Linda Crouse, M.D., argues in her Feb. 24 counterclaim that some of the echocardiographic tapes cited by the trust as evidence of her wrongdoing in its Sept. 18 complaint were found to be medically reasonable by the trust's own expert or auditing cardiologists. Crouse says the trust is now using films of hers that its expert previously certified as showing injury as examples of nonqualifying echoes to train its auditors to reject legitimate claims.

Crouse says an alleged conspiracy was set in motion during a hearing in September 2002 into matrix claims filed by two New York law firms using Crouse's echocardiograms and those of another cardiologist. At those hearings, Crouse says, the trust and its expert, John M. Dent, M.D., developed the theory that what Crouse had interpreted as regurgitation of the mitral valve was a harmless phenomenon called "backflow." Crouse responds that backflow is not a medically recognized term and that the settings of her echocardiogram machine eliminate any spurious artifacts that could be incorrectly interpreted as regurgitation. Since then, Crouse says, her practice has fallen off and prestigious professional organizations have distanced themselves from her.

"The September 2002 Hearing and the events leading up to it, were but a small piece of a larger scheme by the Trustees and Wyeth, with the approval and complicity of the PMC [Plaintiffs' Management Committee], to cover up the now obvious facts that (1) the Trust is under-funded and is effectively bankrupt; (2) Wyeth, the PMC and the Trustees seriously underestimated the number of claimants likely to qualify for Matrix Benefits; (3) there were serious errors in the criteria to qualify for Matrix Benefits, and in the protocols for submitting claims, such that many members of the general population who took the Diet Drugs but may not be considered to be FDA Positive in a clinical setting nevertheless qualify for substantial Matrix Benefits under the Settlement Agreement; and (4) the Trust has been seriously mismanaged," Crouse says.

The lawsuits against Crouse and another cardiologist are an attempt to cover for the fact that the definition of moderate mitral regurgitation in the Settlement Agreement is obsolete and allows people to qualify for compensation although a cardiologist would not find that person to be injured in a clinical setting, Crouse says.