Part 4: The Whistleblower and the Healthcare Corporation
by Andy Hanson
To: www.atoday.org
Re: Andrew Hanson’s multi-part review of YouTube video
We would like to clarify information that has recently appeared in Adventist Today regarding a
former AHS employee and self-described whistleblower.
The former employee accessed, downloaded and removed without authorization confidential
patient records and confidential litigation documents from the work files of other AHS
employees. After unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the confidential documents directly from the
former employee, AHS filed suit in June 2009 in order to fulfill its HIPAA obligations and
maintain the confidentiality of the removed patient records and litigation documents.
In response to AHS’ action, the former employee began describing herself as a whistleblower and
filed various patient, whistleblower and retaliation claims with federal and state investigative
agencies and the court. Regardless of how the former employee describes herself or her motives,
the facts are that she removed confidential AHS documents, that AHS had a legal obligation to
recover those confidential documents, and that AHS was forced to file suit after the former
employee refused to return them.
To date, none of the investigative agencies–federal or state–has found merit in any of the former
employee’s claims against AHS. In the pending lawsuit, the court inspected certain removed
documents and ordered approximately 1,000 pages of confidential documents be returned to
AHS. More recently, after conducting a hearing, the court dismissed all of the former
employee’s self-described whistleblower, retaliation and other claims against AHS. Based on the
former employee’s delay and obstruction of the court process, the judge also held her in contempt
of the court. AHS expects the court to issue final rulings in the lawsuit before year end.
Adventist Today did not speak with anyone at Adventist Health System before publishing
the one-sided description of the events. Although it is Adventist Health System’s practice
not to discuss pending litigation in the press, this statement has been submitted to provide
more complete and accurate information on this matter.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Kevin Edgerton
Executive Director
Marketing & Communications
————————————————————————————
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-0
SUNBELT HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
Plantiff,
v.
PARTRICIA L. MOLESKI,
Defendant,
______________________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS
On May 16, 2012, the Court conducted a Hearing on the following pending motions:
1. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss AHS’ Motion for Civil Contempt and Sanctions;
2. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil Contempt Against AHS, Listed Judges, Orange County Ninth Circuit and AHS Acting Counsel Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Civil Contempt Against Adventist Health System, Listed Judges, Orange County Ninth Circuit and AHS Acting Counsel;
3. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss All Orders Regarding Her Physical Presence in Florida;
4. AHS’ Motion to Strike Moleski’s Improper Demands for Jury Trial;
5. AHS’ Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim/Counter Petition;
6. AHS’ Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim/Counter Petition;
7. AHS’ Amended Motion for Civil Contempt of Defendant and Imposition of Sanctions; and
8. AHS’ Second Amended Motion for Civil Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions.
On February 24, 2012, the parties were ordered by the Court to appear in person on May 16, 2012 for a hearing on all pending motions. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff failed to appear in person even though the May 16, 2012, hearing had been personally coordinated with Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and her availability had been confirmed by the Court. After the Court overruled Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s motion opposing her personal appearance in Florida at the May 7, 2012 hearing on said motion, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff did not file any request with the Court to appear at the May 16, 2012 hearing by telephone or other alternative means.
Before proceeding at the May 16, 2012 hearing, the Court attempted to contact Defendant/Counter Plaintiff at the only telephone number she has provided to the Court, but the number was not in service.
In response to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant submitted to the Court before May 1, 2012, a packet of pleadings, documentation and argument regarding all pending motions. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s Order or submit any pleadings, briefing or documentation to the Court in support of her pending motions or in opposition to Plaintiff/Counter Defendant’s pending motions.
The Court, having heard argument on the above referenced pending motions and being otherwise fully advised on said motions, hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss AHS’ Motion for Civil Contempt and Sanctions is DENIED based on the court’s review of her motion and AHS’ opposition, the grounds raised therein and the record as a whole. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was previously notified that this Court would rule based on the written motions of the parties. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was also given the opportunity to appear in person and, by the action of the Court at the May 16, 2012 hearing, by telephone. Plaintiff failed to appear or offer any argument on her motion.
2. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil Contempt Against AHS, Listed Judges, Orange County Ninth Circuit and AHS Acting Counsel Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Civil Contempt Against Adventist Health System, Listed Judges, Orange County Court Ninth Circuit and AHS Acting Counsel is DENIED. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Motion does not involve the current judge assigned to this case, the Honorable Patricia A. Doherty.
3. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss All Orders Regarding Her Physical Presence in Florida is DENIED. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff filed a counterclaim/counter petition against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant in this Court and is seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, she is required, upon proper notice, to give her deposition in the forum which she chose and where her counterclaim/counter petition is pending. See Fortune Insurance Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 1993); Ormond Beach First National Bank v. J.M. Montgomery Roofing Company, 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1966); Hilson & Co. v. Garcia, 985 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 2008); Chittick v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 403 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1981). “… having selected the forum in which to institute his action, the plaintiff must be prepared to appear in that forum and give [her] deposition if properly serviced with notice do so….” See Ormond Beach First National Bank v. J.M. Montgomery Roofing Company, 189 So. 2d 239, 243 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1966).
Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any basis for or evidence of financial hardship other than an unverified, conclusory assertion of financial hardship. A prior judge in this case provided the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff with detailed information on the type of data needed to substantiate a claim of financial hardship, however, no such substantiation was submitted to the Court. When the Court personally coordinated with Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on February 24, 2012 regarding scheduling her ordered deposition and the hearing on all pending motions, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff did not present any objection to the Court based on financial hardship and conversely confirmed her availability to attend. Despite Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s demonstrated apparent knowledge of the litigation process and the burden to support her motion, she failed to submit any information or argument to establish good cause for the Court to relieve her from personally appearing in Florida for her May 15, 2012, deposition and the May 16, 2012 hearing. The hearing was scheduled for one and one-half hours and Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s personal appearance was required for hearings of this duration by Order of the Court. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff had ample notice of the hearing and was fully aware that her personal appearance was required. Further, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with Court orders throughout this lawsuit, including failing to personally appear for her May 15, 2012 court-ordered deposition and May 16, 2012, hearing
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Improper Demand for Jury Trial is GRANTED. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s January 15, 2011, motion for a jury trial was untimely filed with the Court long after the deadline for such motions had expired.
5. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion and Second Amended Motion for Civil Contempt of Defendant and Imposition of Sanctions are both GRANTED. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s original and amended counterclaims and counter-petitions against Plaintiff are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court has determined that dismissal with prejudice of all of Defendant’s counterclaims and counter petition is warranted based on the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s repeated failure to follow and comply with court orders as follows: See Levine v. Del American Properties Inc., 642 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) and Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So2d 817 (Fla. 1993).
(i) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has displayed a pattern of personal defiance to and disobedience of Court Orders. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has refused and failed to comply with multiple Court orders. She has directly refused and failed to appear for her court ordered and previously arranged deposition; failed to comply with multiple Orders compelling her to respond to Plaintiff/Counter Defendant’s discovery requests; and failed to personally appear for hearings as ordered by the Court. Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with any evidence showing good cause or reasonable justification for her conduct before the Court and her disregard of multiple Court Orders;
(ii) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s has by her conduct and failure to comply with multiple Court Orders throughout the case, prevented this case from moving forward and created significant problems with judicial administration; and
(iii) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s conduct has prejudiced the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and caused undue expense and delay in Plaintiff/Counter Defendant pursuing its claims.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim/Counter Petition is DENIED as moot.
7. AHS’ Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim is DENIED as moot.
8. Any pending motions of either party not specifically addressed in this Order are hereby deemed abandoned and denied.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on June 19, 2012.
[signature]
Honorable Patricia A. Doherty
I was able to open the document from the link. Thank you for posting this reponse.
Everyone worked hard to provide readers with facsimile copies of the letter and litigation document. It turned out that it wasn't possible. However, I can send them to you in a pdf file upon request. <aphanson@csuchico.edu>
Thank you, Mr. Edgerton, for shedding light on a saga that has been given undue attention on this website. Whether the speculative analyses generated by the unsubstantiated allegations of Patricia Moleski have influenced any minds is doubtful. I understand well the AHS policy of not discussing pending litigation. But given that policy, I'm not sure I understand why you implicitly chide Mr. Hanson for not speaking with anyone at AHS before publishing his one-sided accounts.
My criticism is not that he should have spoken with someone at AHS, but that he should have obtained some independent corroboration for the allegations before going to press with them. I wish he had taken more seriously the counsel I gave regarding the lack of substance to the story. Instead, he chose to double-down, by doing multiple blogs on an inherently dubious tale, even going so far as to use a sympathetic commenter as a "blog extender," by giving her his blog space to post an uninformed, highly personal perspective.
It would be a monumental understatement to say that this has not been journalism at its best.
Meanwhile, back in Orlando, there is a much larger suit against AHS for filing fraudulent claims that may be in excess of $300 million.
"Google" Orlando Sentinel AHS fraud charges."
In response to AHS’ action, the former employee began describing herself as a whistleblower and
filed various patient, whistleblower and retaliation claims with federal and state investigative
agencies and the court. Regardless of how the former employee describes herself or her motives,
the facts are that she removed confidential AHS documents, that AHS had a legal obligation to
recover those confidential documents, and that AHS was forced to file suit after the former
employee refused to return them.
Can somone clarify please?
Was the request for those documents to be returned before or after the FBI got involved? In seeing the video and other blogs it sounds like the FBI was involved before Patrcia was fired, and she wasn't fired until after the FBI got involved.
As a reader of this blog, it would be helpful to have an accurate timeline.
Also:
Is that ruling posted above on appeal, and if so that means its not a final ruling, right?
I wonder, Andy…The most recent events reported by Mr. Edgerton, do not preclude the possibility that something substantive might emerge to give credence to the allegations you have reported. But can you imagine a point where you would in good conscience be obligated to issue an apology for the role you have played in smearing AHS with allegations that the court has determined do not even merit an evidentiary hearing?
Nathan – let us not get the cart before the horse. Before any apology, we need to get to the end of the story. If I'm not mistaken,when a book is written, there is often intrigue, inuendo, crisis situations that has one wondering who is the culprit, who is really at fault, who is the good guy? If the book is excellent, the reader will not know until the end what the outcome is.
This is not the end of the story -It is still too early to decree "It is over – time to apologise". There have been no "smearing with allegations" – merely sharing information, facts, dialog. It was very good of AHS to provide their information, part of their side of the story. Now we wait to see if there is an appeal, etc. Some of this stuff takes years. The examples regarding the companies in Ma. and Ca. (blog between Part 3 and Part 4) took years with counsel to give up several times. Is it possible Patricia Moleski may be the one who will deserve an apology?
I thought it was interesting that Mr. Edgerton took the same approach in his cover letter that our president Ted Wilson did in regard to the vote taken at CUC regarding WO (for the church body to read) and you adopted to Andy a few minutes ago. Curiouser and curiouser.
I am certain AHS is more concerned about the article Elaine Nelson mentioned – in the Orlando Sentinel with two whistleblowers disclosing years of AHS overcharging medicare, medicaid, etc. That is going to keep their team of attorneys maxed out. When one hears of this type of activity, it's not too far to stretch brain synapses to accept there might, just might be a possibility of something happening in the IT Department.
Well, Bea, I certainly agree with the first sentence of your last paragraph.
But I think And has been getting the cart before the horse for some time. In my practice and experience, the first priority in building a case and corroborating allegations is to obtain reliable, admissible evidence. This did not occur in the instant case. There's nothing wrong with being mistaken. What I believe warrants an apology is inadequately investigating allegations, and disregarding warnings that further corroborative evidence should be obtained, before going to press with the story.
It is unfortunate that you undermine the credibility of the WO movement and call your intelligence into question by drawing a nonsensical parallel between two issues that you have strong feelings about. Your feelings and attitudes towards institutional authorities are the only things that connect these issues.
Nathan – The approach I was comparing (I compared Mr. Edgerton from AHS, Pres. Ted Wilson addressing his reaction to the CUC vote on WO, and Nathan Schilt to the way he addressed Andy about making an apology – prematurely I might add), was that they were all three, condescending and shaming others in the letters/conversation. As to your statement about me "you undermine the credibility of the WO movement", you are free and welcome to give your own opinion.
There may actually be something rotten in Denmark. This latest suit has much higher potential of being another fraud involving Medicare. Previously, a Medicare fraud claim against several physicians and providers in south Florida was more than a billion, I believe.
Another possible fraud case involved physicians and hospitals performing unnecssary cardiac catheterizations involving the large HCA chain. This is not the first one: one in 2000 ended in $1.7 billion in fines and repayments. These accusations, which primarily involved overbilling, occurred when Rick Scott, now the governor of Florida was the company's chief executive. He was removed from the posat by the board, but was neer personally accused of wrongdoing. Incidentally, in 2006, HCA was taken private by a group of private equity firjs, including Bain Capital (By that time, Mr. Romney was no longer a partner in Bain.)
No one should believe that AHS Florida does not have clout with politics in the state. Any entity with such a large presence in the state cannot be free of such entanglements.
With the large number of retirees in Florida, it resembles the famous Willie Horton answer when asked why he robbed banks: "That's where the money is."
The following is a short response to previous comments:
As a matter of record, Patricia had no direct access to patient records. As an IT technician in Risk Management, she was only privy to the event records sent to her by her superiors. Furthermore, AHS has never provided evidence for the claim that she “removed documents and ordered approximately 1,000 pages of confidential documents.” The documents referred to have never been identified or documented by AHS. Ms. Moleski has always denied this “claim.” Patricia speaks for herself in a recent email.
Hi Andrew,
“I gave you the FULL proof of my claims against AHS. I gave you the court stamped original pdf file that documented AHS was having me delete so called ‘duplicate records.’ I also gave you a list of all of the government investigation agencies to which I reported. [Those names were supplied in Part 3.] AHS has no proof of closure within ANY of those investigations. In addition, AHS filed suit against me months after my starting date of participation with the FBI and the filed Global Compliance Hotline complaint.”
As for my failure to “speak to anyone at AHS before publishing the one-sided description of events”, I plead guilty, if what is meant by this assertion refers to “any official representative of AHS.” However, I had lots of conversations with employees of the corporation “before publishing.” In addition, I made it clear to Kevin that in Part 4 of this series, I would post only material provided by the corporation without comment. After my News Editor received this letter, along with a pdf file containing AHS’s omnibus litigation, I again contacted Mr. Edgerton’s office by phone. I was told he was not available. I then left a message that I would like him to contact me regarding some of the questions his letter generated. He never returned my call.
NOTE: AT, for technical reasons, cannot post material from pdf files. Consequently the delay in posting Part 4. On request, I will be happy to supply the original court stamped pdf files documenting Patricia’s claims. aphanson@csuchico.edu Andy
"As a matter of record, Patricia had no direct access to patient records."
Yes…and what record would that be??? This is really rich, Andy. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this story begin with the allegation that Moleski was told by her superiors to delete patient records – or at least information from those records? NOW YOU TELL US THAT MOLESKI NEVER HAD ACCESS TO THE RECORDS FROM WHICH SHE WAS ASKED TO DELETE DATA! Which is it? This is unbelievable! Let me get this straight…As a potential whistleblower she had access to sensitive patient records that, mirabile dictu, turned into insignificant "event records" when she was accused of having copied and removed them from the hospital without authority. Could you explain how vital sensitive records turned into non-confidential event records?
And while you're at it, you might also explain the following: Does Moleski deny that she downloaded documents and took them from the hospital? If she did, why does it matter that she had no "direct" access to the underlying patient record? I'm sure no one has ever alleged that she had direct access to patient records, though she hersef has certainly implied it. Do you presume to know that the 1,000 pages referred to by Mr. Edgerton do not contain confidential patient information and litigation documents of the hospital? Sounds like there might be a real story here, Andy.
Edgerton says that a court inspected evidence of the document removal and ordered them returned. Have you attempted to locate that court record? You should be able to find out pretty easily who's lying, although I recognize you will not be able to view the documents themselves, unless Moleski has them and gives you access – since she doesn't think the records she didn't take contain confidential patient information. Is the issue here whether the documents allegedly downloaded and removed were confidential records, or is Moleski claiming that she never downloaded and retained documents from the hospital?
The court has resoundingly dismissed Moleski's charges, stating that she has "displayed a pattern of personal defiance to and disobedience of court orders." Do you view these allegations by the judge as unsubstantiated? Why do you still go deeper down the rabbit hole in championing Moleski's unsubstantiated charges, while casting aspersions on the statements of Mr. Edgerton, as unsubstantiated, when you should easily be able to come up with evidence substantiating or refuting those allegations? Isn't that the job of a good reporter?
Nate,
Language can be used to mislead. Note the phrase in the AHS letter: “the court inspected certain removed documents and ordered approximately 1,000 pages of confidential documents be returned to AHS.” The documents “inspected” were in a box, given to the court by Patricia’s attorney whom she had fired for failure to appear at a previous court ordered appearance. The court record states that the box contained only personal items, none of which involved evidence of malfeasance.
These are “the court inspected documents” referred to. Now we come to the phrase,
“and ordered approximately 1,000 pages of confidential documents be returned to the AHS.” This is the AHS unsubstantiated claim of theft I referred to previously. Since Patricia did not remove “confidential documents” from AHS, she can’t return them.
Nate, I don’t know how to respond to your first paragraph excoriating me for saying “Patricia had no direct access to patient records…this is unbelievable!” when in your second paragraph you say, “I’m sure no one has ever alleged that she had direct access to patient records.” I guess that makes you the first.
Finally, Patricia has refused to return to Florida because she is convinced AHS and the courts will find a way to incarcerate her. Hence the claim that she has “displayed a pattern of personal defiance to and disobedience of court orders” to appear. In addition, the person who fired a gun into her residence, burned up her car, and attempted to break in to her home has not been apprehended. As I have mentioned in Part 3, neither the court nor AHS attorneys have allowed her to be deposed in Ohio.
Nate, isn’t this fun! Parts 5 & 6 are in the works, along with my Epilogue.
No Andy. It has been my suspicion all along that Ms. Moleski never had direct access to patient charts. My initial educated conjecture was that she only had access to secondary records consisting of data extrapolated from the primary patient records. Wasn't it Moleski herself who created the impression that she was being asked to delete information from patient records – information that by law the hospital was obliged to preserve? That was certainly my impression, and the impression of other readers who solemnly intoned about the sacredness of the patient record. I was incredulous that you and she would now seek minimize the significance of what she had access to. Clearly, she had access to confidential patient information. No? If she didn't download documents without authority, why quibble about what she had access to? Saying someone didn't have authority to access what they are accused of taking seems to beg the question of whether they in fact accessed it. Folks in IT generally can find ways to get at electronic data that may be outside the scope of their job description.
It now appears that Moleski has no knowledge or evidence of any attempt to delete data from patient records, but only, at most, a perception that she was improperly asked to delete data that had been extracted from patient records and perhaps included on some sort of event list. For anyone who has a basic understanding of patient records, and the various types of hospital data bases which portions of those records feed, this puts her allegations in quite a different light.
Help me understand something. Was Moleski ordered by any court to return documents? If not, why does she fear incarceration? Doesn't that strike you as paranoid? If so, has she obeyed the court order? You seem to be playing word games with your readers, Andy. I assume from your first paragraph that the documents in the box (personal items) were not the subject of any court order. But apparently there were about a thousand pages of "confidential documents", presumably not in the "box" that were ordered returned. No? What can you tell us about those? Why would the court order Moleski to return documents in the absence of evidence that she took them or had them in her possession?
What connection do you see between the assault, arson, attempted burglary, and this case?
I don't think you understand the deposition process. Neither Florida courts nor AHS attorneys can prevent Moleski from being deposed in Ohio. She can set her own deposition and take it there if she wants. She can't force Florida witnesses to come to Ohio for deposition, and Florida authorities can't force her to come to Florida for deposition.
From what I have read, and seen in video, I don't remember the allegations being that patient information was deleted specifically and indivisually as a WHOLE, but verbiage can be twisted as we all recognize, to conform and and make fit for whatever agenda ANYONE may have.
From what I understood in hearing the video, and areas this is discussed was that certain records of adverse events " identified by a " patient account number " was what Patricia's superiors gave her orders to fulfil:
As I understood from video and other : ( ie)
" Delete this patient adverse event, its just a duplicate " But on further inspection of patient account number's and important requsition numbers Patrcia saw a conflict in these numbers/record of event that were different, which would make someone think they were separate patients, and when she realized they were the same patient and if she deleted ONE record, " the superiors who requested she perform the deletion may not be aware that the entire ADVERSE EVENT for THAT patient would inadvertantly be deleted, leaving no viable trail to TRACK back particular adverse events with THAT patient, since there were ambiguous patent medical number VS. patient account number "
Thats how I understood this public information concerning this matter that I am commenting on only, to get a better understanding of this issue that is a "GENERAL PUBLIC "concern and because it concerns a PUBLIC matter that people have a right to know about, and try and understand, which is all I am trying to do of course.
I understand statements like " altering data as being used to describe the WHOLE of what Patricias concern and alerting of this matter was; and that is " deleting such records, where there are different account numbers being used for SAME PATIENT, VS. that same patient's medical numbers, and since they don't match up, to DELETE one record would leave the whole ADVERSE EVENT untrackable for that very reason.
If I am wrong, please correct me, because as a public matter and concern, I want to be well informed, as we will all most likely need hopsital care one day and so of course this is a public matter giving the general public a reason for concern.
Kelley, you are right and following correctly. Thank you for the support and concern for AHS patients and its employees.
if you followed the video correctly, you will see that I was informing you and others that AHS was having me and my supervisor train clinicians within the application of Riskmaster. The clinicians were told NOT to enter anything incriminating towards the facilities into the Cerner Patient Medical Record, but to enter adverse information into Riskmaster. By doing this, AHS then claims that it is "work product." Now your falls, overdoses, and all other adverse events no longer are seen within the medical record, they are in another application called Riskmaster, which they have titled "work product." Riskmaster is the adverse event recording system and Worker Compensation recording system for AHS. These records are NOT in the patient medical record (Cerner). If you look at the video, I stated that “now if you’re loved one is overdosed you will never know, as it is not entered into their medical record (Cerner).”
I also said within the video that “I had full and open access to every record that was submitted by clinicians” and nothing within our Risk Management department was considered "privileged" and if it was "privileged," we would be locked out of that area within the hierarchy of Riskmaster. So in fact the records deleted would be the only records AHS kept, as they are no longer in the patient medical record. These records were held in an access database that was kept by my supervisor, who was the only person to testify against me. He is just as guilty as the rest and accountable for sending me the patient and worker compensation deletions. I suppose that he is very nervous too, as he used to perform these deletions before my hire date. I still remember him saying “here is the first icon you have access to…the delete button…”
Every morning as System Support Technician I would run the Riskmaster reports and was told to run the adverse medication report. Through this report I would read and see these overdose adverse events. This was a task given to me by the Risk Director for almost 3 years. My position within the department also included reports for claims adjusters and executives within AHS, including attorney notes and many other variations of reports for all three of the AHS regions throughout the United States. I always had access to this information and everyone knew about that access, including my supervisor who gave that access to me.
I also reported to the FBI that I found files in our shared G drive that our Assistant Risk Director was accessing Cerner Medical Records, including the record of the Florida Hospital Suicide patient. This was a severe violation of patients’ rights and a HIPPA violation criminally prosecutable. The FBI worked closely with HIPPA regulatory through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and knew about all of this information.
I also disclosed information that AHS has a monetary relationship with Orange County Courts and some of their Judges, thus the reason why there have been already been five judges on the case. The first judge’s wife is the president of MyRegion.org and two of AHS executives sit on the board of this organization. MyRegion.org is a publicly traded organization and receives funds from 7 different county courts, fifteen of AHS hospital facilities, including Florida Hospital. You can look up the website for yourself…
AHS had to accuse me of something, because I then knew of all of their illegal tactics after reporting it to the Global Compliance Hotline on March 23, 2009- Three months later, they decided to file an injunction against me, trying to say that I did something illegal or out of the ordinary. It was very difficult for me, as I had to keep the confidentiality of theFBI investigation and fight an injunction at the same time. I found nothing but roadblocks with attorneys after reporting to the FBI about some kickbacks occurring between some Orlando law firms and AHS. It has been beyond difficult to find representation on a contingency basis and everyone wants money. I have nothing left but to represent myself and take the bull by the horns. I have the right to due process and will fight for that right and protect the confidentiality of the FBI agents and the investigation process, as well as my own Whistleblower rights for reporting these crimes.
AHS and the Orange County Courts will not allow me to be deposed in Ohio.
The Bible says that nothing is impossible to those who believe (Mark 9:23), and that all things will work out for our own good when we are called according to the purposes of God (Romans 8:28).Life does not consist of doing what you want to do. Life consists of doing what you ought to do. Duty requires discipline, and success comes to those with the daring to pursue the purposes of God, to those who endure to the end in those causes to which god has called them.Persistence is the divine fire that burns in your bones with a white-hot intensity that hell and high water can’t put out. Jesus told us to endure, to persist, to persevere. He said that a man who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is not worthy of the kingdom (Luke 9:62). He says to press on. Learn to endure.
I appreciate your "clarification" here Patricia. For me, as an attorney who works regularly with Risk Management and patient records, your explanation of how AHS works makes no sense whatsoever. And there is not enough space here to fully explain why. I of course have no personal knowledge of the Florida Hospital system, but am certain it has thousands of nurses, physicians and allied health professionals who care for patients there. If there was indeed a policy that health care workers are not to document adverse events affecting patient care and treatment in the patient chart, that would most certainly be an egregious violation of ethics and the law, with tectonic consequences for the hospital. Surely one out of those thousands of clinicians has come forward to acknowledge the existence of such a policy, no? How could a clinician possibly know how to care for and treat an adverse event, such as a medication error, if the patient chart did not reflect the reality of what had occurred?
It sounds to me like you only had access to what was submitted to the "Riskmaster" data base by clinicians, but you did not have actual access to the primary patient chart (Cerner). Is that right? If you didn't have access to Cerner (where the patient record is electronically stored) , how do you know what was or was not factually reported in that record?
Within Risk Management, most adverse event information is collected "in anticipation of litigation." That legal term of art means that it is collected to investigate events which may lead to a lawsuit. Therefore it is privileged, just as if the statement or information had been given directly to an attorney by his or her client.
Patient charts generally contain the medical facts underlying any adverse event. But when it comes to the background circumstances, explanations, and causes – the whys and wherefores – Risk Management takes over so that finger pointing, the blame game, emotional overlay, and the substitution of opinion and assumtion for fact will not poison the fact-finding well or become part of the patient chart. Think of watching a football game without the commentary. The fact that you delete the audio or separate it from the video doesn't affect the electronic record of the game itself.
With due respect to your insider perspective, Patricia, it sounds to me like you had responsibility for reading, reviewing, and storing the commentary (reports), but you never actually saw the game (the patient chart). It sounds to me like clinicians were simply told to report their commentary in a separate place from their documentation of medical facts. You see what clinicians report to "Riskmaster," but you do not see what they enter in the patient chart (Cerner) contemporaneous with patient care and treatment. Is that correct?
Imagine the implausibility of the following scenario: nurse assists a post-op cardiac patient, with no fractures, to the bathroom. On the way, the patient falls and fractures a hip. By policy, the nurse does not record this event in the patient chart. So the next thing we see in the record is an orthopedic consult and then an order for an xray, which reveals an intertrochanteric fracture. But how the fracture occurred will remain a mystery. For by Florida Hospital policy, we will never see in the patient chart the fact that a fall occurred while the patient was being assisted to the bathroom. And we can't get at any "Riskmaster" account of what occurred because that's privileged. We'll just have to assume that it was a spontaneous, idiopathic event secondary to deconditioning while the patient was lying in bed. I don't think so!
The more you explain things, Patricia, the crazier your claims appear – at least to someone who has legal knowledge and legal experience with both patient charts and risk management procedures.
Regarding the statement the more Patricia explains the crazier she seems…what credible attorney would say that?…An intelligent attorney would be able to see through AHS…so many people are involved, from the little guy to the Judges…Some people have the courage to face AHS, some dont….others make the crazy claim, as you did….
It really makes no differemce under what circumstances a patient suffered a broken hip, if it was while a patient, the hospital is responsible, period! Surely, you know that. Certainly, Florida Hospital has no "policy" of not reporting "adverse events. Most such things are done very surreptiously and very private.
I'm going through that process right now. After researching all the indications and contraindications for cardiac catheterization, I find that my attending cardiologist on a recent hospitalization, did not follow the guidelines set by his own cardiologist's recommendations. The medical records department have been sending reports gradually only when I request more.
This was a news item last week regarding HCA hospitals in Florida that were accused of doing hundreds of unnecessary cardiac catheterizations. It pays to
keep close track of you medical records.
Are you saying once that information collected in "anticipation of litigation" does not allow a patient to access her own records? That is in violation of HIPPA, isn't it? Are you saying that a Risk Manager can declare records as "privileged" and unavailable to the patient?
BTW: What "inside information" do you have that gives you such inside information to declare that Patricia has no case and that Florida Hospital is innocent?
Mr. Schlit,
Please don't insult my integrity. I know that you are only trying to protect those within AHS executive offices and the Risk process. I never would have come forward without confirmation from the previous AHS Claims Manager for over thirty years and the FBI. This person is highly regarded within the Adventist Church and is not delusional and the FBI agents would have never worked with me for ten months if they didn't see compromised behavior from AHS executives.
I think you would believe my story much more if I had a million dollars to offer you like some others in your profession. I have learned a few common words when working working with attorneys…"your fired!"
I may have written this before but it bears repeating: always request the complete records of any hospitalizations. Without this check, how will a patient ever know exactly what was permanently recorded on his chart?
I requested my records from a week's stay in the hospital in January of this year. There were several mistakes: some were very important. Under "code," DNR
was recorded. I never have requested that. Another was the admitting report that I had a surgery performed one month ago, when it was more than a year earlier. Never having given this information, someone simply added it. Also, the admitting examiner had written that I had complained of epigastric pain, which could have been interpreted as angina. If I had been taken, unconscious, to the ER my charts could have been pulled and seeing "DNR" they might not have performed resuscitation.
Lastly, and this occurs at many hospitals and was a lengthy article recently in the NYTimes: many unnecessary cardiac catheterizations are being performed as they bring in big money for both physicians and hospitals but is one of the reasons Medicare costs are escalating. I had this procedure in January with absolutely no signs of heart disease or indications for this procedure which is not without risks. As many patients, I was groggy from all the meds, had been NPO (no food by mouth) for a week and weak and unable to ask the right questions at that time.
So, if hospitalized: ask and get your complete records as provided by HIPPA.
There has to be appointed oversight to these health facilities, or the giant will become a money monster. The Adventist Church is crucial to holding accountable these AHS executives and appointing God fearing Christian Adventists that will be true to the cross and not money. The millions of Adventist patients and employees are counting on the Adventist Church and its members to walk in the "healing ministry of Christ Jesus." I know there are many loving, compassionate and true Adventists that would stand up for the same thing that I did…if they only knew. My prayer is that these will go to the Adventist General Counsel and note that I am not an enemy, but someone who loves the Lord Jesus and wants what is right according to the law and biblical principle.
Patricia I wouldn't count on the corporate church to get to involved with this. I'm guessing it has been quite a few years since the church had any practical involvement in AHS operations. While the Union President may chair their board, that seems to be mostly ceremonial at this point.
regarding the comment that patient request their medical recordes, understand that patients (most) do not know that a request can be made, and most patients have faith that the right thing will be done in regard to their health care. Health literacy is a huge problem and currently there is not legislation or federal policys regarding health literacy.
So AHS also takes advantage of this fact…many patients are not health literate and AHS has knowledge of this and uses that to their advantage.
I am not convinced that AHS is innocent; the countersuit is just one more display of this corporations wrath. I have no doubt records were deleted, patients as well as workmans comp;
Lets not lose sight of the injured…the infant given an overdose of Vitamin K because Cerner did not carry over the drug as being administerd and the gentelman who committed suicide. These are the injured who are not coming back…. There are many errors with Cerner…the errors need to be out in the open and corrected, not deleted….beyond the pages of garbage with the countersuit, those claiming they are lawyers and see holes in the truth….AHS is, I feel one of the most corrupt organizartions that has the nerve to hide behind the cloak of Christ….One person was there and saw the truth of this corporation…I got a glimpse of the truth. In closing and in the words of Ghandi, "You must become the change you want to see".
In today's Flagler (FL) news:
Florida Hospital Flagler Spared Sister Hospitals’ Fraud Lawsuit and Medicare Penalties
Storm clouds buffeting Adventist Health System hospitals in the state blew past Florida Hospital Flagler. (© FlaglerLive)
There’s bad news on two counts for Adventist Health System, the national health care chain whose hospitals in Florida include Florida Hospital Flagler and Florida Hospital Memorial in Ormond Beach. But there’s good news for Florida Hospital Flagler on both counts.
On one count, a federal judge in Orlando last week is letting a whistleblower lawsuit go forward against seven of Adventist’s Florida hospitals. That trial is now set for December 2013 in Orlando. In a lawsuit filed in July 2010, two whistleblowers alleged that Adventist submitted fraudulent reimbursement claims to Medicare, Medicaid and TriCare/Champus and other private insurers, including false billing and overcharging for Octreotide, a drug used to improve the radiological imaging.
On another count, Medicare, the federal government’s insurance program for the elderly, announced that it would penalize more than 2,000 hospitals in the country for having excessive re-admission rates. Ten of Adventist’s Florida hospitals are among those that will be penalized. In combination, the penalized hospitals across the country will lose a combined $280 million in Medicare dollars over the next year as the government begins a wide-ranging push to start paying health care providers based on the quality of care they provide.
+Link for the above:
http://flaglerlive.com/42723adeventistlawsuit-medicare
You know, Elaine, this is the second time on this blog that you have tried to divert attention from Moleski's claim to other totally unrelated legal issues that AHS hospitals are facing. (Yes, I can hear your response: "How do you know they are unrelated?") In Elaine's world, the burden is always on those who question her assertions or beliefs to prove that they are not accurate or well-founded. How do we know that hundreds – perhaps thousands – of other lawsuits that are undoubtedly pending against AHS hospitals are unrelated? Why don't you tell us about them as well, Elaine, as long as your putting up smoke screens?
It strikes me that your attempt to shift the focus away, from the substance of Moleski's claim, to unrelated lawsuits and claims involving AHS hosptitals, betrays your consciousness of the weakness of Moleski's claims as stand-alone charges. You need to use collateral evidence to create the impression that, if various independent AHS hospitals are facing unrelated government charges, the AHS hospital where Moleski worked is probably the sort of institution that would do what Moleski has accused it of doing. Do you realize how chilling and unAmerican your approach to truth and justice sounds, Elaine?
May I suggest that the only possible relevance of the government charges you reference is that their existence tends to undermine Moleski's claim. Obviously, the government is not resistant to scrutinizing and prosecuting alleged wrongdoing by Florida hospitals in the AHS family. So why do you think it has shown no interest in jumping on Moleski's bandwagon? Since I know it can't be that they have no merit, I will eagerly await your "insider" information.
I agree, Elaine, that the cases you reference are important and newsworthy. Whether they are particularly newsworthy to Adventist Today or the ecclesiastical body remains to be seen. What I find annoying is your penchant for shining the spotlight on off topic issues that will advance your radical agenda of casting the Church and Church related institutions as villians in every controversy. To you, as long as that agenda is served, nothing is off topic. I wish you would respect the topic more than your personal stream of consciousness.
Now, back to the topic. First, you are, as usual, wrong about your dogmatic legal generalizations. A hospital is not strictly liable for patient falls. You say, "Certainly Florida hospital has no 'policy' of not reporting 'adverse events'." Do you disbelieve Moleski? She seems to be saying that it is the policy of Florida hospital for its clinicians not to document falls, overdoses, and other adverse events in the medical record.
As you know, from following Adventist Today, Elaine, it is difficult for a trained scientist to have an intelligent conversation about science with folks not similarly trained and have a faith axe to grind. We are having a similar problem here. You are not trained in the law, nor do you have an understanding of legal regulations, procedures and policies governing release of medical records or what needs to be documented in the patient chart. But you have a faith axe to grind: The SDA Church and its institutions are essentially corrupt and presumed to be guilty when charged with wrongdoing. This isn't the place to try and bring you up to speed on issues you would rather demagogue than understand. I'm sure no one at Florida hospital has ever designated the patient medical record to be information collected "in anticipation of litigation."Riskmaster" data is not part of the patient record. Of course patients have access to their medical records as long as they go through the proper procedures to obtain them.
Finally, Elaine, I have never "declared that patricia Moleski has no case and that the Florida Hospital is innocent." What I have opined is that Moleski has not produced competent evidence to raise a "triable issue of fact" (that is a legal term of art), much less prove her claims. My "inside" information indicates that the trial judge agrees. I have no idea whether Florida Hospital is "innocent," nor do I really care. They have no burden or obligation to rebut Moleski's claims until she produces corroborative evidence to substantiate those claims. I do not need "inside information" to draw those conclusions. All I have seen is what Andy Hanson and Patricia Moleski have offered on this website. I assume they have provided all salient information. I simply apply my limited expertise, experience, and common sense to the bizarre, uncorroborated, conspiratorial accusations of Moleski. I say, "This doesn't make sense. I need to see more." Then I look at the pleadings she has filed with the court, and I say, "Wow, if she committed some violent crime, and I was assigned as her criminal defense attorney, I would love to use those pleadings as Exhibit 'A' in a diminished capacity defense." Finally, I look at the number of attorneys who have said thanks, but no thanks to the opportunity to represent her, as well as her ongoing inability to get some "greedy" lawyer to run with the charges. And I ask the most charitable question possible under the circumstances: "Where's the beef?"
Nathan,
Quoting you:
"You say, "Certainly Florida hospital has no 'policy' of not reporting 'adverse events'." Do you disbelieve Moleski? She seems to be saying that it is the policy of Florida hospital for its clinicians not to document falls, overdoses, and other adverse events in the medical record."
I listened to the video and have read the complaints. What you state here as I quoted is not what I got from the message Patricia Moleski has made public. I get the sense you are argumentive and throwing around a law degree to gain popularity here with your opinion .
( and after all, its what we're all entitled too, right, your opinion, mine and my neighbors a like. Its all a part of that thing called rights, which you have a professional license that proves your aware of it, as it was part of the academic studies)
While you can post after post opine that Patricia Moleski's complaint as a pro se litigant didn't stand up to strict legal standards, didn't pass the sniff test ( I opine that it wasn't the case at all ) I think MOST of it was LOST on those who REALLY DON'T have a clue what Patricia Moleski has said ( proof of that is you yourself still can't get it right )
Please educate us here since your a highly regarded legal professional what about Patricia Moleski's complaint as a whistle blower didn't hold up in court and pass the sniff test?
Patricia Moleski stated, and has shown emails alerting her superiors of her findings as well as her reluctance to delete particular events that were said to be dupiclates and after she alerted her superiors they were not duplicates and went on to explain her findings, she states basically she was ganged up on.
When she went to the FBI, they took over investigating ( you, nor the courts have any of the findings from that investigation and as Patrcia Moleski stated: there is still an ongoing investigation that is not complete )
Patricia Moleski stated it was after reporting these events and complaints and getting the FBI involved that she was fired.
What about any of that warrants a conclussion her complaints are baseless and lacked merit?
I am just trying to get to the center of a tootsie pop, it shouldn't take this many licks.
My contributions here are not to be taken negatively to any involved parties. I, like most here are simply concerned, want to learn the truth and facts because we have an interest in a situation that surrounds a general public matter, and policy.
Kelly – What I state is based on the first paragraph of Moleski's comment to "Mr. Schilt and Readers 2 days ago. She could hardly be clearer: "Now your falls, overdoses, and all other adverse events are no longer seen within the medical record…" How do you escape the conclusion from what she says in that paragraph that the reason such information is not in the medical record is that, by policy, clinicians are precluded from entering adverse information in the patient medical record? Perhaps there is an inconsistency between what Ms. Moleski says here and what she says on her video. You'll have to be the judge of that.
I am not "throwing around" my law dgree. Just as I do not have expertise in securities or tax law, most lawyers do not have experience or expertise in health care law. I do. Of course you're entitled to your opinion and can freely express it here. But if the issue was how animal laboratories work, wouldn't you generally defer to folks trained in research, who have first hand knowledge of law, policy, and practice pertaining to laboratories.
You ask what it is about Moleski's statements that warrants a conclusion that they are baseless and lacking in merit. There is nothing about the content of her self-serving statements that warrants such a a conclusion, though I believe that most rational, grounded folks who read through the documents she filed with the court will see a shotgun paranoia that raises serious doubts about her reliability. If I accused my neighbor of trying to burn down my house, no one should automatically disbelieve me. But reasonable, objective people would want to see evidence to back up those charges – not just a good, detailed story of my personal experiences and observations. What most strongly indicates to me that Moleski's charges lack merit is the apparent refusal of regulators or lawyers to help her pursue charges which, if true, are extremely illegal and egregious.
My reading of Moleski's court documents leads me to conclude that she was unable to factually state a legal claim over which the court had jurisdiction. You may want to get to the center of the tootsie pop, Kelly. But Florida hospital has no obligation to help you get there. The fact that someone has accused the hospital of wrongdoing does not obligate it to publicly respond, unless the courts permit the accusations to be pursued through the court system.
"Certainly Florida hospital has no 'policy' of not reporting 'adverse events'." Do you disbelieve Moleski? She seems to be saying that it is the policy of Florida hospital for its clinicians not to document falls, overdoses, and other adverse events in the medical record."
" What I state is based on the first paragraph of Moleski's comment to "Mr. Schilt and Readers 2 days ago.
*****She could hardly be clearer: *****"Now your falls, overdoses, and all other adverse events are no longer seen within the medical record…"*****
How do you escape the conclusion from what she says in that paragraph that the reason such information is not in the medical record is that, by policy, clinicians are precluded from entering adverse information in the patient medical record? Perhaps there is an inconsistency between what Ms. Moleski says here and what she says on her video. You'll have to be the judge of that."
Nathan,
I have added both of your quotes for ease in refering back to. As quoted by you, you say HOW COULD SHE BE CLEARER…….when it is YOUR OWN interpretation of her statement here that YOU drew your own conclussion of her meaning and yet, turn around and ask how I can ESCAPE that conclusion myself, despite it is your OWN conclusion.
I am breaking this down for you, because I haven't drawn ANY conclusion, I have watched the video and read each document and what she has said is: Adverse events, as she lumps in a generic list here ( falls, overdoses …….) are no longer seen in the medical record because these ADVERSE events are now sent to a separate area and that is : risk master for "management".
From there as Patricia Moleski stated there have been ADVERSE EVENTS which she has come across as per her job duty dictated to her, she was told to delete certain of these events because they were duplicates. Patricia Moleski stated that she pointed out certain of these adverse events, per the requistion order number and patient account number , were different, they were actually the SAME patient and if she were to delete ONE of these ( A most important one that would secure it in the system, leave a trail in which to TRACK it later through ANY request made, given BOTH are the SAME ADVERSE EVENT, but listed under different numbers * that are used for tracking* ) The one being requested deleted ( that was said to be a DUPLICATE ) would inadvertantly DELETE the entire adverse event that could be TRACKED back to that patient.
You contradict yourself all over the place: Stating you draw conclusions from "her words" in your own mind, and turn around and ask how I could draw anything else from the bolded words you quoted she said here :
I will make it simple, the words you quoted her saying here, that you bolded to point out for me say NOTHING as you assert they do form your own conclussion, but the REASON that statement was made is all important and NEEDED is because you IGNORE the context of all her statements as a whole and you have attempted to pick singular statements and words to twist them into your OWN interpretation of what you want them to mean, to try and prove your point tothe general public.
Thats the only obvious conclusion to be drawn from why you would claim Patricia Moleski made a statement here that YOU drew a conclusion from with out either remembering or understanding what she has clearly stated in the video and other documents, as an Attorney you know that logical conclusions by the logical can only be derived by a FULL CONTEXT of words to understand their meaning.
I guess you think your dealing with illogical people here, or that we're not paying attention ( perhaps as if we were a jury of sorts, to see what will stick if you throw it against the wall and hope for the best? )
Again, I am not asserting any negatives as to ANY coporation here, on any level. I am simply a person interested in information provided publically, which concerns a public matter and policy as a whole and as a potential hospitalized patient one day with grave concerns, I share my interest and comments only to asscertain FOR MYSELF if there is any reason for concern here from the information provided publically to all.
Quoting you again:
"You may want to get to the center of the tootsie pop, Kelly. But Florida hospital has no obligation to help you get there."
Are you that entity Nathan Schilt?
I was under the imression by your name title here you are an Attorney, with a nameas you listed here, and as such, where have I asked "that" entity to help me get to the center of a tootsie pop in this matter, when clearly I have repeatedly stated I have at all times refered and commented on the content made available publically here and thorugh the public you tube video.
I will therefore refer you back to the video and other documents, ALL documents, before drawing your own conclusions of words you pick and choose to quote here, in an attempt to gain popularity of your own conclusions from those words, while leaving out the full context, which is all so important.
I only want to know the truth, for myself personally, as a potential patient one day in ANY healthcare facility, and matters such as THIS which are an obvious public concern, and therefore becomes a public policy matter, is ripe for me to be concerned about.
I have drawn no conclusions and made no public statements to the contrary in this matter, one way or another, I am discussing this matter with you personally Nathan, in regards as to statements your pointing out here, and drawing conclusions from, ( picking and chosing words ) leaving out the all important full context of Patricia Moleskis timeline and story.
I too could pick any words and twist them as I wish, but that would never be reasonable, fair or logical of me to do, so I do the reciprocal and focus on the full context.
if you've listened to the detail in full of what she has stated publically and recorded on the you tube video
Kelly, it doesn't really sound like you want to know the truth. It sounds like you have already decided what the truth is. If you haven't figured it out with what Moleski has offered, I'm assuming that you are looking for some outside evidence, no? And where would that evidence come from besides Florida Hospital records? That was why I said Florida Hospital has no legal obligation to provide you, as a member of the public, with information to help you get to the center of the "tootsie pop" that you are nursing.
I don't know what Moleski was asked to do in the Risk Management Department, and I have not commented on that. All I am saying is that I do not believe that the medical facts of adverse events were ever, by policy, not documented in the Cerner patient chart, or that they were ever deleted from the patient chart. Could I be wrong? Of course! But I cannot conceive of that occurring without significant regulatory and licensing consequences. Significant medical information must be documented and maintained in every patient chart. And that would include falls, overdoses, medication errors, and other medical mistakes.
What you contextualize and "break down" for me as your takeaway from the video is precisely my takeaway from Moleski's written statements on this blog site. You quoted me accurately and then proceeded to repeat what I said as if I was not understanding Moleski's claims. You have only reassured me that I do indeed understand her contentions. I just don't believe her, because, as I have stated multiple times, if what she is claiming is true, it would be illegal, an extreme deviation from accepted practice, and would by now be the subject of attorney driven lawsuits and government prosecution.
Nathan,
I have heard TWO SIDES ONLY, YOURS and Patrcicia Moleski's.
When hearing your side, and hearing Patricia Moleski side, Patricia Moleskis side is understood by me to be FACTS as she has stated them.
I have seen no defense material to date thet refutes ANY of Patrcia Moleskis claims, complaints, or facts as she has stated them in the public realm.
If and when I do, it is THEN I would form a personal opinion of who, and what to believe that may prove beneficial to me as potential patient one day in any healthcare facility.
To DATE, the only thing to refute Patricia Moleski's assertions of facts as she knows them, is "your side" and interpretation, and lets not confuse any issue here ( YOUR SIDE ) is well documented here.
My shared interest here in this public policy matter remains on a personal level as a potential patient in ANY healthcare facility, and since MANY if not most have now gone to EMR ( an electronic record keeping format, that causes major concerns, and has raised the ISSUE, and as I have listened to what Patrcia moleski has stated publically, which is:
These are part of what Patrcia Moleski asserts and has claimed and made formal complaints to the proper authorities:
She inadvertantly discovered that the EMR, as it evolved, created a loop hole for which certain individuals ( not the CORP itself ) but certain individuals, and this loop hole provided knowledge and an incentive to use that loop hole, and ultimately created a window for those individulas to use those very loop holes that afforded them a monetary value:
Watch the video please.
YOUR side and the assertions you have made here, are defensive of that, extroidinarily so, despite the public not having anything, but your own interpretation of the matter to weight and form an opinion for our own personal safety as a potential patient one day. (a public policy matter )
The Florida sunshine Laws allow for all information made public to individuals and as such Patricia Moleski has made this public, from her end and we the people are taking it in.
The people she has named ( individuals have not come forward to refute, nor answer these allegations ) I am anxiously awaiting their answers, if they wish to contribute them.
Having seen no answers from any of the individuals Patricia Moleski named, to refute any of her assertions, I can not conclude or form an opinion, again , only YOUR OPINION IS HERE.
The debate here from my stance is your opinion, and Patrcia Moleskis assertions that were made public.
If and when you can offer some inside info to refute anything Patrcia Moleski has claimed, I am all EYES.
What I broke down for you is not a takeway from the video, it is what she stated in the video, a video you refuse to watch?
The portions of words here you have quoted of Patrcia Moleski, are out of context, of which I have pointed out to you, and WHY they are out of context.
No Kelly, you really don't have two sides. You only have one – that of Patricia Moleski and Andy Hanson. I haven't offered a side. I have simply pointed out many reasons why I think her story is suspect and lacking in substance. I don't believe her claims arise to the level that anyone should need to present another side. I don't have to watch "truther" or "birther" videos, of which there are many, to critique the logic and reasonableness of their theories and claims, which I have read ad nauseum.
I've just been pointing out what I see as holes that raise doubts in my mind. I'm simply a critic, not an advocate for a particular set of facts. If you don't have such doubts, that's fine. But believe me, I have no dog in this race. If more evidence emerges to show that Moleski's claims should be taken seriously, I'll have no difficulty changing my mind.
Nathan,
You are only repeating the rules of record keeping. No one is denying that is the procedure that is demanded. But in life, rules are broken every day, thus there needs to be constant vigilance rather than relying on "it couldn't happen because the rules prevent it."
This is the crux of Patricia's claims: the rules were not followed; in fact the authority above her ORDERED that policy WAS NOT followed. You continue to speak of a hospital's policy and no one is disputing that point. But it when policy is not followed by a superior's orders, then the policy system is broken.
Ah yes, Elaine. And that is the crux of the issue. Why, since we all agree that Moleski's claims should, if true, result in high profile prosecution of criminal and civil charges, isn't that occuring? Her claim, as I understand it, isn't that hospital policy was not being followed, but that her supervisor was asking her to comply with a hospital wide policy of covering up adverse events and manipulating the patient record. Shouldn't her apparent inability to get through the courthouse door with such electrifying charges make a reasonable person wonder whether her charges are true?
Nathan's verbiage is all theory; he does not have the facts, but makes numerous unwarranted assumptions giving the impression that he has "inside information" that only he has and we are condescendingly dismissed as not understanding the situation as only he does.
Has he ever admitted listening to the entire video? His comments indicate that he has no need to.
Please don't insult my integrity. I know that you are only trying to protect those within AHS executive offices and the Risk process. I never would have come forward without confirmation from the previous AHS Claims Manager for over thirty years, this person is highly regarded within the Adventist Church and is not delusiona. In addition, they FBI agents would have never worked with me for ten months if they didn't see compromised behavior from AHS executives.
I think you would believe my story much more if I had a million dollars to offer you like some others in your profession. I have learned a few common words when working working with attorneys…"you are fired!"
Why would I want to protect anyone within AHS executive offices? I don't know anyone in those offices. The simple fact is that most of your evidence consists of a self-serving uncorroborated narrative. I know nothing of your integrity. I believe that what you have said in your legal pleadings is bizarre and far-fetched. Could it possibly be true? In the realm of human affairs, anything is possible. I do not have expertise in psychoanalysis, nor do I purport to be a judge of character. I see no reason to spend my time watching your video unless someone can persuade me that it contains more facts and coroborative evidence than what Andy and you have laid out here on the AToday website.
Your last paragraph is really quite funny. The inference is that in order to get an attorney – even a sympathetically inclined attorney – to believe you, you have to pay a lot of money. What does that tell you about your case? Do they all want to protect AHS executives as well? Oh that's right, I forgot. Florida attorneys and judges are in on the conspiracy.
As for your suggestion that, if you had a million dollars to pay me, I would be happy to take your case, you are absolutely correct. I would vigorously advocate on your behalf, within ethical boundaries, to put your allegations in the best light possible. Attorneys have no compunctions about taking on loser cases for paying clients, and trying to make silk purses out of sows' ears, whether or not they believe their client. But since I don't represent you, I am free to state my independent opinion.
It is interesting that most of those who side with you seem to have had negative personal experiences with health care institutions which predispose them to side with you. Were this case put before a jury they would be excused from sitting on the jury because of their personal experiences which bias them against the hospital.
Written documentation has been presented here and other forums, these are not a narrative.
And no one knows your integrity.
I believe there the documents speak for themself.
The subliminal message your sending is that Patricia Moleski needs a psychoananlysis based on your assertions, because in your opinion, her assertions are bizarre, yet in same breath quip, you are not a judge of character, please help me to understand your psyche of continual contradictions to your own statements.
And then in support of those statements, boast you see no reason to watch the video, unless someone can convince you, because your not willing to waste YOUR TIME ( another contradiction of what we clearly see here )
You spend considerable TIME responding defending people you claim to have no interest in protecting, and while that may be true, it begs what your motive in spending so much time responding defending an entity you could care less about, refusing to WATCH a video and HEAR details of facts from her own mouth, yet pick phrases of words here and quote them back with your interpretation of them and further assert THAT your interpretation of them is correct. ( WOW )
Now THAT is whats funny.
As to your 2nd and 3rd paragraph, what that tells us about YOU as an individual is just what Patricia Moleski also pointed out, YOUR KIND, interested and vested in the DOLLAR in contrast to whats Right, and humane. ( since you agreed you would fight vigourously for her cause if she handed you a million dollars).
As to you last paragraph :
You can ascertain all day long as to whom is siding with whom and on what issues, however, as it stands for me personally, I have stated my interest as to the public policy surrounding this matter already.
As for any others who may or may not have had a negative experience that has helped forme an opinion, t speaks for itself and in case you don't understand I'll make it clear.
Only one who has experienced something 1rst hand would be AMPLE and obliged to state or form an opinion by1rst hand experience, and knowledge, and what better learning tool is there? I can't think of any.
After doing more research…it seems that data manipulation can be performed not just to improve statistics but to cover medical errors that are computer related (or not) and thus deny injured patients (and workmans comp claims) or their heirs the right to legal redress. This is an area where electronic records make possible tasks that are probably impossible with paper. It seems one of the first cases noted was in Australia, auditors found the data to be "too perfect" and investigated citation http://www.hcrenewalblogspot.com/2012/07/manipulation-of-12000-medical-records.html
To date there is no existing law prohibiting the data deletion that Patricia has described. What is needed is urgent legislation to prohibit blocks of data to be manipulated or deleted. I am thinking that to begin the process of legislative policy, issues would be cleared via federal investigators and from there constituents, that is concerned citizens can begin to lobby…from there the train starts going down the tracks….It is a vision that I have….It is just very shameful that AHS would have the audacity to have pictures of Christ in its lobbys and proceed in this shameful manner…
Canyonforest, why don't you explain to us just what research it is that leads you to believe that the process you describe occurred at Florida hospital? You are speaking in abstractions and generalities. Are you suggesting that the patient chart can be falsified and manipulated? How could that occur at a place like Florida Hospital without a broad conspiracy, and how would that not be illegal? Are you really telling us that there is no law or regulation that prohibits deleting significant medical data from the patient record in order to avoid liability? That's certainly not the case where I practice law.
How is it that medical errors documented in the medical record can be legally deleted to deny injured patients the ability to seek legal redress? Can you give me an example of how this has occurred or might occur in the AHS system? What is your expertise in Cerner or Epic information management systems?
Your vision appears to be just that – a vision. You hypothesize about processes and computer systems that have no apparent connection to Florida Hospital, and then you say it is shameful for AHS to proceed in this manner. Please be specific. How do you know that what you describe occurred at Florida Hospital, or that it legally occurs elsewhere?
Nathan,
You ask canyonforrest: "Can you give me an example of how this has occurred or might occur in the AHS system? What is your expertise in Cerner or Epic information management systems? "
I actually watched a video by some lady called Patricia Moleski, which at face value gave some pretty compelling examples of how this has or might have occurred. It seemed she also had some experience in Cerner! Perhaps you have not heard of it? lol
Yes, Chris. But what I have read on this website by Patricia Moleski leads me to believe that she didn't work with Cerner. She worked with Riskmaster, a different information system. As I understand what she is saying, the medical facts of adverse events were, by policy, not entered on the Cerner patient medical record. I question that, and based upon what she says about her access to Cerner, I question whether she ever did a side by side comparison of Riskmaster and Cerner to see whether the basic medical facts of an adverse medical event that had been documented on Riskmaster were deleted or absent from the Cerner patient chart.
If clinicians at any hospital were advised to not document the medical facts of adverse events in the patient chart, federal and state regulatory and law enforcement authorities would be all over it, and it would make national headlines. So I am highly confident that the medical facts of adverse events were in fact documented in the Cerner patient record at Florida Hospital, and they were not deleted or manipulated in the official patient chart.
I suggested to Moleski a day or so ago that it sounded as if she did not work with Cerner, and did not see what information the Cerner records contained about events that were reported in Riskmaster. She has posted comments/responses at least twice since then, and has not disputed the inferences I drew from her explanation to "Mr. Schilt and Readers." Did she say in the video that she worked with Cerner and saw what was entered by clinicians in that system?
Did you understand Canyonforrest to be saying that his "research" consisted of having watched Moleski's video? That wasn't my impression. lol. Now maybe there are folks who believe that an instituion should not be permitted to confidentially investigate potential lawsuits and obtain statements from its employees about the circumstances surrounding a potential litigation event under the attorney client privilege or QI immunity. But these privileges and immunities are deeply rooted in our legal system. They exist to improve quality of care as well as to protect both the guilty and the innocent.
My frustratation with most of this discussion is that commenters siding with Moleski fail to appreciate the distinction between the patient medical chart and other record keeping and data entry systems maintained by hospitals. The legal and ethical obligation to document and protect the medical well-being and health of the patient includes the disclosure in the patient medical record of adverse events affecting the patient's medical condition and the medical care decision process. It does not include assisting the patient in obtaining information for pursuing a legal action. Every hospital has separate record keeping and data entry systems for patient care and potential legal matters. The latter is not a medical record and should not be confused with the patient chart. Anyone who has gotten the impression that I believe in cover-ups or non-disclosure of consequential medical mistakes is badly mistaken. I simply question the assertions that such wrongdoing has systematically occurred at Florida Hospital.
Mr. Schlit,
If I had the money you would be the last person I would offer it to. I have come to realize that many are only out for money and that is it. I know personally that you have no knowledge of any investigation outcomes and the FBI or any other government agency is never going to give that information out and that is that. You are just another delusional attorney that keeps blowing smoke rings waiting for your next million dollar case. My accountability is to God and not man. I am not up for a popularity contest.
Remember, many said that Jewish people were not getting gased in concentration camps too, but we all found that to be true. Hitler was able to get thousands of his solders to carry out his diabolicle scheme and so millions of Jewish people were slaughtered. In the midst of this, there were those who decided to risk their lives to stand up for the truth and faced death for it.
2 Timothy 3:7
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
Mr. Schlit,
if I had the money you would be the last person I would offer it to. I have come to realize that many are only out for money and that is it. I know personally that you have no knowledge of any investigation outcomes and the FBI or any other government agency is never going to give that information out and that is that. You are just another delusional attorney that keeps blowing smoke rings waiting for your next million dollar case. My accountability is to God and not man. I am not up for a popularity contest.
Remember, many said that Jewish people were not getting gassed in concentration camps too, but we all found that to be true. Hitler was able to get thousands of his solders to carry out his diabolical scheme and so millions of Jewish people were slaughtered. In the midst of this, there were those who decided to risk their lives to stand up for the truth and faced death for it.
Mr. Schlit,
if I had the money you would be the last person I would offer it to. I have come to realize that many are only out for money and that is it. I know personally that you have no knowledge of any investigation outcomes and the FBI or any other government agency is never going to give that information out and that is that. You are just another delusional attorney that keeps blowing smoke rings waiting for your next million dollar case. My accountability is to God and not man. I am not up for a popularity contest.
Remember, many said that Jewish people were not getting gassed in concentration camps too, but we all found that to be true. Hitler was able to get thousands of his solders to carry out his diabolical scheme and so millions of Jewish people were slaughtered. In the midst of this, there were those who decided to risk their lives to stand up for the truth and faced death for it.
2 Timothy 3:7
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
Now look carefully at the three "so called" duplicate entries and decide which one to keep…. Maybe you can push your delete button….
Mr. Schlit,
if I had the money you would be the last person I would offer it to. I have come to realize that many are only out for money and that is it. I know personally that you have no knowledge of any investigation outcomes and the FBI or any other government agency is never going to give that information out and that is that. You are just another delusional attorney that keeps blowing smoke rings waiting for your next million dollar case. My accountability is to God and not man. I am not up for a popularity contest.
Remember, many said that Jewish people were not getting gassed in concentration camps too, but we all found that to be true. Hitler was able to get thousands of his solders to carry out his diabolical scheme and so millions of Jewish people were slaughtered. In the midst of this, there were those who decided to risk their lives to stand up for the truth and faced death for it.
2 Timothy 3:7
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
So why won't the FBI give out any information? Don't you find that kind of outrageous? Do you have any piece of evidence to document that the FBI or any other government agency has seriously investigated your claims? It is highly unusual in my experience that the FBI would get involved in these types of claims. The federal agency assigned the responsibility for investigation and prosecution of "whistleblower" claims against hospitals is to my knowledge the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not the F.B.I.
The truth is that I am not waiting for any million dollar cases. I am very content with the type of law I practice, and if a claim like yours came to my attention, I would refer it to another attorney because it is not within my competency wheelhouse. I am not an apologist for the legal profession. I believe there are too many attorneys, too many laws, too many regulations, and too prevalent a mindset in society that more laws and more regulations are what humanity needs. But that's another topic.
Lawyers, like doctors, teachers, and everyone else in society, generally expect to be compensated for their services. Is that unreasonable? Plaintiff attorneys handling employment, fraud, whistleblower, or other tort claims almost always take those cases on a contingency fee basis. If an attorney qualified to handle such cases refuses to take the case, without being paid up front, it almost always means that he does not have sufficient confidence in prevailing on the merits to front costs and gamble his time. Credible "whistleblowers" have the added advantage of being backed by the resources of the federal government (OIG) that will intervene to pursue an independent investigation and make sure that the wrongdoer pays fees, costs, and millions of dollars in penalties, from which the whistleblower will normally be paid at least 15% of the recovery.
Plaintiff attorneys are also very willing to take long shots on a contingency basis. Close to 50% of the medical wrondoing claims that I defend are dismissed volutarily or by way of summary judgment before trial. Of the cases that actually go to trial, I prevail more than 80% of the time, and my record in that regard is not at all exceptional among experienced malpractice defense attorneys. In my experience, the evidentiary threshold for plaintiff attorneys file charges is actually quite low.
I assume that your have thoroughly shopped your allegations around to multiple well-qualified plaintiff attorneys, none of whom is willing to pursue the claims on a contingency basis. If greedy attorneys have a reasonable shot at getting a judgment for millions, and recovering all their costs from Florida Hospital by pursuing allegations which we all agree are, if true, outrageous, why wouldn't they want to take your case on a contingency? Being "out for the money" is the the very thing which maximizes the likelihood that meritorious legal actions will be pursued, and that non-meritorious legal actions will not.
The FBI never discloses the findings of their investigations to the party who has tipped them off, once they investgate all that information and evidence is confidential ( you know that, your an Attorney, a professional on LAW)
Does wearng a wire tap for 8 to 9 months count as evidence the FBI was investigating as Patricia Moleski stated, and also she has stated shes been in contact and all they can tell her is that the investigation is ongoing STILL?
while the OIG has authority over whistle blowers complaints, the FBI is a criminal investigation, and as such, is still investigating this from a criminal perspective ( just as you suggested yourself ) your words, this would be a criminal violation ( again, you said that, I am just refering to your commentary here prior )
I see you've taken back your statement, you'd take her case if she gave you a million dollars, and thats because your not competant in this area, however, you have realyed to all here how competant you are and have given numerous legal perspectives and insight as a legal professional,a nd as such since you've admitted this is beyond your scope, logically you should leave it alone for the same reason, given you yourself made these very statements.
However, you've also stated your not apologetic to the legal profession as a whole, but perhaps you would be to those here, since you yourself admitted your lack of competance in this area.
I don't want any apologies, but I feel you owe many to Patricia Moleski, because you have libeled her considerably here!
In reagrds to credible whistleblowers and Attorneys fronting costs, and a whistle blower will receive 15% of costs, this scenario doesn't involve a whistle blower on that level, the whistle blowers who receive a % of recovery are those who report fraud for medical reimbursement an entity received by fraud, that is not the case HERE obviously.
What astounds me is your lack in understanding of this entire matter as a whole, as evidenced by that response alone ( whistle blowers receives 15% of recovery ) Recovery of WHAT?
And thats KEY here, WHAT is she to recover from reporting what she believes to be criminal fraud, where the only person harmed are patients?
So what is her MOTIVE other then protecting patients rights?
Lastly, I can't comment on a retaliation claim given that does not appear to be the main crux of the entire process right now, it is the injunction against her she is defending diligently on her OWN, and of course no Attorney would be interested in taking on the injunction to get the the MEAT of what they WANT ( a % of recovery for a retaliation claim and lawsuit )
I simply want truth for myself and others, and if there is a glitch that caused the problem, or if there are criminal fraudulent acts by individuals, so be it.
Are you going to resign from the discussion now, since you stated you have no competance in this area?
Kelly, I don't know what your qualifications are, but you are just hyperventilating now. You are so angry and out of control that there is no point in trying to reason with you. I'm just going to respond to one issue – "competance" (sic). I said I would not feel competent to prosecute a case like Ms. Moleski's even if it had merit. That does not mean that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I do not have considerably more expertise than most commenters on this thread. It simply means that others who specialize in that area of law could do a better job than I of maximizing the value of her case in litigation.
Does the fact that neurologists are not competent to do spinal surgery mean that they are not competent to understand, evaluate, and diagnose spinal conditions which may be causing back pain? I would be most interested in hearing the perspective of an attorney more qualified on the topic than myself. I'm sure they are out there. Do you consider yourself in that category?
I readily admit when an issue is beyond my competency. The observations I have made on the Moleski case are well within my knowledge and experience. Whether they cause reasonable people to have second thoughts about the credibility of Moleski's story is up to them. But I certainly do not expect you to find yourself within that group of individuals in the foreseeable future.
"Hyperventalation ", no worries. I understand that for you to provide direct answers in response to my specific inquiries is difficult since you haven't educated yourself with all the documents and video footage that is available, but you refuse to hear.
2nd paragraph: I don't care to discuss, I could waste time providing many examples, but its pointless with you.
I hope you spend as much time on your clients cases, as you do here arguing and responding to people in regards to opinions you've formed, libeling Patrcia Moleski, though you know nothing about her and have admittedly no interest in viewing an 1.5 hour video of her, where she clearly provides all details reagrding her complaint.
I have a question: In the email documentation that Patricia Moleski discussed on video, did she include the email from her supervisor telling her that, if she felt that she was being asked to do something improper, she should report it to Compliance? I saw that email when I was first asked to review the documentation. And I asked whether there was any evidence that Patricia had followed up with Compliance. I got no response to that inquiry. This was quite telling to me.
I know how Compliance works in hospitals, and I know that those departments police wrongdoing very assiduously. If there was some sort of cover up or institutional wrongdoing, it did not make sense to me that Moleski's supervisor would acknowledge her concerns in writing, and then direct her to go to enforcement authorities if she felt that she was being asked to do something improper.
Patricia, if you have not yet provided that, you might post it here. I know Andy has it, and I assume he got it from you. Maybe no one thinks it is noteworthy because it does not advance the metanarrative of SDA institutional evil through which many choose to view these allegations.
no experience with epic Schilt…lots of cerner and experience with AHS that I would never want to repeat….but what happened to the others…my case is mild indeed.
as for visions…this one will crystallize….you know as well as I do there is no federal legislation that prohibits deletion of data…period…this gives AHS the green light…..from the past and probably till now the present.
For the open minded here, what helped me to heal after a brutal experience with AHS and almost being assaulted by a supervisor…it was Emily Gardners book, "The Reluctant Healer"…day by I read that book and kept a journal; very slowly, my eyes opened to the truth….
Well, Canyonforrest… I'll look that one up. I have a difficult time believing that there are not very clear regulations and laws regarding alterations of patient records. I know it is a huge no-no in any hospital I've ever dealt with.
How sad that LLU, the pride of SDA healthcare, could offer no apologies for a very concerned mother with ill children, who the physicians wrongly diagnosed as having "Munchausen by proxy," and harming her children. In reporting to DCS, this family was condemned to the worst possible thing that can happen to children and their parents: removing them from their home because of false allegations. Through her investigations on the internet, the mother got in contact with specialists at Johns Hopkins who gave a diagnosis of a rare genetic condition, affecting each child.
Neither LLU hospital or physicians apologized for reporting this mother to Childrens' Service, causing her children's symptoms. Only the hospital attorney, Nathan Schilt, wrote that "I am deeply sorry for the ordeal you and your family have undergone."
Physicians and hospitals have a deadly aversion to ever admitting mistakes. After all, neither is capable of mistakes of admitting errors.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la/-me-munchausen9mar09,0,
Had they not reported, and the mother harmed the children, what then? I believe we should be a little more tolerant of honest mistakes made by medical practioners – or anyone. Why should every GP – or specialist – have a knowledge of every rare genetic condition? Given the way that an apology can be construed as an acknowledgement of not just error but criminal negligence (remember when those two things were different?) we should not be surprised that no one wants to apologise these days.
Elaine, you are veering even further off topic than usual, and I really can't comment on the specifics of the case you reference. I can tell you that child abuse reporting laws in California seem to predicated on the presumption that it is better for 10 innocent people to be investigated than for one posibly guilty party to go free. Mandated reporters are required to report to law enforcement if they merely suspect child abuse. Once suspicion arises, the duty to report is triggered. This is a very low threshold. Imagine if law enforcement was mandated to report individuals to INS if they merely suspected that the individual might be in the country illegally!
A mandated reporter does not have the luxury of investigating to see if his/her suspicions are well-founded. There is no room in the law for a committee of specialists to sit around, discuss the case, and decide if the circumstances warrant reporting. Once suspicion is aroused, a report must be made, and law enforcement takes over and does its investigation. The unfortunate reality is that innocent people can be caught up in a nightmarish web of overzealous investigators and child abuse specialists who gravitate toward a presumption of guilt. The fact that the suspicion may turn out, following investigation, to not be well-founded doesn't really warrant an apology for complying with one's legal obligation to report.
A large number of innocent parents are routinely reported and investigated for suspicion of child abuse because of the way the law is written. Blame the law which perhaps goes overboard to protect children. But don't blame the mandated reporter, who is subject to criminal penalties if he or she does not report suspicion to law enforcement. I really wish there was some provision in the law which permitted parents to recoup legal expenses from the state when the state subjects them to an investigation and prosecution, and is unable to prove the charges. But alas, I don't make the law. I just try to make sure that my clients follow the law.
canyonforest,
I attempted to log on to the link you provided for news of the Australian auditors hospital case. I was not able to connect using the address address you posted: http://www.hcrenewalblogspot.com/2012/07/manipulation-of-12000-medical-records.html I would like to look at it as part of my ongoing research. Can you help? Andy
The link is http://www.hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/07/manipulation-of-12000-medical-records.html
it ought to open for you, good luck with the research 🙂
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
Adventist Health System,
Counter Defendant, Plaintiff Judge Kest
vs.
Patricia L. Moleski,
Counter Plaintiff, Defendant
____________________________/
Whistleblower – Patricia Moleski
1-877-497-8230
Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
61 Forsyth Street, SW. – Suite 3B70
Atlanta, GA 30323
(404) 562-7881 FAX
United States Attorney General – Eric Holder
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
20530-0001
To Whom It May Concern,
On April 8, 2009, I became an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at
the Maitland Florida offices until January 9, 2010. Operating under the direction of the FBI, I
reported incriminating information concerning the purported false claims of my then employer of
six years in the corporate office of Risk Management in Winter Park, Florida under Adventist
Health System (AHS).
A Whistleblower Disclosure Statement was delivered to Assistant United States
Attorney, Sandra W. Diesler, on June 17, 2009 (File No. 00454-01724). The Whistleblower Disclosure Statement, submitted by Patricia Moleski, followed her report to – The Global Compliance Hotline filed March 17, 2009
at 11:45am, Report No. #AH-09-03-0001 at 1-888-823-8433.
Other Government Reports include:
• Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration, Chief Inspector General: CIG 20102230005
Office of Inspector General: OIG 10-029
• Office of the Governor Chief Inspector General Case No. 201002230005
• Attorney General Medical Fraud Unit State of Florida: 20100223005
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration – OSHA Case No. 4-2950-09-059, Activity
No. 1727429, filed on July 30, 2009.
The Respondent reported public health and safety violations, HIPPA violations, Florida
Hospital Violations, as well as violations of State and Federal laws regarding the overdose of
patients and how AHS did not notify those patients, or government authorities, Adventist Health
System management accessing patients medical records violating HIPPA regulations, safety
issues regarding its Electronic Medical record and how it is causing patient overdose which is a
public health and safety violation across ten different states. The Respondent followed State,
Federal and the Florida Hospital Association Law listed below:
• FHA-Florida Hospital Association Law: 456.0575 Duty to Notify Patients
• FHA- Florida Hospital Association Law: 39.201 Mandatory report of abuse, neglect, or
exploitation of vulnerable adults; mandatory reports of death
• HIPPA: 164.512(j) Disclosure
• FHA- Florida Hospital Association Law: 395.1012 Patient Safety- Mandatory report of
any Patient Safety Issue
• FHA – Florida Hospital Association Law: 397.501 Rights of Clients – Patient right know
Whistleblower Disclosure Statement submitted to
the AUSA in Orlando on June 17, 2009, and protected under the State and Federal
Whistleblower under The False Claims Act – 31 U.S.C 3730(h) & 30 U.S.C. 3730(h) and
Florida State Laws – s. 112.3189(1), s. 112.3187, s. 216.011 and the Florida Whistleblower Act:
F.S. 448.102.
The Respondent seeks In addition, the Respondent will file a Motion for Removal of the
current case from State to Federal Court.
AHS is suing the Respondent for alleging violating the scope of her job responsibilities. Adventist Health System is bullying the Respondent and harassing her for her report to the FBI, Office of Inspector General,
and other government agencies listed within this letter. The Respondent initially reported this on
March 19, 2009 and Adventist Health System retaliated against her by filing a lawsuit three
months later in June of 2009. This violates the State of Florida Whistleblower laws regarding retaliation and manipulation of Florida judicial system for not implimenting these laws on behalf of Ms. Moleski.
In Moleski’s Whistleblower Disclosure Statement to the AUSA she reported numerous
violations regarding overdoses of patients and AHS executives ordering her to delete, alter, and
manipulate records regarding patient death and overdose to limit legal liability as in the case of
an overdose and suicide where a patient committed suicide by jumping off of the seventh floor
parking garage of Florida Hospital, after he received an overdose of medication. After the
Respondent refused to delete the information, AHS executives became hostile and mistreated her
by suspending her.
The Respondent also discovered that the Adventist Health System Risk Assistant Director
was illegally accessing confidential patient records with two different Cerner user ID’s and then
telling the Respondent to delete the attached claim record regarding the overdose or adverse
event. The Respondent also reported a glitch within the EMR Cerner causing patient overdose.
After Moleski reported these incidents she has been harassed and her life has been
threatened by the torching of her car and her house getting shot into while the bullet missed her
head by five feet. These incidents have been documented through police agencies, but AHS and
its attorneys continue to harass and violate her Whistleblower rights through legal manipulation
and bullying tactics.
This letter notifies your office that these records document the submission of hundred (if
not thousands) of false claims made by the AHS – Adventist Health System within the
department of Risk Management. It also notifies your office of the deletion of Workers
Compensation Claims and Patient Adverse Records.
I request your intervention to protect FBI investigations and evidence
under the False Claims Act and State Whistleblower Act through their case filed:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Judge Kest – Division 34
Case: CA2009-019445-O
Sincerely,
Patricia Moleski – Respondent
1-877-497-8230
Patricia Moleski /S/
Copies furnished:
United States Attorney
501 West Church Street, Suite 300
Orlando, FL 32805
Fax: 1-407-648-7643
CMS Auditors
KPMG
111 North Orange Avenue
Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801-2316
United States of America
Fax: 1 407 386 6159
Office of HIPAA Privacy & Security
Professional Arts Center (PAC), Suite 409 (M-879)
Fax: 1-305-243-7487
US Marshalls Office – 300 N Hogan St # 2-450
Jacksonville, FL 32202-4266
(904) 301-6670 FAX: (904) 301-6672
Judge Kest
425 North Orange Ave.
Orlando, FL 32801
FAX 407-835-5127
Attorney General Office – Orlando, Tampa
135 W Central Blvd #1000
Orlando, FL 32801-2437
FAX: (813) 274-6300
Assistant United States Attorney
Sandra W. Diesler
501 West Church Street, Suite 300
Orlando, FL 32805
Fax: 1-407-648-7643
Page 6 of 6
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
202) 514-2007
HEAT
FBI Headquarters
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
(202) 324-3000
I have read the above and it makes me cry, because of what it describes and what Patricia has gone through; I can really relate to the hostile treatment part having experienced it firsthand, and the false accusation that was made when employed as a contractor at the Ormand Beach facility; however the above is much more serious and the depths of its truth is very clear.
Yes, canyonforest, what Patricia describes does indeed sound very serious. It consists of a litany of slanderous allegations that have been lodged with every conceivable regulatory and law enforcement authority that might have jurisdiction over the issues. In the penultimate paragraph, Moleski strongly infers that AHS and its attorneys have conspired to commit arson and assault with a deadly weapon against her.
Yet everything we see from her is only her account, which shows no evidence of having found purchase in the multiple forums where she has pursued it. One of two things appears to be happening: either the agencies she has contacted aren't interested in investigating the allegations, or they have investigated them, and concluded that they do not warrant action or charges. Which is it – or am I missing a third alternative? I tend to think it is the former, and that is why I have concluded that there is far less here than meets the eye.
I am sorry about your personal experience. But anecdotal negative experiences do not validate the claims of others who have had negative experiences with the same or similar organization. I'm sure you could find dozens of patients and employees – both present and former – who could regale you with horror stories about their experiences with the hospitals I represent. Yet one of them – an Adventist hospital – consistently ranks at the top when it comes to "best employer" in the region and "best hospitals" in the region and state. I have heard testimonials excoriating the hospital for killing or permanently injuring a loved one, and I have heard far more encomiums of reverential gratitude for life saving care rendered by the hospital.
You say, "…the depths of its truth is very clear." The depths of the truths revealed in Shakespeare's plays are also very clear. But that doesn't mean the plays accurately portray actual historical events. Those who see merit in using traditional metrics of reliability and veracity to test factual claims generally begin with more mundane concerns than truth and justice. I think it is safe to assume that a lot of individuals and entities have done just that with Moleski's claims, and found them to be wanting.
Moleski's claim is like a chunk of ice protruding above the ocean surface in the North Atlantic. None of us can see with any clarity what is below. All we have is Moleski's statements and the documentation she wants to show us. And her sympathizers conclude that, because chunks of ice sometimes presage enormous icebergs below the surface, Patricia's story of a large iceberg must be true. I, on the other hand, conclude that experts, with primary duties and concerns to protect the public from icebergs, have looked below the surface, and seen nothing of the iceberg that Moleski reports. So why should you or I, having no independent evidence of what is below the surface, assume that Moleski's account is reliable?
" One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch " " 6 or a dozen bad apples", will definitely rot the "whole bunch to the core"
The apple in of itself is not necessarily BAD, so its imperative any bad apples in the bunch are carefully examined, removed, so no spoiliation occurs.
When only the GOOD apple/apples are removed, we must then ask, WHY?
What good is a bag of rotten apples, are the rotten apples serving a further purpose, what might that purpose be?
You speak of Patricia Moleski slandering a "corporation", however, as you know; TRUTH is always a defense to slander, and logically, a corporation in of itself is "NOT necessarily a BAD APPLE", it may however be SEEN as one if it does not toss out bad apples that threaten to spoil the whole bunch.
Patrcia Moleski has stated publically she was fired from her employment because she brought her serious concerns of potential fraud, and wronging to the attention of her superiors.
While you may not have been present to witness these allegations first hand, you can follow the specific timeline of events that transpired as the date of each event is recorded in the court Dockets that have been put on public display.
Nathan, would you please comment specifically to the last paragraph here, and explain how that timeline can be explained away in a legal sense?
"I continue to seek the truth and nothing but " I have no opinion to date ( right, wrong, good or bad )
Kelley – Are you sure you're not mixing apples and oranges? lol
I used "slander" in a generic sense. Allegations that would otherwise be slanderous are not actionable when contained in court pleadings. In other words, the litigation privilege protects Moleski from a slander lawsuit if she accuses AHS and its lawyers of criminal conduct in a court document, regardless of whether she has evidence or a good faith belief in the truth of the charges.
I can't explain away the evidence supporting the legends of cryptozoology. I don't need to because, if evidence for the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster was reliable, there would likely be other corroborative evidence that could be verified through forensic analysis or other investigative methods. The fact that you can't explain something away doesn't make it true. I can't explain away Harry Reid's claim that Romney failed to pay any federal income tax for some ten years. But that doesn't mean I should believe that allegation.
What I have seen and read of Moleski's claims consists primarily of self-serving documents she has filed with the court alleging massive conspiracies by multiple judges, hospital personnel, and even her own former attorneys. I do not need to explain away allegations that are uncorroborated, do not have the ring of truth, and have been thrown out of court, regardless of what timeline might accompany them. Couple that with the reality that, if her allegations had substance, she would have no difficulty finding an attorney to represent her, and law enforcement authorities would be pursuing civil and criminal charges.
Who provides the timeline? Who describes the events? Is fiction more likely to be true because it is framed in a historical context that is described in precise and credible detail? Falsehoods are generally packaged in an aura of plausibility that makes them compelling to those who want to believe.
For an agnostic who only seeks the truth, and has no opinion, Kelly, you surely are passionate in your attack on my skepticism. Do you have answers for the questions that raise doubts in my mind about the credibility of Moleski's story? No one has yet responded to my inquiry a few days ago regarding the email from Moleski's supervisor that encouraged her to go to Compliance authorities if she felt she was being asked to do anything improper. Has that been disclosed by Moleski? And doesn't it suggest that her Florida Hospital supervisor felt the hospital had nothing to hide?
Where did my reply go? Hope it is saved, and being used to further a purpose elsewhere, that way I can release the grip my teeth have on my tongue.
Probably plausibility is not assumption.
You dont like the truth??…then delete it like your friends at the Florida hospitals do….
I don't recall ever seeing a offender on a discussion board being given a full 24 hours to reconsider their post and apologize. CF you blew it on that one!
The former employee accessed, downloaded and removed without authorization confidential
patient records and confidential litigation documents from the work files of other AHS
employees. After unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the confidential documents directly from the
former employee, AHS filed suit in June 2009 in order to fulfill its HIPAA obligations and
maintain the confidentiality of the removed patient records and litigation documents.
After reading the above section, I am somewhat bewildered.
1) How does one person get into another persons work files and apparently download and remove things? Does this mean anyone can access anyones work files?????
This leaves me to question, if an employee can do it, then anyone can alter delete etc files.
2) why are the other employees whoes apparent workfiles got taken not part of the suit or even mentioned by name?
3) Did all the apparent employees suddenly realize that their stuff had been downloaded and removed?
4) Confidential litigation records?????? What are such documents doing in anyone elses computer other than that of the lawyers?
So if the above really did happen who is to say Patricia took them??????? Is there a computer trail or is this just hearsay?
At this point it looks to me like anyone can apparently take anything from anyone.
Barbara – employees have I.D. numbers and pass codes that enable them to get through certain gates in an information system. Often, multiple employees can access a given file to input or extract information. The fact that IT can trace who has worked on a file, accessed information, deleted information, or downloaded data is generally a powerful disincentive to abuse of access rights. Risk management departments have reams of litigation documents, as their lawyers communicate with them regularly, and they often have to investigate claims before they actually reach the litigation stage.
It sounds like you perhaps don't have a very good understanding of how Risk Management, electronic record keeping and access works in a health care setting, and my knowledge is certainly somewhat limited. There is always a human element, and employers have to trust that employees will properly follow policy and comply with their fiduciary duties. If someone who has access to them wants to steal electronic records, and is willing to pay the price, it can probably be done, even with safeguards in place. I get confidential patient records all the time in my work. If I wanted to publish them, I could. But I would pay a heavy penalty for doing so.
If Moleski hadn't taken documents from the hospital without authorization, I highly doubt that a judge would have ordered her to return them, a claim made by Kevin Edgerton, in the letter that constitutes this blog, which has not been contradicted by Moleski.
I was hoping Nathan would explain the timeline of events "as asked a few days ago" since he is a licensed professional in that area and has spent so much time here addressing this issue.
Maybe he is busy with his clients and a response is forthcoming soon.
Nathan,
thank you for the insight.
"It sounds like you perhaps don't have a very good understanding of how Risk Management, electronic record keeping and access works in a health care setting, and my knowledge is certainly somewhat limited"
I am by no means perfect in that department but I do understand a great deal. Your answer is confirming for me in that people with the correct passwords etc etc can access certain areas of departments, medical records etc whatever it may be. This verifies an issue that was apparent in my case and that I have seen in other cases. You are correct that abuse of this priveledge carries a heavy penalty.
Hypothetically I would then have to ask the question, would it then not be possible for one person in one department to have a pal in another department who could do a person a favor????? I heard about a case once where a higher up was caught with stuff on their computer that should not have been there and when it was brought up, that person had a pal in the department that could access everything and as a favor made all the silly stuff disapear without a trace that it was ever there.
I still love hard copies of everything, although the computer age is great but I believe there are still way too many loopholes especially in the health care system that need to be fixed.
My mantra has always been, document document document, if it ain't documented then it did not happen. I always taught new nurses one thing to remember: " the next time you see this file, is in a court of law"
"If Moleski hadn't taken documents from the hospital without authorization, I highly doubt that a judge would have ordered her to return them, a claim made by Kevin Edgerton, in the letter that constitutes this blog…."
I sooo disagree with the statement above, but strict moderator rules do not allow me to comment.
But of course moderator rules allow you to commment, Barbara. You just have to avoid ad nominem and negative personal attacks. From your comment here, you certainly don't strike me as the kind of person who would let angry emotions get the better of you and offer a vitriolic response.
Let me make a couple of observations: 1) I tend to think that if Patricia Moleski had not been ordered to return documents by a judge, she would have denied it; 2) I assume that there should be a court record of it having occurred. Edgerton's statement could easily be falsified if it was not true, so that is why I tend to think Moleski took documents from the work site. As I recall, either Ms. Moleski or Andy Hanson made the argument that the documents referred to by Edgerton were not confidential. They have not argued that she was not ordered by a judge to return ceertain documents.
As to your hypothetical, what is possible in a given electronic record keeping system would of course be system dependent. At institutions I work with, only someone in IT could make something disappear. And whoever goes onto the computer leaves an electronic fingerprint. So the person's "pal" would be identified as the culprit. I suspect there are not as many unnecessary "loopholes as you think there are. And I am also quite confident that, while their systems may not be perfect, hospitals do a better job than most data collecting institutions at protecting confidentiality and preventing mischief.
Nathan,
I need your information, as you have slandered me enough. You have defamated my character and continue to make libelous statements through Adventist Today. I feel that Adventist Today and your affiliation to the magazine may be guilty of slander also, as it is there responsiblity that these types of comments are not made. I have told Andy and others that I answered 75 AHS Interrogatory questions denying any of their allegations against me. Please apologize for this, or I will be forced to litigate and hold you and Adventist Today accountable for this in a court of law. I take this very serious and will not tolerate slanderous, libelous or defaming comments towards me or my family.
Patricia Moleski
Perhaps, Ms. Moleski, you need to understand slander better. I have not accused, you of any criminal or immoral conduct. I have repeatedly merely stated that your claims have not been substantiated by independent investigation or evidence. You have quite obviously placed yourself in the public spotlight, and, from the ardent supporters you seem to have among AToday readers, it does not appear that my remarks have adversely affected your reputation or credibility.
As long as Andy and you continue to seek attention and sympathy for your cause, I will have no reticence about pointing out the legal dubiousness of your claims.
Nathan are there any laws against showing moral support of someone being attacked publically?
Absolutely not! Why would you even ask? But for the record, it has never been my intent to personally attack Ms. Moleski, though I understand how it has felt that way to her. I have tried to confine myself to her story as told by Andy Hansen, and annotated by Ms. Moleski on this website. I concede that I have been quite outspoken in highlighting what I see as fatal holes in her claims. Should those claims be given life by a governmental entity, I would certainly be inclined to withhold judgment.
At institutions I work with, only someone in IT could make something disappear. And whoever goes onto the computer leaves an electronic fingerprint. So the person's "pal" would be identified as the culprit.
My concern then is the following….
Correct only someone in IT can make things disappear, so if someone in an administrative position tells someone in IT to make something disappear, who is ever going to be able to challenge the "culprit" who left the electronic fingerprint if the "culprit" is protected by the person he did the favor for?
It pays to remember that computers accept passwords at face value. Anyone who knows the login details can gain access. There are also sometimes ways to change records that don't leave fingerprints – and these are usually only known to those who work for the software company, but they do sometimes get more widely known. Software companies do need ways to repair what people do. No system is fool-proof, and for some reason companies insist on employing fools and blaming their mistakes on the software. Or on the IT people, and then they need to be able to fix it.
Whether and how that could be done, Barbara, would, I am sure, very much depend on the system. I have no qualifications in information technology, and can only speak as an end user.
Last year my son attended an introductory computing lecture at a University. The lecturer challenged the attending students to hack into his laptop which he was lecturing from on the desk beside where he stood. By the time he turned around after making a couple of points my son had hacked into the most secret and sacred parts of his computer.
The lecturer thought he had it safe and no one would even get in. He got angry and turned his computer off! From what I understand for those who know the ropes nothing is sacred or safe, and erasing tracks is not so hard either.
I suggest that you go to the FBI website and read their policies on informats. You might find it educational.
News yesterday was about how millions of personal medical files were "hacked" and/or made available. Belief that such records or inviolable and cannot be breached is a fallacy and realizing how easily it can be done should eradicate the idea that such an event could not happen.
FBI ) ongoing investigations are confidential to protect both the informant and the entity being investigated. No information is provided to anyone about anything in an ongoing investigation.
Thank you Howard for helping us further educate ourselves.
I find it rather interesting that the Moleski case has been postponed until late next year.
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 story continues at
http://healthcarewhistleblower.blogspot.com