Re: Dr Jones the mistakes so far


Greatcod wrote:
> I argue my cases to the standards of SciMedLyme, where the "bar" is
> rather low.
> I know I don't much about the law. Given that I don't, how can I be
> expected to know whether or not you do?
> I rest my case.


Here is some fodder for your oh so informed legal opinions CLOD.

The first two sections are the statutues providing the grounds for
discipline for physicians in CT. The third is the list of possible
penalties. I'll spare you the procedural rules for how complaints are
lodged, investigated and how hearings are held.

MY GUESS (and I do hate to speculate here) is that Dr Jones is/will be
charged under the VERY GENERAL headings of

"illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of the
healing arts"

and the incompetent or negligent conduct would most likely (inferred
from his letter) be prescribing for patients (children) he never saw or
examined, and I quote from his letter:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Due to my very busy 10 hour per day,
6-7 day per week Lyme practice, there is a 5-6 month delay between
office contact and an actual office visit. In order to do no harm by
delaying evaluation and treatment, a history and lab test are obtained.

Treatment is initiated prior to an office visit if a probable diagnosis

can be made. Most of these children have already suffered from a delay
in diagnosis and/or inadequate treatment of their tick-bourne disease.


This is the background that led me to evaluate and treat two children
from Nevada prior to my seeing them. My diagnosis of probable
gestational Lyme disease and tick acquired Lyme disease was made on the

basis of the history presented by their mother and my over 30 years of
treating children with tick-bourne diseases. I have been reported to
the Connecticut licensing board and have been charged with making the
diagnosis of Lyme disease and initiating antibiotic treatment prior to
examining them in my office and therefore am in violation of the
"usual and customary standard of medical care". "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is also clear that Dr Shapiro is NOT the complaining witness but a
member of the hearing board (if he was the complaining witness he
wouldn't be a member of the hearing board):

>>From Dr Jones' letter:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been offered the opportunity to have these charges dropped by
retiring and surrendering my license to practice medicine in the state
of Connecticut or I can appear before a panel of the Connecticut
Medical Examining Board to include Martin Harwin, M.D. (a retired
pediatrician) and Eugene Shapiro, M.D. (Yale-New Haven Hospital) for a
formal hearing to take place in late January, 2006. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, all the name calling regarding Dr Shapiro that has already
occurred on LymeNUT is simply stupid, and based on the erroneous
ASSumption that Shapiro is behind the complaint.

As a matter of fact at the present time we do NOT KNOW who filed the
complaint. It could be a doctor in Nevada (I said Utah earlier in
error). It could be the parents of the children involved (I have seen
MANY times Lyme patients DEMAND treatment and then turn around and
complain about the treatment they got including suing LLMDs, sometimes
sucessfully, since it is actually easier to prove a malpractice case
AGAINST the LLMDs whose practices DO depart from the prevailing
standard of care, than against Dr Steere and his colleagues--who have
SET the standard of care. This is ironic because I happen to think the
standard of care is abysmal--however, medical malpractice cases are
about proving deviations from the standard NOT proving that the
standard of care is deviant or defective! And the Lyme patients who
begged for treatment, got it, and then sued are often doing so because
they're still sick and they're ungrateful for the help they got.
Sometimes though the care they got from the "llmds" has been
abysmal--use of bogus tests, use of unapproved and dangerous treatments
(the blood thinner stuff without proper monitoring for example or
recommending ICHT or other CRAP).

It is not a pretty picture in terms of the care that Lyme patients tend
to receive--from some of the "llmds" OR from the NON "llmds"

There's a lot of poor care, and the primary victims of the
"controversy" surrounding Lyme diagnosis and treatment have been the
patients!

But honestly, poor care has been provided by both "sides" too often.
Some of the "llmds" are not only sloppy in their practices but
downright whackos. The "ducks" or "quacks" are really on all sides of
Lyme. (the one guy prescribes a diabetes drug for EVERYTHING--including
and he posted this once--for an actual brown recluse spider bite! and
he used a computer/internet based test that couldn't possibly work--and
treated patients regardless of the results--honestly RELYING on ANY of
the testing is pretty dubious--and I see no reason to trust Igenex
MDlabs any more than anyone else's testing--getting positives is NOT
proof that the tests are good and the labs haven't provided proof that
their tests are valid. Then there was the Gensys testing--which turned
out to be a TOTAL scam and the Bowen testing seems beyond dubious to me
and they haven't provided validation studies and I fear that Bowen is
Gensys 2/Gensys Redux).

With that said, CLOD, here's the relevant statutes. Have fun. Go
nuts--oh well, that ain't a long trip for you is it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.G.S.A. § 20-13c

Connecticut General Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title 20. Professional and Occupational Licensing, Certification, Title
Protection and Registration. Examining Boards (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 370. Medicine and Surgery (Refs & Annos)

§ 20-13c. Restriction, suspension or revocation of physician's right
to practice. Grounds



The board is authorized to restrict, suspend or revoke the license or
limit the right to practice of a physician or take any other action in
accordance with section 19a-17, for any of the following reasons: (1)
Physical illness or loss of motor skill, including, but not limited to,
deterioration through the aging process; (2) emotional disorder or
mental illness; (3) abuse or excessive use of drugs, including alcohol,
narcotics or chemicals; (4) illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct
in the practice of medicine; (5) possession, use, prescription for use,
or distribution of controlled substances or legend drugs, except for
therapeutic or other medically proper purposes; (6) misrepresentation
or concealment of a material fact in the obtaining or reinstatement of
a license to practice medicine; (7) failure to adequately supervise a
physician assistant; (8) failure to fulfill any obligation resulting
from participation in the National Health Service Corps; (9) failure to
maintain professional liability insurance or other indemnity against
liability for professional malpractice as provided in subsection (a) of
section 20-11b; (10) failure to provide information requested by the
department for purposes of completing a health care provider profile,
as required by section 20-13j; (11) engaging in any activity for which
accreditation is required under section 19a-690 or 19a-691 without the
appropriate accreditation required by section 19a-690 or 19a-691; (12)
failure to provide evidence of accreditation required under section
19a-690 or 19a-691 as requested by the department pursuant to section
19a-690 or 19a-691; (13) failure to comply with the continuing medical
education requirements set forth in section 24 of public act 05-275; or
(14) violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation
established hereunder. In each case, the board shall consider whether
the physician poses a threat, in the practice of medicine, to the
health and safety of any person. If the board finds that the physician
poses such a threat, the board shall include such finding in its final
decision and act to suspend or revoke the license of said physician.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.G.S.A. § 20-45

Connecticut General Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title 20. Professional and Occupational Licensing, Certification, Title
Protection and Registration. Examining Boards (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 374. Medical Examining Boards

§ 20-45. Suspension, revocation or annulment of license. Disciplinary
proceedings



The license of any licensed practitioner of the healing arts in this
state, except a physician as defined in section 20-13a, may be revoked,
suspended or annulled, or such practitioner may be reprimanded or
otherwise disciplined, after notice and hearing, on the recommendation
of the examining board representing the branch of the healing arts
practiced by such practitioner for any cause named below. Proceedings
relative to the revocation, suspension or annulment of a license or
toward disciplinary action may be begun by the filing of written
charges, verified by affidavit, by the Commissioner of Public Health
with the examining board representing the branch of the healing arts
practiced by the practitioner. The causes for which a license may be
revoked, suspended or annulled or for which a practitioner may be
reprimanded or otherwise disciplined are as follows: Conviction in a
court of competent jurisdiction, either within or without this state,
of any crime in the practice of his profession; fraudulent or deceptive
conduct in the course of professional services or activities; illegal,
incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of the healing arts;
habitual intemperance in the use of spirituous stimulants or addiction
to the use of morphine, cocaine or other habit-forming drugs; aiding or
abetting the unlawful practice of any branch of the healing arts;
failure to record a license as required by law; physical or mental
illness, emotional disorder or loss of motor skill, including but not
limited to deterioration through the aging process of the practitioner;
fraud or material deception in obtaining a license; or violation of any
applicable statute or regulation. The clerk of any court in this state
in which a person practicing any profession under the jurisdiction of
any of the examining boards for the healing arts has been convicted of
any crime as described in this section shall, immediately after such
conviction, transmit a certified copy, in duplicate, of the information
and judgment, without charge, to the Department of Public Health,
containing the name and address of the practitioner, the crime of which
he was convicted and the date of conviction. The Commissioner of Public
Health may order a practitioner to submit to a reasonable physical or
mental examination if his physical or mental capacity to practice
safely is the subject of an investigation. Said commissioner may
petition the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford to
enforce such order or any action taken pursuant to section 19a-17.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..G.S.A. § 19a-17

Connecticut General Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title 19A. Public Health and Well-being (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 368A. Department of Public Health (Refs & Annos)

§ 19a-17. Disciplinary action by department, boards and commissions



(a) Each board or commission established under chapters 369 to 376,
inclusive, [FN1] 378 to 381, inclusive, [FN2] and 383 to 388,
inclusive, [FN3] and the Department of Public Health with respect to
professions under its jurisdiction which have no board or commission
may take any of the following actions, singly or in combination, based
on conduct which occurred prior or subsequent to the issuance of a
permit or a license upon finding the existence of good cause:


(1) Revoke a practitioner's license or permit;


(2) Suspend a practitioner's license or permit;


(3) Censure a practitioner or permittee;


(4) Issue a letter of reprimand to a practitioner or permittee;


(5) Place a practitioner or permittee on probationary status and
require the practitioner or permittee to:


(A) Report regularly to such board, commission or department upon the
matters which are the basis of probation;


(B) Limit practice to those areas prescribed by such board, commission
or department;


(C) Continue or renew professional education until a satisfactory
degree of skill has been attained in those areas which are the basis
for the probation;


(6) Assess a civil penalty of up to ten thousand dollars; or


(7) Summarily take any action specified in this subsection against a
practitioner's license or permit upon receipt of proof that such
practitioner has been:


(A) Found guilty or convicted as a result of an act which constitutes a
felony under (i) the laws of this state, (ii) federal law or (iii) the
laws of another jurisdiction and which, if committed within this state,
would have constituted a felony under the laws of this state; or


(B) Subject to disciplinary action similar to that specified in this
subsection by a duly authorized professional agency of any state, the
District of Columbia, a United States possession or territory or a
foreign jurisdiction. The applicable board or commission, or the
department shall promptly notify the practitioner or permittee that his
license or permit has been summarily acted upon pursuant to this
subsection and shall institute formal proceedings for revocation within
ninety days after such notification.


(b) Such board or commission or the department may withdraw the
probation if it finds that the circumstances which required action have
been remedied.


(c) Such board or commission or the department where appropriate may
summarily suspend a practitioner's license or permit in advance of a
final adjudication or during the appeals process if such board or
commission or the department finds that a practitioner or permittee
represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety
if he is allowed to continue to practice.


(d) Such board or commission or the department may reinstate a license
which has been suspended or revoked if, after a hearing, such board or
commission or the department is satisfied that the practitioner or
permittee is able to practice with reasonable skill and safety to
patients, customers or the public in general. As a condition of
reinstatement, the board or commission or the department may impose
disciplinary or corrective measures authorized under this section.


(e) As used in this section, the term "license" shall be deemed to
include the following authorizations relative to the practice of any
profession listed in subsection (a) of this section: (1) Licensure by
the Department of Public Health; (2) certification by the Department of
Public Health; and (3) certification by a national certification body.


(f) As used in this chapter, the term "permit" includes any
authorization issued by the department to allow the practice, limited
or otherwise, of a profession which would otherwise require a license;
and the term "permittee" means any person who practices pursuant to a
permit.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: do you wana to be independant from insulin and western medications?
    ... Medical Practice Act of 1987. ... with regard to the license or visiting professor permit of any person ... issued under this Act to practice medicine, ...
    (misc.health.diabetes)
  • Re: Problem with MPL
    ... useless in practice method of distributing everything in object code (for ... permission to link this library to other libraries regardless of their ... FPC/Lazarus are no vigilante GNU license freaks. ... The only major problem could be the JVCL. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: keyboard/mouse programming
    ... standard American corporation practice. ... Re:CALDERA, INC., Plaintiff, vs. MICROSOFT CORP., Defendant. ... alleges that Microsoft also forced OEMs away from DR DOS 5.0 by what ... and increased license duration. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Facts in Evidence: Andrew B. Chung
    ... Regardless of what you may think of Dr. Chung, his religious beliefs, ... arbitration awards against his license. ... Practice information indicates private practice from 1/1/2002 - ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Told you the PCC was toothless. Parris adjudication.
    ... for the Commission to answer was whether it was in breach of the ... With regard to Clause 1, ... Code of Practice, had cited the preamble to the Code in their ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)