Tuesday, May 8, 2012


I started searching for Dr. Greenhood on the internet after he ignored every eye cancer symptom seen in my medical records except blurred vision. Then Greenhood made the blur disappear by manipulating and changing three questions MetLife asked him. (More about this after the concealment)

MetLife Concealed Greenhood’s Report

Quotes from Federal Judge Bryant seen below confirm MetLife concealed Dr. Greenhood’s report and they concealed claims denials and many other documents from me for three years !!  

Then MetLife meticulously filed Dr. Greenhood’s reports and the other concealed documents in Federal Court so they could use them to their advantage when the lawsuit was filed.

Dr. Greenhood never saw me and never spoke to me. I did not know Dr. Greenhood existed until I saw his report years after they were written !! Obama’s DOL and DOJ Directors are aware this occurred while I often had no money for medical treatment, surgery, food or housing when my savings were depleted. I would have died if my family had not helped me !!

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bryant wrote :

“the record reflects that Plaintiff did not receive certain documentation upon which the denial was based, in particular
the report of independent physician consultant Dr. Greenhood.

Judge Bryant also wrote,

“The record does not reflect that Metlife, at any point, during the Administrative process, disclosed to plaintiff Dr. Greenhood’s identity as a consulting medical expert or the content of his narrative report, despite Metlife’s apparent reliance on that report (AR 15), verses the restrictions imposed by plaintiff’s treating sources, and despite plaintiff’s repeated requests for same. Metlife apparently even failed to produce this information after issuing its decision on his appeal, when it purported to mail plaintiff “copies of the information which was used to make a decision on your claim.”

Metlife repeatedly sent letters saying they “evaluate all information”, but Metlife and Dr. Greenhood never mentioned any of the following symptoms that were documented by my treating physicians :

(1)          Torticuous OD/metamorphopisa 
(2)          Image from OD is tilted up to right   
(3)          “Right eye lines are wavy” 
(4)          Graphic drawn by physician that showed right eye image is torsionally twisted to a 45 degree angle away from what is normal.
(5)          Sensation of print “moving” and a pulsing sensation in right eye.”
(6)          Eye does not receive or recognize as much light 
(7)          Flashers OU (both eyes )
(8)          Vitreo Retinal Specialist wrote, “Still have vision movement.” “ Don’t have sharp pain unless I read”
(9)          “Complaints related to reading and sustained near tasks and image jump”
(10)    Have occasional sharp pain in both eyes (written in medical history during Barry’s very first visit to Vitreo Retinal Specialist on 3/28/01)

Part Two
Evidence of Complex Fraud


This is very detailed evidence and is provided for Congressional Investigators and Grand Juries. As you read this please remember you can see how Dr. Greenhood ignored two more patients life threatening medical conditions by reading the extensive Judges quotes that are seen at :
Evidence of Complex Fraudulent Intent
While Independent Physician Consultant Dr. Greenhood is supposedly independent he has no address in the record. The only communication Metlife has with him is in their internal Diary Review.
Metlife’s official referral asks IPC Dr. Greenhood to “Please advise” regarding 3 specific questions. The first question is :

Please advise whether the clinical evidence is consistent with the CLT’s subjective complaints?

In his report Dr. Greenhood drastically changed this question and asked,

“ Does the submitted information support the patient’s complaint of blurred vision?”

By drastically changing the question so he eliminates the discussion of “subjective complaints” and only discusses “blurred vision”, Dr. Greenhood set up a fraudulent premise for his forthcoming answers and conclusion because he eliminated his advisement of every other adverse symptom. Now we can see why Metlife violated Federal law and used Dr. Greenhood illegally on the initial denial and the appeal !
When he drastically changed the question Metlife’s Dr. Greenhood intentionally omitted all of these documented symptoms from his first response :

i.      Torticuous OD/metamorphopisa  (See AR 0121)
ii.     Image from OD is tilted up to right ( See AR 0115)
iii.    ”Right eye lines are wavy”  ( See AR 0105 )
iv.    Graphic drawn by treating physician that showed the right eye image is torsionally twisted to a 45 degree angle away from what is normal. (See AR 0120)
v.     Eye does not receive or recognize as much light  (See AR 0107)
vi.    sensation of print “moving” and a pulsing sensation in right eye.”(See AR 0109)
vii.   Flashers OU (both eyes ) ( See AR 0070)
viii.  Vitreo Retinal Specialist’s office visit note where the Doctor wrote, “Still have vision movement.” “ Don’t have sharp pain unless I read”
ix.    Questioned the normality of his image jumps ( See AR 0015 )
x.     “Subretinal fluid, even small amount, can cause movement” Quote from Vitreo-Retinal Surgeon Everton Arrindell M.D. (See AR 0119)
xi.    “Complaints related to reading and sustained near tasks and image jump” ( See AR 0108 )
xii.   Have occasional sharp pain in both eyes (written by Plaintiff in medical history during Barry’s very first visit to Vitreo Retinal Specialist on 3/28/01)

Dr. Greenhood also omitted the discussion of the following symptoms that the Plaintiff mentioned in the email sent to his managers :
“I am having difficulty holding my eyes on the same line when reading on the computer.”

“I have had occasions where I have what I could best describe as muscular contractions, and my eyes seem to lock up and for a moment I can’t see anything, and my eyes also jump around.”

“Sometimes I have pain after as little as 30 minutes of computer use combined with reading. Some of the pains are very sharp and I have discussed them with my Dr’s from the initial reporting of my condition.”

After omitting all of these symptoms Dr. Greenhood answered,
“Yes – The patient has a large lesion involving the right macular since at least January of 2001. While right sided visual acuity and visual field were relatively normal, it is certainly probable that the retinal lesion caused blurred vision.”

This answer shows enough intelligence that we can be certain this medical doctor knew that he was eliminating the discussion of all the other symptoms when he changed the first question.
Of course Metlife did absolutely nothing about this drastic change even though they repeatedly wrote that they “evaluate all the information” and performed a “thorough and extensive review of the information provided regarding your medical condition and functional capacities”
This is just the first step of Dr. Greenhood and Metlife’s fraudulent misrepresentation of the Plaintiff’s medical condition.
The second question Metlife asked in their referral to Dr. Greenhood was:

“Does the medical documentation show a severity of symptamology which would preclude CLT from work as a National Field Manager?”

Dr. Greenhood did not list this question or answer this question in the Questions and Issues section of his report !
In two consecutive questions Greenhood has now consciously decided that he will not answer about documented symptamology and complaints in the plural.
After drastically changing the first question and completely omitting the second question, Doctor Greenhood’s third question was almost identical to the question asked by Metlife ! It’s very obvious Greenhood set up a bait and switch by changing the first question and omitting the second and created the false premise so he could use it in his answer to Metlife’s final question ! Of course it would be impossible to know this during the claims process because Metlife concealed the Diary Review that had their referral to Greenhood and they concealed Greenhood’s report that proves one question was drastically changed and one question was completely omitted.

Here is the third question Metlife’s referral asked Doctor Greenhood :

Are R/L’s of limited reading and near work to 3HR/Day supported?

In the Question and Issues section of Doctor Greenhood’s report he mirrored Metlife’s third question by asking,

“Does the submitted information support the patient’s inability to read or perform near-work for more than 3-4 hours per day?”

Here is Dr. Greenhood’s answer, please note how the blur also disappears :

“As of the time of the Transpupillary therma-therapy toward the end of 2002, the submitted information does support an inability to read and or perform near-work for more than 3-4 hours per day. The transpupillary therma-therapy – while presumably curing the alleged cancer – left the patient blind in the right eye. Prior to this therapy, the patient had only mildly abnormal right-sided visual acuity and visual field – neither of which would be expected to limit reading and near-vision to 3-4 hours per day.”

Dr. Greenhood’s first answer said blur was probable but his conclusion/diagnosis has completely omitted the blur !!
By eliminating blur Dr. Greenhood also eliminated the fact that the treating physician wrote, “Very Blurred” on the office visit note for 7/9/01.
In a total of 3 questions the Doctor who is paid by Metlife has eliminated the advisement of every adverse symptom from 2001 that has been documented in the medical records that were written by the Plaintiff’s treating physicians !!
Here is more evidence of the intent of Dr. Greenhood’s and Metlife’s complex fraudulent misrepresentation and restraint :

The Plaintiff was not covered by the Metlife policy in late 2002, which is the first date Metlife’s Dr. Greenhood said reading needed to be limited.

On July 9th, 2001 the Plaintiff’s treating physician recommended that the Plaintiff limit reading to two 90-minute sessions per day (See A.R. 0165).  The Plaintiff was covered by the Metlife disability policy at this time.
After manipulating the questions and omitting every adverse symptom that was present in 2001, Metlife’s Dr. Greenhood’s conclusion/answer wrote that reading did not need to be limited until late 2002.
The Plaintiff was not covered by the Metlife policy in late 2002.

The Plaintiff lost his Metlife coverage at the end of July 2001 because the Plaintiff’s employer had fired him on July 6th, 2001 ! The firing took place 4 days after the employer requested the Plaintiff’s medical records for the first time (and received the medical records via fax the day they were requested)
        As mentioned earlier the Plaintiff presented evidence to Metlife that he received a commendable performance evaluation and a raise 6 weeks before he reported the potentially fatal condition to his manager, but Metlife and their Dr. Greenhood never mentioned or considered this evidence.
The omission of all of the medical symptoms and evidence is another example of blatant violations of Title 29 CFR 2560.503-1 Section (h)(2)(iv), which mandates the claims procedure will:

Provide for a review that takes into account all comments, documents, records, and other information submitted by the claimant relating to the claim, without regard to whether such information was submitted or considered in the initial benefit determination.

No comments:

Post a Comment