The below are facts and thus not libelous
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The below is a letter Dr. Wallner wrote:
Dear XXXXXX:
I have read with some concern your recent posting on XXXXXX. Although I can understand the frustration and concern many residents and candidates currently have regarding the initial certification assessment instruments of the ABR, especially in these difficult times, I find it especially troublesome when those views are expressed with little or no information of the actual processes involved or decision-making. I am especially distressed when the attacks become personal against me, and clearly from one who has no knowledge of any of the facts of which he writes.
With regard to the issue of accommodations for female candidates, the initial posting that started the torrent of subsequent postings was based on totally incorrect information. The ABR goes to great lengths to accommodate all candidates with special needs, including nursing or breast pumping females.
With regard to the performance of candidates in physics and biology on the 2018 exams, you suggest that the ABR "has blamed" the residents. In fact, the great majority of candidates who took those exams passed with high grades, and those who failed did so abysmally. They simply did not know the material. If that is "blaming," so be it! You also suggest that somehow those single year grades have had some impact on the specialty. Actually, if you took the time to investigate the facts, you would see that applications and quality of applicants had begun to drop well before the 2018 exams were ever administered.
I find your statement regarding separation of radiation oncology from the ABR even more misguided. ABR certification exams are developed ONLY by radiation oncologists and all decisions regarding those exams are made by radiation oncologists. The fees of the 10x number of diagnostic radiology candidates and diplomates actually support the radiation oncology endeavor, which, in fact, is a money losing proposition for the ABR. If the radiation oncology community, with a fervor driven by inappropriate posts such as yours, should ever intend to actually "control our own destiny," I would guess that the cost to residents and diplomates could be more than double the current levels, with a significantly diminished end-product.
Even more troublesome, and personally abhorrent to me, are the essentially libelous statement about me and my employer, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. that you have made on a public, professional website. You have absolutely no knowledge of me, my responsibilities with that entity, or the legal facts of the issues you raised, and the implication that I was somehow involved is not only factually incorrect, but apparently maliciously intended. If such statements continue, I will have little choice but to react as necessary.
Paul E. Wallner, DO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the DOJ, published 12/12/2017:
21st Century Oncology Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates have agreed to pay $26 million to the government to resolve a self-disclosure relating to the submission of false attestations regarding the company’s use of electronic health records software and separate allegations that...
www.justice.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks as if Paul Wallner was the SVP of 21C at the time, in charge of legislative and regulatory affairs, organizational, vendor, medical school and medical staff relationships, compliance and quality assurance, at least based on Bloomberg data and 21C's own website. If he was not a SVP at the time, it's not possible to tell based on the website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: It is possible the initial complaints against 21c were discharged in bankruptcy court, based on other articles I found but didn't have full access to.
