As to willful manipulation of legal policy in order to delay or otherwise violate the enforcement of applicable state and federal law(s), an issue that arises as standard practice whenever any patient of The Arizona State Hospital seeks to openly report unlawful staff misconduct, including highly illegal forms of physical, emotional, and psychological patient abuse. The details of this wrongdoing extends to all levels of state agencies directly responsible for managing protocol that is defined by Hospital policy, state administrative and civil/criminal law, as well as federally dictated civil and human rights law. The following is a summary restatement of the original article (title above) published in this blog in 2012.
RE: Complicity between the Phoenix Police Department and administrators at The Arizona State Hospital, wherein fundamental rights specific to equal protection and due process under the law are violated in defiance of the United States Bill of Rights.
As of April 2014, the content of this specific article continues to garner heightened attention, at a rate of 20-25 reviews a day, which has again compelled me put it right up front again. And as always, I do have all associated documentary evidence applicable to this particular matter; and I will also emphasize that this specific example is far from unique, for in my 13 full months of time as an ASH patient, I witnessed and/or experienced firsthand this pattern of wrongdoing on a near daily level. Standard practice in all senses, in gross defiance of established state and federal law, as well as increasingly recognized international human rights law, as applicable to any person deserving of equal protection in a context of human rights abuses in any setting.
PHOENIX POLICE: RE: Case #2012-BHS-0263-DHS. Wherein the possibility of police discrimination against patients arises.
In sum: A patient allegation specific to a alleged staff-on-patient assault is suppressed as follows:
THURSDAY JULY 07, 2011, Arizona State Hospital, Phoenix, AZ.
9:00 A.M. Following being physically assaulted by a very overaggressive and grossly abusive ASH staff technician named Elaine Traylor, the patient's request to immediately be granted direct communication with Phoenix Police in order to report this early morning incident is denied.
11:30 A.M. In a one-on-one conference behind a closed door, the patient's assigned primary ASH care physician (Dr. Pervaiz Akhter) informs the patient that he (Akhter) has personally reviewed video evidence specific to the incident, and further advises the patient that based on his opinion of that evidential material, the patient should amend the facts underlying this incident as per the patient experience(s), including advising the patient that a police report is not appropriate, and overtly encouraging that patient to not file said report. The patient advises the doctor that he fully intends to exercise his right to file a report with police, further emphasizing the fact that his desire to contact police has thus far been denied to that point of the day, and requests that the doctor address the issue, as per applicable law and policy.
2:30-45 P.M. In a three-on-one conference with the patient's doctor, the ASH patient advocate Sonya Serda, and a senior ranking ASH nursing staff (Dan), the patient is again discouraged from reporting his allegations as they still stood; but at the patient's continued insistence, the ASH staff advise him (the patient) that a phone will shortly be made accessible to him so that he (the patient) can report his allegations to Phoenix Police.
3:30 P.M. The patient is provided access to a telephone in order to contact Phoenix Police, but not until a full 6.5 hours after the incident in question actually occurred. By this time in the day, the Hospital's administrative staff- including ASH patient advocate Sonya Serda (who should have been assigned to participate in this process at that time)- are on the way out the door, further denying the patient his lawfully required right to report the early morning incident in a timely fashion, as per due process and the patient's associated civil rights in the context of equal protection.
4:20-25 P.M. Phoenix Police arrive to ASH. The patient is escorted from his formal treatment unit on the "civil" side of ASH (Palo Verde east unit) to the ASH lobby area by four male security guards, one of whom advises the patient that they (security staff) were of the opinion that the incident in question had never occurred, and further, that filing a police report in the context was a "bad idea". This specific element of staff misbehavior caused the patient very traumatic psychological duress, for it was increasingly becoming evident that ASH staff were willfully engaged in overt methods of manipulation more than obviously designed to intimidate the patient into not reporting the factual details of the matter, as they stood.
4:30-50 P.M. In a closed room, and in the company of three ASH security guards, three Phoenix Police officers (two male, one female) tell the patient that ASH staff have already advised them (police) that that incident in question did not in fact occur. The patient then provides the officers with his testimony about the incident in question. At one point, one the officers asks the patient "Why did you wait all day to report this?", in response to which the patient clarifies the fact that his desire to immediately contact police had been systematically denied for the previous 6-8 hours. Another officer then leaves the room in order to review video data specific to the incident in question; this office returns in less than five minutes and advises the patient that no aspect of the available video evidence is consistent with the patients' allegations. As a direct consequence of these patterns specific to denying/violating the patient's basic right to equal protection and due process, the officers refuse to file any charges about this particular staff person's grossly unlawful misconduct.
Addendum to the above: THIS IS ALL BUSINESS AS USUAL AT ASH, AND OCCURS ON A NEAR DAILY BASIS WITH NO OVERSIGHT ON THE SIMPLE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT ALL ASH PATIENTS ARE AFFECTED BY SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS/DISABILITY.
FRIDAY JULY 08, 2011
11:00 A.M. Over 24 hours after the incident in question, an on-site ADHS/ASH investigator named Vicky Fox meets with the patient, and in the company of the ASH patient advocate, Sonya Serda, offers a good faith willingness to initiate a closer investigation of the matter as it stood at that time. She grants to patient his first access to the video evidence that Phoenix Police reportedly relied on when they responded to the patient's initial report (the day before), and at that point in time, all elements of the patients statement are confirmed (although the actual video feed data is obviously edited). Both the patient advocate and the assigned investigator agree with the fact that this video evidence clearly supported that patient's report, as it stood. The ASH investigator creates a case file, and issues a specific case number, etc., and somewhat assures the patient that he will not be subjected to anything less than reasonable support, as per Hospital policy, and applicable state law.
SATURDAY JULY 9, 2011
3:30 P.M. The patient is removed against his will from an active art therapy (group) session by no less than four (4) ASH security guards, who inform the patient that he "has a visitor". These ASH staff reject the patient's explicit request to be informed of the identity of this so called "visitor", and he is then escorted to the lobby of the Hospital, where one Phoenix Police officer awaits in a closed room. The officer informs the patient that the assailant in this matter, Elaine Taylor, has filed a responsive report of assault against the patient, and the officer then asks if the patient is willing to make a formal statement. The patient responds by telling the officer about the already initiated police investigation, and elects to make no more comments about the matter at that time.
7:30 P.M. On the basis of acute physical pain, the patient reports to a charge nurse (Mary Ann) on his ASH treatment unit (Palo Verde East unit) that he is experiencing ongoing pain and discomfort specific to the injuries caused by the incident in question, and asks that she conduct a summary assessment of his injuries at that time. The charge nurse refuses to engage any sort of such assessment, and further pronounces to the patient (in a very loud and intimidating manner- yelling in fact) that she is convinced that the patient is "litigious... undeserving of (her) care", and that she is concerned that he (the patient) will subject her to undeserved blame for the incident in question (despite having no role in the incident itself). Shortly thereafter, two administrative this nursing staff (Bonnie, Jackie) appear at Mary Ann's side, as she continues to refuse any such treatment on behalf of the patient at that time. All conditions on the unit are quiet at the time, but all three of these nurses willfully ignore that needs the patient as a group. The patient turns in that night with very sore ribs that cause him ongoing breathing issues which intensify during the night.
SUNDAY JULY 10, 2011
10:30 A.M. An ASH security guard- who the patient has never seen- informs the patient he is to be arrested and taken to the Maricopa County jail on the following morning, instilling a deep sense of fear that causes the patient high anxiety and associated psychological duress.
MONDAY JULY 11, 2011
11:00 A.M. The patient meets with ASH Chief Operating Officer, Donna Noriega and the ASH patient advocate, Sonya Serda. Neither of them have any information about the possibility that the patient is to be arrested. Noriega assures the patient that she will find out who the security guard that made that statement is.
JULY-AUGUST 2011
A range of time line requirements are violated in the context of applicable Arizona Administrative Law, by which the investigation of this matter is required by said law to be conducted in reasonably timely fashion. The patient submits several formal requests to see that this matter be managed as per all such rules of law to the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals, but the patient's repeated attempts to resolve these details as per the letter of law are ignored.
SEPTEMBER, 2011
The ASH patient advocate, Sonya Serda, informs the patient that the assigned on-site ASH investigator, Vicky Fox, has been fired. The advocate has no idea of how this will effect the status of this case.
DECEMBER 05, 2011
Given the fact that Hospital administrators and ADHS officials have been complicit with Phoenix Police in terms of the failure of these various authorities to abide by said law and policy, the patient submits the first of several direct correspondences to the Office of Maricopa County Attorney; and in those communications, provides full information regarding the factual details underlying the incident in question, including the subsequent failure of Phoenix Police to conduct a meaningful investigation of the matter, in clear complicity with ASH administrators, security staff, and all other associated parties to that time, including ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals, etc. Over a period of 3 weeks, a back and forth process occurs in terms of correspondence between the patient and assigned police staff, and in those correspondences, the patient clearly requests that any police investigators assigned to reopen an investigation into this matter give him (the patient) advance notice, and also that any such police representatives
who seek to meet with the patient do so via an established appointment at best; or at a minimum, to meet with the patient during normal M-F operating hours, so that the patient advocate, Sonya Serda can be present/participate, or any other personal representative that the patient may want to be present at that time.
JANUARY 05, 2012
Early one evening (approximately 6 P.M.), the patient is informed by an ASH nurse named Cali that a Phoenix Police officer had arrived announced to the Hospital in order to meet with him. The patient has received no advance notice (of any kind whatsoever) as to the status of the matter at hand, Based on the unannounced nature of this officers presence, the patient requests to be further informed as to what the officer was wanting to meet with him about, but this request is denied. The patient opts to not to meet with the officer until more information could be made available to him. In this vein, the following morning, the patient contacts Phoenix Police and is advised that the officer had intended to conduct a follow up, as per the patient's most recent correspondence. The patients statements to in the context of needing to meet with Phoenix Police during normal operating hours are rejected.
JANUARY 09, 2012
The patient again corresponds with the Office of the Maricopa County Attorney, in the simple hope of clarifying yet again that the patient is deserving of arranging personal representation if and when any police representatives come to re-interview the patient about this matter.
JANUARY 17, 2012
The following letter is delivered to the patient. Less than four weeks later, the patient is summarily discharged from ASH. The overall attempts of the patient to seek reasonable redress as per the letter of law are systematically thwarted in all senses, and all elements of the "investigative" process vanish.
IN CLOSING: The claim (above) that the Maricopa County Attorney had "acquessed" (sic- the proper spelling is "acquiesced") to my most basic request was clearly not accurate, for if it had been, my concern about being granted my right to have a personal representative would have been acknowledged. I contend that in no other public health care setting would these patterns of negligence and related unlawful misconduct arise in so graphic a manner, but at The Arizona State Hospital, it is the these issues are the norm. That said, I further contend that the willingness of each and every involved party in this debacle to patently refuse to meet the most fundamental elements of state and federal law as the process played out (over 8 months) relates to ongoing discrimination against the patient community at The Arizona State Hospital on the basis of serious mental illness and disability, a gross violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and other directly applicable state and federal law.
As this particular body of evidence illustrates, there is little to no opportunity for any ASH patient to meaningfully seek redress if allegations of patient abuse, clinical misconduct, or administrative ineptitude arise. I know from very real experience- including information sharing from other ASH patients who have been at ASH for many, many years- that these patterns of abject wrongdoing occurs as standard practice at ASH. It is that bad. Substandard medical-mental health care, and they are getting away with it.
paoloreed@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
I would really love input of any kind from anybody with any interest whatsoever in the issues that I am sharing in this blog. I mean it, anybody, for I will be the first one to admit that I may be inaccurately depicting certain aspects of the conditions
at ASH, and anonymous comments are fine. In any case, I am more than willing to value anybody's feelings about my writing, and I assure you that I will not intentionally exploit or otherwise abuse your right to express yourself as you deem fit. This topic is far, far too important for anything less. Thank you, whoever you are. Peace and Frogs.