Martin Anderson Case - Controversy and Criticism - Medical Examiner Criticized

Medical Examiner Criticized

Charles F. Siebert, Jr., the Bay County medical examiner who performed Anderson's first autopsy (and ruled out foul play), faced charges of professional incompetence from the beginning. An example of a previous mistake, made popular by his critics and the media, was a 2004 autopsy performed by Siebert on 34-year-old Donna Reed, a woman who died during Hurricane Ivan. In that autopsy report, Siebert noted that Reed's testicles and prostate gland were "unremarkable."

On August 9, 2006, the state Medical Examiners Commission recommended probation. Originally, a panel from the Commission recommended that Siebert be suspended, after an inquiry discovered that he was negligent in at least 35 of 698 cases reviewed. While the newspapers used the word "negligent," the Medical Examiners Commission did not in fact accuse him of negligence. The commission decided to retain Siebert until his contract expires June 27, 2007, with the provision that he pay for outside review of his future work (a QA program).

The National Association of Medical Examiners, concerned that Siebert was being subjected to a "witch hunt", took the unusual step of writing the Medical Examiner Commission to offer its services to remedy the situation. The Medical Examiner Commission did not respond to the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) letter. On 15 January 2007, NAME followed up with a second statement of its concerns. On 18 January 2007, the Medical Examiner Commission and Dr. Siebert reached a negotiated agreement in which the Medical Examiner Commission removed all references to "probation" or "discipline" and Dr. Siebert agreed to institute a quality assurance program to look for typographical errors in reports. Dr. Siebert was not required to accept the claims of error, and is free to pursue other remedies. In July 2007, Dr. Joseph Prahlow, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners noted that "...consensus nationally, however, is that Siebert is being singled out for political purposes." He said that "the more vocal members of the national society of forensic pathologists support Siebert. He was careful to point out that the most vocal didn't necessarily represent the majority of members, and very few have examined both autopsy reports."

On August 3, 2007, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, retired Chief Medical Examiner for San Antonio and author of two best-selling textbooks of forensic pathology stated that Dr. Siebert's conclusions were scientifically valid and that Dr. Adams' was not. This was echoed some weeks later by Dr. John Hunsaker, former President of the National Association of Medical Examiners, in a radio interview. Dr. Randy Eichner, team doctor for the University of Oklahoma Sooners and expert on exertional deaths, called Dr. Adams' conclusions "fantasy."

In late 2007, the Medical Examiner Commission asked for a delay in Dr. Siebert's appeal in order to finish some depositions. This delayed the appeal until after January 1, 2008, and Dr. Siebert's contract ended December 28, 2007. The local search committee for a new ME requested a delay in Dr. Siebert's departure in order to allow his appeal to be heard, but the Medical Examiner Commission refused, thus making the appeal impossible; since Dr. Siebert was no longer a Medical Examiner, he no longer had standing for an appeal. Dr. Jon Thogmartin, Dr. Siebert's primary supporter in the Medical Examiner Commission, was replaced with Dr. Bruce Hyma, the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner. Dr. Hyma in turn asked that Dr. Siebert be allowed his day in court, and was denied. Dr. Hyma was also a member of the local search committee for a new District 14 Medical Examiner. The local search committee put Dr. Siebert's name in as their recommendation for the position. The Medical Examiner Commission refused to honor that nomination and instead left the position open as of December 29, 2007,. In response to this, the National Association of Medical Examiners wrote its third open letter, stating:

"As an organization, we believe that Dr. Siebert has met autopsy standards, and he continues to be a NAME member in good standing. By continuing to imply that Dr. Siebert does not meet the aforementioned nonexistent "NAME guidelines" or the NAME Autopsy Standards, the MEC is dishonestly misrepresenting the facts. Furthermore, as these errors have not been publicly acknowledged by the MEC, the MEC is discrediting not only Dr. Siebert but NAME itself. Since the MEC apparently believes that falsely invoking the imprimatur of the National Association of Medical Examiners in this fashion is acceptable, the Executive Committee of NAME demands that the MEC officially acknowledge and make public retraction of the inconsistencies noted above." ... ...In light of all that has happened, it appears inappropriate for the MEC to deny the request of the local 14th medical examiner district to defer any further action until Dr. Siebert has been afforded the opportunity through normal proceedings to both defend his findings and refute the allegations against him as due process requires. ...Imposing sanctions against a medical examiner without requiring these theories to be tested by an impartial jury jeopardizes the independent judgment of the medical examiner that our system of government has come to rely upon precisely because of its independent objective inquiry. It is ironic that in Dr. Siebert's case the medical examiner has been denied the very protection that his presence in such judicial proceedings is meant to provide.

Similarly, a group of 26 Medical Examiners from across the US and in Australia wrote an open letter to the MEC stating that the Medical Examiner system in Florida had been politically hijacked. They wrote:

Now the commission is attempting to remove Siebert and destroy his credibility. It delayed Siebert’s administrative hearing until after the new year, but has refused a request from District 14 to delay the appointment of a medical examiner until after the hearing. It appears that technicalities are acceptable only when the commission uses them. The commission has also informed the people of District 14 that it will ignore their opinion and choose someone else as chief medical examiner. The commissioners set the meeting to make this decision for Dec. 29, in the middle of the holidays. They have no shame. This political hijacking of Florida’s medical examiner system should be of concern to everyone. Without confidence in the independence of medical examiners, every decision can reasonably be questioned and unreasonably be scrutinized. Medical examiners from every corner of our country have added their names, alarmed about these events and their consequences.

In recommending Dr. Siebert for reappointment, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners wrote to the Medical Examiner Commission:

It unfortunately appears to us, and many residents of Bay County, that Dr. Siebert has become a scapegoat for those seeking a political solution to recent events, rather than a logical resolution based upon science and fact. The bottom line is that the good people of Bay County, including those serving on the local search committee, are apparently being ignored in their plea to keep Dr. Siebert as Medical Examiner.