Well, the original statement of being knocked unconscious is one thing,
which might have just been unconscious for a few minutes. If you have
officially suffered a brain injury and were in a coma for three days,
that's quite another story. From the original wording that wasn't clear.
- Tab
At 03:09 PM 11/8/99 EST, EMPcoLWE@aol.com wrote:
> Hello Tab.
> That's a good question.
> I got it from the interview with the D. M. V. representative who I met
>with this month when she said at the beginning of the interview (to the
>taping device there) that the reason for the interview was to see if I was
>capable of operating a motor vehicle safely. I also got this information
from
>an ex-nurse who said that it was the law.
> You have a good point, however. Neither of these people are lawyers and
>they might well be wrong or simply misunderstood by me.
> I do know that the Doctor at one of the hospitals had to inform the D.
M.
>V. that I had suffered "brain injury," that I had been in a coma for three
>days, and that subsequently my license was suspended, not taken away.
> I am now going through the process of taking the written and driving
>tests again.
>I will research the actual law behind this and inform the list. I sure
>wouldn't want to be responsible for spreading misinformation.
> Thanks for the wake up call.
> Eric
> 59 mga
> 71 mgb
> 65 vw panel van
> 86 Isuzu subdivision
>
>
>>>Say again? What is this California law that if you are made unconscious in
>an accident you lose your license?? Where did you get that from?<<
>
>
|