Dr. Jones' Hearing Synopsis Day 7

January 25, 2007

The 7th day of the hearing began with the panel
hearing motions. The health department had requested
that the father of the two children be permitted to
testify by phone, to avoid the cost of the trip East.
The health department attorney stated that it was a
little bit embarrassing, but the department doesn't
have the budget to bring him here.
Attorney Pollock countered, citing the irony, that
this father, ¦who put [these proceedings] into motion,
effectively placing in jeopardy the lives of so many
people, is unwilling to come to testify unless the
department pays the cost of his travel. (Note: It was
this father's complaint to the medical board about his
children's being treated for Lyme by Dr. Jones that
led to the actions against Dr. Jones. Previous
testimony had alleged that the father had intimidated
and threatened other doctors who were treating his
children, as well)

The panel denied the health department's request for
telephonic testimony, stating that it is important to
see the witness, in order to determine his
credibility.

Cross-examination of Dr. Jones continued, from Day 5
of the hearing. Attorney Tillis, representing the
health department, addressed information from the
children's charts. Extensive questioning involved 1/
the continuation of antibiotics, prescribed originally
in Nevada for a serious persistent cough, 2/ history
of symptoms, 3/ results of serological testing, and
other details.

As the cross-examination of Dr. Jones continued, with
questions regarding telephone conversations that took
place, as well as communications during the
examinations of both children, one could wonder why a
physician might be asked to recall these events in
such fine detail. Lost in this minutia is the fact
that a brilliant and compassionate physician made
careful use of his expertise and finely honed clinical
skills to diagnose and treat these children. Lost in
the minutia is the fact that two children who were
very ill for many years, perhaps suffering from
gestational Lyme, had become healthy under the care of
this physician. Lost in this minutia was the fact that
their mother, a highly trained and experienced
registered nurse, had not found anything near adequate
treatment for her children prior to contacting Dr.
Jones, as her children's health declined, and in the
case of her son, with dire consequences to his
education.

In the cross-examination pertaining to research
articles, Dr. Jones was questioned regarding details
of the articles. Attorney Pollock objected, as he had
on previous occasions, to the extensive questioning
regarding Lyme disease treatment, given the health
department's allegation that this action taken against
Dr. Jones was not about Lyme. The panel, however, did
not sustain the objection, allowing the questioning to
continue. Questions included issues of sero-negative
Lyme, why some tests had not been done (MRI, for
example), whether these patients had had Jarisch
Herxheimer reactions, with the implication that that
might be diagnostic, serology regarding co-infections.

Attorney Pollockâ?Ts questions to Dr. Jones clarified
several issues: 1/ Dr. Jones has found amoxicillin to
be effective in a large number of his patients, 2/ EM
Rash seen in fewer than 50% of patients, per Dr.
Joseph Burrascano in Conn's Current Therapies, 3/Dr.
Jones experience has shown the EM rash in far fewer
patients even than that, 4/ Dr. Patricia Coyle's
research has indicated that Lyme is a disease of the
central nervous system.

Panel questions included the questioning of Dr. Jones'
reliance on input from the children's mother regarding
the children's health issues. Prior testimony from
both Dr. Jones and the mother attested to her high
qualifications as a nurse, and one that is a trained
observer, given her experience with trauma and ER
patients. One panelist's questions regarding
communications with the school appeared to be under
the erroneous assumption that Dr. Jones involvement
with the school led to the expulsion of the son, when
the opposite had actually taken place.

Note: Overall, the morning questioning could appear to
the observer to challenge a highly experienced
physician's right and responsibility to use his/her
best clinical judgment, when developing a diagnostic
profile and treatment plan. This could be a dangerous
direction for medicine to go in, severely limiting
quality treatment not just for Lyme disease, but for
other illnesses, as well.

Leo J. Shea, III, PhD, a neuropsychologist who has a
wealth of experience, not only with Lyme disease
patients, but with patients who have suffered other
types of brain injuries, testified in the afternoon.
Dr. Shea was accepted as an expert witness, after
citing his extensive and impressive credentials, both
regarding Lyme disease as a specialty, and in general,
in the field of neuropsychology. Dr. Shea's expertise
in making recommendations for school accommodations,
based on neuropsychological evaluations also qualified
him as an expert witness. Admitted into evidence was
his article, The Role of Neuropsychological Testing in
Children With Lyme Disease?..

Some questioning ensued regarding Munchausen's by
Proxy. Dr. Shea defined it, and pointed out that it is
not listed as a diagnosis in the DSM (Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual), as a mental disorder. He also
mentioned (as had Brian Fallon, MD, in his testimony)
that Munchausen's by Proxy is brought into question,
in his experience, when there is a contentious divorce
or custody issues, with accusations made by one of the
parents against the other. Attorney Pollock's motion
to admit a report related to Munchausen's by Proxy was
withdrawn when Attorney Tillis stated that
Munchausen's by Proxy was not at issue here.

Focusing on Lyme disease, Dr. Shea discussed the
various learning problems often seen in children with
chronic Lyme disease, and their specialized needs in
the school setting. When asked about Dr. Jones making
recommendations to the school for a child who appeared
to have learning problems consistent with Lyme
disease, Dr. Shea stated Dr. ,Jones clearly
understands the issues for accommodations. Regarding
Dr. Jones' communication with the boy's school, and
his input into school decisions, prior to seeing the
child, Dr. Shea pointed out that both the school and
the mother were in sync with Dr. Jones
recommendations, and that the decision was necessary
to benefit and protect the child.

Attorney Tillis cross-examined Dr. Shea regarding the
school psychologist testing of the boy. Dr. Shea
indicated that the school psychologists tests were
normal for school testing, that it would give a
general idea, but that the schools did not have the
funds to do comprehensive evaluations. When asked by
Attorney Tillis whether, if he were the school, he
would seek the advice of a doctor 3,000 miles away,
Dr. Shea indicated that it happened all the time
[where Lyme was concerned] because of the lack of
knowledge of tick-borne diseases [among physicians].

Attorney Pollock's redirect examination brought out
the extensive amount of information contained in the
school psychologist's evaluation that would have been
of value to Dr. Jones in making his recommendations.

The hearing ended with no new dates set for Day #8.

Note: An observer who has witnessed all 7 days of the
hearings would, I believe, be impressed with the
quality of the expert witnesses that have been called
in support of Dr. Jones. Drs. Phillips, Fallon, and
Shea have an impressive collective knowledge of
tick-borne illness, and their testimony demonstrated a
depth of understanding of the plight of the patients,
the paucity of available physicians who understand the
illness in its chronic and complex stages, and the
substantial body of medical literature that supports
the treatment that patients of Dr. Jones receive.
Under the weight of this evidence, in the face of the
success of the treatment of these children, and given
Dr. Jones demonstration of the incredible fund of
knowledge upon which he based his clinical judgment,
one has to wonder why these proceedings against Dr.
Jones are continuing, when so many children continue
to suffer from the lack of diagnosis and treatment
from the vast majority of the medical community.

Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, B CD

Family Connections Center for Counseling

Brewster, New York
(845) 259-9838