Doctor won't OK LTC in North Andover

I don't think this has been said but i didn't read every single post.

Tell your friend to move, go to better town or state. Its sounds like he going deal with allot of BS for B.

MOVE Moooooooooooove MOVE move. MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVE move
 
My two cents is (are?), 1) there's no way around this that we know of, so he needs the note, and 2) the physician really should not be able to attest to his mental health status without a recent history and physical on record.

Only solution is to get the physical. And we continue to campaign for licensing reform!
 
Once you ask your doctor to write a letter for you, it is being done with your consent. So that's not a HIPAA violation.

It's coercive in nature. It forces the patient to reveal personal medical information that is protected by HIPPA and it's unethical.

This is a perfect case of why 2259 needs to be passed!
 
The real issue here is that the doctor is looking to charge a fee for a visit. It's all about the money, just like everything else.
 
It could also be argued that if the doctor isn't a shrink that the doctor isn't even really qualified to make a mental health evaluation.

The whole thing is obstructionist BS. IMO the doctor is stonewalling because they don't want to get involved, more than anything
else. Saying "no" limits liability. (even if the liability is mostly imagined).

-Mike

A PCP can make a general determination on mental health - after all, they're the ones who decide if someone needs further examination.

The real issue here is that the doctor is looking to charge a fee for a visit. It's all about the money, just like everything else.

No, it's not. It's about ethics and liability.
 
An assertion that strains credulity, given Glidden's lectures and the express language of the MA Tort Claims Act (c. 258).

If they truly are that fearful of "liability," why is it MCOPA fights so hard to keep its vaunted "wide latitude and broad discretion?"

It is simply a case of them "not getting it"... You can show them till they are blue in the face and they still will not buy into it. There are many aspects of law that are black and white and many a chief refuses to acknowledge it out of fear of liability.
 
Its possibly the Doc is some anti-gun POS and is looking for an excuse not to write the letter. Get a new doc and get the physical

Goto ANY Doc and ask them to fill out a medical opinion based on 4 yr old information and see how many will HAPPILY do so.

Given this HIGHLY litigious society, especially in regards to doctors, I am betting I can count that number on one hand with 5 digits to spare. Some of us are whispering into the wind when we say this is NOT a case of a Doc being Anti-Gun but very much covering his butt and nothing more.

Talking to my Doc last year about shop he was telling me ANY claim of malpractice can raise his premium up over $20k/yr or higher. This is NOT if the malpractice suite is legit, that's just from a person bringing it in the first place.

You willing to fill out that piece of paper now if it can cost you over $20k/yr of your own money if it turns out the person isn't what you thought they were?
 
My son's doctor won't fill out his camp forms if he hasn't been to see her in the past 12 months.
It's not the Doctor's fault or problem. This is an obstacle the Chief has created and it obviously works.
 
A PCP can make a general determination on mental health - after all, they're the ones who decide if someone needs further examination.

A PCP can make a general determination on mental health for the purpose of referrals to a mental health practitioner under most (if not all), HMO guidelines, but that still doesn't make them any more or less qualified to decide if a person 'is of sound mind' to possess firearms.
 
First and foremost this is a BS requirement. Secondly, what if there was a history of mental illness, does that preclude them from a LTC even though it's not statutorily a dis-qualifier on it's own? Even if he hadn't been seen in 10 years, the request should be honored because the doctor is only attesting to his medical records and not to any opinion, evaluation or question of suitability.
 
A PCP can make a general determination on mental health for the purpose of referrals to a mental health practitioner under most (if not all), HMO guidelines, but that still doesn't make them any more or less qualified to decide if a person 'is of sound mind' to possess firearms.

Not saying that they do, but they certainly have some training in the realm of mental evaluation, which was my only point.
 
Even if he hadn't been seen in 10 years, the request should be honored because the doctor is only attesting to his medical records and not to any opinion, evaluation or question of suitability.

Um, no.

The doctor is attesting to his clinical evaluation of the patient, not just the records.
 
The doctor is attesting to his clinical evaluation of the patient, not just the records.

It depends on what you ask for. There is a big difference between a letter of recommendation and a letter stating your MD is not aware of any mental disease or defect - something that is very easy to truthfully state without it becoming an evaluation.
 
It depends on what you ask for. There is a big difference between a letter of recommendation and a letter stating your MD is not aware of any mental disease or defect - something that is very easy to truthfully state without it becoming an evaluation.

Perhaps, but I don't see many MDs putting their livelihood at risk to write even the latter for a patient whom they have not seen in almost half a decade.
 
I don't think this has been said but i didn't read every single post.

Tell your friend to move, go to better town or state. Its sounds like he going deal with allot of BS for B.

MOVE Moooooooooooove MOVE move. MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVE move

In this market? Whatchoo talkin 'bout willis?
 
Thanks, Jesse, I passed your information along to him, he said he may call and inquire as to fees and such. He would like to get a ClassA ALP but it seems highly unlikely in that town and I mentioned you may have more insight on his options than I.

I met with my friend tonight and we talked in detail about what happened, and it seems clear to me this is a case of CYA syndrome and nothing more. The Doc in question has known and been the doctor of my friend his entire life and while he has not had a physical in 4 years he has been to the doc several times during that time period for other things. He has already begun taking some action on this and I don't want to air his laundry any more than I already have. If this gets resolved soon, I'll try to remember to update this thread for posterity's sake.
 
This entire thread (and many others like it) is proof that a strategic litigation fund is far more desirable than a billboard.
 
Thanks, Jesse, I passed your information along to him, he said he may call and inquire as to fees and such. He would like to get a ClassA ALP but it seems highly unlikely in that town and I mentioned you may have more insight on his options than I.

I met with my friend tonight and we talked in detail about what happened, and it seems clear to me this is a case of CYA syndrome and nothing more. The Doc in question has known and been the doctor of my friend his entire life and while he has not had a physical in 4 years he has been to the doc several times during that time period for other things. He has already begun taking some action on this and I don't want to air his laundry any more than I already have. If this gets resolved soon, I'll try to remember to update this thread for posterity's sake.

I am a little confused. Will the doctor give him the letter IF he goes back and has a physical? Sux, but if he will, then go back and pay for the physical! You are not going to change the b.s. mass laws overnight.
 
Is it also a HIPAA violation to give this info to someone else? How about a breach of doctor/patient confidentiality?

Link: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html


The patient is the go between it is more nefarious than that they are being coerced (Catch22) into disclosing health info...HIPAA does not regulate patients. We can share our own info with whomever we please.

I'd share that conundrum with GOAL (for their records) with the Public Safety committee, my legislators and any publication that showed the least interest. If the gentleman could afford it, he should take that little pecker and N. Andover to court, make their life hell. Bury them in paper work... OTOH, having an Uncle Rocco would be cheaper and faster ;)

Muahahahahaha

rach
 
This..... There are a large number of CLEO's who believe that they can be held liable for issuing a LTC to someone who then goes and commits gun crimes. This is more of the reason for these foolish policies than any underlying urge to disarm the public.

'bout damned time to hold them accountable for non issue!
 
This entire thread (and many others like it) is proof that a strategic litigation fund is far more desirable than a billboard.
Is there a dedicated thread about this (I searched but could not find it)? How would it work what would the implications be?

I like the idea as well.
 
I cant even believe in America in the yr 2010 that there is even a need for a thread like this ...wtf has happend to ths Country.
 
In this market? Whatchoo talkin 'bout willis?
ill agree if he owns property that its not that easy lol, to do a sell and buy. numbers probably wont work to rent either, probably be hard enough just to rent the place never mind get the numbers to pay a mortgage. but if you rent, its not hard to find cheaper and better somewhere else. mortgage rate and property price is down, lots of places on the market. if you have the money and job security, instead of renting go buy. if you live at home with mom still, then it would be stupid to move.
 
READ my post. I am not talking about doctors; I am clearly referring to the chiefs who play these abusive games. What part of "those imposing such obstructions" did you miss?

Apparently, it was not so clear.


Perhaps, but I don't see many MDs putting their livelihood at risk to write even the latter for a patient whom they have not seen in almost half a decade.

If anything were to happen, the doctor could just say "his condition has changed since the note was written". That said, he needs a baseline on the patient's condition. I doubt a doctor would tell anyone to take an aspirin if they haven't been to the doctor in 4 years. That's like asking a car dealer about a 4 year old car when someone is going to sell it: Damned if he knows.


This entire thread (and many others like it) is proof that a strategic litigation fund is far more desirable than a billboard.
I've said it before, and will say it here: maybe a billboard FOR a "strategic litigation fund" is the way to go.
 
If anything were to happen, the doctor could just say "his condition has changed since the note was written". That said, he needs a baseline on the patient's condition. I doubt a doctor would tell anyone to take an aspirin if they haven't been to the doctor in 4 years. That's like asking a car dealer about a 4 year old car when someone is going to sell it: Damned if he knows.

And this is the reason why they are NOT going to do it because there IS the chance that the condition of the patient HAS changed since the last time he saw the patient.
 
And what if the applicant has some sort of "mental disorder" that was not necessarily a disqualifier????? This is a case where someone who may have non-violent mental health issues will never seek help and get better all because they fear their rights will be impeded upon. This is a horrible way to go about firearms licensing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom