Guest guest Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.Ann DCFrom: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PMSubject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear Listmates. Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DC Albany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.Ann DCFrom: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PMSubject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear Listmates. Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DC Albany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.Ann DCFrom: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PMSubject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear Listmates. Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DC Albany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 . go to http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. At the bottom of this page select the Archives for the 2012 Session. When the next page pops up select the Archives of Committee Meetings for the 2012 Session. On this page select the House, health care archive. On the next page go to the 02-22-2012 meeting that started at 12:49 pm. It actually started at 1:00 but their clock must be off. They heard a 30 minute testimony on Take Shape for Life, then after about 35 minutes into the hearing, the OBCE section started. Hope this gets you there. Ron Grice, DC Albany, OR On 2/24/2012 9:38 AM, BRIAN SEITZ wrote:  Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724 bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000 Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC 155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554 To: rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000 Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this. Ann DC From: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PM Subject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Dear Listmates. Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DC Albany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I too am having difficulty finding the right portion .... any guidance? skSunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com From: dcdocbrian@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:42 -0800Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.Ann DCFrom: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PMSubject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear Listmates. Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DC Albany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well Sunny as Ron indicated there is about 30 mins of testimony prior to the IME & OBCE testimony which you have to suffer through prior to hearing the IME deal….you can attempt to fast forward but it never seems to work very well…Vern From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sunny KierstynSent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:05 AM Seitz; Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I too am having difficulty finding the right portion .... any guidance? skSunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com From: dcdocbrian@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:42 -0800Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to " fix " our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our " in fighting " which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.Ann DCFrom: " G " <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PMSubject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear Listmates.Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/.During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list.Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature.I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private.Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DCAlbany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Go to the archives click on 2012 session then click on health committee for wes 02-22-12. I double click the fast forward it will go for a bit then go to regular speed you will hear other testimony hust click fast forward a couple times I think it is around 40 minute in to it before you get to it.Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554skrndc1@...; dcdocbrian@...; From: vsaboe@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:37:44 -0800Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Well Sunny as Ron indicated there is about 30 mins of testimony prior to the IME & OBCE testimony which you have to suffer through prior to hearing the IME deal….you can attempt to fast forward but it never seems to work very well…Vern From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sunny KierstynSent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:05 AM Seitz; Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I too am having difficulty finding the right portion .... any guidance? skSunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com From: dcdocbrian@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:42 -0800Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.Ann DCFrom: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PMSubject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear Listmates.Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/.During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list.Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature.I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private.Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DCAlbany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I downloaded the audio file from the legislature's web site and trimmed it down to just the IME portion for my own listening pleasure. I'm afraid to post it, however, since I might get sued. Definitely worth listening to and it's unfortunate that we air dirty laundry like this in a public forum---especially one that's recorded and easily downloaded by anyone who wishes to do so. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 On 2/24/2012 12:12 PM, Charlie Caughlin wrote:  Go to the archives click on 2012 session then click on health committee for wes 02-22-12. I double click the fast forward it will go for a bit then go to regular speed you will hear other testimony hust click fast forward a couple times I think it is around 40 minute in to it before you get to it. Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC 155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554 skrndc1@...; dcdocbrian@...; From: vsaboe@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:37:44 -0800 Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Well Sunny as Ron indicated there is about 30 mins of testimony prior to the IME & OBCE testimony which you have to suffer through prior to hearing the IME deal….you can attempt to fast forward but it never seems to work very well…Vern  From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sunny Kierstyn Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:05 AM Seitz; Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.   I too am having difficulty finding the right portion ..... any guidance?  sk Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C Eugene, Oregon, 97401 541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834 www.drsunnykierstyn.com  From: dcdocbrian@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:42 -0800 Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724 To: bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000 Subject: RE: [From OregonDCs] IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.   I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC 155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554 To: rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000 Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.   This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this. Ann DC From: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PM Subject: [From OregonDCs] IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Dear Listmates. Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DC Albany, OR    Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 The testimony is public domain you can send it to whomever you choose Dr. McGill, Vern Saboe From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Lyndon McGillSent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:37 PM Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I downloaded the audio file from the legislature's web site and trimmed it down to just the IME portion for my own listening pleasure. I'm afraid to post it, however, since I might get sued. Definitely worth listening to and it's unfortunate that we air dirty laundry like this in a public forum---especially one that's recorded and easily downloaded by anyone who wishes to do so.Lyndon McGill, D.C.EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council MemberSalem, Oregonwww.SalemSpineClinic.comwww.EvolversUnited.com/e84On 2/24/2012 12:12 PM, Charlie Caughlin wrote: Go to the archives click on 2012 session then click on health committee for wes 02-22-12. I double click the fast forward it will go for a bit then go to regular speed you will hear other testimony hust click fast forward a couple times I think it is around 40 minute in to it before you get to it.Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554skrndc1@...; dcdocbrian@...; From: vsaboe@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:37:44 -0800Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Well Sunny as Ron indicated there is about 30 mins of testimony prior to the IME & OBCE testimony which you have to suffer through prior to hearing the IME deal….you can attempt to fast forward but it never seems to work very well…Vern From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sunny KierstynSent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:05 AM Seitz; Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I too am having difficulty finding the right portion .... any guidance? skSunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com From: dcdocbrian@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:42 -0800Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to " fix " our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our " in fighting " which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.Ann DCFrom: " G " <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PMSubject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear Listmates.Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/.During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list.Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature.I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private.Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DCAlbany, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Will: If I can get Dave McTeague or an attorney on the list to confirm my immunity, I'll be happy to post the link to the excerpted recording. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 On 2/24/2012 2:41 PM, Schneider wrote: I would love to have a copy of audio. I suggest you send it to entire list so we can all know who and what went on at legislature. It may serve to censure folks who foolishly aired our dirty laundry in public. Schneider DC PDX On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Lyndon McGill <twogems@...> wrote:  I downloaded the audio file from the legislature's web site and trimmed it down to just the IME portion for my own listening pleasure. I'm afraid to post it, however, since I might get sued. Definitely worth listening to and it's unfortunate that we air dirty laundry like this in a public forum---especially one that's recorded and easily downloaded by anyone who wishes to do so. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 On 2/24/2012 12:12 PM, Charlie Caughlin wrote:  Go to the archives click on 2012 session then click on health committee for wes 02-22-12. I double click the fast forward it will go for a bit then go to regular speed you will hear other testimony hust click fast forward a couple times I think it is around 40 minute in to it before you get to it. Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC 155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554 skrndc1@...; dcdocbrian@...; From: vsaboe@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:37:44 -0800 Subject: RE: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Well Sunny as Ron indicated there is about 30 mins of testimony prior to the IME & OBCE testimony which you have to suffer through prior to hearing the IME deal….you can attempt to fast forward but it never seems to work very well…Vern  From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sunny Kierstyn Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:05 AM Seitz; Subject: RE: [From OregonDCs] IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.   I too am having difficulty finding the right portion .... any guidance?  sk Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C Eugene, Oregon, 97401 541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834 www.drsunnykierstyn.com  From: dcdocbrian@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:42 -0800 Subject: RE: [From OregonDCs] IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Could someone walk me through this listening thing; once I get to the site what do I look for?? Was the testimony entered by one of the IME docs? Does anyone want to summarize without bias? Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724 bluepearl2001@...; rongrice@...; From: caughlindrc@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:20:30 +0000 Subject: RE: [From OregonDCs] IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.   I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC 155 NW 1st Ave Day, Or. 97845 office 541-575-1063 fax 541-575-5554 rongrice@...; From: bluepearl2001@... Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [From OregonDCs] IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.   This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this. Ann DC From: "G" <rongrice@...> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PM Subject: [From OregonDCs] IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Dear Listmates. Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. Grice, DC Albany, OR    -- Schneider DC PDX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Dr. McGill, For what it's worth, I don't believe you could possibly be successfully* sued for disseminating a recording of a public hearing distributed by the legislature. Maybe for comments you might make about it, but that's it. If all you've done is trim it down to a reasonable length and not deliberately distorted context or anything, I would think you're totally fine here. Respectfully, Ben * Anyone can file a lawsuit, after all, so the question is whether they'd win, not whether they could sue you. On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Lyndon McGill wrote: > Will: > > If I can get Dave McTeague or an attorney on the list to confirm my immunity, I'll be happy to post the link to the excerpted recording. > > Lyndon McGill, D.C. > EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member > Salem, Oregon > www.SalemSpineClinic.com > www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 -- Ben Attorney at Law 1205 NW 25th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 p. (503) 224-1787 f. (888) 659-7963 e. Ben@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Thanks, Ben. But will you defend me pro bono should your opinion be tested? :-) With an esteemed legal opinion from Mr. , here is the link to the excerpted audio of the hearing. Its' a large file so allow a little time for it to load. IME Hearing Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 On 2/24/2012 3:04 PM, Ben wrote: Dr. McGill, For what it's worth, I don't believe you could possibly be successfully* sued for disseminating a recording of a public hearing distributed by the legislature. Maybe for comments you might make about it, but that's it. If all you've done is trim it down to a reasonable length and not deliberately distorted context or anything, I would think you're totally fine here. Respectfully, Ben * Anyone can file a lawsuit, after all, so the question is whether they'd win, not whether they could sue you. On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Lyndon McGill wrote: Will: If I can get Dave McTeague or an attorney on the list to confirm my immunity, I'll be happy to post the link to the excerpted recording. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 -- Ben Attorney at Law 1205 NW 25th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 p. (503) 224-1787 f. (888) 659-7963 e. Ben@... ------------------------------------ All posts must adhere to OregonDCs rules located on homepage at: / Tell a colleague about OregonDCs! (must be licensed Oregon DC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Thank you, Dr. McGill, for posting this audio clip!I found the testimony to be very interesting. I think the hearing committee did a good job of seeing through the emotion and getting down to the point - understanding the OBCE's complaint process against IME doctors and whether or not statutory changes need to be made in order to protect the doctors being accused in addition to protecting the public being served.The IME doctors testifying did not violate the rules of this list serve. Rule #4 states: The list-serve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the list-serve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Well, they appeared to remove all personal identifiers in their testimony as far as I could tell.Overall, I think the hearing was a good thing and not very damaging to our profession at all. It raised some good questions with the OBCE process of inquiry into disciplinary actions. The 2 main questions that arose by the end of the testimony were 1) Does a doctor being accused always have the opportunity to defend him/herself in person as part of the due process? and 2) Can a doctor have the opportunity to defend themselves before the proposal of disciplinary action is made public, thus avoiding potential damage to the doctor's reputation and livelihood?The hearing definitely brought up the bigger issue of the IME process and the need for reform to benefit both sides of this controversial issue. I'm confident that the OBCE will review these issues and make changes to the process if necessary. Jamey Dyson, DCOn Feb 24, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Lyndon McGill wrote: Thanks, Ben. But will you defend me pro bono should your opinion be tested? :-) With an esteemed legal opinion from Mr. , here is the link to the excerpted audio of the hearing. Its' a large file so allow a little time for it to load. IME Hearing Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 On 2/24/2012 3:04 PM, Ben wrote: Dr. McGill, For what it's worth, I don't believe you could possibly be successfully* sued for disseminating a recording of a public hearing distributed by the legislature. Maybe for comments you might make about it, but that's it. If all you've done is trim it down to a reasonable length and not deliberately distorted context or anything, I would think you're totally fine here. Respectfully, Ben * Anyone can file a lawsuit, after all, so the question is whether they'd win, not whether they could sue you. On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Lyndon McGill wrote: Will: If I can get Dave McTeague or an attorney on the list to confirm my immunity, I'll be happy to post the link to the excerpted recording. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 -- Ben Attorney at Law 1205 NW 25th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 p. (503) 224-1787 f. (888) 659-7963 e. Ben@... ------------------------------------ All posts must adhere to OregonDCs rules located on homepage at: / Tell a colleague about OregonDCs! (must be licensed Oregon DC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Hi docs: This is , DC the list moderator. I have reviewed the audio testimony and backtracked through my archives of the list-serv: 1- Sadly, I do believe that the testifying list-serv member/doctor violated the " spirit " or " intent " of our rules by quoting a 'sanitized' list-serv post in his testimony because he went on verbally identify the doctor who was author of the quoted post by stating the exact date of the posting and various other specific characteristics of the DC he was quoting. This, in my opinion, is " not cool. " ;-) 2-However, the testifying doctor did not violate the " letter " of the rules. Therefore I will not recommend any action against him as a member of our list-serv. As an aside... There was a fair amount of emotion involved in his testimony. But the testifying doctor used an Oregon State House Health Committee meeting to single out and personally attack one specific doctor as " clinically incompetent " and a " threat to the public " . Obviously he was upset, but these accusations in THAT forum were totally inappropriate for THAT committee/ THAT forum. Again, totally UNCOOL. But it was not a list-serv rules violation. ***Important note: We are one of the largest and most successful chiropractor-only list-servs in the world. I believe one of the reasons for our success (most chiropractor list-servs are failures) is that our rules promote high-quality behavior by balancing confidentiality against usability among our nearly 500 members. Also, the fact that we are nearly 100% limited to Oregon-licensed DCs ( and a select few others who we have given special approval to) keeps our discussions germane to the stakeholders (Oregon DCs). While I think our list-serv rules are pretty good currently, I reserve the right to change them (with your input) and I DO believe that I am going to recommend a " tightening down " of the rules. Please be on the lookout for upcoming proposed rule changes. You will be informed of the proposed changes and will be given a chance to give input/feedback/ and-or vote. J. , DC. List Moderator > > Dear Listmates. > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. > > Grice, DC > Albany, OR > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Thanks for this clarification of list rules and intentions. I must agree with your wise solution to this list serve issue. I also agree with your editorial comments concerning the doc who violated the spirit of the list serve rules while airing the dirty laundry of our profession in a very public forum. I was personally appalled that any Oregon chiropractic doctor would choose to use such a public forum to attack a fellow chiropractor. He certainly did little to improve the often maligned image of the IME doctor here in Oregon. So I commend you for once again helping to resolve an ugly issue. I agree that the rules need to be tightened to preclude this type of incident happening again. I would certainly support such tightening of rules to preserve the integrity and quality of this great list serve community. I look forward to your proposals (with feedback from group) in the near future. Thanks again for your tireless efforts to maintain this great asset of our profession here in Oregon-this list serve community. Schneider DCPDX On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, <-owner > wrote:  Hi docs: This is , DC the list moderator. I have reviewed the audio testimony and backtracked through my archives of the list-serv: 1- Sadly, I do believe that the testifying list-serv member/doctor violated the " spirit " or " intent " of our rules by quoting a 'sanitized' list-serv post in his testimony because he went on verbally identify the doctor who was author of the quoted post by stating the exact date of the posting and various other specific characteristics of the DC he was quoting. This, in my opinion, is " not cool. " ;-) 2-However, the testifying doctor did not violate the " letter " of the rules. Therefore I will not recommend any action against him as a member of our list-serv. As an aside... There was a fair amount of emotion involved in his testimony. But the testifying doctor used an Oregon State House Health Committee meeting to single out and personally attack one specific doctor as " clinically incompetent " and a " threat to the public " . Obviously he was upset, but these accusations in THAT forum were totally inappropriate for THAT committee/ THAT forum. Again, totally UNCOOL. But it was not a list-serv rules violation. ***Important note: We are one of the largest and most successful chiropractor-only list-servs in the world. I believe one of the reasons for our success (most chiropractor list-servs are failures) is that our rules promote high-quality behavior by balancing confidentiality against usability among our nearly 500 members. Also, the fact that we are nearly 100% limited to Oregon-licensed DCs ( and a select few others who we have given special approval to) keeps our discussions germane to the stakeholders (Oregon DCs). While I think our list-serv rules are pretty good currently, I reserve the right to change them (with your input) and I DO believe that I am going to recommend a " tightening down " of the rules. Please be on the lookout for upcoming proposed rule changes. You will be informed of the proposed changes and will be given a chance to give input/feedback/ and-or vote. J. , DC. List Moderator > > Dear Listmates. > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. > > Grice, DC > Albany, OR > -- Schneider DC PDX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I don't like that the legislators seemed to "minimize" the amount of "harm" by an IME doc versus a treating doc...(that's not right). A violation is a violation is a violation...period. We have rules, everyone needs to follow them. Second, I know of a chiropractor who recently had his license FULLY REVOKED with absolutely no face to face meeting with the board...(so, I'm not sure the testimony of that subject was accurate). This chiropractor needed to be suspended/revoked, but the fact is...the board conducted a PRIVATE investigation (without this doctor's knowledge, and of which I was a part). As a result of that private investigation, the board acted to protect the public by suspending his right to practice. He knew NOTHING of the boards activities until his license was suspended...(he didn't get a chance to respond to the board until AFTER he was charged). I wish the legislators would have had knowledge of this case, as they kept hammering that issue...(i.e. should we be allowed to address the board face to face BEFORE they even notify the public that they're going to level charges). Weird. Third, if the legislature is prepared to write a STATUTE requiring every chiropractor get a face-to-face meeting with the board PRIOR to the board even announcing they are leveling charges against that chiropractor...(which, seems backwards to me--allowing you to defend yourself before you are even charged) then the statue should apply to EVERY PROFESSIONAL BOARD in Oregon...because, again, we as chiropractors have singled-out ourselves in front of the legislature in an embarrassing way, and rather than us regulating and "managing" ourselves internally, we're potentially going to be regulated/managed externally. Not good (and definitely not smart). Personally, I find this kind of embarrassing... Clearly, I am not for "abuse" by any regulatory agency by any means...but, I'm also not for unnecessary OVER REGULATION of the entire profession based on the grievances of a "faction" within the profession... (:-) Having said all that, I would certainly like to see all parties work TOGETHER to resolve this outside the legislature, and come up with a system of fair, and equitable treatment of all licensed chiropractors regardless of practice style/activity. M. s, D.C. Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Thanks, Ben. But will you defend me pro bono should your opinion be tested? :-) With an esteemed legal opinion from Mr. , here is the link to the excerpted audio of the hearing. Its' a large file so allow a little time for it to load.IME HearingLyndon McGill, D.C.EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council MemberSalem, Oregonwww.SalemSpineClinic.comwww.EvolversUnited.com/e84On 2/24/2012 3:04 PM, Ben wrote: Dr. McGill, For what it's worth, I don't believe you could possibly be successfully* sued for disseminating a recording of a public hearing distributed by the legislature. Maybe for comments you might make about it, but that's it. If all you've done is trim it down to a reasonable length and not deliberately distorted context or anything, I would think you're totally fine here. Respectfully, Ben * Anyone can file a lawsuit, after all, so the question is whether they'd win, not whether they could sue you. On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Lyndon McGill wrote: Will: If I can get Dave McTeague or an attorney on the list to confirm my immunity, I'll be happy to post the link to the excerpted recording. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 -- Ben Attorney at Law 1205 NW 25th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 p. (503) 224-1787 f. (888) 659-7963 e. Ben@... ------------------------------------ All posts must adhere to OregonDCs rules located on homepage at: / Tell a colleague about OregonDCs! (must be licensed Oregon DC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Thank you Dr. s for sharing these insights. You make some very good points. I certainly share your hope that these matters be resolved within our profession and not with the intervention of the legislative branch of Gov.. Schneider DCPDXOn Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM, M. s, D.C. <drbobdc83@...> wrote:  I don't like that the legislators seemed to " minimize " the amount of " harm " by an IME doc versus a treating doc...(that's not right). A violation is a violation is a violation...period. We have rules, everyone needs to follow them.  Second, I know of a chiropractor who recently had his license FULLY REVOKED with absolutely no face to face meeting with the board...(so, I'm not sure the testimony of that subject was accurate). This chiropractor needed to be suspended/revoked, but the fact is...the board conducted a PRIVATE investigation (without this doctor's knowledge, and of which I was a part). As a result of that private investigation, the board acted to protect the public by suspending his right to practice. He knew NOTHING of the boards activities until his license was suspended...(he didn't get a chance to respond to the board until AFTER he was charged). I wish the legislators would have had knowledge of this case, as they kept hammering that issue...(i.e. should we be allowed to address the board face to face BEFORE they even notify the public that they're going to level charges). Weird.  Third, if the legislature is prepared to write a STATUTE requiring every chiropractor get a face-to-face meeting with the board PRIOR to the board even announcing they are leveling charges against that chiropractor...(which, seems backwards to me--allowing you to defend yourself before you are even charged) then the statue should apply to EVERY PROFESSIONAL BOARD in Oregon...because, again, we as chiropractors have singled-out ourselves in front of the legislature in an embarrassing way, and rather than us regulating and " managing " ourselves internally, we're potentially going to be regulated/managed externally. Not good (and definitely not smart).  Personally, I find this kind of embarrassing... Clearly, I am not for " abuse " by any regulatory agency by any means...but, I'm also not for unnecessary OVER REGULATION of the entire profession based on the grievances of a " faction " within the profession... (:-)  Having said all that, I would certainly like to see all parties work TOGETHER to resolve this outside the legislature, and come up with a system of fair, and equitable treatment of all licensed chiropractors regardless of practice style/activity.   M. s, D.C.   Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.  Thanks, Ben. But will you defend me pro bono should your opinion be tested? :-) With an esteemed legal opinion from Mr. , here is the link to the excerpted audio of the hearing. Its' a large file so allow a little time for it to load.IME HearingLyndon McGill, D.C.EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council MemberSalem, Oregonwww.SalemSpineClinic.comwww.EvolversUnited.com/e84 On 2/24/2012 3:04 PM, Ben wrote: Dr. McGill, For what it's worth, I don't believe you could possibly be successfully* sued for disseminating a recording of a public hearing distributed by the legislature. Maybe for comments you might make about it, but that's it. If all you've done is trim it down to a reasonable length and not deliberately distorted context or anything, I would think you're totally fine here. Respectfully, Ben * Anyone can file a lawsuit, after all, so the question is whether they'd win, not whether they could sue you. On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Lyndon McGill wrote: Will: If I can get Dave McTeague or an attorney on the list to confirm my immunity, I'll be happy to post the link to the excerpted recording. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 -- Ben Attorney at Law 1205 NW 25th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 p. (503) 224-1787 f. (888) 659-7963 e. Ben@... ------------------------------------ All posts must adhere to OregonDCs rules located on homepage at: / Tell a colleague about OregonDCs! (must be licensed Oregon DC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Thank you Dr. Schneider. This whole issue/problem is something I hope the OCA can offer some "mediation" for sometime in the near future...(keep it out of the board's hands and CERTAINLY out of the legislature!!!). Humorous story... I was once asked to do an IME... But, I told the guy up front that I couldn't guarantee I would give him the type of opinion he was looking for... When he asked what I meant by THAT, I said I would give a truly impartial opinion, and that if I felt the patient really had problems, or needed MORE care, I would say so. He said he was OFFENDED that I would even SUGGEST that he was looking for any other type of opinion (other than honest). So, I said, fine, I apologize...send me the case. I never heard from him again. (:-) RR Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Thanks, Ben. But will you defend me pro bono should your opinion be tested? :-) With an esteemed legal opinion from Mr. , here is the link to the excerpted audio of the hearing. Its' a large file so allow a little time for it to load.IME HearingLyndon McGill, D.C.EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council MemberSalem, Oregonwww.SalemSpineClinic.comwww.EvolversUnited.com/e84On 2/24/2012 3:04 PM, Ben wrote: Dr. McGill, For what it's worth, I don't believe you could possibly be successfully* sued for disseminating a recording of a public hearing distributed by the legislature. Maybe for comments you might make about it, but that's it. If all you've done is trim it down to a reasonable length and not deliberately distorted context or anything, I would think you're totally fine here. Respectfully, Ben * Anyone can file a lawsuit, after all, so the question is whether they'd win, not whether they could sue you. On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Lyndon McGill wrote: Will: If I can get Dave McTeague or an attorney on the list to confirm my immunity, I'll be happy to post the link to the excerpted recording. Lyndon McGill, D.C. EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member Salem, Oregon www.SalemSpineClinic.com www.EvolversUnited.com/e84 -- Ben Attorney at Law 1205 NW 25th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 p. (503) 224-1787 f. (888) 659-7963 e. Ben@... ------------------------------------ All posts must adhere to OregonDCs rules located on homepage at: / Tell a colleague about OregonDCs! (must be licensed Oregon DC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Dr. . Don't the more complete rules advise against referring to the "Groups" as the source of your reference? I thought I read in 's rules that you were not to use information in the manner as was done on Wednesday in front of the House Health Care hearing. You also brought up an interesting point I hadn't thought of before. As Dr. Burke so emotionally testified, and mentioned the doctor in question who made the complaint against Dr. Freedland was "clinically incompetent, and a threat to the public", wouldn't that insinuate that Dr. Burke had reviewed the documentation that Dr. Freedland had used in performing his IME? Wouldn't that be a violation of HIPAA. I was sitting in on the meeting. They both testified, at least from the impression I got, that the doctor and information they were discussing was from the same case. I think this is a bigger problem than violating the Group's rules. Again, this is just from what I recall as their testimony. You are totally correct that if they didn't violate the word of the rules, they definitely violated the intent of the rules. We should all be very careful about what we post here as we can't guarantee the information won't be repeated. Ron Grice, DC Albany, OR On 2/25/2012 11:36 AM, -owner wrote: Hi docs: This is , DC the list moderator. I have reviewed the audio testimony and backtracked through my archives of the list-serv: 1- Sadly, I do believe that the testifying list-serv member/doctor violated the "spirit" or "intent" of our rules by quoting a 'sanitized' list-serv post in his testimony because he went on verbally identify the doctor who was author of the quoted post by stating the exact date of the posting and various other specific characteristics of the DC he was quoting. This, in my opinion, is "not cool." ;-) 2-However, the testifying doctor did not violate the "letter" of the rules. Therefore I will not recommend any action against him as a member of our list-serv. As an aside... There was a fair amount of emotion involved in his testimony. But the testifying doctor used an Oregon State House Health Committee meeting to single out and personally attack one specific doctor as "clinically incompetent" and a "threat to the public". Obviously he was upset, but these accusations in THAT forum were totally inappropriate for THAT committee/ THAT forum. Again, totally UNCOOL. But it was not a list-serv rules violation. ***Important note: We are one of the largest and most successful chiropractor-only list-servs in the world. I believe one of the reasons for our success (most chiropractor list-servs are failures) is that our rules promote high-quality behavior by balancing confidentiality against usability among our nearly 500 members. Also, the fact that we are nearly 100% limited to Oregon-licensed DCs ( and a select few others who we have given special approval to) keeps our discussions germane to the stakeholders (Oregon DCs). While I think our list-serv rules are pretty good currently, I reserve the right to change them (with your input) and I DO believe that I am going to recommend a "tightening down" of the rules. Please be on the lookout for upcoming proposed rule changes. You will be informed of the proposed changes and will be given a chance to give input/feedback/ and-or vote. J. , DC. List Moderator > > Dear Listmates. > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. > > Grice, DC > Albany, OR > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I have been informed that Dr. Burke had been the Expert on the case in question with Dr. Freedland. This would explain why he had access to this information. Ron Grice, DC Albany, OR 97321 On 2/25/2012 4:11 PM, Grice wrote: Dr. . Don't the more complete rules advise against referring to the "Groups" as the source of your reference? I thought I read in 's rules that you were not to use information in the manner as was done on Wednesday in front of the House Health Care hearing. You also brought up an interesting point I hadn't thought of before. As Dr. Burke so emotionally testified, and mentioned the doctor in question who made the complaint against Dr. Freedland was "clinically incompetent, and a threat to the public", wouldn't that insinuate that Dr. Burke had reviewed the documentation that Dr. Freedland had used in performing his IME? Wouldn't that be a violation of HIPAA. I was sitting in on the meeting. They both testified, at least from the impression I got, that the doctor and information they were discussing was from the same case. I think this is a bigger problem than violating the Group's rules. Again, this is just from what I recall as their testimony. You are totally correct that if they didn't violate the word of the rules, they definitely violated the intent of the rules. We should all be very careful about what we post here as we can't guarantee the information won't be repeated. Ron Grice, DC Albany, OR On 2/25/2012 11:36 AM, -owner wrote: Hi docs: This is , DC the list moderator. I have reviewed the audio testimony and backtracked through my archives of the list-serv: 1- Sadly, I do believe that the testifying list-serv member/doctor violated the "spirit" or "intent" of our rules by quoting a 'sanitized' list-serv post in his testimony because he went on verbally identify the doctor who was author of the quoted post by stating the exact date of the posting and various other specific characteristics of the DC he was quoting. This, in my opinion, is "not cool." ;-) 2-However, the testifying doctor did not violate the "letter" of the rules. Therefore I will not recommend any action against him as a member of our list-serv. As an aside... There was a fair amount of emotion involved in his testimony. But the testifying doctor used an Oregon State House Health Committee meeting to single out and personally attack one specific doctor as "clinically incompetent" and a "threat to the public". Obviously he was upset, but these accusations in THAT forum were totally inappropriate for THAT committee/ THAT forum. Again, totally UNCOOL. But it was not a list-serv rules violation. ***Important note: We are one of the largest and most successful chiropractor-only list-servs in the world. I believe one of the reasons for our success (most chiropractor list-servs are failures) is that our rules promote high-quality behavior by balancing confidentiality against usability among our nearly 500 members. Also, the fact that we are nearly 100% limited to Oregon-licensed DCs ( and a select few others who we have given special approval to) keeps our discussions germane to the stakeholders (Oregon DCs). While I think our list-serv rules are pretty good currently, I reserve the right to change them (with your input) and I DO believe that I am going to recommend a "tightening down" of the rules. Please be on the lookout for upcoming proposed rule changes. You will be informed of the proposed changes and will be given a chance to give input/feedback/ and-or vote. J. , DC. List Moderator > > Dear Listmates. > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. > > Grice, DC > Albany, OR > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Dear colleagues and listserv members, I'm writing to respond to some of the recent comments on this listserv regarding alleged violations of OregonDC listserv rules and airing our professions' " dirty laundry " in public. I am one of the chiropractors who gave testimony before the House Healthcare Committee this past Wednesday. This was an information gathering hearing having to do with alleged malfeasance on the part of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners and alleged denial of due process by the Board to certain doctors against whom complaints were filed. The matter that my colleagues and I brought before the House Committee is not something that could be resolved by, for example, meeting with the OCA executive board, as someone recently suggested in an off-list communication. The actions of the OBCE directly affect the public welfare. The Board is charged with serving the public, regulating the practice of chiropractic, promoting quality, and ensuring competent, ethical health care. The Board is not accountable to the OCA. It is not accountable, at least directly, to the chiropractic profession. It is only accountable to the people of Oregon through the executive branch of the Oregon government. Given the widely held prejudices against IMEs and the doctors who perform them, what impartial jurisdictions or venues exist within our profession where we could have aired our grievances? Part of my testimony last Wednesday concerned members of the OBCE who had publicly expressed bias against doctors who perform IMEs. One member had used this listserv as a forum for announcing her prejudice. My testimony also concerned the records of a treating chiropractor which were reviewed by the Board as part of an investigation against another chiropractor. The treating chiropractor's records contained so many errors and contradictions that his reasoning and even his clinical competency might be questioned. After reviewing his records (in my capacity as an expert consultant in the case) I concluded that his continued practice could pose a danger to the public. The members of the Board had to have reviewed his records as part of the investigation of the other chiropractor. Yet they did not inquire further into the potential misconduct revealed in these records, something that might be considered obligatory given their mandate to protect the public. Instead, they sanctioned the doctor under investigation for violations that he clearly did not commit. Then they denied this doctor due process by not allowing him to rebut the charges prior to the Board's publication of them. Is publicly charging a chiropractor before allowing him an opportunity to respond to the charges a case of airing dirty laundry, or is it malfeasance, especially when bias against the doctor's specialty was publicly expressed? What recourse did the accused chiropractor have other than proceeding to a hearing before an administrative law judge, a public proceeding? How could the concern about the Board's improper handling of this and other similar cases have been addressed privately within the profession? To what extent did the chiropractic profession contribute to this situation by repeatedly denouncing independent examiners in a public forum? My concerns affect all chiropractors, not just those who do IMEs and record reviews. We need a regulatory board that handles all complaints in the same manner, regardless of each chiropractor's specialty. A complaint is not a presumption of guilt. The practice of chiropractic is a privilege granted to each of us by the state in which we practice, but having earned the privilege we each have the same right to due process. Imagine if you will that the Board was comprised of some members who had publicly expressed prejudice against chiropractors who practice Gonstead technique. If you are a Gonstead practitioner, and someone filed a complaint against you, would you consider it fair to be judged by the anti-Gonstead members of the Board? Would you think it was right if all other doctors were given the opportunity to appear in person to respond to the charges against them, but Gonstead practitioners were not? What would you and your Gonstead colleagues do under such circumstances? To which person, professional association, or public agency would you take your grievance? In my testimony I quoted posts from the OregonDC listserv. I did not violate any of the listserv rules. Before testifying I checked the rules to make sure I would not violate any of them. I have copied them here. 1. Keep correspondence professional. 2. No personal attacks on list-serve members will be tolerated. 3. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. 4. The list-serve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the list-serve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. 5. Use subject line to describe the content of your post/response. Use " OT " in subject line if the post is " off the topic " of chiropractic. 6. When applying for list membership, YOU MUST include your FULL NAME and OBCE LICENSE NUMBER. You do not need to have a email address nor do you have to register with to join this group. However, registering with (by creating a login name and pass word), will give you MUCH more control of how you participate in the list-serve and will have full access to the information-rich archives going back to 1999. Of these six rules, five of them have to do with the formatting and content of posts. Only Rule #4 concerns revealing information posted to the listserv. The rule does not prohibit revealing correspondence if " all personal identifiers have been removed. " That is exactly what I did. There is no rule against revealing the source of the quoted posts. Even if there was such a rule, it would do very little to restrict the dissemination of posted emails. Anyone wishing to do so could merely state that it was obtained from an Internet forum. In my testimony, and in the printed copies of the listserv posts that were distributed to the Committee members, all " personal identifiers " were redacted. One post mentioned the name of a doctor who is not on the listserv, and I removed his name as well. (I presume he is not a listserv member because the post was a personal attack on him, which Rule #2 would have prohibited.) Rule #4 warns members that the listserv is not secure. Given that your email could end up anywhere, Rule #1, " Keep correspondence professional, " is very important. Unfortunately, some people do not follow this rule. The unprofessional posts provided me with evidence to support my allegations. For example, in a recent post a doctor claimed that another chiropractor who reviewed his patient's file " raped " his patient. I pointed out in a personal email to this doctor that his comment was unprofessional, but he insisted his comment was appropriate and refused to retract it. (Last Thursday this doctor complained on the listserv that my testimony made chiropractors " look very unprofessional. " ) I also mentioned two instances in which doctors posted correspondence on the listserv inciting their colleagues to submit complaints against IME chiropractors to the OBCE if their reports disagreed with the treating doctors' opinions. If Rule #1 was consistently adhered to, there would be very little concern about publicizing listserv comments. Unfortunately, a lot of posts are unprofessional. As a chiropractor who performs IMEs and medical record reviews, I consider it unprofessional when chiropractors post insulting comments about their colleagues who perform these services. " Evil IMEs, " IME " hacks, " and " bogus IMEs " are only a few of the slams I've read in listserv correspondence. It would seem that listserv members don't consider these kinds of posts unprofessional but tacitly agree with the authors of such insults. The following is a quote from my testimony to the Healthcare Committee: " IMEs are performed by providers in many healthcare disciplines. In most disciplines there is little controversy regarding IMEs. In the chiropractic profession, however, independent medical evaluations are a highly contentious matter. Chiropractors who perform IMEs are vilified by their colleagues. The term " insurance whore " is often heard in candid discussions. Generally, chiropractors tend to believe that their work should not be questioned, especially by other chiropractors, and they tend to think of chiropractors who do IMEs and record reviews as traitors to the profession. If these doctors are being paid by insurance companies, the thinking goes, then certainly their opinions must have been determined by the source payment. " Whether or not you believe that the opinions of doctors who perform IMEs are for sale, it is unprofessional to discuss this topic in the manner in which it is commonly discussed on this listserv. And as the listserv is not secure (Rule #4), all of you who have submitted such correspondence have been, perhaps unwittingly, airing dirty laundry in public. I hope this explanation will lend some clarity and additional understanding of the events leading up to last Wednesday's hearing as well as the necessity and validity of the testimony. J. Burke, DC, DABCO mjqpdc@... > > > I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to " fix " our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our " in fighting " which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! > > Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave > Day, Or. 97845 > office 541-575-1063 > fax 541-575-5554 > > rongrice@...; > From: bluepearl2001@... > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000 > Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this. > Ann DC > > From: " G " <rongrice@...> > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PM > Subject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Listmates. > > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. > > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. > > > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. > > > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. > > > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. > > > > Grice, DC > > Albany, OR > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I don’t find any excuse adequate to justify this surreptitious and disreputable kind of act. In fact I find it equally unprofessional. A member has an OPINION that a statement or a dialogue is unprofessional and then uses that OPINION to justify dissemenation of the content from the list serve? Ridiculous and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the list serve. I can personally say that if it were my comments used by a member in this fashion, said member may expect a personal visit from me. ph Medlin D.C. From: mjqpdc Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:13 PM Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. Dear colleagues and listserv members,I'm writing to respond to some of the recent comments on this listserv regarding alleged violations of OregonDC listserv rules and airing our professions' "dirty laundry" in public.I am one of the chiropractors who gave testimony before the House Healthcare Committee this past Wednesday. This was an information gathering hearing having to do with alleged malfeasance on the part of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners and alleged denial of due process by the Board to certain doctors against whom complaints were filed. The matter that my colleagues and I brought before the House Committee is not something that could be resolved by, for example, meeting with the OCA executive board, as someone recently suggested in an off-list communication. The actions of the OBCE directly affect the public welfare. The Board is charged with serving the public, regulating the practice of chiropractic, promoting quality, and ensuring competent, ethical health care. The Board is not accountable to the OCA. It is not accountable, at least directly, to the chiropractic profession. It is only accountable to the people of Oregon through the executive branch of the Oregon government. Given the widely held prejudices against IMEs and the doctors who perform them, what impartial jurisdictions or venues exist within our profession where we could have aired our grievances?Part of my testimony last Wednesday concerned members of the OBCE who had publicly expressed bias against doctors who perform IMEs. One member had used this listserv as a forum for announcing her prejudice. My testimony also concerned the records of a treating chiropractor which were reviewed by the Board as part of an investigation against another chiropractor. The treating chiropractor's records contained so many errors and contradictions that his reasoning and even his clinical competency might be questioned. After reviewing his records (in my capacity as an expert consultant in the case) I concluded that his continued practice could pose a danger to the public. The members of the Board had to have reviewed his records as part of the investigation of the other chiropractor. Yet they did not inquire further into the potential misconduct revealed in these records, something that might be considered obligatory given their mandate to protect the public. Instead, they sanctione d the doctor under investigation for violations that he clearly did not commit. Then they denied this doctor due process by not allowing him to rebut the charges prior to the Board's publication of them. Is publicly charging a chiropractor before allowing him an opportunity to respond to the charges a case of airing dirty laundry, or is it malfeasance, especially when bias against the doctor's specialty was publicly expressed? What recourse did the accused chiropractor have other than proceeding to a hearing before an administrative law judge, a public proceeding? How could the concern about the Board's improper handling of this and other similar cases have been addressed privately within the profession? To what extent did the chiropractic profession contribute to this situation by repeatedly denouncing independent examiners in a public forum? My concerns affect all chiropractors, not just those who do IMEs and record reviews. We need a regulatory board that handles all complaints in the same manner, regardless of each chiropractor's specialty. A complaint is not a presumption of guilt. The practice of chiropractic is a privilege granted to each of us by the state in which we practice, but having earned the privilege we each have the same right to due process. Imagine if you will that the Board was comprised of some members who had publicly expressed prejudice against chiropractors who practice Gonstead technique. If you are a Gonstead practitioner, and someone filed a complaint against you, would you consider it fair to be judged by the anti-Gonstead members of the Board? Would you think it was right if all other doctors were given the opportunity to appear in person to respond to the charges against them, but Gonstead practitioners were not? What would you and your Gonstead colleagues do under such circumstances? To which person, professional association, or public agency would you take your grievance?In my testimony I quoted posts from the OregonDC listserv. I did not violate any of the listserv rules. Before testifying I checked the rules to make sure I would not violate any of them. I have copied them here.1. Keep correspondence professional. 2. No personal attacks on list-serve members will be tolerated.3. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.4. The list-serve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the list-serve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.5. Use subject line to describe the content of your post/response. Use "OT" in subject line if the post is "off the topic" of chiropractic.6. When applying for list membership, YOU MUST include your FULL NAME and OBCE LICENSE NUMBER. You do not need to have a email address nor do you have to register with to join this group. However, registering with (by creating a login name and pass word), will give you MUCH more control of how you participate in the list-serve and will have full access to the information-rich archives going back to 1999. Of these six rules, five of them have to do with the formatting and content of posts. Only Rule #4 concerns revealing information posted to the listserv. The rule does not prohibit revealing correspondence if "all personal identifiers have been removed." That is exactly what I did. There is no rule against revealing the source of the quoted posts. Even if there was such a rule, it would do very little to restrict the dissemination of posted emails. Anyone wishing to do so could merely state that it was obtained from an Internet forum. In my testimony, and in the printed copies of the listserv posts that were distributed to the Committee members, all "personal identifiers" were redacted. One post mentioned the name of a doctor who is not on the listserv, and I removed his name as well. (I presume he is not a listserv member because the post was a personal attack on him, which Rule #2 would have prohibited.) Rule #4 warns members that the listserv is not secure. Given that your email could end up anywhere, Rule #1, "Keep correspondence professional," is very important. Unfortunately, some people do not follow this rule. The unprofessional posts provided me with evidence to support my allegations. For example, in a recent post a doctor claimed that another chiropractor who reviewed his patient's file "raped" his patient. I pointed out in a personal email to this doctor that his comment was unprofessional, but he insisted his comment was appropriate and refused to retract it. (Last Thursday this doctor complained on the listserv that my testimony made chiropractors "look very unprofessional.") I also mentioned two instances in which doctors posted correspondence on the listserv inciting their colleagues to submit complaints against IME chiropractors to the OBCE if their reports disagreed with the treating doctors' opinions.If Rule #1 was consistently adhered to, there would be very little concern about publicizing listserv comments. Unfortunately, a lot of posts are unprofessional. As a chiropractor who performs IMEs and medical record reviews, I consider it unprofessional when chiropractors post insulting comments about their colleagues who perform these services. "Evil IMEs," IME "hacks," and "bogus IMEs" are only a few of the slams I've read in listserv correspondence. It would seem that listserv members don't consider these kinds of posts unprofessional but tacitly agree with the authors of such insults. The following is a quote from my testimony to the Healthcare Committee: "IMEs are performed by providers in many healthcare disciplines. In most disciplines there is little controversy regarding IMEs. In the chiropractic profession, however, independent medical evaluations are a highly contentious matter. Chiropractors who perform IMEs are vilified by their colleagues. The term "insurance whore" is often heard in candid discussions. Generally, chiropractors tend to believe that their work should not be questioned, especially by other chiropractors, and they tend to think of chiropractors who do IMEs and record reviews as traitors to the profession. If these doctors are being paid by insurance companies, the thinking goes, then certainly their opinions must have been determined by the source payment."Whether or not you believe that the opinions of doctors who perform IMEs are for sale, it is unprofessional to discuss this topic in the manner in which it is commonly discussed on this listserv. And as the listserv is not secure (Rule #4), all of you who have submitted such correspondence have been, perhaps unwittingly, airing dirty laundry in public.I hope this explanation will lend some clarity and additional understanding of the events leading up to last Wednesday's hearing as well as the necessity and validity of the testimony.J. Burke, DC, DABCO mailto:mjqpdc%40 >> > I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! > > Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave > Day, Or. 97845 > office 541-575-1063 > fax 541-575-5554> > rongrice@...; mailto:%40> From: bluepearl2001@...> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000> Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this.> Ann DC> > From: "G" <rongrice@...>> mailto:%40> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PM> Subject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Listmates.> > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/.> > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list.> > > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature.> > > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private.> > > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list.> > > > Grice, DC> > Albany, OR> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 IME abuse cannot be dismissed as sour-grape opinions from a (semi-) private listserv, as witnessed in this article from The American Chiropractor mag, "IME Abuse: A Plan for an End." To wit: "In a perfect world, the IME doctor renders a second opinion that allows for necessary care of covered issues of injured patients. However, in the real world, an IME doctor rarely gives an opinion that is in the best interest of the patient. In my 30 years of experience as a practicing doctor, a medical consultant, a medical-legal consultant that speaks to doctors in 46 different states and a former IME doctor, I have witnessed that the truth is usually not told by the IME doctor. The IME opinion usually sides with who writes the paycheck and, as the adage goes, it's always about the money!" See more at: http://www.theamericanchiropractor.com/articles-special-feature/5830-ime-abuse-a-plan-for-an-end.htmlGranted, we are each individuals before we are members of a particular group, so no one can be judged solely by his/her associations, My question is, does Oregon law treat IMEs as having the same doctor/patient relationship as the treating physician; or is it without such ethical protection of the patient (and the treating doc)? Sears, DC, IAYT1218 NW 21st AvePortland, Oregon 97209v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.comOn Feb 25, 2012, at 5:13 PM, mjqpdc wrote: Dear colleagues and listserv members, I'm writing to respond to some of the recent comments on this listserv regarding alleged violations of OregonDC listserv rules and airing our professions' "dirty laundry" in public. I am one of the chiropractors who gave testimony before the House Healthcare Committee this past Wednesday. This was an information gathering hearing having to do with alleged malfeasance on the part of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners and alleged denial of due process by the Board to certain doctors against whom complaints were filed. The matter that my colleagues and I brought before the House Committee is not something that could be resolved by, for example, meeting with the OCA executive board, as someone recently suggested in an off-list communication. The actions of the OBCE directly affect the public welfare. The Board is charged with serving the public, regulating the practice of chiropractic, promoting quality, and ensuring competent, ethical health care. The Board is not accountable to the OCA. It is not accountable, at least directly, to the chiropractic profession. It is only accountable to the people of Oregon through the executive branch of the Oregon government. Given the widely held prejudices against IMEs and the doctors who perform them, what impartial jurisdictions or venues exist within our profession where we could have aired our grievances? Part of my testimony last Wednesday concerned members of the OBCE who had publicly expressed bias against doctors who perform IMEs. One member had used this listserv as a forum for announcing her prejudice. My testimony also concerned the records of a treating chiropractor which were reviewed by the Board as part of an investigation against another chiropractor. The treating chiropractor's records contained so many errors and contradictions that his reasoning and even his clinical competency might be questioned. After reviewing his records (in my capacity as an expert consultant in the case) I concluded that his continued practice could pose a danger to the public. The members of the Board had to have reviewed his records as part of the investigation of the other chiropractor. Yet they did not inquire further into the potential misconduct revealed in these records, something that might be considered obligatory given their mandate to protect the public. Instead, they sanctioned the doctor under investigation for violations that he clearly did not commit. Then they denied this doctor due process by not allowing him to rebut the charges prior to the Board's publication of them. Is publicly charging a chiropractor before allowing him an opportunity to respond to the charges a case of airing dirty laundry, or is it malfeasance, especially when bias against the doctor's specialty was publicly expressed? What recourse did the accused chiropractor have other than proceeding to a hearing before an administrative law judge, a public proceeding? How could the concern about the Board's improper handling of this and other similar cases have been addressed privately within the profession? To what extent did the chiropractic profession contribute to this situation by repeatedly denouncing independent examiners in a public forum? My concerns affect all chiropractors, not just those who do IMEs and record reviews. We need a regulatory board that handles all complaints in the same manner, regardless of each chiropractor's specialty. A complaint is not a presumption of guilt. The practice of chiropractic is a privilege granted to each of us by the state in which we practice, but having earned the privilege we each have the same right to due process. Imagine if you will that the Board was comprised of some members who had publicly expressed prejudice against chiropractors who practice Gonstead technique. If you are a Gonstead practitioner, and someone filed a complaint against you, would you consider it fair to be judged by the anti-Gonstead members of the Board? Would you think it was right if all other doctors were given the opportunity to appear in person to respond to the charges against them, but Gonstead practitioners were not? What would you and your Gonstead colleagues do under such circumstances? To which person, professional association, or public agency would you take your grievance? In my testimony I quoted posts from the OregonDC listserv. I did not violate any of the listserv rules. Before testifying I checked the rules to make sure I would not violate any of them. I have copied them here. 1. Keep correspondence professional. 2. No personal attacks on list-serve members will be tolerated. 3. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. 4. The list-serve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the list-serve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. 5. Use subject line to describe the content of your post/response. Use "OT" in subject line if the post is "off the topic" of chiropractic. 6. When applying for list membership, YOU MUST include your FULL NAME and OBCE LICENSE NUMBER. You do not need to have a email address nor do you have to register with to join this group. However, registering with (by creating a login name and pass word), will give you MUCH more control of how you participate in the list-serve and will have full access to the information-rich archives going back to 1999. Of these six rules, five of them have to do with the formatting and content of posts. Only Rule #4 concerns revealing information posted to the listserv. The rule does not prohibit revealing correspondence if "all personal identifiers have been removed." That is exactly what I did. There is no rule against revealing the source of the quoted posts. Even if there was such a rule, it would do very little to restrict the dissemination of posted emails. Anyone wishing to do so could merely state that it was obtained from an Internet forum. In my testimony, and in the printed copies of the listserv posts that were distributed to the Committee members, all "personal identifiers" were redacted. One post mentioned the name of a doctor who is not on the listserv, and I removed his name as well. (I presume he is not a listserv member because the post was a personal attack on him, which Rule #2 would have prohibited.) Rule #4 warns members that the listserv is not secure. Given that your email could end up anywhere, Rule #1, "Keep correspondence professional," is very important. Unfortunately, some people do not follow this rule. The unprofessional posts provided me with evidence to support my allegations. For example, in a recent post a doctor claimed that another chiropractor who reviewed his patient's file "raped" his patient. I pointed out in a personal email to this doctor that his comment was unprofessional, but he insisted his comment was appropriate and refused to retract it. (Last Thursday this doctor complained on the listserv that my testimony made chiropractors "look very unprofessional.") I also mentioned two instances in which doctors posted correspondence on the listserv inciting their colleagues to submit complaints against IME chiropractors to the OBCE if their reports disagreed with the treating doctors' opinions. If Rule #1 was consistently adhered to, there would be very little concern about publicizing listserv comments. Unfortunately, a lot of posts are unprofessional. As a chiropractor who performs IMEs and medical record reviews, I consider it unprofessional when chiropractors post insulting comments about their colleagues who perform these services. "Evil IMEs," IME "hacks," and "bogus IMEs" are only a few of the slams I've read in listserv correspondence. It would seem that listserv members don't consider these kinds of posts unprofessional but tacitly agree with the authors of such insults. The following is a quote from my testimony to the Healthcare Committee: "IMEs are performed by providers in many healthcare disciplines. In most disciplines there is little controversy regarding IMEs. In the chiropractic profession, however, independent medical evaluations are a highly contentious matter. Chiropractors who perform IMEs are vilified by their colleagues. The term "insurance whore" is often heard in candid discussions. Generally, chiropractors tend to believe that their work should not be questioned, especially by other chiropractors, and they tend to think of chiropractors who do IMEs and record reviews as traitors to the profession. If these doctors are being paid by insurance companies, the thinking goes, then certainly their opinions must have been determined by the source payment." Whether or not you believe that the opinions of doctors who perform IMEs are for sale, it is unprofessional to discuss this topic in the manner in which it is commonly discussed on this listserv. And as the listserv is not secure (Rule #4), all of you who have submitted such correspondence have been, perhaps unwittingly, airing dirty laundry in public. I hope this explanation will lend some clarity and additional understanding of the events leading up to last Wednesday's hearing as well as the necessity and validity of the testimony. J. Burke, DC, DABCO mjqpdc@... > > > I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to "fix" our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our "in fighting" which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How fun would that be!!!! > > Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave > Day, Or. 97845 > office 541-575-1063 > fax 541-575-5554 > > rongrice@...; > From: bluepearl2001@... > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000 > Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed to hear this. > Ann DC > > From: "G" <rongrice@...> > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PM > Subject: IME Testimony during the House Health Committee Hearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Listmates. > > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. > > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from having the privilege of membership on this list. > > > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non-professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. > > > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about keeping our comments private. > > > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this list. > > > > Grice, DC > > Albany, OR > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Dr. Sears, Every IME report I have ever read is very careful to establish in writing that the visit is about evaluation, not treatment, and " a physician-patient relationship is neither sought nor created. " In other words, I don't believe that the IME doc has any heightened legal responsibility. Also, I agree fully with the excerpt's author. While some small percentage of doctors are incompetent, poor documentarians, and/or loathe to re-evaluate regularly, whatever proportion that might be is absolutely dwarfed by the percentage of IMEs that result in the partial or total limitation of patient benefits. Anyone who reads these reports regularly knows how cynical, willfully ignorant or cherry-picking these reports often are, in service of their pre-ordained results. For all the straw man arguments about fraudster patients and PIP mill practices as continuing justifications for the IME industry as it presently exists, in my humble opinion, money continues to talk, and loudly. As of last week though, I'm happy to report that I have now come across a SECOND thoughtful, thorough, and well-reasoned DC IME report in my career as an attorney. Respectfully, Ben On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Sears wrote: > IME abuse cannot be dismissed as sour-grape opinions from a (semi-) private listserv, as witnessed in this article from The American Chiropractor mag, " IME Abuse: A Plan for an End. " > > > To wit: " In a perfect world, the IME doctor renders a second opinion that allows for necessary care of covered issues of injured patients. However, in the real world, an IME doctor rarely gives an opinion that is in the best interest of the patient. In my 30 years of experience as a practicing doctor, a medical consultant, a medical-legal consultant that speaks to doctors in 46 different states and a former IME doctor, I have witnessed that the truth is usually not told by the IME doctor. The IME opinion usually sides with who writes the paycheck and, as the adage goes, it's always about the money! " See more at: http://www.theamericanchiropractor.com/articles-special-feature/5830-ime-abuse-a\ -plan-for-an-end.html > > Granted, we are each individuals before we are members of a particular group, so no one can be judged solely by his/her associations, My question is, does Oregon law treat IMEs as having the same doctor/patient relationship as the treating physician; or is it without such ethical protection of the patient (and the treating doc)? > > Sears, DC, IAYT > 1218 NW 21st Ave > Portland, Oregon 97209 > v: 503-225-0255 > f: 503-525-6902 > www.docbones.com -- Ben Attorney at Law 1205 NW 25th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 p. (503) 224-1787 f. (888) 659-7963 e. Ben@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 , I quoted some of these same sentences from the American Chiropractor article in my testimony to the House Healthcare Committee last week. My point was that opinions like these, which paint all IMEs with the same brush, have prejudiced many in the profession, including members of the OBCE, against chiropractors who do IMEs to the extent that we can no longer get a fair hearing from the Board. (Of course, Dave McTeague and Dr. Coté denied that in their testimony.) Articles like this are divisive. They do not increase anyone's understanding of what an IME is, how it's done, or what the IME doctor considers in the evaluation. It only fosters the erroneous idea that a " good " IME supports the treating chiropractor's opinion and a " bad " IME cuts off care. That is an extreme oversimplification, but most people seem to be satisfied with it. There are chiropractors whose patients are almost never sent for IMEs, and in those rare instances the IME doctor's opinion usually supports the treating doc. This happens because the treating DC does a proper intake history and physical examination, makes a reasonable diagnosis based on the available data, provides reasonable and medically necessary care, and documents everything in a manner that makes sense and is easily understood by others reading the chart. Furthermore, in those cases where the independent examiner provides an unreasonable opinion not based on the available data, the treating doctor is then in a position to rebut the IME effectively. In our profession, IMEs are a highly contentious issue, far more so than in some other healthcare disciplines. The article in the American Chiropractor only serves to add fuel to the fire. There is a lot more going on than can be understood by assuming an " us versus them " attitude. Respectfully, J. Burke, D.C. > > > > > > > > > I agree whole heartedly!!! We need to settle disputed within > > ourselves not run to someone else outside our profession to " fix " > > our problems. I fear that this has un done a lot of progress that > > has happened for us in Salem. This has the appearance of our " in > > fighting " which most legislators shy ed away from until we united. > > IMHO it makes us look weak and childish!!!! Now we have to watch > > out that the legislature does not sees us as such and try to > > disband our board and have us regulated by the medical board. How > > fun would that be!!!! > > > > > > Dr. A Caughlin DC CAC155 NW 1st Ave > > > Day, Or. 97845 > > > office 541-575-1063 > > > fax 541-575-5554 > > > > > > rongrice@; > > > From: bluepearl2001@ > > > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000 > > > Subject: Re: IME Testimony during the House > > Health Committee Hearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very disappointing and upsetting to me. Everyone needs to > > take stock and remember how precious our profession in, regardless > > of 'what side of the isle' one might be on. Very, very disappointed > > to hear this. > > > Ann DC > > > > > > From: " G " <rongrice@> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:33:14 PM > > > Subject: IME Testimony during the House Health > > Committee Hearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Listmates. > > > > > > Yesterday at the House Health Committee hearing regarding how the > > OBCE deals with complaints, specifically in regards to IMEs, three > > DCs testified in front of the committee. Their testimony can be > > listened to at http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/. > > > > > > During that testimony, direct quotes from this DC List serve were > > entered into the record of the House Health Committee hearing. I > > find this blatant violation of List serve rules to be appalling. It > > is my opinion that the doctors of record who were testifying at > > this committee, who violated these rules should be expelled from > > having the privilege of membership on this list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many forums on the net are anonymous. The reason we have > > signature requirements on this list is that we are expected to > > respect everyone's opinion here, realizing that this will ensure > > professional dialogue. When someone violates that tenant, then the > > list will die and we will lose this wonderful tool. It also speaks > > volumes to the integrity of the persons violating this rule. If > > they are so willing to throw their colleagues under the bus in > > front of the Oregon Legislature, especially when there are non- > > professional audience members in the gallery, and when one of those > > in attendance was a medical physician testifying on another matter, > > we look very unprofessional and it appears to the audience that we > > need to have greater control put on us by the Oregon Legislature. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to remind all of us, be careful what we say on this > > list, at least as long as particular people have no concern about > > keeping our comments private. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, and with tremendous respect for the integrity of this > > list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Grice, DC > > > > > > Albany, OR > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.