Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > General discussion > General - Playa del Carmen
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 1 Week Ago   #31 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,342
I just can't get past some things in the Business Wire story that don't quite mesh with your timeline/"side of the story." In particular, the accusations of

Quote:
]... deliberately breached patient confidentiality when, in a dishonest and corrupt manner, he deliberately and willfully created and distributed flyers in the Half Moon Bay community containing personal information about complaining patients who came forward and identified themselves to the Medical Board as abuse victims. He engaged in a calculated pattern of harassment against these complaining patients that included writing highly personal and disparaging letters to other healthcare providers in the area without the patients' consent or knowledge, often disclosing private medical information about the patients.
Even if the accusations were false, it seems, at best, bad judgement to have gone on what would appear as a "blame the victims" spree. And with your history of veiled threats of violence here towards other posters, it kind of rings believable. I mean, hell, you were threatening to bust my face up over a disagreement over weather patterns. At least this episode has provided me a photo to know who I am looking out for in order to take necessary precuations.

Last edited by PlayadelSolDos; 1 Week Ago at 06:43 PM..
PlayadelSolDos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #32 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
I just can't get past some things in the Business Wire story that don't quite mesh with your timeline/"side of the story." In particular, the accusations of

Even if the accusations were false, it seems, at best, bad judgement to have gone on what would appear as a "blame the victims" spree. And with your history of veiled threats of violence here towards other posters, it kind of rings believable. I mean, hell, you were threatening to bust my face up over a disagreement over weather patterns. At least this episode has provided me a photo to know who I am looking out for in order to take necessary precuations.
I made no such threat, merely stating that you sounded like 'you needed your nose rearranged' after your inflammatory comments sounded like your nose was severely out of joint regarding my replies to your unfounded attacks over, of all things, the weather. You interpreted it to mean a physical confrontation.

Here is Exhibit 1 of my Complaint against the Medical Board (text exceeds forum limits, so posted in 3 parts - this is Part 1 - patient confidentiality, about which you complain, is part 3):

SYNOPSIS OF ALLEGATIONS
(A) The Self-Impeached Allegations by Patients 1, 2, 5 and 9 (pp.1-6)
(B) Allegations Dismissed Before Trial for Patients 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (pp.7-11)
(C) The Expert Witnesses and the Standards of Care (pp.12-14)

***
(E) Other Allegations: ...Patient Confidentiality (pp.21-24)

A. THE SELF-IMPEACHED ALLEGATIONS.
Patient 1 (ADM), a 19 year-old Mexican woman in her ninth month of pregnancy, alleged that during a prenatal exam while lying supine on the exam table with her knees raised and draped, she “raised her body up” and “saw [plaintiff’s] tongue in her vagina” and “cream in [plaintiff’s] beard”. Her allegations were impeached by her testimony in both trials that she did not raise her body up [fn211(b)], did not see plaintiff’s tongue in her vagina, or cream in his beard, and could not see over, under, around, or through the drape over her knees [fn202(b); fn212(b)], her eyes were closed during the exam [fn203], when she opened her eyes she saw petitioner standing above the drape [fn218(b-d)], she thought it was his fingers she felt during the exam [fn226(e-h)], and she saw no cream on his beard [fn228(j,m)] as he stood “close enough to reach out and touch” [fn231] while he examined her abdomen, listened to the fetal heartbeat, helped her sit up, and massaged a cramp in her back at her request [fn214(b), fn231(a)]; and testified that her allegation was based entirely on her belief that plaintiff told her, in poor Spanish that she had difficulty understanding [fn228(g)], that “he had lots of cream in his beard [228(e,m)]”.

Plaintiff testified in both trials he told her she had lots of cream in her hair, and then used and gave her diaper wipes to clean with [fn151(f-g)], as she in turn testified he always said and did after each previous exam [fn228(m)]. What to Expect When You’re Expecting describes these events as ‘sexual fantasies’, and notes that they are common in pregnancy [fn237(a,b)].

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.1 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

Patient 2 (MCR), a 25 year-old Mexican woman who saw plaintiff on 11 visits over 7 months for complaints of infertility, absence of menses, severe menstrual cramps, and chronic diarrhea, alleged that plaintiff ‘rubbed his thumb over her clitoris’ on her fourth visit during her ‘first-ever’ pelvic exam, causing her to ‘have an orgasm against her will’ [fn228; fn269] and ‘Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’ (PTSD) [fn76-78], but continued to see him for 7 more visits [fn16] after her orgasm because “he wouldn’t tell me why I couldn’t have a family” [fn51(a-i)]. In making her allegations, Pt.2 told the police she had never had a pelvic exam or been to a doctor before, then returned to change her allegation to say instead that she had never been examined by a male doctor [fn4(a)], but in both trials testified she had in fact previously seen numerous doctors, including males, and was ‘anxious’ about a male doctor touching her vagina [fn4(b)].

Plaintiff testified in both trials that he treated Pt.2 for anxiety [fn11(b)] (for which she was previously treated by another doctor [fn176-181)]), chronic amenorrhea (no menses), chronic diarrhea, and anorexia nervosa [29(b)] (an ‘eating disorder’ with a psychological cause in which the mind falsely perceives pathological emaciation to be the ‘ideal’ body image; starving and/or purging of food is used to achieve and maintain a distorted body habitus; and chronic pathological denial and deception of herself, friends, family, medical personnel, and others regarding all aspects of her life is a common and characteristic diagnostic trait).

Plaintiff testified in both trials that Pt.2 used her anxiety and self-arousal about her examination by a male doctor to give herself a self-induced ‘secret’ orgasm during the exam, and Pt.2 testified at trial ‘I don’t know how he knew I was having an orgasm; I didn't do anything to let him know’ [fn223-227].

Contrary to Pt.2’s allegation that plaintiff never told her why she was infertile, plaintiff and his staff testified in both trials that no patient leaves the office without receiving extensive counseling regarding her problem(s), that this policy was followed with Pt.2, that he repeatedly counselled her extensively using a Spanish translator, and that she expressed understanding after each of her 11 one-hour visits that her infertility was caused by her amenorrhea, her amenorrhea was caused by her pathological emaciation (88 pounds, 5’2” height), her emaciation was caused by her anorexia, her anorexia was a psychological problem, her ‘chronic diarrhea’ was caused by self-induced ‘purging’ after eating, and that weight gain would restore her menses and fertility. Pt.2 testified he told her nothing and she ignored him because she did not believe him [fn58].

Plaintiff also testified in both trials that Pt.2’s ‘menstrual cramps’ (dysmenorrhea), although she had no menses (amenorrhea), were fabrications to hide her anorexia from friends, family, and medical personnel; that her numerous visits to emergency rooms seeking medical and surgical treatment for her factitious ‘menstrual cramps’ were a ruse for which the ‘gain’ was deception of friends, family, and others for attention, sympathy, and reassurance (‘Munchausen’s Syndrome’); and that her frequent changing of providers was ‘doctor shopping’ to avoid detection and treatment of her disorders, and to prevent weight gain.

Plaintiff’s staff also testified in both trials that Patient 2 was well-known in the small Half Moon Bay Hispanic community as “smart - she knows how to make money without working – she sues people for money” [fn25(b-c)]. Pt.2 perjured herself in plaintiff’s San Mateo Superior Court trial by emphatically and falsely testifying that she had “Never!” sued anyone for money, but when confronted with the evidence admitted she collected money in a previous lawsuit (unrelated to plaintiff); filed a money claim naming plaintiff that was rejected [fn90(c-e)]; helped her sister-in-law (Pt.3) file a similar claim [fn91(b,c)] (and told her boyfriend/husband that she made the allegations against plaintiff only to help Pt.3 make her claim ), and visited an attorney in an attempt to solicit another lawsuit for money against plaintiff, but was rebuffed [fn59(j); [fn76(a)]. All four members of this family, Pts. 2, 3, 6, and 8, lived together in Pt. 2’s house and were recruited by Pt.2 to file similar complaints of “inappropriate” exams.

Plaintiff’s and expert witnesses’ testimony in both trials that disordered perception of body image in anorexia often results in high morbidity and mortality even if recognized and treated, and that chronic pathological emaciation, amenorrhea, infertility, denial, self-deception, and chronic deception of others in all aspects of her life (including denial of the eating disorder and making false reports and allegations to friends, family, medical personnel, police, and the judicial system, including perjured testimony at trial), numerous emergency room visits for ‘menstrual cramps’ in the absence of menses, and ‘doctor shopping’ in actively attempting to conceal her disorder, are signs and symptoms that satisfy the diagnostic criteria for both anorexia nervosa and for Munchausen’s Syndrome in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (‘DSM-IV’) of the American Psychiatric Association.

(Plaintiff's Exhibit V, (Board’s trial): Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed., (‘DSM-IV’), American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pp.583-585 ‘Diagnostic Features in Anorexia Nervosa’, Diagnostic criteria for..Anorexia Nervosa:
“A. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (e.g., weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight less than 85% of that expected; or failure to make expected weight gain during a period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of..expected). B. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight. C. Disturbance in the way in which one’s body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight. D. In postmenarcheal females, amenorrhea, i.e., the absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles”; “Individuals with Anorexia Nervosa frequently lack insight..or have considerable denial of, the problem, and may be unreliable historians. It is therefore necessary to obtain information from parents or other outside sources to evaluate..degree of weight loss and other features of the illness.”)

Plaintiff also testified that Pt. 2’s chronic denial and deception of herself and others about her anorexia and her life, and the perceived ‘gain’ from the chronic deception of Munchausen’s, and her reputation in the community as an aspiring career litigant, each independently satisfy the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ‘Malingering’, which must be excluded in order to eliminate factitious complaints before making her PTSD diagnosis, which was itself a factitious complaint. (Ibid. p.467: “..a diagnosis of PTSD must satisfy the following limiting diagnostic criteria: the patient must have 1) a persistent fear or death or 2) bodily harm 3) lasting more than six months;..differential diagnosis, malingering should be ruled out in those situations in which financial remuneration, benefit eligibility, and forensic determinations play a role..”)

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.2 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

Patients 5 (BM) and 9 (RPM), the two remaining patients of the four complaining witnesses in the San Mateo Superior Court trial, moved to Atlanta, GA, immediately after plaintiff’s criminal trial and refused to return to testify at Board’s trial. Transcripts of their self- impeaching testimony in San Mateo Superior Court were used to impeach their allegations in Board’s trial.

Patient 5 (BM), a 19 year-old Mexican woman who saw plaintiff for testing for a communicable disease, alleged to the police after reading a sensational article about the allegations of Pts.1 and 2 in the Half Moon Bay Review that plaintiff “rubbed his thumb over my clitoris, too” during her “new patient” pelvic exam 5 months before. Pt.5’s allegation was contradicted by her testimony that she did not know what to expect during the exam because she had never before been to a doctor or had a physical exam [fn16], and thought her first-ever pelvic exam in plaintiff’s office was ‘normal’ [fn18(f-g)] until she read about the sensational allegations by Pts.1 and 2 in the article, indicating that she was unduly influenced by the mass hysteria provoked by inflammatory statements she read in the newspaper [fn19(c)], using a uniquely distinctive and unusual quote from the article ("Dr. Dye is a very nice man outside the exam room, but he changes when he's in the exam room") [fn19(e)] which she testified were her own words that she had never before heard or read elsewhere (they were in fact not her words, but were instead Pt.2's words taken from Pt.2’s police report and quoted in the inflammatory article) [fn19(f-j)]. After reading the newspaper article, Pt.5 called her sister-in-law, Pt.9, to tell her about the allegations by Pts.1 and 2 and to ask her advice about making an allegation [fn19(c)].

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.5 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

Patient 9 (RPM), a 20 year-old Mexican woman in her fifth month of pregnancy, and Pt. 5’s sister-in-law, lived with her husband (Pt.5’s brother) in Pt. 5’s house. After Pt.5 phoned her to report the sensational article in the Half Moon Bay Review about the allegations by Pts.1 and 2 against plaintiff, Pt.9 also alleged that he had “rubbed his thumb over my clitoris, too” during a “new patient” pelvic exam seven months before and at each of seven additional pelvic exams thereafter. Her allegation was contradicted by the medical record and her testimony that she instead had only 2 pelvic exams, not 8 as she alleged [fn52]; and by her testimony that she continued to return to plaintiff's office for seven more visits, even though she alleged he “rubbed her clitoris” at her first visit some seven months before, because “she did not know of any other doctors in the area” [fn11], although the office where she applied for and received her Medi-Cal card is located in the open-plan waiting room of the County Public Health Clinic (located one block from plaintiff’s office) [fn39], and the Medi-Cal social worker in the waiting room routinely and customarily asks whether the patient has found a doctor and has started prenatal care (and with whom), and informs the Medi-Cal recipient of her prenatal care options (the Public Health Clinic ‘competed’ for Medi-Cal OB/GYN patients). Pt.9 also testified she had never complained about plaintiff's care during the seven months she was his patient until joining her sister-in-law Pt.5 in making their allegations, and instead, after being plaintiff's patient for some 5 months, had referred her sister-in-law Pt. 5 to plaintiff for treatment of her communicable disease [fn11(n)].

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.9 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.
__________________
Beam-Eye, be my baby

Last edited by beam-eye; 1 Week Ago at 02:52 AM.. Reason: spacing between paragraphs
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #33 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,391
Continued Response, Part 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
I just can't get past some things in the Business Wire story that don't quite mesh with your timeline/"side of the story." In particular, the accusations of

Even if the accusations were false, it seems, at best, bad judgement to have gone on what would appear as a "blame the victims" spree. And with your history of veiled threats of violence here towards other posters, it kind of rings believable. I mean, hell, you were threatening to bust my face up over a disagreement over weather patterns. At least this episode has provided me a photo to know who I am looking out for in order to take necessary precuations.
Continued Response, Part 2:

B. ALLEGATIONS DISMISSED BEFORE THE CRIMINAL TRIAL.
Patient 3 (RAP), the sister-in-law of Pts. 2, 6 & 8, alleged plaintiff “rubbed her clitoris” at her first-ever gynecology exam and at her “2 or 3” remaining visits, but could not explain why she returned 22 more times [fn39(c) (not “2 or 3 times”, as she alleged to the police) [fn27(b), fn39(b)] after her first visit in her troubled pregnancy and the very preterm premature birth of her baby at 28 weeks gestation (plaintiff saved her baby’s life twice), but could not explain why she continued to return to plaintiff’s office [fn17(e), fn27(e)] after she alleged plaintiff “rubbed her clitoris” at her first visit some 9 months before, or why she had not complained until her sister-in-law Pt.2 did so [fn28(p-r)]. Pt.3 filed identical allegations and money claims on the same day as her sister-in-law Pt.2 [fn28(m-o)], one of only 2 patients to do so (the other was her sister-in-law Pt.2) [fn28(h-j)]. Like her sister-in-law Pt.6, she testified she had completed 3 years of primary school. All four members of this family, Pts.2, 3, 6, and 8, lived together in Pt. 2’s house and filed similar complaints of “inappropriate” exams.

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.3 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

Patient 6 (AHP), a 23 year-old Mexican woman who is Pt.3’s sister-in-law by marriage to Pt. 3’s brother (under the Mexican extended-family classification system she is also the “sister-in-law of a sister-in-law” [‘concunia’] of Pts.2, 6, and 8), visited plaintiff in her sixth month of pregnancy during her first week in this country (she had only two prenatal exams in Mexico, neither of which involved a physical examination, and had never before had a physical examination of any kind) [fn3(b-d)], fn5, fn19], alleged that plaintiff “rubbed her legs” at her first prenatal visit and at each visit thereafter [fn32(a-d)]. Plaintiff does in fact check for varicose veins of the lower extremities of every pregnant patient [fn35(c-p)] at each visit [fn19(f), fn34)] because varicose veins are more common and more severe and blood coagulates faster in pregnancy, by lightly brushing the pads of the fingertips over the skin of the back of the legs from ankle to mid-thigh with the patient's permission which she gave at each visit [fn32(d,f-m); fn33(c-d)] (by definition, varicose veins are ‘palpable’, and are discovered and diagnosed by palpation rather than by visibility or discoloration), and that her cervix was open 1-2 cm at her first exam (it should have been completely closed) [fn5] and at risk of silently opening, leading to the risk of a very premature pre-term delivery like her sister-in-law Pt.3 only 3 weeks before, and was instructed to stay off her feet[fn14], but she ignored him because she didn’t believe him [fn14(e)]. Like Pt.3, she testified she completed 3 years of primary school (the transcript incorrectly states “6 years of primary school”). All four members of this family, Pts.2, 3, 6, and 8, lived together in Pt. 2’s house and filed similar complaints of “inappropriate” exams.

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.6 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

Patient 7 (LR), a 23 year-old Mexican woman formerly employed in plaintiff’s office as a receptionist/translator, was interviewed by the police but made no allegations against plaintiff, as her affidavit to ALJ Astle states (Attachment F-7, [fn12b]). Instead, her statement that plaintiff ‘rubbed hand cream on her stomach’ was miscast as ‘misdemeanor sexual battery’ in Det. Lopez’s police report to falsely augment the criminal case against plaintiff. Prior to her testimony, she submitted an affidavit [fn18(c)] (Exhibit P-9 at Exhibit B) to ALJ Astle stating; “I have no complaints about Dr. Dye and I did not want the police to use my interview to make a complaint..I have bad scars on my stomach..I am embarrassed about but I did not think..Dr. Dye did anything sexual or bad when he put..special cream on my stomach. I just didn't think the cream would work.” At Board’s trial, Plaintiff and Pt.7 testified that with her permission he rubbed a physicians’ free sample of an expensive medicated scar-softening remodeling cream (‘Mederma’) into her large, disfiguring, vertical C-section scar (extending from above the umbilicus to the pubic bone) [fn10(b); fn11; 16(b-d)] as directed by the medication’s ‘how to’ instruction booklet [fn20], while she was fully-clothed.

ALJ Astle ignored Pt.7’s affidavit and testimony, and omitted it and plaintiff’s exculpatory testimony from her Proposed Decision.

Patient 8 (ASR), a 23 year-old Mexican woman and Pt.2’s sister-in-law, lived with her husband (Pt.2’s brother) in Pt.2’s house. She had 6 visits with plaintiff over nine months, and alleged that she had seven pelvic exams, during the last two of which plaintiff ‘moved his fingers around in circles in my vagina and moved them harder’ and that ‘it felt like sex’. At Board’s trial, her allegation was contradicted by the medical record and her testimony that she had only 2 pelvic exams (not 7 as alleged) [fn5], the first of which she testified was ‘very normal’ [fn5(e)], and at the second exam 6 months later (for her Pap test) she testified she was anxious because plaintiff was a male physician [fn7(a)] (exactly like her sister-in-law Pt.2). Because he told her he could not easily find her cervix with the speculum [fn15(a)], and after finally locating it with his gloved fingers (which contaminated the Pap test sample area) he requested she come back in one week for the Pap and remind him that her cervix was deep and difficult to locate (as both she and plaintiff testified) [fn5(b-c)]. All four members of this family, Pts.2, 3, 6, and 8, lived together in Pt. 2’s house and filed similar complaints of “inappropriate” exams.

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.8 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

Patient 10 (SL), a 25 year-old Mexican woman who had 3 visits in five months for pelvic pain, varicose veins, and pregnancy, alleged that plaintiff "massaged" her legs, back, buttocks and breasts at each visit, and told her she ‘had to have an abortion’; and when she complained to two members of plaintiff’s staff (whom she knew personally) they told her to “tell him yourself”. At Board’s trial, her allegation was contradicted by her testimony that she was unable to describe the alleged “massage” of her breasts (which were examined in the recommended way) [fn12(b)] or buttocks (on which she lay or sat during the exam) [fn7], and her demonstration of ‘back massage’ was consistent with the standard exam technique of ‘thumping’ the kidneys [fn4(b)] to elicit tenderness in the presence of kidney infection (which she did not have) as a complication of urinary tract infection (which she did have) [see YouTube videos for ‘Thumping the Kidneys’ (‘Percussing the Kidneys’)].

Plaintiff testified she sought his advice and assistance for extensive varicose veins of her legs (her sister sought his help for the same problem [fn13(f)]), and that she failed to follow-up her numerous problems, requiring that plaintiff re-check the old problems along with the new ones at each visit [fn10(pp-qq)]. The office staff testified she made no such complaint regarding plaintiff’s care, and they made no such reply [fn22(o-r)]. Plaintiff testified he did not tell her she ‘had to have an abortion’, but instead told her the baby’s development should be carefully monitored because she took a contraindicated medication during the first three weeks of her pregnancy [fn20(h)], and explained that he would send her to the Fetal Diagnostic Unit at Stanford for monitoring, his usual and customary practice.

She failed to return for follow-up pre-natal visits, and testified that plaintiff ‘made me cry all through my pregnancy’ [fn20(g,i)], and ‘he should be punished’ for it [fn22(o)], indicating that the true motivation for her false allegations was anger and vengeance against plaintiff. Her allegations were made one year after her last visit, but only one month after a member of plaintiff's office staff revealed she had been molested by Patient 10's father some ten years earlier when she was 8 years old (the families are life-long neighbors), indicating Pt. 10’s allegations were motivated by anger and revenge against both plaintiff and a member of his office staff.

ALJ Astle ignored the exculpatory testimony of Pt.10 and plaintiff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

C. THE EXPERT WITNESSES AND STANDARDS OF CARE.
1. The prosecution’s expert medical witness in the preceding criminal trial, Robert Zeff, MD, was vetted to the prosecution by Board itself and testified at trial in July, 2001, that he was ‘the Sacramento area Medical Consultant for the Medical Board of California’ who had previously reviewed the allegations against plaintiff for Board in his capacity as Board’s Medical Consultant well before the criminal trial began. As Board’s employee and/or agent, his expert un-contradicted testimony that plaintiff’s examinations were appropriate, did not depart from standards of care or practice, and did not constitute sexual misconduct, unprofessional conduct, or sexual abuse was binding on Board under California Evidence Code § 1222 and by case law in all subsequent proceedings related to the allegations and issues previously concluded with finality in the criminal trial, including Board’s trial.

ALJ Astle ignored the binding exculpatory testimony of Dr. Zeff, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

2. The defense expert witness in the preceding criminal trial, Howard Osofsky, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the LSU School of Medicine, LSU Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, board-certified both in Psychiatry and in Obstetrics & Gynecology, whose professional research and expertise was specifically related to the influence of the cultural background of Mexican-American women and their response to obstetrical and gynecological examinations, including aspects of human sexuality, gave un-contradicted testimony that plaintiff’s examinations were appropriate, did not depart from standards of care or practice, and did not constitute sexual misconduct, unprofessional conduct, or sexual abuse. His testimony was also binding on Board under case law precedent in all subsequent proceedings related to the allegations and issues previously concluded with finality in the criminal trial.

ALJ Astle ignored the binding exculpatory testimony of Dr. Osofsky, and omitted it from her Proposed Decision.

Last edited by beam-eye; 1 Week Ago at 03:03 AM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #34 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,391
Continued response - Pt. 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
I just can't get past some things in the Business Wire story that don't quite mesh with your timeline/"side of the story." In particular, the accusations of

Even if the accusations were false, it seems, at best, bad judgement to have gone on what would appear as a "blame the victims" spree. And with your history of veiled threats of violence here towards other posters, it kind of rings believable. I mean, hell, you were threatening to bust my face up over a disagreement over weather patterns. At least this episode has provided me a photo to know who I am looking out for in order to take necessary precuations.
Part 3:


E. OTHER ALLEGATIONS
Board also alleged that plaintiff..violated patient confidentiality...Allegations that plaintiff violated patient confidentiality. Board alleged plaintiff violated patient confidentiality by distributing a notice in his office identifying the 7 complaining witnesses who made false allegations against him in the criminal trial; and that plaintiff first learned their names when he received disclosure materials for Board’s trial in May, 2002; and that he was barred from naming them because state law required anonymity of persons alleging ‘sex crimes’; and that plaintiff’s intent was to intimidate them from participating in Board’s trial.

Contrary to Board’s allegation, plaintiff’s notice was published on July 28, 2001, one day after his acquittal in the criminal trial, some 7 months before Board served its Accusation on March 12, 2002 (and 9 months before he received the disclosure materials), long before he knew of Board’s intent to re-try him on allegations identical in person and content to those on which he had already been unanimously acquitted. Although he did not identify any of them as a ‘patient’, and no medical information was disclosed, plaintiff is not required to maintain confidentiality regarding their former status as his patients.[fn1]

Board erroneously alleges that the identities of the complaining witnesses, which were protected by renaming them “Jane Does 1 through 4” in the criminal trial, remained "protected" in the intervening period between the end of the criminal trial in July, 2001, and the onset of Board's administrative proceedings in March, 2002.

Plaintiff was under no obligation after the criminal trial to maintain the anonymity of complaining witnesses whose names were already a matter of public record in the police reports and restraining orders issued against him at his pre-trial arraignment in January, 2001, and after the complaining witnesses (Pts. 1, 2, 5, 9) openly testified in San Mateo Superior Court in July, 2001, and after charges on allegations by the remaining four were dismissed before the criminal trial.

The absolute patient confidentiality assumed by Board extends solely to “mental health” records [fn2], but can be exempted or waived under certain conditions, as for example when Pt.2 herself voluntarily placed confidential information at issue in her allegations by disclosing the information in the course of litigation against the provider (the “patient-litigant waiver”), thus waiving the absolute immunity (‘Jaffee’) privilege.[fn3]

Board also alleged that plaintiff sent letters regarding Patient 2 to other medical providers without her consent. Plaintiff testified in both trials that her psychological problems, including anxiety, anorexia nervosa, chronic deception, and care-seeking and surgery-seeking behaviors to obtain invasive treatment for her non-existent medical problems made her a danger to herself and to others unaware of her deceptions who naively treated her numerous emergency room visits with unnecessary and costly medical and invasive procedures as a result of the misdiagnosis and mismanagement of her factitious condition(s), including insertion of intravenous (‘IV’) lines and administration of IV medications; unnecessary exposure to her tuberculosis (which she concealed); and unindicated and unnecessary surgery (exploratory/diagnostic laparoscopy which Pt.2 obtained while plaintiff was incarcerated, based on her false allegations, and was thus unavailable to dissuade her from further dangerous acts). [fn4]

Plaintiff also testified that the real and present risk to the safety of herself of other medical personnel who were unnecessarily exposed to her care-seeking deceptions, infectious disease, and false allegations leading to unwarranted prosecution and discipline of medical personnel by an overzealous Medical Board based on her false allegations and chronic pathologically deceptive behaviors justified invoking the “dangerous patient exemption” to the Confidentiality Privilege and allowed his focused disclosure of the relevant information to other medical personnel and institutions. [fn5]

Footnotes:
[fn1]. Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225, 225-230 (D.Mass.1997): the fact that the patient saw a psychotherapist [or physician], and the number and dates of such visits, is not privileged.

[fn2]. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 US 1 (1996); confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and..patient are absolutely privileged.

[fn3]. a) Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2000): Federal Appellate Court ruled patient waives federal psychotherapist-patient privilege by placing her mental state at issue in a claim;
b) At the time of these events (up to July, 2001), lower court support for the "dangerous patient" exception included United States v. Chase, 301 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam): belief by psychotherapist that "dangerous patient" may cause harm to self or others waives Jaffee privilege and allows disclosure of the information (overturned in 2003); [some states, including California, create a duty to disclose a "dangerous patient" (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976)); Cal. Evid. Code §§1016 and 1024;
c) A client suing an attorney for malpractice places the attorney's representation of the previously confidential information at issue, thus waiving the attorney-client privilege regarding that information (Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 170 F.R/D. 127, 130 (E.D.Pa.1997); Vann v. Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 346, 344-350 (C.D.Ill.1997); EEOC v. Danka Industries, Inc., 990 F.Supp 1138, 1142 (E.D.Mo.1997); Jackson v. Chubb Corp., 193 F.R.D. 216, 225 (D.N.J.2000).
d) Another court (Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, supra) held that "garden variety" emotional distress not involving specific psychiatric disorders was not sufficient grounds to invoke the waiver, and so long as the patient does not call as a witness the person who provided the patient's psychotherapy and does not introduce into evidence any communication with that therapist, the communication between them is privileged. In this case, Pt.2, however, voluntarily disclosed various aspects of her mental health record to the police prior to the criminal trial, including that she was "uncomfortable" about having an exam by a male physician and cried afterwards [Board's Exhibit A-4, Patient 2's Police Report], and also voluntarily provided medical records from another local physician showing that she had previously been treated for ‘anxiety’, and voluntarily submitted records from San Mateo County Mental Health Agency in support of her claim that she suffered from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ (PTSD) after the exam due to plaintiff's alleged actions, thus overcoming the Chilmark objection to generic "garden variety" emotional distress, and triggering waiver of the Jaffee privilege. She then testified during the criminal trial that she was ‘anxious’, ‘nervous’ and ‘afraid’ before the exam and had PTSD after the exam, thus invoking the patient-litigant waiver of the Jaffee privilege both before and during the trial, by which Pt.2 voluntarily waived the confidentiality of her communications with plaintiff..

[fn4]. All evidence rebutting this allegation in Board’s trial was omitted from ALJ Astle’s Proposed Decision, and is cited to the trial record in Attachment F-2, pp.2-57.

[fn5]. a) Cal. Evid. Code §1016: “..no privilege..as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the mental or emotional condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by: (a) The patient;..”
b) Cal. Evid. Code §1024: “..no privilege..if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to..person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger”;
c) California creates a duty to warn others in Tarasoff (supra): “[a] physician may not reveal the confidence entrusted to him in the course of medical attendance unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community”, noting that he has a duty to “use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger”, where the duty to warn a potential victim ‘may require the therapist to take one or more various steps, depending on the nature of the case. Thus, it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of that danger, to notify the police or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances’. [plantiff’s italics]

Last edited by beam-eye; 1 Week Ago at 08:43 PM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #35 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,342
This
Quote:
... deliberately breached patient confidentiality when, in a dishonest and corrupt manner, he deliberately and willfully created and distributed flyers in the Half Moon Bay community containing personal information about complaining patients who came forward and identified themselves to the Medical Board as abuse victims. He engaged in a calculated pattern of harassment against these complaining patients that included writing highly personal and disparaging letters to other healthcare providers in the area without the patients' consent or knowledge, often disclosing private medical information about the patients.
does not square with this

Quote:
Board also alleged that plaintiff..violated patient confidentiality...Allegations that plaintiff violated patient confidentiality. Board alleged plaintiff violated patient confidentiality by distributing a notice in his office identifying the 7 complaining witnesses who made false allegations against him in the criminal trial; and that plaintiff first learned their names when he received disclosure materials for Board’s trial in May, 2002; and that he was barred from naming them because state law required anonymity of persons alleging ‘sex crimes’; and that plaintiff’s intent was to intimidate them from participating in Board’s trial.
The latter being a notice in your office while the finding being that flyers were distributed throughout the community. Not even close to the same thing.

There is also the little matter of this
Quote:
Another finding concluded that he also made false statements on the application he submitted to the Medical Board which would have warranted the denial of his California medical license when he first sought licensure in 1996.
My point being that the acquittal on criminal charges based on some very specific charges and the findings of the Medical Board (based on a much wider array of charges) are not one in the same. You can be found not guilty on one charge but have your license revoked on a variety of others associated or not with the original criminal charging. Different standards of proof apply, as well.

I'm done here but if you were railroaded, I am empathetic. If you did what was cited in the article, you are paying the price you should. Either way, you are not a doctor anymore and shouldn't represent yourself as one either in practice or when threatening people with prima facie cases of libel that are non-existent. Not all of us are ignorant on the law.
PlayadelSolDos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #36 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
This

"...deliberately breached patient confidentiality when, in a dishonest and corrupt manner, he deliberately and willfully created and distributed flyers in the Half Moon Bay community containing personal information about complaining patients who came forward and identified themselves to the Medical Board as abuse victims. He engaged in a calculated pattern of harassment against these complaining patients that included writing highly personal and disparaging letters to other healthcare providers in the area without the patients' consent or knowledge, often disclosing private medical information about the patients."

does not square with this

"Board also alleged that plaintiff..violated patient confidentiality... Allegations that plaintiff violated patient confidentiality. Board alleged plaintiff violated patient confidentiality by distributing a notice in his office identifying the 7 complaining witnesses who made false allegations against him in the criminal trial; and that plaintiff first learned their names when he received disclosure materials for Board’s trial in May, 2002; and that he was barred from naming them because state law required anonymity of persons alleging ‘sex crimes’; and that plaintiff’s intent was to intimidate them from participating in Board’s trial."

The latter being a notice in your office while the finding being that flyers were distributed throughout the community. Not even close to the same thing.
I hadn't caught the importance of that statement about where the notice was distributed until you pointed it out just now - I distributed the notice only in my office, not within the community. I will include this charging error by the Medical Board in any future amended complaints.

Quote:
There is also the little matter of this

"Another finding concluded that he also made false statements on the application he submitted to the Medical Board which would have warranted the denial of his California medical license when he first sought licensure in 1996."

My point being that the acquittal on criminal charges based on some very specific charges and the findings of the Medical Board (based on a much wider array of charges) are not one in the same. You can be found not guilty on one charge but have your license revoked on a variety of others associated or not with the original criminal charging. Different standards of proof apply, as well.
This is also addressed in Exhibit 1 of the Complaint:

E. OTHER ALLEGATIONS
Board also alleged that plaintiff 1) gave false answers in applying for his license, and 2) violated patient confidentiality.
1. The allegation that plaintiff gave false information on his license application. Board alleged plaintiff’s answers to 2 questions on his medical license application were false.

a) “Have you ever withdrawn from, or been suspended, dismissed, or expelled from, a medical school or postgraduate program?” Plaintiff’s answer: ‘No.’

At Board’s trial, plaintiff testified that in residency training at Interfaith Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, he was notified of a proposed 10-day “suspension” that was successfully contested (grieved) by the resident physicians' union, the Committee of Interns and Residents (‘CIR’), because it violated the terms of the contract between CIR and Interfaith prohibiting arbitrary suspension; and that no suspension occurred; and that he received a Certificate of Service on completion of the year; and that the question instead asks for actual rather than proposed or contemplated suspensions, dismissals, or expulsions. [fn1]

b) “Have you ever had staff privileges in a hospital denied, suspended, or revoked, or resigned from a medical staff in lieu of disciplinary action?” Plaintiff’s answer: ‘No.’

Plaintiff’s 1-year residency contract at Interfaith expired and was not renewed. Board alleges plaintiff was ‘fired’ when Interfaith failed to renew his expired contract, although CIR counselled plaintiff that non-renewal of a contract does not constitute ‘firing’, denial, suspension, or revocation of staff privileges. [fn2]

Board also alleged that plaintiff ‘resigned’ on the date his contract expired. Plaintiff testified that he did not resign, noting the impossibility of resigning from an expired contract, and that he received a Certificate of Service for the year.

Footnotes:

[fn1]: Exhibit 9: Copy of certificate of residency service, July 20, 1992-June 30, 1993, Interfaith Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.

[fn2]: a) Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 , and note 12 (1972)
b) Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 a) (1972), no expectation of re-hiring after expiration of one-year contact unless a history of repeated 1-year contracts and subsequent re-hirings of plaintiff after they expired created a reasonable cumulative expectation of rehiring and/or tenure under 14th Amendment property interest protections.

Quote:
I'm done here but if you were railroaded, I am empathetic. If you did what was cited in the article, you are paying the price you should. Either way, you are not a doctor anymore and shouldn't represent yourself as one either in practice or when threatening people with prima facie cases of libel that are non-existent. Not all of us are ignorant on the law.
You are confusing being a 'doctor' with accreditation by the Medical Board of California, which in my case has abused its power and is being held to account for it.

Being a doctor is based on the granting of an MD degree, which I have. I also have the required 4-year post-graduate residency training in the practice of medicine and the experience based on that training that is needed to make it work, something the vast majority of Mexican doctors do not have, no matter how well they might speak English (which may be superficially comforting, but is no substitute for a working knowledge of the practice of medicine).

Fortunately, my being a doctor is not based on your necessarily limited opinion of either my professional training or the legal definition of prima facie defamation, which you might want to consider inspecting a bit more closely.

Given our past relationship on these pages, I don't believe you are 'empathetic' (as you claim to be), but are instead clearly pleased by the perceived opportunity to try to take revenge for my correctly calling you out for sounding like an asshole when you sound like an asshole, including your attempted cheap shots here disguised as legitimate concern.

Last edited by beam-eye; 1 Week Ago at 04:42 AM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #37 (permalink)
beach geek
admin
 
james's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: 10 year Playa resident lost in Sweden
Posts: 12,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
You say wrong. The PMs were in response to false and highly defamatory information posted on this thread, i.e., a clearly public matter, for which the original poster manfully seeks to make amends through his PMs, and were posted accordingly.
There's a sign-up agreement that states it...
There's a 'guidelines' post that I think states it... (Even I don't remember where it is.)

But, yeah, pretty easy to understand that if someone uses a PM, you shouldn't turn around and post it without permission, at least.

I don't have the time/interest to try and figure out all the details of this home automation project.

Is it thread closed time yet?
__________________
Get your own signature countdown image!

james is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #38 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by james View Post
There's a sign-up agreement that states it...
There's a 'guidelines' post that I think states it... (Even I don't remember where it is.)

But, yeah, pretty easy to understand that if someone uses a PM, you shouldn't turn around and post it without permission, at least.

I don't have the time/interest to try and figure out all the details of this home automation project.

Is it thread closed time yet?
After the fact, it probably should have morphed into a thread of its own instead of a hijacking (my apologies to teebee), but I felt like I couldn't just sit there doing nothing and let it slide. I did notify Steve71 that I would publish his first PM "later today", giving him time to say no, but he didn't say no, so I took that as at least tacit approval...and he followed up with the other apparently supporting PMs...so, no active yes or no from him other than his apparently (only) tacit approval (repeated).

Last edited by beam-eye; 1 Week Ago at 05:41 AM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Days Ago   #39 (permalink)
life=playa
 
Sogno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post

........


You are confusing being a 'doctor' with accreditation by the Medical Board of California, which in my case has abused its power and is being held to account for it.

Being a doctor is based on the granting of an MD degree, which I have. I also have the required 4-year post-graduate residency training in the practice of medicine and the experience based on that training that is needed to make it work, something the vast majority of Mexican doctors do not have, no matter how well they might speak English (which may be superficially comforting, but is no substitute for a working knowledge of the practice of medicine).

Fortunately, my being a doctor is not based on your necessarily limited opinion of either my professional training or the legal definition of prima facie defamation, which you might want to consider inspecting a bit more closely.

Given our past relationship on these pages, I don't believe you are 'empathetic' (as you claim to be), but are instead clearly pleased by the perceived opportunity to try to take revenge for my correctly calling you out for sounding like an asshole when you sound like an asshole, including your attempted cheap shots here disguised as legitimate concern.
Webster's disagrees: Doctor - 2 a :a person skilled or specializing in healing arts; especially :one (such as a physician, dentist, or veterinarian) who holds an advanced degree and is licensed to practice. See your doctor if the condition worsens. an eye doctor doctors' bills.

I would have to agree with Websters. My belief is that you would be more accurately referred to as a retired former doctor. Note I didn't write, retired doctor, as that would indicate you were licensed when you chose to retire.

Semantics is certainly at play here. Many/most? people refer to physicians as 'doctors', and indeed they may be an M.D. However, what about those that hold a doctorate degree in acoustics or folklore? If they walked around calling themselves 'doctor', do you think they just might be confused with someone that practices medicine?

Your feeling that the medical Board of CA "which in my case has abused its power and is being held to account for it" doesn't change the fact that your license to practice was revoked.

As a retired medical professional, I recall a post that suggested you considered yourself a doctor, or physician. And you still do. If your case does go on to trial, I would have to wonder how this may be interpreted by a jury of your peers. Can't imagine the attorney costs, but that's certainly none of my business.

Last edited by Sogno; 6 Days Ago at 10:49 AM..
Sogno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Days Ago   #40 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sogno View Post
Webster's disagrees: Doctor - 2 a :a person skilled or specializing in healing arts; especially :one (such as a physician, dentist, or veterinarian) who holds an advanced degree and is licensed to practice. See your doctor if the condition worsens. an eye doctor doctors' bills.

I would have to agree with Websters. My belief is that you would be more accurately referred to as a retired former doctor. Note I didn't write, retired doctor, as that would indicate you were licensed when you chose to retire.

Semantics is certainly at play here. Many/most? people refer to physicians as 'doctors', and indeed they may be an M.D. However, what about those that hold a doctorate degree in acoustics or folklore? If they walked around calling themselves 'doctor', do you think they just might be confused with someone that practices medicine?

Your feeling that the medical Board of CA "which in my case has abused its power and is being held to account for it" doesn't change the fact that your license to practice was revoked.

As a retired medical professional, I recall a post that suggested you considered yourself a doctor, or physician. And you still do. If your case does go on to trial, I would have to wonder how this may be interpreted by a jury of your peers. Can't imagine the attorney costs, but that's certainly none of my business.
You can agree with Webster all you want, but, absent Alzheimer's, there is no such thing as a "former doctor" - my knowledge, skill, and experience don't simply disappear subject to extrajudicial acts by the Medical Board of California - nor with your opinion (or your reliance on Webster either, for that matter), especially here in Mexico where naive and unwary tourists are at the mercy of a sub-par medical system, which could do them in with the best of intentions in the absence of another option - like a US-trained physician who knows how to do safely what needs to be done. As the medical board itself notes, there's nothing to prevent me from saying "I'm a retired doctor but I can tell you what a doctor would tell you about your condition and its treatment", all of which is public information if you know where to look. You, as a former X-ray tech, probably already know this.

The word doctor is derived from the same Latin root as docent, and means 'teacher', which is why PhDs and other holders of doctorates are also called 'doctor' - the correct form of address for a PhD is "Mister", as it also is for British surgeons (including Ob/Gyns), and since my education and training includes work in the UK you can call me "Mister" instead of 'doctor' if you prefer.

My case is filed pro se, in forma pauperis, which means I act as my own attorney (although I don't recommend it) - it's much easier, of course, if the law is on your side, as it is in this case, which is how the jury is required to consider it, namely by deliberating only on the salient facts and the applicable law and not on extraneous and irrelevant filler (such as how I spent my time in Mexico, or my preference in food and music, any and all of which is beyond the purview and authority of the Medical Board of California), so no need to wonder about how a jury of my peers would interpret information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Last edited by beam-eye; 6 Days Ago at 12:36 PM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Days Ago   #41 (permalink)
way into it
 
Fatjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: New York . 75 Rockefeller Plaza
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
no such thing as a "former doctor" -
I always say there is not such thing as disbarred lawyer
Fatjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #42 (permalink)
way into it
 
AZGonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
You can agree with Webster all you want, but, absent Alzheimer's, there is no such thing as a "former doctor" - my knowledge, skill, and experience don't simply disappear subject to extrajudicial acts by the Medical Board of California - nor with your opinion (or your reliance on Webster either, for that matter), especially here in Mexico where naive and unwary tourists are at the mercy of a sub-par medical system, which could do them in with the best of intentions in the absence of another option - like a US-trained physician who knows how to do safely what needs to be done.
I really, really wasn't going to comment on this, but hold on now. According to the link that was posted, it states that, "Dye is a 1991 graduate of St. George University School of Medicine in the Caribbean nation of Grenada."

"US-trained physician"????
AZGonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #43 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZGonzo View Post
I really, really wasn't going to comment on this, but hold on now. According to the link that was posted, it states that, "Dye is a 1991 graduate of St. George University School of Medicine in the Caribbean nation of Grenada."

"US-trained physician"????
In medicine, "Education" is where you go to school, "Training" is where you do your residency; all of my residency training was in the US of A.

Last edited by beam-eye; 5 Days Ago at 01:17 PM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #44 (permalink)
way into it
 
AZGonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
In medicine, "Education" is where you go to school, "Training" is where you do your residency; all of my residency training was in the US of A.
If you say so...
AZGonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #45 (permalink)
way into it
 
Fatjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: New York . 75 Rockefeller Plaza
Posts: 239
beam-eye do you have a good remedy for rosacea ?
Fatjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.