Wednesday, November 4, 2015

AIDS | Crapo-case attorney fizzles, PACE-case attorney wonders aimlessly

Stanford doctor will overrule ban from Stanford Positive Care
As mentioned in AIDS | Former PACE Clinic doctor bars me from Stanford Positive Care Clinic, a former PACE Clinic (San Jose) physician, Dr. Edward Brooks, now working at Stanford's equivalent, Stanford Positive Care Clinic (Palo Alto), announced via his receptionist that I am also barred there. He declined to state a reason, but the implication made that all but unnecessary.

Today, at my first visit to Stanford Medical Group in nearly 10 years, my former—and now current—primary care physician, Dr. Paul Ford (i.e., man of gold), stated that he would work around whatever issue Dr. Brooks presented, and in short order:
Outside Dr. Ford's office at Stanford Medical Group (Hoover Pavilion)
Although the aforementioned clinic has yet to contact me regarding my first appointment, I did notice that Dr. Brooks was listed as a contact in the MyHealthOnline app developed by Stanford Medical. The app only lists doctors treating a specific patient as recipients of messages sent through it:
Only treating physicians are listed in the recipients list in the MyHealthOnline app for Stanford Medical
It stands to reason, then, that the issue was likely quashed; however, only a scheduled appointment will ultimately determine this.

Useless attorney bows out via illogical rationale
Joseph Nazarian, the attorney assigned to the all-important Dr. Crapo case [see AIDS | Dr. Crapo lies, gets caught in same], crapped out, which is absolutely no surprise:
Lack of communication......followed by nonsense excuse
Since "taking on the case" over two months ago, he has done nothing, not even so much as resubmitted my county claim—which merely meant filling out a form [see AIDS | Santa Clara County lawyers skirt Dr. Crapo complaint]—and was failing to respond to multiple requests for status updates on same. I ended up delivering the resubmitted claim myself, which consists of only one difference, specifically, line 5 now states the date of loss as 8/18/2015, whereas the first claim stated ongoing:
The resubmitted Dr. Crapo-related county claim form specifies the date of loss at 8/18/2015, whereas the first claim—which was rejected for an unspecified date of loss—stated that the loss is ongoing
After about two weeks of phone calls and texts, he stated that he can't work because of "family issues."

"We're-just-waiting-on" attorney deadlocks progress
Denise Miller, the attorney assigned to the PACE Clinic case [see PREVIEW | AIDS | Second lawyer retained in VMC debacle; see also AIDS | Second claim against VMC served on county], is "waiting on" the adverse party to move my case forward in a timely manner, specifically, she's waiting for the director of PACE to arrange a meeting with her to discuss my future, anticipated and demanded acceptance as a patient (it's not negotiable):
The problem is, this isn't the only step to take, and it's not an exhaustive one; the county claim and hospital grievance, already in progress, are priority right now—a fact this attorney cannot seem to understand or accept
NOTE | Highly suspect is that this attorney wants that meeting to be private, which would be insane for me to allow from my perspective as a future plaintiff in an action against the county. Again, these people feed from the same trough, and I can't allow her to jeopardize my future litigation potential by saying (or not saying) anything in a meeting in which I didn't monitor and/or participate.
Meanwhile, I continue to dance circles around her by discovering additional administrative remedies, and by acting on them to completion. For example, by and through my call to my district supervisor's office [see AIDS | District supervisor to act against VMC-PACE obstinacy], I was able to ascertain a single-point-of-contact at VMC, Jenny Howard, with whom I will discuss my former VMC primary care physician's refusal to treat my terminal illness, even upon learning that the PACE Clinic was refusing treatment:
A new revelation by the district supervisor's office points further to malpractice, a fact I expect to be ignored by my attorney for as long as she represents me in this case
NOTE | The latter points to the termination of at least two doctors, and grounds for a lawsuit.
Hopefully, she'll be useful in getting HealthTrust to simply take my intake information, so I can get this Ryan White certification she claims is necessary in order to represent me.

Just a side note: I'm not really as stupid as I must look, presenting all these problem people with the problems they present; I'm simply mapping the path for others, and attempting to show anyone who is facing or may face these same issues what to expect—and, hopefully, how to handle them correctly.

Attorney problems are not new
When it comes to demon-related legal issues, problems with attorneys—strange, unusual problems—abound. Take, for example, the Kaye-Scholar debacle, which tanked a multi-million dollar case against police officers with a history of unwarranted and unlawful physical violence against otherwise complicit suspects of accused of menial crimes for attacking me.