Daily Archives: July 9, 2005

Medical Center institutions rank highly again

Posted on by
1

TMC.jpgU.S. News & World Report’s annual “America’s Best Hospitals” survey is out again and, as usual, Houston’s Texas Medical Center is well-represented in the lists of the top hospitals in a number of different categories. Here is a previous post on the 2004 survey.
The U.S. News and World Report survey ranks the country’s top 50 hospitals in 17 specialties. Less than a third of the 6,000 U.S. hospitals meet the eligibility criteria and only 176 of those institutions qualified for a ranking. The rankings are based on a survey of board-certified physicians around the country, patient survival data and various other indicators, such as the ratio of nurses to patients, technologies and services available to patients, the number of discharges over a three-year period, and whether the institution has Magnet status as determined by the American Nurses Credentialing Center.
M.D. Anderson was again ranked as one of the top two hospitals in cancer care, a position that it has held since U.S. News and World Report began its annual survey in 1990. M.D. Anderson held the No. 1 position in 1992, 2000, and 2002 through 2004. M.D. Anderson also ranked fifth in gynecology, and 11th in both otolaryngology (i.e., ear, nose and throat diseases) and in urology.
Other Medical Center institutions also ranked highly in various categories. Texas Children’s Hospital ranked fourth in pediatrics, while The Menninger Clinic ranked tenth in psychiatry and The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (known as “TIRR”) ranked fifth in rehabilitation. The Texas Heart Institute at St. Luke’s Hospital ranked eighth in heart and heart surgery, while St. Luke‘s also ranked 40th in urology and 42nd in kidney disease. Memorial Hermann Hospital — the teaching hospital for the University of Texas Health Science Center — was ranked 41st in kidney disease and 49th in urology.
Finally, the The Methodist Hospital ranked in more specialties than any other Texas hospital — tenth in neurology and neurosurgery, 13th in urology, 14th in opthamology, 16th in heart and heart surgery, 17th otolaryngology, 19th in psychiatry and 42nd in gynecology.
As I have noted many times, not only is the Texas Medical Center one of Houston’s largest centers of employment, it is an amazing collection of medical services talent.

McCombs makes huge gift for M.D. Anderson research

Posted on by
1

mccombs.jpgSan Antonio-based businessman Red McCombs has given the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center $30 million for its huge $500 million research park that will eventually consist of six centers focusing on cutting edge areas of cancer research.
The gift — which is one of the two largest that M.D. Anderson has ever received — will go to help fund the developing Red and Charline McCombs Institute for the Early Detection and Treatment of Cancer on M.D. Anderson’s 116-acre south campus. That campus is about a mile and a half from the main M.D. Anderson hospital complex in the Texas Medical Center.

More Enron Broadband Misconduct by the Enron Task Force?

Posted on by
3

As this Chronicle article reports, the evidentiary phase of the Enron Broadband trial closed on Friday as the prosecution rested after putting on a thankfully short rebuttal case that lasted less than a day in a trial that just finished the three month mark. The attorneys in the trial and U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore will meet on Monday to finalize jury instructions and then, on Tuesday, final arguments in the trial will begin.

Interestingly, the Chronicle article on the trial did not report on another potentially important incident of Enron Task Force misconduct that occurred as the defense case wound down this past Thursday afternoon.

During a trial in which the prosecution has already elicited false testimony from its key witness and treated two witnesses (Beth Stier and Lawrence Ciscon) in such a manner that both testified that they felt threatened, Judge Gilmore harshly rebuked Enron Task Force prosecutor Cliff Stricklin for asking a question on cross-examination of defendant Kevin Howard that, if not in direct violation of a limine order (i.e., a pre-trial order directing attorneys not to refer to certain subjects during the trial), at least violated the judge’s prior instructions to the Enron Task Force prosecutors.

The rebuke came at the end of cross-examination of Mr. Howard when Mr. Stricklin asked a question about Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”), one of the bank’s that provided financing for the Enron Broadband unit. CIBC entered into this deferred prosecution agreement with the Enron Task Force back in December, 2003 and Judge Gilmore had apparently at least instructed Enron Task Force prosecutors not to ask any questions on that agreement during the Enron Broadband trial. The following is the exchange that occurred:

Mr. Stricklin: In fact, Enron went to CIBC often to fund such deals, isn’t that correct?

Mr. Howard: We had set up a very large investment to fund with a number of banks.

Mr. Stricklin: Including CIBC, is that true?

Mr. Howard: Yes, sir.

Mr. Stricklin: And are you aware that [CIBC has] entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice . . .

Mr. Howard’s defense attorney: Objection, your Honor!

Judge Gilmore: Stop! Mr. Stricklin, just stop it right now! Have a seat! That’s the end of the questions!

With that, a clearly angered Judge Gilmore — standing in front of her seat on the bench — terminated any further questioning of Mr. Howard by Enron Task Force prosecutors and excused Mr. Howard as a witness. Taking advantage of Judge Gilmore’s reprimand of Mr. Stricklin for emphasis, each of the attorneys for the five Enron defendants promptly announced that each of the defendants had completed putting on their defense.

Given the recent similar incident that occurred in the trial of former HealthSouth Corp CEO Richard Scrushy, it appears that we can now add ignoring judges’ instructions — in addition to at least chilling defense witnesses and making disingenuous market loss claims — as another dubious tactic that Department of Justice prosecutors are willing to use in attempting to taint a jury against unpopular business defendants. However, that tactic backfired in the Scrushy trial, and the use of the tactic in the Enron Broadband trial smacks more of desperation in a prosecution team that is clearly worried about the outcome of a trial that they thought would be the legal equivalent of a tap-in at the outset.