New Unpublished Coa Ruling On Mmma From Oakland County

[t-pain]

20150922_C319184_32_319184.OPN.PDF

 

(this isnt the whole ruling, i just copied and pasted some paragraphs that stood out)

 

We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against defendant because a material question of fact existed as to whether defendant and defendant’s doctor had a bona fide physician-patient relationship.

 

coa still has a boner about the bona fied thing going. just how boner fied do they want it THIS time out of oakland county?

 

Defendant did present evidence to support his contention that he had a bona fide physician-patient relationship with the doctor, but looking at the evidence as a whole, questions of material fact exist. Defendant and the doctor were unable to provide any medical records regarding defendant’s condition other than the “physician’s summary” and a document explaining that defendant and thedoctor agreed on treating defendant’s condition with marijuana. In fact, the doctor was unable to provide any medical records upon which he relied and admitted that his clinic needed to improve in its document retention. Considering the lack of medical records and the nature of defendant and the doctor’s interaction (for example, its brevity), a reasonable jury could conclude that “a pre-existingand ongoing relationship with the patient as a treating physician” did not exist. Kolanek, 491 Mich at 396 n 30.

 

Therefore, because the trial court erred inconcluding that no material questions of fact existed as to whether defendant and the doctor had a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against defendant. Id.at 411 (“Questions of fact are the province of the

jury, while questions of law are reserved to the courts.”).

 

sorry COA, there is no requirement in sec8 to provide the court with medical records in order to secure a sec8 defense.

 

COA illegal slapdown continues.

 

 

ooh, here we go, now its time to find out exactly how much marijuana is ok under a sec8. are you guys ready for this? you ready to see how bill bad reads sec8 reasonably necessary ?

 

After considering the record, we conclude that a material question of fact existed as to

whether the amount of marijuana that defendant had in his home was no more than reasonably

necessary to treat hiscondition. Defendant contends “that themost qualified person to determine

the amount of marijuana necessary to relieve the stress and pain of medical maladies is in fact

the patient who suffers from them.” There is some merit to this position. As indicated in

Hartwick, “[a] patient seeking to assert a § 8 affirmative defense may have to testify about

whether a specific amount of marijuana alleviated the debilitating medical condition and if not,

what adjustments were made to the consumption rate and the amount of marijuana consumed to

determine an appropriate quantity.” slip op, at 11. However, the Hartwick court also stated that

once the defendant establishes the amount of usable marijuana needed to treat the debilitating

medical condition, “determining whether the patient possessed ‘a quantity of marihuana that was

not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure [its] uninterrupted availability’ also depends

on how the patient obtains marijuana and the reliability of this source.” Id.

Defendant testified that he used approximately an ounce of marihuana per week and that

he had 17 plants growing in his home, which he planned on harvesting. He testified that he had

never grown marihuana before, that no one had really told him how to grow the plants, he had

not used any of the plants that were in his home yet, and he had no idea of what the potential

output or yield from a marihuana plant may be. Defendant thought, however, that he had enough

marihuana growing to hopefully treat his condition for a year.

 

Clearly, defendant had no idea whether the amount of marijuanain his possession was

“of a quantity of marihuana [that] was not more than was reasonably necessary” as that set forth

in § 8(a)(2). While he testified that he smoked about an ounceper week, he did not testify that

this amount was reasonably necessary to treat his condition. The identification of a proper

treating medication and dosage is a matter that would benefit from the testimony of medical

personnel. Moreover, assuming that this amount was the proper amount to alleviate defendant’s

symptoms, defendant could not testify as to the amount of usable product that the 17 plants he

had in his possession would yield. Accordingly, at a minimum, questions of fact existed as to

whether defendant was in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more that was

reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of

treating or alleviating the symptoms of his condition.

 

 

hey greg, does your form use the term "i use _____ amount of marijuana and this amount ____ is reasonably necessary for me to treat my qualifying debilitating condition" ?

 

doesnt matter, its heresay female parental fornicator!

 

A material question of fact existed as to whether the marihuana found in defendant’s

home was for the purpose of treating or alleviating his seriousor debilitating medical condition

or symptoms of that condition. During the evidentiary hearing,defendant testified that he began

experiencing pain from TMJ “a couple years ago.” He stated that he first tried over-the-counter

medicine like aspirin and ibuprofin, and that when that did nothelp, he got his medical

marihuana card but never tried any other form of treatment. Asplaintiff points out, however,

defendant testified that he was able to overcome his condition and not use marihuana when his

daughter was present orduring work hours.

The only other testimony regarding defendant’s condition was that of defendant’s doctor,

who testified that defendant was diagnosed with TMJ and that medical marihuana was likely to

treat defendant’s condition. The doctor was not qualified as an expert in any area, including that

of TMJ or medical marihuana. In fact, the doctor admitted thathe had no formal training with

medical marihuana and knew of no studies that supported its use, “but . . . would very much like

to find out.” With regard to TMJ, the doctor was unable to articulate if he had ever treated any

patients with TMJ; he had merely watched other doctors do so when he was an extern. A

reasonable jury could conclude that without any medical documentation of such a condition, the

marihuana that defendant possessed was not being used to treat his condition.

Defendant also attempted to admit a letter purportedly writtenby one of his doctors;

however, the trial court found that such a letter was inadmissible hearsay. Defendant argued that

the trial court should accept this letter because “we did what we possibly could,” “we’re trying to

do everything we can,” and that it would be too expensive to bring in the doctor who wrote the

letter. These arguments simply do not address whether the letter is inadmissible hearsay. As

such, the trial court properly excluded this evidence.

 

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

[t-pain]

another unpublished, this one out of kent county.

 

20150922_C321585_46_321585.OPN

 

(321585 is the case number, if you want to look it up on coa website)

 

this one is a dispensary case

 

Accordingly, although on the basis of different reasoning, both this Court’s opinion in McQueen,

issued before defendant engaged in the charged conduct, and our Supreme Court’s opinion in

McQueen, issued after defendant engaged in the charged conduct, interpreted the MMMA in a

manner that simply did not afford immunity to defendant relative to the operation of his

marijuana dispensary.

 

oops. coa took a misstep. sec8 is available for all defendants no matter whut.

 

Second, we see

nothing in the language of § 8 that would permit the operation of a marijuana dispensary. Third,

and finally, defendant does not even attempt to analyze § 8 and explain how it would allow for

the operation of a dispensary.

 

nice one coa.

 

The answer is that a primary caregiver cannot

receive compensation under § 4(e) for costs associated with the impermissible act of assisting

unconnected registered qualifying patients.

 

whuh new argument.

[trichcycler]

"In fact, the doctor admitted that he had no formal training with
medical marihuana and knew of no studies that supported its use, “but . . . would very much like
to find out.”"




What cert doctor can say he has this formal training afterall ?

will your post be censored too? We were discussing this yesterday before it was censored. whats up with that?

[t-pain]

i only see a few deleted things which were just phaque fighting with a few members. nothing about these coa cases. no clue...

[trichcycler]

where is this recent thread, unavailable now on google.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/49462-please-help-recommend-cheap-certification-clinic-in-mid-mi/

[pic book]

stranger than rudolf's nose on santa?

[t-pain]

where is this recent thread, unavailable now on google.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/49462-please-help-recommend-cheap-certification-clinic-in-mid-mi/

This topic has been deleted.

Restore | Permanently delete

 

still readable to mods. most likely it contained no good info and a bunch of crap. also it contained you denegrating new users because they used the wrong wording. maybe you are too harsh on new patients huh grass?

 

( i didnt delete it)

[bobandtorey]

Defendant’s doctor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during his testimony and was not qualified as an expert in any field. <<< this didn't help him at all

[trichcycler]

This topic has been deleted.

Restore | Permanently delete

 

still readable to mods. most likely it contained no good info and a bunch of crap. also it contained you denegrating new users because they used the wrong wording. maybe you are too harsh on new patients huh grass?

 

( i didnt delete it)

"degenerating"? "new users"? shed some light on the subject matter maybe?

 

I recall wishing the best of luck to the op of that thread. we both know the reason it was deleted don't we. why make up chit about me and new users to justify it?

[t-pain]

you know exactly why his dr did that though bob.

the oakland county prosecutor said it in your case too.

 

anything your dr says will be used against him in court to try to prosecute him.

[bobandtorey]

Wittness tampering ?

[t-pain]

"degenerating"? "new users"? shed some light on the subject matter maybe?

 

I recall wishing the best of luck to the op of that thread. we both know the reason it was deleted don't we. why make up chit about me and new users to justify it?

gregs post didnt help, nor did a bunch of links to random cert clinics.

 

 

Indigro is correct.  my emoticon was the "dodgyrun" choice because I saw a thick thread coming and sensed many would have much to say to the original poster.  Certification mills are frowned upon here, rightfully so in this current cannabis court climate. Rather than locating cheap weed, cheap doctors, tracking illegal dispensary  offerings this site aims to keep patients and their suppliers safe and without issue.   Offering up a list of cert mills would be in poor taste here, maybe try budtrader and CL,  they have little scruples. Personally I see no morality in the matter though and wish the  op the best of fortune.

 

peace

Dude wtf are you even babbling on about? I never asked for a certification mill. Quit being so paranoid, and perhaps you could try reading someone's post before you go babbling on like an idiot again.

 

the quote above is from the guy who started the thread talking about your post, he saw it as denigrating. you may not have meant it in that way, and i believe you, because i know the way you talk is not personal but educational. others have a hard time seperating your words from their posts. maybe you could preface your opinions with "this is not directed at you, but i'm talking generally here, do not take offense" to make it more clear your intentions.

 

i personally dgaf if people hate you and your posts grass. i'm just trying to help you communicate with new users. take my advice or dont. maybe i should turn my spell check back on...

[trichcycler]

thank you. I felt the op actually attacked me, rather than the other way around there. I did purposely post the emoticon for THIS exact reason. I foresaw the posting of certification docs working on the cheap , and knew exactly how this would turn out. So you know, I was posting to Indigro, as indicated, for the xplanation of my emoticon post is all. If op was butt hurt my explanation to indigro, fuk em!  why would anyone care?  that explanation was done in very good taste, compared to the way some may have expected me to respond.

 

The onus was on the site expectations, not my morality, as I clearly explained to readers. Then I offered two generic options, and the "best of fortune" to the op...then he swore at me, accused me of being paranoid( on the behalf of the board??) and suggested I should read post completely before responding. His censorship would have been understood more clearly than the threads to me.

 

thank you for your understanding.

[t-pain]

see, instead of you saying the thread was going to be a shitstorm, you could have said

 

"i hope everyone understands that we on the site should only mention bona-fied cert clinics to keep patients safe."

 

 

you have the power to make the site better grass. maybe the others cannot or will not learn. but you can do it! ;p

[trichcycler]

 

"i hope everyone understands that we on the site should only mention bona-fied cert clinics to keep patients safe."

 

truly, that is what I expected Admin to post when the question of cheap certs came to be the other day, as a director of conversation. If I would have posted that

it would have been like  "who the Fukks are you anyways" instead of "what the Fuks are you babbling about".... 

 

you guys direct the conversation, I'll try and keep it spicy for you  mmmkkkk?

Edited September 25, 2015 by grassmatch

[imiubu]

Oh boy! lol

 

Good morning everyone

[trichcycler]

"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day" ^^

[GregS]

"hey greg, does your form use the term "i use _____ amount of marijuana and this amount ____ is reasonably necessary for me to treat my qualifying debilitating condition" ?"

 

Nope. But it probably should. If anyone wants to add that to the form, or any other evidentiary document, then fine. My take is that you don't say anything anyone should not hear. You may have a point. That might help to establish the third element of the AD. Keep in mind those forms can be revised as needed if conditions change, destroying the old ones and concluding a new one to reflect that. It would almost certainly cover a caregiver's possession requirement.

 

Can you chime in on this zap?

[Indigro]

Sorry to butt in on ur question greg...

 

I just opened the link to look at the coa posts, but since i contributed to riling up the op of that thread, and dragged grass into the ordeal... My apologies to all. I cant recall who posted before my second response, but i seem to recall the point being to shut up if having nothing to contribute. Il keep that in mind in the future.

 

Hey, u guys r free to pm me to voice any frustrations... I respond well to other adults, honeslty. sorry to have caused a problem

[trichcycler]

[Greg Rx]

see, instead of you saying the thread was going to be a shitstorm, you could have said

 

"i hope everyone understands that we on the site should only mention bona-fied cert clinics to keep patients safe."

 

 

you have the power to make the site better grass. maybe the others cannot or will not learn. but you can do it! ;p

Please explain "we on the site should only mention bona-fied cert clinics" . Is there a certification for cert clinics? Who determines what is bona-fied? Maybe we could start a certification board for cert clinics (mills).

MADD Michigan Association of Dope Doctors    

MSUD Michigan Society of Unemployed Doctors 

SFP Society of farmacology Professionals

[trichcycler]

BuuuWaahhHaaa

 

lol@ "farmacology"

[Greg Rx]

You can make fun all you'd like, but you are talking about professionals licensed by the State of Michigan. If they were not recommending cannabis many would not be legally able to use it.

 

It reminds me of the idiotic arguments from LARA director Mike Zimmer that physicians licensed by the department can't be trusted to recommend or not recommend cannabis for autism. Completely logic-free.

I understand completely If a doctor has MD or DO, they should be able recommend. My problem is two fold 1) we can't  use our trusted family physician  who we actually have a bone-fied relationship and 2) expecting patients to differentiate between doctors that this board has judged as legit versus non legit is ludicrous.

Starting a society for accreditation and education was not totally a joke. 

[Wild Bill]

So if questioned in court would the correct response be,

 

" My Dr. and I have determined after consultation and extensive trials using conventional medical treatments and medical marijuana, both separately and in conjunction with each other, that I require ___ grams of dried flowers per day in order to obtain relief from my medical condition. I estimate each plant should produce roughly ___ grams of usable flower when dried. This amount is, in my best estimation, enough to ensure an uninterrupted supply of usable medicine for ___ days."

 

 

[GregS]

What might happen if a physician were to indicate that it should be used PRN (pro re nata, i.e., as needed)?