Peeples Isn’t a People Person When Working for an Insurance Company

The purpose of this blog is, as the web address indicates, to expose the tactics used by, and deficiencies of, Defense Medical Examiner/Medical Record Reviewer Dr. Earl Peeples (hereinafter referred to as “Peeples”). Peeples has quickly risen to become the “King” of Courtroom Doctors for the Insurance Industry and Defense lawyers across the State of Arkansas. Most importantly, the purpose of the blog is to show how Peeples is hurting legitimately injured Arkansans and his own peers in the medical profession.  This blog does not constitute legal advice or information about legal services and is not an advertisement for legal services.  No disrespect or criticism is intended with respect to the good doctors, identified below, who provided medical services to patients in accordance with accepted medical standards.

A former client of mine named Helen is an example of the harm Peeples is causing. She recently volunteered the following about her experience with Peeples and helped inspire me to take this action.   

Hi Joey, I was thinking of you the other day and wondered if things are going well there.  Anger still boils up when I think of the Farmers dr that I saw that was telling me there would be no problem with my neck injury.  The pain is daily in spite of water aerobics, exercise, medication, etc.  I still see a chiropractor to try to get me in alignment and am walking with a cane.  I hate having the handicap sticker in my car, since it is a constant reminder of the corrupt insurance company. You and I knew my condition would deteriorate with years but guess we knew more than the doctor. Please continue to help others who find themselves involved with Dr. Peeples.

Helen

There are very valid reasons for Independent Medical Examinations.  In some cases, they even help to corroborate the validity of injuries sustained by innocent consumers and tort victims.  The legitimate Defense Medical Examiner will provide honest, unbiased, evidence-based information that is useful in the litigation process.  The testimony from Peeples, however, reflects that in the majority of cases that he disagrees with the treatment and opinions of good, honest, hard-working physicians across the State.

In this regard, Peeples testified over 90 times in depositions or trials from August 2, 2007 to August 18, 2011.  In these cases, he disagreed with treating physicians every single time.  That’s 90 straight times.

Dorothy Clay Simms states it so appropriately in her book Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors: 

“[A] friend attended a DME conference where the audience was asked, ‘How many times do you think you can reach a conclusion contrary to the interests of the insurance industry and still be used as an expert for the carriers?’  The audience was unanimous: ‘Twice,’ they replied. Two times a DME can be honest and, after that, he can forget those tasty referrals resulting in big fees-referrals that don’t involve haggling with insurance companies or Medicare, fighting over down-coding of bills, or treatment of unhappy patients; referrals that have no potential for malpractice suits because the doctors is the not the treating doctor.  It is just too tempting, perhaps, even for someone who genuinely wants, or even needs, to be honest.”

Peeples is a disabled orthopedic surgeon in Little Rock Arkansas.  He performed his last surgery in November 2003 because of an arthritic condition in his hands.  He also surrendered his partnership at OrthoArkansas, a Little Rock medical practice, and became an employee physician at such facility.  Peeples was 53 years old when he performed his last surgery. 

In March 2004, Peeples sent solicitation letters to approximately 390 insurance companies, corporations, and defense lawyers stating his interest in providing second opinions, one-time evaluations, medical chart reviews and medical/legal opinions, including those that may require professional testimony.

In a hand written document prepared by Peeples, his income from 2003 to 2010 was outlined.  The document includes income from OrthoArkansas Orthopedic and Spinal Institute (OA) and his Medical/Legal (ML). Peeples earned $1,202,005.00 from 2003 to 2010, increasing from $50,145 in 2003 to $291,420 in 2010 for medical/legal matters.

Peeples started operating under the name Peeples Medical Legal Consulting, LLC (PMLC) in June 2009. PMLC involves analysis of medical records and no medical examinations are involved. As noted above, Peeples has made more than a $1.2 million doing medical/legal consulting from 2003-2010. In addition, it is believed that Peeples is receiving disability insurance payment for the arthritic condition in his hands because he can no longer practice medicine as a surgeon. He has refused or declined to testify as to how much he receives per month in such payments, even though he has been specifically asked this question. 

In 2010, Peeples reviewed approximately 210 patient files for insurance companies, corporations, and defense attorneys.  These are not Independent Medical Exams but rather Record Reviews, being the opinions of Peeples based upon a mere reading of the medical records of a patient without conducting any physical examination of the patient or speaking to the patient.  It’s easy to see why Peeples performs more Records Reviews than Independent Medical Exams because Records Reviews are much more lucrative.

This is because when Peeples does an Independent Medical Exam, he charges $1,000 for the exam.  The money is paid to OrthoArkansas and a portion is paid to Peeples.  On the other hand, he receives 100% of the monies paid for Records Reviews through his medical/legal consulting business.  It is no wonder we see a steadily increasing “Records Review Only” practice by Peeples.

Peeples has a well-earned reputation of being the defense’s courtroom doctor.  In testifying over 90 times that treating physicians are wrong, Peeples has shown that he has no hesitation in saying that our good doctors are wrong, that they performed an unnecessary surgery, that they missed a diagnosis, that there was no basis for a diagnosis by a treating physician, or otherwise criticizing treating physicians. 

One has to ask whether the doctors in these instances are incompetent and perform below the standard of care or whether Peeples is less than candid concerning injured person after injured person.  It is clear that Peeples has a defense bias and has a slant that is not neutral.  Without the income generated by performing Records Reviews only for defense lawyers, corporations, and insurance companies, Peeples’ standard of living would have declined drastically after becoming disabled.  For example, in 2009, Peeples’ income from OrthoArkansas was a meager $4,693, while generating over $225,000 from reviewing records and doing defense medical exams.

Peeples consistently testifies that the care and treatment provided by treating doctors—such as injections, physical therapy and chiropractic adjustments—is not reasonable and necessary.  By so testifying, he potentially saves the insurance company (who is paying Peeples) hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It is readily  apparent why insurance companies don’t blink an eye when Peeples charges them $400 hourly fee to simply review records.  This amount pales in contrast to the $800 hourly fee that he charges when testifying in deposition, $625 hourly fee for testifying at trial, of $2500 fee for testifying for a half day at trial.  In a case that I was involved in during 2011, Peeples billed the insurance company roughly $15,000 for his services in less than a month after he was hired.

And while he is quick to give opinions, he sure doesn’t let himself become involved in a situation where the injured patient is entitled to rely on his opinions—a situation where a patient could potentially sue Peeples for medical malpractice.  There is no doubt that he wants juries to rely on his opinion that a patient should not receive treatment that is prescribed by a treating physician, yet Peeples refuses to sign a letter that the patient may rely on when making decisions about the medical care the patient receives and requests.  In other words, Peeples wants to spout his opinions but doesn’t want anyone—except the jury—to rely on what he says.  Therefore, if the jury cuts off treatment, and something bad happens to the patient, Peeples has no responsibility.  It seems fairly clear that Peeples wants to take the insurance company’s money, he wants to give opinions that help only the insurance company, yet have no responsibility for giving bad medical advice in the process.  

Peeples routinely testifies in motor vehicle accident cases.  In these cases, he frequently (if not normally) testifies that the motor vehicle accident did not cause the injury suffered by a patient.  Time after time, he uses the trite phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc (meaning after the thing, therefore, because of the thing). He states that post hoc ergo propter hoc is false logic and not a basis to attribute causation in the absence of traumatic abnormalities. 

While he is not a psychologist, Peeples often attributes an injured person’s pain to a “psychosocial factors” or other psychological conditions.  In a twist of irony and hypocrisy, Peeples (who makes money saying that people aren’t really injured as they claim) frequently attacks the credibility of the injured and refers to “secondary gain.”  That is, the injured person is just trying to make a buck off of the car accident.   Luckily, most courts will exclude this testimony.

Peeples is infamous for “cherry picking” the injured person’s medical records to find any and all references in treating doctors’ medical records that will support his flawed theories in the case, whether the theory be that that the person’s injuries are due to secondary gain, pre-existing conditions, psychological reasons, or that the person just isn’t injured.  While he freely draws his own inferences from medical records, he does so without ever attempting to communicate with treating doctors to justify his conclusions.

While Peeples is doing more and more “Record Reviews Only” and making lots of money by charging $400 per hour for this “service,” the Arkansas State Medical Board has established minimum standards for establishing a physician/patient relationship.  The Medical Board’s regulation requires a physician, at a minimum, to obtain a history and perform a physical examination of the patient.  The Medical Board’s regulations provide that a physician exhibits gross negligence if he provides or recommends any form of treatment with first establishing a proper physician/patient relationship.   Peeples’ Records Reviews do not come close to meeting the requirements to allow him to recommend treatment under the regulations.

Below are some representative summaries of the comments and opinions that Peeples has written in his Record Review Only Reports in which he consistently criticizes the treatment and care of treating physicians (patient names have been abbreviated to protect their anonymity, and this only represents a small number of  comments and opinions from Peeples Record Review Only Reports):

On July 23, 2007, Peeples authored a report about J.T. for Attorney Randy Murphy, a Little Rock defense lawyer.  Peeples did not examine the patient.  Reviewing the records of Dr. Richard Riley, a chiropractor, Peeples opines that “there are several standard of care issues raised by the prolonged chiropractic treatment in the absence of radiographic findings and the absence of repeated radiographic studies for anatomic subluxation of the spine.” He goes on to state, “I am concerned about the length and number of chiropractic adjustments.”

On August 9, 2007, Peeples authored a report about M.E. for Northwest Arkansas Defense lawyer Brian Wood. (It should be noted that Peeples is now spreading this tentacles across the state. For example, defense lawyers in Fort Smith use him, even though there are approximately 17 orthopedic surgeons in Fort Smith, 29 orthopedic surgeons in Northwest Arkansas and 4 orthopedic surgeons in Russelville. It is not hard, based upon this blog, to see why defense lawyers and the insurance industry use Peeples.) In typical Peeples’ fashion, he states “this record does not support any major anatomic injury to the cervical spine or nerve roots.” He goes on to state that while it was the opinion of Dr. Kelly, examining orthopedist, that Mechelle E had impingement findings related to the motor vehicle incident, the impingement would be due to pre-existing anatomy and is not a traumatic diagnosis in the absence of major shoulder fracture.”

On January 22, 2008, Peeples authored a report about C.E. and E.L. for Attorney Michael Huckabay, Jr., a Little Rock defense lawyer.  Peeples states his opinion that “examinations by Dr. Clary do not include standard objective aspects and comment regarding radiographic abnormalities are fuzzy and nonspecific as to the levels involved. * * * It is apparent that the DMX was performed at a later date, after treatment had been stopped, for the purpose of generating an impairment rating.”

On March 18, 2008, Peeples authored a report about L.D. for Attorney Michael D. Huckabay. He reviewed the medical records of Dr. Steven Bennett, a North Little Rock chiropractor. Peeples states that “there is no anatomic basis on which to justify extensive chiropractic adjustments and treatment.  I do not believe there has been demonstrated objectively a need for $10,000 in chiropractic care. * * * Cervical strains and sprains are noted to resolve spontaneously without specific treatment.”

On March 13, 2008, Peeples authored a report about M.B. for Attorney Scott Provencher, a Little Rock defense attorney.  Based upon a review of medical records of Dr. Steven Bennett, a North Little Rock chiropractor, Peeples opines that “Dr. Bennett’s reports do not demonstrate a logical application of medical science and there is no objective basis on which to justify medical treatment other than symptomatic management of a cervical strain via the use of medication, time and gentle range of motion exercises.”  Dr. Bennett indicated in his treatment records that Digital Motion X-Ray test indicated multiple ligaments were damaged and there was excessive translation of multiple levels of the cervical spine.

On September 2, 2008, Peeples authored a report for Attorney Michael Huckabay, Jr. on behalf of an unnamed patient.  He reviewed records of Dr Michael Sorensen, a medical doctor with OrthoMemphis (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) and opined that “in the face of increasing symptoms and no anatomic abnormality did not take a psychological history or explore depression or secondary gain factors as part of the situations.  There is no logical basis on which to perform facet injections and no objective basis support for a subluxation or facet injury. I am disappointed the treating physician did not take a psychological history or seek a non-physical explanation for this man’s perception of disability and over-whelming pain. This would, I think, be the appropriate place to find an answer for those symptoms. These symptoms are not explained on an anatomic basis.”

On April 15, 2008, Peeples authored a record review only about R.B. for Attorney Debbie Denton, a Little Rock defense lawyer.  Peeples reviewed the records of Fort Smith Neurosurgeon Anthony Capocelli and opined that “Dr. Capocelli’s failure to record a physical examination of patient, pre-op and post operatively, his failure to address pre-existing findings, his failure to correlate the negative myelogram with his pre-operative diagnosis of ruptured disc, and his failure to deal with the L3-L4 discogram findings, all raised standard of care issues that merit review by the Arkansas State Medical Board. His care has little to commend in it.”

On October 29, 2008, Peeples authored a record review only report about patient A.L. for Attorney Michael McCarty Harrison, a Little Rock defense lawyer.  Peeples reviewed the records of Dr. Eric Carson and opines that “Dr. Carson’s testimony is contradictory and there is no radiographic basis included in the chart anatomically for chiropractic treatments and there is certainly no basis for multiple repetitive manipulations of the spine. As regards Dr. Carson’s comments regarding the reason for physician evaluation of the cervical spine in the emergency room, I will merely say that his is blissfully uninformed.”

On June 27, 2009, Peeples authored a report about W.F. for Attorney Richard A. Smith, a Little Rock defense lawyer.  Peeples reviewed the records of Dr. George Hammet and opines that “despite a lack of nerve root compression documented by radiographic studies and documented by radiographic studies and Dr. Windom’s exams, proceed with multiple injections in various locations chasing symptoms, but not treating specific anatomic traumatic pathology.” Peeples also reviewed the medical records of Dr. Windom, a neurosurgeon in Oxford, Mississippi. Peeples opines that “his dictation is brief and in incomplete sentences and that there was no objective basis on which to order the cervical myelogram and post myelogram CT.”  Peeples also states that “conspicuously absent from [the patient’s] evaluations of her chronic pain is a good psychological history and any discussions of secondary gain.” In a classic peeplesism, Peeples concludes that “conspicuously absent from Ms. F’s evaluations of her chronic pain is a good psychological history and any discussion of secondary gain. He states another peeplesism, when he concludes “post hoc, ergo propter hoc is false logic and not a basis to attribute causation in the absence of traumatic abnormalities to a motor vehicle accident while ignoring her long history of employment as a painter and wallhanger.”

On July 29, 2009, Peeples did a record review only regarding R.D. for Attorney Betty Hardy, a Little Rock defense lawyer.  Peeples reviewed various records and opined that “despite a number of concerning findings in the psychological profile, elective surgical intervention for pain was undertaken in the form of fusion. It failed. This did not cause the operating surgeon, Dr Sandefur, to consider that he had missed diagnosed and, indeed, that hers was not an anatomic problem. Instead he suggested increasing the ante and performing another invasive procedure, a spinal cord stimulator. He does not record conferencing with partner who identified findings and opined that surgery was not indicated.” (This is yet another hypocritical statement as Peeples has never been known to confer or consult with treating doctors that he wants jurors to accept as true.)

On August 3, 2009, Peeples performed a record review only regarding J.W. for Attorney Joe Kilpatrick, a Little Rock defense lawyer. He reviewed the records of Anesthesiologist Christopher Mocek and opined that “the continued treatment by Dr. Mocek and the nurses at the Minimally Invasive Spine Medical Center are merely support of a previous opiate habituation or addiction and raise multiple standard of care and drug appropriateness issues with heavy doses of medication in a young man without proven major abnormality. Peeples also reviewed records from the Vilonia Chiropractic Clinic and opined that “the chiropractic treatment was inappropriate in that there was no malalignment or injury to the cervical spine.”

On September 27, 2009, Peeples authored a record review only report for Attorney Joe Kilpatrick regarding D.H.  He reviewed the medical records of Dr Luke Knox, a neurosurgeon in Northwest Arkansas. Peeples opined that “there is no objective finding to support Dr. Knox assertion that, if surgery was required, it would be related to the MVA regarding cervical issues.” In his favorite peeplesism, Peeples states “post hoc ergo propter hoc is false logic and not a basis for causation especially when there is obvious and repeated discussion of degenerative pathology and possible surgery before the MVA.”

On November 19, 2009, Peeples again authored a record review only report for Attorney Michael Harrison regarding T.F. Peeples opined that “there is no objective evidence identified on the radiographic reports or on the exams on which to attribute permanent impairment of function and these chiropractic records are the most uninformative and unhelpful I have reviewed.” In another peeplesism, he states “strains heal in 6-8 weeks with treatment or physical impairment.”

On November 287, 2009, Peeples performed a record review only regarding D.D. for Attorney Joe McKay, a Little Rock defense attorney.  Peeples reviewed the records of Dr Kristen Wright, a primary care physician in Benton and opined that “Dr Wright was well aware of [of the recommendation by Dr. Lue that psychological explanation and treatment was appropriate] and ignored this recommendation for psychological treatment. The logic of Dr Wright’s musculoskeletal care of [the patient] escapes me.” Peeples also reviewed the chiropractic records of Ron Rosenermanz of Saline Chiropractic and opined that “the initial chiropractic treatment was excessive and was without anatomic basis. The care by this chiropractor, Dr. Rosnermanz, has nothing to commend it.  Later chiropractic care was, again, excessive.”  Peeples also reviewed the chiropractic record of Dr. Steven Bennett and states that “Dr. Bennett’s report should be ignored and is not consistent with AMA Guidelines and cannot be used for an impairment rating.”

On April 7, 2010, Peeples perform a record review only on an unnamed patient for Attorney Kathryn Knisley, a Little Rock defense lawyer. He reviewed the medical records of Dr. Kurzan of the Duke Medical Center Orthopedic Clinic. Peeples opined that “the treatment of spinning down blood and injecting it in an area of degenerative tendon change noted in the MRI is a non-standard treatment without general acceptance in the orthopedic community.  Physical therapy treatment raises significant standard of care issues.” Predictably, Peeples uses his favorite peepleism and states “post hoc, ergo propter hoc is false logic.”

On August 6, 2010, Peeples authored a record review only report for Little Rock defense attorney Cotton Cunningham (Laser Law Firm) on an unnamed patient.  In this report, Peeples acts as a zealous advocate for the insurance company.  He states, “Unnamed patient was involved in a motor vehicle accident on January 15, 2006 in which her car was struck, left the roadway and struck a tree. * * * As an RN with years of surgical experience involving the spine and nervous system, she [the patient] was no doubt aware of the consequences of ignoring a serious injury. It is my opinion that she would not have refused transport or emergency evaluation has she had serious symptoms or suspected significant injury to herself.  In fact, it is my opinion as an experienced nurse she would have demanded this service.  Her actions speak to a minor trauma.”  He goes on to state “an initial program of physical therapy of short duration and use of anti-inflammatory medications was appropriate. Cervical strain in the non-litigant population resolves in six to eight weeks whether treated or not. It is my opinion that there has been significant over-treatment. * * *” One has to ask the question is this the conduct of an unbiased, independent examiner or is Peeples, a courtroom doctor, attempting to write the closing argument for the defense lawyer?

On August 13, 2010, Peeples performed a record review only for Attorney Keith McPherson, a Little Rock defense lawyer (Laser Law Firm) regarding A.R. Peeples reviewed the records of Dr. Butch Garlapati, MD of Arkansas Pain Centers and opined that “Dr. Garlapati’s evaluation and lack of objective based medical evidence in treatment decisions produce care in the form of multiple invasive procedures which has little to commend it.  The possibility of secondary gain or litigation as a cause for her pain complaints is not addressed in these records. Dr Garlapati’s care has little to commend it.  His treatments and those of the other physicians are not based on the best objective evidence based medicine practices.”

On October 1, 2010, Peeples performed a record review only regarding S.P. for Attorney Brian Wood, a Fayetteville defense lawyer.  He reviewed the medical records of Internal Medicine Doctor John Huskins who gave the patient a disability rating of 34% to the total body.  Peeples opined that the single record which commented on ‘disability’ is illogical and indecipherable and should be ignored. Dr. Huskins does not even use the correct terminology.”

On October 20, 2010, Peeples did a medical review only regarding unnamed patient for Attorney Michael Huckabay, Jr.  Peeples reviewed the medical records of Dr. Harold Betton and opined that “there was no anatomic diagnosis listed to justify extensive physical therapy prescribed in Dr. Betton’s “blank check” PT orders.”  Peeples further opined that “there was no need for LESI injections as there was no compression of any neural structure…”

On December 3, 2010, Peeples performed a medical review only regarding K.A. for Attorney Mark Burgess, a Texarkana, Texas defense lawyer. He reviewed the medical records of Dr Colodney, an interventional pain doctor, and Dr. Danielson, Chief of Neurosurgery at the Texas Spine and Joint Institute.  He opined that Dr. Colodney provided his opinion that this anatomic change is related to the accident, despite the fact that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the motor vehicle accident particulars (a standard of care issue and undiluted post hoc reasoning).” Treatment by Dr. Danielson and Dr. Colodney has been remunerative but unsuccessful.  It is my opinion [the patient] would, more probably than not, have been in a better situation today had he been left untouched and untreated by both physicians. Their care has little to commend it.” Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after the thing, therefore, because of the thing) is false logic.”

On December 12, 2010, Peeples performed a records review only regarding an unnamed patient for Attorney Randy Murphy.  Peeples reviewed the records of Dr. Martin Hefley, Orthopedic Surgeon, and opined that “Dr. Hefley provides no basis to connect multidirection stability, partial thickness rotator cuff tear associated with impingement and AC joint degenerative to specific trauma in a restrained passenger.  Dr. Hefley provided undiluted post hoc reasoning…”

Also on December 12, 2010, Peeples did a records review regarding C.T. for Commercial Claims Representative Bryan Baker. Peeples reviewed the records of Dr. Michael Morse, a neurologist in Northwest Arkansas, and opined that “it is surprising to me that a well trained neurologist would use post hoc reasoning to assign causation for carpal tunnel syndrome when he should known that traumatic carpel tunnel syndrome is associated with violent wrist trauma.” Peeples goes on to opine that the report by Neurosurgeon Dr. Luke Knox are fuzzy and that the fuzziness of his reports are not coincidental.” Peeples goes on to state that “he would recommend that MMPI testing be performed to see if there is a non-physical basis for her complaints.” Is it really the role of Peeples, who has never laid eyes on Mr. T to be making recommendations about treatment?

On December 27, 2010, Peeples performed a records review for Attorney Michael Harrison regarding unnamed patient.  Peeples reviewed the record of Dr. Blackwell of Blackwell Chiropractic Clinic and opined that “ it is clear that no malalignment or subluxation was present and there is, therefore, no basis for chiropractic manipulation of the spine or chiropractic treatment.”

On December 28, 2010, Peeples performed a record review for Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Company about R.P.  Peeples reviewed records from Arkansas Specialty Orthopedics, including those from Dr. Sprinker, an osteopathic rehabilitation physician.  Dr. Sprinker recommended invasive treatment.  Mr. Pierce received multiple injections, facet blocks, and trigger points.  Peeples opined that “the correct diagnosis for Mr. Pierce was spinal strain and that this required no treatment over and above conservative measures and some analgesics.”  Peeples opined that “the reason for prolonged axial pain was psychological in nature and these factors were not neither tested nor addressed by the treating physicians.”

On January 5, 2011, Peeples performed another record review for Attorney Michael Harrison regarding J.B.  Peeples reviewed the record of Dr. Pace, who ultimately performed a fusion on [the patient] after a motor vehicle accident.  Peeples comments that the records of Dr. Pace are illegible and opined that “there was no new traumatic anatomy at the C5-C6 level after the MVA and that is clear that the hard disc and osteophyte ridge was present for some time before the accident.”

On February 8, 20ll, Peeples performed yet another record review for Attorney Michael Harrison (a frequent flyer with Peeples) regarding G.C. Peeples reviewed the records of Dr. Richard Riley of Little Rock Chiropractic Clinic and compares Dr. Riley’s definition of subluxation to “the verbal philosophy of Humpty-Dumpty who stated in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland,” “when I use a word it means just what I want it to mean-neither more nor less.”  Peeples opined that “any physical therapy for absence of ligament support in the SI joint is unnecessary and unrelated to the motor vehicle accident.  Most of it is nonsense.”

On June 13, 2011, Peeples reviewed records for Attorney Scott Strauss, a Little Rock defense lawyer about K.M.  Peeples disagreed with the opinion of Dr. Wayne Bruffet, Orthopedic spine surgeon, who opined that the cause of the C6-7 disc herniation was a motor vehicle accident.  Peeples states his opinion that “the surgical intervention was for progressive degenerative changes and that Dr. Bruffet is incorrect.”

On August 18, 2011, Peeples reviewed the records of F.D. for Attorney Bob Lambert, a defense lawyer from Springdale.  Peeples opined that the opinion of Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Randall Hendricks was surprising in that Dr. Hendricks indicated that the need for surgery was created by the motor vehicle accident and Peeples went on to opine that “Dr. Hendricks based his opinion on history alone and no objective evidence…”

On November 28, 2011, Peeples reviewed medical records about J.B. for Attorney Greg Jones, a Little Rock defense lawyer.  After a review of records, Peeples opines that “Dr. Floyd’s opinion that [the patient] professed pain is related to the MVA is based on Post hoc, ergo propter hoc false logic and is not based on objective medical data.” However, Peeples notes that Radiologist Dr. David Harshfield gave opinions that [the patient] had 10-12 ligaments that were insufficient.”

We are familiar with most of the medical providers criticized by Dr. Peeples.  Most, if not all, are good doctors, chiropractors, or medical providers.  We publish the summaries above to show that Peeples continually criticizes our good doctors, all in the name of making money.

We recommend that anyone impacted by Peeples contact each of the following and file a complaint:

Arkansas Insurance Department

Legal Division

1200 West Third Street

Little Rock, AR 72201

Phone (501) 371-2820

Facsimile (501) 371-2639

Email:  insurance.legal@arkansas.gov

Honorable Dustin McDaniel

Arkansas Attorney General

323 Center Street, Suite 200

Little Rock, AR 72201

Phone (501) 682-2007 or (800) 482-8982

Arkansas State Medical Board

1401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 340

Little Rock, AR 72201-2936

Phone (501) 296-1802.

This blog, using another peeplesism, is—as Peeples now states in all Reports—“based on objective evidence-based methods.” This blog will be updated on a continuing basis and will be used to identify defense lawyers and insurance companies who may continue to use Peeples, in light of looking at the overwhelming evidence that Peeples is not objective or independent and is simply acting as an advocate for the insurance industry and making an enormous amount of money doing it.

Upcoming blogs will focus on legitimately injured Arkansans who have been victims of Peeples methods and more specifically comment on the above mentioned Peeples’ report summaries and others.