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 D

  1. Between on or about March 1991 and October 1991, Respondent consulted and treated Patient D for her chronic Multiple Sclerosis at her husband I s of f ice and at their home in New York (T. 739; 744).
  2. In or about March or April 1991, Respondent met Patient D and her husband f or the first time, at a meeting in her husband's office. Allison Dardik also attended the meeting. At that meeting, Respondent explained his wavenergy program, and how it would be administered (T. 740-43; 907; 927; 1306). He told Patient D that he would personally pay constant attention to her (T. 747; 771-72; 788-89; 916-17; 925-28; 952-53).
  3. At that meeting Respondent told Patient D that she would be walking by December, 1991; that he would totally eradicate her MS, as he could do with cancer and ALS; and that he would cure her MS (T. 741-44; 787-88; 908-10; 929; 933-38).
  4. At that meeting, Respondent did not take a history of Patient D (T. 1287; 1309). He did not ask for her medical records or contact her other physicians (T. 767; 1311).
  5. Respondent did not physically examine Patient D at that meeting, did not ask her to walk or stand, although he may have seen her do so, and did not take a baseline heart rate reading (T. 744-4S; 791; 911-12; 940-41; 1286-87; 1308).
  6. At the first meeting, either Respondent or Allison Dardik told Patient D and/or her husband that the treatment would cost $50,000 for a year's program (T. 746; 912). Thereafter, a payment schedule was worked out with Patient D's financial advisor, and $-37,000 of the fee was paid between April 1991 and October 1991 (T. 913; Pet.'s Exs. 15; 24).
  7. No written contract regarding her treatment was ever discussed with or provided to Patient D or her representatives (T. 933-35; 946-47; 1318-19; 1692).
  8. Patient D commenced treatment in or about April 1991, purchasing the recommended Polar watch and other equipment (T. 75051). She did not purchase a computer, but communicated her heart rate numbers over the telephone daily or in person (T. 789-90).
  9. Patient D 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, and in person, with Patient D achieving these targets through cycles of exercise and relaxation. Her heart rate was monitored during these periods by the Polar watch, and the data orally transmitted by telephone to Respondent's office (T. 752-57; 760-62; 789-91; 920-21).
  10. During the course of her treatment, Respondent visited Patient D no more than 13 times for an average of one hour per visit, and did not visit her once after her last payment (T. 752; 765; 918; 920-21). Sh e was visited by Respondent's therapists periodically (T. 756-60). During the first few months of her treatment, Respondent spoke to Patient D on the telephone regularly, but after December 1991, he did not return her calls (T. 762-65; 771-72; 922).
  11. Patient D's condition was not improved after her treatment with the wavenergy program (T. 739; 765; 775; 923).
  12. Respondent did not maintain an appropriate medical record for Patient D (T. 792; 941; 1286-87; 1310; 1827-35; 1959-61; Resp.Is Ex. R).

Conclusions

  1. Respondent held himself out to Patient D 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 D in choosing to participate in the wavenergy program.
  2. Respondent told Patient D that he would cure her Multiple Sclerosis through his wavenergy program, for which he would charge her $50,000. He told her this fee was based on the fact that he personally would be treating Patient D intensively. He intentionally misrepresented to Patient D the extent he would be personally involved in her care, and did not devote the amount of time to her that Patient D expected, based on the statements he had made to her.
  3. Patient D was not cured of her multiple sclerosis.
  4. Respondent did not take an adequate medical history, nor conduct a proper physical examination of Patient D, and did not maintain adequate medical records for Patient D. These failures represent a departure from competent medical practice.
  5. Respondent did not reveal personally identifiable facts, data or information obtained from Patient D to other patients, or about other patients to Patient D.

Next Segment: Patient E ||| Quackwatch Home Page

This page was posted on October 23, 2000.