A Letter from Dr. Charles Ray Jones

Dr. Charles Ray Jones

Dear Friends,

I am writing once again to update you regarding the status of the charges which have been brought against me by the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH). As most of you know, on December 18, 2007, the hearing panel made recommendations for sanctions that would have severely restricted my ability to treat Lyme patients, and would have set a dangerous precedent for other Lyme-treating physicians.

Those of you who were fortunate enough to hear Attorney Pollack's oral argument in response to the hearing panel's proposed decisions and sanctions ("Proposed Memorandum of Decision"), or who read the transcript published in the Lyme Times (Winter Edition), can speak to his professionalism and keen grasp of key issues pertaining to Lyme disease and the controversy which surrounds it. Although the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB) went on to adopt the recommendations of the hearing panel with little change, I remain confident and extremely grateful to my legal defense team, headed by Attorney Pollack, and assisted by his associate Christine Collyer, Lorraine Johnson and others. They have been engaged in a flurry of critical legal activity since December 18 to prevent the CMEB's determination from becoming final. For example:

1. With the help of a skilled appellate lawyer from his firm, Attorney Pollack has filed an appeal and an Application to Stay the Connecticut Medical Examining Board's Decision in the Superior Court. This was successful, because it resulted in a Court decision to stay, or stop, the application of a four part standard for the diagnosis of Lyme disease, pending appeal. Although the Court did not remove the requirement for a monitor, this means that I cannot be penalized for treating Lyme if: 1) there is low risk of exposure, 2) the symptoms are what some call "non-specific," 3) the history is "non-specific," and 4) the Lyme test is negative. This change resulted from one ground in the appeal, which pertained to the fact that the hearing panel imposed this standard AFTER the trial, so that we had no opportunity to defend against it during the hearing, which most lawyers would consider a breach of due process.

2. Another ground for appeal filed by my attorneys pertained to the inconsistent position taken by the CT DPH Commissioner Galvin. In a hearing on Lyme disease held in CT in 2004, as well as in other public statements, the Commissioner has stated that there are two standards of care for Lyme disease and that it is too early to "call the science." He then contradicted these statements by bringing action against me predicated on the IDSA standard of care. In so doing, Galvin denied me due process and fair notice.

3. Yet another ground for appeal was based on the question of bias of one of the three panel members, Dr. Senechal. Following the December 18 hearing, two parents who had not attended previous hearings came forward and expressed horror that Dr. Senechal had expressed extremely biased views regarding physicians who treat Lyme, referring to them as "quacks." Dr. Senechal's remarks, documented in their affidavit, formed the basis for a motion to reconsider, filed with the CMEB. The CMEB denied this motion, but Dr. Senechal's bias provided another element which strengthened our appeal.

4. My legal team also was successful in getting the Connecticut Superior Court to stay the reprimand and the two years probation ordered by the CMEB. Also, the civil penalty, $10,000, was placed in a trust account pending appeal. It is very important to note that, although the monitoring factor remains in place, the monitor's scope has been limited with regard to the 4 part standard of care (see above) -very good news not only for my practice, but also for that of other physicians who treat Lyme disease comprehensively, and for the patients who seek their care.

5. My attorneys have had to become involved in defending my failure to obtain a monitor by the deadline set by the CMEB, in order to prevent them from holding me in contempt, a finding which, at the worst, could result in an automatic suspension of my CT medical license. Here are some of the circumstances which led to their involvement in this matter:

The CMEB order stipulates that I must find (and pay for) a board certified pediatrician licensed in Connecticut. The monitor must be willing to review thirty patients' charts every three months, for a period of two years. I have had a great deal of difficulty finding a monitor in the allotted time, particularly one who understands how to treat Lyme disease comprehensively. Some are too busy with their practices to take the time to serve in this capacity. Many are involved in group practices which often object, because of the time and resources this activity would divert from the collective work of the partners. Some may not want to take on this role due to the controversial nature of my case.

The CMEB has refrained from providing a monitor; perhaps as a strategy to avoid the accusation that they have installed someone who is hostile. They have, however, threatened to hold me in contempt, asserting that I have not exhibited sufficient effort with this matter. My office continues to aggressively search for a monitor, while my attorneys are dealing with the legal issues involved.

6. As you may have heard, the DPH has brought additional charges against me pertaining to three new cases. Initially, they intended to introduce these cases into the prior, ongoing hearing, but my attorneys were successful in preventing these cases from being joined with the case already being heard. New hearings on these three cases will be scheduled in the near future at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, CT (watch for future announcements with more details). These are expected to be scheduled over a period of at least several months, which my attorneys already have begun to prepare for by contacting potential experts, compiling legal research and drafting legal pleadings. Two out of three of these cases, much like the previous case, involve divorced parents engaged in custody and other marital/parental disputes.

7.One case in particular has ominous implications for the Lyme community, if the DPH charge is allowed to prevail: I am accused of falsifying an illness in a child in order to justify his absences from school, essentially colluding with the mother, who has been accused of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. This charge, if upheld, could set a dangerous precedent for the Lyme community, endangering parents and their sick children who are accused of truancy. It must be defeated.

We have some reason to hope, based on the merits of the appeal, that the CMEB and the CT DPH could decide against prosecuting these new charges. Once again, my legal team has been extremely busy, attending CMEB meetings, drafting motions, writing memos, conferencing with both the DPH prosecutor and the Assistant Attorney General and more. I continue to be impressed by their commitment to my case, as well as their sincere concern for what it represents for the children, who are so ill with Lyme disease.

All of this, unfortunately, also has been quite costly, which leads me, with some apology, to the second part of my message to you. Without the support of the Lyme community, it would not have been possible for me to engage this top-notch legal team and to fight these charges. I have thought long and hard about the wisdom of continuing this fight, in part because I hesitate to impose any

further hardship on so many of you who already have contributed so much, and who are contending with stressed resources. I have decided, however, that it is essential to continue to oppose the charges brought against me and want to explain why:

1. I am dedicated to the principle of providing appropriate treatment to the children of Lyme, and to training other physicians to treat pediatric patients through the various preceptor programs currently available.

2. I am gravely concerned that an easy, unchallenged "defeat" will send a dangerous message, and that those physicians who depart from the IDSA guidelines in their treatment of Lyme disease will be left more vulnerable.

3. I am strongly opposed to the ominous precedents that will be set if the current charges against me are allowed to prevail. The two cases that I mentioned above exemplify this danger: namely, the imposition of a restrictive standard of care, as well as the unfounded persecution of families whose children are ill, with accusations of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, malingering and truancy.

Because fundraising efforts were suspended over the holidays, when my legal team was engaged in an intensive flurry of activity, the defense fund is in dire straights: currently, we owe more than $80,000 in legal fees. All outstanding bills for services rendered must be paid immediately in order for me to retain my legal counsel, and we also must demonstrate that funds will continue to be forthcoming as needed.

With all of this in mind, I must ask you once again to consider making a financial contribution to my legal defense fund, in whatever amount your circumstances will allow. If you are able to contribute, I hope you will do so as soon as possible. Instructions for making donations to the legal defense fund are provided at the bottom of this letter.

Additionally, many of you have suggested ideas for fundraising, some of which

could draw on resources outside of the Lyme community (e.g., a concert). I welcome and deeply appreciate this kind of creative effort to raise money for the legal defense fund.

On Friday, March 14, I reached my 79th birthday. Someone asked me recently if I ever dreamed that I would find myself in this position at this stage of my life. I replied that, no, I didn't, but if I had

the chance to do it over, I would do it all again. It is largely because of the considerable support and concern that so many of you have conveyed in so many ways that I have been able to maintain my

determination to see these charges through to a successful resolution. Please accept my heartfelt appreciation for your ongoing support.

With very best regards,

Dr. Charles Ray Jones, M.D.

HOW TO DONATE TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND:

Make Donations payable to "The Dr. CharlesRay Jones Legal Defense Fund." Mail to:

C/O George Heath, III (CPA)

26 Fairlawn Drive

Wallingford, CT 06492

Note "gift" in the memo field

A website for Dr. Jones is now ready to take PayPal credit card contributions to the defense fund:

www.DefendLymeDoctors.com

If you are a patient of Dr. Jones and would like to write in his support, please send your letters to him at:

Charles Ray Jones, MD

111 Park Street, 1st Floor

New Haven, CT 06511

To view fundraisers already in progress for Dr. Jones, go to

www.lymesite.com/LLMD_FUNDRAISER.htm