Disciplinary Action against Gary Ordog, M.D. | Quackwatch (original) (raw)

In 2005, the Medical Board of California accused Gary J. Ordog, M.D. of Newhall, California, of 15 charges of professional misconduct. The charges (shown below) included gross negligence, inadequate record-keeping, dishonest or corrupt acts, false documents, and deceptive public communication. Among other things, he was accused of (a) improperly diagnosing four patients with heavy metal toxicity and/or toxic encephalopathy (brain disease) and (b) falsely claiming to have certain credentials.

In addition to seeing patients, Ordog has served as an expert witness and issued many reports in support of people who claimed to have been injured by chemicals or mold. Forbes magazine has reported that “for 9,800upfront(plus9,800 up front (plus 9,800upfront(plus975 an hour) Dr. Ordog appeared as an expert witness in lawsuits to testify that mold can cause a terrifying array of diseases, from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the liver.” However, the medical board’s documents suggest that many of his reports were bogus. Ordog also became embroiled in a civil suit by a law firm that used him as an expert but later concluded that he had overstated his credentials and billed for services he did not perform.

In 2006, the California Board suspended Ordog’s license for 90 days (starting June 11) and placed him on seven years probation, during which time he was not permitted to engage in a medicolegal or forensics practice. In 2011, the board accused him of violating his probation by doing two medicolegal evaluations in 2006 and two in 2008. In each case he billed for “eighteen hours of clinical preparation, two hours of research, and four hours to write the report.” The amounts billed were 2,500,2,500, 2,500,4,500, 4,500,and4,500, and 4,500,and9,600. In 2013, the board issued an order extending his probation for another 18 months. His probation ended in May 2015, but it appears likely his medical career is over, because in April 2016, he pleaded guilty to a count of health care fraud. In the plea agreement, Ordog admitted that he had (a) submitted false claims to Medicare for visits with Medicare beneficiaries on dates when he was out of the country, (b) billed for services to people who were deceased on the dates he purportedly treated them, (c) billed for services totaling more than 24 hours in one day, and (d) fabricated patient records to support false claims. In October 2016, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay restitution of $1,295,700. In December 2017, his medical license was revoked.

BILL LOCKYER,
Attorney General of the State of California
JOHN E. DeCURE, State Bar No. 150700
Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
300 So. Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 897-8854
Facsimile: (213) 897-9395
Attorneys for Complainant

BEFORE THE

DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Complainant alleges:

PARTIES

1. David T. Thornton (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs.

2. On or about August 18, 1980, the Medical Board of California issued Physician and Surgeon’s Certificate Number G 43038 to GARY J. ORDOG, M.D. (Respondent). The Physician and Surgeon’s Certificate was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on June 30, 2006, unless renewed.

JURISDICTION

3. This Accusation is brought before the Division of Medical Quality (Division) for the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, under the authority of the following laws. All section references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise indicated.

4. Section 2004 of the Code states:

“The Division of Medical Quality shall have the responsibility for the following: “(a) The enforcement of the disciplinary and criminal provisions of the Medical Practice Act.

“(b) The administration and hearing of disciplinary actions.

“(c) Carrying out disciplinary actions appropriate to findings made by a medical quality review committee, the division, or an administrative law judge.

“(d) Suspending, revoking, or otherwise limiting certificates after the conclusion of disciplinary actions.

“(e) Reviewing the quality of medical practice carried out by physician and surgeon certificate holders under the jurisdiction of the board.”

5. Section 2227 of the Code states:

“(a) A licensee whose matter has been heard by an administrative law judge of the Medical Quality Hearing Panel as designated in Section 11371 of the Government Code, or whose default has been entered, and who is found guilty, or who has entered into a stipulation for disciplinary action with the division, may, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:

“(1) Have his or her license revoked upon order of the division.

“(2) Have his or her right to practice suspended for a period not to exceed one year upon order of the division.

“(3) Be placed on probation and be required to pay the costs of probation monitoring upon order of the division.

“(4) Be publicly reprimanded by the division.

“(5) Have any other action taken in relation to discipline as part of an order of probation, as the division or an administrative law judge may deem proper.

“(b) Any matter heard pursuant to subdivision (a), except for warning letters, medical review or advisory conferences, professional competency examinations, continuing education activities, and cost reimbursement associated therewith that are agreed to with the division and successfully completed by the licensee, or other matters made confidential or privileged by existing law, is deemed public, and shall be made available to the public by the board pursuant to Section 803.1.”

6. Section 2234 of the Code states:

“The Division of Medical Quality shall take action against any licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. In addition to other provisions of this article, unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

“(a) Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, assisting in or abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision of this chapter [Chapter 5, the Medical Practice Act].

“(b) Gross negligence.

“(c) Repeated negligent acts. To be repeated, there must be two or more negligent acts or omissions. An initial negligent act or omission followed by a separate and distinct departure from the applicable standard of care shall constitute repeated negligent acts.

“(1) An initial negligent diagnosis followed by an act or omission medically appropriate for that negligent diagnosis of the patient shall constitute a single negligent act.

“(2) When the standard of care requires a change in the diagnosis, act, or omission that constitutes the negligent act described in paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, a reevaluation of the diagnosis or a change in treatment, and the licensee’s conduct departs from the applicable standard of care, each departure constitutes a separate and distinct breach of the standard of care.

“(d) Incompetence.

“(e) The commission of any act involving dishonesty or corruption which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon.

“(f) Any action or conduct which would have warranted the denial of a certificate.”

7. Section 2266 of the Code states: “The failure of a physician and surgeon to maintain adequate and accurate records relating to the provision of services to their patients constitutes unprofessional conduct.”

8. Section 725 of the Code states:

“Repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing or administering of drugs or treatment, repeated acts of clearly excessive use of diagnostic procedures, or repeated acts of clearly excessive use of diagnostic or treatment facilities as determined by the standard of the community of licensees is unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, physical therapist, chiropractor, or optometrist. However, pursuant to Section 2241.5, no physician and surgeon in compliance with the California Intractable Pain Treatment Act shall be subject to disciplinary action for lawfully prescribing or administering controlled substances in the course of treatment of a person for intractable pain.”

9. Section 651 states, in relevant part:

“(a) It is unlawful for any person licensed under this division or under any initiative act referred to in this division to disseminate or cause to be disseminated any form of public communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement, claim, or image for the purpose of or likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the rendering of professional services or furnishing of products in connection with the professional practice or business for which he or she is licensed. A ‘public communication’ as used in this section includes, but is not limited to, communication by means of mail, television, radio, motion picture, newspaper, book, list or directory of healing arts practitioners, Internet, or other electronic communication.

“(b) A false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement, claim, or image includes a statement or claim that does any of the following:

“(1) Contains a misrepresentation of fact.

“(2) Is likely to mislead or deceive because of a failure to disclose material facts.”

“(5) Contains other representations or implications that in reasonable probability will cause an ordinarily prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived.”

“(e) Any person so licensed may not use any professional card, professional announcement card, office sign, letterhead, telephone directory listing, medical list, medical directory listing, or a similar professional notice or device if it includes a statement or claim that is false, fraudulent, misleading, ox deceptive within the meaning of subdivision (b).

“(f) Any person so licensed who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. A bona fide mistake of fact shall be a defense to this subdivision, but only to this subdivision.

“(g) Any violation of this section by a person so licensed shall constitute good cause for revocation or suspension of his or her license or other disciplinary action.”

10. Section 652 of the Code states; in pertinent part:

“Violation of this article [Article 6, commencing with Section 650 of the Code] in the case of a licensed person constitutes unprofessional conduct and grounds for suspension or revocation of his or her license by the board by whom he or she is licensed, or if a license has been issued in connection with a place of business, then for the suspension or revocation of the place of business in connection with which the violation occurs. The proceedings for suspension or revocation shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code [the Administrative Procedure Act], and each board shall have all the powers granted therein. “

11. Section 2261 of the Code states:

“Knowingly making or signing any certificate or other document directly or indirectly related to the practice of medicine or podiatry which falsely represents the existence or nonexistence of a state of facts, constitutes unprofessional conduct.

12. Section 14124.12 of the Welfare and Institutions Code states, in pertinent part;

“(a) Upon receipt of written notice from the Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, or the Board of Dental Examiners of California, that a licensee’s license has been placed on probation as a result of a disciplinary action, the department may not reimburse any Medi-Cal claim for the type of surgical service or invasive procedure that gave rise to the probation, including any dental surgery or invasive procedure, that was performed by the licensee on or after the effective date of probation and until the termination of all probationary terms and conditions or until the probationary period has ended, whichever occurs first. This section shall apply except in any case in which the relevant licensing board determines that compelling circumstances warrant the continued reimbursement during the probationary period of any Medi-Cal claim, including any claim for dental services, as so described. In such a case, the department shall continue to reimburse the licensee for all procedures, except for those invasive or surgical procedures for which the licensee was placed on probation.”

13. Section 125.3 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that the Division may request the administrative law judge to direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or violations of the licensing act to pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case.

FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Gross Negligence)

14. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b) of the Code, in that respondent engaged in acts and omissions in the care and treatment of a patient constituting an extreme departure from the standard of practice. The circumstances are as follows:

A. On or about March 26, 1999, Willie C. was seen by respondent for medical care. Willie, age 74, and retired since 1986, complained of shortness of breath since 1992 and high blood pressure. After performing a general physical examination, respondent noted possible “toxic building syndrome” from pesticide exposure, but did not elaborate. Respondent also noted exposure to sandblasting, caustics and metals over a 15-year period while employed at Alcoa Aluminum. Respondent ordered laboratory testing for herbicides, cyanide, organophosphates, lead, mercury, arsenic, salients and carbamates. The results of these tests were negative for metal toxicity. Respondent also ordered laboratory panels for allergies, lymphocytes and immune system hypersensitivity. A chest x-ray was normal.

B. On or about December 3, 1999, respondent summarized the examination results for Willie C. as follows:

(1) Heavy metal toxicity, aluminum toxicity.

(2) Reactive airways disease.

(3) The patient had pulmonary, oxygenation, and immunological suppression and abnormalities, since the time of exposure at this job and that the patient suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity.

Respondent also noted a hospital admission where Willie C. had been diagnosed by respondent with acute toxic exposure, chemical bronchitis, sinusitis and pneumonitis. Respondent wrote that the only toxicity source was “Alcoa Company exposure as a metal worker” where he was subjected to caustics, sandblasting and “neuritic acid used to dip parts in.”

C. On or about December 3, 1999, respondent diagnosed Willie C. as follows:

(1) Chemical and aerosolized/vaporized gases, metal, dust and liquids addressed in the above list, exposure and inhalation with toxicity.

(2) Recurrent chemical toxicity and secondary bacterial sepsis.

(3) Recurrent and chronic chemical and secondary bacterial sinusitis as a result of No. 1.

(4) Reactive airways disease as a result of No. 1.

(5) Hypoxemia and abnormal pulmonary function tests as a result of No. 1.

(6) Recurrent sinusitis as a result of Nos. 1-6.

(7) Reactive airways disease as a result of Nos. 1-8.

(8) Chemical induced toxic encephalopathy as neuropathy.

(9) Immunologic compromise secondary to toxic injury and Nos. 1-8.

(10) Multiple viral, fungal and bacterial infections secondary to Nos. 1-5,8-9, 11-12.

(11) Chronic fatigue syndrome – meets criteria due to Nos. 1-13, chemical induced.

(12) Fibromyalgia – meets all criteria – due to Nos. 1-14, chemical induced.

D. On or about December 3, 1999, respondent ordered the following medication for Willie C: Levaquin, Cambivent inhaler, Claritin, Sporomox, Valtrex, Singular, and Succimer, a chelating agent used to treat lead toxicity. While Willie C. was found to have one borderline elevated aluminum level, his other metal test results were unremarkable.

E. On or about March 21, 2001, respondent also diagnosed “Toxic Leukoencephalopathy” based on a brain MRI showing punctate areas of increased signal. However, the radiologist who interpreted the MRI scan described the result as being consistent with microinfarcts in an elderly man with elevated blood pressure.

F. Respondent engaged in an extreme departure from the standard of practice in the care and treatment of Patient Willie C. as follows:

(1) By failing to exclude the common causes for the patient’s complaints, which requires reviewing the records of the patient’s prior medical care, and failing to employ a systematic approach to evaluate possible occupational/environmental exposure; and/or failing to document said review and systematic approach to evaluation.

(2) By failing to obtain a comprehensive history of the patient’s exposures to toxic substances, and failing to adequately assess the potential for any toxic exposure in the workplace; and/or failing to document said history and assessment.

(3) By diagnosing heavy metal-related illness without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(4) By diagnosing toxic encephalopathy without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(5) By diagnosing bacterial sepsis without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(6) By failing to review and interpret laboratory test results in an appropriate manner, resulting in misdiagnoses.

(7) By failing to abstain from treating a patient when not indicated, risking injury to the patient.

(8) By engaging in excessive treatment of the patient.

SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Incompetence)

16. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (d) of the Code, in that respondent demonstrated a lack of medical knowledge and judgment in the care and treatment of a patient. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraph 14 are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Gross Negligence)

16. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b) of the Code, in that respondent engaged in acts and omissions in the care and treatment of a patient constituting an extreme departure from the standard of practice. The circumstances are as follows:

A. On or about March 26, 1999, Charles M., a retired metal worker, was seen by respondent, who noted that Charles was a cigar smoker with a history of colitis.

B. On or about April 15, 1999, a pulmonary function test result was normal for Charles M. However, respondent noted that the test result was “abnormal.”

C. On or about October 2, 2000, respondent noted the following diagnoses:

(1) Chemical and aerosolized/vaporized gases, metals, dust and liquids exposure and inhalation with toxicity.

(2) Recurrent chemical toxicity and secondary bacterial sepsis.

(3) Recurrent and chronic chemical and secondary bacterial sinusitis as a result of No. 1.

(4) Reactive airways disease as a result of No. 1.

(5) Hypoxemia and abnormal pulmonary function tests s a result of Nos. 1-4.

(6) Recurrent sinusitis as a result of Nos. 1-6.

(7) Reactive airways disease due to Nos. 1-8.

(8) Chemical induced toxic encephalopathy and neuropathy.

(9) Immunological compromise secondary to toxic injury and Nos. 1-8.(10) Multiple viral, fungal and bacterial infections due to Nos. 1-3,5, 8-9, 11-12.

(11) Chronic fatigue syndrome – meets criteria due to Nos. 1-13, chemical induced.

(12) Fibromyalgia – meets all criteria – due to Nos. 1-14, chemical induced.

However, the physical findings and laboratory test results were largely unremarkable and did not support the diagnoses of bacterial sepsis, reactive airway disease, or hypoxemia.

D. On or about October 2, 2000, respondent documented a very abnormal neurological exam of Charles M. as follows:

(1) positive Rhomberg signs, falls over;

(2) positive heel-to-toe examination, falls over;

(3) positive finger-nose test, misses face;

(4) positive heal-shin examination.

E. Respondent engaged in an extreme departure from the standard of practice in the care and treatment of Patient Charles M. as follows:

(1) By diagnosing pulmonary function abnormalities, reaction airways disease, and hypoxemia without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(2) By diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(3) By failing to exclude or rule out alternative causes for abnormal neurological findings before attributing them to distant workplace exposures; and/or failing to document said exclusion of alternative causes.

(4) By treating for bacterial sepsis, the diagnosis of which was not supported by factual findings, subjecting the patient to possible adverse side effects and complications.

FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Incompetence)

17. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (d) of the Code, in that respondent demonstrated a lack of medical knowledge and judgment in the care and treatment of a patient. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraph 14 are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Gross Negligence)

18. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b) of the Code, in that respondent has engaged in acts and omissions in the care and treatment of a patient constituting an extreme departure from the standard of practice. The circumstances are as follows:

A. On or about March 26, 1999, Claude 1. was seen by respondent for medical care.

B. On or about September 1, 1999, respondent diagnosed Claude J. as follows:

(1) Chemical and aerosolized/vaporized gases, metals, dust and liquids exposure and inhalation with toxicity.

(2) Recurrent chemical toxicity and secondary bacterial sepsis.

(3) Recurrent and chronic chemical and secondary bacterial sinusitis as a result of No. 1.

(4) Reactive airways disease as a result of No. 1.

(5) Hypoxemia and abnormal pulmonary function tests as a result of Nos. 1-4.

(6) Recurrent sinusitis as a result of Nos. 1-6.

(7) Reactive airways disease due to Nos. 1-8.

(8) Chemical induced toxic encephalopathy and neuropathy. (9) Immunological compromise secondary to toxic injury and Nos. 1-8.

(10) Multiple viral, fungal and bacterial infections due to Nos.1,3,5,8-9, 11-12.

(11) Chronic fatigue syndrome – meets criteria due to Nos. 1-13, chemical induced.

(12) Fibromyalgia – meets all criteria – due to Nos. 1-14, chemical induced. However, the laboratory test results were largely unremarkable and did not indicate bacterial sepsis, reactive airways disease, or hypoxemia.

C. Respondent engaged in an extreme departure from the standard of practice in the care and treatment of Patient Claude 1. as follows:

(1) By diagnosing heavy metal toxicity without supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(2) By diagnosing bacterial sepsis without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(3) By diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(4) By diagnosing fibromyalgia without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(5) By diagnosing pulmonary function abnormalities, reactive airways disease, and/or hypoxemia without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(6) By failing to adequately and accurately document the care and treatment provided to the patient.

SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Incompetence)

19. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (d) of the Code, in that respondent demonstrated a lack of medical knowledge and judgment in the care and treatment of a patient. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraph 18 are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

SEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Gross Negligence)

20. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b) of the Code, in that respondent engaged in acts and omissions in the care and treatment of a patient constituting an extreme departure from the standard of practice. The circumstances are as follows:

A. On or about April 15, 1999, Louis H. was seen by respondent for medical care.

B. On or about October 27, 1999, respondent diagnosed Louis H. as follows:

(1) Chemical and aerosolized/vaporized gases, metals and liquids addressed in the above list, exposure and inhalation with toxicity.

(2) Recurrent chemical toxicity and secondary bacterial sepsis.

(3) Recurrent and chronic chemical and secondary bacterial sinusitis as a result of No. 1.

(4) Reactive airways disease as a result of No. 1.

(5) Hypoxemia and abnormal pulmonary function tests as a result of Nos. 1-4.

(6) Recurrent sinusitis as a result of Nos. 1-6.

(7) Reactive airways disease due to Nos. 1-8.

(8) Chemical induced toxic encephalopathy and neuropathy. (9) Immunological compromise secondary to toxic injury and Nos. 1-8.

(10) Multiple viral, fungal and bacterial infections due to Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 11-12.

(11) Chronic fatigue syndrome – meets criteria due to Nos. 1-13, chemical induced.

(12) Fibromyalgia – meets all criteria – due to Nos. 1-14, chemical induced.

(13) Heavy metal toxicity, multiplicity of metals, including aluminum, lead, arsenic (inorganic), copper.

(14) Solvent toxicity. formic acid and phenol, hexadione and hippuric acid.

Respondent attributed all of these diagnosed conditions to Louis H.’ s exposure to toxic substances while employed at Alcoa Aluminum, and treated him with Succimer 700 mg. twice a day for 19 days. Louis H.’s blood lead was less than 10 mcg/dl upon the initiation of chelation therapy. Respondent diagnosed arsenic toxicity when Louis H.’s blood arsenic laboratory test result was within the range of an unexposed individual. Respondent did not assess the presence of a pulmonary mass, though found, or tuberculosis history in his diagnoses.

C. On or about July 25, 2000, respondent diagnosed Louis H. with toxic encephalopathy, though no supportive factual findings were noted by respondent.

D. Respondent engaged in an extreme departure from the standard of practice in the care and treatment of Patient Louis H. as follows:

(1) By diagnosing heavy metal toxicity without making supportive factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(2) By diagnosing solvent toxicity without making supporting factual findings; and/or

failing to document said factual findings.

(3) By diagnosing bacterial sepsis without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(4) By diagnosing suppression of the immune system without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(5) By diagnosing neurotoxicity without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(6) By failing to assess the patient’s pulmonary mass and tuberculosis history.

(7) By treating with Succimer, a chelating agent, without medical justification; and/or failing to document a medical justification.

EIGHTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Incompetence)

21. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (d) of the Code, in that respondent demonstrated a lack of medical knowledge and judgment in the care and treatment of a patient. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraph 19 are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

NINTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Repeat Negligent Acts)

22. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (c) of the Code, in that respondent engaged in multiple departures from standard of practice in the care and treatment of four patients. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts and circumstances stated at above numbered paragraphs 14, 16, 18 and 20, inclusive, involving patients Willie C., Charles M., Claude 1. and Louis H., respectively, are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

B. Respondent engaged in multiple departures from the standard of practice in the care and treatment of patients Willie C., Charles M., Claude J. and Louis H. as follows:

PATIENT WILLIE C.

(1) By failing to exclude the common causes for the patient’s complaints, which requires reviewing the records of the patient’s prior medical care, and failing to employ a systematic approach to evaluate possible occupational/environmental exposure; and/or failing to document said review and systematic approach to evaluation.

(2) By failing to obtain a comprehensive history of the patient’s exposures to toxic substances, and failing to adequately assess the potential for any toxic exposure in the workplace; and/or failing to document said history and assessment.

(3) By diagnosing heavy metal-related illness without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(4) By diagnosing toxic encephalopathy without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(5) By diagnosing bacterial sepsis without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(6) By failing to review and interpret laboratory test results in an appropriate manner, resulting in misdiagnoses.

(7) By failing to abstain from treating a patient when not indicated, risking injury to the patient.

(8) By engaging in excessive treatment of the patient.

PATIENT CHARLES M.

(9) By diagnosing pulmonary function abnormalities, reaction airways disease, and hypoxemia without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(10) By diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(11) By failing to exclude or rule out alternative causes for abnormal neurological findings before attributing them to distant workplace exposures; and/or failing to document said exclusion of alternative causes.

(12) By treating for bacterial sepsis, the diagnosis of which was not supported by factual findings, subjecting the patient to possible adverse side effects and complications.

PATIENT CLAUDE J.

(13) By diagnosing heavy metal toxicity without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(14) By diagnosing bacterial sepsis without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(15) By diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(16) By diagnosing fibromyalgia without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(17) By diagnosing pulmonary function abnormalities, reactive airways disease, and/or hypoxemia without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(18) By failing to adequately and accurately document the care and treatment provided to the patient.

PATIENT LOUIS H.

(19) By diagnosing heavy metal toxicity without making supportive factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(20) By diagnosing solvent toxicity without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(21) By diagnosing bacterial sepsis without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(22) By diagnosing suppression of the immune system without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(23) By diagnosing neurotoxicity without making supporting factual findings; and/or failing to document said factual findings.

(24) By failing to assess the patient’s pulmonary mass and tuberculosis history.

(25) By treating with Succimer, a chelating agent, without medical justification; and/or failing to document a medical justification.

TENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Incompetence)

23. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (d) of the Code, in that respondent demonstrated a lack of medical knowledge and judgment in the care and treatment of four patients. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraphs 14, 16, 18 and 20, inclusive, are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

ELEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Inadequate Records)

24. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2266 of the Code, in that respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records of his care and treatment of four patients. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraphs 14, 16, 18 and 20, inclusive, are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

TWELFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Excessive Prescribing)

25. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under sections 725 and 2234, subdivision (a) of the Code, in that respondent has engaged in repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing of drugs or treatments. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraphs 14, 16 and 20, inclusive, are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Dishonest or Corrupt Acts)

26. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (e), of the Code, in that respondent committed dishonest or corrupt acts substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon by acts committed while presenting himself as an expert medical witness in civil litigation matters. The circumstances are as follows:

A. In 2003. Respondent was the expert medical witness for the plaintiffs in a civil case entitled Gelderbloom v. Vista del Canon Homeowners Association, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. PC 030379 (“the Gelderbloom case”). The plaintiffs in the Gelderbloom case were a family who alleged that the defendant homeowners association failed to timely repair a leaky roof, resulting in significant mold contamination in the plaintiffs’ townhouse. The plaintiffs further alleged that they became ill as a result of exposure to mold caused by the leaky roof. Respondent testified on the plaintiffs’ behalf regarding the effects of exposure to mold on humans, and as to its effects on the plaintiffs.

B. During cross-examination, Respondent was questioned regarding a three-page letter he had written, dated March 8, 2002, and addressed “To Whom it May Concern” on behalf of the Gelderbloom family (“the March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letter”). The March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letter states that the patients were being evaluated and needed to be evacuated from their home because of mold exposure. In the letter, Respondent further states that “[t]he fungal levels in all rooms are too high, and are causing illness in my patients.” The March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letter also describes the patients as “suffering from fungal toxicity and related illness,” and specifically claims that the family members were “less symptomatic when staying at a hotel during the remediation of the water intrusion and mold problem, but the symptoms have returned and worsened when they were returned to the house.” The March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letter also claims that the patients “currently have signs and symptoms indicating toxin induced leukoencephalopathy,” and concludes that they must be removed from mold exposure and “supplied with new living arrangements, including replacing all of their exposed and contaminated home contents and personal items from the home.” The March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letter is signed by Respondent and indicates, by several “cc/” notations below Respondent’s signature, that copies of it were to be provided to the patients, the patients’ file, the attorneys of record, and the patients’ personal physicians.

C. During the trial proceedings in the Gelderbloom case, another “To Whom it May Concern” from Respondent was considered by the Court. This letter is identical in content to the March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letter, contains the same “cc/” notations, and is signed by Respondent, but it is dated September 8, 2001. This letter (referred to hereafter as “the September 8, 2001 Gelderbloom family letter”) was located in the medical records of one of the Gelderbloom family member’s treating physician, Dr. Paul Horowitz.

D. Despite his having set forth in the September 8, 2001 Gelderbloom family letter the same specific descriptions and claims of patient signs, symptoms, and harm as described above in paragraph B, Respondent admitted on cross-examination in the Gelderbloom case that he had not even seen the patients for the first time until September 26, 2001, eighteen (18) days after he had written the September 8, 2001 Gelderbloom family letter.

E. Despite alleging in the March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letter that the patients suffered from toxic mold exposure symptoms, which “have returned and worsened when they were returned to the house,” and despite advocating that the patients must be evacuated, Respondent admitted on cross-examination in the Gelderbloom case that as of March 8, 2002, the plaintiffs had in fact already returned to their home and were not suffering any adverse health effects associated with mold exposure, but instead had “continued to improve” with no further problems.

F. When testifying regarding the March 2002 Gelderbloom family letter, Respondent attempted to explain the letter as a “form letter” and stated that he provided such a letter to hundreds of patients for the purpose of aiding their reimbursement for evacuation of their homes and loss of personal belongings. Respondent also admitted that he “probably” does not read this “form letter” before sending it to determine whether its contents apply to the particular patient whom the letter describes.

G. In both the September 8, 2001 and the March 8, 2002 Gelderbloom family letters, Respondent contends that he is a “residency and fellowship trained and Primary Board Certified Medical Toxicologist.” However, when cross-examined in the Gelderbloom case, Respondent admitted that he has no knowledge of any residency programs in medical toxicology, and further admitted that his residence was in family medicine.

H. While testifying in the Gelderbloom case, Respondent claimed to have written a large portion of a medical treatise entitled Ellenhorn’s Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning (“Ellenhorn’s”), and specifically claimed that he contributed to fifty-seven (57) of Ellenhorn ‘s seventy-four (74) chapters. Further, in December of 2002, Respondent gave sworn deposition testimony regarding Ellenhorn ‘s in another civil matter entitled Bress vs. USAA Casualty Insurance, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 244816 (“the Bress case”). In his deposition testimony, Respondent, who had been retained as a plaintiffs medical expert regarding toxic mold exposure, claimed that he authored pages 971 through 1955 of Ellenhorn’s. In fact, Respondent did not author any of the text of Ellenhorn’s, but was merely a consulting editor.

I. In his December 2002 sworn deposition in the Bress case, Respondent also claimed that he was currently the director of medical toxicology at the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (“Henry Mayo”). However, Henry Mayo does not have a Medical Toxicology department, nor is Respondent a medical director at Henry Mayo in any department. In fact, the Medical Toxicology department at Henry Mayo was discontinued in 1999 and concomitantly, Respondent’s title as director of medical toxicology expired in 1999.

J. In the 2002 edition of the Legal Expert Pages, an advertisement featuring listings for professional expert witnesses, Respondent advertises that he is a “Professor of Internal Medicine” at UCLA. However, Respondent is not, and never has been, a professor of internal medicine at UCLA. In fact, Respondent’s last teaching affiliation with UCLA was only as an assistant professor and ended on or about July 16, 1996.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(False Documents)

27. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2261 of the Code in that Respondent knowingly made and! or signed a certificate or other document directly or indirectly related to the practice of medicine which falsely represented the existence or nonexistence of a state of facts, which constitutes unprofessional conduct. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts) circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraph 26, subparagraphs A through G, are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Public Communication Containing False, Fraudulent, Misleading, or Deceptive Statement)

28. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 651 and 652 of the Code, in that Respondent disseminated or caused to be disseminated a public communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement or claim for the purpose of or likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the rendering of services in connection with the professional practice or business for which he is licensed. The circumstances are as follows:

A. The facts, circumstances and opinions stated at above numbered paragraph 26, subparagraph J, are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Division of Medical Quality issue a decision:

1. Revoking or suspending Physician and Surgeon’s Certificate Number G 43038, issued to GARY J. ORDOG, M.D.;

2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of GARY J. ORDOG, M.D.’s authority to supervise physician’s assistants, pursuant to section 3527 of the Code;

3. Ordering GARY J. ORDOG, M.D. to pay the Division of Medical Quality the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of this case, and, if placed on probation, the costs of probation monitoring;

4. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.

DATED: April 6, 2005

________________________ DAVID T. THORNTON
Executive Director
Medical Board of California
Department of Consumer Affairs
State of California
Complainant

This page was revised on November 2, 2016.