Quote Originally Posted by justpics
all the doctor would have to say is that they didn't find the patient's benefits continue to out weigh the risks.


no calamity involved.
Wow justpics,

That is interesting. The doctor would most definitely need to have documentation for the quote you mentioned here and PROOF to back up the notion of such a thing. Since the doctor needed documentation to authorize it in the first place and PROOF i.e. medical records history.....remember we are talking TREATMENT documentation here, not diagnosis documentation.(there is a medical difference)

It is called reverse engineering so to speak. I have a trial coming up in Feb., I do believe that Dr. Orvald may try stating what you quoted here, if he is allowed to testify per the rules of evidence. This is going to be fun if he does.

I do understand the theory you are presenting here. I have battled many Dr.'s in court before and have not lost yet. There are so many rules and regs they must follow, tying a knot is easy.
jamessr Reviewed by jamessr on . Loop Hole? 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 Rating: 5