AIDS | Former PACE Clinic doctor bars me from Stanford Positive Care Clinic

As if they had a right and were in-the-right. A stupefying maneuver today by Dr. Edward Brooks, former physician at PACE Clinic, now working at Stanford Positive Care Clinic, told his receptionist that my only other option for essential treatment and care for my terminal illness was cut off, and that no explanation was forthcoming. In sum, I would not be accepted as a patient there, either:

I immediately called my attorney, Denise Miller, who, apparently, took the day off to try on her Halloween costume, and left a message; a follow-up e-mail was also sent:
Stanford Positive Care Clinic had never indicated before that there was a problem with attending their clinic for treatment until today, and that without proffering a reason
This precludes treatment of any kind for me for a condition that has seriously worsened since the time PACE Clinic inexplicably shuttered its doors to me, after having agreed in a court of law to allow me to obtain services there.

More later, once delays and excuses start coming forward from my advocates, and once I've prepared and filed what I consider to be a legal option for remedy—all by myself, of course.

UPDATE | Letter from Stanford cites abusive, aggressive phone call as reason for ban
People will say and try anything these days to get their way. It's astonishing how intensely the Bay Area fights its battles, even when they're evil and in-the-wrong. Hell has a future, after all, as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a certified letter I received today, November 9th, 2015, from Stanford, which spells out the "reason" for the ban from its Positive Care Clinic:


My attorney, who is handling this case [see AIDS | PACE-case attorney clarifies objectives, direction], was notified accordingly:
Please see the attached letter, which I just now received via certified mail.
I honestly have no idea what they are talking about; I'm not "aware" of anything. There was never any untoward conversation between me and a staff member, ever. I called for an appointment, never received a call back, so I called again. The receptionist was real pissy about the "accusation" that she was not doing her job, but I simply said I wasn't worried about any of that, and that I just wanted an appointment.
That's when she informed me that Dr. Brooks said I couldn't be a patient there, but that he wouldn't state the reason. I think they made this up after the fact to cover the PACE-Brooks connection.
Regardless, when you speak with them, try to get as many details as you can about the "abusive" and "aggressive" aspects of the phone conversation. I'm real sure this has to do with PACE—not anything I might have said over the phone.
at

PREVIEW | AIDS | District supervisor to act against VMC-PACE obstinacy

Although slow-going—and, so far, unproductive—I'm still encouraged by the fact that, unlike the past, I have people who at least purport to be on my side interested in things like the denial of essential medical treatment for my terminal condition.
Morning view from my room at Regional Medical Center (contrast to VMC = Demon Death Trap)
There's Joseph Nazarian, who is representing my cause against Dr. Crapo, as described in these posts:
As you'll see from these posts, the substantive and meaningful portions of my claim against Dr. Crapo were spearheaded and executed by me; whereas, Mr. Nazarian has yet to complete the simple task of resubmitting a claim with a more specific date to Santa Clara County lawyers to avoid another denial. Still, I'm confident that as the claim advances, he'll prove useful, even if only through the use of his letterhead in correspondence and name in court documents (serious people hire attorneys is the message I so longed to send scumbags like those in this county for quite some time).
Twilight as seen from my room at Regional Medical Center (contrast to VMC = Demon Death Trap)
Then, there's Denise Miller, who is representing me in the enforcement of a peaceable contact order issued by a court, authorizing me to patron the PACE Clinic; when issued, both parties (me and PACE) acknowledged that the clinic is my only option for treatment, and that, provided contact was peaceful and orderly, I would be allowed to pursue treatment:
Still, PACE is refusing to see me, and I'm not hopeful they'll change their minds anytime soon. The recent update to the first post shows that absolutely no affirmative action has been taken in a fairly cut-and-dry case; the post in its entirety demonstrates a disturbing lack of attention to detail, bordering on senile-like confusion (but, then again, PACE and the Law Foundation are paid from the same coffers, and none of this is unfamiliar to me at all; next, it'll be constant delays that are invariably someone else's fault besides the attorneys, and which last until some calamity occurs which draws me away from pushing things forward).

Like with the first, I've done all the legwork myself—all of it—even getting my insurance provider to grant options for medical treatment:
My room at Regional Medical Center (not VMC), where I hope to receive definitive treatment for a common intestinal infection that usually takes only four weeks to treat—not four months, as per VMC [see VMC = Demon Death Trap]
The third person to (possibly) get involved isn't an attorney, but was recommended by one, but is District Supervisor, Cindy Chavez. Initially, I scoffed at taking Holden Green's advice, but am glad now that whatever reservations I may have had were overridden by desperation. Although I have yet to see any results—or even speak with Ms. Chavez directly—I'm encouraged by how well staff at the District Supervisors' offices keep track of follow-up dates, and am floored by their willingness to take on every task within their power to do. Minus the phone calls, here's the correspondence between me and District I Supervisor Mike Wasserman's Policy Analyst, who epitomizes the ideal American work ethic and job responsibility:


This exchange of e-mails is encouraging on another note, as well; I haven't once had to initiate a follow-up, whereas, as of early this week, I'm still hounding the same attorney with the same issue, which is now nearly a month old:
You called? They called? The plan? It's almost Thursday...

at

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.

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)