Guest Author
In response to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s editorial, “Patronis’ zeal for toothless case raises serious questions,” published July 9, my clients wanted to raise some important questions.
Contrary to the Sun-Sentinel’s suggestion that Dr. Howard Fetner has done nothing wrong, my clients — all female dental professionals — reported fraud at their dental offices. Fetner fired them despite testifying under oath that he never set foot in the offices.
This matters because Florida law requires an active, licensed dentist to oversee a dental practice.
The Sun-Sentinel ignored the fact that my clients believe Fetner, ACPDO and Boyne Capital victimized them. That is why I reached out to State Attorney Melissa Nelson earlier this year to investigate his involvement.
To be clear, I do not, nor do my clients, work for CFO Jimmy Patronis or the Division of Financial Services. This has been an independent push to do more investigative work on this case.
Thankfully, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ reassignment of the Fetner case to State Attorney Brian Kramer revealed some new information, which raises serious questions for the Miami State Attorney’s Office and their involvement in this matter, which resulted in five arrests for Medicaid fraud and then terminated prosecution efforts.
Kramer’s investigation uncovered that Fetner had a previously undisclosed immunity agreement with the Miami SAO and cannot be prosecuted for any crimes he may have committed.
As this paper likely knows, an immunity deal, by its very definition, requires someone to have disclosed something regarding criminal activity to be granted a pass for any potential crime they may have committed.
This new evidence confirms that the Kramer investigation did not exonerate Fetner, as this paper’s editorial implied.
But your paper ignored the biggest question begged by the Kramer investigation of Fetner.
Why did the Miami SAO have no record of what Fetner provided them in exchange for his immunity deal?
It’s unheard of for a state attorney’s office to lose testimony given in exchange for immunity.
Even more concerning, the Miami SAO seems to have granted Fetner a de facto blanket immunity by failing to create or preserve a record of the immunity provided. This means that Kramer and others believe they cannot press charges against Fetner because a lost immunity agreement could potentially shield him.
Between the missing immunity testimony and ASA Michael Spivack’s statement indicating that he believed fraud was committed yet later dropped the case, my clients feel that the justice system, in this case, has been unjust.
If the Sun Sentinel is serious about asking the “serious questions,” as the editorial states, we expect them to ask the Miami SAO what happened to the lost immunity agreement with the Jacksonville dentist who ran an office in Miami that he never visited, Dr. Howard Fetner.
___
William N. Spicola is an attorney based in Tallahassee.
