|
|
|
Use this tool to learn about websites, specifically the one you just entered.
If you find some aspect of it inappropriate it is not our fault.
If you are the owner of this website: yes we are a real search engine, we do have a real web crawler called FyberSpider and you can block it if you feel the urge.
We are in the process of updating this tool. Until we are done just use our search results to check the inclusion status of your site.
Submit your site to major search engines within 48 hours.
Find out if your site has been cataloged by top search engines for only $8.99.
Below you will see site info taken directly from the URL you entered in real time. This is also known as our URL Breakdown tool and can be used independently of our site info tool.
Documents Suggest Why Bogus "Racketeering" Suit Was Filed against Aetna
This is just a sample of the content found on this website. Please visit the website to read the entire page.
"Home
Search
Your Guide to Health Fraud- and Quackery-Related Legal Matters
Send
This Page to a Friend
1000
Documents Suggest Why Bogus "Racketeering"
Suit Was Filed against Aetna
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Documents presented to a Colorado court suggest why biological dentists and others funded the bogus lawsuit Cavitat Medical Technologies filed against Aetna, Inc. The company markets the Cavitat ultrasound device, which is claimed to help dentists diagnose neuralgia-inducing cavitational ostenecrosis (NICO), a condition that lacks scientific recognition. In 2002, Aetna issued a Clinical Policy Bulletin which explained why Aetna would not cover diagnostic or treatment procedures related to use of the device. In 2004, Cavitat and its owner filed a lawsuit falsely accusing Aetna of "racketeering" and other wrongdoing and alleging that it engaged in an illegal conspiracy with Dr. Robert Baratz and me. After depositions demonstrated that we were not involved in preparing Aetna's Clinical Policy Bulletin, the court dismissed the racketeering charge and Aetna filed a countersuit charging
Cavitat and its owner with malicious prosecution. In January 2006, the
judge ruled on narrow legal grounds that Aetna did not have standing to
sue Cavitat because the claims had been filed by individual providers and
not the company. The underlying suit was settled a few months later.
Although
Aetna's countersuit did not succeed, I believe that its allegations were
well founded. Documents obtained during the discovery proceeding have revealed
that the lawsuit was backed by ""
....
read entire page
|
Links to Pages on Other Domain Names
|
|
Links to Pages on the Same Domain Name
|
|
