David Steenblock Facing More Charges
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
The California Attorney General is seeking a court order to compel David Steenblock, D.O. to cooperate with an investigation into two complaints about his management of patients. One patient was a 2-year old child with cerebral cerebral palsy who had an allergic reaction to a stem cell injection at Dr. Steenblock's Brain Cell Therapeutic Clinic in Mission Viejo, California. The other patient was a 77-year-old man man with neurologic damage from a stroke whom Steenblock treated with daily administration of hyperbaric oxygen. (Hyperbaric oxygen has no proven value for this type of problem.) This complaint also alleged that Steenblock had double-billed for the treatment. The motion to compel (shown below) states that Steenblock's attorney, Carlos Negrete, had failed to cooperate with government efforts to arrange an interview with Steenblock.
In 1991, Steenblock was charged with negligence in connection with two patients he had treated. In 1994, the case was settled with a stipulation under which he agreed to serve five years of probation, pay $10,000 for costs, and take extra continuing education courses in pharmacology, medical charting, and ethics.
In 1997, Steenblock was charged with violating his probation by not paying the $10,000 assessment and by using three unlicensed "physical therapy assistants" to administer patient services. (In 1997, the employees were convicted of practicing physical therapy without a license.) In 2000, after Steenblock had paid the $10,000 and hired a licensed physical therapist to supervise the others, the board assessed another $3,500 toward costs but decided not to penalize him " aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of physical therapy." The proceedings also had the effect of extending his probation for three months.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General of the State of California
THOMAS S. LAZAR
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MARTIN W. HAGAN, State Bar No. 155553
Deputy Attorney General
110 West A Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
P.O. Box 85266
San Diego, CA 92186-5266
Telephone; (619) 645-2094
Fax; (619)645-2061
E-mail: Martin.Hagan@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Petitioner SCOTT REID, ACTING
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNlA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
SCOTT REID Acting Director of the Department of
DAVID STEENBLOCK, D.O.,
|
07CC00725PETITION FOR ORDER TO
|
Petitioner, SCOTT REID, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by her attorney, Edmund. G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, by Martin W. Hagan, Deputy Attorney General, hereby alleges:
1. Petitioner SCOTT REID (hereinafter "Petitioner") is the duly appointed current Acting Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the State of California. He brings this action solely in his official capacity. Petitioner was appointed Acting Director on or about February 2, 2007. He replaced Charlene Zettel, who was the prior Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs.
2. The Department of Consumer Affairs of the State of California (hereinafter "Department") is a department within the meaning of Government Code section 11181. Petitioner, as Director of the Department, is the head of a department. Pursuant to Government Code sections 11181 and 11182, both the former director and the current acting director had, and have, the authority to conduct investigations, to issue subpoenas and to take testimony as well as the power to delegate such authority.
3. The Osteopathic Medical Board of California (hereinafter "Board") is a board within the Department of Consumer Affairs. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 101.) The Board is charged with public protection. (Id., at § 2450.1.) Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 108, the Board may conduct investigations of violations of laws within its jurisdiction. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 2200 et. seq., and 3600, the Board may institute disciplinary action against a licensee who has violated its rules and regulations or who has violated the Medical Practice Act. The Medical Board of California provides investigative services pertaining to possible disciplinary action against licentiates of the Osteopathic Medical Board. These investigations are conducted by the Enforcement Program of the Medical Board of California.
4. On or about August 3, 1977, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California issued respondent DAVID STEENBLOCK (hereinafter "Respondent") Osteopathic Physician and Surgeon license no. 20A4160. This license is currently active with an expiration date of January 31, 2009.
5. Respondent currently maintains an office located at 26381 Crown Valley Parkway, No. 130, Mission Viejo, California 92691. The matters that give rise to this Petition occurred in part in the County of Orange.
6. On May 12, 2005, the former Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Charlene Zettel, duly delegated the powers conferred on her under Government Code section 11181 to Vickie Welch (hereinafter "Welch"), Area Supervisor, Enforcement Program, Medical Board of California. [Exhibit 1- Delegation of Authority]. This delegation agreement was in effect at the time the subpoena was issued by Welch in regards to the current action.
7. On December 10, 2004, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California received a complaint from Marc Lerner, M.D., Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, UC Irvine. In his complaint, Dr. Lerner stated he is concerned about the atypical care offered to one of his patients by David Steenblock, D.O. The patient is a two year old born at 37 weeks with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and resulting in mild cerebral palsy. The parents heard about alternative therapies offered by Dr. Steenblock at www.strokedoctor.com, The parents consulted with Dr. Steenblock, who referred them to Tijuana, Mexico, to receive treatments prepared by Dr. Steenblock's clinic in Mission Viejo, and transported across the border. The parents paid $10,000 for a single injection of umbilical cord based stern cells. The child had an allergic reaction immediately after receiving the injection and developed hives, The parents brought the child to Dr. Lerner for treatment of the hives. Dr. Lerner stated in his complaint that the use of these therapies for the child's condition is not appropriate by scientific and community standards. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶2.]
8. On December 29, 2004, the complaint by Dr. Lerner against Respondent was assigned to Medical Board Investigator Roberta Terry and assigned Investigation Case No: 00-2004-1419. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶2.]
9. On May 26, 2005, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California received a consumer complaint regarding Dr. Steenblock's treatment of a 77 year old male patient, C.A., who had a history of stroke and residual problems. The patient was seen by Dr. Steenblock for rehabilitation beginning November, 2004. He was placed on almost daily hyperbaric oxygen treatment and physical therapy. The complaint alleges Dr. Steenblock's office double billed for these services. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶3.)
10. On July 5, 2005, the consumer complaint, discussed in the preceding paragraph was assigned to Medical Board Investigator Roberta Terry and assigned Investigation Case No: 002005-1536 for possible insurance fraud and excessive treatment. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶3.]
11. On November 28, 2005, Investigator Roberta Terry leamed that Dr. Steenblock was represented by attorney Carlos Negrete via a letter to addressed to Deputy Attorney General Ken Baumgarten from Mr. Negrete. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶4.)
12. Investigator Roberta Terry made the following attempts to arrange a physician's interview with Respondent. On July 19, 2006, she phoned Mr. Negrete's office and left him a voice mail message to call her to schedule an interview with Dr. Steenblock. On August 3, 2006, she phoned Mr. Negrete's office and left a message with his secretary to call her to schedule an interview with Dr. Steenblock. She never received any calls back from Mr. Negrete or anyone associated with his office. (Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶¶5-6.]
13. On September 21, 2006, Investigator Terry served Dr. Steenblock an investigational subpoena, pursuant to Government Code section 11181, to appear and testify on October 12, 2006, by certified and first class mail. In accord with the statute, respondent was duly and properly served with the subpoena at his 'office located at 26381 Crovm Valley Parkway No. 130, Mission Viejo. CA 92691. The Medical Board received the Certified Mail Receipt acknowledging receipt of the subpoena on or about September 26, 2006. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry,¶7) Attachment D (including Certified Mail Receipt).]
14. On October 11, 2006, Investigator Terry received a phone call from Mr. Negrete in response to the subpoena served on Dr. Steenblock. Mr. Negrete said he was representing Dr. Steenblock regarding the Board's lnvestigation. Investigator Terry told Mr. Negrete that she needed to interview Dr. Steenblock regarding patients L.H. and C.A. She told Mr. Negrete that Dr. Steenblock was subpoenaed to appear as he had not returned her phone calls to schedule an interview with Dr. Steenblock. Mr. Negrete did not deny that he received her phone messages regarding Dr. SteenbJock, but stated he was busy and that he had been off work taking care of his mother. Mr. Negrete said neither he nor Dr. Steenblock were available to appear for the interview, as he would be in court on another matter, and Dr. Steenblock would be out of the country. He requested to reschedule the interview. Investigator Terry asked Mr. Negrete to put his request in writing. Investigator Terry received a letter from Mr. Negrete, dated October 11, 2006. She gave Mr. Negrete available dates the interview could be rescheduled. Mr. Negrete said he would talk with Dr. Steenblock and call her back. Investigator Terry phoned Mr. Negrete's office two more times and was not able to leave a voice mail message on the automated phone system. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶8]
15. On December 20, 2006, Investigator Terry phoned Mr. Negrete's office and left a message with his secretary to have Mr. Negrete call her to reschedule the interview with Dr. Steenblock. Mr. Negrete never returned the telephone call. [Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Terry, ¶9.]
16. On December 21, 2006, Deputy Attorney General Steven Adler sent a letter to Mr. Negrete requesting thaI he contact investigator Terry to reschedule the interview with Dr, Steenblock, to take place on or before January 26, 2007. Mr. Negrele never called back Investigator Terry to schedule an interview with Dr. Steenblock. (Exhibit 2, Declaration of Roberta Tcrry, ¶10, Attachment F.]
17. Government Code section 11187 authorizes Petitioner to seek orders to show cause from the Superior Court to enforce compliance with subpoenas issued pursuant to Government Code section 11181. Such compliance includes compelling the witness to compel the attendance of witnesses. Government Code section 11188 provides that the Superior Court shall issue an order to show cause upon the filing of the Petition provided in alleges that due notice of the time and place for testifying was given; that the person was subpoenaed in the manner prescribed in this article; and, that the person has not attended the investigatory interview as requested through the subpoena. Such allegations are set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 above.
18. There is a compelling state interest in being able to conduct a physician's interview on Respondent, Dr. Steenblock. Such testimony will assist in the investigation of possible violations of the Medical Practices Act including, but not limited to, Business and Professions Code section 810, Insurance Fraud, and Business and Professions section 2234, subdivision (b), gross negligence.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to Government Code sections 11186-11188, petitioner prays that this court issue an order directing respondent, DAVID STEENBLOCK, D.O., to appear in person before this court at such time as is suitable to this court and then and there to show cause why he should not be compelled to appear fOf a physician's interview conducted pursuant to Government Code sections 11180 et. seq., and, upon failing to do so, enter an order directing respondent, DAVID STEENBLOCK, D.O., to appear at a time and place fixed by said order and pursuant thereto to make himself available for a physician's interview in regards to Investigation Nos. 00-2004-1419 and 00-2005-1536.
Dated; March 28, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General of the State of California
THOMAS S. LAZAR
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/s/
MARTIN W. HAGAN
Deputy Attorney General
Arrorneys for Complainant
This page was posted on April 17, 2007.