excerpt from HRT Form 10, January 12, 2016 by Sue McPherson

linked to Proving Discrimination at a HRT hearing, Sue’s Views on the News, Jan 1, 2016
published Jan 25, 2016
In this section of the Form 10 I give the reasons for my requests, addressed to the Human Rights Tribunal registrar, Richard Hennessy.

I have previously given my arguments on this situation, in my Form 10 of December 30, 2015. Since then, however, I have come to realize there may have been a misunderstanding on the part of the Respondent as to why he felt there was a need for the entire Medical Chart. In the Respondent's Form 11 dated January 11, 2016, he wrote in Item 3,

"In any event, the medical care provided to Ms. McPherson is relevant to this matter as the Applicant has squarely put (the doctor’s) care at issue. In addition, she has also characterized (the doctor’s)  termination of their patient-physician relationship as discrimination. In order to properly defend this allegation, the context of the care provided over the course of time is highly relevant. The defence of the claim requires the use of the medical chart of Ms. McPherson" (Item 3, Form 11, Jan  11, 2016).

Actually, the medical treatment provided to me is not relevant in this Application except as it relates to the subject of the Application - the two incidents of discrimination.

Most people who make mistakes in their life don't do so all the time. Senator Pamela Wallin didn't, and Mike Duffy didn't, Evan Solomon didn't, and Jian Ghomeshi didn't. Each of them did a lot for our country, while doing their jobs. Along the way, they also did harm. We aren't having this hearing in order to show that (the doctor) was a caring doctor, part of the time or even most of the time. For that reason, it's not necessary that my entire Medical Chart be introduced at the hearing.We are here to talk about his attitude and the things he did that were acts of discrimination.  And if there are any sections of my Medical Chart that suggest that the two issues I have brought to this Tribuman were not as I have said they were, then by all means provide the items from my Chart that indicate this.

It was not (the doctor) ending the patient-physician agreement with me that was the problem. In fact, he didn't formally end it until almost a month after that last appointment on April 28, 2014. He didn't mail that letter, dated April 28, until approximately May 20, probably when he discovered I had gone to Dr Elsayad at LDAM over the situation (see letter from Dr Elsayad, June 4, 2014). The problem was the way he did it - the way it all came to an end. If he had felt there was a problem having me as his patient, then he could have sought advice from the CPSO over it. The reason he didn't do that was because he didn't have a legitimate reason. And neither one of use knew how to end it formally, I should think. I just thought he was having difficulty adjusting to running a practice, and said and did things that some people do under such circumstances. He was mean towards me, as the tape recording of the last appointment on April 28 demonstrates. I was asking for the changes he made to my meds to be changed back (because there was no need for them to have been changed in the first place).  He didn't like that, and took his frustrations out on me.

I couldn't see why he couldn't just do his job. One doesn't have to form a relationship with a doctor, I shouldn't think. He agreed to provide me with care, and for that he would be paid. He had the power, and it he abusde me, and kept telling me to find a new doctor, knowing how difficult it is for an older person to find one.

Then, in Item 4, the Respondent (the doctor)  says,
In addition, there is no requirement on the parties to specify why a particular document is going to be relied on at the hearing.  The only requirement is to outline the items (the doctor) intends to rely and provide a copy to the Applicant (Item 4, form 11, Jan 11, 2016).

As I have stated previously, in his first official Response, in Question 15, (the doctor) fails to explain the importance of the individual documents, as requested, listing only the Medical Chart, on the whole, as an 'important document,' and stating only that it "describes the care provided to Ms McPherson" (Form 2, July 27, 2015).

Now, at each step taken, the first unfinished problems remain, but are invisible to people coming late to the process, like Laurie Letheren, who in making her Interim Decision of Oct 8, 2015, didn't go back to the original Form 3 by the Respondent to see what was missing.  Ms Letheren writes in Item (9),

"the parties are to exchange and file the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing by December 29, 2015.  Until the respondent has filed the documents he intends to rely on, the Tribunal cannot hear submissions or make determination on the relevance of those documents" (Item 9, Interim Decision, Laurie Letheren, Oct 8, 2015).

It sounds as though Letheren may have missed reading the original Form 3 by the Respondent from July, 2015, in which he did not itemize the items in the Medical Chart nor provide a good reason for explaining the chart's relevance.

So, even at the beginning of this process there was no attempt by him to describe why he might eventually want to rely on certain items from that Chart. There was no thought given by him as to to the relevance or importance of the items in the Medical Chart.  At the beginning, back in July, no one told him that's what he was supposed to do - outline the items and explain their relevance. Now, he has finally given them a title and a page number, after I wrote an Order 10 on Dec 30, 2015 requesting that. But his reason for wanting to have all the items in the Medical Chart at the hearing doesn't exist. This Application is about discrimination against me, not how good the doctor was otherwise, whether he was actually doing his job properly, at least some of the time.  I do not accept that we make the hearing about him.

In Item 5 of her Form 11, January 11, 2016, the Respondent says that an adjournment of the hearing is not necessary or appropriate. It is appropriate, and I will ask the Respondent this time as well as HRT, in order to set up a date later on.  But first, this problem of the Medical Chart, and of Laurie Letheren coming into this in the middle of it, instead of reading the original Form 3 by the Respondent and seeing how he handled it then, needs to be resolved. Now we understand the logic behind it, the idea that it's okay to do some harm, as long as the overall picture  - the one presented to the public - looks good.  Now we can say, that's not right. We need to focus on the main issues here - the two incidents - and the Respondent needs to limit his important documents to those that really are relevant.  And that makes it necessary to ask for an adjournment.

I am asking also, that the hearing be tape recorded so that we all know afterwards that the matters being discussed were the actual incidents of discrimination and not how great the care I received was from (the doctor).

Finally, in case he is permitted to allow the entire Medical Chart to be introduced at the hearing, I would ask that an addititional day or more be scheduled, in order to question the significance of the individual pages of the Medical Chart.

If this is also the place to ask, might I have the letter from Dr Elsayad at LDAM included in my list of documents to be relied upon at the hearing (see attachment)?  It is an explanation of why the letter (the doctor)  wrote to me, dated April 28, 2014, was not sent until May 20. He was not intending on not having me as a patient any more, until I ended it by telling LDAM about him.

No comments: