Back to Article
Index
April 2001
Dr. John David Kuntz - His Story:As posted at
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/DoctorKuntz.html
LONG DOCUMENT TO FOLLOW - INITIAL SUMMARY IN GREEN:
". . . collusion of the Workers Compensation Board (WCB),
British Columbia Medical Association (BCMA), B.C. College of Physicians and
Surgeons, Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), Medical Services
Commission (MSC) and B.C. Attorney General Department, all of whom joined to
create and perpetuate the scientific fraud that state of the art spinal disc
replacement surgery was "experimental" . . ."
" The WCB was cheating Napoli of his legitimate benefits as
he deteriorated neurologically and abused its authority so as to cover up this
known condition by delaying authorization for treatment while focusing their
efforts on psychological testing of Napoli to justify terminating his
legitimate claim for benefits."
"In 1981 Justice Bouck delivered his landmark judgment in
Napoli v. WCB which ordered the opening of Napoli’s WCB file. File
disclosure exposed known pathology of spinal stenosis being covered up by the
WCB and they then settled the file and awarded Napoli his pension."
"The total amount of taxpayer funded money entering the
CMPA coffers by 2001 was $1.37 billion. This phenomenal increase in the size of
the CMPA unfunded liability coffers depended upon the WCB, College and BCMA
perpetuating the "experimental surgery" myth over the subsequent years so as to
ensure that this cash flow continued whereby taxpayers were now funding the
medical malpractice premiums of B.C. and other Canadian doctors . . . The CMPA
agenda was to obstruct justice by withholding the evidence . . ."
"WCB doctors plotted, planned and directed my suspension .
. ."
"I was forced into bankruptcy after my October 25, 1988
erasure from the medical register."
"Mr. Ewachniuk was the third of my three consecutive
lawyers who were getting close to exposing the truth when they were suspended
to obstruct justice: Robert Gardner Q.C., Jack Cram and Mr. Ewachniuk were all
suspended. In particular, my last lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk worked on this
for 15 years until his recent disbarment by the Law Society of B.C. "
"Furthermore, Mr. Ewachniuk filed case No. C932720
Vancouver Registry May 14, 1993, John David Kuntz v. WCB, College, BCMA, MSC,
Dr. Stansfield, Dr. Bolton et al and Dr. D. Bolton, the former MSC Chairman was
being defended by the Attorney-General Department. The informed person acting
reasonably would conclude that since the Attorney-General Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh and
his successor were Benchers of the Law Society of B.C. that the Benchers
advantaged their own clients by disbarring my lawyer before the case went to
trial."
"On December 4, 2000 I obtained . . . evidence that the AG
Department’s client the former MSC Chairman Dr. D. Bolton had ordered the
immediate shredding of all the key documents after the MSC was served notice of
the litigation. "
"On September 5, 2000, the Ministry of the Attorney General
wrote my lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk stating "I am in the process of preparing
an application for a Summary Judgment on behalf of my three clients, the
Medical Services Commission of British Columbia, Dr. David M. Bolton and Dr.
C.B. Henderson." Obviously it was advantageous to the AG Department, the
Benchers and their clients to disbar my lawyer of 15 years Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk
forthwith and this was accomplished by December 29, 2000 just as the
applications for Section 18 Summary Dismissal of the cases against their
clients were proceeding through the courts leaving me without counsel to oppose
their applications to dismiss before any cross-examination of their clients and
without a trial on its merits. The benchers disbarred my lawyer to obstruct
justice and deny me my day in court."
"The MSC had been supplying statistics to the BCMA Patterns
of Practice Committee as a smokescreen to hide the WCB involvement in having me
investigated in 1979 in advance of the Napoli v. WCB trial and the MSC
statistics were used to support the false position that so much surgery in such
a small town as Kitimat implied "unnecessary" surgery which I now know was
support for the hidden WCB agenda that "unauthorized surgery" was "unnecessary
surgery."
"The AG Department joined the BCMA and College in hiding
the WCB role as an accuser. I was only advised on May 1, 1979 that I was being
investigated for "rather vague complaints" which failed to identify the WCB.
The AG Department assisted the cover-up."
"The AG Department has perpetuated criminal defamation to
cover up scientific fraud used to justify a CMPA insurance fraud valued at over
$1 billion. This has resulted in 5 years of annual taxpayer contributions
totaling over $203 million in B.C. alone as negotiated by BCMA with the Health
Ministry to cover doctor’s medical malpractice premiums contributing to
rising physician’s office overheads. Taxpayers across Canada continue to
fund the CMPA scientific fraud based on the myth of liability exposure for
"experimental surgery" which was never "experimental" at all material times.
The taxpayer funds were deposited in the CMPA "unfunded liability reserves" and
were then used to fund frivolous litigation against doctors across Canada to
the detriment of Medicare."
"It was during Mr. Dosanjh’s tenure as AG that the Law
Society of B.C. obstructed justice by harassing my counsel . . ."
"I was then suspended without a hearing August 24,
1986"
" . . . despite the widespread community support and 8000
petitioners demanding a public enquiry into my suspension and erasure, the AG
Department Director of Operations Mr. Ernest Quantz did nothing but cover up
the wrongdoings"
"There were a lot of government regulated bodies working
together to perpetuate a scientific fraud and deny patients state of the art
surgery in British Columbia and a lot of lawyers profiting by robbing the
insurance funds. Those collusive efforts required the assistance of the
Attorney General Department and Law Society working together to obstruct
justice . . ."
"It must be remembered that the WCB caused my
bankruptcy."
"Mr. Ojjal (sic) Dosanjh was the Attorney General from 1995
to 2000 when his Department covered up for the shredding of the MSC evidence
and denied me the benefits of the rule of law . . ."
"The citizens of British Columbia are entitled to know why
all defendants have been denied me file disclosure and the Charter rights of
cross-examination. The public is entitled to know why the CMPA insisted that
litigation would continue against their client as a condition of my Discharge
from Bankruptcy, why they required the "irrevocable control" of my defense and
why every case against me for experimental surgery has been lost in Canada in
contrast to the USA where there has never been a successful case for
experimental surgery against a doctor using MMA disc replacement. The Law
Society will have to answer why three consecutive lawyers were suspended while
attempting to represent me beyond the control of the bencher Harvey Grey Q.C.
and the CMPA. And finally, the AG must explain why I was denied the rights to a
fair hearing by an impartial and independent bench and that excludes the former
Deputy Attorney General. "
David Kuntz
FULL
TEXT:
.Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:41 AM
Subject: Lack of
separation between Crown and Court in B.C.
Attention: J.D.
Peach.
Please find attached a copy of the 52 pages of events
resulting in the AG department involvement(pages 34 to 52)in the shredding
of evidence to obstruct justice.
Regards,
Dave
Kuntz.
________________________________________________________________________
Attention: Darcy
Fish.
This is the second e-mail and consists
of 52 pages describing the background leading to the AG Department directing
the shredding of evidence by the former MSC Chairman Dr. David Bolton where the
AG Department acted as counsel of record for Dr. Bolton and provided the former
Deputy AG Mr. E.R.A. Edwards Q.C. as a judge to dismiss the case without a
hearing on the merits so as to save the government from scandal.
The government has been actively driving medical consultants
out of B.C. as part of its cost-containment strategy to control the
underfunded Medicare program. The government pretends to provide "universal"
care but accomplishes this by denying patients state of the art procedures and
treating them all equally badly.
Pages 34-52 specifically
refer to the role of the AG Department in obstructing justice to prevent this
scandal from surfacing. The AG Department even provided the judge Mr. Justice
Edwards to put the lid on the exposure of abuse of authority for other
than its intended purpose in B.C. which is leading to destruction of Medicare.
Regards,
Dave Kuntz.
_________________________________________________________________________
March 17, 2001
John David, Kuntz,
5620 Montgomery
Place
Acadia Park, U.B.C.,
Vancouver, British Columbia,
V6T 2C7,
Canada,
Tel: (604) 221_9269
Fax: (604) 221_9268
TO WHOM IT MAY
CONCERN
RE: THE MYTH OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURTS IN B.C.
I have been requested to outline the events resulting in the appearance
of a former Deputy Attorney General sitting in conflict of interest as a B.C.
Supreme Court Judge to hear a case wherein the Crown was adverse in interest
and his former Department of the Attorney General was acting for the Defendants
which shredded the evidence.
I am an orthopaedic surgeon who had the
busiest spine surgery referral practice in British Columbia until victimized by
an insurance fraud valued at $25 million annually in B.C. alone being funded by
B.C. taxpayers and which affects taxpayers in other jurisdictions across
Canada. The insurance fraud was initially estimated in the Press to have a
valued of approximately $300 million and could never have succeeded without the
joint collusion of the Workers Compensation Board (WCB), British Columbia
Medical Association (BCMA), B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Canadian
Medical Protective Association (CMPA), Medical Services Commission (MSC) and
B.C. Attorney General Department, all of whom joined to create and perpetuate
the scientific fraud that state of the art spinal disc replacement surgery was
"experimental" as an excuse to incite frivolous litigation culminating in a
Class Action lawsuit initially estimated to be worth $200-300 million before
being adjusted upward with successive judgments. The lawyers retained by my
CMPA insurers were in conflict of interest in defending the WCB-funded
litigation against me and accordingly failed to properly gather, prepare and
present my evidence demonstrating that methyl methacrylate (MMA) disc
replacement and spinal fusion was never "experimental" since 1955 but was
already accepted as safe and advantageous for this purpose in humans and
already in usage by advanced spinal surgeons internationally as well as in
Canada.
The College scapegoated me causing public defamation because
the then College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison feared being enjoined as a
co-defendant in the forthcoming Class Action. These very real concerns arose
because the College participated in preparation and approval of the 1979
surgical consent forms used by Wrinch Memorial Hospital and Kitimat General
Hospital. Those institutions described MMA (methyl methacrylate) disc
replacement on their consent forms as a "new procedure" and not as an
"experimental procedure" for obvious reasons: it was never "experimental" at
all material times since 1955. The plastic material methyl methacrylate is
the most commonly used implant material used in humans and is used for fusing
spines, skull plates, hip and knee replacements et cetera. In fact the usage of
MMA for disc replacement and fusing spines predates its usage in his and
knee replacements.
I began doing this advanced spine surgery procedure
in 1979 using MMA disc replacement a quarter century after it was considered
safe for this usage in humans. Accordingly, it was never experimental at all
material times and this usage was only new to B.C. but not to the rest of
Canada or the world because MMA usage for replacement of vertebrae and adjacent
discs had already been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration
without restrictions before I entered medical school. In fact by 1960 informed
advanced spinal surgeons at Montreal Neurological Institute began a 20 year
study of the benefits of MMA in replacing vertebral bodies and adjacent discs
and fusing spines, their results published in 1980 supporting continued usage.
The case of "medical malpractice" trumped up against me by the WCB,
CMPA, College, BCMA, MSC was that I failed to get "informed consent" by failing
to advise patients they were undergoing what my outdated critics erroneously
alleged to be "experimental surgery". These were official bodies and had a
responsibility to remain current yet they fell a quarter of a century behind
current advances in spinal surgery being practiced by informed spinal surgeons.
These bodies were abusing committees for other than their intended purposes and
supporting a scientific fraud by alleging MMA disc replacement was
"experimental" in humans in 1981 which was two decades after this usage of MMA
disc replacement was already accepted internationally by all informed spine
surgeons. By 1960 the Montreal Neurological Institute were using it to replace
vertebrae and adjacent discs in humans and in 1980 they published a 20 year
follow-up study advocating the advantages of MMA in fusing spines. I only began
using MMA disc replacement and fusion on June 29, 1979, a full quarter century
after it was already accepted as safe and advantageous for this purpose for
human usage in Canada and the rest of the world.
The Workers’
Compensation Board of British Columbia had a vested interest in perpetuating
the scientific fraud of "experimental surgery" so as to remove competition.
from surgeons working independently beyond the WCB control. My political
problems with the WCB began in 1976 before I ever used MMA for disc
replacement. At that time I annoyed the WCB by treating the injured
WCB-disenfranchised Worker Vincenzo Napoli of Smithers without prior WCB
authorization for payment for my services. The WCB had known for 8 years that
Napoli had severe central spinal stenosis at multiple levels of the lumbar
spine as diagnosed by another orthopaedic surgeon and recorded independently on
the then closed WCB medical file system. The WCB was cheating Napoli of his
legitimate benefits as he deteriorated neurologically and abused its authority
so as to cover up this known condition by delaying authorization for treatment
while focusing their efforts on psychological testing of Napoli to justify
terminating his legitimate claim for benefits. Accordingly I performed
"unauthorized" but necessary and successful decompressive laminectomy surgery
and during recovery, Napoli sought and received my full support in his appeal
of the WCB decision to terminate his claim. The WCB consultant Dr. Peter Kokan
covered up the proven pathology of spinal stenosis and focused instead on
denigrating Napoli’s character, describing him as poorly motivated man
with emotional overlay and relied upon undisclosed psychological testing in
downplaying the legitimacy of his claim. I assisted his counsel James Sayre
leading to the Napoli’s lawyers legal demands to examine the psychological
reports upon which Dr. Kokan relied on the WCB’s closed medical file
system.
That led to the precedent setting Napoli v.
WCB legal challenge
regarding a Workers’ rights to see his file during appeals which
threatened to open the then existing WCB closed file system across Canada. I
was Napoli’s only expert medical witness whom the WCB identified as their
"worst offender" on Napoli’s closed file for doing "unauthorized surgery"
before launching an attack on my professional reputation to discredit the
witness in advance of the trial. This plan to obstruct justice by having
Napoli’s witness suspended by the College was not uncovered until fourteen
years later in May 1991 when access was obtained to the Napoli WCB file. The
suspension plan was then confirmed by memos written on the then closed Napoli
file with the expectation that they would never be read. In particular, the WCB
Executive Medical Director Dr. J.S. Gibbings targeted me for suspension to
obstruct justice before the Napoli v.
WCB trial
in his January 7, 1977 Memo to Dr. Little who was the Chairman of the
WCB wherein Dr. Gibbings stated: "He being the only orthopaedic surgeon in
N.W.B.C. makes it hard to suspend him".
The WCB
Chairman then positioned Dr. J.S. Gibbings on the BCMA/WCB Liaison Committee as
a platform to launch his recorded suspension plans and with the assistance of
Dr. H. Stansfield who was the BCMA representative to that Committee they abused
the committee for other than its intended purpose because Dr. Gibbings had
solicited British Columbia Medical Association support for continuation of the
then existing WCB closed file system. Dr. Stansfield protected the identity
of my WCB accusers who lodged hidden complaints implying that "unauthorized
surgery" (for which the WCB refused authorization for payment beforehand) meant
"unnecessary surgery" when all it really meant was that WCB was cheating the
Worker and refusing to pay medical bills as required under the Workers’
Compensation Act. By now claiming that "unauthorized" surgery was
"unnecessary", the WCB was now attacking the professional reputations of those
prepared to work independently of the WCB influence either pro bono
publico or under Medicare by caring for disenfranchised Workers abandoned
by the WCB in dereliction of its mandated duties under the Act.
On
March 12, 1979 a WCB/BCMA Liaison Committee meeting was held without my
presence so as to deny me any opportunity to respond when the WCB lodged secret
complaints then forwarded to the BCMA Patterns of Practice which convened March
15, 1979 "because the WCB is disturbed" to discuss me without my
participation as recorded in their Minutes. Dr. H. Stansfield was Secretary of
the Patterns of Practice Committee which recommended that my Patterns of
Practice should be investigated because of the unsubstantiated and undisclosed
WCB allegations of "unnecessary surgery", all of which was a smokescreen for
the WCB’s hidden agenda of discrediting me as Napoli’s expert witness
against the WCB in advance of the Napoli v. WCB trial which was still
outstanding until 1981.
Because the WCB was funding Professor F.P.
Patterson’s orthopaedic residency research program, Dr. Patterson assisted
his economic benefactors by chairing the subsequent BCMA Patterns of Practice
Committee meeting convened May 17, 1979. Dr. H. Stansfield (by denying me
opportunity to respond to false hidden WCB allegations) and Dr. Patterson both
behaved as de facto agents of the WCB which was greatly disturbed over the
forthcoming Napoli v. WCB case threatening to open their then closed medical file system. At
that May 17, 1979 meeting, the Minutes demonstrate that after I departed the
meeting, Professor Patterson recommended my suspension and retraining in the
absence of a single patient complaint and before review of a single file.
They were abusing the Committee for other than its intended purpose to assist
WCB to obstruct justice by discrediting Napoli’s only expert medical
witness in advance of the landmark 1981 Napoli v.
WCB trial.
The BCMA (B.C. Medical Association) never followed Dr.
Patterson’s recommendations because there were no patient complaints and
the Secretary of the BCMA Patterns of Practice Committee Dr. Stansfield hid the
WCB involvement as well as Dr. Patterson’s bias and prejudice by failing
to inform me of his recommendations for suspension and "retraining". I had
graduated from Patterson’s own training program in 1970 passing my
examinations on my first attempt and by 1979 I was receiving over 51% of all
referred cervical spine surgery in the Province of B.C. There was not one
single patient or referring doctor complaint when Patterson made these
recommendations for "retraining" without bothering to examine one single
office file, hospital file, x-ray, or interview a single patient.
The College also supported continuation of the then existing WCB closed
medical file system and accordingly the College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison
was a participant at the March 15, 1979 BCMA Patterns of Practice Committee
convened "because the WCB is disturbed." Both the College and BCMA were
now using committees for other than their intended purpose under the
legislation and abusing authority to appease and support WCB attempts to
maintain the status quo of the then existing WCB closed file system then
threatened by Napoli v.WCB. The WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. J.S. Gibbings published in
the May 1979 B.C. Medical Journal that he had polled the executive of BCMA,
College and WCB and all supported continuance of the then existing WCB closed
file system; he didn’t bother to poll practicing physicians. This was the
same Dr. Gibbings who had already recorded his plans to suspend me on the then
closed Napoli WCB medical file and then lodged undisclosed complaints through
the WCB/BCMA Liaison Committee which became the excuse to have me investigated,
suspended without a hearing and erased..
In 1981 Justice Bouck
delivered his landmark judgment in Napoli v.
WCB which ordered the opening
of Napoli’s WCB file. File disclosure exposed known pathology of spinal
stenosis being covered up by the WCB and they then settled the file and awarded
Napoli his pension.
However because this was the first time the
Court of Appeal had ordered WCB files opened in Canada, it was a major setback
to the modus operandi of the monopolistic WCB. They appealed and retained the
Law Society bencher Harvey Grey Q.C., a Harper, Grey, Easton and Company
lawyer with considerable influence in the legal profession to argue their case.
On July 7, 1981, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the Bouck judgment opening WCB
files across Canada.
On that same day, July 7, 1981, after two years of
inactivity on Patterson’s recommendations for "retraining", the
BCMA’s Director of Professional Relations Dr. Hugh Stansfield summarized
my BCMA Patterns of Practice profile and referred my file to the College
Registrar Dr. Hutchison. The July 26, 1979 BCMA Minutes record that Dr.
Hutchison had already attempted helping the WCB by soliciting a complaint
against me in advance of Napoli v. WCB so that he could "take action". The reason the
BCMA involved the College in assisting the WCB in 1979 was because the BCMA did
not have the power to suspend a doctor - only the College had those powers.
These official bodies were all abusing committees for other than their intended
purpose with the common goal of discrediting Napoli’s only expert medical
witness in advance of Napoli v.
WCB to assist
the WCB to keep their file system closed and unavailable to Workers and their
counsel for cross-examination during appeals of WCB decisions.
After the Bouck judgment, the BCMA forwarded my file to the College
which then attempted to appease the WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli
v. WCB. These official
bodies now perceived me as the sole physician responsible for undermining their
united support for the WCB closed file system because I was Napoli’s
orthopaedic surgeon, performed "unauthorized surgery" by helping Napoli despite
WCB withholding prior authorization for payment so as to obstruct his access to
treatment and then supported Napoli during his appeal. I was perceived as
responsible for the outcome of Napoli v.
WCB which
resulted in the opening of the then closed WCB medical file system in Canada
contrary to the expressed and published wishes of WCB, BCMA and College
before the trial.
The WCB sent out a notice to the
medical profession in 1981 expressing their apologies and concerns because now
there was nothing they could do to prevent the judgment of Bouck from being
applied retroactively to existing WCB files. That meant derogatory remarks
would now be open to review during appeals despite physicians having made them
on the then closed file system with the expectation that nobody outside of the
WCB in-house staff would ever review them. Their derisive comments often
minimized the Workers’ problems to facilitate claim termination and now
lawyers representing injured Workers could review their WCB files before
proceeding to the WCB Boards of Review. The Bouck judgment also meant that the
credentials of anonymous unnamed WCB consultants could now be challenged
whereas in the past the closed file system allowed WCB the freedom to employ
retired general surgeons, obstetricians and general practitioners to give
opinions behind closed doors overruling the opinions of practicing orthopaedic
surgeons all of which facilitated premature termination of legitimate claims.
In 1981, the College Registrar Dr. Hutchison appeased the WCB for the
adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB which opened their file system to disclosure. The
BCMA forwarded my file to the Registrar who re-appointed the WCB-friendly
Professor to chair a College Section 50 Investigation of myself under
the "infamous conduct" section of the Medical Practitioners’ Act.
Dr. Hutchison knew Professor Patterson had already been involved in 1979 and
had already been involved in attempting to help the WCB before the Napoli trial
when Patterson recommended my suspension and retraining. The College never
did disclose the WCB as the source of the allegations of "infamous conduct" and
withheld the paper trail disclosing that the College was a participant on March
15, 1979 when the BCMA Patterns of Practice convened because "the WCB was
disturbed" over unauthorized surgery on disenfranchised Workers such as
Vincenzo Napoli which culminated in Napoli v.
WCB and the
opening of WCB files in Canada.
The College Registrar Dr.
Hutchison knew the Section 50 investigation committee he commissioned
was illegal because the Medical Practitioners’ Act required three
investigators all of whom were members or past members of Council whereas the
two man committee of Dr. Patterson and Dr. A.S. McConkey did not constitute a
quorum and neither were members or past members of Council. Furthermore, the
Registrar knew Dr. Patterson was biased and prejudiced as he had already taken
a position to have me "retrained" in 1979 and ought not to have participated
further. Dr. A.S. McConkey was also in conflict because he performed 1974
wrong-level wrong-sided surgery on WCB Claimant Tina Boonstra for which
performed "unauthorized surgery" to correct in 1977 after WCB withheld prior
authorization by WCB for payment for services rendered. That "unauthorized
surgery" resulted in improvement and Boonstra then successfully appealed to the
WCB Boards of Review where the errors of McConkey were uncovered and reported
in the 1978 WCB Reporter article titled WCB Decision No. 276 re
Payment for Unauthorized Surgery (referring to the unauthorized surgery
I performed on Tina Boonstra) wherein the Review Board ordered the WCB to
accept payment for her claim. Accordingly the embarrassed Dr. A.S. McConkey
could never be considered impartial and independent in 1981 when the Registrar
Dr. Hutchison assisted the WCB by having the prejudiced Dr. McConkey appointed
to the invalid two man College Section 50 Committee to investigate me for
"unauthorized surgery" to correct McConkey’s errors which WCB was covering
up with psychological testing in lieu of authorizing the appropriate salvage
surgery I performed without their prior authorization after it was obvious it
was not forthcoming.
On November 19, 1981, Dr. Patterson’s
Section 50 Report erroneously identified MMA disc replacement as
"experimental" in humans a quarter century after it was declared safe in
humans. He recommended doing animal studies which was like reinventing the
wheel: they had already been done a quarter century earlier. Since I trained
under Professor F.P. Patterson, I knew he was out of touch with recent advances
in spine surgery when his report recommended that the College impose a
moratorium on MMA disc replacement in 1981. Informed spine surgeons knew this
advanced spine surgery technique was not "experimental" in humans since 1955
and that the Montreal Neurological Institute had been using MMA for
fusing spines since 1960 in a long term study already published in 1980, In
fact, by 1981 even the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon papers
advocated that MMA was safe and advantageous for fusing human spines. In 1982
the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons was
advocating its usage and by 1987 the International College of Surgeons
gave a seminar in Washington D.C. for advanced spinal surgeons advocated the
usage of MMA for cervical disc replacement and fusion. All of this
international usage was reported in the authoritative medical literature and
was known to all informed spinal surgeons prior in time to the WCB-funded June
1987 Coughlin v. Kuntz
litigation wherein Justice B. Cohen accepted the tainted testimony of Dr.
Patterson supporting the scientific fraud that MMA usage for disc replacement
in humans was "experimental" and awarded exemplary damages against me; I was
the first Canadian doctor ever to have "exemplary" damages awarded against him
after the WCB-funded consultants fraudulently described state of the art
surgery as "experimenting" on human beings.
The WCB consultant
Dr. J. Noble appeared at Coughlin v. Kuntz and supported Dr. Patterson’s scientific
fraud that I was "experimenting on human beings" at that June 1987 trial
stating that he searched the authoritative medical literature and found no
evidence whatsoever of prior MMA usage for disc replacement in humans. My
evidence demonstrating otherwise was never presented by my CMPA-retained
WCB-friendly Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers Harvey Grey Q.C.,
Mark Skorah and Barbara Norell because of their hidden agenda to assist and
appease the WCB.. Mr. Grey Q.C. was in conflict of interest because he was
counsel for the WCB in their failed July 7, 1981 appeal of the Bouck judgment
in Napoli v. WCB. The evidence demonstrated that Dr. Peter Van
Peteghem injured Coughlin at surgery on his shoulder, then advised Coughlin to
sue me for "unnecessary surgery" and "experimental surgery". My lawyers refused
my instructions to enjoin Dr. Van Peteghem as a co-defendant and I have since
learned that my lawyer Harvey Grey Q.C. hid his conflict in that he was
contemporaneously acting for Dr. Van Peteghem in Knudsen v. Van
Peteghem; he
was scapegoating me for Dr. Van Peteghem and failed to disclose that Van
Peteghem who was adverse in interest was also his client.
The WCB made a concerted effort to undermine the 1987 trial of
Coughlin v. Kuntz
by positioning Professor Patterson’s 20 year shared office associate and
successor Professor McGraw on the WCB-directed College Section 48 Investigation
Committee which discussed the Coughlin case July 8, 1986, then authored a
biased July 31, 1986 Investigation Report, and circulated it widely in contempt
of the Medical Practitioners’ Act and Section 57 (5) and (6) of
the Evidence Act to obstruct justice. The College Council relied upon
that biased Report to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986 before the
1987 Coughlin v. Kuntz trial.
The WCB made an application
before Justice Cohen in May 1987 before the main Coughlin v.
Kuntz trial began, the
application being to cross-examine Dr. Patterson’s 20 year office
associate Dr. McGraw on the College July 31, 1986 Investigation Report he had
prepared. McGraw’s report echoed and adopted the 1981 Patterson Report
without correcting the fraudulent "experimental surgery" myth. McGraw’s
report was relied upon by the College Council to suspend me without a hearing
before Justice Cohen sat in judgment of the Coughlin v.
Kuntz
trial after reading McGraw’s Report echoing Dr. Patterson’s
Report. That untested July 31, 1986 Investigation Report was already
sealed and ought not to have been circulated by the lawyers for the WCB
before Justice Cohen and they did so to prejudice the judge before Cohen sat in
judgment of the WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz case.
That Report defamed me and both the College and the Courts (Justice Legg of the
B.C. Supreme Court and Justices Seaton, Anderson and McLachlin who upheld the
Legg judgment in the B.C. Court of Appeal) denied me cross-examination of its
authors. Justice Cohen also denied cross-examination of the principal author
Dr. R.W. McGraw. All the judges were so biased after the College and WCB duped
them into wrongfully reading the untested sealed Report that they denied
me section 7 Charter rights to cross-examine my accusers, the Report’s
authors Drs. R.W. McGraw, P. Kokan and M. Tile.
Because the
College was wrongly circulating the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report in
violation of the Medical Practitioners’ Act and the Evidence
Act, I retained independent counsel from another law firm beyond the CMPA
influence and applied to have the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report
sealed. In retrospect, the College had a hidden agenda to defame me in
advance of Class Action litigation which they anticipated since 1983 wherein
their internal memos indicate the College feared being named as a co-defendant.
Accordingly they made a pre-emptive strike against my professional reputation
when they abused their authority by acting ultra vires the Medical
Practitioners’ Act in 1983 by imposing a wrongful moratorium on MMA disc
replacement surgery. Because the College was abusing its committees for other
than their intended purpose under the legislation they had to guarantee the
members of the investigation committee who authored the scathing untruthful
Report that they would enjoy protection from cross-examination. They were
hiding behind the presumption of regularity usually associated with
quasi-judicial bodies but in reality were abusing authority with the purpose of
defaming me and distancing themselves before the Class Action knowing I posed a
threat in the forthcoming litigation as an expert witness adverse in interest
to the College. The College did not want to stop the illegal circulation of the
Report because it was specifically commissioned not for its purported purpose
of determining whether I had sufficient skill and knowledge to practice
medicine in the absence of a single patient complaint but rather to
defame the expert witness against the College in advance of forthcoming Class
Action litigation. The College was unsuccessful in opposing my application on
January 21, 1987 when Justice Huddart sealed and banned the distribution
of the Report. The College unsuccessfully appealed and on June 16, 1987 Justice
Lambert of the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the seal and distribution
ban. But that didn’t stop the quasi-judicial College from continuing to
circulate the Section 48 Investigation Report in contempt of Court because they
had commissioned it for other than its intended purpose under the Medical
Practitioners’ Act, namely to defame me as a witness and thereby undermine
my position against them in future litigation in which both the College and
myself were named as co-defendants adverse in interest.
Despite the
above, the WCB acted in contempt of court and placed the untested and
judicially sealed July 31, 1986 Investigation Report before Justice
Cohen in a May 1987 application to cross-examine Dr. McGraw on the Report at
the beginning of the WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz trial for
"experimental surgery" wherein the WCB falsely alleged that MMA disc
replacement was "experimental" in humans. Justice Cohen wrongfully read and
considered the judicially sealed report commissioned by the College and
prepared by a WCB-directed Investigation Committee of Drs. McGraw, Kokan and
Tile to assist WCB defame me before the trial. As a result of improper
consideration of the uncross-examined and untested sealed Report, the
newly ordained judge Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen was himself unduly biased and
prejudiced when he ruled in May 1987 that Dr. McGraw should be spared from
cross-examination. Mr. Bruce Cohen had just been appointed to the bench a month
or two earlier and was easily duped by the WCB tactic which served its intended
purpose of putting the sealed Report under the judge’s nose to
prejudice him just before the main trial began. Mr. Cohen then sat in
judgment of the May-June 1987 WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz trial
where the WCB provided all the witnesses.
The WCB was even
positioned to adversely influence my own Harper Grey Easton and Company
lawyers who refused to take instructions from myself despite being
identified as my counsel of record.. Although HGE and Company held the contract
from the Canadian Medical Protective Association and were assigned by CMPA to
defend me, the HGE and Company lawyers took instructions from everybody else
but myself. In particular the former College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison (who
imposed the moratorium on MMA disc replacement under CMPA advisement during his
tenure as Registrar so as to limit the size of the anticipated Class Action
against me for "experimental surgery") positioned himself as a CMPA Council
member in 1984 and was able to secretly control the lawyers retained by CMPA to
handle my defense when the Coughlin Writ was served. Furthermore, the WCB were
also positioned to secretly influence my CMPA-selected Harper Grey Easton and
Company defense lawyers. The senior counsel at Harper Grey Easton and Company
was the WCB-friendly bencher Harvey Grey Q.C. who acted as counsel for the WCB
at their failed July 7, 1981 appeal of the Bouck judgment in Napoli v.
WCB. Accordingly Mr.
Grey and his law firm were in conflict of interest in defending me against any
WCB-funded litigation and in particular the Coughlin v.
Kuntz
litigation where WCB took a subrogated interest in the settlement awarded by
Justice Bruce Cohen. The Cohen judgment awarding "exemplary damages" or
punitive damages against me for performing what the WCB witnesses falsely
alleged to be "experimental surgery" became the legal precedent used in all
subsequent WCB-funded litigation that followed.
The myth of
"experimental surgery" began with Dr. Patterson’s invalid Section 50
Committee Report commissioned by the College after the Court of Appeal upheld
the Bouck judgment in Napoli v. WCB. That prejudiced November 19, 1981 opinion of
Professor Patterson spawning the experimental surgery fraud not only exposed me
to litigation but also jointly exposed the College, Kitimat General Hospital
and Wrinch Memorial Hospital to litigation because they all collaborated and
participated on the approval of the 1979 surgical consent forms used thereafter
by all the Hospitals where this new procedure was practiced.
In 1979 I first introduced the advanced spine surgery procedure of MMA
disc replacement and fusion to British Columbia and it was not until after
receiving the tainted November 19, 1981 Patterson Section 50 report that
the College became concerned over their own legal exposure. The College concern
was that despite their improvement after surgery, according to Dr. Patterson
the patients had been subjected to "experimental surgery" without their
"informed consent." The WCB was planning litigation and contacting satisfied
Workers after disc replacement surgery to solicit, encourage and demand that
they join a Class Action litigation being funded by the WCB against me for
performing "experimental surgery" and WCB was advising patients that they had
to sue within limitation periods or risk having their future WCB claims
rejected in the event that they developed problems in the future.
Furthermore, because in 1979 the College and Hospitals had approved
surgical consent forms which stated only that MMA disc replacement was a "new
procedure" and not an "experimental" procedure as alleged November 19, 1981 by
Professor Patterson in the College-commissioned Section 50 Report, the College
now feared that it was equally exposed to being enjoined as a named defendant
in WCB-funded Class Action anticipated as early as 1983 as identified in the
Minutes of the College Council and described as "liability concerns" which were
their reasons for imposing a moratorium on MMA disc replacement ultra vires the
Medical Practitioners’ Act..
Unfortunately College Registrar Dr.
Hutchison had fallen into the WCB trap when he attempted appeasing them in 1981
for the adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB. Dr. Hutchison appointed the tainted Dr. Patterson to
conduct the 1981 College Section 50 investigation and when Dr. Patterson then
declared my surgery "experimental" he exposed the College and Hospitals to
litigation for allowing me to perform the alleged "experimental surgery" in
their institutions from 1979 onwards. Simply put, if I was being accused of
failing to obtain "informed consent" before performing what their biased
Section 50 Investigator Dr. Patterson called "experimental surgery," then the
College and Hospitals which approved and prepared the consent forms were
equally liable for failing to obtain such "informed consent."
The entire case against me was built upon a false presumption of
regularity. It was presumed that Dr. F.P. Patterson as Professor of Orthopaedic
Surgery for the University of British Columbia would be telling the truth in
1979, in 1981 and at the 1987 Coughlin v.
Kuntz trial when in
fact he was acting under a hidden agenda to appease his WCB economic
benefactors. The reality was that Dr. Patterson was receiving WCB grants for
his residency research program and at all material times acted as a de facto
agent of the WCB so as to obstruct justice before the Napoli v.
WCB trial
and then at the 1987 WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz trial
where he committed perjury and denied having previously recommended my
"retraining" in 1979 so as to hide his bias and prejudice before Justice
Cohen.
On January 22, 1982 I appeared before the College Council
to respond to Dr. Patterson’s false allegations that MMA disc replacement
was "experimental surgery". I then advised Council that Dr. Patterson was out
of date because MMA usage for disc replacement was no longer "experimental" and
the Council recorded that correct position in their January 22, 1982 Minutes.
The College Council responded positively when correctly informed about this
advance in spine surgery and requested my assistance in educating the BCMA
Sections of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Orthopaedic Surgery "as soon as
possible" about the advantages of MMA usage in disc replacement and the
Registrar stated in correspondence that my contentions if correct were a most
valuable piece of information which should be disseminated as soon as possible.
The College Minutes and correspondence confirmed that it would arrange a time
and place for my presentation "as soon as possible" and then made the fatal
error of delegating the task of making the arrangements to the biased Professor
Paterson who was secretly planning WCB-funded litigation against me for
"experimental surgery" where he would appear as their expert medical witness
supporting the experimental surgery fraud.
The College Registrar Dr.
J.A. Hutchison was operating on a hidden agenda to appease the WCB for the
adverse outcome of Napoli v.WCB and accordingly delegated the task to the
WCB-friendly Dr. F.P. Patterson whose own hidden agenda was to assist WCB to
retaliate for Napoli by spawning, supporting, and assisting WCB-funded
litigation for "experimental surgery" wherein Professor Patterson would appear
as the WCB’s expert medical witness supported by the presumption of
regularity and authority associated with his position as Professor of
Orthopaedics.
In fact the hand-written notes of my CMPA-retained
WCB-friendly counsel Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. were later retrieved from the
Coughlin v. Kuntz
Appeal Books where Mr. Grey inadvertently left his notes inside the transcripts
of Dr. Patterson’s testimony. Mr. Grey’s notes demonstrate his own
bias dating back to when he was counsel for the WCB’s 1981 appeal of
Napoli v. WCB and working with the WCB-friendly doctors planning my suspension
because Mr. Grey’s own hand-written notes recorded Dr. Patterson’s
"motivational point of view" (which Mr. Grey certainly didn’t learn from
me) as follows:
"Patterson:
1. old, outdated,
opposed to new or novel theories. Unaware of the literature regarding
the use of acrylic. Wrong re "hard foreign substance" theory.
2. Kuntz was a
former pupil who "left the fold". (A superb technical surgeon.) As a wayward or
errant son, Kuntz is not only to be corrected, he is to be crushed, (this is
Patterson's motivational pt. of view).
3. originally had
no objections to K's procedures (1981 - Patterns of Practice Cttee
review)...."
Accordingly from 1982 onward the College
Registrar Dr. Hutchison asked Dr. Patterson in correspondence to arrange a time
and place for my presentation "as soon as possible" but the influential
Professor Patterson blocked it, his goal being to prevent any dissemination of
my information from the authoritative medical literature demonstrating MMA disc
replacement was never experimental since 1955. Dr. Patterson did not want me
educating other B.C. doctors about this advance in spine surgery because
informing them would jeopardize the false case of WCB-funded litigation he had
instigated against me for performing "experimental surgery" to appease WCB for
the outcome of Napoli v. WCB opening their file system to disclosure. Dr.
Patterson knew the litigation would fail if the rest of the uninformed doctors
were brought up to date. Dr. Patterson knew the WCB was already attempting to
exploit his scientific fraud in the WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz case
where he would eventually surface as their expert medical witness supporting
his own prior false position that MMA usage for disc replacement was
"experimental surgery".
In 1982 the Registrar Dr. Hutchison
circulated Dr. Patterson’s false November 19, 1981 Section 50 report to
the Chairman of the BCMA Section of Orthopaedic Surgery Dr. David Harder. This
circulation was in violation of the Evidence Act Section 57 (5) and (6) and was
done to create bias and prejudice amongst the BCMA Section of Orthopaedics who
were then influenced by Professor Patterson’s fraudulent position that MMA
disc replacement was "experimental".
In 1983 when the College Registrar
Dr. J.A. Hutchison knew their own adviser Dr. Patterson was blocking the
presentation that would bring other B.C. doctors up to date on the subject, the
College grew progressively nervous about its own legal exposure and the
possibility of being named as a defendant in forthcoming WCB-funded
Coughlin v. Kuntz
litigation. The WCB proposed suing me for what the College Section 50
investigator Dr. Patterson falsely alleged to be "experimental surgery" and the
College knew it had failed in 1981 to impose the moratorium Patterson had
recommended. In fact it waited until 1983 and when it realized Professor
Patterson would never allow my presentation to educate other doctors about MMA
usage for disc replacement, the College became concerned about its own
liability for failing to get "informed consent" because the consent forms it
approved never mentioned "experimental surgery". The College feared WCB
could expand its litigation to include the College for allowing the alleged
"experimental surgery" to continue after Dr. Patterson’s November 19, 1981
recommendation that the procedure be stopped. The allegation the College faced
was that it had ignored Patterson’s recommendations and thereby exposed
Workers to "experimental surgery" for another 2 years until 1983. The 1983-1984
Minutes of the College Council document the Council’s own "liability
concerns" about being enjoined in forthcoming WCB-funded litigation.
The CMPA was advising the College in 1983 to impose the moratorium. The
CMPA or Canadian Medical Protective Association insured over 50,000
doctors in Canada against medical malpractice including the College Council. It
was the College’s 1983 "liability concerns" about being included as a
co-defendant in proposed WCB-funded litigation for "experimental surgery" that
led to the College imposing the moratorium ultra vires the Medical
Practitioners’ Act. The College was now denying the public state all
access to state of the art spinal surgery because of the "experimental surgery"
scientific fraud being now perpetuated by both WCB and College.
By
December 1982 the WCB was instigating the WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz litigation against me
and Professor Patterson eventually surfaced to earn retirement income appearing
repeatedly as the WCB’s expert medical witness stating MMA usage for disc
replacement was "experimental surgery". I was being defended by the WCB’s
old lawyer Harvey Grey Q.C. who refused to expose Dr. Patterson and present my
evidence from the authoritative medical literature that demonstrated otherwise
that MMA disc replacement was never considered "experimental" in humans after
1955.
It was the threat of the Coughlin v.
Kuntz litigation that
triggered the February 9, 1983 activity of the College Registrar Dr. J.A.
Hutchison to write the Hospitals to impose a litigation. The College was
concerned that the WCB-funded litigation would expand to include both the
College and the Hospitals which worked together to prepare and approve the
consent forms. Although the litigation was being directed principally at me for
failing to obtain informed consent" from patients undergoing what the WCB
falsely alleged to be "experimental surgery", the College feared that both
themselves and the Hospitals were also vulnerable to the same charge because
they jointly prepared and approved the consent forms signed by all the patients
before undergoing the alleged "experimental surgery". The case against me was
that those forms never mentioned the word "experimental". My defense was
simple: all the Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers had to do was
gather and present the evidence that MMA usage for disc replacement was at all
material times since 1955 never "experimental". My lawyers didn’t do that
because they were acting as de facto agents of the WCB, assisting the College
to distance itself from the litigation by scapegoating me for the College
adviser Dr. Patterson’s errors in calling MMA disc replacement
"experimental" and generally acting to deceive and undermine the defense of
their own client. My lawyers were selling me to the highest bidder: the
Canadian Medical Protective Association which was directing my lawyers. The
former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison was by now positioned as the BCMA
adviser to the CMPA. In 1984 he became a member of the CMPA Council which was
planning to profit by perpetuating the myth he helped to perpetuate during his
tenure as College Registrar; the CMPA plan was to raise insurance premiums and
bolster their unfunded liability coffers to cover future legal exposure for
"experimental surgery".
On February 9, 1983 the College
Registrar Dr. Hutchison wrote the Kitimat General and Wrinch Memorial Hospitals
recommending a moratorium on MMA usage for disc replacement. It was improper
for the College to abuse its authority to deny the public access to advanced
surgical procedures because of its own liability concerns. The moratorium was
an abuse of authority and ultra vires the Medical Practitioners’
Act.
On February 9, 1983 the College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison
acted without any authority under the Medical Practitioners’ Act to
appoint a Committee of Dr. David Harder (Chairman of BCMA Section of
Orthopaedics), Dr. Barry Purves (Chairman of BCMA Section of Neurosurgery) and
Dr. Tessler (Chairman of BCMA Section of Neurology). The already biased Dr.
Harder did not follow the Council’s mandate to arrange a time and place
for my presentation to the BCMA Sections of Orthopaedics, Neurology and
Neurosurgery "as soon as possible" to inform and educate the members of those
sections about advanced spine surgery techniques; he was under the influence of
Dr. Patterson and turned it around into a peer review of myself which was not
what they were asked to do. But even worse, Drs. Harder, Purves and Tessler
never even bothered to meet with me and solicit my input before preparing their
uninformed March 23, 1983 report echoing Dr. Patterson’s errors without
reviewing the authoritative medical literature as required to learn Dr.
Patterson was a quarter century out of date. They merely echoed and adopted the
fraudulent November 19, 1981 Patterson report as the basis of their own
uninformed March 23, 1983 Harder Purves Tessler report which simply echoed
Patterson’s scientific fraud alleging that MMA disc replacement was
"experimental".
In 1983 there was a public outcry from 23 patients
awaiting surgery and the College responded by rescinding its moratorium on MMA
disc replacement surgery until after the completion of all the remaining cases
on the then existing waiting list. After the remaining 23 patients were
completed, the College received the March 23, 1983 Harder Purves Tessler report
echoing the Patterson report and relied upon it as an excuse to distance Dr.
Patterson and reimpose the moratorium. The new waiting list of over 120
patients which then formed began to intensively lobby the College for
reinstatement of the state of the art MMA disc replacement procedure to which
they were being denied access. Because there was not one single patient
complaint, the College at first advised the dissident patients that the College
had to impose the moratorium because of "liability concerns." When the patients
stated there was no complaints and no litigation filed against me, the
Registrar Dr. Hutchison and Deputy Registrar Dr. C.R. Arnold had to manufacture
new reasons to justify the illegal moratorium and began giving false advice to
patients that MMA disc replacement was "experimental surgery".
In 1983
the College expressed "liability concerns" as recorded in the 1983-1984 Minutes
of the College Council, fearing that the College would be enjoined in a $300
million medical malpractice litigation being planned and funded by WCB which
was actively soliciting litigants against me. The CMPA exploited those fears in
1983 to coerce the College into enforcing an illegal moratorium ultra vires the
Medical Practitioners’ Act so as to limit the size of the Class
that would sue the College in the anticipated WCB-funded Class Action.
The fear was that the Class Action would bankrupt the CMPA, College and
Hospitals for allowing"experimental" MMA disc replacement surgery without
obtaining "informed consent" from patients who were never told it was
"experimental". The fear was that all of the above would be named as Defendants
in the anticipated WCB-funded litigation. The economic stakes were so enormous
that the College and CMPA worked in collusion to transfer of Dr. J.A. Hutchison
from the College staff to the CMPA staff where he surfaced in 1984 as a CMPA
Council member to direct and undermine my future defense while distancing the
College from the anticipated litigation for "experimental surgery"; Dr.
Hutchison was to make me the College scapegoat being sued for $300 million in
litigation caused by the College by disseminating the scientific fraud of
"experimental surgery" while keeping it secret that the College was also a
named Defendant..
That same year in 1984 the CMPA changed its policy
from "pay-as-you-go" to "collect-in-advance" so as to profit from Dr.
Hutchison’s dissemination of Dr. Patterson’s scientific fraud of
"experimental surgery" which the CMPA adviser Hutchison knew was not
"experimental" as recorded in the January 22, 1982 Minutes of the College
Council meeting he chaired and as verified in the authoritative medical
literature published since 1955 which was available in the College’s own
library if they would only review the published papers on the subject.
In 1985 the CMPA raised the medical malpractice premiums across Canada
to over 50,000 doctors to cover an anticipated $300 million unfunded liability
exposure for the falsely alleged "experimental surgery". The CMPA then
bolstered its "unfunded liability reserves" from $88 million in 1986 to $1.18
billion in 1996 and over $1.4 billion by the year 2000. This enormous increase
depended on maintaining Dr. Patterson’s scientific fraud of CMPA liability
exposure for 1900 patients that the WCB counsel Mr. Powers and his associate
Mr. Tommy Griffiths claimed were exposed to "experimental" MMA disc replacement
despite there being only 300 patients who had undergone MMA disc replacement,
none of which were "experimental". The CMPA knew very well that I had only
performed MMA disc replacement on 300 patients with a 98% success rate and not
one single patient had complained until the WCB contacted my patients and
threatened them with discontinuance of future benefits unless they agreed to
sue me now before expiration of the limitations period despite their clients
having been helped by the surgery and returned to the workforce. The CMPA
remained silent and did nothing to correct the false information about the
existence of 1900 patients suing me for disc replacement because they were
profiting by perpetuating the fraud as an excuse to raise insurance premiums
across Canada so as to cover unfunded liability exposure for an alleged 1900
cases of "experimental surgery".
In 1984 the WCB filed the
Coughlin v. Kuntz writ
suing me for "experimental surgery" and in 1985 the WCB set out to ensure the
success of the litigation by having Dr. Patterson’s 20 year shared office
associate Dr. R.W. McGraw appointed as Chairman of a College Section 48
Investigation Committee appointed under the Medical Practitioners Act.
Then on January 29, 1985, Dr. F.P. Patterson was referred two WCB cases George
Bavle and Cecil Coughlin wherein he supported WCB-funded litigation against me
for "experimental surgery".
Contemporaneously, the documentary
trail demonstrates that the WCB was directing and influencing the Investigation
Committee chaired by Dr. Patterson’s 20 year shared office associate and
successor as Professor of Orthopaedics Dr. R.W. McGraw. The WCB Executive
Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall was providing Dr. McGraw with specific WCB
files that were never shared with myself so as to deny me all opportunity to
respond and rebut with evidence from office and hospital files supported by
both the patients and referring doctors.
The WCB agenda was to obstruct
justice by adversely influencing the Investigation Committee to have the
College suspend me without a hearing in 1986 for "insufficient skill and
knowledge to practice medicine" in advance of the 1987 WCB-funded
Coughlin v. Kuntz trial
so as to discredit me as a credible expert medical witness in my own defense
where the WCB-friendly lawyers at Harper Grey Easton and Company failed
to call a single witness in my defense. The WCB had positioned Dr. Patterson as
their own principal expert medical witness against me and he was in turn
supported by WCB consultant Dr. J. Noble who also falsely stated that there was
no evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement in the authoritative
medical literature and that the WCB librarians had done a search finding no
references supporting this usage. Accordingly Dr. McGraw’s Investigation
Committee recommended my suspension and the College relied upon the defamatory
untested Report authored by Dr. McGraw to perpetuate Patterson’s
scientific fraud that MMA disc replacement was "experimental" and suspend me
without a hearing before the trail. The College undermined its statutory
authority to administer the Medical Practitioners’ Act by abusing its
Committees for other than their intended purpose under the legislation and
assisting WCB-funded litigation against me.
In 1986 Dr.
Finlayson, Director of Professional Relations for the BCMA invited me to accept
an appointment to sit as a member of the three man WCB Boards of Review Panels
that heard Workers’ appeals but I refused to participate, citing I would
rather help than hinder the Disenfranchised Workers. At that time I advised the
B.C. Minister of Labor Mr. Segarty that during the appeal process the WCB was
in economic conflict of interest and adverse in interest to the
WCB-Disenfranchised Workers and ought not to be in control of the care of
Disenfranchised Workers during the appeal process.
I went further
by proposing changes to the Workers Compensation Act that would allow
neutral third parties to independently manage the Disenfranchised
Workers’s care whenever the WCB failed to solve their medical problems
which precipitated the appeal. The WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D.
McDougall was angered at my attempts to change the WCB appeal process for
Workers and responded by chastising me for doing "unauthorized" surgery for Ben
Sakawsky after the WCB failed to respond to requests for authorization in a
timely manner.
In 1985 the College and the WCB could no longer use the
biased Professor Patterson for the third time and so they appointed another
biased investigator to take his place. They selected Professor McGraw to
conduct another biased investigation knowing McGraw could never have been
considered independent and impartial or at arm’s length from his mentor
Professor Patterson after sharing office for 20 years. Dr. McGraw ought never
to accepted the position as Chairman of the Investigation Committee
commissioned under Section 48 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act and
the College ought never to have appointed him knowing of his close relationship
to Patterson. Dr. McGraw was little more than an echo of Dr. Patterson and the
WCB.
In 1986 the WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall
began secretly sending undisclosed WCB files to the WCB-directed College
Investigation Committee. The Chairman Dr. R.W. McGraw never shared them with
myself so as to deny opportunity for rebuttal and even knowingly perverted the
successful outcomes of surgery on disenfranchised Workers such as Teodoro Ruiz
and Ron Williamson when the files in Dr. McGraw’s possession on patients
such as Mr. Ruiz clearly demonstrated otherwise: that the surgery was effective
for its intended purpose, relieve pain and disability, and restored the Workers
to their previous occupation. The subsequent affidavits of WCB Claimants Ron
Williamson and Teodoro Ruiz confirm that their "unauthorized" surgery was
successful in relieving symptoms and restoring them to the workforce after the
WCB failed to solve their problems. This was contrary to the conclusions of
the Investigating Committee in the fraudulent July 31, 1986 Investigation
Report.
Dr. McGraw failed to gather my evidence, failed to disclose
in advance what cases would be discussed at the forthcoming July 8, 1986 Oral
Interview of myself by the Investigating Committee and denied me all
opportunity to prepare. He failed to review the evidence from my office files
on the patients including the notes from their referring doctors, nor did he
contact, examine or review a single patient to determine the successful
outcomes of the surgery which he condemned. Dr McGraw failed to identify by
name any of the cases being discussed during the July 8, 1986 Oral Interview
and accordingly their names do not appear in the transcript. The July 31, 1986
Section 48 Investigation Report authored by Dr. McGraw echoed and
adopted the invalid 1981 Patterson Section 50 Investigation Report
without correcting the erroneous Patterson position that MMA usage for disc
replacement was "experimental". The Committee recommended my suspension for
"insufficient skill and knowledge to practice medicine in B.C. or the rest
of Canada".
Dr. Patterson then resurfaced as the WCB’s expert
medical witness in the champertous WCB-funded trials that followed wherein the
WCB took a subrogated interest in the settlements. The WCB lawyer Mr. Powers
contacted my satisfied Workers and advised them to sue. WCB consultant Dr.
Noble advised my satisfied patients such as Addy Lunz to sue but Mr. Lunz
refused. WCB was advising patients they had to sue me so as not to jeopardize
their claims in the future if they did have problems after expiration of the
limitation period.
The WCB was fear-mongering amongst my satisfied
patients to incite litigation by giving them fraudulent advice that they were
in imminent danger of problems due to their exposure to "experimental surgery".
The WCB then advised them to sue, funded the lawyers, took a subrogated
interest in the settlements, and exercised direct influence over the
WCB-friendly lawyers retained by CMPA to defend me. My lawyers were the
WCB’s old lawyers from Harper Grey Easton and Company and Mr.
Harvey Grey Q.C. hid their conflict of interest by failing to disclose that
they had acted for WCB July 7, 1981 when WCB unsuccessfully appealed the Bouck
judgment in Napoli v. WCB which opened the WCB closed file system in Canada.
When I was advised in 1985 of the pending College Section 48
investigation, I was insured by the Canadian Medical Protective Association
(the CMPA) and sought their legal assistance. I did not then know that
College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison who imposed the 1983 moratorium because of
College "liability concerns" had joined the CMPA as a Council member.
This was the same Dr. H.A.
Hutchison who during his tenure as Registrar disseminated Dr. Patterson’s
1981 Report containing false information declaring MMA disc replacement
"experimental" to Dr. Harder in 1982, then appointed the tainted Harder Purves
Tessler Committee February 9, 1983 to echo the Patterson position that MMA disc
replacement was "experimental", all of which was designed to assist the WCB to
instigate the WCB-funded litigation. Dr. Hutchison had initially advised my patients that the College
imposed the moratorium because of "liability concerns" and then changed his
story stating that it was because I was performing "experimental
surgery".
Dr. Hutchison had now positioned
himself to undermine my defense of the litigation he caused against me during
his tenure as Registrar. He was a CMPA Council member and the official B.C.
adviser to the CMPA which empowered him to select and direct the CMPA retained
lawyers appointed to defend me. Dr. Hutchison’s influence over my lawyers
ensured they acted in the best interests of the College and not myself since
all their bills were paid by the CMPA. Those lawyers he directed then withheld
all my key evidence that would be damaging to the College including all
evidence that MMA usage was never "experimental" as recorded in the January 22,
1982 Minutes of the College Council and authoritative medical literature
supporting that position.
Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers
Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark Skorah and Barbara Norell all took their instructions
from the former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison and the CMPA while ignoring my
own instructions to present evidence supportive of my position. It was my name
and not the CMPA that appeared as the Defendant on the Writs and yet my lawyers
always refused my instructions. In effect they never did act impartially,
independently and at arms length from the College but rather took instructions
from the former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison who assisted CMPA during his
tenure as Registrar by imposing the moratorium. Dr. Hutchison disseminated
false information of "experimental surgery" to incite litigation, assisted the
WCB and Dr. Patterson to block my presentation "as soon as possible", and
generally caused the 1981 investigation by soliciting complaints against me as
far back as 1979 so as to help the WCB discredit me as an expert witness for
Napoli in advance of the 1981 Napoli v. WCB trial. Dr. Hutchison ensured that my Harper Grey
Easton and Company lawyer Mr. Mark Skorah undermined my defense during the
College investigation and Dr. Hutchison directed the WCB-friendly lawyers
retained by CMPA that "pretended to defend" me as they feigned a defense
against WCB-funded litigation for the falsely alleged "experimental
surgery".
CMPA Council member Dr. Hutchison was positioned to
undermine my defense against the very litigation he had himself caused against
me during his tenure as College Registrar by imposing the moratorium and then
spreading the myth of "experimental surgery" amongst the patients and public.
Dr. Hutchison ensured that the tainted WCB-friendly law firm Harper Grey
Easton and Company was appointed to defend me against the forthcoming 1986
College investigation because he knew Mr. Grey had represented WCB at their
unsuccessful appeal of Napoli v. WCB and could be relied upon to appease WCB by ensuring my
suspension. Mr. Grey Q.C. and his law firm retained by the CMPA could be relied
upon to protect the College by failing to gather and argue material on the
College files supporting my position and that he could also be relied upon to
withhold my evidence that MMA disc replacement was never "experimental" which
if argued in Court would embarrass the College and in particular Dr. Hutchison
who had written my patients disseminating false information that MMA disc
replacement was "experimental".
Mr. Grey Q.C. and the Harper
Grey Easton and Company lawyers he influenced including Mark Skorah and
Barbara Norell were in conflict of interest and ought never to have pretended
to defend me in all subsequent actions because Mr. Grey Q.C. was a participant
on the WCB team that had planned my suspension during the course of the
Napoli v. WCB
trail. Accordingly, the Harper Grey Easton and Company could never be
considered impartial and independent in accepting my defense of the College
Section 48 investigation which resulted in my suspension without a
hearing. The law firm failed to adequately prepare, to gather my evidence, to
disclose the identity of my accusers or what the allegations were against me.
Mark Skorah failed to identify what files would be discussed and abandoned me
the day before the July 8, 1986 Oral Interview by the Investigation Committee.
Mr. Skorah advised me at the eleventh hour that I was not entitled to counsel
and never advised me that I ought to seek alternate counsel because their law
firm was in conflict of interest. Mr. Grey failed to advise me that the law
firm acted for two of the members of the College Investigating Committee. Mr.
Grey knew Dr. P. Kokan was in conflict sitting as a member of the College
Section 48 Investigation Committee because he was the WCB consultant in
Napoli v. WCB and furthermore, his own law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company
represented Dr. Kokan in approximately ten medical malpractice cases
including Semenoff v. Kokan where Kokan was accused of experimental usage of chymopapain enzymes,
a cactus plant extract banned in the U.S.A. which left Semenoff in a
semi-vegetative state and eventually settled in Court for $1.7 million awarded
against Dr. Kokan.
Mr. Grey’s law firm represented Dr. D.
Griesdale in other unrelated medical malpractice litigation and he knew Dr.
Griesdale was in conflict in accepting a position on the Investigation
Committee because of the George Bavle case where Dr. Griesdale recommended
unnecessary surgery on my patient George Bavle at two asymptomatic levels C5-6
and C6-7 already successfully fused and asymptomatic after MMA disc
replacement. Dr. Griesdale ignored Bavle’s new whiplash suffered at
Houston B.C. which injured C4-5 and caused recurrence of headaches which had
disappeared after his successful C5-6 and C6-7 fusion. Dr. Griesdale
erroneously recommended unnecessary surgery on the already successfully fused
levels and his shared office associate Dr. Murray then operated at those levels
with disastrous results. Dr. Murray was doing wrong level surgery when he broke
down the existing successful C-5-6 and C6-7 MMA fusion, injured the dural sac
with a diamond drill bur, produced a dural leak, caused cord edema requiring
steroid treatment, and ignored the newly symptomatic C4-5 level which was the
real cause of his recurrence and not the previously fused levels. Bavle’s
C4-5 headaches caused by the new whiplash injury at C4-5 failed to improve
after their successful but unnecessary bone fusion which replaced an already
successful MMA fusion, the failure to improve being because they were at the
wrong level and failed to deal with the new problem at C4-5. Drs. Griesdale and
Murray then advised Bavle to sue me for "experimental surgery" so as to
distance themselves from their own errors and then referred Bavle to Dr.
Patterson.
The law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company knew the
Writ was served in 1985 in Bavle v. Kuntz before Dr. D. Griesdale accepted a position in July 1985 as a member
of the College Section 48 Investigation Committee and hid his conflict to
jeopardize my defense of the College investigation while advantaging himself
and Dr. Murray in the forthcoming WCB-funded Bavle v.
Kuntz
litigation by facilitating my suspension beforehand. My CMPA law firm of Harper
Grey Easton and Company refused my instructions to enjoin Drs. Griesdale and
Murray into the litigation as co-defendants. The Bavle v.
Kuntz case was
eventually dismissed in my favor.
Harper, Grey, Easton and
Company were advising Drs. Griesdale and
Murray who injured the WCB Claimant George Bavle. Dr. Murray referred Bavle to
Dr. Patterson knowing he would help them cover up their own injury to Bavle and
blame the problem on the previous surgery which Patterson described as
"experimental". George Bavle was then advised by the WCB and a group of doctors
including Dr. Patterson, Dr. Griesdale and Dr. Murray to run newspaper
advertisements in the Personal columns of northern newspapers soliciting other
patients to join the WCB-funded Class Action against me for "experimental
surgery". Bavle did contact my patients at home or through newspaper ads and
falsely advised them that they had been subjected to "experimental surgery" and
were entitled to insurance money even if they felt well. Bavle then referred
them to personal injury lawyer Mr. Tommy Griffiths who worked in association
with the WCB and filed a Class Action Writ against me.
Accordingly the Harper Grey Easton and Company law firm knew the
College Investigation Committee was stacked with biased members in conflict of
interest and that Dr. Griesdale ought never to have participated in any
investigation of myself because of his involvement in causing the injury to
George Bavle for which I was being scapegoated in the WCB-funded Bavle v.
Kuntz litigation which
Harper Grey Easton and Company was defending. The CMPA had already
assigned Harper Grey Easton and Company to protect Drs. Griesdale and
Murray and I was being scapegoated for their errors. Accordingly the law firm
refused my instructions to enjoin Drs. Griesdale and Murray as co-defendants in
the Bavle v. Kuntz litigation against me which resulted from the
errors of Griesdale and Murray. That litigation was eventually dismissed in my
favor and during the course of that litigation, my lawyers assisted defamation
against me by refusing to take action to stop Bavle’s newspaper
solicitations encouraging others to join the WCB-funded Class Action against me
for "experimental surgery" which was never "experimental" and his dissemination
of false information that I performed "experimental" surgery.
When Mr. Skorah abandoned me at the eleventh hour on the day before the
July 8, 1986 Oral Interview by the Investigation Committee, he failed to advise
me to seek alternative counsel. Accordingly I appeared without legal
representation during the 1986 College Investigation commissioned to carry out
the WCB suspension plans. In effect my CMPA-retained counsel from Harper
Grey Easton and Company behaved as de facto agents of the College and the
WCB and undermined my defense so as to distance the College in the forthcoming
Class Action instigated by Dr. Hutchison and the quasi-judicial College by
disseminating misinformation that MMA usage for disc replacement was
"experimental surgery" when it was not "experimental" since 1955.
My
CMPA-retained lawyer Mark Skorah failed to identify my accusers much less the
allegations that led to the College investigation. I was suspended August 24,
1986 without a hearing after inadequate preparation by that WCB-friendly
Harper Grey Easton and Company law firm which then continued to
represent me in the 1987 WCB-funded litigations that followed for "unauthorized
surgery" which WCB alleged to be "unnecessary" and "experimental". My own
lawyers were being directed by CMPA Council member Dr. J.A. Hutchison who
during his tenure as College Registrar caused the litigation against me by
disseminating Dr. F.P. Patterson’s November 19, 1981 invalid Section
50 report in violation of the Evidence Act Section 57 (5) and (6)
spawning the myth fabricated by the WCB that all my cases were "unnecessary"
and "experimental." The WCB’s old lawyer Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. was now
positioned to feign a defense for me against his old WCB friends suing me for
"experimental surgery". This was an unacceptable conflict of interest because
Mr. Grey Q.C. had been a participant on the WCB’s Napoli v.
WCB team working with the WCB
staff that had plotted my suspension in advance of that trial. Mr. Harvey Grey
Q.C. is deemed to have perused Napoli’s WCB file wherein WCB Executive
Medical Director Dr. J.S. Gibbings had written the memo to Dr. Adam Little
stating: "It will be hard to suspend him as he is the only orthopaedic
surgeon in N.W.B.C." (North West British Columbia).
Accordingly, Mr. Grey and none of the members of his law firm Harper
Grey Easton and Company could ever be considered impartial, independent or
at arms’ length from the College or WCB. They ought never to have feigned
to defend me against the premeditated WCB suspension plan which began in 1977,
led to the 1979 BCMA Patterns of Practice Investigation, to the 1981 College
Section 50 investigation which culminated in the 1986 Section 48 Investigation,
my 1986 suspension without a hearing and 1988 erasure from the medical
register. Mr. Grey participated on the WCB team that plotted my suspension
between 1977 and 1981 and his law firm then assisted the WCB to undermine my
defense during the 1985-1986 College investigation directed by WCB Executive
Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall. Mr. Grey’s law firm only feigned a
defense against the WCB-funded litigation that followed.
Mr. Harvey
Grey Q.C. and his law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company intentionally
undermined my defense so as to distance the College from the forthcoming Class
Action. They took instructions from the former College Registrar Dr. J.A.
Hutchison and acted as a de facto agent of the College to ensure my
WCB-directed suspension went ahead without legal resistance and in violation of
all the rules of natural justice.
Contemporaneously with my suspension,
the WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall was secretly directing
undisclosed WCB files to Chairman Dr. R.W. McGraw and the Investigation
Committee which included WCB consultant Dr. P. Kokan. Dr. A.D. McDougall was
also directing the WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz litigation against me
for "experimental surgery"wherein the WCB retained Dr. McGraw’s friend and
associate Dr. Patterson as the WCB expert medical witness so as to harness the
influence of the former Professor of Orthopaedics on the other witnesses
provided by the WCB who testified in unison to deceive the judge into believing
that MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental" in 1987 and even
outrageously testifying that there was no prior usage of MMA for disc
replacement in the authoritative medical literature.
In contrast, my Harper Grey
Easton and Company lawyers ignored my evidence, failed to report the
authoritative medical literature demonstrating that MMA usage for disc
replacement had been declared safe in humans for at least 32 years by the time
of the Coughlin v. Kuntz trial, and did not call one single witness in
my defense.
In 1986, and in anticipation of the
Coughlin v. Kuntz
litigation which could involve the College as a defendant, the Council moved
proactively to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986 so as to distance
the College from the forthcoming WCB-funded litigation.
Although
it was a violation of Section 48 of the Medical Practitioners’
Act to circulate the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report beyond the College
Executive Committee, the Registrar circulated the untested Report to every
member of Council before any hearing took place on its merits.
Contemporaneously the College refused my requests to exercise my Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 guarantees of cross-examination of my
accusers, the members of the Investigation Committee Drs. McGraw, Kokan and
Tile who authored the fraudulent Report.
This illegal circulation of an
Investigation Report was intentional and calculated to create insurmountable
bias and prejudice against me before any hearing took place. It is important to
realize that those reading the fraudulent Report were not spine surgeons,
orthopaedic surgeons or neurosurgeons. The members of the College Council who
received it were uninformed general practitioners, breast surgeons,
haematologists, cardiologists, internists and others, none of whom had any
significant experience in spine surgery. They were reading a tainted Report
dealing with matters beyond their own fields of expertise and were unable to
recognize the scientific fraud contained within the Report concerning matters
which they were not qualified to judge. There was not one member of Council who
could be considered my "peer" in orthopaedics, neurosurgery or spine surgery as
not one of them practiced in this area. The purpose of the illegal
dissemination while I was being suspended without a hearing and before
any hearing took place was to create bias and prejudice amongst the Council
members who would eventually be sitting in judgment. This was no different than
allowing individuals to freely discuss evidence amongst their friends so as to
arrive at a position before sitting on a jury to judge the same material. It
was also a serious violation of Section 57 (5) and (6) of the Evidence
Act and this illegal circulation by a quasi-judicial body operating under
the presumption of regularity denied me all opportunity for a fair hearing.
That was what triggered my efforts to have the Report sealed by the
Court so as to stop this aberrant quasi-judicial body from causing more damage
to my professional reputation by continuing to circulate the defamatory
untested Report before any hearing ever took place.
The College
continued to widely circulate the fraudulent Section 48 July 31, 1986
Investigation Report authored by Chairman R.W. McGraw which echoed, endorsed
and perpetuated Dr. Patterson’s fraudulent Section 50 November 19,
1981 Investigation Report which described MMA disc replacement as being "of an
experimental nature". The Executive Committee of the College relied upon that
tainted Report to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986 and illegally
circulated it to all members of Council before any hearing took place. The
denial of any opportunity to respond to the falsehoods in McGraw’s report
served to create bias and prejudice and obstruct justice in advance of the
Coughlin v. Kuntz
trial where that same untested and tainted Investigation Report being illegally
circulated by a quasi-judicial body was placed before Justice Cohen at the
beginning of the Coughlin v.
Kuntz trial.
The College was protected by a presumption of regularity; the Report was
protected by a presumption of validity; the authors were protected by College
refusal to allow cross-examination; and the Courts echoed the College position
denying me cross-examination. Essentially what happened was that the College
had guaranteed Dr. McGraw immunity from cross-examination and that was the
condition upon which Professor McGraw agreed to participate in the defamatory
scathing Report designed to defame me and distance the College from the
anticipated Class Action.
The College erased me from the medical
register on October 25, 1988 and that forced me into bankruptcy in 1989. I
retained an independent law firm Russell & DuMoulin and applied for
Discharge from Bankruptcy using that outside firm so as to distance
myself from the adverse influence of the CMPA and Harper Grey Easton &
Company who had refused to gather and present my evidence, to enjoin other
doctors as co-defendants, to expose the perjury of Dr. Patterson at the
Coughlin v. Kuntz
trial, and to present the authoritative medical literature to vindicate me as
Mr. Grey had ensured me he would do before he argued my appeal of the Cohen
judgment in Coughlin v. Kuntz.
However the CMPA sent Harper Grey
Easton & Company to appear adverse in interest as interveners at my
application for Discharge from Bankruptcy before Chief Justice
Esson. The CMPA wanted to ensure that litigation would continue against
me as a condition of my Discharge and I did not then understand why it was so
important for the CMPA to continue litigation against their client. The hidden
CMPA agenda was to distance the College from the litigation, scapegoat me for
work performed by other doctors insured by the CMPA, and perpetuate the myth of
"experimental surgery" which CMPA exploited by feigning a non-existent $300
million liability exposure for 1900 patients subjected to "experimental" MMA
disc replacement as reported in the newspapers. This was all a scientific fraud
because I had only done 300 cases of MMA disc replacement, none of which were
"experimental" and CMPA knew the 98% success rate which my patients enjoyed
with the new procedure was much higher than the bone graft spinal fusion
methods it replaced.
The CMPA sent Harper Grey Easton &
Company lawyer Mark Skorah to appear on their behalf as an intervener at my
1989 Discharge from Bankruptcy application to ensure continuation of
litigation against me and to gain the "irrevocable control" of my defense.
Other interveners included Mr. Powers representing the WCB and Mr. Griffiths,
counsel for the WCB whose affidavit admitted he was instructed by the WCB to
contact my patients to determine whether they would sue me. The WCB was using
the Claimant George Bavle of Houston to run newspaper ads soliciting other
patients to sue me for "experimental surgery" which litigation the CMPA now
insisted would continue against me as a condition of my Discharge from
Bankruptcy.
The CMPA additionally required "irrevocable control" of
my defense against the ongoing litigation for "experimental surgery" as a
condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy and then reassigned the
defense to Harper Grey Easton and Company would could then control the coverup
of their own previous errors in perpetuity. The CMPA had no intention of ever
presenting my evidence that MMA disc replacement was never "experimental" nor
did they ever want to vindicate me from the false allegations that I was
"experimenting" on humans.
The CMPA presence at my Discharge from
Bankruptcy hearing was to ensure that I never escaped from Harper Grey Easton
and Company into the hands of independent counsel who would simply gather and
present my evidence from the authoritative medical literature demonstrating MMA
usage for disc replacement in humans was never "experimental" after it was
published as safe in 1955 which was even prior to its usage for hip and knee
replacements. The CMPA feared that independent counsel would present my
evidence and exposed the scientific fraud thereby terminating the College and
WCB myth of "experimental surgery" which CMPA desired to keep alive as an
excuse to raise premiums and bolster "unfunded liability reserves".
The CMPA did not want their phoney claims of future unfunded liability
exposure for "experimental surgery" to disappear if independent counsel beyond
their control presented my evidence. The CMPA knew otherwise at all material
times that MMA usage for disc replacement was never "experimental" because
their new Council member and B.C. adviser was the former College Register Dr.
J.A. Hutchison who attended the January 22, 1982 meeting where I
appropriately advised the College Council of this correct position that MMA
disc replacement was not "experimental" for at least 10 years. The Council
recorded this correct position in their minutes. Accordingly Dr. Hutchison knew
the correct position when he enforced the College moratorium in 1983 and when
he resurfaced in 1984 as a CMPA Council member and CMPA adviser for B.C. the
CMPA is deemed to know that MMA disc replacement was never "experimental" at
all material times.
Accordingly, in 1989 Chief Justice Esson presided
over the Discharge from Bankruptcy and assisted the CMPA and WCB to
continue frivolous litigation against me. Justice Esson ordered not only that
litigation would continue against me as a condition of my Discharge from
Bankruptcy but that the "irrevocable control" of my future defense in these
medical malpractice cases for performing what the WCB falsely alleged to be
"unnecessary" and "experimental surgery" would be assigned to CMPA and the law
firm Harper Grey Easton and Company. That law firm was already in
irreconcilable conflict of interest because they were protecting the College
economic interests by hiding information from myself that the College was in an
irreconcilable economic conflict of interest when the Council sat in judgment
of myself October 19, 1988 after the College had been named as a
co-defendant with myself in a $300 million Class Action and when Council
erased me from the medical register thereby causing my subsequent
bankruptcy.
Harper Grey Easton and Company never told me
that my WCB accusers had secretly enjoined the College May 6, 1988 as a
defendant in the $300 million 1988 Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v.
College of Physicians and Surgeons, Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial
Hospital et al Class
Action which was prior in time to the College sitting in judgment of myself
October 19, 1988. My CMPA lawyers knew that it was a violation of all the rules
of natural justice for the College to sit in judgment of their co-accused. My
lawyers Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark Skorah and Barbara Norell all knew the College
had a $300 million interest in the outcome of its own judgment when it erased
me from the medical register October 25, 1988 in advance of the 1990 trial
regarding Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of Physicians and
Surgeons, Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et
al.
My lawyers knew that no accused can sit in judgment of another
co-accused and even worse, they knew the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report
reviewed Case 8: Rita Wilson in Dr. Tile’s Appendix 1 to the
Report. That meant the College was sitting in judgment of its own cause when
they suspended me without a hearing and then erased me from the medical
register. The Harper Grey East and Company lawyers knew the College was in
economic conflict when it terminated my employment and forced me into
bankruptcy, none of which would have happened had my CMPA-retained Harper
Grey Easton and Company lawyers been honest and forthright and advised me
of the irreconcilable College conflict. Any other counsel acting impartially
and independently without a secret agenda and not under the influence of the
former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison would have brought the College conflict
to the attention of the Courts as grounds to have me immediately reinstated to
the medical register thereby averting bankruptcy.
On March 23, 1983 the
BCMA (BCMA) assisted the College to perpetuate the "experimental
surgery" in the report authored by the Chairman of the BCMA Section of
Orthopaedics Dr. D. Harder, the Chairman of the BCMA Section of Neurology Dr.
B. Tessler and the Chairman of the BCMA Section of Neurosurgery Dr. B. Purves.
The BCMA knew that the College used that Report to justify the 1983 moratorium
on disc replacement and that the CMPA then used that myth to justify the
escalating medical malpractice premiums for "unfunded liability exposure".
In 1986 the BCMA exploited the "experimental surgery" myth they helped
to create. The resultant increase in CMPA premiums that occurred in 1985 in
anticipation of the Class Action was then used by BCMA to negotiate an annual
BC government subsidy in lieu of a further fee increase to compensate for the
escalating CMPA premiums contributing to rising doctors’ office overheads.
In 1986 the government contributed $1.9 million to the BCMA members’
medical malpractice premiums. By the 1996-97 fiscal year this annual
contribution had increased to $15 million; by 1997-98 to $15.75 million; by
1998-99 to $17.561 million; by 2000-01 to $25.61 million. The total
contributions of taxpayer money contributed by the B.C. Ministry of Health to
cover doctor’s escalating CMPA medical malpractice premiums between 1986
and 2001 was $203.6 million. The total amount of taxpayer funded money entering
the CMPA coffers by 2001 was $1.37 billion. This phenomenal increase in the
size of the CMPA unfunded liability coffers depended upon the WCB, College and
BCMA perpetuating the "experimental surgery" myth over the subsequent years so
as to ensure that this cash flow continued whereby taxpayers were now funding
the medical malpractice premiums of B.C. and other Canadian doctors. It was
easy for the CMPA to perpetuate that scientific fraud by continuing to withhold
my evidence, especially after the CMPA and Harper Grey Easton and Company
gained the "irrevocable control" of my defense as a consequence of Chief
Justice William Esson’s Discharge from Bankruptcy Order. Thereafter
the CMPA and its lawyers repeatedly refused my requests to present my evidence
and then refused my requests for a change of counsel to other lawyers of my own
choice who would present my evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement.
The CMPA agenda was to obstruct justice by withholding the evidence I
wanted them to present, their reasoning being that they had every faith in my
Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers, that they had "irrevocable
control" of my defense and that the CMPA was under no obligation to present the
evidence I wanted them to present. The CMPA Secretary-Treasurer Dr. Lee
responded to my pleas to "protect me from the CMPA" by stating that just
because they didn’t present the evidence I wanted them to present did not
mean they did not defend me properly.
The CMPA deliberately withheld
evidence in successive trials to ensure higher judgments against me which their
actuaries exploited to recalculate CMPA "unfunded liability" projections. The
premiums continued to rise to bolster unfunded liability reserves. This theft
of taxpayer funds continued annually since my 1986 suspension despite my
continued protest and demands that the CMPA present my evidence which they
refused to do while citing Justice Esson’s Order giving them "irrevocable
control" over my defense. The CMPA-retained Harper, Grey, Easton and
Company lawyers never acted at arms’ length from the College or the
WCB that was funding litigation against me and the law firm profited
considering by withholding my evidence of prior MMA usage for spinal fusion and
disc replacement so as to perpetuate litigation against me for the scientific
fraud of "experimental surgery".
Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. represented WCB
at Napoli v. WCB
when WCB doctors plotted, planned and directed my suspension. Mr. Grey knew Dr.
Peter Kokan was the WCB consultant on the Napoli v.
WCB case who
missed the diagnosis of stenosis. He knew that the WCB consultant Dr. Kokan was
in conflict when he accepted a position on the College Investigation Committee
to sit in judgment of myself in the WCB-directed investigation.
Furthermore, Harper Grey Easton and Company defended Dr. Peter
Kokan in approximately ten medical malpractice actions, some for "experimental"
usage of chymopapain, an enzyme derived from cactus plants and used to dissolve
discs in a procedure already banned as "experimental" in the USA. Mr. Grey knew
that Dr. Kokan was in conflict in sitting in judgment of myself to deter and
detract from his own "experimental" procedures, especially when the College
Section 48 Investigation Committee echoed and endorsed Dr. Patterson’s
fraudulent November 19, 1981 report alleging MMA disc replacement was
"experimental".
Mr. Grey Q.C. knew Kokan was not competent to sit in
judgment of myself because he was Kokan’s lawyer in the Semenoff v.
Kokan litigation
wherein Kokan injected Semenoff with chymopapain leaving him semi-comatose and
in a vegetative state from which he never recovered. The judge ruled that Dr.
Kokan failed to diagnose stenosis in Semenoff and caused the injury by
injecting chymopapain into the cerebrospinal fluid in 1986 just two months
before Kokan sat on the Investigation Committee in judgment of myself. Dr.
Kokan therein condemned me for my use of state of the art wide decompressive
laminectomy in the treatment of multiple level stenosis and was a signatory of
the Report recommending my suspension. Mr. Grey Q.C. knew that his client Dr.
Kokan was not competent to judge me in the area of spinal surgery which Dr.
Kokan did not perform and the law firm failed to disclose its own conflict in
that it acted for Dr. Kokan in the Semenoff case. After WCB consultant Dr. P.
Kokan recommended my suspension, Mr. Grey’s law firm lost Semenoff
v. Kokan
which was judged against Kokan for $1.7 million. The judgment disclosed that
Mr. Semenoff remained in a semi-vegetative state and never left St. Paul’s
Hospital. The 1988 College President Dr. J.W. Ibbott practiced at St.
Paul’s Hospital and knew that Dr. Peter Kokan was not competent in spine
surgery when Dr. Ibbott chaired the October 19, 1988 College hearing resulting
in my erasure because by then it was widely known that Dr. Kokan and St.
Paul’s Hospital were named as co-defendants in the Semenoff v. Kokan
et al
litigation.
It is important to understand that after College
Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison assisted the CMPA by imposing the 1983 College
moratorium to limit the Class size suing for "experimental surgery" and after
he disseminated false information to the public that MMA usage for disc
replacement was "experimental" the CMPA rewarded him by appointing him in 1984
as their new CMPA Council member. Accordingly, Dr. J.A. Hutchison was
positioned in 1984 to control my defense in the WCB-funded litigation he caused
against me during his tenure as College Registrar because Dr. Hutchison was now
directing my CMPA-retained lawyers at Harper, Grey, Easton and
Company and acting in his own
best interest and that of the College to cover up and distance themselves from
the proposed litigation against me for "experimental surgery".
As Registrar, Dr. Hutchison had acted in violation of the Evidence
Act Section 57 (5) (6) by illegally disseminating Dr. Patterson’s
invalid Section 50 report which wrongly stated that MMA usage for disc
replacement was "experimental." This illegal dissemination by a quasi-judicial
body invited litigation against me while affording Dr. Patterson’s report
the presumption of validity and regularity usually associated with a
quasi-judicial body such as the College. I was being accused by an official
body of "experimenting" on humans when in reality all informed advanced spinal
surgeons knew otherwise that it was not "experimental" and an ever increasing
number of informed spinal surgeons were using MMA disc replacement in their own
practices.
The CMPA was profiting economically by perpetuating that
"experimental surgery" myth and Dr. Hutchison’s influence as a CMPA
Council member over the lawyers defending me ensured that my evidence would
never be presented demonstrating that MMA usage for disc replacement was never
"experimental". He made sure that I would never be vindicated because that
would be an embarrassment to both himself and the College which he directed to
declare a moratorium in 1983. It was the ignorance of Dr. Patterson, Dr.
Hutchison, the BCMA and College and their failure to remain current with
advances in spinal surgery that resulting in harm to the public being denied
access to state of the art spinal surgery.
The CMPA intentionally
abused its powers by seeking "irrevocable control" of my defense so as to
obstruct justice by withholding my evidence of prior MMA usage for disc
replacement so as to perpetuate the scientific fraud being used to justify
raising premiums to bolster the CMPA unfunded liability reserves. The CMPA was
wrongly accumulating funds and fraudulently expanding reserves to cover a false
liability exposure which never did exist and which would disappear
immediately if my evidence was ever brought forward. This was why the CMPA
required "irrevocable control" of my defense and had to ensure that litigation
continued against me as a condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy. The
CMPA was perpetuating a scientific fraud on 55,000 doctors it insured across
Canada and against all Canadian taxpayers who funded doctors medical
malpractice premiums. The CMPA had to ensure that my evidence demonstrating MMA
disc replacement was never "experimental" would never be presented and that I
would never be vindicated in Canada.
I was forced into bankruptcy after
my October 25, 1988 erasure from the medical register. Chief Justice Esson
accepted all the conditions which the interveners required as a condition of my
Discharge from Bankruptcy. The interveners included counsel Mark Skorah
representing the CMPA and counsel Mr. Powers representing the WCB. They all
required that medical malpractice litigation would continue against me as a
condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy and that the Chief Justice
would assign CMPA "irrevocable control" of my defense to the CMPA. Accordingly
in 1989 I lost the "irrevocable control" of my defense which was assigned
forever to the CMPA which was already in conflict and the CMPA then delegated
it to Harper Grey Easton and Company which was also in conflict: both
were hiding the College conflict in being named as a co-defendant in the
Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al Class Action before sitting in judgment of their co-accused which is
a violation of all the rules of natural justice.
Thereafter
CMPA and all counsel they retained continued to rely upon Justice Esson’s
Discharge from Bankruptcy Order granting them "irrevocable control" of
my defense as their excuse for refusing my repeated pleas to simply present my
evidence. There was voluminous authoritative medical literature demonstrating
that MMA usage for disc replacement was never "experimental" since 1955 and
they worked in unison to withhold that evidence. The CMPA refused my requests
for a change of counsel stating they had "irrevocable control" of my defense
and the lawyers they appointed used the same argument. The CMPA pursued its own
hidden economic agenda of perpetuating the "experimental surgery" fraud and
exploited that myth as justification for raising premiums under the pretense
that the CMPA was at risk for legal exposure as a result of the Order of Chief
Justice Esson that cases continue against me for experimental surgery as a
condition of my Discharge. However it is important to remember that it was
the CMPA which resisted my attempts to have the litigation die with my
bankruptcy; it was they that insisted that litigation continue against
their client as a condition of my being granted the Discharge. The CMPA
successfully exploited the assignment of the false "liability exposure" to
themselves which they won as interveners at my bankruptcy and used it to
obstruct justice and to perpetuate annual CMPA medical malpractice premium
increases levied to 55,000 doctors they insured across Canada. This constituted
nothing less than major organized crime against Canadian taxpayers who funded
the medical malpractice premiums of doctors across Canada.
The CMPA
repeatedly obstructed justice and denied me vindication by withholding evidence
of prior MMA usage for disc replacement. Their lawyers abused the CMPA’s
"irrevocable control" of my defense to withhold evidence so as to perpetuate
the false myth that all my satisfied patients who enjoyed successful MMA disc
replacement now posed a threat of liability exposure to the CMPA as an excuse
to increase premiums and bolster CMPA unfunded liability reserves.
In
1990 the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons
(AANAOS) discovered my 1985 clinical research published in Canada on MMA
disc replacement called The Organ of Stress. There was a paper being
presented at their annual scientific meeting by Dr. S. Genest on 10 year
follow-ups of MMA disc replacement and I was asked to comment from the floor
about that paper. I introduced my remarks by advising the entire academy that I
was accused of doing "experimental surgery" in Canada for using MMA for disc
replacement and had been erased from the medical register for "insufficient
skill and knowledge to practice medicine in B.C. or the rest of Canada."
The AANAOS recognized MMA disc replacement as advanced state of the art spinal
surgery taught and endorsed by their own members and responded by appointing me
Chief of the Academy’s new Division of Neuropaedic Surgery which
dealt with the newly recognized field of intervertebral disc replacement.
In 1991 the Academy invited me to deliver the Organ of Stress
lecture series which was recorded and disseminated to neurosurgeons and
orthopaedic surgeons in audio and video format and attendees of the lectures
received continuing medical education credits. This was the same lecture series
that the B.C. College Council instructed College Registrar Dr. Hutchison on
January 22, 1982 to arrange for my presentation "as soon as possible" and which
were then delegated to the biased UBC Professor of Orthopaedics Dr. Frank
Porter Patterson who blocked the presentation. Accordingly this information was
suppressed in Canada by both Professor Patterson and his successor Dr. Robert
W. McGraw both of whom abused their authority to assist the WCB to perpetuate a
scientific fraud.
In Canada, the CMPA lost every case against me that
their lawyers "pretended to defend" for the falsely alleged "experimental
surgery." This outcome was diametrically opposed to what happened in the USA to
doctors sued for using MMA for disc replacement. The Chairman of the
American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons Dr. Kazem
Fathie advised me on February 10, 1997 that there has never been a successful
case of litigation in the United States against a doctor using MMA disc
replacement. His letter stated that 200 neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeons
polled at their annual scientific meeting all agreed that usage of MMA disc
replacement was not "experimental surgery". Dr. Fathie emphasized that
everybody eventually understood that it was not "experimental" and accordingly
there had never been a single case of successful litigation for "experimental
surgery" against a doctor in the USA for using MMA disc replacement which was
not overturned on appeal.
In Canada there has never been a case
successfully defended against me by the CMPA because it was perpetuating a
scientific fraud on the Canadian public so as to bolster its unfunded liability
reserves on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. My CMPA-retained lawyers were in
conflict and refused my instructions to present my evidence of prior MMA usage
for disc replacement. They all abused Justice Esson’s Order assigning
"irrevocable control" of my defense to the CMPA as their excuse for withholding
my evidence so as to perpetuate the taxpayer funded insurance fraud. The CMPA
refused my requests to assign other counsel who would present my evidence.
Accordingly, in 1993 I sued CMPA and its lawyers at Harper Grey
Easton and Company which litigation forced CMPA to appoint other lawyers
such as David Roberts Q.C. and Irwin Nathenson Q.C.. However nothing changed
because they also took instructions from CMPA and not myself and accordingly
refused to present my evidence. When I protested, they stated they took
instructions from CMPA and not myself and continued to deceive the court..
I then fired Mr. David Roberts Q.C. and advised him to cease and desist
but he refused to quit and CMPA refused to remove him. I then complained to the
Law Society of B.C. about Mr. Roberts continuing to present himself as
my lawyer after I fired him and Mr. Roberts responded to my complaints by
circulating a judicially sealed July 31, 1986 Investigation Report
before the Law Society to defame me. Mr. Roberts received the sealed
July 31, 1986 Investigation Report from the CMPA and not myself and acted
in contempt of court by circulating it to the Law Society lawyer Tim Holmes.
The Law Society then acted in contempt of court by circulating the
judicially sealed Report back to Mr. Roberts Q.C. who had requested its
return after it had served its intended purpose of defaming his client so as to
discredit me with Law Society and thereby perpetuate the myth of experimental
surgery.
Mr. Holmes and the Law Society of B.C. were now in
contempt of court themselves and after reading the defamatory untested and
judicially sealed Report they refused my request that the Law Society
suspend Mr. David Roberts Q.C. and order him to cease and desist "pretending to
defend" me after I fired him. The Law Society relied upon the Order of Esson to
permit Mr. D. Roberts Q.C. to continue feigning a defense on my behalf after I
fired him. It must be stressed that only my name appeared on the Writs suing me
for "experimental surgery" and not the CMPA which refused to vindicate me by
presenting my evidence. In effect, the CMPA was placing its own hidden economic
agenda first and was perpetuating the scientific fraud of "experimental
surgery" as the excuse to bolster its unfunded liability reserves and build its
financial empire.
After I fired Mr. D. Roberts Q.C. and after he
defamed me with the Law Society of B.C. which refused my demand that
they instruct him to cease and desist, Mr. D. Roberts continued to appear in
Court claiming to represent me. Mr. Roberts feigned my defense while
withholding evidence I had previously forwarded to the CMPA of prior MMA usage
for disc replacement. Accordingly another WCB-funded case Archibald v.
Kuntz was judged
against me for approximately double the amount awarded at the Coughlin v.
Kuntz case
which gave CMPA actuaries a new excuse to recalculate their unfunded liability
reserves upwards for the remainder of the 1900 cases that never did exist, all
of whom were alleged to have undergone "experimental surgery" that was not
experimental.
Accordingly, the Courts, CMPA and Law Society
of B.C. have denied me the right to fire my CMPA-retained lawyers who
"pretend to defend" me in cases of alleged "experimental surgery" while
withholding my evidence that it was never "experimental" since 1955. This was
organized crime being carried out in the courts where lawyers are robbing the
taxpayer funded CMPA reserves by perpetuating a scientific fraud.
I
sought assistance from the Attorney General Department but they were themselves
actively involved in perpetuating this fraud by facilitating the continuing
obstruction of justice. I was referred to the AG department in 1988 after being
erased from the medical register and complained to them about criminal activity
by the College which had denied me the Section 7 Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms guarantees which included the rights to cross-examine my
accusers, the authors of the Investigation Report. At that time the College was
actively circulating the untested judicially sealed July 31, 1986
College Investigation Report which they commissioned in bad faith to appease
the WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli v.
WCB opening WCB files
in Canada. The College knew the Report was not even supported by its principal
author Dr. R.W. McGraw who stated in his September 14, 1987 Affidavit: "Had
I known I would be subpoenaed to testify I would have refused to participate in
the investigation in the manner in which it was conducted." However the
College continued to circulate the sealed Report in contempt of court to
undermine trials and the AG department did nothing to enforce the seal
so as to ensure me a fair trial before an independent and impartial
tribunal.
Furthermore, the AG department knew
the circulation of the Report was in violation of the Medical
Practitioners’ Act, the Evidence Act (Section 57 (5) and (6),
the January 21, 1987 Order of Justice Huddart of the B.C. Supreme Court
sealing the Report and banning its distribution, and the June 16, 1987
B.C. Court of Appeal Order of Justice Lambert upholding the seal
and distribution ban until further Order. There has never been any such
"further Order" and the seal and distribution ban remains in effect to this
very day. However despite the Order, the quasi-judicial College continued to
illegally circulate the Report in contempt of court. It acted "above the law"
and continued its campaign to defame me by defying Court Orders. The College
was circulating the judicially sealed Report to destroy my professional
reputation and credibility as a witness against themselves before the Class
Action which was still outstanding until 1990. The AG department remained
silent and did nothing to enforce the law.
The Minutes of the College
Council in 1983 and 1984 demonstrate that it imposed the illegal moratorium on
disc replacement because of its own "liability concerns" in anticipation of the
College being enjoined as a defendant in the long anticipated WCB-funded Class
Action that the College Registrar Dr. J.A Hutchison caused against me by
disseminating Dr. Patterson’s Section 50 Report alleging
"experimental surgery". That Class Action eventually surfaced in 1987 as the
WCB-funded $300 million Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. J. David
Kuntz et al Class Action and
was further expanded in 1988 to include the College as a named defendant in
the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of Physicians and
Surgeons of B.C., Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et al
Class Action. The AG Department knew the College was enjoined as a
co-defendant in the Class Action and withheld that information from me.
The AG Department knew the College acted in bad faith to appease the
WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB in 1981 when it appointed the biased Professor
Patterson who falsely stated MMA disc replacement was "experimental" to trigger
premeditated WCB-funded litigation in retaliation against Napoli’s expert
medical witness. They knew the College acted in bad faith to deny the public
the benefits of state of the art advances in spinal surgery when it moved
proactively February 9, 1983 to impose a moratorium. They knew it acted in bad
faith in July 1985 when it commissioned an Investigation Committee chaired by
Dr. Patterson’s shared office associate Dr. McGraw and which included WCB
consultant Dr. P. Kokan and that the College guaranteed immunity from
cross-examination for authoring the defamatory July 31, 1986 Investigation
Report echoing and adopting the invalid 1981 Patterson report. They knew the
College acted in bad faith by then circulating the sealed Report while
denying me cross-examination of the authors who were guaranteed immunity
from cross-examination. The AG Department knew the College relied upon that
fraudulent Report to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986. The College
continued to act in contempt of court by circulating the defamatory Report to
undermine all subsequent trials and the Attorney General Department covered
up this abuse of authority to obstruct justice.
The
WCB failed to have me suspended before the 1981 Napoli v.
WCB trial and learned
from that experience not to repeat the same error twice; accordingly after
having me suspended without a hearing in 1986 the WCB in 1988 enjoined the
College as a named defendant in the $300 million Class Action so as to
blackmail the College into compliance with WCB plans to have me erased. On
May 6, 1988 the WCB filed a second Writ enjoining the College as a co-defendant
with myself in the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of
Physicians and Surgeons, Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et
al Class
Action.
The AG Department knew that 1988 Writ placed the College
in economic conflict of interest and that it contravened all the rules of
natural justice for one accused to sit in judgement of another co-accused. They
knew the College had to ensure that neither the public, the press, nor myself
was ever informed that the College had been enjoined in the outstanding Class
Action because then it would be obvious to all concerned that the College was
abusing its Committees for other than their intended purpose under the
legislation. The AG Department knew that there would be an even greater outcry
from the public if it ever discovered that the College Council was in economic
conflict when it sat in judgment of its co-accused and abused its authority to
obstruct justice by destroying the credibility of expert medical witnesses
detrimental to the position of the College in advance of Class Action
litigation where the College was a named co-defendant.
May 6, 1988 was
the date on which the College was enjoined as a defendant in the Class Action
prior to the October 19, 1988 College hearing when Council hid their economic
interest in the outcome of their own judgment and erased me from the medical
register. This hidden Writ and secret agenda undermined the statutory authority
of the College to fairly administer the Medical Practitioners’ Act.
The AG Department knew the College abused authority to obstruct justice
by discrediting my professional reputation in advance of the forthcoming Class
Action where the College was adverse in interest and that the Class Action
remained outstanding until 1990. The AG Department knew the College had to
violate all the rules of natural justice when it sat in judgment of its
co-accused October 19, 1988 when the Council had a $300 million economic
interest in the outcome of their own judgment. The AG Department knew this
was a criminal abuse of authority and that I had been denied the Charter right
of cross-examination of my accusers, the authors of the Investigation Report
used to suspend me without a hearing all of which was a violation of Section 7
of the Charter. The AG Department also knew the College contravened Section
11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states: "
everyone has the right to a fair hearing before an impartial and independent
panel" and that my co-defendants in a $300 million Class Action could never
be considered impartial or independent.
Accordingly, the AG
Department covered up the College conflict when it voted unanimously to erase
me from the medical register so as to distance themselves from the forthcoming
Class Action which was still outstanding until 1990 before being dismissed in
my favor. The College retained Mr. David Martin from Douglas Symes &
Brissenden to defend them in the Class Action and the College retained the
same Mr. David Martin to resist my appeal for reinstatement which placed Mr.
Martin in conflict: he could never be considered impartial. I was being
scapegoated as the sole Defendant ever identified publicly in this litigation
and Mr. David Martin made sure it remained that way by ensuring that the public
and press never knew the College was a co-defendant or that the College caused
the litigation by disseminating false information that MMA usage was
"experimental". Mr. Martin knew it was the Council’s failure to follow its
own mandate to set a time and place for me to educate outdated doctors "as
soon as possible" that allowed the WCB-funded litigation to proceed against
me that eventually expanded in 1988 to name the College as a co-defendant.
When I appealed the College’s October 25, 1988 decision to erase
me from the medical register, the College used the same lawyer Mr. David Martin
to resist my appeal knowing he was at all material times in conflict of
interest when he was already defending the College in the Rita Linnea
Harriet Wilson et al Class
Action where we were adverse in interest. Accordingly he ought to have declined
acting for the quasi-judicial College body when I appealed their erasure
decision. It was obviously beneficial to Mr. Martin in his defense of the
College in the Class Action to ensure that Council did not reinstate my license
and thereby restore my credibility as an expert witness against the College
which would make his defense of the College in the forthcoming Class Action
more difficult . This conflict explains why a lawyer retained by a
quasi-judicial body subsequently advised the College President Dr. Bill Ibbott
to tamper with my sworn Exhibits while they were being held in the custody of
the College.
In 1992 my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk retained the then
retired and highly respected B.C. Court of Appeal Judge, Mr. R.P. Anderson Q.C.
to review the College erasure decision. Mr. Anderson was the same Judge who
delivered the 1988 Seaton Anderson McLachlin judgment upholding the Legg
judgment denying me cross-examination of the authors of the Investigation
Report. On May 29, 1992 Mr. Anderson’s letter of opinion to Mr. Ewachniuk
stated that the October 19, 1988 College erasure hearing was void ab
initio because the original July 31, 1986 Investigation Report was never
entered into evidence as required under Administrative Law for a legal hearing
under Section 48 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act. Mr. Anderson
observed that only an edited version of the report had been entered which
version deleted large blocks of hearsay evidence while retaining all the
conclusions based upon the deleted hearsay. Mr. Anderson also stated that
Justice Legg relied upon the judgment of Lysyk in Wilson v.
MSC and that the Court of
Appeal which upheld Legg also relied upon that precedent which was
subsequently overturned on August 5, 1988 before my October 19, 1988 College
erasure hearing. The significance of the reversal of the Lysyk judgment by
a five judge bench was that Legg and the Court of Appeal relied upon the wrong
precedent in denying me cross-examination and that the Charter law was already
clarified before I appeared at the College erasure hearing where Council still
denied me the Charter right of cross-examination. Mr. Anderson Q.C. declared on
May 29, 1992 that I must be immediately reinstated to the medical
register.
That May 29, 1992 opinion of the Honorable Mr. R.P.
Anderson was forwarded by my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk to counsel for the College
Mr. David Martin who orchestrated a College coverup whereby the Exhibit numbers
on my sworn exhibits being held in the custody of the College were subsequently
changed. The material I filed under oath was replaced with new exhibits bearing
undated exhibit stamps signed by the College President Dr. J.W. Ibbott who had
chaired the October 19, 1988 hearing. In answer to Mr. Anderson’s
criticisms, the College belatedly entered the original July 31, 1986 Report as
a false Exhibit in an attempt to legitimatize an illegal hearing. This had to
happen following the formal conclusion of the hearing because some of the
phoney Exhibits bore College "Received" stamps dated after the formal
conclusion of the hearing.
Accordingly, Mr. Martin presented false
material as "the record of the hearing" during my 1998 appeal of the College
erasure before Justice Loo and the record he entered appeared different from
the sworn exhibit lists and sworn transcripts prepared contemporaneously in
1988. The May 29, 1992 opinion letter of retired B.C. Court of Appeal Justice
Mr. R.P. Anderson criticized the October 19, 1988 College hearing as illegal
under Administrative Law because the original July 31, 1986 Investigation
Report was never formally entered into evidence. After that opinion was shared
with Mr. D. Martin, he counseled the College President Dr. W. Ibbott to tamper
with my evidence as filed and together they then inserted the original July 31,
1986 Investigation Report into evidence as a false exhibit as they belatedly
attempted to legitimatize an illegal hearing under Section 48 of the Medical
Practitioners’ Act. That was Mr. Martin’s way of dealing with The
Honorable Mr. R.P. Anderson’s May 29, 1992 report which stated that the
College decision must be quashed and I must be immediately reinstated to the
medical register.
It also explains why Mr. Martin acted in contempt of
Court during my 1998 appeal of the erasure before Justice Loo by circulating
the judicially sealed July 31, 1986 Investigation Report which was
never filed in evidence at the October 19, 1988 hearing.
Mr. Martin
had been fully forewarned through the Affidavits of J.D. Kuntz and S.E. Kuntz,
through his review of transcripts of the October 19, 1988 hearing, and through
the sworn exhibit lists prepared by a sworn Court Reporter all of which
evidence reinforced the opinion of Mr. R.P. Anderson that the original Report
was not in evidence.
Mr. David Martin did not participate at the
October 19, 1988 hearing and was not a witness to the events when the exhibits
were filed. He refused my counsel Mr. Berger’s request to provide an
Affidavit from the Registrar Dr. Arnold and refused my lawyer Mr.
Ewachniuk’s request to provide and Affidavit from Dr. W. Ibbott confirming
the validity of the exhibits. He refused this because his witnesses could never
withstand cross-examination on the tampered exhibits. Mr. Martin then knowingly
circulated a false record which included the sealed Report before
Justice Loo in contempt of court to create judicial bias and prejudice and
undermined my appeal especially when it was not entered before the Council in
1988.
The judgment of Madam
Justice Loo in 1999 was itself in contempt of court because therein she quoted
four pages of the untested defamatory sealed Report which was never even
entered into evidence at the 1988 College hearing where I was only required to
answer to the material before Council and not to material that was never
tendered in evidence before them. Madam Justice Loo behaved as an extension of
the untested authors of the sealed Report by quoting their defamatory
Report which was not part of the Record of the October 19, 1988 hearing. Since
the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report was never entered as an Exhibit before
Council at the 1988 hearing, it ought never to have been put before Justice Loo
by College counsel Mr. David Martin who was in contempt of court in circulating
that sealed Report before Justice Loo to undermine the trial. Justice
Loo ought never to have considered much less quoted a sealed Report in
her judgment which was not part of the record of the 1988 College hearing and
her doing so caused criminal defamation of my good name. Mr. Martin duped the
judge into becoming little more than a gossip-mongerer echoing the authors that
both the College and the Courts had protected from cross-examination and by
repeating their defamation and scientific fraud Madam Justice Loo brought the
Supreme Court of British Columbia into disrepute.
I
appealed Madam Justice Loo’s judgement to the B.C. Court of Appeal and the
College counsel Mr. D. Martin refused to sign the appeal books so as to
obstruct justice. Accordingly I appeared before the Registrar of the B.C. Court
of Appeal to request that the original exhibits entered under oath at the
October 19, 1988 College erasure hearing would be filed in their original
format as Supplementary material before the Court of Appeal. Mr. Martin
objected to my request to file the material in its original format and he lied
to the Registrar, falsely stating that the original material I filed under oath
as verified in the sworn transcripts and exhibit lists of that 1988 hearing
and as verified by the late Honorable Mr. R.P. Anderson in his 1992 review of
the transcripts was never entered in evidence at the October 19, 1988
hearing. It was the College counsel Mr. Plommer who attended the 1988 hearing
and not Mr. Davit Martin who was not a witness to the events at which he had
never participated. Mr. Martin had tampered with my sworn evidence, changing my
exhibit numbers and placing the unentered July 31, 1986 Investigation Report
before Justice Loo as a false exhibit and that was why he lied to deceive the
Registrar by stating that the material I filed as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 at
the October 19, 1988 hearing had not been filed. Mr. Martin was obstructing
justice again by refusing to sign the appeal books so as to deny me an appeal
because he now had to cover up for counseling the College to alter my sworn
exhibits when he placed a false Record of that erasure hearing before Justice
Loo. The exhibits Mr. Martin placed before Loo are now different from the
exhibits I filed under oath and entered into evidence at the 1988 College
erasure hearing as documented by the sworn court reporter on her sworn
transcript of the October 19, 1988 College erasure hearing. After appearing
before the Court of Appeal Registrar, the appeal books were submitted again and
Mr. Martin still refused to cooperate by signing the appeal books containing
material recommended by the Registrar which included copies of the material
in the original format as it was filed at the 1988 College hearing.
Obviously if the original exhibits were entered at a forthcoming hearing before
the B.C. Court of Appeal it would be easier to demonstrate which exhibits have
been altered and Mr. Martin feared exposure for tampering with my sworn
exhibits which were in the custody of the College. This fear of exposure for
the criminal obstruction of justice motivated his refusal to cooperate so as to
stagnate the appeal process.
When the College Council voted unanimously
to erase me from the medical register October 25, 1988 so as to distance
themselves from the forthcoming Class Action, Mr. Martin was their lawyer and
preparing for their defense of the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v.
College of Physicians and Surgeons et al Class Action which was still outstanding until 1990 when
Justice Finch, a former Guild Yule lawyer whose former law firm held the CMPA
contract before he became a judge in 1982, dismissed the case against myself
and the College. That litigation had initially named me as the sole defendant
in 1997 and then expanded in 1998 to include the College; however during that
time the College counsel Mr. David Martin made sure that I continued to be
scapegoated in the press as the sole defendant and that the public and the
press were never informed that the College was named as a Defendant in the
Class Action. Mr. Martin never informed me that the College was in economic
conflict when they sat in judgment of myself, nor did my Harper Grey Easton and
Company lawyers ever inform me that the College was a named co-defendant. The
lawyers worked in unison to hide the economic conflict of interest of the
College Council in sitting in judgment of their co-accused in 1998 while the
$300 million Class Action naming the College as a defendant was still
outstanding until 1990. Even worse, that litigation could never have proceeded
if the College had followed its own mandate as agreed January 22, 1982 that
they would set a time and place "as soon as possible" for me to educate my
orthopaedic, neurosurgical and neurological confreres who were 25 years out of
date regarding advances in spine surgery, nor could it have happened if College
Registrar Dr. Hutchison had not wrongly disseminated Dr. Patterson’s
invalid Section 50 Report June 1982 to Dr. Harder before inviting him on
February 9, 1983 to head the Harder Purves Tessler Committee echoing the
Patterson report. Dr. Hutchison knew from his attendance at the January 22,
1982 meeting of the College Council with myself that MMA disc replacement was
not "experimental as recorded in their Minutes and he knew very well that Dr.
Patterson’s November 19, 1981 Section 50 Report falsely claimed MMA disc
replacement was "experimental surgery". The College Registrar Dr. Hutchison was
abusing authority to assist WCB-funded litigation against me when he knew that
the circulation of investigation reports to spread misinformation was in
violation of Section 57 (5) and (6) of the Evidence Act.
Accordingly, I was the only Defendant identified in newspapers across
Canada in the Class Action and both the College and my own CMPA lawyers made
sure neither myself nor the public was ever informed that the College was named
as a Defendant. It was dismissed in my favor in 1990 and I have since learned
that the case against the College was dismissed on the same day. The Harper
Grey Easton and Company lawyers ignored my repeated requests that they
inform the public and press that the $300 million Class Action was dismissed in
my favor so as to vindicate me and rehabilitate my reputation but they refused
because they wanted to assist the CMPA to keep the "experimental surgery" myth
alive as well as the CMPA fraud alive wherein they were exploiting that myth as
an excuse to raise premiums and bolster the unfunded liability reserves in
anticipation of judgments for 1900 cases of "experimental surgery" which had
never been done and which was never experimental. That was why in 1983 Dr.
Hutchison imposed a moratorium ultra vires the Medical Practitioners’ Act
and in 1984 resurfaced as a member of the CMPA Council so as to manage my
defense of his own deceit while the CMPA profited by raising premiums to over
50,000 doctors across Canada to cover the estimated $300 million value of the
Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson Class Action which was touted in the Press as the largest medical
malpractice case ever.
I now know why the CMPA positioned the
former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison as their B.C. adviser and a member of
their Council so as to protect the College while he directed and undermined my
defense. Dr. Hutchison was more interested in protecting himself and his
College benefactors from exposure while appeasing the WCB by allowing the
litigation conspiracy against me to proceed as planned during his tenure as
Registrar. Dr. Hutchison had worked diligently from 1979 onward as a de facto
agent of the WCB when they were attempting to maintain the closed WCB file
system. It was in 1979 that Dr. Hutchison first invited the BCMA Patterns of
Practice Committee to send a complaint to the College so he could "take action"
as recorded in the July 26, 1979 Minutes of the Patterns of Practice Committee.
Dr. Hutchison acted at all material times to assist the WCB to investigate,
harass and eventually suspend and sue me during his tenure as Registrar. He was
abusing the authority he enjoyed as the Registrar of a quasi-judicial body
operating under the presumption of regularity when he helped the WCB to spawn
litigation against me during his tenure as Registrar. Dr. Hutchison was in
control of my Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers and that was why they
maintained a code of silence about the College involvement as a co-defendant in
the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al Class Action and did nothing so as not to draw any
further attention to the case. It would have been scandalous if the public knew
that the governing body of the College of Physicians and Surgeons was in
economic conflict of interest when they imposed a moratorium denying the public
access to state of the art advanced spine surgery techniques, spread false
information that it was "experimental", caused litigation against me which
spread to involve themselves as co-defendants, and then sat in judgment of
their co-accused when they had a $300 million economic interest in the outcome
of their own decision to erase me from the medical register so as to obstruct
justice by proactively defaming the witness against themselves in the
forthcoming Class Action. The cover-up was successful because the public, press
and myself never did know that the College and Hospitals were co-defendants in
the Class Action while I was scapegoated in the Press across Canada as the sole
named defendant. I only uncovered this hidden material fact about the College
being named as a co-defendant after November 27, 1995 when I performed an
independent search of the archives of the Vancouver Courthouse and discovered
the May 6, 1988 Writ enjoining the College and the Hospitals.
In
1988 my patients numbering approximately 8,000 demanded a Public Enquiry into
my suspension and erasure with a demand for my reinstatement. Jack Kempf,
MLA for Omineca arranged an audience with the Minister of Health
Mr. Peter Dueck who in turn directed me to the Attorney General
Department’s Chief Prosecutor Mr. Ernest Quantz.
The AG
Department became part of the College coverup and failed to take my allegations
of criminal wrongdoing seriously. The Chief Prosecutor Mr. Ernest Quantz merely
humored me in 1989 stating "you only want your job back" and "you
were doing surgery that was unnecessary and replacing parts that didn’t
need replacing." At that time the College was still withholding the 1979
BCMA Patterns of Practice Minutes which were not released until May 29, 1991
wherein I discovered that the WCB was my hidden accuser in 1979 claiming that
"unauthorized surgery" was "unnecessary surgery" which allegation had been
hidden from me before my erasure and before I was referred to the Attorney
General Department. I now know the AG department was part of the coverup for
the WCB abuse of authority and that the Chief Prosecutor Mr. Ernest Quantz had
access to that College file wherein the WCB never identified or substantiated a
single case of "unnecessary surgery" by name. The AG department ignored the
perversion of evidence by the Investigation Committee where Chairman McGraw
perverted the outcomes of successful surgery on WCB patients such as Teodoro
Ruiz and Ron Williamson who were pleased with the results of their
"unauthorized surgery" which restored them to the workplace as verified on
their Affidavits. The Attorney General Department knew the College
Investigation Committee of Drs. McGraw, Kokan and Tile never interviewed a
single patient and the Deputy Attorney General Mr. E.R.A. Edwards Q.C. directed
this coverup by Mr. Ernest Quantz allowing the College and WCB perversion of
evidence to continue to obstruct justice while the College circulated the
sealed Report to undermine trials and perpetuate the experimental
surgery fraud. In effect the AG Department covered up the WCB and College abuse
of authority and perversion of evidence to obstruct justice while
contemporaneously destroying the delivery of orthopaedic services to North West
B.C. where I was the only resident orthopaedic surgeon serving the region for
the past 15 years.
Despite widespread public support for a public
enquiry and demands that criminal charges be laid against those involved in
destroying the orthopaedic service I provided in North West B.C., the AG
Department was an active participant in covering up the College economic
conflict knowing it was a violation of all the rules of natural justice for one
accused to sit in judgment of another accused while the $300 million Class
Action was still outstanding.
The AG Department refused to
investigate and respond to legitimate public concerns from Unions,
Municipalities and 8,000 citizens demanding a public enquiry and demanding my
reinstatement and requesting that criminal charges be laid against the
wrongdoers.
In 1985 the AG Department appointed Mr.
Edwards as Assistant Deputy Minister and in 1990 as Deputy Attorney General.
During his tenure with the AG Department Mr. E.R.A. Edwards Q.C. covered up and
allowed the quasi-judicial College to operate in contempt of court by
circulating a fraudulent judicially sealed Report to cause criminal
defamation of my good name. The citizens of North West British Columbia were
deprived of orthopaedic surgery services for the next five years until
continuing public outcry resulted in Kitimat General Hospital providing a
$100,000 per year subsidy to entice Dr. Phelan, an unqualified surgeon
reportedly from Wales to fill the orthopaedic position made available as a
result of my suspension. While my North West British Columbia patients were
still demanding my reinstatement, the College allowed the unqualified Dr.
Phelan to practice without supervision for the next five years on my
patients on condition he pass his orthopaedic examinations. After Dr. Phelan
was forced him into College mandated rehabilitation for drug addiction and
failed his examinations, the Kitimat General Hospital then sued Dr. Phelan to
recover hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr. E.R.A. Edwards was
appointed by Order #1471 July 18th 1985 as Assistant Deputy Minister
in the AG Department. He was appointed by Order #1432 September 20th
1990 as the Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Edwards was at all material times in a
position of authority and had a fiduciary obligation to ensure that Mr. Ernest
Quant fairly and impartially investigated the College and WCB fraud. He had a
duty to stop the ongoing contempt of court by a quasi-judicial body, the
College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. which continued to circulate a
sealed Report in violation of Court orders so as to undermine trials and
obstruct justice.
Mr. Edwards did nothing because his own department
was an active participant in protecting my 1979 accusers which included the MSC
Chairman, Dr. David Bolton. In 1984 the MSC began investigating me for what
they alleged to be the wrongful billing of fee item 5625 which was "orthopaedic
interpretation of submitted x-ray films" and in 1985 launched frivolous
MSC-funded litigation against me wherein I was being prosecuted by lawyers from
the Attorney General Department. That resulted in the 1986 case before Justice
Locke who ruled that "there was not one single shred of evidence that
one single case had been wrongfully billed" when he awarded costs against
my MSC accusers. The AG Department appealed on their behalf and only dropped
their appeal after I was erased from the medical register.
Accordingly
when I was referred to the Chief Prosecutor Mr. Ernest Quantz in 1989, I did
not know the Department was already in conflict of interest and taking
instructions from my MSC accusers Dr. David Bolton and Dr. R. Henderson who had
been involved since 1979. In fact both doctors had been forwarding statistics
to the BCMA Patterns of Practice Steering Committee as a smokescreen and an
excuse to have me investigated so as to distance my undisclosed WCB accusers
who were secretly alleging that "unauthorized" surgery was " "unnecessary
surgery." The AG Department continued the cover up in 1989 because the AG
Department was already assisting the MSC to cost-contain Medicare by destroying
my orthopaedic service to North West British Columbia. The AG Department Chief
Prosecutor Mr. Ernest Quantz and his assistant Mr. Isaacs were already
reporting directly to my MSC accusers and Mr. Isaac’s 1989 letter
dismissing my complaint of criminal wrongdoing was directed to one of my MSC
accusers Dr. Henderson who had been involved since 1979.
The Attorney
General holds a seat as a Bencher of the Law Society of B.C. and the
duties of the Deputy Attorney General include sitting as a Bencher at meetings
whenever the Attorney General fails to attend. In reality it is usually the
Deputy AG that attends meetings held by the Benchers who are the governing body
of the Law Society of B.C. Accordingly, the A.G. department has direct
influence over the Benchers and their decisions to investigate individual
lawyers. It was not surprising that every single lawyer that subsequently took
on my defense was suspended by the Law Society of B.C.
Mr.
E.R.A. Edwards Q.C.’s appointment as Deputy Attorney General was rescinded
February 3rd, 1993 by Order #0124 when he was appointed a Justice of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He was proactively positioned on the
bench by the AG Department so as to continue their cover up of wrongdoings by
government regulated bodies including the College, WCB and MSC.
Mr.
Justice Edwards then surfaced in 1999 to hear a WCB Section 18 application by
Mr. E. Dolden to dismiss my action against the WCB without a trial before
cross-examination of the WCB defendants on their perjured Affidavits and before
the WCB provided an adequate list of documents as required before any such
application could be heard. Mr. Justice Edwards knew very well that he was in
an irreconcilable conflict of interest and in violation of the requirement for
independence of the courts when he sat in judgment knowing that he had
previously been in charge of the investigation and cover up of the same case
during his tenure as Deputy AG. Justice Edwards ignored my own Affidavit
protests and those of my counsel over the WCB circulation of a sealed
investigation Report before him. Mr. Edwards dishonored the court by allowing
the WCB to circulate it in his courtroom in contempt of the sealing
Order, refused to allow the cross-examination of the WCB Defendants Dr.
A.D. McDougall and Dr. J. Noble on their perjured Affidavits, dozed off on the
bench on several occasions, could never once even look me in the eye despite my
sitting beside my counsel and allowed the WCB application to dismiss. He even
awarded special costs against me so as to place a financial impediment before
me in attempting to correct his errors in judgment where the biased Mr. Justice
Edwards did not judge on the evidence before him.. This would never have
happened before an impartial judge.
This was the same biased and
prejudiced Mr. E.R.A. Edwards
who previously held tenure as Deputy Attorney General when he directed his
AG department to prosecute me in a case where Justice Locke ruled in my favor
stating that there was not one single shred of evidence of wrongful billing
which ruling the AG Department then appealed and eventually dropped. It was a
violation of the ancient rule of impermissible partiality for Mr. Justice
Edwards to come with prior knowledge to sit in judgment of myself after he had
unsuccessfully directed the AG Department of myself in a case where the judge
ruled there was not one single shred of evidence which equated to a vexatious
abuse of the court by the AG Department under his
direction.
In 1993, the Patients’
Advocacy Rights Association President Gerry Stevenson approached the
Attorney General Mr. Colin Gablemann with affidavit evidence sworn by J.D.
Kuntz and S.E. Kuntz demonstrating College tampering with my sworn exhibits
which were in the custody of the College and their counsel Mr. David Martin.
The evidence demonstrated that the College President Dr. Ibbott changed exhibit
numbers and added new material as exhibits following the formal conclusion of
the October 19, 1988 hearing. In fact some of the documents that the College
now presented as "exhibits" were stamped as "Received" on October 20,
1988 and October 21, 1988 which was after the formal conclusion of the hearing
verified in the sworn transcripts and exhibit lists of the hearing.
The
AG failed to respond in 1993 and when Gerry Stevenson followed up, he claimed
not to have received the material sent by registered mail. Gerry Stevenson went
to the Liberal Health critic Jeremy Dalton who confronted the Attorney General
on the floor of the legislature about the missing evidence whereupon Mr. Colin
Gabelmann conveniently discovered the missing material the same day and
referred it to the new Deputy AG Brian Neal who had replaced Mr. Edwards who
was just appointed as a judge. Mr. Neal again covered up this criminal
wrongdoing by the College and the evidence of sworn exhibits having been
tampered with while in the custody of the College and their counsel Mr. David
Martin.
It was the AG department’s failure to act by investigating
and prosecuting the criminal wrongdoings of a quasi-judicial body that tampered
with sworn exhibits held in the custody of the College that allowed Mr. David
Martin to introduce a phoney altered Record of the October 19, 1988 hearing in
the subsequent 1998 Appeal of the College erasure decision before Justice Loo.
The false exhibits which Mr. Martin introduced on behalf of the College as
phony exhibits at my appeal before Justice Loo were at variance with the sworn
exhibit list and sworn transcripts recorded contemporaneously at the October
19, 1988 hearing by a sworn Court Reporter who was in attendance. None of this
could have happened without the full cooperation of the Attorney General
department in 1992 in covering up these College irregularities designed to
obstruct justice in a case in which the AG Department was an active participant
and appearing as the counsel of record for some of the key defendants.
In 1993, my lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk sued the WCB, BCMA College of
Physicians and Surgeons, MSC, and MSC Chairman Dr. David Bolton and Dr.
Henderson et cetera in Kuntz v. WCB, BCMA, College, MSC, Dr. D. Bolton et
al. The AG Department then
appeared as counsel of record for three of the Defendants (the MSC, Dr.
Henderson and former MSC Chairman Dr. D. Bolton) and were giving legal advice
to the former MSC Chairman Dr. Bolton.
After MSC was served with
the Writ and Statement of Claim and while under legal advisement provided by
the AG department, Dr. D. Bolton then ordered the immediate shredding of all
the key documents so as to obstruct justice.
In 1995,
Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh became Attorney General. In 1999 my supporters Randy Haigh of
Terrace and Derek Bawn of Vancouver advised Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh that the
judicially sealed Investigation Report was being circulated to defame me
and undermine trials. Mr. Dosanjh was responsible for the administration of
justice in B.C. and yet he stood idly by and did nothing to stop this contempt
of court by a quasi-judicial body because the AG Department was itself involved
in actively covering up for the WCB, College, BCMA and MSC. Mr. Dosanjh knew
his own AG Department was acting for the MSC Defendants. The AG Department had
already positioned the former Deputy Attorney General Mr. E.R.A. Edwards on the
bench as a judge to advantage their own clients. Mr. Dosanjh did nothing to
stop circulation of a sealed Report because his own AG Department would
only benefit from my continuing criminal defamation, especially when they were
applying for a Section 18 Summary Dismissal judgment of my case against all the
government regulated bodies abusing authority such as WCB, College and in
particular the Attorney General Department’s clients, the Defendants MSC,
Dr. Bolton and Dr. Henderson.
Justice Edwards was at all
material times in conflict of interest after he came to the bench in 1993 and
ought to have refused to participate in hearing any portion of Kuntz v. WCB
et al involving the same
government regulated bodies he covered up for during his tenure as Assistant
Deputy Minister and then as Deputy Attorney General.
Justice Edwards’ subsequent participation after coming with prior
knowledge to sit in judgment of myself was in violation of Section 11 (d) of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms wherein Mr. Edwards denied
me a fair hearing by an independent and impartial judge. He was in conflict of
interest hearing Kuntz v. WCB, College, MSC, Dr. Bolton et
al and ought not to have
participated after covering up for the same bodies during his tenure as Deputy
AG. Despite the oral protestations and written argument of my counsel Mr.
Ewachniuk supplemented by my own Affidavits protesting circulation of the
sealed July 31, 1986 College Investigation Report in contempt of court,
Judge Edwards allowed counsel for the WCB Mr. Eric Dolden to circulate the
sealed Report in his own courtroom and granted the WCB’s Section 18
application for a Summary Dismissal of my case against the WCB, then rewarded
the WCB for its abuse of the Section 18 process by awarding special costs
against me.
Judge Edwards acted as an advocate for the WCB
rather than in impartial and independent judge as required when he dismissed my
case against a government regulated body without a trial on the merits. Mr.
Edwards ignored my counsel’s outstanding requests to cross-examine WCB
defendants on their perjured Affidavits contradicted by material affixed to my
own uncontested affidavits and my outstanding requests that WCB produce an
adequate list of documents as required, all of which was an abuse of the
Section 18 process.
In 1993, my lawyer A. Ted Ewachniuk launched
Kuntz v. CMPA et al
suing CMPA, the CMPA Secretary Treasurer Dr. Lee, Harper Grey Easton and
Company, Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark Skorah, and Barbara Norell for acting in
conflict of interest, causing my suspension, erasure and bankruptcy, failing to
gather and present my evidence, perpetuating a scientific fraud, arranging for
"irrevocable control" of my defense to transfer to CMPA and their law firm
where they continued to profit from the defense while in conflict, ensuring
that litigation continued against me as a condition of discharge from
bankruptcy, failing to present my evidence so as to perpetuate the
"experimental surgery" fraud and assist the CMPA to bolster its unfunded
liability reserves at the expense of my professional reputation.
Mr. Ewachniuk was the third of my three consecutive lawyers who were
getting close to exposing the truth when they were suspended to obstruct
justice: Robert Gardner Q.C., Jack Cram and Mr. Ewachniuk were all suspended.
In particular, my last lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk worked on this for 15 years
until his recent disbarment by the Law Society of B.C.
Mr. Harvey Grey
Q.C. was a Bencher or member of the governing body of the Law Society of B.C.
and after the 1993 Writ was served against Mr. Grey, the Benchers appointed a
biased Law Society lawyer to prosecute my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk. They appointed
Mr. Herman van Ommen as the Law Society prosecutor but he was never independent
and impartial as required. He had a hidden agenda to disbar my lawyer because
Mr. Herman van Ommen was the husband of Barbara Norell, one of the Defendants
named in Kuntz v. CMPA et al. Barbara Norell worked under the Bencher Harvey Grey
Q.C. at Harper Grey Easton and Company. Mr. Van Ommen’s vindictive
attack on Mr. Ewachniuk served his own hidden agenda to obstruct justice for
myself in the case against his own wife Barbara Norell, Mark Skorah, the Law
Society bencher Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. and the CMPA..Van Ommen recommended that
Mr. Ewachniuk should be disbarred because he was "beyond rehabilitation" and
when Mr. Ewachniuk advised the Law Society of Mr. Van Ommen’s conflict of
interest as the husband of one of the Defendants he was suing on my behalf,,
they considered it irrelevant.
The Attorney General Mr. Ujjal
Dosanjh was a Bencher of the Law Society from August 1995 to February 2000 when
he was appointed as Premier. During that period the Law Society harassed my
lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk and demanded that he justify why he defended me in
Kuntz v. WCB, College, MSC, Dr. Bolton et al after former Deputy AG Mr. Edwards granted the WCB
application for Summary Dismissal before any trial on its merits and without
allowing me my day in court. Even worse, when the Law Society abused its
authority to intimidate my lawyer, the judgment of Justice Edwards was still
under appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal.
Several
other law firms that represented defendants in Kuntz v. WCB
et al and Kuntz v
CMPA et al also
had a member of their firm sitting as a Bencher on the Law Society of B.C., all
of whom were positioned to benefit by sanctioning this abuse of Law Society
committees for other than their intended purpose to remove my lawyer and
thereby advantage their own clients. Contemporaneously those law firms all
refused to comply with my counsel Mr. Ewachniuk’s request for an adequate
list of documents or to allow cross-examination of the Defendants they
represented as they worked together to stonewall my case and obstruct justice.
For example, the solicitors for CMPA filed a Notice of Motion for a Section 18
Summary Dismissal application before Mr. Herman van Ommen recommended
disbarment of my lawyer.
Mr. Ewachniuk sued my previous lawyers
in the companion case No. C932722 (Vancouver Registry) filed May 14, 1993,
John David Kuntz v. The CMPA, Dr. S.B. Lee, Harper Grey Easton and
Company, Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark M. Skorah and Barbara J.
Norell. The law firm Guild
Yule & Company represented the Defendant lawyers including the bencher Mr.
Harvey Grey Q.C.. That same law firm of Guild Yule also had its own member
William J. Sullivan positioned as a bencher on the Law Society. It was not
surprising that two years after the above Writ was served, the Benchers
conveniently appointed Barbara J. Norell’s husband Mr. Herman van Ommen as
Law Society prosecutor to investigate my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk who was suing his
wife.
At least one of the benchers William J.
Sullivan,
Q.C. sitting in judgment of my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk knew that Mr. H. van Ommen
could never be considered independent and impartial when he recommended
disbarment of my lawyer. The informed person acting reasonably and knowing that
bencher William J. Sullivan, Q.C’s law firm
was acting for Barbara Norell when the benchers
appointed her husband Mr. Herman van Ommen as prosecutor would perceive this as
an abuse of authority by the benchers to advantage their own clients and
obstruct justice by disbarring my lawyer and leave me without counsel in the
case against their own client, in particular the Law Society prosecutor Mr.
Herman. van Ommen’s wife Barbara Norell.
Furthermore the informed
person knowing that the CMPA had filed
an outstanding application for a Section 18 Summary Dismissal of that case
would have real apprehension of bias that Mr. Ewachniuk was disbarred to
obstruct justice when that application proceeded to court especially after Mr.
Ewachniuk advised the Law Society of prosecutor Van Ommen’s conflict and
the Law Society did nothing about it.
Furthermore, Mr.
Ewachniuk filed case No. C932720 Vancouver Registry May 14, 1993, John
David Kuntz v. WCB, College, BCMA, MSC, Dr. Stansfield, Dr. Bolton et
al and Dr. D. Bolton, the
former MSC Chairman was being defended by the Attorney-General Department. The
informed person acting reasonably would conclude that since the
Attorney-General Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh and his successor were Benchers of the Law
Society of B.C. that the Benchers advantaged their own clients by disbarring my
lawyer before the case went to trial.
On December 4, 2000 I
obtained from counsel for the BCMA Ms. Fitzpatrick and Mr. E. Gouge the
evidence that the AG Department’s client the former MSC Chairman Dr. D.
Bolton had ordered the immediate shredding of all the key documents after the
MSC was served notice of the litigation.
On September 5, 2000, the
Ministry of the Attorney General wrote my lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk stating
"I am in the process of preparing an application for a Summary Judgment on
behalf of my three clients, the Medical Services Commission of British
Columbia, Dr. David M. Bolton and Dr. C.B. Henderson."
Obviously it
was advantageous to the AG Department, the Benchers and their clients to disbar
my lawyer of 15 years Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk forthwith and this was accomplished
by December 29, 2000 just as the applications for Section 18 Summary
Dismissal of the cases against their clients were proceeding through the
courts leaving me without counsel to oppose their applications to dismiss
before any cross-examination of their clients and without a trial on its
merits. The benchers disbarred my lawyer to obstruct justice and deny me my day
in court.
Furthermore, in the case No. C932720 Vancouver Registry May
14, 1993, John David Kuntz v. WCB, College, BCMA, MSC, Dr. Stansfield,
Dr. Bolton et al, the
defendant Dr. H. Stansfield and the BCMA were being defended by the law firm
Lawson Lundell Lawson & Mcintosh who also had an outstanding application
for a Summary Judgment dismissing the case against their clients without
cross-examination and without providing the required documents. The informed
person acting reasonably and knowing that the Bencher William M.
Everett, Q.C.
was from the law firm Lawson Lundell Lawson & McIntosh would have a
reasonable apprehension of bias that the Benchers joined forces to abuse
authority so as to advantage their own clients by disbarring my lawyer Mr.
Ewachniuk to leave me without counsel before their applications for dismissal
went ahead.
The Benchers disbarred my last counsel Mr. A. Ted
Ewachniuk on December 29, 2000. The Law Society decided to disbar him upon
their biased prosecutor Mr. Herman van Ommen’s recommendations that my
lawyer was "beyond rehabilitation." The disbarment was then made public January
3, 2001 leaving me without benefit of counsel as their own client’s
Motions for Summary Dismissal proceed through the courts.
There were a
lot of other benchers that would benefit from the disbarment of my lawyer Mr.
A. Ted Ewachniuk so as to avoid embarrassment to themself. The Partial
Lifetime Benchers List of the Law Society of B.C. lists seven more lawyers
and judges who ought to be embarrassed by a trial on its merits. The informed
person acting reasonably would perceive their influence on the Law Society as
introducing a very real apprehension of bias that their presence would have an
adverse influence contributing to the disbarment of my lawyer A. Ted Ewachniuk
so as to avoid causing themselves any future discomfort. The list includes:
Justice Bruce Cohen who
reviewed the sealed Report in May 1987 before then sitting in judgment
of Coughlin v. Kuntz ; in 1997 when Mr. Ewachniuk attempted in an unopposed
application to reopen the case before Cohen on grounds of scientific fraud and
perjury by the key WCB witnesses, Mr. Cohen refused to correct the errors of
his own prior judgment which continued to be used as a precedent for subsequent
judgments against me for "experimental surgery";
Ujjal Dosanjh Q.C. who during
his tenure as Attorney General did nothing to stop the illegal circulation of
the sealed Report to obstruct justice;
Hugh Legg Q.C., who
considered and summarized the then sealed Report in his erroneous
judgment which relied upon the Lysyk judgment in Wilson v.
MSC to deny me
the section 7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to cross-examine my
accusers, the authors of the defamatory untested July 31, 1986 Investigation
Report who supported a scientific fraud and who continued to circulate their
Report in violation of the seal and circulation ban;
Chief Justice Allan McEachern
whom I criticized to the Canadian Judicial Council for appointing stacked
benches using judges who had already judged adversely and who retaliated by
ordering security of costs deposited with the Court before my appeal could be
heard, then limited the two appeals to 21/2 hours, then refused to withdraw
when requested by my counsel, then sat in judgment of his own critic and
considered the sealed Report filed by Mr. Giles Q.C. and Mr. E. Dolden
and did nothing about their contempt of court to undermine cases in the court
below;
Justice Mary Southin who
judged De Sousa v. Kuntz and then came with prior knowledge in violation of
the ancient rule of impermissible partiality to sit in conflict on the five
judge BCCA bench where she led the 3-2 majority decision in Kuntz v.
College that
overturned the existing Order of Justice Oppal for full disclosure of my
College file before my appeal of the College erasure hearing and even worse,
who extensively quoted four pages of the defamatory untested sealed
report in her judgment causing my judicial defamation;
Justice Thomas Braidwood who
participated on the BCCA bench of Esson Finch and Braidwood upholding the Hood
judgment and quoting four pages of an untested sealed Report causing
judicial defamation of my good name;
Arthur Harper Q.C. (Retired) of
Harper Grey Easton and Company whose confreres were being sued in the
companion case naming the CMPA and the Harper Grey Easton and Company
CMPA-retained lawyers including the Bencher Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark Skorah
and Barbara Norell whose husband Mr. Herman van Ommen was selected as the
not-so-independent Law Society prosecutor of my lawyer Mr. A.Ted
Ewachniuke/
In summary, the Attorney General Department and
its former Attorney Generals Mr. Gablemann and Ujjal Dosanjh abused authority
to advantage their MSC clients including MSC Chairman Mr. David Bolton who
shredded key documents after being served. The AG Department participated in
the obstruction of justice by failing to stop the tampering with exhibits in
the custody of a quasi-judicial body and permitting the illegal circulation of
a sealed Report to continue so as to create judicial bias, prejudice and
defamation to undermine trials by denying me a fair hearing by an independent
and impartial panel.
The AG Department was at all material times in
conflict of interest in that it was working with my MSC accusers in 1985,
reporting to them when I complained of criminal activity in 1989, and in 1993
the AG Department surfaced as counsel of record for these same MSC Defendants.
The AG Department was covering up while their client the former MSC Chairman
Dr. David Bolton arranged for the immediate shredding of the key evidence at
the offices of the BCMA shortly after the Writs and Statement of Claim were
served. The MSC had been supplying statistics to the BCMA Patterns of Practice
Committee as a smokescreen to hide the WCB involvement in having me
investigated in 1979 in advance of the Napoli v.
WCB trial and the MSC
statistics were used to support the false position that so much surgery in such
a small town as Kitimat implied "unnecessary" surgery which I now know was
support for the hidden WCB agenda that "unauthorized surgery" was "unnecessary
surgery."
The AG Department joined the BCMA and College in
hiding the WCB role as an accuser. I was only advised on May 1, 1979 that I was
being investigated for "rather vague complaints" which failed to identify the
WCB. The AG Department assisted the cover-up.
The AG Department has
perpetuated criminal defamation to cover up scientific fraud used to justify a
CMPA insurance fraud valued at over $1 billion. This has resulted in 5 years of
annual taxpayer contributions totaling over $203 million in B.C. alone as
negotiated by BCMA with the Health Ministry to cover doctor’s medical
malpractice premiums contributing to rising physician’s office overheads.
Taxpayers across Canada continue to fund the CMPA scientific fraud based on the
myth of liability exposure for "experimental surgery" which was never
"experimental" at all material times. The taxpayer funds were deposited in the
CMPA "unfunded liability reserves" and were then used to fund frivolous
litigation against doctors across Canada to the detriment of Medicare. The CMPA
pays both the Plaintiff’s lawyers and Defendant’s lawyers out of the
same coffers and only 10% of the monies reach patients; the remaining 90% goes
to lawyers and only 10% of cases ever reach settlement. In the cases against
myself the CMPA withheld evidence that the usage of MMA for disc replacement
was never "experimental surgery" and settled cases out of Court against my
wishes. This was an insurance fraud of enormous proportions which will continue
forever because the Chief Justice Esson assigned CMPA the "irrevocable control"
of my defense to the CMPA which continues to abuse that Discharge from
Bankruptcy Order of Esson by refusing to present my evidence.
When
I sued the lawyers at Harper Grey Easton and Company, the CMPA had to
involve other lawyers. However the CMPA refused to reassign the cases to
lawyers of my own choosing who would act independently and present my evidence.
The CMPA only reassigned my cases to lawyers of Mr. Grey’s own choosing
who could be relied upon to continue the same course of refusing to present my
evidence. Although I escaped Harper Grey Easton and Company by suing the
law firm I was unable to escape the Bencher Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C.’s
influence over the lawyers he selected to carry on the suppression of my
evidence. The CMPA continued to support the myth of "experimental surgery" that
CMPA exploited to raise premiums and build CMPA "unfunded liability reserves".
When I found three consecutive independent lawyers including Robert
Gardner Q.C., Jack Cram, and A. Ted Ewachniuk who were willing to take my case,
in each instance the Benchers of the Law Society of B.C. moved to
suspend the lawyers. It is no coincidence that the Attorney General Mr. Ujjal
Dosanjh was also a Bencher after his August 1995 appointment as
Attorney-General until his February 2000 appointment as the Premier of British
Columbia, nor was it a coincidence that the AG Department acted for some of the
Defendants..
Mr. Dosanjh was AG when the benchers allowed Barbara
Norell’s husband Herman van Ommen to prosecute my lawyer two years after
my lawyer had served the bencher Harvey Grey Q.C. and his employee Barbara
Norell. Mr. H. van Ommen vindictively pursued my lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk.
Van Ommen re-opened the 1981 OEX case where Justice McKenzie described the
defendants as "remorseful liars" in his judgment and then exploited the
testimony of those same "remorseful liars" to recommend disbarment of my lawyer
after Mr. Ewachniuk worked for 15 years to bring these cases to court exposing
the "experimental surgery" fraud.
It was during Mr. Dosanjh’s
tenure as AG that the Law Society of B.C. obstructed justice by
harassing my counsel Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk for representing me in the case
judged by Justice Edwards. The benchers knew Mr. Edwards was the former Deputy
Attorney General and ought not to be hearing cases where the AG Department
represented some of the Defendants. The AG Department was defending MSC
Chairman Dr. D. Bolton who ordered the immediate shredding of the evidence
forwarded by MSC to BCMA after being served. It was no coincidence that the
AG Department positioned the former Deputy Attorney General Mr. E.R.A. Edwards
as a judge to dismiss my case and cover up for the Crown Corporations involved.
The AG Department did nothing to stop the violation of the seal
under AG Dosanjh and neither did Justice E.R.A. Edwards who acted as an
advocate for the WCB rather than an independent and impartial judge when he
allowed the sealed July 31, 1986 Investigation Report to be circulated
in his own courtroom despite oral and written objections of my counsel and my
own Affidavits protesting that usage of the sealed Report constituted
contempt of court.
The Attorney General Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh and
his department ought to have intervened to stop this contempt of court which
resulted in my judicial defamation which could only serve to improve the
position of the AG Department’s own clients. That they did nothing to
intervene verifies a lack of separation between the Crown and the Courts in
British Columbia. The former Deputy AG Edwards in charge of investigating my
complaints of criminal activity by Crown Corporations ought not to appear as
the judge reviewing the WCB application for Summary Dismissal judgment
concerning the same complaints.
Justice Edwards ought not to have sat
in judgment of Kuntz v. WCB et al so as to assist the government perpetuate the
scientific fraud that MMA usage was "experimental" at taxpayer expense. Mr.
Edwards was appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of the Attorney General
Department in 1985. and that was when his department took instructions from MSC
Chairman Dr. David Bolton in Case No. 850099 Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of the Province of British Columbia v. John David
Kuntz heard May
28, 1986 in Victoria.
The Medical Services Commission used the
AG Department to harass me through costly litigation wherein MSC demanded the
return of $63,280 alleging I billed more work than my confreres under fee item
5625 for "orthopaedic interpretation of submitted x-ray films". The MSC and AG
Department ignored my argument that I was the only orthopaedic surgeon in North
West B.C. qualified to do this work and additionally inherited the unsolicited
workload of radiologist Dr. Fred Hogg who died in an airplane crash. On October
10, 1986, Justice Charles Locke ruled:
"Not one claim is proved to
have been wrongly paid. There is not one shred of evidence as to any single individual bill submitted by Dr. Kuntz establishing
that there is no request from a referring doctor asking him to carry out an
examination under item 5625. It is clear to me from the Act and Regulations
that each submission of a bill to be paid is a separate individual claim.
(Emphasis added)
In an action for money had and
received I do not see how I can possibly speculate, even statistically, as to
the amount of money that was probably advanced on a mistaken set of facts. In
the result therefore, the action must be dismissed with costs."
I was then suspended without a hearing August 24, 1986 by the College
and on October 31, 1986 the Attorney General department filed a Notice of
Motion to Appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal (C.A. No. V000372). They did
not drop their appeal until after I was erased. When I later went to the AG
Department in 1988 seeking their assistance, I did not realize that the AG
Department was already working with MSC Chairman Dr. D. Bolton to harass me.
Accordingly, despite the widespread community support and 8000 petitioners
demanding a public enquiry into my suspension and erasure, the AG Department
Director of Operations Mr. Ernest Quantz did nothing but cover up the
wrongdoings of the College, WCB, MSC and the MSC Chairman Dr. Bolton. Mr.
Quantz and his assistant Mr. Isaacs reported their findings in a letter to the
then MSC Chairman Dr. C.B. Henderson who was one of my 1979 MSC accusers and
adverse in interest. The letter of January 3, 1989 from Mr. Isaac of the
Criminal Justice branch to Dr. Henderson was copied to the Executive Assistant
to the Attorney General. Accordingly, the AG department had always been working
with the MSC to cover up abuse of authority.
On May 14, 1993, I filed
the Writ of Summons naming multiple defendants and in particular the defendants
MSC, MSC Chairman Dr. David Bolton, Dr. Henderson, BCMA and Dr. H. Stansfield.
The AG Department then surfaced as counsel of record for the MSC, MSC
Chairman Dr. David Bolton, and Dr. R.B. Henderson.
In October 1993
when I complained to Attorney General Colin Gablemann about evidence tampering
he delegated the complaint to the Deputy AG Mr. Neal who consulted with
Criminal Justice Branch Director of Operations Mr. Quantz and refused to take
action. The AG Department covered up again for criminal activity because the
AG Department was already working with the MSC wrongdoers and reporting to
them.
Dr. David Bolton left MSC to position himself as the BCMA
Director of Professional Relations (which was a position previously held by
another Defendant in these proceedings, Dr. H. Stansfield) where he continued
to act as a de facto agent of the MSC. The AG Department appeared as his
defense counsel of record and advised, directed and defended Dr. Bolton from
1983 to the present including when Dr. Bolton ordered the immediate shredding
of evidence while under the AG advisement.
Dr. D. Bolton abused his
new position of authority when he ordered the shredding of the MSC statistical
evidence which he had previously sent to the BCMA Steering Committee when Dr.
David Bolton was the MSC member to that committee. Dr. Bolton requested that
the BCMA Patterns of Practice Committee investigate me in 1979 so as to bolster
the secret WCB allegations that surgery they refused to authorize payment for
was "unnecessary surgery". They were abusing their committees for other than
their intended purpose to assist the WCB in advance of the Napoli v.
WCB trial. The MSC statistics
gathered by Drs. Bolton and Henderson were a smokescreen for the false WCB
allegations that "unauthorized" surgery was "unnecessary" surgery and the MSC
correspondence falsely implied that "so much surgery in such a small town as
Kitimat" meant the surgery was unnecessary when MSC knew the cases were
referred from across the Province and only a small percentage came from
Kitimat.
The AG Department advised and defended Dr. D. Bolton
after he was served the Writ and Statement of Claim identifying the WCB, MSC,
BCMA and College as Defendants. Dr. Bolton ordered the "immediate shredding" of
all the key MSC and WCB documents held at the offices of the BCMA. In his
December 9, 1993 Memo to the Executive Committee of the BCMA Dr. Bolton ordered
destruction of evidence that he knew would be vital to forthcoming
litigation against MSC and BCMA. Dr. Bolton’s memo stated:
"7. All paper copies of
profiles and mini-profiles representing the period prior to the 1986/1987
fiscal year are to be destroyed by confidential shredding immediately.
..."
The BCMA Executive Committee acted with undue haste
to destroy evidence at the advice of Dr. David Bolton when they moved at their
December 10, 1993 meeting, Resolution #E94-112:
"THAT DESTRUCTION OF THE RECORDS
OF THE PATTERNS OF PRACTICE COMMITTEE BE APPROVED AS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPHS 7, 8
AND 10 OF DR. BOLTON’S MEMORANDUM OF DECEMBER 9, 1993.
It was only after I filed the Writ against the WCB, MSC, and BCMA that
the work of destruction of records that the BCMA received from the MSC
proceeded with great urgency. They began by June 1, 1994 and destroyed 36 feet
of 108 feet of records by July 14, 1994. By September 7, 1994 the BCMA had
destroyed 86 feet of a total of 108 feet of on-site Patterns of Practice
Committee records and were 79% complete. The BCMA goal was to complete the
document destruction by December 31, 1994.
On October 28, 1994 I filed
the Statement of Claim in this action and I verily believe that
precipitated an even greater urgency by the Executive Committee of the BCMA to
specifically target all key files and correspondence relating to myself as soon
as possible for destruction despite the impending litigation. On December 16,
1994, the Patterns of Practice file on myself still existed and the originals
were placed into the custody of the Executive Director of the BCMA Dr. Norman
D. Finlayson at his own request, presumably because he was also acting as a de
facto agent of the MSC despite his new position with the BCMA and in response
to receipt of my Statement of Claim.
It is noted from
correspondence of May 10th 1978 that Dr. Finlayson had previously
been associated with Dr. Bolton and the MSC as well as the BCMA Steering
Committee whose documents were being shredded to obstruct justice. The then
BCMA President Dr. Milobar wrote the Honorable Robert H. McClelland, Minster of
Health on that date and said:
"As you may be aware, after representation form the
Medical Services Commission, Dr. Bolton was placed on the steering Committee of
the Patterns of Practice Committee. Unfortunately, he found it difficult to
attend, but Dr. Finlayson since his appointment has attended on a regular
basis. The Medical Services Commission has been in possession of the minutes
and deliberations of the committee and all matters raised by the Commission
have been dealt with...."
The September 20, 2000
Affidavit of the BCMA archivist Wendy Hunt (pages 4-5, pp. 1720) documented the
passage of my Patterns of Practice Committee file (POPC file) to the then BCMA
Executive Director Dr. (Norm) Finlayson and further stated:
"...He
knew the file ought not to be destroyed."
I believe Dr.
Finlayson had both a legal and a fiduciary duty to protect the evidence in his
custody as BCMA Executive Director who knew about the impending litigation
naming the BCMA and the MSC as a defendant. However because of his prior
association with the steering Committee when MSC statistical documentation was
submitted to assist WCB to trump up the 1979 BCMA investigation of myself, Dr.
Finlayson now assisted Dr. Bolton in the destruction of evidence.
The
Affidavit of Hunt further stated:
"Dr. Finlayson believes
that the Plaintiff’s POPC file was later destroyed in the normal course by
BCMA staff who were not aware that the Plaintiff’s POPC case file was not
to be destroyed."
Accordingly, when during the
course of litigation, the critical documentary evidence detrimental to the
position of Dr. Bolton, MSC, BCMA, College and WCB is shredded on the advice of
the former MSC Chairman Dr. David Bolton who is being advised by his lawyers
from the Attorney-General Department, and when key evidence disappears
while in the custody of the BCMA’s most senior officer, the BCMA Executive
Director Dr. Finlayson, then all adverse inferences must apply towards the
conclusion that the Attorney General Department acting for Dr. Bolton and
the MSC was a party to sanctioning the destruction of key evidence at the
BCMA offices to obstruct justice.
The Attorney-General Department was
involved in the cover-up for Dr. Bolton and the MSC because on July 8, 1983,
Dr. D.M. Bolton, Chairman of Medical Services Commission, wrote the Honorable
James A. Nielsen, Minister of Health and stated;
"...the insertion of the
methyl methacrylate prosthetic disc which Dr. Kuntz used in human beings is
experimental surgery".
Upon receiving that false
information, on October 17, 1983 the Minister of Health Mr. Nielsen wrote my
satisfied patient Mrs. James N. McKeown of Terrace who was seeking that the
College moratorium be rescinded and disc replacement services be reinstated to
benefit others. The Minister of Health stated:
"...the
surgery, at this time, is still considered to be experimental and it is felt
that, before this surgery is recommended for human use ....the procedure must
remain on the experimental surgery list."
There
never was an "experimental surgery list" for British Columbia and this surgery
never was "experimental" at all material times. Accordingly the Minister of
Health, acting upon the false information received from MSC Chairman Dr. David
Bolton, was disseminating a scientific fraud and supporting false rumors and
innuendoes used to justify WCB-funded litigation against me.
After the
1993 Writs were served in Kuntz v. WCB et al, my counsel Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk further served all
these defendants including BCMA and MSC on March 26, 1996 with a demand for
discovery of the Defendants documents and gave them 21 days to comply by
sending their List of Documents. They failed to respond knowing very well that
they had already destroyed all the key documents to obstruct justice yet
remained silent. I verily believe that the proper order is for disclosure of
documents to come before the examinations for discovery and that the failure of
the AG Department representing the MSC Defendants to disclose that they had
already destroyed all the key documents by December 1994 demonstrates that they
intentionally delayed progress of the litigation to protect their client Dr.
Bolton from cross-examination which ought to follow the disclosure of documents
in the usual course of legal events.
By February 28, 2000 the
BCMA and MSC had still not disclosed the shredding of key files during the
course of active litigation and the WCB and College also failed to provide the
important files which were requested concerning the MSC, WCB and WCB/BCMA
Liaison Committee. Accordingly my counsel advised them of his intention to
proceed with the cross-examination of the Defendants Dr. H. Stansfield. The
lawyers Ed Gouge Q.C. and Anne Fitzpatrick of Lawson Lundell Lawson &
McIntosh made an unsuccessful application to have a guardian ad
litem appointed to spare Dr. Stansfield from cross-examination on his
perjured April 20, 1998 Affidavit after Mr. Ewachniuk asked on February 28 and
29, 2000 for a list of convenient times to cross-examine Dr. H. Stansfield and
the BCMA. When the application failed, Mr. Ewachniuk demanded that they produce
Dr. H. Stansfield for cross-examination on the discrepancies on his perjured
Affidavit and lawyer Ed Gouge refused stating he would never produce him. Mr.
Gouge than appealed the decision while contemporaneously moving ahead on an
application for Summary Dismissal while my requests of document disclosure
and cross-examination remained outstanding. Mr. Gouge was stonewalling and
it was only subsequent to that time that the evidence of document shredding
came to my attention for the first time. He was then successful in his appeal
wherein Dr. Stansfield’s wife was then appointed as guardian ad litem so
as to prevent his cross-examination on the perjured Affidavit. Accordingly,
after 15 years of litigation wherein lawyers stonewalled in unison to obstruct
justice, I have never been allowed to cross-examine one single Defendant living
in Canada.
On December 27, 2000, the Ministry of Attorney General
lawyer Jakob de Villiers Q.C. wrote to threaten my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk and
stated:
"Re: John David Kuntz v.
The Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia et al Supreme
Court Action No. C932720 - my clients, Medical Services Commission, Bolton and
Henderson."
"...Please be advised that the
Trial Co-ordinator has fixed a date of Hearing of my clients’ application
for summary dismissal of your client’s action for March 21, 2001 at 10:00
a.m....Please be informed that upon the hearing of the application my clients
will seek an Order that special costs be assessed against you personally in a
lump sum to be fixed by the Court."
That A.G. Department
letter was copied to Lawson Lundell Lawson & McIntosh, attention J.
Edward Gouge acting for BCMA, Dr. Stansfield and Dr. Purves who also had an
outstanding Section 18 Application for Summary Dismissal of my case against
BCMA, Drs. Stansfield and Purves.
The Attorney General Department also
copied its letter to Sugden, Mcfee & Roos attention of Craig Dennis
who was acting for the Defendants Dr. Tessler, Dr. P.K. Van Peteghem, Dr. R.N.
Meek and Dr. F.P. Patterson, all of whom intentionally misled the public and
the courts by their support of the scientific fraud that MMA usage for disc
replacement was "experimental." Mr. Sugden whose law firm acted for the
above defendants was now in conflict by accepting the defense of my lawyer when
his firm acted for Dr. F.P. Patterson who was the source of the experimental
surgery fraud. Mr. Sugden ought never to have agreed to allowing the Law
Society to use a biased Prosecutor Mr. Herman van Ommen to investigate my
lawyer knowing that Mr. van Ommen was the husband of Barbara Norell whom Mr.
Ewachniuk was suing on my behalf. Furthermore, Mr. R. Sugden of Sugden,
Mcfee & Roos was the counsel retained by WCB in 1987 when I
unsuccessfully appealed the Cohen judgment in Coughlin v.
Kuntz and when my
WCB-friendly lawyer was the bencher Mr. H. Grey Q.C. whose law firm withheld my
evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement in feigning a defense in the
WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz case. The informed person acting reasonably would
perceive apprehension of bias knowing Mr. Sugden’s law firm now acted for
the defendants recorded above who were advantaged when Mr. Sugden inadequately
defended my lawyer resulting in his disbarment so as to leave me without
counsel in the case against his law firm’s own clients including Dr. F.P.
Patterson who was the source of the experimental surgery fraud. Accordingly it
appears virtually impossible to escape the WCB and the incestuous conflicts of
interest that exist within the legal profession in British Columbia.
The Attorney General Department also copied the letter to Douglas
Symes & Brissenden attention David Martin who acted for the College in
the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of Physicians and
Surgeons of B.C., Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et
al. This was the same David
Martin who acted for the College when I appealed the erasure decision. David
Martin received the May 29, 1992 letter of opinion of the Late Honorable Court
of Appeal Judge Mr. R.P. Anderson Q.C. stating that the Council’s decision
to erase me had to be quashed because the October 19, 1988 hearing contravened
the requirements of Administrative Law in that the July 31, 1986 Investigation
Report was never filed in evidence and was not before the Council. Mr. Martin
counseled College President Dr. J.W. Ibbott to tamper with my sworn evidence
which were in the custody of Mr. Martin and the quasi-judicial College
such that Exhibit numbers were changed and false Exhibits inserted so as to
belatedly deal with the criticisms of Mr. R.P. Anderson by belatedly
introducing the July 31, 1986 Report as part of a newly altered record which
included tampered material which was not before Council at the erasure hearing.
Mr. Martin then placed this false record of the College erasure hearing before
Justice Loo at my 1998 appeal of the College erasure where Madam Justice Loo
pronounced against me on February 3, 1999.
Therein at the trial
before Judge Loo, Mr. Martin circulated the untested sealed July
31, 1986 Investigation Report as a false record knowing it was never entered
into evidence at the erasure hearing as confirmed in the May 29, 1992
letter of opinion of the late Honorable Mr. Justice R.P. Anderson Q.C. Mr.
Martin altered the record to obstruct justice and my appeal of the College
erasure before Justice Loo was unsuccessful. Judge Linda Loo then quoted four
pages of the sealed Report in her judgment causing judicial defamation
of my good name. Mr. Martin then refused to sign the Appeal Books when my
counsel Mr. Ewachniuk appealed the judgment of Madam Justice Loo, all of which
was designed to obstruct justice.
I appealed the judgment of Justice
Edwards to the Supreme Court of Canada. The WCB lawyer Mr. E. Dolden circulated
the sealed Report in contempt of court before Justice Edwards who then
ruled against me. Mr. Dolden then won an Order of Justice McEachern for deposit
of security for costs of $20,000 before I could proceed to the B.C. Court of
Appeal. When Justices Esson, McEachern and Donald upheld the judgment of
Edwards, I appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Dolden’s
subsequent "Submission of the Applicants to Obtain Security for Costs"
dated December 22, 2000 was designed to place another financial barrier in the
way of my appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
A week later on
December 29, 2000, the Law Society disbarred my lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk so
as to facilitate the obstruction of justice and on January 3, 2001 counsel for
the WCB Mr. E. Dolden filed the Respondents’ Response to the
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada stating:
"These
Respondents are asking for security for costs prior to the Applicant’s
Leave to Appeal application being considered..." and further requesting:
"That leave to appeal to this Honorable Court be dismissed with
costs."
In summary, the Law Society and
Department of the Attorney General worked together in collusion to intimidate
and disbar my lawyer Mr. A. Ted Ewachniuk before the AG Department’s
application for a Summary Dismissal of the case against their clients was
heard. They worked in collusion with Mr. Ed Gouge Q.C., counsel for the BCMA,
Dr. Stansfield and Dr. Purves who also had an outstanding application for
Summary Dismissal. But even worse, they did it to block my appeal of the
judgment of the biased judge Mr. Justice E.R.A. Edwards who had dismissed my
case against the WCB. The Law Society did it to leave me without counsel as the
case to expose the bias of the bench proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada
for Leave to Appeal where I was appealing under Section 11(d) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that everyone has the right "to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial panel."
There is an old Arabian proverb "Judge a man by the reputation of
his enemies". There were a lot of government regulated bodies working
together to perpetuate a scientific fraud and deny patients state of the art
surgery in British Columbia and a lot of lawyers profiting by robbing the
insurance funds. Those collusive efforts required the assistance of the
Attorney General Department and Law Society working together to obstruct
justice by leaving me without counsel as they now move swiftly to exploit the
precedent set by Mr. Justice Edwards.
There was no separation
whatsoever between the Crown and the Court in British Columbia where the former
Deputy AG appeared as Judge Edwards and behaved more like an advocate for the
WCB than a judge. The informed person acting reasonably would perceive Justice
Edwards as little more than a de facto agent of the AG Department which was
acting for the MSC defendants. Mr. Edwards allowed the WCB Defendants to
circulate a judicially sealed Report in contempt of court and rewarded
them by granting the WCB application for a Summary Dismissal with special costs
against me. The WCB then demanded those special costs to be deposited with the
Court before proceeding to the B.C. Court of Appeal and the WCB is now
demanding more security for costs to block my appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
It must be remembered that the WCB caused my bankruptcy. The
WCB directed the 1979 BCMA Patterns of Practice Committee investigation against
me using Dr. Patterson, the 1981 College Section 50 Investigation by Dr.
Patterson which spawned the scientific fraud of "experimental surgery", and the
1986 College Section 48 investigation where they used Dr. Patterson’s
friend Dr. McGraw to echo and perpetuate Dr. Patterson’s myth that MMA
usage for disc replacement and fusion was "experimental surgery". The WCB then
exploited that scientific fraud for the 1987 WCB-funded Coughlin v.
Kuntz litigation
followed by the 1987 Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et
al Class
Action naming myself as a defendant and the expanded May 6, 1988 Rita
Linnea Harriet Wilson et al Class Action enjoining the College as a co-defendant
before the College sat in judgment of myself October 19, 1988 and erased me
from the Register thereby forcing me into bankruptcy.
The
WCB then appeared as an intervener at my 1989 Discharge from Bankruptcy
hearing where they required that litigation for an alleged 1800 cases of
"experimental surgery" would continue against me as a condition of my
Discharge from Bankruptcy and further required that the "irrevocable
control" of my defense be assigned to CMPA and their old WCB-friendly Harper
Grey Easton and Company lawyer. The WCB knew it was important to have Mr.
Harvey Grey Q.C. in charge of my defense because he had represented the WCB at
their unsuccessful appeal of Napoli v. WCB when the WCB first attempted to have me suspended. When
I finally escaped the adverse influence of the WCB through independent counsel
Mr. Ewachniuk, they joined forces to disbar my lawyer so as to regain
"irrevocable control" of my defense to obstruct justice and perpetuate the
"experimental surgery" fraud on the public.
Accordingly, there
is no separation whatsoever between the Crown and the Court in British Columbia
when the AG department represents some of the Defendants and positions its own
judge on the bench to sit with prior knowledge. Justice ought to be equal for
all citizens across Canada whether in Ontario or B.C. and the AG department
ought to have protected me from criminal defamation by the quasi-judicial
College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. The College unsuccessfully opposed
the judicial sealing of the untested defamatory July 31, 1986
Investigation Report which they commissioned to defame me in advance of the
Class Action trial and the AG Department ought to have enforced the seal to
ensure I received a fair hearing. For example, in Ontario the government
enforced a judicial seal to protect the rights of multiple murderer Paul
Bernardo to a fair hearing and in BC the government currently enforces a
judicial seal to protect the rights of former B.C. Premier Glen Clark to
a fair hearing in a criminal trial where abuse of influence to facilitate
granting of casino licenses to friends is alleged. I have the same sealing
Order and should enjoy the same enforcement of the Order to ensure a fair
hearing.
Mr. Ojjal Dosanjh was the Attorney General from 1995 to
2000 when his Department covered up for the shredding of the MSC evidence and
denied me the benefits of the rule of law by refusing to enforce a seal
so as to ensure me a fair hearing in a civil trial wherein the AG Department
represented the MSC Defendants. The citizens of British Columbia are entitled
to know why all defendants have been denied me file disclosure and the Charter
rights of cross-examination. The public is entitled to know why the CMPA
insisted that litigation would continue against their client as a condition of
my Discharge from Bankruptcy, why they required the "irrevocable control" of my
defense and why every case against me for experimental surgery has been lost in
Canada in contrast to the USA where there has never been a successful case for
experimental surgery against a doctor using MMA disc replacement. The Law
Society will have to answer why three consecutive lawyers were suspended while
attempting to represent me beyond the control of the bencher Harvey Grey Q.C.
and the CMPA. And finally, the AG must explain why I was denied the rights to a
fair hearing by an impartial and independent bench and that excludes the
former Deputy Attorney General.
David
Kuntz.
Related:
A
Giraffe has been sighted in Vancouver BC - David Kuntz MD
The Matter of Dr. David
Kuntz
Collusion,
Cover-ups and Conspiracies
http://wcbcanada.com/modules/WCB-BB/viewtopic.php?t=1889&highlight=kuntz
http://aiws.sphosting.com/drkuntz2.htm
A Tale Of Spines , Surgeons and Skullduggery In British Colombia
Back to Article Index
|
