Search results

Ok, pretty good. I'll respond to you because you took the time to think it through. #1 Right on the money- A real relationship with the certification doctor goes a LONG way in court in a section 8. #2 Good point, but most certifications are pretty binary, you have a condition or you don't...

Ok, but sorry, I am not going to think for you. You have to reflect, perhaps re-read several things I wrote, and YOU tell me five benefits of the bonafide dr/pt relationship law. If you don't understand why it is there, and what it is intended to do, I am not going to explain it again only to...

Let's see if you even understand why it is there. Name five good things a bonafide dr/pt relationship law does to help and protect patients. If you cant this conversation is done because I am not going to discuss this with someone that doesn't understand the subject and cant look at both sides...

PS, I have the goods to prove what I say. If any of those folks have a problem with me saying it, PM me and I'll give you the number of my lawyer and we'll dance.

I have ethical concerns about those that make a mockery of the law and the people of this state that gave it to us. There are three failures here.... Patients have been clearly told by me and many others that there are basic medical standards to certifications. The choice to go to a hotel...

You mean other than really bad medicine, a generalized view that all certifications are shams and patients are potheads, and the constant ability of prosecutors to try to redefine what counts as a certification and what doesn't (and a requirement of each patient to prove their relationship with...

No fighting just very useful patient information. I am sure you would agree that patients well qualified medically can suffer because they went to the wrong doc. Even the courts agreed this was a qualified patient. He just didn't have a real cert.

We didn't really change our prices at all. Follow up is free. It didn't change anything for us because we did it right from the beginning without being told. Since pot doc is not an insult does that mean a elderly person taking medical cannabis for their cancer should be called a stoner or pot head?

Just the patient is a risk. Proctor has never answered for any of them as far as I know. And continues to do the same thing.

And while you are at it, and for anyone reading this that went to Proctor and is worried, here you go.. http://www.denalihealthcaremi.com/pain-management/medical-marijuana-certification/will-certification-stand-court/ Put up as a patient SAFETY issue.

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2011/12/undercover_police_bought_marij.html Read it... December of 2011. The state could have protected that Cass patient right there, and didn't. Clearly the doctor walked away scot-free, and will again I am sure. Then folks will go see him and...

Whether I did or not (and I did because it is good medicine) doesn't matter, it is the law. The courts have upheld it and folks like Proctor are putting patients at risk, not me. My patients are safe because I do things correctly, and always have. Time you stop whining and trying to justify...

To protect patients by not allowing prosecutors to attempt to redefine what it was every case as they were. Follow the rules, and it works, as I just found out in court about 10 days ago. Blew them out of the water. I have patients in Cass, ever wonder why I don't get called in there any...

That patient could have gone to me, he could have gone to Dave Croker, he could have gone to U-Med and Dr. Prince. Any of them would have given him an honest cert if he qualified. Yet he choose to save a couple of bucks and go to the guy in the hotel (assuming the doc was even there- he has a...

You confuse lobbying with pointing out this was coming and warning patients to be more careful getting their certs. Now a patient is going to jail more than likely because they didn't show even a little bit of care and went to a doctor known for JUST WHAT THE COURT CALLED HIM OUT ON. You were...

Very important ruling from COA today.

People v Goodwin http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20141209_c320591_42_320591.opn.pdf The Following is the Part of the Ruling discussing the Bonafide Dr/Pt relationship. It shows a classic failure of standards of certification at the expense of a patient. Don't fall into...

Another successful section 8 hearing in Ionia!

These people truly sicken me. They are nothing but street gangs with badges shaking down their communities. It is a good thing that grant money is going to treatment rather than law enforcement, those with addictions need treatment, not felony convictions and jail time. Medical marijuana has cut...

Until law enforcement is willing to give up forfeiture money, I find their objections to any bill related to decriminalization or provisioning centers rather hollow. Dr. Bob