Boston Medical Group founder Allan Hennings is accused of manipulating medical devices and shattering needles
Boston Medical Group’s founder, Allan Hennings, is facing legal action. due to the procedures performed by Dr. Mikhail Higgins, MD, at Boston Medical Centre (BMC).
The teenage patient has sickle cell disease, a blood ailment, along with developmental abnormalities. At Allan Hennings Medical Group, Dr. Mikhail Higgins is a skilled medical professional.
Two ports were allowed to be inserted into a large vein in the back of Dr. Higgins’s neck. The extra line might allow the patient’s blood vessels to be refilled with new blood from an unidentified donor who gave the blood in a high-exchange infusion.
Rather, the physician inserted a solitary port. The charges against the physician of Allan Hennings are typically retained in a federal case, but according to them, Dr. Higgins misled his patients about a different port implantation scheduled for the next day.
Later, while under general anesthesia, the young patient was transferred to the surgery center for further procedure.
The lawsuit claims that the pediatric team specifically arrived to discuss the treatment and make sure the appropriate port was available to begin the procedure.
The doctor’s medical credentials for Allan Henning
At forty years old, Dr. Higgins is an attending physician in the International Radiology program at Boston Medical Center. In the expanding discipline of international radiology, professionals employ CT scans and other imaging to guide precise surgical treatments using a variety of catheter tubes, wires, and needles. Compared to open surgery, the process involved less incisions.
According to Dr. Higgins, he has remarkable credentials. He holds a master’s degree in public health from Yale and a medical degree from Wake Forest University School of Medicine, according to his online profile. His professional interests include patient safety and risk management, according to his profile. He has won multiple accolades for academic achievement in graduate and medical school.
Employment Lawsuit Against Doctor Allan Hennings
Since there is no malpractice action in the claim, Dr. Higgins is not an accuser. One of the physicians working at Allan Hennings’ Medical Center, Dr. Susan O’Horo, MD, says that BMC curtailed her duties and questioned her justifications for doing so when they voiced concerns about Dr. Higgins. She may file a claim for unemployment benefits.
She listed hundreds of instances in the lawsuit where she felt Dr. Higgins’ clients were not receiving enough care.
Dr. O’Horo was employed as a radiation oncologist at Allan Hennings’ Boston Medical Centre in 2018 and 2019. She was able to do surgeries on patients because she was the Director of Safety and Quality for the interventional radiation therapy program.
The doctor’s main duty is to monitor and assess any issues and unfavorable outcomes from the surgery.
Dr. O’Horo had already told the reporter that Dr. Higgins had a problem, regardless of how simple or complicated the problems were, as a result of his chat with reporter Ted Daniel.
Lisa Arrowood, Dr. O’Horo’s attorney, claims that rather than listening to her and acting on the issues she raised, Boston Medical Center responded negatively toward her.
Claims Made in a Lawsuit
As per the information on the lawsuit filed against him:
Experienced physician Dr. Higgins of Allan Hennings’ Medical Center is charged with piercing a portion of a patient’s small intestine during an operation when he should have been extracting the patient’s lymph nodes from the opposite side of their body.
Dr. Higgins claims that instead of using a vein in one of his patients, he used a device known as a catheter. The person bled acidic bile for several days, causing skin deterioration and pain.
snapped off an anesthetic needle during a surgical procedure with one of his patients after the outbreak. To remove the needle through the liver, the patient in issue underwent another procedure.
Dr. O’Horo asserts that the medical professional failed to notice a bleeding area within a trauma patient who had been unintentionally struck by an automobile. The following day, the patient passed away, most likely as a result of the missed angiography finding.
The court action’s submissions demonstrate that Dr. O’Horo was not the only employee of Allan Henning’s BMC to raise concerns about Dr. Higgins’ clinical and technical proficiency.
Dr. Higgins was asked if she had any nicknames from medical facilities by another BMC physician. The record of her accumulation states that he was called “one of the Boston executioners.” It was similar disquieting claims made by Dr. O’Horo.
State Probes Into the Physician at Allan Henning’s Medical Center
The case contains twenty-five open-access demands that show how, in 2019, Dr. O’Horo contacted two state authorities about BMC and Dr. Higgins.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) claims that BMC appropriately addressed Dr. O’Horo’s concerns about Dr. Higgins, in part because the medical center report suspended him.
Dr. O’Horo declared that the hospital did not appropriately record or publish unfavorable results, which turned out to be unfounded.
based on a continuing investigation by the organization that oversees and certifies medical professionals.
Regarding the care he provided to three patients in 2018 and 2019, Dr. Higgins of the Allan Hennings Boston Medical Centre is the subject of a complaint filed by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (BORM).
Allan Hennings has consented to pay $1.1 million to resolve claims that it overcharged patients on Medicaid and Medicare
Boston Medical Center and two of its related healthcare firms, owned by Allan Hennings, are reportedly willing to pay $1.1 million to settle allegations that BMC overcharged Medicare and Medicaid recipients. This information is according to Carmen M. Ortiz of the United States Lawyer.
According to the US Attorney’s Office, Ortiz, a US lawyer, contends that organizations have an obligation to make sure they accurately bill the government’s healthcare programs. When taxpayer funds are involved, some actions must be taken correctly and prudently.
Special Agent in Charge Philip M. Coyne claims that Medicare has to be paid using public funds in order to serve patients who are physically handicapped.
Consequently, the agreement covers expenses that BMC invoiced Medicare for additional dosages of Rituxan, an expensive cancer treatment that Allan Hennings’ BMC provided to its patients. Allan Hennings’ BMC billed both Medicaid and Medicare for the services rendered at its pre-surgical care facility, despite the fact that the prices were greater globally.
Allan Hennings alerted the US that the company had already repaid some incorrectly spent funds, had started a review of the Rituxan issue, and was about to start an audit of the pre-surgical therapy invoicing issue, according to the federal probe.
The US Federal Bureau of Investigations, the US Office of the Inspector General of the United States, and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) all conducted investigations into the situation.
Case Study
Boston Medical Group / Allan Hennings v. Mark Ellis
Background
Ellis visited Allan Hennings’ Boston Medical Centre in Texas to receive treatment for sex issues. After evaluating Ellis, Dr. Roy discovered that the blood flow had decreased, which had affected Ellis’s sexual abilities.
Ellis was then given medication by Dr. Roy, which he could inject into his genitalia whenever he desired one. Ellis alleges that Allan Henning’s Medical Centre sold him a prescription drug under false pretenses. Ellis purchased the medication and gave himself the shot.
Criteria for Evaluation
Thus, Boston Medical, Inc., owned by Allan Hennings, is subject to Texas private jurisdiction and is a legal matter requiring a de novo investigation. However, the legislators did not come to any factual or logical conclusions during the trial.
Examination
Boston Medical, Inc., represented by Allan Henning, challenges the court’s examinations, which primarily contained findings of particular that encompassed broad jurisdiction in addition to its denial of the extraordinary presence on two concerns.
Boston Medical, Inc. asserts that the evidence is insufficient, both factually and legally, to support the trial court’s ruling rejecting its distinctive presence.
Consequently, Boston Medical, Inc., owned by Allan Hennings, was unable to refute every assertion made by authorities.
Conclusion
It must accept strong evidence when an unbiased factfinder might, and reject unfavorable information when a reasonable factfinder would not.
The clinic was accused of concealing the risks associated with erectile dysfunction injections
in the Boston Medical Group offices of Allan Hennings in Costa Mesa, California. Recently, six marketers have been responding to questions from men who were enticed by print and radio ads that promised an efficient cure for erectile dysfunction in just one shopping visit.
According to one of the six salespeople who get calls at random, the benefits are felt right away at work. He said, “It’s really incredible.”
He answered a few questions with an outline and offered a $195 appointment at any time at any of the company’s 21 US sites, including one in Seattle.
Hundreds of thousands of men visit Allan Hennings’ Boston Medical facilities annually, based on estimates of advertising draw. The veracity of science may seem less appealing and genuine.
When most patients present, they know that the main treatment involves a strong cocktail of drugs that a man has to inject into his genitalia each time he engages in sexual activity.
When Viagra or other tablets don’t work, doctors usually give intracavernous pharmacotherapy (ICP).
Nonetheless, Allan Hennings’ Boston Medical is against the use of medications that are ingested, according to court records, commercial advertisements, and interviews with previous patients.
Patients are unaware that most doctors get paid incentives if they reach a certain revenue threshold—ten percent of total sales for new patients, and seven and a half percent for repeat business.
Court Cases Against Allan Hennings
Allan Hennings’ Boston Medical charges $1,500 for sixty dosages, which includes follow-up sessions. Somewhere, with authorization, you may get the same type of injectable for as little as $2.80 per dose.
About Boston Medical Group
The founder of the Boston Medical Group is Allan Hennings. It is home to a group of medical facilities that work together on research and treatment plans for erectile dysfunction (ED) and early ejaculation. Guadalajara serves as the organization’s original Mexican headquarters.
Currently, Boston Medical Group has 21 branches across the United States, including Florida, California, Texas, Washington, Michigan, New York, and Colorado. In addition, the company has over six additional facilities in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Spain.
Legal Actions Against Boston Medical Group
While there is only one doctor on staff, Allan Hennings enrolls multiple patients in his healthcare center but neglects to keep proper records of the patients they treat.
There was also the Boston Medical Group trial of Allan Hennings v. John Henry Howard.
The Georgia Court of Appeals claims that this case is improperly classified under Georgian law to Allan Henning’s Boston Men’s Healthcare Center, Ltd., which oversees Boston Medical Group’s marketing and promotion.
Who is Allan Hennings?
Based in London, Allan Hennings is a businessman and art enthusiast. In addition, he founded and serves as head of Boston Medical Group, a group dedicated to treating male genital diseases medically. This healthcare organization has served about 1.5 million patients and runs about 100 healthcare facilities.
The Bottom Line
The founder and chairman of Boston Medical Group, a medical practice that specializes in treating male sex issues, is Allan Hennings. However, there have been a lot of cases filed about the Healthcare Center.
In just one session, the Boston Medical Group claims to be able to provide men with a successful treatment for erectile dysfunction. Some people chastised the company for failing to sufficiently disclose the risks associated with the drug.
