excimer laser. A knife, called a microkeratome, is used to cut a flap in the cornea. A hinge is left at one end of this flap. The flap is folded back revealing the stroma, the middlesection of the cornea. Pulses from a computer-controlled laser vaporize a portion of the stroma and the flap is replaced. There are other techniques and many new terms related to LASIK that you may hear about.

Other types of refractive surgery

PRK was the first surgical procedure developed to reshape the cornea, by sculpting, using a laser. Later, LASIK was developed. The same type of laser is used for LASIK and PRK. Often the exact same laser is used for the two types of surgery. The major difference between the two surgeries is the way that the stroma, the middle layer of the cornea, is exposed before it is vaporized with the laser. In PRK, the top layer of the cornea, called the epithelium, is scraped away to expose the stromal layer underneath. In LASIK, a flap is cut in the stromal layer and the flap is folded back.

Another type of refractive surgery is thermokeratoplasty in which heat is used to reshape the cornea. The source of the heat can be a laser, but it is a different kind of laser than is used for LASIK and PRK. Other refractive devices include corneal ring segments that are inserted into the stroma and special contact lenses that temporarily reshape the cornea (orthokeratology).

Where can I go to find a LASIK surgeon in North Dallas who is not a "quack"?

What are the risks of LASIK?

Before undergoing a refractive procedure, you should carefully weigh the risks and benefits based on your own personal value system, and try to avoid being influenced by friends that have had the procedure or doctors encouraging you to do so.  One of the best ways to learn about risks of laser eye surgery is to visit the patient web sites listed below.




Dr. William A. Boothe
Page # 2
Page # 3
Page # 4
Page # 5
All Pages

Boothe: Rated! Majority Rules...

The negative comments posted on different rating boards are similar. Very few patients had anything good to say about Dr. Boothe?s practice:

From DoctorScoreCard.com:

http://www.doctorscorecard.com/view?id=William_Boothe_TX&page=2#foo

 

Comments by aggie82 on 08/14/08

aggie82 edited this scorecard on 08/15/08

 

2

  2007-2008  I would highly recommend not using Dr. Boothe.  The man is rude, egotistical, arrogant, unprofessional, and uncaring.  He yells at and threatens his employees within earshot of his patients (I witnessed this in the operating room, of all places).  He has no personality and no people skills.  The only thing you'll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so you'd better hope you know the right questions to ask.  He's really only interested in getting your money and offers you a discount if you get your procedure done the same week you have your first consultation.  Don't fall for this -- you really need to take the time to research this and make sure you're making the right decision.

 

I sit in front of a computer all day, which I told Dr. Boothe.  He told me I was a good candidate for LASIK, specifically the mono vision procedure.  I definitely was not a good candidate.  After having this procedure done, I could not read my computer screen at a normal distance -- I had to sit practically right on top of my screen to see it.  A normal viewing distance for a computer screen does not fall within the 18 inches or so that is considered the ideal reading distance.  I absolutely was not a good candidate for mono vision, and I eventually had to have it reversed so that now both eyes are for distance.  Now I have to wear reading glasses, usually even when using my computer.  I think he'd tell you anything to get your money.  I knew this was a risk going in with this procedure, but no one in his office (including Dr. Boothe) ever really explained to me what a compromise it is to have mono vision.  They did some quick simulation that lasted 30 seconds or less to supposedly give you a feel for what it will be like, but it's not a real world demonstration.  You will not see as well at any distance (with both eyes open) as you would with progressive lenses, the main problem being mid-distances past 2-3 feet or so.  Independently each eye worked pretty well when I'd cover the other eye, but together they just drove me crazy.  I was told later by one of his doctors after having this procedure done that what they shoot for with this is giving you what they call 'good functional vision.'  I can tell you that for me it was neither good nor functional.  It was awful.

 

My right eye (for distance) was never right after the initial procedure, and they had to redo (they call it an 'enhancement') it after about 3.5 months.  It was so bad that they had to prescribe glasses for me to use when driving prior to the redo.  It seems to be fine now, but I had to start all over again with getting my brain used to the mono vision.  However, it just never worked for me, and they reversed my mono vision by turning my left eye into a distance eye about 6 months after the initial procedure.  In general, I can now see much better than I did with mono vision.  In general, my distance vision is much better now, particularly outdoors during the day in sunlight.

 

However, four months after the mono vision reversal I am still having some difficulties with my vision indoors and outdoors at night as a result of my left eye (one reversed from being a reading eye) in anything other than bright lighting (I can cover my left eye and the problems go away), but Dr. Boothe didn't seem to care about this and didn't even want to listen (at least his other doctors I first met with that day did listen before passing me on to see Dr. Boothe).  He told me that I was seeing 20/15 that day in his office and that I should be 'damn happy' with my eyesight.  I live in the real world, and it does not consist of staring at an eye chart from 20 feet away all day.  I told him I could see pretty well outdoors in bright light but that I could see better indoors in many situations when I used to wear glasses.  Things are just not as sharp and clear with my left eye in these situations, and I seem to have some nearsightedness with it still and see ghosting/shadowing/doubling of bright objects.  The difficulties I'm having are real, but he didn't care.  He was just concerned with meeting his contract obligation of 20/20 vision.  He dismissed my concerns as me being a whiner and not knowing what I was talking about.  Why would I complain about something that was not real?  It's not like I enjoy having a corneal flap cut multiple times and then having my eye blasted with a laser.  He also basically called me a liar when I told him the first person I met with at my initial consultation (actually their finance person) told me that LASIK would allow you to see 30X  better than any other vision correction method.  I know what I heard.

 

He also herds people through his office like cattle.  Expect to be there for at least 2 hours even for a simple follow-up visit.  There are almost always dozens of people in the office at once waiting, and you'll get shuttled from room to room many times and wait in various waiting rooms during all of this.  It also seems that a lot of the people you talk to have had to have their eyes redone for whatever reason, and many of the people I talked to who had the mono vision procedure done were also having a lot of difficulty with it.

 

http://www.doctorscorecard.com/view?id=William_Boothe_TX&page=3#foo

 

Jessie48 on 08/13/08

 

1

  No treatment  I have read over other comments and would like to confirm that as a former employees wife Dr. Boothe is an out of control employer.  He belittles employees infront of patients and peers. He uses profanity while doing this.  Patients call frequently to the office to complain about this but he praises himself that he rules his office with an iron fist.  (Something he is quite proud of).  His employees are afraid of him but apparently need a job so sit back and take it.  While this one didn't and I wish the others were able to do the same.  As for his number of lasiks performed.  He does 120-150 in one day.  Ask which one you will be if you plan on scheduling.  Advertising every 10 minutes on the radio brings in alot of people.  Not too many patients come referred by others. Too bad they don't know what kind of physician they are supporting.  If you doubt any of this visit the office and see how it goes.  I recommend you see a doctor who gives his employees the respect you would expect him to give his patients.  Good results are achievable by good and up to date equipment. 

 

http://www.doctorscorecard.com/view?id=William_Boothe_TX&page=5#foo

 

restoremyvision on 09/25/07

Admin edited this score on 09/25/07 Why?

 

1 responses to this scorecard

 

This scorecard was voted helpful +0 times

 

1

  2007  I had restore then lasik...Vision was bad after restore lens...blurry or shadows and halo's

I asked for my money back and I would go away.. Dr. Boothe would not return my money and Insisted that I go ahead and have the lasik and my vision would be fine.

 

Had the lasik and my vision was worse than ever and lasik was not done right. This has been going on for a long time with the typical keep coming back

 

I have fnally decided to go to a physician in another city with high credentials & associated with a hospital...Harvard educated..to try to correct my vision. I've already seen him.and I'm encouraged

 

I had good far sight vision but needed glasses for close up. Now, because of the blurred vision....my brain has to tell my eye to focus to see with the blurred vision and I can only read a few words at a time....glasses wont' fix my problem...the restore lens has to be removed and I have a choice now of a permanent far sighted lens or nearsighted lens...I'm not sure how the bad lasik procedure from Dr. Boothe will figure in to this ...

 

When I finally have a final cost for all this work and will know if I can even get my vision back to where it was, I will pursue a possible malpractice suit.

 

Dr. Boothe spent 3 minutes with me prior to all this and another 5 minutes after the procedures. He relies totally on the forms that he makes you sign to keep the lawsuits at bay but I believe a doctor owes his patient a full discussion...verbal.. of the risks and possible outcome. I have a job requiring very high functioning vision and now I have only one eye that I can count on

 

****Scorecard #2 entered shortly after the comments above, copied and pasted by admin:  ****

 

I had excellent far sighted vision....my closeup deteriorated ...I'm over

 

50.   I had to wear glasses and I did not want to so i made the mistake of going to see Dr. Boothe....so many surgeries...must be good....WRONG

 

His hourly employee recommended the restore lens and followed up by lasik because the restore.....ruins your far sighted vision.  I saw Dr. Boothe for 2 minutes..he showed me a card with small print and said I would be able to read the card with no problem ...I would have 20/20 vision.  

 

Result....the restorelens left me with blurred vision, halos, and I could only read a few words at a time....

 

I asked for my money back and I would go away.  NO , I could not have my money back...I had to have the lasik and my vision would  be perfect.  

 

Now I can't see near or far....everything is blurry and I can read up close   ONE WORD AT A TIME....don't ask me to read a sentence or a street sign.

 

the office tried to rush me into doing the second eye before the first healed...Then I would be almost blind in both eyes and unable to work

 

DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN ....he just wants your money and thinks he's above the law because he makes you sign the desclaimers.

 

On the lasik...they did not want me to read the warnings but I had to write in my own handwriting that i read and understood it but they didn't let me read it.   i CANNOT BELIEVE I WAS SO STUPID.

 

Also the lasik correction was done poorly also and they recommended doing it again...That didn't happen...I was petrified of allowing that man to touch my eyes again...the next time , I might end up blind...as that is also in the fine print that you can't read.

 

I'm seeing a physician in another city , associated with high quality hospital ...to see if he can repair my vision..

 

The restore has to be removed and replaced with either a far or near sighted lens...

 

BOTTOM LINE...if your needs require high full function vision for your work....run the other way and don't have surgery unless you really have to ...God gave me one set of eyes and Dr. Boothe took one away.

 

http://www.doctorscorecard.com/view?id=William_Boothe_TX&page=6#foo

 

unhappylasik on 09/25/07

 

1 responses to this scorecard

This scorecard was voted helpful +0 times

 

1

  Not given  The lasik surgeon I chose does not meet the reputation thought. Long wait times, numbers mean more than quality and an unfriendly atmosphere along with a surgeon who has no personality have left me with subpar lasik at this point. I was told to give it a year but my review is based on my experience. I will follow up in 6 months and let you know if it gets better.  I feel like when your wait 6 hours just for your pre surgery and 2.5 hours each followup you should get better service and have experience employees who have college degrees.

 

http://www.doctorscorecard.com/view?id=William_Boothe_TX&page=9#foo

 

concernedpatient59 on 12/08/06

 

1 responses to this scorecard

 

This scorecard was voted helpful +1 times

 

1

  2006  I have not and will not be a patient of this doctor. Reasons for this is one I've talked to the staff and source will not be name. This doctor has committed malpractice in his employees eyes but threatens them with legal action of a non-disclosure agreement they have sign. He has also fallen asleep during surgery (This can be confirmed by his staff). He also treats his staff like they are slaves and not human beings, yes they are getting paid but even I wouldn't work for what I'm hearing them say he calls them and the way he treats them. He is always firing his office staff because of incompetency when he is the one who is incompetent. Today he has had two of his staff walk out of the surgery room and quit. One being a technician and another being an ophthalmologist. His office is also out of regulations concerning health laws. I highly do not recommend going to this doctor.

 

From RateMDs.com:

 

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/19514/TX/Plano/Boothe

 

Date     Comments  

8/14/08 3 1 1 3  I told Dr.Boothe I sit at a PC all day and was told I was a good candidate for LASIK, specifically for mono vision. I could not read my PC screen at a normal distance and had to sit right on top of my screen to see it. A normal viewing distance for a computer screen does not fall within the 18" that is considered the ideal reading distance. I was not a good candidate for mono vision, and I eventually had to have it reversed for distance only. I still have difficulties indoors with my left eye (the one reversed from beig a reading eye)in anything other than bright lighting (I can cover my left eye and the problems go away), but Dr. Boothe really didn't seem to care about this and really didn't even want to listen. He told me that I was seeing 20/15 that day in his office and that I should be "damn happy" with my eyesight. I live in the real world, and it does not consist of staring at an eye chart from 20' away all day. The difficulties I'm having are real, but Dr. Boothe didn't care.   

Registered users can respond to this rating

  

8/14/08 4 2 1 3  He is egotistical, arrogant, unprofessional, and uncaring. He yells at and threatens his employees within earshot of his patients. He has no personality and no people skills. The only thing you'll get out of him is specifically what you ask him, so you'd better hope you know the right questions to ask. He's really only interested in getting your money and offers you a discount if you get your procedure done the same week you have your first consultation. Don't fall for this -- you really need to take the time to research this and make sure you're making the right decision.   

Registered users can respond to this rating

  

8/14/08 1 1 1 1  Dr. Boothe is cruel and abusive to his employees. The reason all of them are 20 yrs old is because anyone else would not put up with it. I am the wife of an ex-employee and I can tell you he prides himself on running his practice with an iron fist. (his words) He berates his employees in front of patients, doctors and peers. He performs 130 surgeries in a day, patients he gets from continuous advertising. He has a call center that answers his calls. It is definitely as described a cattle call and the employees are treated as the cattle.   

Registered users can respond to this rating

  

7/15/08 1 1 1 2  During each procedure nothing is expalined. During the surgery Boothe became verbally abusive to a co-worker and berated him in the surgery room with 20 pateints waiting. I almost got-up and shouted "what the hey is going-on here?" Booth is threatening to replace a guy during the surgery. I was next in line getting ready to be worked-on by a guy who was fearing for his job and then by a doctor angry with his staff - lasers flying around my eyes in this environment is unethical.   

Registered users can respond to this rating

  

2/11/08 2 1 1 2  ruined my eyesight...should never have recommended procedure for me, took no time, misrepresented, and then recommmended wrong corrective surgery   

Registered users can respond to this rating

  

11/1/07 1 1 1 1  I got lasik in April & once I paid, I was herded like a cow from room to room for 6 hours (mostly waiting) to get eye tests performed & then had the surgery the next day. After months of long appointments, I now have to have the procedure redone, one eye at a time. I went for my appointment, which included about 20 minutes of tests, I was there for over 4 hours. They told me they were booked till the end of Jan to do the surgery. When I called last week they told I could get in the following Monday. I was furious b/c this is only for my left eye, I will have to wait until a month after my left surgery to even schedule my right and then it will probably be another 3 months! The waiting rooms are full of disgusted clients. I have yet to see one happy customer. When I left I called the new patient line and said I wanted to have lasik and they told me to come in anytime that day for testing & they could perform the lasik the following day or any day thereafter that worked best for me.   

Registered users can respond to this rating 

 

5/8/07  1 1 3  First off, I'm a medical office manager of 10 physicians so I know what I am talking about. This physician and the way he treats his patients is not acceptable. He is rude and arrogant. No bed side manner at all! He arrived in my room for my 1st visit, didn't even look at me, he reviewed my chart, discussed with the nurse what he was going to do and was gone in less than 3 minutes. Follow up visit was less than 2 minutes even tho I waited 2 hours to be seen. He runs his practice like a production line. The last 2 comments about him and the cattle drive are right on. I have told everyone I meet about the horrible experience I have had, and let me tell you I have heard from quite a few people with basically the the same stories. How he gets away with how he runs his clinic is beyond me. If you want a physician to give you one on one attention and compassionate care, DO NOT GO TO DR BOOTHE!   

Registered users can respond to this rating

  

5/8/06  1 1 4  This doctor runs his business like a cattle drive. I've never experienced such a high volume, impersonal procedure as I did having lasik performed by Dr. Boothe. Would discourage anyone from using him.   

Registered users can respond to this rating

  

12/3/05  1 1 2  HE WAS AS RUDE AS COULD BE AND MADE EVERYONE WAIT FOR HOURS. HE RUNS THE PLACE LIKE A CATTLE DRIVE. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE ARE YOUNG KIDS WHO ACT LIKE THEY ONLY WORK THERE BECAUSE THEY GOT FIRED FROM MCDONALDS. IT WAS ONE OF THE WORST EXPERIENCES OF MY LIFE.   

Registered users can respond to this rating

Dr. Boothe's competitors should remember this one from a few years ago...

Dr. Boothe was the person responsible for Lasik-eyesurgery-lawsuits.com (no longer publicly available). This website listed lawsuits against his competitors:

Searched for http://lasik-eyesurgery-lawsuits.com/

* denotes when site was updated.
Material typically becomes available here 6 months after collection. See FAQ.

 

Search Results for Jan 01, 1996 - May 31, 2008
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 7 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages
                  May 10, 2005 *
May 25, 2005 *
May 25, 2005 *
Jul 19, 2005 *
Aug 03, 2005 *
Nov 26, 2005 *
Nov 26, 2005 *
     
Dr. William A. Boothe
Page # 2
Page # 3
Page # 4
Page # 5
All Pages