602 replies to this topic

[peanutbutter]

I don't think so.

If the rec letter were good for an infinite amount of time then Joe Dokes could wait one year before sending it in and then get a card that is good for a year. That could mean that the Dr's evaluation was 2 years old for the last week your card is still valid. Of course you can extend that out to any number of years. If you wait 5 years, then send it in, then you have a valid card based on a condition that was evaluated up to 6 years ago. That wouldn't be acceptable in the medical profession.

Making the rec letter good for 90 days means that if you apply then, in theory, the dr evaluation is no older than 1 year and 3 months (minus one day) while your card is still valid.

I think the reasoning behind the expiration of a rec letter is related to how long they want the card to last before you are re-evaluated. Making it expire in 90 days forces you to be re-evaluated every 15 months or sooner.

You keep defending the state .. noted.

[peanutbutter]

Annual renewal with an avenue for the doctor to adjust the medicine in that one year period. No avenue for adjustment with a sec. 8. Just that one shapshot in time from the doc. It's a line with and endpoint at the time the rec. was written with no adjustment available after the rec. How long can something like that stand? The state says it's 90 days when you send it in.

For the purposes of applying for the ID card, yes. The letter can NOT become invalid while the card is valid. The card is a representation of a valid letter.

[Malamute]

I will stick by my original statement that it will vary from case to case for a myriad of reasons and no "absolute" will likely evolve from it.

The laws terminology(Sec. 8) unfortunately/fortunately is vague and leaves certain aspects to the trier of fact.

At some point there will be a "generally accepted" time frame possibly that could come from it. "Generally" (complete guess for sake of discussion) 6 months to 2 years if still supported by the recommending physician for the patients current(past) medical condition.

Until then, procede at your own risk.


Addendum: Also, using the Acts reference to a 1 year card could be useful for some to show a recommendation is good for that long. Also though, that most physicians never give "prescriptions" for more than a year(usually less now) without seeing the patient again. No telling what will hapen for sure. But, All examples that support the defendant in court are okie dokie by me. Sec.8 is not governed by the time frames in the rest of the Act, but if it used as reference to get someone out of prosecution... Than peachy keen, go for it. :-)

I will still stick by original statement here. Can we all just agree with me and move on!

Hahaha... just kidding.

All sorts of angles and issues will come up surrounding the broadness or lack thereof of Sec. 8 defenses. It is made that way on purpose to allow the widest array of people to ATTEMPT to present a defense that would in the end cause dismissal. There are very few absolutes in Sec 8 besides dismissal if meeting the guidelines. The issue is, the guidelines are broad and purposefully worded to allow judicial discretion. Same as a justified murder case.

When undefined on the recommendation validity question, the court will turn to other references such as dictionaries, precedent, common practices and generally accepted standards.

These interpretations will vary from case to case(purposefully) and allows for 3 specific and broad points to be determined by the trier of fact.

We are debating an answer that will likely never exist in an absolute term. There will likely be a range of outcomes, fully justifiable, that will eventually become generally accepted standards based on previous justifications of dozens if not hundreds of dismissed or not dismissed cases.

You can and absolutely have the right to argue your 3 year old rec is legitimate and dam well best hope you have a physician that will testify for you and you MAY get your case dismissed. Again Judicial discretion intermingles witht he 3 requirements of a Sec. 8 defense.

So yea..

Edited by Malamute, 25 July 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[peanutbutter]

I will still stick by original statement here. Can we all just agree with me and move on!

Hahaha... just kidding.

All sorts of angles and issues will come up surrounding the broadness or lack thereof of Sec. 8 defenses. It is made that way on purpose to allow the widest array of people to ATTEMPT to present a defense that would in the end cause dismissal. There are very few absolutes in Sec 8 besides dismissal if meeting the guidelines. The issue is, the guidelines are broad and purposefully worded to allow judicial discretion. Same as a justified murder case.

When undefined on the recommendation validity question, the court will turn to other references such as dictionaries, precedent, common practices and generally accepted standards.

These interpretations will vary from case to case(purposefully) and allows for 3 specific and broad points to be determined by the trier of fact.

We are debating an answer that will likely never exist in an absolute term. There will likely be a range of outcomes, fully justifiable, that will eventually become generally accepted standards based on previous justifications of dozens if not hundreds of dismissed or not dismissed cases.

You can and absolutely have the right to argue your 3 year old rec is legitimate and dam well best hope you have a physician that will testify for you and you MAY get your case dismissed. Again Judicial discretion intermingles witht he 3 requirements of a Sec. 8 defense.

So yea..

Looks like a fair statement to me.

Thanks.

Also note there is something else in the works.

There is a possibility, that someone could be arrested, with only a doctors letter, then apply for the card before the court case can start.

That would, in theory, give the person the protections of not being eligible for being prosecuted or punished.

Waiting to see if this works out. Strong possibility that it will. After several "test cases." Don't be a test case.

[Dr. Bob]

I'll agree with Mal, we'll know when there are test cases. Test cases will occur when folks try to avoid the registry and rely on section 8. If you make the personal decision to risk your liberty and fortune by becoming that test case, your best chances are with a doctor's recommendation on an interval equal to the registration process for the reasons clearly outlined.

That means annually.

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

I'll agree with Mal, we'll know when there are test cases. Test cases will occur when folks try to avoid the registry and rely on section 8. If you make the personal decision to risk your liberty and fortune by becoming that test case, your best chances are with a doctor's recommendation on an interval equal to the registration process for the reasons clearly outlined.

That means annually.

Dr. Bob

100% agree.

Test cases have been involved in every iota of this law .. except section 6. The state has always been in perfect compliance with that section. At least there has never been an arrest of a government official for breaking the law.

[CaveatLector]

You keep defending the state .. noted.

Great response pb. I see that if I don't adopt your opinion then that automatically makes me a confederate. Give me an f-ing break. Next I'll get the old, "are you LEO???"

Lastly, how is it I am even remotely defending the state? I have a reasonable view of the law based on many factors and adequate consideration of all factors involved. You don't like that so that means I'm defending the state. Why don't you go skulk and sulk for a while. You are, afterall, known for that after someone hands you your arse.

Last lastly, have you stopped beating your wife?

[peanutbutter]

Great response pb. I see that if I don't adopt your opinion then that automatically makes me a confederate. Give me an f-ing break. Next I'll get the old, "are you LEO???"

Lastly, how is it I am even remotely defending the state? I have a reasonable view of the law based on many factors and adequate consideration of all factors involved. You don't like that so that means I'm defending the state. Why don't you go skulk and sulk for a while. You are, afterall, known for that after someone hands you your arse.

Last lastly, have you stopped beating your wife?

Naaa .. I'll just put you on ignore. Stop letting you suck me into multi page pissing matches.

[CaveatLector]

Naaa .. I'll just put you on ignore. Stop letting you suck me into multi page pissing matches.

What, you don't have free will?

I suggest you put everyone on ignore who doesn't agree with you. That way you can have all of the necessary ego tweaks without being bothered with anyone calling you out.

[GanjaWarrior]

What, you don't have free will?

I suggest you put everyone on ignore who doesn't agree with you. That way you can have all of the necessary ego tweaks without being bothered with anyone calling you out.

you go....i know call him joe cain...

[SFC]

Ganja, don't you mean the Irish travelers?

[CaveatLector]

Ganja, don't you mean the Irish travelers?

[restlesslegs]

I tend to put toadies and FPL posters on ignore. I saw one posted in response to my last one, so I thought I'd give the courtesy of a reply. I think your inability to see the sources (the law, attorneys, the owner and administrators of this site, CPU members, etc) reflects your unwillingness to accept any challenge to your faith. You don't see the logic of arguments because you have no concept of what logic is. You were given courtesy until such time as it became apparent you didn't return it or deserve it. The best you can do is an occasional personal shot at me, SFC, or anyone that doesn't see things in your way. Your fans are obviously amused by it because they share your view of the world.

You say you give me a nod for persistence. You and those like you are a source of amusement to me. Every court needs a jester, restless has run back to Joe so I am pleased we have you...

Dr. Bob

I don't run and I don't hide, I never went anywhere, I just refuse to engage in conversation with NPD folks.

[Dr. Bob]

Well welcome back restless, guess you got tired of talking to yourself over at Joe's. Been rather peaceful over here for the last month, nice of you to stop by.

Dr. Bob

[SFC]

I am curious what the King Gypsy is actually protesting now? And how are 6 or 7 of you going to carry 320 signs? Oh yea, and has anyone offered a bid on his leather jacket yet, if not I will bid .32 cents!

[MiDelServ]

That simply is not true. Section 8 requires:

A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship...

It requires a full assessment of the pt's med history. Right? And why? Because it doesn't make sense to recommend a treatment (in this case mm) without knowing how it may affect the pt's other conditions. That being said, fast forward several years. What if the recommendation is 10 years old and use of mm has never been revisited by the doctor? In that case the pt has accrued years and years of medical history that has gone unevaluated by the Dr. Therefore, the recommendation has not considered the full medical history at that point. There is room for interpretation within the law when the law requires a full assessment of history and a recommendation made based on "current" medical condition.

Arguing that the rec. is limitless and has no shelf life is preposterous. Similarly, arguing that a limit is not written into the law is also preposterous. What you fail to realize is that the law will be INTERPRETED. Rules of statutory construction require us to interpret a law such that it does not lead to an absurd result. Arguing that ANY recommendation made by a Dr is still good 10 years from now is absurd. No doctor, practicing in this country, will tell you that s/he would recommend a medicine for a patient for 10 years without follow-up evaluations. None. That is simply so far beyond the standard of care it isn't even funny. Therefore, your argument leads to an absurd result and cannot stand.

What do you Expect from Someone who works in Law. Caveats Worry is JOB SECURITY.

when People like this put their own GAINS above that of those less fortunate, They care not for the less fortunate.

[MiDelServ]

What, you don't have free will?

I suggest you put everyone on ignore who doesn't agree with you. That way you can have all of the necessary ego tweaks without being bothered with anyone calling you out.

Here is a suggestion for you. Go to your office and call your buddy Bull Schuette, and tell him, your useless as you just cant break the will of the smart ones.

[cristinew]

People like this put their own GAINS above that of those less fortunate, They care not for the less fortunate

You got that one right some people on here want to profit off sick people with their oil, or their 50 an 1./8 buds

[Restorium2]

What do you Expect from Someone who works in Law. Caveats Worry is JOB SECURITY.

when People like this put their own GAINS above that of those less fortunate, They care not for the less fortunate.

So Cav tells everyone to be careful and that gets him job security as an attorney? And you say you are one of the SMART ONES? Make some sense then and maybe someone would listen.

[cristinew]

a delivery service saying others here are out for profit too funny,,