X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1312021

Complaint Review: Sovereign Health Group San Clemente - San Clemente, California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Jane Doe — Seal Beach California USA
  • Sovereign Health Group San Clemente 1211 Puerta Del Sol, San Clemente,, California USA

Sovereign Health Group San Clemente a/k/a Medical Concierge, Inc. d/b/a MED-LINK Unlicensed Sovereign Health Group ,a/k/a Medical Concierge, Inc d/b/a MED-LINK, almost killed my voluntary admitted mental health not addictions diseased son on Dec. 2015-2016 San Clemente, California

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

I placed my mentally ill peaceful son for medication change and management under a doctor's care in a safe inpatient environment that Sovereign Health Group a/k/a Medical Concierge, Inc. d/b/a MED-LINK advertises and solicits itself as.  Sovereign almost killed my son by giving him a violent roomate who assaulted and battered him; Sovereign billed our insurance but never provided any licensed psychiatrist from inttake throughout treatment of our son; for three weeks my son was never treated by any licensed psychistrist, psychologist, LCSW or even licensed Physician's Assistant (Psychiatry) or Registered Nurse.  Instead Sovereign has tried to extort upwards of $5k-$10k per day plus lab fees for blood work never done, Sovereign seized my son's psychiatrist medications upon intake and he was completely off his medications throughout three weeks there in residence and worse.  My son was falsely imprisoned by Sovereign Health Group, San Clemente such that I had to get Orange County Law Enforcement Sheriff's Office and the Adult Protective Services to accompany me after I obtained a Writ of Mandamus against Sovereign to release my son finally to safety in early January 2016.  My son's health is worse and he has deteriorated in his recovery efforts since this traumatic experience and his illness is not violent or any danger to others (he has mild schizophrenia and requires prescription medications under the regulated care of licensed medical practitioner in California).  Not one of the many Sovereign Health Groups in CA (San Clemente, Culver City, Palm Desert) are licensed and neither are any Sovereign entities licensed in Utah, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Massachusetts and Delaware where they are also known to have presence.   Read the verified articles and links below and do not risk the life and health of your loved ones.

I have met three families whose teenage and one young Millenial died whle in the custody and care of Sovereign Health Group under mysterious circumstances and Sovereign does nothing to help law enforcement solve any of these crimes so they're complicit criminals.  They are indeed an Indian Crime Syndicate under the U.S. RICO Racketeering Crime Statute.  18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS et seq.  

Read the following links and don't take yourself or your loved one(s) to Sovereign Health Group in any state.

From the Orange County CA Register -- ocregister.com/articles/-262991--.html - Article Below.  

Sovereign Health Group San Clemente – A British doctor who was stripped of his medical license for conducting unethical drug trials on mentally ill patients is now running an unlicensed San Clemente drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility that focuses on the mentally ill.

The state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has begun to investigate the facility, Sovereign Health of California, over its lack of license to run a residential treatment program and is reviewing two other complaints about how the facility is run.

Sovereign officials deny any wrongdoing and say a state official told them they did not need a license.

In 2008, the British agency that licenses doctors struck Tonmoy Sharma off the medical register for lying about his academic qualifications and conducting unethical drug studies. About a year later, he became the chief executive officer of Sovereign Health.

Sharma said what happened in Britain has nothing to do with his new job; he said that since coming to the facility he has added 40 jobs during a bad economic time.

But some familiar with his past are critical of his new role and one has sent a complaint to state officials.

Peter Jay, chief executive of a British private investigative agency that focuses on reducing fraud in clinical trials, said he was surprised and disappointed that Sharma was running a treatment facility, even if his role is purely administrative.

"I don't have a problem with people who do wrong in their life and rehabilitate and start doing right," said Jay of MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd. "But what he did showed a totally outrageous disregard for people, a total disrespect for sick people."

MedicoLegal was hired to investigate Sharma by Sanofi-Aventis, a pharmaceutical company that contracted Sharma to conduct research studies in 1999.

"He should not be allowed anywhere near (patients) under any circumstances," Jay said in an e-mail to The Register.

Sharma maintains that the General Medical Council was wrong in stripping him of his license. He called his hearing a "witch hunt" and said he wasn't able to properly defend himself because his father was sick at the time. The GMC ensures proper medical standards to protect public health and safety.

Sharma has written several books about mental health and was a professor at a British university before being stripped of his license. He said he is not conducting clinical trials at Sovereign Health.

"They can call me names, they can strip me of a license on that island, but what they cannot do is take away my knowledge base and what I have done," said Sharma.

 STRUCK OFF

 According to GMC documents prepared by a Fitness to Practice Panel, Sharma risked compromising patient welfare by recruiting mentally ill patients for drug studies without their primary care physician's consent. He also told drug companies he had received ethics approval for studies when he had not, documents show.

"The panel therefore finds your conduct to be inappropriate, unethical and to fall significantly short of the standards to be expected of a medical practitioner," the panel wrote in 2008.

Sharma described himself as a PhD even though he never received the degree, according to GMC documents. Sharma said he had a Doctor of Science and considered the two to be interchangeable. The GMC panel said his Doctor of Science was awarded by a foreign institution with an office in India that was not on par with a PhD from a reputable university.

Sharma sued the investigations firm, MedicoLegal, for harassment and malice after it began its investigation. That lawsuit was struck down by a British court when Sharma didn't show up for a scheduled hearing. In 2005, MLI countersued for libel, and claimants, including Jay, were awarded a total of 30,000 pounds and attorney's fees. Sharma said he does not plan to pay that judgment. MedicoLegal provided the GMC with evidence that led to Sharma losing his license. Sharma said he thought the medical panel was trying to get back at him for suing a source.

In addition to being Sovereign Health of California's chief executive, Sharma said he is also managing director at a hospital in India called Sovereign Health, which has a branch that conducts clinical trials, according to its website. Sharma still uses the prefix Dr. He says his original 1987 medical license from the Medical Council in India is still valid.

He described his duties at both facilities as administrative, saying he makes financial and big picture decisions about company direction. A governing board consisting of shareholders oversees his work, he said.

Dr. Larry Snyder, Sovereign's medical director, said he knew about Sharma's past when he took the position, but it did not bother him.

"I see him as simply a visionary trying to redeem himself," Snyder said, adding that Sharma devised the healthcare program at Sovereign including the brain wellness program, which he said improves cognitive function.

Sharma tried to persuade a reporter not to write about his background by saying: "If you feel that having a story like this is going to benefit and is of the public interest, we have no problems taking our money elsewhere. There's 10 percent growth in India."

Rishi Barkataki, Sharma's cousin, is listed as Sovereign's owner and president on a city business license application. The facility, which operated for years as Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, was struggling to fill beds until the new owners took over, Sharma said.

Barkataki said he hired Sharma for his experience, not because they arerelated. He would not disclose Sharma's salary, saying in an e-mail that it is "extremely sensitive and private." Although he is listed as the owner on the business license, Barkataki said the company is actually owned by a group of shareholders called Sovereign Health Asset Management. He would not reveal the owners names.

It costs about $15,000 to $20,000 a month to be treated at Sovereign Health, which accepts most preferred provider organizations. Health insurance pays for about a month of treatment and Sovereign suggests six month stays. Residents and non-residents of Sovereign's two homes pay the same rate for care. Ten people can live in each home. Sovereign is breaking even, Sharma said.

A former staffer, Nancy Wright, who has been a therapist for 30 years, has sent a complaint to state officials about Sovereign. She explains Sharma's past in the open complaint. Sovereign advertises that its staffers have an average of 25 years experience, she complained, but clients are "being seen by grad students and interns with no experience and are not being supervised."

Dr. Arlene O'Connor, Sovereign's clinical director, said that is not true. She supervises all interns, post-doctoral fellows, and a staff of therapists and doctors, she said. Sovereign's assistant clinical director is a recent graduate student completing necessary supervised hours for her doctoral degree at Argosy University, she said.

 WHO REGULATES?

 Sovereign Health's homes are located within a few miles of its outpatient care facility at 209 Avenida Fabricante. It has voluntary certifications from the Better Business Bureau, the Joint Commission, which certifies health care facilities, and the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, according to the agencies. But the facility does not have a residential care license.

State licensure is necessary for residential facilities with six or more beds, according to state regulations. Outpatient facilities, or non-residential programs, are not required to be licensed.

On its ADP certification application, Sovereign Health said it ran a non-residential program. However, it may run what is known as an integrated program. That is when a company has a residential facility that involves no medical care and an outpatient treatment center where residents see doctors. One must be treated at Sovereign's outpatient facility to live in one of its houses. Others can choose to use the treatment center and not live there.

A 2009 letter from Nadalie Martin, a former ADP staffer, says Sovereign does not need a license. But after talking to the Register, the ADP began an investigation into the issue, saying they are not sure their former staffer made the right designation, according to spokeswoman Suzi Rupp.

Sovereign, like other facilities with multiple buildings, may have slipped through a crack, she said.

"We're investigating the issue of certification versus licensure to see under what authority it should be operating. If we find out its working outside its authority the facility will have to stop," Rupp said.

Sharma said: "If they need to come and inspect us they can come. We will comply with the law."

The licensing agency is also reviewing its own mandates to make sure what it requires fits how facilities are run. Years ago most outpatient facilities did not have separate residential areas. Over time that has changed, Rupp said. Other facilities in Orange County may be licensed for one residential rehab program, but place residents in other unlicensed houses, shuttling patients between facilities. The state may have to look into those cracks, too.

"If this integrated facility is having issues, we may have issues in other places," she said.

 Contact the writer: blevine@ocregister.com, 949-492-5135

SECOND ARTICLE VIA VERIFIED UK BLOG

NRI psychiatrist accused of being a fraud of conducting unethical drug tests on mentally ill patients. 

Kent, UK, March 28, 2008
Kuldip Ahuja

NRI Psychiatrist, Tonmoy Sharma senior lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry in London UK ignored guidelines when testing drugs on volunteers, has been accused of being a fraud and has a warrant out for his arrest.

According to the General Medical Council (GMC) hearing, he recruited people in unsolicited telephone calls without contacting vulnerable patients' psychiatric nurses. The association claims:

  • Dr. Sharma failed to obtain proper approval from ethical committees to conduct a number of major studies. These approvals are a vital component in any trial to protect the patients taking part. 
  • He used the same patients as subjects for a number of different studies without telling the drug firms, which had each paid him six-figure sums for what they believed to be unique research. 

The GMC representative said: 

  • Dr Sharma had put mentally unwell patients at risk and ethical rules had been wilfully flouted. 

  • He gained an international reputation, particularly in the United States, for the research he was doing.

  • In spring 2001 he was suspended from the Institute of Psychiatry after a complaint from drug maker Sanofi over a study Dr Sharma was undertaking into schizophrenia. He was reinstated in August 2001.

  • After the suspension, a picture emerged of a doctor who knew the rules understanding medical research but deliberately took short cuts. He was guilty of gross breaches of the research standards.

  • He made untrue statements and eventually the picture which I submit before you was a man who paid little more than lip service to ethical rules in research.

He failed to give details about the tests to the patient or their carers, it is claimed.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry asked the GMC to examine his conduct two years ago after concerns that he had failed to obtain proper approval from ethical committees to conduct the tests. 

Dr Sharma pulled in thousands of pounds in research grants for the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, University of London, and from pharmaceutical firms wanting research on their products..

Dr. Sharma is accused of attempting to get data in a drug trial changed as well as of obtaining a free supply of the psych drug Clozaril for a study which he subsequently then sold for tens of thousands of pounds.

Leading drug companies such as Novartis and Sanofi paid him from 1996 to conduct trials of anti psychotic drugs on patients with schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease. 

Dr Catherine Baxter, a medical adviser to Sanofi said:

  • In 2001, the fraud allegations against him surfaced when we uncovered alleged financial irregularities surrounding a £250,000 contract it had awarded Sharma. 
  • We asked him to conduct a study comparing the effectiveness of its drug Amisulpride with that of a treatment from a rival company, Eli Lilly.

Although Baxter believed the study was to be undertaken at the institute, she became alarmed about a Sanofi cheque for £65,000 that had been paid to Sharma's company. She also became 'extremely concerned' that Sharma appeared not to have received proper ethical approval for the study.

The Company hired private investigators to check Sharma's research activities. The inquiries were led by Peter Jay, a former Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector. When Sharma found out about Jay's investigation he sued him for defamation, claiming the inquiry had unfairly destroyed his reputation. Sharma dropped the case last March for what he said were financial reasons.

The Company claim was that Sharma attempted to get data changed in one study to show that the drug risperidone worked better against schizophrenia than rival conventional treatments.

He was trained in India and a prominent psychiatrist who often appeared on the BBC and wrote books on mental illness. 

Dr Sharma taught at one of Britain's most prestigious medical institutes while appearing regularly as an expert on the BBC online. He referred to himself as a professor, when he had not finished the PhD thesis he started at University College, London, in 1989. He was also accused of lying about his academic background. Sharma, who qualified as a doctor in India, describes himself as a professor in the media and in promotional literature for his companies.

He worked as a consultant psychiatrist for the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and recruited patients in Kent and parts of the capital for the research. His position at the institute helped him secure funding worth close to £1m from five drug firms. Most of the money was channelled not through the institute but a private firm he set up called Psychmed. Sharma claims the institute knew about this arrangement and had approved it.

Dr. Tonmoy Sharma has fled the UK for from Assam, India. He failed to answer a summons to appear at Bow Street court in London last February, and a warrant was later issued for his arrest.

Dr. Tonmoy Sharma:

From India, he claimed he had not been aware of the charge nor of the court hearing. He was in India because he was caring for his sick father. He said:

  • He would be happy to come back to Britain to defend himself.
  • He was looking forward to the GMC hearing as an opportunity to tell his side of the story publicly and prove the fault lay with the drug companies.
  • When these allegations first surfaced the Institute of Psychiatry investigated them and exonerated me of any wrongdoing. Sanofi knew this but decided to blame him for mistakes in its administrative and research procedures. 'Everything spiralled from there.
  • About his academic background, he has a letter to prove he was invited by a psychiatry professor at Pittsburgh U to give lectures there as a 'visiting professor'.

Link to this article:  http://www.nriinternet.com/NRIdoctors/A_UK/A_Z/S/Tonmoy_Sharma/index.htm

THIRD ARTICLE.

Across the Atlantic, psychiatrist, Tonmoy Sharma MD, a prominent psychiatrist and senior lecturer at the prestigious Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College in London, who conducted pivotal drug studies for the major pharmaceutical companies, co-authoring ***frequently appeared on as an "expert" on the BBC, had gained an international reputation, particularly in the United States, for the research he was doing--was stripped of his medical licence by the British General Medical Council ( GMC) in April 2008, after an eight year investigation.

Until a recent post by Dr. Bremner--"Don't Squeeze the Sharma"-- we were unaware of the case. 

News reports from the UK--including the Times of London, the Telegraph, NRI Internet, and a report by the investigations editor of The Observer--describe the Sharma's gross misconduct, which was first uncovered by the pharmaceutical company Sanofi (2001). That charge resulted in his temporary suspension by the Institute of Psychiatry, prompting the GMC investigation. However the prestigious Institute reinstated Dr. Sharma in Aug. 2001--demonstrating the unreliability of academic in-house investigations.  

Two years later, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry asked the GMC to examine Dr. Sharma's conduct after concerns were raised about his failure to obtain proper approval from ethical committees to conduct the tests on human subjects.

Dr. Sharma worked as a consultant psychiatrist for the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and recruited patients in Kent and parts of the capital for the research, according to reports. His position at the institute helped him to secure funding, said to be almost £1 million, from five drug companies. Most of the money was channeled through a private company that he had set up called Psychmed.  

From 1996, Sharma was paid by leading drug companies such as Novartis and Sanofi to conduct trials of antipsychotic drugs on patients with schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s.

According to the General Medical Council, he recruited people in unsolicited telephone calls without contacting vulnerable patients' psychiatric nurses; he failed to obtain proper approval from ethical committees to conduct a number of major studies; he used the same patients as subjects for a number of different studies--thereby invalidating the studies for which he had been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.

NRI Internet reports that the GMC representative stated:

* Dr Sharma had put mentally unwell patients at risk and ethical
rules had been willfully flouted.

* He gained an international reputation, particularly in the
United States, for the research he was doing.

* In spring 2001 he was suspended from the Institute of Psychiatry
after a complaint from drug maker Sanofi over a study Dr Sharma was undertaking into schizophrenia. He was reinstated in August 2001.

* After the suspension, a picture emerged of a doctor who knew the rules understanding medical research but deliberately took short cuts. He was guilty of gross breaches of the research standards.

* He made untrue statements and eventually the picture which I submit before you was a man who paid little more than lip service to ethical rules in research.

* He failed to give details about the tests to the patient or their carers, it is claimed.

Dr. Sharma is accused of attempting to get data in a drug trial changed as well as of obtaining a free supply of the psych drug Clozaril for a study which he subsequently then sold for tens of thousands of pounds.

The GMC panel found Sharma to be responsible for conducting research without appropriate human subjects approvals, improperly presenting himself as having a PhD, and selling drugs he got for free from drug companies for his research to hospitals. Someone described him as being only interested in making money. He made hundreds of thousands of dollars in outside consulting and speaking work for drug companies over the past decade or so. 

Andrew Popat, chairman of the BGMC panel, told Sharma: “Your persistent and wide-ranging dishonesty and untruthfulness, spanning a number of years, together with your lack of insight, is so serious that it is fundamentally incompatible with your continuing to be a registered medical practitioner.”

The GMC found that he acted unprofessionally in relation to five major studies involving four different pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, Tonmoy Sharma's publications have contributed toward corrupting the integrity of psychiatry's drug literature. 

Tonmoy Sharma was a member of the Eli Lilly HGDH Research Study Group: many of his journal reports were co-authored by prominent psychiatrists in the HGDH group--including several Lilly employees. The authors of these Lilly-sponsored publications invariably claimed superiority for Lilly's so-called 'atypical' neuroleptic, olanzapine (Zyprexa): "A significantly greater benefit in terms of neurocognitive improvement was found with olanzapine than with haloperidol." (2003)

The evidence contradicts the published reports claiming superiority of the so-called 'atypical' antipsychotics:

"systematic reviews indicate that modern antipsychotic agents are not consistently superior to conventional drugs in efficacy or tolerability and that reported advantages are variable and often minor." [1] 

“the side effect outcomes [of patients on atypicals] are staggering in their magnitude and extent and demonstrate the significant medication burden for persons with schizophrenia.… Sky-high drug discontinuation rates were seen, suggesting rampant drug dissatisfaction and inefficacy.” [2]

But publications such as those co-authored by Tonmoy Sharma have led to the widespread use of the drug: Zyprexa sales reached $39 billion since its approval (1996) and 2007.

OF NOTE: In sharp contrast to the anesthesiology journals whose editors pulled at least 21 publications authored (or co-authored) by Dr. Scott S. Reuben--none of the tainted reports by Tonmoy Sharma have been retracted.  

References:

1. David M. Gardner, Ross J. Baldessarini and Paul Waraich. Modern antipsychotic drugs: a critical overview, Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 21, 2005; 172 (13).

2. Carol Tamminga, "Practical Treatment Information for Schizophrenia" Editorial, AJP, April, 2006, vol. 163:563-565.

Sample list of PUBLICATIONS by Tonmoy Sharma:

Olanzapine and haloperidol in first episode psychosis: two-year data. Green AI, Lieberman JA, Hamer RM, Glick ID, Gur RE, Kahn RS, McEvoy JP, Perkins DO, Rothschild AJ, Sharma T, Tohen MF, Woolson S, Zipursky RB; HGDH Study Group. Schizophr Res. 2006 Sep;86(1-3):234-43. Epub 2006 Aug 2.

Cognitive effects of adjunctive 24-weeks Rivastigmine treatment to antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind investigation. Sharma T, Reed C, Aasen I, Kumari V. Schizophr Res. 2006 Jul;85(1-3):73-83. Epub 2006 Jun 21. 

Insight in first-episode psychosis. McEvoy JP, Johnson J, Perkins D, Lieberman JA, Hamer RM, Keefe RS, Tohen M, Glick ID, Sharma T. Psychol Med. 2006 Oct;36(10):1385-93. Epub 2006 Jun 2.

A behavioural and functional neuroimaging investigation into the effects of nicotine on sensorimotor gating in healthy subjects and persons with schizophrenia. Postma P, Gray JA, Sharma T, Geyer M, Mehrotra R, Das M, Zachariah E, Hines M, Williams SC, Kumari V. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006 Mar;184(3-4):589-99. Epub 2006 Feb 2.

Course and predictors of weight gain in people with first-episode psychosis treated with olanzapine or haloperidol. Zipursky RB, Gu H, Green AI, Perkins DO, Tohen MF, McEvoy JP, Strakowski SM, Sharma T, Kahn RS, Gur RE, Tollefson GD, Lieberman JA. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;187:537-43. 

Neural correlates of adjunctive rivastigmine treatment to antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind fMRI study. Kumari V, Aasen I, ffytche D, Williams SC, Sharma T. Neuroimage. 2006 Jan 15;29(2):545-56. Epub 2005 Sep 21.

Long-term neurocognitive effects of olanzapine or low-dose haloperidol in first-episode psychosis. Keefe RS, Seidman LJ, Christensen BK, Hamer RM, Sharma T, Sitskoorn MM, Rock SL, Woolson S, Tohen M, Tollefson GD, Sanger TM, Lieberman JA; HGDH Research Group. Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Jan 15;59(2):97-105. Epub 2005 Sep 2.

Effects of rivastigmine on sustained attention in schizophrenia: an FMRI study. Aasen I, Kumari V, Sharma T. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005 Aug;25(4):311-7.

Antipsychotic drug effects on brain morphology in first-episode psychosis. Lieberman JA, Tollefson GD, Charles C, Zipursky R, Sharma T, Kahn RS, Keefe RS, Green AI, Gur RE, McEvoy J, Perkins D, Hamer RM, Gu H, Tohen M; HGDH Study Group. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Apr;62(4):361-70. 

Predictors of antipsychotic treatment response in patients with first-episode schizophrenia, schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders. Perkins D, Lieberman J, Gu H, Tohen M, McEvoy J, Green A, Zipursky R, Strakowski S, Sharma T, Kahn R, Gur R, Tollefson G; HGDH Research Group. Br J Psychiatry. 2004 Jul;185:18-24.

Comparative effect of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs on neurocognition in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus low doses of haloperidol. Keefe RS, Seidman LJ, Christensen BK, Hamer RM, Sharma T, Sitskoorn MM, Lewine RR, Yurgelun-Todd DA, Gur RC, Tohen M, Tollefson GD, Sanger TM, Lieberman JA. Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Jun;161(6):985-95.

Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol. Lieberman JA, Tollefson G, Tohen M, Green AI, Gur RE, Kahn R, McEvoy J, Perkins D, Sharma T, Zipursky R, Wei H, Hamer RM; HGDH Study Group. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;160(8):1396-404.


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
veracare@ahrp.org
 

FIFTH ARTICLE:  

If you need information on how to obtain the legal identifiers to join the many CA, TX, FL, AZ and other class action and single lawsuits and pending indictments (Tonmoy Sharma has outstanding felony crime warrants from the UK from where he fled to India to escape being tried and convicted there).  

NPI Number : 1619333564
Entity Type Code : Organization
Provider Name (Legal Business Name) : SOVEREIGN HEALTH OF TEXAS 
     
Provider Business Mailing Address    
First Line : 1211 PUERTA DEL SOL
Second Line : SUITE 200
City : SAN CLEMENTE
State : CA
Zip : 92673-6306
Country : US
Telephone Number : 949-276-5553
Fax Number :  
     
Provider Business Practice Location Address    
First Line : 1831 MURCHISON DR
Second Line :  
City : EL PASO
State : TX
Zip : 79902-2917
Country : US
Telephone Number : 949-276-5553
Fax Number :  
     
Authorized Official    
Title or Position : PRESIDENT
Name : TONMOY SHARMA
Credential : MD
Telephone Number : 954-657-9748
     
Provider Enumeration Date : 01/07/2016
Last Update Date : 01/07/2016

All parents and their loved ones especially children should stay as far away as possible and do no business with Sovereign Health Group as they are organized crime group founded in India and used UK/EU fake licensure, dangerous unauthorized drug trials on unsuspecting patients, provide no bills to patients and their families but bilk insurance companies out of millions of dollars.

Need we say more.  NBC Affiliate Southern California and MSNBC have both done multiple stories about this criminal entity as also have the Los Angeles Times and New York Times. 

 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/17/2016 05:05 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/sovereign-health-group-san-clemente/san-clemente-california-92673/sovereign-health-group-san-clemente-aka-medical-concierge-inc-dba-med-link-unlicens-1312021. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now