"shemar" wrote in message
...

. . . decision favored in the doctor. About a week after receiving
the College's decision, I received a copy of my file as recorded by this
psychiatrist, in which the College based their decision. Within minutes
of
receiving this file, I noticed a discrepancy in the content of the file
and
had alerted the College right away. When I reviewed it further, I found
multiple differences of what he wrote and what actually occurred. The
whole
file had been rewritten from beginning to end, which led me to file
another
complaint of fraud. In the course of this investigation, it became known
that the doctor did indeed rewrite my file, not once but twice and he gave
the following explanation:
.. . .
He had a "pen" computer with Windows 95 and when he bought a new pen
computer with Windows 98, he had no trouble transferring files from one
computer to another. Then in 2002, he bought a "tablet" computer with
Windows XP. He is maintaining that the operating system of Windows 98 was
not compatible to Windows XP and therefore he ran into problems
transferring
files forcing him to hand write all his file notes into the new computer.
When I had filed the standard of care complaint against him, he went to
print
out the file to send to the College and found that it had a "computer
generated date" on each printout that didn't correspond to the actual date
of
the session but rather it reflected the date on which he "rewrote" the
file
into the new tablet computer. He felt that I would be upset if I saw this
computer generated date, so he rewrote it again, and sent the College a
copy
of the handwritten file to their request for a copy of the "original"
file.

The College was willing to believe him to the extent that they ruled in
his
favor again.

I am appealing the College's decision and am looking for any holes that I
can possibly find in the doctor's above noted statement.

1. Your chances appear small. You may lack enough knowledge of
computers to make for yourself those inquiries that may serve your
cause.
2. Many users (perhaps you too) have difficulty learning how to work
with new hardware or new software. In giving the doctor the benefit of
the doubt the College is following the main precedents in this sort of
case.
3. Operating systems have little or no effect on data files e.g. documents.
(But there are differences, e.g. that WinXP can be set to record two dates
for each file, of first creation and last alteration, while Win98 records
only
"Date Modified.") File format is the important character of data files
(e.g.
affects how easily data files can be transferred from one PC to another)
and some software (e.g. MS Word) can be configured to keep a sort of
log of changes made in a file. But you do know what software the
doctor used, or what format his data files had.
4. No difference between "pen" and "tablet" PCs is relevant (even if the
user felt at the time they seemed very different.) All that counts is file
format, which derives from the application software, not the PC's
Operating System (WinXP or Win98: the only link is that some
WinXP software will not run at all under Win98.)
4. Your strongest point seems to be that when the College ordered
that the original files be printed out the doctor did not do this but
supplied
a handwritten and rewritten narrative. But you cannot be sure the
College's judicial body understands #3 and $4 above.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)