Dr. Silberstein:

February 16, 2000

I am in receipt of an e-mail from Venita Clay with attached document file Martin0214.doc from you. It took me quite a while to interpret it, but I think I finally figured it out.

You kept mentioning an appeal and review. That has been the furthest thing from my mind.

I contacted Intracorp at Dr. Greenhood’s urging. (Attached) His missive was in response to the shoddy, unscientific "final review" from MRG, with high reliance on Dr. Greenhood’s comments.

Whether Dr. Greenhood was terminated from employment with Intracorp in retribution for his overturning the First Health Medical Director in some cases, whether there were other reasons for his termination pending, or there just wasn’t enough work for an Infectious Disease specialist to perform contract reviews is irrelevant.

I believe Dr. Greenhood was urging me, without violating his contract terms, to have your organization review what went on under your organization’s name. A quality review.

I have not seen Dr. Greenhood’s original report. Since he has been terminated, as he states, "because of its action, I am sorry that I am no longer able to review your claim." Historically, I cannot place much reliance on Ms. Farina’s transcription of Dr. Greenhood’s comments. (See my attached comments concerning edition numbers and the number of times I have remarked on dosage levels, mistakes I do not believe Dr. Greenhood would make.)

However, if you wish your letter of February 14, 2000 to remain the final word on the quality of your company’s services, so be it.

R. James Martin

Attachments:

Dr. Greenhood letter - greenhood.doc -OR- https://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/DrG.html

Final review comments - venting.doc -OR- https://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/vent001.html