Autopsy doctor did poor work, state panel says

Brian Skoloff
the Associated Press

August 10, 2006

JUPITER -- An embattled medical examiner who performed a disputed autopsy on a teenager who died after a confrontation with guards at a boot camp should be placed on supervised probation for the remaining 10 months of his contract, a state commission recommended Wednesday.

A three-member panel of the Florida Medical Examiners Commission found that Bay County Medical Examiner Dr. Charles Siebert was negligent in performing at least 35 of 698 autopsies reviewed.

The panel recommended suspension and probation, but the full commission voted to order Siebert to retain and pay for his own supervisor until his contract expires June 27. It said his work was negligent and he failed "to perform the duties required of a medical examiner."

An administrative complaint will be filed by the commission next week. Siebert then has 30 days to respond and can either accept the punishment or appeal. He will remain in his $180,000-a-year position.

Criticism of Siebert surfaced after he did an autopsy on 14-year-old Martin Lee Anderson, who died Jan. 6, a day after being roughed up by guards at a Panama City boot camp for juvenile offenders.

Siebert ruled the death was caused by complications from sickle-cell trait, a genetic blood disorder, and not from injuries suffered by the confrontation with the guards.

After outcry from Martin's family, the boy's body was exhumed, and a second autopsy by another doctor found Martin died from suffocation.

In April, Attorney General Charlie Crist called for an investigation into Siebert's past autopsies.

The Anderson case, which is still under investigation, was not included in the panel's review.

Most of the alleged negligence came from Siebert's use of "canned" autopsy reports that describe victims in much the same manner, the panel found. The commission said it appeared Siebert was using a template for his reports and not adjusting them to individual cases.

Among the most egregious errors was a case in which Siebert noted the presence of a "prostate gland and testes" -- organs that belong to men -- on the body of a young girl.

After the commission made its recommendation, Siebert defended his cases, saying he has never used a template.

"There's only so many ways you can describe what a spleen looks like," said Siebert, who did not speak during the commission meeting.

He said he has not decided whether to appeal the commission's recommendation but added it would be difficult to pay for an independent supervisor to review all his work.

"If somebody has to be there every day, then there's no way I can do that," he said. "I'd just have to give up."

DISCLAIMER, WARNINGS, AND NOTICE TO READERS: This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website (the "Service"). None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with this website in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in these web pages. All information provided using this website is only intended to be general summary information to the public.

FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

REFERRALS: CAICA is not a referral agency. CAICA does not refer to or promote facilities or transport companies for children or teens. CAICA warns parents that the parent pay / parent choice programs ie. Residential Treatment Centers, Therapeutic Boarding Schools, Behavior Modification Programs, Christian Programs, Positive Peer Culture Programs, etc., are not regulated by the Federal Government and that it is a "Buyer Beware" industry. CAICA provides the following for parents: Message to Parents, Help for Distraught and Desperate Parents, and Questions to Ask and Warning Signs.

© 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010