| Author | Subject: The retirement boards essentially “answer” to no one. |
| Terry Crane | Posted At 04:18:18 05/10/2000
Medical Board of California Issues, which are not within the authority of the board, include: Independent Evaluations performed by physicians (e.g., evaluations for Worker’s Compensation or disability benefits, evaluations performed at the request of an employer to determine fitness for duty). The Medical Board of California was never intended to help the individual citizen or sick patient; instead, they were quite explicitly designed “to secure for the state increased power and wealth.” Since increased power and wealth for the state can often be obtained only at the expense of decreased health and freedom for certain citizens, we witness here a collision between the Platonic and Hippocratic medical ethics—the former easily triumphing over the latter Terry G. Crane Brea, CA busrun@ecom.net May 10, 2000 Re: Complaint for unprofessional conduct and request for an investigation. First, let me affirm that I have the highest respect for Medical Doctors and thank God we have such good ones in California. That being said I feel compelled and it is my duty to report Dr. Robert Anthony Baird for unprofessional conduct. Dr. Baird made and signed documents related to the practice of medicine, which falsely represents the existence, or nonexistence of a state of facts. His act involving dishonesty or corruption was used by the OCERS Board to deny my service-connected disability. I have been employed by the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) since December of 1986 and was injured on the job. On September 4, 1998 my employer sent me a letter stating that I could not return to my usual and customary occupation as a Coach Operator. This letter also stated that I might have benefits available through OCERS. I submitted my application for a service connected disability with OCERS and they sent my medical records and history to be examined by their own Retirement Board Doctor, Dr. Donald E. Julian, M. D., Diplomate, American Board of Orthopedic Surgery, Q.M.E., State of California. On June 29, 1999 Dr. Julian released his reports and stated in his conclusion in part that “It is apparent this patient is unable to return to his usual job as a bus driver – he is permanently unable to perform the usual duties of this job – There is substantial evidence of measurable connection between the injuries and his work activities”. Obviously unhappy with this report OCERS requested a supplemental report from Dr. Julian, which was dated August 10, 1999. In this supplemental report Dr. Julian went on to say “He had work associated injuries to his knee and his back. He is unable to perform prolonged sitting in awkward positions as a coach operator. He is now in vocational rehabilitation, as he could not be accommodated with a suitable bus seat. Again, I state there is substantial evidence of a measurable connection between his injuries and work activities”. Again, this is from OCERS own appointed doctor. Manifestly, very unhappy with the supplemental report clarification OCERS then went doctor shopping. OCERS switched doctors and on October 19, 1999 they sent me to Dr. Baird for evaluation. After receiving Dr. Baird’s medical report dated December 29, 1999, I was in disbelief as to how he could arrive at such fabricated conclusion. After reading his reports I wrote a rebuttal with supporting evidence to my then attorneys Jane H. Oatman and Mark Ellis Singer. After the Board turned down my application, I was unable to reach an agreement with my attorneys as to the approximately $25,000 fee to handle the appeal and case. Reasons given for such exceedingly high fees were that California Retirement Boards and administrators. 1. Make the rules and often do so on an ad hoc basis to avoid giving the employee a “level playing field”. 2. The retirement boards essentially “answer” to no one. 3. The retirement systems are not required to use trained claims staff personnel 4. The retirement systems get to hire their own stable of doctors who are neither “independent” nor agreed upon. 5. After getting “defense” reports from their hired doctors, the retirement systems rely on the defense medicals in your client’s underlying workers’ compensation cases. They are generally averse to relying on workers’ compensation AME’s, QME’s or treating doctors. Thus, we get to deal with the bad doctors from your case as well as the retirement systems’ doctors. 6. The retirement board members usually have no medical or legal background and are particularly hostile to psychological claims. 7. Often the expressed attitude is that the employer should never have hired this “dead beat” injured worker in the first place. 8. Some retirement systems use trust fund moneys to pay attorneys who will argue just about anything to defeat a case without concern for the fact that the system is a fiduciary 9. Attempts to hold retirement boards accountable for breaches of fiduciary duties have not been successful This report was obtain from Lemaire, Faunce, Pingel & Singer that are Counsel to some of the state’s largest public employee unions, including the Los Angeles Police Protective League, Los Angeles County Employees Association, California League of City Employee Associations and others. Web site for this doc http://www.public-pensions.com/for_lawy.htm#contingent I have documentation and MRI reports that supports my case against Dr. Baird for your review. Enclosing let me tell you that I have been through a lot in the past 3 years and I will really appreciate any light you can shed on truth and justice in this case. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call as I look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully Yours Terry G. Crane |
| Marty |
Re: The retirement boards essentially “answer” to no one. (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 19:51:42 05/14/2000 Similar cituation in Oregon. Here we have BOLI which is in charge of investigating civil rights, etc violations. They almost never proceed in WC complaints and when they do they have something like a 20% winning rate. The commissioner, Jack Roberts campaigns are financed solely by business and insurance companies in the tune of 100's of thousands of dollars. Can you say POLITICAL PAYOFF!!! California's Insurance commisioner got caught in a corruption scandal. Lets hope Roberts is caught too. There's links to newspaper articles in this forum about what happened in CA. |
| Name: | |
| E-Mail: | |
| Subject: |
This message board has been closed in regard to posting new messages and follow-ups although pages can be viewed. Page loading time had become excessive. Please use the "Message Forum" link from our Main Page here to contribute to our new and improved forum.