Suspicious patient deaths, a powerful oncologist, and the doctors who paid a price for speaking up
Industry Buzz
Proceedings of their mortality/morbidity conferences are embargoed to avoid feeding cases to hungry medical malpractice attorneys.
—Peter Kowey, MD
A recent investigation conducted by ProPublica sheds light on how a Montana oncologist who had long been suspected of harming patients was able to retain his medical license for years before it was ultimately revoked at the end of 2025. []
The oncologist, Thomas C. Weiner, who formerly practiced at St. Peter’s Health in Helena, allegedly administered chemotherapy to patients who did not have cancer, overprescribed narcotics, and prescribed treatments that colleagues believe “hastened the deaths” of multiple patients, according to court documents and medical records.
Weiner had denied these accusations and even filed a defamation case against a physician who expressed concerns about the care he provided. Once the highest paid doctor at St. Peter’s Health, Weiner had massive influence in the community—per the investigation, “colleagues feared him, and few challenged him.”
Related: A Kentucky doctor allegedly hired a hitman to kill her husbandWhy revoking a medical license is so difficult
The case highlights how challenging and time-consuming it can be to revoke a physician’s license. Peter Kowey, MD, a professor of medicine and clinical pharmacology at Thomas Jefferson University and author of Failure to Treat, says the process requires careful investigation and evidential certainty—and, consequently, healthcare institutions are often reluctant or slow to cooperate.
Hospitals prioritize confidentiality. The reason: “Proceedings of their mortality/morbidity conferences are embargoed to avoid feeding cases to hungry medical malpractice attorneys,” says Dr. Kowey.
Proof that a physician has harmed patients can come from many different types of sources, including patients, colleagues, or staff members. “There are reasons for each of these groups not to be forthcoming either for self-interest or because of misplaced loyalty,” says Dr. Kowey.
Fear of backlash or ostracism
According to Alex J. Keoskey, a partner at Frier Levitt who specialties in healthcare litigation and licensing board hearings, many medical workers are not familiar with the proper procedure or type of reporting required. They may also be “reluctant to get involved out of self-preservation—the fear of backlash or ostracism,” he says.
Even when a case is under review by a state licensing board, a full and fair investigation must be conducted, says Keoskey. It’s crucial for the board “to ensure that they have all the underlying facts in order to ensure that whatever action the board decides to take is thoroughly sound and survives a possible contested appeal by the targeted physician,” he says.