LymeNet Home LymeNet Home Page LymeNet Flash Discussion LymeNet Support Group Database LymeNet Literature Library LymeNet Legal Resources LymeNet Medical & Scientific Abstract Database LymeNet Newsletter Home Page LymeNet Recommended Books LymeNet Tick Pictures Search The LymeNet Site LymeNet Links LymeNet Frequently Asked Questions About The Lyme Disease Network LymeNet Menu

LymeNet on Facebook

LymeNet on Twitter




The Lyme Disease Network receives a commission from Amazon.com for each purchase originating from this site.

When purchasing from Amazon.com, please
click here first.

Thank you.

LymeNet Flash Discussion
Dedicated to the Bachmann Family

LymeNet needs your help:
LymeNet 2020 fund drive


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations.

LymeNet Flash Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» LymeNet Flash » Questions and Discussion » General Support » Dr Jones Hearing Synopsis Day 7

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Dr Jones Hearing Synopsis Day 7
ellenluba
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 1707

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ellenluba     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr. Jones' Hearing Synopsis Day 7

January 25, 2007

The 7th day of the hearing began with the panel
hearing motions. The health department had requested
that the father of the two children be permitted to
testify by phone, to avoid the cost of the trip East.
The health department attorney stated that it was a
little bit embarrassing, but the department doesn't
have the budget to bring him here.
Attorney Pollock countered, citing the irony, that
this father, �who put [these proceedings] into motion,
effectively placing in jeopardy the lives of so many
people, is unwilling to come to testify unless the
department pays the cost of his travel. (Note: It was
this father's complaint to the medical board about his
children's being treated for Lyme by Dr. Jones that
led to the actions against Dr. Jones. Previous
testimony had alleged that the father had intimidated
and threatened other doctors who were treating his
children, as well)

The panel denied the health department's request for
telephonic testimony, stating that it is important to
see the witness, in order to determine his
credibility.

Cross-examination of Dr. Jones continued, from Day 5
of the hearing. Attorney Tillis, representing the
health department, addressed information from the
children's charts. Extensive questioning involved 1/
the continuation of antibiotics, prescribed originally
in Nevada for a serious persistent cough, 2/ history
of symptoms, 3/ results of serological testing, and
other details.

As the cross-examination of Dr. Jones continued, with
questions regarding telephone conversations that took
place, as well as communications during the
examinations of both children, one could wonder why a
physician might be asked to recall these events in
such fine detail. Lost in this minutia is the fact
that a brilliant and compassionate physician made
careful use of his expertise and finely honed clinical
skills to diagnose and treat these children. Lost in
the minutia is the fact that two children who were
very ill for many years, perhaps suffering from
gestational Lyme, had become healthy under the care of
this physician. Lost in this minutia was the fact that
their mother, a highly trained and experienced
registered nurse, had not found anything near adequate
treatment for her children prior to contacting Dr.
Jones, as her children's health declined, and in the
case of her son, with dire consequences to his
education.

In the cross-examination pertaining to research
articles, Dr. Jones was questioned regarding details
of the articles. Attorney Pollock objected, as he had
on previous occasions, to the extensive questioning
regarding Lyme disease treatment, given the health
department's allegation that this action taken against
Dr. Jones was not about Lyme. The panel, however, did
not sustain the objection, allowing the questioning to
continue. Questions included issues of sero-negative
Lyme, why some tests had not been done (MRI, for
example), whether these patients had had Jarisch
Herxheimer reactions, with the implication that that
might be diagnostic, serology regarding co-infections.

Attorney Pollock’s questions to Dr. Jones clarified
several issues: 1/ Dr. Jones has found amoxicillin to
be effective in a large number of his patients, 2/ EM
Rash seen in fewer than 50% of patients, per Dr.
Joseph Burrascano in Conn's Current Therapies, 3/Dr.
Jones experience has shown the EM rash in far fewer
patients even than that, 4/ Dr. Patricia Coyle's
research has indicated that Lyme is a disease of the
central nervous system.

Panel questions included the questioning of Dr. Jones'
reliance on input from the children's mother regarding
the children's health issues. Prior testimony from
both Dr. Jones and the mother attested to her high
qualifications as a nurse, and one that is a trained
observer, given her experience with trauma and ER
patients. One panelist's questions regarding
communications with the school appeared to be under
the erroneous assumption that Dr. Jones involvement
with the school led to the expulsion of the son, when
the opposite had actually taken place.

Note: Overall, the morning questioning could appear to
the observer to challenge a highly experienced
physician's right and responsibility to use his/her
best clinical judgment, when developing a diagnostic
profile and treatment plan. This could be a dangerous
direction for medicine to go in, severely limiting
quality treatment not just for Lyme disease, but for
other illnesses, as well.

Leo J. Shea, III, PhD, a neuropsychologist who has a
wealth of experience, not only with Lyme disease
patients, but with patients who have suffered other
types of brain injuries, testified in the afternoon.
Dr. Shea was accepted as an expert witness, after
citing his extensive and impressive credentials, both
regarding Lyme disease as a specialty, and in general,
in the field of neuropsychology. Dr. Shea's expertise
in making recommendations for school accommodations,
based on neuropsychological evaluations also qualified
him as an expert witness. Admitted into evidence was
his article, The Role of Neuropsychological Testing in
Children With Lyme Disease?..

Some questioning ensued regarding Munchausen's by
Proxy. Dr. Shea defined it, and pointed out that it is
not listed as a diagnosis in the DSM (Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual), as a mental disorder. He also
mentioned (as had Brian Fallon, MD, in his testimony)
that Munchausen's by Proxy is brought into question,
in his experience, when there is a contentious divorce
or custody issues, with accusations made by one of the
parents against the other. Attorney Pollock's motion
to admit a report related to Munchausen's by Proxy was
withdrawn when Attorney Tillis stated that
Munchausen's by Proxy was not at issue here.

Focusing on Lyme disease, Dr. Shea discussed the
various learning problems often seen in children with
chronic Lyme disease, and their specialized needs in
the school setting. When asked about Dr. Jones making
recommendations to the school for a child who appeared
to have learning problems consistent with Lyme
disease, Dr. Shea stated Dr. ,Jones clearly
understands the issues for accommodations. Regarding
Dr. Jones' communication with the boy's school, and
his input into school decisions, prior to seeing the
child, Dr. Shea pointed out that both the school and
the mother were in sync with Dr. Jones
recommendations, and that the decision was necessary
to benefit and protect the child.

Attorney Tillis cross-examined Dr. Shea regarding the
school psychologist testing of the boy. Dr. Shea
indicated that the school psychologists tests were
normal for school testing, that it would give a
general idea, but that the schools did not have the
funds to do comprehensive evaluations. When asked by
Attorney Tillis whether, if he were the school, he
would seek the advice of a doctor 3,000 miles away,
Dr. Shea indicated that it happened all the time
[where Lyme was concerned] because of the lack of
knowledge of tick-borne diseases [among physicians].

Attorney Pollock's redirect examination brought out
the extensive amount of information contained in the
school psychologist's evaluation that would have been
of value to Dr. Jones in making his recommendations.

The hearing ended with no new dates set for Day #8.

Note: An observer who has witnessed all 7 days of the
hearings would, I believe, be impressed with the
quality of the expert witnesses that have been called
in support of Dr. Jones. Drs. Phillips, Fallon, and
Shea have an impressive collective knowledge of
tick-borne illness, and their testimony demonstrated a
depth of understanding of the plight of the patients,
the paucity of available physicians who understand the
illness in its chronic and complex stages, and the
substantial body of medical literature that supports
the treatment that patients of Dr. Jones receive.
Under the weight of this evidence, in the face of the
success of the treatment of these children, and given
Dr. Jones demonstration of the incredible fund of
knowledge upon which he based his clinical judgment,
one has to wonder why these proceedings against Dr.
Jones are continuing, when so many children continue
to suffer from the lack of diagnosis and treatment
from the vast majority of the medical community.

Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, B CD

Family Connections Center for Counseling

Brewster, New York
(845) 259-9838

--------------------


Posts: 819 | From New York, NY | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CaliforniaLyme
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 7136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for CaliforniaLyme     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you- very encouraging!*))*!

He is a good man
and a great doctor!

--------------------
There is no wealth but life.
-John Ruskin

All truth goes through 3 stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer

Posts: 5639 | From Aptos CA USA | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bettyg
Unregistered


Icon 10 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
reformatting for me/others who can't read this as is. [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by ellenluba:

Dr. Jones' Hearing Synopsis Day 7

January 25, 2007

The 7th day of the hearing began with the panel
hearing motions. The health department had requested that the father of the two children be permitted to testify by phone, to avoid the cost of the trip East.

The health department attorney stated that it was a little bit embarrassing, but the department doesn't have the budget to bring him here.

Attorney Pollock countered, citing the irony, that
this father, who put [these proceedings] into motion, effectively placing in jeopardy the lives of so many people, is unwilling to come to testify unless the department pays the cost of his travel.


(Note: It was this father's complaint to the medical board about his children's being treated for Lyme by Dr. Jones that led to the actions against Dr. Jones. Previous testimony had alleged that the father had intimidated and threatened other doctors who were treating his children, as well)


The panel denied the health department's request for telephonic testimony, stating that it is important to see the witness, in order to determine his credibility,


Cross-examination of Dr. Jones continued, from Day 5 of the hearing. Attorney Tillis, representing the health department, addressed information from the children's charts.

Extensive questioning involved:

1. the continuation of antibiotics, prescribed originally in Nevada for a serious persistent cough,

2. history of symptoms,

3. results of serological testing, and other details.

As the cross-examination of Dr. Jones continued, with questions regarding telephone conversations that took place, as well as communications during the examinations of both children, one could wonder why a physician might be asked to recall these events in such fine detail.

Lost in this minutia is the fact that a brilliant and compassionate physician made careful use of his expertise and finely honed clinical skills to diagnose and treat these children.

Lost in the minutia is the fact that two children who were very ill for many years, perhaps suffering from gestational Lyme, had become healthy under the care of this physician.

Lost in this minutia was the fact that
their mother, a highly trained and experienced
registered nurse, had not found anything near adequate treatment for her children prior to contacting Dr. Jones, as her children's health declined, and in the case of her son, with dire consequences to his education.[b]


In the cross-examination pertaining to research
articles, Dr. Jones was questioned regarding details of the articles.

Attorney Pollock objected, as he had on previous occasions, to the extensive questioning regarding Lyme disease treatment, given the health
department's allegation that this action taken against Dr. Jones was not about Lyme.

The panel, however, did not sustain the objection, allowing the questioning to continue.

Questions included:

issues of sero-negative Lyme,
why some tests had not been done (MRI, for
example),
whether these patients had had Jarisch
Herxheimer reactions, with the implication that that might be diagnostic,
serology regarding co-infections.

Attorney Pollock's questions to Dr. Jones clarified several issues:

1. Dr. Jones has found amoxicillin to
be effective in a large number of his patients,

2. EM Rash seen in fewer than 50% of patients, per Dr. Joseph Burrascano in Conn's Current Therapies,

3. Dr. Jones experience has shown the EM rash in far fewer patients even than that,

4. Dr. Patricia Coyle's research has indicated that Lyme is a disease of the central nervous system.

Panel questions included the questioning of Dr. Jones' reliance on input from the children's mother regarding the children's health issues.

Prior testimony from both Dr. Jones and the [B]mother attested to her high qualifications as a nurse, and one that is a trained observer, given her experience with trauma and ER patients
.


One panelist's questions regarding communications with the school appeared to be under the erroneous assumption that Dr. Jones involvement

Note: Overall, the morning questioning could appear to the observer to challenge a highly experienced physician's right and responsibility to use his/her best clinical judgment, when developing a diagnostic profile and treatment plan.

This could be a dangerous direction for medicine to go in, severely limiting quality treatment not just for Lyme disease, but for
other illnesses, as well.


Leo J. Shea, III, PhD, a neuropsychologist who has a wealth of experience, not only with Lyme disease patients, but with patients who have suffered other types of brain injuries, testified in the afternoon.

Dr. Shea was accepted as an expert witness, after
citing his extensive and impressive credentials, both regarding Lyme disease as a specialty, and in general, in the field of neuropsychology.

Dr. Shea's expertise in making recommendations for school accommodations, based on uropsychological evaluations also qualified
him as an expert witness.

Admitted into evidence was his article, The Role of Neuropsychological Testing in Children With Lyme Disease?

Some questioning ensued regarding Munchausen's by Proxy. Dr. Shea defined it, and pointed out that it is not listed as a diagnosis in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), as a mental disorder. [b]

He also mentioned (as had Brian Fallon, MD, in his testimony) that Munchausen's by Proxy is brought into question, in his experience, [B]when there is a contentious divorce or custody issues, with accusations made by one of the parents against the other.



Attorney Pollock's motion to admit a report related to Munchausen's by Proxy was withdrawn when Attorney Tillis stated that Munchausen's by Proxy was not at issue here.


Focusing on Lyme disease, Dr. Shea discussed the
various learning problems often seen in children with chronic Lyme disease, and their specialized needs in the school setting.

When asked about Dr. Jones making recommendations to the school for a child who appeared to have learning problems consistent with Lyme disease,
Dr. Shea stated Dr. Jones clearly understands the issues for accommodations.

Regarding Dr. Jones' communication with the boy's school, and his input into school decisions, prior to seeing the child, Dr. Shea pointed out that both the school and the mother were in sync with Dr. Jones recommendations, and that the decision was necessary to benefit and protect the child.

Attorney Tillis cross-examined Dr. Shea regarding the school psychologist testing of the boy. Dr. Shea indicated that the school psychologists tests were normal for school testing, that it would give a general idea, but that the schools did not have the funds to do comprehensive evaluations.

When asked by Attorney Tillis whether, if he were the school, he would seek the advice of a doctor 3,000 miles away, Dr. Shea indicated that it happened all the time [where Lyme was concerned] because of the lack of knowledge of tick-borne diseases [among physicians].


Attorney Pollock's redirect examination brought out the extensive amount of information contained in the school psychologist's evaluation that would have been of value to Dr. Jones in making his recommendations.

The hearing ended with no new dates set for Day #8.


Note: An observer who has witnessed all 7 days of the hearings would, I believe, be impressed with the quality of the expert witnesses that have been called in support of Dr. Jones.

Drs. Phillips, Fallon, and Shea have an impressive collective knowledge of tick-borne illness, and their testimony demonstrated a
depth of understanding of the plight of the patients,

the paucity of available physicians who understand the illness in its chronic and complex stages, and the substantial body of medical literature that supports the treatment that patients of Dr. Jones receive.

Under the weight of this evidence and in the face of the success of the treatment of these children, and given Dr. Jones demonstration of the incredible fund of knowledge upon which he based his clinical judgment, one has to wonder why these proceedings against Dr. Jones are continuing, when so many children continue
to suffer from the lack of diagnosis and treatment
from the vast majority of the medical community.

Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, B CD
Family Connections Center for Counseling
Brewster, New York
(845) 259-9838

sandy, thank you so much for your really good, detailed info that i hadn't read in others personal accounts of the hearings! outstanding job; we thank you so much for these. ellen, thanks for posting. [Wink] [group hug] [kiss]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothergoose650
Member
Member # 8962

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mothergoose650     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How hard and frustrating and tiring it must be for Dr. Jones to go through all of this. And just because he cares for all the sick children in the world. Hopefully the prayers and support of his patients will be enough to keep him going.

Thanks for the reports.

Kathy, as always [confused]

Posts: 64 | From MA | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mo
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 2863

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Mo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what is so ludicrous it that, as the medical board keeps churing the same questions round, and round, and round, and round..

and the legal team and experts keep lobbing the ball back - it becomes really evident that this thing should have NEVER gone to the hearing level at all.

it should have been dealt with at the administrative level (not to metnion that the complaint was from an estranged spouse).

so -- what the ? ? ? ? is going on?!

[shake]

this is a great synopsis of the hearing, sandy !!!

mo

Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code� is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | LymeNet home page | Privacy Statement

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:

The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey
907 Pebble Creek Court, Pennington, NJ 08534 USA


| Flash Discussion | Support Groups | On-Line Library
Legal Resources | Medical Abstracts | Newsletter | Books
Pictures | Site Search | Links | Help/Questions
About LymeNet | Contact Us

© 1993-2020 The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Use of the LymeNet Site is subject to Terms and Conditions.