Assistant Attorney General Stephen Chahn Lee Misspeaks Repeatedly and Convicts

Mr Lee Was Responsible For The Most Anti-Intellectual, Unjust, and Mean-Spirited Experience in My Life

Take away from my experience:

  1. The judicial system allows FBI agents to lie under oath, as they tolerated Ms. Ashley Davis.
  2. The judicial system allows the Department of Justice to make numerous and different false statements with complete immunity.
  3. A health insurance company can turn a claims dispute into an automatic criminal investigation. After all, they hire some of the best that the FBI retires.
  4. The judicial system only penalized me on patients that I clinically diagnosed and did not penalize me on patients with biopsy-proven pre-cancer (the irony is that I biopsied those patients to rule out skin cancer; otherwise, no one biopsies pre-cancer to rule in pre-cancer). What other clinical diagnoses (eg, warts with destruction code; psoriasis with phototherapy code, or acne with acne surgery code, etc) are in peril? How do clinicians backup a clinical diagnosis?
  5. I recommended a series of treatments for the patients. The government penalized me for not seeing patients during the series. This imperils other series treatments like Eximer or phototherapy for psoriasis or eczema.


Pre-cancer. In Jan 2013, Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BC/BS) fraud division representatives met with me at their office about a pre-cancer patient. The focus of the conversation was a patient named Ms. Siegel. She first came to me for a second opinion, after another dermatologist had diagnosed a bump on her nose as being benign–nothing to worry about. She sought my opinion. I felt it was cancer and needed a biopsy.  The biopsy came back as skin cancer. I treated her skin cancer. She was devastated that her previous dermatologist had reassured her that the spot was “ok”. At this point, she was concerned about the other spots on her face. She stated in the ensuing trial: Memar focused on the surrounding area and saw lesions that shouldn’t be there for which he ordered IPL treatments. (Siegel Tr. 475, 502). She stated that I told her that left untreated, the lesions could turn into squamous cell carcinoma. (Siegel Tr. 488).  Ms. Siegel believed that I had saved her face, if not her life, and that I had done nothing wrong in any of this, no matter what the government had told her.

Picture with parents. No time to take the loupes off. They were almost an extension of me.
Picture with parents. No time to take the loupes off. They were almost an extension of me.

Pre-cancer was just one of their interests at BC/BS.

However, back in that room, at BC/BS on Jan 2013, were a number of people, one being the medical director, Dr. Lisa Barense (an emergency room doctor working for BC/BS as medical director); another person I remember was an ex FBI agent, Mr. James Krupkowski  who also worked for BC/BS. They had about 10 different charts, each with different medical scenarios. They felt all represented fraudulent activity. I remember a few.

One case was of a lady that I had biopsied 5 suspicious lesions on her skin. This was sent to an outside lab and they diagnosed a skin cancer. One of the 5 lesions turned out as a skin cancer. BC/BS felt I did too many biopsies, therefore this was a “fraudulent act”. I explained how one was skin cancer, and some were rather ominous looking. In the USA, scientific studies show that for every melanoma caught on biopsy, and average of 30 biopsies are done.  Secondly, the more biopsies I do in one day the less I get paid, so there is no financial incentives to do multiple biopsies. In fact, most dermatologists do not do more that 2 biopsies at a time because their reimbursement goes down significantly. I tried explaining the fact that detecting a skin cancer early is very important. It did not move her. I got frustrated with her apathy. I asked her how I should have treated this patient with 5 suspicious lesions. She (Dr. Lisa Barense, the emergency room doctor, who worked on BC/BS’s dime) said that I should have watched the 5 lesions over time and when the skin cancer started looking different, then biopsy it. She essentially wanted me to let the skin cancer grow. That is not how I was trained and that is not in the spirit of the Hippocratic oath doctors take.

Dr. Memar Holding a Dermatoscope, used to magnify skin
Dr. Memar Holding a Dermatoscope, used to magnify skin

She pulled another chart. This was of a man who came to me for severe itching that the University of Chicago dermatologists and other outside dermatologists had not been able to treat. He was covered in pin point bumps and scales with blood from scratching. He could not stop scratching throughout the first consultation, and complained of nights without sleep because of the intense itching. Mind you, there is literature showing people committing suicide due to intractable and intense itching. He underwent an extensive workup at University of Chicago, but they had not been able to give him relief. I agreed with the diagnosis of the University of Chicago doctors and gave him a further clinical diagnoses. I started him with light therapy (NB-UVB phototherapy) that the patient said was never offered to him. This light therapy is a standard of care in the USA. He started to get better and told me that this is the first time anyone has given him relief from this itching. BC/BS medical director told me that I had provided too many treatments without seeing the patient. I denied that. I would see the patient often and have extensive conversations with him, but I never charged for that as office visits. I kept very close tabs on him.

Next,  Dr. Barense moved to another patient’s chart. This patient had skin cancer that I removed. Dr. Barense questioned the closure of the wound. I don’t know if she wanted me to leave the hole open and send the patient home so BC/BS would have less to pay for. I’m not sure of her intentions, but I know my intention was to provide the utmost care to my patient.

However, the case of Ms. Siegel and her pre-cancer is what BC/BS chose to pass to the FBI as “fraudulent”. Someone at the FBI took the bait. After all, BC/BS was the fourth largest lobbyist to the U.S. Government at the time of Obamacare. The case triggered the FBI to comb through my 30,000 patient practice and privacy; meet with many patients of mine and spook them; and ultimately find me guilty of fraud. The further details of Ms. Siegel‘s case are as follows:

In 2012 I biopsied Ms Siegel, and an outside lab diagnosed skin cancer. I treated the skin cancer and went on to treat her pre-cancer (actinic keratosis, AK) with Solaraze® gel (a gel FDA approved only for pre-cancer) and two sessions of destruction of pre-cancers with Intense Pulsed Light (IPL). The journals were getting filled with different articles showing the effectiveness of this device without the downtime of other methods. By now we have over 5 scientific articles showing that IPL is effective in treating actinic keratosis. Rather cutting edge, a treatment for pre-cancer that did not have much downtime……who would be against that? Since it is a heat producing device, it is presumed that it destroys the pre-cancers with heat. I thought I was helping this patient by treating her pre-cancer with IPL(In the treatment of pre-cancer, most options leave marks and the only treatment without downtime is a cream called Solaraze gel®, which she was also given; however this is a very expensive medication and at the time insurances had difficulty paying for it).

The BC/BS medical director felt that IPL was ineffective; that Ms. Siegel did not have pre-cancer; and I falsely diagnosed her with pre-cancer to make money on the two sessions of treatment (it is not logical to think a patient with cancer could not have pre cancer). They had not  had the patient examined by another dermatologist to make that claim. In my opinion and 15 years of experience, she had pre-cancers that needed treatment). I strongly denied their claim. In my final trial (2017), the ex-FBI agent (Mr. James Krupkowski) present at that meeting with BC/BS testified that I denied using IPL on this patient for cosmetic reasons when confronted with the accusation. In short, this patient had pre-cancer and the use of IPL as a tool made no more money than using liquid nitrogen or any other tool to destroy the growths. However, Dr. David Goldberg, who is a skin cancer specialist, testified that he treated his wife’s own pre-cancers with IPL, and it worked effectively, however, he did not use it on his patients, because it was not cost effective. The machine was too expensive to buy and run. He said liquid nitrogen would be pennies. In fact, I lost money by using IPL fo pre-cancers, but seeing my patients get results without the downtime made me provide it. Dr. Goldberg called IPL treatment for pre-cancer an “elegant” treatment.

IPL is simply a destructive tool for targets that are red or brown. Period. It can have cosmetic uses, hence photofacial, or medical uses, like destroying pre-cancer. The same can be said of other tools used by doctors:

1. Scalpel: cosmetic use to perform a face lift; medical use to remove a skin cancer, or scrape or shave off a pre-cancer.

2. Liquid nitrogen:  cosmetic use to perform a “liquid nitrogen facial” (Refrence) and medical use to destroy a wart.

3. Photodynamic Therapy (PDT): cosmetic use in PDT skin rejuvenation (Reference) and medical to destroy pre-cancer.

Therefore, these are just tools in the hands of a skilled physician. How the physician uses them is based on the clinical intention and diagnosis. It is a sad day when an insurance company tells the government what the intention of the doctor is, and the government acts at the behest of the insurance company, and not the healer physician.

The Day the FBI came looking for Pre-Cancer in my office:

Six months later, around 20 government agents raided my downtown office with a search warrant, including Special FBI Agent, Ms Ashley Davis. They never read me or my mother our right to an attorney and separated us in different rooms and interrogated us in pairs (good cop, bad cop). We were in utter shock. Mind you it was like 6:30 am. It took them 10 minutes to figure out I had security cameras. As soon as they noticed them they discussed options, and they quickly started to cover them with paper. I don’t know what they had to hide.

At the end of the day, I went into my office to see what they had left behind. They had deleted my DVR of the first 10 minutes of them raiding the office. I did not know that they had the right to destroy my property. But they thought they did. I mentioned this to a middle aged IT guy. He said let me look at this. He examined the system and said “do not worry, you have backup files.” The FBI could not even do their own job right. In deleting the files, they could not delete the backup files, something a middle aged novice IT guy knew. At that point, I was sad that the organization that is entrusted with our national safety cannot even do a simple job it undertakes. We deserve better. They could not delete a simple computer file. When I examined the video, it truly was pitiful. They were armed, but placed a box of donuts and coffee on the same counter I was to greet patients in a few hours. They wondered my halls aimlessly. I give them a big fat “F” on their search warrant. God help us if this crew is entrusted with our national safety. In the very week they raided my office, Chicago had a spike in homicides. Where are the priorities?

One FBI agent (Ashley Davis) asked me what I had in the office to treat pre-cancer. I showed her a number of different tools I had to destroy pre-cancer, like freezing tools, Levulon®, IPL, Acid, electrocautery etc. In fact she would not let up until I showed her the Levulon® sticks and then she commented why I had so few. I replied that I order in small quantities, since they arrive quickly.  She was honest enough to write down a few (IPL, Levulon®, electrocautery, etc) in an official form and submitted it to both my lawyers and the government as a legal document.

The Grand Jury

In 2015, a Grand Jury was formed. I was told by my lawyer not to be present. No patient testified at this jury on such a patient-related case.  The same FBI agent  (Special Agent Ashley Davis) took the stand and under oath stated that I only had IPL for destruction of pre-cancers at my office. This clearly contradicted her previous written statement and therefore amounts to  lying under-oath. Her testimony played a key role in the grand jury indicting for Medicare and Medicaid fraud. In June 18, 2015,  Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch got up on a podium in Washington, DC  and announced this colossal sweep and the discovery of alleged healthcare fraud across the nation. My name was included.  Obamacare was given extra funds for exactly such  actions. I, my patients, family and friends were all shocked.  I did not know what my charges were exactly. Thank God for family and true friends, including my patients. The fair weather friends flew. That I view as a good thing. It was a good house cleaning. The USA DOJ accused me of falsely diagnosing patients with pre-cancer (actinic keratosis/AK) and treating them with a tool called intense pulsed light (IPL) only to make money. Remember, I actually lost money for each precancer patient I treated with IPL and  for there to be fraud there needs to be intent and willfullness.

The government found that my practice had 600 AK patients from 2007 to 2013. However that is normal. Dr Goldberg, the expert skin cancer specialist, testified that my practice could have 20,000 pre-cancer patients … (Dr. Goldberg Tr. 894). Therefore, there is no evidence of over diagnosing pre-cancer in my practice. A dermatology practice that over-diagnosis a condition should have a greater number of that condition, compared to other dermatology practices, per logic.

The Trial ( No. 15 CR 00345 )–Pre-Cancer

USA vs Memar went from May 1, 2017 to May 10, 2017. The government presented 8 patients as evidence. One of the eight was Ms. Siegel.  The government claimed that I had falsely diagnosed these patients with “actinic keratoses” and then unnecessarily treated them using IPL. In hindsight, I may not have done a good job communicating with some of my patients, since the government managed to get some of them to testify that they did not remember being told they had “actinic keratosis”. Four of the eight patients did remember that I had told them that they either had “AK”, “pre-cancers” or spots that could become cancer.  At the same time, 6 of the 8 in fact could not deny hearing a reference to pre-cancer, AK or a spot that can go on to become a cancer. (Trial transcript, page 709). During a break, while the Honorable Judge and Dr. E. victor Ross were standing, I heard the Honorable Judge ask Dr. Ross if the spots his doctor burn on his scalp were actinic keratosis too. Dr. Ross smiled and nodded his head, meaning yes, I assume. I thought to myself, wow, I’m being held to a different standard than the Judge’s own dermatologist. The judge’s dermatologist had not told him that he had AKs (pre-cancer) and that is what was being treated. The government’s case was  full of “misstatements”. At the end, I was found guilty of all charges the government had against me. I was found to be guilty of medical and information fraud for all 8 patients, including Ms. Siegel. In the media, I was threatened with 120 years prison, then 41 months, and finally the honorable Judge reduced it to 3 years of community service.

Anyway, I would never knowingly misdiagnose any patient. This would go against the very grain of everything I stand for. Please read the countless comments from patients on here or facebook. If your interested in a more detailed explanation, refer to link A (click here) or and  Outline-of-Dr Memar Conviction

Mis-representing hard data in a court of law:
  1. During the trial, Mr. Stephen Chahn Lee (the Assistant Attorney General who prosecuted the case against me) presented the adjacent red bar chart showing a big drop off after I met with BC/BS in Jan 2013. Mr Lee said:“the most important thing about this graph, ladies and gentlemen, besides the surge in actinic keratosis, it’s when it stopped. It stops suddenly in January of 2013. That’s when it supposedly ended. It all just stops, and it crashes to the bottom. Ladies and gentlemen, this crash was not due to the idea that patients were no longer getting actinic keratosis. This is because the defendant was confronted by Blue Cross, and he gets caught. (Tr. 1170)”

Lee goes on: ” There really was a massive breakout of a chronic condition among his patient population that just happened to go away when Blue Cross Blue Shield simply told him that they would stop paying him for one treatment method.” (Tr. 1262)

There are other methods of managing 15+  pre-cancers (remember, 85-99% might go away by themselves). I could have done PDT, Shave the lesions, Use topical creams, or simply monitor the lesions in scenarios that might see the body destroy the lesions on its own.

Mr Lee cross-examining me:

Mr Lee: Dr. Memar, so just to be clear, you do sometimes simply monitor actinic keratosis lesions, correct?

Dr. Memar Answers: Absolutely (Tr. 1139). The body had immense ability to treat itself.  Dr. Memar: Let me tell you, my dad had cancer in his arm.gave him six months in 1994. He’s still alive. So not everything is by textbook or are written in stone. (1123). But the bottom line is that I monitored my patients who chose to see me or had a growing spot.

Mr. Lee even had the Honorable Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, a federal judge, thinking my AK (pre-cancer) diagnoses actually decreased, because the Judge writes: “Dr. Memar’ s diagnoses of AK seemed to plummet after this meeting.” (Judge opinion, Document#: 73, page 16). Mr. Lee’s misrepresentation of this data penetrated a Federal Judge, so I have to assume that it penetrated the jury and might have skewed their view.

The truth is:

This graph does not show number of patients getting AKs; the government is misleading the honorable court. This graph shows payments made (it excludes denied claims and money that went towards a deductible; remember this is exactly when the high deductibles of Obamacare hit) by only BC/BS for 17004 (the procedure code for the destruction of 15+ AKs), which is only one method of treating multiple AKs. My choice of other treatments or even monitoring of the condition is in no way reflected in the red bar chart above. If the doctor is told by BC/BS not to use IPL, which was his main method of billing 17004, it is logical that number would drop, as it did. However, the patients with AK remained in the practice. My mediocre lawyer and Mr. Stephen Chahn Lee, chose not to show the number of 15+ AK patients in my practice. The conclusion that Mr. Lee presents is illogical. The graph does not show a surge or crash of actinic keratoses. Mr. Lee is knowingly misstating facts. The top of the graph clearly states the truth, but Mr. Lee misrepresents the clear facts.  The government never showed that my diagnosis of AK changed after my BC/BS meeting.

Mr. Lee Cross-Examining Me:

Mr. Lee: Now, Dr. Memar, in fact, many patients stopped being — in fact, you stopped diagnosing many patients with actinic keratosis after that meeting with Blue Cross Blue Shield,correct?

Dr. Memar: I don’t think so. I just, first of all — yeah, I don’t think I stopped diagnosing if they came. I had very few AKs to begin with relatively. (1124)

 To show a plummet of pre-cancer diagnoses, you need to present the total number of  the code 702.0, before and after Jan 2013. The government conveniently omitted that crucial data.

Another takeaway: I monitored some pre-cancer patients as I testified above, and when a patient is monitored, only the code 702 is used, and not 17004; therefore, those patients would still be in the practice but not be shown in the red bar chart above. Furthermore, patients treated by creams would only get the code 702, and patients receiving photodynamic therapy (PDT) with Levulon would have a totally different code, and again not be captured in the red bar chart above. FBI Agent Ashley Davis confirmed that I told her I used Levulon in my office. (Tr. 664-665).

My lawyer cross examined patient Combs:

My Lawyer asking: So the first time, that was the one that my colleague referred to as the PDT, that worked a little better than the stuff later on?
Patient Combs answering: I do recall that the first time was the time that it worked well, and the times that I had it done after, I didn’t feel like it worked. (Tr. 403)

This is a direct reference where it was documented that I used PDT on one of the government patients. Why did the government show the PDT codes before and after the BC/BS meeting?


2. Mr Lee states: So if he had been doing creams and gels and all the treatment methods that were still available to him, we would not have seen anything different in that graph. (Tr. 1271)

The truth is:

 Not true, when prescribing creams, the 17000 codes are not used and only ICD-9 code 702.0 would be used. The government never showed total 702.0 (pre-cancer) numbers before and after Jan 2013. Mr. Lee either does not understand basic dermatologic billing practices, excel, or the truth. In fact, a number of patients out of the 8 were using creams at some point It is in their charts. For example, Ms. Segel was given Solaraze gel or Ms Gordon was on topical retinoids.

Secondly, Mr. Lee stated “He billed the Tazorac and Solaraze using the 1700 series” (Tr. 1271) He admits that I was using topical Retinoids and Solaraze. I never billed for it as a procedure, but Mr. Lee needs to get his statements down. Did I or did I not use topicals in his view. He seems to contradict himself.


3. Mr Lee states:

“And the case is about what he did with several hundred cosmetic patients that he saw between 2007 and 2013” (Tr. 1205)

The truth is:

The government presented 8 patients, not several hundred, out of my 30,000 patients. Of the 8, they showed no solid proof, but repeated the same falsehood, until it became believable. None of the government’s experts/competent witnesses reviewed any of the patient records at issue. This is similar to the recent cardiologist case. (Tr. 1096).

The average 17004 claim per 600 patients was 8 over an 8 year period, making it 1 per year. The government presented 8 patients, who total received 119  treatments (i.e., $25,363.90 paid for the 8 patients). Remember that 4/8 remember me telling them they had AK, or pre-cancer, or if not treated it can become cancer….;second,  6/8 patients can’t say definitively that I did not tell them that they had Actinic keratosis; third, each treatment cost me over $19/treatment to perform, and the insurance payments did not cover the basic cost, much less have a profit margin. However, the court charged me with $150,000 restitution to the insurance companies. That is a dangerous precedent, for about 50% of the 600 patients were biopsy proven cancer or pre-cancer patients. The court is clearly only accepting the AK diagnoses in patients with biopsy proof. This will cause shock waves in the medical community. If doctors start exercising defensive medicine, and biopsy each AK patient in the country, and we have over 58 million, and a biopsy is minimum $500, the added bill for treating AKs in the USA will be $29 billion. Nothing cosmetic about that.


4. Mr. Lee states:

“He billed the Tazorac and Solaraze using the 1700 series” (Tr. 1271)

The truth is:

No evidence of this was ever shown, and by 1700 series, I gather he misstated again and meant 17000. Tazorac and Solaraze are creams and gels that need to be used daily. Is he implying that I used the 1700(0) destruction codes when the patients used these creams daily at home? This is simply false. Solaraze is used twice daily. Was I billing 17000 codes twice daily? By this argument, I was getting paid every time the patient used their cream at home. There simply is no evidence of this.


5. Mr. Lee states: And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, the 17004 code, that’s the code that garners the highest amount of reimbursement from insurance (Tr. 1181)

The truth is:

Not true, PDT (Codes used: 702.0, J7308, 96567) garners the highest amount of reimbursement from insurance for treatment of AKx15. My mediocre lawyer did not state this and the government misstated the truth. The notes show that I even performed PDT at times with Levulon, but only charged the 17004 code, which pays much less. I ate the difference. The government tries to portray me as this money grubbing person, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I even drove some patients home after surgery myself, because they did not have a ride.


6. The Government stated:The witnesses testified that they left his office without ever hearing or without ever knowing that they had a very serious precancerous skin condition (Tr. 1171)…… Mr Raman  (This is Mr. Lee’s assistant) states….”none of them said that they were told they had a precancerous condition.” (Tr. 1184-1185)

The truth is:

This is not true and the actual 8 patients speak to this.

Kontos, patient #1: not only had acne, but additionally “red, scaly bumps” “all over” (Kontos Tr. 698, 711) that “itched” (at 711) and that were “different” from and not acne. (Kontos Tr. 709). As Dr. Ross testified for the government, this was the classic presentation of actinic keratosis. (Dr. Ross Tr.514). Dr. Memar prescribed a series of IPL treatments to avoid this “sun damage” (which actinic keratosis is) turning into cancer. (Kontos Tr. 699-700, 711).

Segel, patient #2: Memar focused on the surrounding area and saw lesions that shouldn’t be there for which he ordered IPL treatments. (Siegel Tr. 475, 502). He told Ms. Siegel that left untreated, the lesions could turn into squamous cell carcinoma. (Siegel Tr. 488).

Combs, patient #3: She insisted that she received IPL treatments for medical, not cosmetic purposes. Thus, Dr. Memar gave her IPL for her “sun damage”–which actinic keratosis is, (Dr. Robinson Tr. 67)–before it “turned into something worse.” (tr. 402)

McMullen, patient #4: by her own description, redness, scarring, and sun spots, all of which Dr. Memar told her had to be addressed.

Robinson, patient #5: said that Dr. Memar may have mentioned “AK”–it “sounds familiar.”

Laurent, patient #6: Dr. Memar said the spots could be “precancerous” and recommended IPL treatment (Laurent Tr. 609-610, 631). Memar wrote a letter to Dr. Fabros, the referring physician, immediately after the referral, conveying his diagnosis of actinic keratosis and intended IPL treatment further supported Dr. Memar and cut against the government’s version. If Memar feared fraud, why would he put in writing his diagnosis and treatment to a colleague?

Jaroch, patient #7: Jaroch remembered virtually nothing Dr. Memar told her 10 years ago, although he may have mentioned “AK.” Dr. Robinson admits that she had redness and scaliness on her face (tr. 69-70)

Gordon, patient #8: She denied having pre-cancers or red or scaly lesions. However, another dermatologist who examined this patient and testified said that this patient had a history of blistering sunburns and tanning, making her a classic candidate for actinic keratosis. The patient admitted that she could not recall everything Dr. Memar had told her. Finally, Tina Gutierrez, the government’s own witness who administered Ms. Gordon’s IPL treatments, testified without contradiction that Ms.Gordon’s AK’s were so pervasive that she thought that some were actual skin cancer. I use Retin-A, which is the medication that was prescribed to me by Dr. Memar (tr. 756) which also is a topical agent given for actinic keratosis.  Even Dr. Robinson admits that Ms. Gordon had lesions on her face (tr. 68).

Furthermore, this patient denied having scaly skin (one presentation of actinic keratosis), however the other dermatologist described her as having dry, scaly skin. The doctor further admits that her charts for these patients included all of the symptoms of actinic keratosis (remember, this dermatologist saw patient Jaroch and Gordon during the same time they were seeing me).

Finally, Dr. Robinson’s testimony actually buttressed Dr. Memar’s diagnosis of AK, and most assuredly did not support the absence of AK beyond a reasonable doubt, especially since all of the doctors admitted that dermatologists can reach differing diagnoses concerning AK.

By the way, on July 11, 2013, when the FBI raided my office, only 3 of the 8 patients were receiving IPL for pre-cancers. The other five had finished their course. I was not just stringing people along, as the government hints.


Dr. Memar wearing loupes
Dr Memar wearing loupes to magnify skin.

7. Mr Lee states: defendant did not use tools that could have diagnosed pre-clinical lesions.  See (Tr. 553-54).  Defendant himself told an FBI agent in 2013 that he diagnosed actinic keratosis by touching the skin, without mentioning the use of any special devices.  (Tr. 644).  Defendant likewise testified at trial that he “visually diagnose[d]” actinic keratosis.  (Tr. 1027).

The truth is:
  1. Staes (my lawyer) cross examining Klein (previous employee of the office): And he would look at them sometimes with something he called a loupe – tr. 256 Staes cross examine Kleine A. Yes. Q. — through a magnifier? And he would dictate out what he was seeing, right, because you would — on those initial ones, you’d write that down, right? A. Yes.
    This is what magnification can do. It can help you see better.
    This is what magnification can do. It can help you see better.

    Its not rocket science. The more magnification, the more one sees, with greater detail. For example, from a distance, a forest might look like one big blob of green, but when you get closer, you see numerous trees making up that blob of green.

  2. “Visual diagnosis” means by looking, and does not exclude looking through loups, dermoscopy, or other sight enhancing tools.
  3. Staes cross exam of Gutierrez: Q. And he would look at them with something, I think they call it a loupe or kind of a magnifying — you tell us. A. Yes, with magnifying glasses. Q. He could see the skin real closely, right? A. Yeah. Q. And you’d be in there when Dr. Memar was doing that, right? A. Yes. Q. How close would you all be to one another? A. Fairly close. (Tr. 448)
  4. Staes cross examines Kline (my medical assistant):  And he would look at them sometimes with something he called a loupe. Kline:Yes. Mr. Staes: through a magnifier? And he would dictate out what he was seeing, right, because you would — on those initial ones, you’d write that down, right? Kline: Yes. (Tr. 256)
  5. Lee questioning Memar: And only when they get to a critical mass can anyone and their grandmother see it with a visual eye. If you have visual-enhancing tools like I use in my office, then I can see them earlier. (tr. 1102)
  6. A dermatoscope has been shown to scientifically and accurately diagnose pre-cancers (that’s the tool I’m holding in the second picture)
  7. Special FBI Agent Ashley Davis lies to the Grand Jury under oath on 2015. She spills the beans on page 666 of the transcripts:   Ms Ashley Davis, the FBI agent (the one Mr. Lee is referring to) is not a reliable witness, because when she was confronted by Mr Staes (my lawyer) about her misstatement to the grand jury who ultimately indicted Dr. Memar doesn’t remember me telling her about visual enhancement tools. Memar tells Ms Davis, per her notes, the tools he uses to destroy AKs on 7/11/13 . My Lawyer Examining Ms Ashley Davis (FBI Agent in May 1-May 10, 2017 Trial):
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer: You say that Dr. Memar discussed the treatment methods or you asked him about that for AKs isn’t that right?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: Yes.
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer: And, of course, you talked about the IPL, right?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: Yes.
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer: And he talked about with you electrocautery?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: We didn’t really discuss it, but he mentioned it was a treatment method.
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer: He told you that?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: Yes.
      • Dr Memar’sLawyer : It’s in your memo. He also talked about something called trichloroacetic acid?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: Yes.
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer: And you mentioned creams a few minutes ago?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: Yes.
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer :  And then there was also Levulan that was mentioned, right.
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: Yes. I asked him if he had Levulan.(tr. 664-665)
      • Dr. Memar’s Lawyer: And when you wrote your report, he didn’t say that he had only used Levulan on one occasion, you said that he does not use Levulan often in conjunction with IPL?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: If that was a mistake, I’m not trying to confuse anyone. He had mentioned a specific incident — instance when he had used it. That was the only patient he could recall at that time.
      • Dr. Memar’s Lawyer: Your report just says “not often,” so I’m just going by your report.
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis: Sure.
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer: When you talked to the grand jury about this case, you told them that other than the IPL that he had, he didn’t have anything to treat AK patients, didn’t you?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis:. I don’t recall.
      • Dr Memar’s Lawyer: Would it help for you to take a look at your grand jury testimony?
      • FBI Agent Ashley Davis:. Yes.(Pause.) Yes. I said he really had no method to destroy actinic keratosis. (Tr. 666)

      Ms. Davis forgot what she had written about all the other tools I had to destroy actinic keratosis. She chose to withhold that information from the Grand Jury. She stated an untruth in the bold above, and perjured herself under oath, as she describes on page 666 of the transcripts of USA vs Memar.

      Are we expected to believe her account of how I diagnosed AKs (pre-cancer)? Or her account of my use of sight-enhancing tools?Is there any accountability? Can an FBI agent lie under oath and still be quoted by the Assistant Attorney General (Stephen Chahn Lee) and a Federal Judge? Can an FBI agent lie under oath and still keep her job?


8. Mr Lee states: “Specifically, defendant falsely diagnosed patients with a precancerous condition called actinic keratosis. A typical actinic keratosis lesion is a red and scaly bump on the skin.” (Tr. 514).

The truth is:

The Government tries to imply that the 8 patients they presented did not have AKs, because in some of their charts, the description of the AKs was noted as scaly plaques. Not all of the 8 had that description. They asked the patients if they has red scaly plaques and the patients said no. Therefore, the Government uses this as proof that the patients did not have AKs. This is an argument of semantics for the few patients that had that description:

a.  The government’s own Dermatologist expert, Dr. E. Victor Ross in fact admits that AK can manifest as barely red and barely palpable, (Tr. 521)

In fact, Dr. Ross, the government’s expert dermatologist looked out at the entire courtroom when he was on the stand and stated ” … two-thirds of the people in this room might have some early, early, early, you know, precancerous changes..” (Tr. 593-594).

Dr. Ross stated ” So if I lined up 100 patients that walked through that door just off the streets of Chicago and they had a variety of different types of actinic keratoses, 90 of those would have the typical type of actinic keratosis which would be a red, scaly bump” (Tr. 515)

My lawyer further questioned Dr. Ross:

My Lawyer: A lot of times, making the diagnosis of AK is a matter of making your best estimate?

Dr. Ross: lot of times? You know, one out of 15 patients may have a tough one where you have to kind of wonder if that’s the right diagnosis (tr 593)

Therefore, Dr. Ross implies that 66% of the entire courtroom had pre-cancer and that 10% of pre-cancer in the city of Chicago are atypical in presentation, i.e., not what Mr. Lee’s “typical” actinic keratosis. Dr. Ross also indicates that 1/15 (7%) pre-cancer patients are tough to diagnose. The government sifted through my 30,000 chart practice and could only present 8 out of my entire 600 pre-cancer patients; that equals 1.3% of my total pre-cancer patients. Why is my diagnosis here considered fraudulent? Dr. Ross himself indicated that 10% of pre-cancer patients in Chicago are atypical in presentation, and 7% of pre-cancer are tough to diagnose. Am I being held to a different standard than Dr. Ross?

b. I always used a sight enhancing tool to visualize the lesions. In further support of Dr. Memar, and against the Government’s narrative, Dr. Ross states that “clinical” or “clinical-apparent” AK can be diagnosed through the use of the naked eye or through the use of a dermatoscopeTr. 553-554; a tool the Government’s own witness Christine Gutierrez (“Ms. Gutierrez”) states that Dr. Memar uses, (Tr. 448), and a tool the Government never shows Dr. Memar did not use.

c. For example, one patient who denied having red, scaly plaques was patient #8, AG: Dr. Robinson told her she had, including facial xerosis, (Gordon Tr. 755-56), Rhitidosis facialis (Gordon Tr.765-66), and “lesions” (Gordon Tr. 759-760)–despite her boast that “when it’s got to do with me and it’s got to do with a health condition that I have, I remember it.” (Gordon Tr. 736). Ms. Gordon also denied having scaly (i.e. dry) skin (Gordon Tr. 755-56). But she too used moisturizer (Gordon Tr. 762-63) and had been diagnosed by Dr. Robinson with “xerosis of the face,” which Dr. Robinson explained was “dry, scaly” skin.” (Govt. Exh. 83, Robinson 12/17/2012 chart for Gordon, Robinson Tr. 67)

d. Tina Gutierrez, the government’s own witness who administered Ms. Gordon’s IPL treatments, testified without contradiction that Ms. Gordon’s AK’s were so pervasive that she thought some were actual skin cancer. (Tr. 454-55)

e. Other charts show lines on a schematic of a face, stating either the number with the word AK or scaly patch. Therefore, all 8 were not described every time as having red, scaly plaques, even though a plaque through a magnifier might look different to the naked eye. Dr. Memar had a magnifier.

f. My lawyer examining Ms Gutierrez (government witness and assistant who would perform the IPL while I was in the office):

My lawyer:  Let me ask you straight away. You have never performed an IPL treatment on a patient who had absolutely no AKs on their face, am I right, for — at least other than for cosmetic stuff when they’re not there for AKs pursuant to a diagnosis of it?

Ms. Gutierrez: Correct.

My Lawyer:  And that includes all the people that you’ve seen records for today?

Ms. Gutierrez: Yes.


9. Mr. Lee writes, April 2018:  In the context of treating actinic keratosis, it is not medically accepted to use IPL as a solo treatment; it is used only in conjunction with Levulan as photodynamic therapy. (Tr. 544-47).

The truth is:
  1. That is the opinion of Dr. Ross, who is not a skin cancer or pre-cancer specialist. He never provided evidence from a dermatology organization to back his claim. He does not teach about skin cancer or precancer.
  2. The American Academy of Dermatology’s position on AK treatment is: “the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) opposes any treatment restrictions on actinic keratosis.” (Tr. 589)
  3. There is no law stating that IPL is not medically accepted as a solo treatment for pre-cancers.
  4. Dr Goldberg states that “more and more” dermatologists are using IPL to treat AK (pre-cancer). (Tr. 886).
  5. At the time of this case, there were scientifically sound publications showing the effectiveness of IPL for the treatment of pre-cancers. The upside was virtually no downtime. That was my reasoning for using it. I did not make money from it; in fact I lost about $19 every time a patient was treated. This was such a small part of my practice, that a little loss did not affect me and the results were well worth it. I had one patient who swore that IPL was the only effective treatment for his pre-cancers.
  6. The code I used was 17004, and tools accepted in for this code include laser. Well, a laser produces a specific light wavelength, while an IPL has a filter to allow the release of the same wavelength of light. The end result is roughly the same wavelength of light to heat damage a skin-related target. Therefore, if the American Academy of Dermatology code book for 2007 specifically states that I can use a laser and I have publications showing the effectiveness of IPL for actinic keratosis, which emits the same wavelengths that laser does at the same intensity, the use of IPL is very logical. (Ref : AAD’s 2007 coding and documentation manual: a guide for dermatology practices, page 47)


10. Mr Lee states:  Edward Victor Ross, who testified, among other things, that actinic keratosis lesion are uncommon in younger patients, such as people in their 30’s (Tr. 527-28); that IPL treatment is not effective on its own to treat precancerous actinic keratosis lesions (Tr. 544-45)

The truth is:
  1. Ross is not a skin cancer specialist. He does not do Mohs surgery. His practice is 80% cosmetic, as stated in cross examination by Mr. Staes: Response: Q. The majority of your practice, Doctor, the large majority is cosmetic, isn’t it? A. About 80 percent, yes. (Tr. 597).
    1. If his patient duties are only 85-95% of this time, and 80% of his patient care time is reserved for cosmetic dermatology (Tr. 597), that leaves 5-15% of his time for to medical dermatology, like treating acne, psoriasis, eczema, bug bites, rashes, skin cancer, cysts, hair loss, toe fungus, poison ivy, dandruff, mole checks, and AKs. Since he is not the skin cancer or Mohs surgeon at the Scripps Clinic, how many AKs does this doctor see to give him the authority to opine in this case? Where does he get off opining on standard of care for AKs?
  2. Ross said he treated 16-year-old patients, in the plural. He never presented peer-reviewed literature backing up his claim. Dr. Ross is a cosmetic dermatologist, while Dr. Memar and Dr. Goldberg are skin cancer and Mohs specialist. (Tr. 595-596)


11. Mr Lee states: The patients testified that they understood that the IPL treatments they received from defendant’s staff were for reasons other than the destruction of precancerous lesions.  See, e.g., (Tr. 40) (to treat melasma); (Tr. 265) (to “help aesthetically”); (Tr. 343) (to treat rosacea); (Tr. 399) (to treat discoloration); (Tr. 489) (to “help with any spots” and with a scar); (Tr. 609) (to treat “brown spots on my face that I just didn’t like”); (Tr. 699) (to treat sun damage); (Tr. 751) (to treat acne and then for ““purely for cosmetic reasons”).  One of the patients, Patient AG, testified that she went to defendant specifically for IPL treatments because, unlike her other dermatologist, Dr. Robinson, defendant was willing to bill her insurance company for the procedure.  (Tr. 735-38, 771)

The truth is:
  1. 8/600 AK patients constitutes out liers.
    1. Staes (my lawyer) questioning Ross (government’s dermatologist): Q. A lot of times, making the diagnosis of AK is a matter of making your best estimate? A. A lot of times? You know, one out of 15 patients may have a tough one where you have to kind of wonder if that’s the right diagnosis (Tr. 593)
      1. Therefore, 1/15=7% are tough to diagnose for Dr. Ross. Dr. Memar is being held for 8/600=1%. By Dr. Ross’s definition of difficult cases, Dr. Memar is way under the the 7% Dr. Ross deals with. Maybe we should investigate Dr. Ross?
    2. Dr. Memar prescribed Solaraze gel (only FDA approved for AKs) to patient KS (Tr. 500-501), and Retin A to pt AG, so he must have believed that they had diffuse AKs
    3. Dr. Memar perhaps saved KS’s life from cancer that another dermatologist was actively ignoring (Tr. 498, line 24-25). Is that what ignited the fury of BC/BS against Dr. Memar? Dr. Memar costs more to BC/BS than the previous doctor who ignored KS’s malignancy. Maybe we should be investigating BC/BS?
      1. How can you question Dr. Memar’s diagnosis of pre-cancers, when his diagnosis of cancer was spot on for Ms. Siegel?


12. Mr Lee states:  IPLs and AKs: Intense pulsed light treatments, actinic keratosis. These are the two main technical terms in this case. And they are what the defendant manipulated in order to make easy money from his patients’ insurance providers (tr 10)…..(Dr Memar) diagnosed the patients falsely (tr. 1275)

The truth is:
  1. The only way to prove I falsely diagnosed patients is to have a skin biopsy of the lesion to be treated at the time of the diagnosis. The government never presented such data. They never even had the patients examined by a dermatologist, looking to rule out pre-cancers. Therefore, this is a completely unfounded statement, and in my view slander. The government failed to establish the true validity of my diagnosis. They simply didn’t have the tools need to answer that question.
  2. Staes (my lawyer) questioning Siegal (government witness and onen of the 8 patients): Q. Now, you knew that Dr. Memar also offered in his practice cosmetic treatments, didn’t you, Ms. Siegel” A. Yes. Q. And it’s the case, is it not, that from time to time, you would ask Dr. Memar about certain of those cosmetic treatments for you, whether they be Botox or Restylane” A. Yes. Q. And those are the kinds of things that dermatologists make some money on? isn’t that right” A. Yes. Q. And Dr. Memar consistently — bless you – consistently told you that you didn’t need that stuff? isn’t that true” A. Yes. I would ask about Botox, and he would say; Oh, you don’t need that.; And I’d ask him about fillers, and he’d say, ;Oh, those aren’t for the faint of heart.; (tr 502)
    1. Doctors make lots more money on Botox and fillers than insurance-based medicine, but Dr. Memar did not recommend this lucrative procedure for Ms. Siegal.
  3. Goldberg (my expert derrmatologist) quantified the cost of an IPL as $100,000-$250,000, $15,000-$25,000 for the flash lamp, and $10,000-$20,000/year for a service contract. (tr880-881). The alternative tools are significantly cheaper.
    1. Of the 1332 IPL sessions (Michael Alper, Pre-Sentence Investigation Report,8/21/17, Page 6) (paid by insurance at $203/claim, the total would be $270,396. The numbers don’t add up for this to be done for money, and that is why Dr. Goldberg does not do it for patients. He only does it for family. He testifies that more dermatologists are using IPL for AKs.
      1. As stated, liquid nitrogen could have been used and is commonly used. “Liquid nitrogen. It’s a penny, costs one penny to treat 15 AKs or more.” (tr. 1064)
      2. By deduction, Use of IPL costs $125,000-$295,000 (tr. 880-881), while the use of liquid nitrogen would cost $13.32 (Tr. 1064) for 1332 AKx15 treatments. Therefore, money was not the driving factor, since $270,396-$13.32 is a lot more money than minus $125,000-$295,000
      3. Memar, you testified on direct examination that you could have made more money by doing liquid nitrogen treatments, correct? A. Absolutely (Tr. 1107)
      4. I was paid less than $30,000 total from 2007-2013 for the 8 patients presented. However, the government penalized me for treatments on patients they never presented. They racked the total money given to me by insurance companies to $283,905. (Michael Alper, Pre-Sentencing investigation report, page 6).
      5. What kind of “easy money” is this? Liquid nitrogen would give me a profit far greater than IPL. For IPL, I had the added expense of paying an assistant to perform it and i could not charge for an extra office visit. When you add and subtract this, With liquid nitrogen, I would have made $399,389, but with IPL I lost ($26,085). 
      6. Like I said earlier, I lost money using IPL for pre-cancers, but the effectiveness without downtime for my patients made it a good choice. My lawyer (Andrew Staes) never bothered to do the math.
      7. The diagnoses were correct and there was no “easy money”
      8. Mr. Lee:  Dr. Memar, you testified on direct examination that you could have made more money by doing liquid nitrogen treatments, correct? Dr. Memar: Absolutely……..That wasn’t — that was never in my mind.  (Tr 1107)
      9. Mr. Lee: Dr. Memar, you had discovered on your own a cheap, effective method of destroying actinic keratosis lesions that had little downtime. Dr. Memar: Wrong……Not cheap. Expensive, very expensive. (Tr 1147)


13. Mr Lee writes in 2018:  As the district court noted, the jury heard that the academic support for treating actinic keratosis lesions with IPL alone was “scant.” 73 at 29-31.

The truth is:
  1. If the academic support for IPL’s effectiveness for AK (pre-cancer) is “scant” then the counter argument is that the academic support for IPL’s ineffectiveness for pre-cancer is ABSCENT. Scant is a relative term, and as it stands, there is peer-reviewed data showing the effectiveness of IPL for AK, while no peer-reviewed journal showed the ineffectiveness of IPL for AKs (pre-cancer).
  2. Who decides on the scantiness of academic support. Do I as a dermatologist get to opine on legal matters? Shouldn’t the judgement of the medical data come from a body of dermatologists who have used and tested the device and read the pertinent articles and attempted to reproduce the results. Is that not the scientific method or have I been wrong all along?
  3. Off-label use of devices and medications is a corner stone of medicine. Up to 80% of medications given in pediatrics is off-label, since most studies were done on adults. The government combed through 30,000 patients, and the best they could do are the eight patients presented.
  4. Based on the number of scientific publications, the data support the fact that IPL alone does reduce pre-cancers by 53-55%. That is significant, since it does not have the downtime of other methods.
  5. The government relies on Dr. E. Victor Ross, who does not believe IPL is effective for pre-cancers. He hardly sees pre-cancer patients. Yet, he calls the shots.
    1. Dr. Ross testifies: I would even go so far to say if somebody had a very, very, very dark pigmented actinic keratosis and a sufficiently high fluence or energy level was delivered to that spot, it’s conceivable you could destroy the lesion with an IPL. So there are outlier conditions where an IPL might be effective for selected actinic keratoses with very high doses delivered to the skin. Mr Staes:  You’ve done no study yourself along those lines, right? Dr. Ross: I have not done a study. (Tr. 580-8-581). The government expert on IPL and AK never states that he treated an AK patient with IPL to see if it works or not. He is just shooting from the hip. However, my expert, Dr. Goldberg, not only read the literature, he treated friends, wife’s and family’s AKs (Tr. 879) with IPL and showed that it worked. He also states that states that “more and more” dermatologists are using IPL to treat AK (pre-cancer). (Tr. 886).
    2. It is grand that the government wants to prosecute over semantics, but if two doctors differ in diagnosis, that is no grounds for criminal conviction in a democratic nation, and that is the U.S. Congress talking, not me:  The U.S. Congress states that it was never its intent with 18 U.S.C. § 1347 “to penalize the exercise of medical judgment of healthcare treatment choices made in good faith and which are supported by significant evidence or held by a respectable minority of those providers who customarily provide similar methods of treatment.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-736, at 255 (July 31, 1996).
    3. The Honorable Judge writes in his opinion(Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document#: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 18 of 46 Page ID #:1673 ): “However, that
      study noted that “IPL used for actinic keratosis is not the best tool for treating these lesions as it improves erythema but not epidermal dysplasia” – effectively confirming what Dr. what Dr. Ross said in his rebuttal article and trial testimony.

      1.  Facts are, the only way to determine “epidermal dysplasia” is via biopsy or confocal microscopy. Neither one was done in the study by Campolmi et al.


14. Lee states: Defendant similarly argues that the billing code he used allowed for the attempted destruction of actinic keratosis lesions even if actual destruction was not achieved. 28-29.  This argument is without merit given the evidence discussed above that patients did not have actinic keratosis lesions and that most IPL treatments did not involve any medical examination afterwards.

The truth is:
  1. Response: 17004 is an attempt to destroy. There is no device that can assure treated cells have stopped living, and hence dead. This further shows Mr. Lee’s naivete on this code and subject. Jan 2013, only 3/8 patients were undergoing IPL for AKs. The other patients were done with their regimen. KS was followed up on and prescribed Solaraze gel, which is only FDA approved for AKs.
  2. Staes (my lawyer) questioning Dr. David Goldberg (my expert dermatologist): Q. There’s a code that we’ve talked about in this case, Doctor, called the 17004 code that applies to the destruction of 15 or more lesions. Are you familiar with that? A. Yes. Q. Is that the code that you would use even if a single treatment doesn’t destroy it, doesn’t do the job? A. Well, we use those codes because we are attempting to destroy lesions. Q. Why would you not use a code that talks just about the attempt to destroy the lesion without 100 percent success? A. Fair question. There is no such code. (Tr. 890)


15. There was an overall implication by the government and the Honorable judge in his brief that I did not see any of the patients while they were getting treatments, even over multiple treatments:

The truth is:

I would see the patients. I would come in the room. Realize the patient was wearing a goggle and the  assistant was focused on the procedure. However, I was never deeply asked if I saw the the 3 or 4 patients out of the 8 that needed many treatments over the years of 2007-2013. However, the Honorable judge used this against me in his brief. The impression was that it was the wild west, and I just turned these patients over to the medical assistants without any oversight. That is simply not true. I did not bill for seeing them. In the few outlier patients, I did not document well and indicate my findings, but I was monitoring.

  1. Mr. Lee: All right. So just to be clear, after you did an IPL treatment, did Dr. Memar see the patients prior to another IPL treatment and make a determination as to whether any further IPL treatments were necessary?  Ms. Kline (Medical Assistant performming the procedure) No. On occasion, if somebody wanted to continue a series, we would check in with him, ask him if that was okay. Mr. Lee: And how would you do that? Ms. Kline: We would ask him. Sometimes the patient would be in seeing him that day and would inquire with him in the office,  and other times they would ask us, and we would go and ask him. (Tr. 217)
  2. Mr Staes (my lawyer) And did I understand you that Dr. Memar would normally see a patient at some point or at the end of that process? Mr. Kline: A. Sometimes he would, yes. Mr. Staes: Q. Okay. And he would examine them, right? Ms. Kline:  Yes. Mr. Staes:  And you talked a little bit a few minutes ago about Dr. Memar sometimes coming in, but you weren’t sure if he had actually examined the patient when he came and saw them, right, or did I get that wrong? Ms. Kline:  Yes.
  3. Mr. Scallen (my lawyer): And after how many in a series of treatments do you
    normally see the patient? Dr. Memar: Generally about four to six. That’s pretty average. (Tr. 1088)
  4. Dr. Memar: So one time — one time, I think it was Tina, came and got me and said, can you look at Anna’s skin. And Anna had a full-blown sunburn. And I said, “Anna, you can’t get IPL today because you can’t do IPL on a sunburn.” And I think that happened at least once, maybe twice. (Tr. 1090)
  5. Lee: And did you have any discussions — after you did an IPL treatment like this, did you have any discussions with the defendant about the IPL treatment? Kline (my medical assistant, government witness):In regards to the patient care or – Mr. Lee: Yes. Ms. Kline: Not unless there was an issue or anything that was pertinent to bring to his attention. (Tr. 227) Ms. Kline: I made a note for myself saying “the setting as per doc,”which I would do that on occasion if I wasn’t sure about how to treat the patient with a certain setting, I would have him come in and help me with that (Tr. 231). Mr. Lee: And when he came in to talk to you about those kind of settings, did he do anything to examine or diagnose anything on the patient’s face? Ms. Kline: No. It was more of just kind of looking at the patient and giving us a setting based on that, the skin type and what was going on (Tr. 231)
  6. Mr. Staes: Did you tell the government that you did not think at the time you worked for Dr. Memar that Dr. Memar was committing fraud? Ms. Kline: At the time of working for him, yes (Tr. 239)
  7. All of this is the tip of the iceberg. I did see the patients in between treatments. That is just the simple truth. I was well known in my office for being a micro-manager–staff faulted me on that. I was not known to be sloppy or careless. I would never let untrained individuals use a device that can potentially cause harm on my dear patients….NEVER. I would still keep an eye on what was going on and if it was being done right. I agree that I did not document many of my examinations, but one reason was that I did not want an office visit added to the bill. There is clear admission that I “looked” at the patients when I came to examine them. This undermines the premise that I never saw the patients while they were getting numerous treatments.


Honorable Judge Harry Leinenweber : ( Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 4 of 46)

“When Blue Cross Blue Shield (“Blue Cross”) informed Dr. Memar in January 2013 that it would no longer reimburse for treatments of AK lesions with IPL alone because it considered this a cosmetic procedure, Dr. Memar did not follow up with the eight patients at issue to suggest new treatment options. To the extent any of them received a phone call from Dr. Memar’s office after Blue Cross confronted him, such calls merely conveyed that IPL treatments would no longer be covered by insurance.”

Response by Dr. Memar:

At the time of the 2013 BC/BS meeting, only 3 of the government’s 8 patients were being treated by IPL for pre-cancer.  The other 5 patients had finished their course. The standard of care does not state that doctors pursue patients with pre-cancer (AK). If the patients had dysplastic nevi or skin cancer, then I would be obligated to call them. However, for AKs, there is no standard that says I need to follow up with the patients if they do not want my services. The patients were never denied care nor were they turned away. They were simply told that we cannot do IPL for your AKs via insurance. With this logic, if I diagnose an AK at the supermarket, I’m obligated to inform that person. That simply is not the standard of care or practice in the United States. I agree that it would have been a nice act on my part to have called the three patients and discussed the matter at a deeper level, but I did not do that. I was seeing about 80 patients per day, many with skin cancer. In an ideal world and if I had to do this over again, I would have spoken to the three patients. However, my oversight is not fraud; its oversight on a matter that is not “standard of care.” If the law wants to establish that as a standard of care, then we need to know that before being prosecuted.


Honorable Judge Harry Leinenweber : ( Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 5of 46)

The Government offered a picture of Patient JJ from January 2007 in which her face appeared free and clear of any red bumps or

Response by Dr. Memar:

The patient was wearing makeup. How can a picture of a patient wearing makeup be used as evidence of lack of actinic keratosis. The makeup is covering. This was brought up in court. The picture should not be used as evidence.


Honorable Judge Harry Leinenweber : ( Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 6 of 46)

..two weeks before Patient JJ received an IPL treatment at Dr. Memar’s office in December 2010, Dr. Robinson examined her
face and diagnosed no AK lesions.

Response by Dr. Memar:

Patient JJ was under a series of treatments for AK. Dr. Robinson speaks to this:

Dr. Memar’s Lawyer:. Now, we talked a little bit about if Dr. Memar had treated someone for AK before they got to you and you wouldn’t expect then to see them, that’s why you would never say or you would not say as you looked at a patient that they had never had actinic keratosis; am I correct about that?
Dr. Robinson:. Yes (Tr. 66)

Therefore, Dr. Robinson did not think that a patient that was treated, as pt JJ was, didn’t have AK.


Honorable Judge Harry Leinenweber : ( Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 6-7 of 46)

Patient MM was 29 years old when she went to Dr. Memar in March 2009 concerned about the cosmetic appearance of certain redness and scarring she had on her face. She did not recall having dozens of red, scaly lesions on her face. Introduced into evidence was a headshot photo of her taken on March 16, 2009, showing what appeared to be a face free and clear of any red blotches or bumps.

Dr. Memar’s Response:

Are we ignoring why the patient came in? The patient admits to coming in for “redness” and what she calls as “scarring”. A photo with full makeup is not evidence of no redness. Actinic keratosis can present as redness with fine scaling or under dermoscopy, give the “strawberry sign”, which means redness with white dots. I used dermoscopy and magnification. Since I was certified to diagnose, and not the patient. Why is this even being introduced?

Secondly, My lawyer examining me about pt MM:

My Lawyer:. And had she come to your office complaining of sunspots?
Dr. Memar:. Yeah, she had. (Tr. 1073)


Honorable Judge Harry Leinenweber : ( Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 15 of 46)

In January 2013, Dr. Memar met with individuals at Blue Cross regarding the insurance company’s audit of his billing practices for Patient KS. During the meeting, Blue Cross’s medical director said that she had reviewed Dr. Memar’s records regarding Patient KS and believed that his use of IPL on her was cosmetic. An individual present during the meeting testified that Dr. Memar justified his use of IPL as preventative with respect to Patient KS because she had a history of cancer. He never offered that he had destroyed precancerous lesions on Patient KS.

Dr. Memar’s Response:

Dr. Memar defended destruction of actinic keratosis by using IPL, and the person present at that meeting waas an ex-FBI agent, named James Krupkowski: This is Lee questioning Mr. Krupkowski, who was present at the BC/BS meeting in Jan 2013:

Mr. Lee:. Now, after Dr. Barnes told Dr. Memar about the peer reviewer’s findings, what, if anything, did Dr. Memar say in response?

Mr Krupkowski:. Well, Dr. Memar disagreed with the peer reviewer’s findings. He said that, you know, his records could have been better, he could have done diagrams, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t do the services that he had billed. And he questioned the bias of the peer reviewer because Blue Cross was paying for the peer review and had requested the peer review. (tr 366)

Therefore, the ex-FBI agent, Mr. Krupkowski, states that I defended what I billed. I billed for the destruction of 15+ actinic keratosis.


Honorable Judge Harry Leinenweber : ( Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 15 of 46)

Dr. Memar himself took the stand. He did not recollect treating any of the eight patients at issue in the indictment but testified generally to his billing and treatment practices.

Dr. Memar’s response:

Although I did not recall all the eight patients, I did testify that I recalled some:

1. My Lawyer. Dr. Memar, did you treat Anna Gordon?

Dr. Memar: Yes, I did.
My Lawyer:  And do you recall having treated her?
Dr. Memar: Yeah, I do, some sessions. (Tr. 1087)

2. My Lawyerr: Do you recall treating Pauline Kontos?
Dr. Memar:. Yeah, I do (Tr. 1090)

3. My Lawyer: Independent of her file, do you recall treating Kellie Siegel?
Dr. Memar: Yeah, I do.

My Lawyer: Why?
Dr. Memar: We spent a lot of time together, you know. Once they
develop skin cancer, they — you know, it’s a new notch that I have to really get to know their skin that much better.
My Lawyer: Is she still a patient of yours?
Dr. Memarr: Yes.
My Lawyer: Is her husband still a patient?
Dr. Memar: Yes, and her sister. (Tr. 1077-8)

And these were just a few I was directly confronted and asked if I knew. There were some I did not recall, but some had not seen me some for many years. However, the statement that I did not recall any of the 8 patients is false based on testimony.


Honorable Judge Harry Leinenweber : ( Case: 1:15-cr-00345 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/11/17 Page 19-20 of 46)

Dr. Memar was confronted with a 2016 presentation he gave on “Intense Pulsed Light Alone in the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis.” In that presentation, Dr. Memar listed multiple effective treatment methods for AK lesions, including PDT, cryotherapy, and topical creams – but without mentioning IPL alone. Rather than disclosing that he had been using IPL alone to treat AK lesions or explaining why he considered it effective for that purpose, Dr. Memar concluded only that “IPL alone should be studied further for effectiveness in treating
actinic keratosis.” (Gov’t Ex. 211; see, Trial Tr. at 1162.)

Dr. Memar’s Response:

The title of the talk says it all. It was a 20 minute talk and it was a review of published data, i.e., a review of the literature on the topic The talk was never listened to, even though it was present on CD. The list of treatments were talking points of existing common treatments for AKs. The next slide clearly presents the Gold paper and other published data that show IPL alone is effective between 53-55% for AKs. Why is this being ignored? I am telling the audience that there is evidence-based data showing the effectiveness of IPL alone for AKs. Why is this being twisted?

Mr Lee (Governemt). And in the course of this presentation, you did talk about
a literature search you had done, correct?
Dr. Memar:. I did (Tr. 1160)


The whopper:

During the trial, the Assistant Attorney General Stephen Chahn Lee asked me under oath whether I had admitted to BC/BS in the 2013 meeting that I had performed photo-rejuvenation, implying I had admitted to defrauding BC/BS . I denied it and requested supporting evidence. He ignored me. Had I made such an admission, BC/BS would have been obligated to request repayment of all “fraudulent” claims. They did not. Instead they told me to provide better documentation in future claims. Furthermore, remember the ex-FBI present at the Jan 2013 meeting confirmed my version of events under oath.

In the trial, I testified: She( Dr. Barns )put the chart (Ms. Siegel’s) in front of me. I said AK. (1113). More over, during the trial, MR. Lee (Government prosecutor) said:  you said in this clinical discussion with Blue Cross Blue Shield that Kellie Siegel was your friend, correct? Dr. Memar:  All of my patients are my friend. I adore them. I take personal interest in them. Mr. Lee: And that’s part of why you wanted to do this, correct? Dr. Memar: Absolutely not. That’s the dark view you have of it. Mr. Lee: You wanted to give your friends something for free, correct? Dr. Memar: Give it up. Come on, Mr. Lee. Come on. It’s sad.(Tr. 1117-1118). Mr. Lee: …. once the scar looked better on Kellie Siegel, you stopped giving her IPL treatments, correct? Dr. Memar: No, once her AKs looked better because we were treating the whole palette of the face. The scar was just on the right, what we call, nasolabial fold, this line that we have. So no, incorrect. (Tr 1119).

Yet, Stephen C Lee, during his closing argument (the government gets the last word during a criminal trial) angrily proclaimed that I had “admitted it.” He was referring to the meeting I had with BC/BS in 2013. The jury heard “admitted it” as he pointed at me.  He ran up and down in front of the jury, in almost a dance. While running he was facing the jury, but twice he turned his entire body toward me during these repeated utterances with both his index fingers extended, pointing at me. It was different than any other time he presented or any other lawyers presentation at the trial. Mr. Lee is a master at “anchoring” a witness. This is very important information for anyone who will go to trial against him. He will repeat a statement, or in this case, as the government admits, a “misstatement” until it resonates as “true”, even though it is false. This is a known tactic espoused by questionable figures, in the past 80-90 years. Shame.

Anyway, the jury was never informed that I had not “admitted it” and since it was not well defined in the frenzy, this represents a great error and prejudice in this trial. If I were a jury member and I heard that the defendant had “admitted it” without any objection in the room, then that would be case closed for me. Admitted it could be mistaken as admitted guilt to any or all claims by the government, when no such thing ever happened. The government misled the jury and the jury was never instructed as to the falsehood they were fed.

A few weeks after the jury decided my verdict, the government addressed Mr. Lee’s comment as:

“Even if the government misstated or overstated the testimony regarding defendant’s statements to Blue Cross Blue Shield, defendant has not shown that he suffered prejudice warranting a new trial here.”

Therefore they cannot back up Mr Lee’s “he admitted it” and chose to call it “misstated”. This mis-statement of my testimony by Stephen C Lee effectively amounts to lying during his closing argument by proclaiming “he admitted,” when I had actually denied it.

These untrue words were some of the last things the jury heard. The jury was dealing with a very complicated medical case with difficult jargon and treatment protocols that went on for 8 days. The jury was never instructed as to this misstated testimony by Mr. Lee or Mr. Lee’s misrepresentation of the red bar graph data. I was convicted of 16 counts of medical fraud on May 10, 2017, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


The super whopper:
Two elements for fraud were missing in the government’s argument.  Their record is devoid of any evidence to show that I had the “intent” to commit healthcare fraud or “willfully” made false statements, yet I was convicted. These are very important details that were overlooked.
More importantly, an act of the U.S. Congress was disregarded in this case. The government’s witness (Dr. E. Victor Ross) disagreed with the effectiveness of the tool (IPL) I used to treat pre-cancers. The government presented this as a sign of my guilt. I presented five scientific publications supporting the claim that the IPL alone has been shown effective in treating pre-cancers. The government attempted to use the differing opinion of physicians to prove guilt. This cuts directly against the underlying purpose of The United States Congress’18 U.S.C. § 1347. The U.S. Congress states that it was never its intent with 18 U.S.C. § 1347 “to penalize the exercise of medical judgment of healthcare treatment choices made in good faith and which are supported by significant evidence or held by a respectable minority of those providers who customarily provide similar methods of treatment.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-736, at 255 (July 31, 1996). Dr. Goldberg testified that he used IPL alone for AK on family and friends (tr 879). Dr. Goldberg states that “more and more” dermatologists are using IPL to treat AK (pre-cancer). (Tr. 886). If that is not a “respectable minority” per 18U.S.C. § 1347, then what is?

Mr. Lee attended Yale for undergraduate studies and Columbia for Law school. A misstatement on a final exam is tantamount to failure.  Where else have such misstatements occurred in Mr. Lee’s Ivy league background? I believe our government officials, especially in the U.S. Department of Justice, should be held to the highest standards. Misspeaking is not acceptable. No one is above the law. Mr. Stephen Chahn Lee has brought shame to the office of the Department of Justice.

During my 14 year skin cancer practice, no one was under-diagnosed. I prided the practice for detecting skin cancer early.⋯Sadly, a patient who had a history of precancerous moles contacted the office in mid 2017. He was not one to go see the doctor. We used to beg him to come in and I caught many pre-cancerous moles on him. Due to insurances dropping me upon indictment, he would not come in or go to another dermatologist. We had a list of dermatologists we sent our patients to…… He notified us that he was recently diagnosed with skin cancer, this time in his brain. This sort of thing never happened on my watch. His is the greatest tragedy of this case. I would have been happier never to practice medicine than see the tragedy of this case.

Implications of my Conviction: May God Help Clinicians Provide Excellent Care in Our Country

Doctors will practice defensive medicine by ordering unnecessary labs and tests to protect themselves from prosecution. Remember, the government only believed my diagnosis of pre-cancer that were shown in biopsy. This is a diagnosis that is made by sight by trained individuals. There are 58 million pre-cancer patients in this country. If a biopsy is at least $500. $500 x 58 millions=$29 Billion dollars. This case adds a potential extra $29 billion dollars for the treatment of pre-cancer. And that’s just pre-cancer. This case can be used for other diagnoses that are visually identified. Good luck to all of us.

Doctors will be simple technicians and will not be able to create personalized treatment plans outside of a box.

Doctors will be afraid of patients, since their insurance companies can use the full might of the US government against their clinical judgement.

Quality of healthcare will suffer.

Doctors will move away from practicing medicine or taking insurance.

Insurance companies will make more money because doctors are afraid of ordering some tests, performing some procedures, or prescribing some medications.

The Department of Justice might use cases such as mine to intimidate bigger fish, like departments in big hospitals. Those departments will have to settle, and settle big they will. This will be a major money making task on the part of the DOJ.(click here for further reading)

The new standard of care has been established by the U.S. Government:

1. Biopsy of every benign and pre-cancer lesion, including actinic keratosis(58 million Americans have skin pre-cancer and currently physicians diagnose this visually) before treatment

2. Any delegated procedure needs physician examination before and after treatment to avoid criminality

3. Any diagnosis that is not backed up by a secondary independent evidence (like a biopsy or CT scan)can be questioned as criminal misdiagnosis

4. Providers (like surgeons, radiation oncologists, etc) that use devices that destroy tissue (like tumors or blood vessels, etc) need verification of destruction (like scans, biopsies, etc), otherwise the destruction code used is a criminal offense

This court case reaches far and wide beyond dermatology, and can include all specialties in medicine that deal with insurance companies. The outcome of this case will affect how medicine is practiced in the U.S.A.

   Related Links:

1. The day the FBI searched my office

2. Dr. Memar’s side of the story

3. Outline of trial against Dr Memar

4. Motion to dismiss the conviction

5. Government “misstatements” against Dr. Memar

Comments ( 35 )

  • Jason Fairchild

    Dear The Honorable Harry D Leinenweber,

    I have known Dr. Memar for about 10 years, I have used his practice and know him not only professional but also on a personal level.
    He has always conducted himself in a respectful , honorary and professional manner.
    He is a very honest and forthright person, if you have any questions about his ethics , give me a call.

    Please hear his story.


    Jason Fairchild

  • Jason Fairchild

    Dear The Honorable Harry D Leinenweber,

    I have known Dr. Memar for about 10 years, I have used his practice and know him not only professional but also on a personal level.
    He has always conducted himself in a respectful , honorary and professional manner.
    He is a very honest and forthright person, if you have any questions about his ethics , give me a call.

    Please hear his story.


    Jason Fairchild

  • Lucy A Sharkey

    Dear The Honorable Harry D Leinenweber,
    I have known Dr. Memar for 12 years. He has biopsied many ‘suspicious’ spots on me and thankfully none were cancerous. I had stage 4 melanoma in the past and it is imperative that I get checked on a regular basis. Dr. Memar is very careful and honest with his findings. He would NEVER tell anyone they had cancer just to make a profit. Please let me know if I can assist any further in the next few weeks.

    Thank you so much!

    Lucy Sharkey

  • Pingback:Dr. Memar’s Experience with the FBI |

  • Alex Shibicky

    Dear Judge Leinenweber:

    I and my family have known Dr Memar on a personal and professional basis for over 12 years and have depended upon him for his professional and unbiased care. His attention to detail and thorough examinations have helped me keep a lookout for suspicious growths and he has biopsied several over the years and has truly had my best interests at heart.

    The mere thought of Dr Memar ever suggesting an unnecessary procedure or a made-up diagnosis is so completely foreign and unfathomable that I consider it ridiculous and unbelievable on any level.

    The idea of a court of law taking the word of one FBI agent over the word of another FBI agent with the career and reputation of a doctor and/or any human being hanging in the balance goes against everything that this country and the law stands for. Dr Memar deserves the benefit of the doubt. He has been convicted, OK, but to flush his career and life down the drain seems to be “overkill” and a departure of what’s fair and within the discrepancies presented to the court. Sometimes common sense and being equitable must rule the day. We all deserve a second chance and I must say that it’s a sorry day for ANY OF US that we get judged for all of eternity by our “worst 15 minutes”, never mind malicious lies!

    Respectfully, allow Dr Memar to redeem himself in his chosen field and don’t ostracize him from society. He has paid a heavy enough price as is.

    • Omeed Memar

      Dear Alex
      Thank you for your wonderful words. Please mail this to the judge. His address is in my first blog post. You guys are awesome and sorry for all the trouble and inconvenience.

  • Arash Tirandaz, MD

    Dear The Honorable Harry D Leinenweber,

    I knew Dr. Omeed Memar in medical school as we attended the same medical school in Galveston, Texas. I also know his parents. They are honorable people. I concur with the others that the mere thought of Dr Memar ever suggesting an unnecessary procedure or a made-up diagnosis is so completely foreign and unfathomable that I consider it unbelievable

    He always conducted himself in an honorable fashion and I find it very hard to believe the accusations against him. I ask that you give him a fair trial and provide him with an appropriate appeal.

    He his brilliant and it is not easy to get an MD and a PHD, he has worked so hard to get at this point. He deserves a fair and impartial trial along with the benefit of every doubt.

    A. Tirandaz, MD

  • Marianne McGeary

    In the early 2000’s, Dr. Memar was our “skin doctor” in the Orland Park office of my husband’s HMO. Our family has a strong history of melanoma (me, my mother, my brother–who died of the disease); Dr. Memar not only kept us safe through check-ups over the years, but made sure we understood how to watch for symptoms. When Dr. Memar moved his practice downtown, we followed him. We trust him completely, and this is based on his honesty and knowledge as well as his kindness and empathy..
    I read the attached case notes, and I am saddened at the way the jury was misled by the prosecuting attorneys. I will be writing to Judge Leinenweber care of Mr. Staes, asking the judge to set aside this wrongful conviction.

  • Pierre Dosogne

    Dear The Honorable Harry D Leinenweber
    I first became a patient of Dr Omeed Memar in July of 2002 when I was referred to him by my primary care Physician, Dr. Frances Thomas and her colleague, Dr Pamela Warnick. Dr Meemar enjoyed a collaborative work relationship with my care givers and came highly recommended. Dr Memar diagnosed a basal cell tumor and after confirmation by laboratory biopsy, removed the growth.
    Because of my health issues, I am subject to skin cancer, but with the regular care of Dr Memar, all of my skin cancer issues- including a melanoma have been addressed by Dr Memar in the same careful professional manner. I believe that I owe the fact that I am alive – as well as the quality of my life to my Doctors including Dr Memar and I am very grateful .
    My skin care issues continue and I am currently being seen by Dr Nalam Amin who speaks highly of Dr Memar and whose treatment is similar – if not exactly the same.
    Anything I can do to support Dr Memar in this situation, I will gladly do

    Thank you for your attention and consideration of my input

    Pierre Dosogne

  • Salma Foroozan

    To whom it may concern:

    Dr. Memar has been a reliable, trustworthy and decent person ever since I have known him that goes back to our childhood. Dr. Memar is a hard-working individual and highly committed to his practice. He is a loyal, honest, considerate, and supportive person who has the ability to see and understand things from another person’s perspective.

    I truly can not think of any negative attributes when it comes to Dr Memar. All in all, I would have to say that Dr. Memar is a fine, and well-balanced person with an abundance of positive qualities who has always been willing to extend a helping hand to whomever has needed his assistance both in his professional and social lives.

    I hope this letter will give you an idea of Dr. Memar’s good character and help him get a second chance to prove this occurrence is very unusual and ill-fated.

    Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.


    Salma Foroozan

  • Azar Owlia

    Dear Judge Leinenweber,

    My family and I have known Dr. Memar for over 30 years, and have been very excited to have seen Dr. Memar grow into the practice that he has been leading.

    During the time that he was a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, my husband and I were working in the cancer research division of UTMB, and so we learned, and now know, how important an early diagnosis of cancer can be for the patients, and their families.

    We have always known Dr. Memar as a very respectful, and intelligent doctor, and we can not fathom that he has suggested any unnecessary procedures, or an on-purpose misdiagnosis of any patients for his own financial benefits. We can not perceive that his passion to serve the multitude of patients yet to be served would not allow him to make decisions that would hinder or put an end to his practice.

    In agreement with Dr. Tirandaz, we ask that you give Dr. Memar “a fair trial and provide him with an appropriate appeal”. He does deserve an “impartial trial”!

    Azar Owlia

  • David R. Baker

    Dear Judge Leinenweber:
    I am a member of bc/bs hmo. I have been referred to Dr. Memar for Mohs surgery and have found him to be professional and caring. After he had left my hmo, I had trouble finding a doctor who performed Mohs surgery and who was a part of my network. I called him asking the cost of a squamous cell cancer removal by Mohs surgery. He quoted a cost that I could not afford and when I told him so he said I could pay what I was able to. This does not sound like a man looking to make a quick buck.
    I am saddened to hear that Dr. Memar has been so badly portrayed by the government.

    David R. Baker

  • Joyce Zletz

    Joyce Zletz July 22 2017

    Honorable Judge Leinenweber

    My husband Alex and I were introduced to Dr. Omeed Memar in 2002 at a dinner party by a friend who held an administrative position at the Osteopathic Hospital in Hyde Park. Alex,a retired research Chemist and veteran of World War Two, was 83 at that time.During his military career, he was stationed on Kwajalien Atoll in the Pacific.This Atoll was devoid of trees and shade due to the devastating bombing of both the Japanese and the Americans.
    Alex is very fair skinned. His exposure to the sun for many month on Kwajalien and subsequent water skiing and tennis playing, led to many skin problems.He had medical treatment for cancer and pre-cancer over the years. We however, were so impressed in 2002 listening to this young Dr Memar talk about his life ambition to help people young or old, rich or poor, with skin cancer that we decided to make an appointment and give him a try.
    I am proud to say that we have been patients and personal friends ever since.
    During these past 15 years, Dr. Memar has performed several Mohs surgeries on Alex’s nose face and ears and treated pre-cancers. Always with great competence,efficiency and gentleness; explaining exactly what he was doing before and during any procedure.
    He also performed a Mohs surgery on the bridge of my nose, removed a tumor on the side of my face and stopped the bleeding of a blood vessel hemangioma on my bottom lip. Always careful and deliberate explaining what we must do to expedite the healing process. In consideration of Alex’s age, now, of 98 years he used the IPL once or twice on pre-cancer to prevent the necessity of future invasive surgery.

    It is incomprehensible, that a man so dedicated to his patients and to his profession should be denied his license to practice what he lives for.

    It is also incomprehensible that 8 patients ,(the 8 witnesses) two of whom are still patients, either did not know or couldn’t remember that they were being treated for cancer or pre-cancer and were somehow convinced later that it was a cosmetic treatment .

    Over the years, I have learned that words sometimes are more powerful than deeds. Words , even misinformation repeated over and over louder and louder can influence a jury to accept the words of a prosecutor as true. and there by convict.
    Judge Leinenweber,
    In my heart and humble opinion; the Assistant Attorney General, has succeeded with his words, in creating a terrible injustice.
    I implore you to reverse this injustice allowing Dr. Memar to continue his profession helping to eradicate his patients cancer and continue his life’s work. His work is his life.

    Joyce Zletz

  • Soha Rafi

    Dear The Honorable Judge Leinenweber,
    I have known Dr Memar to be nothing but kind, compassionate, and empathetic. I went to him during a time of need, in which I was unable to financially cover the medical procedure in which I was seeking out. I went to him for a consultation and he explained the procedure to me very thoroughly and answered all of my questions and concerns. During the consultation I mentioned my financial situation and my hesitance due to this circumstance. Dr Memar never hesitated, turned me down or away, and never altered his professional and kind demeanor. He told me not to worry about the associated costs and that it was an insignificant hurdle. After the thorough and comprehensive consultation, Dr Memar offered to perform the services we discussed completely free of charge and at 100% of his own time and expense.
    I was overjoyed and admittedly surprised that Dr Memar would offer his services to me completely free of charge. I was never once treated as any less of a patient than anyone else at the center during any point of my treatment (from beginning to end). I was always treated with the same compassion and empathy I experienced on my initial consultation day. Every step of my journey with Dr Memar was done with care and professionalism. I was extremely happy with my results and with the high level of service and compassion in which I received from Dr Memar. He made sure that my recovery process was equally as pleasant as my initial consult and all follow up appointments were treated with care and professionalism. I never felt rushed or disregarded as a patient even though I was not financially covering my services.
    Dr Memar is a decent, kind, and professional doctor and human being. I have never encountered an experience with another medical service provider that could even come close to what I experienced with Dr Memar.
    Soha Rafi

  • Marsha Brawner

    To whom it may concern, I’ve only known Dr Memar for a year and a half. I was referred to him by my Employer Dr Daftary D.D.S, for a cortisone injection in my right knee. I was very hesitant at first because I knew he wasn’t an Orthopedic doctor,but he eased my fears and performed the best cortisone injection!!! I was able to not only watch my daughter play on team usa in Brazil, but I was able to walk around Brazil without any pain.!!! I was pain free for a year and then experienced that same nagging pain,not being able to walk,run or play with my grandson the way I wanted to, so I made another appointment with Dr. Memar for another miracle injection that NO other Orthopedic doctor has been able to duplicate! I arrived at my appointment eager and anticipating my treatment which I paid for prior to going into the room. only to be examined by Dr Memar and denied my injection. Dr Memar was very concerned over the swelling in my legs and advised me to see my medical doctor immediately. I’m writing you to bring awareness to a Doctor who refunded my money,and did the right thing for me medically!! He was very concerned for my life and even went as far to see if a colleague could see me that very day. If he were money hungry he would jumped at the Opportunity to prey upon a victim who was self pay and desperate for his help!!
    Please listen the voices of his patients and allow him a fair trial!!!

    Marsha Brawner

  • Brandon W. Stiner

    Omeed, you are my favorite Chicago Doc. I want to help, can I still send a letter?

    • Omeed Memar

      Thanks Branson
      Sure, you can still write. The judge has not yet rendered a verdict.

  • Farideh touti

    Dear Judge Leineweber
    I already sent letter to you and I beg you for helping to save my life and many other cancerous patients that were under the treatment of professional person as doctor Omid Memar. By your decision for allowing Dr. Memar to continue his profession helping to save his patients life. PLEASE DON’T PUT ANOTHER JESUS ON THE CROSS AGAIN. I’m nurse and I saved many babies life so please let me to be alive by being under supervision of Dr. Memar again. WITH RESPECT : Farideh Touti

  • Eric Guy

    Dear Judge Leineweber,

    I knew Dr. Omeed Memar in medical school in Galveston. What I remember about Omeed was that he was a very gentle, intelligent, and considerate person. I remember that he had an exceptionally beautiful and graceful father and mother. I do not know what was in Omeed’s mind or whether he is guilty or innocent. But what I do know is that if I were to give any clemency to any person who possibly could be guilty of the crime he is being convicted for, he would be the person I would give clemency. Because every person deserves a kind hand when down, not only would I give Omeed a big hand, but I would give him a big hug once he was up. Eventhough Omeed and I do not agree in politics (I think not), I do recognize a truly kind and sincere and beautiful soul when I see it.
    Dr. Eric C. Guy MD (classmate 1995)

  • Kevin R. Hail

    Dr. Memar treated me several times for skin issues. I was totally happy with him and his ethical behavior. Nowadays, ethical people are hard to find in any aspect of society. I had asked Dr. Memar to perform a fat transfer on me. I wanted fat removed from my abdomen and transferred to another place my body where I thought it would be more aesthetically appealing. Much to my surprise, Dr. Memar suggest against the treatment for me. He stated I was mildly overweight and there was no real need for me to have such a procedure done. He mentioned the pain involved and other risks, and said I would be best to remain natural. I was astounded that there are still “medical professionals” who are still ethical today. He could have easily agreed to my request and pocketed a huge amount of money for himself. Dr. Memar displayed nothing but full honesty to me in his words and ACTIONS. I only recently learned of this fraud he is being accused of as I have developed another skin problem and called to make an appointment. He quickly returned my call and referred me to another dermatologist.
    This man is being unduly hounded by someone who must have another agenda. Dr. Memar is an upright, ethical, genuine person. Almighty God please help this man as those in authority today are to blind to see the truth.

  • Dr, Memar, I have not seen you in quite some time but as a former patient of yours, I was given excellent care, personalized attention, and I am utterly shocked that your integrity would be questioned, much less that you would be charged in a frivolous lawsuit of this nature. I have seen the ravages of skin cancer on my father. I only wish he had a physician as competent as you are. You will prevail in this case, and I am sorry for the damage done to your practice and your family. Keep fighting the fraudulent insurance system, and know you have saved many lives and will continue to do so. You are eminently qualified and absolutely innocent of wrongdoing!

  • Donna Taylor

    You probably don’t remember me, however, Dr. Carlson walked me to your office to take care of a problem 3 other doctors wasted my money on. You cured it. I went to your office the other day and was shocked to find out you were not there. I am devastated by this whole thing. You are the best to say the least.

  • Barbara Escobedo

    I am a previous and soon-to-be current patients of Dr. Memar. He is a great dermatologist. The results that he gave me and the medication that he gave me were wonderful. He is very thorough and very knowledgeable and I can attest that he does have goggles that are used to magnify what he was looking at (patients skin). He actually always had them on when I went into my appointments. I have tried other dermatologist and have not had the same results. That’s why I want to go back to Dr memar.

  • John w douard

    I’ve known Omeed since medical school in Galveston where he was a student and I was a bioethics professor. After many years out of contact, we reconnected through a mutual friend, and he saw that I had a severe case of rhinophyma. He treated it with expert surgery. It changed my life and I have over the years been impressed with his integrity as both a physician and as a human being. I’ve just now seen this web page but I had sent a letter on his behalf to the trial judge a year ago, and now urge the circuit court to give his legal issues a fair hearing. As a public defender, I am aware of how important an appellate court can be to the preservation of our rights.

  • Nicole Lockett

    I am a former patient of Dr. Memar. He is a wonderful dermatologist and has a pleasant manner with his patients. I had no issues with no services rendered. He and his staff are wonderful people. I pray that he is given a fair hearing.

Give a Reply

Loop Lipo ∣ Chicago