www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/local-optician-outraged-a-psychiatrist/diagnosed-him-without-meeting-him-1.3734309
sorry having problems
please go to www.cbc.ca hamilton ----- go to news you will find article
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/local-optician-outraged-a-psychiatrist/diagnosed-him-without-meeting-him-1.3734309
sorry having problems
please go to www.cbc.ca hamilton ----- go to news you will find article
Last edited by norman.kane; 08-29-2016 at 12:02 AM.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...-him-1.3734309
Lawyers are getting rich....
Gotta love that our college spent money on a psychiatrist due to this case. More of our money going down the drain
Sounds like they have found new lows to reach down to.
It's despicable that the members would allow this to happen to fellow members.
School burned through cash on a therapist because of this case. A greater amount of our cash going down the channel
Maybe members should do a non confidence vote then could re-elect a totally new group.
How did they justify this ? What section of law allowed them to proceed without his knowledge or informing him about his rights ?
What happened to his right to privacy ?
i agree with idispense
This optician should be outraged at everyone involved, including the College of Opticians, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the review boards. When you read this and the other lawsuit you have to really shake your head in disbelieve of the treatment he's been subjected to.
Agree with idispense. All of this is shocking but this is only a preliminary. The College went to court to try to have the main case thrown out and lost. the judge agreed there were grounds. Then the College got dinged for $6000 for refusing to turn over documents. Now this and more to come. Ultimately, the college will lose and what will come out of this case will be a blockbuster
Do you have a link to that court case so we can read the transcript ? It would fill in some gaps to read the judges thoughts on the case as well as keep membership informed of facts.
Sadly I don't as I think you have to request them from the court but people should ask council what happened when they tried to have the claim by Jay and Chris thrown out of court. And they should ask council why the college caved in just before a motion for disclosure was heard and gave the documents over. And what happened when Jay went to court and asked for costs over that undefended motion. He got $6000.
Look for the links right here on Optiboard.
Concur with idispense. Every one of this is stunning yet this is just a preparatory. The College went to court to attempt to have the principle case tossed out and lost. the judge concurred there were grounds.
Don't be so sure the college will lose. Even if one party has substantial evidence, judges have been known to go the other way. It's 50/50 odds. What the college should do is just issue an apology, cut a cheque for $50K and settle this quietly through a NDA. That's all it is really worth.
I find it interesting that an ophthalmologist from Miami John Nelson just joined this group and his first comment is in regard to the College of Opticians of Ontario and the subject of this thread. Also there are two posters.....Revelation and revelation all of whom share the same views as idispense and revelation just joined us as well.
Does idispense really have to invent posters to agree with himself to try to sway opinion on this board?
Just my observations...................
The legal action against the college is for 3 counts of defamation plus conspiracy. Defamation in Canada is unique. There is a reverse onus which means that Jay and Chris do not have to prove they were defamed but the college and those who it is alleged defamed them have to prove that what they said is true. And in two of the accounts of defamation, their are independent witnesses who said what the parties said was said. You cannot call someone an Iranian terrorist unless you can prove it is true.
Partly right if that had been done 4 years ago. If you get a notice of action as the college did then the sensible thing to do is to contact the lawyer and resolve it before it goes too far - an apology and some money to cover legal costs. But the college ignored the notice of action, ignored the statement of claim and went to court to try to have it tossed and then has been refusing to provide proper disclosure. All that has cost everyone money. Now there are 3 claims of defamation for two people. Lets say that after 4 or more years, the payout is $50 k for each claims times 2. That's $300,000 plus of course you pay legal costs that could be maybe $100,000 each so you are up to half a million dollars not counting the conspiracy which is even more. Stupid stupid and stupid!
In my opinion , this would appear to be more about right and wrong, not money.
Money is only the remedy that is possible now.
Isn't it time to focus on the real issue: (1) Were his rights violated ? (2) What is a reasonable remedy to restore this man's rights ?
This is about a person who stood up to be counted and stood up for opticians when opticians wouldn't even show up at meetings themselves. This is about a man twice elected by members who placed their faith in him.
It's about a man pushing back to defend himself against the odds of membership money. This is about his belief that his rights were being abused and his reputation being seriously damaged.
I suggest reading the comment section in yahoo news about this case. It might refocus your thoughts on the seriousness of this issue.
I also suggest re reading the article itself and focusing on this section of that article:
"Near the end of Wednesday's hearing, one of the three non-medical, independent panelists noted to the parties that at the time the diagnosis was written, the policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on undertaking a third-party report read: "It is imperative that physicians discuss their role in the reports process … with the third party and the patient or examinee."
Asked by CBC News whether it has a Canadian equivalent to the Goldwater rule, the Canadian Psychiatric Association provided its ethical position statement on courtroom testimony, which states in part:
"Whenever possible, psychiatrists should testify ... as to the mental state of a particular person only if they have examined that person or made significant attempts to do so."
The statement goes on: "They may review records and critique a diagnosis but should not make a diagnosis without an examination of the person."
Last edited by idispense; 08-29-2016 at 10:09 PM.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks