$20,000 as an opener. Civil as well as criminal proceedings. I worry it's more about the money you have to spend, especially when this differs significantly b

$20,000 as an opener. Civil as well as criminal proceedings. I worry it's more about the money you have to spend, especially when this differs significantly between the opposing sides, than justice. And, charging $1300 a visit, that doctor's going to have the spend. Maybe, in this case, the chance of media coverage will produce a settlement before things hit the stratosphere. At the same time, going onto social media and using words like "crook", etc. is... not the best approach. Stick to facts and more neutral language, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. But then again, more and more often, any criticism seems to provoke nuclear escalation. Not to mention the pre-emptive strike of non-disparagement language in service contracts. Ours is called a "knowledge economy". But a lot of self-serving interests are bent on shutting down the knowledge. P.S. If medical records were shared, state licensing should be looking at pulling the doctor's license. There's a purpose to regulation, that includes shutting down the most egregious behavior. Also, prosecutors should be investigating medical and insurance fraud. Back with the wind up of our "war on terror", a lot of law enforcement resources got directed away from domestic crime including white-collar crime, to chasing needles in the ever-bigger haystack that was being built. Even a rich society faces limits to its resources. Especially when there are arguments and initiatives to reduce them. (The "tyranny of big government" -- unless it's law enforcement and the military, or is that law enforcement as the military?) In part, current domestic problems are exacerbated by the pressure and actions to focus our resources abroad. And not in "economic aid", but in power politics. No one's been tending the shop. And the worst and pushiest have been taking advantage.