Jackson Jambalaya

Hey, Mason, you left out the part that explains why the Wolfe Man planted the abortifacients in mama's bearded clam.

A John Grisham book in the making...

Good lawyering.

3:31, "good lawyering"-in what way?

3:31 here:

Terming his license without due process was justified based on imminent threat of harm to the public. Demonstrating an imminent threat to the public will be difficult under the circumstances (time line, allowing continuity of care for existing patients, etc). The time line is shaky, but allowing him to continue to treat patients while claiming he's an imminent threat is to believe that the Board understands that the current patients are worth the risk of being harmed. That argument doesn't fly.

Don't get me wrong, the facts don't suggest the guy should keep his license, just that he should live to fight another day. Which is about as good as this lawyer could do. So, good lawyering.

"Many of the charges utter on the preposterous...."

Hmm... Methinks we now know who wrote LaWanda D. Harris's statement on the departure of the JMWEIA's Interim CEO.

Can't nobody talk gooder thin that 'round here no more?

"Draconian." Harry Potter, Esq.

Due process is and should occur as related to the constitution anyone accused of wrongdoing. However, the MBML must retain the ability to stop a physician from practicing on a moments notice, even when the possibility of harming the physician is present.

This is one more of the many risks doctors assume when deciding to practice. They know the power of the MBML.

Wolfe will get his hearing in a few weeks, but there's got to be a lot more to this than his zipper falling down and doing some stupid shit.

He just needs to call it a fake news witch hunt and maybe insult the looks of the patient he is accused of assaulting and claim she’s not his type. Should be good enough for this state.

More victims will come forward.

I know them.

He’s had a long-standing reputation. Didn’t matter the age.

More victims? Age doesn’t matter? You’re suggesting he did far more than the complaint expressed where police need to be involved. I’m surprised that comment survived the publisher’s filter.

In this case crying wolf is legit.

July 11, 2019 at 3:02 PM You are DISGUSTING and obviously live alone and fantasize about such things.

He can always go to work for the VA...prior to the mal-practice tort reform, a prominent Jackson Neurosurgeon was featured in a full page color CL ad saying he was having to leave MS because he couldn't afford insurance. Fast forward 4 years, and the prominent doctor returned to Jackson, working for the VA. He was also moonlighting seeing patients sent to him for opinions by insurance companies. I had the experience of being seen by him. It was in a 1 day rented office in a vacant office complex. No fax machine, no Telephone, his laptop PC wasn't working so he couldn't review my MRI. I was handed a form to sign and told it was just a standard release. But upon reading, it stated that I was aware that the good doctor had no mal-practice insurance, and further could not be held liable for anything. I refused to sign. In the sparce waiting area with folding chairs, some patients said they had seen him in 5 different locations in the past 3 months, all without any staff. Here was the poster child for tort reform that passed, and yet he was back in MS after it passed, and had no insurance. But when I asked him how he worked at the VA, he said he didn't have to have it there. Go figure.

Terrible lawyering! Now, the Medical Board can utilize subpoenas of "a real court" to require witnesses (ex-patients, sex partners, ex-husbands) attendance at depositions as well as the Court's TRO hearing who wouldn't otherwise have responded to a Medical Board's subpoena to a Medical Board hearing. The Medical Board will now be able to obtain much more damaging testimony and evidence against the doctor.

Agree with 3:31. There is zero evidence in the Board's Order of an alleged emergency. The last thing noted that he allegedly did was make an inappropriate comment to a patient last January. The so-called attempted abortion allegedly happened years ago. By the way, the Order does not state what evidence they have to support this insidious claim.

Look, I don't know this physician from Adam's house cat, but I can say that the Board screwed this up. It won't surprise me if Maison gets his TRO. He's a good attorney.

9:20, that’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

If there is a possibility that the doctor will repeat his alleged predatory and bizarre conduct with other female patients, then YES there is an imminent danger to the public if he continues to practice. That's the bottom line!

There won't be a TRO granted. The lawyer didn't even properly request it in the petition he filed with the court. The judge can throw it out based on that fact alone. And, the doctor certainly can't meet the burden/test for the TRO. But, the lawyer has now invited the Medical Board to "air out all" of the doctor's dirty laundry in court to oppose the TRO. Get your popcorn ready! The doctor's reputation (what is left of it) will now be completely ruined because the lawyer bungled it for him.

We don't need no stinking "due process" in Mississippi.

Ready, Fire, Aim. Defame.

9:20 pm

Did he have a choice?

A Chancellor will likely grant a TRO against the board for lack of notice.

IMO this guy needs relief ASAP and that’s only available in chancery.

Let the chips fall where they may

I have a sinking feeling that the MSBML shot themselves in the foot with this case. They should have aimed at his medical malpractice and bizarre medicine, rather than his sexual escapades. There was probably enough evidence on his medical practice, and his losing his privileges at most of Jackson's major and minor hospitals to look into his medical/surgical care. He might be able to get out of this one.

@11:09

Of course he had a choice. It's not the first time that a doctor has had a license suspended by Medical Board emergency action. And when a lawyer handles it properly with the Medical Board, the doctor is often able to salvage his career. We've all seen it, and it's been complained about. But the way this has been handled, the Medical Board will never give him a medical license to practice in the future, in any capacity, anywhere in the U.S. The way the lawyer has tried to play "bull in a china shop" with the Medical Board is what has now pushed the Board past the point of no return. Because of the way it was handled, imagine the public outcry and criticism if the Board (or even the judge) allowed the doctor to ever practice again!

Well, in his response, I didn't see where the doc denied that he slipped his patient/lover the four pills to induce an abortion of the child that they had conceived. You'd think that he'd be denying that allegation with a loudspeaker from the mountain top if it were false. But, he just complete ignores it. I think his silence on it says all we need to know.

"July 11, 2019 at 3:02 PM You are DISGUSTING and obviously live alone and fantasize about such things."

He is commenting on allegations that everyone else read about in numerous articles about this mess. How did you miss it?

The allegations make him look like the fox guarding the hen house. Or is it a chef eating the profits?

@ 6:39 Good point.

I can't figure out how the alleged incident of inserting the 4 abortion inducing pills got out? Certainly, the doctor wouldn't admit it and how could you ever convict him of it? I could easily see his lawyer spinning a tale of "she did it all".

Plus, if she doesn't have some sort very specific and substantial proof, this seems like a long shot to assign guilt to the Wolfe man.

The real question is will the DA come after him for this alleged incident? We'll see.

There is proof this mans wife was a patient of his that he got pregnant. He is a danger to his patients and his community there has been an investigation going on by the board for awhile.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Really, maybe I am. But, it seems like I had to weed through a lot of stuff about him having an affair with an employee/nurse, got her pregnant, and kept having a sexual relationship with her once she became a patient due to the pregnancy. Now, if we went around pulling physicians' licenses for having affairs with their nurses, we would have a LOT less doctors. It seemed to me that the punishable infraction he committed was attempting to give the lady an involuntary abortion, which seemed sort of buried (but disclosed) in all the sorted details of the affair. Like I said, maybe I am missing something. But, the CL article made it seem like the punishment was for having an affair with an employee and patient.

If a doctor cheating on his wife with a patient or nurse or employee is grounds for an emergency license seizure, a lot of doctors currently practicing or whose ex-wives are still bitter should be terrified.

This was hardly non-consensual sex if she's now his wife 8:21 am. And, maybe her husband alienated her before she walked into a doctor's office. A happy wife doesn't go looking for love elsewhere and if they do, the husband should be glad to be rid of her.

There's either more to this story, or the board has a hidden agenda or is filled with religious zealots who would feel comfortable with Sharia law when it comes to women and sex.

Let's not overlook the fact that he had these intravaginal abortion suppositories on hand in the first place. And all this time I thought the only place to get a Mississippi abortion was that place in Fondren.

what you legal armchair quarterbacks do not know is the underlying story. the lawyer was likely forced to file this action in chancery because there are other unreported actions which likely are punishable. the doc is in a box....and not the good one.

@9:58

The medical board is simply following the statute that allows them to suspend the license of a doctor that they deem to be a threat to the public. Based on what I've read, the doctor (an OB/GYN) is a threat to female patients, and the medical board correctly took the statutory step to protect the public from him. The safety of the public trumps the greed of a doctor. His lawyer just isn't able to defend him, so he throws a bunch of junk against the wall to see what will stick. But, the public spectacle has made it worse for the doctor. It doesn't take a law degree to figure it out.

And I’m surprised no one has pointed out the obvious. He’s 60 years old and has black hair. Never trust a senior citizen with a box dye job.

The Mississippi Code forced this action to be filed in Chancery Court, chief. And it's not a box. It's an opportunity to have an objective chancellor determine whether the MSMBL overstepped its authority. Most lawyers commenting seem to agree that the doctor's got a good case with the TRO, saying nothing about the merits of the action if/when it gets back to the MSMBL. Once it gets back, they'll likely strip his license, but will just do so after a proper hearing.

"Let's not overlook the fact that he had these intravaginal abortion suppositories on hand in the first place. And all this time I thought the only place to get a Mississippi abortion was that place in Fondren."

Any drug rep could have dropped off free samples to any OB.

Did y'all see Kingfish's update? He had his license renewed less than 2 weeks ago. Why the hell was he renewed if this was going down?

Dr. Wolfe has been on staff at several local hospital starting out at the old Hinds General Hospital (later Methodist) when he finished residency and then moving to several other hospitals over the years. I am not sure why he has moved around so much. He was one of the first caucasian doctors in private practice in Jackson to accept Medicaid patients as I recall. He is an odd bird and overall I would say that OB/GYN community does not think highly of him. However, he has practiced for many years and managed to make a decent living so obviously there are patients who like him. . It's interesting that Ken Cleveland, MD is in charge of the investigation after all the lawsuits and problems he has had over the years.

@10:34

Every lawyer that I know who has commented on it says that the Medical Board has the strongest position because of the statute and the requirements to obtain a TRO. All have said that a TRO won't be issued.

When do Dateline NBC and/or Jerry Springer show up? Any sightings yet?

3:07 pm I don't doubt what you write, but you do understand that if the technical adherence to process rules outweigh the facts and become a tool to remove people you don't like or to aid in a vendetta against a " wronged" spouse or to further a political agenda , then justice has been compromised.

9:03 AM The "facts" of the doctor's horrendous conduct alleged by the medical board is exactly what gives the board their statutory grounds to immediately suspend the doctor to protect the public against more repeat performances by the doctor. The facts justify the procedure.

Um, I don't have a dog in this fight, but does _ANY_one really think that this doctor could, even if really wanted to, begin an affair with another patient, get sued by her spouse, impregnate her, attempt to give her a sneak abortion, schedule an ultrasound for her and kiss her prior to it, marry her, etc., in the two weeks between the time the board notified him of its intent to suspend him and the hearing two weeks later? This doctor may be a real douchebag but he clearly and plainly is not a "danger to the citizens of Mississippi." I have no idea what the precise ratio of females to males is in Mississippi, but I daresay that even if what the board alleges is completely true, he isn't a danger to ANY men and only allegedly to a (female) patient with whom he is having an affair. About 99.999% of the population of Mississippi isn't in the slightest danger and most of that vast majority will never even hear his name.

I don't know if the board got WAAAAY out over the tips of its skis or there is something personal behind this, but either way, something about what the board did doesn't pass the smell test to an outsider looking in.

8:38 AM

The medical board alleges that their were multiple victims, not just one.

My guess is that you're a man. Your might feel different about it if you had to put your feet in the stirrups for this doctor. Would you feel that your young daughter was safe in that position with him. Really?

8:38AM responding to:

"My guess is that you're a man. Your might feel different about it if you had to put your feet in the stirrups for this doctor. Would you feel that your young daughter was safe in that position with him. Really?"

My response is based solely on the information presented: while the board has alleged more than one "victim," the alleged "victims" apparently stated they were NOT victims and support him. It seems somewhat akin to the police telling a bank it has been robbed and they have caught the robber while the bank says it has not been robbed by that person or anyone else. On top of which there has been no allegation of any kind by anyone (that I have seen and even in comments here) about any sort of misconduct toward young girls so I would have no reason to be any more uncomfortable with Wolfe specifically than any other male doctor and my daughter.

As an aside, as a father I cannot say I would be truly comfortable with any male OB/GYN examining my daughter but I would defer to my wife and daughter as to their preferences. Thankfully both go to a female OB/GYN so I have not been faced with the situation. I guess now that I think about it a female could be a predator, too, but again I'd defer to my wife and daughter.

5:47 In your example, the bank is still a victim of theft because the robber broke the law that makes it illegal to rob a bank. It doesn't change just because the bank may not want to press charges in order to protect its public image. The law was still broken by the thief if the police have the evidence. Same here. Just because one of the victims doesn't want to get in the middle of the publicity muck and possibly have her reputation put at issue, it doesn't mean that the board doesn't have evidence that the doctor broke the law.

"5:47 In your example, the bank is still a victim of theft because the robber broke the law that makes it illegal to rob a bank."

I didn't write anything about the bank not wanting to press charges, I wrote that the bank (the police-alleged "victim") said it had not been robbed, i.e., there is no "victim." Just because a particular third party (or even every other third party) takes offense to what Wolfe may have said to a patient doesn't obligate the patient to take offense to it. If for whatever reason the patient doesn't feel "victimized" by whatever was said, then that is that insofar as her being a "victim." Along the same lines, consensual sex between adults legally able to give consent cannot be made non-consensual because a third party thinks it was inappropriate.