Which sounds great... until you recall (from pages 10-12 of the Jimenez ruling)
...that Dr. David Bearman's 'expert' testimony on behalf of Dr. Jimenez was not accepted as credible by the Osteopathic Medical Board. In fact, they said:
"Dr. Bearman's testimony was rambling and evasive. He had a poor command of the facts. Dr. Bearman did not disagree with Dr. MacDonald's [complainant's expert witness] opinions and admitted that Respondent deviated from the standard of care. He testified that the AACM guidelines and his standard of practice were the gold standards and that Respondent's deviations were minor, but offered insufficient evidence to establish that anything but the Medical Board Guidelines should be considered... having considered the facts in the foregoing paragraphs... Dr. MacDonald's testimony was more trustworthy than Dr. Bearman's"
What do they mean by "appropriate standard of care"?
I certainly hope that Jimenez didn't pay Dr. Bearman much for his "expert" testimony...
but then again, he might need the money himself to cover his own defense
as he's clearly admitted (under oath, even!) that he does not comply
with the Medical Board's guidelines for physicians that recommend
medical marijuana for their patients (the "Standard of Care").
perhaps they'll cut him a special deal...
after all, he shouldn't have to pay the usual reimbursement to the
Medical Board for their costs for investigating and
prosecuting his case...
he's already done that for them.
