Loop Hole?

[jamessr]

Back when I got mine, everybody was getting a non-expiring authorization. No where does it say I'm required to renew yearly, I still have the original condition for which it was written. With no provision in the state law, as far as I'm concerned mine is still good, regardless of THCF. And, I believe any court should back it up and honor it since expiration is not mentioned explicitly in the law. If you are being taken to court then its just prosecutorial or LEO gymnastics resulting in needless harassment and financial hardship. Especially with legalization bills up for purview. :thumbsup:

I was Dr. Orvald's 3rd patient the first day he started back in 04'. I also do not agree with the THCF head founder, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Paul Stanford.

He wrote a declaration in 2 cases I positively know of and have seen the declaration(s) myself. I posted mine on cannacare.org in the legal section. I may suggest you read it gypski, and any others here that are in the same situation. Regardless of the states gymnastics, THCF has their own going on which is conducive with the state.

The DOH sent me a letter stating my case,Tracy,Soper, and my sons cases are past the statutes of limitations as far as the executive directors involvement . They will act if some one else files a complaint similar to mine that shows a pattern of what he did and continues to do. They claim a single complaint does not show the pattern they need to act. Without the DOH intervening we with NO EXPIRATION DATES will be found guilty of a cime beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is wrong since we as patients followed the laws, we all were sold a service we expected to rely upon. Help from others in this same situation or who have not been found yet in possession of these documents would be greatful.

If any one out here has the same document I posted, please could you contact me. We all need to stop this before the state persecutes more patients for following the laws. Also if anyone has a contract signed stating they must return before 1 yr to renew, this would be helpful also.

[jamessr]

relying on what you think is a loop hole is something you're welcome to do, however it is by no means something to be recommended to patients wanting to avoid all legal troubles they can.

people v windus doesn't apply because the doctor wasn't intending to withdraw their recommendation. and its CA law.

Justpics,

Here is what I am referring to.

RCW 69.51A.010(3)

(a)Is a patient....

(d) Has been advised by that physician about the risks and benefits...

(e) Has been advised by that physician that they "may" benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

These words lock a physician in ONCE THEY ADVISE and SIGN any sort of document or enter into any medical record of the patient. RCW 69.51A.060(3) does not apply ONCE THE DR. COMMITTS to either of the above, i.e. document signed or entry into the medical record(s). it only applies prior to signing anything or entering the required words as stated in State v. Otis.

RCW 69.51A.010(4)(a) Has no requirement that other treatments or medications have failed. This distictively separates these long term life long debilitating or terminal conditions from sections (b)-(f) which require one's conditions to be unrelieved by standard treatment(s) or medications.

Section (5)(a) also is conducive with this view.

So my point is once a Dr. committs to a professional opinion for any specific patient. That opinion is set in stone. It is only at the begining stages prior to any statement is when a Dr. is not required to authorize.

I believe you looked into what the state can not charge any Dr. for under State law. WHICH is not any part of a patients requirements nor can it be transferred to a patient. It only legally covers a Dr. from prosecution for the duties described in that part of the law which a Dr. performs.

There is nothing in this statute which allows any Dr. a 1 yr restriction. There is nothing in the MUMA which authorizes a expiration date. There is nothing in this statute which allows any one to cause an expiation of any authorization. EXCEPT, when a Dr. Dies or a patient Dies, it is obvious neither one qualifies. Also once a patient stops having a condition, it is obvious one no longer qualifies. It is upto a patient and their symptoms which control this and nothing or anybody else.

[justpics]

It is upto a patient and their symptoms which control this and nothing or anybody else.

That's terrible advice to give to any patient. To tell someone that once your doctor signs off on something you are covered for life as long as "the patient says so" is just asking for trouble.

[jamessr]

That's terrible advice to give to any patient. To tell someone that once your doctor signs off on something you are covered for life as long as "the patient says so" is just asking for trouble.

I think you must be reading something into what I posted here, that isn't here. For any doctor to do any type of treatment or diagnosis, a patient must have complaints of some sort, correct? So it is upto a patient to complain, correct? The Dr. must do a history check first, then must go to the patients complaints, correct?

So it is upto a patient to inform the Dr. of ailments, correct? So how is it bad advise to tell someone it is upto them to inform and control their medical care? And our statute and DOH here in Wa. clearly unambiguously state the same.

A qualifying patients covered conditions are for life. So is a diagnosis for life, unless a misdiagnosis is proven by scientific medical evidence. At the point a qualifying condition no longer exists, is the point at which it no longer becomes for life. An authorization or medical record entry is proof that a Dr.'s professional medical opinion of a life long condition does not expire. If one changes Dr.'s your medical record does not ever expire, correct? Your new Dr. goes off the history in the record....This goes to the IS A PATIENT vs. WAS A PATIENT.

This is why allot of people in accidents who fight an insurance co. get an I.M.E., most courts rule in favor of the treating physician's medical opinion instead of the I.M.E. opinion. I myself had many I.M.E.'s when I blew out my shoulder. They all said I was faking it(professional medical opinion). I beat every one of these Dr.'s pro-med-opinion hands down. I won the largest claim in Oregon for my condition at the time.

These doc in the boxes are nothing more than an I.M.E. in legal terms. They all state up front, we must review your medical history records of your regular treating physician(because they read RCW 69.51A.030 which states they are not criminally liable for doing so.). It is actually your regular Dr.'s professional medical opinion which controls the I.M.E. professional opinion.......if this was not true, then the doc in the boxes would not need prior records. They would claim to be able to diagnose, not just treat.

[gypski]

Well, how about if the patient showed the doc in the box the originally treating doctor's diagnosis. They saw the benefits in the cannabis therapy. Then upon a medical update, the original doctor still confirmed the condition exists. With no expiration, I would have to say the patients would have to call them both into court as expert witnesses. One hostile (non-signer) as affirmative defense foundation. Simple.

[jamessr]

Yes gypski that is true. But when you have a state prosecutor claiming NO AUTHORIZATION IS FOR LIFE, it becomes a cluster fuck free for all. It becomes a real DOG FIGHT with shit hitting the fan every direction. A patient has a hard time wading through the DOG SHIT and it's smell.

It all boils down too the FINACIAL INTEREST of the doctor and non-physician owner/operator fee splitting scam. Not to mention the states interest in prosecuting patients the doc in the box owners/operators feeding patients to the state on a constant basis, depending on what part of the law the state wishes to challenge. The state gets what is known as a quid-pro-quo, a declaration of guilt from the non-physician owner/operator, not the signing physician under RCW 18.71 or 18.57.

A court will take the quid-pro-quo because unless the corp. officer, director or CEO committs some sort of illegal act which can be proven, the patient is at a huge disadvantage with claiming an aff. def......the DR. gets hidden behind the CEO's professional business opinion. This is a huge issue for all us patients as a whole. A true unethical violation we are subjected too by this, from all the professionals involved combined.

[jamessr]

I would have to say the patients would have to call them both into court as expert witnesses. One hostile (non-signer) as affirmative defense foundation. Simple.

Gypski,

I have some medical case law which states that it is the "SPECIALIST" expert witness which supersedes the non-specialist expert witness. Most non doc in the box Dr.'s do not have the scientific info or specialty of MMJ and it's risks and benefits. This could/may be a problem depending on the judge wieghing the evidence and applying the rules of such. Of coarse the court of appeals may clarify this since the act is specific. Our appeal courts have just recently started to interpret the act as it was meant to be. If it ain't in the act, it don't exist:wtf::wtf::wtf:....ambiguous vs. unambiguous.:thumbsup:.....telling the executive branch BULLSHIT !!!

[gypski]

I don't know how I forgot to mention that when I saw my orthopedic surgeon recently, the one who won't sign for mmj, he had a wall chart showing different aspects of the knee. And guess who the wall chart was produced by??? The makers of Oxycontin. They had a large write up on the lower right hand portion. And, he didn't ask me if I needed anything for pain even though I'm bone on bone, and I didn't ask him for anything either. Doesn't mean I don't have daily pain, but I'm not taking that shit period or any other addictive pharmaceutical like Celebrex which made my stomach bleed after just two days of use a few years back. Cannabis does none of those harmful things.

He did say I need a new knee replacement on a 40 year battered knee, but good luck getting one without health insurance and a preexisting condition thanks to Uncle Sam who refuses to fix it because I smoked marijuana when I was a Marine. Forget about being willing to die for these hypocrites once in my life. :jointsmile:

[jamessr]

I don't know how I forgot to mention that when I saw my orthopedic surgeon recently, the one who won't sign for mmj, he had a wall chart showing different aspects of the knee. And guess who the wall chart was produced by??? The makers of Oxycontin. They had a large write up on the lower right hand portion. And, he didn't ask me if I needed anything for pain even though I'm bone on bone, and I didn't ask him for anything either. Doesn't mean I don't have daily pain, but I'm not taking that shit period or any other addictive pharmaceutical like Celebrex which made my stomach bleed after just two days of use a few years back. Cannabis does none of those harmful things.

He did say I need a new knee replacement on a 40 year battered knee, but good luck getting one without health insurance and a preexisting condition thanks to Uncle Sam who refuses to fix it because I smoked marijuana when I was a Marine. Forget about being willing to die for these hypocrites once in my life. :jointsmile:

If ur doc' knows you engage in MMJ they will not ask if you need regular standard meds or treatment. There are only the conditions located in section (a) which allows other meds to be used in combination with MMJ. My pcp told me about this very issue last yr. when we talked about other meds she wanted me to take. The words in our statute seems to have adverse effects because the way the state is interpreting them. NEGATIVELY !

[LLLou2]

Say your get your authorization from a doc in the box who specializes in mmj authorizations with patients with a valid medical history and they put an expiration on your authorization (not in the law, they don't expire). What if you then go to your regular doctor, who wouldn't sign around the time your expiration date is coming on your doc in the box authorization, and the regular doc finds your conditions are still the same, you can carry on without fear from LEO because expiration's aren't part of the law. Your regular doctor would be forced to confirm your qualifying condition. It would put the chicken doctor on the spot to where they have to confirm your condition is real. And you get around the doc in the box's yearly charge.

Actually the way I read 69.51 RCW it says that IF there is a expiration date on the doctors recommendation ,then the recommendation will expire on that date, and you will need a new rec. This is up to the doctor whether or not he/she puts a expiration date. If a person has a life long condition which qualifies them for a MMJ recommendation , I don't think the Doc should put an expiration in , but it is a way for the doc. to make some dough.