2022-01004
Active
Yes
04/20/2022
04/23/2027
See: Actions-Adverse & Administrative Tab
Active Supervisees
North Carolina Hospital Admitting Privileges
| Location |
| Mission Hospital |
Out of State Active/Inactive Licenses
| State |
| Illinois |
| Maryland |
| Massachusetts |
| New York |
| Pennsylvania |
| Virginia |
Out of Country Active/Inactive Licenses
Address
Asheville Heart
257 McDowell Street
Asheville, NC 28803
828-258-1121
Information
Medical School
| School | Graduation |
| Rush Medical College of Rush University [Chicago, IL] | 1993 |
Post Graduate Training
"Last Year" does not necessarily mean that the licensee completed his/her training program. (In NC, a physician can be licensed without completing such a program.)
| Institution | Specialty | State, Country | Training Program | Last Year |
| University of Pennsylvania | Cardiovascular Surgery |
PA, US
| Fellowship | 2003 |
| University of Pennsylvania | Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery |
PA, US
| Residency | 2002 |
| University of Virginia Health Sciences Center | General Surgery |
VA, US
| Residency | 2000 |
Current Board Certification and Year of Certification/Recertification
Physicians should not list non-ABMS or non-AOA specialty boards unless the board meets the criteria set forth in the NC Medical Board’s Advertising and Publicity Position Statement.
| Primary/Subspecialty | Year |
| Surgery | 2025 |
| Thoracic Surgery | 2021 |
Area of Practice
| Area Of Practice | Primary |
| Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery | Yes |
Current Membership in Medical Professional Organizations
Honors & Awards
| Honor/Award | Given By | Date |
| None Reported |
Public Service
| Name of Clinic | Service Description | Date |
| None Reported |
Current Academic Appointments
| Title | Institution | City, State, Country |
| None Reported |
Publications
Section 1: Adverse Actions
North Carolina Medical Board Public Actions
This section indicates whether the North Carolina Medical Board has taken adverse public action regarding the
licensee. Click on the link or links below to see an electronic copy of public documents associated with the
licensee.
Certain public documents, such as hearing transcripts, are listed but are not posted on the site. If the record
indicates a transcript is available, it may be obtained by contacting the Board.
NCMB public actions are posted on this site indefinitely.
| Date | Description | Link |
|
03/30/2026
| Consent Order |
View
|
Other Regulatory Board or Agency Public Actions
| Date | Name of Board/Agency | Action Taken | Link |
| None Reported |
Health Care Institution Suspensions and Revocations
| Date | Health Care Institution | Action Taken |
| None Reported |
Section 2: Administrative Actions
Actions listed in this section are considered non-disciplinary by the Board. In situations where
administrative actions are taken, the licensee may not have met certain statutory requirements or
may have failed to follow correct administrative procedures.
North Carolina Medical Board Reentry Agreement
| Date | Description | Link |
| None Reported |
North Carolina Special Purpose Licensing Agreement
| Date | Description | Link |
| None Reported |
Malpractice Information
This section indicates whether the licensee has been the subject of a malpractice judgment, award,
payment or settlement. In accordance with NC law, the board posts this information for a period of
seven years after the date of the judgment, award, payment or settlement. Settlements of less than
$75,000 or that occurred prior to May 1, 2008 are not included in this information.
The Board encourages the public to consider malpractice payment information in context and in
combination with other information about the licensee’s education, training and professional
experience.
Please see Interpreting Malpractice Payment Information below.
The Board reviewed this payment and determined that no public action was warranted.
| Incident Date | Payment Date | Area of Practice | City, State, Country | Response |
| 10/10/2019 |
02/11/2021
| Cardiovascular Surgery |
Pittsburgh, PA, US
| This patient is a 73-year-old male with morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and severe coronary artery disease who underwent an uneventful 5-vessel off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. There were no intraoperative complications. On the day after the patient's surgery, the patient was noted to have new significant vision loss which was diagnosed as an ischemic optic neuropathy, and his vision loss has remained permanent. The patient has otherwise recovered uneventfully, and is alive and well.
Eighteen months after the procedure applicant left the institution for a new position out of state and was never informed of any pending potential legal action (no complaint or writ was ever filed, and he was not contacted by counsel), though he knew of the patient’s vision loss. Without applicants knowledge or consent, the institution, on the advice of their counsel, prior to any litigation, settled the case with no admission of liability on behalf of the anesthesiologist involved with the case, applicant, and institution. (Subsequent to the settlement, applicant received the first word of the settlement directly from the NPDB, not from institution. When he queried the institution legal office, they claimed a letter of notification had been sent, however he never received any letter or any other correspondence regarding this matter until well after it was settled, and thus he had no opportunity to defend the case against any settlement.)
If applicant had known of any potential complaint, he would have rigorously defended the case, as there was no intraoperative complication or event that distinctly could attribute to this rare but reportable event of acute vision loss caused by an ischemic optic neuropathy. Again, the patient’s coronary revascularization, while technically challenging due to the patient’s size, proceeded without any apparent intraoperative complication. There were no periods of significant hypotension. Immediate neuroophthalmologic consultation was obtained after the visual loss was first recognized on postoperative day 1, and a diagnosis of acute ischemic optic neuropathy was made. This phenomenon is rare, and most commonly occurs during/following spine surgeries when patients are positioned prone, however it has been described in other cases like this one. Diabetics are at higher risk, and this patient was both a diabetic and morbidly obese.
There was no writ or complaint ever filed, and applicant never received any settlement documents. |
| 02/07/2020 |
11/23/2021
| Cardiovascular Surgery |
Pittsburgh, PA, US
| This was a longstanding patient of applicants as he had done the patient's original aortic root, ascending aortic and aortic arch replacement four years prior to this event. The patient had been previously well until when he began experiencing vague exertional chest discomfort with exercise. Over the course of a few weeks the discomfort evolved to exertional chest pain that subsided with rest. The patient saw his cardiologist who obtained an echocardiogram, stress test and electrocardiogram all of which were negative. When his symptoms of exertional chest discomfort/pain persisted, despite a negative work-up, he ultimately went to the emergency room after one of these episodes of chest pain. After being consulted by the emergency department, applicant was consulted though not having been involved in the preceding weeks when the patient was having these symptoms of exertional chest pain. Applicant ordered both a computed tomographic angiogram and an echocardiogram which revealed a paraannular pseudoaneurysm emanating from the aortic root-to-annular junction. A diagnosis of endocarditis was immediately entertained, however the patient had no fever or leukocytosis, and blood cultures were negative following admission. The patient remained clincally well, and was scheduled for elective redo aortic root replacement for 12 days later. He was discharged after several days of stability in the hospital with the intent of returning for elective reoperation on the scheduled date. Five days prior to the scheduled date the patient was readmitted with chest pain by applicants partner. The patient remained clinically well until 36 hours prior to the scheduled surgery when the patient developed acute renal insufficiency which had not been previously present. He underwent the reoperative aortic root replacement on the scheduled date for the paraannular pseudoaneurys, and this proceeded uneventfully and without any intraoperative complication. Intraoperatively, signs of endocarditis were identified with gross inspection of the tissues surrounding the pseudoaneurysm. Wide debridement of all grossly-apparent infected tissue was executed, and his aortic root re-replaced. Postoperatively, he developed acute, severe flash pulmonary edema secondary to an obvious severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome that evolved immediately after surgery in the ICU. This caused severe hypoxemia that ultimately provoked a cardiopulmonary arrest that was refractory to all resuscitative measures, and the patient expired abruptly.
After applicant had left the institution for a new position many months after this patient's case, he was subsequently made aware that the patient's wife was pursuing a pre-litigation settlement on the premise that the patient should have undergone surgery several days prior to his actual date of surgery. Applicant rigorously denies any liability or breach of care in this case, and he did not agree with counsel that it was appropriate to execute a pre-litigation settlement. Regardless, proceeded with a pre-litigation settlement with prejudice and no admission of liability.
There are no settlement documents available at this time, and no claim or writ was ever filed. |
Interpreting Malpractice Payment Information
North Carolina Medical Board Public Action associated with a malpractice payment
An important factor to consider when interpreting malpractice payment information is whether the
payment is associated with a public action of the NC Medical Board. The Board reviews the quality
of care associated with every malpractice payment involving a North Carolina licensee. The Board
takes public action when its investigation determines patient care was below accepted and prevailing
standards.
When considering malpractice payment data, please keep in mind:
-
The existence of a payment does not necessarily mean that malpractice has occurred. Nor is a payment
necessarily evidence of incompetence, misconduct or an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the licensee.
-
It often takes years for a malpractice claim to move through the legal and/or liability insurance systems.
The incident that resulted in a payment may have taken place years before the payment was made.
-
Malpractice payment histories vary by area of practice. Some licensees may have a higher-than-average
incidence of malpractice payments because they specialize in treating patients who are at a high risk
for problems.
-
Malpractice insurance companies sometimes settle cases because it is less costly to make a monetary
settlement than it is to defend a case in court. Many times, such cases are settled without a finding
of fault or admission of negligence by the licensee.
Misdemeanor/DUI/DWI Conviction Information
| Conviction Date | Conviction | Jurisdiction | Sentence |
| None Reported |
Felony Conviction Information
| Conviction Date | Conviction | Jurisdiction | Sentence |
| None Reported |