Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 WOW...but will these witnesses actually swear an affadavit as to what they were told by Senechal?? If not, it becomes a he said she said...and even with the affadavit, Senechal can deny saying it or claim they misheard him/misinterpreted his comments its very hard to overturn on this basis...BUT I DO hope it is accepted for review which is the first step. thanks for the updates Rich!!! and Happy aNd HEALTHIER New Yrs to all Finette [“Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right.†- Ezre Taft Benson] [ ] Dr. Update- Jan 2 Yesterday (January 2), Dr. filed with the Connecticut Medical Examining Board a Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate the decision of December 18, which had imposed civil penalties and placed Dr. on probation for two years. The basis for the motion is bias on the part of one of the panel members, Dr. Senechal, who had told the parents of a child diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease during the hearings that there was no such thing as chronic Lyme disease, that the treatment of chronic Lyme disease was a " big racket, " and referred to physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease as " quacks " who were " in cahoots " with lab companies. The motion argues that this profound bias prevented Dr. Senechal from having the necessary impartiality to provide Dr. a fair trial in a fair tribunal, a fundamental underpinning of due process under the constitution. Due process requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. Two parents who attended the December 18th hearing stepped forward at its conclusion to express their concerns that a physician with such strong bias had been included on the panel. The parents had learned of Dr. Senechal's bias through personal encounters with him as a physician of their child, who had been diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease. The information came to light at the end of the December 18th hearing, when the two parents first approached counsel for Dr. . The parents had not met Dr. nor his counsel prior to the conclusion of the December 18th hearing. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Hi Finette, You too (have a Healthier New Year)!!! How are you doing these days? I hope you are getting better than you were in November. Take care, Rich > > > WOW...but will these witnesses actually swear an affadavit as to what they were told by Senechal?? > > > > If not, it becomes a he said she said...and even with the affadavit, Senechal can deny saying it or claim they misheard him/misinterpreted his comments > > its very hard to overturn on this basis...BUT I DO hope it is accepted for review which is the first step. > > > thanks for the updates Rich!!! > > and Happy aNd HEALTHIER New Yrs to all > > Finette > > > > > [“Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right.†- Ezre Taft Benson] > > > [ ] Dr. Update- Jan 2 > > > > > > > Yesterday (January 2), Dr. filed with the Connecticut Medical > Examining Board a Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate the > decision > of December 18, which had imposed civil penalties and placed Dr. > on probation for two years. > > The basis for the motion is bias on the part of one of the panel > members, Dr. Senechal, who had told the parents of a child diagnosed > with chronic Lyme disease during the hearings that there was no > such thing as chronic Lyme disease, that the treatment of chronic Lyme > disease was a " big racket, " and referred to physicians who treat > chronic > Lyme disease as " quacks " who were " in cahoots " with lab companies. The > motion argues that this profound bias prevented Dr. Senechal from > having > the necessary impartiality to provide Dr. a fair trial in a fair > tribunal, a fundamental underpinning of due process under the > constitution. > > Due process requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. > Two parents who attended the December 18th hearing stepped forward at > its conclusion to express their concerns that a physician with such > strong bias had been included on the panel. The parents had learned of > Dr. Senechal's bias through personal encounters with him as a > physician > of their child, who had been diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease. The > information came to light at the end of the December 18th hearing, > when > the two parents first approached counsel for Dr. . The parents > had > not met Dr. nor his counsel prior to the conclusion of the > December 18th hearing. > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ __ > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com > > > 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.