Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
People v Goodwin
http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20141209_c320591_42_320591.opn.pdf
The Following is the Part of the Ruling discussing the Bonafide Dr/Pt relationship. It shows a classic failure of standards of certification at the expense of a patient. Don't fall into this trap. Note the specific objections of the court and use it as a guide to evaluate your current and future certifications.
(a) “Bona fide physician-patient relationship” means a treatment or counseling relationship between a physician and patient in which all of the following are present:
-2-
(1) The physician has reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records and completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation of the patient.
(2) The physician has created and maintained records of the patient’s condition in accord with medically accepted standards.
(3) The physician has a reasonable expectation that he or she will provide follow-up care to the patient to monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marihuana as a treatment of the patient’s debilitating medical condition.
(4) If the patient has given permission, the physician has notified the patient’s primary care physician of the patient’s debilitating medical condition and certification for the use of medical marijuana to treat that condition. [MCL 333.26423(a).]
It is undisputed that the alleged criminal conduct occurred on November 16, 2013, after the statute was amended to include the definition of bona fide physician-patient relationship. “When a statute specifically defines a given term, that definition alone controls.” Haynes v Neshewat, 477 Mich 29, 35; 729 NW2d 488 (2007). Therefore, the trial court was required to apply the statutory definition, not the definition set forth in Tuttle and Hartwick, and it erred in failing to do so. However, we conclude that this plain error was not outcome determinative.
Although there was sufficient evidence presented to satisfy the first prong of the Legislature’s definition, regarding review of the patient’s medical history and assessment of the current medical condition, there was insufficient evidence to establish the second prong of the definition, i.e., whether the doctor created and maintained records of the patient’s condition in accord with medically accepted standards. The only records of Dr. Vernon Proctor offered and admitted at the hearing were his patients’ intake history questionnaires and other required paperwork for medical marijuana use, such as the physician certifications, health care release forms, and required state applications. Dr. Proctor also testified that he does not always keep the patients’ medical records. He stated that if he needed them, he could use the patient-signed authorization to obtain them from the primary care physician. Further, testimony of Dr. Proctor and the four patients reveals that he only saw those patients for certification and renewal of certification and did not schedule any follow-up appointments to check on the patients, their condition, and the efficacy of the medical marijuana. There was also no evidence presented regarding the medically accepted standard of creating and maintaining records. Accordingly, based on this record, there was insufficient evidence whether Dr. Proctor created and maintained records of the patients’ conditions.
There was also insufficient evidence to establish the third prong of the definition, i.e., whether Dr. Proctor had a reasonable expectation that he would provide follow-up care to the patients and monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marijuana as a treatment of their conditions. Dr. Proctor’s testimony, as well as his patients’ testimony, was clear that he never provided follow-up care to the patients, and he did not monitor the efficacy of the medical marijuana. Although he made himself available for questions if needed, Dr. Proctor only saw the
-3-
patients for certification and renewal of certification, which was once per year. The record is clear that Dr. Proctor had no intent, let alone a reasonable expectation, to monitor his patients’ use of medical marijuana.
Finally, with regard to the fourth prong, there was no testimony from any of the patients whether they gave Dr. Proctor permission to notify their primary care physicians of their medical conditions and use of medical marijuana. In sum, defendant presented insufficient evidence to meet the Legislature’s four-prong definition of a bona fide physician-patient relationship. Therefore, although the trial court erred by failing to apply that definition, the error was not outcome determinative.
http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20141209_c320591_42_320591.opn.pdf
The Following is the Part of the Ruling discussing the Bonafide Dr/Pt relationship. It shows a classic failure of standards of certification at the expense of a patient. Don't fall into this trap. Note the specific objections of the court and use it as a guide to evaluate your current and future certifications.
(a) “Bona fide physician-patient relationship” means a treatment or counseling relationship between a physician and patient in which all of the following are present:
-2-
(1) The physician has reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records and completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation of the patient.
(2) The physician has created and maintained records of the patient’s condition in accord with medically accepted standards.
(3) The physician has a reasonable expectation that he or she will provide follow-up care to the patient to monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marihuana as a treatment of the patient’s debilitating medical condition.
(4) If the patient has given permission, the physician has notified the patient’s primary care physician of the patient’s debilitating medical condition and certification for the use of medical marijuana to treat that condition. [MCL 333.26423(a).]
It is undisputed that the alleged criminal conduct occurred on November 16, 2013, after the statute was amended to include the definition of bona fide physician-patient relationship. “When a statute specifically defines a given term, that definition alone controls.” Haynes v Neshewat, 477 Mich 29, 35; 729 NW2d 488 (2007). Therefore, the trial court was required to apply the statutory definition, not the definition set forth in Tuttle and Hartwick, and it erred in failing to do so. However, we conclude that this plain error was not outcome determinative.
Although there was sufficient evidence presented to satisfy the first prong of the Legislature’s definition, regarding review of the patient’s medical history and assessment of the current medical condition, there was insufficient evidence to establish the second prong of the definition, i.e., whether the doctor created and maintained records of the patient’s condition in accord with medically accepted standards. The only records of Dr. Vernon Proctor offered and admitted at the hearing were his patients’ intake history questionnaires and other required paperwork for medical marijuana use, such as the physician certifications, health care release forms, and required state applications. Dr. Proctor also testified that he does not always keep the patients’ medical records. He stated that if he needed them, he could use the patient-signed authorization to obtain them from the primary care physician. Further, testimony of Dr. Proctor and the four patients reveals that he only saw those patients for certification and renewal of certification and did not schedule any follow-up appointments to check on the patients, their condition, and the efficacy of the medical marijuana. There was also no evidence presented regarding the medically accepted standard of creating and maintaining records. Accordingly, based on this record, there was insufficient evidence whether Dr. Proctor created and maintained records of the patients’ conditions.
There was also insufficient evidence to establish the third prong of the definition, i.e., whether Dr. Proctor had a reasonable expectation that he would provide follow-up care to the patients and monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marijuana as a treatment of their conditions. Dr. Proctor’s testimony, as well as his patients’ testimony, was clear that he never provided follow-up care to the patients, and he did not monitor the efficacy of the medical marijuana. Although he made himself available for questions if needed, Dr. Proctor only saw the
-3-
patients for certification and renewal of certification, which was once per year. The record is clear that Dr. Proctor had no intent, let alone a reasonable expectation, to monitor his patients’ use of medical marijuana.
Finally, with regard to the fourth prong, there was no testimony from any of the patients whether they gave Dr. Proctor permission to notify their primary care physicians of their medical conditions and use of medical marijuana. In sum, defendant presented insufficient evidence to meet the Legislature’s four-prong definition of a bona fide physician-patient relationship. Therefore, although the trial court erred by failing to apply that definition, the error was not outcome determinative.
