Broward Health Hit With Whistleblower Lawsuits

Goldstone's suit also points out that it was the very same Sam Goren who told Commissioners in May that Marc had to be fired because he hadn't been sworn in yet (after being offered the job by Nask and Fernandez) and who accepted the job seconds later, who advised Marc when he was hired that it was OK for him to serve before being sworn in as long as he didn't sign pleadings, appear in court, or hold himself out to strangers as being licensed. Amazing how the opportunity to capitalize on the corrupt motives of Commissioners and bill the district a fortune caused Goren to change his mind. And worse, he didn't tell the Commissioners in May that he himself had given Marc the opposite advice when he was hired, and that he was literally telling them to fire Marc for accepting his own advice. That might have given the Commissioners some reason to wonder if they were being advised by the right attorney, perhaps? Assuming at least some of them weren't serving their own agendas anyway and just looking for an excuse to get rid of Goldstone and Truhe and didn't care about the merits of Goren's advice in the first place.

Wow. Goldstone can you say "career killer"?

@ arrow

If memory serves, Goren was the "brilliant legal mind" who helped orchestrate Deerfield Beach ass handing and $1M payout in a lawsuit filed by a local fireman. Who, I might point out, wants to now be Chief.

Hopefully, City of DFB won't soon be contracting to Goren, Cherof, Doody, & Ezrol anytime soon, but it's only a matter of time before they fuck something else up.

Silver Pebble: it's called doing your job right. you're supposed to tell your employer to stop breaking the law, and for attorneys in health care, if you don't, the government charges you. and Marc is doing just fine because there are lots of health care providers who want someone with his expertise to keep them out of jail. unlike Broward Health, whose commissioners have other things on their mind and who are apparently so happy not to have a qualified health care lawyer any more they are willing to pay 4 times as much as it cost to have two of them.

I read this yesterday, which was the first time I've seen this website,or your blog. I don't know what is more appalling--the story itself, or the way you reported it from the beginning. I am concerned about the direction of news "reporting", and the abysmal ignorance of Journalism 101 by so many who jump into the fray with a "story" that has not been sufficiently fact-checked, and for which those most directly affected have not been contacted for comment (I refer here to you May post). Even if we accept the fact that you were remiss in that regard, we are still left with your snide "headline" regarding Goldstone, and cheap editorializing within the piece. I do get the distinction between blogging and reporting, but unfortunately, "mea culpas" later do not offer cover for your shoddy work. Do you suppose that the friends, families and colleagues of Goldstone and Truhe sat and said "Oh, I understand--the poor guy was busy writing something else, and didn't have time to fact-check before he posted, and his mistakes will always be there for all to see,(if they're willing to read an entire string of references) so that's ok."?? I don't know what your aspirations are, but if they involve a future in journalism of any kind, please know that you and others like you are destroying the credibility of that community, so perhaps you might like to turn your hand to something else. Something where, perhaps, you don't have the opportunity to trash reputations first, and make apologies later?
Or you might want to abandon the term "breaking news" and adopt something more reflective of what you actually write, and call it "breaking but completely unsubstantiated gossip."

Virginia: the original story was perfectly legitimate - he was simply reporting the facts regarding the district's actions and the reasons the commissioners actually gave. that's a story right out of the gate. the fact that it turns out there's another story is, well, another story. It's a bit much to expect a journalist to get all the parties' reactions in every case in which the original story is public, rather than based on non-public allegations (in that case it's essential). Again, the terminations and the commissioner's allegations are news, and need no fact-checking as allegations because they were on the public record. Francis did his job and pursued it. Goldstone and Truhe are big boys and no doubt have no problem with the coverage overall.

@Virginia. The "truth" is an evolving, elusive quantity. The post to which you referred was clearly taking at face value (for the moment, anyway) the explanation offered by Broward Health commissioners as to their reasons for firing Marc Goldstone. It was also reported by the Sun-Sentinel. But, if I'm not mistaken, this blog is the only news source in the South Florida that has bothered to do interviews and pay for documents that have revealed the questionable nature of that decision by commissioners. I don't believe the Miami Herald has written a thing about this important subject.

So whatever that flaws of that first post on the subject, the dozen or so posts that came later have, in my humble opinion, redeemed it. I don't blame you if you're angry about Goldstone's treatment, but the lion's share of the outrage should flow toward the commissioners who fired him.

and toward the taxpayers that are letting the Commissioners continue to spend tax dollars at an outrageous rate to fund a private law firm with no health law experience (and have no apparent intention to even look for a new GC with experience) because that firm suits their agendas.

Chaz: and Goren was the one who told Cobo he could raise legal defense fund money from folks as long as he recused himself from voting if they ever came before the Board on business. Only he overlooked that Cobo would have already violated the law on using his office to raise the money in the first place if he solicited from anyone who could potentially do business with the district. Recusing himself would be a confession of having already broken the law.

Straightarrow, you miss my point. It was not the story per se. First, it was the obvious sarcasm of the header "Legally Blind: Broward Health Attorney Forgot to Mention He Can't Practice Law". There are any number of ways that could have been written that would not read as a statement of fact. Make it a question, as in "Did Broward Health . . .?" If space a problem, then drop the "Legally Blind" and insert "alleged to have", etc.
Second, In the body of the story is the following: "Only it turned out a general counsel for an entity like the district can't get that exemption, which may explain why Goldstone allegedly failed to apply for it. When, exactly, was Goldstone intending to tell his bosses about this little detail?" And this one:" It's simply unacceptable that no one was monitoring Goldstone's application for permission to practice law in Florida." And this one: "And at the moment, the more pressing question is how one of the five biggest public health care entities in the United States selected for such a critically important job a man who would allegedly commit this grievous error in professional judgment. Just stunning."

Nowhere in that piece were the words "we were unable to contact Goldstone" or "Goldstone had no comment", or until much later "we didn't check all the facts,etc."

My issue is not with the facts of the story, which, had it been properly written, would have been a good one. It was, I'm sure, a very difficult information collection process, and the writer's subsequent posts were also good coverage. I do, and will continue to, object to stories delivered with such an unhealthy dose of righteous indignation before some of the most relevant facts are known. I get that you can't get to all sources when you're breaking, but this was not just any source; it was the one whose career could have been tanked by the reported events. Fortunately, he is, from what I read here now, a good and ethical attorney, and that did not happen. I stand by my remarks, however, regarding the coverage of the unconfirmed--here, and anywhere else I see it.

And by the way, yes, I followed this all the way back because you ARE doing the only heavy coverage of this story in south FL, which I agree is a very important one. You hit one of my hot buttons, but on the other hand, did something I wish were done more often everywhere: tell the story, continue with it, and see it all the way through. Thank you for that! Will continue to follow the story, as it is a good one, and representative of much of FL political inbreeding.

@Virginia: The post you're referring to, which can be read here is preceded by an italicized statement in which I clearly explain that recent information has led us to conclusions different than the one we had on the day of Goldstone's firing. It links to posts that give more information about that commission action. I didn't edit the original post, because that would have been dishonest.

But still, the statements you cite from that article remain valid. I said this "may explain" -- not this "does explain." I stand by my point about how the district should have been more attentive to the state bar process -- if commissioners had objections, they should have expressed them when they hired Goldstone, or shortly thereafter. I said that Goldstone "allegedly" committed an error in professional judgment. That was alleged by the commissioners. Was the tone too snarky and snide? Probably, but hey, this is a blog, remember?