"Rise in the presence of the aged, and show respect for the elderly."

Dr. Jean Triscott, College of Physicians & Surgeons

Home > Blog Senior Driving Issues > Dr. Jean Triscott, College of Physicians & Surgeons

Doctor Misdiagnosed Client

Via facsimile 780 424 5617

January 14th, 2016

Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons
2700 – 10020 100 Street NW

Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0N3

Reference Dr. Jean E. Triscott MD, Director of Residency / Geriatrics Program, Glenrose
Rehabilitation Hospital, 10230 111 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T5G 0B7

————————–
Dear Dr. Michel Caffaro:
We acknowledge your letter of Decision of Dismissal dated December 16, 2015.

1) We appeal your decision for the reason that the Investigator failed to acknowledge that Dr. Jean Triscott acted in breach of the CMA Code of Ethics.

2) We allege that with full knowledge, this physician demonstrated incompetence in professional practice, demonstrated error of judgement. Dr. Triscott misdiagnosed / fabricated a diagnosis. We have further documentation that she has also fabricated a diagnosis (false) for another client. Both clients were referred for DriveABLE assessments.

3) Furthermore, it should be known that the DriveABLE computer based assessments to which she refers her clients, are under scrutiny. We have documented and published that DriveABLE has harmed and is harming safe drivers.

DriveABLE has misclassified drivers as unsafe and cognitively impaired when in fact these misclassified drivers were found to be cognitively intact and safe drivers as happened in the matter of this client.

4) DriveABLE Assessment Corp inc. has not apologized to those who have been victimized or remedied their expenses in their struggle to become relicensed.

Individuals, who have been abused / misclassified by the DriveABLE assessment, some of them Class I licensees, who then wished to re-obtain their right to drive, have had to undergone lengthy psychological testing, sometimes head scans, extensive reports from a physician, gerontological testing, all at their own emotional and financial expense. If they do not determine to endure the emotional and financial abuse, they will have permanently lost their right to drive.

5) A computer based assessment by DriveABLE Assessment Centres Inc. costs a client in Edmonton $250.00 (plus GST), in Ontario $700.00, the costs differ in various jurisdictions across the country.

In 2005, the CEO of DriveABLE, published that the DriveABLE Assessment Company received $60.00 for each computer based, assessment. More recent information provided to the Elder Advocates by two voting shareholders, is as follows, DriveABLE Assessment Centres Inc. receives about $30.00 from each assessment.

Thus, it is clear that DriveABLE receives only a small portion of the cost paid by the client who undergoes testing.

6) We are questioning, who is receiving the remainder of the payment that is paid for the assessment? Where does all the money go?

7) We have publicly alleged and also directly alleged to the founders of the Simard MD and DriveAble pilot project, Bonnie Dobbs and Allan Dobbs, that in fact the pilot project is a massive, sophisticated multi-million dollar scam which is being perpetrated against the older citizens of this Province by government and private interests. Unfortunately some physicians, not all, have bought into this corrupt protocol.

8) In 1989, Dr. Triscott, worked closely with Bonnie Dobbs and others, carrying out research under the direction of Dr. Ivan Kiss at NARG.

In 1996, one of the early casualties of this research was Martha Matich. According to Barbara Carstensen, (associate of Allan & Bonnie Dobbs) it was the unsigned driving report produced at NARG that lawyer, Ihor Broda (now disbarred) placed before the court in order to successfully mislead the court and have Martha Matich declared incompetent.

9) Similarly the Simard MD cognitive test. .

The Simard MD was developed by Bonnie Dobbs PhD and an associate, (it is a cognitive test based on Der DemTect developed in Germany in 2000).

10) Bonnie Dobbs has widely published and perpetrated the concept that

“A cognitively intact person of any age, will do well on the
Simard MD”

That concept is false.

That is the false premise that is the cornerstone of the Simard MD and DriveABLE pilot project.

11) Those who score low on the Simard MD test are often referred to the DriveABLE computer based test, developed by husband Allan R. Dobbs PhD. Allan Dobbs is 15.7% owner and voting shareholder of the lucrative multi-national, multi-million dollar DRIVEABLE ASSESSMENT CORPORATION INC.

12) Furthermore, we now have been informed that in two instances, in breach of the CMA Code of Ethics, this physician failed to treat clients with dignity and as persons worthy of respect. We also have anecdotal evidence of mistreatment of another senior client by Dr. Triscott. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to come forward.

13) Dr.Triscott, in breach of the CMA Code of Ethics failed to consider the well- being of the client, when without cause, she strongly instructed the client that he was not to drive home from the GLENROSE Rehabilitation Hospital. How demeaning! How humiliating!

14) Instructing the client not to drive home is another example of either
a) her failure to accurately diagnose
b) treating clients abusively

14) The essence of a fiduciary relationship (physician-patient relationship) is that the patient’s interest must be paramount. We submit that this has not happened in this matter. The former is an example.

14) It would strongly appear that the College of Physicians and Surgeons refuses to recognize and acknowledge the harm and injustice that physician, Dr. Jean Triscott imposed on the complainant.

15) We submit that your decision to dismiss the complaint of Dr. Wes Penner is not reasonable.

16) Finally, we find it professionally unacceptable that the College has sent the complaint dismissal to the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society rather than to the complainant who initiated the complaint. We see this an example of treating the complainant with disregard, perhaps parallel to the demonstrated attitudes and actions of the named physician.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society,

References

CMA Code of Ethics – Reviewed in March 2015

The FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP – Law and the Physician