Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:41 AM

Subject: Lack of separation between Crown and Court in B.C.

Attention: J.D. Peach.

Please find attached a copy of the 52 pages of events resulting in the AG department involvement(pages 34 to 52)in the shredding of evidence to obstruct justice.

Regards,

Dave Kuntz.
________________________________________________________________________

This is the second e-mail and consists of 52 pages describing the background leading to the AG Department directing the shredding of evidence by the former MSC Chairman Dr. David Bolton where the AG Department acted as counsel of record for Dr. Bolton and provided the former Deputy AG Mr. E.R.A. Edwards Q.C. as a judge to dismiss the case without a hearing on the merits so as to save the government from scandal.

The government has been actively driving medical consultants out of B.C. as part of its cost-containment strategy to control the underfunded Medicare program. The government pretends to provide "universal" care but accomplishes this by denying patients state of the art procedures and treating them all equally badly. 

Pages 34-52 specifically refer to the role of the AG Department in obstructing justice to prevent this scandal from surfacing. The AG Department even provided the judge Mr. Justice Edwards to put the lid on the exposure of abuse of authority for other than its intended purpose in B.C. which is leading to destruction of Medicare.

Regards,

Dave Kuntz.

March 17, 2001

John David, Kuntz,
5620 Montgomery Place
Acadia Park, U.B.C.,
Vancouver, British Columbia,
V6T 2C7, Canada,                      Tel: (604) 221_9269       Fax: (604) 221_9268

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

RE: THE MYTH OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURTS IN B.C.

I have been requested to outline the events resulting in the appearance of a former Deputy Attorney General sitting in conflict of interest as a B.C. Supreme Court Judge to hear a case wherein the Crown was adverse in interest and his former Department of the Attorney General was acting for the Defendants which shredded the evidence.

I am an orthopaedic surgeon who had the busiest spine surgery referral practice in British Columbia until victimized by an insurance fraud valued at $25 million annually in B.C. alone being funded by B.C. taxpayers and which affects taxpayers in other jurisdictions across Canada. The insurance fraud was initially estimated in the Press to have a valued of approximately $300 million and could never have succeeded without the joint collusion of the Workers Compensation Board (WCB), British Columbia Medical Association (BCMA), B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), Medical Services Commission (MSC) and B.C. Attorney General Department, all of whom joined to create and perpetuate the scientific fraud that state of the art spinal disc replacement surgery was "experimental" as an excuse to incite frivolous litigation culminating in a Class Action lawsuit initially estimated to be worth $200-300 million before being adjusted upward with successive judgments. The lawyers retained by my CMPA insurers were in conflict of interest in defending the WCB-funded litigation against me and accordingly failed to properly gather, prepare and present my evidence demonstrating that methyl methacrylate (MMA) disc replacement and spinal fusion was never "experimental" since 1955 but was already accepted as safe and advantageous for this purpose in humans and already in usage by advanced spinal surgeons internationally as well as in Canada.

The College scapegoated me causing public defamation because the then College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison feared being enjoined as a co-defendant in the forthcoming Class Action. These very real concerns arose because the College participated in preparation and approval of the 1979 surgical consent forms used by Wrinch Memorial Hospital and Kitimat General Hospital. Those institutions described MMA (methyl methacrylate) disc replacement on their consent forms as a "new procedure" and not as an "experimental procedure" for obvious reasons: it was never "experimental" at all material times since 1955. The plastic material methyl methacrylate is the most commonly used implant material used in humans and is used for fusing spines, skull plates, hip and knee replacements et cetera. In fact the usage of MMA for disc replacement and fusing spines predates its usage in his and knee replacements.

I began doing this advanced spine surgery procedure in 1979 using MMA disc replacement a quarter century after it was considered safe for this usage in humans. Accordingly, it was never experimental at all material times and this usage was only new to B.C. but not to the rest of Canada or the world because MMA usage for replacement of vertebrae and adjacent discs had already been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration without restrictions before I entered medical school. In fact by 1960 informed advanced spinal surgeons at Montreal Neurological Institute began a 20 year study of the benefits of MMA in replacing vertebral bodies and adjacent discs and fusing spines, their results published in 1980 supporting continued usage.

The case of "medical malpractice" trumped up against me by the WCB, CMPA, College, BCMA, MSC was that I failed to get "informed consent" by failing to advise patients they were undergoing what my outdated critics erroneously alleged to be "experimental surgery". These were official bodies and had a responsibility to remain current yet they fell a quarter of a century behind current advances in spinal surgery being practiced by informed spinal surgeons. These bodies were abusing committees for other than their intended purposes and supporting a scientific fraud by alleging MMA disc replacement was "experimental" in humans in 1981 which was two decades after this usage of MMA disc replacement was already accepted internationally by all informed spine surgeons. By 1960 the Montreal Neurological Institute were using it to replace vertebrae and adjacent discs in humans and in 1980 they published a 20 year follow-up study advocating the advantages of MMA in fusing spines. I only began using MMA disc replacement and fusion on June 29, 1979, a full quarter century after it was already accepted as safe and advantageous for this purpose for human usage in Canada and the rest of the world.

The Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia had a vested interest in perpetuating the scientific fraud of "experimental surgery" so as to remove competition. from surgeons working independently beyond the WCB control. My political problems with the WCB began in 1976 before I ever used MMA for disc replacement. At that time I annoyed the WCB by treating the injured WCB-disenfranchised Worker Vincenzo Napoli of Smithers without prior WCB authorization for payment for my services. The WCB had known for 8 years that Napoli had severe central spinal stenosis at multiple levels of the lumbar spine as diagnosed by another orthopaedic surgeon and recorded independently on the then closed WCB medical file system. The WCB was cheating Napoli of his legitimate benefits as he deteriorated neurologically and abused its authority so as to cover up this known condition by delaying authorization for treatment while focusing their efforts on psychological testing of Napoli to justify terminating his legitimate claim for benefits. Accordingly I performed "unauthorized" but necessary and successful decompressive laminectomy surgery and during recovery, Napoli sought and received my full support in his appeal of the WCB decision to terminate his claim. The WCB consultant Dr. Peter Kokan covered up the proven pathology of spinal stenosis and focused instead on denigrating Napoli’s character, describing him as poorly motivated man with emotional overlay and relied upon undisclosed psychological testing in downplaying the legitimacy of his claim. I assisted his counsel James Sayre leading to the Napoli’s lawyers legal demands to examine the psychological reports upon which Dr. Kokan relied on the WCB’s closed medical file system.

That led to the precedent setting Napoli v. WCB legal challenge regarding a Workers’ rights to see his file during appeals which threatened to open the then existing WCB closed file system across Canada. I was Napoli’s only expert medical witness whom the WCB identified as their "worst offender" on Napoli’s closed file for doing "unauthorized surgery" before launching an attack on my professional reputation to discredit the witness in advance of the trial. This plan to obstruct justice by having Napoli’s witness suspended by the College was not uncovered until fourteen years later in May 1991 when access was obtained to the Napoli WCB file. The suspension plan was then confirmed by memos written on the then closed Napoli file with the expectation that they would never be read. In particular, the WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. J.S. Gibbings targeted me for suspension to obstruct justice before the Napoli v. WCB trial in his January 7, 1977 Memo to Dr. Little who was the Chairman of the WCB wherein Dr. Gibbings stated: "He being the only orthopaedic surgeon in N.W.B.C. makes it hard to suspend him".

The WCB Chairman then positioned Dr. J.S. Gibbings on the BCMA/WCB Liaison Committee as a platform to launch his recorded suspension plans and with the assistance of Dr. H. Stansfield who was the BCMA representative to that Committee they abused the committee for other than its intended purpose because Dr. Gibbings had solicited British Columbia Medical Association support for continuation of the then existing WCB closed file system. Dr. Stansfield protected the identity of my WCB accusers who lodged hidden complaints implying that "unauthorized surgery" (for which the WCB refused authorization for payment beforehand) meant "unnecessary surgery" when all it really meant was that WCB was cheating the Worker and refusing to pay medical bills as required under the Workers’ Compensation Act. By now claiming that "unauthorized" surgery was "unnecessary", the WCB was now attacking the professional reputations of those prepared to work independently of the WCB influence either pro bono publico or under Medicare by caring for disenfranchised Workers abandoned by the WCB in dereliction of its mandated duties under the Act.

On March 12, 1979 a WCB/BCMA Liaison Committee meeting was held without my presence so as to deny me any opportunity to respond when the WCB lodged secret complaints then forwarded to the BCMA Patterns of Practice which convened March 15, 1979 "because the WCB is disturbed" to discuss me without my participation as recorded in their Minutes. Dr. H. Stansfield was Secretary of the Patterns of Practice Committee which recommended that my Patterns of Practice should be investigated because of the unsubstantiated and undisclosed WCB allegations of "unnecessary surgery", all of which was a smokescreen for the WCB’s hidden agenda of discrediting me as Napoli’s expert witness against the WCB in advance of the Napoli v. WCB trial which was still outstanding until 1981.

Because the WCB was funding Professor F.P. Patterson’s orthopaedic residency research program, Dr. Patterson assisted his economic benefactors by chairing the subsequent BCMA Patterns of Practice Committee meeting convened May 17, 1979. Dr. H. Stansfield (by denying me opportunity to respond to false hidden WCB allegations) and Dr. Patterson both behaved as de facto agents of the WCB which was greatly disturbed over the forthcoming Napoli v. WCB case threatening to open their then closed medical file system. At that May 17, 1979 meeting, the Minutes demonstrate that after I departed the meeting, Professor Patterson recommended my suspension and retraining in the absence of a single patient complaint and before review of a single file. They were abusing the Committee for other than its intended purpose to assist WCB to obstruct justice by discrediting Napoli’s only expert medical witness in advance of the landmark 1981 Napoli v. WCB trial.

The BCMA (B.C. Medical Association) never followed Dr. Patterson’s recommendations because there were no patient complaints and the Secretary of the BCMA Patterns of Practice Committee Dr. Stansfield hid the WCB involvement as well as Dr. Patterson’s bias and prejudice by failing to inform me of his recommendations for suspension and "retraining". I had graduated from Patterson’s own training program in 1970 passing my examinations on my first attempt and by 1979 I was receiving over 51% of all referred cervical spine surgery in the Province of B.C. There was not one single patient or referring doctor complaint when Patterson made these recommendations for "retraining" without bothering to examine one single office file, hospital file, x-ray, or interview a single patient.

The College also supported continuation of the then existing WCB closed medical file system and accordingly the College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison was a participant at the March 15, 1979 BCMA Patterns of Practice Committee convened "because the WCB is disturbed." Both the College and BCMA were now using committees for other than their intended purpose under the legislation and abusing authority to appease and support WCB attempts to maintain the status quo of the then existing WCB closed file system then threatened by Napoli v.WCB. The WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. J.S. Gibbings published in the May 1979 B.C. Medical Journal that he had polled the executive of BCMA, College and WCB and all supported continuance of the then existing WCB closed file system; he didn’t bother to poll practicing physicians. This was the same Dr. Gibbings who had already recorded his plans to suspend me on the then closed Napoli WCB medical file and then lodged undisclosed complaints through the WCB/BCMA Liaison Committee which became the excuse to have me investigated, suspended without a hearing and erased..

In 1981 Justice Bouck delivered his landmark judgment in Napoli v. WCB which ordered the opening of Napoli’s WCB file. File disclosure exposed known pathology of spinal stenosis being covered up by the WCB and they then settled the file and awarded Napoli his pension.

However because this was the first time the Court of Appeal had ordered WCB files opened in Canada, it was a major setback to the modus operandi of the monopolistic WCB. They appealed and retained the Law Society bencher Harvey Grey Q.C., a Harper, Grey, Easton and Company lawyer with considerable influence in the legal profession to argue their case. On July 7, 1981, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the Bouck judgment opening WCB files across Canada.

On that same day, July 7, 1981, after two years of inactivity on Patterson’s recommendations for "retraining", the BCMA’s Director of Professional Relations Dr. Hugh Stansfield summarized my BCMA Patterns of Practice profile and referred my file to the College Registrar Dr. Hutchison. The July 26, 1979 BCMA Minutes record that Dr. Hutchison had already attempted helping the WCB by soliciting a complaint against me in advance of Napoli v. WCB so that he could "take action". The reason the BCMA involved the College in assisting the WCB in 1979 was because the BCMA did not have the power to suspend a doctor - only the College had those powers. These official bodies were all abusing committees for other than their intended purpose with the common goal of discrediting Napoli’s only expert medical witness in advance of Napoli v. WCB to assist the WCB to keep their file system closed and unavailable to Workers and their counsel for cross-examination during appeals of WCB decisions.

After the Bouck judgment, the BCMA forwarded my file to the College which then attempted to appease the WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB. These official bodies now perceived me as the sole physician responsible for undermining their united support for the WCB closed file system because I was Napoli’s orthopaedic surgeon, performed "unauthorized surgery" by helping Napoli despite WCB withholding prior authorization for payment so as to obstruct his access to treatment and then supported Napoli during his appeal. I was perceived as responsible for the outcome of Napoli v. WCB which resulted in the opening of the then closed WCB medical file system in Canada contrary to the expressed and published wishes of WCB, BCMA and College before the trial.

The WCB sent out a notice to the medical profession in 1981 expressing their apologies and concerns because now there was nothing they could do to prevent the judgment of Bouck from being applied retroactively to existing WCB files. That meant derogatory remarks would now be open to review during appeals despite physicians having made them on the then closed file system with the expectation that nobody outside of the WCB in-house staff would ever review them. Their derisive comments often minimized the Workers’ problems to facilitate claim termination and now lawyers representing injured Workers could review their WCB files before proceeding to the WCB Boards of Review. The Bouck judgment also meant that the credentials of anonymous unnamed WCB consultants could now be challenged whereas in the past the closed file system allowed WCB the freedom to employ retired general surgeons, obstetricians and general practitioners to give opinions behind closed doors overruling the opinions of practicing orthopaedic surgeons all of which facilitated premature termination of legitimate claims.

In 1981, the College Registrar Dr. Hutchison appeased the WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB which opened their file system to disclosure. The BCMA forwarded my file to the Registrar who re-appointed the WCB-friendly Professor to chair a College Section 50 Investigation of myself under the "infamous conduct" section of the Medical Practitioners’ Act. Dr. Hutchison knew Professor Patterson had already been involved in 1979 and had already been involved in attempting to help the WCB before the Napoli trial when Patterson recommended my suspension and retraining. The College never did disclose the WCB as the source of the allegations of "infamous conduct" and withheld the paper trail disclosing that the College was a participant on March 15, 1979 when the BCMA Patterns of Practice convened because "the WCB was disturbed" over unauthorized surgery on disenfranchised Workers such as Vincenzo Napoli which culminated in Napoli v. WCB and the opening of WCB files in Canada.

The College Registrar Dr. Hutchison knew the Section 50 investigation committee he commissioned was illegal because the Medical Practitioners’ Act required three investigators all of whom were members or past members of Council whereas the two man committee of Dr. Patterson and Dr. A.S. McConkey did not constitute a quorum and neither were members or past members of Council. Furthermore, the Registrar knew Dr. Patterson was biased and prejudiced as he had already taken a position to have me "retrained" in 1979 and ought not to have participated further. Dr. A.S. McConkey was also in conflict because he performed 1974 wrong-level wrong-sided surgery on WCB Claimant Tina Boonstra for which performed "unauthorized surgery" to correct in 1977 after WCB withheld prior authorization by WCB for payment for services rendered. That "unauthorized surgery" resulted in improvement and Boonstra then successfully appealed to the WCB Boards of Review where the errors of McConkey were uncovered and reported in the 1978 WCB Reporter article titled WCB Decision No. 276 re Payment for Unauthorized Surgery (referring to the unauthorized surgery I performed on Tina Boonstra) wherein the Review Board ordered the WCB to accept payment for her claim. Accordingly the embarrassed Dr. A.S. McConkey could never be considered impartial and independent in 1981 when the Registrar Dr. Hutchison assisted the WCB by having the prejudiced Dr. McConkey appointed to the invalid two man College Section 50 Committee to investigate me for "unauthorized surgery" to correct McConkey’s errors which WCB was covering up with psychological testing in lieu of authorizing the appropriate salvage surgery I performed without their prior authorization after it was obvious it was not forthcoming.

On November 19, 1981, Dr. Patterson’s Section 50 Report erroneously identified MMA disc replacement as "experimental" in humans a quarter century after it was declared safe in humans. He recommended doing animal studies which was like reinventing the wheel: they had already been done a quarter century earlier. Since I trained under Professor F.P. Patterson, I knew he was out of touch with recent advances in spine surgery when his report recommended that the College impose a moratorium on MMA disc replacement in 1981. Informed spine surgeons knew this advanced spine surgery technique was not "experimental" in humans since 1955 and that the Montreal Neurological Institute had been using MMA for fusing spines since 1960 in a long term study already published in 1980, In fact, by 1981 even the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon papers advocated that MMA was safe and advantageous for fusing human spines. In 1982 the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons was advocating its usage and by 1987 the International College of Surgeons gave a seminar in Washington D.C. for advanced spinal surgeons advocated the usage of MMA for cervical disc replacement and fusion. All of this international usage was reported in the authoritative medical literature and was known to all informed spinal surgeons prior in time to the WCB-funded June 1987 Coughlin v. Kuntz litigation wherein Justice B. Cohen accepted the tainted testimony of Dr. Patterson supporting the scientific fraud that MMA usage for disc replacement in humans was "experimental" and awarded exemplary damages against me; I was the first Canadian doctor ever to have "exemplary" damages awarded against him after the WCB-funded consultants fraudulently described state of the art surgery as "experimenting" on human beings.

The WCB consultant Dr. J. Noble appeared at Coughlin v. Kuntz and supported Dr. Patterson’s scientific fraud that I was "experimenting on human beings" at that June 1987 trial stating that he searched the authoritative medical literature and found no evidence whatsoever of prior MMA usage for disc replacement in humans. My evidence demonstrating otherwise was never presented by my CMPA-retained WCB-friendly Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark Skorah and Barbara Norell because of their hidden agenda to assist and appease the WCB.. Mr. Grey Q.C. was in conflict of interest because he was counsel for the WCB in their failed July 7, 1981 appeal of the Bouck judgment in Napoli v. WCB. The evidence demonstrated that Dr. Peter Van Peteghem injured Coughlin at surgery on his shoulder, then advised Coughlin to sue me for "unnecessary surgery" and "experimental surgery". My lawyers refused my instructions to enjoin Dr. Van Peteghem as a co-defendant and I have since learned that my lawyer Harvey Grey Q.C. hid his conflict in that he was contemporaneously acting for Dr. Van Peteghem in Knudsen v. Van Peteghem; he was scapegoating me for Dr. Van Peteghem and failed to disclose that Van Peteghem who was adverse in interest was also his client.

The WCB made a concerted effort to undermine the 1987 trial of Coughlin v. Kuntz by positioning Professor Patterson’s 20 year shared office associate and successor Professor McGraw on the WCB-directed College Section 48 Investigation Committee which discussed the Coughlin case July 8, 1986, then authored a biased July 31, 1986 Investigation Report, and circulated it widely in contempt of the Medical Practitioners’ Act and Section 57 (5) and (6) of the Evidence Act to obstruct justice. The College Council relied upon that biased Report to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986 before the 1987 Coughlin v. Kuntz trial.

The WCB made an application before Justice Cohen in May 1987 before the main Coughlin v. Kuntz trial began, the application being to cross-examine Dr. Patterson’s 20 year office associate Dr. McGraw on the College July 31, 1986 Investigation Report he had prepared. McGraw’s report echoed and adopted the 1981 Patterson Report without correcting the fraudulent "experimental surgery" myth. McGraw’s report was relied upon by the College Council to suspend me without a hearing before Justice Cohen sat in judgment of the Coughlin v. Kuntz trial after reading McGraw’s Report echoing Dr. Patterson’s Report. That untested July 31, 1986 Investigation Report was already sealed and ought not to have been circulated by the lawyers for the WCB before Justice Cohen and they did so to prejudice the judge before Cohen sat in judgment of the WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz case. That Report defamed me and both the College and the Courts (Justice Legg of the B.C. Supreme Court and Justices Seaton, Anderson and McLachlin who upheld the Legg judgment in the B.C. Court of Appeal) denied me cross-examination of its authors. Justice Cohen also denied cross-examination of the principal author Dr. R.W. McGraw. All the judges were so biased after the College and WCB duped them into wrongfully reading the untested sealed Report that they denied me section 7 Charter rights to cross-examine my accusers, the Report’s authors Drs. R.W. McGraw, P. Kokan and M. Tile.

Because the College was wrongly circulating the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report in violation of the Medical Practitioners’ Act and the Evidence Act, I retained independent counsel from another law firm beyond the CMPA influence and applied to have the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report sealed. In retrospect, the College had a hidden agenda to defame me in advance of Class Action litigation which they anticipated since 1983 wherein their internal memos indicate the College feared being named as a co-defendant. Accordingly they made a pre-emptive strike against my professional reputation when they abused their authority by acting ultra vires the Medical Practitioners’ Act in 1983 by imposing a wrongful moratorium on MMA disc replacement surgery. Because the College was abusing its committees for other than their intended purpose under the legislation they had to guarantee the members of the investigation committee who authored the scathing untruthful Report that they would enjoy protection from cross-examination. They were hiding behind the presumption of regularity usually associated with quasi-judicial bodies but in reality were abusing authority with the purpose of defaming me and distancing themselves before the Class Action knowing I posed a threat in the forthcoming litigation as an expert witness adverse in interest to the College. The College did not want to stop the illegal circulation of the Report because it was specifically commissioned not for its purported purpose of determining whether I had sufficient skill and knowledge to practice medicine in the absence of a single patient complaint but rather to defame the expert witness against the College in advance of forthcoming Class Action litigation. The College was unsuccessful in opposing my application on January 21, 1987 when Justice Huddart sealed and banned the distribution of the Report. The College unsuccessfully appealed and on June 16, 1987 Justice Lambert of the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the seal and distribution ban. But that didn’t stop the quasi-judicial College from continuing to circulate the Section 48 Investigation Report in contempt of Court because they had commissioned it for other than its intended purpose under the Medical Practitioners’ Act, namely to defame me as a witness and thereby undermine my position against them in future litigation in which both the College and myself were named as co-defendants adverse in interest.

Despite the above, the WCB acted in contempt of court and placed the untested and judicially sealed July 31, 1986 Investigation Report before Justice Cohen in a May 1987 application to cross-examine Dr. McGraw on the Report at the beginning of the WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz trial for "experimental surgery" wherein the WCB falsely alleged that MMA disc replacement was "experimental" in humans. Justice Cohen wrongfully read and considered the judicially sealed report commissioned by the College and prepared by a WCB-directed Investigation Committee of Drs. McGraw, Kokan and Tile to assist WCB defame me before the trial. As a result of improper consideration of the uncross-examined and untested sealed Report, the newly ordained judge Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen was himself unduly biased and prejudiced when he ruled in May 1987 that Dr. McGraw should be spared from cross-examination. Mr. Bruce Cohen had just been appointed to the bench a month or two earlier and was easily duped by the WCB tactic which served its intended purpose of putting the sealed Report under the judge’s nose to prejudice him just before the main trial began. Mr. Cohen then sat in judgment of the May-June 1987 WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz trial where the WCB provided all the witnesses.

The WCB was even positioned to adversely influence my own Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers who refused to take instructions from myself despite being identified as my counsel of record.. Although HGE and Company held the contract from the Canadian Medical Protective Association and were assigned by CMPA to defend me, the HGE and Company lawyers took instructions from everybody else but myself. In particular the former College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison (who imposed the moratorium on MMA disc replacement under CMPA advisement during his tenure as Registrar so as to limit the size of the anticipated Class Action against me for "experimental surgery") positioned himself as a CMPA Council member in 1984 and was able to secretly control the lawyers retained by CMPA to handle my defense when the Coughlin Writ was served. Furthermore, the WCB were also positioned to secretly influence my CMPA-selected Harper Grey Easton and Company defense lawyers. The senior counsel at Harper Grey Easton and Company was the WCB-friendly bencher Harvey Grey Q.C. who acted as counsel for the WCB at their failed July 7, 1981 appeal of the Bouck judgment in Napoli v. WCB. Accordingly Mr. Grey and his law firm were in conflict of interest in defending me against any WCB-funded litigation and in particular the Coughlin v. Kuntz litigation where WCB took a subrogated interest in the settlement awarded by Justice Bruce Cohen. The Cohen judgment awarding "exemplary damages" or punitive damages against me for performing what the WCB witnesses falsely alleged to be "experimental surgery" became the legal precedent used in all subsequent WCB-funded litigation that followed.

The myth of "experimental surgery" began with Dr. Patterson’s invalid Section 50 Committee Report commissioned by the College after the Court of Appeal upheld the Bouck judgment in Napoli v. WCB. That prejudiced November 19, 1981 opinion of Professor Patterson spawning the experimental surgery fraud not only exposed me to litigation but also jointly exposed the College, Kitimat General Hospital and Wrinch Memorial Hospital to litigation because they all collaborated and participated on the approval of the 1979 surgical consent forms used thereafter by all the Hospitals where this new procedure was practiced.

In 1979 I first introduced the advanced spine surgery procedure of MMA disc replacement and fusion to British Columbia and it was not until after receiving the tainted November 19, 1981 Patterson Section 50 report that the College became concerned over their own legal exposure. The College concern was that despite their improvement after surgery, according to Dr. Patterson the patients had been subjected to "experimental surgery" without their "informed consent." The WCB was planning litigation and contacting satisfied Workers after disc replacement surgery to solicit, encourage and demand that they join a Class Action litigation being funded by the WCB against me for performing "experimental surgery" and WCB was advising patients that they had to sue within limitation periods or risk having their future WCB claims rejected in the event that they developed problems in the future.

Furthermore, because in 1979 the College and Hospitals had approved surgical consent forms which stated only that MMA disc replacement was a "new procedure" and not an "experimental" procedure as alleged November 19, 1981 by Professor Patterson in the College-commissioned Section 50 Report, the College now feared that it was equally exposed to being enjoined as a named defendant in WCB-funded Class Action anticipated as early as 1983 as identified in the Minutes of the College Council and described as "liability concerns" which were their reasons for imposing a moratorium on MMA disc replacement ultra vires the Medical Practitioners’ Act..

Unfortunately College Registrar Dr. Hutchison had fallen into the WCB trap when he attempted appeasing them in 1981 for the adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB. Dr. Hutchison appointed the tainted Dr. Patterson to conduct the 1981 College Section 50 investigation and when Dr. Patterson then declared my surgery "experimental" he exposed the College and Hospitals to litigation for allowing me to perform the alleged "experimental surgery" in their institutions from 1979 onwards. Simply put, if I was being accused of failing to obtain "informed consent" before performing what their biased Section 50 Investigator Dr. Patterson called "experimental surgery," then the College and Hospitals which approved and prepared the consent forms were equally liable for failing to obtain such "informed consent."

The entire case against me was built upon a false presumption of regularity. It was presumed that Dr. F.P. Patterson as Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery for the University of British Columbia would be telling the truth in 1979, in 1981 and at the 1987 Coughlin v. Kuntz trial when in fact he was acting under a hidden agenda to appease his WCB economic benefactors. The reality was that Dr. Patterson was receiving WCB grants for his residency research program and at all material times acted as a de facto agent of the WCB so as to obstruct justice before the Napoli v. WCB trial and then at the 1987 WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz trial where he committed perjury and denied having previously recommended my "retraining" in 1979 so as to hide his bias and prejudice before Justice Cohen.

On January 22, 1982 I appeared before the College Council to respond to Dr. Patterson’s false allegations that MMA disc replacement was "experimental surgery". I then advised Council that Dr. Patterson was out of date because MMA usage for disc replacement was no longer "experimental" and the Council recorded that correct position in their January 22, 1982 Minutes. The College Council responded positively when correctly informed about this advance in spine surgery and requested my assistance in educating the BCMA Sections of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Orthopaedic Surgery "as soon as possible" about the advantages of MMA usage in disc replacement and the Registrar stated in correspondence that my contentions if correct were a most valuable piece of information which should be disseminated as soon as possible. The College Minutes and correspondence confirmed that it would arrange a time and place for my presentation "as soon as possible" and then made the fatal error of delegating the task of making the arrangements to the biased Professor Paterson who was secretly planning WCB-funded litigation against me for "experimental surgery" where he would appear as their expert medical witness supporting the experimental surgery fraud.

The College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison was operating on a hidden agenda to appease the WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli v.WCB and accordingly delegated the task to the WCB-friendly Dr. F.P. Patterson whose own hidden agenda was to assist WCB to retaliate for Napoli by spawning, supporting, and assisting WCB-funded litigation for "experimental surgery" wherein Professor Patterson would appear as the WCB’s expert medical witness supported by the presumption of regularity and authority associated with his position as Professor of Orthopaedics.

In fact the hand-written notes of my CMPA-retained WCB-friendly counsel Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. were later retrieved from the Coughlin v. Kuntz Appeal Books where Mr. Grey inadvertently left his notes inside the transcripts of Dr. Patterson’s testimony. Mr. Grey’s notes demonstrate his own bias dating back to when he was counsel for the WCB’s 1981 appeal of Napoli v. WCB and working with the WCB-friendly doctors planning my suspension because Mr. Grey’s own hand-written notes recorded Dr. Patterson’s "motivational point of view" (which Mr. Grey certainly didn’t learn from me) as follows:

Accordingly from 1982 onward the College Registrar Dr. Hutchison asked Dr. Patterson in correspondence to arrange a time and place for my presentation "as soon as possible" but the influential Professor Patterson blocked it, his goal being to prevent any dissemination of my information from the authoritative medical literature demonstrating MMA disc replacement was never experimental since 1955. Dr. Patterson did not want me educating other B.C. doctors about this advance in spine surgery because informing them would jeopardize the false case of WCB-funded litigation he had instigated against me for performing "experimental surgery" to appease WCB for the outcome of Napoli v. WCB opening their file system to disclosure. Dr. Patterson knew the litigation would fail if the rest of the uninformed doctors were brought up to date. Dr. Patterson knew the WCB was already attempting to exploit his scientific fraud in the WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz case where he would eventually surface as their expert medical witness supporting his own prior false position that MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental surgery".

In 1982 the Registrar Dr. Hutchison circulated Dr. Patterson’s false November 19, 1981 Section 50 report to the Chairman of the BCMA Section of Orthopaedic Surgery Dr. David Harder. This circulation was in violation of the Evidence Act Section 57 (5) and (6) and was done to create bias and prejudice amongst the BCMA Section of Orthopaedics who were then influenced by Professor Patterson’s fraudulent position that MMA disc replacement was "experimental".

In 1983 when the College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison knew their own adviser Dr. Patterson was blocking the presentation that would bring other B.C. doctors up to date on the subject, the College grew progressively nervous about its own legal exposure and the possibility of being named as a defendant in forthcoming WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz litigation. The WCB proposed suing me for what the College Section 50 investigator Dr. Patterson falsely alleged to be "experimental surgery" and the College knew it had failed in 1981 to impose the moratorium Patterson had recommended. In fact it waited until 1983 and when it realized Professor Patterson would never allow my presentation to educate other doctors about MMA usage for disc replacement, the College became concerned about its own liability for failing to get "informed consent" because the consent forms it approved never mentioned "experimental surgery". The College feared WCB could expand its litigation to include the College for allowing the alleged "experimental surgery" to continue after Dr. Patterson’s November 19, 1981 recommendation that the procedure be stopped. The allegation the College faced was that it had ignored Patterson’s recommendations and thereby exposed Workers to "experimental surgery" for another 2 years until 1983. The 1983-1984 Minutes of the College Council document the Council’s own "liability concerns" about being enjoined in forthcoming WCB-funded litigation.

The CMPA was advising the College in 1983 to impose the moratorium. The CMPA or Canadian Medical Protective Association insured over 50,000 doctors in Canada against medical malpractice including the College Council. It was the College’s 1983 "liability concerns" about being included as a co-defendant in proposed WCB-funded litigation for "experimental surgery" that led to the College imposing the moratorium ultra vires the Medical Practitioners’ Act. The College was now denying the public state all access to state of the art spinal surgery because of the "experimental surgery" scientific fraud being now perpetuated by both WCB and College.

By December 1982 the WCB was instigating the WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz litigation against me and Professor Patterson eventually surfaced to earn retirement income appearing repeatedly as the WCB’s expert medical witness stating MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental surgery". I was being defended by the WCB’s old lawyer Harvey Grey Q.C. who refused to expose Dr. Patterson and present my evidence from the authoritative medical literature that demonstrated otherwise that MMA disc replacement was never considered "experimental" in humans after 1955.

It was the threat of the Coughlin v. Kuntz litigation that triggered the February 9, 1983 activity of the College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison to write the Hospitals to impose a litigation. The College was concerned that the WCB-funded litigation would expand to include both the College and the Hospitals which worked together to prepare and approve the consent forms. Although the litigation was being directed principally at me for failing to obtain informed consent" from patients undergoing what the WCB falsely alleged to be "experimental surgery", the College feared that both themselves and the Hospitals were also vulnerable to the same charge because they jointly prepared and approved the consent forms signed by all the patients before undergoing the alleged "experimental surgery". The case against me was that those forms never mentioned the word "experimental". My defense was simple: all the Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers had to do was gather and present the evidence that MMA usage for disc replacement was at all material times since 1955 never "experimental". My lawyers didn’t do that because they were acting as de facto agents of the WCB, assisting the College to distance itself from the litigation by scapegoating me for the College adviser Dr. Patterson’s errors in calling MMA disc replacement "experimental" and generally acting to deceive and undermine the defense of their own client. My lawyers were selling me to the highest bidder: the Canadian Medical Protective Association which was directing my lawyers. The former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison was by now positioned as the BCMA adviser to the CMPA. In 1984 he became a member of the CMPA Council which was planning to profit by perpetuating the myth he helped to perpetuate during his tenure as College Registrar; the CMPA plan was to raise insurance premiums and bolster their unfunded liability coffers to cover future legal exposure for "experimental surgery".

On February 9, 1983 the College Registrar Dr. Hutchison wrote the Kitimat General and Wrinch Memorial Hospitals recommending a moratorium on MMA usage for disc replacement. It was improper for the College to abuse its authority to deny the public access to advanced surgical procedures because of its own liability concerns. The moratorium was an abuse of authority and ultra vires the Medical Practitioners’ Act.

On February 9, 1983 the College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison acted without any authority under the Medical Practitioners’ Act to appoint a Committee of Dr. David Harder (Chairman of BCMA Section of Orthopaedics), Dr. Barry Purves (Chairman of BCMA Section of Neurosurgery) and Dr. Tessler (Chairman of BCMA Section of Neurology). The already biased Dr. Harder did not follow the Council’s mandate to arrange a time and place for my presentation to the BCMA Sections of Orthopaedics, Neurology and Neurosurgery "as soon as possible" to inform and educate the members of those sections about advanced spine surgery techniques; he was under the influence of Dr. Patterson and turned it around into a peer review of myself which was not what they were asked to do. But even worse, Drs. Harder, Purves and Tessler never even bothered to meet with me and solicit my input before preparing their uninformed March 23, 1983 report echoing Dr. Patterson’s errors without reviewing the authoritative medical literature as required to learn Dr. Patterson was a quarter century out of date. They merely echoed and adopted the fraudulent November 19, 1981 Patterson report as the basis of their own uninformed March 23, 1983 Harder Purves Tessler report which simply echoed Patterson’s scientific fraud alleging that MMA disc replacement was "experimental".

In 1983 there was a public outcry from 23 patients awaiting surgery and the College responded by rescinding its moratorium on MMA disc replacement surgery until after the completion of all the remaining cases on the then existing waiting list. After the remaining 23 patients were completed, the College received the March 23, 1983 Harder Purves Tessler report echoing the Patterson report and relied upon it as an excuse to distance Dr. Patterson and reimpose the moratorium. The new waiting list of over 120 patients which then formed began to intensively lobby the College for reinstatement of the state of the art MMA disc replacement procedure to which they were being denied access. Because there was not one single patient complaint, the College at first advised the dissident patients that the College had to impose the moratorium because of "liability concerns." When the patients stated there was no complaints and no litigation filed against me, the Registrar Dr. Hutchison and Deputy Registrar Dr. C.R. Arnold had to manufacture new reasons to justify the illegal moratorium and began giving false advice to patients that MMA disc replacement was "experimental surgery".

In 1983 the College expressed "liability concerns" as recorded in the 1983-1984 Minutes of the College Council, fearing that the College would be enjoined in a $300 million medical malpractice litigation being planned and funded by WCB which was actively soliciting litigants against me. The CMPA exploited those fears in 1983 to coerce the College into enforcing an illegal moratorium ultra vires the Medical Practitioners’ Act so as to limit the size of the Class that would sue the College in the anticipated WCB-funded Class Action.

The fear was that the Class Action would bankrupt the CMPA, College and Hospitals for allowing"experimental" MMA disc replacement surgery without obtaining "informed consent" from patients who were never told it was "experimental". The fear was that all of the above would be named as Defendants in the anticipated WCB-funded litigation. The economic stakes were so enormous that the College and CMPA worked in collusion to transfer of Dr. J.A. Hutchison from the College staff to the CMPA staff where he surfaced in 1984 as a CMPA Council member to direct and undermine my future defense while distancing the College from the anticipated litigation for "experimental surgery"; Dr. Hutchison was to make me the College scapegoat being sued for $300 million in litigation caused by the College by disseminating the scientific fraud of "experimental surgery" while keeping it secret that the College was also a named Defendant..

That same year in 1984 the CMPA changed its policy from "pay-as-you-go" to "collect-in-advance" so as to profit from Dr. Hutchison’s dissemination of Dr. Patterson’s scientific fraud of "experimental surgery" which the CMPA adviser Hutchison knew was not "experimental" as recorded in the January 22, 1982 Minutes of the College Council meeting he chaired and as verified in the authoritative medical literature published since 1955 which was available in the College’s own library if they would only review the published papers on the subject.

In 1985 the CMPA raised the medical malpractice premiums across Canada to over 50,000 doctors to cover an anticipated $300 million unfunded liability exposure for the falsely alleged "experimental surgery". The CMPA then bolstered its "unfunded liability reserves" from $88 million in 1986 to $1.18 billion in 1996 and over $1.4 billion by the year 2000. This enormous increase depended on maintaining Dr. Patterson’s scientific fraud of CMPA liability exposure for 1900 patients that the WCB counsel Mr. Powers and his associate Mr. Tommy Griffiths claimed were exposed to "experimental" MMA disc replacement despite there being only 300 patients who had undergone MMA disc replacement, none of which were "experimental". The CMPA knew very well that I had only performed MMA disc replacement on 300 patients with a 98% success rate and not one single patient had complained until the WCB contacted my patients and threatened them with discontinuance of future benefits unless they agreed to sue me now before expiration of the limitations period despite their clients having been helped by the surgery and returned to the workforce. The CMPA remained silent and did nothing to correct the false information about the existence of 1900 patients suing me for disc replacement because they were profiting by perpetuating the fraud as an excuse to raise insurance premiums across Canada so as to cover unfunded liability exposure for an alleged 1900 cases of "experimental surgery".

In 1984 the WCB filed the Coughlin v. Kuntz writ suing me for "experimental surgery" and in 1985 the WCB set out to ensure the success of the litigation by having Dr. Patterson’s 20 year shared office associate Dr. R.W. McGraw appointed as Chairman of a College Section 48 Investigation Committee appointed under the Medical Practitioners Act. Then on January 29, 1985, Dr. F.P. Patterson was referred two WCB cases George Bavle and Cecil Coughlin wherein he supported WCB-funded litigation against me for "experimental surgery".

Contemporaneously, the documentary trail demonstrates that the WCB was directing and influencing the Investigation Committee chaired by Dr. Patterson’s 20 year shared office associate and successor as Professor of Orthopaedics Dr. R.W. McGraw. The WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall was providing Dr. McGraw with specific WCB files that were never shared with myself so as to deny me all opportunity to respond and rebut with evidence from office and hospital files supported by both the patients and referring doctors.

The WCB agenda was to obstruct justice by adversely influencing the Investigation Committee to have the College suspend me without a hearing in 1986 for "insufficient skill and knowledge to practice medicine" in advance of the 1987 WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz trial so as to discredit me as a credible expert medical witness in my own defense where the WCB-friendly lawyers at Harper Grey Easton and Company failed to call a single witness in my defense. The WCB had positioned Dr. Patterson as their own principal expert medical witness against me and he was in turn supported by WCB consultant Dr. J. Noble who also falsely stated that there was no evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement in the authoritative medical literature and that the WCB librarians had done a search finding no references supporting this usage. Accordingly Dr. McGraw’s Investigation Committee recommended my suspension and the College relied upon the defamatory untested Report authored by Dr. McGraw to perpetuate Patterson’s scientific fraud that MMA disc replacement was "experimental" and suspend me without a hearing before the trail. The College undermined its statutory authority to administer the Medical Practitioners’ Act by abusing its Committees for other than their intended purpose under the legislation and assisting WCB-funded litigation against me.

In 1986 Dr. Finlayson, Director of Professional Relations for the BCMA invited me to accept an appointment to sit as a member of the three man WCB Boards of Review Panels that heard Workers’ appeals but I refused to participate, citing I would rather help than hinder the Disenfranchised Workers. At that time I advised the B.C. Minister of Labor Mr. Segarty that during the appeal process the WCB was in economic conflict of interest and adverse in interest to the WCB-Disenfranchised Workers and ought not to be in control of the care of Disenfranchised Workers during the appeal process.

I went further by proposing changes to the Workers Compensation Act that would allow neutral third parties to independently manage the Disenfranchised Workers’s care whenever the WCB failed to solve their medical problems which precipitated the appeal. The WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall was angered at my attempts to change the WCB appeal process for Workers and responded by chastising me for doing "unauthorized" surgery for Ben Sakawsky after the WCB failed to respond to requests for authorization in a timely manner.

In 1985 the College and the WCB could no longer use the biased Professor Patterson for the third time and so they appointed another biased investigator to take his place. They selected Professor McGraw to conduct another biased investigation knowing McGraw could never have been considered independent and impartial or at arm’s length from his mentor Professor Patterson after sharing office for 20 years. Dr. McGraw ought never to accepted the position as Chairman of the Investigation Committee commissioned under Section 48 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act and the College ought never to have appointed him knowing of his close relationship to Patterson. Dr. McGraw was little more than an echo of Dr. Patterson and the WCB.

In 1986 the WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall began secretly sending undisclosed WCB files to the WCB-directed College Investigation Committee. The Chairman Dr. R.W. McGraw never shared them with myself so as to deny opportunity for rebuttal and even knowingly perverted the successful outcomes of surgery on disenfranchised Workers such as Teodoro Ruiz and Ron Williamson when the files in Dr. McGraw’s possession on patients such as Mr. Ruiz clearly demonstrated otherwise: that the surgery was effective for its intended purpose, relieve pain and disability, and restored the Workers to their previous occupation. The subsequent affidavits of WCB Claimants Ron Williamson and Teodoro Ruiz confirm that their "unauthorized" surgery was successful in relieving symptoms and restoring them to the workforce after the WCB failed to solve their problems. This was contrary to the conclusions of the Investigating Committee in the fraudulent July 31, 1986 Investigation Report.

Dr. McGraw failed to gather my evidence, failed to disclose in advance what cases would be discussed at the forthcoming July 8, 1986 Oral Interview of myself by the Investigating Committee and denied me all opportunity to prepare. He failed to review the evidence from my office files on the patients including the notes from their referring doctors, nor did he contact, examine or review a single patient to determine the successful outcomes of the surgery which he condemned. Dr McGraw failed to identify by name any of the cases being discussed during the July 8, 1986 Oral Interview and accordingly their names do not appear in the transcript. The July 31, 1986 Section 48 Investigation Report authored by Dr. McGraw echoed and adopted the invalid 1981 Patterson Section 50 Investigation Report without correcting the erroneous Patterson position that MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental". The Committee recommended my suspension for "insufficient skill and knowledge to practice medicine in B.C. or the rest of Canada".

Dr. Patterson then resurfaced as the WCB’s expert medical witness in the champertous WCB-funded trials that followed wherein the WCB took a subrogated interest in the settlements. The WCB lawyer Mr. Powers contacted my satisfied Workers and advised them to sue. WCB consultant Dr. Noble advised my satisfied patients such as Addy Lunz to sue but Mr. Lunz refused. WCB was advising patients they had to sue me so as not to jeopardize their claims in the future if they did have problems after expiration of the limitation period.

The WCB was fear-mongering amongst my satisfied patients to incite litigation by giving them fraudulent advice that they were in imminent danger of problems due to their exposure to "experimental surgery". The WCB then advised them to sue, funded the lawyers, took a subrogated interest in the settlements, and exercised direct influence over the WCB-friendly lawyers retained by CMPA to defend me. My lawyers were the WCB’s old lawyers from Harper Grey Easton and Company and Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. hid their conflict of interest by failing to disclose that they had acted for WCB July 7, 1981 when WCB unsuccessfully appealed the Bouck judgment in Napoli v. WCB which opened the WCB closed file system in Canada.

When I was advised in 1985 of the pending College Section 48 investigation, I was insured by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (the CMPA) and sought their legal assistance. I did not then know that College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison who imposed the 1983 moratorium because of College "liability concerns" had joined the CMPA as a Council member.

This was the same Dr. H.A. Hutchison who during his tenure as Registrar disseminated Dr. Patterson’s 1981 Report containing false information declaring MMA disc replacement "experimental" to Dr. Harder in 1982, then appointed the tainted Harder Purves Tessler Committee February 9, 1983 to echo the Patterson position that MMA disc replacement was "experimental", all of which was designed to assist the WCB to instigate the WCB-funded litigation. Dr. Hutchison had initially advised my patients that the College imposed the moratorium because of "liability concerns" and then changed his story stating that it was because I was performing "experimental surgery".

Dr. Hutchison had now positioned himself to undermine my defense of the litigation he caused against me during his tenure as Registrar. He was a CMPA Council member and the official B.C. adviser to the CMPA which empowered him to select and direct the CMPA retained lawyers appointed to defend me. Dr. Hutchison’s influence over my lawyers ensured they acted in the best interests of the College and not myself since all their bills were paid by the CMPA. Those lawyers he directed then withheld all my key evidence that would be damaging to the College including all evidence that MMA usage was never "experimental" as recorded in the January 22, 1982 Minutes of the College Council and authoritative medical literature supporting that position.

Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark Skorah and Barbara Norell all took their instructions from the former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison and the CMPA while ignoring my own instructions to present evidence supportive of my position. It was my name and not the CMPA that appeared as the Defendant on the Writs and yet my lawyers always refused my instructions. In effect they never did act impartially, independently and at arms length from the College but rather took instructions from the former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison who assisted CMPA during his tenure as Registrar by imposing the moratorium. Dr. Hutchison disseminated false information of "experimental surgery" to incite litigation, assisted the WCB and Dr. Patterson to block my presentation "as soon as possible", and generally caused the 1981 investigation by soliciting complaints against me as far back as 1979 so as to help the WCB discredit me as an expert witness for Napoli in advance of the 1981 Napoli v. WCB trial. Dr. Hutchison ensured that my Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyer Mr. Mark Skorah undermined my defense during the College investigation and Dr. Hutchison directed the WCB-friendly lawyers retained by CMPA that "pretended to defend" me as they feigned a defense against WCB-funded litigation for the falsely alleged "experimental surgery".

CMPA Council member Dr. Hutchison was positioned to undermine my defense against the very litigation he had himself caused against me during his tenure as College Registrar by imposing the moratorium and then spreading the myth of "experimental surgery" amongst the patients and public. Dr. Hutchison ensured that the tainted WCB-friendly law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company was appointed to defend me against the forthcoming 1986 College investigation because he knew Mr. Grey had represented WCB at their unsuccessful appeal of Napoli v. WCB and could be relied upon to appease WCB by ensuring my suspension. Mr. Grey Q.C. and his law firm retained by the CMPA could be relied upon to protect the College by failing to gather and argue material on the College files supporting my position and that he could also be relied upon to withhold my evidence that MMA disc replacement was never "experimental" which if argued in Court would embarrass the College and in particular Dr. Hutchison who had written my patients disseminating false information that MMA disc replacement was "experimental".

Mr. Grey Q.C. and the Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers he influenced including Mark Skorah and Barbara Norell were in conflict of interest and ought never to have pretended to defend me in all subsequent actions because Mr. Grey Q.C. was a participant on the WCB team that had planned my suspension during the course of the Napoli v. WCB trail. Accordingly, the Harper Grey Easton and Company could never be considered impartial and independent in accepting my defense of the College Section 48 investigation which resulted in my suspension without a hearing. The law firm failed to adequately prepare, to gather my evidence, to disclose the identity of my accusers or what the allegations were against me. Mark Skorah failed to identify what files would be discussed and abandoned me the day before the July 8, 1986 Oral Interview by the Investigation Committee. Mr. Skorah advised me at the eleventh hour that I was not entitled to counsel and never advised me that I ought to seek alternate counsel because their law firm was in conflict of interest. Mr. Grey failed to advise me that the law firm acted for two of the members of the College Investigating Committee. Mr. Grey knew Dr. P. Kokan was in conflict sitting as a member of the College Section 48 Investigation Committee because he was the WCB consultant in Napoli v. WCB and furthermore, his own law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company represented Dr. Kokan in approximately ten medical malpractice cases including Semenoff v. Kokan where Kokan was accused of experimental usage of chymopapain enzymes, a cactus plant extract banned in the U.S.A. which left Semenoff in a semi-vegetative state and eventually settled in Court for $1.7 million awarded against Dr. Kokan.

Mr. Grey’s law firm represented Dr. D. Griesdale in other unrelated medical malpractice litigation and he knew Dr. Griesdale was in conflict in accepting a position on the Investigation Committee because of the George Bavle case where Dr. Griesdale recommended unnecessary surgery on my patient George Bavle at two asymptomatic levels C5-6 and C6-7 already successfully fused and asymptomatic after MMA disc replacement. Dr. Griesdale ignored Bavle’s new whiplash suffered at Houston B.C. which injured C4-5 and caused recurrence of headaches which had disappeared after his successful C5-6 and C6-7 fusion. Dr. Griesdale erroneously recommended unnecessary surgery on the already successfully fused levels and his shared office associate Dr. Murray then operated at those levels with disastrous results. Dr. Murray was doing wrong level surgery when he broke down the existing successful C-5-6 and C6-7 MMA fusion, injured the dural sac with a diamond drill bur, produced a dural leak, caused cord edema requiring steroid treatment, and ignored the newly symptomatic C4-5 level which was the real cause of his recurrence and not the previously fused levels. Bavle’s C4-5 headaches caused by the new whiplash injury at C4-5 failed to improve after their successful but unnecessary bone fusion which replaced an already successful MMA fusion, the failure to improve being because they were at the wrong level and failed to deal with the new problem at C4-5. Drs. Griesdale and Murray then advised Bavle to sue me for "experimental surgery" so as to distance themselves from their own errors and then referred Bavle to Dr. Patterson.

The law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company knew the Writ was served in 1985 in Bavle v. Kuntz before Dr. D. Griesdale accepted a position in July 1985 as a member of the College Section 48 Investigation Committee and hid his conflict to jeopardize my defense of the College investigation while advantaging himself and Dr. Murray in the forthcoming WCB-funded Bavle v. Kuntz litigation by facilitating my suspension beforehand. My CMPA law firm of Harper Grey Easton and Company refused my instructions to enjoin Drs. Griesdale and Murray into the litigation as co-defendants. The Bavle v. Kuntz case was eventually dismissed in my favor.

Harper, Grey, Easton and Company were advising Drs. Griesdale and Murray who injured the WCB Claimant George Bavle. Dr. Murray referred Bavle to Dr. Patterson knowing he would help them cover up their own injury to Bavle and blame the problem on the previous surgery which Patterson described as "experimental". George Bavle was then advised by the WCB and a group of doctors including Dr. Patterson, Dr. Griesdale and Dr. Murray to run newspaper advertisements in the Personal columns of northern newspapers soliciting other patients to join the WCB-funded Class Action against me for "experimental surgery". Bavle did contact my patients at home or through newspaper ads and falsely advised them that they had been subjected to "experimental surgery" and were entitled to insurance money even if they felt well. Bavle then referred them to personal injury lawyer Mr. Tommy Griffiths who worked in association with the WCB and filed a Class Action Writ against me.

Accordingly the Harper Grey Easton and Company law firm knew the College Investigation Committee was stacked with biased members in conflict of interest and that Dr. Griesdale ought never to have participated in any investigation of myself because of his involvement in causing the injury to George Bavle for which I was being scapegoated in the WCB-funded Bavle v. Kuntz litigation which Harper Grey Easton and Company was defending. The CMPA had already assigned Harper Grey Easton and Company to protect Drs. Griesdale and Murray and I was being scapegoated for their errors. Accordingly the law firm refused my instructions to enjoin Drs. Griesdale and Murray as co-defendants in the Bavle v. Kuntz litigation against me which resulted from the errors of Griesdale and Murray. That litigation was eventually dismissed in my favor and during the course of that litigation, my lawyers assisted defamation against me by refusing to take action to stop Bavle’s newspaper solicitations encouraging others to join the WCB-funded Class Action against me for "experimental surgery" which was never "experimental" and his dissemination of false information that I performed "experimental" surgery.

When Mr. Skorah abandoned me at the eleventh hour on the day before the July 8, 1986 Oral Interview by the Investigation Committee, he failed to advise me to seek alternative counsel. Accordingly I appeared without legal representation during the 1986 College Investigation commissioned to carry out the WCB suspension plans. In effect my CMPA-retained counsel from Harper Grey Easton and Company behaved as de facto agents of the College and the WCB and undermined my defense so as to distance the College in the forthcoming Class Action instigated by Dr. Hutchison and the quasi-judicial College by disseminating misinformation that MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental surgery" when it was not "experimental" since 1955.

My CMPA-retained lawyer Mark Skorah failed to identify my accusers much less the allegations that led to the College investigation. I was suspended August 24, 1986 without a hearing after inadequate preparation by that WCB-friendly Harper Grey Easton and Company law firm which then continued to represent me in the 1987 WCB-funded litigations that followed for "unauthorized surgery" which WCB alleged to be "unnecessary" and "experimental". My own lawyers were being directed by CMPA Council member Dr. J.A. Hutchison who during his tenure as College Registrar caused the litigation against me by disseminating Dr. F.P. Patterson’s November 19, 1981 invalid Section 50 report in violation of the Evidence Act Section 57 (5) and (6) spawning the myth fabricated by the WCB that all my cases were "unnecessary" and "experimental." The WCB’s old lawyer Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. was now positioned to feign a defense for me against his old WCB friends suing me for "experimental surgery". This was an unacceptable conflict of interest because Mr. Grey Q.C. had been a participant on the WCB’s Napoli v. WCB team working with the WCB staff that had plotted my suspension in advance of that trial. Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. is deemed to have perused Napoli’s WCB file wherein WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. J.S. Gibbings had written the memo to Dr. Adam Little stating: "It will be hard to suspend him as he is the only orthopaedic surgeon in N.W.B.C." (North West British Columbia).

Accordingly, Mr. Grey and none of the members of his law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company could ever be considered impartial, independent or at arms’ length from the College or WCB. They ought never to have feigned to defend me against the premeditated WCB suspension plan which began in 1977, led to the 1979 BCMA Patterns of Practice Investigation, to the 1981 College Section 50 investigation which culminated in the 1986 Section 48 Investigation, my 1986 suspension without a hearing and 1988 erasure from the medical register. Mr. Grey participated on the WCB team that plotted my suspension between 1977 and 1981 and his law firm then assisted the WCB to undermine my defense during the 1985-1986 College investigation directed by WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall. Mr. Grey’s law firm only feigned a defense against the WCB-funded litigation that followed.

Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. and his law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company intentionally undermined my defense so as to distance the College from the forthcoming Class Action. They took instructions from the former College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison and acted as a de facto agent of the College to ensure my WCB-directed suspension went ahead without legal resistance and in violation of all the rules of natural justice.

Contemporaneously with my suspension, the WCB Executive Medical Director Dr. A.D. McDougall was secretly directing undisclosed WCB files to Chairman Dr. R.W. McGraw and the Investigation Committee which included WCB consultant Dr. P. Kokan. Dr. A.D. McDougall was also directing the WCB-funded Coughlin v. Kuntz litigation against me for "experimental surgery"wherein the WCB retained Dr. McGraw’s friend and associate Dr. Patterson as the WCB expert medical witness so as to harness the influence of the former Professor of Orthopaedics on the other witnesses provided by the WCB who testified in unison to deceive the judge into believing that MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental" in 1987 and even outrageously testifying that there was no prior usage of MMA for disc replacement in the authoritative medical literature.

In contrast, my Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers ignored my evidence, failed to report the authoritative medical literature demonstrating that MMA usage for disc replacement had been declared safe in humans for at least 32 years by the time of the Coughlin v. Kuntz trial, and did not call one single witness in my defense.

In 1986, and in anticipation of the Coughlin v. Kuntz litigation which could involve the College as a defendant, the Council moved proactively to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986 so as to distance the College from the forthcoming WCB-funded litigation.

Although it was a violation of Section 48 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act to circulate the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report beyond the College Executive Committee, the Registrar circulated the untested Report to every member of Council before any hearing took place on its merits. Contemporaneously the College refused my requests to exercise my Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 guarantees of cross-examination of my accusers, the members of the Investigation Committee Drs. McGraw, Kokan and Tile who authored the fraudulent Report.

This illegal circulation of an Investigation Report was intentional and calculated to create insurmountable bias and prejudice against me before any hearing took place. It is important to realize that those reading the fraudulent Report were not spine surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons or neurosurgeons. The members of the College Council who received it were uninformed general practitioners, breast surgeons, haematologists, cardiologists, internists and others, none of whom had any significant experience in spine surgery. They were reading a tainted Report dealing with matters beyond their own fields of expertise and were unable to recognize the scientific fraud contained within the Report concerning matters which they were not qualified to judge. There was not one member of Council who could be considered my "peer" in orthopaedics, neurosurgery or spine surgery as not one of them practiced in this area. The purpose of the illegal dissemination while I was being suspended without a hearing and before any hearing took place was to create bias and prejudice amongst the Council members who would eventually be sitting in judgment. This was no different than allowing individuals to freely discuss evidence amongst their friends so as to arrive at a position before sitting on a jury to judge the same material. It was also a serious violation of Section 57 (5) and (6) of the Evidence Act and this illegal circulation by a quasi-judicial body operating under the presumption of regularity denied me all opportunity for a fair hearing. That was what triggered my efforts to have the Report sealed by the Court so as to stop this aberrant quasi-judicial body from causing more damage to my professional reputation by continuing to circulate the defamatory untested Report before any hearing ever took place.

The College continued to widely circulate the fraudulent Section 48 July 31, 1986 Investigation Report authored by Chairman R.W. McGraw which echoed, endorsed and perpetuated Dr. Patterson’s fraudulent Section 50 November 19, 1981 Investigation Report which described MMA disc replacement as being "of an experimental nature". The Executive Committee of the College relied upon that tainted Report to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986 and illegally circulated it to all members of Council before any hearing took place. The denial of any opportunity to respond to the falsehoods in McGraw’s report served to create bias and prejudice and obstruct justice in advance of the Coughlin v. Kuntz trial where that same untested and tainted Investigation Report being illegally circulated by a quasi-judicial body was placed before Justice Cohen at the beginning of the Coughlin v. Kuntz trial. The College was protected by a presumption of regularity; the Report was protected by a presumption of validity; the authors were protected by College refusal to allow cross-examination; and the Courts echoed the College position denying me cross-examination. Essentially what happened was that the College had guaranteed Dr. McGraw immunity from cross-examination and that was the condition upon which Professor McGraw agreed to participate in the defamatory scathing Report designed to defame me and distance the College from the anticipated Class Action.

The College erased me from the medical register on October 25, 1988 and that forced me into bankruptcy in 1989. I retained an independent law firm Russell & DuMoulin and applied for Discharge from Bankruptcy using that outside firm so as to distance myself from the adverse influence of the CMPA and Harper Grey Easton & Company who had refused to gather and present my evidence, to enjoin other doctors as co-defendants, to expose the perjury of Dr. Patterson at the Coughlin v. Kuntz trial, and to present the authoritative medical literature to vindicate me as Mr. Grey had ensured me he would do before he argued my appeal of the Cohen judgment in Coughlin v. Kuntz.

However the CMPA sent Harper Grey Easton & Company to appear adverse in interest as interveners at my application for Discharge from Bankruptcy before Chief Justice Esson. The CMPA wanted to ensure that litigation would continue against me as a condition of my Discharge and I did not then understand why it was so important for the CMPA to continue litigation against their client. The hidden CMPA agenda was to distance the College from the litigation, scapegoat me for work performed by other doctors insured by the CMPA, and perpetuate the myth of "experimental surgery" which CMPA exploited by feigning a non-existent $300 million liability exposure for 1900 patients subjected to "experimental" MMA disc replacement as reported in the newspapers. This was all a scientific fraud because I had only done 300 cases of MMA disc replacement, none of which were "experimental" and CMPA knew the 98% success rate which my patients enjoyed with the new procedure was much higher than the bone graft spinal fusion methods it replaced.

The CMPA sent Harper Grey Easton & Company lawyer Mark Skorah to appear on their behalf as an intervener at my 1989 Discharge from Bankruptcy application to ensure continuation of litigation against me and to gain the "irrevocable control" of my defense. Other interveners included Mr. Powers representing the WCB and Mr. Griffiths, counsel for the WCB whose affidavit admitted he was instructed by the WCB to contact my patients to determine whether they would sue me. The WCB was using the Claimant George Bavle of Houston to run newspaper ads soliciting other patients to sue me for "experimental surgery" which litigation the CMPA now insisted would continue against me as a condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy.

The CMPA additionally required "irrevocable control" of my defense against the ongoing litigation for "experimental surgery" as a condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy and then reassigned the defense to Harper Grey Easton and Company would could then control the coverup of their own previous errors in perpetuity. The CMPA had no intention of ever presenting my evidence that MMA disc replacement was never "experimental" nor did they ever want to vindicate me from the false allegations that I was "experimenting" on humans.

The CMPA presence at my Discharge from Bankruptcy hearing was to ensure that I never escaped from Harper Grey Easton and Company into the hands of independent counsel who would simply gather and present my evidence from the authoritative medical literature demonstrating MMA usage for disc replacement in humans was never "experimental" after it was published as safe in 1955 which was even prior to its usage for hip and knee replacements. The CMPA feared that independent counsel would present my evidence and exposed the scientific fraud thereby terminating the College and WCB myth of "experimental surgery" which CMPA desired to keep alive as an excuse to raise premiums and bolster "unfunded liability reserves".

The CMPA did not want their phoney claims of future unfunded liability exposure for "experimental surgery" to disappear if independent counsel beyond their control presented my evidence. The CMPA knew otherwise at all material times that MMA usage for disc replacement was never "experimental" because their new Council member and B.C. adviser was the former College Register Dr. J.A. Hutchison who attended the January 22, 1982 meeting where I appropriately advised the College Council of this correct position that MMA disc replacement was not "experimental" for at least 10 years. The Council recorded this correct position in their minutes. Accordingly Dr. Hutchison knew the correct position when he enforced the College moratorium in 1983 and when he resurfaced in 1984 as a CMPA Council member and CMPA adviser for B.C. the CMPA is deemed to know that MMA disc replacement was never "experimental" at all material times.

Accordingly, in 1989 Chief Justice Esson presided over the Discharge from Bankruptcy and assisted the CMPA and WCB to continue frivolous litigation against me. Justice Esson ordered not only that litigation would continue against me as a condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy but that the "irrevocable control" of my future defense in these medical malpractice cases for performing what the WCB falsely alleged to be "unnecessary" and "experimental surgery" would be assigned to CMPA and the law firm Harper Grey Easton and Company. That law firm was already in irreconcilable conflict of interest because they were protecting the College economic interests by hiding information from myself that the College was in an irreconcilable economic conflict of interest when the Council sat in judgment of myself October 19, 1988 after the College had been named as a co-defendant with myself in a $300 million Class Action and when Council erased me from the medical register thereby causing my subsequent bankruptcy.

Harper Grey Easton and Company never told me that my WCB accusers had secretly enjoined the College May 6, 1988 as a defendant in the $300 million 1988 Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et al Class Action which was prior in time to the College sitting in judgment of myself October 19, 1988. My CMPA lawyers knew that it was a violation of all the rules of natural justice for the College to sit in judgment of their co-accused. My lawyers Harvey Grey Q.C., Mark Skorah and Barbara Norell all knew the College had a $300 million interest in the outcome of its own judgment when it erased me from the medical register October 25, 1988 in advance of the 1990 trial regarding Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et al.

My lawyers knew that no accused can sit in judgment of another co-accused and even worse, they knew the July 31, 1986 Investigation Report reviewed Case 8: Rita Wilson in Dr. Tile’s Appendix 1 to the Report. That meant the College was sitting in judgment of its own cause when they suspended me without a hearing and then erased me from the medical register. The Harper Grey East and Company lawyers knew the College was in economic conflict when it terminated my employment and forced me into bankruptcy, none of which would have happened had my CMPA-retained Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers been honest and forthright and advised me of the irreconcilable College conflict. Any other counsel acting impartially and independently without a secret agenda and not under the influence of the former College Registrar Dr. Hutchison would have brought the College conflict to the attention of the Courts as grounds to have me immediately reinstated to the medical register thereby averting bankruptcy.

On March 23, 1983 the BCMA (BCMA) assisted the College to perpetuate the "experimental surgery" in the report authored by the Chairman of the BCMA Section of Orthopaedics Dr. D. Harder, the Chairman of the BCMA Section of Neurology Dr. B. Tessler and the Chairman of the BCMA Section of Neurosurgery Dr. B. Purves. The BCMA knew that the College used that Report to justify the 1983 moratorium on disc replacement and that the CMPA then used that myth to justify the escalating medical malpractice premiums for "unfunded liability exposure".

In 1986 the BCMA exploited the "experimental surgery" myth they helped to create. The resultant increase in CMPA premiums that occurred in 1985 in anticipation of the Class Action was then used by BCMA to negotiate an annual BC government subsidy in lieu of a further fee increase to compensate for the escalating CMPA premiums contributing to rising doctors’ office overheads. In 1986 the government contributed $1.9 million to the BCMA members’ medical malpractice premiums. By the 1996-97 fiscal year this annual contribution had increased to $15 million; by 1997-98 to $15.75 million; by 1998-99 to $17.561 million; by 2000-01 to $25.61 million. The total contributions of taxpayer money contributed by the B.C. Ministry of Health to cover doctor’s escalating CMPA medical malpractice premiums between 1986 and 2001 was $203.6 million. The total amount of taxpayer funded money entering the CMPA coffers by 2001 was $1.37 billion. This phenomenal increase in the size of the CMPA unfunded liability coffers depended upon the WCB, College and BCMA perpetuating the "experimental surgery" myth over the subsequent years so as to ensure that this cash flow continued whereby taxpayers were now funding the medical malpractice premiums of B.C. and other Canadian doctors. It was easy for the CMPA to perpetuate that scientific fraud by continuing to withhold my evidence, especially after the CMPA and Harper Grey Easton and Company gained the "irrevocable control" of my defense as a consequence of Chief Justice William Esson’s Discharge from Bankruptcy Order. Thereafter the CMPA and its lawyers repeatedly refused my requests to present my evidence and then refused my requests for a change of counsel to other lawyers of my own choice who would present my evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement.

The CMPA agenda was to obstruct justice by withholding the evidence I wanted them to present, their reasoning being that they had every faith in my Harper Grey Easton and Company lawyers, that they had "irrevocable control" of my defense and that the CMPA was under no obligation to present the evidence I wanted them to present. The CMPA Secretary-Treasurer Dr. Lee responded to my pleas to "protect me from the CMPA" by stating that just because they didn’t present the evidence I wanted them to present did not mean they did not defend me properly.

The CMPA deliberately withheld evidence in successive trials to ensure higher judgments against me which their actuaries exploited to recalculate CMPA "unfunded liability" projections. The premiums continued to rise to bolster unfunded liability reserves. This theft of taxpayer funds continued annually since my 1986 suspension despite my continued protest and demands that the CMPA present my evidence which they refused to do while citing Justice Esson’s Order giving them "irrevocable control" over my defense. The CMPA-retained Harper, Grey, Easton and Company lawyers never acted at arms’ length from the College or the WCB that was funding litigation against me and the law firm profited considering by withholding my evidence of prior MMA usage for spinal fusion and disc replacement so as to perpetuate litigation against me for the scientific fraud of "experimental surgery".

Mr. Harvey Grey Q.C. represented WCB at Napoli v. WCB when WCB doctors plotted, planned and directed my suspension. Mr. Grey knew Dr. Peter Kokan was the WCB consultant on the Napoli v. WCB case who missed the diagnosis of stenosis. He knew that the WCB consultant Dr. Kokan was in conflict when he accepted a position on the College Investigation Committee to sit in judgment of myself in the WCB-directed investigation.

Furthermore, Harper Grey Easton and Company defended Dr. Peter Kokan in approximately ten medical malpractice actions, some for "experimental" usage of chymopapain, an enzyme derived from cactus plants and used to dissolve discs in a procedure already banned as "experimental" in the USA. Mr. Grey knew that Dr. Kokan was in conflict in sitting in judgment of myself to deter and detract from his own "experimental" procedures, especially when the College Section 48 Investigation Committee echoed and endorsed Dr. Patterson’s fraudulent November 19, 1981 report alleging MMA disc replacement was "experimental".

Mr. Grey Q.C. knew Kokan was not competent to sit in judgment of myself because he was Kokan’s lawyer in the Semenoff v. Kokan litigation wherein Kokan injected Semenoff with chymopapain leaving him semi-comatose and in a vegetative state from which he never recovered. The judge ruled that Dr. Kokan failed to diagnose stenosis in Semenoff and caused the injury by injecting chymopapain into the cerebrospinal fluid in 1986 just two months before Kokan sat on the Investigation Committee in judgment of myself. Dr. Kokan therein condemned me for my use of state of the art wide decompressive laminectomy in the treatment of multiple level stenosis and was a signatory of the Report recommending my suspension. Mr. Grey Q.C. knew that his client Dr. Kokan was not competent to judge me in the area of spinal surgery which Dr. Kokan did not perform and the law firm failed to disclose its own conflict in that it acted for Dr. Kokan in the Semenoff case. After WCB consultant Dr. P. Kokan recommended my suspension, Mr. Grey’s law firm lost Semenoff v. Kokan which was judged against Kokan for $1.7 million. The judgment disclosed that Mr. Semenoff remained in a semi-vegetative state and never left St. Paul’s Hospital. The 1988 College President Dr. J.W. Ibbott practiced at St. Paul’s Hospital and knew that Dr. Peter Kokan was not competent in spine surgery when Dr. Ibbott chaired the October 19, 1988 College hearing resulting in my erasure because by then it was widely known that Dr. Kokan and St. Paul’s Hospital were named as co-defendants in the Semenoff v. Kokan et al litigation.

It is important to understand that after College Registrar Dr. J.A. Hutchison assisted the CMPA by imposing the 1983 College moratorium to limit the Class size suing for "experimental surgery" and after he disseminated false information to the public that MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental" the CMPA rewarded him by appointing him in 1984 as their new CMPA Council member. Accordingly, Dr. J.A. Hutchison was positioned in 1984 to control my defense in the WCB-funded litigation he caused against me during his tenure as College Registrar because Dr. Hutchison was now directing my CMPA-retained lawyers at Harper, Grey, Easton and Company and acting in his own best interest and that of the College to cover up and distance themselves from the proposed litigation against me for "experimental surgery".

As Registrar, Dr. Hutchison had acted in violation of the Evidence Act Section 57 (5) (6) by illegally disseminating Dr. Patterson’s invalid Section 50 report which wrongly stated that MMA usage for disc replacement was "experimental." This illegal dissemination by a quasi-judicial body invited litigation against me while affording Dr. Patterson’s report the presumption of validity and regularity usually associated with a quasi-judicial body such as the College. I was being accused by an official body of "experimenting" on humans when in reality all informed advanced spinal surgeons knew otherwise that it was not "experimental" and an ever increasing number of informed spinal surgeons were using MMA disc replacement in their own practices.

The CMPA was profiting economically by perpetuating that "experimental surgery" myth and Dr. Hutchison’s influence as a CMPA Council member over the lawyers defending me ensured that my evidence would never be presented demonstrating that MMA usage for disc replacement was never "experimental". He made sure that I would never be vindicated because that would be an embarrassment to both himself and the College which he directed to declare a moratorium in 1983. It was the ignorance of Dr. Patterson, Dr. Hutchison, the BCMA and College and their failure to remain current with advances in spinal surgery that resulting in harm to the public being denied access to state of the art spinal surgery.

The CMPA intentionally abused its powers by seeking "irrevocable control" of my defense so as to obstruct justice by withholding my evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement so as to perpetuate the scientific fraud being used to justify raising premiums to bolster the CMPA unfunded liability reserves. The CMPA was wrongly accumulating funds and fraudulently expanding reserves to cover a false liability exposure which never did exist and which would disappear immediately if my evidence was ever brought forward. This was why the CMPA required "irrevocable control" of my defense and had to ensure that litigation continued against me as a condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy. The CMPA was perpetuating a scientific fraud on 55,000 doctors it insured across Canada and against all Canadian taxpayers who funded doctors medical malpractice premiums. The CMPA had to ensure that my evidence demonstrating MMA disc replacement was never "experimental" would never be presented and that I would never be vindicated in Canada.

I was forced into bankruptcy after my October 25, 1988 erasure from the medical register. Chief Justice Esson accepted all the conditions which the interveners required as a condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy. The interveners included counsel Mark Skorah representing the CMPA and counsel Mr. Powers representing the WCB. They all required that medical malpractice litigation would continue against me as a condition of my Discharge from Bankruptcy and that the Chief Justice would assign CMPA "irrevocable control" of my defense to the CMPA. Accordingly in 1989 I lost the "irrevocable control" of my defense which was assigned forever to the CMPA which was already in conflict and the CMPA then delegated it to Harper Grey Easton and Company which was also in conflict: both were hiding the College conflict in being named as a co-defendant in the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al Class Action before sitting in judgment of their co-accused which is a violation of all the rules of natural justice.

Thereafter CMPA and all counsel they retained continued to rely upon Justice Esson’s Discharge from Bankruptcy Order granting them "irrevocable control" of my defense as their excuse for refusing my repeated pleas to simply present my evidence. There was voluminous authoritative medical literature demonstrating that MMA usage for disc replacement was never "experimental" since 1955 and they worked in unison to withhold that evidence. The CMPA refused my requests for a change of counsel stating they had "irrevocable control" of my defense and the lawyers they appointed used the same argument. The CMPA pursued its own hidden economic agenda of perpetuating the "experimental surgery" fraud and exploited that myth as justification for raising premiums under the pretense that the CMPA was at risk for legal exposure as a result of the Order of Chief Justice Esson that cases continue against me for experimental surgery as a condition of my Discharge. However it is important to remember that it was the CMPA which resisted my attempts to have the litigation die with my bankruptcy; it was they that insisted that litigation continue against their client as a condition of my being granted the Discharge. The CMPA successfully exploited the assignment of the false "liability exposure" to themselves which they won as interveners at my bankruptcy and used it to obstruct justice and to perpetuate annual CMPA medical malpractice premium increases levied to 55,000 doctors they insured across Canada. This constituted nothing less than major organized crime against Canadian taxpayers who funded the medical malpractice premiums of doctors across Canada.

The CMPA repeatedly obstructed justice and denied me vindication by withholding evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement. Their lawyers abused the CMPA’s "irrevocable control" of my defense to withhold evidence so as to perpetuate the false myth that all my satisfied patients who enjoyed successful MMA disc replacement now posed a threat of liability exposure to the CMPA as an excuse to increase premiums and bolster CMPA unfunded liability reserves.

In 1990 the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons (AANAOS) discovered my 1985 clinical research published in Canada on MMA disc replacement called The Organ of Stress. There was a paper being presented at their annual scientific meeting by Dr. S. Genest on 10 year follow-ups of MMA disc replacement and I was asked to comment from the floor about that paper. I introduced my remarks by advising the entire academy that I was accused of doing "experimental surgery" in Canada for using MMA for disc replacement and had been erased from the medical register for "insufficient skill and knowledge to practice medicine in B.C. or the rest of Canada." The AANAOS recognized MMA disc replacement as advanced state of the art spinal surgery taught and endorsed by their own members and responded by appointing me Chief of the Academy’s new Division of Neuropaedic Surgery which dealt with the newly recognized field of intervertebral disc replacement.

In 1991 the Academy invited me to deliver the Organ of Stress lecture series which was recorded and disseminated to neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeons in audio and video format and attendees of the lectures received continuing medical education credits. This was the same lecture series that the B.C. College Council instructed College Registrar Dr. Hutchison on January 22, 1982 to arrange for my presentation "as soon as possible" and which were then delegated to the biased UBC Professor of Orthopaedics Dr. Frank Porter Patterson who blocked the presentation. Accordingly this information was suppressed in Canada by both Professor Patterson and his successor Dr. Robert W. McGraw both of whom abused their authority to assist the WCB to perpetuate a scientific fraud.

In Canada, the CMPA lost every case against me that their lawyers "pretended to defend" for the falsely alleged "experimental surgery." This outcome was diametrically opposed to what happened in the USA to doctors sued for using MMA for disc replacement. The Chairman of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons Dr. Kazem Fathie advised me on February 10, 1997 that there has never been a successful case of litigation in the United States against a doctor using MMA disc replacement. His letter stated that 200 neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeons polled at their annual scientific meeting all agreed that usage of MMA disc replacement was not "experimental surgery". Dr. Fathie emphasized that everybody eventually understood that it was not "experimental" and accordingly there had never been a single case of successful litigation for "experimental surgery" against a doctor in the USA for using MMA disc replacement which was not overturned on appeal.

In Canada there has never been a case successfully defended against me by the CMPA because it was perpetuating a scientific fraud on the Canadian public so as to bolster its unfunded liability reserves on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. My CMPA-retained lawyers were in conflict and refused my instructions to present my evidence of prior MMA usage for disc replacement. They all abused Justice Esson’s Order assigning "irrevocable control" of my defense to the CMPA as their excuse for withholding my evidence so as to perpetuate the taxpayer funded insurance fraud. The CMPA refused my requests to assign other counsel who would present my evidence.

Accordingly, in 1993 I sued CMPA and its lawyers at Harper Grey Easton and Company which litigation forced CMPA to appoint other lawyers such as David Roberts Q.C. and Irwin Nathenson Q.C.. However nothing changed because they also took instructions from CMPA and not myself and accordingly refused to present my evidence. When I protested, they stated they took instructions from CMPA and not myself and continued to deceive the court..

I then fired Mr. David Roberts Q.C. and advised him to cease and desist but he refused to quit and CMPA refused to remove him. I then complained to the Law Society of B.C. about Mr. Roberts continuing to present himself as my lawyer after I fired him and Mr. Roberts responded to my complaints by circulating a judicially sealed July 31, 1986 Investigation Report before the Law Society to defame me. Mr. Roberts received the sealed July 31, 1986 Investigation Report from the CMPA and not myself and acted in contempt of court by circulating it to the Law Society lawyer Tim Holmes. The Law Society then acted in contempt of court by circulating the judicially sealed Report back to Mr. Roberts Q.C. who had requested its return after it had served its intended purpose of defaming his client so as to discredit me with Law Society and thereby perpetuate the myth of experimental surgery.

Mr. Holmes and the Law Society of B.C. were now in contempt of court themselves and after reading the defamatory untested and judicially sealed Report they refused my request that the Law Society suspend Mr. David Roberts Q.C. and order him to cease and desist "pretending to defend" me after I fired him. The Law Society relied upon the Order of Esson to permit Mr. D. Roberts Q.C. to continue feigning a defense on my behalf after I fired him. It must be stressed that only my name appeared on the Writs suing me for "experimental surgery" and not the CMPA which refused to vindicate me by presenting my evidence. In effect, the CMPA was placing its own hidden economic agenda first and was perpetuating the scientific fraud of "experimental surgery" as the excuse to bolster its unfunded liability reserves and build its financial empire.

After I fired Mr. D. Roberts Q.C. and after he defamed me with the Law Society of B.C. which refused my demand that they instruct him to cease and desist, Mr. D. Roberts continued to appear in Court claiming to represent me. Mr. Roberts feigned my defense while withholding evidence I had previously forwarded to the CMPA of prior MMA usage for disc replacement. Accordingly another WCB-funded case Archibald v. Kuntz was judged against me for approximately double the amount awarded at the Coughlin v. Kuntz case which gave CMPA actuaries a new excuse to recalculate their unfunded liability reserves upwards for the remainder of the 1900 cases that never did exist, all of whom were alleged to have undergone "experimental surgery" that was not experimental.

Accordingly, the Courts, CMPA and Law Society of B.C. have denied me the right to fire my CMPA-retained lawyers who "pretend to defend" me in cases of alleged "experimental surgery" while withholding my evidence that it was never "experimental" since 1955. This was organized crime being carried out in the courts where lawyers are robbing the taxpayer funded CMPA reserves by perpetuating a scientific fraud.

I sought assistance from the Attorney General Department but they were themselves actively involved in perpetuating this fraud by facilitating the continuing obstruction of justice. I was referred to the AG department in 1988 after being erased from the medical register and complained to them about criminal activity by the College which had denied me the Section 7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees which included the rights to cross-examine my accusers, the authors of the Investigation Report. At that time the College was actively circulating the untested judicially sealed July 31, 1986 College Investigation Report which they commissioned in bad faith to appease the WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB opening WCB files in Canada. The College knew the Report was not even supported by its principal author Dr. R.W. McGraw who stated in his September 14, 1987 Affidavit: "Had I known I would be subpoenaed to testify I would have refused to participate in the investigation in the manner in which it was conducted." However the College continued to circulate the sealed Report in contempt of court to undermine trials and the AG department did nothing to enforce the seal so as to ensure me a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Furthermore, the AG department knew the circulation of the Report was in violation of the Medical Practitioners’ Act, the Evidence Act (Section 57 (5) and (6), the January 21, 1987 Order of Justice Huddart of the B.C. Supreme Court sealing the Report and banning its distribution, and the June 16, 1987 B.C. Court of Appeal Order of Justice Lambert upholding the seal and distribution ban until further Order. There has never been any such "further Order" and the seal and distribution ban remains in effect to this very day. However despite the Order, the quasi-judicial College continued to illegally circulate the Report in contempt of court. It acted "above the law" and continued its campaign to defame me by defying Court Orders. The College was circulating the judicially sealed Report to destroy my professional reputation and credibility as a witness against themselves before the Class Action which was still outstanding until 1990. The AG department remained silent and did nothing to enforce the law.

The Minutes of the College Council in 1983 and 1984 demonstrate that it imposed the illegal moratorium on disc replacement because of its own "liability concerns" in anticipation of the College being enjoined as a defendant in the long anticipated WCB-funded Class Action that the College Registrar Dr. J.A Hutchison caused against me by disseminating Dr. Patterson’s Section 50 Report alleging "experimental surgery". That Class Action eventually surfaced in 1987 as the WCB-funded $300 million Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. J. David Kuntz et al Class Action and was further expanded in 1988 to include the College as a named defendant in the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et al Class Action. The AG Department knew the College was enjoined as a co-defendant in the Class Action and withheld that information from me.

The AG Department knew the College acted in bad faith to appease the WCB for the adverse outcome of Napoli v. WCB in 1981 when it appointed the biased Professor Patterson who falsely stated MMA disc replacement was "experimental" to trigger premeditated WCB-funded litigation in retaliation against Napoli’s expert medical witness. They knew the College acted in bad faith to deny the public the benefits of state of the art advances in spinal surgery when it moved proactively February 9, 1983 to impose a moratorium. They knew it acted in bad faith in July 1985 when it commissioned an Investigation Committee chaired by Dr. Patterson’s shared office associate Dr. McGraw and which included WCB consultant Dr. P. Kokan and that the College guaranteed immunity from cross-examination for authoring the defamatory July 31, 1986 Investigation Report echoing and adopting the invalid 1981 Patterson report. They knew the College acted in bad faith by then circulating the sealed Report while denying me cross-examination of the authors who were guaranteed immunity from cross-examination. The AG Department knew the College relied upon that fraudulent Report to suspend me without a hearing August 24, 1986. The College continued to act in contempt of court by circulating the defamatory Report to undermine all subsequent trials and the Attorney General Department covered up this abuse of authority to obstruct justice.

The WCB failed to have me suspended before the 1981 Napoli v. WCB trial and learned from that experience not to repeat the same error twice; accordingly after having me suspended without a hearing in 1986 the WCB in 1988 enjoined the College as a named defendant in the $300 million Class Action so as to blackmail the College into compliance with WCB plans to have me erased. On May 6, 1988 the WCB filed a second Writ enjoining the College as a co-defendant with myself in the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Kitimat General Hospital, Wrinch Memorial Hospital et al Class Action.

The AG Department knew that 1988 Writ placed the College in economic conflict of interest and that it contravened all the rules of natural justice for one accused to sit in judgement of another co-accused. They knew the College had to ensure that neither the public, the press, nor myself was ever informed that the College had been enjoined in the outstanding Class Action because then it would be obvious to all concerned that the College was abusing its Committees for other than their intended purpose under the legislation. The AG Department knew that there would be an even greater outcry from the public if it ever discovered that the College Council was in economic conflict when it sat in judgment of its co-accused and abused its authority to obstruct justice by destroying the credibility of expert medical witnesses detrimental to the position of the College in advance of Class Action litigation where the College was a named co-defendant.

May 6, 1988 was the date on which the College was enjoined as a defendant in the Class Action prior to the October 19, 1988 College hearing when Council hid their economic interest in the outcome of their own judgment and erased me from the medical register. This hidden Writ and secret agenda undermined the statutory authority of the College to fairly administer the Medical Practitioners’ Act.

The AG Department knew the College abused authority to obstruct justice by discrediting my professional reputation in advance of the forthcoming Class Action where the College was adverse in interest and that the Class Action remained outstanding until 1990. The AG Department knew the College had to violate all the rules of natural justice when it sat in judgment of its co-accused October 19, 1988 when the Council had a $300 million economic interest in the outcome of their own judgment. The AG Department knew this was a criminal abuse of authority and that I had been denied the Charter right of cross-examination of my accusers, the authors of the Investigation Report used to suspend me without a hearing all of which was a violation of Section 7 of the Charter. The AG Department also knew the College contravened Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states: " everyone has the right to a fair hearing before an impartial and independent panel" and that my co-defendants in a $300 million Class Action could never be considered impartial or independent.

Accordingly, the AG Department covered up the College conflict when it voted unanimously to erase me from the medical register so as to distance themselves from the forthcoming Class Action which was still outstanding until 1990 before being dismissed in my favor. The College retained Mr. David Martin from Douglas Symes & Brissenden to defend them in the Class Action and the College retained the same Mr. David Martin to resist my appeal for reinstatement which placed Mr. Martin in conflict: he could never be considered impartial. I was being scapegoated as the sole Defendant ever identified publicly in this litigation and Mr. David Martin made sure it remained that way by ensuring that the public and press never knew the College was a co-defendant or that the College caused the litigation by disseminating false information that MMA usage was "experimental". Mr. Martin knew it was the Council’s failure to follow its own mandate to set a time and place for me to educate outdated doctors "as soon as possible" that allowed the WCB-funded litigation to proceed against me that eventually expanded in 1988 to name the College as a co-defendant.

When I appealed the College’s October 25, 1988 decision to erase me from the medical register, the College used the same lawyer Mr. David Martin to resist my appeal knowing he was at all material times in conflict of interest when he was already defending the College in the Rita Linnea Harriet Wilson et al Class Action where we were adverse in interest. Accordingly he ought to have declined acting for the quasi-judicial College body when I appealed their erasure decision. It was obviously beneficial to Mr. Martin in his defense of the College in the Class Action to ensure that Council did not reinstate my license and thereby restore my credibility as an expert witness against the College which would make his defense of the College in the forthcoming Class Action more difficult . This conflict explains why a lawyer retained by a quasi-judicial body subsequently advised the College President Dr. Bill Ibbott to tamper with my sworn Exhibits while they were being held in the custody of the College.

In 1992 my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk retained the then retired and highly respected B.C. Court of Appeal Judge, Mr. R.P. Anderson Q.C. to review the College erasure decision. Mr. Anderson was the same Judge who delivered the 1988 Seaton Anderson McLachlin judgment upholding the Legg judgment denying me cross-examination of the authors of the Investigation Report. On May 29, 1992 Mr. Anderson’s letter of opinion to Mr. Ewachniuk stated that the October 19, 1988 College erasure hearing was void ab initio because the original July 31, 1986 Investigation Report was never entered into evidence as required under Administrative Law for a legal hearing under Section 48 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act. Mr. Anderson observed that only an edited version of the report had been entered which version deleted large blocks of hearsay evidence while retaining all the conclusions based upon the deleted hearsay. Mr. Anderson also stated that Justice Legg relied upon the judgment of Lysyk in Wilson v. MSC and that the Court of Appeal which upheld Legg also relied upon that precedent which was subsequently overturned on August 5, 1988 before my October 19, 1988 College erasure hearing. The significance of the reversal of the Lysyk judgment by a five judge bench was that Legg and the Court of Appeal relied upon the wrong precedent in denying me cross-examination and that the Charter law was already clarified before I appeared at the College erasure hearing where Council still denied me the Charter right of cross-examination. Mr. Anderson Q.C. declared on May 29, 1992 that I must be immediately reinstated to the medical register.

That May 29, 1992 opinion of the Honorable Mr. R.P. Anderson was forwarded by my lawyer Mr. Ewachniuk to counsel for the College Mr. David Martin who orchestrated a College coverup whereby the Exhibit numbers on my sworn exhibits being held in the custody of the College were subsequently changed. The material I filed under oath was replaced with new exhibits bearing undated exhibit stamps signed by the College President Dr. J.W. Ibbott who had chaired the October 19, 1988 hearing. In answer to Mr. Anderson’s criticisms, the College belatedly entered the original July 31, 1986 Report as a false Exhibit in an attempt to legitimatize an illegal hearing. This had to happen following the formal conclusion of the hearing because some of the phoney Exhibits bore College "Received" stamps dated after the formal conclusion of the hearing.

Accordingly, Mr. Martin presented false material as "the record of the hearing" during my 1998 appeal of the College erasure before Justice Loo and the record he entered appeared different from the sworn exhibit lists and sworn transcripts prepared contemporaneously in 1988. The May 29, 1992 opinion letter of retired B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Mr. R.P. Anderson criticized the October 19, 1988 College hearing as illegal under Administrative Law b