I have a double good and some bad to report.
First the double good
Our side and the City Attorney’s office has reached a resolution. We have dismissed the San Francisco defendants from Dr. Stoller’s lawsuit, and the City Attorney has withdrawn his subpoena requesting the deidentified patient
THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF DR. STOLLER’S PATIENTS ARE NO LONGER AT RISK FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.
Although we think the subpoena was ill advised and arguably beyond the scope of the City Attorney’s legal authority, in my personal dealings with the City Attorney’s lawyers, I saw nothing but competence, diligence, a sincere desire to protect San Francisco citizens, and the good judgment to know when a
The other part of the double good is that Dr. Stoller’s case continues against the Medical Board. The case continues to press for the recognition of an alternative standard of care for medical exemptions beyond CDC contraindications, based on Bus. And Prof. Code Section 2234.1, SB 277 (Now Health and Safety Code, Section 120370) and/or patients’ constitutional privacy rights.
Now the bad
As was expected, the Medical Board has filed charges against Dr. Stoller (in California it is called an “Accusation”) based on an investigation of 11 patients whom the Board claims received a vaccine medical exemption not within the CDC guidelines/standard of care. The Board is using its now pending administrative case against Dr. Stoller as a basis to try to dismiss our lawsuit under the “exhaustion of administrative remedies” doctrine. I think there is a
First, at least one school has refused to honor exemptions written by Dr. Stoller because of the Medical Board investigation. It is possible that other schools are taking the same action towards Dr. Stoller’s and/or other physicians’ exemptions. This is illegal under current law, meaning there is no procedure under current law for a school to reject or question a medical exemption issued by a California licensed physician. In the absence of such a statutory procedure, the rejection of a medical exemption by a school is without a statutory or legal basis.
Another bad thing: it looks like some schools are sending unredacted medical vaccine exemptions to the Department of Public
The Board’s actions are part of a wider multi-governmental effort to deal with what is perceived to be a threat.
The problem is that the tactics being employed violate patient privacy rights and is thus illegal.
It all stems from the confusion created by Senator Pan and his allies with their SB 277 supporting statements
and the bill itself which seemingly justified the broad-based vaccine medical exemptions which Dr. Stoller
and other like-minded physicians have written.
Next week, we will be filing an amended complaint against the Board and will be adding the
Public Health Department as a defendant, ask the court to weigh-in on these important issues,
and stop the governmental lawlessness.
So, stay tuned and thanks for all your continued support.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.