Yesterday (January 2), Dr. Jones filed with the Connecticut Medical Examining Board a Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate the decision of December 18, which had imposed civil penalties and placed Dr. Jones on probation for two years.
The basis for the motion is bias on the part of one of the panel members, Dr. Senechal, who had told the parents of a child diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease during the Jones hearings that there was no such thing as chronic Lyme disease, that the treatment of chronic Lyme disease was a ``big racket,'' and referred to physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease as ``quacks'' who were ``in cahoots'' with lab companies. The motion argues that this profound bias prevented Dr. Senechal from having the necessary impartiality to provide Dr. Jones a fair trial in a fair tribunal, a fundamental underpinning of due process under the constitution.
Due process requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. Two parents who attended the December 18th hearing stepped forward at its conclusion to express their concerns that a physician with such strong bias had been included on the panel. The parents had learned of Dr. Senechal's bias through personal encounters with him as a physician of their child, who had been diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease. The information came to light at the end of the December 18th hearing, when the two parents first approached counsel for Dr. Jones. The parents had not met Dr. Jones nor his counsel prior to the conclusion of the December 18th hearing.
Posted by lymednva (Member # 9098) on :
That sounds like a good reason to reconsider. I just hope the powers that be agree. Posted by Lymeblue (Member # 6897) on :
I'm looking for a good bottle of red wine to toast tonight for this couple.... CHEERS !!!
Posted by Lymeblue (Member # 6897) on :
bump!
Posted by Keebler (Member # 12673) on :
-
Oh, yes. This sounds like it may be good news.
thanks for keeping us updated.
-
Posted by CD57 (Member # 11749) on :
Sounds like grounds to me!
Posted by Beverly (Member # 1271) on :
I hope this helps Dr. J.
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
Due process is a very big deal.....if they can prove he was denied that.
Sending positive thoughts and prayers for a good outcome for Dr. J.
Hugs,
Geneal
Posted by yanivnaced (Member # 13212) on :
I just hope they don't repeat the entire farce with fresh new panel of 'impartial' Morons.
I'm afraid of the financial/emotional stress Dr.J would have to endure all over again.
Posted by daise (Member # 13622) on :
Yes. Due process was not possible.
Looks like we have another hero who spoke up!
Daise Posted by artur737 (Member # 11151) on :
It may very well cost another million dollars if the case is reopen.
I assume that Dr Jones feels that there is enough community support to pursue.
Posted by merrygirl (Member # 12041) on :
Great news! WHoever spoke up is amazing!
Are there any legal experts out there? What are the chances this is going to work?
I sure hope it does!!
Melissa
Posted by tdtid (Member # 10276) on :
Sounds like a good angle to go at this. That Dr. Senechal makes my blood boil. Obviously at Dr. Jones' age, he could have just given up and retired, but you have to respect anyone that continues to fight for what they believe in.
Sending good vibes his way and for the children.
Cathy
Posted by Allie (Member # 10778) on :
This is a pretty strong accusation on the part of Dr. Jones' attorney. Dr. Senechal sounds like a conceited a**.
The fact that he didn't even consider filtering his thoughts during this incredibly politicicized trial makes me think he is an egotistical holier-than-thou slime ball.
So, does anyone know what is the process of due process when you think that your due process has been violated? In other words, what will happen now? What are the options? Anyone know?
I attended to 2 trials, including the last one. Which dude was Dr. Senechal? Where was he sitting? Did he say anything?
Go, Dr. Jones, GO!
Allie
Posted by disturbedme (Member # 12346) on :
Praying and hoping good things for Dr. J!
Posted by luvdogs (Member # 9507) on :
Maybe he didn't say anything but he probably poisoned the mind of the jerk that did say way too much that was totally out of line... Dr.G, I believe?
It seems that they all influenced each other tremendously and that very few have the spine to speak out against their colleagues. Except for that one courageous man on the panel who spoke and had those "few issues that kept bothering him" about the case. He was actually trying to look at things impartially, which was then quickly overshadowed by the very biased and relentless you know who that then spoke and refused to let Jones' lawyer rebut in any way.
I am very happy to hear this and I feel that this is grounds for a retrial. I am so glad that there are so many courageous souls out there who are willing to speak the truth!
I cannot be certain, but if I am correct, he was the "pediatric doctor" who had treated 40 or so Lyme cases in his life and claimed to be an expert on pediatric Lyme. He was sitting to the left of Susan Wernek. My eyes were bad and I tried to write down all of the names on the panel, but his was one name that was blurry to me and I got his first name plus part of the last.
This would have put him at the 4th last person on the left. In other words, two to the right of Fuller.
I am not sure if the "lovely" and "kind" woman with the blond and curly hair was Susan Wernek or Anne Duramas, but whichever one she was, he was either to the left or right of her. He was right between them.
Again, I am not certain, this is only powers of deduction, but all of the other names I got, and his I got partly and maybe close enough. I had "John Sen or Sem... or Schmidt" with a question mark.
Hope this helps.
Posted by luvdogs (Member # 9507) on :
I have confirmed that my hunch / info about who he is was correct. I have more detailed info if anybody wants me to PM it to them. I do not feel comfortable posting here.
Posted by Allie (Member # 10778) on :
Hey puppy-luv, Now I remember the fine fellow -- he was not pleased that Dr. J's lawyer said the panel members had no real experience treating lyme.... Yup Yup Yup. You have a good memory for a lymie.
I hope to see you again soon.
Allie
Posted by tailz (Member # 10014) on :
I eventually tested positive for Lyme on a Quest test, so I do not for one minute believe that IGeneX, for example, hands people their positives.
What I'm trying to figure out is how can doctors be this biased? Doctors aren't immune from Lyme Disease - it will hit every doctor out there personally - eventually. Don't they realize this?
It's seems the best LLMDs in PA, as far as believing in long-term treatment, all have Lyme themselves. Not sure if it's like this everywhere, but it makes you wonder if that is what it's going to take.
Posted by luvdogs (Member # 9507) on :
Allie, silly girl. That was me with my bad Lyme eyes trying to write down all of the panel doc's names!
I looked in my notebook and it all came back to me.... Nothing like that to put a smile on the face!
Hope you had nice holidays and we'll talk soon,
Puppy Love.
Posted by Robin123 (Member # 9197) on :
Tailz, you got a point there. When more doctors and their families and friends start getting more Lyme/coinfections, that's when we'll probably see more LLMDS...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[bow]](graemlins/bow.gif)