Judge O’Connell Has Done A Great Disservice For Our State.

[DenturesLost]

The ones that have ruled are federal courts. Including appellate level federal courts. So binding precedent has been set, for federal cases.

 

The claim of requirement to enforce federal law, by local officials, has already been settled.

 

Local authorities have no requirement to enforce federal law. Already binding precedent established in federal court.

 

Next local medical marijuana laws can exist at the same time as federal law. The key is weather or not the local law prevents federal law enforcement from enforcing federal law. Are federal agents able to work in Michigan? Yes they are.

 

Federal courts might be able to force the MDCH to divulge the entire database. But that would require federal officials requesting the information with a federal warrant in hand. There would be no requirement for the MDCH to enforce federal law. No requirement for them to call up the feds and tell them "we have this list of medical marijuana people and you should get a copy of the list."

 

No, you are simply wrong. Wrong. Not a gray area, just wrong. The federal courts that have ruled are not in our circuit (the 6th circuit) so they are NOT binding on our circuit. You don't understand how it works. The U.S. Court of Appeals is broken up into circuits. A decision in a circuit is binding on THAT CIRCUIT ONLY! It used to be the same way here in Michigan with the Michigan Court of Appeals until 1990. Until 1990 a Mich App decision was binding on the circuit where it presided ONLY. In 1990 the "first out" rule went into effect which stated that the first decision out of a state circuit is now binding on all circuits. So rulings on the same issue in one circuit in Michigan are binding on ALL circuits. NOT the case in the fed app circuit. You are trying to apply all sorts of federal rulings that simply do not apply in our circuit.

 

To your next point---I never said local or state officials can or should enforce fed law.

 

As to the MDCH, the dept cannot divulge the list regardless because being on that list DOESN'T mean you are breaking ANY law. I can be a patient but it doesn't mean I am even using mj. There are many times that I have gotten prescriptions from my dr, for example, but haven't used them. Why? Because I want the ability to go get the script filled if I need it. But if I don't need it I don't like putting chemicals in my body.

[DenturesLost]

Whatever protections apply to the caregiver are the same as given to the physicians.

 

The confidentiality does not run to the Dr. Keeping the Dr info confidential is for the benefit of the pt. The idea mirrors privacy law in regard to prescriptions. The Dr. doesn't have a privacy interest in YOUR script just because he wrote it. The privacy interest is in regard to the name of the DR being YOUR private info. I can run around all day and tell anyone which Dr prescribed me my blood pressure meds and it wouldn't be illegal. However, in general, for the Dr to tell anyone that he prescribed me the meds IS illegal.

 

Same applies here.

 

And if not then what you are saying is that in ALL of the threads on this website where people name the Dr that signed their rec those people are breaking the law.

[peanutbutter]

No, you are simply wrong. Wrong. Not a gray area, just wrong. The federal courts that have ruled are not in our circuit (the 6th circuit) so they are NOT binding on our circuit. You don't understand how it works. The U.S. Court of Appeals is broken up into circuits. A decision in a circuit is binding on THAT CIRCUIT ONLY! It used to be the same way here in Michigan with the Michigan Court of Appeals until 1990. Until 1990 a Mich App decision was binding on the circuit where it presided ONLY. In 1990 the "first out" rule went into effect which stated that the first decision out of a state circuit is now binding on all circuits. So rulings on the same issue in one circuit in Michigan are binding on ALL circuits. NOT the case in the fed app circuit. You are trying to apply all sorts of federal rulings that simply do not apply in our circuit.

 

I stand corrected .. somewhat.

So the precedents are not binding on our circuit. They are still valid precedents, which carry weight. But not binding.

 

To your next point---I never said local or state officials can or should enforce fed law.

As to the MDCH, the dept cannot divulge the list regardless because being on that list DOESN'T mean you are breaking ANY law. I can be a patient but it doesn't mean I am even using mj. There are many times that I have gotten prescriptions from my dr, for example, but haven't used them. Why? Because I want the ability to go get the script filled if I need it. But if I don't need it I don't like putting chemicals in my body.

 

Cool .. I like it. So a requirement to divulge confidential information within the database could not be established based on federal CSA law.

[peanutbutter]

The confidentiality does not run to the Dr. Keeping the Dr info confidential is for the benefit of the pt. The idea mirrors privacy law in regard to prescriptions. The Dr. doesn't have a privacy interest in YOUR script just because he wrote it. The privacy interest is in regard to the name of the DR being YOUR private info. I can run around all day and tell anyone which Dr prescribed me my blood pressure meds and it wouldn't be illegal. However, in general, for the Dr to tell anyone that he prescribed me the meds IS illegal.

 

Same applies here.

 

And if not then what you are saying is that in ALL of the threads on this website where people name the Dr that signed their rec those people are breaking the law.

 

Again .. whatever protections are provided to the caregiver, under THIS section of law, equally applies to the doctor.

1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

[+EdwardGlen]

If history has taught us anything its law's are not applied equally but with malice towards those on the fringes of society.

 

Until he and all the other over the hill judges, PA's, and politicians are removed by vote, term limits, or conviction of a crime, we will continue to be persecuted.

 

These people who appose us do not give a rat's arse if we're sick or not.

[Highlander]

"Including ______"

 

and

 

"Including, but not limited to, ____"

 

 

Plain meaning:

A clause in a sentence off-set by commas is non-essential. That means you can take it out, and your sentence says the same thing - minus some detail of course, but the meaning doesn't change.

 

I put that stuff, guns and knives and drugs, in my backpack and took it to school today.

 

I put that stuff in my backpack and took it to school today.

 

I took the same backpack to school, and it contained the same stuff in both sentences.

 

Legalese:

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Crespin, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6279 (10th Cir. Mar. 16, 2007)

"the normal use of ‘include’ as introducing an illustrative—and non-exclusive—list.”

 

Not in our circuit, but a good explanation nonetheless.

[peanutbutter]

"Including ______"

 

and

 

"Including, but not limited to, ____"

 

 

Plain meaning:

A clause in a sentence off-set by commas is non-essential. That means you can take it out, and your sentence says the same thing - minus some detail of course, but the meaning doesn't change.

 

I put that stuff, guns and knives and drugs, in my backpack and took it to school today.

 

I put that stuff in my backpack and took it to school today.

 

I took the same backpack to school, and it contained the same stuff in both sentences.

 

Legalese:

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Crespin, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6279 (10th Cir. Mar. 16, 2007)

"the normal use of ‘include’ as introducing an illustrative—and non-exclusive—list.”

 

Not in our circuit, but a good explanation nonetheless.

 

Ummm .. the list provided places emphasis on those items on the list.

 

In this case those items on the list are there to, at a minimum, highlight that government officials and employees ARE NOT EXEMPT. That highlighting would not exist if you remove the list from the sentence because of the separation by commas.

 

There is purpose for those words to exist in the law.

 

How about "if I put a stuff" or "if I put any stuff?" Normally, stuff in a school backpack does not include knives, guns etc..

 

By including the items between your commas you add considerable drama to the sentence. The words make a material difference in our full understanding of the situation.

[DenturesLost]

I stand corrected .. somewhat.

So the precedents are not binding on our circuit. They are still valid precedents, which carry weight. But not binding.

 

 

 

Cool .. I like it. So a requirement to divulge confidential information within the database could not be established based on federal CSA law.

Decisions out of fed appeals courts that are NOT in OUR circuit carry NO weight in our circuit. They may be referred to as "persuasive precedent" but when you are beyond a trial court level persuasive precedent is generally persuasive in name only. Why? Because appeals court judges are there to interpret law. They have egos. They have political agendas. Arguing to a 6th circuit court that it should be x because the 9th circuit says it should be x is useless. A 6th circuit court isn't going to substitute the judgment of "yahoos" in another circuit for his judgment. To do so would indicate that the other circuit has more intelligence or knowledge than the presiding court. In practicality a court in a different circuit doesn't have any special level of knowledge over another circuit. To say we will do things like the 9th circuit BECAUSE that is what the 9th circuit thinks is right makes our court obselete. A judge in our circuit is charged with making decisions based on our constitution or laws. The judge will interpret our const. or laws and make a decision according to that interpretation not based on a non-binding interpreation made by his collegues who are on equal footing hierarchy-wise and 2000 miles away.

 

A requirement to divulge would be based on a fed search warrant that is based on probable cause. There would need to be corroborating evidence to create PC because being on the list cannot, alone, create PC.

[Highlander]

That highlighting would not exist if you remove the list from the sentence because of the separation by commas.

 

That is correct. The highlighting would not exist, but those individuals would still be included as folks who can commit the crime.

 

The law was drafted as a public initiative. The authors knew that the voters would not be legal scholars. As we are finding out, when laypeople read the law, they don't always read it right.

 

If the law didn't highlight that the confidentiality requirements apply to government employees, many laypeople would have misinterpreted it. Voters would have read the law, and many would have assumed that LEO could make up a list of patients and CGs….heck..many people still believe this despite the highlighted inclusion.

 

See what I mean? The non essential clause “including gov employees” helps a layperson understand that even the gov. is subjected to these rules. Then they feel better about voting for it.

 

The law is clear that a patient’s application is confidential and can’t be “outed” by anyone.

 

Some laypeople still think this means MDCH can hand out lists of patients to LEOs.

 

Some laypeople think non-government employees can legally pass off information on a patient’s application.

Neither is correct.

[peanutbutter]

That is correct. The highlighting would not exist, but those individuals would still be included as folks who can commit the crime.

 

The law was drafted as a public initiative. The authors knew that the voters would not be legal scholars. As we are finding out, when laypeople read the law, they don't always read it right.

 

If the law didn't highlight that the confidentiality requirements apply to government employees, many laypeople would have misinterpreted it. Voters would have read the law, and many would have assumed that LEO could make up a list of patients and CGs….heck..many people still believe this despite the highlighted inclusion.

 

See what I mean? The non essential clause “including gov employees” helps a layperson understand that even the gov. is subjected to these rules. Then they feel better about voting for it.

 

The law is clear that a patient’s application is confidential and can’t be “outed” by anyone.

 

Some laypeople still think this means MDCH can hand out lists of patients to LEOs.

 

Some laypeople think non-government employees can legally pass off information on a patient’s application.

Neither is correct.

 

Either way, Government officials and employees, of both state and local governments, are addressed. They are clearly not exempt.

 

I believe this was crucial in that every person working for the government would say "that is not talking about me. I'm exempt." As has been, and is being, promoted to this very day.

 

Judges are ignoring this requirement.

 

Judge O'Connell ignored this section.

 

This section is being ignored by Oakland county officials.

 

Much has been debated here about the patient having an ability to negate this section of the law. I don't believe a patient can negate the law.

 

But if I assume that a patient may indeed negate the patients own protections, my next question would be "is there a way for a patient to be compelled to negate their own legal protections?"

[DenturesLost]

Either way, Government officials and employees, of both state and local governments, are addressed. They are clearly not exempt.

 

I believe this was crucial in that every person working for the government would say "that is not talking about me. I'm exempt." As has been, and is being, promoted to this very day.

 

Judges are ignoring this requirement.

 

Judge O'Connell ignored this section.

 

This section is being ignored by Oakland county officials.

 

Much has been debated here about the patient having an ability to negate this section of the law. I don't believe a patient can negate the law.

 

But if I assume that a patient may indeed negate the patients own protections, my next question would be "is there a way for a patient to be compelled to negate their own legal protections?"

 

Essentially you are saying we should dispense with normal English grammatical rules to come up with this mysterious way of interpreting the law that is in no way based on rules of grammar or legal interpretive standards.

 

I don't know where you went to school but offsetting a clause with commas, thereby making it a nonessential clause, is in no way a manner in which we emphasize the the clause. Your approach directly contradicts normal grammar usage. If the outcome were intended to be the way you think it is then it simply could have been written "An employee, gov't official...etc." rather than "A person, including..."

[peanutbutter]

Essentially you are saying we should dispense with normal English grammatical rules to come up with this mysterious way of interpreting the law that is in no way based on rules of grammar or legal interpretive standards.

 

Not quite sure what you mean here. I think you are trying to say that this distinct list could be dropped and not have any impact on the sentence. Now you are trying to twist English language to suit your purposes.

 

It is really silly to try to claim that list is irrelevant.

 

I don't know where you went to school but offsetting a clause with commas, thereby making it a nonessential clause, is in no way a manner in which we emphasize the the clause. Your approach directly contradicts normal grammar usage. If the outcome were intended to be the way you think it is then it simply could have been written "An employee, gov't official...etc." rather than "A person, including..."

[Highlander]

But if I assume that a patient may indeed negate the patients own protections, my next question would be "is there a way for a patient to be compelled to negate their own legal protections?"

 

1. If reasonable suspicion or PC exists that the patient is in violation of CSA (such as the smell of marijuana during a traffic stop). LEO can compel him to give up his confidentiality when he produces his patient card with his name and DOB (information on the application). But since the information was disclosed to the officer but not publicly disclosed, then the officer has a duty to protect that information. The fact that John Doe is a patient, and born on Dec 25, 1900 is information that LEO can’t pass to anyone else. The patient has a choice. He could actually run through the system and take his lumps, and noone would never know about his patient status.

 

2. The act allows for rebuttal of the presumption of medical use if the patient’s conduct is not for the purpose of alleviating the patient’s qualifying condition. I don’t like this example, but I’ll use it: A PA recently charged a patient after he was smoking pot with his buddies at a party. The PA was making the case that the use was for partying and not for the purposes of alleviating the patient’s qualifying condition. Such charges will require that the patient reveal his qualifying condition. If the act said that once you are a patient, then any use of MJ is covered, we wouldn’t have this problem, but since the act says that the use must be for the purposes of alleviating the qualifying condition, it makes it fair game for a PA to question if the use was legit. Unfortunately for this guy, he coughs up his medical records, and they become public record.

 

I’ll fabricate a better example. If you are a patient and your qualifying condition is MS but you go on TV and say, “I eat marijuana all day and it helps my MS, but when I smoke marijuana, all it does is get me high.” And then you proceed to light up a joint and say “I’m smoking pot because it is fun, fun, fun.” Your conduct is not for the purpose of alleviating your condition (as you yourself stipulated), and your conduct would not be protected.

Point is – the law as written makes it fair game for a PA to challenge whether your use was legit or not even if you are a carded patient.

 

3. The PA is able to identify and question the Dr.-patient relationship. The Act says that the relationship must be bonafide, which means that the relationship is fair game for the PA. We don’t like it, but that is the way it is. If the Act simply stated “a licensed physician can recommend MJ” then the only topic for debate would be whether the Dr. is licensed or not, which we would presume he/she is since MDCH’s role is to confirm that. But the Act says the relationship must meet certain standards, and therefore the existence of those standards is enough to allow the relationship to be questioned.

[peanutbutter]

So then the caregiver could be called into court to determine if the caregiver was supplying the correct strain and amounts to fit what the doctor said.

 

The PA can refute the claim, to medical use, by presenting evidence.

 

Until evidence is presented, it must be assumed that the use was for medical purpose.

 

A "claim" by the PA is not evidence.

[peanutbutter]

If I claim "fun, fun, fun" it might be possible to make a case against the patient.

 

But if the claim is "I feel good" that is another issue. It is supposed to make you feel good.

[peanutbutter]

3. The PA is able to identify and question the Dr.-patient relationship. The Act says that the relationship must be bonafide, which means that the relationship is fair game for the PA. We don’t like it, but that is the way it is. If the Act simply stated “a licensed physician can recommend MJ” then the only topic for debate would be whether the Dr. is licensed or not, which we would presume he/she is since MDCH’s role is to confirm that. But the Act says the relationship must meet certain standards, and therefore the existence of those standards is enough to allow the relationship to be questioned.

 

That is what O'Connell claims in his rant.

 

Without the patient agreeing to release the doctors name, there is no doctor to question.

 

The patient has evidence that such a relationship existed. The patient has the ID card. This evidence would have to be negated by evidence presented by the PA. That would be evidence that the ID card was obtained by fraud.

 

So the PA says "I think the patient didn't have a real relationship with the unnamed doctor." That isn't evidence. The ID card is evidence.

[peanutbutter]

If a court tried to compel a patient to divulge the name of the doctor, it would be for the purpose of conducting a trial against themselves.

 

Judge O'Connell also overlooks the fifth amendment.

[+RevThad]

Alexander Pope once said something to the affect that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That applies here.

You appear, on the surface, to know a little something about the law, however, you disregard a HUGE fault in your reasoning. The case you cited is useless. Why? Because the US Sup Ct denied cert in that case. Denying cert is not a ruling it is basically a statement saying we don't want to hear it. One of the major reasons the SCt will deny cert is to allow for development of the law in the lower courts. Generally they will keep out of the fray except for major constitutional issues or when there are opposing rulings in the circuits. This case is a relatively fresh case. The SCt isn't going to step into something so political at this point. With all that said, what it boils down to is that the SCt said nothing and made no ruling. Therefore, law of the land, so to speak, was not made. It allowed a case to stand in the 9th (if I'm correct) circuit. That has no bearing whatsoever on us here in the 6th circuit. It is not binding at all. It has the same effect on us as a case out of a California state court would have. None. Nada.

 

Your next point as to state enforcement of federal law... A judge wouldn't be enforcing fed law rather they would be COMPLYING with fed law. Big difference.

 

Lastly, what do you mean MY premise? How is:

 

"Back to your premise, does a prosecutor have an obligation to forward information on a registered patient or caregiver to the feds? If so are they violating state law by communicating that information?"

 

MY premise? I never claimed that a prosecutor has a duty to forward any info. Where are you getting that? Federal law doesn't require it and that would be AFFIRMATIVE or ACTIVE enforcement of fed law. I have stated that a pros. and a state judge both have the duty to COMPLY with fed law NOT ENFORCE fed law.

Which federal law would a state judge be complying with? Anyways, my point was more toward the ACTIVE communications of the confidential material. As I stated in my earlier post I believe a state court should seal that information, or at the very least have it redacted in the public record, there would be no violation of federal law for doing so, and as some will argue the violation may exist simply by not doing so.

 

Your premise as I referred to it comes from this:

Can you imagine a court keeping info non-public because if it were public then federal law could lead to prosecution?

 

To which I submit:

Not even a federal grand jury can request such information from the state or a dispensary/clinic in order to proceed against patients...

 

United States District Court,

E.D. Washington.

In re: The Matter of the GRAND JURY SUBPOENA FOR THCF MEDICAL CLINIC

RECORDS

No. MJ-07-4071-00.

 

"Under balancing of interests, grand jury subpoenas served by United States on state of

Oregon, which operated a medical marijuana program, and on private medical clinic,

seeking current addresses and telephone numbers of 17 patients receiving medical

marijuana along with specific dosages prescribed to the patients, were unreasonable and

therefore would be quashed; compliance with subpoenas would require state to violate its

own laws regarding confidentiality of medical records, compliance could deter

individuals from participating in state's program, clinic had significant interest in

protecting physician-patient relationship, and while United States was seeking the

information prove that subjects of grand jury investigation distributed marijuana to the

patients in violation of federal law,"

 

I can list a few others, and even a SCOTUS ruling or 4 that touch on preemption and the CSA...

 

I digress, can a state judge comply with federal law by dismissing a case and ordering marijuana returned to the patient?

subpoenas.pdf

[DenturesLost]

Not quite sure what you mean here. I think you are trying to say that this distinct list could be dropped and not have any impact on the sentence. Now you are trying to twist English language to suit your purposes.

 

It is really silly to try to claim that list is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Thats your word not mine. I called it a nonessential clause which is a grammatical term of art. It isn't my descriptive as to the value of the phrase. It is, simply what the phrase is called in proper grammatical structure. Nonessential doesn't mean the phrase doesnt matter to the reader it means it is nonessential to sentence formation.

 

The bottom line is that it IS a nonessential clause. Just like a verb is a verb. That is the clause's name.

[peanutbutter]

Irrelevant? Thats your word not mine. I called it a nonessential clause which is a grammatical term of art. It isn't my descriptive as to the value of the phrase. It is, simply what the phrase is called in proper grammatical structure. Nonessential doesn't mean the phrase doesnt matter to the reader it means it is nonessential to sentence formation.

 

The bottom line is that it IS a nonessential clause. Just like a verb is a verb. That is the clause's name.

 

My mistake. I thought you were talking about nonessential LEGALLY.

 

I believe it to be very essential to understanding the law. The "nonessential phrase" adds detail to the sentence. It enhances our ability to understand the sentence. It brings the spotlight to itself as an essential element of the intended communication.

[DenturesLost]

Which federal law would a state judge be complying with? Anyways, my point was more toward the ACTIVE communications of the confidential material. As I stated in my earlier post I believe a state court should seal that information, or at the very least have it redacted in the public record, there would be no violation of federal law for doing so, and as some will argue the violation may exist simply by not doing so.

 

Your premise as I referred to it comes from this:

 

 

To which I submit:

Not even a federal grand jury can request such information from the state or a dispensary/clinic in order to proceed against patients...

 

 

I digress, can a state judge comply with federal law by dismissing a case and ordering marijuana returned to the patient?

 

 

A request for info from a dispensary or the state is worlds away in difference from obtaining info that a defendant introduced in open court as part of a public record. You cannot make that analogy. Apple/oranges

 

You tell me. Is a state court complying with federal law if the court orders anyone to give a defendant mj? Obviously not. And I assume your next comment will be, "well, look, it happened in county x." To which I would reply since when did I claim that state judges always comply with federal law? Furthermore, how does an instance of lack of compliance make it okay to willfully not comply in other cases?

[peanutbutter]

Next element.

 

"shall not be subject to .." and it's application toward the judges rant.

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount -- snip --

 

Most of us have read this paragraph. For many of us our minds stop at the word "arrest." But there's more.

 

remember that "medical use" can be any of these things:

acquisition,

possession,

cultivation,

manufacture,

use,

internal possession,

delivery,

transfer, or

transportation

of marihuana

 

If the PA has not presented EVIDENCE of misuse, the patient is not subject to prosecution.

 

All the patient, with an ID card, has to do is say "I wasn't misusing it" and the case is not subject to prosecution.

[DenturesLost]

That is what O'Connell claims in his rant.

 

Without the patient agreeing to release the doctors name, there is no doctor to question.

 

The patient has evidence that such a relationship existed. The patient has the ID card. This evidence would have to be negated by evidence presented by the PA. That would be evidence that the ID card was obtained by fraud.

 

So the PA says "I think the patient didn't have a real relationship with the unnamed doctor." That isn't evidence. The ID card is evidence.

The ID card is not evidence of a bonafide relationship. To get the card you need a Dr willing to say you qualify. Then you have your card. How does the card indicate the relationship was bonafide? Clearly there can be instances where the Dr is running a recommendation mill to make the $200 a pop. Just because the pts get a card doesn't mean the relationship was bonafide. Time and time again we see stings where docs are busted for submitting false medicare claims. Many times there are patients who go in and get a few dollars for using themselves as the means for a doc to submit a claim. Do those drs and pts have a bonafide relationship just because the doc submitted a claim to medicare saying they have condition x and were treated for it?

 

Obviously there are instances of abuse and that is why the law was written to leave the door open to question the dr/pt relationship. Getting your card means a licensed dr signed a rec for you and you paid your money to the state. It is not proof of a bonafide relationship.

[+RevThad]

Irrelevant? Thats your word not mine. I called it a nonessential clause which is a grammatical term of art. It isn't my descriptive as to the value of the phrase. It is, simply what the phrase is called in proper grammatical structure. Nonessential doesn't mean the phrase doesnt matter to the reader it means it is nonessential to sentence formation.

 

The bottom line is that it IS a nonessential clause. Just like a verb is a verb. That is the clause's name.

Actually, I think the clause was included for a very essential reason, and it relates directly to what we are discussing. It informs folks that would assume they are immune (for the various reasons discussed the last few days) from such actions that they are included....

[peanutbutter]

The ID card is not evidence of a bonafide relationship. To get the card you need a Dr willing to say you qualify. Then you have your card. How does the card indicate the relationship was bonafide? Clearly there can be instances where the Dr is running a recommendation mill to make the $200 a pop. Just because the pts get a card doesn't mean the relationship was bonafide. Time and time again we see stings where docs are busted for submitting false medicare claims. Many times there are patients who go in and get a few dollars for using themselves as the means for a doc to submit a claim. Do those drs and pts have a bonafide relationship just because the doc submitted a claim to medicare saying they have condition x and were treated for it?

 

Obviously there are instances of abuse and that is why the law was written to leave the door open to question the dr/pt relationship. Getting your card means a licensed dr signed a rec for you and you paid your money to the state. It is not proof of a bonafide relationship.

 

Sorry .. the burden of proof in on the state, not the patient.

 

This law says the claim, by the patient, that this was medical use may be rebutted by evidence. Not by wild claim.

 

No need for the doctor in court yet ..

 

In fact, it looks like the only time the doctor can be brought into court is if the patient wishes to do so.