FW: Update letter from Dr.

[Guest guest]

CHARLES RAY JONES, M.D.

Madison Towers

111 Park Street , 1st Floor

New Haven , Connecticut 06511

Tel (203) 772-1123 Fax (203) 772-0682

March 23, 2010

Dear Friends,

I want to thank you for your many expressions of caring and support which

have encouraged me greatly. It is time to update you regarding the status

of my defense before the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB).

First I must alert you to a most urgent matter for which I need your help.

I will then provide more detailed information regarding the recent actions

of the CMEB which has triggered this urgency.

Urgency of the Current Situation:

At its March 16 meeting, members of the CMEB voted to uphold the

recommendations of the panel in its proposed memorandum of decision (MOD).

As a result of the CMEB vote:

* I have been ordered to pay a second fine of $10,000 no later than

April 15, 2010;

* I must find a practice monitor who is board-certified in pediatrics

and licensed in the state of Connecticut by April 15;

* The monitor must come to my office monthly for a period of 4 years

(in the previous case, monitoring was ordered to take place every three

months for two years);

* The approximate cost associated with each monitoring session is

$1,000. That amounts to an additional financial burden of $12,000 per year,

for four years.

Note also that the CMEB also has ordered that the monitor must have no

connection with any Lyme organization.

***One might well ask: If the charges against me have nothing to do with

Lyme disease, as the CMEB contends, why have they stipulated that the

monitor cannot be associated with any Lyme group?

If I fail to pay the fine and to locate a practice monitor by April 15, I

will be out of compliance. I am unable to do this without your assistance.

Furthermore, the outstanding balance for my legal fees has grown once again,

due to the recent flurry of activity related to my defense. (see below for

details).

As a result, I must ask you once again to make a donation as soon as

possible to my legal defense fund, in whatever amount that your

circumstances will permit. I am painfully aware of the many hardships

already endured by so many in the Lyme community, and it troubles me deeply

to have to ask you to do this once again. However, it will be impossible

for me to meet these demands without your support.

Instructions for donating appear at the bottom of this letter. Please note

the special instructions for making donations at this time: Be sure to

write " Penalty or Gift " in the memo field of your checks. Half of all

donations will be used to pay the fine, and half to pay down the balance on

my legal fees. As soon as $10,000 has been raised to pay the fine, all

subsequent donations will be applied to the cost of filing the appeal and

other aspects of my legal defense.

Background:

The recent set of charges in this second proceeding pertained to three

separate families, whose cases were combined. The CMEB appointed a

three-member panel which presided over a series of hearing sessions that

took place over several months.

Although the exact facts differ, the current case is similar to the previous

one (which currently is under appeal): Two of the families involved

non-custodial fathers who filed the complaints. In none of the cases were

any of the children harmed; indeed, as with the first case, they all are

doing very well.

For more detailed background and information, I refer you to my letters of

September, 2008 and February, 2010, which are posted on Kay Lyon's website (

<http://www.lymesite.com/> www.lymesite.com).

Recommendations of the Panel:

At the beginning of this year, the panel issued its proposed Memorandum of

Decision (MOD), in which they recommended the following:

* 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. (I never did see the patients-they apparently decided to obtain

care elsewhere-or not at all.) 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, as well as Lyme and

Babesia test results, 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 had not been treated 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.

Once again, the panel did not recommend that my medical license be suspended

or revoked. They did, however, recommend a number of sanctions that I have

described for you in the first part of this letter, which will be quite

burdensome and pose a serious financial threat as well.

The panel has denied that these charges were 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, the two expert witnesses called by the CT DPH were specialists

in tickborne diseases.

Oral Arguments:

On February 16, 2010, the attorney for the Connecticut Department of Public

Health, Tilles, and my attorney, Elliott Pollack, presented oral

arguments in response to the proposed MOD:

Attorney Tilles argued that the characterization of Dr. Zemel as biased was

unfair, and would make it more difficult to obtain expert witnesses in the

future, because they might feel themselves to be at risk for similar censure

for offering their professional opinions in medical board proceedings. The

panel dismissed Attorney Tilles' argument, noting that Dr. Zemel had made

clearly biased statements with regard to chronic Lyme disease.

Attorney Pollack argued that the testimony of Dr. Kraus had been

incompletely characterized in the MOD, leaving out relevant details: for

example, Dr. Krause had agreed that a physical exam is not usually helpful

in diagnosing Babesiosis, which can quickly become extremely serious; Dr.

Kraus also agreed that the positive test results for both diseases supported

my decision to treat without delay.

Attorney Pollack further argued that the panel's conclusions, even if

adopted by the Board, did not warrant anything more than minimal discipline

(i.e., payment of a nominal civil penalty). With over half of the

Department's allegations found to be unsupported, and in the face of healthy

children and no patient complaints other than disgruntled fathers engaged in

contentious divorce proceedings, he characterized the imposition of a four

year probation and a massive civil penalty ($10,000), coupled with the

substantial financial resources that will be required to satisfy the terms

of the probation, as " wildly out of sync " with the findings.

Finally, Attorney Pollack argued that the proposed discipline is excessive

in comparison with disciplinary measures imposed by the DPH in other recent

physician cases, citing specific cases in which the penalties imposed were

far less severe, despite more serious offenses and/or adverse patient

outcomes. Due to the need to make technical revisions in the decision, the

vote on it was postponed until March 16.

March 16 Meeting of the CMEB and its Vote:

We plan to appeal this decision: the appeal has to be filed within 45 days

of the CMEB meeting, which took place on March 16. It is our expectation

that the fine will be placed in an escrow account, as it has been with the

first case, pending the outcome of the appeal. It is unlikely, however,

that the monitoring requirement will be suspended.

Issue of Alleged Bias in the First Case:

At the March 16 meeting, the CMEB also considered the issue of bias related

to the first case that had been brought against me.

As you may recall, two parents had recognized one of the panelists, Dr.

Senechal, when they attended the final hearing session, and recalled that he

had made critical, defamatory statements regarding physicians who treat Lyme

disease. He had not disclosed this bias when selected to serve on the

panel.

Affidavits were then been filed in reference to this. The Superior Court

considered our request that the first decision be overturned, based on the

grounds that Dr. Senechal was biased. While it did not overturn it, it did

require that the CMEB reconsider the punishment it had imposed against me as

a result.

The CMEB decided it would not alter its findings or sanctions.

I hope that this information has been helpful to you. 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: 203-772-0682. Please reserve

telephone calls for urgent matters only, given the very high volume of

patient calls that the office receives.

Thank you once more for your ongoing attention, efforts and concern on my

behalf. Your support has made all the difference!

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 the special instructions for donations towards the fine: Write

" Penalty or Gift " in the memo field of your checks. As soon as $10,000 has

been raised to pay the fine, all subsequent donations will be applied to Dr.

' legal defense.

Instructions also are posted on Kay Lyon's website:

<http://lymesite.com/Dr-_please_send_a_contribution_to_th.htm>

http://lymesite.com/Dr_please_send_a_contribution_to_th.htm

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>

http://lymesite.com/Dr__use_paypal_to_make_donations_to_.htm

If you donate through PayPal, please indicate that you want half of your

donation prioritized to pay the fine. In order to so this, you must send a

note to Attorney Pollack at the above address, or email him at

<mailto:ebpollack@...> ebpollack@...