 |
... is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
|
|
RED ALERT ! ! ! FAXED on 7/13/2011 9:06AM PDT to (916) 319-2118 ============= - URGENT AMENDMENT
REQUIRED in AB 655 (Hayashi), as it Compromises our patients'
safety. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Transfer of Medical
Peer Review Records from one Hospital to Another ATTENTION: California Assemblymember Mary HAYASHI, 18th Assembly District, Chair, Assembly
Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protections Dear Assemblymember
Hayashi, I respectfully request that you
incorporate this letter into the legislative history of AB 655, thank you very
much. The way AB655 is presently
written, there is absolutely nothing that precludes a hospital from circulating
unfounded, bogus, defamatory, vicious and malicious allegations
WITHOUT the physician's knowledge, let alone any consent ! ! ! As it stands, AB 655
promotes and legitimizes the " Code of
Silence ", which is a most significant impediment to our patients' safety,
as it prevents physicians from acting in the best interests of their patients
and exacerbates healthcare costs. This letter is a follow up to the
letters of Dr Weinmann, Dr Hinsdale, Dr Zwelling, Dr Rao, Dr Moza, Ms Kramer and myself, dated
June 12, 2011, see: -
Letters to Elected Officials and Testimony to Government agencies, http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/letters.php -
Letters to Assemblymember Mary Hayashi & Senator
Gloria Negrete McLeod -
URGENT AMENDMENT REQUIRED in AB 655 Re: Transfer of Peer Review Records from
one Hospital to Another sent 6/12/2011 Read Letter from Robert Weinmann,
M.D., Past President, UAPD Read Letter from Gil Mileikowsky, M.D., Founder AFPS, http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/hayashi-06-12-2011.php To remedy this unfair and
unreasonable proposition, following, please find, the amendment proposed by
Jeffrey White, senior amicus counsel for the American Association for
Justice, AAJ, and the Center for
Constitutional Litigation, P.C., in Washington DC. Mr Jeffrey White is the author of the powerful amicus brief
filed on behalf of 14 organizations before the CA Supreme Court, on 8/28/2008, in: Mileikowsky v. HCA, West Hills Hospital Medical Center
(Mileikowsky-III), http://www.allianceforpatientsafety.org/westhills/,
see: Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Petitoner/Apellant Gil N Mileikowsky, M.D., Read Briefs, http://www.allianceforpatientsafety.org/westhills/wh-amicus-gm.php From: Jeffrey.White@cclfirm.com Subject: Are you Ready to Join me for some Significant Action
before the CA Legislature and the Governor ?
Date:
July 11, 2011 7:28:06 AM PDT To:
gil@allianceforpatientsafety.org Hi Dr. Gil, and thank you
for your kind words. I’m not sure how I might
join you. I have not studied this matter in depth, except to read AB 655 as
amended July 6. I think Dr. Frey, as
usual, hits the nail on the head. And I think the scenario Dr. Weinmann describes is also on the mark. The hospital strategy
often is to ignore the doctor’s paper rights and simply try to wear him or her
down. Poisoning the paper trail
that follows the doctor is one way to do this. If you are considering a
possible fix, a simple amendment to (e) might do the trick: “The responding peer
review body In any event, I wish you
the best success, Jeffrey R. White Senior Counsel Center for Constitutional
Litigation, P.C. 777 6th Street NW, Suite
520 Washington, DC 20001-3723 Tel: (202) 944-2839 Fax: (202) 965-0920 E-mail: jeffrey.white@cclfirm.com From: hsfrey@verizon.net Subject: AB 655 Date:
July 10, 2011 9:30:55 PM PDT To:
gil@allianceforpatientsafety.org Hi Gil: I know nothing about this, so I
tried to look it up. The bill on the leginfo
website says that: "All relevant peer review
information produced pursuant to this section shall be made available to the
licentiate by the requesting peer review body in accordance with Section
809.2. ", but that section isn't included. If the information can be provided
to the requesting hospital but not to the licentiate, that would appear to me
to violate the spirit of the Confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment. That clause, of course, refers only
to Criminal cases brought by a government, but the government becomes involved
here if, say, a license is revoked, and the licentiate is unable to contest the revocation
because he is denied access to the allegations. That would appear to be a
"taking", and thus subject to Constitutional protections. I would also point out
that the language: e) The responding peer
review body is not obligated to produce the relevant peer review information
pursuant to this section unless both of the following conditions are met: (1) The licentiate
provides a release, as described in subdivision (2), that is acceptable to the
responding peer review body. does not prohibit the responding peer review body
from VOLUNTARILY providing the requested information without the
licentiate's release, as for instance out of personal animus. Best of luck to you. Harvey S. Frey MD PhD JD
--------------------------------------------- Dear Assemblymember
Hayashi, I trust that you do not want your
good name to be associated with a bill that blatantly violates the fundamental
principles of US Jurisprudence, i.e. that a law
must be (1) Fair and (2) Reasonable. The above section (e) of AB 655
belongs to the Spanish Inquisition. Thank you very much for your
leadership and dedication, Respectfully
submitted, 
Gil Mileikowsky MD - President and
Founder, -
Alliance For Patient Safety,
AFPS, http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/ |