Monday, December 30, 2013

Propaganda Personified: Short time ASH Supervisor/current Deputy Director of ADHS/BHS Cory Nelson's formal untruthfulness, as represented in his 2012 "State of the Hospital" Report. 


The original version of the following article was published in this blog in early 2013, in relation to an official annual status report prepared and disseminated in August, 2012, specific to the operation of Arizona's sole long term public mental health facility, The Arizona State Hospital, by then ASH Supervisor Cory Nelson. Since that time, Cory Nelson has been repeatedly exposed via major Phoenix area media outlets, in terms of grossly mischaracterizing the substandard medical-mental health care and conditions at ASH, and there is arguably no stronger evidence in the context of this man's patent untruthfulness than this 2012 "State of the Hospital" report, evidence that most definitely includes clear data to the effect that Nelson is very unqualified, ethically and experientially, for the positions that he has filled in Arizona's behavioral health system. For which, Nelson was promoted within the Arizona health care construct by the Director of the Arizona Health Department, Will Humble. All aspects of this recent history are occurring in graphic defiance of established health care law and policy, and yet to date, no accountability has been provided to the citizens of Arizona, including the patient community at ASH, who are being continually subjected to the clinical and administrative ineptitude that I became aware of while hospitalized at ASH in 2011-2012. 

Why Do We Care? Herein, a consideration of Cory "meathead" Nelson's 2012 Arizona State Hospital Annual Update, aka, "The State of the Hospital." 

"The Arizona State Hospital is a powder keg of illegal conduct now on the verge of explosion." (November 2013)

Topic: 2012 "State of the Hospital" presentation(s), facilitated by the Arizona Department of Health Services/Behavioral Health Services, sometime in late August, 2012.


Arizona State Hospital Annual Update. August 2012. Cory D. Nelson, MPA. Administrator/CEO

(to see a full copy of the document itself, go to www.adhs.gov, and from there just go to the Arizona State Hospital page, and follow the prompt to where you should find it at the top of the page). 

Excerpt from the document itself(pp 18).
 Cory Nelson: "Why Do We Care?" (as in, the staff, about the patients at The Arizona State Hospital) "Because If We Don't..." (care about the patients at at ASH), "They Will Find Someone Who Does" (as in, we will lose business). 

     It is interesting to consider why a supervisor of a major public hospital, with less than one year of experience at that facility, would pose so inane a question to a staff that possesses far more actual experience in behavioral health care than he does (even now, in 2013-14); and consistent with the flagrant exhibition of arrogance, it is worth contemplating what Nelson's  primary objective is in the context of maintaining reasonably decent care and treatment at ASH is, in fact. Not as a matter of ensuring that ASH's seriously mentally ill and disabled patients are provided with fundamentally established standards of care, but rather to preserve the state of fiscal stability, as though ASH patients are in a position to take their business elsewhere at the drop of a hat. As illustrated herein,  Cory "crazycorycorner" Nelson, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), convened a "State of the Hospital" presentation to his staff at ASH, wherein he facilitated a carefully planned dissemination of misinformation specific to the affairs of ASH, as they stood at the time (fiscal year 2011-12). In order to do this, Nelson relied on a 32 (or so) page power point document, entitled Arizona State Hospital Annual Update that he presumably presented to an audience including ADHS officials and staff, ASH staff, and maybe even members of the public, including ASH patient family members. It is stretch of the imagination to suppose that any former patients, such as myself, were there, but I would have been there, without a doubt, were I to have known in advance about the event. As it is, I did not hear anything about it until approximately 14-21 days after it occurred, which is when ADHS Director Will Humble published this very, very brief mention of the presentation on his official blog site:

State of the Hospital
September 12th, 2012 by Will Humble, Director ADHS.
A few weeks ago Cory Nelson did his in-person “State of the Hospital” presentations.  Many of you were able to attend one and we really appreciate the dialogue and feedback we got.  It’s impressive to see how much work our hospital team has accomplished in the past year. (UPDATE, December 2013: as illustrated by numerous deep investigations into ASH's operational history over the last 6-18 months and related news reports aired by Phoenix area ABC affiliate Ch. 15, as well as the AZ Family Ch. 12 news source, Cory Nelson is directly responsible for creating a clear and irrefutable crisis at ASH that virtually began as soon as he was hired, wherein ASH patients and ASH staff have been subjected to an utter decimation of safety standards that arose via Nelson's graphic ineptitude as a hospital administrator. The fact is, this crisis was furthered [as it evolved in 2011-12] by the complicity of ADHS Director Will Humble, (as illustrated in the above ADHS "Director's Blog" post), who has willfully engaged in distorting hard data that today has been revealed in this context; misbehavior and patent untruthfulness that both of these men have maintained in blatant defiance of the pubic trust, in spite of the emergence of such data. I know that I am not alone in declaring this issue as unacceptable in every sense of the word.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     I was disappointed, as usual, to see so little information about the event, particularly given that ASH maintains the full responsibility of caring for close to 300 seriously mentally ill and disabled patients. However, my attention was immediately drawn to (the) sentence #2 (out of three) reference to "dialogue and feedback," because I am hopeful that at least a few of the ASH staff who have, in recent months, been expressing their outrage and disbelief about the river of misinformation that's been flowing out of Humble's office with direct respect for the state of affairs at ASH were in attendance, and that they had the courage to speak up and voice their concerns when they had the chance. But I have no way of knowing that, or who all may have actually been in attendance, because beyond Will Humble's three sentence article about this event, all I have been able to garner about what all exactly went on that day comes in the form of a 23 or so so page power point document that Cory "meathead" Nelson utilized in disseminating an arguably questionable body of information about the Hospital's last 12 months of existence as Arizona's only long term public mental health facility. Sadly, there is no information that I am aware of specific to the "feedback and dialogue," but I am in a process of seeking that information.    
     In lieu of such information, I did take the time to review the power point document that  Cory "meathead" Nelson apparently used during his presentation about the state of affairs at ASH. (to view this document, visit www.adhs.gov and then go to the Arizona State Hospital page). It is not a particularly impressive document when one considers it's purpose and function; it is more like what one see at the annual staffing of a fast food restaurant, in my opinion, with an assorted body of poorly constructed references to improvements in facility (including at least one full color photo of a door knob, and two or three very grainy photos of a building roof) and at least 16 primary staffing changes (described under the heading Leadership Changes, and none of which apply to the obviously need to remove ethically challenged executive staff such as Donna "You are so Busted" Noriega (see "News Flash: Donna Noriega- Busted!" April 17, 2012), and other like critical details about ASH, which Nelson variously paraphrased in categories such as: "What else happened?", as follows: 
never_stop_trying.jpg
"Really?", "Still more?" (this is where the door knob appears on pp. 8 of the document), followed by "You've got to be kidding?" (and two really crappy photos of said roof on pp. 10-11), and "So when does it stop?" (pp.12). It is embarrassing as a reasonably educated/intelligent adult to have to accept the line of rhetoric presented by Nelson , and then it only gets worse, with continued photo imagery that was obviously, oh so cleverly, downloaded from the internet, much like an 8th grade student might go to the trouble of, including an image of Albert  Einstein and the words "Why do I have to change?" (and the quote "The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking" pp 16), and finally a plagiarized comic strip image that challenges any belief that Nelson) actually eared a legitimate undergraduate level college education, much less an advanced degree in the context). All of it, juvenile tidbits of flash, at best, designed to create an impression of creative thinking; but very sadly, nothing meant to meaningfully effect or improve the substandard conditions at ASH, as I know them to be. 

     Not until page 18 of the Annual Update, does the supervisor of ASH begin discussing anything at all related to the experiences of ASH patients. It is (or was) by all appearances, a perfunctory and far from reassuring discussion in this context (to I, a recently discharged former patient of ASH), and short of having been there at the presentation of this crap personally, I can only speculate as to how Nelson specifically carried forth during this portion of his presentation. On its face, however, as per the materials included in the power point document that I reviewed, I honestly have to say, I am more than a little bit worried.  
   FOR EXAMPLE: 
      Take a look at this, if you will. It is a verbatim section of Nelson's power point document (pp. 19). Herein, with immediate respect for the needs and expectations of ASH patients and their families, the supervisor of Arizona's sole long term public mental hospital offers his grossly distorted interpretation of what it means to be a health care professional in the 21st century: 

              Why do we care?
           
           Because if we don't care, they will find 
           someone who does.

     This section of Nelson's presentation is both confusing to me (for in referring to the possibility that "they will find someone who does [care]", I am stumped, in the first place, as to whether he means the Arizona state court system, because "they" are the sole source/reference point of each and every patient that is ever admitted to ASH, or if he is referring to the patients themselves); as well as horrifying to me, (as a former patient, human being, and tax payer), for herein, the person in whom all citizens of Arizona have granted their trust in terms of meaningfully tending to the critically vital needs of the state's most vulnerable and at risk citizens equates caring with commercially oriented profit incentives, and the retention of open market customers. This is what it means to care in Cory "meathead" Nelson's way of seeing things: Either care about retaining our patients,  lest the patients be lost to competitors.  This specific illustration of Nelson's frame of thinking  highlights the significance of his record in South Dakota, pre-ASH and Arizona, circa 2009-10), as reported in the following article, published in a Yankton, SD, newspaper : HSC Pay Raise Sparks Questions: Administrator Receives $10,000 Pay Increase, Nathan Johnson nathan.johnson@yankton.net  Published: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 1:17 PM CDT). This is a man who very accepted an under-the-table $10,000 pay raise that had not been approved by the citizens for whom he worked in South Dakota, which created a a still unresolved cloud of suspicion about Nelson's conduct in that state, which he left behind before being hired to work as ASH's highest ranking employee. Clearly , Nelson only sees dollar signs and margins of predictable loss/gain in his perspective(s) on caring. And given his behavior in South Dakota, as it relates to Arizona's agreeably corrupt public resources network at this time, I fell safe in presuming that he is fully aware of the shortsightedness of his "vision." Not a good recipe, if you ask me (and all that that implies), for ensuring that Arizona's seriously mentally ill and disabled ASH patients are cared for in a manner consistent with established health care standards; a condition of ripeness, more like, in terms of holding open the doors that at this time allow for the presence of overtly sanctioned patient abuse, clinical negligence and discrimination, and directly related administrative malfeasance.

(UPDATE 2013-14: Or, as one of my associates put it less than 8 weeks ago: "The Arizona State Hospital is a powder keg of illegal conduct now on the verge of explosion."
     And although I'd typically believe that such history (the South Dakota scandal) would suffice in disqualifying someone like HIM from caring for Arizona's common citizens (this, based on the other 5 states I have lived in at length), it just don't seem to matter in Arizona. But myself aside, all this crap also signifies the the fact that the crisis at ASH still exists, in terms of every person still needing to be there; so it is painful to me, too, as a one time patient, therein, as a man who feels the pain of the ones still in there. I can, today, literally sense the tension, fear, and sickness that arises when patient abuse occurs at ASH, for I was emotionally effected by it at the time, and such effects linger beyond any other like negative events that one might experience. As does the emotional and psychological abuse that someone like I suffered as a child: Indeed, the ruthless personalities of ASH's most depraved staff members, be it the old war horse nurses who have become overly accustomed to care standards that went out of practice 25-40 years ago, or the socio-psychopathic doctors who have no problem with stomping all over the lawful protections and rights of their patients as a matter of standard practice, emerged in my dreams (nightmares) as I slept at ASH, because their graphic misbehavior triggered such memories for the first time, in my case, in over many, many years. This, the state of affairs at ASH, as I see it.    
     It is readily apparent to me, as a person who has been studying the actions of this yahoo, Cory "overpaid" Nelson, ever since he stepped in as the new Supervisor at ASH in August, 2011, that the "man" is very out of touch with what it means to take responsibility for hospital patients of any kind, particularly such as those being treated at ASH. And from what we can see here, through the materials he relied upon in presenting his 2012 "State of the Hospital," I think it is pretty obvious how this man views the topic(s) of care, health care, the quality of care given to hospital patients, ASH patients. CARE, as Cory "meathead" Nelson sees it, is not relative to the actual quality of care that his patients experience, but rather to the falsehood described by his gaping disconnect from ASH, as a hospital, and the ASH patients, as follows:

          WE CARE BECAUSE WE NEED THE BUSINESS. END OF STORY.  

     As a matter of practicality, I will pose one question: "What does it mean to care when it comes to health professions?And it seems reasonable, doesn't it, for any hospital patient to presume that our care givers care because we are human beings; and that they care because they are human beings; and that they care because they are health care professionals, dedicated to working in a field, as such, where caring for the welfare of the patient is founded on universal tenets of compassion, trust, and kindness
     Trust, as I have discussed in the past, is the centerpiece of any successful psychiatric objective specific to the needs of mentally ill patients, and the need for this extends beyond the basic psychiatrist to patient relationship; trust, indeed, that these people care (isn't this something that any reasonable person today expects of their health care providers?); trust that is afforded the patient on the basis of any patients' need to believe that our care provider is competent; trust that has a whole lot to do with caring for a patients' comfort, health, well being, safety, and any other number of like sentiments? 
      I began paying close attention to Cory Nelson within six weeks of his August, 2011, arrival at ASH. At the time, I directly reported concerns to Cory Nelson about definably criminal misconduct in the form of clinical retaliation that was being imparted on me by the senior psychiatric staff, who had full control over my assigned inpatient treatment and discharge planning team at ASH, retaliation for me having lawfully filed a well founded grievance with the support of the department of health's own Office of Human Rights, (see my previous articles specific to case #2012c-BHS-0338-DHS) and in response to my communications with him about the matter, this is what he told me, in writing: 

     "Patrick I would encourage you to work with your treatment team to address all aspects of your treatment plan while you are still a resident at the hospital. Since your legal status at the hospital is voluntary you may certainly request discharge from your treatment team if you believe that the treatment that you are receiving is ineffective, unnecessary or otherwise not meeting your needs." (ADHS/ASH letter, Cory Nelson to ------- (PJ Reed), September 30, 2011)

     And there it was. The danger posed by a man who did not realize that I, an ASH patient, was, at that time: 
    A) clinically unstable- as in, still suicidal to some marked degree-
        and as such, far from ready for safe discharge from ASH;
    B) in no position to request discharge because there are no other
        long term public mental health facilities in Arizona besides ASH;
    C) not requesting his consideration of matters relating to the
        effectiveness (per se'), necessity, or fulfillment of my 
        needs as a patient.

     Specific to the last of these three factors, for about 95% of the time that I was hospitalized at The Arizona State Hospital, I maintained good faith and well intentioned expectations flowing from my recognition of ASH's explicit role in my life at that time; these expectations extended to my understanding of patient rights, health care ethics, and common law and policy; and in terms of the concerns that I had shared with Nelson at the time, my reports related to documented misconduct and misbehavior of ASH staff, violations of law and policy, and abridgments of my rights as a patient, citizen-consumer, and human being. I was not coming to him with any concerns about the ineffectiveness or lack of necessity of my treatment, per se' (although the misconduct that I reported clearly contributes to such concerns, not just in my case, but in terms of the mismanaged care provided to all ASH patients); and my perspective in this context was distinctly stated in the documents that I forwarded to Nelson in relation to this specific matter. My concerns about these issues flowed from my concern not just in the context of my experiences, but in that of my peers, as well, for it was overwhelmingly evident to me that the clinicians and administrators at ASH impart their grossly unlawful misconduct on all 0f the patients at ASH with little if any discretion or reservation. With these issues in mind (not specifically tied into any concerns I had about ineffectiveness, etc.), I fully expected that the supervisor of ASH would have the capacity to realize the full context of my expressed concerns at that time. I communicated with him through well detailed and carefully written correspondence, documents that I of course have full copies of, and even today, I am shocked at how graphically disconnected Cory "crazycorycorner" Nelson is from the basic realities of ASH the facility, and the ASH patients, such as myself.   
     Even Nelson's reference to my status as voluntary is misguided. There are any number of patients at ASH who agree to accept their hospitalization at ASH on a voluntary basis. At the same time, initial admission to ASH only occurs following a civil or criminal court order for involuntary treatment, but many patients remain at ASH voluntarily if they have been advised by their doctors to remain at ASH beyond the terms of court ordered involuntary treatment while their respective therapy, drug regimen, and general treatment continues. Such was my case at the time. But the fact of the matter is- and as proven by the details surrounding the May, 2011, escape of Jesus Rincon Murietta (wherein, ASH administrators altered the facts underlying the escape in order to avoid accountability, relying on Murietta's status as a voluntary patient in order to justify their patent refusal to release any information about the escape at the time that it happened, thus leading to the brutal slaying of April Mott in late August, 2011; [see "Victim's Family Questions Why Man Was Free", by JJ Hensley, AZ Republic, Sept. 29, 2011])- the administrators and clinicians and ASH, and even assistant attorney general Joel "the mortician" Rudd, arbitrarily manipulate the actual, legal provisions underlying voluntary status at ASH in order to avoid both accountability (in terms of the public trust), as well as in terms of their well established responsibilities and obligations to their patient-customers (as in, specific to my experiences in this context). This is precisely what Nelson was doing when he drafted the Sept. 30, 2011, letter discussed above. (Talking out of his ass, in effect.)
     Cory "crazycorycorner.weebly.com" Nelson's words, as quoted above when he responded to my reports of patient abuse and staff misconduct, pretty clearly proves that he interprets The Arizona State Hospital as being something like a motel, and in stating this to me in this manner, I was felt as though my psychological condition at the time was of no concern to him, whatsoever, a statement along the lines of:
     "So far as I am concerned, Patrick, if you don't agree with the way we do business here at ASH, then you might as well just head out the door and go kill yourself, or whatever. I don't give a shit about you, or your allegations about abuse. I am the supervisor at ASH, and you are nothing to me."  
      From what I have thus far seen about this goddamn "State of the Hospital" presentation as it related to quality of patient care concerns at ASH, Nelson's 
primary intent was to suppress the truth(s) about clearly substandard conditions 
at ASH that even staff have been vocal about reporting to his office (as per comments posted directly to Nelson on his personal web page; see "News Flash", July 20, 2012 and "Hot Off The Goddamn Presses" August 22, 2012), while simultaneously furthering the ongoing out of control situation at ASH. The utilization of the expression "State of the Hospital", being as it clearly is a rip off of the "State of the Nation" presidential addresses that citizens of our country are so well familiar with, is nearly blasphemous in its communicative presentation, because Cory "meathead" Nelson and his cadre of grossly inept executive staff harbor nothing but selfishly grounded sentiments about the state of affairs at ASH in terms of the one's residing there. As such, this rat bastard was not seeking to address anything along the lines of improving or even ensuring patient specific quality of care at ASH. In fact, by posing the question "Why do we care?", Nelson unmistakably acknowledged his own lack of understanding of what it means to be a health care professional. He is so far out in left field (because he has a background not in health care, but in corrections) that I can almost imagine him tossing ideas around his head as he prepared his power point Annual Report document, unable-in essence- to wrap his mind around what it is, in fact, to be a caring person. " 'Why would I care... if I did…..?' No, that clearly won't work. 'Why should I care…..?' Ah, no, not that either, too open ended….'What if I cared….' Darn, this is harder that I thought…. Wait, here it comes… 'Why do I care? Yes!' That's the one! Why do we care?…. 'Because if anyone knows how much we don't care, we will lose business….' Not not quite….", and so on.  
           It is impossible for me to fully understand how in the hell "Meathead" Nelson pulled this off, presuming that he did (?). Again, I have no way of knowing who all was there, or what the reactions of his audience were.  Whatever the case, it is stark ravingly clear to me that this man is operating via the presumption that his staff don't care in the first place (and least not in a way that is good for business) and need to be taught how to care. Taught, as such, by a man trained in facilities management entirely unrelated to heath care facilities, that sales and profit are what matters most, and to hell with the patient experience, in fact. This is doubly upsetting, too, because there are a number of very well intentioned, caring and ethical individuals working at ASH, and for Nelson to get up there in front of such people and ask so ridiculously inane a question as this is preposterous and demeaning. By all appearances with this presentation in mind, the South Dakota wing-nut entrusted with running The Arizona State Hospital has yet again put one of his size 12 suede loafers smack dab into the thick of his awesomely clean teeth. 
    
In my humble opinion at this time, in terms of ensuring a reasonable quality of patient care at The Arizona State Hospital, the supervisor of The Arizona State Hospital (the states' only long term public mental hospital), and his superiors in the Arizona Department of Health, have all the vision of a management team from Panda Express. 

In Closing:  Cory "meathead" Nelson may be qualified to discuss administrative business matters in an open market context (emphasis: may), but when it comes to a public hospital facility such at ASH, he is clearly out of his realm. His disconnect from the role that The Arizona State Hospital fills, as a critically needed public health care entity which does not operate on a basis of commercial enterprise, the very presence of which represents the inability of our culture and society to meaningfully attend to the needs of the seriously mentally ill persons in our midst (persons such as I, for I am here today), and his obliviousness from the needs of the patients themselves (persons such as I, for I know these things about this rat bastard from first hand experience) dictates something not all unlike professional depravity and base level ineptitude. We, the mentally ill, are not trading our disabilities and needs in the way that other people may be able to. We are struggling our illnesses simply to exist. The only reason anybody is in ASH has to do with serious mental illness, and the only assured way that anybody in ASH today is going to regain their sanity lies in cleaning up the substandard and abusive conduct of ASH staff. 

     I hope that you, my readers, will take the time to visit the Arizona Department of Health Services on-line resources in your own right, where you will be able, amongst other things, to review the Arizona State Hospital Annual Update 2012, post your comments to ADHS Will Humble's official blog, and generally peruse the propaganda presented therein. I hope that you do this, because I do not want you to rely soloed upon me and my interpretations of these matters. I am well qualified, and the only one in fact, who can directly speak about my experiences while hospitalized at ASH, but things like the 2012 "State of the Hospital" event are ongoing, and the public has the right to play a role in any such activities. At a minimum, we have the express right to be fully apprised about the conditions at ASH, but in my opinion, this is not happening (as evidenced by the document I discussed today). Please, find it in your heart to do your part in helping me address the patient abuse at ASH. ASH is operating at a level of graphically substandard mental-medical care, and they are getting away with it. 

paoloreed@gmail.com  


lll


lll

Friday, December 27, 2013

 OAH Case #2012c-BHS-0338-DHS (RERUN FROM SUMMER 2012): Wherein, the convoluted reality by which any patient at The Arizona State Hospital is denied due process when/of they seek legal redress within the construct of Arizona's administrative state system.

RECAP: In May, 2011, the administrators of ASH did engage in abusing my rightful access to due process and equal protection as per the letter of law, unlawfully utilizing mechanisms of legal and clinical procedure in order to deny me access to equitable relief via the directly applicable grievance process. This is one of several articles originally published in this blog in summer, 2012, with respect for this issue as it arose in May, 2011. As 2014 unfolds, the underlying discrimination against ASH patients as it arises whenever one seeks relief from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings will be featured as this blog evolves, including, as in this case, data specific to undeniable conflict of interest(s) that leaves such patients in a gray zone (at best) in defiance of common legal logic and any/all senses of equity under common law. 

See you in 2014, Rat Bastards.      

(from summer 2012)

OF CONFLICT #TWO 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 EARLIER 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.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST PERSONIFIED



THE ISSUE 
                   WHEREIN I- AS THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE AND AS A CITIZEN OF ARIZONA- CONTEND THAT JOEL RUDD OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL IS A CO-APPELLEE IN THIS CASE, AND AS SUCH, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE APPELLEE AS A WHOLE BECAUSE OF CLEAR AND OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS MATTER.


         As described in my July 04, 2012, article ("Conflict RE: case# 2012c-BHS-0338-DHS"), as the appellant in this case, I see clear and convincing conflict of interest in having Joel "the mortician" Rudd serve as representative counsel in regards to a hearing that is supposed to be looking at a matter wherein the central allegations include Joel "the mortician" Rudd's actions on the day in question, May 25, 2011; as described in the prior article, I went ahead, on July 16, 2012, and submitted my good faith motion to have Joel "the mortician" Rudd removed as counsel for the appellee.

WELL, JOEL"THE MORITICIAN" RUDD WILL HAVE NONE OF THAT GOING ON,  BY GOLLY, AS REFLECTED IN HIS OPPOSITION TO MY MOTION, SEEN HERE:


BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF ARIZONA

In the matter of:                                 No. 2012c-BHS-0338-DHS
P.P.
           Appellant                                 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT  
                                                                           OF HEALTH SERVICE'S
                                                                           RESPONSE TO           
                                                                          APPELLANT'S MOTION 
                                        (Assigned to Honorable K.A.)

The Arizona Department of Health Services ("ADHS"), by and through undersigned counsel, responds in opposition to Appellant's motion "to have Joel Rudd and the Arizona Attorney General's (sic) removed as representative counsel for the appellee on the basis of very clear conflict of interest issues" apparently filed electronically on or about June 14, 2012. ADHS requests that the tribunal deny appellant's motion for the reasons that (1) the Tribunal is without authority to remove a party's counsel, (2) on the facts presented by appellee, there is no conflict, and (3) even if the conflict alleged by Appellant existed, it is not for the Appellant to raise and seek redress from the tribunal but is strictly a matter between ADHS and its counsel.  

For these reasons, the Tribunal should deny Appellant's motion. 
DATED this 22nd day of June, 2012. 

                                         Thomas C. Horne
                                         Attorney General
                                                                                 
                                         Joel Rudd
                                         Assistant Attorney General    
                                         Attorney for Arizona                                 
                                         Department of Health    
                                         Services. 
   
                                                                                                                                                                    
(END of document)

      THIS IS HOW I AM LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR MATTER:
A) You have a (the) state hospital, a public facility/entity and a functionary of the state dept. of health (its' client-patients are citizens of the state and nation).
B) You have state department of health, (whose clients are also citizens of the state and nation, including each and every ASH patient).
C) You have the state attorney general, a public agency whose staff are state employees, which represents the state itself, inc. state dept. of health and its functions, directly obligated to the the state's citizens (including each and every ASH patient). I have included the following two-cent diatribe offered on the AG's website:

     Welcome to the Arizona Attorney General’s web page. As Attorney General, I am committed to defending Arizona. Not only does my office represent the state in court, but it is my job to advocate for security along the international border, for consumer protection, and to keep the public safe from criminal predators. It is also my commitment that this office treats every legal matter with integrity, thoroughness and fairness.
     If you are in need of help, there are many resources available through this website or you may call any of our offices statewide for more detailed assistance.
     It is my honor to serve Arizona as Attorney General and I thank you for taking time to visit this site.

Tom Horne
Attorney General


D) And then, last but not least, you have the client-patient of the state hospital, who is a citizen of the state and nation.

One basic means by which to examine legal puzzles of any kind looks to apply a solvent, of sorts, a puzzle fixer known as the I-R-A-C approach (I considered going into this last night, but it being the fourth of July and all...), which is simple enough.  
       "I" = Issue
      "R" = Rule (applicable rule or rules)
      "A" = Analysis
      "C" = Conclusion
And as I see it, this little fix, imposed on me by the state officials and agency representatives whom I, as a disabled member of the state of Arizonas' respective citizenry and clientele, believe I should be able to expect to be reliable, ethical, honest, and so on, can be looked at pretty simple, as follows:

Issue:
   When the state hospital acts in such a way that a client-patient is aggrieved and seeks to hold the state hospital and the dept. of health accountable, and the state attorney general is involved in the act at issue, is it lawful for the state attorney general to represent the state hospital (and itself, in effect)? Keep in mind, I contend each of the state agency entities involved in this matter are expected to serve the interests of the state of Arizonas' citizens first and foremost, and I do not even need to go into what The Arizona State Hospital's mission is supposed to be about.

Rule:
Title 38 - Public Officers and Employees
Search Title 38
CHAPTER 3
   38-503Conflict of interest; exemptions; employment prohibition
B. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision.
   38-504Prohibited acts
C. A public officer or employee shall not use or attempt to use the officer's or employee's official position to secure any valuable thing or valuable benefit for the officer or employee that would not ordinarily accrue to the officer or employee in the performance of the officer's or employee's official duties if the thing or benefit is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence on the officer or employee with respect to the officer's or employee's duties.
   38-508Authority of public officers and employees to act
A. If the provisions of section 38-503 prevent an appointed public officer or a public employee from acting as required by law in his official capacity, such public officer or employee shall notify his superior authority of the conflicting interest. The superior authority may empower another to act or such authority may act in the capacity of the public officer or employee on the conflicting matter.
B. If the provisions of section 38-503 prevent a public agency from acting as required by law in its official capacity, such action shall not be prevented if members of the agency who have apparent conflicts make known their substantial interests in the official records of their public agency.

Analysis: 
     This details of this entire case has had conflict of interest written all over it ever since Dr. Steven Dingle investigated himself in relation to my original complaint and grievance, in spite of that grievance document identifying Dingle as a party to the essential wrongdoing that I was subjected to. That said, if it were to be determined in this hearing that the actions of ASH on May 25, 2011, in complicity with Joel Rudd, were unlawful in terms of coercion, etc. (a violation of federal law, as well as state law, etc.) than Joel Rudd stands to be held accountable, and the significance of my contention that this matter has federal implications also means that "the mortician"  could face some pretty heavy costs in terms of his role as one of Arizona's legal guardians. Therein: Does Joel Rudd have any Substantial Interest in the case at issue herein?
                     
Hell yes, he has, the little worm. 

Conclusion: 
      There is a clear and irrefutable conflict of interest underling the overall framework of this case's management by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, which does apply to the handling of the factual details underlying the issues at stake in the original grievance report by which this case was established.  In my opinion, as a seriously mentally ill and yet not as half baked individual as the folks at ASH want their patients to be, I must say, emphatically: Joel Rudd of the Arizona Office of Attorney General has been willfully breaching the public trust for at least two decades, acting via his given authority in order to violate the constitutional right(s) of ASH patients to due process under state and federal law. The fact is, no ASH patient has a chance of prevailing anytime they follow the immediate protocol offered to them as clients of ADHS/BHS and file a formal ASH/BHS grievance report/complaint. There is so disproportionate a distribution of power in these type cases that such grievances are effectively suppressed, in graphic violation  any ASH patients most fundamental constitutional rights, as established in state and federal laws throughout the United States. The presence of these disproportionate power dynamics greatly further the presence of abject discrimination and outright abuse against all ASH patients as a group, and as such, if any court allows for these dynamics to  prevail, the court itself is rejecting the findings of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the provisions of international Universal Declaration of Human Rights.    

           I will amp up my aggression and back off on exceedingly waste of time in terms of asking these freaks to cooperate with my good faith attempts, over 18 months of time, and put it this way:
                 Good ahead, counselor
                                                                "I dare ya!" 



I will keep outlining this course of events as it evolves. As I have tried to make clear in my last couple signings off, these hearings in themselves, convened within the confines of the realm of Arizona's rather questionable administrative network of ne'er-do-wells and carpetbaggers, are not the end all to my work. It is all part of a bigger record. The entire time I was at The Arizona State Hospital, for thirteen full months, I watched these people (Where the hell do they find these kinds of people, anyway?) carry forth in so disheveled a manner, ignoring the most basic of rules and stomping all over the rights of their patients, abusing their given authority in such clear defiance of their obligations that I became starkly clear to me that none of them value their work enough to actually realize how inept they are. As such, I gradually watched these matters unfold in the way one watches a fourteen year old favorite dog try to ride a unicycle. A comedy of horror and tragic fact. Only at ASH.... So let's do it. Let's take these nut bags off the payroll and bring in people who care as much for their clients as they do for themselves, in the American way, as one, until the cleanup is done. 

IN CLOSING: Patient abuse is a highly illegal practice in the best of circumstances, and that much more so when the patients are seriously mentally ill and disabled, as each and every patient at The Arizona State Hospital's are. If we sit back and allow for incompetence and ineptitude to rule the network of administrators and caregivers at ASH and throughout the Arizona behavioral health care system, than we may as well give in our identity as a compassionate, democratic nation. Patient abuse is inhumane, it is illegal, and the one's responsible for subjecting the patients at ASH to the sorts of wrongdoing that I am investigation and exposing- abuse that I in fact experienced in my own right while at ASH and am still being subjected today through the failure of the state legal system to do its basic job- have to be held accountable, punished, and banned from having anything to do with caring for our vulnerable fellows. Please get involved today. 

paoloreed@gmail.com

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

RERUN. Will Humble, Director, Arizona  Department of Health Services. Wherein established codes of law and policy are systematically abused in order to preserve the substandard medical-mental health care and practices at Arizona's sole long term public mental hospital.  

(this article was originally published in September, 2013)

Update December 24, 2013: During the entirety of my time as a patient at The Arizona State Hospital, I did as a matter of documented fact follow the chain of authority in terms of reporting rampantly out of control issues specific to patient abuse and related administrative misconduct. Beyond simple reports in the context to my various primary care psychiatric physicians, of which there were four in only 13 months of treatment at ASH (L. Patel, P. Akhter, L. Lydon, S. Dy- so much for the standard of continuity of care in other words- the fact is, I was passed from one to another such doctor each and every time my concerns were established as reasonably valid and due immediate attention, as a matter of attempting to suppress such well grounded concerns with no meaningful response, on an average of once every few months), this included specific ASH/ADHS grievance forms that I completed and submitted in complete accordance with protocol, and related correspondence that I drafted and directed to numerous state employed entities in the Arizona public health care construct. Ultimately, none of these good faith efforts to bring about meaningful attention to issues that are today common knowledge in this context (as per prime time/major Phoenix area news reporting, etc.) had any effect, and were instead deferred via the above described alterations to my primary ASH caregiver staff, mishandled in terms of protocol specific to Arizona Administrative Code (state law) which the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievance is required to abide by (see below AAC Rule 921 Article 4; Rule 921 Article 403[b]), or outright ignored in spite of my documented records of all such submissions; all of these dynamics having the effect of dehumanization in terms of my sense of personal integrity and self esteem, purposefully designed (or at least condoned) in my honest opinion to further exasperate the worst aspects of my given diagnosis as a man affected by major depressive disorder, and associated traits (much of which manifested in my state of mind/emotion as the direct consequence of child abuse and associated neglect, common as such to many persons so affected). I further contend that these patterns of state sanctioned abject neglect just prove that much more solidly the endemic presence of graphic discrimination in the AZ's overall public health care network against persons affected by serious mental illness, as I am. This, of course, is also consistent with far wider forms of such discrimination , neglect, and outright abuse that has been common to the public behavioral/mental system as per the history of modern society. Today, as this process plays out, I am most definitely dedicated to ensuring that these sorts of deeply embedded patterns of discrimination in AZ's most trusted state offices are exposed in full dimension. To do anything less would be a dereliction of my duty as a human being and American. 

Recap from September, 2013: Wherein, my good faith attempt(s) to fully report clinical and administrative patient abuse at The Arizona State Hospital compelled me to directly communicate with the highest link in the state's health care systems' entire food chain. 


I originally drafted and sent the following letter to Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble in early February, 2011, less than one month prior to my discharge from The Arizona State Hospital. I was still in there, in other words, witnessing and experiencing the rampant wrongdoing that effectively defines the ASH patient experience in general. At the time, I had nothing but full confidence and good faith willingness to turn to this man, the person with ultimate authority over the operation of any/all public health care resources in Arizona, for by that time, I had virtually exhausted all other like resources (in the sense of related offices in this specific state agency), with no meaningful result whatsoever. I offer this bit of data as a matter of illustrating how deeply unreasonable the management of Arizona's most seriously mentally ill and disabled citizens is today, for the fact of the matter is, Will Humble has patently failed to acknowledge the merits of my expressed concerns, which is indicative of yet one more clear breach of the public trust, and which is tantamount, as well,  to the unlawful conduct of ASH's senior clinicians and administrators.  


Patrick.... (PJ Reed)           
Arizona State Hospital
2500 E. Van Buren St.
Phoenix, AZ 85008   

Will Humble, Director                                                                             
February 08, 2012 
Arizona Dept. of Health Services
150 N. 18th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85007


Dr. Mr. Humble:
      I cannot apologize for feeling the need to again attempt a direct communication with your office. But I realize that you are a very busy man, and that your responsibilities extend far behind my simple needs. I am also thus compelled to at least express my sincere regret over the fact that the predicament I am working tooth and nail to address has again led me to your door. Any time/energy whatsoever that you can afford me is appreciated, ten-fold. With all the due respect that I can muster, I am going to share my avowed belief that there are critically serious problems in the state of affairs that I am working to address. These problems are endemic. They extend to all tangible forms of patient rights and related protections, as per established law and public policy. I have learned in no uncertain terms that anytime an individual (such as myself)) who may choose to call upon himself in terms of participating in his own treatment to the fullest capacity possible will only run into brick walls, particularly should he attempt to speak up for himself (or on behalf of other ASH patients) in the face of chronic wrongdoing and clear exhibitions of staff misconduct. I attest to this, my statements are truthful to the best of my knowledge, and I approach you purely from a standpoint of good faith intent.                                                            
       In considering how I can best apply myself to something which I can only describe as an escalation of utter rejection in direct defiance of my expressed concerns (some of which I have been embroiled in expressing for 6-8 months), I have determined that what I am experiencing amounts to nothing less than a broken system. I am specifically talking about ADHS/BHS, in the sense of the term "system", as it further pertains to the operation of The Arizona State Hospital (ASH).                                                                                                                                        
      More specifically, I am deeply concerned in this context about the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals (OGA), as it functions in relation to ASH, and the needs and rights of ASH's seriously mentally ill and disabled patients. In keeping with the requirements of the law, as spelled out in the Arizona Administrative Code, Rule 921 Article 4, I began requesting that the ASH ombudsperson, as well as OGA, initiate formal investigation(s) into problems that arise under the language of Rule 921 Article 403[b] at least five months ago, when it become overwhelmingly clear to me that the entire process, as laid out in all applicable provisions of policy and procedure, is being ignored abused or not otherwise applied in accordance what the details afforded therein.                                    
     I am interested in remedial action rather than conflict. I am not dedicated to this as a matter of personal gain, but I do see it as being absolutely requisite in terms of the very real needs, rights, and protection of all persons so affected (as I am) by serious mental illness and related disability, who just so happen to be undergoing substandard care and treatment at ASH.  I do not intend or have any desire to file suit (although I know I can). I am solely dedicated to doing all that I can to see that these issues be resolved to the fullest degree possible, in accordance with specifically established health care standards, and as spelled out in all/any applicable treatises relating to the issues at hand, because it is the right thing to do.                                                                                                                                       
      In closing, I have no idea if you are in a position as such to read my correspondence. I am doing what I can. Writing you this letter is an expression of civic duty. If, in fact, you do receive and read this, please take a moment, as well, to review the attached documents. I will direct the original grievance to your attention, as well, in the next few days.                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                  
Thank you. Sincerely, Patrick....  (PJ Reed)         

                                                                                     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAST FORWARD September 26, 2013: One of the most troubling aspects of what I came to realize following my 2010 diagnosis of major depressive disorder and associated mental illness, is the simply fact that the "system" is unwilling to heed all/any expressions of concern that emerge from the community of persons so affected. At The Arizona State Hospital, few patients have the ability to articulate their experiences in open communication with the greater public, due in part to the very real and debilitating affects of serious mental illness, in tandem with the disregard that ASH clinicians and administrative staff have for the rights of their client-patients, including in relation to the First Amendment, equal protection, and due process. In communicating as I did in the above letter to ADHS Director Will Humble, I was definitely seeking to speak for the greater ASH patient community, given the fact I do have the requisite education and related skill base in terms of such articulations. It is not a claim of ego or over confidence, on my part, is rather a simple bare bones fact in relation to persons affected by serious mental illness, my affliction not having as debilitating impact of my cognitive strengths, etc., as that which many/most of my patient peers have to deal with. As stated above, I sent this document to Will Humble about 20 full months ago, at a point in time when I was still a residential patient at The Arizona State Hospital. It is far from the only communique' that I have, to date, forwarded to this man; but this is one my first, and at the time, I did believe I could rely upon him to take a good hard look at the issues that I specifically had sought to bring to light at that time. I did so in numerous formal grievance submissions, as per the protocol and in purely civil terms, to the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances: and as stated already, these efforts had no significant impact whatsoever in relation to the highly unlawful experiences that I was going through at that time, while still there in the Hospital facility itself. Needless to say- today- I never heard anything back from Will Humble, and as this process of seeking meaningful response and related redress specific to the substandard conditions at The Arizona State Hospital continues, I feel it is high time for we, the citizens of Arizona and beyond, to subject this man to due oversight and related accountability. Even today- as I write- I know for a fact that the patients at ASH are being continually subjected to medical-mental health care treatment practices that fall far below commonly established standards, and herein is the need to bring clear light upon the realities that any person seeking treatment at ASH faces, in fact. Both staff and patients alike are suffering from the graphic ineptitude of Will Humble, Cory Nelson, Donna Noriega, Joel Rudd, and every one of the other individuals at ASH who possess little to no ethos and related character, in terms of the needs of ASH's seriously mentally ill and disabled patient community, as a whole.

paoloreed@gmail.com