Request Expert

Dr, Expert is board certified in medical oncology and internal medicine and has over 25 years of experience in oncology and cancer center development. He trained and was on faculty at the MD Anderson Cancer Center prior to entering private practice in the North Texas region where he has been heavily involved in patient care and clinical research. He founded and was President and Chairman of The Centers for Cancer and Blood Disorders and has received national awards and recognition for organizational innovation and excellence. He has been extensively involved in business development and consults nationally with cancer centers as well as financial and legal organizations. He provides expertise for physicians, hospitals and financial and legal organizations in the areas of contract negotiations, organizational mergers, strategic planning, legal malpractice, corporate re-organization, data analysis and other oncology business related matters. He is a founder of the Oncology Circle, which performs extensive analysis of best-practice strategies and implementation of those strategies on a national level. He is a founder of Oncology Metrics which provides cancer-related services developed around large repositories of cancer related data for analysis and benchmarking. Expert is a pioneer in the clinical development of oncology-specific electronic medical/health records and consults widely in that area. He has served a numerous medically- related and unrelated boards and committees and is currently the President of the Texas Society of Medical Oncology.

He consulted with a major private venture capitalist to analyze the valuation of potential risks and benefits of investing in the ongoing accounts receivables of a large national hospital organization for the purpose of developing a business in "factoring". Expert's findings were unfavorable and his recommendation was that his client should walk away. That was, in fact, the outcome and over the next 12 months, those receivables were found to be largely uncollectable and worthless.He has consulted with multiple law firms involved in medical malpractice lawsuits. An example in the recent past involved a claim that a local physician group and hospital failed to make a timely diagnosis and appropriately treat a young woman with a rare form of head and neck cancer of the sinuses. Expert extensively reviewed the case as well as all available literature and found that the patient herself had symptoms for a lengthy time and by the time she was seen by the defendants, she had metastatic disease which gave her less than a 10% chance of surviving one year. Additionally, the correct disgnosis was made less than a month after the initial visit and the options offered were evidenced-based therapy or referral to a tertiary cancer for investigational therapy. She opted for the latter but expired a few weeks into her therapy. Expert's opinion clearly defined all of the facts as well as all available scientific information, including known treatment options and prognosis. The case was dropped by the plantiff, prior to trial, with the comment from the plaintiff's counsel that they had nothing to dispute Expert's opinion.Another medical malpractice case involving him as an expert wittness involved a woman with known metastatic breast cancer who, after several months, informed her oncologist that she had been having rectal bleeding and rectal pain. Her physician checked for fecal occult blood which was positive and checked a CEA which was moderately elevated. She was referred to a gastroenterologist for colonoscopy. A colonoscopy was performed and no cancer in the colon was found, although she had severe inflamatory bowel disease with a severe stricture and friability and a bowel perforation occurred, was recognized immediately and treated appropriately. Unfortunately, she developed peritonitis and died. Expert reviewed all records, past and current, and found from a record from a prior physician that she was told that she has inflamatory bowel disease and surgery had been recommended. She failed to reveal that fact to any current physician or during any recent hospitalizations. In fact, she had used a personal questionaire and checked "no" to the question that asked about and problems with her bowels or colon. Expert gave a deposition and eventually trial testimony. Following his expert testimony, the plaintiff's asked for a meeting with the defendant's counsel and the end result was a settlement for $2500.He has consulted numerous times on behalf of physician's groups and/or hospital groups for the purpose of directing negotiations for a potential joint venture or acquisition. One very recent example involved three individual physician groups and the prominent hospital in the community of 250,000 population. Two of the physician groups were medical oncologists and the third group were radiation oncologists. There was a second large hospital in town that announced that they were building a cancer center and would employ their doctors. Expert brought the physicians and hospital #1 together and developed and process whereby the physicians joined together under a single corporate structure and that structure had a long-term contract with the newco physician group whereby the doctors would provide all oncology services, management and oversight and the hospital would have the capital expense. Through fair market valuation structures, all parties "shared" in revenues and governance. The result was that the physicians were given long-term security and fair income structure and control and the hospital developed their cancer center which added to their credibiltiy and competitiveness. Hospital #2 elected not to go with their cancer center plans, at least as of this time..He was involved in a case whereby a small physician-owned business developed a new company in conjunction with a large, publically-traded pharma company. The newco was ostensibly a group purchasing organization and was owned 60% by the pharma company and 40% by the physician business organization. The business structure was not working well and the physicians agreed to sell their 40% for a small amount but would continue to provide the same services to the newco on a contractual basis. The key was that both sides agreed that if there was any M&A activity that was consumated within 18 months, the physician's group would receive $3M. However, the list of potential suitors was made prior to the exchange of the 40% and both sides agreed to any M&A activity in question would involve a anme on that list. The physician's group leader asked several times if the pharma company was having any M&A discussions with anyone else other than the names on the list and the answer was always no. About 3 months later, the pharma company announced its intention to sell outright to another public company for almost $2B. The physician's group came back and demanded their $3M but were told that the buyer was not on the list so the had no obligation to pay that amount; however, in their SEC filings, discovered by Expert, they gave the transaction history, as required, and it appeared clear that the doctors were misled. The suit was filed by the physician group and underwent over two years of deposition and discovery. It went to trial in November 2007, in US Federal Court. Expert gave two days of testimony which included every aspect of the case. The final verdict was in favor to the plaintiff (the physician's group) with the charge of willful misrepresentation. The award was $3M plus costs which was upheld a year later in US Appeals Court. This case was by no means "cut and dried" and involved a very complex set of issues. Expert's insight into industry relationships, regulatory statutes and corporate and physician thinking proved to be invaluable.