CHAPTER VIII

The Value of the Documents

and the Cock-and-Bull Stories

Notes and records are of great value as evidence from a forensic point of view because they enable a party to prove facts with precision and ease.The standard of a physician's work will be judged in part on the quality of his notes and the judge and jury, or both, will want to look at these. Records written illegibly on scraps of paper will have an adverse effect on any testimony based on them. The best medical care will be easily discredited by the presentation of faulty notes; having no notes at all is obviously much worse.¹¹¹

Introductory Notice

The above quotation and the following excerpts are taken from the textbooks which the trial judge Mr. Boudreault stated that he "had consulted" in rendering the judgment. With all due respect to the judge, it is my opinion that he did not consult them. Otherwise, he would not have written the judgment as he did, and he would have spared me the hell I have experienced and the onerous task of criticizing him.

The medical records are the only evidence that show whether I was justifiably interned and appropriately treated. They are also evidence regarding the competence and honesty of the psychiatrists involved in my internment. What records reveal is of paramount importance.

Since the very first day of my internment I strongly urged the psychiatrists to ensure that they had applied the proper medical requirements -- proper examinations, accurate recording of the examinations and observations as well as therapy -- during my stay in the hospital, for I intended to raise the question of my internment with the legal and medical authorities after my discharge. It is noted in the records of November 19, 1971: "He (myself) stated that he would appeal to an Ombudsman and would certainly not drop the whole matter once he had left."

Dr. Grenier and Dr. Dufour, being the instigators and signatories of the Commitment Certificate, had professional and legal obligations to write records. Yet they did not produce their written records.

It is clearly written in the Certificate that Dr. Grenier had sent the records to Saint Michel Archange Hospital. During his examination for discovery he stated that he had written the records. Moreover, in his fraudulent plea of January 15, 1975¹¹² he reiterated that he had written "medico-psycho-social records".

I strongly urged my lawyer, Mr. Goulston, to demand that Dr. Grenier furnish the said records. As a result my lawyer received two scraps of paper -- scraps without any author's identification. Actually, my lawyer was fooled by the notes, presumably typed by Dr. Grenier's nurse.¹¹³

Dr. Grenier had either not written the records or concealed the records, which, in either case, is a violation of the Code of Ethics.

I prefer to quote here from the legal and medical authorities to which the judge refers in his judgment. Let us start with the Quebec Code of Medical Ethics:¹¹⁴

The physician must refrain from practising medicine without establishing, keeping and preserving his medical records in compliance with the regulations of the college.

The Code is very explicit regarding physicians' obligations to keep medical records. After a long tug of war the psychiatrists finally produced the records in court, but it appeared that they had been forged. Obviously, my doctors were in serious trouble: first, because they did not produce the complete records, and secondly, because the records which they produced, were forged.

Idem est non probari et non esse; non deficit jus, sed probatio (What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not defect of law, but of proof).¹¹⁵

In my case this axiom was perverted and reversed -- the proofs were there, but the law was not applied. Medical records are prima facie proofs beyond reasonable doubt, self-explanatory and required by the Civil Code of Quebec.

The judge ignored the best written evidence, and therefore did not apply the law. He found the written records and many documents to be unreliable (aide-m�moires). Besides, he permitted a marathon (28 days) of testimony by the people involved in my incarceration. This allowed them to disavow what they had written during my hospitalization, and events that had occurred 8-9 years ago. Contrary to the above-mentioned axiom and the Civil Code, the judge accepted and relied upon what my adversaries had stated in court.

The Canadian legal authority T. David Marshall, to whom Mr. Justice Boudreault refers to support his view, is knowledgeable on both principles and applications of medical records.

Marshall starts his discussion with the remarks which we have chosen as a motto for this chapter. He elaborates:

Quotations taken directly from the patient are admissible and helpful in court if they form part of these notes. Diagnoses made by other doctors, however, might not be admissible in the notes because, as the opinion of outsiders, they are not subjected to cross-examination. Any incomplete records should be accompanied by an explanatory note to lend credibility to the record when used in testimony. Any surreptitious altering of records will be disastrous. Any changes should be lined through only and the new note dated properly and initiated.¹¹⁶ Writing experts easily reveal who wrote what and when it was written.¹¹⁷

My medical records were irrefutable documentation -- medical and legal -- of my unjustifiable internment. If they were incomplete, that proved that the psychiatrists were not competent. This very fact was apparent even to the psychiatrists, hence they attempted to falsify the records, which was proved by a writing expert and subsequently admitted. The malefactors did their job in such a senseless and clumsy way that it was not necessary to ask an expert to testify about the obvious. On the other hand, Dr. Grenier and Dr. Dufour, initiators of my internment, either did not write at all, or they concealed the medical records. In either case, the two psychiatrists failed to satisfy one of their vital duties.

After meeting with the lawyer, the physician should then prepare for his appearance in court in two general ways: we shall call these material and manner.

So far as material goes, he should make certain that he has thoroughly reviewed and familiarized himself with all records pertaining to the case, and he should, of course, take these along with him when he goes to testify.¹¹⁸

Accordingly, as plaintiff I urged my lawyers not to conduct the preliminary examination for discovery -- of either Dr. Grenier or Dr. Juretic -- without the medical records. In both cases my lawyers proceeded with the examinations without the records. And later, although I pressed them to obtain the entire records, in many instances the defence would fool them by sending them only partial or irrelevant records or just worthless scraps of paper.

My lawyers also went to court without the records. On my strong insistence, the defence finally submitted the records, even though they had been forged and were incomplete.

As to manner, the best approach is a combination of humility, reserve, and patience, plus a firmness of conviction. And it goes without saying that it must be truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. One slip in this and the witness sheds all credibility. Liars are not believed in court even when they are telling the truth.¹¹⁹

On the contrary, in my case the liars were believed when they were telling the brazen lies!

Physicians must fill out lengthy reports almost every day. However, these reports like other records do represent evidence of the standard of care provided, and poor reporting reflects poor care (emphasis added).¹²⁰

During my hospitalization, only 20 reports were written over a period of six months (173 days). The most astonishing fact is that the reports were consecrated mostly as long panegyrics to my ex-wife, as a "madame well dressed", "very intelligent with a particular vocabulary", "polyglot" (at the time she hardly spoke French), "nice, sweet madame with honeyed voice, who very quickly became a seductress" (sic), and so on.

I was curious to find out how many times each of us was mentioned in the records. My computer check indicated that she was mentioned over 150 times in 20 reports in "madame had said" (madame a dit) versions. And all her statements were taken for granted as indisputable truths, while all my claims such as: I was interned for nothing, that my ex-wife was mentally disturbed and a liar -- charges that should have been verified -- were scorned as "uncritical" complaints.

Further, people rely upon the doctor's reports. If they are given negligently, the doctor may be liable in damages and in the case of insurance forms, for example, these damages can be substantial.

No, the judge did not rely upon the doctor's reports. He preferred to rely upon the 28 days idle and double-talk in court. He was timid or pusillanimous to punish the villains!

There are five significant factors to be recorded in any report:

1. Identify the patient and the date of examination.

5. State the prognosis. ¹²¹

In my case, none of these "significant factors" was properly recorded. With respect to the first "factor" it is enough to glance at the report of the assumed first examination, which is produced in the Appendix, Exhibits 3-8. It is incredible that a doctor does not know how to write his client's name and identification data! My complaints, as I mention, were simply ignored. The treatments consisted of "lessons not to be jealous", teaching me how to live without the family or not to love the children, imposing "disciplinary measures" which meant having to live among violent patients and being beaten by them, and punishing me with drugs for "uncritical complaints", and so on. The prognosis was not mentioned even once. Why? Because, I believe, the "doctors" were not familiar with the term "prognosis"¹²², or they were in a daze since I was a healthy person, although they did their best to make me sick. It was not feasible even for crooks to prognosticate a healthy person.

Let us now turn to a leading American authority, Roland H. Long, who writes:

Careful and legible records of consultations, examinations, treatments, operations, and postoperative care should be kept.

Lawsuits are not generally brought immediately after final treatment and discharge of the patient or after the discharge of the physician by the patient. court calendars are often crowded, hence lawsuits may not be reached for trial for several years after one action is commenced. By the time the case is reached for trial, recollections are often dim, impressions deceitful and illusory, but the written record remains constant. Man's memory for facts is not as satisfying to the mind as a written record in an investigation involving past events¹²³. When there is a direct conflict in the testimony of the parties to a lawsuit, written records become of paramount importance. ¹²⁴

There are similar important sources from Quebec:

The modern hospital establishment assumes the obligation with respect to the patient to make and keep records, which will permit the physician in attendance to write in prescriptions and recommendations, and to oversee the implementation of his/her instructions.

These records, which nowadays are indispensable in order to provide care and treatment to a patient, also furnish the authorities of hospitals (who are in our view the owners of the records) with the means of protecting themselves from possible claims for damages. It is, thus, important to establish and complete these records conscientiously and competently.¹²⁵ (Translated by R. Hromnysky)

Finally, several Canadian precedents assign great weight to medical records. Thus, the Supreme Court in Alberta decided in Ares v. Verner¹²⁶ that:

The hospital records, including the nurses' notes, written everyday by someone who has personal knowledge of the facts and who is charge of writing of the records, have to be accepted as prima facie proof (in court) regarding the events of the case. This would not prevent a party from contesting the exactitude of the records or the writing, if this is desired.¹²⁷

The potentially vital role of hospital records in litigation indicates the importance of paying a great deal of attention to preparing and safeguarding the records. Documents are less likely than human memory to lose credibility with the passing of time.¹²⁹ (Translation by R. Hromnysky)

Do I have to refer to any additional authorities who agree with me that records are the only reliable evidence of the treatment of the patient and the physicians' competence?

My lawyers and the psychiatrists supporting my cause were fools for agreeing to receive my records in "instalments", most of which were, in fact, duplicated, triplicated and even quadruplicated (for instance, the Commitment Certificate), or just forged in a obvious way. The psychiatrists involved in my case were given a chance to manipulate the records at their will.

Some parts of the records were manipulated in such a fatuous manner that even lay people could easily detect the obvious absurdities. The most illustrative instances are the initial statement by my ex-wife on my mental state¹³⁰, the "Commitment Certificate" (written in quadruplicate)¹³¹, and the note of February 18, 1971 by Dr. Juretic.¹³²

It appeared that the psychiatrists became preoccupied and prolific in writing and re-writing the crooked records, mostly after I had commenced my action in court. Some parts were retyped with slight corrections, which, I believe, was done simply to confuse the readers, but nearly all were written in an unacceptable manner from a medical perspective and even from common sense point of view.

My Psychiatric Records

Apparently, according to my records, my wife went to H�tel-Dieu Hospital two weeks before I had seen any of the psychiatrists involved in my hospitalization. She gave her "information" and described me as dangerous to nurse Jean d'Arc Drouin. At that time, I was studying English in Hamilton, Ontario.

The statements are full of obvious errors, and some information is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether I was mentally disturbed (such as my university studies and data about my military service). Other allegations are so highly exaggerated that the reader is apt to wonder how a normal woman could live with such a husband. Since my ex-wife's French was almost nonexistent at the time, someone must have served as an interpreter, who, it seems, was also using poor French.

On the whole, the statements did not prove that I was mentally disturbed, but rather that the author was an unstable, hysterical person. The charges were imagined. It is worth reading them in the Appendix: Exhibit No. 2. The value of medical records is assessed in the letters by Dr. Predrag Vujnovic and Dr. Iva P. Mihic which are exhibited in the Appendix: Exhibits No. 1A and 1B, and by Dr. Pivnicki in the Exhibit No. 28.

The most outrageous writing are the notes written by the physicians on November 12, 1971, when I was in H�tel-Dieu Hospital for an X-ray of my ulcer. They are so senseless and linguistically incorrect and in such poor handwriting that they deserve to be seen. Therefore, I have exhibited the copies of the original notes in the Appendix (Cf. Exhibits Nos. 4-8).

To illustrate my assertions here, I have provided the translation of the notes written in the psychiatric records of H�tel-Dieu Hospital.

Exhibit 4:

02/11/71 - (Telephone) call to Dr. Louis Roy who advise the wife to call the Police, the court, the Judges.....

(Handwriting without signature)

Exhibit No. 6:

H�TEL-DIEU HOSPITAL - QUEBEC

(Sign.) A. Hudon M.D.

To obtain a more complete picture of the "examination" and the examiner, see Appendix: Exhibit 6 (1-2). Even ID data was written in an objectionable manner. The note has been translated as accurately as possible from French. It looks rather grotesque, to say the least. But in French it is much more amusing. I have reproduced the text in French as the doctor wrote it, including errors in writing:

Pt vu; Va assez bien du c�te; digestif. N Le patient ne veut absolument pas demeurer � l'h�pital. Il devrait, selon la psych.(sic) �tre hospitalise pour traitement de parano�a? Exigeons que le patient soit vu par la psychiatrie et afin de y l'hospitalise si n�cessaire.

What a gem of note-writing! The "examiner" writes about the "digestive side" and later about staying in hospital, but he doesn't explain the reason why. Saying someone is sick from paranoia doesn't mean anything. It would have been appropriate for Dr. Hudon to explain how he came to the conclusion that I should be seen by psychiatrists and that I was paranoiac even before I had been examined by a psychiatrist.

Exhibit No. 7: (translation):

H�TEL DIEU HOSPITAL

(Sign.) A. Hudon M.D.

This note, like all the notes of the H�tel Dieu (general hospital), is really asinine. It is not clear why Dr. Dufour wanted to hospitalize me in St. Michel Archange Hospital against my own and my wife's will and what kind of treatment he "wanted" to give me. Further, I was voluntarily in the hospital, as a free citizen, for an examination of my ulcer. Thus, it is not clear why the doctor thought that I could not "refuse treatment" and "leave the hospital without authorization"?! As a physician myself, I've never heard of free citizens having to obtain an authorization to enter or leave a hospital.

This note clearly proves that my fundamental human rights had been taken away and that I had been effectively kidnapped before I was arrested by the police.

Exhibit No. 8: (translation):

H�TEL-DIEU HOSPITAL

(Sign.) A. Hudon M.D.

The way the note was written speaks for itself. No reasonable and literate person would write such a note. Nevertheless one could guess that the "doctor" was asking for an urgent consultation with "Mr. Psychiatry" for a "psych" opinion.

The note begs the same questions as in the previous note: What was the reason for urgent consultation? To whom was I known and for what purpose? And, what was wrong with me not "wanting to be hospitalized"? The way in which this doctor conducted the "examination" and wrote the medical report indicates that he is one of the persons most responsible for my internment. Nevertheless, he was not even subpoenaed to appear in court to say why he did so many irresponsible deeds which bordered on being criminal or deranged.

REPORT:

(Handwriting, with no signature)

Exhibit 8, second part: This part of the note contains outright fiction. I've never heard of any Dr. Grenier. I saw him for the first time in court, when I had brought an action against him. Therefore, it is not true that I was known to anyone as an "noncooperative schizoparanoid".

However, in this note we have the serious allegation that I tried to kill my wife. But we just read that my wife had refused "to have her husband committed"!? It is hard to believe that a wife would refuse to commit a husband who "had threatened to kill her". Besides, if it is a fraud that I was "known to Dr. Grenier", consequently the whole note is a fraud.

Later we will see that the epithets, such as schizoparanoid, delirious, hallucinating, danger of homicide etc., were denied by a beginner (extern) in psychiatry. (See Appendix: Exhibit No. 13). Therefore, they must have been the fruits of a sick or vicious person's imagination.

H�TEL-DIEU HOSPITAL

(No signature)

Dr. Dionne was a surgeon at the H�tel-Dieu Hospital. He had nothing to do with mental patients. From this note and Dr. Grenier's examination for discovery we can see that he was the one who, as a "good neighbour", conspired to achieve my internment.

Delev Dr. Risto

(Sign.) Dr. Jacques Dufour

This note is of paramount significance from a psychiatric point of view. It is also of particular interest because it shows the moral qualities of Dr. Dionne, my wife and the psychiatrists of the H�tel-Dieu Hospital.

Later, in court, my wife testified that what was written here was not true, but apparently my brother thought of "asking the police or hospital for help", because according to him it was "not normal" to move to Canada. (My lawyer did not obtain any clarification on whether it was possible, even in an autocratically governed country like Yugoslavia, to imprison or commit someone to a mental hospital who was trying to move to another country).

Whether the allegation in this note or in court is true, it leads me to believe that my brother and my wife had conspired to interfere in my affairs a long time ago. This matter is very painful for me. I have never had any psychiatric problems nor have I even engaged in any illegal activity, except for being imprisoned in a "re-education" camp long ago for my political views.

Nevertheless this note had other significance in the context of the manipulation of the records. It is significant that the note existed only in the hospital in which I had not been committed. Moreover, the psychiatrists in St. Michel Archange did not mention the note, nor did they question my brother or me about the veracity of the contents of the note. It is strange that the note is written in two versions, and even more odd is the way it is expressed.

It goes like this: My wife "forgot" to mention the "attempt for commitment" during her interview with the nurse Drouin (Read the "information", Appendix: Exhibit No. 2, 1-6 pages). Instead of her communicating the information of paramount psychiatric significance to all the implicated psychiatrists, and especially to St. Michel Archange where I was already interned, she conveyed it to Dr. Dionne and Dr. Dionne to the nurse of H�tel-Dieu and the nurse to Dr. Dufour. And the information stopped here. My biggest puzzle was and still is, why Dr. Dionne was involved and eager to intern me, even though he did not know me well.

Further, the contents of these writings were never proven or verified. While the "information" that my "brother attempted to have me committed" in Yugoslavia is an outright falsehood, to use euphemistic words for base insinuations, the note logically raises the questions: what kind of people are Dr. Dionne, R. Lord and Dr. Dufour professionally, intellectually and morally? In the first place, what was the purpose of the message? If Dr. Dionne's intention was to ask Dr. Roy to keep me in hospital, why didn't he communicate this directly instead of passing the information to nurse Lord to give to Dr. Dufour? And, why did nurse Lord or Dr. Dufour not pass the message to Dr. Roy? The question also arises: From whom did Dr. Dionne learn about the "attempted hospitalization", since he did not know my brother at all? (Later my ex-wife revealed in court that the information was from her, but was not true).

As for me, the most painful part of the story was, and still is, that my brother is mentioned. However, in my view, the very existence of this kind of note, as it is, I repeat -- not verified and proven -- proves that the persons mentioned in this note -- Dr. Dionne, R. Lord and Dr. Dufour -- are extremely irresponsible and unscrupulous.

All these questions which I have raised here, should have been clarified in court, but my instructions were just ignored.

Commitment Certificate and Other Records

My Commitment Certificate and the above mentioned-notes are the most damning accusations against the psychiatrists involved and the judge.

The Certificate is part of the medical records and is required by law¹³⁵ to be an official legal form. Psychiatrists are obliged to properly complete it before they can confine a patient to a mental hospital. Therefore, it is unquestionably a legal and medical document, contrary to Mr. Justice's opinion that it is "aide-m�moire".

For a better understanding I suggest that readers take a look at the four versions of the Certificate exhibited in the Appendix, coded as Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12. It is clear that all four differ in one way or another.

First I received the Certificate coded Exhibit No. 9. Immediately after receiving this certificate, I urged my lawyer, Mr. Philip Goulston, to proceed with the case in court without delay because this copy was enough to prove that I had been a victim of criminals. I pointed out to Mr. Goulston that the certificate was invalid from a formal point of view since the first page had not been completed, and that it lacked a witness' signature.

Furthermore, I had a tape recording in which Dr. Grenier denied that he knew me.

After a while I received the second Certificate (Exhibit No. 10). Although still inaccurate, the first page was filled out, except for the square on the top, which from a legal point of view is of paramount importance. It seems that the "coordination" between the villains was not very advanced. They blundered by writing different dates for the decision of involuntary treatment (cure ferm�e). The two Certificates indicate the following dates: November 12 and November 22, 1971!

During the proceedings in court the opponents produced a third Certificate making changes in the square: adding the diagnosis "paranoia" and two signatures.

The fourth Certificate (Exhibit No. 12) had been handed over to Mr. Goulston by Dr. Juretic (St. Jean Hospital) before the trial started.

I believe that no version of the Certificate was authentic. During my first interview in St. Michel Archange Hospital, Dr. A. Beaudoin told me that three physicians had signed my Commitment Certificate, while on the exhibits which I comment, one can see Dr. Dufour's signature only. It is impossible for four different documents to be issued for the same purpose -- my internment.

Why are each of the four copies of the "Commitment Certificate" different? Dr. Roy, superintendent of St. Michel Archange Hospital, in his testimony about the Commitment Certificate¹³⁶, could not explain why there were two certificates with two different dates (November 12 and November 22, 1971)¹³⁷ for the decision to intern me for involuntary treatment (cure ferm�e). Nor could he explain the "itinerary" for Appendix: Exhibit No. 10. This is the second example of the manipulation of the medical records.

How could an honest and reasonable judge find the involved psychiatrists to be honest? I was arrested and languished six months in a mental hospital on the basis of odious insinuations and a void Commitment Certificate.

To bring out the absurdity and incompetency of Drs. Dorion and Juretic, who tried to cure my "schizo-paranoid sickness," I shall reproduce below a few pages from the medical records written by the above psychiatrists.

The note of 15/11/71,¹³⁸ was written three days after my internment. It reveals that the diagnosis is at variance with that of the certificate:

Progress Notes of 15/11/71: Dx Impression paranoiac state or transient situational disturbances. (In French: Dx impression �tat parano�aque ou troubles transitoire situationnelles).

P. Dorion, M.D.

The subsequent notes of 16/11/71 include hints that I was about to be released when some persons with an opposite opinion intervened -- Mme Dionne and her husband (nonpsychiatrists) insist that my "case is very serious" contrary to Dr. Juretic, who finds that my hospitalization was trivial:

A telephone call made by Madame Louis Dionne¹³⁹, who has known the Delev family well since their arrival in Canada, informed us that the case of Mr. and Mrs. Delev has been brought to the attention of the Yugoslavian Embassy in Ottawa and to the Yugoslavian and Canadian Immigration Services. Mr. Delev's brother is apparently about to come to Canada because of this case. On the other hand, she informed us that she had no reason to believe that Mrs. Risto Delev had questionable attitudes regarding other men and that, furthermore, Mr. Delev had kept a close watch on his wife for three days recently, in Quebec City. She felt distressed when I told her that Mr. Delev would leave the hospital at an undetermined time. She told me that this was a very serious case and that he had threatened to kill his wife, who spent three days with her children at the home of Dr. Dionne.

Dr. Philip Juretic, a Yugoslavian psychiatrist at the St.-Jean-de-Dieu Hospital in Montreal, phoned me and expressed his surprise that his friend and compatriot, Dr. Delev, was hospitalized at St.-Michel-Archange. According to him, he doubted very much the fact that Dr. Delev was psychotic, but said he was unaware of the marital problems the couple was having. He thought that it was most likely "a storm in a teacup"; regarding deportation, he said that to start an action in that direction against the couple's will would be scandalous, because of the political problems Dr. Delev had in his own country.

After reading this note, especially in French, one wonders whether the doctor knows what he is writing about. My translator Mr. Hromnysky tried his best to decipher the linguistically problematic French of my doctors, but -- alas -- most of the time this was a very difficult task because the doctors often did not use proper French and did not write their notes clearly.

It is not clear whether Dr. Dorion rebuffs the diagnosis in his previous note to suit Madame Dionne who thinks that my case is "very serious," or whether he is of the opinion that my case "was most likely a storm in a teacup", as Dr. Juretic stated. A reasonable doctor would question how Mrs. Dionne obtained her information. How did she know that I "had kept a close watch" on my wife? Had she been keeping a close watch on me? How could Madame Dionne have been so confident about the "attitude" of my wife? Finally, why did Dr. Dorion not ask her why my wife did not give this information herself? Was she acting as an advocate for my wife, or was the latter unable to speak for herself?

Much less clear are the notes about Dr. Dionne. Was Dr. Dionne of the opinion that I would have to undergo some kind of drastic surgery just because his wife "had panicked"? The note is laughable, but at the time when it was written I was experiencing appalling "situational disturbances".

The following notes do not need comment. However, for those who are interested I have written some remarks in the footnotes.

Progress notes of 24/11, 2/12, 8/12 and 24/12/71:¹⁴¹

24/11/71 Very interpretative and paranoid. Tense, and tries by all means to prove that he's right.

P. Dorion, M.D.

After more than three months of running in a vicious circle. Dr. Dorion discharged me;¹⁴⁶ actually he transferred me to St. Jean de Dieu Hospital for supplementary "suggested disciplinary policy", for better "cooperation," i.e. for inhuman and degrading treatments by two human monsters -Drs. Raymond Legault and Filippo Juretic.¹⁴⁷

I thought that the psychiatrists in Quebec City were not well trained and I expected that my situation would be immediately solved by my transfer to Montreal under the care of my friend Juretic. I was once again dead wrong. It was a case of "out of the frying pan into the fire".

I wrote about the abominable work of my "friend" Dr. Juretic in Chapters V and VI. Here, with the illustration of his two notes, I will to underline the metamorphosis of a human being into an unspeakable brute. As I have previously written when I commented on the note of 15/11/71, he had made a friendly and humane gesture by advising Dr. Dorion that my disease was not worth mentioning. When I was transferred to his hospital, I expected him to do what any human being would do for his fellow man -- to set me free. Instead he applied an unheard-of, inhuman "disciplinary policy" and later altered my records in a most repulsive way.

The first day I arrived he did not come to see me. I presume he went to the admission ward to falsify the admission slip. Though the judge mentioned three glaring "modifications" of the records, he miserably failed to identify the falsified admission slip, which he had erroneously judged to have been properly written by Dr. Jean-F. Filotto. If one compares the signature on this sheet with the one on the following note¹⁴⁸ one will easily discover that I am right.

The following is the "Progress note" of 18/2/72:

Finally we received the news that the patient of St.-Michel-Archange, Dr. Risto Delev, transferred to St.-Jean-de-Dieu Hospital with approval of both the hospital's management and of the admissions office (of Dr. Filotto).

We saw the patient immediately and noted that he wasn't severely deranged, as his dossier would seem to indicate; he is obviously depressed, though. His depression is a result of his marriage, since his wife, according to him, is acting in a more or less orthodox fashion from a marital standpoint and is the cause of his hospitalization which has already lasted 2-1/2 months.

The patient is lucid, well oriented, and quite vigorous intellectually, but we note that he asks for quite a few things which we can't give him. He is very demanding. We propose a ban on his use of the telephone, seeing that his bill has already climbed to $250.00, and also that he be forbidden to go out. We will keep up-to-date on his progress as frequently as possible.

The patient still doesn't know what he will do once he is permitted to leave; his plans haven't crystallized. The patient expressed uncertainly the idea of his returning to Yugoslavia, only to tell us two minutes later that he could possibly settle down in Austria, since he has already spent some time in that country.

We believe that the confusion caused by his being a landed immigrant, and therefore still a citizen of Yugoslavia, prevents us from making an immediate decision. We would prefer to keep an eye on him and to give him psychotherapy for, in our opinion, he needs it at the present time. The patient is not psychotic, and his depressed state is propitious to significant improvement.

Multiple paranoid and delirious interpretations, in spite of a lucid appearance, complicated by dangerous aggressiveness.¹⁴⁹ (emphasis added)

(Signed) F. Juretic, M.D.

I do not intend to comment on my "friend's" ludicrous description of me as his "patient". Please read the last paragraph and compare it with the previous text of the note, then to look at Exhibit No. 19 (Note of 18/02/72) and read the judge's comment (Appendix: Exhibit No. 30 (Judgment, pages 59-61).

The judge provided a good description of the discharge slip -- the masterpiece of the professor Dr. Juretic.¹⁵⁰ Therefore I do not need to say more. I do however question how a reasonable judge, after at least over six months of deliberation, could vindicate a scoundrel like Dr. Juretic?

The most incredible thing in my case is that the text of the Certificate, from the beginning to the end, is erroneous:

1) Dr. Grenier did not know me at all, which he admitted and which was subsequently proved in court;

2) Dr. Grenier could not produce the medical records which he supposedly had written and sent to the mental hospital. Therefore, it is questionable whether the records even existed;

3) During the trial it was established that a person named Luc. Dionne did not exist;

4) The same day of my internment an extern (a junior psychiatrist) named Boucher disavowed the findings that I was delirious and suffering from hallucinations; and

5) The very same physician (Dr. Dufour) disregarded the diagnosis "schizo-paranoid".

Just a few more words about how the rogues were fooling with my medical documentation. Since I was in St Michel Archange Hospital I asked Dr. Dorion whether I could have my records after my discharge. He said that I could but only partially. Immediately after my release I wrote to all three hospitals to send me copy of my records. They answered that my physician could only release them with my authorization. I authorized Dr. Vujnovic, Gamulin and Divic to release my complete psychiatric records. I also made the same request to the Quebec Corporation of Physicians, since I had complained to the Disciplinary Committee. They sent only a r�sum� of the records.

When Dr. Divic testified in court and supported his testimony with the r�sum�, my opponents vigorously argued that the r�sum� was insufficient to establish a consensus about my internment. It was sufficient for the Committee but not for my expert. So I insisted that the complete records be considered as reliable documentation about my internment. Still, because the records were objectionable, the judge permitted "hors dossier" -- out of the records testimony by the same persons who gave information during my internment. This is what I call an Orwellian standard of morality, otherwise how could gangsters escape from their responsibility?