Call it an introduction to the many concerns of PIP..ie Personal Insurance Protection. However, in a weak moment and an unfortunate accident involving my daughter and two of my grand daughters, I was influenced by my daughter to get a lawyer to defend them.
Actually, in this weak moment, I forgot that we must do our homework before we ask for the assistance of others. So now and over six months since the accident, our family is learning the perils of using a Referral Service.
The theme of this discussion will be based on this major thought:
Are the Lawyers, Insurance Companies, and Medical Industry in the Business for themselves or for the Client and/or Patient??
Yes I know the answer since I have been dealing with these Alleged Professionals for over 40 years.
So, as a beginning, let me start with some suggestions for improvement that came from the report:
So from this report, here are the Recommendations from this report. Also, do comment if you have had similar experiences and what you did to Defend Yourselves.
1. A lawyer shall not accept client referrals
from any person, entity or service that also refers or attempts to refer clients to any other type of professional
service for the same incident,
transaction or circumstance, and shall furthermore be prohibited from referring a client to any other
professional service in consideration
of the lawyer’s receipt of referrals
from any lawyer referral service.
In
making this recommendation, the special committee recognized its scope and potential impact on for-profit referral services. The special committee also recognized the potential legal implications of such a recommendation. Nevertheless, after consultation with outside legal counsel, the committee unanimously endorsed the recommendation.
2. A lawyer receiving
or accepting client referrals from a referral
service shall register
such referral service participation with The Florida Bar, including all referral services with which
the lawyer
participates. In addition, any such lawyer shall provide
complete disclosures regarding the lawyer’s relationship with the referral service, ownership of the service,
financial arrangements between the service and the lawyer, and the lawyer’s affirmation of compliance with all Bar rules regarding referral services.
Such attorney registration shall require payment of a
fee as may be determined by The
Florida Bar.
3. A lawyer participating with a referral
service
for
the
purpose of receiving or
accepting client referrals
must designate a lawyer within the lawyer’s
firm to serve as the responsible party for the firm for all cases referred to the firm or any attorney in the firm by a
referral service.
4. A lawyer is prohibited from initiating contact with a prospective client referred by a
referral service; all such contact must be initiated by the
prospective client.
5. A lawyer accepting referrals from a lawyer referral
service shall provide complete
disclosures to clients of their participation
in referral services, such as either a revised or
addendum to the Client’s Statement of Rights, notification in law firm reception areas and
inclusion of the referral
service participation in lawyer advertising;
6. The Florida Bar shall implement enhanced disciplinary enforcement of its rules and regulations related to lawyers
participating in referral services..
7. The Florida Bar shall
implement enhanced public education
of
its
rules
and
regulations related to lawyers participating
in referral services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Learn More>> Click Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/
You, the author, are being duped by the pro SBS leaders. The so called leaders are deeply invested in SBS both financially, professionally and psychologically. The prospect of being wrong implies they have been the linchpin to the destruction of thousands of families. They have mental health issues to begin with and cannot be trusted to be fair. There is a mountain of evidence that SBS as described, both from before and after Guthkelch and Caffey, never existed. Guthkelch himself has denounced the SBS proponents on NPR this year at age 95. Contrary to Levin’s statement that babies have never been shaken, babies have been shaken and that has been captured on nanny cams and the shaking, severe and protracted, did not show either RH or SDH as a result ever, not once! Isn’t that telling?
Use the link below to download the 2 videos that exist.
Here is the link to the shaking videos with no injuries…
https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=M3BtaklsaTFiR0pqQThUQw
Extract the files from the downloaded zip folder and start the PowerPoint file and press the slide show button in PowerPoint to watch.
A study by Lee looked at 1258 fathers, 26 of the worst abusers identified in that study were witnessed to shake their kids by mothers they lived with, and none had RH or SDH. Note how infrequent shaking is in general. Note how emergency physicians virtually never see babies who have been shaken who are brought in to be checked by concerned parents who have been warned over and over about shaking. I have never seen a case and the only one I know of was a mother who witnessed her husband shake a 5 week old. The child was examined immediately in an ED and there were no findings at all. There has never been a witnessed shaking that led to either finding.
Loving parents for all intents and purposes do not abuse their kids; this was made up to account for cases like Audrey Edmunds; a women who never hurt a child according to all reports. Furthermore, there is no scientific research to prove that happens among loving caregivers. The notion of parents flipping from loving to monstrous is fundamentally absurd. However, it is essential for the child abuse MD’s to speculate that people snap in every case. Of a thousand loving caregivers the odds of ‘snapping’; this made up event that is not seen among loving parents followed for years in other studies, is virtually zero. The real probability could be as high as 1 in 1,000,000 and even then with no witnessed events, it is still hypothetical. Yet it remains the key piece with Edmonds and thousands of other improbable abusers who are falsely accused based on nonspecific and nondiagnostic findings. The findings are used to prove abuse but even the child abuse MD’s now admit they are nonspecific. This is the sine qua non of the conviction; a speculative, extremely low probability event that is the essential component of the fabricated accusations, passed off as 95% likely by prominent SBS advocates whose business is >> 90% prosecuting innocent families. Their statements of certainty that this occurs would mean that 950 of 1000 previously loving parents would abuse their children every year. That would be millions of cases. It is an absurd presumption and has no place in the court room when those odds might be described as the polar opposite of beyond a reasonable doubt; they really are “fundamentally implausible”. Without a witness to abuse, presuming abuse in loving families is as farfetched as an accusation can be.
There is a gigantic business of prosecuting families, getting government funding and generating convictions to get more funds. DA’s, police, child abuse MD’s are all the beneficiaries of false convictions. They are not in the business of preventing child abuse they are in the business of generating convictions for child abuse. Currently I am seeing about 75 cases a year and >> 90% are innocent people being falsely prosecuted and convicted in about ½ of the cases.
They are convicted when child abuse MD’s and their colleagues within institutions operating in a framework well defined by Irving Janis at Yale in the 1970’s, as “group think”, use medical problems and accidents to misdiagnose abuse. I take the time to study these families and read the letters written by those who know them, and for loving caregivers the letters paint a picture of caring people, with zero history of violence or impulsive behaviors. The probability of these people snapping is effectively zero, ruling them out as abusers. The child abuse MD’s believes all these people are liars when they tell the story of an accident or a prodrome of illness leading to a medical encounter. It is easy for an authority figure to accuse anyone of a fictitious event that is witnessed by nobody and a behavior, the type of which they or no one else has ever seen in the accused. The child abuse MD’s can literally say anything and because of the titles they have, these non-evidenced based opinions are given undeserved weight. Judges, police, DA’s and social workers must stop just believing these child abuse specialists. They must go beyond relying on these people and explore the issues via legal documents like Tuerkheimer or medical research that my article references; studies predating the fabrication of SBS that show the dogmatic pillars of child abuse pediatrics are wrong. They must try to decide for themselves how improbable the majority of allegations proffered are. Disproven dogma, not science, is being used to inflict the most dreadful of problems on innocent families and in many cases stealing children from parents and destroying families. I know about abuse. I have held dead abused babies in my arms. When it real it is easy to see. When it is conjured up via the misdiagnosis of accidents and medical problems, it is equally obvious. The denialists in this calculus are those that refuse to acknowledge how often medical problems and accidents are misdiagnosed as abuse and the 1000’s of cases that could be accidents or medical problems that are dismissed with certainty that they can be “abuse and only abuse.”
Here is a link to an article that summarizes the evidence against SBS.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7z55j01t
Read this summary of the medical history and evidence base (you can download the references) showing how awful what they are doing is.
“He said she said” is not the approach to this issue. Their science is based on children precategorized as abused by their colleagues, the very findings they say diagnoses abuse. This is circular logic. RH and SDH are nondiagnostic findings but if every child with RH and SDH is precategorized as abused and put into an “abuse group”, how reliable is the conclusion that all children who are abused have RH and SDH. And when the dogma was finally shown to be unreliable after 25 years of analysis, the American Academy of Pediatrics decided by a committee made up people like the very people cited in this article, the ardent proponents of SBS, to stop linking their “beliefs” in abuse to any specific medical findings to “provide more clarity in the courtroom.” Diagnoses like abusive head trauma or nonaccidental trauma were invoked that suggest both mechanism and intent to abuse when there is zero ability to infer that from the nonspecific findings they rely on. The purpose was to win more cases with even less reliable evidence then before and it continues to work. The scientific debate has been controlled by those with the power to dictate policies and publicity and is linked to the prosecution machine that operates in this area of the law. Hopefully that will change.
I have been in Emergency Medicine for 35 years and I am not a naïve do gooder. I have seen it all, plus. The child abuse establishment has seduced the media and the legal system using their undeserved fame and ill-gotten stature to influence the courts and the media. They intimidate colleagues and those that disagree, relying on the emotions the child abuse invokes. Yet a false allegation is child abuse and people need to come to grips with this since now false allegations most likely out number the number of cases of real abuse that makes it to court. This is the biggest medical fraud in history.
(End of Comment)
Justia.com-blawg search