Conflict Four: State Sanctioned Ineptitude, Overt Conflict of Interest, and The Negative Impacts On Arizona Consumers Of a Broken Legal Format and Protocol: Wherein a state agency, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, acts as the ultimate authority over patient generated grievance issues specific to another state agency, The Arizona Department of Health.

THIS IS THE LAST OF FOUR ARTICLES SPECIFIC TO THE SUBECT OF DISPROPORTIONATE DISTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORITY/POWER IN RELATION TO PATIENT GENERATED GRIEVANCES AND AN ARGUABLY BROKEN IF NOT OUTRIGHT CORRUPTED PUBLIC LEGAL FORUM, THE ARIZONA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING. 

NO BETTER DAY TO WRAP THIS ASPECT OF OUR MOST RECENT PUBLICATIONS,   PERHAPS, THEN THE ANNIVERSARY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR'S BIRTHDAY. A FEDERAL HOLIDAY THAT ARIZONA'S GOVERNMENT DISAGREES WITH. GO FIGURE.

BUT AS MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATE AND AWARD WINNING MUSICIAN JASON DESHAW STATED TO ME IN RECENT MONTHS:

"PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH REFORM
AND THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS 
AFFECTED BY MENTAL ILLNESS
IS THE CRUCIAL CIVIL RIGHTS 
MOVEMENT OF THE TWENTY 
FIRST CENTURY."

“All four of these good faith filings to OAH- which I filed on the basis of my trust in that court- were patently rejected by the involved judges who adjudicated those cases, including Kay Abramsohn. Which is to say, in no uncertain terms, that in each of these occasions, that venue of presumably reliable legal authority blatantly failed to recognize issues specific to ASH that as a matter of plain, documented fact, later led to a number of preventable patient deaths (and the brutal murder of  April Mott), and in time, long overdue/delayed by Will Humble federal intervention. And on the broader story goes.” 

"This story illustrates the basic fact that the Arizona Administrative Court is nothing more then a puppet court functioning in gross violation of the rights of Arizona Citizens."

"This case has had conflict of interest issues written all over it ever since Dr. Steven Dingle, another one of the parties to my central allegations, literally investigated himself in response to my original grievance and then issued the first patent denial of my claims."

"You, Dr. Cara Christ , are 100% responsible for doing the right thing today. So do it, already."

Dr. Cara Christ. Director, Arizona Dept. of Health Services 2015-the present.

Since her appointment to the highest ranking position in Arizona’s public health care system in 2015, Arizona Department of Health Director Dr. Cara Christ has repeatedly stated that there have been “great improvements” in the state’s sole long term public mental health care facility, Arizona State Hospital (ASH). To date however, January 2018, Dr. Christ has never provided any evidence or information about just what these “improvements” at ASH are, in fact. This is of very real concern to the staff of this publication, given that Dr. Christ’s immediate predecessor (Will Humble ADHS Director 2009-2015) willfully relied upon producing a pattern of overt and untruthful propaganda that served to delay a subsequent process of critically needed oversight and accountability at ASH. Propaganda that defied the realities specific to the ASH operation, including but not limited to preventable patient deaths, the tragic murder of a young Phoenix woman, and a wide range of patient generated concerns expressed in grievance submissions; and as such, granted the former administrators of ASH further opportunity to continue operatinASH in a manner deeply harmful to the welfare of the Hospital’s patient community. These issues have been exemplified by the information provided in this blog since 2012, as well as in a number of scathing investigative findings of the staff of ABC Ch15 circa 2013-2015; (As reported previously in this publication, at least three preventable deaths occurred due to this fact). 

The following article was originally published sometime in the first twelve months of the life of this blog, PJ Reed The Arizona State Hospital Patient Abuse. We are republishing this information as one means to remind our readers of how dismally substandard the operation at ASH was circa 2010-2012, and in order to raise consideration as to whether in fact any legitimate improvements have in fact come about since Dr. Christ was granted directorship over Arizona’s public health care system. 

CONFLICT THREE

(Originally published June 6, 2012)

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.

Fact: I hate dirty lawyers.

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.

OF CONFLICT FOUR 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 FOUR

As laid out in our three previous ”CONFLICT OF INTEREST” articles (#ONE 7/4/12, #TWO 7/5/12, #THREE 7/6/12), I  as the appellant submitted a motion to the court to have a conflict of interest issue resolved in a fair and impartial manner. My motion was subsequently opposed by the Hospital’s legal counsel, Joel Rudd, who is a central party to the conflict at issue (this is almost always the case- patent denial or refusal to agree- where someone with too much power is questioned in the context of conflict of interest issues). Judge Kay Abramsohn heartily agreed with Rudd’s  opposition with little to no consideration of the central merits and significance of my concern. I then sent Abramsohn a direct plea for reconsideration, which she never responded to.

Thus leaving us were we are today.

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.

    

Given Judge Kay Abramsohn’s refusal to accept my statement to the effect that I was being treated unfairly in terms of this particular legal process as it stands, I felt I could at least try to find out more information about the matter. I thus contacted a former associate in the Arizona legal community about it (who is now a district appellate judge), and she advised me that the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings is required to provide non-attorney citizens representing themselves in that venue with basic information in relation to general inquiries; including something as general as the following inquiry, provided to Abramsohn on July 01, 2012

“The Tribunal has denied my good faith and reasonable motion on the basis of me not citing any applicable authoritative rules, etc., but I must note that neither Joel Rudd nor the Tribunal cited any like form of authoritative rules in the context of his opinion on the matter. 

I also need to know, if the presiding judge in this case does not have the authority to remove Joel Rudd from the case, than who in the heck does have that authority? Where is the fairness in this?”

At this point of a radically convoluted process I found myself all but confounded by the continuous pattern of denials that underlie the entire evolution of my original grievance. I thus went ahead and submitted yet another general inquiry as to the matter in the document shown below:

TO THE ARIZONA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. Inquiry RE: Case #2012c-bhs-0338-dhs.

Hi. THIS IS A GENERAL QUESTION, AND NOT INTENDED AS A DIRECTCOMMUNICATION TO THE ALJ IN THIS CASE.

I am the appellant in the above case. Judge Abramsohn has advised me that 

she hasn't the authority to consider a good faith motion that I submitted in relation to the appellee's counsel, specific to the fact that said counsel in is fact a component of the appellee as a party in the case. If the tribunal does not have the authority in this matter, I am requesting information as to who does have that authority? Who specifically do I direct such motion to? 

I am not an attorney, and I have been advised that OAH is required to advise me in this matter, limited to the context of the inquiry as a general matter. Please advise as soon as possible.  

Thank you, ------------- (AKA PJ Reed) 

July 02, 2012   

——————————————

Sadly, but not surprisingly enough, I then received yet another evasive measure specific to the issues at stake in this matter from the Director of OAH, Cliff J. Vanell. Note how this individual, who is just one more highly entrusted state official whose salary is paid by Arizona taxpayers, chooses to characterize the language of my inquiry as mere phrasing, to only further characterize this language as the direct opposite of mere phrasing, as “…legal advice, which I cannot provide…”.   

My seeking to establish what the status of Abramsohn’s authority (or lack thereof) was in no way a request for legal advice. Abramsohn is not a party to this case, in fact, is rather the OAH judge who is presiding over the case itself; as such, an employee of OAH, presumably working under Vanell’s direct authority.

As with the entire history of this matter’s evolution, Vanell’s expressed rejection of my concerns is a ridiculously circular way to shut down nothing more mysterious than a simple answer to a simple enough inquiry, and area of interest that I was only curious about, at most. Herein we again have a dead end process that directly thwarted my good faith effort to bring merited concerns about ASH to Arizona’s public legal system. I contend that all elements of OAH’s role in this evolution is designed to ignore the merits of my filing, and I can only guess, any other like filing taken to OAH by other seriously mentally ill citizens of Arizona, including but not limited to the patient community at ASH.

I find the above document more then a bit disconcerting, this given that my inquiry would have apparently been a general one, had the judge not issued a denial of my request. But due to the fact that she did on the basis of her not having the authority in the matter to rule of the conflict if interest issue, the inquiry now becomes something quite different- an alleged request for legal advice. Beyond my concern about Vanell’s arguable ineptitude, I am, in fact, considering the question of whether it was appropriate for Kay Abramsohn to characterize (in her own right) authority in the matter as A RULING. Authority or lack thereof, more succinctly, given that my adversary in this case, ADHS/BHS/Joel Rudd, possesses more actual authority then Abramsohn herself.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time an administrative judge has erred in relation to a case that I bought before that court. Indeed, I do find this to be a bit of a gambit, distracting if not evasive. The fact is, I did not ask Vanell for legal advice, or to be advised not about a specific course of legal action to take in this matter, in fact. I did, rather, request basic information about the status of Abramsohn’s legal authority in the case. This seems as clear as anything, not only to me today, but also to several Arizona attorney-friends who, as a favor to me, have by now reviewed this communication.

38-510. Penalties 

A. A person who:

1. Intentionally or knowingly violates any provision of sections 38-502 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 6 felony.

2. Recklessly or negligently violates any provision of sections 38-502 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. 

    B) A person found guilty of an offense described in subsection A of this section shall forfeit his public office or employment, if any.

      

IN CLOSING: One cannot help but love the clarity of penalties in situation such as this one. And wouldn't you know it, following yesterdays article, wherein I included the above penalties that I am willing to at least reckon Joel "the mortician" Rudd might be facing at this point in time, there were over 100 hits to my blog today, for the first time in a good five days or so. I have to wonder if these freaky people don't look each other in the eye once in awhile and ask the question "Why hasn't this man filed a lawsuit yet?" Well, it sure doesn't take an attorney to know that one of the best ways for wrongdoers to avoid meaningful oversight and full accountability comes through civil litigation and settlement negotiations, and in this case, I can only think to say:

            "You rat bastards aren't getting off the hook that easily."

Please take it upon yourself to join this cause in whoever manner you deem most fit. Patient abuse at the Arizona State Hospital is cruel, inhumane, and 100% outside of the law. Write your elected Arizona representative(s), visit my April 30, 2012 "Resource Ideas" article, or go right ahead and call ASH in person (602)244-1331 and tell chief executive officer Cory "crazycorycorner" Nelson that you have been following my writing and that you know about the ongoing abuses of patients at ASH and the related substandard mental-medical health care/practices in effect there and that: "By God, I am not willing to put up with it!" 

DATELINE 2018: “RE: ADHS/DBHS OGA Docket #H090611S0009: The Evolution of Grievance.” In addition to the Arizona Office of Grievances and Appeals document H090611S0009 (which became OAH Case #2012-BHS-0338-DHS, described above and in our three proceeding articles),  I subsequently took three other separate, good faith appeals of grievances that I filed while hospitalized at Arizona State Hospital (2011-2012) to the state’s administrative courts (OAH) in 2012-2013. 

Each of these cases contained allegations representative of issues that subsequently- and yet unrelatedly to the role/authority of OAH (no thanks at all to that court, in other words)- led to federal intervention in 2013-2014, and which did in time lead to the firing of seven employees of ADHS/BHS who worked in direct association to the operation of ASH over the previous six or so years.

Futilely struggling to speak in a vacuum….. Shooting rubber bands at the stars….. Dead end road……  

All four of these good faith filings to OAH- which I filed on the basis of my trust in that court- were patently rejected by the judges, who adjudicated those cases, including Kay Abramsohn.  Which is to say, in no uncertain terms, that in each of these occasions, that venue of presumably reliable legal authority blatantly failed to recognize issues specific to ASH that as a matter of plain, documented fact, later led to a number of preventable patient deaths (and that of April Mott), and in time, long overdue/delayed by Will Humble federal intervention. And on the broader story goes. 

Summarized, then, the evolution of a grievance: 

STEP ONE: Prior to actually filing actual grievances, patients are asked to abide by the protocol of the ASH patient handbook, by taking concerns about issues such as staff misconduct (including abuse of patients) to their primary assigned psychiatrists. 

“What do you expect? This is the state hospital.” (Dr. Laxman Patel, to me, January, 2011).

STEP TWO: In some cases, at least, patients then produce actual grievances, that then go to the Hospital patient advocate, who historically- as documented- has no authority to challenge the Hospital’s doctors or administrators. Despite the merits of such grievances, the concerns expressed therein are routinely rejected; such rejections paradoxically increase in relation the significance of issues expressed in patient generated grievance filings, this due to the desire of administrators to suppress any/all possible wrongdoing, leaving, in most cases, the involved patient(s) at a seemingly dead end road. 

"After careful review of your claims in this grievance, I have determined no evidence of your allegations, and now consider this matter resolved." (Dr. Steven Dingle, November, 2011).

STEP THREE: Some patients (such as myself) seek reasonable redress in relation to grievance filings via the state’s administrative courts. Only to learn that the Hospital itself has literally more actual authority then the judges working in those courts. And as with the details of this specific story illustrate, to learn as well that no person working in this system of so called legal authority has the ability to recognize the significance of possible shortfalls in this system. 

"On June 22, 2012, ADHS, through Assistant Attorney General Rudd, filed its response to the motion.   ADHS argued that there is no conflict and that the Tribunal has no authority to remove a party’s legal representative.    

On consideration of the foregoing,

      IT IS ORDERED denying Appellant’s motion to remove Mr. Rudd for the reason that there is no statutory authority, in these matters, for the Tribunal to remove the ADHS legal representative or to interfere with the legal relationship between ADHS and its legal representatives."   

 "ORDERED this day: June 26, 2012.   

       Kay A. Abramsohn

       Administrative Law Judge"

Jurisdictional ineptitude personified. 

In closing, a few notes on The Arizona State Hospital Human Rights Committee (HRC). As I have described in prior articles, there was no HRC at ASH during my hospitalization there, despite this being required by state law and policy. 

One must ask, how many other patients prior to my arrival at ASH were similarly denied the lawfully required benefits of HRC's advocacy; individuals disabled by mental illness, and deserving as such of the protections and provisions specific to the Americans With Disabilities Act, on the basis of the historical fact that such individuals are at high risk of abuse, negligence, and exploitation. 

It is clear that by failing to establish HRC prior to fall, 2012, as required by law, AHDS/BHS and the ones running ASH were complicit in the widespread presence of patient abuses there. They did, hands down, willfully violate such laws in order to further the deplorably substandard care practices and conditions at ASH. Identifying themselves as the very sort of perpetrators historically known to abuse vulnerable individuals such as the disabled, perpetrators characteristic to the findings and establishment of ADA. 

I was tipped off to this requirement while I was at ASH, in fact, but when I contacted an official working at ADHS about the issue, I was told that attempts to form HRC at the Hospital had always been unsuccessful due to there “being no interest” of anyone to participate.

And I attest to the fact that it was only after I sent a memo to former ADHS Director Will Humble in early summer, 2012 (four months after my discharge), wherein I tactfully demanded that HRC be established as per the letter of law and policy, that the HRC at ASH was established.  

I also attest to the fact that once the word actually went out to establish HRC at ASH, there was no shortage of interest whatsoever. Go figure. 

Had HRC existed at ASH when I was there, I would have volunteered to be a patient member of that advocacy group. My grievances, as such, would have had one degree more-chance of life, despite the vacuum and dead end roads that AHDS/BHS/ASH have long relied upon in order to suppress any/all reports of stuff misconduct at ASH, including abuses of patients, the facts underlying patient deaths, and the role of Hospital administrators in furthering such issues. Administrative misconduct that led in at least one case to the preventable death of April Mott, a tragedy in part due to the lack of HRC in the related time frame. 

I have in recent weeks reignited direct contact with members of HRC, and I did in late December, 2017, attend an HRC meeting via conference phone. It was during that meeting that I witnessed ASH’s current chief executive officer, Dr. Aaron Bowen, willful attempt to cow the members of HRC in submission. He did so by virtually berating them about the possibility (his seeming belief) that members of HRC have no familiarity with standards such as patient privacy (and the provisions of HIPAA). 

Important to remember that Bowen is not an attorney, and that his immediate predecessor, Donna Noriega, willfully engaged in similar attempts to intimidate HRC, including by threatening to file legal action, or to have certain members of HRC fired. Neither Noriega nor Bowen nor any other state employee(s) have (or had) any right to exercise authority over the activities of HRC. All HRC members are voluntary, and none are in any way actual employees of ASH of the state by which to be “fired”.

This specific issue, the desire of past and present ASH administrators to unjustly influence the flow of patient generated grievances which today are handled in part by HRC, is 100% consistent with the afore-described evolution of a grievance. Wherein even good faith, diplomatically submitted as per protocol patient generated grievances are willfully swept under the rug. Which in turn, has furthered the substandard care practices and conditions at ASH, and supported the notion that "What happens at ASH stays at ASH." 

paoloreed@gmail.com