Thursday, September 20, 2012
Transparency
I asked Beatrice to reflect on the Whistleblower and the Healthcare Corporation readers’ responses to this series. This essay originally was written prior to posting Chapter 4. It appears here to provide new readers with an overview of the issues raised by the first 3 chapters of this report and the debate it engendered. (For a firsthand look at reader reaction, browse through the comments that follow Bea’s essay and each chapter posted on the Adventist Today blog. A link to those posts is supplied.) Chapter 5 is new. Patricia will update the current situation in the upcoming Chapter 6, so stay tuned.
Andy
Information Technology Employee vs. Adventist Health System, Orlando, Florida
by Beatrice Neff
I applaud Andrew Hanson and Adventist Today for taking on the controversial story of Patricia Moleski, the whistleblower who is going up against Adventist Health Systems (AHS). My comment from the beginning was, you will get plenty of cautionary advice from well-meaning people around you warning you that your personal/professional reputation may take a broadside hit due to politics within the Adventist hierarchy. My hat goes off to you for your courage, tenacity, and fearless mindset as you go forward. The conversation has been lively (review the comments from Part 1,2,3 to receive the full impact from all angles). To quote Jack Hoehn on another blog: “We are explaining our thoughts, bringing up possible stumbling blocks or deal breakers. We nibble around the edges of ideas, we stick a toe in water. We pull back in fear or step out to see where the current of thought might take us.” No one involved in the conversation has been timid: rather, bold, edgy, condescending, prompt rebuttals, idealistic. This is an important story to see through to its end – this dialog can move forward in a productive way as we methodically peel the onion. It is through this type of open conversation that we can understand one another better and learn from our differences.
This is a modern day David and Goliath scenario. AHS (defendant), a 32 billion dollar corporation with 50,000 employees, 41 medical institutions throughout several states. Patricia Moleski (plaintiff), her house was allegedly invaded, car set on fire, computer tapped, fired from her job for being a whistleblower and now living in poverty. Her YouTube interview came across as compelling – she is you and me. When you realize the minimal staff position she had, the overwhelming story, the high position the medical organization has in the community, the judges that might have a conflict of interest, it would be so easy to let it disappear without any one person standing up for what is right – and see this through to the finish line. What I mean by right is that everyone, no matter how small, deserves to have due process in the judicial system. II Timothy 1:7 “For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind (self discipline). This is what is called for.
Attorney comments on the blog predicted attorneys should be racing to offer assistance on a contingency basis if there was any credibility to her claims. The fact that Patricia is currently acting as her own attorney caused further skepticism. One person sent this information to Spectrum’s blog to encourage more dialog, publicity, and action. It was considered to be “Old News – if it had been worth investigating, it would have been done years ago”. The lawsuit was filed in 2010. Several people on the blog asked, “Did AT just find out about this? Why was it not reported two years ago?”
However, we all remember Erin Brockovich, an unemployed single mother who became a legal assistant and almost single-handedly brought down a California power plant, accused of polluting water supply and causing cancer and death to many. Erin became a strong, tough, spirited environmental activist who took a stand to do what was right. She had a terrible time retaining an attorney and badgered the one she finally retained. 1996 – the largest direct action lawsuit of its kind - $333 million dollars with 600 people who had been tragically affected by death of family.
Another case comes to my mind. Several families in Woburn, MA (suburb of Boston) made a formal complaint of toxic water pollution (1984 Book and Movie – A Civil Action). It took years to retain a law firm. Partners of the prosecutor discouraged him from taking the case, saying that it was hopeless and they would be financially and emotionally bankrupt – but for moral and ethical principles they took the case. Opposing high-power defense attorneys hired by corporate giants resulted in a battle to the finish. Victims’ families were awarded monetarily and the corporation was forced to clean up – the nation’s most expensive clean-up in US history. One of the victims of this tragedy was a friend of mine.
It is at the core of our SDA culture to be protective of our own and especially when there are questions regarding our church leaders and the medical right arm of the church. We immediately deny, without interest in getting further information for enlightenment. We think it is so outrageous, it must not be true. But we are all human; no organization should be above scrutiny, questioning or reproach. As one person commented, “Having been around for a while, I have seen enough to learn that the Adventist System can do weird things and mistreat people. I sure can’t say either way about this case, but I would never take the denomination’s side just because I am also an Adventist.”
In 2004 an SDA pastor (salary $22,000/year) brought his 5-year-old son, who was dying of a brain tumor, to Florida Hospital emergency department. They were refused care because they didn’t have insurance. After a class action lawsuit was filed and after his father sat before Congress, the hospital became interested, offering free care and an ocean cruise. A belated apology was issued to the family at the GC.
We are aware of prior GC president Robert Folkenburg engaging three exclusive law firms, spending over $6 million dollars of tithe monies over a seven-year period, to keep evidence from going to trial. This litigation is not dragging up old business. It is essential to evaluate historical incidents to prevent making the same mistakes. The definition of insanity is to “repeat the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome.” As Maya Angelo has said “When we know better, we do better.”
We can no longer be quick to say, “because it is a religious organization and the right arm of the SDA World Church, it must be right.” Let this be a teachable moment and may we have the courage to stray from the status quo. If there is a flaw, there is “more shame in hiding the truth than in admitting the mistake.” My hope is that we can strive together toward greater honesty, integrity, and clarity.
http://www.atoday.org/article/1304/blogs/hanson-andy/transparency-integrity-honesty-whistleblower-patricia-moleski-information-technology-department-vs-adventist-health-system-orlando-florida
Chapter 1
Reported by Andrew Hanson
Originally posted as a news story in the online June edition of Adventist Today.
It is the carefully stated policy of healthcare institutions that every employee must document and report glitches in any system, care practice, or device that might adversely effect patient treatment.
Only when such an employee report is not welcomed and/or investigated by authorized authorities within the organization; only when such a report is suppressed at the highest administrative levels of the organization; only when the employee is threatened and/or fired in an attempt to keep that report from being made public, does that reporter become a potential whistleblower.
Whistleblowers, by definition, are branded as the enemies by the institutions they worked for. Institutions often use the threat of litigation and character assassination to silence whistleblowers. Their reasons for doing this involve money; reputation, personal or corporate; and/or unlawful behavior.
This is a story about a specific healthcare system and a specific whistleblower. The healthcare system she worked for was in a hurry to make the change from a an old inefficient record keeping system to a unified suite of digital solutions proven to streamline administration, reduce costs and enhance patient safety” in which “an online “digital chart” displays up-to-date patient information in real time, complete with decision-support tools for physicians and nurses. Simple prompts allow swift and accurate ordering, documentation, and billing.
Of course, this recordkeeping change required an initial investment of millions of dollars in hardware, integrated software programs, and technical assistance directed by a company that specialized in hospital recordkeeping. Employee training programs were also required for a healthcare system that administered 41 medical facilities and employed more than 50,000 workers.
When this change was made, problems were inevitably encountered in its implementation, and care was required to prevent the loss or confusion of medical records and employee contracts. Consequently, it became the job of specially trained information technologists to monitor this process and prevent information loss.
The whistleblower in this case is Patricia Moleski, one of those informational technologists. The name of the medical institution is Adventist Health.
Here is her story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hN9nR1KA
Originally posted as a news story in the online June edition of Adventist Today.
It is the carefully stated policy of healthcare institutions that every employee must document and report glitches in any system, care practice, or device that might adversely effect patient treatment.
Only when such an employee report is not welcomed and/or investigated by authorized authorities within the organization; only when such a report is suppressed at the highest administrative levels of the organization; only when the employee is threatened and/or fired in an attempt to keep that report from being made public, does that reporter become a potential whistleblower.
Whistleblowers, by definition, are branded as the enemies by the institutions they worked for. Institutions often use the threat of litigation and character assassination to silence whistleblowers. Their reasons for doing this involve money; reputation, personal or corporate; and/or unlawful behavior.
This is a story about a specific healthcare system and a specific whistleblower. The healthcare system she worked for was in a hurry to make the change from a an old inefficient record keeping system to a unified suite of digital solutions proven to streamline administration, reduce costs and enhance patient safety” in which “an online “digital chart” displays up-to-date patient information in real time, complete with decision-support tools for physicians and nurses. Simple prompts allow swift and accurate ordering, documentation, and billing.
Of course, this recordkeeping change required an initial investment of millions of dollars in hardware, integrated software programs, and technical assistance directed by a company that specialized in hospital recordkeeping. Employee training programs were also required for a healthcare system that administered 41 medical facilities and employed more than 50,000 workers.
When this change was made, problems were inevitably encountered in its implementation, and care was required to prevent the loss or confusion of medical records and employee contracts. Consequently, it became the job of specially trained information technologists to monitor this process and prevent information loss.
The whistleblower in this case is Patricia Moleski, one of those informational technologists. The name of the medical institution is Adventist Health.
Here is her story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hN9nR1KA
Chapter 2
Originally posted as a news story in the online June edition of Adventist Today.
I came across Patricia’s YouTube video about six weeks ago as I was researching another story. The events recounted by Ms. Moleski were so horrific and bazaar that I was immediately skeptical, but I have spent the intervening time investigating her story, and I am convinced it is completely truthful.
I’ve been asked a number of times why I as a life-long Adventist would choose to report on a story that sullies the name “Adventist” and calls into question the “good name” of Adventist Health Systems whose mission statement is Extending the healing ministry of Christ. To put it bluntly, what motivated me to write this series of potentially damaging reports?
Because the Adventist Church has no shortage of crtitics—insightful to lunatic—I thought you ought to know something about be and my motivation before continuing this series. So here’s my answer.
I have been aware of the corporate abuse of power within the Adventist Church since I was nine or ten when an administrator attempted to fire my father so one of his relatives could have the job. In the intervening 60 years, as a college student, a teacher in junior academy, as an elder, a school board member and acting principal, and church member, I’ve observed a kind of institutional pecking order in which certain denominationally employed Adventists got richer in terms of power, money and perks, and others got poorer, not just monetarily, but in influence and social standing.
When I protested that this institutional pecking order was wrong, my wife invariably said, “So what are you going to do about it?” And to my shame, I did very little besides bending the ear of a fellow teacher or sympathetic pastor. I attempted to quiet my conscience by telling myself: “I don’t have time to get involved.” “If those people don’t like the way they’re treated, they can get other jobs.” Sometimes I reasoned, “Money and recognition must not be important to those folks.” And when I was particularly frustrated by the unfairness of the system, I excused myself from speaking out publically by blaming the victims: “If those people are willing to put up with that treatment, they deserve it!
When a person gets to be 70, a review of life lived can’t be avoided, and I decided to meet my wife’s challenge and get publically and professionally involved. I fancied myself qualified to be a theological activist, an editorial critic, and a satirist. It never occurred to me that my public commitment would require me to face the realization that a huge, politically and financially powerful organization, flying the flag, “Adventist”, whose mission statement is Extending the Healing Ministry of Christ, was harming others, as a conscious, premeditated practice. Report that! When the realization hit, I was scared, and I tried out my previous excuses for not getting involved…without success.
And there is a personal reason to involve myself in this fight, something about standing for the right though the heavens fall, and the want of the world is the want of men [and women] who are as true to duty as the needle to the pole. Those are Adventist quotations that have been written on my heart and mind by my Adventist education and my spiritual mentors.
Patricia Moleski is living proof that these are not just words on an Adventist page.
Chapter 3
Originally posted on my blog on August 9 at Adventist
Today
Adventist Health Systems made a big mistake when they hired Patricia Moleski. They should have hired someone less intelligent, less dedicated, less scrupulous, less Christian.
When I was finally able to contact Ms. Moleski, she said she had been so badly treated by AHS and their attorneys that she said she would be delighted to take a lie detector test in defense of everything she alleges in the video, and answer any additional questions put to her regarding her experiences at AHS during that test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hN9nR1KA
Steve Zeltzer, President of California Workmen’s Comp Coalition, has confirmed that Patricia's story highlights the problems virtually all healthcare institutions run into when they adopt new computer-based information systems. In her case, Ms Moleski ran afoul of a corrupt hospital administration and CERNER, the international supplier of hospital information systems. Bugs in CERNER software, reported by Patricia, lead to patient endangerment and, in the two cases she reports, patient death.
Presently, Patricia, acting as her own attorney, has offered extensive evidence that the County Courts and acting AHS counsel are trying to make her liable for criminal prosecution by false accusations and discrediting her whistleblower status, thereby violating her rights to Fifth Amendment protection.
In response, to the Court’s OMNIBUS ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS,* Ms. Moleski has filed a Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System** in which she alleges:
Ms. Moleski argues that:
The courts allowed a continuance of this litigation despite her status as a Federal/State Witness and Whistleblower, and after her eight document submissions to this court’s docket from AHCA, OSHA, the EEOC, Governor Crist’s OIG, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Diesler, U.S. Attorney General’s office, Medical Fraud Unit – Orlando Office and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.
In addition, she has:
--Submitted exhibits to show that she has participated in investigations within her Counterclaim and additional exhibits showing her relationship with law enforcement [FBI] four months prior to Adventist filing this lawsuit against her.
--Informed the court that she cannot reveal the details of the Maitland , Florida, FBI investigation against AHS executives and will continue to invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights. The Orange County Courts continue to coerce Ms. Moleski and tell her that she cannot invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights and that she will have to set up a hearing to get permission to do so.
AHS alleges that Patricia has in her possession confidential information taken from them illegally. They want back, and are involved in legal proceedings to get it. (No evidence has been produced that establishes this fact, and it’s something that Patricia denies.) However, she refuses to reveal or discuss any information regarding her ten-month participation in the FBI investigation. The agents she worked with informed her that their investigation would be compromised if she divulged that information. (On several occasions she “wore a wire” to work.)
Ms. Moleski has informed the court that she is currently unable to be physically present at court because she lacks funds to travel to Florida and has caregiver responsibilities. She has documented these facts by unemployment compensation stubs and an official document allowing the court to access her 2009-2011 IRS tax returns. In spite of this evidence, the courts will not implement whistleblower laws and AHS attorneys are attempting to use her failure to appear in court to destroy her whistleblower protections. (AHS attorneys have made no effort to obtain a deposition.)
Patricia now lives in Ohio and is desperate to find a job. She is living in poverty and believes she has been blacklisted. She has also informed the judge that she is fearful of what might happen to her should she return to Florida. When her whistleblower status was discovered, a bullet was fired into her residence, her car was firebombed, and repeated attempts were made to break into her home. (Her home alarm system was triggered twice.)
It is instructive to realize that whistleblowers, although protected by a variety of laws, can be victimized over an extended period of time by other laws and court proceedings. In Patricia’s case, her life has been made miserable for the past five years by Adventist Health Systems because she in good faith alerted AHS of bugs in the CERNER electronic record system that, unless corrected, could place Adventist Health Systems in serious trouble with HIPAA.*** Because Ms. Moleski refused, under duress, to commit these illegal and irresponsible actions, and subsequently reported these illegal violations to appropriate state and federal agencies, the AHS filed an injunction against her in an attempt to avoid the revocation of the institution’s nonprofit status and civil and criminal prosecution. In the mean time, Patricia was placed on administrative leave and then fired.
As far as can be determined, the investigation of AHS is ongoing. (Two months ago, when Ms. Moleski discussed the FBI investigation with the Maitland Office, she was told to “hang in there,” you have given us a very difficult case.”)
This is the third in a series of six Whistleblower and the Healthcare Corporation reports.
NOTE: Since Adventist Today publicized Ms. Moleski’s YouTube video, it has been seen by over 3000 new viewers.
_____________________________________________________________
*
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, SUNBELT HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA L. MOLESKI, Defendant.
**
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
JUDGE PATRICIA DOHERTY
Patricia Moleski, Counter Plaintiff, Defendant
V.
Adventist Health System, Counter Defendant, Plaintiff
****
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act “enacted August 21, 1996) and signed by President Bill Clinton. Title I of HIPAA protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs. Title II of HIPAA, known as the Administrative Simplification (AS) provisions, requires the establishment of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act
Adventist Health Systems made a big mistake when they hired Patricia Moleski. They should have hired someone less intelligent, less dedicated, less scrupulous, less Christian.
When I was finally able to contact Ms. Moleski, she said she had been so badly treated by AHS and their attorneys that she said she would be delighted to take a lie detector test in defense of everything she alleges in the video, and answer any additional questions put to her regarding her experiences at AHS during that test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hN9nR1KA
Steve Zeltzer, President of California Workmen’s Comp Coalition, has confirmed that Patricia's story highlights the problems virtually all healthcare institutions run into when they adopt new computer-based information systems. In her case, Ms Moleski ran afoul of a corrupt hospital administration and CERNER, the international supplier of hospital information systems. Bugs in CERNER software, reported by Patricia, lead to patient endangerment and, in the two cases she reports, patient death.
Presently, Patricia, acting as her own attorney, has offered extensive evidence that the County Courts and acting AHS counsel are trying to make her liable for criminal prosecution by false accusations and discrediting her whistleblower status, thereby violating her rights to Fifth Amendment protection.
In response, to the Court’s OMNIBUS ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS,* Ms. Moleski has filed a Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System** in which she alleges:
- Violations of State and Federal Whistleblower laws
- Harassment of a Federal & State Witness
- Violations of the US Constitution – 5th Amendment
- Corruption
- Fraudulent & Vexatious Litigation against a State/Federal Witness
- Coercion/extortion
- False Claims Act Violations
- Workers compensation violations
- Sexual harassment
- Concealing/contaminating evidence
- Attorney/client privilege violations
Ms. Moleski argues that:
The courts allowed a continuance of this litigation despite her status as a Federal/State Witness and Whistleblower, and after her eight document submissions to this court’s docket from AHCA, OSHA, the EEOC, Governor Crist’s OIG, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Diesler, U.S. Attorney General’s office, Medical Fraud Unit – Orlando Office and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.
In addition, she has:
--Submitted exhibits to show that she has participated in investigations within her Counterclaim and additional exhibits showing her relationship with law enforcement [FBI] four months prior to Adventist filing this lawsuit against her.
--Informed the court that she cannot reveal the details of the Maitland , Florida, FBI investigation against AHS executives and will continue to invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights. The Orange County Courts continue to coerce Ms. Moleski and tell her that she cannot invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights and that she will have to set up a hearing to get permission to do so.
AHS alleges that Patricia has in her possession confidential information taken from them illegally. They want back, and are involved in legal proceedings to get it. (No evidence has been produced that establishes this fact, and it’s something that Patricia denies.) However, she refuses to reveal or discuss any information regarding her ten-month participation in the FBI investigation. The agents she worked with informed her that their investigation would be compromised if she divulged that information. (On several occasions she “wore a wire” to work.)
Ms. Moleski has informed the court that she is currently unable to be physically present at court because she lacks funds to travel to Florida and has caregiver responsibilities. She has documented these facts by unemployment compensation stubs and an official document allowing the court to access her 2009-2011 IRS tax returns. In spite of this evidence, the courts will not implement whistleblower laws and AHS attorneys are attempting to use her failure to appear in court to destroy her whistleblower protections. (AHS attorneys have made no effort to obtain a deposition.)
Patricia now lives in Ohio and is desperate to find a job. She is living in poverty and believes she has been blacklisted. She has also informed the judge that she is fearful of what might happen to her should she return to Florida. When her whistleblower status was discovered, a bullet was fired into her residence, her car was firebombed, and repeated attempts were made to break into her home. (Her home alarm system was triggered twice.)
It is instructive to realize that whistleblowers, although protected by a variety of laws, can be victimized over an extended period of time by other laws and court proceedings. In Patricia’s case, her life has been made miserable for the past five years by Adventist Health Systems because she in good faith alerted AHS of bugs in the CERNER electronic record system that, unless corrected, could place Adventist Health Systems in serious trouble with HIPAA.*** Because Ms. Moleski refused, under duress, to commit these illegal and irresponsible actions, and subsequently reported these illegal violations to appropriate state and federal agencies, the AHS filed an injunction against her in an attempt to avoid the revocation of the institution’s nonprofit status and civil and criminal prosecution. In the mean time, Patricia was placed on administrative leave and then fired.
As far as can be determined, the investigation of AHS is ongoing. (Two months ago, when Ms. Moleski discussed the FBI investigation with the Maitland Office, she was told to “hang in there,” you have given us a very difficult case.”)
This is the third in a series of six Whistleblower and the Healthcare Corporation reports.
NOTE: Since Adventist Today publicized Ms. Moleski’s YouTube video, it has been seen by over 3000 new viewers.
_____________________________________________________________
*
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, SUNBELT HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA L. MOLESKI, Defendant.
**
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
JUDGE PATRICIA DOHERTY
Patricia Moleski, Counter Plaintiff, Defendant
V.
Adventist Health System, Counter Defendant, Plaintiff
****
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act “enacted August 21, 1996) and signed by President Bill Clinton. Title I of HIPAA protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs. Title II of HIPAA, known as the Administrative Simplification (AS) provisions, requires the establishment of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act
Chapter 4: The AHS Response
I made it clear to Kevin Edgerton that in Chapter 4 of this series, I would post only material provided by the corporation without comment. After my News Editor received his 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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are scans of the Omnibus Litigation. You can view them individually by clicking the images or download the entire document in PDF form here.
http://www.atoday.org/article/1338/blogs/hanson-andy/part-4-the-whistleblower-and-the-healthcare-corporation
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are scans of the Omnibus Litigation. You can view them individually by clicking the images or download the entire document in PDF form here.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Chapter 5
There is nothing like the frustration of a reporter that has a compelling story to tell but discovers that that story cannot be told. As a consequence, Chapter 5 contains the material I planned to include in an Epilogue. Patricia will now have the last word in Chapter 6.
Patricia Moleski is telling the truth. I am convinced of that fact for the following reasons:
She is a credible witness. As a retired schoolteacher and university professor, I’ve been told a lot of stories that were lies or half-truths. I knew immediately that Patricia wasn’t lying or even shading the truth. He body language said so; her willingness to take a lie detector test, the fact that she named names and confronted her accusers in court; the consistency of her story as recounted in legal documents and during my interrogation of her; and her amazing ability to support her story with accurately recalled dates, names, situations, and places.
The question then became, is she a former employee out to revenge herself on the employer that fired her; a nut case; a “gold digger”. I could find no evidence that she was any of these things. In fact, the harder I looked, the more evidence I discovered that she acted to insure the safety and legal rights of AHS patients and employees and to protect the corporation she loved. I could find no evidence that she was a nut case based on her exemplary performance on the job previous to her refusal to make “deletions” that she considered to be unethical and illegal, her emails to her superiors, court documents, letters to professional agencies, or in her conversations with me. In fact, her story was so credible that the FBI used her as an informant for ten months. And I could uncover no evidence of a “for-profit” motive.
Finely, she is a practicing Christian who was thrilled to be hired by a Christian organization. She took AHS training to become a Spiritual Ambassador, and was an active member of a prayer group. She had begun attending the local Adventist Church and sent emails to AHS pastors to assist them in implementing prayer teams at all 41 health facilities for patients and employees. Then her world fell apart. She has never once used the word “revenge” in our conversations. She uses the words “vindication” and “vindicated” often but “justice” only rarely. She has already forgiven her tormentors and prays that they will “just tell the truth”. And that would be the end of it as far as she is concerned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hN9nR1KA
CERNER’s computer based hospital recordkeeping program was inadequate and “buggy” as a recordkeeping system during the time Patricia was an IT employee. Failures such as the ones specifically cited by Patricia have been documented in other CERNER hospitals and in many, if not all, computer based systems worldwide.
Adventist Hospital Systems has done everything possible to deny Patricia whistleblowing status. Rather than providing evidence to counteract Patricia’s claims of malfeasance, they have attempted to destroy her reputation and her protection as a whistleblower. Their latest attempt to silence her legally rests on the claim that she removed from AHS headquarters “approximately 1000 pages of [unidentified] confidential documents” without authorization. Something she denies.
Patricia states that thousands of AHS facility employees had access to laptops that were taken home daily and none of these employees are questioned about their actions when they dialed in from home. She was only interrogated and harassed after she reported the unethical deletions to the Global Compliance Hotline.
Electronic hospital patient and employee records can be permanently changed after initial input. HIPPA only “advises” that responsible persons should be tasked for this assignment. Patricia raised the issue to AHS executives. She reported that the Assistant Risk Director had access to medical records. This was the officer who worked closely with the Claims and Risk Management attorneys when patient lawsuits were brought against AHS facilities. Patricia states that she worked closely with the FBI and documented the HIPPA violations that Risk Management’s access to medical records made possible.
AHS has produced no evidence that the governing agencies to which Patricia reported have denied the validity of her claims. AHS only claims that these agencies have dismissed her allegations because as of yet none of these agencies has instituted a public fact-finding investigation. As readers of this blog have pointed out, investigations of corporations of this size and political influence may take years. In fact, Patricia was told by the FBI that it was a tough case and to “hang in there kiddo” and that “you did a good thing.”
There is evidence that AHS officials are engaged in fraudulent practices and might go to great lengths to avoid potential lawsuits.
Adventist Health System and affiliated hospitals paid $8.9 million to settle allegations that they overbilled Medicare from 1992 to 1999.
In February, 2012, Adventist Health Service was fined $3.9 million to resolve false claims allegations related to Kyphoplasty.
Currently, “a whistle-blower lawsuit based on insider information from a former Florida HospitalOrlando billing employee and a staff physician alleges that seven Adventist Health hospitals in Central Florida have overbilled the federal government for tens of millions of dollars in false or padded medical claims.
“If found guilty, the health system would not only be responsible for repaying the excess money received, but also for paying civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim, and damages, he said.
"’When you're looking at something that happened thousands of times, and that carries substantial civil monetary penalties for each claim and treble damages, the total exposure could exceed $100 million,’ Wilbanks said.” A trial is set for December, 2013.
In addition, AHS executives face losing millions in salaries and criminal penalties if Patricia’s testimony is proven to be factual. She has recently filed an appeal in The Florida Supreme Court, and may attempt to have her appeal heard by a Federal judge. Patricia holds to the fact that AHS and the Orange County Courts have violated The Florida State Whistleblower Law, and she will continue to litigate until this law is implemented on her behalf.
Costly litigation hurts hospital bond ratings and sales. Money made through bond sales enables AHS to expand its operations and increase the number of patients it can “serve” and profit from. Currently, no AHS bonds are being traded. It is assumed that this is the result of the recent federal lawsuit. The financial consequences to AHS have yet to be determined.
There are the salaries and bonuses of the 21 Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees to be protected. The reported 2010 annual income of these people ranged from $2,925,356 to $317,331 with a median salary of $423,065. Four individuals made well over $1,000,000. Financial records are not yet available for 2011.
There is evidence that these salaries do not reflect past compensation highs. On December 31, 2009, Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel reported the following under the title of “The Good, The Bad and The Idiotic of 2009”:
“Biggest ‘nonprofit’ salary disclosed: Adventist Health CEO Don Jernigan's $3.5 million. Yes, Florida Hospital's parent company may be a ‘faith-based nonprofit,’ but that doesn't mean it's not profitable to work there. Tax records for this tax-exempt group showed that at least seven Adventist execs had annual packages worth more than $1 million. And Jernigan's $3.5 million was more than the top administrators of the famed Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins Health System made … combined.”
Finally, there are the cautionary words of Mick Conners: CPA, Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Cape Cod Healthcare
“In spite of the real needs for [data] access, there will be a strong temptation to use this privilege for other purposes. Who are those with a stake in this process? There are a number of parties: health care providers, insurance companies, medical researchers, including medical schools, and, of course, patients. From the perspective of health care providers as internal stakeholders, the medical research community is a joint stakeholder. Insurers may require similar information, but they have interests beyond those of diagnosis and treatment. In many ways, the insurers and patients hold the position of customers, which is that of an external stakeholder. Patients are external stakeholders because they receive the treatment and the information is about them. Insurers stand in the place of the patient with respect to their incurring the brunt of financial liability. Although both are external stakeholders, they are not the same.
“For the internal stakeholders, there are corporate stakes. Corporations, even hospitals, medical consortiums, and research and teaching institutions must at least break even, if not make a profit, to maintain their very existence. To survive, quality of care must improve continuously while reducing costs (Marsh, 1996). Establishing that access to electronic medical records via the Web contributes to either or both of these goals, will make it a matter of self-preservation to acquire that capability. Thus having such a capability moves from being a utilitarian issue of being able to provide better service, to one of ethical egoism in the most basic sense -- not simply self-interest but continued existence. With respect to the misuse of data, there would be obvious financial repercussions if such an occurrence were to be exposed, so the corporate players would certainly be operating in their own interests to try to avert any incident. This is true as well for the external stakeholders, at least for the insurers. By the same principle of ethical egoism, they would try to avoid misuse of data.
“However, here is where the definition of misuse comes into play. For what may constitute misuse in the view of the other external stakeholder mentioned (the patient), may constitute an act of self-preservation in the view of the insurer (or even possibly the research or teaching institution). For the patient, there may be issues of ethical egoism (not wanting certain information to be known because there could be negative repercussions), but also an ethical formalism could hold: that it is simply "not right" to disseminate a patient's medical record without express permission, regardless of the possibility for the "greater good".
“Because of the great financial pressures that could come to bear on these corporate stakeholders, internal and external, competing ethical principles could come into play. While they may initially have a well-founded reluctance to misuse data, simply because it is "not right", the desire for self-preservation could dominate. The individual patient may have the least leverage, from an economic sense, and may well not even be aware of any abuses unless there is a direct negative effect. Even in such a case, the cost of litigation, both financial and emotional, can dissuade the individual from seeking recourse.
To help ensure respect for the rights of the individual patient, while providing for a reasonably "level playing field" for all corporate concerns, another external stakeholder could and will come into play. The government has long been in the business of regulating health care standards, and there is no indication that this arena would be any different. The U.S. Senate bill, S.1360, the Medical Records Confidentiality Act of 1995 (Bennett, 1995), and its corresponding House bill, HR 435 (Thomas), show that the government will weigh in on this issue.
http://webpages.cs.luc.edu/~laufer/ethics97/papers/MickConners.html
REFERENCES
CERNER
1. Cerner Hosting Outage Raises Doctor, Hospital Concerns
Cerner's national network went down for a day, forcing physicians to resort to handwritten orders.
By Ken Terry
InformationWeek
July 26, 2012
http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/electronic-medical-records/cerner-hosting-outage-raises-doctor-hosp/240004446
2. Patient Data Outage Exposes Risks Of Electronic Medical Records
'Human error' is blamed for a five-hour computer outage last week. It highlights the risks of a nationwide switch to electronic medical records.
August 03, 2012|By Chad Terhune, Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/03/business/la-fi-hospital-data-outage-20120803
3. Contra Costa's $45 million computer health care system endangering lives, nurses say
By Matthias Gafni
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 08/14/2012 05:30:07 PM PDT
Updated: 08/14/2012 08:55:52 PM PDT
MARTINEZ -- A new medical computer system used at Contra Costa correctional facilities recommended what could have been a fatal dose of a West County Jail inmate's heart medication last week, an incident that a detention nurse characterized Tuesday as one of many recent close calls with the month-old program. However, the inmate's nurse was familiar with his medical history, recognized the discrepancy and administered the correct amount of Digoxin…
It's just one of a number of computer errors that medical staffers say have been endangering inmates, medical staff and sheriff's deputies at the county's five jail facilities since Contra Costa switched on July 1 to EPIC, a computer system that links the correctional facilities to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and other county health care operations…
"It's dangerous. It's very dangerous," said an emotional Lee Ann Fagan in a phone interview. The registered nurse works at West County Detention Facility in Richmond. "It's hard to work in an environment that's so frustrating. "What nurses want is for the EPIC program to go away until it's fixed," she said…
Staff superusers have warned management of EPIC issues, and two training sessions in May and June were inadequate, Fagan said. "They were next to useless because the program wasn't in place well enough to practice," she said. "Everyone in the classes could see the gross loopholes in information."
MANIPULATION OF RECORDS
1. Manipulation of 12,000 Medical Records Made Easy by HER
http://www.hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/07/manipulation-of-12000-medical-records.html
FRAUDULENT PRACTICES
1. Adventist Health System & Affiliated Hospitals Pay Nearly $9 Million For Overbilling Medicare
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/December/686civ.htm
2. Fraudulent Claims Cost Adventist Health System, Florida, $3.9 Million
Four hospitals affiliated with Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Inc. in Florida will pay a total of $3.9 million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Related to Kyphoplasty
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-civ-173.html
3. Whistleblower lawsuit alleges Florida Hospital filed millions in false claims
By Marni Jameson, Orlando Sentinel
August 8, 2012
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-08-08/health/os-whistleblower-lawsuit-florida-hospital-20120808_1_adventist-health-suit-claims-celebration-health
BOND RATINGS AND SALES
1. AHS bond trading ended on August 7, 2012
http://florida.municipalbonds.com/bonds/issue/684503V85
SALARIES
http://www.guidestar.org/
(click to enlarge)
AHS Update
UPDATE
Chapter 6, Patricia's final post, will follow shortly.
Florida Hospital whistle blower case widens to emergency departments
by Marni Jameson, Orlando Sentinel
Wed Oct 17 2012 6:30 PM
A whistleblower case alleging that Florida Hospital and six affiliates knowingly overbilled Medicare "tens of millions of dollars" in radiology services has widened to include the hospitals' emergency departments, according to an amended complaint filed this month.
The new complaint against Adventist Health System, which owns the hospitals, alleges that routine billing fraud occurred in the emergency departments from 2001 to 2008 and possibly longer, said Marlan Wilbanks, attorney for the whistle-blowers.
One of them, Amanda Dittman, worked in Florida Hospital's billing department during that time and claims in the suit that the hospitals routinely submitted false, duplicate or padded medical claims for emergency services, too.
The new allegation "fits like a glove with the original complaint," Wilbanks said. "It demonstrates the same lack of overall institution supervision."
The original complaint, filed in July 2010, claimed Florida Hospital used improper coding from 1995 to 2009 to overbill Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare, all federal government payers, for radiology services. The suit also alleges that the hospital routinely overbilled for a drug — octreotide — used to enhance MRI scans by billing for larger doses than were actually administered. It also alleges that bills were issued for computer-aided-detection analyses that were never performed.
For instance, in 2006 the CAD system, which helps doctors interpret mammography scans, wasn't working, yet the hospital billed for the CAD scans anyway, the suit alleges. The hospital never refunded the money, according to the suit.
When asked for comment, Florida Hospital spokeswoman Samantha O'Lenick issued this statement: "Florida Hospital takes seriously our obligations under the law. If we discover mistakes, we take appropriate action to correct them. "However, we believe the recent allegations relating to emergency room billings are asserted to achieve settlement pressure in the context of ongoing litigation. We believe the allegations are without merit, and we note that the relators had no involvement in emergency room billing. We will continue to defend the claims in court," the statement said.
Saw a pattern
The second whistle-blower in the case is Dr. Charlotte Elenberger, a radiologist affiliated with Florida Radiology Associates since 1995. Dittman, a bill-coding and reimbursement-compliance officer, worked for Florida Radiology Associates from 1996 to 2001 before going to work for Florida Hospital. Shortly after she began working at the hospital, she began to see a pattern, Dittman said. "I saw the upcoding happening daily in heavy volumes across seven hospitals in the Orlando area," she told the Sentinel. Dittman had computer access to systemwide billing records, she said. "I could see all the accounts, the charges, dates of service, the payers, what was paid and when," she said. She brought the errors to the attention of her superiors, she said. "Soon I knew that they knew what was going on, and that they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they didn't want to correct it," Dittman said. "They were more interested in the bottom line than in doing the right thing."
In response to her concerns, the hospital system's financial-services directors conducted an internal investigation that confirmed double- and overbilling were occurring, the suit alleges, but did not correct the problem or refund the money. "If there was a mistake, their culture was that they would not refund the money unless the payer specifically asked," Dittman said. "And then they would only refund the money on that one account, even though they knew how often it occurred." Each hospital followed the same fraudulent guidelines, she said, adding that those who input the codes weren't aware they were upcoding.
At one point, Dittman said, she was told she was "being an obstacle." She has since relocated and now works for a hospital in California. Motion to dismiss Wednesday morning, the hospital system filed its second motion to dismiss the claim. Its first motion to dismiss was denied by U.S. District Judge John Antoon, who called the evidence "extensive and sufficient."
The seven Adventist hospitals listed in the complaint are Florida Hospital Orlando, Florida Hospital Altamonte, Florida Hospital Apopka, Florida Hospital East Orlando, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Florida Hospital Kissimmee and Winter Park Memorial Hospital. "We allege they knew exactly what was going on and they didn't change their practice," Wilbanks said. "Basic errors were being made over and over in a very reckless fashion. It's not in doubt that these errors were being made. The question is how many times, and how much [money] did they keep that they shouldn't have kept?" he said.
Though the discovery process hasn't started, he said, the problem is systemic. "Based on the paper trail we've seen, we have a basis for believing that this was a problem for a number of years," Wilbanks said. If found guilty, Adventist would not only be responsible for repaying the excess money received, but also for paying damages and civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim, he said. The damages alone could easily be in the tens of millions of dollars, he added. A trial is set for December 2013. mjameson@tribune.com or 407-420-5158 Click here to view this article <http://mobile.orlandosentinel.com/k/4awyz>
A whistleblower case alleging that Florida Hospital and six affiliates knowingly overbilled Medicare "tens of millions of dollars" in radiology services has widened to include the hospitals' emergency departments, according to an amended complaint filed this month. The new complaint against Adventist Health System, which owns the hospitals, alleges that routine billing fraud occurred in the emergency departments from 2001 to 2008 and possibly longer, said Marlan Wilbanks, attorney for the whistle-blowers. One of them, Amanda Dittman, worked in Florida Hospital's billing department during that time and claims in the suit that the hospitals routinely submitted false, duplicate or padded medical claims for emergency services, too.
The new allegation "fits like a glove with the original complaint," Wilbanks said. "It demonstrates the same lack of overall institution supervision." The original complaint, filed in July 2010, claimed Florida Hospital used improper coding from 1995 to 2009 to overbill Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare, all federal government payers, for radiology services. The suit also alleges that the hospital routinely overbilled for a drug — octreotide — used to enhance MRI scans by billing for larger doses than were actually administered. It also alleges that bills were issued for computer-aided-detection analyses that were never performed. For instance, in 2006 the CAD system, which helps doctors interpret mammography scans, wasn't working, yet the hospital billed for the CAD scans anyway, the suit alleges. The hospital never refunded the money, according to the suit.
When asked for comment, Florida Hospital spokeswoman Samantha O'Lenick issued this statement: "Florida Hospital takes seriously our obligations under the law. If we discover mistakes, we take appropriate action to correct them. "However, we believe the recent allegations relating to emergency room billings are asserted to achieve settlement pressure in the context of ongoing litigation. We believe the allegations are without merit, and we note that the relators had no involvement in emergency room billing. We will continue to defend the claims in court," the statement said.
Saw a pattern
The second whistle-blower in the case is Dr. Charlotte Elenberger, a radiologist affiliated with Florida Radiology Associates since 1995. Dittman, a bill-coding and reimbursement-compliance officer, worked for Florida Radiology Associates from 1996 to 2001 before going to work for Florida Hospital. Shortly after she began working at the hospital, she began to see a pattern, Dittman said. "I saw the upcoding happening daily in heavy volumes across seven hospitals in the Orlando area," she told the Sentinel. Dittman had computer access to systemwide billing records, she said. "I could see all the accounts, the charges, dates of service, the payers, what was paid and when," she said.
She brought the errors to the attention of her superiors, she said. "Soon I knew that they knew what was going on, and that they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they didn't want to correct it," Dittman said. "They were more interested in the bottom line than in doing the right thing." In response to her concerns, the hospital system's financial-services directors conducted an internal investigation that confirmed double- and overbilling were occurring, the suit alleges, but did not correct the problem or refund the money. "If there was a mistake, their culture was that they would not refund the money unless the payer specifically asked," Dittman said. "And then they would only refund the money on that one account, even though they knew how often it occurred." Each hospital followed the same fraudulent guidelines, she said, adding that those who input the codes weren't aware they were upcoding.
At one point, Dittman said, she was told she was "being an obstacle." She has since relocated and now works for a hospital in California. Motion to dismiss Wednesday morning, the hospital system filed its second motion to dismiss the claim. Its first motion to dismiss was denied by U.S. District Judge John Antoon, who called the evidence "extensive and sufficient."
The seven Adventist hospitals listed in the complaint are Florida Hospital Orlando, Florida Hospital Altamonte, Florida Hospital Apopka, Florida Hospital East Orlando, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Florida Hospital Kissimmee and Winter Park Memorial Hospital. "We allege they knew exactly what was going on and they didn't change their practice," Wilbanks said. "Basic errors were being made over and over in a very reckless fashion. It's not in doubt that these errors were being made. The question is how many times, and how much [money] did they keep that they shouldn't have kept?" he said.
Though the discovery process hasn't started, he said, the problem is systemic. "Based on the paper trail we've seen, we have a basis for believing that this was a problem for a number of years," Wilbanks said. If found guilty, Adventist would not only be responsible for repaying the excess money received, but also for paying damages and civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim, he said. The damages alone could easily be in the tens of millions of dollars, he added. A trial is set for December 2013. mjameson@tribune.com or 407-420-5158 View this article at <http://mobile.orlandosentinel.com/k/4awyz>
Chapter 6, Patricia's final post, will follow shortly.
Florida Hospital whistle blower case widens to emergency departments
by Marni Jameson, Orlando Sentinel
Wed Oct 17 2012 6:30 PM
A whistleblower case alleging that Florida Hospital and six affiliates knowingly overbilled Medicare "tens of millions of dollars" in radiology services has widened to include the hospitals' emergency departments, according to an amended complaint filed this month.
The new complaint against Adventist Health System, which owns the hospitals, alleges that routine billing fraud occurred in the emergency departments from 2001 to 2008 and possibly longer, said Marlan Wilbanks, attorney for the whistle-blowers.
One of them, Amanda Dittman, worked in Florida Hospital's billing department during that time and claims in the suit that the hospitals routinely submitted false, duplicate or padded medical claims for emergency services, too.
The new allegation "fits like a glove with the original complaint," Wilbanks said. "It demonstrates the same lack of overall institution supervision."
The original complaint, filed in July 2010, claimed Florida Hospital used improper coding from 1995 to 2009 to overbill Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare, all federal government payers, for radiology services. The suit also alleges that the hospital routinely overbilled for a drug — octreotide — used to enhance MRI scans by billing for larger doses than were actually administered. It also alleges that bills were issued for computer-aided-detection analyses that were never performed.
For instance, in 2006 the CAD system, which helps doctors interpret mammography scans, wasn't working, yet the hospital billed for the CAD scans anyway, the suit alleges. The hospital never refunded the money, according to the suit.
When asked for comment, Florida Hospital spokeswoman Samantha O'Lenick issued this statement: "Florida Hospital takes seriously our obligations under the law. If we discover mistakes, we take appropriate action to correct them. "However, we believe the recent allegations relating to emergency room billings are asserted to achieve settlement pressure in the context of ongoing litigation. We believe the allegations are without merit, and we note that the relators had no involvement in emergency room billing. We will continue to defend the claims in court," the statement said.
Saw a pattern
The second whistle-blower in the case is Dr. Charlotte Elenberger, a radiologist affiliated with Florida Radiology Associates since 1995. Dittman, a bill-coding and reimbursement-compliance officer, worked for Florida Radiology Associates from 1996 to 2001 before going to work for Florida Hospital. Shortly after she began working at the hospital, she began to see a pattern, Dittman said. "I saw the upcoding happening daily in heavy volumes across seven hospitals in the Orlando area," she told the Sentinel. Dittman had computer access to systemwide billing records, she said. "I could see all the accounts, the charges, dates of service, the payers, what was paid and when," she said. She brought the errors to the attention of her superiors, she said. "Soon I knew that they knew what was going on, and that they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they didn't want to correct it," Dittman said. "They were more interested in the bottom line than in doing the right thing."
In response to her concerns, the hospital system's financial-services directors conducted an internal investigation that confirmed double- and overbilling were occurring, the suit alleges, but did not correct the problem or refund the money. "If there was a mistake, their culture was that they would not refund the money unless the payer specifically asked," Dittman said. "And then they would only refund the money on that one account, even though they knew how often it occurred." Each hospital followed the same fraudulent guidelines, she said, adding that those who input the codes weren't aware they were upcoding.
At one point, Dittman said, she was told she was "being an obstacle." She has since relocated and now works for a hospital in California. Motion to dismiss Wednesday morning, the hospital system filed its second motion to dismiss the claim. Its first motion to dismiss was denied by U.S. District Judge John Antoon, who called the evidence "extensive and sufficient."
The seven Adventist hospitals listed in the complaint are Florida Hospital Orlando, Florida Hospital Altamonte, Florida Hospital Apopka, Florida Hospital East Orlando, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Florida Hospital Kissimmee and Winter Park Memorial Hospital. "We allege they knew exactly what was going on and they didn't change their practice," Wilbanks said. "Basic errors were being made over and over in a very reckless fashion. It's not in doubt that these errors were being made. The question is how many times, and how much [money] did they keep that they shouldn't have kept?" he said.
Though the discovery process hasn't started, he said, the problem is systemic. "Based on the paper trail we've seen, we have a basis for believing that this was a problem for a number of years," Wilbanks said. If found guilty, Adventist would not only be responsible for repaying the excess money received, but also for paying damages and civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim, he said. The damages alone could easily be in the tens of millions of dollars, he added. A trial is set for December 2013. mjameson@tribune.com or 407-420-5158 Click here to view this article <http://mobile.orlandosentinel.com/k/4awyz>
A whistleblower case alleging that Florida Hospital and six affiliates knowingly overbilled Medicare "tens of millions of dollars" in radiology services has widened to include the hospitals' emergency departments, according to an amended complaint filed this month. The new complaint against Adventist Health System, which owns the hospitals, alleges that routine billing fraud occurred in the emergency departments from 2001 to 2008 and possibly longer, said Marlan Wilbanks, attorney for the whistle-blowers. One of them, Amanda Dittman, worked in Florida Hospital's billing department during that time and claims in the suit that the hospitals routinely submitted false, duplicate or padded medical claims for emergency services, too.
The new allegation "fits like a glove with the original complaint," Wilbanks said. "It demonstrates the same lack of overall institution supervision." The original complaint, filed in July 2010, claimed Florida Hospital used improper coding from 1995 to 2009 to overbill Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare, all federal government payers, for radiology services. The suit also alleges that the hospital routinely overbilled for a drug — octreotide — used to enhance MRI scans by billing for larger doses than were actually administered. It also alleges that bills were issued for computer-aided-detection analyses that were never performed. For instance, in 2006 the CAD system, which helps doctors interpret mammography scans, wasn't working, yet the hospital billed for the CAD scans anyway, the suit alleges. The hospital never refunded the money, according to the suit.
When asked for comment, Florida Hospital spokeswoman Samantha O'Lenick issued this statement: "Florida Hospital takes seriously our obligations under the law. If we discover mistakes, we take appropriate action to correct them. "However, we believe the recent allegations relating to emergency room billings are asserted to achieve settlement pressure in the context of ongoing litigation. We believe the allegations are without merit, and we note that the relators had no involvement in emergency room billing. We will continue to defend the claims in court," the statement said.
Saw a pattern
The second whistle-blower in the case is Dr. Charlotte Elenberger, a radiologist affiliated with Florida Radiology Associates since 1995. Dittman, a bill-coding and reimbursement-compliance officer, worked for Florida Radiology Associates from 1996 to 2001 before going to work for Florida Hospital. Shortly after she began working at the hospital, she began to see a pattern, Dittman said. "I saw the upcoding happening daily in heavy volumes across seven hospitals in the Orlando area," she told the Sentinel. Dittman had computer access to systemwide billing records, she said. "I could see all the accounts, the charges, dates of service, the payers, what was paid and when," she said.
She brought the errors to the attention of her superiors, she said. "Soon I knew that they knew what was going on, and that they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they didn't want to correct it," Dittman said. "They were more interested in the bottom line than in doing the right thing." In response to her concerns, the hospital system's financial-services directors conducted an internal investigation that confirmed double- and overbilling were occurring, the suit alleges, but did not correct the problem or refund the money. "If there was a mistake, their culture was that they would not refund the money unless the payer specifically asked," Dittman said. "And then they would only refund the money on that one account, even though they knew how often it occurred." Each hospital followed the same fraudulent guidelines, she said, adding that those who input the codes weren't aware they were upcoding.
At one point, Dittman said, she was told she was "being an obstacle." She has since relocated and now works for a hospital in California. Motion to dismiss Wednesday morning, the hospital system filed its second motion to dismiss the claim. Its first motion to dismiss was denied by U.S. District Judge John Antoon, who called the evidence "extensive and sufficient."
The seven Adventist hospitals listed in the complaint are Florida Hospital Orlando, Florida Hospital Altamonte, Florida Hospital Apopka, Florida Hospital East Orlando, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Florida Hospital Kissimmee and Winter Park Memorial Hospital. "We allege they knew exactly what was going on and they didn't change their practice," Wilbanks said. "Basic errors were being made over and over in a very reckless fashion. It's not in doubt that these errors were being made. The question is how many times, and how much [money] did they keep that they shouldn't have kept?" he said.
Though the discovery process hasn't started, he said, the problem is systemic. "Based on the paper trail we've seen, we have a basis for believing that this was a problem for a number of years," Wilbanks said. If found guilty, Adventist would not only be responsible for repaying the excess money received, but also for paying damages and civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim, he said. The damages alone could easily be in the tens of millions of dollars, he added. A trial is set for December 2013. mjameson@tribune.com or 407-420-5158 View this article at <http://mobile.orlandosentinel.com/k/4awyz>
Chapter 6
A REPORTER’S NOTE
As a fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist, I am deeply embarrassed that the trademarked name, “Adventist”, is part of the name of this corporation. I am in hopes that the pending federal prosecution (see Chapter 5 and AHS Update) will so embarrass the Adventist Church that it will force Adventist Health System to change its name while the federal government changes its practices.
I intend to follow this story until it is no longer newsworthy, so check this blog occasionally. Readers, your posted comments can alert me to current news, and I can always be reached at aphanson@csuchico.edu.
Patricia and I thank you for your prayers. I’m also indebted to those of you who have gone out of your way to provide the invaluable encouragement, insights, and information that made this reporting possible. Patricia’s story is an important one.
Andy
In this chapter, Patricia would like you to look at three documents. Two can be read in plain text, and the final one as a pdf file. I’ve chosen to post the INTERROGATORIES first, because it allows the reader to better understand the court’s way of putting Patricia’s testimony on the record.
In the MOTION FOR CIVIL COMTEMPT, Patricia fights back, asserting her whistleblower and Fifth Amendment Rights. She argues the case for a fair hearing regarding her whistleblower status and her testimony regarding Adventist Health Service’s illegal practices. And she names names.
The AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM/COUNTER PETITION offers a picture of the machinations if the legal process, and allows you a glimpse of Patricia’s amazing ability to use that process to defend herself from a billion dollar institution that will stop at nothing to protect its interests. (Note: This link problematic with Firefox OS. Recommend: Chrome and/or Safari)
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES
1. 1. The following Supplemental interrogatories are included in Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Patricia L. . Moleski. The original submission made by the defendant/counter plaintiff were submitted August 31, 2011.
A. A. Interrogatories Regarding the AHS documents which you Obtained and are the Subject of this Lawsuit.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Did you electronically download or otherwise obtained copies of documents from the private or personal work folders (as defined in the instructions to these supplemental interrogatories) of any AHS employee without each employee's prior approval or authorization.
ANSWER:
There were no "private or personal work folders" in the SHARED G DRIVE nor did I have access to any "private or personal work folders."
While working at AHS there were print-offs of many of the thousands of deletions, worker compensation deletions, procedure manuals, emails, email receipts, and other work related material. These were then stored in my cubical filing cabinet in AHS Risk Management. At no time was there ever a policy/documentation or meeting to inform me of having to ask for permission and I was never questioned about any of these actions until I reported AHS to law enforcement regarding HIPPA violation, fraud, patient overdose, covering up patient death, deletions of patient adverse events and the deletions of Worker Compensation Claims. After my reports to authorities, AHS went on to accuse me of the very thing that Ireported them of doing.
Within the SHARED G Drive I had close to thirty folders that contained close to 1300 files that were/are easily accessible to all employees within AHS Risk Management. Thus the name SHARED G DRIVE.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 1is yes, are the AHS documents that you downloaded or obtained currently in your possession, custody or control?
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 1.
INTERROGATORY NO.3: If your answer to Interrogatory No.2 is no, when did you cease possession or control of the AHS documents and to whom did you deliver them?
In good faith, I reported clear violations of the law by AHS. I reported this information to the FBI and will not disclose any information regarding the details of that investigation. Idid so understanding that both Federal and State law protect a whistleblower who in good faith reports criminal and/or fraudulent activity. I am, however, in an abundance of caution, asserting my constitutional privilege, i.e., my Fifth Amendment Rights. Without waiving my Fifth Amendment rights, on February 18, 2009, as part of my job position, Iwas asked, via e-mail, to delete a duplicate claim record of the suicide of a patient named Kenneth Kramer. This was not unusual as I had been making deletions to entries of claim records, which I was told were duplicates. In this particular instance, I actually went into the Riskmaster computer system program to find the duplicate claim record and found that no such duplicate claim record existed. I went back into the Riskmaster system and claim of Kenneth Kramer and discovered that Mr. Kramer was overdosed. Due to the overdose, Mr.
Kramer left the hospital, (unbeknownst to the medical care providers), went to the parking garage of Florida Hospital and jumped off the7th floor of the Florida Hospital parking garage, taking his own life. I reported to the hierarchy of AHS as I felt I should, including but not limited to, Jonathan Hillock- AHS Risk Management Data Systems Manager, James Pridemore - Florida Hospital Loss Control Manager, Jean Hood- AHS Risk Management Assistant Director, Stacy Prince- AHS Risk Management Director, Bill Morgan- AHS- Claim Director, William Morgan- AHS Legal Counsel, Sandra Johnson- AHS Sr. Vice President, Business Department, Chuck Edmonds, Dave Riesen- AHS Compliance Director, Bonnie Laurencell- AHS Manager Human Resources, Robert Hederschedt- AHS Senior Vice President, Administration, Ann Elilas and the AHS Global Compliance Hotline and informed each that Kenneth Kramer's claim record was not a duplicate.
However, after reporting this to the noted individuals, (the hierarchy of AHS), I went back into the Risk Management system and discovered that the event had been changed from a suicide to an AMA (Discharged against Medical Advice). When I confronted these individuals, in particular, Jean Hood, AHS Risk Management Assistant Director, I informed her that I had spoken to Jonathan Hillock, AHS Risk Management Data Systems Manager, about the change in the record and he told me that he could restore the claim record to its original state. Jean Hood started yelling at me and stated: "it is their data, just leave it alone" and "don't change anything." I then spoke to James Pridemore, Florida Hospital Loss Control Manager about this situation and he stated, "They just want to get rid of it" and. "they do not have to report a suicide."
I was then called into a compliance meeting by Dave Reisen, AHS Compliance Director, regarding this situation and some other deletions which I brought up where claim records were deleted .and fraudulently "re-created" to the benefit of AHS. The next case discussed with Dave Reisen at the compliance meeting was the "Baby Frandley" case, which I also was told was a duplicate. I informed these same individuals that this claim record was not a duplicate, as one of the events listed the baby as being overdosed on vitamin K and the other fraudulent "created" claim record listed the baby as having low APGAR scores. I asked David Reisen, "How will the family of this baby know that it received two Vitamin K shots?" He stated "it is a duplicate, case closed." I told Dave Reisen that this was not right and that I thought that the conclusion was wrong. He said "this is not your choosing."
I then informed David Reisen that I had contacted AHCA, JCAHO and HIPPA hat line and they stated that under no circumstances should any claim or data be altered or deleted. David Reisen stated that the deletions of duplicates are no longer my concern and that Jonathan Hillock, AHS Risk Management Data Systems Manager, would be doing the procedure. I told David Reisen that I thought it was unfair to ask me or Jonathan to do these deletions without the education of the HIPPA, AHCA and JCAHO guidelines. David Reisen stated, "case closed." As I left that meeting, I told David .Reisen that their findings were wrong and that it was not a good thing for Adventist Health System. With these deletions occurring, the families of the victims/patients will never know what happened to their loved ones. I considered that to be outright fraud and it disturbed me greatly that an alleged Christian organization would participate in such conduct. I still continued to be sent deletions after this meeting.
Prior to being put on paid suspension on May 29, 2009, I viewed yet another fraudulent re-created Riskmaster claim record of an individual by the name of Arlene Mix. The original .Riskmaster claim record came into the Riskmaster claim system when the adverse event actually occurred and the indicator on the Riskmaster claim record reflected "equipment failure". Thereafter, AHS was served by the Mix family with a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. After receipt of the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, a fraudulent AHS Riskmaster claim record was created to reflect that the adverse event was a "physician alleged failure", therefore, taking the blame off of AHS and the hospital facility and putting it on the unknowing doctor. This was one of many fraudulent re created Riskmaster claim records that I viewed. This particular "re-created" fraudulent claim record was then attached to the Mix family's Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation and was not the original adverse Riskmaster claim record that incriminated AHS or the facilities of AHS. What is really disturbing about this particular deletion is that I remember these individuals laughing about this case at one of the meetings.
Any information responsive to this Interrogatory, which reflect the criminal and fraudulent acts of the AHS Hierarchy and its employees have been turned over to the proper authorities specifically, including the FBI.
I was required, first and foremost, by my moral commitment to God, which I take very seriously, the various and obvious Federal and State laws in place that prohibit this type of conduct, and by the AHS Employee Guidelines to report any criminal behavior and/or activity, and that is exactly what I did when the AHS Hierarchy/employees refused to correct their wrongdoing and criminal behavior and take the appropriate corrective action. I did what I thought was right and found that they were not interested in the truth. I did so with the understanding further that reporting to the proper authorities could be done without the threat of coercion, extortion, or criminal prosecution being initiated by AHS because in good faith and based on the clear objective evidence, AHS was in violation of the law. These "re-created" claim records were billed to the government and private insurance and that was wrong. The way AHS manipulated the data was wrong and someone needed to step up and do something to put a stop to it.
Due to my questioning the Hierarchy/employees of AHS Risk management and others, as listed above, regarding these criminal acts, on May 29, 2009, I was placed on administrative leave and told that I was suspended with pay until further investigation. On June 24, 2009, I was served with AHS's Verified Complaint for Temporary and Permanent Injunction, requesting the Court to Order me to keep my mouth shut regarding what I witnessed during my employment at AHS and to return any documents which prove the criminal conduct of these employees of AHS as listed above. The clear intent of the lawsuit was to pressure me into not following through to do what I knew was the right thing to do. On January 29, 2010, I was terminated by AHS. It is unequivocally clear I was terminated because I exposed the criminal conduct of AHS.
INTERROGATORY NO.4: When did you first access (directly or through any other person) AHS documents in the private or personal work folders of any AHS employee assigned to the Risk Management and/or Claims Departments?
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.
INTERROGATORY NO.5: When did you last access (directly or through any other person) AHS documents in the private or personal work folders of any AHS employee assigned to the Risk Management and/or Claims Department?
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.
B. Interrogatories Regarding AHS Documents which Defendant Provided to Third Parties Identified by Defendant.
INTERROGATORY NO.6: Did you at any time deliver or disclose any AHS documents to the following entities: (i) Federal Bureau of Investigation- FBI Tampa/Maitland Offices; (ii) Assistant United States Attorney- Sandra Diesler; (iii) Department of Justice- Washington D.C.; (iv) Attorney General Orlando Florida Medical Fraud Unit; (v) Government Accountability Project- GAP; (vi) Senator Charles Grass ley- Senate Finance Committee- Washington D.C;, (vii) Project on Government Oversight- POGO.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.
INTERROGATORY NO.7: If your answer to Interrogatory No.6 is yes, identify each AHS document that you delivered or disclosed to each person or entity and describe any communications with each person or entity about those documents.
ANSWER:
See answer to Interrogatory Number 3.
INTERROGATORY NO.8: Are copies or originals of each AHS document that you provided to the individuals or entities listed in response to Interrogatory No. 6 currently in your possession or control?
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.
INTERROGATORY NO.9: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is no, who has possession or control of each AHS documents.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.
II. The following Supplemental Interrogatories are based on information provided by Defendant regarding her alleged status as an FBI"Informant"
INTERROGATORY NO 10: Describe your interactions with the FBI as an alleged FBI "informant." Including the beginning and ending dates of your status as an alleged FBI informant.
ANSWER:
In an abundance of caution, I am asserting my constitutional privilege, i.e., my Fifth Amendment Rights. Without waiving my Fifth Amendment rights I contacted the Maitland FBI office and spoke to an agent who told me to come
to the FBI offices in Maitland the following morning at 8:00a.m., in April 2009. I arrived at the offices of the FBI and then met with two agents. They stated that
a. 1. would have to meet with them again, they gave me their contact information, and they asked for mine. I was then assigned an agent with whom I worked for ten months. I am listed as an FBI informant because of this case, and the FBI has been investigating this situation through its Maitland office. Due to the serious nature of the situation and the investigation by law enforcement, I have been told not to discuss the matter/names of agents and I will have to refer you to the FBI offices in Tampa, 5525 W. Gray Street, Tampa, FL 33609, for any further information.
INTERROGATORY NO 11: Provide the names, job titles and contact information for the FBI officials or agents with whom you have interacted with as an alleged FBI informant.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 10.
INTERROGATORY NO 12: Provide any identifying information or numbers(s) which the FBI has provided to you as an alleged FBI informant.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 10.
Ill. The following Supplemental Interrogatories Are Based on Defendant's Counterclaim(s) against Plaintiff
INTERROGATORY NO 13: Identify all persons who have knowledge of any facts which pertain to your counterclaim(s) against AHS in this lawsuit and describe the particular knowledge that each person possesses.
ANSWER:
I am asserting my constitutional privilege, my Fifth Amendment Right to this Interrogatory. Additionally, and without waiving my Fifth Amendment Right, on
September 1,2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. In doing so, the Court directed the Plaintiff to file Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Production to clarify its requests. On September 12, 2011, the Plaintiff served its Supplemental Interrogatories Numbered 1-12. On October 14, 2011, the Law Firm of Riley Allen Law, entered its appearance. On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff served Amended Supplemental Interrogatories, however, Plaintiff was not given leave from the Court to add additional interrogatories after serving the Supplemental Interrogatories on September 12, 2011.
Please note that on May 19, 2010, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS, served Fifty-One (51) Interrogatories including sub-parts upon on Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski. Ms. Moleski answered those Interrogatories and filed the answers with the Court on August 31, 2010.
Due to the Court's Order on September 1, 2011, Ms. Moleski has now answered an additional 14 interrogatories for a total of 65 answered Interrogatories. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340 states "in part":
"The interrogatories shall not exceed 50, including all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good cause."
The Court allowed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS to serve additional Supplemental Interrogatories in its Order executed on September 1, 2011 and those Supplemental Interrogatories were served on the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on September 12, 2011.
Therefore, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski objects to this Interrogatory served after the Court's September 1, 2011, Order.
INTERROGATORY NO 14: Describe any injuries and damages you have suffered due to the actions of AHS alleged in your counterclaim(s).
ANSWER:
On September 1, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. In doing so, the Court directed the Plaintiff to file Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Production to clarify its requests. On September 12, 2011, the Plaintiff served its Supplemental Interrogatories numbered 1-12. On October 14, 2011, the Law Firm of Riley Allen Law entered its appearance. On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff served Amended Supplemental Interrogatories; however, Plaintiff was not given leave from the Court to add additional interrogatories after serving the Supplemental Interrogatories on September 12, 2011.
Please not that on May 19, 2010, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS, served Fifty-One (51) Interrogatories including sub-parts upon on Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski. Ms. Moleski answered those Interrogatories and filed the answers with the Court on August 31, 2010.
Due to the Court's Order on September 1, 2011, Ms. Moleski has now answered an additional14 Interrogatories for a total of 65 answered Interrogatories. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340 states "in part":
''The interrogatories shall not exceed 50, including all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good cause."
The Court allowed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS to serve additional Supplemental Interrogatories in its Order executed on September 1, 2011 and those Supplemental Interrogatories were served on the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on September 12, 2011.
Therefore, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski objects to this Interrogatory served after the Court's September 1, 2011, as harassing.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15 State the amount of money you are seeking based on your counterclaim against AHS and describes how the amount was calculated.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Please identify or describe any document(s) upon which you have based your computation of damages for your counterclaim(s) against AHS.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Have you worked in any manner for any employer or company (except AHS) between May 1, 2009, and the present. For each employer/company please provide the following information:
a. a. Your dates of employment, position, and job duties;
a. b. Your gross earnings and any benefits from each employer to date;
a. c. The reason(s) for ceasing work with each employer.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Identify every source of income you have received since May 1, 2009 (except AHS), including, but not limited to, compensation from employment, self-employment, business activities, unemployment compensation, other governmental benefits, and loans/advances from family, friends, or any other person. For each source of income, please state the following.
a. a. The name, address, and telephone number of each source of income;
b. b. The amount of income received;
a. c. The dates the income was received.
b.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Have you applied for employment with any persons, companies or agencies since May 1, 2009? If yes, state the following:
a. a. The name, address, and telephone number of every person, company, or agency with whom you have applied for employment.
a. b. The date of each employment application;
b. c. The position applied for;
c. d. The date and source of all offers and the salary or hourly wage promised.
ANSWER:
See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.
MOTION FOR CIVIL COMTEMPT
1 | P a g e
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
JUDGE PATRICIA DOHERTY
Patricia Moleski
Counter Plaintiff, Defendant
V.
Adventist Health System,
Counter Defendant, Plaintiff
eFiled in the Office of Clerk of Court, Orange County Florida 2012 Apr 18 06:01 PM Lydia Gardner
MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, LISTED JUDGES, ORANGE COUNTY COURT NINTH CIRCUIT AND AHS ACTING COUNSEL FOR:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
Adventist Health System
Judge Frederick Lauten
Judge Marshall Kest
Judge Evans
Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel
Judge Patricia Doherty
Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani
Orange County Court Ninth Circuit
I. Adventist Health System and Risk/Compliance Executives
Defendant, Patricia Moleski, files this Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System and listed Judges and acting counsel for violations of State and Federal Whistleblower laws & violations of Fifth Amendment Rights and Fraudulent/Vexatious Litigation. AHS and its affiliates are violating State and Federal Whistleblower laws through illegal manipulations in order to discredit/incriminate/set up its previous employee in retaliation for reporting intra-organizational crime to the FBI, and for her participation in an FBI investigation regarding the fraud, overdose of patients, and corruption within some of Orlando’s law firms who received kickbacks from AHS, and HIPPA violations by its Assistant Risk Director for entering into the Electronic Medical Record of patients who are litigating against Adventist Health System and/or its facilities/hospitals. Adventist Health System filed its injunction through Orange County Courts four months after Ms. Moleski reported their illegal activities to The Global Compliance Hotline and the FBI.
Ms. Moleski notified the courts at the first hearing with Judge Evans as to her status with the FBI, and the investigation of Adventist Health by the FBI .The courts allowed a continuance of this litigation despite Ms. Moleski’s status as a Federal/State Witness and Whistleblower, and after her eight document submissions to this court’s docket from AHCA, OSHA, the EEOC, Governor Crist’s OIG, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Diesler, U.S. Attorney General’s office, Medical Fraud Unit – Orlando Office and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.
Adventist Health is pursuing this issue to get their hands on information regarding the Federal investigation into Risk Management, so that they can shield themselves from incrimination from HIPPA violations, lawsuits, and State and Federal penalties. Whistleblower Patricia Moleski is being retaliated against by AHS for revealing their attachment to a ring of corruption within Orlando by taking the light off of the illegal activities of Adventist Health System executives and attempting to discredit, defamate, and push civil contempt against her through its connections to the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges.
AHS’ acting counsel, Ms. Vilmos, Mr. Kizziar, the Orange County Courts and its appointed Judges, have been put on notice as to the investigation of Adventist Health System and law firms within the Orlando area regarding patient overdose, conspiracy to cover up HIPPA violations and kickbacks.
Ms. Moleski has submitted exhibits to show that she has participated in investigations within her Counterclaim and additional exhibits displayed on this case docket, showing her relationship with law enforcement four months prior to Adventist filing this lawsuit against her.
Ms. Moleski has shown that the courts are closely tied to the Adventist Executives through MyRegion.org and WMFE and all of their affiliates and the recusal of Judge Lauten have proven the close relationship between these entities. Ms. Moleski believes the whole court system in Orange County Florida is compromised and has a huge conflict of interest regarding this case and other cases represented by Adventist Health System that the citizens of Florida have no knowledge of, as it is shown through the monetary connections between Florida Hospital, Adventist Health System and its twenty-three located hospitals within Florida, MyRegion.org. (Judge Lauten’s wife is the president of this organization), WMFE (AHS CEO Don Jernigan is the President of this broadcasting agency), the city of Orlando, and affiliated Judges and Commissioners.
Because of these close monetary ties, Ms. Moleski believes that the Orange County Courts and acting AHS counsel are trying to set her up for criminal prosecution through false accusations and discrediting her status by violating her rights to Fifth Amendment provisions. They are manipulating agencies/the courts to accomplish this task. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Adventist Health System for:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
II. Judge Lauten
Ms. Moleski has clearly shown a line of corruption through the recusal of Judge Lauten and Judge Kest. Judge Lauten sat on this case for over a year, while he knew of his wife’s’ position of President of MyRegion.org and the organizations close monetary tie to Adventist Health System and Florida Hospital. Three of AHS’ executives sit on the board of MyRegion.org as well as Judges within Orange County Courts and political figures within Florida and many law firms. Still Judge Lauten continued to misuse his status in this Whistleblower case, making comments at hearings stating that “Ms. Moleski is either a Whistleblower or a thief.” Judge Lauten then took control of a box submitted by Ms. Moleski’s previous counsel, Brad Conway after he knew of the severity of the investigation against Adventist Health System and the illegal maneuvers of AHS. The rights of Ms. Moleski were violated, including both her right to her own attorney client information and her rights to due process.
Judge Lauten misused the courts and violated judicial law by knowingly sitting on this case, while his wife sat as President of MyRegion.org along with two of Adventist Health System Executives. This shows incredible disregard for judicial law and corruption within the Ninth Circuit Courts. Ms. Moleski filed a Protective Order regarding the contents of the box and requested that Judge Lauten turn the box over to Florida AUSA Sandra Diesler, Judge Lauten denied this right to Ms. Moleski and the many victims of AHS by disclosing the investigation. Judge Lauten should not be listening to any cases in a judicial capacity for or against AHS because of the close monetary ties to he, the Orange County Courts, MyRegion.org and his wife.
Judge Lauten has abused his authority and the Judiciary Committee will be notified of this filing for civil contempt. Ms. Moleski filed for a recusal of Judge Lauten and he did submit to her request after she found that he had a monetary relationship with AHS through his wife and MyRegion.org. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Judge Frederick Lauten for:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
III. Judge Kest
On August 30 and 31, 2011, Judge Kest entered and conducted a hearing regarding his in camera inspection of certain sealed documents deposited with the Court (from Ms. Moleski’s prior terminated counsel, Brad Conway) and the pending motions in this case, including AHS’ Motion to Compel. Judge Kest violated the rights of Ms. Moleski, and the thousands of overdose/fraud victims of AHS. Eight months before this hearing Ms. Moleski filed a Protective Order which was never heard by Judge Kest. Judge Kest then stated four months after the Protective Order filing that “he had already taken the box submitted by Brad Conway home for viewing 3 months prior to the August 30 & 31 hearing.”
Judge Kest’s open admission to contamination of evidence should be investigated, as Ms. Moleski submitted for his recusal publically because of his relationship with MyRegion.org and WMFE. During the hearing, the Court granted AHS’ Motion to Compel as well as all other Motions filed against Ms. Moleski, continuing to violate her rights to due process with a severe degree of bias by Judge Kest. Judge Kest additionally denied every filing made by Ms. Moleski, showing yet another act of discrimination and bias after he had documented proof of Ms. Moleski’s relationship to investigations regarding AHS. Judge Kest continued bias against Ms. Moleski showing a rabid, Roland Friesler -like mentality towards her, demanding that she testify a certain way as to disclose to AHS the totality of investigations.
Judge Kest made every effort to comply with AHS and its counsel and showed blatant favoritism towards AHS. Judge Kest went as far as to attempt to make Ms. Moleski testify regarding her knowledge of papers within a box that she did not turn over to the court, once again violating her rights as a federal witness/Whistleblower. Ms. Moleski stated that “she did not put any papers into a box and does not know how Mr. Conway received them” and that “the box should be turned over to the Assistant US Attorney’s office as not to jeopardize the investigation against AHS.” Judge Kest clearly violated all State and Federal investigations by entering into the contents of the box in the courtroom and turning materials over to AHS without the permission of law enforcement agencies and the victims of AHS’ fraud.
Judge Kest was clearly informed of all investigations, but continued to violate the rights of Ms. Moleski, the rights of patient victims of AHS and the rights of Worker Compensation recipients. Even after Ms. Moleski posted to this court’s docket letters from the Assistant US Attorney, AHCA and the Office of Inspector General with her Whistleblower Case number, Judge Kest continued his violations of judicial procedure. Then, by additionally contaminating evidence by entering the box without ever hearing Ms. Moleski’s Motion for Protective Order and “taking home its contents” after Ms. Moleski filed for his recusal regarding his close association to AHS executives stating that “he had already taken the box to his home for viewing.”
In addition, Ms. Moleski never told the court that she removed or took anything and Judge Kest allowed AHS attorney’s to leave off the word “allegedly”, within the courtroom and Motions filed, showing bias and violation of her rights to
a just and fair public jury trial. Judge Kest has denied seven of Ms Moleski’s Motions with the courts. Ms. Moleski filed for a recusal of Judge Kest after finding that he contributed yearly to WMFE (a broadcasting agency) where AHS CEO Don Jernigan was acting President of this organization. WMFE receives contributions from MyRegion.org additionally. This relationship is tied to Judge Lauten and his wife Shelly Lauten. However, Judge Kest refused Ms.Moleski’s request and finally recused himself five months later after finding that his son is a practicing attorney within the firm of Ms. Moleski’s recently withdrawn attorney, Riley Allen.
Ms. Moleski publically complained in an interview about the connection between Judge Kest and Adventist Health System and afterward he summarily ordered Ms. Moleski to appear in Orange County Courts in spite of her obvious financial and familial limitations and obligations, as she lives 1200 miles away from Orlando. Judge Kest went as far as to order her to violate the laws within the State of Ohio where she resides by leaving her son/elderly parents to attend hearings in Florida.
Ms. Moleski has informed the court that she cannot reveal the details of the FBI investigation against AHS executives and will continue to invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights.
The Orange County Courts continue to coerce Ms. Moleski and tell her that she cannot invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights and that she will have to set up a hearing to get permission from Judge Doherty to invoke those rights, yet another display of bias towards Ms. Moleski. Judge Kest is one of six Judges to sit on this case, yet another display of incredible disregard towards the rights of Ms. Moleski. This Motion shows Systemic Corruption within Orange County and the extreme monetary ties between AHS, the courts, judges, and hospitals. The Orange County Courts are illegally hearing lawsuits filed on behalf and against AHS, as there is a monetary relationship between each through MyRegion.org and WMFE.
Ms. Moleski filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Kest on the basis of bias and his affiliation to the executives of AHS monetarily. Judge Kest ignored all of Ms. Moleski’s filings with the court after she requested his recusal, by denying seven of her Motions submitted during the duration of this case. In addition, Judge Kest completely ignored ten filings from Ms. Moleski regarding her unavailability to appear in Florida. Ms. Moleski stated that she gives care to her parents and child, and is in fear for safety after the filing of sexual harassment to the EEOC regarding AHS Risk/Compliance VP, Sandra Johnson and AHS Claims Director, Bill Morgan, and the fact that she was shot at while in Florida.
After this clear biased display and disregard for Florida State and Federal Whistleblower laws, Judge Kest further ordered Moleski to answer AHS’ supplemental interrogatories within 15 days and she clearly and respectfully complied with all requests, with the exception of detailed FBI investigation information. With respect to AHS’ interrogatory regarding AHS documents in her possession or control, Judge Kest instructed Moleski that counsel will submit a follow-up interrogatory drafted very specifically and Ms.Moleski answered all of these submissions in addition, a total of 75 questions.
Even though Judge Kest clearly threatened Ms. Moleski, insisting that she violate her own rights to Fifth Amendment privileges and answer questions that would further funnel her into a tighter gauntlet of bullying designed by AHS council to lead her to self-incrimination, she still submitted the interrogatories in compliance to the court and a compliance notice was submitted to the docket. Even through this treatment, Ms. Moleski has in fact complied with all requests by the court despite the courts and AHS blatant disregard for Whistleblower Laws/Rights and violations of AHS employee handbook policy stating that AHS cannot take any action against an employee who is a Whistleblower, according to State and Federal Law. This clearly shows violations regarding the decisions/behavior and clear disregard for FBI investigations by Judge Kest and this will be reported to the Judiciary Committee. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Judge Marshall Kest for:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
IV. Orange County Courts
Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction. The Orange County Courts continue to allow Adventist Health System and affiliated hospitals to litigate within the Ninth Circuit Court with full knowledge of the monetary relationship between MyRegion.org, WMFE, Judges, and courts within seven Florida counties. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to another court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is attempting to violate her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal
manipulations and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts and courts within seven Florida counties. This motion will be turned over to the US Attorney General’s office to investigate the monetary connection between AHS, MyRegion.org, WMFE and the Orange County Courts and if it is legal for AHS cases to be heard in the Florida Courts that receive monetary supplication from AHS/AHS Facilities. In addition, an audit of the financial resources of Orange County Courts and each of the judges listed within this Motion, as well as AHS and all its executives will be requested and turned over to the securities exchange commission. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against The Orange County Courts Ninth Circuit for:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
15 | P A G E
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
V. Judge Patricia Doherty
Ms Moleski has found that the current Judge, Patricia Doherty, was an attorney with Judge Kest for numerous years in a law firm located in Orlando, and that Judge Kest showed through newspaper articles his favor of Judge Doherty’s appointment to a judicial seat. Judge Kest and Judge Doherty are personal friends outside of the courts and Ms. Moleski has been prejudiced by Judge Doherty, as she too is filing orders for Ms. Moleski to appear in Florida for a deposition, in spite of the fact that she has been repeatedly notified of Ms. Moleski’s financial inability to travel to Florida. Judge Doherty stepped beyond judicial boundaries by setting a hearing to discuss whether or not Ms. Moleski has the right to plead the Fifth Amendment. At this hearing, Ms. Moleski asked Judge Doherty if she might read a statement to the court on her own behalf regarding her rights to the Fifth Amendment. Judge Doherty asked Ms. Moleski how long the statement was and Ms. Moleski told her approximately 8-10 minutes. Judge Doherty then told her to read it. When Ms. Moleski began to read her statement, Judge Doherty was told by AHS
attorneys that they objected and kept interrupting Ms. Moleski. Judge Doherty economized the time allotted for the hearing in favor of Adventist counsel, again showing total disregard for judicial process. Judge Doherty then told her that she could not read the letter, that she already knows the contents of Ms. Moleski’s statement. Ms. Moleski told the Judge that she has the right to read her statement to protect her Constitutional Rights. Judge Doherty only allowed Ms. Moleski to represent herself in bits and pieces, blocking her from her rights to the court. Judge
Doherty then notified Ms. Moleski that she would not be able to assert her Constitutional Rights and Ms. Moleski told the Judge that she did not have the authority to take away the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Ms. Moleski asked Judge Doherty if she is mandating a new law in her court and Judge Doherty did not respond. The whole hearing was completely corrupt. Therefore, this case is egregiously biased against Ms.Moleski, as she has yet to find uncompromised counsel and has been discriminated against within the Orange County Courts
which the case docket clearly displays. Ms. Moleski will file her 11th Notice of Unavailability and Motion to Dismiss all Orders to participate in any/all physical appearances within the State of Florida. Ms. Moleski will report this motion to the Judiciary Committee regarding these violations. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Judge Patricia Doherty
for:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
VI. Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel
Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction regarding the behavior of AHS counsel, Broad and Cassel. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to a court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is attempting to violate her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal manipulations, and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of
these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts. Ms. Vilmos has continued to ignore the fact that Ms. Moleski is a Federal Witness to a crime that she reported four months before AHS filed their injunction and therefore the actions of Ms. Vilmos as acting partner of Broad and Cassel is harassing and defamating Ms. Moleski’s character and violating the rights of thousands of AHS patients/employees. Additionally, Ms. Vilmos has hindered State and Federal Investigations against AHS and her actions will be reported to the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. Ms. Vilmos also played a part in violating U.S. Constitutional Law regarding Ms. Moleski right to the 5th Amendment. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Ms. Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel for:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
19 | P A G E
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
VII. Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani
Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to a court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is has violated her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal manipulations and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts. Mr. Jim Kizziar has continued to ignore the fact that Ms. Moleski is a Federal Witness to a crime that she reported five months before AHS filed their injunction and therefore the actions
of Mr. Jim Kizziar as acting partner of Bracewell and Giuliani is harassing and defamating Ms. Moleski’s character and violating her Civil Rights. Additionally, Mr. Jim Kizziar has hindered State and Federal Investigations against AHS and his actions will be reported to the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Attorney Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani for:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
HISTORY
In February of 2009, Ms Moleski reported to her supervisors that she was told to delete a suicide record that they reported as a duplicate and it was not. She then reported its alteration to her supervisor through email and on March 19, 2009 she filed a Global Compliance Hotline Complaint regarding the severity of the situation.
In April of 2009, Ms. Moleski then called the
Maitland FBI office regarding her fear of illegal activity. During that phone call, Ms Moleski was told to appear in their offices the following morning at 8 am. Ms. Moleski appeared and was told at this meeting by two agents that she would be reporting to one of them and they exchanged phone numbers.
Ms. Moleski also reported the situation to AHCA Outpatient Services- Jack Plagee, the EEOC and OSHA in March of 2009.
In May of 2009, Ms. Moleski was interviewed at a meeting by Sandra Johnson, AHS VP Compliance/Risk/Claims. During this meeting Ms. Johnson angrily questioned Ms. Moleski, but Ms. Moleski could not completely answer her questions, as she was told by FBI agents not to relay her participation in the FBI fraud investigation of Adventist Health System. Ms. Johnson would not allow Ms. Moleski to answer questions and kept telling Ms. Moleski to “answer yes or no,” after Ms. Johnson’s knowledge to Ms. Moleski’s Global Compliance Hotline call three months prior regarding a baby death deletion, suicide deletion and the sexual harassment EEOC report, which included Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson then suspended Ms. Moleski at this meeting the day after Ms. Moleski reported details regarding Ms. Johnson to AHS Human Resources regarding sexual harassment.
In June of 2009, three months after Ms. Moleski’s participation with the FBI, AHS through Sandra Johnson, then filed an injunction against Ms.Moleski falsely accusing her of violating AHS policy and HIPPA violations, after Ms. Moleski reported AHS Assistant Risk Director of entering illegally into patients medical records.
In April of 2010, Judge Lauten took control of a box from Ms. Moleski’s terminated counsel, Brad Conway, telling Ms. Moleski that he would hold the contents for her, and that a special magistrate was to determine the contents and it was of no interest to AHS. There was no proprietary information or HIPPA information. The box
had nothing, only personal emails. During this hearing Ms. Moleski filed a Counter claim (A Counter Claim is a separate suit based on totally different facts.)
The interrogatories do not state that anything was taken or turned over to authorities; it states that they were reported to the FBI and those listed entities.
In July of 2010, Ms Moleski found that Judge Lauten was compromised and had a monetary relationship with AHS through MyRegion.org and was recused from this
case. After the recusal of Judge Lauten, Judge Kest was appointed to the case and Ms. Moleski filed for his recusal after finding he has a monetary relationship with AHS, MyRegion.org, WMFE and WMFEs’acting president AHS’ CEO Don Jernigan. Judge Kest refused the recusal and then ordered Ms. Moleski to appear in Florida when he knew of her poor financial status.
Judge Kest then recused himself from the case after finding that his son was a partner in Riley Allen law firm, who, at the time, was representing Ms. Moleski. After the recusal of Judge Kest, then Judge Julie O’Brien was appointed to the case for one month. After the abrupt recusal of Judge Julie O’Brien, long time friend of Judge Kest, Judge Patricia Doherty was appointed to the case.
Judge Doherty then set a hearing violating Ms. Moleski’s right to the 5th Amendment
stating “you do not have the right to plead the 5th Amendment and I will tell you if you can or cannot plead the 5th Amendment.”
Ms. Moleski requests the court to grant her Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System, listed Judges, and AHS acting counsel for violations of State and Federal Whistleblower laws, harassment of a Federal Witness, Fifth Amendment Violations & Fraudulent/Vexatious litigation and coercion. Ms. Moleski seeks the Court for IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS against each listed and a dismissal of the case/injunction against her, as it shows egregiously biased decisions and violates State and Federal Whistleblower Law/Rights and her right to the 5th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The False Claims Act protects Ms. Moleski from this harassment and seeks the Supreme Court of Florida to review this case, along with the Federal Court of Florida. But, by way of legal history as concerns the FCA, take for example the alleged “modification-of-records” issue and whether there is a link to the government.
Each time a health care facility “manipulates” the outcome of treatment for a patient that is subsidized by the government by changing the record, i.e., because the patient was improperly overdosed and died, but the hospital does not want to admit responsibility for killing the patient so it manipulates the record, the government has been defrauded. The outcome has been changed yet the government has paid for treatment that actually killed the patient instead of helping the patient. If the government doesn’t get what it paid for (it pays for “care”), the claim is “false.”
When the alleged identified “care” is not really provided, the claim is false. If the claims submitted to the government falsely represent the underlying claims (i.e., it was an overdose and not an “unexpected” death of a baby as claimed), then the damage to the government flows from the abuse of creating the false claim. There is a “failure-of-care” component to the False Claims Act. When “care” breaks down to the point it’s no longer “care,” all the claims submitted are false. Manipulations of outcomes are false claims. The FCA speaks for itself and the exposure
for such conduct is certainly there.
Ms. Moleski will be filing another Counter Claim against all listed within this Motion for Civil Contempt, and a demand for Jury Trial to this injunction for these listed violations:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – AMENDMENT 5TH
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
CONCLUSION
Ms. Moleski has made every effort to conclude this action but AHS, Ms. Vilmos and Mr. Kizziar, The Orange County Courts and listed Judges continue to ignore both the Florida State/Federal Whistleblower Laws, State and Federal Witness Laws, the evidence provided and registered before this injunction was ever filed, and the investigations of numerous law enforcement agencies, State agencies (see exhibits filed on 2-23-2012) and continue their harassment. For the reasons stated above, Ms. Moleski requests that this Court or The Florida Supreme Court grant this Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Patricia Moleski
IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS COURT RULE 5.3
The Pro Se counsel, Patricia Moleski, conferred with Ms. Vilmos and Mr. Kizziar on this Motion
and they have opposed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished this day of
March, 2012 via electronic mail through the Orange County Clerk of Courts ECF system to the
following:
AHS Attorneys
Attorney Nicolette Vilmos
Attorney Jim Kizziar
Ms. Moleski prior counsel
Attorney Brad Conway
Attorney Riley Allen
Attorney Joseph Egan
Judges
Judge Evans
Judge Frederick Lauten
Judge Marshall Kest
Judge Julie O’Brien
Judge Patricia Doherty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)