Coa Rules In Redden-Clark Case

[Dr. Bob]

You get it from your legally designated caregiver or from one of your designated patients. That is the only way you can legally transfer the medicine. Yes, you as a patient can get it from any source, but if that source is NOT the one designated on your form, they can be charged with trafficking.

 

2. While many folks want marijuana to be legal for everyone, it is a baby step we are taking allowing medical patients to use it. Having smoke outs, 18 year old kids with minimal medical problems getting 'get out of jail free cards' and dispensaries that are not allowed by the law are NOT helping the cause.

 

 

i do see what you mean but you have to get it from some wear

[+Silverblue]

If MDCH issues a card, they must have assumed everything was on the level. They don't know if the papers were signed by some hotel clinic doc or not, it seems. If they did, more apps would be denied, and the clinics could get shut down. Perhaps this is how it will happen.

 

Sb

[Dr. Bob]

Very good point.

 

My doctor of 15+ years filled out my renewal yesterday for a $20 paperwork fee. I'm sure this will stand up in court. No offense Dr. Bob but I think we should be pressuring our regular doctors for recommendations and only use people like you as a last resort. Many are afraid to ask their regular doctor, if your doctor won't do whats in your best interest then you should dump him/her and find one that will. If doctors see their clients leaving over MMJ I'm sure their opinions will change.

 

Mike

[Dr. Bob]

Again, this is why clinics such as mine exist. Many personal doctors refuse to sign certs for all these reasons, most commonly they are prevented from doing so by their higher ups. With the Redden opinion, far more are going to have to refuse to sign certs, making our certification clinics (I have about 25 set up in October) the only outlet for these patients. Unfortunately for every professional travel clinic like mine, there is another one like those clowns listed in the opinion out to make a quick buck and the patient be damned. the response by both the clinics and the patients must be to ignore the price issue and check and see what safeguards are in place with the travel clinic to defend their relationship with the patient. If they can't give you some positive steps, or look at you with dollar signs in their eyes, walk out and go to a reputable clinic elsewhere.

 

You know, my wife and I both have qualifying conditions. We both go to the same clinic. My wife's Dr. told her that he has no problem with her using MJ, he just can't write a recommendation for it because the clinic owners (his employer) will not allow any of their Drs. to do this. I have not approached my Drs (a family physician and a specialist) because of the same policy and because one of them may be anti-MJ due to personal reasons. Now, I believe that MJ helps my medical problems. I also believe that, as a responsible adult, I should be able to make my own medical decisions that affect MY life. If I have to go to a compassionate, reasonable Dr. who is outside of the corporate health climate, in order to receive treatment that I desire, why should a disinterested third party who has moral qualms about my treatment be able to stop me from receiving said treatment?

 

This "decision" opens up soooo many areas to question. Should I be checking the background of every physician I go to in order to avoid prosecution over some treatment he has recommended for me? When I go to see a specialist to receive treatment ONE(1)time and he prescribes pain pills to me, are we both in jeopardy because our relationship isn't "bona fide". Come on!! This is absurd! The government has no business questioning my relationship with any physician unless that physician is somehow exploiting me and then the onus would be upon the physician not me.

 

This whole thing is too much like the abortion fiasco. The ignorant, I mean conservative/ "christian", right claims that murder is being committed (take a course in Cellular Biology, ignoramus) and the other side claims that the government has no business interfering in a woman's personal MEDICAL choices. I side with the women being able to make their own choice. It is the same thing with medical marijuana. Why should the government be able to interfere with my personal medical choices? The scenarios that open up under a nation in which the government (or an insurance company) has the right to make non-financial medical choices for me is truly frightening. But it looks like I am going to have to get used to it. I am however going to fight it to the end and, if it gets bad enough, I am going to go out in a HUGE blaze of glory. The blaze is going to be a lighter at the end of a big joint. I am going to go and get blazed now as a matter of fact, and all of you conservative, christian, bigoted, close minded republican hacks who I know read these boards can go off and enjoy your Budweiser/liquor. While you enjoy your beer, please contemplate what you are doing to this country in the name of morality.

[Southern Cross]

You would think that when the state verified the application and issued the card you would think it was over. I look at it as getting arrested for driving a car, because the cops wanted to verify your drivers ed course to see if your license is valid and your instructor was qualified to teach it.

 

Examples of federal one visit certification visits include VA disability exams and FAA flight physicals. They don't have a leg to stand on but we need to make sure our certifications are solid, no corners cut and the paperwork is in order. 99% of my patients are seriously ill, middle aged folks that are very well documented (I certified a crippled MS patient that was bedridden in a house call in Adrian once- she didn't have all her records but it was very obvious she qualified). The problem is, the media and the cops like a story, and will parade out an 18 year old stoner with PMS as an example of the 'typical' MMJ patient for the public. The court ruling specifies 18 year old high school students not being able to have MMJ on school grounds. Come on, how many 18 year old high school kids have a chronic and debilitating disease- there are some of course, but they aren't the majority.

 

All I, as a good, ethical doc, can do is make sure I do the work to be sure of my certs. Yes we will end up in court sometime, but if I do the work, have my ducks in a row, I can at least fight the good fight for you. They are splitting frog hairs to try and override the will of the people, and I, the MMMA, patients and the other quality certification clinics need to make sure our game is tight and cut their legs out from under them.

 

Dr. Bob

Hi Doc,

Thanks for all of the useful suggestions. I discussed MMJ with my doctor years ago and he was fine with it, but now that it's time to help me out with a recommendation he is too afraid of the powers that be to put his signature on the form. He doesn't want to have to go into court to explain his treatment protocol to some prosecutor. He has his hands full explaining his decisions to the insurance companies.

 

I often get referrals from him to see specialist for various reasons. These are almost always one visit scenarios. Do you think it would make our position more easily defensible if we had at least a referral to your clinic? That way my doc doesn't have to sign the form or appear in court and you have the same thing other specialists have for many of these one visit relationships.

[Dr Gruber]

I dont know if this is a good idea or not but what if Bob went to a random Doctor wired with a tape recorder and asked this new doc for a pain medication. Documenting the entire visit and just how long it took that Doc to establish a Doc/Patient relationship. Would that be admissable in court and would it help?

 

 

[bobandtorey]

Hi Doc,

Thanks for all of the useful suggestions. I discussed MMJ with my doctor years ago and he was fine with it, but now that it's time to help me out with a recommendation he is too afraid of the powers that be to put his signature on the form. He doesn't want to have to go into court to explain his treatment protocol to some prosecutor. He has his hands full explaining his decisions to the insurance companies.

 

I often get referrals from him to see specialist for various reasons. These are almost always one visit scenarios. Do you think it would make our position more easily defensible if we had at least a referral to your clinic? That way my doc doesn't have to sign the form or appear in court and you have the same thing other specialists have for many of these one visit relationships.

i did go to my Hip Doc first and he was the one of the ones that told us about THC-F this Doctor thing has be in court for as long as any one on us could ever think

[Southern Cross]

i did go to my Hip Doc first and he was the one of the ones that told us about THC-F this Doctor thing has be in court for as long as any one on us could ever think

That should be considered a referral. Usually the only reason the specialist wants a written referral is to make it easier to bill the insurance company. Probably all you would need is an affidavit signed by your hip doctor stating that he told you about THC-F and the hip doctor wouldn't have to appear in court.

 

Yeah, these things take a long time and I wish you and Torey all the best.

[+420Atheist]

My rheumatologist has a sign in every examination room that says "we don't prescribe medical marijuana so don't ask." He is the only rheumatologist in town. I did not feel like I had a lot of options. When I go to renew with my current certification doctor I may argue that I want a free one month follow up visit.

[bobandtorey]

That should be considered a referral. Usually the only reason the specialist wants a written referral is to make it easier to bill the insurance company. Probably all you would need is an affidavit signed by your hip doctor stating that he told you about THC-F and the hip doctor wouldn't have to appear in court.

 

Yeah, these things take a long time and I wish you and Torey all the best.

 

Thanks But the PA wants are Medical records and the Lawyers are saying NO way

the PA wanted them long ago that was why she called are Doctor in court and he keep telling the PA that it was none of her business she was not a Doctor

[Southern Cross]

Thanks But the PA wants are Medical records and the Lawyers are saying NO way

the PA wanted them long ago that was why she called are Doctor in court and he keep telling the PA that it was none of her business she was not a Doctor

That's exactly right, they don't need to see your medical records. But with the COA saying the PA has a right to establish whether a bona fide doctor patient relationship existed they are going to be able to ask some questions. I'm just suggesting that this might be an easy way to help establish that without your hip doctor having to appear in court.

 

Your lawyers will know what's best.

[bobandtorey]

That's exactly right, they don't need to see your medical records. But with the COA saying the PA has a right to establish whether a bona fide doctor patient relationship existed they are going to be able to ask some questions. I'm just suggesting that this might be an easy way to help establish that without your hip doctor having to appear in court.

 

Your lawyers will know what's best.

 

 

are doctor was already in court he was on the stand for 3 hours

[Southern Cross]

are doctor was already in court he was on the stand for 3 hours

Your hip doctor was in court for 3 hours? That's harsh! I must have read Karen OKeef's post wrong, I thought the COA was talking about the THC-F doctor.

[bobandtorey]

Your hip doctor was in court for 3 hours? That's harsh! I must have read Karen OKeef's post wrong, I thought the COA was talking about the THC-F doctor.

 

 

No the THC-F Doc was their for 3 hours my Hip Doc knew about that

[Southern Cross]

No the THC-F Doc was their for 3 hours my Hip Doc knew about that

Yeah, so he (or she) is not going to want to go anywhere near the courtroom. I'm sure they would rather sign an affidavit if that will keep them out of the court.

[Dr. Bob]

I dont know if this is a good idea or not but what if Bob went to a random Doctor wired with a tape recorder and asked this new doc for a pain medication. Documenting the entire visit and just how long it took that Doc to establish a Doc/Patient relationship. Would that be admissable in court and would it help?

 

No I don't think this is necessary. If I wanted to defend a single visit I would simply bring in the doc from my last federal airman's medical exam. Then a VA doc or two that does pensions and compensations. These are all single visits with far more on the line than MMJ for pain or another qualifying condition. Ooooppps, sorry, SEVERE pain.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

No I don't think this is necessary. If I wanted to defend a single visit I would simply bring in the doc from my last federal airman's medical exam. Then a VA doc or two that does pensions and compensations. These are all single visits with far more on the line than MMJ for pain or another qualifying condition. Ooooppps, sorry, SEVERE pain.

 

Dr. Bob

 

SEVERE pain. i think i got that well said Doc

[Dr. Bob]

My rheumatologist has a sign in every examination room that says "we don't prescribe medical marijuana so don't ask." He is the only rheumatologist in town. I did not feel like I had a lot of options. When I go to renew with my current certification doctor I may argue that I want a free one month follow up visit.

 

This is the main reason certification clinics like mine exist, you just have to be careful they will meet the Redden test in court. Check the doctor out, make sure the history, physical, chart, and follow up are part of the certification process.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

Whether you have a relationship with the doctor or not, that doesn't change your ailment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether you have a relationship with the doctor or not, that doesn't change your ailment.

 

that is why they the PA do not have a case we will be FREE soon

[+Annnie]

Im not sure if this has been put up here yet but it may provide some help in the case.. ((((BOB N TOREY)))

 

http://www.telehealthlawcenter.org/?c=177&a=1946

[+Annnie]

So in simple laymans terms i read that to say that if you saw the dr in person then the relationship was bona fide.. according to the feds..

[bobandtorey]

Thanks for the link i did look this up the fist day that the COA posted it my Hip Doc said the same thing as the link does

the PA knows they have no case we will be FREE soon

[+RevThad]

So in simple laymans terms i read that to say that if you saw the dr in person then the relationship was bona fide.. according to the feds..

Exactly right.

[+Silverblue]

It seems to me that finding a good dr to work with who will follow up and defend us is something we all should do, even if you were already approved through some clinic like the ones dr bob is against because the patient never sees them again. Even if it means paying a little more to have a dr who will be there to follow up and defend the patient if need be, the peace of mind is priceless. It's not just about MM, but monitoring our health. Too many drs don't care, so when you find one who's willing to come here, be part of this site and explain his policies to us, it's worth serious consideration. It's worth saving up the money to see someone like him. I don't know if he accepts any insurance. I may've asked him but he hasn't replied. It means a lot to me, knowing we have professional people at this site whho are willing to take time from their busy lives to help us. Knowing there are people who care is very comforting, especially now.

 

Sb

[Eric L. VanDussen]

The Hubbard Law Firm

 

COA Opinion: Possession of Registry Identification Card Not Required to Assert MMMA Affirmative Defense - http://www.hubbardlaw.com/medical-marijuana/coa-opinion-possession-of-registry-identification-card-not-required-to-assert-mmma-affirmative-defense

 

In People v Redden, Docket No. 295809, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed numerous questions regarding the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act's (MMMA) affirmative defense.

 

The MMMA became effective in December of 2008. The named defendants obtained physician certifications for medical marihuana in March of 2009; however, the Department of Community Health did not begin issuing registry identification cards until April of 2009. The prosecution contended that in order for defendants to invoke the MMMA's affirmative defense, they must possess the registry identification card mandated by Section 4 of the Act.

 

The Court of Appeals disagreed. While "qualifying patients" are required to possess a registry identification card to receive the protections of Section 4, "patients" are entitled to assert the MMMA affirmative defense without possessing such identification.

 

A "patient" must satisfy three elements to be shielded from criminal prosecution under the MMMA's affirmative defense:

 

The patient must obtain a physician's statement acquired in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient is likely to receive benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof;

The patient must possess a quantity of marihuana not more than is reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof, and;

The patient must be engaged in the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof.

The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in concluding that defendants established the three criteria required for the affirmative defense.

 

Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that defendants failed to establish a bona fide physician-patient relationship. Noting that the certifying physician was employed for the sole purpose of writing medical marihuana recommendations, the court concluded that the facts at least raised an inference that the defendants saw the physician not for good-faith medical treatment, but rather, in order to obtain marihuana under false pretenses.

 

Next, the Court of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence presented for the district court to conclude that the defendants possessed an amount of marihuana "not more than reasonably necessary." Defendants were found with 21 marihuana plants and approximately 1.5 ounces of marihuana. The district court concluded that because this amount, when divided between two defendants, was less than the maximum permissible under Section 4, the amount possessed by defendants was consistent with the affirmative defense.

 

The appellate court found that the amount permitted under Section 4 is not equivalent to the "reasonably necessary" amount under Section 8. And without any further evidence presented on this issue, the district court erred by concluding the affirmative defense was established as a matter of law.

 

Finally, the Court of Appeals found that the defendants failed to establish whether they had a serious or debilitating medical condition. The certifying physician only stated defendants suffered from pain and nausea and never specifically identified an underlying condition. The Court noted that "without knowing the nature of defendants' medical conditions, it is not possible to determine whether they are 'serious.'"

 

Judge O'Connell issued a concurring opinion that attempted to "cut through the haze surrounding the [MMMA]." This opinion largely included the interpretation of MMMA provisions outside the context of the specific facts before the court.