Saturday, October 24, 2015

PREVIEW | AIDS | Second lawyer retained in VMC debacle

So, this blog has turned into a demoniac's personal soap opera for readers now, you ask? No, all the medical-care drama posted to this blog as of late [see AIDS | Second claim against VMC served on county] is relevant to the subject of demons and the paranormal. Sorry if it doesn't meet your standards for entertainment, but, if you were in my shoes (and, in a way, you very much are), you'd feel remiss not to mention what you know about how demons and the like work in this world, as I am so doing now.
NOTE | If you'd followed this blog since the beginning, you would have read about the threats related to the very situation I face with respect to my health and medical care, which have been repeatedly and constantly issued by demons, and which have been recounted in various posts. Very much demon-related, this is.
Just this once, though, I will acknowledge anyone who might say, "What's all this to do with the paranormal?" The answer: everything, and way more than I ever wanted it to. I'm with such persons when it comes to a love of a good-and-scary movie, and even more so when I stumble upon an old Victorian that reminds me of them, which are many in San Jose; I want my paranormal stories and encounters to be historic, romantic, nuanced, sophisticated, upscale and at arm's length, just like anyone else.

But, that's not how demons and ghosts really get down to business. Ever. It's not their get-down. The thriller scene most paranormal enthusiasts are looking for (the old cemetery, the now-shuttered haunted asylum/hospital, etc.) are just props in the collective imagination.

What may be even more disappointing to those seeking a healthy but manageable fright by tales from the crypt is that any solution to a demon-borne problem is usually quite pragmatic, having little or nothing to do with an artfully edited and narrated epic A&E docu-drama. A lot of times, it involves a foray through the justice system—quite boring for most people.

The most recent situation, as described in my post to a lawyer-search website (below), requires just that:
Enforcing a peaceful contact court order (conditional restraining order)
Due to low-income insurance provider restrictions, I have only one option to receive treatment and care for my terminal illness, namely, the PACE Clinic. A judge ordered that I could be treated at the aforesaid clinic, provided contact was made in a peaceful manner. 
Even still, for the past year, PACE has been ignoring the order, even though they verbally agreed to it in court before it was made; and, it has been refusing treatment, even though my condition has progressed from stable to serious during that time.
Can this order be enforced somehow?
David G. Clark 
There are too few facts for me to give you an intelligible answer for your particular circumstances. 
As a general general rule, however, court orders are enforceable through contempt citations. To enforce a court order you must show 1) the court order is a valid order, 2) the Respondent knew about the order, 3) the Respondent was capable of complying with the order, and 4) the Respondent intentionally violated the order. 
The few facts you do state leave open the possibility for a variety of claims independent of contempt. The statute of limitations limits the time in which you can bring a complaint. If you do not file a claim within the period of time allowed, you may lose the right to bring an otherwise meritorious claim. You are therefore encouraged to consult with an attorney as soon as possible.
James Alan Bush 
Although you've passed on this one, I'll fill in any gaps I perceive, just so you know. First, PACE is a satellite clinic of VMC; it provides treatment for infectious diseases, such as HIV. They are the only provider of such, and no doctor at any other VMC clinic or hospital will provide treatment in lieu of PACE. PACE is not my sole option for treatment for just this reason, though; my health insurance only covers treatment at VMC, including PACE. I have no coverage anywhere else. However, even if I did, there are no other such clinics in my area. The nearest is Palo Alto (somewhat doable); next is UCSF Berkeley (completely untenable). It's PACE Clinic or nothing, and the judge knew that, which is why he ordered contact, if peaceable. Some have said that I can't use the order to kick PACE's door down and make them treat me; but, they are literally my only option for treatment of a disease that will result in near-term death if left untreated. The judge acknowledged this fact when the order was made, and confirmed it with the PACE representative at the hearing. He also either implied or stated explicitly (can't remember exactly how it was conveyed) that he fully expected me to go to PACE, and that PACE, by agreeing to the terms of a peaceful contact order, expected me to go there, as well. But, as they continue to deny referrals made by other doctors, clearly they have changed their minds. I don't know what could have been done at the hearing differently if I had anticipated that PACE would renege (or if anything), but something NOW need to be done, or else my condition will diminish to a point of no return. I'm not sure that it hasn't already. 
David G. Clark 
Still too little information to go on. Generally, most counties have a local form for emergency temporary orders to be heard ex parte. To prevail on an emergency temporary order you must show irreparable harm if the court does not act. To obtain injunction relief such as a court order requiring medical treatment you must also show in your motion that the balance of equities (fairness) favors the moving party, money damages are insufficient, and public policy favors the injunction. Ex parte matters are normally heard within 24 to 48 hours. The temporary order is normally reviewed on the courts regular law and motion calendar. Your best bet is to find a local lawyer in whom you can confide the entire circumstances and who can act on your behalf. 
James Alan Bush 
Thanks, I am familiar with ex parte motions; but, I'm pretty sure I covered everything I know about the situation. I'm wondering what else I'd need to show in my papers besides what I've said. I guess that would be based on the answer filed by the defendant; I could use their papers to see what I may have failed to assert in my filing, and the amend the original motion or file a response (?).
This is probably the most useful information and help I've received regarding the issue. I asked other attorneys if the ex parte motion route was available to me, and they waffled. None of them had even thought of it, and, to-date, even routes they do think of that make sense to take are avoided, as shown in this exchange of e-mails between me and an attorney for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Denise Miller, who, instead of taking direct action, continues to send forms that lead nowhere:

Incompetent combined with cowardly—what the Devil wants every human to be—makes the Bay Area of Northern California his home away from home. The saddest part of all that, though, is that a simple project (or case) management plan would fix everything, in that it would state the goal and objectives, list each deliverable and their respective due date, and assign each task to the appropriate persons. Nothing would go unfinished or ignored that way, like that fact that it's simply treatment I need, not paperwork that takes weeks to process. It's a phone call to the clinic with the order in-hand that would solve the problem; not paperwork that takes weeks to process. This isn't about something that can wait; it's about something that can't wait.
A featured case study from Health Legal Services at the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, which I doubt is the norm
So far, we've only identified two prongs of the Devil's three-pronged pitchfork, namely, the PACE Clinic's unlawful refusal to treat a terminal condition and an attorney's unwillingness to take the basic, obvious steps to remedy the problem.

The third prong is my insurance provider's inability to decide which would benefit me least—either a denial of coverage for alternative services or a granting of it:

[need to rescan]

Since they couldn't figure that out, they sent two letters on the same day stating both. If history is to repeat itself, whichever seems most disadvantageous to me at the time I try to get treatment or make a claim that I was wrongfully denied it, will determine which one is "valid."

Update: Confusion reigns
Here's a letter saying I've been re-enrolled in the very plan I opted out of two weeks ago, as if I am to be excited about that (I fought to get away from Anthem, and less than two weeks after having won that fight, they gleefully announce I'm back on their plan...ugh!):

Coming up: an ex parte motion written by me...
The old adage that, if you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself still holds true; hence, my trek to the law library to start an ex parte motion to enforce an order that will provide access to the sole provider of treatment for my terminal illness.

Delay without affirmative action
Can anyone say "conflict of interest?" Absurd delays and flimsy excuses abound when one county-funded agency (Law Foundation) goes head-to-head with another (PACE), purporting to be on your side:

Why would you be on my side when you get paid from the same coffers? Duh, you wouldn't, which is the only thing that explains what borders on—as I said—senility.

No comments:

Post a Comment