Complaint Review: Dr Peter Kinchi Yeung - Otago Health Centre - Hong Kong Nationwide

Warren?  Not really your name, is it¿  not really a patient of Dr Peter Kinchi Yeung, are you¿

The Medical Protection Society , a doctor'owned mutual,  is, or is part of the policy of, ties in with insurers, like Kwiksure, yes, we know alll about you, Christian Moore , or instructs..

the HK Medical Association and HK Dental Association/

the academics, such as Dr Winslow Wong, at the Prince Philip Dental Hospital and the HKU medical academics/

controls the medical and dental expert witnesses, many of whom are from academia, like the Dental Hospital/

their law firms, Mayer Brown JSM, Richards Butler, and look who´s back? Howse! How´s that reputation management working out for you?

hospitals, corporate clinics and the dwindling independent private clinics, labs and diagnostics, including the senior radiographers for that all important xray switch

Please feel free to add more information about the Hong Kong medicolegal area, a microcosm of medical malpractice corruption. 

Warren, or is it really David Kan or Chris Howse or Dr Winslow Wong or the ´´usual suspects´´ of medical and dental expert witnesses and the large number of law firm creeps, etc etc  misinforming the public about these perverse and intentional batteries and scams to make money from medical malpractice tort reform and deregulation in health liability. 

The Medical Protection Society and the medical malpractice insurers, like Kwiksure, -yes, we know about you, Christian Moore, too, are the real force behind the Medical and Dental Councils in Hong Kong.  They do not protect the public. 

Insurance actuaries have worked out with immunity laws, assaulting a percentage of the population with perverse attacks and doing unnecessary surgeries is very profitable for medical defence organisations and the dirty scam of ´¨medicolegal¨¨ . Hong Kong is a microcosm of this medical malpractice corruption.

can add this

professors at the Prince Philip Dental Hospital are both on the Dental Council of Hong Kong and are in charge of brainwashing us next generation of dental students into buying insurances with the Medical Protection Society 

dental colleges are in on this act too

The following will also help the public - both the intentionally battered, such as by these Hong Kong dentists as well as all general dental and medical malpractice patients. There are a 'series of conflicts' that are in place when getting involved with medico-legal and insurance issues, and these are attributable to tort medical malpractice liability 'reforms' and medical defence organisations. Quite considerable odds are thrown at the injured patient now that come from an interconnected front. It is institutional corruption.

Any report made to the Dental Council of Hong Kong or the Medical Council of Hong Kong will go straight to medical malpractice liability insurers, also acting as medical defence organisations (MDOs) and their big law firms. Medical boards and councils as well as insurers/ MDOs are not regulated by anybpdy else and are unaccountable to the public, so they effectively pervert the course of justice. MDOs instruct dentists and expert witnesses to falsify reports and records, falsify test results, substitute and/ or digitally alter x-rays, and abuse psychiatric diagnoses and medications to brand injured patients as 'unruly troublemakers' or 'liars'. See what MDOs , such as the Medical Protection Society and the Medical Defence Union did to Robbie Powell in the UK or read any of the case studies on the UK website 'Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect' or Raymond Chait's truthful accounts on CNN ireports or Joel Selmeier's website patient-safety dot com for further accurate accounts. Dr Peter Kinchi Yeung is one of only a few major cover-ups and there are other dentists in Hong Kong trying to make as much money for the Medical Protection Society, personal injury lawyers and corrupt expert witnesses as they can through harming patients.

Tort medical malpractice liability laws have been reformed in countries that have public health systems to severely limit patients' rights. A few years back, medical malpractice liability insurers cried poor to governments around the world and convinced them that if they pay compensation for malpractice they will collapse. (The medical industry however still finds the money to make large political donations in return for biased laws and regulation that restricts patients' rights and limits the payment of compensation.) In Australia the medical insurers and wider medical industry managed to con the Australian Govt of millions of tax-payers dollars to help pay doctors' and dentists' medical malpractice liability fees; yet little of that money goes to paying compensation and funds an alternative economy of medical defence. This dirty 'economy' of medical defence means that the patient pays for all the medical fraud that is substituted for any true records and radiographs. Therefore insurance companies and governments have scapegoated malpractice patients as the reason for their financial troubles when the insurance industry's well-reported history of fraud and financial mismanagement is swept under the carpet. US President Obama, whose country is also heading towards a public health system, has shown his awareness of what is happening to the rights of malpractice patients and has recently threatened to repeal any anti-trust exemptions for the US insurance industry, including medical malpractice and health insurance industries, but unfortunately didnt. He did say however that insurance companies have a long way to go before they are accountable to the public.

There are no law firms in HK that actually fight the medical profession. There are plenty of 'personal injury lawyers' but they are just after retainer fees. Their law firm may be doing lucrative insurance work or have individuals sitting on boards and committees of insurance companies. They will abandon you in court and the expert witness will change their story. Judges are notoriously dishonourable in medical negligence cases. Some whistleblowers in the US and the UK indicate that judges, as well as personal injury lawyers, are bribed by insurance companies. Everyone is not equal and there is a preferential law system in favour of the medical profession. Some cite a freemason elitist connection as well but I cant comment on this but it may not be a coincidence that the CE of the Medical Protection Society is called Tony Mason.

The 2009 and 2010 Hong Kong court cases, HCPI 1094/2006 and HCPI 1058/2005 against two dentists and the Martin and Hari Jacques case, seem to have been 'organised' , i.e. they had pre-ordained outcomes in favour of patients, stemming from a special word from Dr. York Chow, the Health Secretary into the judge's ear. Plaintiffs also had to qualify for LegalAid so no law firm could be branded a traitor! The dental cases claimed to be 'unreported cases' so that the staff and dentists at the PIC level of the Dental Council werent able to pass your information to the MDOs, who then in turn fiddled, falsifyied and instructed dentists, lawyers, expert witnesses etc to produce medical defence fraud and engage in conspiracy after the fact.

Kevin Lewis heads the Medical Protection Society in Hong Kong now but beware of Chris Howse and the very skanky Lisa DeAth. You will find the same names on the management of the MDOs, as arbitrators, as advisers to the Dental Council / Medical Council and as lawyers, even as LegalAid lawyers. Its that unregulated and wicked because it's 'self-regulated'. The Consumer Council of HK, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, the Insurance Commissioner and Independent Commission Against Corruption are all loopholes in the tort reform laws. The Hong Kong Police don't take on battery cases through criminal laws as that would mean the Hong Kong Government would be taking itself to court as the new criminals here have been created and protected by bad laws. Tort 'reform' is tort 'deform'.

Please feel free to copy and paste this anywhere to spread the word. It's in the public interest.

Warren, you smell like medical defence organization.  Youre trying a bit of mind-control psychology here on the good people by denying the injurious actions of this Dr Peter Yeung, K.C., one of the dentists the Medical Protection Society HK and their law firms, Richards Butler with Reed Smith LLP and Mayer Brown JSM, would be being paid handsomely to cover up for.  Paid, of course, from doctors subscriptions.

These horrendous scams or more accurately, I suspect, rackets, to wreak intentional harm on patients in Hong Kong and then cover it up - or worse, truss them up to be cooked alive in the courts, leaves doctors around the world as equally disgusted by medical defence organizations/ malpractice liability insurers as these injured patients.

Warren, instead of posing as a satisfied customer, why dont you tell the good people the truth that any genuine complaint of professional misconduct made by the public to the Medical/ Dental/ Nursing Councils of Hong Kong gets passed on to medical insurer/ medical defence union, the Medical Protection Society of Hong Kong, or in dental cases, the Dental Protection Ltd HK, and their law firms.  Without the patient knowing, they all decide how to limit or minimize any risk of liability and, of course, stop big money compensation to the patient.  This results in medical fraud, denials, cover-ups and delay. 

So, no, I wouldnt say these intentionally harmful dental treatments, together with the awful secrets of medical insurers and medical fraud, would actually be a better and cheaper situation for Americans, or any medical tourists or expatriate public, in Hong Kong. 

Warren, your English is so inconsistent, sprinkled with quite sophisticated legal terms - so I am surmising that youre a Hong Kong legal assistant at Richards Butler and have been told to trawl the Internet to remove or deny the growing number of valid public complaints against the medical/ dental profession.

Dr Peter Kin Chi Yeung should be disciplined.

What medical defence strategy will you try next?  Get webmasters on search engines to hide these kinds of public disclosures?  Use doctors subscriptions again to pay for it?   

It just came to my total surprise when I tried to look for Dr. Yeung to return for a check up through google and became aware of this report.

Dr. Yeung takes care of my teeth for a long time ever since I met him in his previous practices. I never experienced any slightest malpractice as alleged. All i find throughout these years are professionalism and i don't see him unless my teeth have any problem. The charge has been very reasonable. I even referred a number of my friends including my wife to see him and none of them showed any unsatisfaction.

If there were a case as alleged, I am sure the HK Dental Council wound have taken appropriate actions long time ago. After all, HK is a civilized and advanced city and the consumers are well educated. Everyone is free to seek a second opinion and there are channels to seek compensation if the case is founded. Instead of bad mouthing someone without solid proof of malpractice, your friend should see another dentist to verify the possibility of other causes which led to his/her agony.

In order to restore a good doctor's reputation, you should consider withdrawing the allegation. Even if you don't, I am sure there are fair people out there who will be open enough to listen to the other side of the story.

Warren Hong Kong