OCA has just filed an objection with the bankruptcy court in New
Orleans, dated September 20, 2007. It's entitled NOTICE OF OBJECTION
TO PROOFS OF CLAIM AND CLAIMS FILED BY AFFILIATED PRACTICES AND
DOCTORS. In exhibits A, B & C, it lists 21 pages of claimant doctors
who they think they shouldn't have to pay!

I'm not a lawyer, and apparently even members of the legal profession
find it a little confusing. But according to my non-lawyer's
reading, it offers several general reasons which might apply, then
says that they don't think they should have to pay anyone who has a
claim against them. (Does this an honorable or enlightened new
company?! I'll let the reader draw his or her own conclusion.)

No hearing date has been set. Attorneys for the doctors are
currently scurying around trying to make sense of it - hopefully,
we'll get a better idea of what they're up to tomorrow?

I understand that they've exhausted all their attempts to avoid
paying Dr. Hobson (a 2 year appeals process, and some minor avoidance
attempts since,) and that it's time for them to write the check.
Could this have been what precipitated the omnibus motion to avoid
payments due on claims?

Entirely my own, personal, non-lawyer's opinion, based upon
information I believe to be reliable. Pacer presumably has the brief
available by now for anyone interested?