RE: OAH Case #2012c-BHS-0338-DHS The Evolution Of A Grievance: Wherein, following over one full year of systematic suppression of my right to due process in relation to a criminally imposed sequence of administrative abuse of authority at The Arizona State Hospital, I prepare to go to hearing.

THIS IS AN ONGOING ARTICLE THAT BEGAN ON JUNE 16, 2012 (SEE "RE: ADHS ADHS/DBHS OGA Docket #H090611S0009), AND RELATES TO AN EARLEIR APRIL 09, 2012, ARTICLE ("FACTS OF LIFE #1-4"), AND EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEGINNING ON MAY 25, 2011, AND EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDING ON MAY 29, 2011.

 Following a full year of repeated failure of Arizona State Hospital administrative staff and officials of the Arizona Department of Health Services Office of Grievances and Appeals to abide by all/any applicable rules of procedure, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings refuses to consider my reasonable and lawful request as the appellant in the case to not allow someone directly involved as one of the appellee's in his case represent themselves (appellee) when the matter goes to hearing on July 16, 2012, and in spite of the clear conflict of issues raised by me via a lawfully submitted motion, allows for the Office of the Arizona Attorney General to represent themselves in the upcoming hearing. I am advised, as such, by the administrative judge assigned to the case, Kay Abramsohn, that I have no "authority" to raise any such issues or to challenge my adversary in the case in this context.  

THIS IS A CROCK OF COCKROACH DUNG THROUGH AND THROUGH. THE ACTIONS OF ASH' HIGHEST RANKING CLINICAL STAFF AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES BY WHICH THIS MATTER AROSE IS CRIMINAL TO THE FIRST DEGREE, AND THE  HANDLING OF THIS CASE BY ASH AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS BEEN PISSED ON FROM DAY ONE. HERE IS A FULL RECAP OF THE HISTORY OF THIS MATTER FROM THE BEGINNING. 
   
May 25, 2011
   9:00 a.m. A representative of the legal office at ASH (Cindy Froelich) approached me in the patent library and told me to sign a legal document directly relating to my status as a patient at ASH that I was not comfortable signing until I had staffed it with my court appointed attorney; I told her this, and she advised me that my unwillingness to sign the document meant the the hospital might discharge me (her exact words being "...put you out on the curb out in front of the hospital") at the end of the day (May 25) despite there being no clinical determinations in this regard specific to my actual medical-mental condition at that time nor any arrangements on my behalf in terms of my immediate aftercare
   9:45 a.m. I was on a telephone in the Palo Verde East unit trying to get through to my court appointed attorney about the matter when an ASH psychiatrist who I had never met (Dr. Lynn Lydon) interrupted and advised me that she'd been assigned to subject me to a full psyche assessment, but I told her that until I had been fully apprised of the reason for any such medical exam by my clinical treatment team, that I was unwilling to participate in an unannounced exam such as the one she was describing; after leaving a message for my attorney, I prepared to exit Palo Verde East unit in order to go to one of my assigned daily therapy sessions, and the doctor stated "But wait! Aren't you too suicidal to be moving around unattended?" I disregarded this doctor's disparaging, unauthorized, and inaccurate comment and civilly proceeded to my therapy session
  10:05 a.m. Security staff interrupt me in therapy and advise me that they have been ordered to escort me back to Palo Verde East unit but can provide me with no explanation as to the order; I cooperate
against my wishes, and go with the guard back to the unit.
  10:15-10:45 a.m. My direct inquiries to nursing staff on Palo Verde East unit concerning why I was removed from my critically important therapy session are ignored, and my requests to speak with my primary attending doctor are rejected; I return to trying to get through to my court appointed attorney by phone.
  11:00 a.m. I am taken into a closed room and advised by two nurses (Dan Dwyer, Gladys) and a social worker ((Megan Mischner) that I am to be placed under highly restrictive "Suicide Watch" (a condition whereby the patient is restricted from therapy, etc., and must be escorted at all times by at least one staff person who must be within one arm's length of the patent at all times including in the bathroom) but are unable to provide me with any clinical justification for the restriction. All they are willing to say is "Your doctor ordered it." My request to speak with my primary attending doctor (Pervaiz Akhter) about the situation are rejected. I begin making repeated requests to see my doctor to staff.
  3:00 p.m. A representative of the legal office (Cindy Froelich) serves me with a petition for court ordered involuntary treatment at ASH that was drafted and is signed by a representative of the Arizona Attorney Generals office, but is unwilling to provide me with any information as to why the document has been imposed on me at that time. I continue with my requests to see my primary attending doctor, but he does not appear.
  5:00 p.m. I am denied the opportunity to meet one and one and in private with a human rights advocate (John Gallagher) has come to see me as per an earlier scheduled appointment.

May 26, 2011
   10:00 a.m. Following speaking with my court appointed attorney, I begin making repeated requests to speak with Pervaiz Akhter, but he does not appear.
   5:00 p.m.  My primary attending doctor, Pervaiz Akhter, appears and advises me that he ordered the "Suicide Watch" restriction because my unwillingness to sign the document on the morning of May 25 had indicated to him that I was critically suicidal. He asks me if I am willing to sign the document, and I advise that "Yes, I did speak with my court appointed attorney about that matter, but it is moot right now, and until  I have something substantive from you about this petition for court ordered treatment, I have nothing more to say about it." He then asks if I feel critically suicidal at that time, and I tell him "No, I do not, nor have I at any time in the recent past." He advises me that if I am willing to sign the document, that he will be able to remove me from "Suicide Watch" restriction, and that he will come see me the following morning about it.
 
May 27, 2011
   12:00 p.m. I meet with my Pervaiz Akhter in a closed room. I look over and sign the legal document that I had been asked to sign by a member of the legal office on May 25. Pervaiz Akhter contradicts statements he made less than one full day earlier by incoming me that he had imposed the "Suicide Watch" restriction because a cursory review of my medical file had reflected to him that I was "highly suicidal." I inquire as to the far that I had remained stable since my arrival at ASH and that I had not once been placed on "Suicide Watch" during the entirety of my eighteen full months at ASH, but he declines to comment on the relevance of this, and again defers his action to my "medical record."
He then advises me that I will be removed from "Suicide Watch" restriction in the "near future." 
   4:00 p.m. I am removed from "Suicide Watch" restriction.

September 02, 2011
   A formal grievance document is submitted on my behalf by the Arizona Department of Health Services Office of Human Rights (John Gallagher) regarding the sequence of events circa May 25-27, 2011 (above), alleging that my primary attending doctor (Pervaiz Akhter) unlawfully abridged no less than nine of my fundamental rights as a client of ADHS and patient of ASH; the allegations extend to several other ASH staff, as well, including staff of the legal office (assistant AZ Attorney General Joel Rudd, Cindy Froelich), and ASH chief medical officer (Steven Dingle).

NOTE: I REQUESTED THAT JOHN GALLAGHER WAIT AS LONG AS WE DID IN FILING THIS GRIEVANCE (THREE MONTHS) BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID OF REPERCUSSIONS AND RETALIATION AND I INTENDED TO WAIT UNTIL I HAD A CONFIRMED DISCHARGE DATE ESTABLISHED,  BUT IN THOSE THREE MONTHS, THE PAIENT ABUSE AT ASH HAD INCREASINGLY COME TO DISTURB ME, SO IN LATE AUGUST I ASKED JOHN GALLAGHER TO GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT THE GRIEVANCE DOCUMENT, WHICH HE DID ON SEPTEMBER 02, 2011.    

September 06, 2012
   I am advised that I am being transferred from the most peaceful unit at ASH, Palo Verde East, to the most violent unit at ASH, Desert sage East. No explanation is provided to me in direct violation of hospital policy and my rights as a patent. (NOTE: This action was quite obviously imposed on me in direct reaction to the submittal of the grievance document, and immediately triggered a separate grievance report concerning highly illegal retaliation that I submitted on my own behalf and which is still pending scheduling for judicial review in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.)
   
September, 2011-January, 2012
    Without adhering to specifically related laws of procedure and in direct defiance of the requested terms for redress contained int he grievance document, ASH administration (Donna Noreiga, Steven Dingle) and ADHS Office of Appeals and Grievance officials (Thelma Bedoni, Kara Burke, Margery Ault) engage in a systematic rejection of the principle merits of the formal grievance document provided in relation to the events circa May 25-27, 2011, thereby furthering the abridgments of my rights in direct relation to the original grievance document.

   It has been more than seven full months since the events central to this case occurred.

February 09, 2012
   I am advised by ADHS OGA that my grievance concerns relating to the events circa May 25-27, 2012, have been accepted for review in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, and that I will be advised of the scheduling of said hearing at sometime in the future.

  It has been over eight full months since the events central to this matter occurred.

June 03, 2012
   I am advised that the the hearing for review of my grievance concerns in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings has been scheduled for July 16, 2012.

   Over twelve full months have now transpired since the events central to this matter        
   occurred.

June 16, 2012
   I submit a motion to the assigned administrative law judge (Kay Abramsohn) in the above scheduled hearing requesting that the Office of Arizona Attorney General not be granted the role of representing ASH and ADHS in relation to this matter due to clear conflict of interest issues, and I provide the court with one page of the original grievance document which clearly identifies at least one staff member of that office as having played a central role in the abridgements of my rights at issue in the case.

June 22, 2012
   Joel Rudd of the Office of the Arizona Attorney General submits a motion in opposition to my request to have that office removed from the case at hand due to very clear conflict issues, unilaterally declaring with no authoritative citations that:     
       A) OAH has no authority to remove them as counsel for ASH/ADHS, and that; 
       B) I failed to illustrate any conflict, and that; 
       C) even if the conflict that I alleged existed I have no right to make to issue of it.

June 26, 2012
   Administrative law judge Kay Abramsohn of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings agrees 100% with Joel Rudd's claims (as outlined above) and effectively ignores my presence and directly related rights as the appellant in this case, leaving me with no option other than to proceed to hearing despite the intent of the court to ignore my expressed concerns about the conflict of interest issue. As such, I contend that the rights of any individual aggrieved client of The Arizona Department of Health Services seeking as I am to be granted meaningful relief and redress through the state of Arizona's public resource network will inevitably be denied, because it is clearer to me today than it has ever been that the entire managed behavioral health care system in Arizona is corrupted by  a majority of its administrative representatives, corruption that extends into the state judiciary and its affiliate agencies. 

IN CLOSING: I have a central witness to all aspects of the history of this grievance who is also an highly skilled and very experienced authority on issues relating to the Arizona mental health care
system. My witness will testify as to the unlawful coercion of The Arizona State Hospital's legal office in the matter Cindy Froelich), the abuse of administrative authority exhibited by various clinical staff (Pervaiz Akhter, and involved nursing staff), and in terms of The Office of the Arizona Attorney Generals complicity in regard to the various violations of my civil and humans rights in this matter. As to the issue of conflict of interest with Joel Rudd in mind, the fact that this hearing is being convened by administrative law judge Kay Abramsohn in graphic contradiction to my constitutional right to due process and a fair and impartial hearing has already been reported to one federal source of authority, but I will submit a formal protest as to this specific issue at hearing on July 16, 2012, and follow up again with the federal record after the hearing occurs.
       The story grows at each step, but only in the context of my experiences to date, and not due any substantive improvements in the state of affairs at ASH.

These hearings (there are five total, July 16 is #3 of the five) are not nearly so crucial as the basic willingness of the public to express their lawful dissent and defy The Arizona State Hospital's willingness to continue operating at a substandard level of medical-mental health care and practice. The abuse of seriously mentally disabled patients at ASH is inhumane, criminal, and entirely out of keeping with well established codes of law and policy specific to the rights and needs of America's most marginalized population. Please see my April 30, 2012 "Resource Ideas" article and determine how you can best go about contributing to stopping patient abuse at ASH cold in its bloody tracks.

paoloreed@gmail.com