Note: Video slide coming this morning.
Related: The Marcella Dresdale case. Dr. Kinsella's lawyer represented the Dresdale family in a farcical abuse of power against William R. McCormick by Brown officials as I reported herein and as this brilliant online analysis notes as well. I have no room for bullshit and I am going to tell it as it really is regardless of who it offends because dammit that is the entire point of the First Amendment. Before I graduated from Case Western Reserve School of Law I wrote for the Indianapolis Star, and I watched my peers win a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the medical system that makes it all but impossible to discover whether your doctor has been sued or disciplined for misconduct, malpractice or outright fraud.
Well it appears that form CWRU oncologist Timothy J. Kinsella has hit the triple play: I remember rumors that he was fired from CWRU but now I see the he was definitely disciplined for fraud in connection with overbilling and/or billing for events he could not have possibly performed in Wisconsin. As a result he drew a no-confidence vote from his peers ("Nauseating" was used) and a federal investigation ensued. I have seen proof of that. Not only that, as seen in the smaller thumbnail he was sued by the Valdivieso family for malpractice for failing to administer the full amount of treatments for a young cancer patient who died. A fair reading of the transcripts and related paperwork indicates that he falsified the record. All of this information (and more, much more) is shared at an online journal entitled "A Cancer Doctor... a snapshot of radiation oncologist Timothy J. Kinsella." The website concerns Amelia Weber, who claims that Kinsella sexually molested her, but that she was unable to successfully forward her concerns as noted herein in this phone transcript. A widower in Wisconsin voiced similar concerns.
What is the First Amendment rub you ask? Well RI's Brown & Pratt Oncology wonk David Wazer has threatened to sue her for Defamation, that's what. From what I can gather in Pacer Kinsella already sued and now Wazer is threatening to ahem, follow suit. Exacly why I don't know because everything I am reading seems to be substantiated or either clearly a matter of opinion and you can't sue for that. Plus both of these men are in my estimation public figures so the standard is pretty high for proving Defamation here. Furthermore it's not even clear that she owns this website, and it clearly is a byproduct of many concerned people.
For some reason Wazer actually hired Kinsella in spite of his obvious liabilities and shortcomings. And she can't seem to get anywhere in the media because the lawyer for the doctor suing her is none other than Rhode Island's Joe Cavanagh... who represents the Providence Journal. Can she turn to the New England First Amendment Center for help? Hell no because his daughter and son are both directors at the New England First Amendment Coalition. They are part of the same First Amendment cadre that often ignores people like me, even though I have actually won First Amendment trials and written for major press. Sure Joe Cavanagh in addition to being a Scott Brown supporter is a "Superlawyer" blah blah blah I eat them for lunch when it comes to the First Amendment, just ask Jeffrey Denner.
The bottom line is that this woman is logically and reasonably frustrated and she is seeking reasonable answers and assurances from the Plaintiff on the issue of vetting..... after all this is the same man who lied at a conference and claimed to be something he was not: He claimed to be "Director of Stonybrook Cancer Center" when in point of fact his contract was not renewed.
And who is hearing this case? None other than Case Western Alum John J. McConnell, who took a hatchet to my valid First Amendment lawsuit against Kelly Ayotte and totally ignored every salient point in my Rule 59E Motion. You see, I know that despite my educational pedigree and my trial victories I will always be on "that side" of the fence when it comes to authority figures. All I can do is to continue to point the general public to the Truth. My question is whether the content of these letters listed in the pending complaint differs measurably from the content on the website. If it doesn't, I don't see the basis for a valid Defamation claim.