RERUN, RE: Denial of Access To One's Own Personal Medical Records Wherein, procedurally correct formal requests for copies of a patient's own personal medical records are flatly denied by administrative and clinical authorities at The Arizona State Hospital, which is in direct violation of the Hospital Information Portability and Protection Act. (1996 P.L.104-191) [HIPPA] 

RESPONSIBLE PARTIES:  AZ assistant attorney general Joel "the mortician" Rudd, Dr. Pervaiz Akhter,Dr. Stephen Dingle,Chief Operating Officer Donna Noriega.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN MAY, 2012. HOWEVER, IT IS APPARENT TO ME (AND THE "TEAM") THAT THE VARIOUS PARTIES INTERESTED IN TAKING A GOOD HARD LOOK AT THe INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THIS BLOG ARE INCREASINGLY REVIEWING VERY DATED REPORTS (SUCH AS THIS ONE), AND I AM THUS COMPELLED TO EASE THE PROCESS IF I CAN, FOR THERE ARE OVER 240 ARTICLES IN THIS DOCUMENT AS IT STANDS TODAY (OVER 500K WORKDS!), AND I WOULD NOT ASK ANY ONE TO GO THROUGH IT ALL, IN FACT. THE FACT IS, THE MANUSCRIPT THAT I AM CURRENTLY PRODUCING (PRE-PUPLICATION) IS DESIGNED TO OFFER A FAR BETTER STREAM LINED ACCOUNTING OF MY EXPERIENCES AND RELATED KNOWLEDGE BASE SPECIFIC TO ASH.

MEANWHILE, INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS DINGLE, NELSON, PATEL ARE AWARDED AND GRANTED ADVANCEMENT IN THE STRUCTURE OF ARIZONA'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEM, IN GRAPHIC DEFIANCE OF COMMON LAW AND POLICY. 

WHERE THE HELL, OH WILL HUMBLE, ARE YOU AT THIS CRITICAL POINT IN TIME? AND WHY WERE YOU UNWILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE DATA PROVIDED IN FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 2013, PRIME TIME MEDIA REPORTS SPECIFIC TO THESE ISSUES. YOU WOULDN'T HAPPEN TO BE HIDING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.. I HOPE…. OH, SCREW IT. YOU ARE A GONER, TOO, SIR. TOO LATE FAR TOO LITTLE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU COME UP WITH HEREON OUT… I WARNED YOU….  

   BUSINESS AS USUAL- STANDARD PRACTICE PERSONIFIED. 

      MAY 2012: In early June, 2011, when JJ Hensely of the Arizona Republic newspaper contacted The Arizona State Hospital in order to gain information about my report of Jesus Rincon Murrieta's escape from ASH in May, 2011, Hospital representatives denied the escape itself, and then went further in restricting the informational flow in this context by hiding being privacy and confidentially laws in order to deny that Murrieta had ever even been at ASH, in the first place. Their willingness to interfere with Mr. Hensley's good faith attempt to provide the public with knowledge about the fact that a violent man had escaped from the mid-city hospital facility eventually contributed to the brutal murder of April Mott in late August, which illustrates the extent to which ASH officials are willing to manipulate the truth as a matter of protecting their image... No matter how significant the risks are... Or how unlawful their actions    
are, and so on. 
    
      I chose to open this particular article with this graphic reminder of ASH administrations' bottom feeding business ethics, because tonight- as I dot my eyes and cross my tees specific to getting my final organization together for tomorrow's 8:00 a.m. hearing in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (case #2012-BHS-0263-DHS)- I am faced with having to go into the hearing with absolutely none of the critically relevant evidentiary materials, the meat of which are contained in my own personal records, which ASH administrators have flatly refused to provide me with. 


      It is of note, too, that THERE WAS NO DULY HIRED HOSPITAL  
SUPERVISOR IN OFFICE DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT THIS ISSUE 
PLAYED OUT (FOR THE MOST PART). As such, senior clinical staff such as 
then Chief Medical Officer Dr. Stephen Dingle and Donna "You are sooo
busted!" Noriega took the wrongdoing at ASH to unparalleled heights, at 
least terms of my 13 long months of time there, and this issue in particular
is undeniably exemplary in this context.   


     Any person's right to their own personal medical records is arguably the most fundamental right included in the provisions of the Hospital Information Portability and Protection Act (HIPPA), a congressionally mandated document that establishes beyond dispute the requirement that any/all medical facilities, senior clinical staff, etc., must grant a patient's access to such data. For any medical facility, etc., to deny this right flies in the face of constitutionally mandated civil rights, and the one's running ASH know it. And if any one member of the Hospital's executive staff knows this, in fact, it is ASH's primary legal representative, Joel "the mortician" Rudd. He is the state appointed representative obligated to see that ASH abides by law and policy specific to any potential issue(s) arising in terms of the Hospital's express purpose and operation, and laws such as those contained in HIPPA itself are anything but shrouded or otherwise unknown to persons involved in any capacity with the role that Rudd  is obligated to fill. He has been ASH's primary legal counsel for close to 20 years, and as such, has been centrally involved in ignoring, covering up, and/or otherwise allowing for the clearly unlawful practices at ASH, participation which I contend disqualifies Rudd from the privilege to practice law. 

Standard business, indeed, when it comes to being a client of the state of Arizona'a behavioral health system, but far from what any reasonably minded citizen would expect from contemporary 21st century American government.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATE THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ISSUE AS IT PLAYED OUT WHILE I WAS HOSPITALIZED AT THE ARIZONA STATE HOSPITAL. AS I HAVE STATED ABOVE, THERE WAS NO DULY HIRED HOSPITAL SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME THAT MATTER PLAYED OUT, SUGGESTING THE FACT THAT PERSONS SUCH AS RUDD, DINGLE, NORIEGA
TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO EXASPERATE THE SUBSTANDARD MEDICAL-MENTAL CARE PRACTICES AT ASH, WHICH I ATTEST TO BEING STANDARD BUSINESS AND VERY MUCH AS PER THE USUAL.  

IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, IT WAS SITUATION CONSISTENT WITH THE PARABLE
    "WHEN THE CATS AWAY… THE RAT BASTARDS WILL PLAY….", AS FOLLOWS. 


Document #1 (one pp.), March, 2011: My formal, lawful, and procedurally correct request to be granted access to an exclusive portion of own personal medical records, submitted to ASH's administrators, using the standard form, and as as per all applicable terms, specific to any patent's right in this context. I sought access to this record in order to establish the truthfulness (and/or deceit) of my attending physician at the time, Dr. Pervaiz Akhter, who during one of my inpatient treatment and discharge planning meetings had made statements to the effect that "Nursing staff have reported (you) as being disruptive, willing to ignore unit rules, and potentially subject to restrictions on your basic privileges." I knew for a fact that I had never been informed by nursing staff of any such concerns, and thus suspected that Akhter was fabrication this allegation, so I chose to call this Pakistani "doctor" on his statements, by submitting a request for nurse's notes specific to the time in question. Subsequently (about 2 weeks later), Akhter advised me that he had unilaterally denied my request for these records because he did "not want (me) nitpicking about matters that have nothing to do with your treatment needs at this time"; this denial was in abject defiance of applicable law and policy, and I knew it.  



 

Document #2 (three pp [inc. one copy of an earlier submission]), August, 2011: My formal and correctly submitted grievance report specific to Dr. Pervaiz Akhter's unlawful denial of my right to be granted access to my own personal medical records in this context, submitted to the Arizona Department of Health Services/Behavioral Heath Services Office of Grievances and Appeals on the standard form. There is an expressly mandated process by which this office is to respond in as full a manner as possible on behalf of any client of the Department who has possibly been subjected to violations of their rights, a process that I was very familiar with at the time that I submitted this document (below). However, ADHS/BHS representatives graphically ignored the merits of my report, and subsequently rejected the requirement that the issue be investigated in any way even remotely consistent with their express obligations in this context. 

Document #3 & 4 (one pp. each- [a[ and [b] below- October , 2011: The formal response(s) issued by DHHS' regional manager, Michael Kruley, in relation to my requests (immediately above). This was the first time that I attempted to take my concerns about the substandard conditions at ASH to the federal government, and I somewhat experienced the run around at this point of the process, which are anything but unusual, of course, when it comes to trying to communicate with federal agencies. The contradictions illustrated by each of the two following documents make this clear, for while I did receive one response validating my concerns and confirming DHHS' intent to investigate the issues at sake in this matter, I near simultaneously received a response- from the same man- informing me that I needed to take my concerns elsewhere, in effect. Ironic to the Nth degree that I received this redirection after Mr. Kruley had already informed that an investigation was being implemented on my behalf. Live and learn.   

(a)

(b)




Document #5 (one pp.), December, 2011: My formal request that the US Department of Heath and Human Services Office of Civil Rights investigate this issue. DHHS/OCR is the federal agency directly responsible for overseeing the rights of any American citizen potentially being subject to violations of their civil rights in the context of public health care, including issues arising under the provisions of the HIPPA document (as described above). Live and learn.  

Document #6 (one pp.), December, 2011: Herein, my statement to the effect that Cory Nelson was in the process of implementing radical alterations of the the operation at ASH, with specific respect for security cuts, and other like actions which I knew would only worsen the conditions by which ASH patients well being and overall flow of treatment had already been suffering from. I directed this report to US DHHS less than 8 weeks before my discharge from ASH. 

 

Document #7 (one pp.), December, 2011: Advisement from US DHHS Cicil Rights investigator Edwin Acosta, that he had been assigned to research the     

    data I had thus far provided in this matter.

UPDATE AUGUST, 2013: To date, this matter is still hanging in the air, as it were. Major changes to the structure of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the agency directly responsible for investigating this matter (as illustrated by the last doc. [above], from DHHS representative Edwin Acosta), have led to the specific investigation initiated by them into a stall, of sorts. But the supporting evidence, included above, is no less valid today, and it is only a matter of time before the matter is addressed (this as per assurances that I have received in recent weeks for DHHS staff). 

But if Cory Nelson, Joel Rudd, Laxman Patel, Perviaz Akhter, and so on, think that this particular matter is now past- THINK AGAIN. This is fodder for federal intervention, and I am looking forward to it. End of story, for now. 

paoloreed@gmail.com