[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
The man was told to enjoy his vacation, and to be sure he checked in with his dentist when he got
back downstate.
Being treated well, and receiving free treatment even including an X-ray didn't stop the
investigator from turning in his report. There had been a violation of the Michigan dental practice
act; and charges were issued against Dr. Nara.
With charges pending against him in local, state and national dental associations; and with
the state of Michigan trying to "try" him for a punishable violation, Dr. Nara still kept up his
whirlwind schedule of lecturing and conducting seminars...and maintained a busy practice, also.
83
The charges and counter-charges were pending for many months. Some of the hearings and
mock trials in the dental association were conducted so unfairly that, in desperation to "get them
off my back, " Dr. Nara finally filed lawsuits against the associations. This eight-million-dollar
suit is still pending in federal district court, after a number of hearings and "discovery
procedures" in an attempt to thwart the doctor.
In one hearing, for example, the association's lawyers asked the federal judge to force Dr.
Nara to turn over his patient records, so the association could examine them.
This particular hearing resulted in the ludicrous even weird spectacle of a battery of
dental association attorneys trying to convince a judge that a dentist is not a doctor that his
patient records cannot be considered confidential.
The outcome of that hearing, incidentally, was not a clear-cut win or loss for either side. The
associations didn't get the right to examine Dr. Nara's records... but the judge avoided making a
decision regarding the status of a dentist (doctor, or no) and the confidentiality of his patient
records. In a way, it's too bad there was no decision, because it leaves the Michigan state laws in
limbo. There is no federal law governing dental patient records; the federal courts hold that the
individual states should set their own laws on this point. In Michigan, the only applicable
precedent is nearly 100 years old...dating from the days when a dentist didn't have to be a doctor!
When the dispute between the doctor and the associations became an outright war, he stepped
up his campaign to take his case to the public. TV appearances and stories in major newspapers
Chicago, Akron, Milwaukee, Detroit to name a few began to get the public's attention.
It got the profession's attention, too; in a way that they had never paid attention when Dr. Bob
was trying to tell how dentists could prevent dental disease. Now he was trying to tell the public
how to do it!
It is a matter of record that the state department of licensing and regulation "governs" the
profession of dentistry through the state dental board. Who do you think sits in judgment on
dentists, as members of the dental board?
You got that right...it's dentists; and they are party-line association men right down the line.
When Dr. Bob's case finally came before the board, there were two charges he was facing: First,
that he allowed an assistant to polish (clean) teeth a violation in Michigan, while it is perfectly
legal in 23 other states; and something that almost all dental offices are guilty of. Second: That he
was advertising an illegal (unrecognized) specialty.
The yellow pages advertisement was finally coming home to haunt Dr. Bob. This
"advertisement" that he specialized in Oramedics brought the state charges.
What happened?
The final step before board action, in Michigan, is a hearing before an examiner of the state's
licensing and regulation department. (an administrative judge) The results of that examination, as
the transcript unfolds, are clear-cut: Hearing examiner Wayne Lusk said that he had determined
that Dr. Nara may have violated the provision of state law which says an unlicensed assistant may
not perform tooth-cleaning. On the other charge, examiner Lusk's report covered every
conceivable subsection and main section of the dental law, one at a time. There was no violation
of subsection after subsection, therefore, said Lusk, there had been no violation of the dental law
with respect to advertising an unrecognized specialty.
84
Then the board met. The decision, on the first charge, was to suspend Dr. Nara's license for
three months. On the second charge: The board decided to reverse the findings of the state's own
administrative judge! "No violation? Forget it!" The board found Dr. Nara guilty anyway; and
then incredibly suspended his license for one full year! It made little difference, after that, but
they made sure he got the full effect by making the two sentences consecutive: His license had
been negated for 15 months.
Almost as an afterthought, the board next voted never again to allow the state department's
man, Lusk, to be an examiner in a case involving dental licenses.
All we can indicate from the facts and records is that Dr. Nara "went down fighting" in
Michigan, trying to help people save their teeth; and that one key member of the board was
dissatisfied with "only" a 12-month suspension on a charge that the state's own examiner had
thrown out. If there is any conclusion to be found, here, the reader will have to find it without any
further help...
A look at the records of cases brought before the dental board will show that suspensions are
few and far between; and that when they do happen, they are almost never for periods as long as a
year. Usually, the suspensions are for gross violations which result in harm to patients; almost
always, they are based upon complaints from the public.
Charges against Dr. Nara have been primarily "set-ups; investigators or others they have
sent in to entrap the doctor into violating some provision of the state law.
Even when the board does find a doctor guilty and suspends his license, there is a virtually-
automatic appeal to the state courts. Most doctors who have grossly violated the law find
themselves back in practice within a week or so: Upon filing the appeal, a "stay of suspension" is
usually automatic until the appeal outcome is decided.
The courts "lost" Dr. Nara's appeal. When, after months of constant telephone calls and trips
to the state capitol; after thousands of dollars in attorney fees, the court finally got around to his
case, still another unusual development happened:
The office of the state attorney general filed a massive brief in the appeal court, asking them
not to hear Dr. Nara's appeal. If, to an American citizen, it seems incredible that an appeal court
would refuse to hear a request for trial...think how it seemed to Dr. Nara a dentist, not an attorney
when he discovered that he was, suddenly, less than a citizen.
It has been nearly a year since his license was suspended. Dr. Nara still has not had a day in a
real trial court! His attorneys have tried every available means to get this case tried: Nothing, so
far, in either state or federal courts has been of any avail.
Once again: To an American citizen, the thought that a man can be tried, found not
guilty...the decision reversed, and punishment rendered...all without ever spending a single day in
a real court, with a jury and opposing lawyers...it simply is not to be believed.
But it's true. Dr. Nara has lived through this nightmare; the transcripts and records are all
there, and all intact: The indisputable, provable fact is that "somebody" has pulled out all the
stops: The idea is to shut this doctor up; get him out of the way, make him quit telling his story.
It didn't work. Dr. Nara continues to take his campaign to the public. More and more, journals
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
