Section I
1.1 In their letter to me of 20th September 2013 the Collège des médecins du Québec states “your decision is a difficult one, following a road accident for which the SAAQ has refused to pay an indemnity. If you wish to contest this decision you must use the recourse available for this purpose.”
1.2 SAAQ has yet to issue a final decision in respect of my case. They are being patient and forbearing. I was injured on March 6th 2011 and suffered a brain injury. This was not recognized by me until early in 2012, and was not diagnosed until August 2012. As evidence of an open file with SAAQ please view Exhibit D, a letter from Annie Bureau of SAAQ dated Québec, le 3 octobre 2013.
1.3 Three medical professionals, two M.D.s and a registered clinical psychologist, have found that I suffer from brain trauma consequent upon a motor vehicle accident. The nature of the injury itself confirms a motor vehicle accident as the cause. The injury is the result of experiencing violent rotational torque, and the acceleration and deceleration of the brain mass, forces typically encountered only in the context of an automotive accident.
1.4 In paragraph 5 of its letter of 20th September 2013, the Collège des médecins du Québec states “you cannot hope to involve in this process a specialist who acts as a consultant at the request of your attending physician.”
1.5 This statement by the Collège des médecins du Québec is in direct variance with the facts.
1.6 Since I live in Québec I have no access to a family physician. I have been wait listed for a family physician on the Québec santé health site since a date in March 2012. I have been on this wait list for over 20 months.
1.7 On March 29th 2012 I went to a walk in clinic and saw a Dr. Robert Latimer M.D.. Dr Latimer ordered blood work and these test results proved negative (see Exhibit C, Item 4). Dr Latimer advised I should undergo further testing. Dr Latimer provided me with a referral slip (see Exhibit C, Item 11) and told me to present this to any hospital in Gatineau. I did as directed and went to the main reception desk of the Hôpital de Hull. The receptionist noted that it was in reference to an MVA and she referred me to the CLINIC REDACTED. I later (see Endnote #1) presented the same referral to the receptionist at the CLINIC REDACTED. She advised me of a wait time of one year’s duration.
1.8 I played no part whatsoever in the selection of Dr. X. Dr Latimer made no request of Dr. X. My only action was to seek further medical attention as directed by the attending physician, Dr. Latimer. The Collège des médecins du Québec now seeks to erect a concoction that serves to excuse the behaviour of Dr. X by blaming the entire matter on the victim’s stupidity in attempting to access health care in the province of Québec.
1.9 I bring the attention of the Ministre to a letter of September 04 2013 from the Collège des médecins du Québec. I suffered atrophy subsequent to the accident and this atrophy appears to be progressing to include “flutters” in the area of my left cheek, in the muscle mass on my left thigh, a growing weakness in my left arm and shoulder, and an intermittent sense of constriction in breathing. I have been waiting 20 months for a physician in Québec, and Dr. Hulley has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to refer my case to brain trauma clinics in Montreal. I appealed to the Collège des médecins du Québec for their assistance in obtaining information on an appropriate Doctor (see Exhibit H). Please read the response of the Collège des médecins du Québec in Exhibit B Item 2.
1.10 I wish to recapitulate this issue to ensure that there is no confusion on the part of le Ministre.
1.11 In their defense of Dr. X the Collège des médecins du Québec castigates me as “you cannot hope to involve in this process a specialist who acts as a consultant at the request of your attending physician.”
1.12 My “process” was the simple act of seeking medical attention for an injury suffered in an automotive accident in Québec. Nothing more.
1.13 When I write to the Collège des médecins du Québec seeking a physician who might treat this injury, I receive the haughty reply that they do not make referrals.
1.14 May the Ministre please make note of the fact that in Québec the patient “cannot hope” to obtain medical care as he is in danger of being sent to the wrong party. And when that same patient seeks to obtain information on an appropriate party then he is informed that this information cannot be provided (see Endnote #2). The Ministre may wish to explain this strange state of affairs to the citizens of Québec and advise the citizens on the correct process by which they are to obtain medical care.
1.15 In rebutting my complaint against Dr. X, the Collège des médecins du Québec states in paragraph 5 of their letter of September 20th 2013 that: “Medico-legal medicine is a field of its own. You must consult a physician known for this expertise and who accepts mandates of this kind.” (see Exhibit B Item 3).
1.16 I do not know what medico-legal medicine might be. I have never heard of this discipline. Google delivers no relevant results (see Exhibit F Item 1). Wikipedia contains no relevant entries apart from noting (see Exhibit F Item 2) that it has to do with the attending Doctor, if “after eliciting history and examining the patient, thinks that some investigation by law enforcement is essential. Or a legal case requiring medical expertise when brought by the police for examination.”
1.17 Wikipedia also states that Medico-legal is a branch of law. Wikipedia maintains an entry on “Medical jurisprudence, or legal medicine as the branch of science and medicine involving the study and application of scientific and medical knowledge to legal problems such as inquests and in the field of law.” and also “medico-legal cases involving death, rape, paternity require a medical practitioner to produce evidence and appear as an expert witness.” (see Exhibit F Item 3). I am not yet dead, have no concerns over my paternity, and have only been raped in metaphorical terms by the health system in Québec. I challenge the Collège des médecins du Québec to provide a shred of evidence to support their contention. I sought medical attention in Québec as directed by a physician in Ontario and I followed the guidance provided to me.
1.18 I ask the Ministre to please identify one facility in the Province of Quebec that provides training in medico-legal medicine. To the best of my knowledge there are none.
1.19 In paragraph 7 of their letter of 20th September 2013, the Collège des médecins du Québec states that Dr. X’s “assessment seems to have followed the current rules.” Employment of the word “seems” as a qualification of professional conduct strikes me as peculiar in the extreme. The Collège des médecins du Québec appears to imply that Dr. X does not fully meet the requirements of a physician in Québec, only that he gives the impression of meeting those requirements.
1.20 Paragraph 7 further states that Dr. X “prescribed the para-clinical examinations . . . ” A close reading of Dr. X’s clinical record will show that he did not prescribe the para-clinical examinations that he himself indicated were necessary. Further review will show that the para-clincal examinations he did prescribe were inappropriate to the injury and are known within the medical community to be unable to render diagnostic imagery of any evidentiary value. This issue is the crux of my complaint against Dr. X. This issue has not been addressed by the Collège des médecins du Québec. The Collège des médecins du Québec have sidestepped the major element of my complaint in order to reinforce the “appearance” that Dr. X “seems” to meet the professional requirements of a practising health professional. These matters will be dealt with more fully in Section II.
1.21 I suggest to the Ministre that the citizens of Québec are deserving of something more than medical care that “seems” to meet professional guidelines and standards of of practice. I believe the citizens of Québec are entitled to a standard of health care equal to that available anywhere else in the world. Given these examples of the regulatory practices of the Collège des médecins du Québec they will not receive such care.
1.22 In paragraph 8 of their letter of 20th Septembre, the Collège des médecins du Québec states that Dr. X was unable “to offer an explanation for the symptoms you presented.” First, Dr. X did not address the full range of signs and symptoms. He simply dismissed them as being “alleged” signs and symptoms. In doing so he finds fault with the work of three other physicians. Second, my complaint against Dr X is that he ordered tests which are known not to image my form of injury and, having obtained negative results from those tests, he then misinterprets the results and makes inaccurate pronouncement of the evidence he has obtained. Section II will address this issue in detail.
1.23 As the final item in Section I, I wish to draw the attention of the Ministre to paragraph 9 in which the Collège des médecins du Québec states: “we cannot objectively discern any ethical breach on Dr. X’s part.”
1.24 By this statement the Collège des médecins du Québec condones the practice of a physician who orders inappropriate tests and then misinterprets the results of those tests.
1.25 I draw the attention of the Ministre to my original submission to the Collège des médecins du Québec (included as Exhibit A) which indicated 13 separate violations of the Code of Ethics of Physicians, Medical Act (R.S.Q., c. M-9, s. 3), Professional Code (R.S.Q., c. C-26, s. 87), promulgated by the Collège des médecins du Québec, to wit: Clause 3, Clause 5 (two instances), Clause 6, Clause 11, Clause 12, Clause 18, Clause 25 (two instances), Clause 29, Clause 42, Clause 46, Clause 47.
1.26 I request the Ministre to review the letter of 20th Septembre from the Collège des médecins du Québec and please identify the response of the Collège to a single one of these thirteen violations. It “seems” the Collège has found a way to make their problems disappear. They simply disregard the issue. The Ministre is believed to be a rational man. He is invited to draw his own conclusions in regard to the propriety of the conduct of Collège des médecins du Québec and determine if this manner of regulation remains appropriate to ensure the health needs of the population of Québec are adequately protected.