Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

For everything that is related to Lyme and/or Lymeland, but doesn't fit in the other forums. Speak your mind, connect, ask help, etc.
User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Spanky » Sun 18 Jul 2010 20:29

Uh-oh. Today is the 18th.

Hmmm...I wonder if this means team Jones is throwing in the towel and going to try to pin defeat on the monitor issue?

I am having trouble understanding how Jones "can't afford" a monitor...but can, somehow, afford a million dollar defense, including appeals. ("The legal proceedings have cost him more than $1 million, he estimates)". I think what Jones meant to say was that the legal proceedings have cost Lyme patients more than $1 million.


Well, if I could offer a suggestion?

You could always claim the voting procedures of the board were deliberately skewed to screw him. ;)

By July 20, if Jones has not found a state-licensed pediatrician to agree to become his monitor, he could lose his license or his license could be suspended.

The monitor would visit Jones’ practice once a month to review his patient files. If the monitor disagrees with anything in Jones’ file, he or she is to report it to the state.

At a June hearing in Hartford, Elliot Pollack, Jones’ attorney, told the Medical Examining Board that Jones’ assistant asked 209 pediatricians for help. None responded.

That’s because the case against him is so well publicized and so controversial that no one wants to be involved, Jones’ supporters say. The state says none has responded, because Jones didn’t try hard enough: There were no phone calls made and no follow-ups with the 209 pediatricians.

A Massachusetts company that contracts monitors located one for Jones’ case. The company, however, would not tell Jones who the monitor would be and wanted him to sign a contract that Attorney Pollack found troublesome.

The board had little sympathy. “Either find a monitor or stop practicing,” said board member Dr. Henry Jacobs.

As of press time, Jones did not have a monitor lined up.
http://hartfordadvocate.com/featured-ne ... me-disease

===========================================================================================

Time is running out for Connecticut’s best known, most controversial Lyme disease doctor

This spring, Dr. Charles Ray Jones, a controversial and internationally known expert on Lyme disease in New Haven, was ready to quit.

For the last five years, Jones has been defending himself against accusations that he is violating standards of care. In March, the state Medical Examining Board declared him guilty of several charges.

He’s charged with treating patients without seeing them, prescribing medicine for children he’s never met and keeping improper medical records, among other things.

Jones argues that he has a six-month waiting list. In the interest of time, he orders blood tests before seeing patients. He once continued a prescription for an out-of-state patient after consulting with her mother, who’s a nurse.

Earlier this year, he was given four years of probation, a $10,000 fine and ordered to hire a monitor to examine his patient charts every month. The monitor, Jones expects, could cost between $2,000 and $10,000 a month.

“I can’t afford that,” Jones says. “I realized it’s hopeless.”

One day after learning of his punishment, however, a 7-year-old boy named Timmy came in for an appointment.

At an earlier visit with Jones, five months prior, Timmy exhibited problems like low muscle tone and no expressive speech. Another doctor diagnosed him with autism when he was 2 years old. Timmy’s mom noticed that when he was on antibiotics, his behavior became better. He exhibited fewer symptoms associated with autism. After he went off his medication, though, his symptoms returned to full force.

Jones thought the boy had Lyme disease, not autism.

At that first visit, Jones says, he put his hands on Timmy’s cheeks and looked into his eyes: “I hope I have the key to unlock your brain,” he said. Timmy then squirmed out of Jones’s lap and began to run around the room.

At Timmy’s follow-up visit, one day after Jones received his punishment, Timmy “climbed into my lap, put my hands on his cheeks and said, ‘Thank you for giving me the key to unlock my brain.’” Jones says. “Then he hugged me.”

“That’s why I stayed in [medicine],” he says.

“He came in at a good time.”

One of the reasons Jones is so controversial is because of patients like Timmy: Jones’ diagnoses and treatments call into question those of other doctors. While other doctors see autism or mental illness, Jones sees Lyme. Jones thinks one of the reasons he’s so disliked in the medical community is other doctors’ pride.

Jones’ supporters are so passionate about him that they’ve been paying attorney’s fees to defend him in front of the state Medical Examining Board, which hears cases of medical misconduct and metes out punishment. The board has the power to revoke a doctor’s license to practice medicine.

None of Jones’ patients has complained, he’s quick to point out, and none has been harmed by his treatment. He’s never been sued for medical malpractice. The charges against him have been levied by fathers involved in custodial battles over their children. In those cases Mom was in charge of treatment and Dad was in charge of payment and disputed the need for treatment. By complaining, Jones’ supporters say, Dad could get back at Mom and possibly skirt paying a costly medical bill. There were no allegations of harm done to the children.

Still, the state says, Jones’ style of medicine is a threat to others. (Due to the controversy involved, the Connecticut Medical Society refused to comment on charges against Jones.)

Jones has lost this most recent case and a similar case previously. He’s appealed both to the state appellate court. The legal proceedings have cost him more than $1 million, he estimates.

The punishment of Jones is more severe than the punishment of other doctors faced with more serious charges. For example, a Greenwich doctor who used his own sperm to impregnate a client in 2008 was reprimanded and fined $10,000. He’s still practicing.

Another doctor was charged in 2005 with not meeting standards of care: Two patients died from post-operative complications; one died during surgery; he unnecessarily removed a patient’s appendix. There were problems with eight of his other patients. This doctor’s license was put on probation for two years (compared to Jones’ four years) and he was fined $5,000.

After eight days of hearings in Jones’ case, the Medical Examiners Board “imposed a level of discipline on Dr. Jones’ medical license that the Medical Board apparently felt was appropriate to address identified deficiencies within Dr. Jones’ clinical practice,” said DPH spokesman William Gerrish in a prepared statement.

By July 20, if Jones has not found a state-licensed pediatrician to agree to become his monitor, he could lose his license or his license could be suspended.

The monitor would visit Jones’ practice once a month to review his patient files. If the monitor disagrees with anything in Jones’ file, he or she is to report it to the state.

At a June hearing in Hartford, Elliot Pollack, Jones’ attorney, told the Medical Examining Board that Jones’ assistant asked 209 pediatricians for help. None responded.

That’s because the case against him is so well publicized and so controversial that no one wants to be involved, Jones’ supporters say. The state says none has responded, because Jones didn’t try hard enough: There were no phone calls made and no follow-ups with the 209 pediatricians.

A Massachusetts company that contracts monitors located one for Jones’ case. The company, however, would not tell Jones who the monitor would be and wanted him to sign a contract that Attorney Pollack found troublesome.

The board had little sympathy. “Either find a monitor or stop practicing,” said board member Dr. Henry Jacobs.

As of press time, Jones did not have a monitor lined up.

Jones and his supporters see the case against him as a case against treating and acknowledging chronic Lyme disease — intended to send a message to other doctors.

Lyme disease was discovered in the mid 1970s in Lyme, Conn. It’s caused by deer tick bites and can cause fevers, headaches, fatigue and a distinctive bull’s-eye rash. Long-term, the infection can spread to the joints, heart, nervous system and brain. The common treatment is antibiotics up to 28 days, but some patients and doctors, like Jones, believe that’s not enough for chronic Lyme disease.

Advocates of chronic Lyme treatment say neither the state nor the medical community is doing enough. Volunteer-run Lyme Disease Task Forces have popped up in towns around the state to educate residents on how to prevent and treat Lyme.

Others see chronic Lyme as a myth and say it’s misused to diagnose medical mysteries, like long-term fatigue.

In any case, the Connecticut state legislature passed a bill in 2009 that protects doctors who treat chronic Lyme with antibiotics over extended periods. The law “allow a licensed physician to prescribe, administer or dispense long-term antibiotics for a therapeutic purpose to a patient clinically diagnosed with Lyme disease.”

Robert Galvin, head of the state Department of Public Health (DPH), is one of only a few people to testify in 2009 against the bill, saying: “The unintended consequences of this bill will compromise the Department’s ability to protect patients with Lyme disease.” He said the bill left no flexibility, “particularly in cases where the care being provided to a patient deviates from current evidence-based practice.”

The bill passed unanimously in 2009. Jones and his patients hoped the law would protect him.



Neither the Department’s initial charges, nor the Medical Board’s ultimate decision after the hearing, concerned the issue of chronic Lyme,” said DPH spokesman Gerrish.

“This case is about Lyme disease,” says state Rep. Jason Bartlett (D-Bethel), who sponsored the Lyme bill. “I think that law should afford Dr. Jones the protection he deserves.”

Bartlett says he’ll ask the state’s next attorney general to investigate whether the state DPH and the Medical Examiners Board are violating the Lyme bill.

Jones is being “harassed” for treating chronic Lyme, Bartlett says, and that the DPH and the Medical Examiners Board have a “vendetta” against him. He adds that the requirement to get a monitor is “garbage” and “ridiculous.”

“If the state thinks he’s such a danger, the state should pay for its own monitor,” he says.

“Dr. Jones is not being treated differently than any other practitioner who has a requirement for a monitor. All practitioners who are being monitored are required to find their own monitors,” says the DPH’s Gerrish.

Karen Gaudian, of Ridgefield, has two daughters, now 18 and 16, who have Lyme. They first became sick at ages 8 and 7. The eldest had severe fatigue. “The kind of fatigue that forces a child to crawl up the stairs. Taking a shower might be more than she could do in one day,” she says. Her other daughter had major stomach pain. Doctors blamed the stomach pain on nerves or a school phobia.

“But I knew she was ill,” Gaudian says. “You could tell by watching the way she’d hold her stomach. She was in a lot of pain, but she was still trying to play. I know my child and I knew there was more to it.”

Gaudian visited Jones, but had to stop because of the cost. Jones does not take insurance, because of reimbursement rates. Whereas most doctors spend 10 to 20 minutes with a patient, Jones spends two hours with new patients and one hour on follow-up visits. Jones couldn’t afford to keep his practice open if he relied on insurance payments.

The Gaudian girls are back seeing Jones again after a several-year hiatus and are slowly improving.

Gaudian is a member of the Ridgefield Lyme Disease Task Force. Two weeks ago, she says, the group visited Lyme to speak with people about preventing Lyme disease.

“How ironic is that?” she says. “We shouldn’t be doing this. The state should be providing prevention education.”

Her daughters would be “heartbroken” if Jones lost his license, Gaudian says.

She also calls the charges against Jones “disgusting.”

“He’s an incredible physician,” she says. “The only reason he’s putting up with this is because he can’t bear to see these kids not helped.”

Sitting in a leather chair in his New Haven office, 81-year-old Jones does not look like a man who arouses passionate disputes. He’s wearing a blue Adidas tracksuit with his name embroidered on the back, and the type of black orthopedic sneakers you’d expect on a man his age.

Jones didn’t start out as a doctor — he was a divinity student at Boston University in the early 1960s. As an assistant minister with the Second Church Unitarians, Jones made house calls to people who couldn’t get out to go to church. Changing professions was a decision inspired by one of those visits: “I was in the home of an 80-year-old woman who was very badly stricken by arthritis. She grabbed my hand on the way out and said, ‘Please do something to help me in a real way,’ and that was it.”

He started focusing on cancer in New York, but moved to Hamden with his wife to raise a family and start a pediatric practice in New Haven. In the late ’60s, he noticed clusters of kids — several in a family — diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Many had strep throat, he says. “When we treated them [for strep] with antibiotics, they got better. That was the beginning of it,” Jones says.

He saw more as time went on.

“It infected every part of the body, including the brain and the skin. We were treating them with six weeks of antibiotics. Then another six weeks if it didn’t work. There was a little boy, about 10 or 11, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. We did several rounds of six weeks of antibiotics and a few weeks off. He did better on them, not off. He said to me, ‘If I’m better while I’m on the antibiotics, why don’t you keep me on them?’

“‘Well,’ I wondered ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ He was on antibiotics for three of four years and now he’s in his late 40s and is perfectly well. From that point on, I started treating with antibiotics continuously until they were better and then for two months after that.”

That attitude is what’s turned Jones into the Pope of the Lyme disease community. It also turned him into a pariah of the academic and medical community.

“There are some people who say no, no, no don’t treat with long-term antibiotics,” says Jones, “but they don’t think twice about treating kids for acne with tetracycline [an antibiotic]. It’s no different.”

The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) disagrees. According to its website, “Most patients who develop Lyme disease are cured with a single course of 10-28 days of antibiotics, depending on the stage of their illness. Occasionally a second course of treatment is necessary. More prolonged antibiotic therapy is not recommended and may be dangerous.”

The National Institutes of Health say long-term antibiotics use could lead to harmful side effects; it can also kill helpful bacteria naturally found in the body.

IDSA guidelines have an enormous impact on Lyme medical care. Its guidelines are followed by insurance companies, which in turn often restrict coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment. Those guidelines also influence doctors’ decisions and they conclude that chronic Lyme disease does not exist. Nonbelievers often cite the IDSA as proof.

But IDSA’s guidelines have not gone unchallenged. In 2008, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal launched an investigation that found “serious flaws.”

Among them: Panelists who helped design the most recent guidelines (2006) had conflicts of interest. The panel’s chairman was biased against chronic Lyme and was allowed to “handpick a likeminded panel without scrutiny.”

Back in 2000, the IDSA panel removed a member who believed in chronic Lyme, Blumenthal said. Doctors and scientists with differing views tried to serve on the panel but were told it was fully staffed; the panel was later expanded. The IDSA panel also allowed several of its members to serve on another medical association’s Lyme disease panel. Then, Blumenthal said, each portrayed the others’ conclusions as corroboration.

In a 2008 press release, Blumenthal said: “The IDSA’s 2006 Lyme disease guideline panel undercut its credibility by allowing individuals with financial interests — in drug companies, Lyme disease diagnostic tests, patents and consulting arrangements with insurance companies — to exclude divergent medical evidence and opinion. In today’s health care system, clinical practice guidelines have tremendous influence on the marketing of medical services and products, insurance reimbursements and treatment decisions. As a result, medical societies that publish such guidelines have a legal and moral duty to use exacting safeguards and scientific standards.”

After Blumenthal’s investigation, the IDSA agreed to create a panel to review its 2006 guidelines. In February, Blumenthal chided the IDSA for not following the agreement.

This spring, after a review process, the IDSA announced the panel stood by its original guidelines

“Jones saved my children’s lives,” says Maggie Shaw, a nurse and member of the Newton Lyme Disease Task Force, a volunteer group that educates people about Lyme.

For six years, doctors misdiagnosed her son Ryan’s symptoms: headaches, fatigue, joint pain, personality problems and cognitive problems. “It was the saddest thing,” Shaw says. “He lost so much of his childhood.”

After seeing many other doctors, Shaw took Ryan to Jones, who, after a two-hour exam, diagnosed Ryan with Lyme and began treatment with antibiotics.

“Two and a half months later, my son was doing better,” Shaw says. “In fifth grade, he was tutored; he had no friends. Then in sixth and seventh grade, he made the honor role. His cognitive improvement was profound.”

Shaw has closely followed Jones’ legal battle and has called a few pediatricians on his behalf to be his monitor. All refused. One doctor told her he wouldn’t, because he didn’t want to be associated with the Lyme controversy.

Cobwebby
Posts: 1716
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 0:55

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Cobwebby » Mon 19 Jul 2010 4:44

Way to rally round a collegue hey? No monitor in all the land available for Jones. Unless, of course, it is a way for Jones to save face. 'Huh What? Well it wasn't my fault. Nobody has the balls I do to fight the good fight."

So everybody is a chicken but Jones. At least he's not a duck.
The greater part of our happiness or misery
depends on our dispositions,
and not on our circumstances.
Martha Washington

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Spanky » Mon 19 Jul 2010 17:05

"Cobwebby":
Way to rally round a collegue hey? No monitor in all the land available for Jones.
Well, if you believe this bit...doesn't sound like they are trying too hard:
At a June hearing in Hartford, Elliot Pollack, Jones’ attorney, told the Medical Examining Board that Jones’ assistant asked 209 pediatricians for help. None responded.

That’s because the case against him is so well publicized and so controversial that no one wants to be involved, Jones’ supporters say. The state says none has responded, because Jones didn’t try hard enough: There were no phone calls made and no follow-ups with the 209 pediatricians.
Now that's curious. What about ILADS? What about the Pat and the Wonk? Can't they help? Where are all the "action alerts"? Awful quiet.

But what about the people who donated the $1 million, under the rather dramatic plea that it was absolutely vital that Jones continue in practice?

If this means we have decided to hang it up...don't they deserve to be told that...directly and honestly?
Unless, of course, it is a way for Jones to save face. 'Huh What? Well it wasn't my fault. Nobody has the balls I do to fight the good fight."
So everybody is a chicken but Jones. At least he's not a duck.
Maybe not a way for Jones to save face...

Here's an interesting perspective... (well, I think so, anyway)...$1 million in the hole, down the tubes...and what do you have to show for it?

Nothing.

Even more citations and fines. So far as I am aware, they have lost every single issue. And if you keep on appealing the lost issues, you are going to eventually windup with an adverse precedent on the books, paid for by Lyme activists and their supporters.

But from a PR perspective, can the Lyme advocacy acvtivists afford another very humiliating public defeat in the wake of the IDSA Review Panel decision, right now?

The cost to the IDSA of having to defend itself against all of that...about another $1 million.

So, the question I would ask here, is, what has all of this gained anyone? How is Lymeland any different or better off for the expenditure of about $2 million that could have been used for research to possibly HELP people?

Oh...and what about all those efforts to pass legislation that would protect "LLMD"s? Yeah...sure helped Jones out a ton, didn't it?

What a tragedy. What an absolute waste.

So far as I can see, neither the Jones matter or the IDSA thing has been the least bit altered by all of the antics and histrionics of the utterly inept and clueless.

Cobwebby
Posts: 1716
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 0:55

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Cobwebby » Mon 19 Jul 2010 21:50

I've felt all along it was the lawyers playing us for fools. Well, not me, even when they went for the first appeal it seemed absurd to drag this situation on and on and on.
The greater part of our happiness or misery
depends on our dispositions,
and not on our circumstances.
Martha Washington

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Spanky » Mon 19 Jul 2010 22:38

"
Cobwebby":
I've felt all along it was the lawyers playing us for fools. Well, not me, even when they went for the first appeal it seemed absurd to drag this situation on and on and on.
You mean Jones' private counsel?

If so, I would have to say that I would doubt that very much.

My impression has always been that the Jones matter was largely a matter of reaction...the activists felt that it was a situation that they felt had to be defended at all costs, under an implicit assumption that the charges (despite the known specifics) were somehow a consequence of the overall Lyme political controversy.

You know...you react to a situation on a very emotional political kneejerk basis...and get yourself sinking into a pile of quicksand...and have absolutely no EXIT strategy available.

My gut says it undoubtedly was the gruesome twosome again...the Pat and the Wonk. And what you are seeing repeatedly from these two is a pattern of attacking on fields where there is little chance of a good outcome. They really need to give some thought to picking their battles and when and where to fight them. There just didn't seem to be good odds on this one from the beginning.

Look...for what it's worth...it is the role of private litigation counsel to present options to the client.

The client always makes the decisions.

In this case, though, you have some blurring of the lines of who is the client, though, as Jones himself, may have only been a pawn, more or less, in a larger perceived battle.

In other words, I wouldn't hold Jones' private counsel responsible...at all.
Last edited by Spanky on Mon 19 Jul 2010 22:54, edited 1 time in total.

LymeH
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon 1 Mar 2010 16:41

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by LymeH » Mon 19 Jul 2010 22:38

Cobwebby wrote:I've felt all along it was the lawyers playing us for fools. Well, not me, even when they went for the first appeal it seemed absurd to drag this situation on and on and on.
The Lyme doctcors are hiring the lawyers. The Lyme doctors are also working for the activist-run organizations. The activist-run organization's are doing the dirty work for some of the Lyme doctors. The Lyme doctors are treating the activists for infections, which some of the Lyme doctors claim will kill them. The labs, which find the killer bacteria, work for the activist-run organizations and support the Lyme doctors.

The more fear and frenzy they stir up, the more out of control people become. The more out of control they become, the less focus they give to their actual medical condition and healing. Their focus shifts to 'the movement', rather than their health. They slowly shift to believing their leaders, and trusting less in themselves.

One way to control people is to maintain them in a state of fear and helplessness. It is not a new concept. People use it in religious cults, and other areas to gain control of others, especially when they don't have the facts to backup their views. Otherwise, most people, absent of fear, hate and other emotional distractions, are intelligent enough to understand something that is presented factually and logically - depending on what medications they are being given...

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Spanky » Mon 19 Jul 2010 22:48

"
LymeHystorian":

The Lyme doctcors are hiring the lawyers.
I'm not entirely sure that is exactly what happened in this case. (I don't really know, though. There was a lengthy thread here that involved myself and others trying to ask questions about some of these issues which became problematic).

My suspicion is that there were certainly others involved in deciding that this matter had to be litigated to the end of time...for what they considered to be policy reasons. Jones may only have been their puppet, in that sense.

But, you know, you really are supposed to base decisions on whether to litigate or not based upon a cold evaluation of the actual merits of the case, chances of success, and not some over-riding, or underlying political or emotional concern, some grandiose statement you want to make...

...(like how much of other peoples' money you can manage to irretrievably piss away)...

LymeH
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon 1 Mar 2010 16:41

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by LymeH » Tue 20 Jul 2010 4:03

Spanky wrote:"
LymeHystorian":

The Lyme doctcors are hiring the lawyers.
I'm not entirely sure that is exactly what happened in this case. <snip>
Ultimately, the physician, any physician, is who is responsible for choosing to protest any sanctions against them imposed by a medical board, and how to protest/dispute those sanctions.

Regardless, if people think Dr. Jones is posed like a puppet to the whim of the activists (which I am not disputing) HE is the physician. It is HIS practice. It is HIS choice. HE writes the scripts. HE meets with the medical board. HIS name is on the paperwork, along with HIS representing attorney. He can settle with the board, if he wanted this to end. He is not helpless.

In many ways, I think too many of the physicians/people are giving too much perceived power to the activists (labs or otherwise). The physicians are ultimately responsible - they write the scripts, they bill the patients, they collect the money, they hold the licenses.... A lot of blame shifting going on. When physicians let patients do their dirty work for them, it is too easy to place the blame on the patients/activists when things go wrong.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Spanky » Tue 20 Jul 2010 7:36

"LymeHystorian":
In many ways, I think too many of the physicians/people are giving too much perceived power to the activists (labs or otherwise). The physicians are ultimately responsible - they write the scripts, they bill the patients, they collect the money, they hold the licenses.... A lot of blame shifting going on. When physicians let patients do their dirty work for them, it is too easy to place the blame on the patients/activists when things go wrong.
Well, yes, the client is always ultimately legally responsible.

But I had a specific reason in mind for suggesting that there were possibly other issues involved in the Jones matter other than the strict legal considerations.

As I mentioned, there was an extensive discussion here concerning the subject of the Jones fund-raising efforts:

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... f=7&t=1464

One of the persons active in raising funds for Jones was involved in answering questions. As I recall, the issue was raised as to why Jones' malpractice insurance wouldn't cover his defense...and the answer we got, was, (as I understood it), that the traditional malpractice rider wouldn't allow the type of defense that was felt necessary.

In other words, the Lyme community as a whole was now being asked to contribute, as this was perceived as a another front of the 'war'...and the insurance rider wouldn't allow full-scale nuclear warfare.

And why do I blame the activists?

Well, here is the letter from Jones at that time:
March 17, 2008

Dear Friends,

I am writing once again to update you regarding the status of the charges which have been brought against me by the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH). As most of you know, on December 18, 2007, the hearing panel made recommendations for sanctions that would have severely restricted my ability to treat Lyme patients, and would have set a dangerous precedent for other Lyme-treating physicians.

Those of you who were fortunate enough to hear Attorney Pollack’s oral argument in response to the hearing panel’s proposed decisions and sanctions (“Proposed Memorandum of Decision”), or who read the transcript published in the Lyme Times (Winter Edition), can speak to his professionalism and keen grasp of key issues pertaining to Lyme disease and the controversy which surrounds it. Although the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB) went on to adopt the recommendations of the hearing panel with little change, I remain confident and extremely grateful to my legal defense team, headed by Attorney Pollack, and assisted by his associate Christine Collyer, Lorraine Johnson and others...
(Edit)

http://www.lymecommunity.com/forums/ubb ... 177/page/1

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Clock 'ticking' down on Jones

Post by Spanky » Wed 21 Jul 2010 1:25

Apparently, Jones looked under the cushions of his couch and found enough loose change to be able to now afford a monitor... and his attorneys seem to have been able to overlook their previous objections to the proposed monitor, also...

My goodness, what perfect little drama queens...

http://www.courant.com/health/hc-jones- ... 0609.story
Board Drops Plans For More Sanctions Against Lyme Disease Doctor

HARTFORD — —
The state medical board on Tuesday withdrew plans to consider additional sanctions against a New Haven pediatrician known for supporting a controversial Lyme disease treatment.

In March, the Connecticut Medical Examining Board ordered Dr. Charles Ray Jones to find a physician to monitor his practice, part of a disciplinary order that also included placing his license on probation for four years and a $10,000 fine. The order gave Jones 30 days to find a monitor, but as of last month, he had not found one. In response, medical board members raised the possibility of imposing additional penalties and scheduled a hearing on the matter.

But the board withdrew plans for the hearing Tuesday after learning that Jones had found a monitor. Dr. Robert Elisofon, a retired pediatrician, will review 12 of Jones' patient charts each month. Jones found him with the help of a company that identifies monitors.

Jones' attorneys told the board last month of the difficulty of finding a doctor to monitor Jones' practice, which they attributed to the publicity his case has generated and the busy practices pediatricians tend to have. They said Jones' office manager had faxed a letter to 209 Connecticut pediatricians, none of whom responded.

At the time, an attorney for the state Department of Public Health questioned the quality of the search.

Jones' discipline stems from charges that he violated medical standards in cases involving three children. A board panel ruled that Jones failed to consider other diagnoses when he ordered tests to confirm Lyme disease in two children without examining them and prescribed antibiotics to another child before examining her.

Jones has said he did nothing wrong and has appealed. The license probation has been stayed until after the appeal.

Jones' supporters, who include the families of patients and Lyme disease advocates, say he has been targeted because of how he treats Lyme disease. Jones and his supporters believe Lyme disease can be a chronic condition that requires extended treatment with antibiotics. The mainstream medical community has largely rejected that view and considers chronic cases rare.

In disciplining Jones in March, members of the medical board said they did not consider the debate over chronic Lyme disease, but found that Jones violated standards that applied to all doctors.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

Post Reply