William S. Eidelman, M.D.

Natural Medicine
Nutrition, Bio-Energy, Herbs, Cannabis (as per Prop 215)
Chelation and Intravenous Nutrient Therapies,  Spiritual Medicine

 

Home

Notice For Patients
Office Hours & Services

 Who is
William S. Eidelman, M.D.?

email Dr. Eidelman:
natural(a)DrEidelman.com

Dr. Eidelman's Office: 1654 Cahuenga Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90028
corner of Hollywood Blvd
entrance in middle of International Newsstand

(323) 463-3295
(323) 463-3740 fax

Case of the Moment
Archives

Get Real About Drugs

Medical Marijuana and the Recent Appeals Court Raich Ruling

 

  

Medical Board Hearing
of Dr. Eidelman

The hearing of William S. Eidelman, M.D., before the Medical Board of California, began on Feb 9, 2004, and after a long President's Day break, seemingly ended following testimony on Feb 20. A final morning of hearing then took place on April 7.  The Board is seeking complete revocation of Dr. Eidelman's license. Dr. Eidelman's license was suspended in May, 2002, based solely on the affidavits of four undercover police officers, to whom Dr. Eidelman gave recommendations for medical marijuana.

Dr. Eidelman was accused of violating the standard of care. Other accusations against Dr. Eidelman involved one undercover agent of the Medical Board, plus two real patients. The complaints for the two real patients came from one disgruntled wife and one disgruntled District Attorney. Patients themselves had no complaints about Dr. Eidelman.

The Medical Board's expert, Dr. Jeffrey Barke argued that Dr. Eidelman was far outside the standard of care by not giving physical exams or taking in-depth medical histories or ordering blood tests, x-rays, or MRI's. Following the Board's position that Dr. Eidelman was not being accused of wrong-doing for writing the marijuana recommendations, Dr. Barke said the standard of care is the same for giving medical marijuana as it would be for any other prescription or even recommendation (such as exercise or take vitamins).

Dr. Eidelman's expert was Tod Mikuriya, M.D., whose field of expertise has been addiction medicine for the past forty years. Dr. Mikuriya is widely known as one of the world's leading experts on medical marijuana. Dr. Mikuriya recently went through his own Medical Board hearing, and is awaiting the ruling from the Board. Dr. Mikuriya argued that physicians specializing in medical cannabis had recognized a different standard of care relative to giving medical marijuana recommendations pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (aka Proposition 215). The standard for a cannabis recommendation required only a brief review of the medical history to verify a legitimate need, and only occasionally a physical examination. This lower standard for cannabis was based on the combination of the herb's remarkable safety record (no deaths, no organ damage from short or long term use), its very low dependency profile (there is no physical addiction and the vast majority of people do not abuse or misuse it), and its wide range of applications (Dr. Mikuriya presented a list of over a hundred medical conditions for which marijuana provides benefit).

Lester Grinspoon, M.D., Harvard professor emeritus of psychiatry, also testified by telephone on marijuana's lack of toxicity and its lack of physical addiction.

Dr. Eidelman was allowed to present three patients. These patients, all with serious medical problems, testified that Dr. Eidelman had done a good job in caring for them. All reported that they had referred many very sick patients to Dr. Eidelman for medical cannabis recommendations, all of whom were satisfied with Dr. Eidelman's care.

Dr. Eidelman himself testified that he saw a wide range of patients with different types of conditions and with different degrees of severity. While the undercover officers were obviously at the low end of the scale of severity, all reported conditions which Dr. Eidelman believed qualified for the cannabis recommendation. The purpose of the cannabis recommendation was to provide a defense against criminal prosecution for marijuana possession or cultivation (for personal use). It might also protect against other non-criminal sanctions, such as losing your job or your child. Dr. Eidelman testified that most of his patients' conditions were serious or very serious, and that the "low-end" patients such as the undercover officers were small in number.

In closing arguments, Rajpal Dhillon, deputy Attorney General arguing for the Medical Board, claimed that there was no separate standard for recommending medical marijuana, and that Dr. Eidelman's violation of the standards represented an extreme departure whose only solution was revocation of the license to practice.

Richard Jaffe, representing Dr. Eidelman, argued that despite Dr. Barke's opinion, there are many standards of care for many different specialities, different situations, and for different treatment options and drugs. He argued that even if you don't accept the idea that the standard is exactly the one proposed by Dr. Mikuriya and Dr. Eidelman, what occurred was not negligence or incompetence, but simply a difference of opinion in the medical field. This difference should not be a matter for enforcement, Jaffe said.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Eidelman's Medical Board Hearing Reopens For Testimony Impeaching the Credibility of the Board’s Expert
Ruling Due By June 12

(Los Angeles, Apr 8, 2004)  Dr. Eidelman's hearing before the Medical Board was reopened Apr 7 for additional testimony relating to the credibility and prescribing practices of the Medical Board’s expert.

 Dr. Eidelman, who was one of a handful of physicians in California openly recommending medical marijuana, had his license suspended without an evidentiary hearing in May, 2002.  The suspension was based on Dr. Eidelman’s writing letters of recommendation for medical marijuana to four undercover agents allegedly without performing physical examinations or obtaining prior medical records.

The hearing on the charges took place over six days in February, 2004. The Board’s expert, Jeffrey I. Barke, a family practitioner practicing in Newport Beach, testified that it was an extreme departure from the standard of care to prescribe any drug or recommend any type of therapy, including dietary changes or exercise without a thorough work-up including a complete physical exam and a detailed history.  By failing to do a complete physical, Dr. Barke went so far as to opine that Dr, Eidelman was not even practicing medicine, and was a danger to the public.

Because of Dr. Barke’s opinions, Dr. Eidelman and his attorney Richard Jaffe, Esq, of Houston, Texas, decided to perform an undercover operation on the Board’s expert.

After several weeks of facsimile and telephone contacts, Steve Rifkind, a personal friend of Dr. Eidelman and new admittee to the State Bar of California succeeded in obtaining from  Dr. Barke a prescription for Viagra, without any direct, face-to-face doctor/patient contact. 

Armed with this new information, Mr. Jaffe moved to reopen the hearing to challenge the Board’s  prior expert opinion on the need for a physical and history on all patients. Overruling the objection of the Deputy Attorney General, Administrative Law Judge Stuart Waxman ruled in Dr. Eidelman’s favor and reopened the hearings.

The reopened hearing heard testimony from Mr. Rifkind and Dr. Barke .  Mr. Rifkind testified he told the Board’s expert that he had used Viagra in the past without problems, but otherwise Dr. Barke asked no questions about his medical history.  On the pretense of being a prospective new patient to Dr. Barke’s concierge medical practice in Newport Beach, Mr. Rifkind was able to obtain a prescription for 4 pills with three refills, merely by asking for one, all without ever having met Dr. Barke.

Under oath, Dr. Barke insisted that Viagra is a safe drug while asserting that medical marijuana is inherently dangerous due to its “extremely high rate of addiction” an assertion denied by one of the world’s leading experts on medical marijuana, Dr. Grinspoon of Harvard University.  But Dr. Barke further acknowledged that Viagra is responsible for the deaths of about 200 people per year and admitted that there is no record of anyone dying from marijuana.  Despite this apparent paradox, Dr. Barke attempted to draw a distinction between Viagra and medical marijuana insisting there was a “vast difference” between his prescribing Viagra without even having met his patient and Dr. Eidelman’s recommending medical marijuana after having spent face-to-face time interviewing his patients. Dr. Barke attempted to explain his having consented to the prescription without having so much as met his prospective patient in that he had intended to see the “patient” in a few days, and would have performed the necessary physical and detailed examination at that time. 

Dr. Barke further explained that the fact the "patient” had said he had prior experience with the medication was a significant factor in his decision to prescribe the drug without having met the patient. However, this contradicted his testimony during the February hearings,  when Dr. Barke had rejected a similar argument raised by Dr. Eidelman, namely, all of the State’s undercover agents who requested a recommendation for marijuana had told him that they had used it successfully in the past to alleviate their conditions. 

Judge Waxman ruled on May 24, 2004, that Dr. Eidelman could return to practice, including cannabis consultations.  The decision was accepted by the Medical Board on June 3, 2004.  The decision is here.