Guest guest Posted July 23, 2000 Report Share Posted July 23, 2000 Dear Walter, Have you decided to represent Dr Rutledges patients? I know you had some internal issues to resolve and I wondered if they have had a positive conclusion. There are many who have serious Ins issues here. Sincerely Judi in Fla Quoting Walter Lindstrom : > It is an incorrect statement that exclusions cannot be appealled. They can > be appealled and, quite often, successfully defeated. Sometimes an > " exclusion " is not legally enforceable or simply does not apply to the case > at hand. For instance, diabetics or persons with severe reflux or sleep > apnea are often able to get surgery after an initial denial because the > surgery is not for " weight loss " but rather, as primary treatment for > comorbidities. There is caselaw we use which supports these and other > aspects of fighting insurance denials. Good luck in your situation. > Walter Lindstrom, Esquire > Obesity Law & Advocacy Center > www.obesitylaw.com > 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 > San Diego, CA 92139 > Tel: > Fax: > Re: INSURANCE EXLUSIONS - Dreamscape and Cathy > in Lenoir > > > > Yours looks pretty bad. The exclusion is specific: > > > > " all expenses related to . . . weight loss . . . surgeries. " > > > > However, that does not rule out the payment of the hospital bill for a > > necessary hospitalization, even if the surgery isn't covered. The > > treatment is medically necessary, even if weight loss surgery is an > > exclusion, so therefore, you can argue that the hospitalization is a > > necessary hospitalization and should be covered. > > > > > As documented in the enclosed General Exclusion (there was nothing in > the > > > envelope but the letter) from Bernhardt Furniture Group Medical Plan, > > > obesity treatment is specifically excluded from coverage. > > > > Make them send it to you. > > > > > > > Please note, as approved by the NC Dept. of Insurance, that the > > > grievance process does not apply to grievances based solely on the fact > that > > > United Healthcare of NC does not provide benefits for the health care > service > > > in question. United Healthcare of NC is unable to consider an appeal > > > request for these services. It's signed by someone who says they are > the > Appeal & Grievance > > > Coordinator. > > > > > It's the second paragraph that I just don't understand. I'm just kinda > > > at a loss and I'm not sure if I can appeal this. Thanks for your help, > I > > > really appreciate that you replied to my former post!!! > > > > Insurance is a contract between you and the insurance company (or your > > husband's employer and the insurance company, with you being a > > third-party beneficiary of the contract). > > > > As the law sees it, parties to a contract are always free to negotiate > > the terms of a contract, or to walk away from it (turn it down) if the > > terms don't suit them. > > > > (Now, I know that is not the practical reality of insurance coverage > > through your husband's employer but that's how the law sees it). > > > > So, when the parties aree " negotiating " the terms of the contract, they > > can decide to exclude certain things from coverage. The other side > > doesn't have to take the contract if they don't like the terms. > > > > So when there is a specific " exclusion " in your policy, it is actually a > > condition of the insurance contract itself. It is not something that is > > appealable because it was written into the contract. > > > > Issues that can be appealed are things like when the insurance company > > says " Yes, that surgery is covered in the policy but you don't qualify > > because it isn't medically necessary in your case. " In that case, you > > appeal and prove it is medically necessary in your case. In otherwords, > > the insurance company has the discretion to decide if you do or do not > > qualify for coverage for a procedure that is covered in the policy. > > > > But in the case of an exclusion, the insurance company has no > > discretion. The type of surgery itself is specifically not included in > > the contract, no matter what your good reasons for having it may be. > > > > But as I said, the insurance *may* still cover the hospitalization for > > the surgery. Can't hurt to check. > > > > Now to pursue this, you have to insist that only the surgery is > > excluded, and that hospitalization is *specifically* included in your > > policy (quote the relevant parts of the policy) when it is medically > > necessary. Even though surgery for weight loss is excluded, that does > > not mean it isn't medically necessary, so you want to argue with them > > that a hospitalization for that surgery would be " medically necessary " > > and covered (maybe). I hope this makes sense. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cathy in Lenoir, NC > > > Pre-op > > > BMI 42 > > > A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step > > > -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- > > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing List at > > > Onelist.com > > > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > > > Get the Patient Manual at http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > > > > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > > > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > > Find long lost high school friends: > > http://click.egroups.com/1/7080/3/_/453517/_/964308345/ > > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > > > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing List at Onelist.com > > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > > Get the Patient Manual at http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com: > http://click.egroups.com/1/7075/3/_/453517/_/964400739/ > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing List at Onelist.com > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > Get the Patient Manual at http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > ----------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Hitter Communications Webmail http://webmail.hitter.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2000 Report Share Posted July 23, 2000 Dear Walter, Have you decided to represent Dr Rutledges patients? I know you had some internal issues to resolve and I wondered if they have had a positive conclusion. There are many who have serious Ins issues here. Sincerely Judi in Fla Quoting Walter Lindstrom : > It is an incorrect statement that exclusions cannot be appealled. They can > be appealled and, quite often, successfully defeated. Sometimes an > " exclusion " is not legally enforceable or simply does not apply to the case > at hand. For instance, diabetics or persons with severe reflux or sleep > apnea are often able to get surgery after an initial denial because the > surgery is not for " weight loss " but rather, as primary treatment for > comorbidities. There is caselaw we use which supports these and other > aspects of fighting insurance denials. Good luck in your situation. > Walter Lindstrom, Esquire > Obesity Law & Advocacy Center > www.obesitylaw.com > 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 > San Diego, CA 92139 > Tel: > Fax: > Re: INSURANCE EXLUSIONS - Dreamscape and Cathy > in Lenoir > > > > Yours looks pretty bad. The exclusion is specific: > > > > " all expenses related to . . . weight loss . . . surgeries. " > > > > However, that does not rule out the payment of the hospital bill for a > > necessary hospitalization, even if the surgery isn't covered. The > > treatment is medically necessary, even if weight loss surgery is an > > exclusion, so therefore, you can argue that the hospitalization is a > > necessary hospitalization and should be covered. > > > > > As documented in the enclosed General Exclusion (there was nothing in > the > > > envelope but the letter) from Bernhardt Furniture Group Medical Plan, > > > obesity treatment is specifically excluded from coverage. > > > > Make them send it to you. > > > > > > > Please note, as approved by the NC Dept. of Insurance, that the > > > grievance process does not apply to grievances based solely on the fact > that > > > United Healthcare of NC does not provide benefits for the health care > service > > > in question. United Healthcare of NC is unable to consider an appeal > > > request for these services. It's signed by someone who says they are > the > Appeal & Grievance > > > Coordinator. > > > > > It's the second paragraph that I just don't understand. I'm just kinda > > > at a loss and I'm not sure if I can appeal this. Thanks for your help, > I > > > really appreciate that you replied to my former post!!! > > > > Insurance is a contract between you and the insurance company (or your > > husband's employer and the insurance company, with you being a > > third-party beneficiary of the contract). > > > > As the law sees it, parties to a contract are always free to negotiate > > the terms of a contract, or to walk away from it (turn it down) if the > > terms don't suit them. > > > > (Now, I know that is not the practical reality of insurance coverage > > through your husband's employer but that's how the law sees it). > > > > So, when the parties aree " negotiating " the terms of the contract, they > > can decide to exclude certain things from coverage. The other side > > doesn't have to take the contract if they don't like the terms. > > > > So when there is a specific " exclusion " in your policy, it is actually a > > condition of the insurance contract itself. It is not something that is > > appealable because it was written into the contract. > > > > Issues that can be appealed are things like when the insurance company > > says " Yes, that surgery is covered in the policy but you don't qualify > > because it isn't medically necessary in your case. " In that case, you > > appeal and prove it is medically necessary in your case. In otherwords, > > the insurance company has the discretion to decide if you do or do not > > qualify for coverage for a procedure that is covered in the policy. > > > > But in the case of an exclusion, the insurance company has no > > discretion. The type of surgery itself is specifically not included in > > the contract, no matter what your good reasons for having it may be. > > > > But as I said, the insurance *may* still cover the hospitalization for > > the surgery. Can't hurt to check. > > > > Now to pursue this, you have to insist that only the surgery is > > excluded, and that hospitalization is *specifically* included in your > > policy (quote the relevant parts of the policy) when it is medically > > necessary. Even though surgery for weight loss is excluded, that does > > not mean it isn't medically necessary, so you want to argue with them > > that a hospitalization for that surgery would be " medically necessary " > > and covered (maybe). I hope this makes sense. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cathy in Lenoir, NC > > > Pre-op > > > BMI 42 > > > A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step > > > -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- > > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing List at > > > Onelist.com > > > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > > > Get the Patient Manual at http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > > > > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > > > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > > Find long lost high school friends: > > http://click.egroups.com/1/7080/3/_/453517/_/964308345/ > > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > > > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing List at Onelist.com > > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > > Get the Patient Manual at http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com: > http://click.egroups.com/1/7075/3/_/453517/_/964400739/ > -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing List at Onelist.com > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > Get the Patient Manual at http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > ----------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Hitter Communications Webmail http://webmail.hitter.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2000 Report Share Posted July 24, 2000 In a message dated 7/24/2000 9:20:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lindstromw@... writes: << However, since there is or was nothing indicating such an individualized attorney-client relationship existed, I didn't think posting general help was improper. >> I have heard nothing about representing us as a whole group. Is there a post I didn't get? I believe she represented a group in Michigan. is an amazing person, a wealth of knowledge and I believe she tries her best to help everyone on this list, she answered some questions for me and tried to give me some advise on what to do next, but I have heard nothing from her saying that she was representing me. I am really naive, but I assume if I am being represented by an attorney, they do the work not me for a fee. I will take all the help I can get. I want to have this surgery, no other one, this one and i don't know for sure yet, but I believe I may be in for a fight with my insurance and being totally naive about such matters I am at a loss. i may not be thrilled with your view's, but you probably wouldn't be thrilled with mine, but that's why we live in America to have the freedom to have our own views. This site is open to the public and as long as Dr. R doesn't have a problem with you being here I sure don't. I'll take any advise and help I can get from anyone who is kind enough to send it my way. No flames from anyone please. There is no reason for it. Cathy in Lenora, NC BMI 42 A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2000 Report Share Posted July 24, 2000 I responded to a similar inquiry earlier but I've now been informed that this list is represented by and I have been instructed to not communicate with it on a substantive basis. Therefore my help appears not needed or wanted and there does not appear to be room for my experience here. Walter Lindstrom, Esquire Obesity Law & Advocacy Center www.obesitylaw.com 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 San Diego, CA 92139 Tel: Fax: Re: INSURANCE EXLUSIONS > - Dreamscape and Cathy > > in Lenoir > > > > > > > Yours looks pretty bad. The exclusion is specific: > > > > > > " all expenses related to . . . weight loss . . . > surgeries. " > > > > > > However, that does not rule out the payment of the > hospital bill for a > > > necessary hospitalization, even if the surgery > isn't covered. The > > > treatment is medically necessary, even if weight > loss surgery is an > > > exclusion, so therefore, you can argue that the > hospitalization is a > > > necessary hospitalization and should be covered. > > > > > > > As documented in the enclosed General Exclusion > (there was nothing in > > the > > > > envelope but the letter) from Bernhardt Furniture > Group Medical Plan, > > > > obesity treatment is specifically excluded from > coverage. > > > > > > Make them send it to you. > > > > > > > > > > Please note, as approved by the NC Dept. of > Insurance, that the > > > > grievance process does not apply to grievances > based solely on the fact > > that > > > > United Healthcare of NC does not provide benefits > for the health care > > service > > > > in question. United Healthcare of NC is unable to > consider an appeal > > > > request for these services. It's signed by > someone who says they are > > the > > Appeal & Grievance > > > > Coordinator. > > > > > > > It's the second paragraph that I just don't > understand. I'm just kinda > > > > at a loss and I'm not sure if I can appeal this. > Thanks for your help, > > I > > > > really appreciate that you replied to my former > post!!! > > > > > > Insurance is a contract between you and the > insurance company (or your > > > husband's employer and the insurance company, with > you being a > > > third-party beneficiary of the contract). > > > > > > As the law sees it, parties to a contract are > always free to negotiate > > > the terms of a contract, or to walk away from it > (turn it down) if the > > > terms don't suit them. > > > > > > (Now, I know that is not the practical reality of > insurance coverage > > > through your husband's employer but that's how the > law sees it). > > > > > > So, when the parties aree " negotiating " the terms > of the contract, they > > > can decide to exclude certain things from > coverage. The other side > > > doesn't have to take the contract if they don't > like the terms. > > > > > > So when there is a specific " exclusion " in your > policy, it is actually a > > > condition of the insurance contract itself. It is > not something that is > > > appealable because it was written into the contract. > > > > > > Issues that can be appealed are things like when > the insurance company > > > says " Yes, that surgery is covered in the policy > but you don't qualify > > > because it isn't medically necessary in your > case. " In that case, you > > > appeal and prove it is medically necessary in your > case. In otherwords, > > > the insurance company has the discretion to decide > if you do or do not > > > qualify for coverage for a procedure that is > covered in the policy. > > > > > > But in the case of an exclusion, the insurance > company has no > > > discretion. The type of surgery itself is > specifically not included in > > > the contract, no matter what your good reasons for > having it may be. > > > > > > But as I said, the insurance *may* still cover the > hospitalization for > > > the surgery. Can't hurt to check. > > > > > > Now to pursue this, you have to insist that only > the surgery is > > > excluded, and that hospitalization is > *specifically* included in your > > > policy (quote the relevant parts of the policy) > when it is medically > > > necessary. Even though surgery for weight loss is > excluded, that does > > > not mean it isn't medically necessary, so you want > to argue with them > > > that a hospitalization for that surgery would be > " medically necessary " > > > and covered (maybe). I hope this makes sense. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cathy in Lenoir, NC > > > > Pre-op > > > > BMI 42 > > > > A journey of a thousand miles begins with a > single step > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass > Mailing List at > > > > Onelist.com > > > > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > > > > Get the Patient Manual at > http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > > > > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > > Find long lost high school friends: > > > > http://click.egroups.com/1/7080/3/_/453517/_/964308345/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > > > > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass > Mailing List at Onelist.com > > > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > > > Get the Patient Manual at > http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > > > > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com: > > > http://click.egroups.com/1/7075/3/_/453517/_/964400739/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing > List at Onelist.com > > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > > Get the Patient Manual at > http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: > > MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through Hitter Communications Webmail > http://webmail.hitter.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Missing old school friends? Find them here: > http://click.egroups.com/1/7079/3/_/453517/_/964411426/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message is from the Mini-Gastric Bypass Mailing List at Onelist.com > Please visit our web site at http://clos.net > Get the Patient Manual at http://clos.net/get_patient_manual.htm > > To Unsubscribe Send and Email to: MiniGastricBypass-unsubscribe (AT) egroups (DOT) com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2000 Report Share Posted July 24, 2000 Hi : There is a post from entitled " Ethics " which reminds me (although such reminders are unnecessary) that I have an ethical obligation to not communicate with persons represented by counsel. That is a true statement. However, since there is or was nothing indicating such an individualized attorney-client relationship existed, I didn't think posting general help was improper. She seems to think I was wrong. She has now threatened to contact the state bar of California so an abundance of caution indicates to me that believes she represents the entire list, including you. Except for you post and that of others sent privately to me, I have no information to support or reject her contention but would prefer not to create another ruckus. I will answer individual inquiries, as always, on my email at walter@.... Walter Lindstrom, Esquire Obesity Law & Advocacy Center www.obesitylaw.com 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 San Diego, CA 92139 Tel: Fax: Re: Re: Walter L > I would like to know who " informed " you of this!! > Nothing against , she has done nothing to me, but I am not represented by her. I am working on insurance approval now and should the time come that I am denied, I will be seeking your help, simply because I believe YOU have the background expertise in these cases. And before anyone reminds me that Mr Lindstrom does not represent MGB cases, I am not sure this is the procedure I will be going for. I am still researching. > > (who enjoys EVERYONE on this list) > 5'3 " 240 > BMI 41.6 > > I responded to a similar inquiry earlier but I've now been informed that > this list is represented by and I have been instructed to not > communicate with it on a substantive basis. Therefore my help appears not > needed or wanted and there does not appear to be room for my experience > here. > Walter Lindstrom, Esquire > Obesity Law & Advocacy Center > www.obesitylaw.com > 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 > San Diego, CA 92139 > Tel: > Fax: > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2000 Report Share Posted July 24, 2000 Walter: Walter Lindstrom wrote: > > Hi : There is a post from entitled " Ethics " which reminds > me (although such reminders are unnecessary) that I have an ethical obligation > to not communicate with persons represented by counsel. That is a > true statement. That was a private email I sent to you, Walter, not a " post, " until you posted it. I sent it to you privately out of deference to Dr. Rutledge and the people on this list who are tired of this, and because I genuinely wanted you to adhere to your legal and ethical duties. As an attorney, I have an obligation to remind you of your ethical duties. However, you are also overlooking other legal duties that I mentioned, which include that you have a duty to not counsel people with whom you have a conflict of interest. You also have a legal duty to advise clients and potential clients of your conflict of interest. Those are LEGAL RULES, Walter, I didn't make them up. You can be reprimanded, suspended or disbarred for ignoring them, because they are there TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM LAWYERS WHO WANT MONEY AT THE EXPENSE OF CLIENTS WHEN THE LAWYER TRIES TO REPRESENT SOMEONE WHEN HE HAS A CONFLICT WITH THE CLIENT'S BEST INTERESTS. So, Walter, even as recently as today, you were given the opportunity to recant your position against the MGB and you have not (you also never bothered to support your claims that it was " bad " with any facts, either). The first post you ever left on here said you would not represent MGB patients because you believed the procedure was " bad " and you were doing it " out of concerns for the patients. " That right there puts you in conflict with the interests of MGB patients and BY LAW you are required to ADVISE these people of YOUR CONFLICT. Now, you suddenly decided to start spewing advice yesterday, and you didn't put any WARNING on it to anyone, either, about your conflict of interest. In the post you left badmouthing Dr. Rutledge and the MGB, you also stated you were representing an MGB appeal -- that, too, is a very clear conflict of interest. So how many ethical rules is that so far, Walter, that you claim to " know? " Can we just assume that since you " needed no reminder " you are PURPOSELY violating them? > However, since there is or was nothing indicating such an > individualized attorney-client relationship existed, I didn't think > posting general help was improper. She seems to think I was wrong. She has > now threatened to contact the state bar of California so an abundance of > caution indicates to me that believes she represents the entire list, > including you. You are an unmitigated liar. I have never stated I represent the list in private or otherwise. The email I sent to you speaks for itself. You have posted this lie three times now and you can stop. I have been on this list over six months. Until yesterday, when you wrote to one of my clients to publicly contradict me, you have never offered any advice on this list, ever. So to now create a " controversy " over " not being allowed to post " is disingenuous, and to create this picture of " poor pitiful ostracized Walter, " you had to lie and claim I said something I never said. > Except for you post and that of others sent privately > to me, I have no information to support or reject her contention but would > prefer not to create another ruckus. Another lie, since you have seen fit to post three times, proclaiming the same lie, expressly to CREATE a ruckus under false pretenses. > I will answer individual inquiries, as > always, on my email at walter@.... > Walter Lindstrom, Esquire > Obesity Law & Advocacy Center > www.obesitylaw.com > 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 > San Diego, CA 92139 > Tel: > Fax: Regarding your " signature " and solicitation of private inquiries, in many states where this now appears, Walter, it is illegal advertising. > Re: Re: Walter L > > > I would like to know who " informed " you of this!! > > Nothing against , she has done nothing to me, but I am not > represented by her. I am working on insurance approval now and should > the > time come that I am denied, I will be seeking your help, simply > because I > believe YOU have the background expertise in these cases. And before > anyone > reminds me that Mr Lindstrom does not represent MGB cases, I am not > sure > this is the procedure I will be going for. I am still researching. > > > > (who enjoys EVERYONE on this list) > > 5'3 " 240 > > BMI 41.6 > > > > I responded to a similar inquiry earlier but I've now been > informed that > > this list is represented by and I have been > instructed to > not > > communicate with it on a substantive basis. Therefore my help > appears > not > > needed or wanted and there does not appear to be room for my > experience > > here. > > Walter Lindstrom, Esquire > > Obesity Law & Advocacy Center > > www.obesitylaw.com > > 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 > > San Diego, CA 92139 > > Tel: > > Fax: > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2000 Report Share Posted July 24, 2000 Walter: Walter Lindstrom wrote: > > Hi : There is a post from entitled " Ethics " which reminds > me (although such reminders are unnecessary) that I have an ethical obligation > to not communicate with persons represented by counsel. That is a > true statement. That was a private email I sent to you, Walter, not a " post, " until you posted it. I sent it to you privately out of deference to Dr. Rutledge and the people on this list who are tired of this, and because I genuinely wanted you to adhere to your legal and ethical duties. As an attorney, I have an obligation to remind you of your ethical duties. However, you are also overlooking other legal duties that I mentioned, which include that you have a duty to not counsel people with whom you have a conflict of interest. You also have a legal duty to advise clients and potential clients of your conflict of interest. Those are LEGAL RULES, Walter, I didn't make them up. You can be reprimanded, suspended or disbarred for ignoring them, because they are there TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM LAWYERS WHO WANT MONEY AT THE EXPENSE OF CLIENTS WHEN THE LAWYER TRIES TO REPRESENT SOMEONE WHEN HE HAS A CONFLICT WITH THE CLIENT'S BEST INTERESTS. So, Walter, even as recently as today, you were given the opportunity to recant your position against the MGB and you have not (you also never bothered to support your claims that it was " bad " with any facts, either). The first post you ever left on here said you would not represent MGB patients because you believed the procedure was " bad " and you were doing it " out of concerns for the patients. " That right there puts you in conflict with the interests of MGB patients and BY LAW you are required to ADVISE these people of YOUR CONFLICT. Now, you suddenly decided to start spewing advice yesterday, and you didn't put any WARNING on it to anyone, either, about your conflict of interest. In the post you left badmouthing Dr. Rutledge and the MGB, you also stated you were representing an MGB appeal -- that, too, is a very clear conflict of interest. So how many ethical rules is that so far, Walter, that you claim to " know? " Can we just assume that since you " needed no reminder " you are PURPOSELY violating them? > However, since there is or was nothing indicating such an > individualized attorney-client relationship existed, I didn't think > posting general help was improper. She seems to think I was wrong. She has > now threatened to contact the state bar of California so an abundance of > caution indicates to me that believes she represents the entire list, > including you. You are an unmitigated liar. I have never stated I represent the list in private or otherwise. The email I sent to you speaks for itself. You have posted this lie three times now and you can stop. I have been on this list over six months. Until yesterday, when you wrote to one of my clients to publicly contradict me, you have never offered any advice on this list, ever. So to now create a " controversy " over " not being allowed to post " is disingenuous, and to create this picture of " poor pitiful ostracized Walter, " you had to lie and claim I said something I never said. > Except for you post and that of others sent privately > to me, I have no information to support or reject her contention but would > prefer not to create another ruckus. Another lie, since you have seen fit to post three times, proclaiming the same lie, expressly to CREATE a ruckus under false pretenses. > I will answer individual inquiries, as > always, on my email at walter@.... > Walter Lindstrom, Esquire > Obesity Law & Advocacy Center > www.obesitylaw.com > 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 > San Diego, CA 92139 > Tel: > Fax: Regarding your " signature " and solicitation of private inquiries, in many states where this now appears, Walter, it is illegal advertising. > Re: Re: Walter L > > > I would like to know who " informed " you of this!! > > Nothing against , she has done nothing to me, but I am not > represented by her. I am working on insurance approval now and should > the > time come that I am denied, I will be seeking your help, simply > because I > believe YOU have the background expertise in these cases. And before > anyone > reminds me that Mr Lindstrom does not represent MGB cases, I am not > sure > this is the procedure I will be going for. I am still researching. > > > > (who enjoys EVERYONE on this list) > > 5'3 " 240 > > BMI 41.6 > > > > I responded to a similar inquiry earlier but I've now been > informed that > > this list is represented by and I have been > instructed to > not > > communicate with it on a substantive basis. Therefore my help > appears > not > > needed or wanted and there does not appear to be room for my > experience > > here. > > Walter Lindstrom, Esquire > > Obesity Law & Advocacy Center > > www.obesitylaw.com > > 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 > > San Diego, CA 92139 > > Tel: > > Fax: > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2000 Report Share Posted July 24, 2000 I would like to know who " informed " you of this!! Nothing against , she has done nothing to me, but I am not represented by her. I am working on insurance approval now and should the time come that I am denied, I will be seeking your help, simply because I believe YOU have the background expertise in these cases. And before anyone reminds me that Mr Lindstrom does not represent MGB cases, I am not sure this is the procedure I will be going for. I am still researching. (who enjoys EVERYONE on this list) 5'3 " 240 BMI 41.6 I responded to a similar inquiry earlier but I've now been informed that this list is represented by and I have been instructed to not communicate with it on a substantive basis. Therefore my help appears not needed or wanted and there does not appear to be room for my experience here. Walter Lindstrom, Esquire Obesity Law & Advocacy Center www.obesitylaw.com 2939 Alta View Drive - Suite O-360 San Diego, CA 92139 Tel: Fax: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2000 Report Share Posted July 25, 2000 , I truly am sorry you are so offended that I corrected his post that you are representing everyone on this list. I wanted my side straight about that. He did not say who made the statement and I never said your name. I simply asked " who said this? " As I said earlier you have done nothing to me and it was nothing against you. There must be some underlying reason you are so easily offended to remarks that were not even made to you. Now too correct a few things..... Not to beg the obvious, , but the only times you have posted have been to support Walter and bash the MGB. You and a couple of other names only pop up when Walter does. The other names have aol addresses (where a person gets 8 alias name email addresses) and hotmail addresses (where unlimited email addresses are free). I notice your service provider is in Mississippi. Are you, Laurie and her bile husband " friends " ? 1.I have posted numerous times about different things, mainly about insurance " which no one othered to answer or offer advice, but I was not offended, I just kept asking until I got answers by private email. Only once before have I posted anything about Walter. I, as far as I know, am the only person other than DW that is from Ms. I do not even know who Laurie and her husband are. I have, however,noticed that anyone who dos not agree with you, you get paranoid about. You question their motives. Can you not concieve the idea that not everyone agrees with you? You said in your previous post that you were at the ASBS conference, when you first posted here, supporting Walter after he badmouthed the MGB and said he would not represent any MGB patients. The ASBS conference was attended by bariatric surgeons and some of their staffs and Walter, apparently. You never did answer the question about how you came to be at the ASBS conference, by the way. 2.If you actually go back and look at the post. I let the entire list know that from ObesityHelp.com contacted me, knowing I am not far from Memph is, and ask me to help out the conference. Which I did, and that is how I came to be at the conference. The only times you have posted have been to support Walter and snipes at me. 3.I have never sniped at you. I thought the argueing was totally uncalled for and everyone continued to say " lets end it " but no.....no matter what was said, someone had a comeback for everything. Some still do. I have never said I represent " the list " and if you had read the *private* email I sent to Walter, which he attached to his lie claiming I said I represented the list, you'd see that. But of course, you'd have to be looking. 4.I never said you did, I simply asked " who " imformed him of this. You are the one who is on the defensive. As for the rest of your statements, those are between you and Walter. I do hope they stay private between the two of you. (who is reaching for the same goal as everyone else on this list) 5'3 " 240 BMI 41.6 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.