Guest guest Posted February 14, 2010 Report Share Posted February 14, 2010 I am breaking the rules and posting a name knowingly. Know most of us are broke, but we now that CT is saying this isn't about Lyme and Company it is all the more serious. Spoke with Atty Pollack earlier this week....what a gem. But thought we might all be able scrounge up $10 and send along.... " Gift from LIA Kids " . There is a rally scheduled for Tuesday in Hartford, CT in support of Dr. J, I really hope it doesn't snow (my car sucks in the snow) and I'll just bring my little one, media crawl on him and he just waves and grins.... Tami? Does this put you where you don't want to be on the donation tag???? lisa Hi folks, If you've read the letter from Dr. B below, you have an idea of just how outrageous this persecution of Dr. really is. I hope this motivates many of you to contribute whatever you can to his legal defense fund. www.lymesite.com I also hope it motivates you to attend the rally on February 16th www.lymerights.org I had some random thoughts as I read Dr. J's letter. 1) NO PATIENTS HAVE BEEN HARMED. Do you know how unusual it is to go through ANY physician's records and NOT be able to find a patient who was harmed at all? Seriously. This is just a witch hunt. 2) Lyme doctors have had their licenses revoked because of such witch hunts. Every time that's happened, more doctors have been frightened into giving up on treating us. 3) Harassing Dr. in Connecticut is also an attempt to discredit the treatment methods that have enabled him to save thousands of lives. These are treatment methods we must protect! 4) So in addition to making contributions we need to make sure the media hears about this witch hunt so that pressure can be brought to bear on the Dept. of Public Health to back off. 5) The best way to reach the media is to show up at a rally and make your point. 6) When Dr. Burrascano was persecuted years ago (by charges that the hearing board itself ultimately admitted were simply a matter of a difference of medical opinion) we made a promise. We said that we would " not lose our lives in silence. And we will not go away. " If you're physically able to come, I'll see you in Hartford on February 16th, 11am. www.lymerights.org Ellen > > Subject: IMPORTANT LETTER FROM DR. JONES-PLEASE DISTRIBUTE > To: NewYorkCityLymeSupportGroup , NYLyme2 , NewYorkLyme , ConnecticutLyme , NewJerseyLyme , Lyme-Aid , LoveyOnLyme , lymetopics > Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010, 2:52 PM > > > CHARLES RAY JONES, M.D. > Madison Towers > 111 Park Street , 1st Floor > New Haven , Connecticut 06511 > > Tel Fax > > > February 8, 2010 > > Dear Friends, > > It is time to update you once again on the status of the > charges that I have been fighting before the Connecticut > Medical Examining Board (CMEB). I cannot thank you > enough for the many expressions of support and encouragement > that you have been sending my way over the past several > months. These have made a huge difference to me, > enabling me to maintain my determination to prevail. > > I also extend a hearty invitation to you to attend the next > meeting of the CMEB, which will take place on February 16, > 2010 at 1:30 at the Department of Public Health Complex, 470 > Capitol Avenue, Conference Room C, Hartford, CT 06134. > At that time, the Board will vote on the recommendations of > the panel which has been hearing the most recent set of > charges brought against me. > > History and Overview > > In this update, I will focus on the most recent > developments in what has become a long series of charges and > investigations by the CMEB and Connecticut Department of > Health (CT DPH). For more detailed background > information, I refer you to my letter dated September 5, > 2008 , which is posted on the following website: > www.lymesite.com > > Currently, there have been two separate and distinct cases > against me. The original case is under appeal, and the > second case pertains to a new set of charges regarding a > different set of patients. > > In addition to this, we have learned that the > court-appointed monitor has brought a number of complaints > about me to the CMEB, which appear to be based on his > reliance on the IDSA guidelines as the alleged " gold > standard " for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme > disease. These currently are under investigation, but > at this point no formal charges have been filed in relation > to them. > > First case: > > I was brought up on a series of charges pertaining to two > children from one family in Nevada, whose parents were > involved in a post-divorce decree custody dispute. The > children involved in the case were doing quite well and > there was no allegation of harm done to either of them as a > result of their treatment. > > In its decision of December, 2007, the Connecticut Medical > Examining Board (CMEB) imposed a $10,000 fine, a reprimand > and two years of monitored probation. Despite these > disappointing recommendations, this case was not lost. > My license to practice medicine was not suspended or > limited. > > However, the CMEB introduced a very restrictive four part > standard of care for Lyme disease at the very end of the > proceedings. Left unopposed, this test would set a > very dangerous precedent, and could be used against other > doctors to shut down the treatment of chronic Lyme > disease. It clearly had to be appealed. > > Appeal of the First Case: > > Most of the charges that I was found " guilty " of were > stayed, or suspended, pending the outcome of the appeal, > including the four part standard of care. The one > exception was the monitoring requirement. I was > required to find and pay for a board-certified pediatrician, > licensed in the state of Connecticut, to conduct periodic > chart reviews at my office for a period of two years. > This was not an easy task: We contacted over 80 > pediatricians before the current monitor was found; he was > then approved by the CT DPH. > > The grounds for the appeal have been described in my > previous letter. One of them pertains to > the discovery of significant bias on the part of one of the > panel members, Dr. Senechal, who was recognized by a set of > parents who filed affidavits stating that he had expressed > very significant bias against me and other Lyme literate > physicians, including the statement that doctors who treat > Lyme are quacks. > > A hearing was held in Superior Court to review the question > of the panel member's bias. The judge rejected our > arguments. The case is now on appeal to the Connecticut > Appellate Court; the brief in support of my position is due > in April. > > Current case(s): > > The Department of Public Health then filed another series > of complaints against me. This set of charges differs > from the first case in that it involves three separate > families, with the respective cases conjoined into one > proceeding. > > Although the exact facts differ, the cases are similar in > that two of them involve non-custodial fathers filing > complaints. > > In none of the cases were any of the children involved > harmed; indeed, as with the first case, the children all are > doing very well. > > The CT DPH called on Dr. Lawrence Zemel and Dr. > Krause to provide expert testimony contesting my treatment. > > Following lengthy hearings concluding last May, a > three-member panel has issued its " proposed memorandum of > decision " (MOD). This will be voted on by the CMEB > on February 16, following the presentation of oral arguments > by both attorneys: > > > * The third count involving one of the > families was completely dismissed. > * The testimony of Dr. Zemel was thrown out, > with the panel characterizing him as clearly biased against > physicians who treat chronic Lyme, and against many of the > labs that they use. > * The first count was upheld: this > pertained to the charge that I had " improperly " ordered > serology (diagnostic) testing prior to examining the > patients. This seems strange, because, as far as we > know, there were no patient complaints or patient > harm. It is also difficult to comprehend why > pre-examination testing should ever be the basis of > disciplinary action against a physician. > > * The second count against me also was > upheld. The issue here was the prescription of antibiotics > to a patient whose symptoms were quite consistent with both > Lyme and Babesiosis. I had obtained a comprehensive > history from the referring practitioner who had contacted me > about the case, and also from the patient's mother. > An ER had recorded an EM rash that went > untreated My schedule was so heavily booked > that I could not see the patient for a number of > weeks. I was confident that the patient should be > started on antibiotics immediately, and that the risk of not > treating would be greater than the risk of treating. > The patient did well. > > In this case, the panel has denied that charges have been > brought against me because I am a Lyme specialist. > Instead, it has characterized its findings as generic and > pertaining to medical practice as a whole. This is why > we have not been able to utilize the recently passed > physician protection bill in Connecticut. > > Nevertheless, it is rather difficult to understand why such > matters should have ever reached this level, or why their > two expert witnesses were specialists in tickborne > diseases. There have been no patient complaints, other > than disaffected fathers involved in contested custody or > divorce proceedings, and no harm has come to any of the > children, who in fact have done well. > > Once again, the panel has not recommended that my medical > license be revoked. They have, however, recommended > the following sanctions: > > > * Another $10,000 fine > * Four years of supervised probation, with a > monitor again hired at my own expense > > > Why I Continue to Fight: > > Some of you have expressed dismay that the Connecticut > Department of Public Health has spent so much taxpayer money > on these charges. You have been concerned that they > will continue to bring charges against me until I am forced > to close my office. > > This process has been undeniably stressful. It has > been painful to see so much time, energy and valuable > resources being expended on my defense. I continue to > believe, however, that it is critical for me to continue to > fight these charges and to prevail: > > & #61623; We must stand up > for what we believe and know to be right in the matter of > diagnosis and treatment of tick borne disease. > > & #61623; I am painfully > concerned about the lack of effective care for children > afflicted with tick borne disease. Because I decided > to fight these charges when all of this began some six years > ago, several thousand additional pediatric Lyme patients > have received an appropriate diagnosis and treatment for > their tickborne disease. > > & #61623; A successful > outcome for me will both hearten and protect other > physicians who wish to diagnose and treat Lyme disease > comprehensively, and will encourage other pediatricians in > particular to train with me. > > & #61623; We must send a > clear message to health departments across the country that > we will not be bullied, or allow our right to medical > treatment to be trampled. > > > > Legal Fees: > > > > I continue to be grateful for the excellent defense that > Attorney Elliott Pollack has been providing, and to everyone > who has made this possible through donations to my legal > defense fund. Please note that Attorney > Pollack has achieved some significant victories: my > license has not been revoked and, most recently, the > decision to throw out the testimony of Dr. Zemel on the > grounds that he is biased, will most likely put an end to > his usefulness as an expert witness in proceedings against > other LLMD's. > > The legal representation necessary to oppose these charges > has been very extensive and complex: > > * multiple hearings have been held, each of > which have required considerable preparation and review; > * many hours have been spent helping > witnesses to prepare to testify; > * the filing of the appeal has been > time-consuming but essential, and has entailed > multiple appearances on the part of my attorneys in > Superior Court, including three pretrial sessions. > * New charges have been levied by the monitor > which need to be addressed > * Preparation and presentation of the oral > argument which will be presented to the CMEB on February 16, > after which they will vote on the proposed MOD. > > This struggle has been costly, and I will continue to > require your financial support in order to prevail. We > have known from the outset that Pullman & Comley does > not provide pro bono legal services, and Attorney Pollack is > accountable to the partners in his firm. > > To date, the cost of my legal defense over these past six > years has amounted to approximately $700,000, most of which > has been funded by donations to the legal defense > fund. It is extremely painful to think of the > resources of the Lyme community being spent in this > way. At the same time, it is important to recognize > that these charges are not unusual or excessive for a legal > defense that has been as complex and lengthy as mine has > been. There is a current outstanding balance of > approximately $80,000. This will increase over the > next few weeks as a result of the ramped up legal activity > that will be necessary to address the CMEB decision, the > monitor's complaints and the ongoing appeal. > > Ordinarily, Pullman & Comley does not allow clients to > carry an unpaid balance on their account. They have > been impressed by the stream of donations that so many of > you have been sending, and have been unusually flexible in > this regard. Each time that the unpaid balance grows, > however, my legal representation is in jeopardy. It is > necessary to demonstrate once again that the legal defense > fund is solvent, and will be able to meet the cost of my > legal defense. > > Because of this, I am asking you to make a donation to my > legal defense fund, in whatever amount that your > circumstances will permit. I hope that you will > continue to find the means to support this fight, despite > the hardships which I know that so many of you already live > with. > > The current instructions for donating to my legal defense > fund are noted below. These instructions also are > posted on Kay Lyon's website: > > http://lymesite.com/Dr_please_send_a_contribution_to_th.htm > > For those of you who may have additional questions not > answered by this update, I invite you to send them to me by > letter or by fax: . Please reserve > for telephone calls for urgent matters only, given the very > high volume of patient calls that the office receives. > > > > With warmest wishes, > > Dr. > > Ray , M.D. > > > > HOW TO DONATE TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: > > Make Donations payable to: " Pullman & Comley Trust > Account-for Dr. " > Mail to: > Elliott B. Pollack, Esquire > c/o Pullman & Comley, LLC > 90 State House Square > Hartford, CT 06103-3702 > > Note " gift " in the memo field > > To use PayPal to donate to the defense fund, go to the > following web address: > > http://lymesite.com/Dr__use_paypal_to_make_donations_to_.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.