Founder of 21st Century leaves with multiple docs suing to get out of non-compete agreements

Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Neuronix

Neuronix

Total nerd
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Physician
Faculty
PhD
Verified Expert
Admissions
20+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
15,104
Reaction score
9,466
Four of the 21c originals including Danny Dosoretz resigned and are suing to get out of their non-compete agreements. The rumor mill is that they are founding a new radiation center in the area (22nd Century Oncology?).

Things must have really degenerated at 21c for this to have happened.

21st Century Oncology sued for second time in a month

Good news, now there's a job posted in Florida :laugh:

Radiation Oncologist
Members don't see this ad.
 
A million dollars here, a million dollars there...makes you wonder how 21c is even solvent now. Oh howe are the myghtie ouerthrowen. ‘Tis sad really. But Michael Katin is a real character. He taught me everything I know about snarky radiation oncology writing.

But this was a billion dollar company listed on the stock exchange in the previous decade. I pictured scenes from ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ back then. Now:
“And on the 21c pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Daniel Dosoretz, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a great company to work for. Lots of professionalism and integrity. The reason we all went into medicine. Like I said, today's Cancer Treatment Centers of America.


scarbrtj said:
A million dollars here, a million dollars there...makes you wonder how 21c is even solvent now. Oh howe are the myghtie ouerthrowen. ‘Tis sad really. But Michael Katin is a real character. He taught taught me everything I know about snarky radiation oncology writing.

But this was a billion dollar company listed on the stock exchange in the previous decade. I pictured scenes from ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ back then. Now:
“And on the 21c pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Daniel Dosoretz, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Click to expand...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It's the same for all specialties in that part of FL.
 
FWIW - it looks like it is not the founder who is suing, but rather his son ... but both (as well as his daughter) are resigning
 
Another day, another lawsuit against 21C. Shockingly not another qui Tam lawsuit on behalf of the govt /CMS.

Non competes are valid in FL though, so this could become a protracted legal battle on both sides
 
https://www.floridabulldog.org/2018/10/a-rick-scott-story-how-political-giving-and-getting-is-done/
https://www.floridabulldog.org/2018/10/rick-scott-story-part-ii-political-giving-getting/

Too many bad guys to keep track of. Good thing This guy is in charge of certification, making sure radiation oncologists "demonstrate high standards of ethical and moral behavior, reliability and responsibility..."

Beams and Schemes

It's interesting that he hired the current chair at UCLA to advise them on medicare prices. It's also interesting that he owns some of the properties.

Maybe ASTRO can discuss some of this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Epilogue. Rad onc. What a field! Dosoretz and family doing well. "The Boys From Brazil" was on the TV in the waiting room when I visited one of their clinics recently. Ironic(?)!

www.businessobserverfl.com

New medical practice aims to defy odds | Business Observer

Launching an oncology practice is a rare act these days. It requires a counterintuitive mindset, patience and, among other necessities, a lot of capital.
www.businessobserverfl.com www.businessobserverfl.com
 
TheWallnerus said:
Epilogue. Rad onc. What a field! Dosoretz and family doing well. "The Boys From Brazil" was on the TV in the waiting room when I visited one of their clinics recently. Ironic(?)!

www.businessobserverfl.com

New medical practice aims to defy odds | Business Observer

Launching an oncology practice is a rare act these days. It requires a counterintuitive mindset, patience and, among other necessities, a lot of capital.
www.businessobserverfl.com www.businessobserverfl.com
Click to expand...
Wonder if they will make their new hires at advocate sign noncompetes..... What's good for the goose....

I know the Advocate practice has posted on ASTRO within the last year looking for new grads.... One piece of advice would be to throw these news articles at them if they ask you to sign a non compete.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
With permission, I am whitewashing away that nasty 21st Century part of my past. Everyone knows GenesisCare wasn't present in the US in 2004. But I checked with all the stakeholders. Permission granted. Thank you. I am, as ever, humbly in your service. -TheWallnerus

xSEVUun.png
 
Last edited:
member13377891 said:
Advocate RO is requiring non-compete for new hires.
Click to expand...
SDN offers quite a bit to the radiation community and has been a leader in several issues related to workforce oversupply and economics, but this statement epitomizes one of the site's most serious flaws. There seems to be a culture on SDN of bending the truth or offering statements up as factual, when they are mere conjecture, with minimal oversight by the moderators. I have firsthand knowledge that this comment from member13377891 is false, and I find it difficult to believe that this poster actually believed the statement to be true when he/she wrote it. Frankly, this comment strikes me as libel, and I believe SDN would be improved if some attempt were made to police such statements and suspend the publishing privileges of offending parties.
 
My take here as one of the moderators:

1. I'm not perfect. Everything is open for discussion. I am open to having my views changed.

2. Use the report button for posts you don't like. It gets reviewed by other SDN admins outside of rad onc. I often confer with other mods outside of this forum because I know how contentious the rad onc forum can be.

3. Disagreements on posts here are often one word against another. I am happy to consider proof one way or another. Otherwise it's all just conjecture to me. Over the years I have seen rumors that are decried as "irately false" by other SDN users turn out to be true, so I am wary to moderate anything myself. Anyone reading the forums can post their side of the argument publicly, and so I generally leave things up to the readers to decide what they want to believe unless what is posted is demonstrably false.
 
Neuronix said:
My take here as one of the moderators:

1. I'm not perfect. Everything is open for discussion. I am open to having my views changed.

2. Use the report button for posts you don't like. It gets reviewed by other SDN admins outside of rad onc. I often confer with other mods outside of this forum because I know how contentious the rad onc forum can be.

3. Disagreements on posts here are often one word against another. I am happy to consider proof one way or another. Otherwise it's all just conjecture to me. Over the years I have seen rumors that are decried as "irately false" by other SDN users turn out to be true, so I am wary to moderate anything myself. Anyone reading the forums can post their side of the argument publicly, and so I generally leave things up to the readers to decide what they want to believe unless what is posted is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that there is often a substantial grey area regarding what constitutes truth or falsehood and that verification of claims is generally quite difficult. However, when a statement is presented as fact with the apparent intent to disparage an individual or institution, perhaps there should be a higher burden on SDN (not necessarily the moderator per se) to promote fair discourse. I am doubtful that there is any such legal obligation for SDN to do this, but encouraging posters to have some semblance of support before they sling mud at discrete actors seems like it would enhance the site's ultimate product. We all want users to feel free to post opinions and theories without perfect proof, but I think everyone would agree that complete fabrications only serve to hurt SDN's mission. I should add that I have no familial or financial connection to the organization attacked in this post so my gripe here is purely based in principle. SDN is a fantastic resource for us all, but I believe it could be improved with some basic fact-checking and policing of the more egregiously erroneous posts. Perhaps this is true of most internet forums.
 
Becquerel said:
I agree with you that there is often a substantial grey area regarding what constitutes truth or falsehood and that verification of claims is generally quite difficult. However, when a statement is presented as fact with the apparent intent to disparage an individual or institution, perhaps there should be a higher burden on SDN (not necessarily the moderator per se) to promote fair discourse. I am doubtful that there is any such legal obligation for SDN to do this, but encouraging posters to have some semblance of support before they sling mud at discrete actors seems like it would enhance the site's ultimate product. We all want users to feel free to post opinions and theories without perfect proof, but I think everyone would agree that complete fabrications only serve to hurt SDN's mission. I should add that I have no familial or financial connection to the organization attacked in this post so my gripe here is purely based in principle. SDN is a fantastic resource for us all, but I believe it could be improved with some basic fact-checking and policing of the more egregiously erroneous posts. Perhaps this is true of most internet forums.
Click to expand...
The mods aren’t journalists. They are doctors doing this in their spare time. It’s not reasonable to ask them to be fact-checkers...
 
Becquerel said:
I agree with you that there is often a substantial grey area regarding what constitutes truth or falsehood and that verification of claims is generally quite difficult. However, when a statement is presented as fact with the apparent intent to disparage an individual or institution, perhaps there should be a higher burden on SDN (not necessarily the moderator per se) to promote fair discourse. I am doubtful that there is any such legal obligation for SDN to do this, but encouraging posters to have some semblance of support before they sling mud at discrete actors seems like it would enhance the site's ultimate product. We all want users to feel free to post opinions and theories without perfect proof, but I think everyone would agree that complete fabrications only serve to hurt SDN's mission. I should add that I have no familial or financial connection to the organization attacked in this post so my gripe here is purely based in principle. SDN is a fantastic resource for us all, but I believe it could be improved with some basic fact-checking and policing of the more egregiously erroneous posts. Perhaps this is true of most internet forums.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should share the firsthand knowledge that you have (per your post above) rather than complain for moderation

How do we know you aren't just making that up?
 
Lamount said:
The mods aren’t journalists. They are doctors doing this in their spare time. It’s not reasonable to ask them to be fact-checkers...
Click to expand...
I agree with you that independent fact checking by physician moderators themselves is not practicable. However, I believe that it would be beneficial for SDN to have some system in place to at least occasionally fact check disputed posts that seem to purposefully disparage discrete actors (with moderators identifying the posts for review that are most inflammatory and potentially subject to verification).
 
ROforbetterorworse said:
Perhaps you should share the firsthand knowledge that you have (per your post above) rather than complain for moderation

How do we know you aren't just making that up?
Click to expand...
I suppose this is a fair point, though this type of question should fairly be directed at member13377891 as well. As someone making a statement of apparent fact (without equivocation) that would reasonably be expected to injure the reputation and/or performance of the company, I believe this poster has a basic obligation to be able to offer support. Regarding my level of knowledge, I have had prior, recent conversations with a founder of the company and this individual stated that the organization made a conscious decision to omit all non-compete clauses from physician employee contracts.

I think the focus on this particular statement about Advocate misses the point though. I believe that SDN struggles with a widespread problem of disingenuous and deceitful posts, and that some attempt at eliminating the most egregiously false statements would improve its product. SDN has really been a leader in other regards, and I don't see why it couldn't move the needle yet again, by introducing some fact checking at a high level for select inflammatory posts.

​

 
Trying to truthfully prove/disprove certain issues can also doxx users

There are certain things posted here that have been blatantly false, hearsay, etc yet some cannot completely correct the entire story without revealing who they are

The mods are not the omniscient beings of radiation oncology
 
I think the answer is simple. If someone makes a claim then the burden of proof is theirs and they should prove it. I responded when the word tacitly was used (incorrectly in my view but whatever). Someone makes a claim. Another questions and asks for proof. In the absence of proof then let the readers decide for themselves. I think most everyone knows that anonymous sites produce lots of bilge. I assume the readers are wise enough to take everything with a large grain of salt (except for the US medical students who are running away from the burning platform)
 
A single online comment by a poster on a message board will stop exactly 0% of the interested applicant pool from applying to said group and finding out for themselves.

Especially regarding an issue like non compete which is fairly standard in most physician contracts AND with regard to this group is an issue which seems to have dubious enforceability.

Let’s not get too dramatic here.
 
Mandelin Rain said:
A single online comment by a poster on a message board will stop exactly 0% of the interested applicant pool from applying to said group and finding out for themselves.

Especially regarding an issue like non compete which is fairly standard in most physician contracts AND with regard to this group is an issue which seems to have dubious enforceability.

Let’s not get too dramatic here.
Click to expand...
True, it’s almost taken too personally. To the outsider, this isn’t the worst thing I’ve experienced/heard about that group.
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
True, it’s almost taken too personally.
Click to expand...

‘Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch’​

In ‘Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch’, Black commits a minor transgression, which White takes as their cue to express unlimited anger. Although prima facie the wronged party, White is secretly delighted that Black has given them an injustice to exploit, allowing them to take the moral high ground. They use their ‘trivial but socially defensible objection to vent the pent-up furies of many years’ (Penguin edition of Games People Play, p75). NIGYSOB is an Adult–Adult interaction that becomes Parent–Adult, and may devolve into Parent–Child depending on the moves that Black makes. The parallels with [SDN] are obvious. Black posts a casual or thoughtless [post], which is is picked up and roundly criticised by a vigilant White. At this point, Black can either back down or fight back.
 
TheWallnerus said:

‘Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch’​

In ‘Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch’, Black commits a minor transgression, which White takes as their cue to express unlimited anger. Although prima facie the wronged party, White is secretly delighted that Black has given them an injustice to exploit, allowing them to take the moral high ground. They use their ‘trivial but socially defensible objection to vent the pent-up furies of many years’ (Penguin edition of Games People Play, p75). NIGYSOB is an Adult–Adult interaction that becomes Parent–Adult, and may devolve into Parent–Child depending on the moves that Black makes. The parallels with [SDN] are obvious. Black posts a casual or thoughtless [post], which is is picked up and roundly criticised by a vigilant White. At this point, Black can either back down or fight back.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's an absolutely fascinating article. I want to read this Games People Play book now - I don't have time for casual reading, Wallnerus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Non competes
Replies
44
Views
4K
ramsesthenice
R
S
Non-viability of RadOnc?
Replies
45
Views
5K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
CurbYourExpectations
Cost of Excellence?
Replies
31
Views
3K
yesmaster
Y
fiji128
Melanoma Dose for Non Resectable Site of Disease.
Replies
24
Views
1K
SneakyBooger
SneakyBooger
CurbYourExpectations
The logic of the private forum
Replies
33
Views
4K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
Top