Subject: VETO AB 1235 - Robert L. Weinmann, MD - Corporate Control of Medical Peer Review
To the Honorable Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
Following, please find, Dr. Weinmann's further analysis of AB 1235, dated September 21, 2010, enclosed.
Dr. Weinmann has a tremendous experience in legislative matters, since he was President of the Union of American
Physicians and Dentists, UAPD, for many years, see:
" Up Close and Personal With Robert L. Weinmann, MD: on Union Activism and Health Policy "
by Antoline, Dawn,
In an interview with Neurology Today, Dr. Weinmann discussed his work as President of the UAPD.
From: Robert Weinmann
Subject: Re: CONTACT THE GOVERNOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO IMPROVE PHYSICIAN PEER REVIEW AND PATIENT CARE!
Date: September 21, 2010 8:48:16 PM PDT
The AB 1235 section(4), enclosed, does not seem OK to me. Here's some of the why nots:
* The hearing officer gets too much power if he can decide what is "proper decorum." I want
to see vigorous defense if that's what's called for, vigorous prosecution, too, if that's
what's called for -- this "decorum" shield is an attempt to muzzle the more outspoken
defendants. It was specifically crafted after Dr. Mileikowsky got a decision overturned.
The hospitals hope is to overturn the ruling whereby Mileikowsky won.
* The hearing officer decides what exhibits qualify as proper evidence? No sir on that!
Each side presents the best evidence it can muster. The hearing officer should not be
allowed to exclude evidence.
* The hearing officer decides who can testify on behalf of the defendant? No sir on that!
Each side calls what it believes is its best witnesses. The hearing officer should not be
allowed to exclude testimony.
* The hearing officer should not be allowed to decide what "flagrant non-compliance" is.
All of these items tilt the process in favor of the hospital administration and against
* Hospital administrations are already busy crafting and re-crafting peer review bylaws.
Passage of this bill will only make that effort an even higher priority for hospital
* Take a look at the latest from Jerry and Ben re whether or not the doctor can retain a lawyer.
Even if this assertion were correct in all cases, it should be known that the expenses for one
doctor were $400,000 -- and that was for one doctor who won his case hands down when the medical
board threw out the bad faith 805. Unfortunately, it was not expunged from the file as it should
have been. So AB 1235 would not have helped whereas SB 700 will.
Robert L. Weinmann, MD
Editor, the Weinmann Report
2040 Forest Avenue
San Jose, CA. 95128
(4) The hearing officer shall endeavor to ensure that all parties
maintain proper decorum and have a reasonable opportunity to be heard
and present all relevant oral and documentary evidence. The hearing
officer shall be entitled to determine the order of, or procedure
for, presenting evidence and argument during the hearing and shall
have the authority and discretion to make all rulings on questions
pertaining to matters of law, procedure, or the admissibility of
evidence. The hearing officer shall also take all appropriate steps
to ensure a timely resolution of the hearing, but may not terminate
the hearing process. However, in the case of flagrant noncompliance
with the procedural rules governing the hearing process or egregious
interference with the orderly conduct of the hearing, the hearing
officer may recommend that the hearing panel terminate the hearing,
provided that this activity is authorized by the applicable bylaws of
the peer review body.
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
In view of all the above, you MUST VETO AB 1235, as it is still a "work in progress",