|
|
Dynamic Chiropractic's Interview
With Paul Hollern, DC
Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005
Dynamic Chiropractic (DC): Dr. Hollern, a couple of background questions; first of all, how many clients have you served (total)?
Paul Hollern (PH): Served?
DC: Right. Or had go through your program. I'm not sure what the right term is.
PH: It's been around probably 70.
DC: Now, it's our understanding that you're currently in litigation with these clients. Do you have a sense of roughly how many that would be?
PH: Well, there's a percentage of those people that have already fulfilled their obligations, and that I've had no trouble with, for probably five years or six years. So out of the 70, in maybe nine years, there are probably about 35, in the area of about 35 or 40, that still have an obligation to me. Of those 40, probably about 35 of them are in legal proceedings.
DC: Can you give us [a sense], generally speaking, what the litigation is about?
PH: Well, [it's] due to a couple of factors, actually. The first lawsuit I had was in March of 2004, from a Pam Daggett [sic?] in Illinois. And she just decided not to pay. Actually, she'd done real well, opened a practice, got up to 160 patient visits a week within three months, and sent the first check in, and by the time we were getting ready to cash it, she put a stop order on it, hired an attorney, and sued me to get out of her contract. That one was based on Illinois law of fee splitting. So she tried to use a fee-splitting law there in Illinois, and several other individual chiropractors that worked with in Illinois tried to do the same thing. The judgment finally did come around, and with an individual, Carl Schipl [sic?] in Jackson, Illinois, so he caught on and tried to sue me for the same reason, and in federal court in Springfield, the judge threw it out lacking merit.
So based on the contract I had, the judge ruled that it was not fee splitting, because it was net profits, and there are no referrals going to these businesses, and I was not the owner, they are.
DC: You mentioned that some of your clients and former clients are suing you as well.
PH: Well, let me move forward. That was the first one. And then, a couple of other people jumped on the bandwagon that summer, and when you wrote the article that came out in September [2004], then obviously you know, as well as I do, that this destroys businesses, and you wrote, I believe, three articles in a row in September, October and November, or October, November and December [2004], and those three articles basically scared everybody and caused everybody to run and panic, and so that's when the lawsuit, it all went downhill from there.
[Editor's note: The articles Dr. Hollern references appeared in the Sept. 27 ("UnclePaul Accused," Oct. 21 ("Are Federal Investigators After UnclePaul?" and Nov. 30 ("Third-Party Payers Investigating UnclePaul" issues of DC, respectively.]
DC: Now, you mentioned that you did have at least one client that was suing you.
PH: Well, what's happening is, there's quite a few stories here. As a matter of fact, I'm in touch with other news services right now to get this out. What happens is, these doctors find out that if they sue first in their state, then the suit takes place there, even though I have a statement in the contract that said the litigation was supposed to occur in Jefferson County, Kentucky. In Pam Daggett's [sic?] situation, her judge disallowed that statement and kept it in that jurisdiction. In Carl Schipl's [sic?] case, they threw it out on its merits, so I'd have to contest it here. So there were several people in Illinois that jumped on and tried to use the Illinois medical practice act to get out from paying and sued in their state first. Outside of that, then I just initiated suits with the remainder of them here in Kentucky. So it's probably, there's oh, probably about 30-35 lawsuits of chiropractors not wanting to pay.
By the way, I want to talk about mine. This has been such a terrible event for everybody, myself obviously, but there's five other chiropractors I know right in this 100-mile, 50-mile radius of Louisville, that opened offices also. Out of those five chiropractors, they have a cumulative of 25 offices that are in lawsuits, and those chiropractors are trying to get out of and not paying them likewise. There are over 100 offices right now between myself and these other chiropractors where chiropractors basically just took the money to open, and now they don't want to pay because of the domino effect.
DC: Looking now at the letter to the investors again as background, how many investors do you have?
PH: Let's see. I tell you what I can do. I can give you a percentage of the ... well, let's see.
DC: I'm not looking for exact. I'm looking for rough. Is it more like three or four, is it more like 30 or 40?
PH: No, no, no, it's around 25. Let's see, it's 28, give or take one or two.
DC: It's my understanding that you sent out a letter to the investors asking them to sign a release form. Have I got that right?
PH: Right.
DC: What happens as a result of your letter?
PH: Well, it's an interesting scenario, because the majority of those investors, 17 of them, are chiropractors that came to the program and did well, and believed in what we were doing, and the message that was being dispersed; and a lot of those chiropractors themselves didn't do well, or they failed in practice, or went bankrupt elsewhere. And because of that, and what's happening, most of them are just trying to stay at arm's length away obviously, just to stay out from the fire, so to speak. So outside of those, my response for support has been tremendous.
DC: So 17 of those are also clients. Are you litigating those 17 as well?
PH: This gets so hairy that, yes there are, there are a few chiropractors in that 17 who I've opened. They're doing well and have done well. They in turn came back, and they still have a financial obligation. They in turn invested in the program, and now, we're in a lawsuit for them to get out of the contract, even though they're investors. And of course it behooves them, because the amount they owe is more than the amount they invested.
DC: So it's not 17 who have invested that you're in litigation with. It's really more like three or four.
PH: Out of the total, or out of the chiropractors?
DC: Out of the chiropractors. Of the total investors you have, at first it sounded to me like you said there were 17 that were also investors that you were litigating that you were in a lawsuit with. It sounds now - your second statement makes it sound like there were fewer. I'm just trying to get a clarification. Is it 17 investors that you're litigating as well?
PH: OK. I was looking at it from the chiropractic side. So, I haven't had any lawsuits from the non-chiropractors that were investors. The lawsuits I'm dealing with are the chiropractors trying to get out from paying. And a handful of them include chiropractors who still owe and are doing well.
DC: OK. So, of the 17 investors that were also clients, only a few of those investors are in lawsuits with you.
PH: Of the 17 that were clients - no, I'd say, I don't know the exact number out of the 17, but it's probably more than 10.
DC: OK. That gives us a good picture. Now, in your letter, you state that if this release is not forthcoming, that you'll be looking at filing personal bankruptcy. Can you expound on that a little bit?
PH: It's a pretty simple concept, basically, as I have no trouble fighting and defending and following through with all this, with all these lawsuits, etc. My position is I didn't want to obviously fight for one or two years to follow through to the conclusion, and three years from now get sued by all of the investors into bankruptcy, anyway.
DC: At what point do you plan on making a decision as to whether you'll do that or not, or have you already made that decision?
PH: Oh, probably in the next 30 days I'll make that decision. I just received another phone call this weekend of support from an investor trying to shore up things.
DC: Is there a percentage of releases you're looking for, or are you just kind of getting a feel for it?
PH: Obviously it would probably be the majority, but most of them have to do with circumstances. If an investor that owes me from being in practice significantly more, I certainly wouldn't care which way he went.
DC: What, should you choose to file bankruptcy, how would that impact the investors?
PH: In which way impact it?
DC: If you were to file personal bankruptcy ... I need some help in connecting the dots whether those and how those investors would be impacted by your filing personal bankruptcy. Would that then mean that their investments would likely not see a return, or would that still continue?
PH: Well, I'm sure you're familiar to some degree with the bankruptcy laws, because from what I understand, this happened, roughly a similar scenario, 15 years ago with Dr. Fernandez and all the chiropractors claiming bankruptcy, to get out of that scenario, which he won. So, it's under basic bankruptcy rules and laws, and how they affect people, and I'm sure you're familiar with most of that, or some of it.
DC: I guess where I'm trying to draw the line is, are the investors investors with you personally, or are they with your company, because if you're a corporation, they'd be treated differently, depending on which they are.
PH: Right. OK. It can go, it probably can go either way. As you know, anybody can sue anybody.
DC: Right. But if you file personal bankruptcy, and they're personal investors to you, then their chances of return would be eliminated by the bankruptcy court, whereas if they're investors toward your corporation, then they would be more greatly impacted by what your corporation did.
PH: That's in theory. Certainly learned a lot more about the law situation. But that's in theory.
DC: Would you anticipate your current lawsuit, your current litigation going forward if you were to file personal bankruptcy? You seem to suggest in your letter that it would.
PH: That's according to bankruptcy law. That's not my decision. I certainly will. If I have any opportunity at all, yeah, I'll pursue everything I can.
DC: We've been told numerous times that, from individuals that are involved with you, or that there are investigators, and they've said federal investigators that have questioned them, and that are in the process of some kind of investigation ... have you, your attorneys, employees, anybody you know that's connected with you, have they been contacted?
PH: Well, you would know very well that when somebody files what he did across state lines, involving that many offices, that there would be required an investigation. So for there not to be an investigation would be not very responsible. So, yes I've heard of several people talked to. Yes, I have.
DC: But what I guess my question is, have you, your attorney, or someone working for you, have they been contacted?
PH: No. As a matter of fact, as soon as I knew anything about that, I hired an attorney and forwarded a letter to the investigative agency and told them I'd be glad to sit down and whatever you want to go over at any time. And then since I've offered that a couple of times, we haven't heard anything.
DC: Was this a state agency, or a federal agency?
PH: This was ...I believe it was federal.
DC: Do you remember which agency you forwarded the letter to?
PH: No. It was the federal out of Kentucky.
DC: Do you have a sense what the, do you have any clear idea of what the investigation might involve?
PH: Well, Jeff Miller threw a heck of a lot of accusations on the table; I certainly have an idea now of what they may involve. And it's, I don't believe that chiropractors realize how susceptible they are, number one, to individuals like Jeff Miller and what he did. But basically, I think most people's idea of fraud was billing for patients you don't see, and billing for services you don't do. I think in a general context, I think that's what most people do without studying the law. And my understanding is the four major types were those two included with insufficient office notes, which is rarely, it's under criminal, but it's more under a mistake-type situation, and there's correction, and upcoding. And none of those were taught. None of those were done. As a matter of fact, they were taught not to. So I didn't perceive too much of an issue, actually, not an issue at all, and then for Jeff to state some of the things he did, and what made it so surprising is Jeff Miller actually told his office manager, Lisa Purnell [sic?], the girl we hired, to bill that way. She questioned him on billing patients, billing using his insurance information while he was out of the office in seminars, etc., while an associate chiropractor, licensed, insured chiropractor, was in the office treating his patients. So the very thing that he is claiming is fraud is what he told his office manager to do, and that's what we did for six months. It would almost be like you doing something for six, hiring somebody to do something and do your editing, and they do it for six months, and you ask questions and this and that, and they okay it, and then six months later, they file federal charges against you for editing.
DC: So, you say you did it for six months. You did it in the context of his practice?
PH: He did. Not me. He did.
DC: But you said after you took over you did it for six months.
PH: No, that's not what I said. As soon as I knew of anything, we immediately hired a real compliance officer. Jeffrey Miller was hired as our compliance officer. As a matter of fact, this has got to be - I'll go into that more if you want - but this is one of the ... that's one of the reasons I'm talking to you. I want this out. I want everything out. This has got to be one of the most bizarre situations for me to hire somebody for compliance, and they interact for six months, and then they turn and do this, and some of the very things that he's accusing of is what he taught. I've looked in the books, and I haven't seen any criminal convictions or notices of anything near that. I think that year, I spent over $50,000 on compliance. I had, I personally flew in, I think it was Mr. Wellingcoff [sic?], a Florida insurance guy out of Florida. I flew in Dr. Colloca for private seminars. I flew in Dr. Murphy for private seminars. Dr. Kaplan [sic?], I flew in for private seminars. It was common to bring people in, top of the line, to try to get this done and done right.
DC: Going back to what kinds of things might be investigated; do you think that any of those things that are being investigated have to do with securities issues?
PH: Securities like what?
DC: As in the Securities and Exchange Commission looking at the way that your investments are structured?
PH: You know, I haven't heard anything like that, and I don't know anything about that. Basically, these are people. The investors are these are just people who loan money to help start a business and then get a percent back from it. And there was no kickback; there was no referral, there was nothing like that. On the general sense, there's still the radiology issue with Dr. Getskey (sic?) that probably is a worst-case scenario, and even that one is pretty interesting in itself. But no. Prior to Jeff coming on board, that wasn't, there was nothing like that ever said, talked about, spoken, nothing. And for six months when Jeff came, and we started doing more seminars and moving around, and the associates treating. So yeah, for six months, and with his approval, and his teaching, we didn't see anything about a chiropractor getting chiropractic treatment. And then as soon as Jeff, as soon as I became aware of this, yelling fraud, fraud, fraud, that's when I immediately hired Angela Powell [sic?], the compliance officer, and then we just got to the bottom of it. And then that's when we kind of found out a lot of little things, and obviously as soon as we did know what the line was, then it was corrected immediately.
DC: So Angela Powell [sic?] is currently your compliance officer?
PH: Yes.
DC: So, to kind of wrap this up, you're going to be making the decision, based upon the letter, in the next 30 days. Is it safe to assume that you'll probably make that before the October 17 deadline when the new bankruptcy laws go into effect?
PH: Yes.
DC: Is there anything you'd like to add regarding the letter, your decision, your situation with your investors, things like that?
PH: I'm curious. I did e-mail you a letter in regards to your motive with Jeff Miller that you are the owner of his book, or that you have the rights to his book. Is that true?
DC: Basically, we're the publisher.
PH: Jeff told me that basically you have a financial interest in the books that were sold.
DC: Right.
PH: Having left that alone, there's obviously a lot of dirt, and dirt sells your paper. There's a lot of good stuff here. There's a lot of good stuff. There's a lot of scholarships. There are a tremendous amount of people hurt with no intentions. Jeff Miller could have corrected, if he had just done his job for two hours, he could have corrected anything that he had a disagreement with. He was hired for and willing, and that's what he was supposed to do. And this whole issue started in February when I pressed him relative to some issues with his office. And that's when this reaction all convalesced [sic].
But I just wanted to point out a couple of other things. There were a tremendous amount of scholarships. Every doctor that I had we were promoting to have them included in the ACA membership. Every month, they were being, we had over 20 going into the 30s as this happened, of the donations coming out of their checking account monthly that was helping with the Trigon case. There was amount of book scholarships that were given, primarily at Logan, but we looked at the other schools. And we had also initiated a perpetual scholarship fund eight months prior to this happening, in which doctors were basically funding a trust fund for $10,000 and $500 a year would be given away to the students. We had, if you look in Logan's Tower of maybe two years ago, to summer of 2003, you'll see all the scholarships and the doctors that were involved. So we had a lot of exciting people wanting to do good things, and probably the last thing, and so I hope you get to that part.
There's also a legal part. There's a tremendous amount of legal information I've learned since this has happened, on liability and enforcement. Well, we've got another 100 chiropractors out there not wanting to pay the very people who set them up in practice. And from what I know about these guys that set them up, nobody's a shyster. I certainly know of a few chiropractors probably that do cross the line, and do bill for things that they shouldn't do in those four categories. But there is a legal issue here that eventually needs to come out.
There's one last thing. So that's pretty much it, and if you notice by the e-mail that I'm circulating all this information to other outsources, media outsources, and I'd like it to be known that what he did, a whistleblower who was hired to do that, is legal what he did, but there's liability. There's, and even on one of your websites, or another website, there was a website of just chiropractors talking about making money on whistleblowers. So, anyway, that needs to come out. All of this needs to come out, the good as well as the bad, and there's a lot of bad here.
And the last thing is, I'm going to send you a tape. And I certainly had a tremendous passion for chiropractic. I couldn't have done what I did without having that passion. I'm going to send you a tape. You'll see the passion, and it also shows about the chiropractic market. I've read some of your articles about the chiropractic market and it's quite obvious to me know why this profession has suffered the way it has, and is, and so I will send that over to you.
DC: Just so we can follow up, if you do file for personal bankruptcy, do you know the county or state you'll be filing in?
PH: No. It'll probably be Jefferson County.
DC: Is it possible to call you in about 30 days to see if you've made a decision?
PH: Yes. And the other lawsuits are on file down there.
DC: Great. Thank you very much.
|
|
