Dear Former Patients and Friends
June 4, 2019
This past week the details of a settlement I’d reached after nearly seven years of negotiations with the Department of Justice were made public. This announcement received considerable media attention, some of the information correct; some very inaccurate and wrong.
Here’s what you need to know:
· I firmly deny the allegations made by the “whistleblower” and his attorney in the action just settled and in related media coverage.
· I agreed to the settlement only because, after seven years, fighting the action was taking up far too much of my time and energy. Further, it simply became too costly to keep defending against these false accusations.
· In fighting this case, I engaged four Cardiology Experts to review some or all of the cases reviewed or rejected by the Government’s expert. Each of my experts holds multiple board certifications, and, though they are practicing interventionalists, they have each spent time as professors at one or more medical schools. They all serve or have served as directors of their practices and their hospital’s cardiology departments, conducting peer review of catheterizations for their medical staffs. They are respected experts both locally, nationally, and internationally. These experts found that all of my cases were medically appropriate.
· Of note: At least twelve of the interventions rejected by the Government’s expert were confirmed by intravascular ultrasound (“IVUS”). Though the hospital where they were performed cannot locate the IVUS film for each of the cases, the hospital did produce IVUS film for five of the interventions rejected by the government expert. In each case, the objective IVUS evidence established that the treated lesion was significant and it was medically necessary to treat it.
· Settling this case is not an admission of liability by myself or by my former practice, Galichia Medical Group, GMED.
· I’ve devoted my entire career to the practice of medicine and the cardiovascular care of many, many Kansans.
· I feel this case has been a matter of legal bullying, based on hearsay from a former GMED employee who is disgruntled over his release from employment.
· I call on Congress to prevent prosecutors in the future from attempting to practice medicine in the courts or by threat of legal action against well-meaning and competent physicians such as myself.
The defamatory remarks being spread in the media by the Whistleblower’s attorney, both spoken and written, are simply not factual and based solely on hearsay and weak, anecdotal information. There are no pertinent facts about the medical cases or patients mentioned in these false and inflammatory allegations. I ask that he cease and desist and that the media outlets involved remove the defamatory remarks.
It is my understanding that the Whistleblower will receive $1.16 million from the settlement and that he is sharing a considerable portion of it with the attorney who is defaming me publicly. This is pure vengeance on the part of the Whistleblower in my opinion for his firing years ago and money-driven greed on the part of his attorney. I encourage the defamation to stop at once for myself and the safety of my family.
Joseph P Galichia, MD, FACC