Respondent Shirley Pigott Md Response To Soah

1 Respondent Shirley Pigott MD's Answer to TMB Complaint to SOAH Docket# 503094087

TMB asserts that the legal authority and jurisdiction for the filing of the complaint to SOAH is [sic] TEX. OCC. CODE, Title 3, Subtitle B (Medical Practice Act); TEX. GOV'T CODE, Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 2001 (Administrative Procedure Act); TEX. GOV'T CODE, Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 2003 (SOAH); 22 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, Chapter 187 (Procedural Rules - Texas Medical Board); 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, Chapter 155 (Rules of Procedure - SOAH)

TMB's COMPLAINT to SOAH:

TO THE HONORABLE TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD AND THE HONORABLE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO BE ASSIGNED: COMES NOW, the Staff (Scott Freshour, Esq., et al.) of the Texas Medical Board ("the Board"), and files this Complaint against Shirley Persons Pigott, MD, ("Respondent") based on Respondent's alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act ("the Act"), TEX. OCC. CODE ANN., Title 3, Subtitle B, Chapters 151-165, and would show the following: RESPONSE: Mr. Freshour and other TMB staff have have consistently shown that they neither recognize those practices of medicine which benefit the public nor those practices of medicine which harm them, or that the medical board operates for reasons other than its stated mission.

Regarding the INTRODUCTION The filing of this Complaint and the relief requested are necessary to protect the health and public interest of the citizens of the State of Texas, as provided in Section 151.003 of the Act, which states: The legislature finds that: (1) the practice of medicine is a privilege and not a natural right of individuals and as a matter of public policy it is necessary to protect the public interest through enactment of this subtitle to regulate the granting of the privilege and its subsequent use and control; and (2) the board should remain the primary means of licensing, regulating, and disciplining physicians. It is a false and slanderous statement to say that the filing of TMB's "Complaint" with SOAH and requested relief are necessary to protect the public. The real reason for the Texas Medical Board's suspension of Respondent's medical license is that Respondent three-year investigation of the TMB has exposed the criminal behavior of its director. Respondent has made allegations of criminal behavior, written and orally to the whole board, regarding its executive director, Mari Robinson, which the board refuses to acknowledge. In retaliation, the board has maliciously suspended her medical license, causing her, her family, and her patients irreparable harm, in violation of her basic human rights.

Regarding Legal Authority and Jurisdiction 1. Respondent is a Texas Physician and holds Texas Medical License No. F-7054, that was in full force and effect at all times material and relevant to this Complaint. 2.

Respondent was the subject of a Temporary Suspension Hearing with Notice on March 24,

2 2009. As a result of this proceeding, Dr. Pigott's Texas medical license was suspended.

3. At the conclusion of the Temporary Suspension Hearing, Respondent received notice of an Informal Settlement Conference ("ISC"). The ISC was set for May 6, 2009, but Respondent specifically waived her appearance at the ISC, and requested this matter be referred directly to the State Office of Administrative Hearings ("SOAH"). 4.

No agreement to settle this matter has been reached by the parties.

5.

All jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied.

Respondent asserts that the board does not have the authority to suspend her license in the absence of evidence that her practice of medicine has ever harmed anyone; the board has a duty to the public not to interfere with the medical practice of a good physician, of which Respondent is a prime example. Respondent has taken extraordinary risk in advocating for the protection of Texas physicians and their patients from this abusive medical board. By doing so she has become its target. It is the duty of government to protect its citizens from itself. The actions of the TMB against Respondent clearly qualify as torture under the United Nations' definition: "an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person..." No governmental agency, legislative body, or other authority - state or federal - has taken measures to protect Respondent or to intervene on her behalf. The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which requires it to enforce protections against torture within its boundaries, without allowances for prosecutorial discretion. The State Office of Administrative Hearings has administrative jurisdiction over the Texas Medical Board. Respondent urges SOAH to take extraordinary measures to restrain and emasculate this dangerous board and its executive director, Mari Robinson.

Regarding "Factual Allegations" Board Staff has received information and on that information believes that Respondent has violated the Act. Based on such information and belief, Board Staff alleges: Board Staff refuses to disclose to Respondent what acts related to the practice of medicine she has violated which justify suspension or revocation of her license under the guise of confidentiality. The Board's expert testimony fails to meet Daubert criteria for admission into evidence in that the opinions of the experts were not determined based on scientific principles and the espoused opinions are irrelevant to Respondent's practice of medicine and/or the the Board's mission to protect the public. Texas is a "Daubert state"; this means that opinion testimony which does not meet Daubert criteria is not admissible into evidence. Respondent believes no valid evidence exists and none has been submitted which would cause anyone acting in good faith to conclude that Respondent's medical practice puts her patients in danger, that she has committed acts which demonstrate "unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct" and/or is "mentally impaired". Neither of the board's experts have alleged any such acts remotely related to the practice of medicine nor has there been any such patient complaint. Although Respondent has had a psychiatric diagnosis for many years, she is and has been mentally and psychologically stable; she is and has been under treatment by a competent physician, who has stated repeatedly in regular reports to the board that she is stable and practices medicine with skill and safety. Respondent is a committed vocal advocate for those persons in American society who, like herself, have a psychiatric diagnosis but function

3 normally. She is also an advocate for persons who may have a psychiatric diagnosis and/or may not be functioning normally. Such persons have protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Texas physicians, including Respondent, have civil rights which the Texas Medical Board has violated with egregious and wanton disregard. If the medical board is allowed to persist in such grievously malicious and ignorant behavior as to spurn persons with psychiatric diagnoses and deny them the privilege of practicing medicine with sensitivity and compassion, those who do not aggressively oppose their abuse contribute to it. All Texas and/or United States governmental authorities with proximate or remote jurisdiction over the Texas Medical Board are responsible, as are all persons who hear and do not act. It is incumbent upon the State Office of Administrative Hearings and its agents to reject the medical board's abuse of its licensees and searingly condemn its behavior which has immeasurably harmed the people of this great state. A.

Alleged Violation of a previous board order and Failure to Cooperate with Board Staff:

1. Respondent was subject of a "Nondisciplinary Rehabilitation Order" dated August 26, 2005... Respondent does not deny this. 2. Respondent's last visit to the evaluating psychiatrist was on September 12, 2007. Respondent does not deny this. 3. Respondent did see the evaluating psychiatrist on March 20, 2009, but only after she had been notified of the temporary suspension hearing. Respondent does not deny this and will demonstrate that her visit was consistent with her good faith attempts to cooperate with board staff. 4. The evaluating psychiatrist recommended that the Respondent not treat or prescribe to herself or to any family members. Respondent has no knowledge as to whether the evaluating psychiatrist reported this to the board, but denies recollection that she was told this. 5. Respondent self-prescribed medications and treated her son in violation of the 2005 order. Respondent will show that, at all times, her actions were consistent with the best practice of medicine. 6. Respondent failed to cooperate with Board staff by failing or refusing to meet with her evaluating psychiatrist, and failing to follow recommendations of the evaluating psychiatrist. Respondent will show that she made several good faith efforts to cooperate with board staff. B.

Other violations:

1. Subject to and without waiving any and all complaints concerning violation of the 2005 order, Respondent has evidenced an impaired mental status. Respondent denies any evidence of impaired mental status exists in any situation where she was practicing medicine or that any witness has provided valid evidence of the same. Items 2. through 5. are not relevant to the practice of medicine and have not been proved in a court of law. Board reference to these matters may be evidence of malfeasance. 2. Respondent was arrested on or about September 29, 2007, after speeding, evading arrest, and leading the Department of Public Safety ("DPS") officers on a high-speed chase. During this encounter with DPS, Respondent was uncooperative with police, and disregarded police

4 instructions. 3. As a result of the September 29, 2007 incident Respondent has been charged with [sic] felony, Aggravated Assault of a Police [sic] Officer, in Wharton County, Texas. 4. Respondent has stated repeatedly that she believes DPS officers are attempting to kill her and that multiple law enforcement agencies and officers are stalking her. 5.

Respondent claims DPS is trying to confiscate her Toyota Prius to use as a police vehicle.

6. Respondent did not attend a duly noticed and scheduled Informal Settlement Show Compliance proceeding ("ISC") on February 10, 2009, because she stated that she believed she would be killed by law enforcement officers if she left her home to travel to Austin to attend the ISC. It is doubtful that Respondent made such a statement, but if she did, without an adequate investigation, the appropriateness of Respondent's statements is indeterminate. Respondent is not certain that an Informal Settlement Show Compliance proceeding was scheduled on February 10, 2009, but if it was, Respondent doubts that she was informed of any requirement to attend. 7. Respondent believes that a number of state agencies, [Texas Medical Board, Texas Pharmacy Board, DPS and private insurers [Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico and BCBS of Louisiana] are involved in a nationwide conspiracy. [sic] Mr. Freshour is mistaken in several details, but Respondent is prepared to show extensive evidence of collusion and corruption. 8. Respondent has engaged in an extensive campaign of correspondence with a number of individuals, including Board members and staff, and state and federal government officials concerning this conspiracy. As founder and director of Texas Medical Board Watch (TMBW) Respondent has investigated activities of the medical Board and has exercised her first amendment right to expose illegal and unethical behaviors. However, this is unrelated to her practice of medicine. Free exercise of one's constitutional rights cannot be selectively denied to Texas physicians nor used as a basis for denying them a medical license. 9. Respondent's actions and correspondence demonstrate a clear pattern of mental deterioration and impairment. Respondent denies this. The medical board is under fire from multiple sources inside and outside of Texas and is thrashing wildly as in the throes of death. Dozens of Texas physicians and their patients, in addition to physicians who have chosen to leave Texas rather than practice under the jurisdiction of this board, have testified under oath as to its malfeasance before the Texas House Committee on Public Health and the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services. Respondent is a vocal opponent of medical board abuses and is a leader statewide in protest. Respondent and others, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), have risen to protect this state from its medical board and Executive Director Robinson. The immediate precipitating factor in the TMB's on-the-spot suspension of Respondent's medical license is that she testified to the whole board at its most recent meeting on February 6, 2009, as to the extensive crimes of the executive director. 10. The actions of the Respondent as specified above violate one or more of the following provisions of the Medical Practice Act. The Medical Practice Act authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action based on Respondent's: a.

commission of an act prohibited under Section 164.052 of the Act, pursuant to

5 Section 164.051(a)(1) which states: 164.051 GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION. (a) The board may refuse to admit a person to its examination or refuse to issue a license to practice medicine and may take disciplinary action against a person if the person: (1) commits and act prohibited under Section 164.052; (2) is convicted of, or is placed on deferred adjudication community supervision or deferred disposition for: (A) a felony; or (B) a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; (3) commits or attempts to commit a direct or indirect violation of a rule adopted under this subtitle, either as a principal, accessory, or accomplice; (4) is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients because of: (A) illness; (B) drunkenness; (C) excessive use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals, or another substance; or (D) a mental or physical condition; (5) is found by a court judgment to be of unsound mind; (6) fails to practice medicine in an acceptable professional manner consistent with public health and welfare; (7) is removed, suspended, or is subject to disciplinary action taken by the person's peers in a local, regional, state, or national professional medical association or society, or is disciplined by a licensed hospital or medical staff of a hospital, including removal, suspension, limitation of hospital privileges, or other disciplinary action, if the board find that the action: (A) was based on unprofessional conduct of professional incompetence that was likely to harm the public; and (B) was appropriate and reasonably supported by evidence submitted to the board; (8) is subject ... 164.052.

PROHIBITED PRACTICES BY PHYSICIAN OR LICENSE APPLICANT. (a) A physician or an applicant for a license to practice medicine commits a prohibited practice if that person: (1) submits to the board a false or misleading statement, document, or certificate in a application for a license; (2) presents to the board a license, certificate, or diploma that was illegally or fraudulently obtained; (3) commits fraud or deception in taking or passing an examination; (4) uses alcohol or drugs in an intemperate manner that, in the board's opinion, could endanger a patient's life; (5) commits unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public, as provided by Section 164.053, or injure the public; Respondent denies that she has committed any act which demonstrates unprofessional or dishonorable conduct; the Texas Medical Board has not accused Respondent of any such act. Respondent has no intention now or at any time in the past has had any intention to defraud or deceive the public. However, Respondent alleges that the Texas Medical Board has fraudulently suspended her medical license, causing her, her family, and her patients irreparable harm. (6)

...

6 b. violation of a Board Rule, pursuant to Section 164.051 (A)(3). [sic] Specifically, Board Rule 198, requiring a physician to comply with terms of a board order, and to cooperate with Board Staff. Board gives no example, but Respondent presumes the board attorney refers to a time when Respondent's husband had recently committed suicide and she was emotionally unable to drive long distances to meet a board appointed "evaluating physician". Respondent made efforts to find an alternative agreeable to Robinson, but nothing would suffice. Respondent requested that lawyer Robinson consult with a physician as to the reasonableness of her demands, but she refused. c. inability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients because of a mental or physical condition, pursuant to Section 164.051(a)(4) which states (4)

is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients because of: (A) illness; (B) drunkenness; (C) excessive use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals, or another substance; or (D) a mental or physical condition;

Respondent cannot fathom what Board is talking about and the Board cites no example. d. unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public or injure the public pursuant to Section 164.052(a)(5) and 164.053. Section 164.052(a)(5), is defined by and includes the following: Board Rule $190.8(2)(A)-violation of a board order; Board Rule $190.8(2)(C), failure to cooperate with board staff; and Board Rule $190.8(2)(D). failure to comply with subpoena or request for information. Respondent has previously addressed all issues except "failure to comply with subpoena or request for information". Respondent admits that she did not comply with a subpoena from the board. However, her defense is that the subpoena demanded confidential information to which the board was not entitled. 11. This case involves a Respondent who has been subject of several board orders, and actions that were knowing, premeditated and intentional. Respondent acknowledges having been the subject of several harassing board orders, but none were remotely related to her practice of medicine.

“The first duty of government is to protect the powerless against the powerful.” The Code of Hammurabi, the world’s oldest legal code, 1700 BC