Press Coverage

LITIGIOUS PODIATRIST LOSES LICENSE AFTER FOOT-DRAGGING FOR 14 YEARS

By Garry Abrams

Professionally speaking, litigious Southern California podiatrist Garey Lee Weber no longer has a leg to stand on.

That's because the weary, footsore troops of the California Board of Podiatric Medicine have inflicted a major, and perhaps final, defeat on the pugnacious sawbones.

If so, the state agency's victory could signal the end of a 14-year litigation and regulatory war that - at least to outside observers such as yours truly - often must have resembled a Mel Brooks comedy.

The final scene came last week when Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly formally revoked the 60-year-old Weber's license to practice hoof healing in the Golden State. The decision sustained a vote in May by the podiatric board, which oversees the state's 1,700 podiatrists, to yank Weber's toe ticket.

"It's permanent," podiatric board Executive Director Jim Rathlesberger said of the license plucking.

Weber and his Irvine attorney, Matthew Rifat, contested the authority to regulate podiatrists, through lawsuits and hiring a lobbyist to persuade the state Legislature to abolish or curtail the board. So far, they have failed.

Surprisingly, Rifat agreed that his client probably would lose an appeal to a higher court and, therefore, is likely to end the long struggle a few feet short of the last ditch.

"Obviously, he's disappointed," Rifat said of Weber. " [Bu] I think for him, [the revocation] has opened a door for new opportunities. Now he gets to do what he was working toward all along, which is focusing on his family and retiring from the active practice of podiatric medicine."

Rifat also said that Weber's colleagues will continue to operate the three foot clinics established by Weber in Studio City, Irvine and Victorville. The new team wants to foster "a good relationship between the practice and the board," Rifat said.

If Weber does, indeed, decline to appeal, it apparently would be the first time since at least 1987 that Weber has passed on a chance to duel with the board. That year, the board sued Weber for unfair business practices and substandard treatment. Three years later, the board won a $420,000 settlement that banned Weber from using some medical procedures, as well as certain advertising and billing practices.

But peace did not reign.

The board and Weber continued to snipe at each other for more than a decade. Meanwhile, Weber also was involved in other lawsuits, including a malicious prosecution case against two Los Angeles attorneys who had sued Weber for malpractice.

The beginning of the end came two years ago. In 1999, the board placed Weber on probation for a variety of alleged violations. In particular, the board looked askance at Weber's use of an unauthorized surgical treatment for bunions. In addition, the board was not amused by a post-operative treatment of Weber's that eschewed casts and called for patients to "bear weight" on their feet immediately after surgery. (See what I mean about a Mel Brooks comedy?)

Last spring, the board lost its patience and voted to remove Weber's license, partly because Weber had proved to be a difficult probationer. In fact, the board issued a press release reporting that Weber's probation officer had found that Weber was "the most difficult probationer he has had in nearly 200 cases."

Weber's alleged infractions included his refusal to list his home address on a probation form. According to Rathlesberger, Weber filed a lawsuit over the issue.

Rathlesberger said that Weber ultimately complied with all probation terms, including taking a physicians' assessment and clinical education class. However, Weber's foot-dragging regarding probation, plus the underlying infractions, forced the board to invoke the podiatric death penalty, Rathlesberger said.

"He could have walked through probation," Rathlesberger told me. "There was nothing rigorous or strenuous about it."

The departure of Weber, however, may not mean an end to the foot doctor regulation wars.

Rifat noted that he has filed more than 20 public-interest lawsuits against the board on behalf of other podiatrists and individuals. He plans to pursue those other suits, which generally question the regulatory powers of the board.

"It's more of a political issue than a legal one," Rifat said. Should the state have the power to sock a podiatrist?