MORE VINDICATION FOR DR. DAY

Yesterday (March 7th, 2017), the Texas Medical Board complaint against Dr. Calvin Day was dismissed by Administrative Law Judges (ALJ’s) in the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). (https://cis.soah.texas.gov/dmwebbasic/tokweb27.ASP?WCI=opendocument&SKEY=431053_0_9_63&localtimezone=360).

As a result, both the criminal and civil cases brought against Dr. Day have now been dismissed by the respective courts and there are no more pending court cases or pending charges against Dr. Day for the first time since 1/27/2011.

An Agreed Order (AO) approved on Friday 3/3/2017 by the Texas Medical Board   lifted the “Temporary Suspension” of Dr. Calvin Day’s Medical license and set the stage for the granting of the unopposed Motion for Dismissal by the SOAH ALJ’s. As a result of these actions, Dr. Day will soon be issued a legal permit to practice medicine in the State of Texas for the first time since the suspension of his medical license on 6/14/2011.

As is the case with all physicians who return to practice after a prolonged absence, the AO calls for Dr. Day to first undergo a supervised proctorship lasting up to six months. Upon successful completion of this proctorship, Dr. Day’s license is to be fully reinstated subject to certain restrictions in the AO that include a 12 month period where he limits his medical practice to a group or an institutional setting.

The AO further specifies that after successful completion of one year in a group practice that Dr. Day’s license will be fully restored without restriction. Although a return to solo practice would be an option at that point, Dr. Day who is 65 years old, intends to finish his career in a group or institutional setting in order to avoid the many administrative hassles of solo practice that continue to worsen each year with the ever increasing  plethora of new rules.

It is noteworthy that there were no punitive measures in the AO relating to the allegations of sexual impropriety which caused the suspension of his license in 2011; rather the AO focused primarily on “return to practice issues” after absence from medical practice, which in this instance was caused not by Dr. Day but instead by Board actions.

The only restrictive measure in the AO related to the allegations is a requirement for Dr. Day to be accompanied by at least one other medical professional in the room while seeing patients, which Dr. Day has always done anyway and is viewed by him not as a restriction, but rather a continuation of his former practice routine.  In addition, the AO requires the medical professional accompanying Dr. Day to initial a chaperone log. This measure is welcomed by Dr. Day as a useful mechanism to attempt to prevent additional spurious allegations. Keeping a chaperone log is a practice that Dr. Day intends to continue even after he obtains an unrestricted license.

Prior to the AO, the Texas Medical Board staff and two Board members had been engaged in negotiations with Dr. Day and his attorneys since August 2016 when their attempt at mediation failed. The matter was set for trial in July 2017.   Since the August 2016 mediation failure, each passing month brought developments favorable to Dr. Day, eventually resulting in a Board epiphany that the allegations against Doctor Day were a result of either misperceptions or fabrications.

By the middle of February 2017 circumstances were ripe for an Agreed Order because of the following:

  1. Dr. Day had been subjected to and had successfully run a punishing gauntlet that included two extensive psychiatric evaluations (passed), a polygraph (passed), sexually transmitted disease tests (negative), drug tests (negative), and genitalia photos (not a match for the two complainants who sketched alleged likenesses).
  2. Four of the six complainants in this case refused to cooperate with the Board by either failing to appear at their scheduled depositions after being lawfully noticed or by refusing to respond to the Board’s attempts to contact them through calls and certified letters.
  3. The one complainant who was deposed disavowed substantive statements in the Board’s complaint against Dr. Day and two Board Certified Dermatologists filed affidavits stating that her complaint was not a violation of the Medical Practice Act (the Board did not designate or could not find an expert to controvert this opinion).
  4. The one remaining complainant in the Board’s case against Dr. Day who had not yet been deposed, had made statements in her prior testimony that were not credible (see below).
  5. Finally, in a coup de gras, Dr. Day’s attorneys shocked the Board attorneys by confronting them with sixteen boxes chocked full of exculpatory documents that Dr. Day’s legal team had accumulated over the prior six years. These discovery documents included more than 70 subpoena returns, private investigator surveillance reports and interviews, bank records, pharmacy records, telephone records, and medical records. Included in this Discovery were documents showing that all complainants had instances of serious substantive misremembrances of facts including some instances, apparent perjuries. Other documents showed disconcerting behavioral patterns of some of the complainants consistent with individuals who would fabricate false claims for financial gain.

Ultimately, the Agreed Order added funds to the State Treasury by putting a halt to further expenditures on a case that was most assuredly shaping up to be a favorable court decision for Dr. Day as evidenced by the five circumstances listed above and by the individual rebuttal summaries detailed below.

REBUTTAL SUMMARIES OF DR. DAY’S MEDICAL BOARD COMPLAINANTS

See RESPONDENT’S THIRD ORIGINAL AMENDED ANSWER at https://cis.soah.texas.gov/dmwebbasic/tokweb27.ASP?WCI=opendocument&SKEY=430725_0_9_63&localtimezone=360

Of the innumerable rebuttals specific to each complainants’ allegations against Dr. Day, the major rebuttals include the following:

  • Patient One –1) Refused to cooperate with the Board by failing to appear at her scheduled deposition after being lawfully noticed. The Board attorney had traveled from Austin to San Antonio for the deposition and was waiting for Patient One to appear when she received an affidavit from Patient One invoking her 5th Amendment right against self – incrimination in response to 69 separate allegations of perjury relative to Dr. Day’s case. In civil law, as opposed to criminal law, taking the Fifth is tantamount to an answer of yes to each question. Accordingly, the presumption in civil law is that Patient One’s Affidavit is an admission of guilt to all 69 questions propounded to her. 2) In support of this conclusion are more than 70 subpoena returns and private investigator reports that include evidence that a) she was not where she said she was on the day of the allegation or on the day before the allegation at times that were relevant to the case, and b) she had a pattern of behavior consistent with someone who would fabricate a sexual assault charge, including i) three separate instances at three separate restaurants where she claimed that she broke her tooth on a “rock in the food” and two instances of “slip trip or fall” type insurance claims, and ii) other evidence that appear to indicate theft by insurance fraud, theft by check, theft by forgery , theft by credit card, theft by shoplifting , violation of real estate ethical guidelines for financial benefit, a pattern of developing relationships with married professional men for financial gain (including at least two physicians), receiving unemployment benefits while working , obtaining prescriptions from physicians by developing a personal relationship with them, seven prior bodily injury claims, psychiatric care predating her allegation, using an elderly man to file a false affidavit for her benefit, and avoidance of service.
  • Patient Two –1) Refused to cooperate with the Board by failing to appear at her scheduled deposition after being lawfully noticed. The Board attorney had traveled from Austin to San Antonio for the deposition and was waiting for Patient Two to appear when Patient Two telephoned and expressed a concern that she needed to have her own attorney. 2) She admitted under oath that she returned to Dr. Day for professional care after the alleged molestation. 3) The medical assistant in the exam room on the date of Patient Two’s allegation swore that she was in the room with Patient Two and Dr. Day the entire time and that nothing happened. 4) Patient Two’s alleged phone calls from Dr. Day are not found in the phone records and handwritten police notes verified their absence. 5) Patient Two has an excessive number of insurance claims (i.e., 20) including at least one bodily injury claim. 6) Dr. Day’s staff testified that Patient Two was solicitous towards Dr. Day including lewd posturing, refusal of a modesty blanket to cover herself, and a request to have Dr. Day call her when she gave staff a note with her telephone number on it. 7)  Patient Two did not file a complaint until February 2011 which was some 19 months after her last visit to see Dr. Day, and then only in response to the crowd behavior emotions evoked by Dr. Day’s televised “perp walk”.
  • Patient Three – 1) Refused to cooperate with the Board by refusing to answer all telephone calls and certified mail, 2) returned to see Dr. Day on multiple occasions for professional care three years after the alleged digital penetration, 3) encouraged him to hire her mother and her younger sister on dates after the alleged event, 4) swore a timeline narrative that is inconsistent with preserved documentary evidence, and 5) alleged that this event occurred in 1999 but she did not file a complaint until 12 years later in February 2011, and then only in response to the crowd behavior emotions evoked by Dr. Day’s televised “perp walk”.
  • Patient Four – 1) Cooperated with the Board and was deposed on 2/13/2017. In her deposition she disavowed statements in the Board’s complaint and these included her saying under oath that a) she was not “made” or forced to remove her clothes but did so of her own volition, b) that she was not “made” or forced to have the full body exam but did so of her own volition, c) that she did indeed sign a consent form to have the exam, d) that she does not recall whether it was Dr. Day or his staff who educated her on clothing removal and the extent of the examination, and e) that she had no recollection of making a complaint to police. 2) She confirmed that the essence of her complaint was that she believes that it was appropriate for Dr. Day to have touched her mole once but inappropriate for Dr. Day to have touched it three times. 3) Two experts, after reviewing medical records and testimonies, concluded that Dr. Day was not in violation of the medical practice act and opined that Dr. Day’s care of Patient Four was appropriate and within the standard of care. These experts confirmed that dermatologists do indeed often touch skin lesions and often touch a single lesion multiple times. The Board did not offer (or perhaps could not find) a dermatology expert(s) with an opposing opinion of the Patient 4 case. 4) This complaint arose out of Patient Four’s misperceptions of what constitutes the indications and proper protocol for performing a full body skin cancer screening exam. Dr. Day had performed some 50,000 such exams and an occasional misunderstanding, misperception, and/or misinterpretation is to be expected; but Patient 4 never confronted Dr. Day with her concerns. Instead she held back voicing her feelings for 21 years; only after seeing Dr. Day’s televised arrest in January 2011 did she make them known apparently a result of “mob” behavior emotions evoked by Dr. Day’s televised “perp walk”.
  • Patient Five – 1) Refused to cooperate with the Board by refusing to answer all telephone calls and by refusing certified mail. In fact she had not responded to Board communications since 2011 when she ignored the Medical Board’s subpoena to appear to testify. She also refused to testify in the Bexar County criminal proceedings against Dr. Day.  2) Two board certified dermatologists, after reviewing medical records and testimonies concluded that Dr. Day was not in violation of the medical practice act in this instance and that Dr. Day’s care of Patient Five was appropriate and within the standard of care. 3) This complaint was a result of Patient Five’s misperception resulting from her experience of having less extensive exams performed by other dermatologists after leaving Dr. Day’s care. Patient 5 was under the impression that Dr. Day’s exams were too invasive as a result of her subsequent experience with these other dermatologists, yet in truth, as verified by two Board Certified Dermatologists who reviewed her medical record, Dr. Day had adhered to the type of examination called for by the standard of care guidelines for her medical condition and these other dermatologists had not. 4) Patient Five returned to see Dr. Day repeatedly over a period of eight years for full body skin examinations so these exams apparently bothered her much less than alleged. 5) This complaint arose out of Patient Five’s misperceptions of what constitutes the indications and proper protocol for performing a full body skin cancer screening exam. Dr. Day had performed some 50,000 such exams and an occasional misunderstanding, misperception, and/or misinterpretation is to be expected; but Patient 5 never confronted Dr. Day with her concerns. Instead she held back voicing her feelings for 11 years; only after seeing Dr. Day’s televised arrest in January 2011 did she make them known apparently a result of “mob” behavior emotions evoked by Dr. Day’s televised “perp walk”.
  • Former Employee Louise Feuge – 1) Cooperated with the Board and was to be scheduled to be deposed. Yet Ms. Feuge’s deposition would have likely caused her great emotional upheaval because it would have included queries concerning a) the doors Feuge alleged to have been locked which have now been verified by multiple former staff and building representatives to have been be “unlockable”[1]  in 2000 and all other years, b) Feuge’s allegation that Dr. Day had a congenital genital deformity that was only visible to Feuge and no one else, c) Feuge’s allegation of voluntarily carrying out a medical procedure that if true would have caused great tissue damage and harm to her patient (in violation of Nursing Board rules), and d) the absence of documentation in the records of patients that Feuge alleged that she treated on 5/13/2000 (in violation of Nursing Board rules). 2) The defense had already designated an expert who would have testified that the allegations stated by Ms. Feuge could not have occurred without serious bodily injury to Dr. Day. 3) Feuge’s complaint was not filed until eleven (11) years after Dr. Day gave Feuge the option to be fired or to submit a letter of resignation in May 2000. This exceptional eleven year delay between her termination and her filling a complaint against her former employer may have arisen a) out of an abnormal emotional need for revenge against Dr. Day for having terminated her[2], or b) Feuge’s perceived potential financial gain by piling on to Dr. Day’s 2011 televised “perp walk”, or c) Feuge’s emotional “mob” type response to seeing presumption of guilt televised images of Dr. Day being paraded in handcuffs.  One can only speculate on Feuge’s motivation now that the Agreed Order has nullified the need for Feuge’s deposition. Nevertheless, Feuge’s inclusion of a penis insult in a complaint against a former employer does make one wonder if all of the possible motivations have been considered.

WHY SIX COMPLAINANTS?

The above individual rebuttal summaries while impressive, paint an incomplete picture because they do not deal with or explain why there were six complainants (instead of none or just one).

At least two factors were involved:

1) first, Dr. Day had an unusually high number of at risk events by virtue of the unusually large number of patients under his care and unique nature of his practice and

2) an unusually large staged media event occurred that precipitated the complaints by depicting a presumption of guilt image of Dr. Day, and this in turn was followed by resultant “mob” behavior phenomena.

An abridged sequence of events is as follows:

“Patient One” falsely accused Dr. Day of sexual assault in 2010. This was a she said he said case without witnesses, without DNA evidence wherein Dr. Day took and successfully passed a polygraph. Patient One had waited 10 days to file a complaint to avoid DNA testing; an immediate DNA test would have exonerated Dr. Day.   Ultimately, in 2016, Patient One all but recanted by submitting an affidavit invoking her Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination in response to 69 separate allegations of perjury relative to Dr. Day’s case.  In civil law, as opposed to criminal law, taking the Fifth is tantamount to an answer of yes to each question. Patient One’s Affidavit is basically an admission of guilt. Multiple Discovery documents support this conclusion.

The detective in charge of the Patient One complaint engaged in misconduct by swearing out an affidavit in January 2011 stating that Patient One had correctly identified Dr. Day’s genitalia when, in fact, this was not true. The detective then used this false affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant which was what she then used to stage the “perp walk” to purposefully solicit other complainants; the detective was recorded as saying “And you know, if there’s a bunch of people telling similar stories, it makes it more believable that this really happened.” Other evidence appears to indicate that the detective had a personal relationship with Patient One.

The arresting officers came to Dr. Day’s office and physically pulled him from an exam room while Dr. Day was examining a patient.  They handcuffed him in front of other patients.  All of this occurred despite Dr. Day’s attorney having sent a letter in advance stating that, if Dr. Day were to be arrested, that Dr. Day would turn himself in. The officers took him to the downtown police station and held him there for approximately one hour until camerapersons from all four local television news stations were in place.  One of the officers asked if we were going out the back way. The detective said “NO” and pushed an elevator button. When the elevator doors opened, the blinding lights of television cameras shocked him.

This was the “perp-walk” on 1.27.11, as seen by approximately 900,000 television viewers (according to Nielsen). Dr. Day was shown in handcuffs with on-camera solicitations by police for “other women” to file complaints against him, even though he had been complaint-free throughout his entire 27 year career. Dr. Day cared for 40,000 patients, (20,000 of which were women) and conducted approximately 50,000 full body skin cancer screening exams that included inspection of breasts and genitalia-all without complaint.   The enormous number of exams over time, created a pool of people who knew, and knew of Dr. Day.  When coupled with public exposure to an audience of approximately 900,000 people, the negative images of him being paraded in handcuffs, and the on-camera solicitations portraying him as being guilty, opened him to false claims.

To “perp-walk” any man who is accused of sexual impropriety who has wealth or position of power, invites opportunists to come forward without any concern of perjury because it is all almost by definition “he said, she said” testimony. Doctors are particularly vulnerable to these types of false claims due to the nature of their work (i.e., close proximity to patients in various stages of undress).   Unsurprisingly, following Dr. Day’s “perp walk”, former patients and former employees filed sexual impropriety type complaints against him, yet the following general considerations seriously undermine their credibility:

  1. All four medical board patient complainants who surfaced after the “perp walk” returned to see Dr. Day for professional care on a date after the allegation. The medical records of Patients Three, Four, and Five prove that they returned to see Dr. Day after their allegations, and Patient Two stated in multiple testimonies that she returned to see Dr. Day after the alleged molestation but ultimately she confessed that she could not remember the date of the allegation; her medical record shows nine documented visits to see Dr. Day.
  2. All five of these secondary complaints came on the heels of a huge media event surrounding Dr. Day’s arrest and all of them were years to decades old. These complaints did not trickle in over the years as would have been expected if they were true.
  3. Prior to Patient One and the “perp walk”, Dr. Day had practiced complaint free for 27 years; there was not a single complaint lodged to any official authority concerning sexual impropriety during those 27 years despite having cared for 20,000 women, having employed 376 women, and having performed some 50,000 full body skin cancer screening exams that included inspection of the breasts, anus, and genitalia.
  4. With five medical board patient complaints out of 20,000 female patients, this is a false positive complaint rate of 0.00025. Dr. Day’s practice was 16 times larger than the average family physician and yet the number of complaints when considered in the context of the size and nature of his practice is vanishingly small, as one would expect in a practice with high standards.

It’s clear that these secondary complainants were manufactured by the circumstances of

  • having a staged media event portraying him as a wealthy doctor who was guilty from the outset by parading him in handcuffs before 900,000 television viewers with on-camera solicitations for other women to come forward at a time when there were no other complaints in the preceding 27 years, and
  • having an abnormally high number of “at risk” events because Dr. Day had
    • 16 times the number of patients  as the average family physician,
    • performed some 50,000 full body skin cancer screening exams that included inspection of the breasts, anus, and genitalia, and
    • employed 376 women during Dr. Day’s 27 year practice career.

Knowing the actual facts and circumstances graphically illustrates

  1. why it is a great injustice indeed to tell someone who is unfamiliar with Dr. Day’s case “as a result of the initial charges, various other women came forward and made allegations against Dr. Day…”,
  2. why there were six complainants (instead of none or just one), and
  3. why it understandable that NONE of the complainants were found to be credible after a more careful investigation.

For more information see www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com
[1] The doors in Dr. Day’s former office were like all doors in doctors’ offices and bathrooms, wherein it is possible to lock the doors to prevent entrance into the office or bathroom, but the doors do not prevent exit from the inside in accordance with fire escape building codes.

[2] After all, we occasionally hear of the abnormal emotional response of a disgruntled former employee who returns to the workplace a with handgun to kill or attempt to kill a former employer, so intuitively other types of abnormal emotional responses are feasible and should be considered in the Feuge case given the extraordinary length of time between the alleged incident, the filing of the complaint (i.e., 11 years), the bizarre allegations, and her inclusion in her complaint of a penis insult.

JUDGE RON RANGEL FOUND SUSAN REED GUILTY OF PROSECUTION MISCONDUCT

Judge Ron Rangel found Susan Reed guilty of prosecution misconduct in the Dr. Calvin Day case, and this misconduct by her and her subordinates resulted in what has now been proven to be a wrongful conviction, and also contributed to the death of Dr. Day’s son Zac who had repeatedly told family members that he “could take anything but a conviction”. www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com

Dr. Day was recently exonerated when the charges against him were dismissed. Despite claims to the contrary by the complainants, it appears that the charges were dismissed because Dr. Day’s attorney, Michael McCrum accumulated a mountain of evidence against the complainants showing that they had been untruthful and when confronted with the evidence they refused to testify. Now comes Susan Reed, who without having any personal knowledge of the documentary and eyewitness evidence accumulated by McCrum showing that the complainants were untruthful, is quoted in today’s (2/16/2016) San Antonio Express News as saying “”This is just absurd, and the justice system has really failed for allowing someone to get away with something like that,” Reed said Monday about the dismissals.” Dr. Calvin Day welcomes attorney solicitations to represent him in a defamation suit against Susan Reed for publishing that statement and possibly others. Dr. Day’s contact information is as follows: cal_day@hotmail.com 210-859-3430

PRIMARY ACCUSER AND THE COPYCAT ACCUSER INVESTIGATED FOR MULTIPLE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTS

Late yesterday (2/12/2016) the second (“copycat”) allegation of sexual assault against Dr. Calvin Day was dismissed. This came as no surprise to those who knew the details of the case because an abundance of evidence appears to indicate that the copycat accuser committed perjury and had a financial motive for making the allegations. Those who have seen the evidence, read the copycat’s testimony, and examined the private investigators’ reports are astonished that Dr. Day was indicted for the copycat’s allegations.

In view of Judge Ron Rangel’s ruling that there was prosecution misconduct in the primary accuser’s case, one questions whether there was malfeasance on the part of the prosecutors in withholding information from the grand jury in the copycat case in order to secure an indictment for purposes of bolstering the primary accuser case.

In preparation for Dr. Day’s anticipated Texas Medical Board Hearing, both the primary accuser and the copycat accuser are the subjects of a continuing investigation for multiple alleged criminal acts. In a recent development the primary accuser is alleged to have fraudulently charged almost $30,000 on the credit card of the wife of her married boyfriend. She is soon to be deposed and apparently will take the 5th on all questions relating to this allegation. Other alleged criminal acts by the primary accuser can be found at http://bit.ly/1mFH4FK .

The copycat accuser is also the subject of a continuing investigation into multiple allegations of criminal acts made by multiple eye witnesses as well as documentary evidence indicating that she appears to have engaged in criminal activities that include the following:

  • Allegations by multiple eyewitnesses have that Copycat accuser on multiple occasions, possessed and continues to possess, and used and continues to use controlled substances.
  • Allegations in regard to her alleged supplier of controlled substance(s) that a family member was one of her suppliers.
  • An allegation that after being convicted of a DWI, that she violated the terms of her probation by driving herself to places prohibited by her occupational driver’s permit.
  •  An allegation that after being convicted of a DWI, that she violated the terms of her probation by taking medicines to favorably alter a required drug test.
  • Multiple allegations that she committed fraudulent actions against a business owner for financial gain.
  • The apparent filing of false molestation charges against Dr. Calvin Day in an apparent “money play”. Here is a partial list of the compelling evidence accumulated thus far against Copycat accuser that indicates that Copycat accuser appears to have committed perjury:
    • There was an eyewitness medical assistant who testified that she was in the exam room the entire time with Copycat accuser on the date of the alleged molestation and that the alleged molestation did not occur.
    • Copycat accuser admitted that she returned to see Dr. Day for an office visit after the alleged molestation. Returning for a doctor visit after the alleged molestation is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that Copycat accuser made up this story.
    • The copycat accuser testified that Dr. Day called her personal cell phone 3 to four times within 4 weeks after the alleged molestation, yet no such calls were found in the phone records.
    • The copycat accuser did not file her complaint against Dr. Day at or near the time that she alleged it occurred. Instead, she filed her claim a year and a half after the alleged event. Copycat accuser’s complaint came in classic “copycat” fashion, on the heels of a carefully choreographed negative media event wherein Dr. Day was made to appear guilty as he was paraded in handcuffs in front of 900,000 television viewers accompanied by solicitations from police spokespersons that there were “other women” when in fact there were no other allegations at the time that these solicitations were made. Copycat accuser appears to have tailored her complaint to attempt to match the primary accuser’s complaint.
    • In addition to the all of the aforementioned evidence, copycat accuser appeared to be untruthful in two prior public hearings on the matter because cross examination revealed multiple inconsistencies that included but are not limited to the following:
      • Initially telling police that the molestation occurred at the beginning of the office visit with her staying for her treatment, but in subsequent statements and testimonies moving the allegation to the end of the office visit, apparently, after being advised that staying in the room for treatment afterwards made her fabrication less believable.
      • changing what she wore from a “skirt” to a “skort” after Dr. Day’s employees testified that Copycat accuser had expressed an interest in dating Dr. Day and on a subsequent visit sat in manner that exposed her panty area and refused a blanket that was offered to cover herself,
      • first giving a specific alleged date of the molestation and then repeatedly saying that she could not remember the date (surely someone who was truly molested would remember not only the date but the time down to minute and second that it happened),
      • first giving police a specific telephone number that she alleged Dr. Day called, then when there were no calls found to the first number, giving them a second number, then when there were no calls found to the second cell number, stating that she had multiple cell phones and could not remember all of the numbers,
    • In addition to the above referenced allegations that that she engaged in fraudulent activities for financial gain, that she has a criminal record, and multiple eye witness allegations and documentary evidence indicating that she appears to have engaged in multiple types of criminal activities, there is also evidence of a financial motive in her apparent fabrication of allegations against Dr. Day.
  • In preparation for Dr. Day’s anticipated Texas Medical Board Hearing there is also an ongoing investigation into other facets of the copycat accuser’s life that question her credibility including multiple credible allegations that she attempted to conceal the fact that she fathered a child by someone other than her husband.

DR. CALVIN DAY DEFENDS SUSAN REED AGAINST PRIMARY ACCUSER’S ALLEGATION: THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND

Although Cliff Herberg’s misconduct in the Dr. Calvin Day case was first exposed in August 2013 at Dr. Day’s Hearing for a New Trial, it went largely unacknowledged by the media for some 28 months. In fact the Express News (EN), mystified that Herberg was not allowed to stay on the DA staff after Nico La Hood took office, wrote a couple of articles in support of Herberg. Now EN knows at least one of the reasons for LaHood’s decision.

HERBERG’S MISCONDUCT IN DENIED DR. DAY A “NOT GUILTY” VERDICT
What continues to fascinate those “in the know” is that even though the media has “rediscovered” prosecution misconduct that was made public over 2 years earlier, the media still does not understand or appreciate the impact of Herberg’s misconduct in denying Dr. Day a “not guilty” verdict. This fact continues to be unappreciated and unreported by the media largely because the media has read only the recent judge’s order that summarizes the prosecution misconduct without also having read the transcript of the 8/26/2013 Hearing for a New Trial on which the judge’s order is based (attached).

The transcript of the Hearing for a New Trial held on 8/26/2013 clearly illustrates that Herberg’s act of misconduct prevented in a big way the jury from seeing and hearing the entirety of the defense evidence; the jury was compelled to render a decision after being afforded a view of only a small portion of the defense materials. Had the jury been given the opportunity to review the entirety of the defense materials, they would have quickly realized that the width of the chasm between “she said he said” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” was far too great a distance to bridge, and would have rendered a “not guilty” verdict after a short deliberation.

READING THE CLIFFSNOTES VERSUS READING THE NOVEL
Reading Judge Ron Rangel’s recent order that confirmed the prosecution misconduct, without reading the 8/26/2013 Hearing for a New Trial transcript on which the judge’s order was based, is analogous to reading the CliffsNotes on a novel without reading the novel itself.

The CliffsNotes in this instance don’t convey just how damaging Herberg’s threat was to the defense and how it kept most of the defense materials away from the jury. Thus reading only the CliffsNotes gives one the impression that the prosecution, in committing acts of misconduct, sank their own ship and missed their opportunity to convict Dr. Day.
Reading the novel on the other hand, gives one the opposite impression — that the acts of misconduct sank not the prosecution’s ship, but instead sank the defense’s ship by preventing much of the defense materials from getting to the jury, thereby depriving Dr. Day of a not guilty verdict, and depriving Dr. Day of his sixth amendment civil right to conflict free counsel.

Those who have reported and/or those who will continue to report on the Dr. Calvin Day case, as well as students of law and those who write laws, should consider reading the attached transcript of the 8/26/2013 Hearing for a New Trial. In addition to demonstrating that Dr. Day was denied a “not guilty” verdict, the hearing demonstrated the cunning of Dr. Day’s primary accuser in putting Day’s attorneys at a disadvantage. Indeed, whatever doubts Dr. Day’s attorneys may have had about Dr. Day’s truthfulness, those doubts were erased when they observed for themselves what they describe in testimony as a lie in which she told them one thing at the pretrial meeting and then testified otherwise in court.

INTERESTING FACTS FOUND IN THE 8/26/2013 HEARING FOR A NEW TIRAL TRANSCRIPT
Here is a summary of some of the more intriguing information that is found in the in the novel (i.e., the 2013 transcript from the Hearing for a New Trial) but that is not clearly delineated in the CliffsNotes (i.e., the judge’s recent order):

  • At the primary accuser’s request, she and her attorney met with Dr. Day’s attorneys in the weeks preceding the trial and during that meeting the primary accuser requested a signed document from Dr. Day stating that he would not sue her if she admitted that she lied at the medical board hearing. This meeting served as the reference for subsequent allegations of witness tampering. Although an agreement was drawn up as per the primary accuser’s request, the document itself was never executed because Dr. Day’s attorneys, on further consideration, believed that it was not an appropriate course of action. The primary accuser was not happy that she did not get her requested document and then according to Dr. Day’s attorneys testimony, later turned them by apparently participating in an attempt to make it appear as if they had tried to get her to change her testimony.
  • Herberg used this pretrial meeting between Dr. Day’s attorneys and the primary accuser to threaten Dr. Day’s attorneys with an ongoing witness tampering investigation when in fact no such investigation existed, and this threat was timed to occur just prior to cross examination of the State’s star witness.
  • The practical implication of Herberg’s threat meant that the star witness in the Dr. Calvin Day case who was about to be cross examined by Dr. Day’s attorneys was the same person who they perceived to be the key witness against them in the witness tampering investigation, thereby creating a conflict of interest between Dr. Day and his attorneys and depriving Dr. Day of his sixth amendment rights to conflict free counsel. And it was apparently no coincidence that the timing of Herberg’s threat came immediately prior to their cross examination.
  • Dr. Day’s attorneys filed for a mistrial but it was denied, ergo putting them in a position of representing Dr. Day while having to protect themselves. The conflict of interest created by Herberg’s threat had in effect of depriving Dr. Day of his sixth amendment civil right to conflict free counsel.
  • Testimony at the 8/26/2013 Hearing for a New Trial indicates that following Herberg’s threat, Dr. Day’s attorneys took protective measures to include the avoidance of anything that would anger Dr. Day’s primary accuser. Measures taken included

o   The avoidance of cross examining the primary accuser about her about her apparent history of being a scammer,
o   covering only a few of the more than 40 inconsistencies (i.e., changes in her story), making sure to skip over the ones that might anger her, and
o   handling the entire cross examination with “kid gloves”.

  • In addition to not presenting all of the evidence and questioning the primary accuser on only those inconsistencies that would be less likely to anger her, Dr. Day who was scheduled to testify, did not do so.
  • Other defense witnesses who were scheduled to testify were not called to the stand and in fact the defense called only three witnesses, whereas the witness list submitted by the defense to the court prior to trial contained more than 130 names.

PROSECUTORS RESORTED TO MISCONDUCT ACTS BECAUSE THE CASE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO TRIAL
The fact that prosecutors in the Day case resorted to acts of misconduct in an attempt to win the Dr. Day case is evidence in and of itself that prosecutors should have never brought the case to trial in the first place; this is confirmed by the following facts that were known at the outset:

  • this was a “she said he said case”,
  • almost exclusively based on hearsay by a woman

o   who had won acting awards and
o   who appears to have had a long history of running scams,

  • was without physical evidence or eyewitnesses, and
  • one where Dr. Day had voluntarily taken and easily passed a polygraph.

SUSAN REED’S IN COURT BEHAVIOR CONFIRMED THAT THE LAS VEGAS TRYST DID OCCUR?
Although Judge Ron Rangel in his 12/16/2015 order determined that assistant DA’s Cliff Herberg and Catherine Babbitt engaged in misconduct that prevented a fair trial, denied Dr. Day of his not guilty verdict, and denied Dr. Day of his sixth amendment civil right to conflict free counsel, he admonished Susan Reed specifically only for her “she doth protests too much” in court behavior that many observers viewed as a confirmatory reaction to Dr. Day’s Las Vegas tryst allegation. Although the role of Susan Reed in the acts of misconduct by Herberg and Babbitt is uncertain, Reed nevertheless bears responsibility as captain of the ship for the actions of her underlings.

REED CONDONED THE MISCONDUCT ACTIONS OF HERBERG AND BABBITT
As confirmation, Reed appears to have condoned their actions, otherwise she would have dismissed both Herberg and Babbitt soon after their misconduct actions were exposed on 8/26/2013 in Dr. Day’s Hearing for a New Trial.

EVIDENCE OF A REED DA OFFICE VENDETTA AGAINST DR. CALVIN DAY
A “vendetta” type attitude against Dr. Day does appear to have existed as exemplified by the fact that Reed and her office insisted on prosecuting Dr. Day instead of turning the case over to a special prosecutor despite the fact that

  • Reed was a former Dr. Day patient,
  • multiple other members of her DA’s office were former or current patients, and
  • Dr. Day had a relationship with family members of Assistant DA Catherine Babbitt (Babbitt was the lead prosecutor in the Dr. Calvin Day case).

An even more compelling argument for a Venedetta is that even after Reed filed a successful motion to open the sealed motion for her recusal and learned firsthand that her alleged tryst in Vegas with Dr. Day was at the center of the motion to have her recused, the Reed DA Office nevertheless proceeded to pursue Dr. Day’s prosecution themselves despite now having this additional reason for recusal. How else can this peculiar behavior be explained other than Reed and/or member(s) of her staff having bad faith personal reasons (i.e., a personal vendetta) for doing so?

AN UNDESERVED “PILING-ON” ALLEGATION AGAINST SUSAN REED
Whereas Susan Reed appears to deserve the recent bashing from the San Antonio Express News on all of the above issues, Reed does not deserve to have Dr. Calvin Day’s primary accuser blame Susan Reed for the primary accuser’s refusal to testify when it is clearly apparent that the primary accuser chose not to testify at Dr. Day’s new trial because she feared being exposed after she was shown the evidence that attorney Michael McCrum had accumulated against her. Blaming Susan Reed for her refusal to testify appears to be nothing more than poorly concealed face-saving gesture by the primary accuser.  Dr. Day’s primary accuser has a long history of apparent manipulative behavior episodes and this appears to be just another example of it. Nevertheless, Susan Reed having the personal experience of being maligned by Dr. Day’s primary accuser is karma at its best, especially considering how hard Reed and her staff fought on behalf of this primary accuser in their failed attempt to get a conviction. The primary accuser has now turned on Reed in the same fashion that she turned on Dr. Day’s attorneys after she failed in her attempt to obtain a written agreement from them stating that Dr. Day would not sue her for lying. Perhaps, now that Reed has seen a glimpse of what appears to be the primary accuser’s true colors, Reed might now consider re-examining the whole of the evidence that has been accumulated against Dr. Day’s primary accuser, and in so doing Reed may have an epiphany

  • that Dr. Day was “played”,
  • that the police detective was “played”,
  • that her assistant DA’s were “played”, and
  • that now Reed herself is being “played”
  • all by a person who appears to be a highly skilled psychopath who now appears to be pursuing a divide and conquer strategy.

POLICE INVESTIGATION OF THE PRIMARY ACCUSER FOR APPARENT CRIMINAL ACTS UNCOVERED BY THE DEFENSE IN PREPARATION FOR TRIAL
It now appears that the discovery obtained in the evidence collecting process in preparation for trial, if turned over to authorities, could possibly result in a continuing investigation of Dr. Day’s primary accuser for multiple leads for possible crimes that include but are not limited to

  • forgery,
  • theft by check,
  • filing false affidavits with government agencies for financial gain,
  • violation of real estate laws,
  • income tax evasion,
  • insurance fraud,
  • and perjury in the Dr. Day case.

OBSTACLES TO OBTAINING CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST THE PRIMARY ACCUSER
The following two formidable obstacles stand in the way of having authorities use the acquired discovery evidence to complete the remaining steps to investigate, officially charge, and prosecute the primary accuser for the crimes that may have possibly committed:
1)      Evidence indicates that the lead detective in Dr. Calvin Day’s case appears to have developed a personal relationship with the primary accuser and this detective is married to a police captain.

  • This is the same detective who filed the false arrest warrant against Dr. Day by claiming the sketch drawn by the accuser of a penis in the hard (erect) state matched police photos of Dr. Day’s penis in the soft (flaccid) state. That magic trick is so good that perhaps the detective should audition for Penn & Teller.
  • This is the same police detective who compelled Dr. Day to leave his office for a genitalia photoshoot while he was in the middle of performing multiple Mohs skin cancer surgeries and after a bleeding patient was escorted right past her.
  • This is the same police detective who had him arrested while he was in the middle of his afternoon clinic on 1/27/2011. Although the detective later stated that the arrest was made late in the day to minimize the impact to patients, Dr. Day’s clinic ran from 3 PM to 7 PM and thus at 4 PM he still had three hours of patients to see, some of whom had driven hundreds of miles to see him. Moreover, Dr. Day’s attorney had submitted a letter to authorities stating that if her were to be arrested that he be allowed for the sake of patient care to voluntarily surrender himself. If the detective were truly concerned about Dr. Day’s patients then she would have honored that letter from Dr. Day’s attorney.

Given these facts, it is apparent that any investigation would have to circumvent the detective, the police captain, and perhaps other police officers because Dr. Day’s primary accuser appears to have made approximately 60 calls to police including at least twenty-eight 911 calls and thus is likely to have other personal contacts within SAPD.
2)      Should any of the above concerns reach the level of the DA’s office, then there are additional obstacles to overcome. The current DA, Nico La Hood together with Andrew Del Cueto represented the primary accuser against the Susan Reed’s DA office in Dr. Day’s trial and representation by Del Cueto appears to be ongoing; thus prosecuting her will be difficult. DA La Hood would no doubt recuse himself and his office because he would have a conflict of interest. Nevertheless it would appear to be in La Hood’s best interest to make arrangements for an aggressive prosecution of Dr. Day’s primary accuser for any charges that reach his office because his failure to do so would undoubtedly result in accusations of exhibiting the same type of favoritism that haunted Reed during her tenure, as for example when Reed averted a Grand Jury from considering the case of one of her assistants, Catherine Babbitt, who ran over and killed a mom pushing a baby carriage on a school morning when the streets were dry and the skid marks were apparently found to occur after the impact.

COPYCAT ALLEGATION STILL PENDING
After being indicted over four years ago Dr. Day has still not been brought to trial on a pending case involving a copycat allegation, an allegation that was made not at the time it is alleged to have occurred in 2009 but instead on the heels of the negative mega media event surrounding Dr. Day’s arrest on 1/27/2011.  His defense team has uncovered similar types of incriminating evidence against the person who filed this copycat allegation as they found against his primary accuser (i.e., birds of a feather).
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001WP6_Vq-DsXmBtj73fLuomvV2IQIRYYaniM1z9Hq5fB6F9sTaCgtabsRG5_QXFyVRiV2sZl1npFUM7sWvvD8kUJR8JIrS4ffbN7q0SipOffe28_10Y5leXvLglsBvfoiNRzmvhe9OzBwLdtQt3gyM6aT0mOwmNa9r8QQp6rGrzTI=&c=ONRgUmjxo-bFIBmkZbAVK49BuZnQXr5Sj6NHwSDmYb2R0EjY-Tfs9g==&ch=O9WwzJARiztKQe0EANGWKIaoZ3MMjbgubwL6BHbEXyRpnIzZawekYw==

CALVIN DAY TRIAL UPDATE: WAS INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM THE GRAND JURY?

Dr. Calvin Day had one case of alleged sexual assault dismissed on December 18, 2015, yet he has an additional “copycat” allegation that has not been adjudicated as yet. Flabbergasted and bewildered is the typical reaction that has occurred by those who have examined the evidence against the second accuser’s allegation. Although it has often been said that even a ham sandwich can be indicted, in this second case there was not enough evidence to indict any type of sandwich; even a potato chip would have been “no billed”. In grand jury proceedings, prosecutors are apparently given carte blanche and are under no legal obligation to provide the grand jury with any evidence favorable to the defense. In view of other evidence of an apparent personal vendetta in Dr. Day’s case, it is reasonable to question whether the assistant DA purposely withheld information from the grand jury for personal reasons to secure an indictment in the instance of the copycat allegation.
Susan Reed’s Assistant District Attorney(s) appear(s) not to have informed the Grand Jury the following facts:

  1. There was an eyewitness medical assistant who testified that she was in the exam room the entire time with the second accuser and that the alleged assault did not occur. The police detective assigned to Dr. Day’s case questioned this eye witness, yet for some reason this witness did not appear before the grand jury.
  2. The second accuser admitted that she returned to see Dr. Day for an office visit after the alleged assault. On this basis alone the case would have surely been discarded.  Returning to the alleged assaulter for a doctor visit after the alleged assault is compelling evidence of a fabrication.
  3. Police had made notes in the case file documenting that alleged telephone calls from Dr. Day to the second accuser did not exist. This second accuser testified that Dr. Day called her personal cell phone 3 to four times within 4 to 6 weeks after the alleged assault, yet no such calls were found in the phone records.
  4. The second accuser had made a significant change in her description of the alleged assault. In her first statement to police the second accuser said the assault occurred at the beginning of the office visit and that she then stayed for her treatment. In subsequent statements and testimonies this second accuser then moved the allegation to the end of the office visit, apparently, after being told that staying in the room for treatment afterwards made her accusation unbelievable.
  5. The second accuser’s complaint came in classic “copycat” fashion, on the heels of a carefully choreographed negative media event and she appears to have tailored her complaint to attempt to match the primary accuser’s complaint. The second accuser filed her claim a year and a half after the alleged event, and then only after Dr. Day was made to appear guilty as he was paraded in handcuffs in front of 900,000 viewers accompanied by solicitations from police spokespersons that there were “other women” when in fact there were no other allegations at the time that these solicitations were made

Since the 5/11/2011 indictment (yes, Dr. Day has been in virtual incarceration for over four years now), Dr. Day’s attorney Michael McCrum has accumulated a mountain of additional evidence against the second accuser including

  • evidence of a financial motive,
  • evidence that the second accuser appears to have engaged in other questionable activities for financial gain,
  • evidence that she appears to have a criminal record, and
  • evidence that seems to indicate that she has engaged in other criminal activity.

In addition to the all of the aforementioned evidence, this second accuser testified in Dr. Day’s trial and also before the Medical Board.  She was decimated in both cross examinations to such an extent that both times upon being dismissed from the stand most everyone was looking at each other as if they dumbfounded at her apparent disingenuous testimony.

If the special prosecutors are scratching their heads in bewilderment as to how Dr. Day was indicted on this second accuser allegation given the evidence to the contrary, they might find the answer in the grand jury records that undoubtedly show that multiple lines of significant exculpatory evidence was withheld. Indeed, the grand jury transcripts would make a most interesting read. Too bad the public has no access to them.

As a footnote, it is noteworthy that the press has now replaced the more accurate term “copycat allegation” with the more prejudicial term “similar case”. “Similar” is prejudicial because it implies a presumption of guilt (i.e., “there he goes again”) and ignores the timing of second accuser’s complaint which is consistent with classic “copycat” behavior. If the press is insistent on using “similar” then in keeping with fair and balanced reporting guidelines they are obligated to use “copycat” side by side with “similar”. Likewise “case” is more prejudicial than the more accurate term “allegation”.  “Case” has a broader meaning and implies that the details in the case files of the primary and second accuser are similar, when in fact there are many significant dissimilarities. Allegation on the other hand has a narrower meaning and in the instance of the second accuser is far more accurate.

Because directly petitioning the media appears to have failed, perhaps Catholic Mass intentions calling for fairness in reporting are worth a try.

CALVIN DAY CASE: CHARGE DISMISSED!!! PRIMARY ACCUSER FOLDS HER CARDS AFTER LEARNING OF EMBARRASSING NEW EVIDENCE

CALVIN DAY CASE: CHARGE DISMISSED!!!

PRIMARY ACCUSER FOLDS HER CARDS AFTER LEARNING OF EMBARRASSING NEW EVIDENCE

 

Dismissing the sexual assault case against Dr. Calvin Day was an act of kindness bestowed on the woman who perpetrated the fabricated allegation against Dr. Day. A trial would have exposed her lies and would have resulted in their public humiliation to such a degree that she likely would have fled the state out of embarrassment

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRIMARY ACCUSER

Dr. Day’s primary accuser appears to have a history of behavior patterns consistent with a person who would fabricate a sexual assault charge for financial gain. Documentary evidence shows that the primary accuser had multiple phone calls to civil attorneys on dates and times that corresponded with events in the case, indicative of a financial gain motive. In addition she appears  to have a history of prior attempts to achieve financial gain through questionable means.

In the case of the primary accuser this evidence of pursuit of financial gain through questionable means includes the following:

  • An expressed concern by the account holder with supporting documentary evidence that the primary accuser may have forged multiple checks;
  • An allegation that the primary accuser received more than half a million dollars in checks and payments made on her behalf from a man in his 80’s who now feels that she took advantage of him;
  • Documentary evidence that appears to demonstrate an abnormally high number (i.e., approximately 20) of insurance claims filed by the accuser of which seven appear to be bodily injury claims.

o   The seven bodily injury claims include

  • three instances where she appears to have filed claims against three different restaurants claiming in each instance that she broke her tooth on a rock in the food,
  • three workers compensation claims of which two were slip, trip, or fall claims, and
  • A personal injury claim involving an auto accident where she appears to have been paid for lost wages when in in fact it appears that she was unemployed.
  • Documentary evidence indicating that she may have filed a false affidavit with a state agency that resulted in a financial gain;
  • An allegation of an extraordinary financial gain as a direct result of a violation of real estate rules of ethics with supporting documentary evidence;
  • An allegation of causing an elderly man to file a false affidavit for her benefit;
  • Private investigator reports that appear to indicate that she had personal relationships with multiple married professional men including physicians.
  • Documentary evidence indicating that she may have used her personal relationship with at least two physicians to obtain prescription medications. Both of these physicians are Board Certified in specialties whose physicians do not typically write prescriptions.
  • Documentary evidence that she appears to have succeeded in at least one prior attempt to obtain free Botox.

The aforementioned behavior pattern evidence shows that the primary accuser appears to be just the type of person who would fabricate a sexual assault charge for financial gain. Further proof of Dr. Day’s innocence includes but is not limited to the following:

  • This is a he said she said case based almost exclusively on hearsay without any physical evidence whatsoever wherein Dr. Day voluntarily took and easily passed a polygraph test.
  • The primary accuser waited 10 days to file a complaint. Her waiting 10 days to call the police is inconsistent with her prior behavior because documentary evidence shows that she appears to have called 911 seventeen (17) times in the five years preceding the date of the allegation on 8/22/1010. Based on her apparent prior behavior showing that she had hair trigger to call 911 and that had no fear of contacting police because she did it repeatedly with impunity, there is no doubt that she would have called police immediately if the assault had actually occurred.
  • All five personal communications between Dr. Day and the primary accuser prior to their meeting on Sunday morning of 8/22/2010 were initiated by the primary accuser (i.e., the gal was pursuing the guy).
  • The primary accuser alleged that she escaped by promising Dr. Day that she would return later to spend more time with him if he would let her go. It is readily apparent that this was a fabrication because the rest of Dr. Day’s morning and early afternoon was already booked – he had an appointment at 9 AM with an employee and her daughter and he was leaving at 10:30 AM to play golf (11 AM tee time).
  • New evidence indicates that the primary accuser at specific relevant dates and times was not where she said that she was.
  • There are over forty (40) inconsistencies in the primary accuser’s statements and testimonies.
  • There are multiple other lines of evidence that have been left off for the sake of brevity.

CALVIN DAY = VICTIM OF A FABRICATED SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATION

The personal trainer who fabricated the sexual assault allegation against Dr. Calvin Day appears to have made six other bodily injury claims. On three separate occasions at three separate restaurants, it appears that the personal trainer claimed to have broken her tooth on a “rock in the food. On two other separate occasions and it appears that the personal trainer filed two slip, trip, or fall Worker’s Compensation claims. Still another bodily injury “allegation” involved a minor auto accident. In this particular instance, the dollar amount for lost wages and medical expenses that she submitted in writing to the insurance company (and for which she received compensation) appear to exceed the medical expenses and wage losses that she actually incurred. In other words, she appears to have committed insurance fraud. In addition to the six bodily injury claims the personal trainer appears to have as many as 10 (ten) or more property insurance claims. See more evidence at www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com. This fabricated allegation appears to have precipitated a cascade of events that contributed to the death of Dr. DAY’s son Zac Day.

-This article originally appeared on http://www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com

MELANOMA CASES HAVE DOUBLED & WILL TRIPLE BY THE YEAR 2030 by Dr. Calvin Day**

MELANOMA CASES HAVE DOUBLED & WILL TRIPLE BY THE YEAR 2030 by Dr. Calvin Day**

September 21, 2015

Dr Day

A recent U.S. government publication reports that the incidence rate of melanoma has doubled in the last 30 years. The incidence rates for melanoma, which is a deadly form of skin cancer, are expected to continue to rise with a tripling by 2030

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6421a6.htm?s_cid=mm6421a6_w). The report went on to say that in 2011 there were 65,647 reported cases of invasive melanomas of the skin in the United States with a corresponding 9,128 melanoma deaths.

 

The rise in melanoma incidence rates can apparently be prevented by adopting a national program similar to the successful one in Australia labeled “SunSmart” (http://www.sunsmart.com.au/). Apparently, much of the success of Sunsmart was and is the result of a successful marketing campaign (that includes a Smartphone app) aimed at changing personal behavior patterns with regard to the sun through public education. The free SunSmart app specifies the times of the day that you need sun protection. In addition to education, the observed desired changes in personal behavior that were achieved were apparently aided significantly by the following clever Sunsmart pneumonic:

  1. Slip on long sleeved clothing,
  2. Slap on a hat,
  3. Slop on sunscreen
    • Sunsmart recommends use of a SPF30 or higher, broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen and lip balm at least 20 minutes before going outside to protect any part of the body that is exposed. Reapplication every two hours is recommended and facilitated by putting a small tube of sunscreen in your jacket pocket or bag. The SunSmart app has a reapplication alert function you can set so you don’t forget to reapply.
  4. Slide on sunglasses and
  5. Seek shade
    • An important part of the Sunsmart program is to take from breaks by going to shaded areas during the middle part of the day.

 

Two following two important S’s should be added to the five on the Sunsmart skin cancer prevention list above:

 

  1. Stop trying to get a tan
    • Tanning from UV light, whether it comes naturally from the sun or artificially from indoor tanning salons, not only increases your risk for skin cancer, but also causes skin wrinkles and unattractive skin spots that make you look older. So sunbathing and trips to the tanning salon to get UV treatments should be crossed off your personal behavior list.
  2. Sunburns are deadly
    • Insofar as the relationship between melanoma and sun exposure is concerned the biggest risk factor for melanoma is the number of sunburns one has had – sunburn prevention should be the number priority.

 

**DR. CALVIN DAY — PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY

  • Dr. Calvin Day is a self-employed medical writer and non-clinical consultant on dermatology, general medical, and general health issues.
  • Dr. Day graduated summa cum laude from Texas A&M University (College Station), and
  • Was the Salutatorian (second academically ranked student) of his 1976 medical school graduating class at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas.
  • Following graduation from medical school, Dr. Day trained for an additional six years in the Harvard Medical School programs at Massachusetts General Hospital

o          in Internal Medicine,

o          Dermatology, and

o          Dermatopathology.

  • Dr. Day completed his last and seventh year of formal post medical school training as a Mohs Surgery Fellow under the tutelage of Dr. Perry Robins who officed at New York University Medical Center.
  • Dr. Day was the principal author of more than 60 professional articles published in refereed medical journals, including two publications in the New England Journal of Medicine. The majority of these articles dealt with skin cancer with a focus on malignant melanoma.
  • Following his formal medical training, Dr. Day, for 28 years had a private practice in San Antonio wherein he routinely logged more than 90 hours per week while building a thriving practice consisting of approximately 40,000 patients who, by in large, had skin cancer and cosmetic dermatology concerns.
  • During this same 28 year period, Dr. Day devoted a portion of his time to teaching skin surgery to dermatology residents at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), where he held an appointment as “Clinical Professor of Medicine (Dermatology)”.
  • In 2010, Dr. Day was honored by having a UTHSCSA dermatology professorship named after him after he declined a personal gift of $100,000 and diverted it instead to the Dermatology Program at UTHSCSA.
  • From March 2009 through April 2011, Dr. Day made 126 donations to 97 different charitable organizations through charity golf tournaments.
  • For seven consecutive years, from 2004 through 2010 Dr. Day was selected by Texas Monthly as one of Texas’ “Superdoctors”, and
  • In 2010, he was also designated by Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best Doctors in Texas”.

NEW BLOOD PRESSURE GUIDELINES MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE By Dr. Calvin Day**

NEW BLOOD PRESSURE GUIDELINES MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE

By Dr. Calvin Day**

September 17, 2015

 

Six days ago the National Institutes of Health announced the results of a new landmark study showing that lives were saved with 25% fewer deaths when more aggressive therapy was used to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of 120, as compared with the previous target recommendation of 140 (http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2015/nhlbi-11.htm).

Even more dramatic was the reduction in cardiovascular events where the study showed that heart attacks, heart failure, and stroke were reduced by almost a third.  The results were so dramatic that the study was stopped prematurely. Nevertheless, concerned physicians have noted that the NIH first issued a press release to the public containing only sparse details of the “SPRINT” study instead of following their usual protocol of first releasing more detailed results to the scientific community where the results could be analyzed and critiqued. For example, Dr. Lloyd Van Winkle, who is a candidate for the presidency of the American Academy of Family Physicians, on his 9/14/2015 Facebook page wrote “Hmm… But at those goals how many hip FX from orthostatic hypotension on standing?” Data to answer Dr. Van Winkle’s concern is sure to be found in the study results but it cannot presently be accessed by physicians. And with most experienced physicians having seen multiple instances of having preliminary findings subsequently reversed, the NIH announcement is quite naturally viewed by many physicians with some skepticism. But perhaps this study will be an impetus to have more patients monitor their blood pressure at home, especially since smartphone apps in combination with the associated blood pressure cuff allow ease of taking and keeping historical blood pressure records. If the first number on your blood pressure reading (i.e., systolic blood pressure) is consistently above 120, you should consider a visit to your doctor to determine whether you are a candidate for treatment.

 

**DR. CALVIN DAY — PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY

primo 37

DR. Calvin Day of San Antonio with wife Christine

  • Calvin Day is a self-employed medical writer and non-clinical consultant on dermatology, general medical, and general health issues.
  • Day graduated summa cum laude from Texas A&M University (College Station), and
  • Was the Salutatorian (second academically ranked student) of his 1976 medical school graduating class at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas.
  • Following graduation from medical school, Dr. Day trained for an additional six years in the Harvard Medical School programs at Massachusetts General Hospital
    • in Internal Medicine,
    • Dermatology, and
  • Day completed his last and seventh year of formal post medical school training as a Mohs Surgery Fellow under the tutelage of Dr. Perry Robins who officed at New York University Medical Center.
  • Day was the principal author of more than 60 professional articles published in refereed medical journals, including two publications in the New England Journal of Medicine. The majority of these articles dealt with skin cancer with a focus on malignant melanoma.
  • Following his formal medical training, Dr. Day, for 28 years had a private practice in San Antonio wherein he routinely logged more than 90 hours per week while building a thriving practice consisting of approximately 40,000 patients who, by in large, had skin cancer and cosmetic dermatology concerns.
  • During this same 28 year period, Dr. Day devoted a portion of his time to teaching skin surgery to dermatology residents at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), where he held an appointment as “Clinical Professor of Medicine (Dermatology)”.
  • In 2010, Dr. Day was honored by having a UTHSCSA dermatology professorship named after him after he declined a personal gift of $100,000 and diverted it instead to the Dermatology Program at UTHSCSA.
  • From March 2009 through April 2011, Dr. Day made 126 donations to 97 different charitable organizations through charity golf tournaments.
  • For seven consecutive years, from 2004 through 2010 Dr. Day was selected by Texas Monthly as one of Texas’ “Superdoctors”, and
  • In 2010, he was also designated by Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best Doctors in Texas”.

 

CHILDREN POISONED BY HAND SANITIZERS –KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN – By Dr. Calvin Day

CHILDREN POISONED BY HAND SANITIZERS –KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN

By Dr. Calvin Day**

September 16, 2015

 

 

A new report from the Georgia Poison Center (georgiapoisoncenter.com) shows that 16,117 children were poisoned by hand sanitizers in 2014. The culprit is usually alcohol. Most hand sanitizers contain approximately twice the alcohol content of hard liquor (i.e. 40% for most hard liquors vs an average of 80% for hand sanitizers). One shot of hard liquor is approximately 1 ½ ounces = 45ml = 3 tablespoons. So if a child swallows 1 ½ tablespoons of hand sanitizer that is equivalent to one shot of hard liquor. And since alcohol tolerance is dependent on body weight, a child under 12 is soon drunk and at risk for worse sequelae. Apparently the scented, flavored, and artificially colored hand sanitizers pose a higher risk because the appearance and smell is attractive to a child. The bottom line is that hand sanitizers should be kept out of reach of children.

 

 

**DR. CALVIN DAY — PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY

  • Calvin Day is a self-employed medical writer and non-clinical consultant on dermatology, general medical, and general health issues.
  • Day graduated summa cum laude from Texas A&M University (College Station), and
  • Was the Salutatorian (second academically ranked student) of his 1976 medical school graduating class at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas.
  • Following graduation from medical school, Dr. Day trained for an additional six years in the Harvard Medical School programs at Massachusetts General Hospital
    • in Internal Medicine,
    • Dermatology, and
  • Day completed his last and seventh year of formal post medical school training as a Mohs Surgery Fellow under the tutelage of Dr. Perry Robins who officed at New York University Medical Center.
  • Day was the principal author of more than 60 professional articles published in refereed medical journals, including two publications in the New England Journal of Medicine. The majority of these articles dealt with skin cancer with a focus on malignant melanoma.
  • Following his formal medical training, Dr. Day, for 28 years had a private practice in San Antonio wherein he routinely logged more than 90 hours per week while building a thriving practice consisting of approximately 40,000 patients who, by in large, had skin cancer and cosmetic dermatology concerns.
  • During this same 28 year period, Dr. Day devoted a portion of his time to teaching skin surgery to dermatology residents at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), where he held an appointment as “Clinical Professor of Medicine (Dermatology)”.
  • In 2010, Dr. Day was honored by having a UTHSCSA dermatology professorship named after him after he declined a personal gift of $100,000 and diverted it instead to the Dermatology Program at UTHSCSA.
  • From March 2009 through April 2011, Dr. Day made 126 donations to 97 different charitable organizations through charity golf tournaments.
  • For seven consecutive years, from 2004 through 2010 Dr. Day was selected by Texas Monthly as one of Texas’ “Superdoctors”, and
  • In 2010, he was also designated by Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best Doctors in Texas”.

 

Top