Dr. David Allen Becomes Medical Board Target (Part 2)

In his own closing arguments, Dr. Allen claimed that if the medical board could spell out clearly what the standard of care was, he would obviously comply with that law.

(SACRAMENTO) - The medical board hearing for Dr. David Allen continued these past two weeks. The State Medical Board of California put on its case. Representing the State was Deputy Attorney General Jannsen Tan. Dr. David Allen represented himself, only after Attorney Lance Stenhouse was denied a motion by Judge Dian Vorters for a continuance.

Lance cited that his recent retainment had not allowed him time to review the case in its entirety and argued further for the record, that a violation of Dr. Allen's due process was occurring without allowing the extra time to develop an adequate defense.

Dr. Allen immediately made his own motion to dismiss count two for not maintaining adequate records on the grounds that records had been produced for a certain patient. This motion was accepted but only a partial amendment on count two, and only for that particular patient which the records had been located.

For two long grueling weeks the hearing pushed on, with everything being thrown at the medical marijuana doctor, like something out of a CSI episode the evidence came to light. The Medical Board of California implemented tactics akin to bringing down the mafia and other types of organized crime syndicates.

It was revealed that two undercover investigators had planted themselves as patients claiming to have symptoms that required relief. Nicola Biasi a medical board investigator, coordinated a calculated attack against Dr. Allen's practice. She did this by retaining investigators from other state agencies to pose as patients and in one situation attained a surreptitious recording authorization to candidly spy on Dr. Allen while he was interviewing prospective MMJ patients. These investigators, posing as being ill, then came to see Dr. Allen's practice claiming to have symptoms.

This was all brought forth during cross examination of Nicola Biasi, the fact remained that no judge or proper authority had ever even issued approval. The signature of a district attorney did not qualify as proper authority like a judge has for surreptitious recordings.

During expert testimony by Dr. Palanisamy for the medical board, it was revealed under cross examination that there was only a slight deviation of the standard of care by Dr. Allen.

Dr. Palanisamy also stated he had reviewed the patients charts, but never himself actually examined the patients therefore could only make outside observations about their condition. February 7th Dr. Allen took the stand to defend his practice and his procedures, and at point he became visibly upset during his testimony.

He stated that when a patient arrived at his office claiming to need marijuana for recreational use he would always think that was odd and out of line.

He would instead try to educate the patient on what medical uses cannabis could be allowed, and then see if any of those fit the patients needs.

By the end of the day closing arguments began for both sides. Deputy Attorney General Jannsen Tan began by pointing to the evidence and claimed that mistakes had been made.

He stated that the standard of care had not been adhered to and that even Dr. Allen's own expert, Dr. Badgely, had stated the same stance on the standard of care not being proper. Jannsen Tan did admit that Dr. Allen was compassionate to patients and obviously a believer in the cause of medical marijuana, and that he personally admired him for that.

In his own closing arguments, Dr. Allen claimed that if the medical board could spell out clearly what the standard of care was, he would obviously comply with that law.

He make points that Prop. 215 allows for patients to receive marijuana for any ailments which can be alleviated by its use. In further statements he made clear that the law was written to protect doctors from prosecution for issuing medical marijuana recommendations. He claimed that the charts produced as evidence by the medical board were purposely misinterpreted and filled in wrongly by the investigators, for the purpose of misleading the truth and casting shadows onto his practice. He admitted that he had learned what changes needed to be made and what to do in the future to comply with the standards set by the medical board.

In his closing statement he threw himself at the mercy of the court. Since he had never been disciplined before, he asked that a public letter of reprimand be issued instead of probationary actions against his license.

Judge Dian Vorters showed immense compassion, grace, and tolerance over the entire course of the hearing. She also allowed Dr. Allen a chance to submit any additional closing arguments in a written brief to the court.

On March 10th, the hearing resumes to learn the court's ruling on the counts against Dr. David Allen's license.

In summary, it was honestly very heartbreaking these past few weeks to eyewitness that 18 years after Prop. 215 was passed, no real change has occurred in some California State Agencies' approach to medical marijuana.

Under the guise of protecting the patients, it's hard to believe that surreptitious recordings and undercover investigators are needed, and honestly to what end?

The investigators used the "anything goes" approach to going after a seemingly harmless medical marijuana doctor. Overall, a doctor who wanted nothing more than to educate people on how to alleviate their symptoms with a much less harmful drug than the regular pain medication prescriptions most commonly given.

At a great cost to state taxpayers, the case against Dr. David Allen seemed concocted by investigators who falsely claimed to be ill in order to analyze the doctor's practice for ways to bring charges against him, not to actually protect any patient or the public at large. That, with the exception of one single patient who never claimed adverse effects himself, but rather a family member charged with his care who "disapproved" of medical marijuana and reported the recommendation to the medical board. In all of the other instances, none were real patients in any way shape or form. In the end the case against Dr. Allen seems to have been brought about by fraudulent claims aimed at making minor errors in his practice seem unforgivable.

Eric Salerno is a Salem-News.com writer from Butte County, California. His background is with State and Federal Agencies assisting in recovery efforts in disaster stricken states.

In 2008 he began advocating for medical marijuana in his home state. This journey began after the supervisors in his district of Butte County enacted a moratorium on legal Prop. 215 patients rights to access and grow their own medicine. He was one of only 10 people to show up at the meeting and voice his concerns with their actions.

That year a coalition of mores than 300 residents was formed and a Vote NO on measure A campaign began. These residents of Butte County united to stop the interference of the county.

This campaign was successful with a large voter drive initiative and media campaign securing 55% of the voters saying NO on measure A.

Today Eric works endlessly from Southern California to Northern California advising and implementing political tactics, to ensure every Californian has the right to access legal safe medicine under the law.