|
British
"expert" doctor exposed as quack | Boston
neurologist nailed for misleading court (November 2004) |
Judge Baynton's finding
of malice against cop and crown and social worker: It is clear that without
Yelland's "expert" opinion -- arrived at without finding
physical corroboration for children's outrageous claims -- that
the judges who indicted the Klassens and Kvellos and who convicted
Ross, Ross and White might have reached different verdicts |
Dr.
Charles Smith | Angela Cannings
| Trupti Patel | Scotland
cases | Sally Clark | Anthony
Kporwodu and Angela Veno |
Yelland's evidence | Yelland
in Judge Baynton's decision
Dr. Joel Yelland
Head of Saskatchewan
College gave false testimony many times
Doctor sued over false
abuse case
Julie Saccone, The StarPhoenix,
May 27, 2005
Days after a Saskatoon doctor
was cleared of allegations of misconduct in connection with the
Klassen malicious prosecution case, the doctor and the College
of Physician and Surgeons of Saskatchewan were slapped with a
lawsuit Thursday.
Richard Klassen, one of the
12 people wrongly accused of sexual and ritualistic abuse of
three children in the early 1990s, filed a statement of claim
with the Court of Queen's Bench against Dr. Joel Yelland and
the college, citing negligent behaviour.
Yelland, the former president
of the Saskatchewan Medical Association (SMA), examined the children
involved in the case. His reports were used to corroborate the
child abuse allegations against Klassen and his family.
A complaint laid by Klassen
with the SMA was dismissed more than a week ago when Yelland
was cleared of all allegations.
According to the statement
of claim, Klassen alleges Yelland "deliberately encouraged
the children . . . to continue to make up stories of sexual abuse
and further that he purposely and negligently supplied the prosecution
with corroborated testimony that the defendant knew or should
have known to be false."
Klassen alleges Yelland helped
"the prosecution obtain a conviction against Klassen while
knowing this false report (prepared in 1991) could or would likely
help seal the conviction."
The college is "vicariously
liable" for Yelland's actions, Klassen claims.
Klassen said he suffered emotional
stress, anxiety, depression and humiliation, among other things.
He is seeking damages including
punitive and exemplary damages of at least $500,000. He is also
asking general and special damages to be proven at trial.
In 1990, Klassen and 11 other
people were charged with dozens of counts of child sexual abuse.
The charges were stayed on the eve of their trial and they sued
justice officials for malicious prosecution.
The case went to trial in late
2003 and the judge ruled in their favour. The province agreed
to pay $1.5 million to the 12 plaintiffs as a settlement last
June.
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2005
Former SMA head cleared
of misconduct
Jason Warick, Saskatchewan
News Network, May 14, 2005
A former president of the Saskatchewan
Medical Association (SMA) has been cleared of allegations of
misconduct in connection with the Klassen malicious prosecution
case.
The complaint against Dr. Joel
Yelland, SMA president in 2003, was laid by Richard Klassen.
Klassen and 11 other members of his family were falsely accused
of abusing three of his brother's foster children in the early
1990s.
Klassen was highly critical
of Yelland's examination of the children, which was used to corroborate
the child abuse allegations against Klassen and his family.
The judge at the Klassen's
successful malicious prosecution lawsuit against justice officials
last year was also critical of Yelland's work, saying he made
statements of fact based solely on unsubstantiated allegations
of the children rather than on physical examinations.
Justice George Baynton said
Yelland's judgment was clouded by the large number of abuse cases
he'd handled in the past and it "blinded him."
However, the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has ruled there is no evidence that
Yelland committed misconduct in the case.
It ruled that Yelland's conduct
"is not such a departure from acceptable medical standards."
Yelland's writings about the
care he provided were "quite appropriate for the circumstances
described," the college ruled.
Yelland could not be reached
for comment Friday.
In 1990, Klassen and the other
11 people were charged with dozens of counts of child sexual
abuse. The charges were stayed on the eve of their trial, but
many of their lives were ruined by the allegations and charges.
They sued justice officials
for malicious prosecution, and the case went to trial in late
2003. Baynton ruled in their favour in a scathing judgment, which
found that Saskatoon police officer Brian Dueck, therapist Carol
Bunko-Ruys and prosecutor Matthew Miazga maliciously prosecuted
the group.
The province agreed to pay
$1.5 million to the 12 plaintiffs as a settlement last June.
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2005
- Complaint
leaves few MDs willing to do sex assault cases
- Saskatchewan doctor
accused of unprofessional conduct in reviewing abuse
- By Deana Driver, Medical Post, September
21, 2004 Volume 40 Issue 35
REGINA An unprofessional
conduct complaint filed against a prominent Saskatchewan physician
for examinations he conducted 14 years ago has drastically reduced
the number of doctors who are willing to work on sexual assault
cases.
The complaint is being considered for evidence by an out-of-province
physician with a report expected in late September.
Meanwhile, a Saskatoon colleague of the doctor is angry the complaint
even exists and offers suggestions on how other physicians can
protect themselves while doing this type of work.
College complaint
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan received
a complaint in February against Dr. Joel Yelland, who was completing
his 2003/04 term as president of the Saskatchewan Medical Association
(SMA).
In 1990 and 1991, Dr. Yelland conducted physical examinations
for the provincial department of social services of three foster
children to detect signs of sexual abuse. Those examinations
were part of an investigation of 12 individuals who were accused
of heinous sexual abuse. Those accusations eventually proved
to be unfounded. The children later admitted they had invented
their stories and the brother was found to be abusing his two
sisters.
The wrongly accused 12 individuals sued for malicious prosecution
and won a December 2003 court case in which Judge George Baynton
was very critical of Dr. Yelland's 1990/91 examinations and actions.
In February, the individuals received a $1.5 million ex gratia
payment from the province, but the province has also appealed
the verdict to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
- One of the wrongly accused,
Richard Klassen, then complained to the college of physicians
about Dr. Yelland's conduct in the case, making six allegations
arising out of Judge Baynton's decision:
- that Dr. Yelland missed evidence
of the amount of sexual abuse increasing between the examinations
of 1990 and 1991;
- based his medical reports
more on the subjective history told to him than on his own objective
examinations of the children;
and made statements of fact
"based solely on unsubstantiated allegations of the children
rather than on his physical examinations."
Lifting statements directly from the judge's 2003 ruling, the
complaint also states that Dr. Yelland "ignored the most
feasible source of abuse of the girls" and that his role
in establishing the Saskatoon Sexual Abuse of Children Protocol
and the volume of patient referrals he received from social services
"clouded his professional judgment and blinded him to any
other conclusion" than one that was consistent with the
information given by the children.
The complaint also alleges Dr. Yelland provided opinions without
reviewing the children's medical histories, which would have
disclosed information that could have altered his opinion.
On March 4, the college sent a letter to Dr. Yelland asking him
to respond to the complaints. A copy of that letter was also
sent to Klassen as part of the college's mandate to keep complainants
informed of the process. Klassen showed the letter to the Saskatoon
Star-Phoenix, which ran an article saying the college was conducting
a disciplinary investigation of the doctor.
Frustration
In an interview with the Medical Post, Dr. Yelland expressed
his frustration and annoyance on several fronts. "These
children disclosed abuse at the hands of the Klassen family and
we're required by law to report on what they've told us,"
he said. "This is a very important issue. We're obligated
by law, especially with child and sexual abuse, to document what
the history and physical findings are and conclusions that we
have based on that. And if it does turn out it was a false allegation
on the part of the complainant, we are not in a position to make
that judgment as physicians," said Dr. Yelland.
Dr. Yelland was particularly
angered by Judge Baynton's comments about him being "blinded"
by his work with the sexual abuse protocol at the time.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," said Dr.
Yelland. "He is blatantly wrong on that issue. If he was
not a judge, he would be sued for that statement. I would have
very just grounds for doing it (suing), but the judicial process
protects judges themselves from that type of lawsuit for libel
and slander."
Dr. Yelland was also concerned
that Klassen took the college's letter to the media to suggest
that disciplinary action was forthcoming when an investigation
was only in the preliminary stages.
Bryan Salte, associate registrar
of the college who authored the letter, also expressed disappointment
with Klassen's actions.
"We would have hoped that
complainants generally, including Mr. Klassen, wouldn't have
used that information to go to the media at the investigative
stage when there's been no decision made on whether the complaint
is justified or not justified," Salte told the Medical
Post. "Having said that, there's no way that we can
prevent complainants from doing that."
Salte said a formal investigation
committee can only be appointed in Saskatchewan if there are
reasonable grounds to believe a physician may be guilty of unprofessional
conduct. "We've sent it off to a person with expertise,
somebody outside the province, with expertise in the investigation
of child sexual abuse issues." That person will consider
the complaint and suggest in late September whether a preliminary
inquiry committee should be struck or not.
Dr. Yelland told the Medical
Post the complaint has been stressful for him, when he was
president of the SMA, but "extremely stressful for any physician
in this situation."
He said he fears the publicity in the case and the high-profile
court decision will have "a major impact on the way physicians
are going to handle any child abuse or child sex abuse cases."
Refusing these cases
Dr. Anne McKenna, a Saskatoon
pediatrician and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University
of Saskatchewan, has seen physicians' responses change over the
last decade.
"I'm having a great many physicians in this province absolutely
refusing to do any kind of examination for the police and social
services," said Dr. McKenna, who has worked on child sexual
assault cases for more than 20 years.
"Nobody wants to do it
anymore-including me, by the way. I'm fed up with it. I'm tired
of having complaints made to the college," she said. "I'm
tired of the judicial system. It never lets you get a straight
sentence out. I'm frustrated, fed up and I really don't want
to do it anymore."
In the last five years, Dr. McKenna has had 10 or 12 complaints
filed against herself, which she said are directly attributable
to sexual abuse consultations.
"I almost have a form
letter I sign now," she said. "They're a nuisance.
They don't make you feel good and certainly the kind of exposure
that Joel got in the Star-Phoenix has had a very, very negative
effect on physicians in this province. It's very much affecting
sexual abuse victims because all of a sudden everybody's afraid
of it, and these kids don't have anyone to speak for them. That's
a terrible thing."
Dr. McKenna is convinced that
Dr. Yelland did nothing wrong. "He put in a history which
he obtained but I don't think he made any inferences."
Dr. Noel Doig, a former chairman
of the SMA's medical advisory committee and of the college's
discipline committee, said specific comments on physician conduct
by a judge are rare and not necessarily accurate. "When
I was chairman of the discipline committee, we did occasionally
have some sort of pithy comments on things from judges. Usually
as a rule, they don't make specific comments about either the
motives or actions of the parties who are not the direct parties
to whatever's going on," he said.
"I feel very unhappy for
Dr. Yelland, who's a very careful physician," said Dr. Doig.
"It appears that he has been judged: if the comments are
made that he did something wrong. That is really a judgment that
maybe a lot of people don't have the expertise to make."
Dr. McKenna said physicians
can protect themselves against liability in sexual assault examinations
by taking some simple steps.
"What doctors need to
know is they are not the judge, they are not the jury and they
are not the investigator. To protect themselves, often they don't
even need to do a history . . . in sexual abuse cases. I will
often talk to someone who comes in. I write things like, 'The
foster parent alleges that. . . .' I don't ever get a history
from the child or from the adult who alleges the complaint. All
you have to do for sexual abuse, you have to look for physical
signs. The rest of it is all part of the investigation of the
police and social services," said Dr. McKenna.
"All any physician needs
to do is say, 'the hymen is intact' or 'the hymen is not intact.'
(Or) 'there is evidence of significant injury.' . . . But we
describe the injuries only. We can also describe, and I do, the
demeanor of the child. I've had children get totally hysterical
(as the examination progresses). . . . All I'm doing is reporting
the facts and that's how I cover myself," said Dr. McKenna.
The SMA would not make any
official comment on the complaint while it is in process. Marcus
Davies, the association's communications director, told the Medical
Post there are educational materials available to help physicians
navigate in the legal world. The Canadian Medical Protective
Association has guidelines for doctors appearing as expert witnesses
in a trial and the association prepared a document a couple years
ago along with the college of physicians and Law Society of Saskatchewan
on medical-legal interaction.
"It covers a whole range
of things: complaints by doctors against lawyers and other aspects,
who is an expert, fee for expert witnesses, preparing medical
legal reports," said Davies.
The Ontario Medical Association prepared a similar fact sheet
and information for its members in 1999.
Don't shy away
from work
Dr. Michael Paré, a
general practitioner psychotherapist in Ontario who writes a
Medical Post column on boundaries, said physicians should
not shy away from doing good work in their area of expertise
for fear they could open themselves to complaints. "There's
no way to avoid complaints against you at some level in medicine,"
he said. "If you tried to avoid all complaints you wouldn't
be a good doctor."
Dr. Paré said physicians
sometimes get into trouble when they go out of their area of
expertise, which is happening with doctors in psychotherapy.
"A complaint against somebody
does not mean they've done anything wrong, and that may be especially
true about complaints in medicine. It has to be proven,"
he said.
Complaint against doctor
under external review
Betty Ann Adam, The StarPhoenix,
August 20, 2004
An external expert is reviewing
a complaint against the outgoing president of the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan for his role in the Klassen
malicious prosecution case.
The governing council of the
organization, which licenses physicians in Saskatchewan, will
consider the opinion when it decides whether to strike a committee
to formally investigate the complaint against Dr. Joel Yelland,
said registrar Dr. Dennis Kendall.
The complaint was brought earlier
this year by Richard Klassen after he and 11 extended family
members won a malicious prosecution lawsuit late last year.
Klassen and the others were
charged, tried and acquitted of horrendous sexual abuses against
three foster children in the early 1990s. Years later, the children
admitted they had invented the stories. The children actually
were sexually abused by their birth parents and the two girls
by their brother.
Relying upon the trial judge's
300-page written decision, Klassen alleged that Yelland's medical
reports about the children lacked objective evidence and bolstered
the prosecution's shaky case against the accused.
Klassen also alleged Yelland's
professional judgment was clouded by his involvement in establishing
a protocol for professionals dealing with cases of child sexual
abuse and by his relationship with Social Services, which referred
a large number of cases to him.
The college wants a peer of
Yelland's to give an opinion on whether his decision-making process
and conclusions were reasonable considering medical standards
of the time, Kendall said.
"There's a limited number
of people in the country who have expertise in this area and
are peers of the physician who then would be in a similar position
to say, in this year, based on the information that was at hand,
this is how I would have handled the situation.
"The practise of medicine
obviously evolves over time as evidence about appropriate practises
changes, so when considerable time has elapsed between when an
event occurred and when decisions were subsequently made, one
has to try and judge it in the context of what was the approach
to practise by peers at that time?
"We have provided to the
external reviewer all of the relevant information and that person
then has to look at it and try and think in the context of what
the state of knowledge was at that time," he said.
Kendall hopes the report will
be ready for the council sometime in September.
Klassen is away on holiday
and could not be reached for comment Thursday.
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2004
College investigates
complaint against doctor in Klassen case
Betty Ann Adam, The StarPhoenix
, April 8, 2004
The College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Saskatchewan is conducting a disciplinary investigation
of the doctor whose medical reports were used to bolster the
malicious prosecution of Richard Klassen and 11 others.
Klassen said this week the
college, which licenses doctors, sent him a copy of a letter
it sent to Dr. Joel Yelland, the president of the Saskatchewan
Medical Association. The letter informs Yelland of Klassen's
February complaint against him for unprofessional conduct.
"They're taking it seriously.
I'm happy," Klassen said Wednesday.
Klassen and 11 extended family
members won the malicious prosecution lawsuit against Saskatoon
police Supt. Brian Dueck, Crown prosecutor Matt Miazga and social
worker Carol Bunko-Ruys, following a lengthy trial last year.
All plaintiffs had been charged,
tried and acquitted in the 1990s, on charges of committing heinous
sexual abuses against three foster children. Years later the
children admitted they had invented the stories. The children
were actually sexually abused by their birth parents and the
girls by their brother.
In his December 2003 decision,
Justice George Baynton outlined the role of Yelland, a family
physician who often performed examinations of children at the
request of social workers investigating possible cases of sexual
and physical abuse.
Yelland examined the children,
Michael, 10, and his twin sisters, Michelle and Kathy Ross, 8,
in 1990 and again in 1991.
The college informed Yelland
in a March 4 letter that the complaint against him includes six
allegations arising out of Baynton's decision.
It alleges Yelland testified
at a preliminary hearing that there was no more evidence of sexual
abuse in 1991 than there had been in 1990, despite substantial
indication of increased symptoms between the two examinations.
It alleges Yelland based his
medical reports more on the subjective history told to him than
on his own professional, objective observations gleaned from
his examinations of the children.
It alleges that in his 1991
medical reports, Yelland made statements of fact based solely
on unsubstantiated allegations of the children, rather than on
his physical examinations.
He ignored the most feasible
source of abuse of the girls, it alleges.
As well, Yelland's role in
establishing the Saskatoon sexual abuse of children protocol,
and the volume of patient referrals he received from Social Services,
clouded his professional judgment and blinded him to any other
conclusion than one that was consistent with the information
given by the children, the letter states.
Yelland's belief in the guilt
of the accused was irrational, considering it was based on information
provided by children who had named many other people besides
them, the complaint alleges.
It also alleges Yelland provided
opinions without reviewing the children's medical histories,
which would have disclosed information which could have altered
his opinion.
"As interpreted by the
courts, this means the physician must have done something that
is such a departure from acceptable medical practice that no
reasonable physician would have done (what he did)," the
letter states.
It suggested Yelland contact
the Canadian Medical Protective Association, which might be able
to provide him with legal counsel.
Yelland declined to comment
when contacted Wednesday.
College registrar Dr. Dennis
Kendal said he cannot discuss on-going disciplinary matters but
did outline how the process works.
The college is obligated to
respond to every complaint with an informal investigation, in
which administration gathers facts and recommends to the college
council or its executive committee whether the complaint merits
a formal investigation.
If so, a formal investigation
is conducted by a special preliminary inquiry committee, which
reports to the council with an opinion on whether there has been
unprofessional conduct.
The entire governing council
decides whether to lay a formal charge under the Medical Professions
Act. If so, a standing discipline committee hears the evidence
and decides if the charge is proven.
If it is, the matter returns
to the entire governing council, which sets a penalty.
The mildest penalty for professional
misconduct is a formal reprimand that remains on the doctor's
record for life.
Penalties increase through
fines and periods of suspension up to revoking of the physician's
licence, Kendal said.
The entire process can take
many months.
© Copyright 2004 The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
Complaint against doctor
under external review
Betty Ann Adam, The StarPhoenix,
August 20, 2004
An external expert is reviewing
a complaint against the outgoing president of the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan for his role in the Klassen
malicious prosecution case.
The governing council of the
organization, which licenses physicians in Saskatchewan, will
consider the opinion when it decides whether to strike a committee
to formally investigate the complaint against Dr. Joel Yelland,
said registrar Dr. Dennis Kendall.
The complaint was brought earlier
this year by Richard Klassen after he and 11 extended family
members won a malicious prosecution lawsuit late last year.
Klassen and the others were
charged, tried and acquitted of horrendous sexual abuses against
three foster children in the early 1990s. Years later, the children
admitted they had invented the stories. The children actually
were sexually abused by their birth parents and the two girls
by their brother.
Relying upon the trial judge's
300-page written decision, Klassen alleged that Yelland's medical
reports about the children lacked objective evidence and bolstered
the prosecution's shaky case against the accused.
Klassen also alleged Yelland's
professional judgment was clouded by his involvement in establishing
a protocol for professionals dealing with cases of child sexual
abuse and by his relationship with Social Services, which referred
a large number of cases to him.
The college wants a peer of
Yelland's to give an opinion on whether his decision-making process
and conclusions were reasonable considering medical standards
of the time, Kendall said.
"There's a limited number
of people in the country who have expertise in this area and
are peers of the physician who then would be in a similar position
to say, in this year, based on the information that was at hand,
this is how I would have handled the situation.
"The practise of medicine
obviously evolves over time as evidence about appropriate practises
changes, so when considerable time has elapsed between when an
event occurred and when decisions were subsequently made, one
has to try and judge it in the context of what was the approach
to practise by peers at that time?
"We have provided to the
external reviewer all of the relevant information and that person
then has to look at it and try and think in the context of what
the state of knowledge was at that time," he said.
Kendall hopes the report will
be ready for the council sometime in September.
Klassen is away on holiday
and could not be reached for comment Thursday.
© The StarPhoenix
(Saskatoon) 2004
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell