Injured? Free Advice (800) 777-0028

Sticks and stones and…attorney disbarment? Will the First Amendment lose out when IME doctor files grievance to conceal her testimony in injury case from the public?

IME doctor files grievance to suppress blog post and punish attorney for disclosing her conduct

IME Dr. Rosalind Griffin image

Did IME Doctor and Attorney Discipline Board member Rosalind Griffin commit perjury?

Update: To see the latest on this story, read my February 17 blog post, “Attorney’s blog constitutes protected free speech under state and federal constitutions.”

As you will see below, Dr. Rosalind Griffin wants to take away my license to practice law. She has filed a grievance to force me to take down a blog post that I wrote about her conduct.

You may not care, but you should. What this IME doctor did in this case is happening to innocent people every single day. And if you are required to see an IME doctor, it may happen to you. And now, with Dr. Griffin’s attempts to cover it up, this case also raises important First Amendment issues that should concern us all.

Dr. Griffin performed an independent medical exam (IME) on my client after he had been seriously injured in a truck accident. IMEs are one-time exams of people who are injured in automobile accidents or who are involved in workers compensation claims. They are performed by doctors selected by insurance companies. These doctors then write reports and often testify in personal injury or work comp cases.

As an attorney, I’ve been shocked by the injustices that occur during many of these IMEs. There are far too many medical professionals who sacrifice their professional objectivity for ca$h when performing them. I wanted people to know what happens when accident victims are forced to see many of these IME doctors today. So I wrote about what Dr. Griffin did to my client.

I presented her testimony about the answers she claimed my client gave. And then I showed what my client really said.

I then invited you, the public, to decide for yourself whether Dr. Griffin knowingly committed perjury.

Apparently, Dr. Griffin didn’t like this. She is now attempting to silence me. She wants to suppress my prior blog post about her conduct, and so is asking the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, the agency that investigates attorneys, to force me to take down my blog post. In addition, Dr. Griffin wants to take action against my license to practice law, because she doesn’t like that I put her conduct on the pages of this legal blog for people to see.

One other important fact: Dr. Griffin is also a member of the Michigan Attorney Disciplinary Board, the agency that disciplines attorneys.

If Dr. Griffin has her way, this blog post may be one of my last.

But I’m not backing down. So today I‘m sharing Dr. Griffin‘s entire trial testimony by video and the full unedited transcript of her testimony below. I’m also pointing out some of the most disturbing examples of what she did.

Why am I risking my license to practice law? Because people need to know about the harms that this type of conduct is causing to innocent and seriously injured people in communities and courtrooms all over America today.

Dr. Rosalind Griffin under oath

Dr. Rosalind Griffin is a psychiatrist who is selected by insurance companies to perform IMEs. As an insurance medical examiner, she has developed quite a notorious reputation among attorneys (see below).

And since she’s also a member of the Attorney Discipline Board, this means that if I’m prosecuted for what I wrote about Dr. Griffin, she could sit in judgment of whether this is speech protected by the First Amendment.

Dr. Griffin clearly doesn’t like that I put her conduct and testimony in this personal injury case on this legal blog for people to read. But what does seem clear is that based upon what Dr. Griffin wrote in her grievance request, she cares far more about forcing me to take down this blog post than she does about the bedrock protections of the First Amendment and free speech. Dr. Griffin is asking the Attorney Grievance Commission in Michigan to do the following:

  • Require me to “delete [my] outrageous posting”; and,
  • “[R]emove the link to Google results for her name.”
  • Punish and sanction me for putting her testimony and her conduct under oath on the internet for people to read.

You can read Dr. Griffin’s Grievance in its entirety here.

My client had been rear-ended by a truck. He suffered shattered vertebral discs in his spine and other serious physical injuries. He also suffered a significant traumatic brain injury. The stakes could not have been any higher for my client. If a jury had believed Dr. Griffin’s testimony, my client could  have received far less pain and suffering compensation for his injuries then he deserved.

Would a jury believe Dr. Griffin? Thankfully, Dr. Griffin’s independent medical exam with my client had been recorded.

You can read it for yourself in the trial transcript to see what my client told her. It is very different from what she testified my client said to her under oath.

And here’s the full video of my cross-examination of Dr. Griffin, in two parts (Most of the impeachments that are highlighted in the boxes below are in the second video):

 

 

Did Dr. Rosalind Griffin commit perjury?

Perjury is defined as telling a willful untruth in a deposition or trial after having taken an oath or affirmation.

Dr. Griffin swore such an oath. And then during a trial deposition in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a truck accident, she proceeded to testify that my client said things to her.

Things that he never said.

All of these so-called “admissions” by my client were things that would have greatly helped the lawyers defending the case and the insurance company that hired her. All of these “admissions” were things that, if true, would have greatly reduced the damages and legal compensation that the at-fault trucking company would otherwise have been responsible for.

Did my client ever tell Dr. Griffin he was ‘improving,’ as she testified?

Dr. Griffin testified that my client, Mr. James Fairley, told her he was improving. In fact, she wanted to make sure the jury heard it, so she repeated that my client told her he was “improving” seven different times.

But my client never said it. He told her he thought he was getting worse.

What Dr. Griffin claims James Fairley said. What James Fairley actually said.
“He noted that he has been improving.” (IME Report, Page 3)  “I don’t really see an improvement that much … But as far as the day-to-day remembering, that’s – that hasn’t really improved a lot. In fact, I think it might have been – it might have got a little worse.” (Fairley Dep., Page 20, lines 10-11, 14-17)
“He felt that he was improving …” (Griffin Dep., Page 20, line 7)  I’m afraid that because of the head injury I’m gonna have Alzheimer’s come on sooner than it would have, because I’m forgetting already and don’t see that improving. (Fairley Dep., Page 70, lines 23-25)
 “[H]e stated … that he was improving …” (Griffin Dep., Page 20, line 25)  Depression began “[a]bout six months after the accident. … I think that’s because until that point, I thought I was gonna get better, and at that point I realized I wasn’t making any improvement and I didn’t think I would after that … [The depression] set in … about six months after that.” (Fairley Dep., Page 77, lines 3-9)
“[H]e’s reporting he’s continued to improve …” (Griffin Dep., Page 21, lines 17-18)
“He also mentioned … he thought … he was improving.” (Griffin Dep., Page 24 (lines 22 and 25) and Page 25 (line 1))
“Mr. Fairley’s statement was that he has improved …” (Griffin Dep., Page 52, line 15)
“Mr. Fairley … has continued to improve and that’s his own statement …” (Griffin Dep., Page 52, lines 24-25)
“[H]is statement was that he was improving …” (Griffin Dep., Page 54, lines 16-17)

[Sources: Transcript of Videotaped Independent Medical Examination of James Fairley by Dr. Rosalind Griffin (June 7, 2010); Dr. Rosalind Griffin’s 8/26/2010 IME Report; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Rosalind Griffin (12/3/2010)]

This is what happened when I pressed Dr. Griffin for proof Mr. Fairley said what she claims he told her:

  • Asked to “point to where [in her examination notes] [Mr. Fairley] told you he was improving,” Dr. Griffin said, “No, I don’t know that I can point that out in my own notes.” (Griffin Dep., Page 105, lines 23-25)
  • When offered the opportunity “to try and find it for us,” Dr. Griffin answered: “I cannot.” (Griffin Dep., Page 106, lines 2-3)
  • When asked “if we listen to your two-hour [videotaped examination of Mr. Fairley] are we ever going to hear Mr. Fairley say to you that he is improving,” Dr. Griffin admitted that “[y]ou won’t hear it in a quote.” (Griffin Dep., Page 112 (lines 23-25) and Page 113 (lines 1-2)). It should be noted that jury did in fact watch the entire two hour defense medical exam after this cross examination, and at the end of this case returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Fairley for $3.5 million dollars.

See how Dr. Griffin changed my client’s answer so she could use it as “proof” he did not have a brain injury

Described as a test used to determine whether someone has a traumatic brain injury, Dr. Griffin credited Mr. Fairley with having made a “sophisticated interpretation” of a “rare proverb.” She then testified that this proverb interpretation was significant because “his performance … is consistent with my diagnosis that he has no traumatic brain injury …”

But my client never said it. He never said anything close to what she testified, under oath, that he said.

What Dr. Griffin claims James Fairley said. What James Fairley actually said.
“He was able to abstract a rare proverb known as even dragons wading across shallow ponds have snails nipping at their heels. His interpretation was ‘no matter how big you are you can still have problems.’ This was considered to be a sophisticated interpretation for someone who believed that his memory and concentration were disturbed.” (IME Report, Page 8) “Q. Okay. And if I asked you what this meant, Even dragons wading across shallow ponds have snails nipping at their heels, what does that mean to you? A. Nothing really to me. Q. Just give it a thought. A. Say it again, please. Q. Dragons wading across ponds – shallow ponds have snails. A. “No matter how big you are, if you go across the ponds snails will come after you or something.” (Fairley Dep., Page 75, lines 3-12)
“I gave him a difficult one [proverb] that – … the dragons wading across shallow ponds have … snails nipping at their heels and to my surprise he did quite well with that one. It’s out of the norm for proverbs that are given and he understood that it means even big people have problems and he was able to interpret that appropriately.” (Griffin Dep., Page 34, lines 4-9) Dr. Griffin admits that Mr. Fairley’s actual interpretation of the “dragons wading across shallow ponds” proverb (as reflected in the transcript of the videotaped IME) is “very different” from what Dr. Griffin “put in quotes” in her IME report. (Griffin Dep., Page 75, lines 21-25)
“Q. … [T]he obscure proverb, what’s the significance of that? A. [Dr. Griffin] [H]is performance there is consistent with my diagnosis  that he has no traumatic brain injury, not just at that point, but over a long period of time. … Q. … [W]hat was the proverb you gave him that you’re attaching such importance to? A. Even dragons wading across streams with snails nipping at their heels. Q. And what was his interpretation that you found so sophisticated? A. That even big people  who appear to be secure and protected and – and, you know, don’t look as if they have problems still have little things that may bother them no matter how insulated and protected they appear.” (Griffin Dep., Page 69 (lines 21-22), Page 70 (lines 12-15, 17-25) and Page 71 (lines 1-3)

“Q. No matter how big you are if you go across the pond snails will come after you or
something, that’s very different from what you pot in quotes as his answer to you,
isn’t it Doctor? A.[Dr. Girffin] Yes, it is.” (p.75)

[Sources: Transcript of Videotaped Independent Medical Examination of James Fairley by Dr. Rosalind Griffin (June 7, 2010); Dr. Rosalind Griffin’s 8/26/2010 IME Report; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Rosalind Griffin (12/3/2010)]

Did Dr. Griffin change answers so she could testify my client did not have a traumatic brain injury?

Dr. Griffin testified that it was “significant” that my client did not make a mistake because “it shows that he did not have a traumatic [brain] injury and does not have it at this time.” (Griffin Dep., Page 69, lines 8-9, 11, 15-18).

But my client did make a mistake. Dr. Griffin just chose not to admit he made it when testifying to a jury during the trial and when rendering her IME opinion and report. If her IME exam had not been recorded, a jury would have likely accepted this testimony that my client did not have a traumatic brain injury from this truck accident as true.

What Dr. Griffin said about James Fairley’s performance. What James Fairley’s performance actually was.
“He was able to do serial subtractions without error.” (IME Report, Page 7) Q. “Can you subtract seven from one hundred?” A. “Ninety-three.” Q. “And keep counting down by seven.” A. “Eighty-six, seventy-nine, seventy-two, sixty-six, fifty-nine, fifty-two.” Q. “Okay.” A. “Forty-five.” (Fairley Dep., Page 43 (lines 21-25), Page 44 (lines 1-2))
“I had him … [do] the serial sevens [subtractions] … and he performed quite well on that.” (Griffin Dep., Page 32, lines 4-5) Dr. Griffin testified that “if you subtract 7 from 72,” the “number … you get” is 65 … yet Mr. Fairley “answered 66.” (Griffin Dep., Page 74 (lines 23-25) and Page 75 (lines 1-4))
“Q. The serial sevens that he got right with you one time, how much significance do we put on that …?” Dr. Griffin’s answer: “You can add it as significant … because … it shows that he did not have a traumatic [brain] injury and does not have it at this time.” (Griffin Dep., Page 69, lines 8-9, 11, 15-18) “He made a math mistake on his serial sevens …” (Griffin Dep., Page 80, lines 16-17) “Q. … [Y]ou’re putting a lot of significance to the questions he’s getting right, would that suggest that you would put an equal amount of significance on those questions if he were to get them wrong? A. [Dr. Griffin] Yes. Q. That would indicate brain damage? A. That would indicate that he got the questions wrong and I’d look for reasons why. Q. And, Doctor, you should never misrepresent in your report what actually has occurred, true? A. I would not do that consciously, no. Q. That would not be honest or ethical to misrepresent what someone says to you? A. Would not try to do that, no. Q. Doctor, you knew your [IME] examination [of Mr. Fairley] was recorded, true? A. Yes. Q. … [Y]ou demanded a copy of the videotape before you would even write your report, true? A. I required it to complete my review of all pertinent records, yes. Q. And you did review that videotape before you finally issued your report about two months after your examination, true? A. I did review … the videotape prior to my completion of the report.” (Griffin Dep., Page 72 (lines 24-25), Page 73 (lines 1-22), Page 74 (lines 7-8))

[Sources: Transcript of Videotaped Independent Medical Examination of James Fairley by Dr. Rosalind Griffin (June 7, 2010); Dr. Rosalind Griffin’s 8/26/2010 IME Report; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Rosalind Griffin (12/3/2010)]

Did Dr. Griffin fabricate a medical history of chronic illnesses/conditions which could be used to mitigate what the defendant who hired her would have to pay at trial?

Dr. Griffin diagnosed Mr. Fairley with a “mood disorder” based on “statements” to her during her IME that he had preexisting diabetes, hypertension, asthma and arthritis.

Mr. Fairley never said any of those things. In fact, he told her he never had diabetes, hypertension, asthma or arthritis before this motor vehicle accident.

What Dr. Griffin claims James Fairley said. What James Fairley actually said.
“There may have been a mood disorder related to a medical condition, which could be associated with his chronic illnesses of diabetes, hypertension …” (Griffin Dep., Page 19, lines 2-4)  “Q. … You had diabetes and hypertension before this accident? A. No. Q. You did not? A. No. Q. You had no diabetes and no hypertension. Did you have anything – A. That’s just borderline right now. A. Okay, borderline. But did you ever see a doctor that diagnosed you or prescribed any medications? A. I had a physical every year. Never had it before this accident.” (Fairley Dep., Page 68 (lines 17-25), Page 69 (lines 1-3))
“[W]hen I asked about any chronic conditions he told me he had hypertension, that he had diabetes, that he had problems with arthritis … and he had asthma … So the chronic conditions would be preexistent to the accident, asthma and diabetes and hypertension …” (Griffin Dep., Page 24 (lines 17-20), Page 25 (lines 2-4)) Contrary to Dr. Griffin’s claims, never during his videotaped IME with Dr. Griffin did Mr. Fairley state that he had either asthma or arthritis.
“I found that there was a mood disorder due to a general medical condition, which could be inclusive of his diabetes, hypertension, asthma …” (Griffin Dep., Page 34 (lines 23-25), Page 35 (line 1))
“Q. Do you have evidence that he had diabetes before this truck crash? A. No, I don’t, but diabetes is not a sudden onset. It’s a chronic, preexistent condition that Mr. Fairley stated he had.” (Griffin Dep., Page 45, lines 8-12)
“Q. … [W]here did you learn that he has hypertension? A. From Mr. Fairley.” (Griffin Dep., Page 47, lines 2-4)
“Q. … [W]here did you get that he has asthma from? A. From Mr. Fairley. Q. You’re sure? A. I’m sure.” (Griffin Dep., Page 49, lines 10-13)

[Sources: Transcript of Videotaped Independent Medical Examination of James Fairley by Dr. Rosalind Griffin (June 7, 2010); Dr. Rosalind Griffin’s 8/26/2010 IME Report; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Rosalind Griffin (12/3/2010)]

What Dr. Griffin testified about my client’s depression

What Dr. Griffin claims James Fairley said. What James Fairley actually said.
“[A]ccording to his own statement he feels less depressed and is making progress.” (IME Report, Page 8)  “Q. What’s a good day for you? A. I don’t know. I haven’t had one lately. … I just have a profound sadness … Q. Do you think you’re depressed, sir? A. I do. … Q. Have you been tearful? A. Oh, yeah. I cry at the drop of a hat sometimes.”  (Fairley Dep., Page 58 (lines 1-2, 7), Page 61 (lines 13-14), Page 62 (lines 4-5))
“He felt he was less depress – depressed and making progress.” (Griffin Dep., Page 35, lines 17-20)

[Sources: Transcript of Videotaped Independent Medical Examination of James Fairley by Dr. Rosalind Griffin (June 7, 2010); Dr. Rosalind Griffin’s 8/26/2010 IME Report; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Rosalind Griffin (12/3/2010)]

Did my client deny any suicidal thoughts?

What Dr. Griffin claims James Fairley said. What James Fairley actually said.
“He is not suicidal. … [H]e denied a timeframe or plan for suicide …” (IME Report, Pages 3 and 8) “Q. Have you been suicidal? A. I have thought about it … I thought about planning it , but never really … There’s still some days and I just need to have somebody to talk to at those times …”  (Fairley Dep., Page 39, lines 12-13, 17, 20-22)
“Q. And when you talked to Mr. Fairley did you explore with him as to whether he was suicidal or feeling suicidal? A. Oh, not at all. I did ask him that and he had no plans or a time frame to hurt himself …” (Griffin Dep., Page 21, lines 5-9) “[I]t just seems useless to be around sometimes … Q. Talk about that, Mr. Fairley. Suicide, what would that accomplish for you? A. Take the pain away.”(Fairley Dep., Page 58, lines 10-11, 21-23)
“Q. Why did you just start seeing Dr. Wilanowski [psychiatrist] this year [early in 2010]? A. … I mentioned the suicidal thoughts … [a]nd they recommended that I see her.”(Fairley Dep., Page 38 (line 25), Page 39 (lines 1-7), Page 61 (lines 15-20))

[Sources: Transcript of Videotaped Independent Medical Examination of James Fairley by Dr. Rosalind Griffin (June 7, 2010); Dr. Rosalind Griffin’s 8/26/2010 IME Report; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Rosalind Griffin (12/3/2010)]

‘Reading the biography of Ernie Harwell’

To attempt to show Mr. Fairley had intact “immediate and remote memory,” and no traumatic brain injury, Dr. Griffin reported that Mr. Fairley was “reading books, sports books” and was “currently reading the biography of Ernie Harwell …”

Yet again, that’s not what Mr. Fairley told her.

He said that, after the truck accident, reading was “like a chore” or “like work.” He never said he was reading a biography of Ernie Harwell. In response to a question from Dr. Griffin, Mr. Fairley merely stated that Mr. Harwell was “[o]ne of my heroes.”

What Dr. Griffin claims James Fairley said. What James Fairley actually said.
“He enjoys watching TV, reading sports books and is currently reading the biography of Ernie Harwell.” (IME Report, Page 6) Q. “Do you do any reading or watching TV? A. TV is about all I can do anymore. I just – I used to love to read, but – I would read three books a week and now I try to read.” (Fairley Dep., Page 55 (lines 24-25), Page 56 (lines 1-2))
“Q. Was he able to demonstrate immediate and remote memory? A. Yes. … [H]e talked about watching TV, reading books, sports books, and currently reading the biography of Ernie Harwell, a sportscaster who died some time …” (Griffin Dep., Page 28, lines 16-18, 21-24) “[L]ike I said, it – trying to read now is – I can – I try to read but it’s like a chore.” (Fairley Dep., Page 56 (line 25) and Page 57 (lines 1-2))
“I really miss the reading the most, because it’s a chore for me to do that now. I mean, it will take me a couple weeks to read a book now as opposed to two  days, you know, it just – it’s like work almost read …” (Fairley Dep., Page 78 (line 25) and Page 79 (lines 1-4))
Fairley never said he was “currently reading the biography of Ernie Harwell.” In response to Dr. Griffin’s question, “What great [sports] announcer recently died?,” Mr. Fairley simply answered, “Ernie Harwell. One of my heroes.” (Fairley Dep., Page 57, lines 20-21)

[Sources: Transcript of Videotaped Independent Medical Examination of James Fairley by Dr. Rosalind Griffin (June 7, 2010); Dr. Rosalind Griffin’s 8/26/2010 IME Report; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Rosalind Griffin (12/3/2010)]

Dr. Griffin = “A Notorious IME doctor in Michigan”

In her request for investigation, Dr. Griffin requests the Attorney Grievance Commission investigate, punish and sanction me for calling her a “notorious IME doctor in Michigan.”

Of course, the word “notorious” has several meanings. The most common is “generally known and talked of; especially: widely and unfavorably known.”

It is a description that fits.

Dr. Griffin has created quite a reputation for herself among Michigan personal injury attorneys. So much so, that the Michigan Association for Justice actually selected Dr. Rosalind Griffin as one of only two defense medical examiners (IME and DME doctors) to be discussed, by name, at a “2013 DME Seminar” designed to teach lawyers who litigate auto accident and workers compensation cases how to deal with difficult and abusive doctors who perform IMEs.

2013 DME Seminar image

If that isn’t “notorious,” then what is?

What happened to my client in this civil personal injury case is sadly not unique. As a law firm, our attorneys have had other clients who were forced to see Dr. Griffin after being injured in car or truck accidents, like in this case. These clients swore after their exams that Dr. Griffin wrote things in her IME reports that they never said to her.

Based on these experiences and knowing that proof was essential, I went to court and asked the judge to allow me to record the IME exam of Mr. Fairley, over the objections of the defense attorneys for the trucking company.

Consider for a moment what could have happened to my client in this case if the IME exam had not been recorded.  What might have happened to my client if the jury believed that he was improving, as Dr. Griffin said, or that his proverb interpretation proved he did not have a traumatic brain injury, as she testified?

Imagine how my client must have felt, being forced to listen to this doctor testify at trial about things he never said!

Exposing IME abuse – What happened to my client in this personal injury case can happen to anyone

I posted this blog about Dr. Griffin because it’s important that people understand that what this doctor did to my client in this case is not unusual. It is happening to innocent people injured in automobile accidents who are forced to see IME doctors, just as my client had to see Dr. Griffin.

Doctors who perform these exams — whether we call them independent medical exams (IMEs), defense medical exams (DMEs), or insurance medical exams — can cause enormous harm to innocent and truly injured people who desperately need insurance benefits or who are entitled to legal compensation for their injuries. Many doctors who perform “independent” medical examinations of people injured in car accidents are anything but independent. Many IME doctors make enormous amounts of money and rarely, if ever, find anything significantly wrong with the people who are required to see them.


For more information, take a look at my blog post, “Why insurance company IMEs are no laughing matter.”

As an attorney, I’ve seen firsthand the real harms these IME doctors can cause to people who are forced to see these doctors and who desperately need No Fault insurance benefits or workers compensation benefits. Often, IME doctors accuse accident victims of terrible things, such as malingering, and this of course, greatly helps the defense lawyers and the insurance companies who hire them.

There are enormous financial incentives for IME doctors to minimize injuries, and even to lie, if it helps the side that hires them.

I wrote my original blog post to share just one example of what I now see as common as an attorney representing auto accident victims. I wanted you to read what Dr. Griffin did and make your own decision about her conduct, and about a system that far too often allows (even financially incentivizes) IME doctors to do such things to people.

I should not have been so reluctant to tell you how I felt. I was appalled and I’m still appalled by what Dr. Griffin did to my client. I don’t believe Dr. Griffin should sit on the Attorney Discipline Board in this state.  And I certainly don’t believe she should be performing IME exams.

I want people to know what Dr. Griffin almost got away with here. I want people to worry about whether she’s doing to others what she did to my client. And most of all, I want to shine a light on the incredible harms that many of the doctors who are performing IMEs are causing to innocent and truly injured people across America today.

Free speech and the First Amendment

I believe this legal blog and what I wrote about Dr. Griffin is protected under the First Amendment.

I also believe I do not lose these protections because I am an attorney, or because Dr. Griffin sits on the Attorney Discipline Board and doesn’t like what I wrote.

Dr. Griffin is using her position and her power on the Attorney Discipline Board to silence this blog. She may not like that I’m exposing her conduct, but her attempt to force me to take down this blog post about her and further to punish me for speaking truth to power violates the First Amendment and its most basic and fundamental protections.

Final thought

I do not know what the Attorney Grievance Commission will do to me.

But, I do know that I’m willing to face whatever comes next. The public needs to know about what Dr. Griffin did. The public needs to know what far too many doctors who perform routine IMEs are doing every single day to people.

If you like this blog post, please share it.

And do so quickly, before it’s forcibly taken down by Doctor and Attorney Discipline Board Member Rosalind Griffin.

This entry was tagged Tags: , ,
Community Guidelines
comments powered by Disqus
Blog Author Steven M. Gursten
Read Our Reviews
Free Consultation