Exposing the LASIK Scam

One Surgeon at a Time
It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:57 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The Glenn Hagele e-mails with Dominic Morgan
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
Glenn Hagele

Dominic Morgan wrote:
Quote:
Obviously upset because some of these emails were released to a lawyer, Glenn Hagele (usaeyes.org, complicatedeyes.org, crsqa) has now added me to his hit list of "malcontents".

For what? Exposing him in his attempts to extort money? Defamation? Ruining his good name (hell, he does enough of that on his own with his postings)?

Patient advocacy I'm sure, does not involve harassment and deception of one's own board of trustees...

Hagele first contacted me looking for information about Brent Hanson, then asking to remove any links to Hanson's websites...



Jan 05, 2006

Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:06:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brent Hanson
To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org

glenn,

i will call you after i consult an attorney. now is not a good time.

dom


Jan 05, 2006

Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:39:08 -0800 (PST)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Brent Hanson
To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org

glenn,

please do not be offended, nor take this out of context, and certainly not to be rude to you (and i've already notified brent of the same), but i have 2 filings due next week in my own litigation case, and i really do not have the time or the patience to be involved in whatever it is between ****** and hanson at this time.

i simply named the website and that's it. if it is his desire to try to hold me in contempt, i already know it will not stand, and that the order does not apply to me.

i will not revise my websites through intimidation, i don't care who it's from.

i'll try to discuss this with you after next week, and i may just drop a bomb on brent and post the documents just received as well.

dom

Jan 19, 2006

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: Links to Hanson
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:06:48 -0800

Dom,

I noticed that you have links from your websites to Hanson?s LasikFraud.com. I respectfully suggest that you reconsider if this link is appropriate.

Glenn

Jan 21, 2006 (1)

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:07:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: new posting
To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org, "brent hanson" <brent@brenthanson.com>

glenn, brent,

just an fyi, i will be sending a copy of the documents posted on my website to judge henderson. when I receive a reply back from him, is when i will make a decision as to removal of said documents.

i would appreciate any further disagreements between the 2 of you, to remain between the 2 of you.

dom

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:07:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: new posting
To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org, "brent hanson" <brent@brenthanson.com>

This was sent to me on 06/25/05 - pretty_pictures.zip

Apparently, these documents are now a source of controversy, not so much from Dr. ******, as i've not been contacted from him or his attorneys since posting them, but from Glenn Hagele, president of CRSQA (Council for Refractive Surgery and Quality Assurance), and Brent Hanson, owner of LasikFraud.com.

Mr. Hagele and Mr. Hanson have been at odds for well over 4 years, and you can see from the bantering and bickering (or call it what you will) at the alt.lasik-eyes news group.

For the past 6+ months these documents were posted, I received at least 3 emails and numerous phone requests from Hanson asking to have them removed. I declined for several reasons:

Each time the requests to remove were made, Hanson was asked if the information was true/authentic. His response each time was, "that he could not comment on the case due to an injunction".

I believe these documents were withheld from the judge who ruled in the ****** v Hanson case, more than likely as part of an agreement. Suppression, either agreed or forced, who knows?

There's more to this than what nobody's telling, on either side. And there are now quite a few questions as to what is really going on:

Hanson recently filed a motion for contempt against me for a referred "link" (there was no link, just a reference) to a website no longer owned by him. Why?

Hagele, "in passing" (continuously), refers to these documents on alt.lasik eyes. Why the sudden interest?

It seems these documents are now fuel for their fire...

The most discerning question of all is, Dr. ****** or his attorney(s) to date have made no efforts to dispute the posting or content of these documents. And that, is the biggest question....

Jan 21, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: new posting
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:51:47 -0800

Dom,

For whatever reason, the image at the bottom of your message did not appear. I attempted a download, but it did not come through. Perhaps you could send it to me as an attachment.

The reason for my sudden interest is that I did not know until recently that you had these documents published.
Referencing factual statements based upon court records does a very good job of revealing the character of Hanson and hopefully to mitigate the damage caused by Hanson?s defamation.

Glenn

Jan 21, 2006 (3)

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:29:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org

glenn,

the image is the same that currently appears on my websites (document is the same referred to on alt.lasik-eyes) also http://www.lasiksucks4u.com/ym0625051.htm.

i am revising the current page with the one sent to you and brent earlier.

dom

Jan 21, 2006 (4)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:41:38 -0800

FYI, The document at the URL you give initially comes up, but I am unable to move through the pages. I assume that is the way you wanted it, but I'm just checking.

On a different issue: You have republished several malpractice filings. In at least a few of the cases I know that they were thrown out or the doctor otherwise prevailed. I guess my comment depends upon what you are attempting to accomplish. If you just want people to know that doctors get sued, putting up any complaint would do that. If you want people to know that there are legitimate issues at hand, then I would think you would accomplish that task better by publishing only those claims where the plaintiff won.

Hanson is a case in point. He threatened physical violence, lied, misrepresented (including to you), and ultimately had to agree to a settlement that affirmed his malfeasance. That really doesn't say much about refractive surgery limitations, but it says loads about refractive surgery detractors.

I think we both agree that anyone who wants to promote any particular position will lose credibility when they use sleight of hand and bamboozle their audience. We have seen this in healthcare and find it
disgusting. We should be equally disgusted when the same techniques are used by those trying to disclose the problems in medicine. Furthermore, I'm sure that of the millions of procedures that have been done, you would be able to find "clean" cases that punctuate your position. Sleight of hand is not needed.

Something to consider.

Glenn

Jan 22, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:09:50 -0800

Dom,

I absolutely agree that just because the patient lost that does not mean that the doctor was without fault. The thing is, a case where the patient won is an absolute vindication of the patient's claims and there is no question about the validity of the patient's claims.

You won't be able to rectify every person's case with publication, but you can validate most patient claims by selection of cases that make specific points. As an example, the Post case regarding pupil size.
The Mark Speaker, MD case regarding keratoconus and possibly even comanagement. Think of the point you want to make, and I'm sure you will find a successful case that affirms that point.

The unsuccessful or incomplete cases just muddy up the waters.

What there is NOT available out there is a website about problems that does not fall into hyperbole...or worse. LaserMyEye is close, but Petris going after Alcon in the way she did really dropped her credibility, plus now she makes money off people with dry eyes.

Glenn

Jan 22, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: forgot
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:10:47 -0800

Dom,

If I thought you were intentionally trying to fool people, I would not have bothered to make my suggestions. I have no doubt about your sincerity.

Glenn

-----Original Message-----From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday,January 21, 2006 7:26 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE: forgot

sorry...

just wanted to add that i am not trying to bamboozle or use sleight of hand (i'm sure i could have done that quite effectively if i wanted to). i have a lot of help with my websites, because i cannot do it all by myself (due to lasik complications). i am working on it, as i can get to it.

dom


Top
 
 Post subject: The Glenn Hagele e-mails with Dominic Morgan part II
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:31 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
Jan 31, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject:Hanson sentenced to jail and fined.
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:32:41 -0800

Dom,

If you don?t already know, I?m sure you will find this interesting.
http://glennhagele.com/brenthanson/Bren ... _Order.pdf

Glenn

Jan 31, 2006 (2)

To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Hanson
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:13:03 -0800

I am sure I would find whatever he has to say to you interesting.

Best of luck with whatever your legal endeavors.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:21 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: Re: Hanson

thanks, i already had a copy sent by ******'s previous attorney.

i noticed your latest dispute with hanson earlier today, and he's actually tried to call me a few times in the past week. i don't have the time right now to deal with anything concerning him, as i'm working on court issues of my own.

dom

Feb 07, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Hanson
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:42:23 -0800

Dom,

A couple of quick items:

Are you able/willing to confirm that Lauranell Burch is Hanson's housemate and known on the Internet as Tabby, TrulyTelling, Eye, among others.

You list several malpractice suits on your website. Would you be willing to either remove those items that were found to be without merit, or add similar legal documents that affirm the final finding?

Thanks in advance,

Glenn

Feb 07, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Hanson
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:28:03 -0800

Thanks for your consideration.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday,February 07, 2006 3:34 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE: Hanson

glenn,
in response to your questions:

"Are you able/willing to confirm that Lauranell Burch is Hanson's housemate and known on the Internet as Tabby, TrulyTelling, Eye, among others."

i am unable because i do not know for certain

"You list several malpractice suits on your website. Would you be willing to either remove those items that were found to be without merit, or add similar legal documents that affirm the final finding?"

i believe i explained the postings and why merit should not be ruled. previous personal experience in my case and others shows reason as to why. just because the suit was either dismissed, lost, or otherwise does not hold credibility as to whether it has merit or not. i will not consider removing them, but i would be willing to add documents to affirm the final finding.

"Thanks in advance, Glenn"

your welcome,

dom

Feb 07, 2006 (3)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Hanson
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:35:55 -0800

Thanks Dom.

I understand your reasoning. Sometimes legitimate complaints do not meet legal requirements for many reasons. Of course, those cases where the complaints were legitimate AND the patient won have no "wiggle room" and provide a stronger substantiation of the concerns.

Glenn

Feb 07, 2006 (4)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:34:12 -0800

Dom,

That is a tremendously fair offer. I believe that if the doctors were given the opportunity to provide a summary response - say 250 words or less - that you would include on your website, they would feel that you are at least being fair and give you the added credibility that you are offering up both sides.

If I may be so bold to suggest; you could put immediately below the link to the lawsuit a link that says "...doctor's response."

I really doubt that you want to spend your time contacting the doctors listed on your website, but if we can work out the details and you approve, I'd be willing to contact at least those doctors with whom I am
acquainted.

An advantage of my participation is that as a general rule refractive surgeons know me and know where I'm coming from. They may not exactly appreciate my efforts, but I'm a known quantity. You are less known and it would be easy for them to equate you with other website owners who have been less fair. I'd be glad to iron out the wrinkles initially, and then any updates could be made directly to you without my involvement.

I'm open to help in this any way that you feel is appropriate.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:07 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

glenn,

thanks, and if by chance you (or even the doctors mentioned) would like to offer either response or documents to affirm, i certainly have no problem with that.

i'm not out to show the doctors in a bad light and would like to be as fair as can be, and would prefer to have both sides of each situation.

as you know, my main intentions with my websites are directed to those individuals who may not be candidates for lasik, and to make sure 'everyone' is aware of whatever risks, complications, or anything associated with refractive surgery, so that they can decide for themselves this is truly what they want, without the hidden information. there are many complications who were not fully aware.

dom

Feb 08, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:46:17 -0800

Dom,

This is all very reasonable. I have worked with Barrie Soloway, MD for years. He is a great doc and someone who has been willing to help patients with bad outcomes. He allowed his name to be used and supported Ron Link when he first started SurgicalEyes. Barrie also has volunteered his time for patients who could not afford additional care. He is one of the more level headed docs out there and I think he would be the perfect doctor to start with.

I'll approach him directly and see what is his response. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:53 AM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

glen,

i would definitely like to offer the doctors fairness and a chance to respond accordingly, and will post each provided that they:

a) on their own letterhead, state that they are allowing posting of their response. i would prefer the signatures to be signed in ink. no stamps or electronic format.

b) i do not care if they wish to make any comments regarding or attacking my websites, but if they include any personal attack on patient (such as doka did with galindo stating mental problems), or others have publicly done either through news media, or depositions (i've seen this done in my case), then they will not be offered an opportunity to post a response.

these are the only stipulations. no limit for content either, as 250 words or less may not give them an opportunity to properly state what they wish. their letters will be scanned and converted to pdf format for posting with header stating "doctor's response".

i would hope that the doctors realize i 'am' trying to be fair with my websites, and do not wish any negative reparation to them or their practices, but the public does need to be aware of what happens with some of these legal cases, and that it is possible it can happen to them as well.

dom

Feb 08, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:58:51 -0800

There is a lot of method to my madness, but it all comes down to Divide and Conquer.

Any group of doctors tend to automatically have a "veto" rule. If one says "no", they all will say "no". The personalities of these doctors range from the nicest guys on Earth to real jerks. I fear that if I make contact with all of them at once, the jerk will say "no", and then will pressure the others to not participate.

Some of these doctors know me quite well, but would undoubtedly be suspicious of you and your motives. They know I will not put them in harm's way and I'm more than glad to put my credibility on the line to help you.

I've contacted two doctors and will wait for their response. Whatever happens, I will be able to tailor my approach to the next doctor from what I learn from the two first, who know me and will give me the benefit of the doubt. By the time we get to the jerks, we will know what objections to expect and how to handle them.

Also, if one or two doctors allow you to publish a response, all the others will want the same...even the jerks.

To be honest, some of the doctors up there I would like to not contact because I believe that a warning - even an unfair warning - is appropriate. I do think, however, that everyone should be treated the same and at least offered the opportunity to provide a response.

This is really a wise move on your part. You will become the de facto standard by which all otherwebsites that publish public records will be measured. By allowing surgeon participation in a controlled manner, you will be seen as fair, gain credibility on both sides of the issue, but will not let surgeon comments take over your website.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:28 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

glenn,

not a problem...rather than contact each person individually, wouldn't it be better to send 1 email/letter addressed to all concerned?

dom


Last edited by Eye on Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: The Glenn Hagele e-mails with Dominic Morgan part III
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:37 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
Feb 08, 2006 (3)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:30:22 -0800

There is something therapeutic to responding publicly about a perceived injustice. Some people (not just in refractive surgery) let the emotions not only get away, but get in the way of the message. I've said this to Sandy Keller, Brent Hanson, Ariel Berschadsky, and others. If you keep to your story and substantiate the facts, that is all the warning that is needed. Hyperbole just reduces credibility, and that works against
you.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:47 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

glenn,

considering my motives are not the same as others out there, i feel it is justified to allow these doctors to speak.

granted, when i first started my websites i was totally new, inexperienced, and trying not only to help others avoid my situation, but proving my case also. i've done that i believe, and have learned quite a bit as well, including how to not let my emotions get in the way.

and i can honestly say i am far from done...

dom

Feb 08, 2006 (4)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:23:21 -0800

Dom,

Sandy Keller created the LasikDisaster website where she has an entire page dedicated to defaming me. I am compared to Darth Vader. She takes quotes out of context to make me appear to be insensitive to people of limited vision and those with bad refractive surgery outcomes. Keller has stated that she gave the website to ***** ***** (redacted), but responsibility is something that the courts will need to sort out.

Keller's postings are insulting, but generally she keeps her facts right side up. Cofer's postings are more than insulting and she uses several different aliases to make it appear others agree with her.

Cumulatively, the website pages and postings of Keller and/or Cofer constitute defamation from each. Well, at least that is what I'm asking the court to find.

Yea, there are jerks everywhere. I try to simply remove myself from those environments, but a few have made it their job to cyberstalk me so I cannot escape. Add to that the "Google Bombs" they have left everywhere and someone doing any search on me is going to see little but lies and innuendo. I must take the steps necessary to restore my reputation.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:25 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

glenn,

"Sandy Keller, Brent Hanson, Ariel Berschadsky, and others"... these are all people you named that you were going after (legally) when i spoke to you on the phone. i am curious though...i know why for hanson, and after reading postings on alt-lasik for berchadsky, but keller? i didn't see anything there from her (i'm guessing sandy is 'her' user name) so the names you asked me about, are any of them hers? or is there another news group? i don't follow all of them...

i go on every now and then, so i don't really know who's who. you asked me last night about hanson's housemate, i spoke to him before on several occasions before...and i thought he was married (duh!).

and you wrote about jerk doctors... i could name a few jerks myself that aren't doctors!

dom

Feb 08, 2006 (5)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:55:09 -0800

I don't think anyone has any reason to apologize or fear stating the full truth, especially when you are willing to give the other side the opportunity to respond.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:40 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

damn! i've been so wrapped up between my websites and the legal crap with the ', that i haven't really been on anybody else's website for quite some time.

of course, once i repost the information i had previously on my websites regarding them, i guess that i will be labeled just like everyone else. thing is...it's all true!

dom

Feb 10, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'Dom Morgan'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: Schuler-Dalverny v. Soloway
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:11:25 -0800

Dom,
I just finished a telephone conversation with Eric Schuler-Dalverny of New York City. What you have published on your website is a ?petition? that is filed with the court?s clerk for the express purpose to keep a statue of limitations from running out. Essentially it is a document saying that there may be malpractice at sometime in the near future and that the plaintiff may need to file an actual lawsuit. In New York state a petition like this is used to stop the clock on statutes, but is not required to have any specificity, is not required to be served on anyone, and the allegations in a petition cannot be answered though the courts unless an actual lawsuit occurs.

After filing the petition Schuler-Dalverny was evaluated by and it was determined that his outcome was within the norm and that there was no evidence of malpractice of any kind. Schuler-Dalverny never litigated against Dr. Soloway as there was no cause. He also seems to hold a reasonably good opinion of Dr. Soloway, but that is my opinion based upon our conversation.

I am delighted, however, that I followed through on this. Schuler-Dalverny does have minor night vision problems exacerbated (and probably caused) by dry eyes. Eight years ago when he had surgery not
nearly so much was understood about either pupil size or dry eye. Schuler-Dalverny did not know about Alphagan-P, the ability to have Complex Wavefront-Guided Enhancement, or many of the methods to
treat dry eye conditions. His current ophthalmologist just recently put him on Restasis, but interestingly had not performed either a Shirmer test, a Tear Break-Up Test, nor did the doctor even mention punctal plugs. I?ve referred Schuler-Dalverny to another Manhattan ophthalmologist who I know has had good success with other patients who have dry eye and night vision issues. I also pointed out that his dry eye treatment should be covered by his medical insurance, and since the original Lasik was covered by his medical insurance enhancement surgery (if appropriate) would probably be covered too.

In light of all of this, I hope that you will alter your website appropriately. At the very least, remove the reference to litigation because no litigation was ever filed nor was litigation ever appropriate. Whether or not you remove the whole thing is up to you, of course, but may be an appropriate alteration too.

Glenn

Feb 10, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Schuler-Dalverny v. Soloway
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:32:31 -0800

You can see my response at http://glennhagele.com/ariel_berschadsky.htm I do not mention you, since
you obviously did not instigate this.

I'm sure that your positive response once you learned of the facts will keep you out of harm's way, but I think one can expect litigation by Soloway against Berschadsky and possibly Hanson. It is warranted.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:46 AM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: Re: Schuler-Dalverny v. Soloway

i checked on this myself, and have not found record. i've edited the listing on the page, so that others who wish to utilize a petition to extend statute of limitation can see it.

dom

Feb 10, 2006 (3)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Schuler-Dalverny v. Soloway


Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:32:31 -0800

Sorry Dom,

http://glennhagele.com/arielberschadsky/

Here is the content:

Ariel Berschadsky of LasikInfoCenter.net and Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com Falsely Claim Surgeon Sued For Malpractice.

In the alt.lasik-eyes newsgroup and elsewhere, Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com stated that Eric Schuler-Dalverny had sued New York ophthalmologist Barrie Soloway, MD. This raised some concerns for me because Dr. Soloway is a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon and a part of our ongoing evaluation is to monitor litigation. We had no information on this alleged malpractice litigation by Schuler-Dalverny. It turns out neither did anyone else, and for good reason.

Schuler-Dalverny never filed a lawsuit against Dr. Soloway. Never.

I checked the New York State Supreme Court where the lawsuit to which Hanson referred was supposed to have been filed. They have no record of any Schuler-Dalverny v. Soloway litigation and the case number was odd; it did not conform to normal filings. I checked with the doctor's malpractice insurance. Nope, there had never been a claim made by Schuler-Dalverny. I queried the National Practitioner Data Bank, which is a federally mandated database of all malpractice litigation involving more than $50k...nothing there. I contacted Dr. Soloway. He had never been served and had no knowledge of any litigation by Schuler-Dalverny. I was able to locate and talk with Schuler-Dalverny himself. I confirmed that he had never filed a lawsuit against Soloway.

The allegation by Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com that Dr. Soloway was sued by Schuler-Dalverny is a lie...but it is not so simple as yet another one of Hanson's lies.

The document does exist and is called a "petition". It is filed with the court's clerk to essentially stop the statute of limitations from running out. It is NOT a lawsuit, but it is telling the court that there may be a suit and the plaintiff wants to be able to file later, if needed. Schuler-Dalverny was then evaluated by a specialist and it was determined that his Lasik outcome was within the norm and that no malpractice had occurred. Schuler-Dalverny did not file a suit because a malpractice suit was not appropriate because no malpractice had occurred, based upon Schuler-Dalverny own specialist's evaluation. Any possibility of a malpractice suit ended long ago, and the statute of limitation has long since lapsed.

I'm going to give Hanson the benefit of the doubt. Hanson may have actually thought that this document was an actual lawsuit filing. Why?Because for months New York malpractice attorney Ariel Berschadsky of LasikFraud.net has published Schuler-Dalverny's petition on his website under the heading "Ongoing Lasik-Related Litigation by Patients Against Refractive Surgeons" (see http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webpages ... ebpage.htm)

So it is hard to know if Hanson is a liar or if Hanson is just repeating the misrepresentations of lawyer Ariel Berschadsky. In either case, Ariel Berschadsky and Brent Hanson do not seem to be limited by the boundaries of truthfulness.

Don't for moment think that Berschadsky does not know that the document he published under the heading of litigation is a petition and not a lawsuit. Berschadsky is an attorney in New York State where the petition was filed. If Berschadsky doesn't know the difference between a petition and a lawsuit, then you could add incompetent attorney to Berschadsky's list of attributes.

I am delighted, however, that the issue was raised and I followed through. Schuler-Dalverny does have minor night vision problems exacerbated (and very possibly caused) by dry eyes. Eight years ago when he had surgery not nearly so much was understood about either pupil size or dry eye and it seems he has not received much rehabilitation care since.

Schuler-Dalverny did not know about Alphagan-P and it's ability to reduce pupil size, thereby reducing night vision problems. He did not know about Complex Wavefront-Guided Enhancement, or many of the current methods to treat dry eye conditions. His current ophthalmologist (not Soloway) just recently put him on Restasis, but interestingly apparently had not performed either a Shirmer test, a Tear Break- Up Test, nor did the doctor mention punctal plugs.

I've referred Schuler-Dalverny to another Manhattan ophthalmologist who I know has had good success with other patients who have dry eye and night vision issues. I directed him to our websites' articles on Lasik and dry eye, pupil size, and possible resolutions to these problems. I also pointed out that his dry eye treatment should be covered by his medical insurance, and since the original Lasik was covered by his medical insurance, wavefront-guided enhancement surgery (if needed and appropriate) would probably be covered too.

It looks like there may be a positive result from the malfeasance of Hanson and Berschadsky...at least for the patient. There is still the issue of these two falsely claiming Dr. Soloway was sued for malpractice.


Top
 
 Post subject: The Glenn Hagele e-mails with Dominic Morgan part IV
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:23 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:02 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE: Schuler-Dalverny v. Soloway

the link you sent does not work...

Feb 13, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:41:44 -0800

I understand that Hanson is living in Durham with Lauranell Burch. Do you have a more current location?

BTW, that patient of Dr. Soloway: decided long ago that there was no reason to litigate and the statute (even with the petition) ran out years ago.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:33 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

glenn,

i heard hanson is living in the winston-salem, nc area, and has been for awhile.

dom

Feb 13, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:20:17 -0800

As far as I can tell, Hanson lost his job in Illinois in June. I don't know if there is any connection, but this is about the time that ******'s investigators affirmed that Hanson had used his company's computers to post defamation against ******. Next, he is in Durham (just outside Winston-Salem) and living with Burch. It is the Durham address that he used in his court documents in the ****** case, but he used an Illinois telephone number.

I'll know for sure where he is soon.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:57 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

all i know is that it's winston-salem. didn't hear anything else, just that he's been there for awhile...

dom

Feb 13, 2006 (3)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:41:40 -0800

Thank you very kindly for the offer. If my investigators have any trouble locating Hanson for service, I just might ask for your assistance. I would not want you to put yourself out for something I can get otherwise.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:39 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

hmmm...

i wonder if berchadsky has that information...not that i'm on any terms with him. he's made quite a few comments to hanson back when i was talking with him, and let's just say i'm no fan of 'his' either.

i don't know whether hanson has told him we're not on speaking terms, but i wonder if he'd give up (or verify your source) that info if he has it.

Feb 16, 2006

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: a little overwhelmed
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:30:17 -0800

Dom,

There are three groups who are actively helping patients with postoperative problems, LaserMyEye.com, Vision Surgery Rehab Network, and us. Patient rehab is all VSRN does and they will have none of the idiotic politics that you often find elsewhere. I very highly recommend that you contact Barbra Berney and David Hartzok, OD at VSRN (http://www.visionsurgeryrehab.org/) and include a link to them on your website.

We also operate the sister website funded by CRSQA at ComplicatedEyes.org. This is primarily for patients with postop problems. You are welcome to put in a link to us as well. We have an Ask An Expert section plus many detailed articles. The most popular article is about postop dry eyes (http://www.complicatedeyes.org/dry_eye_treatment.htm)

I receive about 50 requests for information each day. About 55% are people who are considering surgery. About 5% are people with significant problems that may be or are long term. The remaining 40% are what I call the "10 day post-ops" who have freaked out because they have not received the 20-Minute Miracle.

Both VSRN and our group have a pretty good network of surgeons who are willing to take on difficult situations. I probably have a bit more credibility in doctor's circles than VSRN because of their affiliation with SurgicalEyes, but they have good resources too.

There is a very specific reason I recommend Berney and Hartzok over Rebecca Petris at LaserMyEye. Berney and Hartzok are only interested in getting people better. They do not want to create panic, motivate anger, or try to feel self important. They are all that SurgicalEyes promised to be but was unable to become.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:46 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: a little overwhelmed

hey glenn,

just wondering...i've been getting lasik casualties on my website out the wazoo, who are interested in seeing other doctors. i don't want to refer them to "jerks", so any you know who would be willing to help them with their complications, i would certainly appreciate a list. a list of the jerks would be nice too, so i know who to avoid.

thanks...i appreciate!!

dom

Feb 17, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:21:47 -0800

Dom,

In the final two years before Ron Link left, SurgicalEyes was in a disastrous and ultimately fatal tail spin. Factions were more interested in whipping up anti-Lasik frenzy than helping patients in need. My guess is that you were just too balanced to garner their attention.

These problems, and others, are why Link was eased out. I suggest that you not judge Berney, Hartzok, and Trattler at Vision Surgery Rehab Network by SurgicalEyes.

I personally disagree with their decision to keep the SurgicalEyes website up and with their name on it, but I know that they are working to take it down as soon as possible. They were the temporary custodians of the loony bin, but really are not loons themselves. I have worked directly and extensively with Berney recently and with Trattler for years. They are very dedicated to help patients, not stir up problems. I suggest that you give them all the benefit of the doubt.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:46 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: RE:

my problem with surgical eyes, is that when i requested help from them several years ago, i did not get the help i feel i should have. i did better on my own, including advocacy for the fda, even though they were ignorant and oblivious to my plight with my doctors investigational study.

what i'm looking for is direct patient to doctor contact, without the wait and indirectness. i already refer patients to 3 doctors who i believe will involve themselves with the patient. as these doctors are only in 3 spots in the country, i would like to have doctors available so that the patient can go see them directly without travelling across country.

there are some doctors i definitely would not recommend (the ones who did my eyes at the top of the list), and because i do not have the means to check all of them except for 'hearing' about them, i would not trust sending anybody to them.

people should not have to travel to get the care they desire and/or need.

dom

Feb 17, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: hanson
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:37:31 -0800

Thanks for the words of support.

Dragging up old issues that have nothing to do with refractive surgery is not surprising from a sociopath. It is just one more issue to add to my litigation against him. He also emailed every one of our affiliated doctors with the same info.

Hanson's proclamations notwithstanding, he knows that he is going to jail soon. He knows that he will lose any job he has at that time, and unless he lies on his applications he will probably never be able to get a job in that industry again. Who would hire someone as a programmer who was convicted of such abuse of the Internet? I'm also certain that he is scared to death of a year and a half in a Texas prison. He is not made of the stuff needed to survive in a state penitentiary. This is no "Club Fed" like Kawesch got. He will undoubtedly suffer significant abuse while incarcerated. I personally doubt that he will survive. At the very least, he will not be the same person when he is released as he is when he goes in.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:49 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: hanson

i also saw hanson is at it again...that's kind of a low blow, for anyone!!

dom

Mar 16, 2006

To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: curious
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:39:48 -0800

To a great extent your criticisms are exactly on target. What you may not understand is that there is a method to the madness.

An agreement in principle has been met with Ron Link, so I have no need to say anything about him.

Hanson, Keller, Cofer, and Burch have all defamed me or doctors I have worked with, but for some of the worst defamation the time to act had expired. I needed them to raise it again or act anew.
Additionally, some information I need before sending the subpoenas I would only be able to get directly from them. In essence, I got down to their level to get them to provide me with information I needed. It has worked.

My litigation against Hanson is filed and we will serve him as soon as we have finalized all the arrangements necessary for a potential fraud case against him in federal court. Keller has clearly defamed Dr. Maloney and implicated both Cofer and Burch. Maloney is preparing to sue Keller and quite possibly Cofer and Burch. Cofer stupidly responded to my attorney's demand letter with accusations and further defamation against me on the letterhead of her employer, signed it as a representative of her employer, faxed it with a cover sheet from her employer, and sent it from her employer's fax, implicating her employer in her defamation and opening up the very deep pockets of a Florida credit union.

The rancor you have seen the past two months has most certainly cost me some credibility, however it was for a purpose to resolve it all and that purpose has almost been met.

Keep in mind that although I know about Hanson's two bankruptcies, skipping out on people, federal fraud, ownership of TheLasikFlap, sexual orientation, additional acts of judicial contempt, and sending defaming emails to all of our doctors, I have not announced any of it although I have all the documentation to substantiate. The same is true regarding Keller's implication of her business in defamation on LasikDisaster, Cofer stupidly involving her employer, or Burch's defamation of her former employer. Yes, what I have said about them has been bad, but it most certainly could be worse for them - and worse for me. I'm willing to sink as far as necessary, but not all the way down to their level.

Everything is now in motion. Keller is no longer responding and Maloney already has his law firm in motion, so there is nothing to say there. Hanson is just a matter of time before he has fully crashed and burned. Cofer/Keller/Burch have done just about as much damage to themselves as I could expect. The FBI is now involved, as is the US Trustee.

The dust will be settling now and it should be very quiet. Unless, of course, we hear from Hanson, Cofer, Keller, and Burch about their difficulties and demise.

Believe me, I much prefer to spend my time helping patients that dealing with this crap, but this crap has been thrust upon me for five long years and it is time to put an end to it all.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:55 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: curious

glenn,

you have on numerous occasions attempted to tell me how to do things (suggestingly, of course) regarding my website and credibility, and yet you post on alt-lasik-eyes just like the people you bash! this makes you no better than what you claim 'them' to be, and how you present things such as you do with sandy keller kind of brings you down even further.

how do you think the doctors whom you certify might react when they see this kind of behavior? and moreso, the people reading?

and wouldn't this belittle your credibility as well? this seems like 'do as i say (suggest), not as i do'.

dom

Mar 17, 2006

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: few more things
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:53:07 -0800

Dom,

I've had no correspondence with Berschadsky and as far as I know he has not contacted my attorneys. Not mentioning him was just an oversight. Too many players.

Not surprisingly other doctors have not responded regarding your posting of the public records. That is not really surprising. Too often they do not take websites such as yours seriously. I don't know if it is because of apathy, ignorance, or arrogance, but I'm not exactly surprised.

Something you may want to do is to put right at the top of your list an open invitation for the doctors to respond to you directly to provide a "rebuttal". That will show your willingness to be fair even if they are not willing to participate.

I talked to Eric regarding the Soloway litigation and he said that he did not sue because there was no evidence of actual malpractice. If you would like to talk with him yourself, call him at his office at (212)xxx-xxxx. That would probably be the best way to know the details. I owe him a call too, to see if any of my suggestions for treatment of his dry eye have worked out.

Glenn

-----Original Message----- From: LASIKsucks4u [mailto:lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:15 PM To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org Subject: few more things

you neglected to mention berchadsky. you 'settled' with him as well? whatever happened with the doctors responding?

i found the lawsuit filed with new york regarding sollaway, and have changrd my site accordingly. the name was not hypynated.

dom

May 28, 2006 (1)

From: dom morgan [mailto:talkaboutfda@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:22 PM
To:
info@usaeyes.org; Durrie, Daniel, MD; docholladay@docholladay.com; idaho@fiifa.com; jphermanod@aol.com; strongvision@urmc.rochester.edu; randy@themagnumgroup.com; jamestownsend@ardennet.com; glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org

Subject: glenn hagele

Dear Dr. Durrie,

I am writing to determine whether yourself and other members of the CRSQA board are aware that Glenn Hagele is apparently pursuring a campaign of harassment and intimidation of damaged LASIK patients. Mr. Hagele's actions are performed in the capacity of Executive Director of CRSQA. As you are no doubt aware, the law treats for-profit and nonprofit corporations differently. The Executive Director of a nonprofit operates at the discretion and approval of his Board, whereas the CEO of a forprofit
can operate more autonomously. Accordingly, the actions of the Executive Director of a nonprofit can expose the board members to considerable liability.

You need to know that among patients damaged by LASIK, Mr. Hagele is seen, not as the industry's apologist--a position that might be expected and tolerated--but as the industry's hitman. What may or may not have begun as an isolated conflict between Mr. Hagele and various personalities who frequent the alt-LASIK newsgroup has boiled over into a conflagration that now has the attention of the entire casualty community. When Mr. Hagele attacks patients, it is seen as the industry attacking patients. When Mr. Hagele attempts to silence damaged patients, it is seen as the industry trying to silence patients.

People want to know how much the CRSQA board knows about Mr. Hagele's actions. They want to know whether CRSQA endorses those actions. Mr. Hagele only makes angry patients angier, thereby increasing the potential to corrupt the end result that good doctors of integrity should share: Providing adequate and proper rehab care to those whose lives have been damaged by refractive surgery.

You may wish to consider the correspondence attached, as well as postings in the alt-LASIK newsgroup. In fact, the CRSQA Board of Directors may wish to start its own investigation of Mr. Hagele's actions, and you and other doctors of integrity may wish to reconsider your affiliation with CRSQA. Whatever the actions of damaged patients (people whose lives have been destroyed can be expected to take offense), the CRSQA Executive Director must be held to a higher standard. Mr. Hagele is not honoring that standard.

Please let me know whether you and the Board are aware of Mr. Hagele's conduct in these matters.

Sincerely,

Dom Morgan

May 28, 2006 (2)

Subject: RE: glenn hagele
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 23:42:39 -0500
From: "Durrie, Daniel, MD" <ddurrie@durrievision.com>
To: "dom morgan" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>

Dom, thanks for your note. Glenn is taking these actions on his own and he is not representing CRSQA in any office capacity in his disagreements with Mr. Hanson. . I agree that all of this legal action is getting in the way of helping patients which is the only reason that I am involved. I would be glad to talk with you about this. Would you be available to discuss it? - DSD


Top
 
 Post subject: The Glenn Hagele e-mails with Dominic Morgan part V
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
May 29, 2006 (1)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: dom@LasikSucks4U.com
CC:
ddurrie@durrievision.com, docholladay@docholladay.com, idaho@fiifa.com,
jphermanod@aol.com, strongvision@urmc.rochester.edu, randy@themagnumgroup.com,
jamestownsend@ardennet.com, "'dom morgan'" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject:RE: glenn hagele
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 03:15:41 -0700

{ }

Dom,

Thank you for your letter of concern. I greatly appreciate that you have voiced your opinions so I and all associated with our organization can give them proper consideration.

I concur that events of late are unfortunate. Obviously I do not consider being the target of attacks on my character, the character of my wife, the publication of my personal identity including Social Security number, having personal emails made public, threats of physical violence, etc., as productive to me personally, the purpose of our organization, or even to those who aim their ire at refractive surgeons, industry, or me. Indeed these are troubling distractions for all.

I believe something that will help the situation is my participation on unmoderated Internet forums is about to be dramatically reduced. I have been working on the preparation of our own moderated bulletin board and my participation will be concentrated there. I had originally planned for a June 1st launch, but it is ready now so I?ll make it live as soon as possible. I?m sure you would agree that concentrating on assisting patients? concerns without rancor and politics will be much more productive.

It is time for a teleconference with our governing Board of Trustees, the election of new officers, and normal business, but I will be sure to have your concerns high on the agenda. I will let you know directly the results of those discussions. Out of respect to the situation, I will attempt to arrange this meeting as soon as possible, but some of our members are out of the country and otherwise engaged, so please be patient.

All litigation that relates to defamation against me is brought by me personally and independently. CRSQA is neither a party to those actions nor does CRSQA fund those actions, however as a gesture of good will and cooperation I promise that I will not advance any current litigation against any person you represent beyond what is already scheduled. I will not request any new criminal investigation against any person you represent. Additionally, no new litigation against any person you represent will be filed until the CRSQA governing board is able to review your concerns. That is a personal commitment that I hope will be accepted in the spirit it is offered. Please let me know who you represent so they will be included in this commitment, and I?m sure that our board would like to know the source of these concerns. Furthermore, there may be additional individuals you do not represent who should be contacted directly and asked to participate. I believe everyone?s involvement is important and valuable.

There is something more that you can do, if you wish. You raised your concerns very well, but you provided no indication what you personally, or those you represent, would consider appropriate changes and responses. If you are willing, please forward to me your suggestions and I will include them unedited in our meeting. Nothing extensive is required. A list would suffice, but you can provide as much detail as you like. We all see there is a problem and I?m sure I can speak on behalf of our entire
board when I say we are willing to consider all potential solutions.

Thank you again for taking this important step toward what I hope and am certain will be a constructive result. I will contact you as soon as possible.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
8543 Everglade Dr
Sacramento CA 95826-3616

Voice: 916/381-0769
Fax: 206/237-6545

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

Mr. Hagele is not a doctor.

May 29, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: dom@LasikSucks4U.com, "'dom morgan'" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: Recruit who you can
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 04:27:36 -0700

Dom,

I?m delighted you have started a process that will undoubtedly make this situation better. Actually, it already has. I am hopeful you will recruit to your group everyone who has an interest in the situation.
This would include:

Sandra Keller
Ariel Berschadsky
Brent Hanson
Lauranell Burch
***** *****
Dean Kantis
Elvira Galindo
Richard Zickefoose
Anyone else I missed

Ron Link and I have already negotiated an amicable settlement. There is no need to include any of the VSRN folks.

Those who participate in your efforts will be assured that no further action will be taken against them until our board meets, and each will directly benefit from any resolution that is found. Those who do not participate in your group will not receive such benefit. The only limitation is what is already in play, which includes only Brent Hanson and Sandy Keller. If Hanson and Keller are a part of your group, I will let go forward what is already submitted but will not promote any new action until our board meets. It seems highly unlikely that your group will be able to resolve the Hanson and Keller situations, but I?m open to consider anything as a possibility. I?m making the assumption that your group includes all those above and I have suspended all AdWords ads related to those listed as an additional sign of good faith.

Your timing is excellent. Litigation against Zickefoose for damages caused by the publication of my personal identity on his website was to be filed on Tuesday morning, defamation litigation against Cofer, Keller, and the credit union shortly thereafter, along with Berschadsky after that. If they are included in your group, that litigation will be held indefinitely.

I am expecting, but not requiring, that those who you represent will stop their attacks on me. A show of good faith on their part seems reasonable.

Our board meetings are normally held via teleconference and are usually rather short. Virtually all issues are communicated via email prior to the meeting so our time is spent on discussion of resolutions, not background. I want the members to have enough time to consider your concerns, so I will be sure that before the meeting your letter will be distributed to all current and incoming members. Your group?s proposed changes will be included too, if you provide them in a timely manner. We have several changes in board members coming up and I want to get a consensus with both the outgoing and the incoming members so there will be a continuity of any commitment made by CRSQA. Coordination is going to be a challenge.

We all look forward to you providing what you seek as a resolution.

The ball is in your court, Dom.

Glenn

May 29, 2006 (3)

Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "dom morgan" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: further correspondence
To: ddurrie@durrievision.com

Dr. Durrie,

Much thanks for your kind note and offer of discussion. Since you and I last corresponded, I received a message from Mr. Hagele, which I've pasted in at the bottom of this email. The note contains a number of assumptions which I frankly do not understand. For example, the note states that, "Those who participate in your efforts will be assured that no further action will be taken against them until our board meets, and each will directly benefit from any resolution that is found. Those who do not participate in your group will not receive such benefit," and concludes by saying that " The ball is in your court, Dom."

Let me be clear: I have no group, and therefore no political agenda. I am legally blind and have no court and no ball. I do find it curious, however, that your email explicitly states that Mr. Hagele is acting on his own behalf, independent of CRSQA, while Mr. Hagele indicates, as quoted above, that action will be taken based on the proceedings of the board, of which you are a member.

Statements like these from Mr. Hagele are exactly why the casualty community believes that CRSQA speaks on behalf of the refractive surgery industry. I claim no deep understanding of the law, but I can say with certainty that these are the kinds of contradictions that lawyers find interesting. Specifically, Mr. Hagele's message begs the question: "How much does the board know about Mr. Hagele actions?" and "When did the board have knowledge of these actions?" and "What kind of correspondence, email or otherwise, might exist between Mr. Hagele and the members of the board that might be subject to subpoena? What else might be established based on those communications?"

As noted, I have no group, I represent no one, and I speak only for myself. However, I must agree with Mr. Hagele that a legal showdown between the refractive surgery industry and the casualty community is brewing, and like Mr. Hagele, I do not believe that it can be stopped. Nor is that showdown likely to be limited to CRSQA versus Hanson or CRSQA versus Keller, as Mr. Hagele might have you believe. Matters have progressed far beyond that, and are concerned with the general tenor of Mr. Hagele's attitude and communications, not only as a representive of CRSQA, but of the entire refractive surgery industry. Mr Hagele's heavy handedness and legal maneuverings (see the quote above) play directly into the darkest fears of damaged patients, fears that they have been manipulated by a greedy industry for whom politics is more important than healing. People want justice.

You and the other board members of CRSQA are also subject to this manipulation: The fact that Mr. Hagele indicates he has an organization behind him lays an inescapable liabilty directly on yourself and other members of the board.

In closing, let me say that I will not reply to Mr. Hagele. I choose not to respond to the manipulation implicit in his email. Moreover, I do not believe that a long-term resolution of the tensions between the casualty community and the refractive surgery industry is possible where Mr. Hagele is free to frame the issues and set the agenda for discussion. I don't know anyone who believes that Mr. Hagele really wants to help patients. Instead, I recognize that the power behind CRSQA ultimately lies with the doctors, and I believe that it is time that the doctors and patients come together to discuss our collective future.

No middleman is necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that much of the tension between the refractive surgery industry and the casualty community would evaporate if Mr. Hagele were dismissed from his position as Executive Director. That would certainly provide unassailable proof that Mr. Hagele's actions were conducted on his own, without the approval of the CRSQA board.

I look forward to our discussion. Evenings are definitely best for me. I will let you set the time and date.

Sincerely,

Dom Morgan

May 29, 2006 (4)

From: dom morgan [mailto:talkaboutfda@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:56 PM
To: Durrie, Daniel, MD
Subject: my apologies

Dr. Durrie,

I did not realize I made an error when sending this earlier, and I apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,

Dom Morgan

May 29, 2006 (5)

From: "Durrie, Daniel, MD" <ddurrie@durrievision.com>
To: "dom morgan" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: my apologies
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:19:56 -0500

Dom, that is fine. Glenn has been doing all of this on his own without board approval. I have notified Glenn that I have resigned from the board. I just want to help patients. Keep in touch. - DSD

May 30, 2006

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: talkaboutfda@yahoo.com
Subject: Who is in your group?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:41:01 -0700

Dom,

I need as soon as possible the list of which people are working with you toward a resolution to these problems. Elvira Galindo emailed a half a dozen of our doctors with all sorts of unfounded accusations. If she is working with you, then I?m very disappointed with her acts and lack of cooperative effort. If she is not, then I will move against her as appropriate.

Thanks in advance,

Glenn

May 30, 2006

Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 04:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "dom morgan" <talkaboutfda@yahoo.com>
Subject: Resignation
To: "Durrie, Daniel, MD" <ddurrie@durrievision.com>

Dear Dr. Durrie,

Your resignation was not the intent of my correspondence, and you have my most sincere apologies.

I believe CRSQA had the correct approach towards patient advocacy, but it would have been best obtained without the deceit and misguided direction Glenn has provided.

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!

Again, you have my apologies,

Dom

Jun 19, 2006 (1)

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: continued posting
To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org

{ }

Glenn,

All you know how to do is threaten.

I am collecting all these emails and posts, and I'm turning it all over to the FBI. I intend to ask them to open an investigation, and I intend to provide the names and phone numbers of the appropriate parties who need questioning.

The internet crosses state boundaries, and so do the threats. That makes it a federal matter. In order for the FBI to determine whether a crime has been committed, the patients concerned will have to cooperate, whether they want to or not. That means everyone on your hit list.

Whatever was between you and Brent should have stayed between you and Brent. But it didn't, and you threatened to publish information that promotes identity theft, even the identity theft of some patient's elderly mothers, who have nothing to do with anything of this. In my opinion, a crime has been committed. It's called blackmail. It's included in Category 9 of the FBI's National Incident Reporting System.

I'm turning you in, Glenn. You can laugh, you can cry, you can continue to threaten, you can sue, you can do whatever. But I am turning you in. Even if the FBI does nothing, I want it on record that your behavior was reported.

And I don't care what the other patients say or think. This has gone far enough. If they've done anything wrong they'll have to answer to charges from the FBI, too.

Dom

Jun 19, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: continued posting
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:56:53 -0700

{ }

Please provide a single instance where I have stated I will commit an illegal act.

Jun 21, 2006 (1)

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: continued posting
To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org

{ }

Glenn,

You wrote previously about stating facts when writing anything, yet you post on your website and newsgroups YOUR perception of facts.

You publicly post that my websites are "full of misinformation" (your opinion), yet you do the same without dealing in facts.

If you want the facts to post regarding my situation, I would be happy to provide you with cd's for you to twist around, but bear in mind, all of the information will be republished once my appeal is finalized.

Your intent to publish ANYTHING to discredit me shows how sick and twisted you obviously are. Your ego and your continued efforts to deceive everyone, including your board of trustees, will put you on the unemployment line real quick. Wise up, Glenn! Is that what you really want?

Dom

Jun 21, 2006 (2)

From: "Glenn Hagele" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org>
To: "'LASIKsucks4u'" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: continued posting
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:49:23 -0700

I have every intent to publish facts about your situation. Substantiated facts. If you want to assist:

Please provide the court's documents regarding your malpractice litigation/arbitration including the final decision that you lost and there was no malpractice. That is a fact that you seem to have omitted from your websites. I have to admit, I would not mind losing litigation if I gain $100k anyway.

Please provide the initial filings and final decision of the judge when you were sued for breach of agreement by your doctor. I'll be sure that fact gets on my website too.

I already have the source code of your web pages with your doctor's name in the MetaTags. That fact will get there too, when the time is right. I will take care to present opinions about what appears to be continued breach of an agreement affirmed by a judge as opinions. I'll let the fact of what you are doing speak for itself.

It appears from your recent emails to me that you believe freedom of speech only applies when you want to speak of others, not when others speak of you. The same rules apply to everyone.

Do keep in mind that I almost never instigate a thread of any kind at alt.lasik-eyes, but I do respond to attacks. Litigation is filed only in response to an attack. No attacks, no responses. Things could get very
quiet very quickly and very easily, however that decision is really not in my hands. Perhaps you should direct your sanctimony to the instigators of the attacks...including yourself.

Jun 24, 2006

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:49:23 -0700
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE:

Much to my regret, as I believed an amicable solution could have avoided this, I've updated my website
to include:
www.lasiksucks4u.com/hagele.htm
www.lasiksucks4u.com/hagemails.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Morgan wrote:
Quote:
The format of the emails above have been changed to provide easier reading. To view the originals, click here. Personal information (phone number) has been edited as well to ensure privacy.

NOTE: I spoke with Dr. Durrie regarding permission to post the correspondence I had with him, and although he does not advocate my posting (the correspondence), he assured me his intentions to provide help to those complicated from refractive surgery. He also stated there are many advances to current complications on the horizon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Top
 
 Post subject: More on Glenn Hagele
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
More on Glenn Hagele:

Dominic Morgain said:
Quote:
Hagele is president of CRSQA (Council for Refractive Surgery and Quality Assurance). CRSQA "certified" doctors are purportedly a higher quality/standard doctor for you. But what gives an ex (failed?) marketing executive the right to certify doctors?

There are countless LASIK casualties out there, but few have become vocal enough to draw attention to (myself included). Anyone who apparently crosses Hagele is targeted. This includes anyone posting anti-LASIK, anti-CRSQA, medical studies, or anti-Hagele on such newsgroups as alt.lasik-eyes, sci.med.vision, or others. I believe a poster put it best:

Hagele's job is to "take bullets" (metaphorically speaking, of course) for doctors that have, it very well appears, injured some patients.

There are several thousand postings on these newsgroups. Hagele apparently is sueing for the same things that he doing. When someone posted legal documents regarding Hagele, Hagele in turn posted documents about that person. When someone says anything allegedly defamatory, Hagele will retaliate in kind.


To: glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org

Glennn Hagele,

You have systematically ignored and or failed to respond to multiple PUBLIC requests for infromation you are required to provide by law.

You are trying to maintain credibility for CRSQA but losing credibility by breaking the law.

Add an additional "tough question for your doctor"

51 As a CRSQA surgeon do you condone their non compliance with
tax law, are you aware of it?

From
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/page/0,,id%3D12409,00.html
about 501c3 non-profit organizations
Reporting Tax Fraud
If you have information about an individual or company you suspect is not complying with the tax law, please call 1-800-829-0433.

From
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0, ... 09,00.html
A charitable organization must make available for public inspection its approved application for recognition of exemption with all supporting documents and its last three annual information returns.

Pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, the organization is required to provide copies of these documents upon request without charge (other than a reasonable fee for reproduction and copying costs).

Penalties are provided for failure to comply with these requirements.

Date: Mon, May 15 2000 12:00 am
Email: (Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
On Glenn Hagele:

?One of the things that really irritated me about USA eyes and LME was that idiot Glenn Hagle (sp.?) What a bag man for the LASIK industry. He tries to come off as some patient advocate but he shamelessly promotes the butchers. His stupid disclaimer "I am not a doctor" at the end of every posting should read "I am not in any way reputable." Patients with real injuries are simply referred to the "links". I watched a long thread where some guy with serious complications was communicating with Glenn.

Glenn's advice was so pathetically worthless. Those generic "links" and canned advice Glenn was touting were going to get him nowhere, and might delay some needed intervention. Turns out that the guy was sitting on an overlooked retinal detachment. NICE!"


Many questions arise as to motive of why Hagele continues to deceive his board of trustees. He states in most recent correspondence that what he does is of his own accord, without CRSQA's involvement, but continues to use CRSQA resources:

The following is posted on LasikInfoCenter regarding CRSQA:

CRSQA is a referral service for refractive surgeons that masquerades as a patient advocacy group. It was founded by the non-physician Glenn Hagele. Despite its pretentious name, CRSQA is just a cynical marketing ploy that "certifies" refractive surgeons willing to fork over $7,000 in the first year and $5,000/year thereafter. In exchange, they receive CRSQA's bogus seal of approval in the hope that it will help them promote their Lasik practices.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jkumar167 - view profile
Date: Tues, May 16 2000 12:00 am
Email: jkumar...@aol.com (Jkumar167)
Groups: sci.med.vision
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse |
Find messages by this author
Not yet rated

Medical Specialties and the American Medical Association, charges only $300 every 10 years for recertification, requires ABO-certified ophthalmologists to take periodic exams, and requires them to
obtain a yearly average of 30 Continuing Medical Education credits.
CRSQA's pitch to prospective members demonstrates its crass commercial purpose. It justifies its fees by noting that "For most surgeons, that will total a little less than the amount charged two refractive
surgery patients per year. It is very reasonable to expect that your listing on our website alone will provide significantly more patients."

CRSQA's quality "standards," if they can be called that, are pathetic. A doctor can become CRSQAcertified even if he reports a 3% incidence in his practice of "debilitating refractive surgery complications such as glare, haze, halo, etc." Indeed, Hagele's primary concern is to help refractive surgeons market themselves ? not to raise their standards of medical care. Hagele discusses market segmentation analysis ad nauseam, but there is almost nothing at CRSQA about concrete measures to improve surgical outcomes.

CRSQA's "certification" is worthless from a medical perspective. For example, Glenn A. Kawesch, a doctor with a string of medical malpractice lawsuits against him, was at one time certified by CRSQA as meeting its quality standards. The infamous Joseph Dello Russo, another doctor all too familiar with the inside of a courtroom, also used to be certified by CRSQA.

Using CRSQA to find a refractive surgeon is no better than throwing darts at the yellow pages. CRSQA even has the audacity to accept patient complaints about refractive surgeons! If you believe that a CRSQA surgeon has been negligent, share this information only with your lawyer ?not with CRSQA. CRSQA is not bound by legal or ethical rules on confidentiality and could potentially turn this information over to your CRSQA-affiliated surgeon.

Any argument that CRSQA's not-for-profit status confers upon it a mantle of legitimacy is spurious because Hagele draws an undisclosed salary as CRSQA's Executive Director. His livelihood is therefore directly linked to CRSQA's financial success. Remember, not-for-profit status is easy to get, does not confer legitimacy, and is often used by sham organizations trying to garner undeserved credibility.

Hagele responds to his critics by trying to bully them into submission. For example, he recently threatened to publish their social security numbers and other private information on the Internet. Click here and here to see Hagele's sordid, puerile, and potentially illegal tactics. It's hard to believe that any physician would affiliate himself with an organization run by an individual like Hagele, and apparently fewer and fewer are doing so. As of 7/14/06, only 41 ophthalmologists were affiliated with CRSQA, out of approximately 17,000 nationwide!


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits