Texas nurses indicted after filing board complaint against doctor

First he appealed through 3 Employment Commission hearings. We won all 3, but at the cost of over 20 hours of travel & work for our employees.

Then in the next 6 months I was audited by Medicare, Medicaid, DOL (Pension Plan), FDA (research program) and had an OSHA office inspection. Believe it or not, all were spotless, but again this cost us over $30,000 for all of the labor involved. At least no discrimination suits were filed.

I totally support the value of whistle blowers when something is amiss.

However, for justice to prevail, employers should have the right to protect themselves "legal" harassment.

The comment above should read:

There may be validity to the physician's charges.

I worked for a practice where I fired a research assistant for a blatant and serious HIPAA breach.

First he appealed through 3 Employment Commission hearings. We won all 3, but at the cost of over 20 hours of travel & work for our employees.

Then in the next 6 months I was audited by Medicare, Medicaid, DOL (Pension Plan), FDA (research program) and had an OSHA office inspection. Believe it or not, all were spotless, but again this cost us over $30,000 for all of the labor involved. At least no discrimination suits were filed.

I totally support the value of whistle blowers when something is amiss.

However, for justice to prevail, employers should have the right to protect themselves "legal" harassment.

Dear Readers:

This is a specific example of a government 'SLAPP' . Twenty five states have anti-SLAPP legislation, some states have court precident of anti-SLAPP rulings; TEXAS does not.

Generally, a "SLAPP" is a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based on ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage, as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.

Most SLAPPs are ultimately legally unsuccessful. While most SLAPPs lose in court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect is a "chill" on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This "chilling" effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of being the target of future litigation, others refrain from speaking on, or participating in, issues of public concern.

The filing of a SLAPP also impedes resolution of the public matter at issue, by removing the parties from the public decision-making forum, where the both cause and resolution of the dispute can be determined, and placing them before a court, where only the alleged "effects" of the public controversy may be determined. For example, imagine a company asks for a zoning variance to place an incinerator in a residential area. When local residents object to the city council, the company sues them for "interference with contract." The judge hearing the suit cannot decide the real issues -- the location of the incinerator -- but will have to spend considerable judicial resources to decide the side issues of the alleged "damages" or other consequences of the public debate on the real issues.

In Texas, the fifth attempt to enact an anti-SLAPP law began March 11, 2003, when Rep. Richard Raymond introduced HB 2267. The bill was passed out of the House Civil Practices Committee after public testimony but was lost in the legislature's focus on redrawing boundaries of Congressional district. On Feb. 2, 2005 Rep. Richard Raymond introduced HB 329. The bill provided a mechanism for dismissing "bad faith" complaints (defined as either "groundless" or brought for the purpose of harrassing or intimidating) against persons who have complained to a government (or "quasi-government") agency. It did not expressly refer to constitutionally protected expression or the right of petition. The bill was stopped by Rep. Joe Nixon (R-Houston), who chaired the House Civil Practices Committee. He announced a public hearing on the bill. Witnesses from around the state assembled in Austin to testify for the bill. Rep. Nixon stood on the floor of the House and announced that he had cancelled the hearing.

That prosecutor needs to be fired, indicted and forced to pay ALL the nurses' expenses, lost pay and emotional distress.

The doctor's name is Rolando Arafiles.

For those who wish additional information on this story, you may wish to review AP's coverage of the matter, published in The Austin-American Statesman: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/US_Nurses_Indicted.html
-Anne Zieger

These nurses ought to sue, and the prosecutor should lose his job.

Nurses have a legal mandate to report activities that could harm patients or defraud third party payors. The nurses reported as the law requires them to do.

Anonymous, R.N.

Oklahoma state nursing board is extremly punitive. As a relatively new RN myself I became the victim of circumstance after a pt death. Manager, charge nurse and director conspired their version of the incident filing a complaint with board (breaking hospital protocol by not going through legal dept with would have questioned their involvement). This was done to cover their lack of action. I am paying heavily in all areas but with three people lying it is impossible to fight. So I think that everyone involved should be looked at closely by all of the state boards, hospitals and attorneys to discover the real truth. Any comments on my dilema?

I've been in this exact position. I reported a physician for major ethical violations to the Texas Medical Board. I even testified against him at a hearing there. Well, he filed a harassment charge, which was dropped by the DA, and then a SLAPP suit against me. I've filed a countersuit for retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. I'm trying to get the ACLU to file a lawsuit in federal court on my behalf for violation of my civil rights.

I was trying to protect the patients of this state by reporting this extremely unethical doctor and I felt like I had a ton of bricks fall on me. Now it's time for some JUSTICE!