An interesting post appeared on the OrthoSynetics Blog yesterday over the name of their CEO:

http://www.orthosyneticsblog.com/1107-update-on-the-doctor-litigation-front 

Some thoughts and questions:

Why the post now?  District Court Judge Sarah Vance appears to be quite aggressive about getting the trials set and out of the way.  A bankruptcy court, referred to in the opening sentence of the blog post, tends to be biased (among other reasons) toward keeping a company's doors open in order to avoid throwing employees into unemployment lines.  Is OCA worried that the docs will do a lot better in a more neutral District Court?

Is lawyer greed entirely responsible for creating OCA's current litigation load?  Could  things like service which fell below what the doctors were led to expect have been a factor?   Could things like overcharges (via inflated corporate allocations,) inflated stock used to purchase offices (as noted in the SEC actions against Bart., Jr,) and other unpleasant experiences that would tend to alienate affiliates be a cause?   The last sentence in the second paragraph "...the new company is committed to serving their practices in a way that creates real economic value for them" (emphasis mine) certainly suggests to me a tacit admission that the old OCA failed to deliver in the past.  Yet they continue to expect docs to honor their contracts in full, despite lack of past performance and most probably a failure to fully perform on their end.  My information suggests it's a whole lot easier to get affiliated with OCA than it is to exit once they have you bound with a contract!

The author mentions "the obligatory appeals process."  Gee...  I;'d always thought an appeal was optional, based on a desire of one of the litigating parties to keep up the fight after losing a court battle.  All OCA has to do is accept the court ruling, or make an agreement with the winning affiliate which both can live with.  The fact that three separate courts in Texas have found the OCA contract illegal, and that OCA is still appealing to the Fifth Circuit would suggest to me that OCA is more than willing to use legal process to grasp at any available straw if it can prolong the inevitable day of reckoning?

OCA would have the reader believe that the docs who have been frightened/intimidated/forced back into OCA's embrace are now somehow gloriously happy?

I haven't seen any quotes from any of them.  But I wonder what they're telling their colleagues? (Can OCA hope to grow given this sort of negative publicity?)  If an orthodontist needs help running a practice, there are a number of competant consultants out there who can be fired with relative ease if they don't perform as promised.  Getting a "divorce" from OCA/OrthoSynetics is a very different matter indeed?  Why would any orthodontist want to get involved with a company who will seek to destroy him or her financially if they decide the relationship isn't working out as they'd hoped or expected?  It would appear to me that the "new" company is using legal process to keep unhappy docs in line just like they always have?  Has anything really changed?

The forgoing, which refers to the company known as OCA or OrthoSynetics interchangeably, is entirely my own, personal, non-lawyer's opinion.