For those of you that have been asking, here is the newest update. I will keep with my promise to “not” write in “legalese.” The areas that will be covered in this update are as follows:

	(a)		Status of doctors on the quality assurance or watch list.
	(b)		Claims that are being denied because the medical report does not list Dow Corning or uses the small letter “s” for silicone/silastic in reports from 1970 and 1971.
	(c)		Claimants who have received a deficiency notice from the SFDCT on their medical claim and the one year deadline is approaching.
	(d)		Claimants who received a 50% settlement in the MDL-926 Class Action and the SFDCT has rejected their Dow proof and cannot recover the other 50%.
	(e)		Claimants who received a 50% settlement in the MDL-926 Class Action and the SFDCT is approving their medical settlement at a lower level than was accepted in the MDL-926 Class Action.
	(f)		What is happening with claims that were filed after November of 1999 and before August 31, 2004, that have been put on hold?
	(g)		Denial of proof claims for Cronin implants received after 1971.
	(h)		What can I do if my attorney will not return my calls or answer my questions and I do not know what is going on with my claim?

(A) STATUS OF DOCTORS ON THE QUALITY ASSURANCE OR WATCH LIST

This has been a very personal issue with me for the last several years. I have argued in person for the publishing of this list before Judge Clemon and the MDL-926 Claims Administrator in three different meetings.

Finally, the SFDCT has agreed to confirm verbally whether a specific doctor is on this list. You can now call the SFDCT at (866)874-6099 and inquire whether a specific doctor is on the list, and they will confirm whether he or she is on the list. If the doctor is on the list, then his or her report will not be accepted by the SFDCT, and the claimant will be required to be examined at her own cost by another doctor.

According to the CAC, the new Claims Administrator for the SFDCT has removed the names of several doctors who were previously on this list. The reason for this was due to the Claims Administrator for the MDL-926 revising their list, and the Claims Administrator has now has stated that they only have four doctors on their list. If you received a letter previously from the SFDCT stating that your doctor’s report was unreliable or you need to be examined again, you should contact the SFDCT to see if this doctor is still on the list.

(B)  CLAIMS THAT ARE BEING DENIED BECAUSE THE MEDICAL REPORT DOES NOT LIST DOW CORNING OR USES THE SMALL LETTER “s” FOR SILICONE/SILASTIC IN REPORTS FROM 1970 AND 1971.

The current rules state that if you have a medical report after 1969 that lists “silastic” in all lower case letters, the report will not be accepted by the SFDCT. It is common knowledge that Dow Corning had a virtual monopoly of the breast implant market up until early 1972. If a claimant received an implant in 1970 and 1971, the chances were almost 100% that the implant was manufactured by Dow Corning. For those claimants who had their 1970 and 1971 medical reports rejected by the SFDCT because the words Dow Corning was not used or the word “silastic” was used in all lower case letters, the rules could be changing because of this unfairness.

It is quite possible that the SFDCT may announce in the near future that all medical reports from 1971 and earlier, will be accepted by the Claims Board, regardless of what wording was used to describe the brand of implant. There is no guarantee that the rules will be changed, but I would not be surprised if they are changed in the very near future.

(C)  CLAIMANTS WHO RECEIVED A DEFICIENCY NOTICE FROM THE SFDCT ON THEIR MEDICAL CLAIM AND THE ONE YEAR DEADLINE IS APPROACHING.

There is presently a motion pending before Judge Hood, to have the deadlines “suspended” until the issues have been resolved concerning the SFDCT evaluating medical claims using a different criterion than the criterion used by the MDL-926 Claims Board.

The Claimant Advisory Committee (who has been doing an excellent job and has really been on the ball) has filed this motion with the Court and is aware that the SFDCT is also sending out “additional” deficiencies notices to claimants, who tried to cure their deficiency the first time around. The reason this is unfair is because the SFDCT already knew about this “additional deficiency” but waited until much later to inform the claimant, and expected the claimant to comply with the one year deadline for both deficiency notices.

If you have a medical deadline rapidly approaching, and you do not have an attorney, you need to file a Motion before Judge Hood to have the deadline suspended for the reasons noted above, or you can contact our office for assistance.

(D) CLAIMANTS WHO RECEIVED A 50% SETTLEMENT IN THE MDL-926 CLASS ACTION AND THE SFDCT HAS REJECTED THEIR DOW PROOF AND CANNOT RECOVER THE OTHER 50.

This is simply unfair. It is unfair for the MDL-926 Claims Board to reduce your claim by 50% because they take the position that you received a Dow Corning implant in addition to a Bristol, Baxter or 3M implant, but the SFDCT takes the position that you do not fulfill the “Dow Proof” requirement for the Dow implant and you cannot recover the remaining 50%. What further compounds this matter, is the MDL-926 Claims Board is refusing to pay the other 50% once they are notified that the claimants Dow claim was denied.

On June 3, 2005, I attended a meeting in New Orleans before the Honorable Judge U.W. Clemon. The Dow Claimant Advisory Committee (CAC), MDL-926 Office of the Plaintiff Liaison Counsel (OPLC), attorneys representing 3M, Bristol and Baxter were also in attendance, where this very issue was brought up.

Judge Clemon is aware of this issue, and has requested data information from the MDL-926 Claims Administrator as to how many claimants fit into this category. This information was requested by the attorneys for 3M, Bristol and Baxter for their consideration and review. If the numbers of such claimants are not too large, I would hope that 3M, Bristol and Baxter would agree to honor such claims, as they will have to provide this funding. We hope to receive a ruling on this issue in the near future by Judge Clemon.

(E) CLAIMANTS WHO RECEIVED A 50% SETTLEMENT IN THE MDL-926 CLASS ACTION, AND THE SFDCT IS APPROVING THEIR MEDICAL SETTLEMENT AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN WAS ACCEPTED IN THE MDL-926 CLASS ACTION.

If your claim in the Dow Class Action was approved for a level “less” than what it was accepted in the MDL-926 Class Action, you should immediately file an appeal to the SFDCT Claims Administrator. You can also contact our office for assistance. These claims are referred to as “MDL Pass Through Claims” and should be paid automatically based on the MDL-926 previous determination.

(F) WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CLAIMS THAT WERE FILED AFTER NOVEMBER OF 1999 AND BEFORE AUGUST 31, 2004, THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON HOLD?

For those claimants who filed a Notice of Intent form after November of 1999 and before August 31, 2004 are deemed “late claimants.” The SFDCT has evaluated many of these claims and have deemed the Dow proof to be acceptable, but has stopped further processing the explant, rupture or medical claim until the Court makes a ruling on whether “late claimants” are entitled to receive a settlement.

Although this is too confusing to be actually understood, if a claimant filed a Notice of Intent form during this time period (which was allowed under Rule 3005 of the Bankruptcy Code) and has a “matching co-debtor” claim, their claim should be paid. It is the “unmatched co-debtor” claims that are under consideration before Judge Hood. If you previously filed a claim in the MDL-926 Class Action (the MDL-926 is a co-debtor), then this would be a “match” of a co-debtor claim, and your claim will more than likely be allowed. The Court has to decide if there is enough money in the Fund to pay the claims of “unmatched co-debtor” claims.

(G) DENIAL OF PROOF CLAIM FOR CRONIN IMPLANTS RECEIVED AFTER 1971

The current rules do not cover Cronin implantS after 1971. As reported in my last update, our office has been very successful in our Request for Reviews and Appeals in convincing Dow Corning to accept Cronin implants after 1971. No other implant manufacturer, other than Dow Corning, manufactured the implant known as “Cronin” which had the Dacron fixation patches and was developed by Dr. Cronin.

We have had Cronin implants accepted by Dow Corning up to the year 1977. If your claim has been denied because you received a Cronin implant after 1971, you should definitely contact our office.

(H) WHAT CAN I DO IF MY ATTORNEY WILL NOT RETURN MY CALL OR ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AND I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH MY CLAIM?

I receive a considerable amount of correspondence from claimants who are dissatisfied with their present attorney and want to change attorneys. For the most part, their dissatisfaction is with the lack of communication and information they receive from their attorney.

I inform all such claimants to first try to contact their attorney again, as it is not necessarily a wise move to change attorneys at this stage, if the attorney has performed a considerable amount of work in a timely and competent manner. I suggest they contact the attorney to arrange a meeting, or send a certified letter requesting a written response to their questions.

If a claimant still cannot receive a response from their attorney, they should send a written request to the attorney for a copy of their file, which they are entitled to. An attorney cannot refuse to send you a copy of your file, and if they refuse or tell you that you cannot change attorneys, now would be a good time to find a new attorney.

You can always write the SFDCT and ask for a copy of your file to be sent to you, so you can be aware of what forms have been filed on your behalf, and has it been done in a timely manner. You can always provide the SFDCT with your email address in writing and request that you be assigned a “Password”, that will allow you to access your own file online through the website of the SFDCT.

You should not be left in the dark by your attorney for any reason. You should not be afraid to contact your attorney, as he or she works for you. Your attorney should not be asking you to obtain most of your records or having you do most of the legwork. If your medical or proof claim has been denied by the SFDCT, your attorney should not throw the ball in your lap and expect you to cure the deficiency. I feel an attorney should be proactive and take the lead in providing the leadership in working with the Qualified Medical Doctor in having the deficiencies cured, if they can be cured.