MMJ App. Rejected Due To Sanctioned Dr.

[AllenScott]

I just received, 75 days after sending in my application by registered mail, a rejection letter from the state saying the Dr. the MMJ Center hooked me up with has sanctions on her license and can not recommend MMJ.

I started to grow my medicine at 35 days post app. mailing.

I have A.I.D.S. and have now been made an outlaw. Nice.

Now what do I do? Start over? Kill my medicine?

Allen

[middieman440]

grow it like yo have been dude.you started without "permission" mine as well as finish just dont tell ppl keep the smell hidden and your mouth shut...harvest then be happy.

[copobo]

if it was over 35 days, you ARE legal so keep growing!

go get another rec and send it in ASAP because that's the easiest thing to do, anyway.

as long as the Doc is a Doc, the rec will still hold up in court. The registry is NOT a requirement of of constitution.

ALL you need is a pre-existing recontamination from a doc.

[canaguy27]

they failed to give you notice before 35 days so you are automatically approved. have an attorney write up a demand letter saying you are legal if you want to fight it.

or just get another rec.

i would love to see someone kick them in the pants for this bullshit.

[Ebbandflowian]

What's the doctors name

[5280and420]

1) The reality is that your are in little danger of criminal prosecution. Keep a copy of your AIDS medical paperwork near the marijuana in the event the police come after you. Which they won't if you're growing and medicating at home and not taking it out of the home.

2) Get another doctor recommendation, and file again. Yes, you're out the other doctor's fee, but such is life.

3) Stay positive! Don't let bureaucratic nonsense get you down. It's not personal and your optimistic attitude is all that matters. Stay up, stay happy, and do whatever you feel helps you.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

Basically what everyone else said.
Keep growing but keep it on the down-low...
Keep copies of your diagnosis & medical records.
Keep copies of your original paperwork (personally I would "lose" the rejection letter)
Go get another Dr rec.
Re-file, there shouldn't be any reason why you could re-file immediately with a proper Dr rec.

Please share who the Dr is as this is the kind of info other patients need to know. There have been plenty of scams out there. I would also contact the MMC, let them know, and contact the Dr office as you paid for a rec when that Dr is unable to do so. Maybe you could get a refund or at least some compensation of sorts.

Did the letter give any way to "look-up" if a Dr has sanctions on them?

[AllenScott]

Basically what everyone else said.
Keep growing but keep it on the down-low...
Keep copies of your diagnosis & medical records.
Keep copies of your original paperwork (personally I would "lose" the rejection letter)
Go get another Dr rec.
Re-file, there shouldn't be any reason why you could re-file immediately with a proper Dr rec.

Please share who the Dr is as this is the kind of info other patients need to know. There have been plenty of scams out there. I would also contact the MMC, let them know, and contact the Dr office as you paid for a rec when that Dr is unable to do so. Maybe you could get a refund or at least some compensation of sorts.

Did the letter give any way to "look-up" if a Dr has sanctions on them?



This has all been great advise and support and I thank you.

The rejection letter did not give a way to "look-up" if a Dr. has sanctions on them but here is a link I've been given post receipt: HealthGrades > Find a Doctor | Doctor Reviews | Hospital Ratings (http://www.healthgrades.com/)

I think I'll sit for a minute on the Dr.'s name and that of the MMC while I think about what to do. :chainsaw::Tomcat:

Thanks for your help and advice.

Allen

[SoCoMMJ]

I wouldn't pause on posting the doctor's name. Some of these doctors write thousands of rec's. We need to know if a patient's rec is going to be valid or not. The doctor wrote the bad rec knowing that it would not be valid?

Technically, at this instant in time you may not be legal. If the doctor is sanctioned, then the rec may not be valid. I would get another doctor rec tomorrow. Although you may survive a court experience, cultivation is a felony and even if you beat it, the arrest never leaves your record.

Making it past the 35 days without rejection does not mean you remain legal. If they reject you after that point you are invalid from the point when you receive the notice. I highlighted in bold the wording that indicates 35 days does not provide immunity.

(d) Except for patients applying pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, where the state health agency, within thirty-five days of receipt of an application, fails to issue a registry identification card or fails to issue verbal or written notice of denial of such application, the patient's application for such card will be deemed to have been approved. Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred upon delivery to the state health agency, or deposit in the United States mails. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no application shall be deemed received prior to June 1, 1999. A patient who is questioned by any state or local law enforcement official about his or her medical use of marijuana shall provide a copy of the application submitted to the state health agency, including the written documentation and proof of the date of mailing or other transmission of the written documentation for delivery to the state health agency, which shall be accorded the same legal effect as a registry identification card, until such time as the patient receives notice that the application has been denied.

I may be sour grapes, but I believe that at this point you don't even have a valid affirmative defense for felony cultivation.

As soon as you get a new dr's rec, at least you have a very well founded affirmative defense until your 35 days elapses again or you get your card.

Get you moola back on that bogus one too!

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

I would agree with SoCoMMJ. It's in your best interest to get a new Dr rec asap if you're going to continue to grow or medicate.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

The rejection letter did not give a way to "look-up" if a Dr. has sanctions on them but here is a link I've been given post receipt: HealthGrades > Find a Doctor | Doctor Reviews | Hospital Ratings (http://www.healthgrades.com/)

I think I'll sit for a minute on the Dr.'s name and that of the MMC while I think about what to do....

Yes I'm very familiar with HealthGrades, but it's not always up-to-date.

But don't quite understand why you wouldn't want to share the Dr's name. That's info that many other patients could use. No reason to list the MMC as the Dr might be writing rec's for lots of MMCs & Clinics.

[copobo]

yes, don't protect the doc - he's already in trouble and he's still signing papers. worry about the patients.

[AllenScott]

Dr. Janet C. Dean in Denver.

[AllenScott]

I was hesitant to post the Dr.'s name but did so at the urging of the board.

I just got off the phone with the Dr.'s office and was told they are aware of the situation and are quite unhappy.

The Office feels this was a political move pre-election. The said the Dr. does indeed have "sanctions" but not the sort that should result in not being able to recommend MMJ. She is still doing surgery, prescribing meds, and seeing patients in her regular practice.

They said the were fighting the state and plan to do everything they can to correct this issue for their patients.

The person taking names of MMJ patients that have been calling sounded very sincere in her explanation of the situation and the tough spot this has put the Dr.'s patients.

I was told the review board made this decision to reject this Dr.'s recs on 10/17 and make it retroactive from February 2010.

I noticed something interesting in the reject pack. The date stamped on the official reject letter is 8/18/2010. I sent it in registered mail on 8/16/2010. The post date on the reject envelope is 10/28/2010. Someone is playing games.


Allen

[copobo]

thanks for the explanation and the name!

more effedupsheet from the CDPHE!

[telephone]

If she is your ob/gyn then apparently she's been in trouble before:

Malpractice & Sanctions Information for Dr. Janet C Dean - Obstetrics & Gynecology - Denver, CO (http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/dr-janet-dean-md-847a885c/sanctions)

[copobo]

yea, this does not seem minor, though it could have been resolved, there is no indication..

"Action Taken:
The Commission has Denied the physician's application for a license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Colorado."

[denverbear]

yea, this does not seem minor, though it could have been resolved, there is no indication..

"Action Taken:
The Commission has Denied the physician's application for a license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Colorado."
then how is she still doing legal surgries??

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

then how is she still doing legal surgries??

A Sanction doesn't keep a Dr from doing surgeries or even making recommendations necessarily unless they are directly prohibited in their probation period. Typically though, docs will moved to a different state where they don't have any sanctions.

Personally after speaking with several of the docs I work with, they all said a sanction just doesn't happen overnight and should be a warning flag to a patient. It is something a Dr can fight, but most just move on.

Note: there are a lot of military Docs who have sanctions against them. Feel the love for the troops, huh...

[5280and420]

Frankly this is part of the problem. An OB/GYN advertising MMJ referrals to make extra cash? That's the sort of crap that gives the entire system a black eye.

[telephone]

Frankly this is part of the problem. An OB/GYN advertising MMJ referrals to make extra cash? That's the sort of crap that gives the entire system a black eye.

lol. Unless "AllenScott" is a woman that has some legit ob/gyn pain issues.

:jointsmile:

[dontjudge]

For those of you who have recently been denied by the state of Colorado due to alleged Doctor's sanctions, please be sure you are aware of the true facts. On October 18th, 2010, the Colorado Medical Board held a meeting and decided that they would target 18 doctors across the state of Colorado with "conditional licenses". http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/medicalmarijuana/MMAC%20Summary%2010_18_10.pdf http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/medicalmarijuana/POSSIBLE%20PHYSICIAN%20REGULATIONS%20IN%20THE%20ME DICAL%20MARIJUANA%20REGIS.pdf There are different classifications for a Doctor's License; active, active restricted (cannot practice), active with conditions (CAN LEGALLY PRACTICE). All of these doctors had full disclosure of the status of their licenses, and were in good standing to sign Medical Marijuana recommendations before October 18, 2010. It is no coincidence that two weeks before elections, this decision was made, and the Registry was told that they COULD NOT notify any of these doctors. Many doctors found out after thousands of their patient's applications were returned during a mass mailed on October 28th, 2010 stating that these doctors were not allowed to prescribe medical marijuana by the state of Colorado. These doctors have been helping patients in the community since the beginning, and are qualified, caring physicians. What the "powers that be" did not consider are the hundreds of thousands of patient that they were affecting for political reasons. The main concern of the physicians at this time is to assist their patients in getting legal licenses again, because at this point, anyone who has received any rejection letter because of this decision are NOT LEGAL. Please make sure that the people responsible for this blasphemous decision are inundated with phone calls, letters and complaints for their complete disregard of these patients well being.

I cannot speak for all 18 doctors, but I can speak for the ones that I have personal knowledge of. They are currently seeking legal action and are fighting to get a temporary injuction. I only wish this would have been widely publicized before the elections today, as I believe many people would have changed their voting decisions.

My heart goes out to all patients who have been affected by this and please know that these physicians are still dedicated to your care and comfort.

[BikeColorado]

My BF recently got a rejection letter from the State regarding this same Dr. Janet Dean who is NO LONGER AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE MMJ in the State of Colorado! The sleazy owner of this clinic (at 710 E. Speer, Denver) told me that he was not going to refund the fee even though he charged my BF $99.00 for a useless and meaningless MMJ prescription. The rejection letter stated that the reason for the rejection is because Dr. Janet Dean currently has a restriction placed on her license, and state law now prohibits any doctor with a restriction or condition on their medical license from prescribing MMJ. Also, according to Colorado State Medical Board online records, Dr. Dean resigned from Presbyterian/St. Luke's Hospital for "family health reasons" rather than face a disciplinary hearing for an incident that occurred in her practice. There is also an entry on her record that indicates she has some type of unspecified disciplinary action out of the state of Oregon as well. Outrageous!

I urge ALL of you who used a credit card at this clinic to obtain a rejected MMJ prescription from this UNAUTHORIZED doctor to please file a dispute with your credit card company!! (If you paid with cash, check, or money order you will likely have to file a lawsuit against this clinic to have any chance of getting a refund.) The owner said he was not going to refund the fee because my BF "paid for a medical evaluation, and he got one." Wow, what a scumbag! If the owner wants to fight us on the refund, as he indicated he would, our next step will to report this THEFT and DECEPTION to the Colorado Attorney General and open up an investigation into this farce of a clinic he is running. This doctor's MMJ prescription and the paperwork signed by her is invalid and worthless; my BF must now start the entire evaluation and paperwork process over, from scratch, with a different MMJ doctor.

Please, PLEASE check the State of Colorado (Dept. of Regulatory Agencies) website first for your docâ??s license status before you pay them the fee! Make sure the doc you are about to see does not have any conditions or restrictions on their license. The website is Colorado Board of Medical Examiners (http://www.dora.state.co.us/medical/index.htm) . Click on "Physican Profiles" tab on the left, and put in the last name/first name of the doc whose record you wish to see.

[AllenScott]

I thought I was alone in this. This is very difficult to navigate. I'm happy I'm not alone but also saddened I'm not alone.

I am a very skilled grower and now have 5 patients for whom I caregive. The other three patients, whom I live with on sixty acres zoned AG with outbuildings, are gathering patients as well. Can we, three caregivers on sixty acres of AG zoned land, work together in one 100'x200' barn? :beatdeadhorse:

Allen

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

I think this is a better link to find out if there are any sanctions against a Doc.

https://www.doradls.state.co.us/alison.php

[colagal]

I thought I was alone in this. This is very difficult to navigate. I'm happy I'm not alone but also saddened I'm not alone.

I am a very skilled grower and now have 5 patients for whom I caregive. The other three patients, whom I live with on sixty acres zoned AG with outbuildings, are gathering patients as well. Can we, three caregivers on sixty acres of AG zoned land, work together in one 100'x200' barn? :beatdeadhorse:

Allen

I don't this so. Here is the part of HB 1284 that addresses your question: TWO OR MORE PRIMARY CAREGIVERS SHALL NOT JOIN
TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

Alternatively, maybe it is possible to have your patients (or a collective of patients) utilize this grow area, i.e., patients will be able use your location to grow their own plants (have their own little garden area) with your help...for a fee...you know what I mean?

[Delta9Caregivrs]

Janet dean works for healthstar or used too, if the health dept doesn't want to release the names of these "banned" docs we need to post the names ourselfs,

I know of three, Janet dean, kevin klemmer, and James boland..


I just received, 75 days after sending in my application by registered mail, a rejection letter from the state saying the Dr. the MMJ Center hooked me up with has sanctions on her license and can not recommend MMJ.

I started to grow my medicine at 35 days post app. mailing.

I have A.I.D.S. and have now been made an outlaw. Nice.

Now what do I do? Start over? Kill my medicine?

Allen

Call up Darren at healthstar tell him Jason at Delta9 will no longer reccomend his clinic to anyone! Will be removing all signs and advertising material at Delta9 and Replace it with a sign explaing how healthstar ripps off AIDS patients.. Unless he has a legit doc write you a new reccomendation for FREE by next Friday... my fav doc will write you a free one if these guys don't step up to the plate and fix this issue

Jason
d9

pretty sure I can get this boycott to spread thru several dispensaries.. If u mess with our patients dispensaries will boycott yr practice..

[TheReleafCenter]

I think the biggest insult to patients is the fact they're not even offering refunds. They'll see you again (for $50) and then give you a $50 gift certificate for a renewal next year. Not good business imo.

[AllenScott]

Here on my relative's computer as my internet access has been, still is, down.
She has been passing on these replies, and I just wanted to say Thanks for all the information and advice - Delta9, I will be calling you ...

I'm keeping up with developments - I shall return!

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

(cross-posted to all the other related threads in Colorado subforum)

Pot patients get state reprieve after questions about their docs


Pot patients get state reprieve after questions about their docs - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16579919)

About 2,000 people who were recently notified that their state applications for medical marijuana were rejected because their doctors weren't eligible to refer them for the drug got a temporary reprieve Wednesday from the state.
Ann Hause, an attorney for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said the patients can continue to get marijuana until rules governing which doctors can prescribe marijuana are formalized.
Hause, who appeared Wednesday at a meeting of the Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee, said hearings on the issue likely won't begin until March.
"They are in limbo. I can easily think that people would be confused," said Mark Salley, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
The confusion stems from a law passed this year that prohibited doctors not in good standing from recommending patients for medical marijuana. But when the department interpreted that to include doctors with restricted as well as conditional licenses, many doctors objected.
"It improperly punishes a whole host of physicians," Kari Hershey, an attorney for the Colorado Medical Society, told the advisory committee Wednesday.
Hershey said doctors with conditional licenses are allowed to practice medicine under certain conditions.
Dr. Janet Dean said the state does not have a definition of what being a physician in good standing means. One of the doctors blackballed by the state was a neurosurgeon whose practice was limited solely because of a physical disability. There was no reason he couldn't prescribe marijuana, she said.
The state sent letters in late October to the 2,000 patients of 18 doctors initially disqualified to refer them for marijuana based on the department's original interpretation of the new law.
The patients were already legally using marijuana because of a provision that allows them to use their doctor-approved "application" to buy marijuana 35 days after it is signed. The rule was intended to prevent patients from suffering because of a months-long backlog.
The state now has 114,000 medical-marijuana patients, who must renew annually.
The legislature passed the law limiting which doctors can prescribe marijuana after complaints that some doctors were recommending marijuana to virtually any patient who wished to have it, Salley said.


(cross-posted to all the other related threads in Colorado subforum)

[AllenScott]

For those of you who have recently been denied by the state of Colorado due to alleged Doctor's sanctions, please be sure you are aware of the true facts. On October 18th, 2010, the Colorado Medical Board held a meeting and decided that they would target 18 doctors across the state of Colorado with "conditional licenses". http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/medicalmarijuana/MMAC%20Summary%2010_18_10.pdf http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/medicalmarijuana/POSSIBLE%20PHYSICIAN%20REGULATIONS%20IN%20THE%20ME DICAL%20MARIJUANA%20REGIS.pdf There are different classifications for a Doctor's License; active, active restricted (cannot practice), active with conditions (CAN LEGALLY PRACTICE). All of these doctors had full disclosure of the status of their licenses, and were in good standing to sign Medical Marijuana recommendations before October 18, 2010. It is no coincidence that two weeks before elections, this decision was made, and the Registry was told that they COULD NOT notify any of these doctors. Many doctors found out after thousands of their patient's applications were returned during a mass mailed on October 28th, 2010 stating that these doctors were not allowed to prescribe medical marijuana by the state of Colorado. These doctors have been helping patients in the community since the beginning, and are qualified, caring physicians. What the "powers that be" did not consider are the hundreds of thousands of patient that they were affecting for political reasons. The main concern of the physicians at this time is to assist their patients in getting legal licenses again, because at this point, anyone who has received any rejection letter because of this decision are NOT LEGAL. Please make sure that the people responsible for this blasphemous decision are inundated with phone calls, letters and complaints for their complete disregard of these patients well being.

I cannot speak for all 18 doctors, but I can speak for the ones that I have personal knowledge of. They are currently seeking legal action and are fighting to get a temporary injuction. I only wish this would have been widely publicized before the elections today, as I believe many people would have changed their voting decisions.

My heart goes out to all patients who have been affected by this and please know that these physicians are still dedicated to your care and comfort.

Your words are appreciated and I thank you. Reading between the lines I sense you are a Doctor involved or work with one.

I understand the decision to include the new classes of restriction in the "allowed" or "not allowed" to Recommend MMJ was made without Public input as the law prescribes. This is clearly outside the law.

I have heard there has been an injunction placed now and these recommendations are once again "legal". Am I wrong?

Allen

[Budbudda]

I just received, 75 days after sending in my application by registered mail, a rejection letter from the state saying the Dr. the MMJ Center hooked me up with has sanctions on her license and can not recommend MMJ.

I started to grow my medicine at 35 days post app. mailing.

I have A.I.D.S. and have now been made an outlaw. Nice.

Now what do I do? Start over? Kill my medicine?

Allen

So sorry to hear about this and sorry to hear about your diagnosis.

I would go back to the mmc that recommended this doctor and ask them to help you remedy the situation - you are probably not the only one this happened to. If they are at all reputable they will do the right thing. If they don't please be sure to post which mmc it is!

Don't kill the meds. What is the first rule about your grow room? Don't talk about the grow room! To anyone!

Good luck to you.

[Budbudda]

If she is your ob/gyn then apparently she's been in trouble before:

Malpractice & Sanctions Information for Dr. Janet C Dean - Obstetrics & Gynecology - Denver, CO (http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/dr-janet-dean-md-847a885c/sanctions)

I don't think you are going to find too many obstetricians without a sanction or two of this type.

[copobo]

yea, sounded like there was a tough birth and she went outside of norms hoping for a win, and lost.

[VapedG13]

Colorado is a tricky place.... the docotrs who wrote your scrip for MMJ at the time were legal....they made it so if the DR .doesnt qualify under their NEW guidlines......the script is invalid

The Same docotor that the State says gave you an invalid scrip for MMJ.... can still write scrips for percocet, volume, oxycotton.....but not MMJ...Makes alot of sense:wtf:

Best thing you can do is GROW YOUR OWN...fuck um all :thumbsup:

[VapedG13]

Dr. Janet C. Dean in Denver.


Talk about some stupid wording:wtf: this is the case of DR. Janet Dean



DENVER - Some 1,300 people waiting for medical marijuana cards in Colorado are in limbo because of a dispute over which doctors can recommend pot.

Colorado health regulators are puzzling over how to interpret a new state law requiring doctors that recommend pot to be "in good standing." The requirement, which took effect in July, led the state to send rejection letters to thousands of marijuana-card applicants who used recommendations from doctors with restrictions or conditions on their medical licenses.

Problem is, there's a difference between doctors with "restrictions" and doctors with "conditions" on their licenses. The distinction â?? with "restrictions" considered more serious than "conditions" â?? has thousands of would-be marijuana patients saying they were wrongly rejected, and the Colorado Medical Society joining marijuana advocates in the dispute.

"There's thousands and thousands of patients out there who probably feel they've been scammed," said Dr. Janet Dean, a Denver physician who is licensed with conditions. The conditions on her medical license are related to obstetrics and gynecology â?? not the ailments for which she's been writing medical marijuana recommendations for more than a year.

Dean found out a few weeks ago that some of her patients were getting rejection letters saying that she was unqualified to write them. She went to a health advisory committee considering the "in good standing" question and argued that the state would be wrong to reject all physicians "with conditions" because many of those conditions don't relate to recommending drugs.

The Colorado Medical Society agreed, giving the example of a neurosurgeon developing arthritis. Conditions could be added to that surgeon's license, such as additional supervision for surgery, but that physician is still allowed to perform "the full scope of medical practice," something a doctor with a restricted license may not.

Doctors with restrictions can also be barred from certain privileges in a hospital, or barred from working in federally funded health clinics, prohibitions that wouldn't affect a licensee with conditions.

Kari Hershey, lawyer for the Colorado Medical Society, argued that lumping in both kinds of doctors could lead to limits on how doctors with conditions could practice.

"It improperly punishes a whole range of physicians," Hershey said.

Colorado health authorities sent marijuana rejection letters to 500 applicants whose recommendations came from doctors with restricted licenses and to 1,300 patients with recommendations from doctors with conditions on their licenses. Draft rules considered by the health department's Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee requires recommendations from a physician with "a fully active license with no restrictions or conditions."

One of the committee members, Ted Tow of the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, said both kinds of doctors should be banned from writing marijuana recommendations. The distinction between restricted doctors and doctors with conditions, he said, is too academic.

"That's all hyper-technical inside-baseball stuff," said Tow, who argues that lawmakers probably intended both types of doctors to be banned from recommending pot.

The marijuana advisory committee hasn't decided which interpretation to recommend to the full Board of Health. A final decision won't be made until March at the earliest.

In the meantime, state health authorities have sent new letters to the 1,300 patients telling them that their applications are on hold until the matter is settled. As long as those patients can show that they've applied, they'll be allowed to buy medical marijuana, but they won't have cards until sometime next year.

Marijuana activists say the confusing doctor delay isn't fair for the 1,300 patients who thought they had a doctor's approval to use pot.

"They've had their recommendations denied through no fault of their own," Josh Kappal of Sensible Colorado told the marijuana advisory committee.

As for the 500 patients with recommendations from doctors with restricted licenses? They're out of luck. They'll have to find unrestricted doctors â?? and pay another $90 application fee â?? if they want to be considered

[VapedG13]

Heres the full story .........she refers to Dr.Janet

"She also wrote recommendations for medical marijuana, seeing thousands of patients over the course of the past year-plus, by her estimate.

She adds that she phoned the state's Medical Marijuana Registry both before and after the passage of SB 109 to make sure that she could continue doing so, and she says she was reassured that "everything was fine."


Over the past week or so, medical marijuana patients across the state have learned that doctor recommendations for the card allowing them to use MMJ have been rejected. Why? A new health department policy that slid into place almost unnoticed -- one that's likely to disenfranchise and anger nearly 2,000 patients, as well as infuriating impacted doctors and clinics.

Why? A change in definition for doctors approved to write medical marijuana recommendations that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment began enforcing late last month. Department spokesman Mark Salley confirms that eighteen doctors specializing in MMJ are now forbidden to recommend cannabis. But instead of informing the affected physicians, the department has been telling patients who received the recommendations, some of which date back to the early months of 2010. They've then been filling in the doctors, often in extremely heated ways.


Dr. Ned Calonge.
​Some background: Amendment 20, the 2000 measure that legalized medical marijuana in Colorado, defines a physician allowed to recommend medical marijuana as "a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good standing, a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado." But in recent years, Ned Calonge, Colorado's chief medical officer until earlier this month, has been concerned about doctors who specialize in writing MMJ recommendations without engaging in followup care with patients.

In a 2009 Westword interview, Calonge decried such doctors, saying, "You might walk in to a dispensary, and they give you a pre-completed form. You check off chronic pain. They might do a blood-pressure check, and then a physician looks at you, asks you a couple of questions, signs your form and your application is complete. And that's not appropriate medical care. That's substandard." He added that recommendations from just fifteen doctors statewide led to 73 percent of the state's almost 16,000 MMJ licenses at that writing.

State Senator Chris Romer believed many of these patients didn't really need medical marijuana -- and he set out to tighten restrictions on doctors specializing in MMJ as a result. That's why Senate Bill 109, which he sponsored, defines a doctor in good standing like so:

THE PHYSICIAN HOLDS A DOCTOR OF MEDICINE OR DOCTOR OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE DEGREE FROM AN ACCREDITED MEDICAL SCHOOL; THE PHYSICIAN HOLDS A VALID, UNRESTRICTED LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN COLORADO; AND THE PHYSICIAN HAS A VALID AND UNRESTRICTED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES REGISTRATION.
The key word in the passage above is "unrestricted." Some doctors' licenses are tagged with conditions or stipulations often related to a specific area of practice. And it so happens that many of the most prolific recommenders of medical marijuana have such restrictions. Until Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed SB 109 in June, these doctors could recommend medical marijuana -- and for months afterward, they continued to do so. Little did most of them know that recommendations written afterward, and even ones written in the months before the measure became law, would be rejected.

Dr. Janet Dean, an OB/GYN based in Denver, found this out the hard way.

Dean has a condition on her license that requires OB/GYN charts for her patients to be reviewed for eighteen months. She declines to provide specifics about what this twenty-year medical veteran calls the "witch hunt" that led to the determination, although HealthGrades.com reports that in March 2008, she "failed to meet the standard of care in her treatment of a patient in which the physician had provided prenatal care, operative delivery of a male infant, and postpartum care.


​Although more than eighteen months have passed since March 2008, the clock hasn't started ticking because Dean has been unable to find a job in her area of specialty. So last September, she began working for a clinic that focuses on medical marijuana recommendations. (She declines to name the business.) She stresses that the condition on her license doesn't prevent her from any other areas of practice. "I can write prescriptions for Oxycontin," she says. "I can write prescriptions for Percocet. I can write prescriptions for Vicodin."

She also wrote recommendations for medical marijuana, seeing thousands of patients over the course of the past year-plus, by her estimate. She adds that she phoned the state's Medical Marijuana Registry both before and after the passage of SB 109 to make sure that she could continue doing so, and she says she was reassured that "everything was fine."

But then, in recent days, she started getting calls from patients saying their card applications had been rejected because she was not qualified to recommend MMJ. "We're getting threats. Not physical threats, but, 'We're going to sue you for fraud, because you've stolen our money,'" she notes -- an assertion borne out by posts on local marijuana message boards like this one. "They're up in arms, and you can't blame them. But they don't realize the health department changed the rules in the middle of the game."

Health department spokesman Mark Salley doesn't put it quite that way -- but he does acknowledge that "when the state legislature was considering bills that further refined a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, and also further clarified the definition of a physician in good standing, we began holding applications that had physician authorizations from physicians who had a restriction or condition on their license


This continued up until an October 18 meeting of the volunteer medical marijuana advisory committee. After a health department presentation about the importance of preventing doctors with restricted licenses from recommending MMJ, the committee signed off on the proposal, Salley says. He adds that "we're not making value judgments on various conditions that might be on a license" -- like, for instance, the one on Dean's, which apparently has little to do with her competency to recommend medical marijuana. "Any license that has a condition is not an unrestricted license in the language of the Senate bill. That's what our legal advice has been."


Laura Kriho.
​A week later, on October 25 -- after the department "finished getting legal advice and consulted the Board of Medical Examiners," Salley says -- personnel began returning the applications of patients with recommendations from Dean and the other seventeen doctors flagged for license restrictions. Complaints from patients soon erupted.

How many are affected? In a letter to various health department personnel, including acting chief medical officer Dr. Lisa Miller, Laura Kriho of the Cannabis Therapy Institute used the number 5,000, but Salley disputes that total. He says the actual amount is between 1,000 and 2,000 -- but closer to 2,000.

The health department has been overwhelmed by applications in recent years, with a processing backlog that's stretched out to many months. Did the department use the new SB 109 language, even before it became law, as a way of lightening the load? While Dean concedes, "It's certainly possible that's a part of it," she declines to point fingers -- although she does take a swipe at what she refers to as "retroactive" enforcement that included patients from before SB 109's passage.

Salley isn't sure the word "retroactive" is applicable in this instance. He stresses that the department won't disallow previously issued cards from physicians with license restrictions, but he says when those cards come up for renewal, the patients will have to go to a doctor with no license conditions. He's less definitive about what will happen for patients who have been using their application forms to obtain medical marijuana in lieu of an actual card, as they're authorized to do if there's a delay of more than 35 days. But he believes the entire backlog of applications will be eliminated by year's end.

In the past, the department of health has been sanctioned for making new rules without getting proper public input -- most notably when Judge Larry Naves disallowed a new caregiver definition last November. The Cannabis Therapy Institute charges the health department with doing the same thing this time around. To that, Salley says the Board of Health will formally address the issue at a future meeting, probably early next year -- and he points out that the advisory committee meeting on October 18 was open to the public.

Speaking of which, Dean plans to attend the next advisory committee session, slated for November 10, to dispute the health department's decision. It appears to be the only forum for her to express her displeasure. Meanwhile, patients who've waited months for their licenses are in the position of starting over -- and Dean says clinics like hers can't afford to do new examinations for free, especially given that some of the patients she saw are scattered across Colorado. She notes that she even did some recommendations by video-conference.

At this point, Dean seems resigned to the thought that she'll no longer be able to write medical marijuana recommendations, but she still feels the health department's reasoning is faulty -- and she's highly critical of the way the office implemented the change. In her words, "The way they've handled this is abhorrent to me."

[GratefulMeds]

1) The reality is that your are in little danger of criminal prosecution. Keep a copy of your AIDS medical paperwork near the marijuana in the event the police come after you. Which they won't if you're growing and medicating at home and not taking it out of the home.

2) Get another doctor recommendation, and file again. Yes, you're out the other doctor's fee, but such is life.

3) Stay positive! Don't let bureaucratic nonsense get you down. It's not personal and your optimistic attitude is all that matters. Stay up, stay happy, and do whatever you feel helps you.

These statements are very true, under the Colorado Constitution if you have a qualified condition which you absolutely do, you are able to consume, grow posses etc. etc. the doctors recommendation is exactly that a recommendation, under the law you are legal!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[MtnLionCO]

Janet dean works for healthstar or used too, if the health dept doesn't want to release the names of these "banned" docs we need to post the names ourselfs,

I know of three, Janet dean, kevin klemmer, and James boland..



James Boland is listed as active. How do you know he is banned?

[copobo]

this is a good question searching on this topic.

How DO we know James Boland is banned?

BOLAND, JAMES EDWARD 26796 Active DR LITTLETON, CO 07/30/200

[oz3750]

If you forgot to send ur applicaion and 90 bucks within 60days.:error: What can you do to make it right?...

My Doc was James E Boland. Is he still active?

Can I just go back to my doc?

[copobo]

you will need a new form with the doc signature and a fresh date.

the doc rec makes you legal, if you sent it off to the state or not, but most mmc's aren't going to sell to you until you have your card.

[oz3750]

Dammit!!
I hate the process!
Yeah, already got asked about the red card

Thanks

[elfshot]

I am confirming that recommendations made by Dr. James Boland are currently valid. I saw him on 2/19, CDPHE rec'd my application on 2/23, and my red card came in the mail yesterday, 3/09.

[AllenScott]

I don't this so. Here is the part of HB 1284 that addresses your question: TWO OR MORE PRIMARY CAREGIVERS SHALL NOT JOIN
TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

Alternatively, maybe it is possible to have your patients (or a collective of patients) utilize this grow area, i.e., patients will be able use your location to grow their own plants (have their own little garden area) with your help...for a fee...you know what I mean?


I have decided to not be a caregiver. So have the other patients I live with. I think it's too much hassle to work with the new rules on this. Amendment 20 and that's it.

[AllenScott]

I don't this so. Here is the part of HB 1284 that addresses your question: TWO OR MORE PRIMARY CAREGIVERS SHALL NOT JOIN
TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

Alternatively, maybe it is possible to have your patients (or a collective of patients) utilize this grow area, i.e., patients will be able use your location to grow their own plants (have their own little garden area) with your help...for a fee...you know what I mean?


With the new rules coming into effect we have decided to no longer be caregivers. We will only grow our own personal medicine per Doctors rec.

Speaking of Doctors, I still have not received a card or a rejection letter. Nearly a year now. Very odd. The last thing I heard was a letter from the Registry on March 29, 2011 saying no determination has been made on "conditioned licenses" and they would let me know when it was decided. I wonder what the hold up is?

[AllenScott]

So I finally got news from this goofy system (granted-they are trying, but damn people...).

Background: I am an AIDS patient who's primary Dr. does not believe in MMJ. Crazy-I know. A bit over a year ago I was given a recommendation for 24 plants for use in edibles and such from a different Dr. recommended by a local (The Springs) MMC. The Doc at that time had some conditions on her license and my application was held by the State pending clarification of the qualifications needed to recommend MMJ.

The language in the original letter was this: "Although you will not receive a Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry identification card while the rulemaking process is pending, once 35 days have passed from the date of submission of your application, the application is deemed approved in accord with Section 14(3)(d) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution. When we know what the final rule is, your original Application will be either accepted or rejected."

I just today got a letter from the Registry denying my application because of the Doc's Conditional status at the time of the recommendation. As I understand it, under the new rule, if she had renewed her license this July 1st, 2011 she would be qualified but since she renewed July 1st, 2010 she does not under these new guidelines which are supposedly in the new regulations though I cannot seem to find them.

The new letter says: "The 2011 Colorado Legislature with House Bill 11-1043 amended Colorado Revised Statute 25-1.5-106(2)(c)(II), to define a physician's medical license in good standing to be:
* Medical licenses issued before July 1, 2011 must have neither a condition nor a restriction.
* Medical licenses issued on or after July 1, 2011 must not contain a condition or restriction that specifically prohibits the recommendation of Medical
Marijuana."

Does this seem like insanity to any one else??

I was given a month to reapply fee-free. I also have a few patients I live with in the same situation.

Question is this: Will any Dr. now write a recommendation for 24 plants? We grow our own in a very small space and keep them very small. We use primarily edibles and tinctures for treatment of our symptoms and there is no way six plants each will provide the needed medicine with how we know how to grow it. We can not afford to buy at the silly prices in the dispensaries and we also don't know if we can trust the methods used in them.

Thanks in advance for your time and thoughts. :what: :twocents:

Allen