Quackwatch Home Page

State of New York Department of Health
State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

In the Matter of Irving I. Dardik, M.D.
Findings of Fact as to Patient E

  1. Between on or about April, 1992, and on or about April, 1993 Respondent consulted and treated Patient E, who lives in Chicago, for her chronic Multiple Sclerosis in New York city and over the telephone (T.673; 736).
  2. On or about' April 24, 1992, Patient E first met Respondent in a New York City hotel room. His associate, Linda Podhurst, also attended the meeting, which lasted approximately one half hour (T. 675; a54). At the meeting, Respondent explained his wavenergy program (T. 679-80).
  3. At that meeting, Respondent told Patient E that his treatment would make everything better; that he had success treating a variety of diseases; that he would permanently improve her MS; that she would'be walking better; that her thinning hair would improve; and that the only two people who had not improved from his program had not committed to it (T. 676-77; 716; 718; 72021; 725; 731; 859).
  4. Respondent took only a cursory history of Patient E, and did not perform a physical examination or take a baseline heart rate. He did ask her to walk so he could observe her. He did not look at the medical records Patient E had brought (T. 677; 706; 713; 723-725; 869; 1477; 1491-93).
  5. At the meeting, Respondent told Patient E that the fee for treatment would be $30,000 for one year. Thereafter a payment schedule was devised, and the entire fee was paid by August, 1992 (T. 628; 677-78; 681-84; 719; Pet.'s Ex. 17).
  6. No written contract regarding her treatment was ever discussed with or provided to Patient E (T. 679; 716-17).
  7. Patient E commenced treatment in or about June 1992, purchasing the recommended Polar watch, computer, and other equipment (T. 683-84; 716; Pet.'s Ex. 23).
  8. Patient E remained committed to the wavenergy program over the course of her treatment. The bulk of her treatment consisted of her being given daily target heart rate numbers by Respondent's therapists over the telephone, with Patient E achieving these targets through cycles of exercise and relaxation. Her heart rate was monitored during these periods by the Polar watch, and the data transmitted to Respondent's office daily by computer (T. 684-95; 698; 700; 702; 716; 727).
  9. During the course of her treatment, the totality of patient E's contact with Respondent was the initial meeting and a few telephone conversations. She was visited by his therapists no more than 5 times, but spoke to them on the telephone often (T. 680-81; 689; 691-92; 695; 697; 701; 1472).
  10. In or about February, 1993, Respondent told Patient E over the telephone not to be discouraged by her recent exacerbation and hospitalization, because even though her year's treatment was nearing its end, she would be walking better than ever after her bad spell, and that he would personal ly take charge of treating her (T. 697).
  11. In or about April, 1993, Respondent stopped returning Patient E's telephone calls (T. 700-01).
  12. Patient E's medical condition was not improved after her treatment with the wavenergy program (T. 703).
  13. Respondent failed to maintain an appropriate medical record for Patient E (T. 860; 1478; 1490; 1493-94; 1519-20; 185355; 1861; 1884-85).

Conclusions

  1. Respondent held himself out to Patient E as a physician, with a record of achievements in vascular surgery and the Olympics Sports Medicine program. Respondent's reputation was an important factor relied on by Patient E in choosing to participate in the wavenergy program.
  2. Respondent told Patient E that he would cure her Multiple Sclerosis through his wavenergy program, for which he would charge her $30,000. He told her this fee was based on the fact that he personally would. be overseeing her treatment. He intentionally misrepresented to Patient E the extent he would be personally involved in her care, and did not devote the amount of time-to her that Patient E expected, based on the statements he had made to her.
  3. Patient E was not cured of her multiple sclerosis.
  4. Respondent did not take an adequate medical history, nor conduct a proper physical examination of Patient E, and did not maintain adequate medical records for Patient E. These failures represent a departure from competent medical practice.

Next Segment: Penalty Determination ||| Quackwatch Home Page

This page was posted on October 23, 2000.