Part 3: The Whistleblower and the Healthcare Corporation
by Andrew Hanson
Adventist Health System (AHS) made a big mistake when they hired Patricia Moleski. They should have hired someone less intelligent, less dedicated, less scrupulous, less Christian.
When I was finally able to contact Ms. Moleski, she said she had been so badly treated by AHS and their attorneys that she said she would be delighted to take a lie detector test in defense of everything she alleges in the video, and answer any additional questions put to her regarding her experiences at AHS during that test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hN9nR1KA
Steve Seltzer, President of California Workmen’s Comp Coalition, has confirmed that Patricia's story highlights the problems virtually all healthcare institutions run into when they adopt new computer-based information systems. In her case, Ms Moleski ran afoul of a corrupt hospital administration and CERNER, the international supplier of hospital information systems. Bugs in CERNER software, reported by Patricia, lead to patient endangerment and, in the two cases she reports, patient death.
Presently, Patricia, acting as her own attorney, has offered extensive evidence that the County Courts and acting AHS counsel are trying to make her liable for criminal prosecution by false accusations and discrediting her whistleblower status, thereby violating her rights to Fifth Amendment protection.
In response, to the Court’s OMNIBUS ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS,* Ms. Moleski has filed a Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System** in which she alleges:
• Violations of State and Federal Whistleblower laws
• Harassment of a Federal & State Witness
• Violations of the US Constitution – 5th Amendment
• Corruption
• Fraudulent & Vexatious Litigation against a State/Federal Witness
• Coercion/extortion
• False Claims Act Violations
• Workers compensation violations
• Sexual harassment
• Concealing/contaminating evidence
• Attorney/client privilege violations
Ms. Moleski argues that:
The courts allowed a continuance of this litigation despite her status as a Federal/State Witness and Whistleblower, and after her eight document submissions to this court’s docket from AHCA, OSHA, the EEOC, Governor Crist’s OIG, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Diesler, U.S. Attorney General’s office, Medical Fraud Unit – Orlando Office and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.
In addition, she has:
–Submitted exhibits to show that she has participated in investigations within her Counterclaim and additional exhibits showing her relationship with law enforcement [FBI] four months prior to Adventist filing this lawsuit against her.
–Informed the court that she cannot reveal the details of the Maitland , Florida, FBI investigation against AHS executives and will continue to invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights. The Orange County Courts continue to coerce Ms. Moleski and tell her that she cannot invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights and that she will have to set up a hearing to get permission to do so.
AHS alleges that Patricia has in her possession confidential information taken from them illegally. They want back, and are involved in legal proceedings to get it. (No evidence has been produced that establishes this fact, and it’s something that Patricia denies.) However, she refuses to reveal or discuss any information regarding herten-month participation in the FBI investigation. The agents she worked with informed her that their investigation would be compromised if she divulged that information. (On several occasions she “wore a wire” to work.)
Ms. Moleski has informed the court that she is currently unable to be physically present at court because she lacks funds to travel to Florida and has caregiver responsibilities. She has documented these facts by unemployment compensation stubs and an official document allowing the court to access her 2009-2011 IRS tax returns. In spite of this evidence, the courts will not implement whistleblower laws and AHS attorneys are attempting to use her failure to appear in court to destroy her whistleblower protections. (AHS attorneys have made no effort to obtain a deposition.)
Patricia now lives in Ohio and is desperate to find a job. She is living in poverty and believes she has been blacklisted. She has also informed the judge that she is fearful of what might happen to her should she return to Florida. When her whistleblower status was discovered, a bullet was fired into her residence, her car was firebombed, and repeated attempts were made to break into her home. (Her home alarm system was triggered twice.)
It is instructive to realize that whistleblowers, although protected by a variety of laws, can be victimized over an extended period of time by other laws and court proceedings. In Patricia’s case, her life has been made miserable for the past five years by Adventist Health Systems because she in good faith alerted AHS of bugs in the CERNER electronic record system that, unless corrected, could place Adventist Health Systems in serious trouble with HIPAA.*** Because Ms. Moleski refused, under duress, to commit these illegal and irresponsible actions, and subsequently reported these illegal violations to appropriate state and federal agencies, the AHS filed an injunction against her in an attempt to avoid the revocation of the institution’s nonprofit status and civil and criminal prosecution. In the mean time, Patricia was placed on administrative leave and then fired.
As far as can be determined, the investigation of AHS is ongoing. (Two months ago, when Ms. Moleski discussed the FBI investigation with the Maitland Office, she was told to “hang in there,” you have given us a very difficult case.”)
Presently, Patricia, acting as her own attorney, has offered extensive evidence that the County Courts and acting AHS counsel are trying to make her liable for criminal prosecution by false accusations and discrediting her whistleblower status, thereby violating her rights to Fifth Amendment protection.
…The courts allowed a continuance of this litigation despite her status as a Federal/State Witness and Whistleblower, and after her eight document submissions to this court’s docket from AHCA, OSHA, the EEOC, Governor Crist’s OIG, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Diesler, U.S. Attorney General’s office, Medical Fraud Unit – Orlando Office and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.
Stupid question, but if this all came about because she went to the FBI, why aren't they (including the wider Federal Gov.) helping her? Or is the passage saying she has been helped by various agents so far?
Informed the court that she cannot reveal the details of the Maitland , Florida, FBI investigation against AHS executives and will continue to invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights. The Orange County Courts continue to coerce Ms. Moleski and tell her that she cannot invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights and that she will have to set up a hearing to get permission to do so.
What happens to the FBI investigation if she does reveal the details of FBI investigation to the court? If the answer is the FBI investigation will fall over, why isn't the Fed Gov fighting hard for her? Again, why is she submitting her own court submissions and representing herself?
Ms. Moleski has informed the court that she is currently unable to be physically present at court because she lacks funds to travel to Florida and has caregiver responsibilities.
Why don't the parties just allow her to appear in her home state by videolink?
Andrew,
We appreciate you're not letting this be buried. The wheels of justice move veeeerrrry slowly, but this information is not widely disseminated, and the official church and Florida Hospital are anxious to see that it stays quiet.
The larger the defendant, as Florida Hospital is, and the very small plaintiff, together with the huge presence the hospital has in the state of Florida makes this very difficult to be publicized.
Keep plugging away as there are many out here are in sympathy with Patricia and realize the fight she is in against a goliath. Has anyone thought of a "60 Minutes type expose? They specialize in taking the small guy's position against the huge corporations.
Sometimes its not easy to say, Praise the Lord! And truth will out, because we want justice to be heard! Michael stands up to defend justice and truth. We welcome His Justice!
Thank you for writing about this….pushing the dirt under the rug as so many in the church want to do, NEVER cleans the house. Not until this and many other things are truly repented of and made right, will the church ever receive the blessing of God.
I congratulate Andy for taking on this subject. He knows more than most of us how difficult it is to the get the unvarnished truth about these kinds of situations out into the open. A large corporation with many lawyers and a complicated and expensive legal system has the capacity to wear down anyone lacking great financial resources or pro bono legal assistance. On the other hand, some of the statements made by the plaintiff herself does raise questions. Once all the facts come out (this might take literally years), I hope Andy will write-up this as a case study in investigative journalism.. .
How long did it take to indict, prosecute, and sentence the many CEOs of the large financial institutions on Wall Street? Florida Hospital has been cited as the state's largest employer with large footprints throughout the entire state and unfettered power, both polticial and financial, to fight such a charge for as long as it takes. The lack of prosecution says absolutely nothing (as some have claimed) about the truthfulness of Patricia's charges. It is a fact, well known, that Florida was the center of the one of the largest Medicare fraud cases in history with many physicians and service providers involved. The lack of sufficient investigators prevents more indictments.
The Medicare fraud case I recall involved one of the Florida Hospital facilities in Orlando. I would suggest that it helps establish that AHS is not above bending the rules when it comes to money.
Florida Hospital not only operates all its many hospitals throughout the state but has financial interest in many physicians' private practices–one way of both hospital and physician profiting with possible conflict of interest laws.
It is indeed often a lonely path when one decides to become a whistle blower. Google Karen Silkwood, e.g.
I listened to a little of the video; if even half of what she alleges is true it would seem she has a case. I see little connection between her situation and the Medicare fraud case unless one can prove the same administration was present in both situations.
If she is fabricating her story then she should be prosecuted; if she isn't AHS should be prosecuted. How long will this take to play out is anybody's guess. If she is legit I wish her speedy justice.
Speedy trial? Justice? How long did it take for Lincy Chamberlai to get the justice she deserved? Over three decades!
Timo, I suspect you are aware of the several cases where AHS/FH has paid substantial sums to Medicare for practices deemed to be fraudulent. In the event this is news to you, here are a few citations:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/December/686civ.htm
http://medicarefalseclaims.com/?page_id=29
There are others. These cases ultimately revolve around the provider improperly trying to maximize their reimbursement. Money!
Does the Moleski case involve a substantial loss of Money to AHS/FH? Of course it does.
There is no connection between the HIPPA charges and Medicare fraud but they were only examples of fraud that has been perpetrated by hospitals and/or medical providers. And many are continuing and yet to be uncovered.
As a recent hospitalized Medicare patient, I can testify that numerous costly procedures were performed that were totally unneccessary as confirmed by competent medical evaluation. Only with malpractice changes will costs diminish.
As the whistleblower case demonstrates: every patient should ask for and obtain all his personal medical records and keep them constantly updated. They can accompany you when you might be in a different state, even country, and can inform medical personnel of your particular condition (think: accident, unconscious).
Many of you seem to have a bit of an inside view of all this. I am wondering if anyone can answer my 'stupid' questions posted above? For example, why is this woman defending herself without any assistance from the FBI or Fed Gov, if the net effect of having to reveal info contrary to her Fifth Amendment rights and various Whistleblower laws is that investigation might fall over? I thought there was a right to not disclose information in a civil matter where it might be self-incriminating towards a criminal matter? Why couldn't she appear by video link?
Yes as a government lawyer myself, I can tell you there are usually two sides to every story. I am not discounting what she is saying, there are just quite a few things that aren't really that clear to me about this matter.
Timo,
I am just reading this whole conversation, and the only question I have for you is:
Do you work for the Adventist system?
George I certainly don't. I don't even live in America. But there are aspects of this story that don't entirely add up to me, at least at this stage.
It is most unfortunate that this story has found its way onto the AToday website at this point in the "investigation." I am glad that it is given space as a blog rather than a news story. As you know, Andy, I have reviewed many of the documents which you refer to, and they are nonsensical, self-serving drivel, incoherently accusing multiple Florida judges and hospital administrators of fraud and collusion, without anything other than self-supporting non-evidentiary conclusions. I appreciate your interest in investigating potential wrongdoing, but am dismayed that you want to plow forward with reckless allegations and innuendoes based upon the Dan Rather principle of reporting – "Even if the facts don't pan out, the story rings True, and therefore needs to be told." Perhaps you could post the court documents you cite to a website, and link them to this blog, so that the readers of your blog can see just how credible they sound???
Contrary to your assertions, Andy, the documents filed with the court by Moleski offer no admissible evidence to support her claim. Her motion will be summarily denied because the form and content of her motion does not properly frame any legal issue for the court to determine. Those documents contain wild, bizarre allegations that make Moleski sound anything but credible. She has apparently been through three different law firms, and now is unable to find anyone to represent her except Mr. Hanson.
Andy, you say that Patricia is an intelligent, dedicated, scrupulous Christian. What evidence do you have of these claims other than her self-serving statements? And why does that really matter anyway? Does that make verification of her allegations unnecessary? More importantly, you acccuse hospital administration of being corrupt. You must have someone in mind. Who? How? Exactly what did they do? Those are pretty strong statements, Andy! Where is your evidence? Where is the corroboration for the allegations? For that matter, can you even explain in understandable terms exactly what it is that Patricia Moleski uncovered? I have read the court documents and I still don't understand what allegedly occurred. I've also seen copies of the emails where Moleski's supervisors encourage her to take her issues to external compliance enforcement authorities if she feels there is wrongdoing. Why don't you seem to think those "details" are important enough to include in your story?
The second paragraph of your story dishonestly implies that Steve Seltzer (hardly an unbiased source) has endorsed Moleski's allegations. All he appears to have said is that changing to new information systems can create problems. Cerner is not a new system, and I suspect it is not new to Florida Hospital. In fact, many hospitals are switching from Cerner to other systems such as EPIC. In my 22 years of defending an Adventist health care institution that has used Cerner, I am unaware of any lawsuit – much less deaths – arising out of flaws in the computer system.
I am 100% in favor of investigating corruption in high places. I also believe church institutional leaders are as corruptible as other humans, whether they are progressive or fundamentalist. The willingness to believe that which we think could be true, and what we want to be true, is a very dangerous thing. Maybe there is a story here which needs to be reported. If so, I'd like to see it. If not, are those who proclaim the need to speak truth to power in the church exempt from standards of journalistic decency and integrity?
From some of the disjointed documentation I have seen, I speculate that the event underlying Moleski's complaint may have something to do with hospital reporting requirements. Hospitals are routinely required to report certain "adverse" events to regulatory authorities. Depending on the nature of the event, such reporting can prompt consequences ranging from root cause analyses and plans of correction to heavy fines and even closure of the hospital. Regulations carefuly define what constitutes a "reportable event."
One type of "reportable event" is the return of a patient to the hospital within 24 or 48 hours of discharge. Such a return raises questions of whether the patient should have been discharged in the first place; did financial considerations perhaps play a part, etc.
As I understand it, Moleski was told to remove a patient identifiable medical record number from a list. That patient, according to documentation I have pieced together, apparently was brought to the hospital following a suicide attempt (perhaps "successful") within a day of being seen at the hospital for issues which led to the suicide attempt. I conjecture that this patient was perhaps put on an adverse event list that would, in the ordinary course of events, prompt further investigation. Presumably, Moleski's job has something to do with maintaining this list and making sure that it was kept up to date. I suspect that someone working through the cases on the list took a look at this case and said, "Wait a minute, this case doesn't fit reporting criteria. This patient didn't return within 24 hours of discharge, which is what adverse reporting requires. This patient left AMA (against medical advice) and was never discharged. Therefore the case doesn't fit reporting criteria and should be removed from the list, as we are only required to report returns where we have judged the patient stable for discharge, and we didn't do that in this case."
A busybody clerical employee might think something nefarious was going on, because she didn't understand the law. She might think, when asked to delete a patient from a reporting list, that the institution was trying to bury something under the carpet to avoid regulatory scrutiny. And the more resistance she got from the institution, assuring her that the patient did not belong on the list, the more it would confirm her suspicion that something rotten was going on.
Now I assure you that my hypothesis is highly speculative. But it is certainly no more speculative than Andy Hanson's accusations of corruption. I don't know for sure what information was on the list from which Moleski was allegedly asked to delete a patient number. I don't even know that the list contained potentially reportable adverse event patients.But what appears evident to me is a strong likelihood that Moleski, through ignorance of the law, got locked into a self-validating misunderstanding regarding reporting requirements which, if true, would have led to serious charges against the hospital by regulatory authorities. But since she irrationally clung to her misunderstanding, savoring the feelings of indignant self-righteousness that it engendered, she is now sadly without a job, and without a legal cause of action against the hospital. She seeks, through the court of public opinion, with the help of credulous enablers, to obtain the vindication which she will probably never get through the legal system.
BTW, I would welcome any factual information someone might have that would yield a different impression than the speculative one I have offered.
I recall that one "adverse event" was the Vitamin K (?) injection normally prescribed for newborns or neonates, and was not recorded by the nurse who administered it and when the baby was transferred to another ward, this injection was repeated, causing the baby to bleed internally, and die.
Do you recall this episode from the video? Not reporting such an "adverse event" is a violation of all medical requirements.
This is such a big and complicated case that the investigation should continue to give both sides the opportunity to prove being innocent. On one side, she presented too many issues to make her totally unreliable. On the other side, the most disturbing question for me is why no attorney is taking her case. Those guys are always thirsty for cases like this.
Will we ever know the truth? I doubt!
I didn't watch the video. I'm really interested in information that comes from some source other than the complainant. I'm aware that too little Vitamin K can cause bleeding/bruising. I've never heard of bleeding being a complication of excessive Vitamin K, but I'm no medical expert. Contrary to your suggestion, Elaine, neither every adverse event, nor every instance of medical malpractice in a hospital is a reportable event within the meaning of applicable regulations.
Having dealt a fair amount with state health departments and the OIG, I am of the opinion that if reportable events had been covered up by the Florida hospital, we wouldn't be dependent on Andy Hanson or self-serving statements from Patricia Moleski to hear about it. The authorities would be all over it; there would plenty of credible court documents, including a wrongful termination lawsuit by Moleski; and she would have dozens of private attorneys eager to punch her dance card, for the fat fee they would get out of a qui tam action. At this point, I think the allegations rank somewhere between truther and birther claims on the credibility meter. But what the heck! Why can't everyone keep a tinfoil hat in their closet for special occasions? And for those who salivate to rail against institutional Adventism, I guess Hanson and Moleski are putting on a good enough show to cause folks to proudly wear their hats to the party.
Nathan I can help here and I also have a question for you at the end.
Elaine has it a bit backwards but she is correct in that over dosing a young child with vitamin K is risky. I teach the anti-coagulants to the Sophomore Medical Students in Medical Pharmacology and in a Cardiovascular Pharmacology course to the PhD students at LLU Sch. Medi. and have taught these mechanisms for 20 yrs.
Vitamin K is a co-factor in the coagulation response. Vitamin K allows the carboxylation of factor II (prothrombin), X and VII all of which are involved in coagulation process. Activated factors VII and X are proteases that assist in the conversion of prothrombin (factor II) to thrombin the latter which crosslinks fibrin and allows the platelet clot to form. This carboxylation provides the "charge field" for calcium binding which then activates these protein factors (II, X and VII). Coumadin is a vitamin K antagonist and interferes with the activation of factor II, X and VII and decreases the coagulation response or increases the time for clot formation. You are right, vitamin K deficiency can be a cause of bleeding episodes.
Sometimes babies are a bit deficient in vitamin K and hence this is given so as to prevent bleeding episodes especially in premature babies. Its an issue of balance. To little vitamin K in newborns increases bleeding risk. To much increases risk of thrombembolic stroke. If one is taking coumadin then vitamin K supplements are a no, no. Goodman and Gilman or Katzung Basic and Clinical Pharmacology lays out the complex pharmacology nicely.
I echo Timo's post. I read your clear legal perspective. Are you saying that "accusations" with no verifiable corroboration or establishment of a legal issue that a court can determine amounts to hearsay? Also we do not know the history of the relationship between this employee (whistleblower) and employer. In todays headlines it seems that credibility of the whistleblower is the default position of the press.
Impetuous question? Do you read yor comments? They sound to me like "defense no matter what."
Having been around for a while, I have seen enough to learn that the Adventist system can do weird things and mistreat people. I sure can't say either way about this case, but I would never take the denomination's side just because I am also an Adventist.
I am not saying you are doing this, just the way you worded your comments so far suggested to me that the right verdict has already been reached. But I hope I am wrong.
Timo, since you question Australian justice, then let me remind you of the O.J. Simpson. And the Anthony Cases. You believe that I am biased toward Adventist medical institutions. My wife did work as a nurse for many years and she has also been a patient and we know some of the things that are done by Adventists for the sake of profit. Besides, I spent several years doing research on this field. I am not saying that we know what really happened in the Moleski case. We need to listen to those representing the Adventist Health System before reaching a conclusion, but they are not talking.
Andy, will you please disclose to your readers whether you have provided any financial assistance to Patricia Moleski – payment for court costs or other expenses associated with pursuing her claims, whether as a gift or a loan? Information I have received from a credible source prompts me to ask the question. And I'm sure you would agree that it bears on your credibility and objectivity, which you have willingly put on the line. You will no doubt welcome the opportunity to protect your integrity by dispelling such rumors if they are untrue.
University Hospitals, Kaiser asked to disclose contracts with information technology vendors
Published: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 6:00 PM Updated: Friday, January 22, 2010, 4:28 AM
Follow
Watchdog lawmaker U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley sent letters this week to 31 hospitals nationwide, raising concerns that "errors" caused by the information technology systems they have adopted could endanger patients.
The letter to hospitals — which included University Hospitals Case Medical Center and UH Rainbow Babies & Children in Cleveland as well as Kaiser Permanente — cited an example of software producing incorrect medication dosages because it "miscalculated body weights by interchanging kilograms and pounds."
Grassley, a Republican who serves as a ranking member of the finance committee that oversees Medicare and Medicaid, wants the hospitals to make public the details of their relationships and contracts with vendors, including any "gag orders" or non-disclosure clauses that would prohibit them from sharing information about product defects.
He also asked the hospitals about whether the contracts agree not to hold the manufacturers liable when a patient is harmed as a result of using the product to diagnose or treat patients. Such contracts were highlighted in a March issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
"Hospitals are on the front lines [of patient care] and their perspective will be very valuable in this effort, so I look forward to hearing what they have to say about expanded use of health care information technology," Grassley writes.
UH confirmed Thursday that it has received a letter from Grassley and is working to respond. The region's second-largest health system has been working with Eclipsys, one of the vendors listed in the letter, since 2006.
In an e-mail statement, UH Spokeswoman Alicia Reale said "We believe the information technology does greatly improve patient safety and care."
The health system said it was not aware as to why it received Grassley's letter. It does not have a "gag order" or non-disclosure clauses with Eclipsys and UH is not aware of any specific case of patient harm arising from electronic medical systems.
UH also said it has access to Eclipsys personnel on a daily basis.
Kaiser, which has 140,000 health insurance members in Northeast Ohio, also confirmed Thursday that it had received Grassley's letter and intends to respond by the requested February deadline. Kaiser declined to provide further details about its vendor relationships.
""The American Hospital Association is "not aware of significant concerns" in the area of patient safety, said Melinda Hatton, general counsel with the association.
The prestigious list of health systems that received the letter included many of the nation's leaders in information technology implementation, such as Kaiser, Mayo Clinic and Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania. The list did not include the local Cleveland Clinic or MetroHealth System, even though both work with Epic Systems Corp. — a vendor mentioned in Grassley's letter.
Grassley Spokeswoman Jill Gerber said in an e-mail to The Plain Dealer that the list of hospitals were selected based on "press reports [positive and negative], complaints, whistleblowers, our own research."
The senator is most concerned about patient care and patient safety, she added.
Electronic medical records and health care technology have been a big issue in recent years, in part, because of the millions of dollars included in last year's stimulus bill to encourage doctors and hospitals to adopt the expensive systems.
President Barack Obama has lauded such systems as improving efficiency and patient care. While visiting the Clinic last summer, he spent time discussing the extensive role of information technology at hospitals. The Clinic's chief information technology officer could not be reached for comment Thursday.
John McInally, the new chief information officer for MetroHealth who was previously at the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, said that Epic "adheres to the highest standards." He added that the hospital does not have an agreement that would prohibit it from talking about product problems — though McInally said he has seen such agreements during his nearly three-decade career.
Still, McInally said, the responsibility for patient safety is placed on many shoulders but ultimately falls to the hospital.
"It starts with the vendor and goes all the way to the physician, whose touching the patient," he said.
I appreciate your response, Andy. But it seems to me that you are still relying exclusively on Ms. Moleski for the story. Acts of kindness are fine – sorry, I did miss the earlier disclosure – but they compromise your objectivity. I suppose as long as you admit that you are an advocate rather than an objective investigative reporter at this point in time, a reality which is clear from your blog, I shouldn't complain. I just think you should provide some corroborating evidence if you wish to be taken seriously. It is the quality of the evidence underlying the allegations, not the quantity of the allegations, or the presumed characters of the accuser and accused, that should drive your investigation.
I will tell you one thing for certain. Attorneys who believe in a case like this take it on contingency, advancing all costs. In qui tam actions, I believe attorneys are entitled to recover their fees and costs from the wrongdoer. They don't even have to take the case on contingency. Any competent, experienced attorney who tells Moleski that he thinks she has a good case, but that he has to be paid on an hourly basis, is simply not being honest with her. Plaintiff attorneys do that all the time. They just don't want to tell a prospective client that he/she doesn't have a case.
I can't tell you the number of pro per or pro se plaintiffs in med mal cases who have told me that they can't afford what the attorneys they consulted want to charge. I wish attorneys would be honest with prospective clients, and just tell them the truth. The attorney you contacted was blowing smoke. Unlike me, many attorneys are non-confrontational. They would rather tell you what you want to hear than the truth. If that attorney believed the case had merit, he would have put you in touch with a top notch Florida attorney who would have been happy to give him a nice split of the fee award for the referral. He also could have worked through the OIG to have the matter pursued without ever stepping foot in Florida.
BTW, try to save yourself some money in the future. I don't know about Florida, but in California, impecunious parties representing themselves easily get fee waivers when they file pleadings in court. You might suggest to Ms. Moleski that she apply for a fee waiver next time so you won't have to foot the bill.
I'm also interested in your reference to an AHS brief, which I was not aware existed. Could you perhaps provide a link?
I suppose as long as you admit that you are an advocate rather than an objective investigative reporter at this point in time. . .I shouldn't complain. I just think you should provide some corroborating evidence if you wish to be taken seriously. It is the quality of the evidence. . .not the quantity of the allegations. . .that should drive your investigation.
I'm sorry, but this made me chuckle. One has to appreciate the irony of such a statement coming from a member of an organization whose entire body of assertions come from a single 2,000 year old book for which there isn't any corroborating evidence at all concerning a magical omnipotent being who lives beyond the stars.
It's a bit of a double standard, from where I'm sitting. Why not take Andrew's claims on faith? There -is- evidence, after all, right? I mean, look at all the youtube videos Ms. Moleski has posted and how empassioned her commentary has been. In fact, I'm here to tell you today that she -is- telling the truth, even if you don't see the evidence for what it is.
Oh, how do I know she's not lying? I just do. Trust me.
Cute, Tim, but unserious. Corroborating evidence might come in the form of other employees who saw and experienced what Moleski claims to have seen and experienced. It might come in the form of internal documents which confirm her allegations. The Bible is not a single book written by one witness 2,000 years ago, with no corroborative evidence for the truth of its contents. Whether God can reasonably be inferred from its contents depends upon your world view.
Great analogy for Kool Aid drinkers and sycophants; weak analogy if you're trying to persuade with common sense or logic. But I know that's not what you're trying to do. You're just an adolescent adult who can't break away from the parent church you hate. So you use this site to tweak and offend.
Whether God can reasonably be inferred [from a compilation of stories] depends upon your world view.
I can say the same thing about sasquatch, dragons and fairies. 🙂
Great analogy for Kool Aid drinkers and sycophants; weak analogy if you're trying to persuade with common sense or logic. But I know that's not what you're trying to do. You're just an adolescent adult who can't break away from the parent church you hate. So you use this site to tweak and offend.
Oh relax, Nathan. If my analogy is so weak (it's not, by the way), why bother to be offended?
"Gotcha moments" are fun.
Couldn't help myself. 😉
Elaine,
Above I provided some insight on Vitamin K in infants. Hope it helps. You had it partly right. To much or to little vitamin K in a newborn is not desirable. I just added the details on how vitamin K works in the clotting mechanism.
Regards, John
Thank you Doctorf for the education. Very informative. I had already asked my daughter about it, who is a neonatal fellow, and she gave a similar perspective, though not with your scientific insight. I appreciate it.
Hearsay is basically testimony which consists of out-of-court oral or documentary evidence that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So when Moleski relates statements by others or offers documents that have not been authenticated, it is hearsay.
Another problem with many of her statements is that they lack foundation to show that she has personal, first hand knowledge of the matters she relates. If one tried to carefully tease out the source of most of her information, it wouldn't be admissible in court because it would either lack a proper foundation in personal knowledge or it would constitute hearsay.
I agree with you that whistleblowers, like children who report molestation, generally have presumptive credibility in the court of public opinion. Furthermore, regulatory authorities do not have to meet criminal burdens of proof – beyond a reasonable doubt – to successfully prosecute wrongdoers. If there is substance underlying the allegations, usually out of court settlements are reached, with a big windfall to the whistleblower. The fact that there doesn't seem to be any interest on the part of those who stand to benefit from proving the allegations are meritorious is a big reason why I give them no credence.
Nathan~
Quite frankly, your position as an advocate for large medical institutions should disqualify you as one with an objective opinion on this subject.
Really intelligent observation, Nancy. I guess we should just go with the objective facts offered by Patricia Moleski and Andy Hanson.
You are a real hoot, Nancy!
Thanks Nathan. I think you and Timo remind me of Scalia and Thomas. But you both can decide which man you identify with more. I have my own opinion. That is allowed here, right?
Nancy, I would never presume to either read your mind or compare myself to brilliant jurists like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. But the thought that anything I have said would put you in mind of them is a great compliment of which I am quite undeserving.
On what basis have you determined Clarence Thomas to be a brilliant jurist, Nathan?
Thomas is not well known for writing brilliantly reasoned opinions; and almost never asks any questions from the bench at all.
You jeopardize your credibility, regarding a perception of any semblance of objectivity, with this assessment of this particular non communicative justice.
He has indisputably been the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action in history (while nevertheless characteristically being opposed to it), and is the single best case against its continuance.
He isn’t a justice, he’s a vote.
Nathan glad to help. Clotting is very complex and vitamin K mediates the "calcium dependent" pathway.
The fact that this whistleblowing casedoes not get any traction from legal people that specialize in this area of law suggests that this person may lack credibility. I have a son in law school and he works for a law firm in legal defense of hospitals and insurance companies. He said that deposition and cross examination is very powerful as lawyers do have a way at assessing the veracity of peoples claims. It does not appear that this whistle blowing case is really going anywhere. But it makes for interesting discussion.
I was aware that Vitamin K was important for blood clotting and in an infant, errors can be life-threatening. To "delete" this is criminal.
Elaine – "To 'delete' this is CRIMINAL."? To "delete" what from where? How? When? What penal code violation did you have in mind? Or is your reference to criminality merely meant to convey the sense that you think it's really outrageous – like being a political conservative or an Adventist conservative is criminal? What if it was simply duplicative of information that was contained in other records, or what if it was erroneously listed in the particular record where it appeared? Or what if there was no "it" to begin with?
To delete a medical record after the fact may not be criminal, but in case of a malpractice of negligence case, anyone who has deleted a record can be charged
with destroying evidence.
This was based on my impression of listening to all of Patricia's video. Had you listened you would not be asking these questions. Determine for yourseslf, not by our comments. Did you watch and listen? As an attorney you should be familiar with the penalties for falsifying medical records.
Tim,
That was pretty funny and illuminating. Thanks!
John
A Note and a Correction
Note: The references cited in Part 3 along with a quote, were inadvertently left off. They can now be accessed if readers scroll back to the original posting.
Correction: Steve Seltzer, President of California Workmen’s Comp Coalition, the Moleski interviewer in the YouTube video, is actually Steve Zeltzer.
Andy
Just a note
As a pathologist and medical examiner for 40 years, my husband frequently was called to testify in court. Once, he was charged with malpractice. During discovery, the plaintiff's physician's handwritten records had clearly been changed, retroactively. The case was immediately thrown out. Every physician is taught this and should need no additional warning. It also applies to anyone making the record: nurses; therapists, etc.
Even though providers are taught to never alter a note without stating so, some still do it. And it is criminal in some cases. In your husband's case it was thrown out notwithstanding other claims. Not sure why a provider would believe they could get away with it… so not worth it. I've seen a record that was altered by a nurse retroactively to cover a mistake in a neonatal ward.
There is a large difference between altering the patient chart and altering other hospital records that collect data from the patient chart as part of a data base. For example, infection control collects various types of data on MRSA, nosocomial infections, and other infections that are diagnosed in the hospital. Infection control might initially include a patient number in a list of nosocomial infections and then, on further investigation, determine that the infection actually was not hospital, but community, acquired. There would be nothing amiss, much less criminal, in deleting that patient number from the data base that tracks hospital acquired infections. Once data from a patient record is stored in other records, it can easily be manipulated or moved without any implications of wrongdoing.
It is not at all clear to me from the information provided by Mr. Hanson that a patient record, as that term is legally understood, was altered, much less deleted. I certainly have seen instances of entries in primary patient records being altered and deleted, both intentionally and inadvertently. But once the patient leaves the hospital and the chart goes to medical records, it is extremely unlikely that anyone could go in and alter the record. It happens much more frequently in the outpatient setting where a physician is the custodian of his or her own records, and can go in, after a bad outcome comes to light, and change the record to make prior care look less blameworthy than subsequent events may make it appear. Your example, Nancy, undoubtedly occurred while the neonate was still in the hospital, and the nurse had the bedside chart available to her for alteration.
Electronic records create different problems, but they do largely eliminate the practical possibility of altering patient charts, since the computer automatically records the time that anyone goes into the record, as well as the identity of the individual accessing the record. Most hospitals converting to electronic medical records have not gone completely paperless, so there are still some handwritten records that are scanned into the electronic record when medical record gets the chart. It would be possible to alter such records before they are scanned and shredded.
Nate,
As an attorney you should know that comments on something which you have not seen or read would be worthless. Since you admit that you did not watch the video, anything you say is simililarly valued.
Elaine, as a presumably intelligent person, you should know that I have not commented on the video, and as I said in my first comments to this blog, I have read all of the documentation provided to me by Andy Hanson. If there is more, I'd be glad to review it. But I can't speed read through a video, and have no interest in being a captive audience to someone whose written product strikes me as truly nutty.
I am commenting on Andy's blog, not the video. I'm sure there are many videos out there which persuasively package birther and truther claims. The fact that neither you nor I have watched them does not disqualify us from making observations about those claims when we read summaries of the points made by truthers and birthers.
Perhaps you would like to identify, in what I have said above, that which is inconsistent with evidence you have seen on the video??? It comes as no surprise that you think anything I say on this subject is worthless, since you find most of what I say fits in that category. Now you could have said that YOU find what I say to be worthless, an observation that would only have been remarkable for the hubris demonstrated in thinking that anyone really cares about your conclusory opinion. But instead you chose the authoritative passive voice to dogmatically offer, as almost syllogistically true, that what I say IS in fact worthless. That is how Church administrators talk. You can take the girl out of the Church; but you can't take the Church out of the girl. It is amazing how similar you sound in tone to the fundamentalists that you despise.
Timo, what rancor? I'm not seeing it (or feeling it!). You are talking about my post above, right?
I was simply pointing out that Nathan's comments regarding corroborating evidence as well as quality over quantity are directly applicable and analogous to arguments for "evidence" of God. Of course, Nathan didn't think so and got a little emotional, but he just takes himself very seriously, that's all. 😛 I hadn't intended to be nasty about it — just illustrating the irony.
Andy:
Thank you for taking on AHS Risk Management situation involving Patricia Moleski in Florida. The conversation has been lively to say the least. You went on to activate the golden rule. I found it sad to read Nathan Schilt's condescending commentary at length assuming the medical organization must be right. Belittling Andy and others who were trying to look at both sides with a professional attitude. When someone mentioned how long it had taken for the Lindy Chamberlain case to come to an end (32 years), he even attacked that. He admitted not even looking at the You Tube video with her being interviewed!!!!!!!!!!!Amazing. Totally unimpressed and disappointed. To shame Andy for assisting Patricia financially, thereby activating the Golden Rule is below LOW. After watching the You Tube account, my first thought was, "I hope this video goes viral and people will respond in a monetary way to assist her to get a decent team of attorneys to get a fair trial – No matter who wins.
I would like to say a big AMEN to what Elaine, Nancy, and Bea have stated!
Andy"
Good news!! It appears Nathan has spent a bit of time investigating medical records protocol. Congratulations and I am impressed with this professional approach. It's a great start for meaningful dialogue. It would be great for him to take the time to watch and listen to the You Tube interview with Patricia with a clear and open mind. Those of us who have spent years in leadership in healthcare do well to lay aside skepticism and really listen and be receptive to all angles of a situation.
Lest you make the assumption I am pro-whistleblower Timo, I jumped into the conversation finding it incredible that Nathan, a legal person , automatically took the stance that the big institution must be right. In addition to his critical stance about Patricia , it was incredulous he admitted not watching the video or even part of it. That's all. I do admit, none of us have the documents etc. involved with this case so one could say this is speculation.
As to what I bring to the table of this conversation. I have been involved in leadership positions as a nurse since 1967 in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Massachussetts, California in AHS. My husband was also involved in administrative positions and the moves we made dealt with advancement opportunities throughout the organization. So I hope this addresses your comment "certainly in even a less credible place to cast your guilty votes prematurely". I was very involved with Quality Control/Risk Management and the protocol and documentation that my staff nurses followed. Several scenarios come to my mind .
Timo,
Like you I saw in the series of posts here is that a court of law has already ruled against the case and what appears to be in favor of AHS. I am not a defender of the adventism much less AHS. People who make these types of claims are very passionate and want to be vindicated and are offended at any questioning of their side of the story as Nathan has done.
I had an incident in my own professional life where a person contacted me and wanted me to act on his behalf as an expert witness as I am a neuropharmacologist and have some expertise in toxicology. He wanted to bring this case forward because his father had died of what he claimed to be "lead" poisoning. What alerted the son to his fathers lead poisioning was the fathers "dementia." The father died a year after the onset of the reported dementia. The son was very persuasive and he had the "proof" that his father was poisoned by lead where the father worked. I listened carefully to his story and then I started asking questions.
1. What was the source of the lead at his fathers place of employment?
2. Was the lead being heated and volatilized and did his father lack protective equipment?
3. Were any tests for serum or tissue lead levels done on his father when he exhibited the symptoms of dementia?
4. Was the father seeing a neurologist that could verify his story?
5. Were there any reports or complaints by other employees or family members who exhibited similar symptoms?
When I asked these questions he became angry because I would not validate his claims. In the end the son had the "suspicion" without any proof. I told him to take his claim to an atty that has expertise in the area of wrongful death caused by a hazardous substances in the workplace. He said he had been to three atty's and they would not take his case. I suspect these atty's also questioned this man and like me came to the conclusion that his claim was suspect and would not hold up under rules of evidence. What he wanted from me was to validate his claims and then go back to the atty's as an "expert" to convince them to take his case. Needless to say I wasted 3 hrs of my day and came to the conclusion that something was terribly wrong with the claims the man was making.
In the end people will watch the videos and draw their own conclusions but it appears that this "case" against AHS is not going anywhere and this employee may very well have some unrelated grieveance against her former employer. From what I have read here the sympathies of our friends are with the whistleblower who may lack credibility where rules of law and evidence are followed.
Nathan is simply making comments on something on which he has chosen not to inform himself, but that has not deterred him.
I have worked in medical record departments for ten years and a number of years for practicing physicians. What is Nate's medical experience? He has been unable to substantiate his bona fides in the medical field.
What about corroboration is required in a video? It was only Patricia's report. At least, we have watched the video, Natan prefers to pontificate on something he has no time nor interest to watch. Is that the way he would conduct a legal case? No need to investigate, simply check on protocols, not on the particular case, as if understanding proper procedures is all that is necessary to thoroughly understand a specific case that involves medical records. Sorry, some of us aren't buying it.
This would not be a case an attorney or attorneys would take on a contingency.
He would be up against the largest employer in Florida and a bank of attorneys to defend any accusations.
Just on the basis of the great inequality between the plaintiff and defendant, a shrewd person would not put money on the plaintiff.
Recall the lawsuits against the tobacco industry that took many years to even reach the courts. The tobacco industry had bottomless pockets and the plaintiffs did not have such ready access but were willing to take the case knowing that they would eventually win. Millions were paid to attorneys on both sides. Patricia doesn't have a chance unless she had the same financial support, and AHS has a whole bank of attorneys.
I agree with you Elaine. Something is wrong with my computer – I have attempted 3 times and in the middle – everything was deleted. I give up for now. Great dialogue.
I agree with Elaine. Going against a 32 billion worth corporation without a penny in your pocket is a loosing proposition. Sixteen years ago my daughter died in a car accident. I tried to find a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency basis without success. The defendant was Omni Trans. The moment I would mention the identity of the defendant, the lawyers asked for a hefty advance fee. I wasted several months looking for a lawyer and finally gave up.
Elaine says: "This would not be a case an attorney or attorneys would take on contingency." I suppose, Elaine, since my knowledge and experience are worthless, your lack of expertise or experience makes you ideally qualified to offer dogmatic assertions like this.
Sorry folks, attorneys take on corporate interests much more well-heeled than Florida Hospital all the time. And they do it on contingency. I would estimate that well over 90% of tort cases and qui tam actions are taken on contingency, with the plaintiff's attorney advancing costs. And the insurance companies or self-insureds that defend the cases can always outspend the plaintiff attorney. The reality of finding a lawyer to handle a P.I. or qui tam lawsuit is precisely the opposite of what Elaine and Nic are suggesting. Plaintiff attorneys are loathe to take cases on contingency where the defendant is not wealthy, or is underinsured/uninsured. And remember, if Moleski wins, she is entitled by law to recover from the defendant her private attorney feesand costs. So the more the defendant makes the plaintiff attorney spend, the more the defendant is going to have to pay in attorney fees when Moleski wins her case.
Furthermore, regulators and federal prosecutors love to take on the type of wrongdoing alleged here, because they know that millions of dollars of fines and penalties, along with publicity, will make their efforts worthwhile. The whistleblower would be entitled to a significant percentage of the recovery by government prosecutors. In other words, she doesn't need to hire a private attorney if the case is perceived as having merit by government prosecutors, who are always highly motivated to pursue meritorious whistleblower actions.
Nathan,
Would you be willing to take on such a case on a contingent basis? You have already stated that "plaintiff sttorneys are loathe to take dases on contingency where the defendant is not wealthy." It should be added, "and where the defendant is a 32 Billion dollar corporation." Only in class action suits would such disparately uneven parties be worthwhile. On that basis, Patricia is alone and the goliath AHS has no worries–it's all in the cost of doing business.
These are all sufficient reasons to believe that money is always the best defense.
The resources that the defendant might have available to throw at me would in no way deter me from taking on a case like this if I felt I had areasonable shot at winning. I assure you, a hospital the size of Florida Hospital probably is facing hundreds of lawsuits at any given time, the overwheming majority of which are taken on a contingency fee basis. Furthermore, the potential recovery in most of those cases is far lower than what an attorney representing a whistleblower like Moleski can reasonably expect. I must qualify these remarks by saying that I am basing my perspectives on the way things work in California.
Look folks, there is enough British blood in my mongrel ancestry that I relish scandal in high places as much as anyone. I experienced the same schadenfreude that many of you savored when the Folkenberg and 3ABN scandals unfolded.
But I spent nearly half of my career as a prosecutor and Chief Deputy District Attorney for San Bernardino County; and for the past 22 years I have been a civil trial attorney representing health care providers, as well as Adventist conferences and churches. In order to be effective, I must see my case and my evidence in the light most favorable to the other side. I apply beyond a reasonable doubt standards in the criminal arena, and preponderance of the evidence standards in the civil arena. I look at whether the evidence will be admissible in court before I weigh its credibility on the scales of justice.
The overwhelming majority of moral wrongdoing by institutional employees and leaders, in which I have given legal advice over the past 22 years, never appears on the public's radar screen. I am neither naive nor indulgent when it comes to "institutional" wrongdoing. While I understand that my role as a lawyer is to give legal advice, not moral guidance, I have no reticence about reminding my clients of their civic responsibilities and the potential legal ramifications of sweeping wrongdoing under the carpet. Institutions are destroyed not by wrongdoing, but by trying to cover up wrongdoing.
I love the institutional clients I have been, and am, honored to represent, not because they are always right, but because by and large their leadership wants to do the right thing. I know that some of you see Adventist institutional leadership as mafioso. But I have never encountered the law of omerta operating in the investigations and legal reviews that I have been a part of. Furthermore, when it comes to Adventist health care institutions, the regulatory environment is highly intrusive, and it imposes draconian penal sanctions for violations – even innocent violations. It is naive and grossly mistaken to see the rather loose, closed, and highly personal processes of Adventist ecclesiastical institutions as in any way analogous to the way highly regulated, closely monitored hospitals are run.
It would take a massive conspiracy by hospital employees, Compliance Officers, attorneys whose careers are at stake, judges, federal and state regulators to keep the lid on Moleski's allegations if they had merit. Is it possible? Sure. But I think it is foolish and dangerous when wishful thinking and sentimental identification with the compelling story of an aggrieved "victim" become the evidentiary foundation on which opinions and analyses are built.
I am still open to the possibility that a "smoking gun", "fingerprints", or "DNA evidence" will be discovered, though I think it is highly unlikely at this late date. When I first was emailed the hundreds of pages of documentation that I understood formed the evidentiary foundation for Moleski's claim, I was completely open-minded. But as I read through them, I kept wondering, "Where's the beef?" I'm still asking that question, and many of you seem offended that I would question your conclusion that, because it looks like a hamburger, and you've been told that there's beef between the buns, it must be a hamburger.
Your frustration with me, and your attempt to make this an issue of my credibility, belies your emotional investment in conclusions for which there is no substantial evidence. Yet again, we see the Ratherization of truth. The facts may not all be accurate, but the story is True, and after all, isn't that what really matters?
Thanks for informing us that your experience has been in representing healthcare providers, but not individual's suing healthcare.
Many of us have seen it from the injustice done while you have observed it from the legal standpoint. They represent entirely different views: an injured plaintiff may have documentation for her case but to pass the necessary legal requirements for a valid suit, it's still "follow the money."
So what you are really saying, Elaine, is that no one can really offer a valid perspective or opinion unless they have a) represented health care providers; b) represented individuals suing health care providers; c) been a health care provider who has been sued; AND d) been injured or aggrieved by health care provider wrongdoing. Unless you meet all of those criteria, you really have no qualifications to be taken seriously. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Overwhelmingly, the individuals who sue the health care providers I represent do not have money and could not possibly pay for any part of their lawsuit. I have never heard of a whistleblower who had to even front costs, much less pay legal fees to pursue their claim. Have you? Individuals who sue health care providers most often have incomes near or below the poverty level. Again, you do not know what you are talking about when you make an absurd generalization like: "…to pass the necessary legal requirements for a valid lawsuit, it's still "follow the money." Precisely what "legal requirement" can you direct us to that says money is a legal requirement for filing a lawsuit, other than the small filing fees that can be waived for indigent plaintiffs?
112.3187 Adverse action against employee for disclosing information of specified nature prohibited; employee remedy and relief.—
(1) SHORT TITLE.—Sections 112.3187–112.31895 may be cited as the “Whistle-blower’s Act.”
(2) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is the intent of the Legislature to prevent agencies or independent contractors from taking retaliatory action against an employee who reports to an appropriate agency violations of law on the part of a public employer or independent contractor that create a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. It is further the intent of the Legislature to prevent agencies or independent contractors from taking retaliatory action against any person who discloses information to an appropriate agency alleging improper use of governmental office, gross waste of funds, or any other abuse or gross neglect of duty on the part of an agency, public officer, or employee.
(3) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this act, unless otherwise specified, the following words or terms shall have the meanings indicated:
(a) “Agency” means any state, regional, county, local, or municipal government entity, whether executive, judicial, or legislative; any official, officer, department, division, bureau, commission, authority, or political subdivision therein; or any public school, community college, or state university.
(b) “Employee” means a person who performs services for, and under the control and direction of, or contracts with, an agency or independent contractor for wages or other remuneration.
(c) “Adverse personnel action” means the discharge, suspension, transfer, or demotion of any employee or the withholding of bonuses, the reduction in salary or benefits, or any other adverse action taken against an employee within the terms and conditions of employment by an agency or independent contractor.
(d) “Independent contractor” means a person, other than an agency, engaged in any business and who enters into a contract, including a provider agreement, with an agency.
(e) “Gross mismanagement” means a continuous pattern of managerial abuses, wrongful or arbitrary and capricious actions, or fraudulent or criminal conduct which may have a substantial adverse economic impact.
(4) ACTIONS PROHIBITED.—
(a) An agency or independent contractor shall not dismiss, discipline, or take any other adverse personnel action against an employee for disclosing information pursuant to the provisions of this section.
(b) An agency or independent contractor shall not take any adverse action that affects the rights or interests of a person in retaliation for the person’s disclosure of information under this section.
(c) The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable when an employee or person discloses information known by the employee or person to be false.
(5) NATURE OF INFORMATION DISCLOSED.—The information disclosed under this section must include:
(a) Any violation or suspected violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor which creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare.
(b) Any act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor.
(6) TO WHOM INFORMATION DISCLOSED.—The information disclosed under this section must be disclosed to any agency or federal government entity having the authority to investigate, police, manage, or otherwise remedy the violation or act, including, but not limited to, the Office of the Chief Inspector General, an agency inspector general or the employee designated as agency inspector general under s. 112.3189(1) or inspectors general under s. 20.055, the Florida Commission on Human Relations, and the whistle-blower’s hotline created under s. 112.3189. However, for disclosures concerning a local governmental entity, including any regional, county, or municipal entity, special district, community college district, or school district or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, the information must be disclosed to a chief executive officer as defined in s. 447.203(9) or other appropriate local official.
(7) EMPLOYEES AND PERSONS PROTECTED.—This section protects employees and persons who disclose information on their own initiative in a written and signed complaint; who are requested to participate in an investigation, hearing, or other inquiry conducted by any agency or federal government entity; who refuse to participate in any adverse action prohibited by this section; or who initiate a complaint through the whistle-blower’s hotline or the hotline of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Department of Legal Affairs; or employees who file any written complaint to their supervisory officials or employees who submit a complaint to the Chief Inspector General in the Executive Office of the Governor, to the employee designated as agency inspector general under s. 112.3189(1), or to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The provisions of this section may not be used by a person while he or she is under the care, custody, or control of the state correctional system or, after release from the care, custody, or control of the state correctional system, with respect to circumstances that occurred during any period of incarceration. No remedy or other protection under ss. 112.3187–112.31895 applies to any person who has committed or intentionally participated in committing the violation or suspected violation for which protection under ss. 112.3187–112.31895 is being sought.
(8) REMEDIES.—
(a) Any employee of or applicant for employment with any state agency, as the term “state agency” is defined in s. 216.011, who is discharged, disciplined, or subjected to other adverse personnel action, or denied employment, because he or she engaged in an activity protected by this section may file a complaint, which complaint must be made in accordance with s. 112.31895. Upon receipt of notice from the Florida Commission on Human Relations of termination of the investigation, the complainant may elect to pursue the administrative remedy available under s. 112.31895 or bring a civil action within 180 days after receipt of the notice.
(b) Within 60 days after the action prohibited by this section, any local public employee protected by this section may file a complaint with the appropriate local governmental authority, if that authority has established by ordinance an administrative procedure for handling such complaints or has contracted with the Division of Administrative Hearings under s. 120.65 to conduct hearings under this section. The administrative procedure created by ordinance must provide for the complaint to be heard by a panel of impartial persons appointed by the appropriate local governmental authority. Upon hearing the complaint, the panel must make findings of fact and conclusions of law for a final decision by the local governmental authority. Within 180 days after entry of a final decision by the local governmental authority, the public employee who filed the complaint may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If the local governmental authority has not established an administrative procedure by ordinance or contract, a local public employee may, within 180 days after the action prohibited by this section, bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. For the purpose of this paragraph, the term “local governmental authority” includes any regional, county, or municipal entity, special district, community college district, or school district or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing.
(c) Any other person protected by this section may, after exhausting all available contractual or administrative remedies, bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction within 180 days after the action prohibited by this section.
(9) RELIEF.—In any action brought under this section, the relief must include the following:
(a) Reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the adverse action was commenced, or to an equivalent position or reasonable front pay as alternative relief.
(b) Reinstatement of the employee’s full fringe benefits and seniority rights, as appropriate.
(c) Compensation, if appropriate, for lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration caused by the adverse action.
(d) Payment of reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees, to a substantially prevailing employee, or to the prevailing employer if the employee filed a frivolous action in bad faith.
(e) Issuance of an injunction, if appropriate, by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(f) Temporary reinstatement to the employee’s former position or to an equivalent position, pending the final outcome on the complaint, if an employee complains of being discharged in retaliation for a protected disclosure and if a court of competent jurisdiction or the Florida Commission on Human Relations, as applicable under s. 112.31895, determines that the disclosure was not made in bad faith or for a wrongful purpose or occurred after an agency’s initiation of a personnel action against the employee which includes documentation of the employee’s violation of a disciplinary standard or performance deficiency. This paragraph does not apply to an employee of a municipality.
(10) DEFENSES.—It shall be an affirmative defense to any action brought pursuant to this section that the adverse action was predicated upon grounds other than, and would have been taken absent, the employee’s or person’s exercise of rights protected by this section.
(11) EXISTING RIGHTS.—Sections 112.3187–112.31895 do not diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of an employee under any other law or rule or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; however, the election of remedies in s. 447.401 also applies to whistle-blower actions.
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
JUDGE PATRICIA DOHERTY
Patricia Moleski
Counter Plaintiff, Defendant
V.
Adventist Health System,
Counter Defendant, Plaintiff
__________________________________/
Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System, listed Judges, Orange county court ninth circuit and AHS acting counsel for:
Adventist Health System
Judge Frederick Lauten
Judge Marshall Kest
Judge Evans
Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel
Judge Patricia Doherty
Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani
Orange County Court Ninth Circuit
Ms. Moleski has clearly shown a line of corruption through the recusal of Judge Lauten and Judge Kest. Judge Lauten sat on this case for over a year, while he knew of his wife’s’ position of President of MyRegion.org and the organizations close monetary tie to Adventist Health System and Florida Hospital. Three of AHS’ executives sit on the board of MyRegion.org as well as Judges within Orange County Courts and political figures within Florida and many law firms. Still Judge Lauten continued to misuse his status in this Whistleblower case, making comments at hearings stating that “Ms. Moleski is either a Whistleblower or a thief.” Judge Lauten then took control of a box submitted by Ms. Moleski’s previous counsel, Brad Conway after he knew of the severity of the investigation against Adventist Health System and the illegal maneuvers of AHS. The rights of Ms. Moleski were violated, including both her right to her own attorney client information and her rights to due process. Judge Lauten misused the courts and violated judicial law by knowingly sitting on this case, while his wife sat as President of MyRegion.org along with two of Adventist Health System Executives. This shows incredible disregard for judicial law and corruption within the Ninth Circuit Courts. Ms. Moleski filed a Protective Order regarding the contents of the box and requested that Judge Lauten turn the box over to Florida AUSA Sandra Diesler, Judge Lauten denied this right to Ms. Moleski and the many victims of AHS by disclosing the investigation. Judge Lauten should not be listening to any cases in a judicial capacity for or against AHS because of the close monetary ties to him, the Orange County Courts, MyRegion.org and his wife. Judge Lauten has abused his authority and the Judiciary Committee will be notified of this filing for civil contempt. Ms. Moleski filed for a recusal of Judge Lauten and he did submit to her request after she found that he had a monetary relationship with AHS through his wife and MyRegion.org. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Judge Frederick Lauten for:
On August 30 and 31, 2011, Judge Kest entered and conducted a hearing regarding his in camera inspection of certain sealed documents deposited with the Court (from Ms. Moleski’s prior terminated counsel, Brad Conway) and the pending motions in this case, including AHS’ Motion to Compel. Judge Kest violated the rights of Ms. Moleski, and the thousands of overdose/fraud victims of AHS. Eight months before this hearing Ms. Moleski filed a Protective Order which was never heard by Judge Kest. Judge Kest then stated four months after the Protective Order filing that “he had already taken the box submitted by Brad Conway home for viewing 3 months prior to the August 30 & 31 hearing.” Judge Kest’s open admission to contamination of evidence should be investigated, as Ms. Moleski submitted for his recusal publically because of his relationship with MyRegion.org and WMFE. During the hearing, the Court granted AHS’ Motion to Compel as well as all other Motions filed against Ms. Moleski, continuing to violate her rights to due process with a severe degree of bias by Judge Kest. Judge Kest additionally denied every filing made by Ms. Moleski, showing yet another act of discrimination and bias after he had documented proof of Ms. Moleski’s relationship to investigations regarding AHS. Judge Kest continued bias against Ms. Moleski showing a rabid, Roland Friesler -like mentality towards her, demanding that she testify a certain way as to disclose to AHS the totality of investigations. Judge Kest made every effort to comply with AHS and its counsel and showed blatant favoritism towards AHS. Judge Kest went as far as to attempt to make Ms. Moleski testify regarding her knowledge of papers within a box that she did not turn over to the court, once again violating her rights as a federal witness/Whistleblower. Ms. Moleski stated that “she did not put any papers into a box and does not know how Mr. Conway received them” and that “the box should be turned over to the Assistant US Attorney’s office as not to jeopardize the investigation against AHS.” Judge Kest clearly violated all State and Federal investigations by entering into the contents of the box in the courtroom and turning materials over to AHS without the permission of law enforcement agencies and the victims of AHS’ fraud. Judge Kest was clearly informed of all investigations, but continued to violate the rights of Ms. Moleski, the rights of patient victims of AHS and the rights of Worker Compensation recipients. Even after Ms. Moleski posted to this court’s docket letters from the Assistant US Attorney, AHCA and the Office of Inspector General with her Whistleblower Case number, Judge Kest continued his violations of judicial procedure. Then, by additionally contaminating evidence by entering the box without ever hearing Ms. Moleski’s Motion for Protective Order and “taking home its contents” after Ms. Moleski filed for his recusal regarding his close association to AHS executives stating that “he had already taken the box to his home for viewing.” In addition, Ms. Moleski never told the court that she removed or took anything and Judge Kest allowed AHS attorney’s to leave off the word “allegedly”, within the courtroom and Motions filed, showing bias and violation of her rights to a just and fair public jury trial. Judge Kest has denied seven of Ms Moleski’s Motions with the courts. Ms. Moleski filed for a recusal of Judge Kest after finding that he contributed yearly to WMFE (a broadcasting agency) where AHS CEO Don Jernigan was acting President of this organization. WMFE receives contributions from MyRegion.org additionally. This relationship is tied to Judge Lauten and his wife Shelly Lauten. However, Judge Kest refused Ms.Moleski’s request and finally recused himself five months later after finding that his son is a practicing attorney within the firm of Ms. Moleski’s recently withdrawn attorney, Riley Allen. Ms. Moleski publically complained in an interview about the connection between Judge Kest and Adventist Health System and afterward he summarily ordered Ms. Moleski to appear in Orange County Courts in spite of her obvious financial and familial limitations and obligations, as she lives 1200 miles away from Orlando. Judge Kest went as far as to order her to violate the laws within the State of Ohio where she resides by leaving her son/elderly parents to attend hearings in Florida. Ms. Moleski has informed the court that she cannot reveal the details of the FBI investigation against AHS executives and will continue to invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights. The Orange County Courts continue to coerce Ms. Moleski and tell her that she cannot invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights and that she will have to set up a hearing to get permission from Judge Doherty to invoke those rights, yet another display of bias towards Ms. Moleski. Judge Kest is one of six Judges to sit on this case, yet another display of incredible disregard towards the rights of Ms. Moleski. This Motion shows Systemic Corruption within Orange County and the extreme monetary ties between AHS, the courts, judges, and hospitals. The Orange County Courts are illegally hearing lawsuits filed on behalf and against AHS, as there is a monetary relationship between each through MyRegion.org and WMFE. Ms. Moleski filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Kest on the basis of bias and his affiliation to the executives of AHS monetarily. Judge Kest ignored all of Ms. Moleski’s filings with the court after she requested his recusal, by denying seven of her Motions submitted during the duration of this case. In addition, Judge Kest completely ignored ten filings from Ms. Moleski regarding her unavailability to appear in Florida. Ms. Moleski stated that she gives care to her parents and child, and is in fear for safety after the filing of sexual harassment to the EEOC regarding AHS Risk/Compliance VP, Sandra Johnson and AHS Claims Director, Bill Morgan, and the fact that she was shot at while in Florida. After this clear biased display and disregard for Florida State and Federal Whistleblower laws, Judge Kest further ordered Moleski to answer AHS’ supplemental interrogatories within 15 days and she clearly and respectfully complied with all requests, with the exception of detailed FBI investigation information. With respect to AHS’ interrogatory regarding AHS documents in her possession or control, Judge Kest instructed Moleski that counsel will submit a follow-up interrogatory drafted very specifically and Ms.Moleski answered all of these submissions in addition, a total of 75 questions. Even though Judge Kest clearly threatened Ms. Moleski, insisting that she violate her own rights to Fifth Amendment privileges and answer questions that would further funnel her into a tighter gauntlet of bullying designed by AHS council to lead her to self-incrimination, she still submitted the interrogatories in compliance to the court and a compliance notice was submitted to the docket. Even through this treatment, Ms. Moleski has in fact complied with all requests by the court despite the courts and AHS blatant disregard for Whistleblower Laws/Rights and violations of AHS employee handbook policy stating that AHS cannot take any action against an employee who is a Whistleblower, according to State and Federal Law. This clearly shows violations regarding the decisions/behavior and clear disregard for FBI investigations by Judge Kest and this will be reported to the Judiciary Committee. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Judge Marshall Kest for:
Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction. The Orange County Courts continue to allow Adventist Health System and affiliated hospitals to litigate within the Ninth Circuit Court with full knowledge of the monetary relationship between MyRegion.org, WMFE, Judges, and courts within seven Florida counties. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to another court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is attempting to violate her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal manipulations and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts and courts within seven Florida counties. This motion will be turned over to the US Attorney General’s office to investigate the monetary connection between AHS, MyRegion.org, WMFE and the Orange County Courts and if it is legal for AHS cases to be heard in the Florida Courts that receive monetary supplication from AHS/AHS Facilities. In addition, an audit of the financial resources of Orange County Courts and each of the judges listed within this Motion, as well as AHS and all its executives will be requested and turned over to the securities exchange commission.
The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against The Orange County Courts Ninth Circuit for:
Ms Moleski has found that the current Judge, Patricia Doherty, was an attorney with Judge Kest for numerous years in a law firm located in Orlando, and that Judge Kest showed through newspaper articles his favor of Judge Doherty’s appointment to a judicial seat. Judge Kest and Judge Doherty are personal friends outside of the courts and Ms. Moleski has been prejudiced by Judge Doherty, as she too is filing orders for Ms. Moleski to appear in Florida for a deposition, in spite of the fact that she has been repeatedly notified of Ms. Moleski’s financial inability to travel to Florida. Judge Doherty stepped beyond judicial boundaries by setting a hearing to discuss whether or not Ms. Moleski has the right to plead the Fifth Amendment. At this hearing, Ms. Moleski asked Judge Doherty if she may read a statement to the court on her own behalf regarding her rights to the Fifth Amendment. Judge Doherty asked Ms. Moleski how long the statement was and Ms. Moleski told her approximately 8-10 minutes. Judge Doherty then told her to read it. When Ms. Moleski began to read her statement, Judge Doherty was told by AHS attorneys that they objected and kept interrupting Ms. Moleski. Judge Doherty economized the time allotted for the hearing in favor of Adventist counsel, again showing total disregard for judicial process. Judge Doherty then told her that she could not read the letter, that she already knows the contents of Ms. Moleski’s statement. Ms. Moleski told the Judge that she has the right to read her statement to protect her Constitutional Rights. Judge Doherty only allowed Ms. Moleski to represent herself in bits and pieces, blocking her from her rights to the court. Judge Doherty then notified Ms. Moleski that she would not be able to assert her Constitutional Rights and Ms. Moleski told the Judge that she did not have the authority to take away the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Ms. Moleski asked Judge Doherty if she is mandating a new law in her court and Judge Doherty did not respond. The whole hearing was completely corrupt. Therefore, this case is egregiously biased against Ms.Moleski, as she has yet to find uncompromised counsel and has been discriminated against within the Orange County Courts which the case docket clearly displays. Ms. Moleski will file her 11th Notice of Unavailability and Motion to Dismiss all Orders to participate in any/all physical appearances within the State of Florida. Ms. Moleski will report this motion to the Judiciary Committee regarding these violations. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Judge Patricia Doherty for:
Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction regarding the behavior of AHS counsel, Broad and Cassel. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to a court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is attempting to violate her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal manipulations, and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts. Ms. Vilmos has continued to ignore the fact that Ms. Moleski is a Federal Witness to a crime that she reported four months before AHS filed their injunction and therefore the actions of Ms. Vilmos as acting partner of Broad and Cassel is harassing and defamating Ms. Moleski’s character and violating the rights of thousands of AHS patients/employees. Additionally, Ms. Vilmos has hindered State and Federal Investigations against AHS and her actions will be reported to the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. Ms. Vilmos also played a part in violating U.S. Constitutional Law regarding Ms. Moleski right to the 5th Amendment. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Ms. Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel for:
Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to a court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is has violated her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal manipulations and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts. Mr. Jim Kizziar has continued to ignore the fact that Ms. Moleski is a Federal Witness to a crime that she reported five months before AHS filed their injunction and therefore the actions of Mr. Jim Kizziar as acting partner of Bracewell and Giuliani is harassing and defamating Ms. Moleski’s character and violating her Civil Rights. Additionally, Mr. Jim Kizziar has hindered State and Federal Investigations against AHS and his actions will be reported to the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Attorney Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani for:
HISTORY
In February of 2009, Ms Moleski reported to her supervisors that she was told to delete a suicide record that they reported as a duplicate and it was not. She then reported it’s alteration to her supervisor through email and on March 19, 2009 she filed a Global Compliance Hotline Complaint regarding the severity of the situation. In April of 2009, Ms. Moleski then called the Maitland FBI office regarding her fear of illegal activity. During that phone call, Ms Moleski was told to appear in their offices the following morning at 8 am. Ms. Moleski appeared and was told at this meeting by two agents that she would be reporting to one of them and they exchanged phone numbers. Ms. Moleski also reported the situation to AHCA Outpatient Services- Jack Plagee, the EEOC and OSHA in March of 2009. In May of 2009, Ms Moleski was interviewed at a meeting by Sandra Johnson, AHS VP Compliance/Risk/Claims. During this meeting Ms. Johnson angrily questioned Ms. Moleski, but Ms. Moleski could not completely answer her questions, as she was told by FBI agents not to relay her participation in the FBI fraud investigation of Adventist Health System. Ms. Johnson would not allow Ms. Moleski to answer questions and kept telling Ms. Moleski to “answer yes or no,” after Ms. Johnson’s knowledge to Ms. Moleski’s Global Compliance Hotline call three months prior regarding a baby death deletion, suicide deletion and the sexual harassment EEOC report, which included Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson then suspended Ms. Moleski at this meeting the day after Ms. Moleski reported details regarding Ms. Johnson to AHS Human Resources regarding sexual harassment. In June of 2009, three months after Ms. Moleski’s participation with the FBI, AHS through Sandra Johnson, then filed an injunction against Ms.Moleski falsely accusing her of violating AHS policy and HIPPA violations, after Ms. Moleski reported AHS Assistant Risk Director of entering illegally into patients medical records. In April of 2010, Judge Lauten took control of a box from Ms. Moleski’s terminated counsel, Brad Conway, telling Ms. Moleski that he would hold the contents for her. And that a special magistrate was to determine the contents and it was of no interest to AHS. There was no proprietary information or HIPPA information…. The box had nothing… only personal emails. During this hearing Ms. Moleski filed a Counter claim – A Counter Claim is a separate suit based on totally different facts. The interrogatories do not state that anything was taken or turned over to authorities; it states that they were reported to the FBI and those listed entities. In July of 2010, Ms Moleski found that Judge Lauten was compromised and had a monetary relationship with AHS through MyRegion.org and was recused from this case. After the recusal of Judge Lauten, Judge Kest was appointed to the case and Ms. Moleski filed for his recusal after finding he has a monetary relationship with AHS, MyRegion.org, WMFE and WMFEs’acting president AHS’ CEO Don Jernigan. Judge Kest refused the recusal and then ordered Ms. Moleski to appear in Florida when he knew of her poor financial status. Judge Kest then recused himself from the case after finding that his son was a partner in Riley Allen law firm, who, at the time, was representing Ms. Moleski. After the recusal of Judge Kest, then Judge Julie O’Brien was appointed to the case for one month. After the abrupt recusal of Judge Julie O’Brien, long time friend of Judge Kest, Judge Patricia Doherty was appointed to the case. Judge Doherty then set a hearing violating Ms. Moleski’s right to the 5th Amendment stating “you do not have the right to plead the 5th Amendment and I will tell you if you can or cannot plead the 5th Amendment.”
Ms. Moleski requests the court to grant her Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System, listed Judges, and AHS acting counsel for violations of State and Federal Whistleblower laws, harassment of a Federal Witness, Fifth Amendment Violations & Fraudulent/Vexatious litigation and coercion. Ms. Moleski seeks the Court for IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS against each listed and a dismissal of the case/injunction against her, as it shows egregiously biased decisions and violates State and Federal Whistleblower Law/Rights and her right to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The False Claims Act protects Ms. Moleski from this harassment and seeks the Supreme Court of Florida to review this case, along with the Federal Court of Florida. But, by way of legal history as concerns the FCA, let’s take, for example, the alleged “modification-of-records” issue and whether there is a link to the government. Each time a health care facility “manipulates” the outcome of treatment for a patient that is subsidized by the government by changing the record, i.e., because the patient was improperly overdosed and died, but the hospital does not want to admit responsibility for killing the patient so it manipulates the record, the government has been defrauded. The outcome has been changed yet the government has paid for treatment that actually killed the patient instead of helping the patient. If the government doesn’t get what it paid for (it pays for “care”), the claim is “false.” When the alleged identified “care” is not really provided, the claim is false. If the claims submitted to the government falsely represent the underlying claims (i.e., it was an overdose and not an “unexpected” death of a baby as claimed), then the damage to the government flows from the abuse of creating the false claim. There is a “failure-of-care” component to the False Claims Act. When “care” breaks down to the point it’s no longer “care,” all the claims submitted are false. Manipulations of outcomes are false claims. The FCA speaks for itself and the exposure for such conduct is certainly there.
Ms. Moleski will be filing another Counter Claim against all listed within this Motion for Civil Contempt, and a demand for Jury Trial to this injunction for these listed violations:
CONCLUSION
Ms. Moleski has made every effort to conclude this action but AHS, Ms. Vilmos and Mr. Kizziar, The Orange County Courts and listed Judges continue to ignore both the Florida State/Federal Whistleblower Laws, State and Federal Witness Laws, the evidence provided and registered before this injunction was ever filed, and the investigations of numerous law enforcement agencies, State agencies (see exhibits filed on 2-23-2012) and continue their harassment. For the reasons stated above, Ms. Moleski requests that this Court or The Florida Supreme Court grant this Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS COURT RULE 5.3
The Pro Se counsel, Patricia Moleski, conferred with Ms. Vilmos and Mr. Kizziar on this Motion and they have opposed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished this day of March, 2012 via electronic mail through the Orange County Clerk of Courts ECF system to the following:
Attorney Nicolette Vilmos
Attorney Jim Kizziar
Ms. Moleski prior counsel
Attorney Brad Conway
Attorney Riley Allen
Attorney Joseph Egan
Judges
Judge Evans
Judge Frederick Lauten
Judge Marshall Kest
Judge Julie O’Brien
Judge Patricia Doherty
The best friend of AHS…..
Delete key on PC keyboard
The delete key (Delete or Del), known less ambiguously as forward delete, performs a function when struck on a computer keyboard during text or command editing, which is to discard the character ahead of the cursor's position, moving all following characters one position "back" towards the freed letterspace. The key appears on IBM-compatible PC keyboards labeled as Delete, or Del. On Mac keyboards, the key which performs the forward delete function is labeled del,[1] or with a special right arrow glyph enclosing an "x" with the word del or delete above or to the left of it,[2] as the full word delete by itself is reserved for labelling the key otherwise known as Backspace.
[edit] Background
On Unix-like systems, the delete key is usually mapped to ESC [3 ~ which is the VT220 escape code for the "delete
Mr. Schlidt, for the past 22 years that you have been a civil trial attorney representing health care providers i.e. AHS and others…. how many times did they tell you to use your delete button…?
Ms. Moleski: My guess would be that if there was any deletion done it would not be the attorney .
Patricia,
Please, read the message I posted for you below! I would greatly appreciate if you do.
God bless! We are praying for you every day!
Nathan: Why am I not surprised to read the first sentence of your second paragraph admitting you have spent many years representing medical institutions (ie AHS)?! My husband and I also spent our entire career in flagship SDA institutions and had first name conversations with the corporate legal teams. We enjoyed many positive experiences however I will share two painful experiences. Fired for eating lunch with the wrong person (Bob Falkenburg was one of two board members who discovered this "lack of sensitivity for the organization". We lost job, home, went to live with the folks with our two children, and it took ten years to regain administrative position. The second scenario – Chest pain, seen in Emergency, misread EKG, failure to fax to cardiologist, heart attack hours later……..ten days later I overhear a tech mention something that peeked my attention. The whole protocol for cardiac patients was changed in the ED because of the mismanagement of my husband, a VP of the hospital. When I confronted I found out the backroom story along with the info that his live would be shortened because of this. Five years later my husband was dead at the age of 57. So yes, I like to believe the positive. In fact my husband worked with AHS till the day he died. The issue there was, be quiet, if you make an issue you might find yourself without a job and that had already happened once in our lifetime.
Thank you for sharing, Bea. And I am sorry for your loss. I wish, and I know my clients share that wish, that none of the lawsuits which we have to defend were meritorious. But humans sometimes make mistakes. I have had the good fortune of representing clients who have never expected me to advocate a position that I did not personally believe in. If there is wrongdoing, we try to settle. If we cannot settle the case, we admit liability and try the case on damages. Any client I have ever represented will tell you my first words in preparing him or her for a deposition: "The most imporatant thing for you to keep in mind as you testify is to tell the truth."
And no, I have never had any relationship with AHS, its employees, or any of its hospitals, except possibly employees who may at one time have worked at Loma Linda.
Usually there is a sad story or stories near the surface for individuals who feel bitterness or anger towards an organization or institution. The temptation to generalize from anecdotal evidence and personal experience is very strong. There is a tendency to use such experiences as evidence to infer that a proposition or allegation, for which there may be scant evidence, is likely to be true. That process leads to what is legally known as bias and prejudice. It has no place in a court of law or in the court of public opinion if facts and truth are of paramount concern.
I want to thank Ms. Moleski for sharing some of her pleadings, as well as Florida statutory law, which protects whistleblowers from being fired. This law also provides that the employer is liable for attorney fees if the employee prevails in a wrongful termination lawsuit. I assume a complaint for wrongful termination has been filed, right? Could we perhaps receive documentary evidence of what is happening in that lawsuit?
I might also point out that a qui tam action is a rather different legal creature than a wrongful termination action. It is an action brought by an individual who has uncovered a fraudulent practice by a hospital or other entity which receives taxpayer money for goods or services. The U.S. Department of Justice can decide whether to join in the action, and usually does if it believes the action is meritorious. Such actions have resulted in verdicts and settlements for hundreds of millions of dollars, with as much as 30% going to the Relator, depending on the level of her involvement in the wrongdoing and her attempts to stop it.
May I suggest to Ms. Moleski that, if she is having difficulty finding an attorney in Florida to handle a whistleblower lawsuit or a Qui Tam action on a contingency basis, she might want to Google "Florida Whistleblower Attorneys". I did – and the list is quite substantial.
Nathan:
I respect you for addressing Ms. Moleski in such a professional way. You gave her valuable information, asked for evidence, suggested for her to google – that the list of attorneys was substantial. I went from contracted to expanded awareness .
Timo,
You seem to know an awful lot that wasn't disclosed in Patricia's video. She did not accuse AHS officials of attempted murder and firebombing. You are reading much more into her testimony. She only reported that these incidents occured immediately after her accusation against AHS.
As to why it hasn't gone to trial, do you realize how long it took to get some of the top heads of the big banks and investors in Wall Street to trial? The U.S. doesn't bring charges until they are certain they will win cases, and get all their ducks in a straight row. If I recall, this has only been three years, and many such cases above took much longer. The courts have become clogged with cases.
Hi Andy, weren't we at PUC at the same time many long years ago? It seems like you might have been in the same graduating class with the woman I married.
You do what you can for as long as you can, and when you finally can't, you do the next best thing. You backup, but you don't give up
Chuck Yeager
The entire report can be found at:
http://healthcarewhistleblower.blogspot.com
More facts, Andy. Just the facts. You can only churn factual allegations for so long.