We have uncovered a government initiative designed to arbitrarily strip seniors of their rights and their driving licenses.

The government agency, Primary Care Network, is carrying out this pilot project as an “innovative approach to providing primary care, to deliver improved health care to Albertans”

The pilot project is carried out in cooperating medical clinics such as the Justik Clinic, the Gateway Medical Clinic of Edmonton, the Meridian Clinic & the Family Medicine Clinic of Stony Plain, the Westend Clinic of Spruce Grove and numerous other medical clinics across northern and southern Alberta.

The protocol is as follows: The unsuspecting senior, who may never have had a car accident or even a speeding ticket, arrives at the medical clinic with his / her Medical Examination For Motor Vehicle Operators Form in hand, and expects to have a physical exam by a physician. However, instead he/she is led to a room by a primary care nurse and is administered a mental test (Simard MD). Parts of the test are stop watch timed. The registered nurse has been trained by and is under the direction of the Primary Care Network. IT is reported to us that most seniors fail the Simard MD.*

The senior may then be given a physical exam or sometimes be directly referred to DriveAble, for a computer test. The senior’s personal health information and results of the Simard MD, is forwarded to DriveAble, often without permission or even knowledge of the senior.

The Seniors have reported to us, that shortly after they arrive home from the doctor’s office, they receive phone calls from DriveAble directing them to come for testing. They report the calls to be most intimidating and threatening. They are strongly informed by DriveAble personnel, that if they do not attend, they will not get their license renewed.

Most seniors, obediently go, pay the exorbitant fee of $200. or $250. because they want that license. They are led to believe that DriveAble has the legal authority to deny them their license. Seniors who are not computer literate or who have never handled a “mouse”, are destined to fail the DriveAble test.

The results of all this testing is then forwarded to the Alberta Government Driver Fitness and Monitoring staff at the Alberta Government Motor Vehicles licensing branch.

We have learned of seniors who successfully passed the road test but flubbed the computer DriveAble test and were denied their driving license by Alberta Government Driver Fitness and Monitoring staff.

We have also learned, that there are those who scored low on the Simard MD because English is their second language. They may speak well and may have been successful business people but have difficulty with the testing. Some seniors are just plain scared and intimidated when they are confronted by testing.

The referral Form sent to DriveAble  is a contravention of the Privacy Act. Physicians and primary care nurses, are unlawfully publishing senior’s private health information.

We submit that the Alberta Government Driver Fitness and Monitoring staff are disseminating misinformation when they state that they can lawfully deny driving licenses because of Simard MD scores or DriveAble results.

We find it troubling that professional registered nurses, whose most notable role is to be a patient advocate, are cooperating in this deceptive, unfair process.

In a letter posted on our website, Mr. Fred Horne, MLA. (Edmonton-Rutherford) states that DriveAble is a private for profit company and is not affiliated with the Alberta government. So why are doctors sending / publishing private personal health information to these folks and why at $200. or $250. a shot, is this company allowed to make a fortune on the backs of seniors?

It is devastating to lose one’s license. It causes seniors to become dependant,

isolated and depressed.

Finally, in Alberta, the legal requirement to have one’s license renewed is that:

1. a physician carries out a physical exam on the senior who wishes to have his license renewed
2. the physician sign the Medical Examination For Motor Vehicle Operators Form which certifies that on the noted date, he examined the senior in accordance with Safety Code Medical Standards.
3. If the physician does not recommended a driver’s examination, (section B) then the applicant senior has met the full requirement to have his Alberta Driving License renewed.

The primary Care Network is a frightening concept. It appears to be another initiative of government to take control of its’ citizens. Previously a citizen’s health care information was confidential and a private matter between you and your doctor. Now primary care network personnel have access to all your medical files and information. In essence, the government has access to all your personal information. Indeed, an Orwellian concept.

SAY NO TO ASSESSMENTS! SAY NO TO DRIVEABLE!

Recently two friends who are seniors were retested for their driver’s licence. I know they both have excellent ICBC records and are as alert and aware as I would hope to be in my 80s. But they failed the test. The disconnect between what I know and the test result led me to research the test, DriveABLE, on line.

DriveABLE is software developed from a University of Alberta grad project that is being marketed to driver’s licence authorities in Canada and elsewhere. It professes to assess the cognitive ability to drive of people who have medical issues or who are aging. It replaces a more complete doctor’s assessment and road test.

The DriveABLE test takes the ability to competently drive and divides it into six factors, one of which is memory, for which it has a 5-minute computer-generated test. This test has been cherry-picked from another test of memory from an unnamed source. The other five factors have been similarly cherry-picked from other un­named sources. So one might ask, what kind of memory: long-term, short-term, visual? Statistically, one 5-minute computer test is meaningless to assess such a complex subject. How many red flags so far?

DriveABLE’s own studies are endlessly expounded, but there are no published studies with dates and authors, only generalizations and, of course, 99% accuracy! I have found only one third-party assessment of DriveABLE on the web, by Monash University Accident Research Centre in Australia (MUARC), with a link to the study at an Austroads site.

You will note from the abstract that the two other tests compared were “clearly superior” to DriveABLE, and that DriveABLE had a more than one in five misdiagnosis rate. Red flags?

The DriveABLE test involves sitting in front of a touch-screen computer with three extra buttons at the bottom. Most seniors being tested this way are unfamiliar with computers, touch screens, and computer-generated visuals. If they fail, they are told so within 2 minutes by a clerk. There is no appeal; the licence is revoked on the spot. You can retest after 6 months for $200. Imagine being told you are cognitively deficient, not by your doctor but by a clerk.

At a misdiagnosis rate of more than one in five, this test is not scientific. It verges on being arbitrary and is hurting seniors. Doctors need to take back the responsibility for this type of medical assessment.
—G. Turnbull
Whaletown, Cortes Island

Courtesy BC Medical Journal

The SIMARD MD test purports to be a screening tool for 

the identification of cognitively impaired medically at-risk drivers. 

It consists of three questions that supposedly identifies if a person 

is cognitively fit to drive.

 At the beginning of the test the person is given 10 words. He/she 

            must repeat as many as possible. The words are totally unrelated.

The procedure is repeated once more. No points are given for this part.

 Question #1 – Patient must write two given numerals in their word 

            form as on a cheque.

Question #2 – Patient is asked to name as many things as possible one 

can buy at a supermarket in one minute.

                         (Patient is not told that the expected number is 30 items).

Question #3 – After being distracted by the first two questions, the person

             is then asked to recall as many words that were read to him/her at 

            the beginning of the test. The words are totally unrelated.

 (Most people fail this part or score very low.) The total score for the three 

questions is 42.

 However, SIMARD MD uses a scoring guide that almost sets up the senior

            or anyone else for failure. For example, a raw score of 21over 42 yielding 

50% becomes 44 over 130 giving a percentage of 34. This is achieved by 

multiplying each correct answer in question #2 by 8 and each correct recalled 

word in question #3 by 10 now the total becoming 130. 

A number of community leaders and educators, all actively employed

 have taken the test, including one MLA.  All  failed.

These days, new drivers abuse this opportunity. I have only driven for a short period of time and I have already had near misses with teens my age almost hitting my vehicle.

The focus appears to be on the passengers in the car rather than on the road and its other users.

Passengers can be just as distracting as texting or talking on the phone. The province’s distracted driving law should include this absent-mindedness. This will make roads much safer and decrease the rate of vehicular accidents.

Interaction with passengers can be very distracting, more so than some of the restrictions placed on all drivers in Alberta on Sept. 1.

Ashley Neufeld, 17, Leduc

via Edmonton Journal

“Driving has been my bread and butter my whole life, that’s how I made my living,” Robert Dent, 74, told the CBC’s Go Public. “I miss my job. I miss taking care of my family.”

“If you are confused and or have dementia, of course you shouldn’t be driving,” said his wife, Joanne Ogilvie. “But in his case there is nothing wrong. There never was.”

Dent, a member of the Teamsters union, drove trucks for the film industry. Two years ago, he had a minor stroke, but his family doctor said afterwards Dent was fine to keep driving. A neurologist also found “from a neurological perspective … he could drive.”

“The neurologist said the area that he had the stroke in his brain has nothing to do with cognitive ability,” Ogilvie said. “It’s the complete other side of his brain.”

A few weeks later, Dent drove to an appointment for occupational therapy at Holy Family Hospital. Records show that because he was late arriving, the occupational therapist suggested to the doctor in charge Dent should not be driving.

No assessment by reporting doctor

Without seeing Dent or assessing him, the supervising physician, Dr. Elliott Weiss, reported him to B.C.’s Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (OSMV), which cancelled his licence.

“[Dr. Weiss] didn’t say a word to me. He didn’t say a word to my wife,” Dent said. “When I got the [cancellation] letter I couldn’t believe it, because I didn’t run anybody over with a car; I wasn’t drinking. I felt like a criminal.”

Eventually, Dent was given a five-hour neurological assessment at Vancouver General Hospital. Andrew Woolfenden, the neurologist, again declared Dent fit to drive.

74-year-old Robert Dent’s wife Joanne Ogilvie drives him where he needs to go, because the B.C. government took away his driver’s licence. (CBC)
“There are no physical impairments from his stroke that impede his driving ability,” Dr. Woolfenden wrote after the assessment.

A report on the test, which was overseen by a neuropsychologist, says: “Observed memory issues and other isolated findings are unlikely to affect Mr. Dent’s competency to drive … there is no reason, from a neuropsychological perspective, that he should be restricted from driving.”

Nevertheless, the OSMV told Dent last year he would have to take a controversial computer test called DriveABLE before he could take a road test to try to get his licence back.

Dent, who says computers make him very nervous, failed the test.

“It’s intimidating,” said Ogilvie. “He was slow on the button and didn’t do things fast enough.”

Housebound and depressed

Two years after his stroke, Dent is still appealing the OSMV’s decision to revoke his licence. He describes himself as unemployed, housebound and depressed.

“That’s like being in jail for two years. It’s terrible,” Dent said. “Many nights I can’t sleep for thinking how this happened. I miss my job. I miss taking care of my family.”

“It seems like once they’ve got your name they have just decided you are out – and there’s nothing you can do about it,” Ogilvie said.

The DriveABLE computer program has been adopted by several provinces as a uniform way to test people with potential cognitive problems – basic skills needed to drive. It is a touch-screen test, done under supervision. Speed and accuracy are important factors.

Last year, the program was expanded across British Columbia. In centres where it is available, the OSMV requires a person whose licence has been revoked to pass the computer test before they are allowed a road test.

The program has been criticized recently by seniors who complained they are not comfortable enough with computers to be tested on one.

“Most people in their 70s are not that computer savvy,” Ogilvie said. “And [the OMSV] refuses to just give you an actual road test.”

The B.C. minister responsible, Rich Coleman, said he is willing to have a look at Dent’s case. (CBC)
Figures from the OSMV show 40 per cent of B.C. drivers referred to the DriveABLE test fail, which means they are not allowed to take a road test. In addition, another 45 per cent have inconclusive results; those drivers are then given a road test. Sixty per cent of people who get to that stage pass and retain their driver’s licence.

The Insurance Corporation of B.C. says seniors (age 70 and over) cause 95 out of every 1,000 accidents in B.C. The average crash rate for drivers of all ages is 124 out of every 1,000 accidents.

“Seniors actually have a relatively low crash rate. Some of the reasons for this may be that they don’t drive as much or during challenging road conditions,” said ICBC spokesman Adam Grossman.

“Maybe they should have a choice – one option or the other,” Ogilvie said. “Take a road test [safely] or take the computer test.”

College pans doctor

Dent said he has had some success arguing his case with B.C.’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. He complained about Dr. Weiss, the physician who reported him to the OSMV without assessing him. In February, the college found his complaint to be valid.

Weiss declined to speak to CBC News about the case, but the college called the doctor’s actions “precipitous, arbitrary and pre-emptive.”

B.C. Medical Association president Ian Gillespie said the province should reinstate doctor positions in the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. (CBC)”Our concerns were further compounded by Dr. Weiss’s intractability with his apparent disregard of opinions contrary to his own from experts in the area who are at least as competent as himself, and further given that his own conclusions were based, perhaps exclusively, on test and testers [the occupational therapist] less compelling than those contrary experts.”

“When we got the [college] letter, I just kept saying ‘Wow, they agree with us!,’ Ogilvie said. “Finally somebody sees. Somebody cares and sees this should not have happened.”

The B.C. Medical Association said drivers such as Dent might have more success appealing directly to the OSMV if the province reinstated staff doctor positions that have been cut.

‘There’s a place for discussion of medical opinion.
We’d like to see that in place again.’

-BCMA president Ian Gillespie
“There’s a place for discussion of medical opinion,” said BCMA president Ian Gillespie.

He said there are no longer any doctors in that office to give medical discretion where mistakes may have been made.

“We’d like to see that in place again,” he said. “We think it’s really important. Especially because the reporting needs will go up with the demographics of the population.”

Gillespie also said B.C. does not have enough driver rehabilitation programs for stroke victims, who can recover lost cognitive abilities with therapy. He said patients at risk of losing their licence should be given an opportunity to improve.

“They may be able to drive again with that rehabilitation, but without it there is no way of measuring their progress,” Gillespie said.

Ogilvie said her husband had just two brief rehabilitation appointments, but the only result was he lost his driver’s licence.

“He didn’t really get any therapy. They just kind of shooed him into doing this test,” Ogilvie said.

Minister to look into case

The minister responsible, Rich Coleman, told CBC News he has no problem with the DriveABLE program. However, he said, he is willing to look at Dent’s case.

Dent failed the controversial DriveABLE test, which assesses driver’s cognitive abilities. (CBC)”There is an [OSMV] appeal process and they can actually cc the letter to the minister and we will always check with the superintendent,” Coleman said.

Ogilvie said Dent has exhausted every avenue of appeal presented to him.

Dent says he hopes by going public – and given the criticism by the college of the doctor who had his licence revoked – he will get the government’s attention.

“I feel like a better citizen when I have my rights and I am treated equally and fairly,” Dent said. “And I feel better when I have a job.”

Courtesy CBC News

Full Story

Letter to the Editor, The Edmonton Journal

“Older drivers tell us the day you’re told, ‘Hand over your licence’ is worse than a cancer diagnosis,” researcher Nicol Korner-Bitensky said Thursday.

“I heard it so many times I was shocked,” she said. “I couldn’t figure it out, and when I asked why they’d tell me, ‘Cancer is something that comes, a lot of my friends have it, there are good treatments now. But having my licence taken away, day one to day two, my whole life changes overnight.’ ”

Fatalities and serious accidents have risen sharply among older drivers over the last decade.

Canada Safety Council statistics show that drivers over the age of 75 are 3 1/2 times more likely to be involved in a crash than those who are 35 to 40 years old.

The statistics also show that driving-related accidents are the leading cause of accidental death for Canadians aged 65 to 74.

Safe driving is the focus of the Older Driver Blueprint project, released Thursday by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists.

The plan, funded by the federal Public Health Agency, recommends refresher programs for older drivers to lessen the likelihood of accidents.

“We are probably going to be the first nation that will have a national plan to change the crash rate we’re seeing,” said Korner-Bitensky, an associate professor at McGill University’s faculty of medicine.

There are now about three million older drivers on the road, and seniors are the fastest growing segment of the driving population.

Courtesy Bruce Ward, Canwest News Service

June 22, 2009

VIA FACSIMILE 780 422 6621

Letter to Follow

The Honourable Ms. Alison Redford, QC
Minister of Justice and Attorney General
403 Legislature Building, Edmonton, ABT5K 2B6

Dear Ms. Minister:

Reference: Sudden Death of Wanda Lorea Tennant, Thomas Lawrence Donelon and Gladys Marie Donelon in a deadly car accident on August 6, 2007.

Another passenger in the vehicle, Chelsea Donelon suffered critical injuries which resulted in paraplegia. At the time, she was a Grade 11 Scona student who suffered devastating injuries in the car accident that claimed the lives of her mother and grandparents. Chelsea broke two vertebrae in her back, both ankles, one thigh bone and both arms and is now paralyzed from the waist down. 15 year old Chelsea was an Olympic hopeful who practiced skiing five days a week.

This accident happened on the Queen Elizabeth II Highway near Leduc on a summery, Monday afternoon. The driver of a northbound Infiniti SUV lost control of their vehicle and crossed the grass median into the southbound lanes colliding with the oncoming Donelon vehicle.

We are asking you to call an Inquiry at your earliest, under the Fatalities Inquiries Act, Chapter F6 in regard to this horrific happening.

We submit that it is imperative that this matter receive attention by your Department.

We would be grateful to be in receipt of your response in regard to this matter by the 15th of July, 2009. Thank you.

Yours truly.

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society

cc. Ms. Margaret Mrazek QC, Chair, Fatality Review Board,
Justice and Attorney General

Responses

Letter

October 27, 2009

VIA FACSIMILE 780 422 1265

Letter to follow

Ms. Margaret L. Mrazek QC, Chair
Fatality Review Board, 7007 116th Street,
Edmonton, AB T6H 5R8

The Honourable Ms. Alison Redford, QC
Minister of Justice and Attorney General
403 Legislature Building, Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6

Reference: VEHICULAR INJURY (HOMICIDE) August 6, 2007:

Thomas Lawrence Donelon
Gladys Marie Donelon
Wanda Lorea Tennant

Chelsea Donelon, 15 years of age, olympic hopeful is now a paraplegic.

Mz. Mrazek, further to your correspondence of September 30, 2009 stating that you have recommended to the Minister that no public inquiry be held. We cannot accept this decision. We knew these people since their university days and find it unacceptable that their lives can be snuffed out without a public hearing.

We are again asking you to call an Inquiry at your earliest, under the Fatalities Inquiries Act, Chapter F6 in regard to this horrific happening.

Respectfully submitted, we would be grateful to be in receipt of your response in regard to this matter by the November 30, 2009. Thank you.

Yours truly.

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society

Attachment – Photos of Tom and Gladys Donelon

Response

VIA Facsimile 780 422 2722
Letter to Follow

The Honourable Mr. Luke Ouellette,
Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation
Room # 320 Legislature Building

Dear Sir:

SIMARD MD, DRIVING TEST

We have learned that the Simard MD test is being used by the Primary Care Network personnel to test Alberta Seniors to see if they are fit to drive. We also have knowledge that this test is in the pilot stage of a research project and has not been formally recognized by the Alberta Department of Transportation. Nevertheless, it is in use on Canadian citizens.

We find it troubling that this test, which uses a stop watch, is being used to assess seniors for driving fitness.

Apart from the bizarre nature of the test, we submit that this is a form of age discrimination. Do young persons applying for licenses have to submit themselves to this process?

We would be grateful to be in receipt of your response in regard to this matter by the 15th July, 2010.

Yours truly,

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society

cc. Honourable Ms. Mary Anne Jablonski, Minister of Seniors and Community Supports
Mr. Robert Bhatia, Deputy Minister of Seniors

Response

Letter

August 27, 2010

Via Facsimile 780 422 2722
Letter to follow.

The Honourable Mr. Luke Ouellette,
Minister of Infrastructure & Transportation
Room # 320, Legislature Building, Edmonton.

Dear Sir:

SIMARD MD, DRIVING TEST

Further to your correspondence of July 19th, 2010.

Your letter inaccurately states that the results of the Simard MD are being forwarded to Alberta Transportation’s Driver Fitness and Monitoring Section. That is misinformation.

The results are being forwarded to a private business.

In fact the results of the Simard MD together with personal, confidential health information are being published to DriveAble, who charge $200.00 plus GST, per test. In Calgary, the cost is $250.00. In some areas such as Montreal, the computer test costs $250.00 and an additional charge of $75.00 is made for the road test. It has been reported that in the year 2000, DriveAble grossed close to 4 million. That was then, what would it be now?

What is most troubling and even frightening, a low Simard MD score could be used to deem the senior incompetent thus allowing government (Public Trustee), family or others to strip the senior of all rights and seize the senior’s estate under the

Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act.

It is further troubling, that seniors who may never had a car accident or difficulty with the law, are being subjected to this bizarre examination; an examination conducted with a stop watch. Numbers of seniors who have not had the advantage of extensive schooling and who may have had only very basic schooling, find the process of rapidly repeating numbers, intimidating. Many have a poor command of English and do not always fully understand the questioning.

Then follows the threat. If the person has a low Simard MD score they MUST attend DriveAble, pay the fee or be stripped of their right to drive. What remarkable protocol.

Canadian citizens who are seniors are being subjected to assessments ad nauseam. Across the province of Alberta, hundreds of physicians, registered nurses, psychiatric nurses, social workers, occupational therapists and others have received a form of training and a designation which allows them to assess the cognitive state of seniors
(and strip them of all rights) .

We submit that this Simard MD is just another variation of the assessment process which will be used by Government and others to target seniors.

We further submit that this process is not only discriminatory, decidedly abusive but also a protocol of entrapment parallel to the unjust Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act.

Finally our correspondence of July 19, 2010, was not “an inquiry”, it was an expression of deep concern.

Please allow us to be in receipt of your response by the 15th of September, 2010.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society

cc. Honourable Ms. M. Jablonski, Minister of Seniors & Community Supports

Honourable Ms. Alison Reford, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

Response

See Also: Martha Matich: Dependant Adults Act Abuse

REVIEW OF Northern Alberta Regional Geriatric (NARG) Driving Program Report, DriveAble, dated January 16, 1996
(Exhibit “B” of the Affidavit of Carolina Merlin April 29, 1996 filed in court May 1, 1996)

January 16, 1996, Martha Matich was told to attend at the Northern Alberta Regional Geriatric Program (NARG) for the purpose of a driving test. (4 Page Report Attached)

She had originally been scheduled for the test, December 4, 1995, but due to -30, extreme cold weather, the test was cancelled until January 16, 1996. Concerning this matter:

DriveAble produced a Report, it was unsigned. At the court, the unsigned driving assessment is also referred to as the “Dr. Ivan Kiss Report” or the “Kiss Report”.

Mr. Ihor Broda refers to this Report in the Proceedings of the Application for Trusteeship and Guardianship by Carolina and Sergio Merlin, P. 8, L.14-22. He quotes paragraph 2 & 3 of the NARGE Driving Program Report. He commences: “Unfortunately, there is ample evidence [...] is justifiable on the basis of our test results.”

We quote this to identify, that there is in fact no question but that Mr. Broda is referring to the 4 page Driving Assessment Report of January 16,1996, though he refers to it as the Dr. Ivan Kiss Report.

This filed court document, contains no signature. It is disturbing that a professional document, that has been used to declare a person incompetent is unsigned.

A professional person identifies herself/himself by signature. If in fact Dr. Ivan Kiss was associated with this matter, why is he not identified by signature?

On January 16, 1996, we, the Elder Advocates of Alberta, discussed the said Driving Program Report (DriveAble Report) with Barbara Carstensen RN of NARG on March 10, 1999 (Ph. 780 – 433 1499. Barbara Carstensen identified the Report as a DriveAble Report.

Ms. Carstensen informed us that their driving assessment, is customarily an unsigned report.

The Driving Program Report, indicates that the cognitive assessment was carried out by Occupational Therapy, not by Dr. Ivan Kiss. (Page 2) (Tab 5)

On Page 1, Paragraph 2 of the Driving Report Assessment, we find the following statement: “There were reports of depression, anxiety, progressive memory difficulties and some functional decline”.

There were indeed reports (Paragraph 2) from a person who is obviously not a clinical diagnostician, namely Mrs Carolina Merlin as stated in her cross-examination on Affidavit (Tab #17)

In fact, without the knowledge of Martha Matich, Caroline Merlin attended at NARG, identifying herself as “Martha’s niece”, and offered information regarding Martha’s alleged mental decline. The fact that Carolina Merlin offered information is documented in the Examinations on Affidavit of Carolina Merlin dated June 7, 1996 Page 14, L.22-27, Page 15, L.1-13. Carolina Merlin offered information to Dr. Kae White. (Tab # 17)

Further to the above statement, “There were reports of depression” It would seem reasonable that a professional psychologist would measure or indicate the level of depression, rather than include a statement such as, “there were reports.”

This examination, was used to deprive an elderly person of rights, assets and estate.

The Driving Program Report Assessment, P. 1, states that Martha Matich: “…was referred for neuropsychological testing to aid in the determination of the nature and extent of cognitive difficulties. Areas of concern included the possible need for guardianship and trusteeship and ongoing management of this patient’s care.”

Who referred her? The professional person or the referrer, is not identified on the Report by name.

However, Mr. Broda stated before the court, that it was: 1) “Carolina Merlin in consultation with Dorothy Brosseau”

In the Affidavit of Carolina Merlin, it was identified as 2) “the result of the concerns of the Department of Motor Vehicles”.

In the “Written Argument to Justice Sanderman by Carolina Merlin”, it was 3) “due to her age.” 4) In some documents there is the inference that it was the concern of Dr. Lord for Martha Matich, that he referred her to NARG.

Martha believed this to be a driving examination and nothing else. As stated by Martha, in the Cross Examinations on Affidavit of Martha Matich on June 13, 1996, P.41, L. 15-21.

Mr. Broda inquired of her: “Do you remember then a while back, a few weeks, a month, five, four months ever attending at the General hospital and speaking to some doctors & being examined on whether you were able to drive?” (Obviously, even Mr. Broda considered it a driving test.)

Martha replied, “Yes I remember, yes.”

Broda said, “Do you remember who saw you there?”"

To which she replied, “I don’t remember the person’s name, but it was about driving my car.”

Clearly, Martha had not been informed that it was anything but a driving test, and believed that it was a driving test.

Professionals who carry out competency assessments, must have valid consent and understand various forms of consent: implied, voluntary and informed. No one obtained the consent of Martha Matich.

It is not apparent that at any time, Martha Matich considered the attendance at NARG, anything other than a driving test.

When carrying out a competency assessment and surrogate decision making process, the failure to obtain a valid form of consent is indeed an ethical failure and subject to challenge. Please note the Preamble of the Competency Assessment and Surrogate Decision Making. (Tab # 18)

In the Cross Examinations on Affidavit of Carolina Merlin dated June 7, 1996,

Page 42, L. 25-27

Mr. Bridges, “I would like you to just help me understand which two reports are being relied upon?”

Mr. Broda: “Dr. Lord’s and Dr. Kiss”.

Page 43, L. 21-27

Mr. Bridges: “And those are the only two reports that form the basis for the decision to prepare the CAVEAT, which we have seen marked as Exhibit D-4; is that correct?”

Carolina Merlin: “Yes”.

Mr. Broda: “We are not in possession of any other reports. If we were, we would disclose them”.

In the same Cross Examinations on Affidavit of Carolina Merlin dated June 7, 1996:

Page 43, L. 17-20,

Mr. Broda states: “The other Report that is being relied upon, is an assessment dated January 16, 1996 which is attached as exhibit B to your Affidavit.”

This again refers to the Driving Program Report (DriveAble Report)