Only other thing I can think of is it's either a typo, or they put a future date in there where they "expect" all interested parties to receive the documents by registered mail (the day they should sign for the documents). But I dunno. I just thought it was interesting (the timeline of events, that is).
Jahis family wants her declared 'alive again
- Thread starter K_Z
- Start date
- Status
Okay so someone I won't mention or name here (not a member here) is starting a rumor that Dolan withdrew his petition for this case in Grillo's court, and also dropped his motion for a continuance, because Dolan is trying to clear the way for filing a new case in Federal court. I'd like to weigh in with my opinion on this, and invite any legal professional to fill in the blanks as well as correct me where I may be wrong:
For starters, Dolan being a seasoned, experienced attorney, he would know quite well the process involved in getting such a case heard in federal court, as well as any exceptions to common rules about skipping so many steps and going straight to federal. First and foremost, we know he threw the legal "hail mary" with the type of filing he put in recently: a writ of error coram nobis. From my understanding and what I've been taught, this type of filing is exceptionally rare, and for all intents and purposes, is used when there appears to be no other possibility or legal standing to pursue a matter in a higher court. That is, they file a writ of error coram nobis to have the original deciding court "re-examine" it's own ruling to see if that court made an error in judgment.
Typically, when someone feels a particular court made some type of error in its findings, ruling, or judgment, the next step is to appeal to the next higher court system to examine said ruling, findings, judgement, etc for errors. But when an attorney knows "in their heart and professionally" that there are/were no real errors of procedure/ruling/judgement to consider, and wants to make a really desperate plea, they do the writ of error coram nobis to the ruling court. That's why it's commonly referred to as the "hail mary"; it's a super desperate play in the court system when all else is truly lost.
Let's next consider that perhaps Dolan now feels this case does have merits which a higher court would be willing to hear RE: the matter of having death certificate nullified/removed. This would need to be sent to the next-highest court above Grillo's court, some state of California appeal's court, yes? It's a standard process that involves working a case through the court systems, eventually ending at the SCOTUS. There are exceptions along the way which would give a case standing to "skip" a tier of courts, but it's not terribly common and usually in situations where timeliness is of importance. (And timeliness is not something of concern in Jahi case, because she's not at risk for getting any more dead than "dead".) No reason to skip all the state court tiers before going to federal district court. It's also only a matter that concerns a complaint within a single state (California), so there's no question of it being misinterpreted under law because of states having different laws governing the matter.
And finally, there's no federal laws under consideration here - like federal civil rights violations, for instance. It's a clear-cut case of fighting a local hospital and California state laws which had Jahi declared brain dead with a death certificate issued. So, without letting the entirety of CA's court system have a chance to consider hearing the case, Dolan doesn't have any standing to get the court into a federal court, nor would a federal court have any jurisdiction to hear it unless and until CA's full judicial system has looked at it.
Sorry this may all read like numerous "random" thoughts on this "rumor". It may just be that - random thoughts - to get more qualified people to speak up on this, fill in the areas that I'm fuzzy on, and correct me where I'm waaaay off. Please don't be afraid to do that, lol. I'm not at all afraid to admit being wrong
For starters, Dolan being a seasoned, experienced attorney, he would know quite well the process involved in getting such a case heard in federal court, as well as any exceptions to common rules about skipping so many steps and going straight to federal. First and foremost, we know he threw the legal "hail mary" with the type of filing he put in recently: a writ of error coram nobis. From my understanding and what I've been taught, this type of filing is exceptionally rare, and for all intents and purposes, is used when there appears to be no other possibility or legal standing to pursue a matter in a higher court. That is, they file a writ of error coram nobis to have the original deciding court "re-examine" it's own ruling to see if that court made an error in judgment.
Typically, when someone feels a particular court made some type of error in its findings, ruling, or judgment, the next step is to appeal to the next higher court system to examine said ruling, findings, judgement, etc for errors. But when an attorney knows "in their heart and professionally" that there are/were no real errors of procedure/ruling/judgement to consider, and wants to make a really desperate plea, they do the writ of error coram nobis to the ruling court. That's why it's commonly referred to as the "hail mary"; it's a super desperate play in the court system when all else is truly lost.
Let's next consider that perhaps Dolan now feels this case does have merits which a higher court would be willing to hear RE: the matter of having death certificate nullified/removed. This would need to be sent to the next-highest court above Grillo's court, some state of California appeal's court, yes? It's a standard process that involves working a case through the court systems, eventually ending at the SCOTUS. There are exceptions along the way which would give a case standing to "skip" a tier of courts, but it's not terribly common and usually in situations where timeliness is of importance. (And timeliness is not something of concern in Jahi case, because she's not at risk for getting any more dead than "dead".) No reason to skip all the state court tiers before going to federal district court. It's also only a matter that concerns a complaint within a single state (California), so there's no question of it being misinterpreted under law because of states having different laws governing the matter.
And finally, there's no federal laws under consideration here - like federal civil rights violations, for instance. It's a clear-cut case of fighting a local hospital and California state laws which had Jahi declared brain dead with a death certificate issued. So, without letting the entirety of CA's court system have a chance to consider hearing the case, Dolan doesn't have any standing to get the court into a federal court, nor would a federal court have any jurisdiction to hear it unless and until CA's full judicial system has looked at it.
Sorry this may all read like numerous "random" thoughts on this "rumor". It may just be that - random thoughts - to get more qualified people to speak up on this, fill in the areas that I'm fuzzy on, and correct me where I'm waaaay off. Please don't be afraid to do that, lol. I'm not at all afraid to admit being wrong
K_Z
Verified Anesthetist
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 6,657
- Reaction score
- 2,500
TJL, great post for more thought and research. I'm confined to a small mobile device at present, so can't search as easily.
I'm not positive, and would be happy to hear more from posters with specific legal knowledge and experience. However, one thought that occurs to me is that by re-filing in Federal Civil Court, Dolan and NW may possibly be seeking to avoid the punitive damages cap in CA state court. And if this reference is correct, the only way to do that is to NOT have a current case pending in state court. Hence the need to withdraw the case completely.
http://www.martinbischoff.com/images/hamlinb_006[1].pdf
And Federal rules for punitive damages appear to be capped at no more than (but can be less than) a 1:1 ratio with compensatory damages. This seems to have come out of a SCOTUS ruling on the 2.5 billion dollar punitive damage award from the Exxon Valdeze oil spill.
http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Thomson-ClassActionWatch.pdf
So, my thoughts are that Dolan will chase "alive again" filings in any level of court he can, seeking the maximum dollar potential award, until those avenues are exhausted. And THEN start pursuing wrongful death, because that payout potential is much, much less than awards for "alive and injured".
However, it's not at all certain that Federal court has jurisdiction over a simple matter of the State of California having standing to declare one of its citizens dead. I don't think there can be a reasonable, or even "Hail Mary" chance of a civil rights or discrimination case here, against either Jahi or her mother. But it would make another splashy case to chum the media waters, lol! IMO, of course.
Lol, the dead are discriminated against by not receiving the financial benefits the living are entitled to! Yup, that might be where this train wreck is heading! I just don't think the current SCOTUS would at all be interested in this case. JMO.
I'm not positive, and would be happy to hear more from posters with specific legal knowledge and experience. However, one thought that occurs to me is that by re-filing in Federal Civil Court, Dolan and NW may possibly be seeking to avoid the punitive damages cap in CA state court. And if this reference is correct, the only way to do that is to NOT have a current case pending in state court. Hence the need to withdraw the case completely.
http://www.martinbischoff.com/images/hamlinb_006[1].pdf
And Federal rules for punitive damages appear to be capped at no more than (but can be less than) a 1:1 ratio with compensatory damages. This seems to have come out of a SCOTUS ruling on the 2.5 billion dollar punitive damage award from the Exxon Valdeze oil spill.
http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Thomson-ClassActionWatch.pdf
So, my thoughts are that Dolan will chase "alive again" filings in any level of court he can, seeking the maximum dollar potential award, until those avenues are exhausted. And THEN start pursuing wrongful death, because that payout potential is much, much less than awards for "alive and injured".
However, it's not at all certain that Federal court has jurisdiction over a simple matter of the State of California having standing to declare one of its citizens dead. I don't think there can be a reasonable, or even "Hail Mary" chance of a civil rights or discrimination case here, against either Jahi or her mother. But it would make another splashy case to chum the media waters, lol! IMO, of course.
Lol, the dead are discriminated against by not receiving the financial benefits the living are entitled to! Yup, that might be where this train wreck is heading! I just don't think the current SCOTUS would at all be interested in this case. JMO.
Hiandmighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,626
- Reaction score
- 394
I really don't think the federal court system would be interested in it either.
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
Playing catch up. Thanks for posting the letter.
It appears that Dolan didn't even know Jahi's gender. (my bold)
Page three of the letter, 4th paragraph from the bottom:
"Pursuant to the Patient's Bill of Rights Jahi's mother, Ms. Winkfield, hereby exercises her rights, pursuant to sections (b) 6 & 16 to participate in her sons care and direct that all life saving and sustaining measures be employed for and to the benefit of Jahi."
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
FWIW I'm reposting my transcript of this interview which can be found on a much, much earlier thread.
This is not an official transcript and is not connected to any of the parties in the interview.
All errors are my own.
#############################
http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/mcmath-vigil-raw-video-of-jahi-mcmaths-mothers/vCLZHH/
McMath Vigil: Raw video of Jahi McMath's mother's comments to reporters
Tuesday
Speakers: NW (Nailah Winkfield) UR (Unidentified Reporter) OS (Omari Sealey)
NW: I axed them last night could they just run another test on her. And um
UR: And right now you're
NW: And there's no, to me there's no limit. There's no law that says that you can only do a limit of two. I asked him did the man "do you have children?" He said yes. I said then you're gonna want somebody to run an extra test on your child to make sure they have brain activity to make sure that they have a chance to still live. And um so they just ran the test on her. They said they'll get back to us um. They said fairly soon but they didn't give us a time so we're just waitin' to see what they have to say and I'm just hoping for the best because I'm not it's like I'm racing with test results in the coroner's office and I just don't think I'll be able to just sit here and just let them take her like that. I'm her mother so I will fight for her to the end so I don't, I just don't want them to come and I want her on as long as possible 'cause I really believe that God will make her well. That's all I can, 'cause I really believe as a mother, and that's my hopes and my dreams that. Just give her some time. It's only been a week. She's been through a lot. She's alre-she's had a heart attack and everything. Thank you Childrens' Hospital for just ruining my child's life and my life. And I just want them--I feel like they owe her. They owe her another change [chance?]. And so why are they trying to rush her because they want the bed space because this, it's cheaper for them to just get ridda her. It is. It's cheaper for them to get ridda her because her livin' is killing their bills, and that's the way I see it. You let her live, it's killing your bills because you gotta have all these nurses, all this PGD, all this technology, all of this stuff. It's killing your bills just to let her live. Which is unfair 'cause she's human. And I knows it's just a business, but I know that's my child in there. That's my heart. That's my life. So, I'm just askin' everybody to just keep trying prayer and if you can reach out to just anybody who knows anything about what other ways that I can keep her on because I know that their gonna try to--they always try to go a different route. When we, when we ask them something else they go a different route. And I want to keep her on and I will not give up on my daughter. She will stay on.
UR: Have you thought of outside investigation? Maybe your own expert to look at her?
NW: Um. I've been contacting her doctor, um I haven't heard from her this morning. But we definitely, I want a second opinion because everybody in here is gonna cover up because they all work together. This is their hospital, so I know they're gonna try to cover up something in there 'cause something definitely happened wrong to my child in there. I seen it with my own eyes I understand surgeries go wrong sometimes but the things that I seen with my child and all the blood that came our of her nose and her, her mouth. My child suffered dearly it was not an easy thing for her. I know that is not normal, and so I definitely want to find somebody else and get a second opinion because I just feel like they're gonna try to cover it up 'cause they all work together I tried to go get her medical records yesterday. They definitely wouldn't give me those and I really, I want those. I'm entitled to those. I'm her mother and they, first they, first they were really nice about it when I went there. It was like, Oh yeah, let, let's see. And then when they read her name and started reading and I don't know what they was reading on the computer, another lady stood up and stood behind the other lady and looked and was like "Oh no, you can't have these 'cause she's still admitted. We only can give you medical records if she is released and she's not admitted." I said "Well, you said that she's dead right? If she's dead, why you can't give me her medical records?" "Oh no, can't give them to you and when we do finally give them to you looks like ten days and " I already knew that that part would start um it seemed like I've never had a problem getting' medical records for my children before, but now, after this incident, now it's a issue why I can't get my child's medical records so I just feel like I'm, I'm stuck because it's just me and it's against them.
UR: Now, ma'am, you've begged for one final brain scan.
NW: I did.
UR: Did they give it this morning, and what were the results?
NW: We haven't got the results yet. We have not got the results yet, and I'm waitin'. I'm hopin'. I'm praying that something will show and even if it don't show I still feel ilke she needs more time so I'm gonna be fighting for that. Even if the results don't come back right, I don't care. Give her more time. We don't know what may happen two weeks from now. Like I said, it has only been a week and I feel like something good is gonna happen to my daughter.
UR: You said you can't believe they're in such a hurry to take her off life support?
NW: No. I can't believe it, but I can understand it. Like I said, it's killin' their money to keep her alive. Killin' them to keep Jahi alive. It's sad and it sickens my stomach that that's my child in there, but I look and I see. And when I go in there and I touch her, she's, she's not dead to me. She's warm. I kiss her. She, she has a heart beat. She has a pulse. It's not the machine that's doin' that for her. She has her own pulse, her own heartbeat. But they say she don't have a brain stem and that's what makes you dead. But I feel that anything with a heart and her own pulse that is living. She's, like I say, she's warm and I can feel, I can feel her. I can feel my daughter. I kinda feel like she's trapped inside her own body and she, she wants to scream out and tell me somethin'. That's why every time I go in there, I let her know that I will not let them take you to a coroner's office, child, I won't. 'Cause I believe she can hear everything that's goin' on around and if she knew how much media attention she had right now, she'd be so embarrassed 'cause she's very shy. She would, she would not like this. She would not like this. She's very humble. But I will do whatever, even after this, the test, I'm not going to stop. She's not comin' off. I feel like when her heart stops on its own and her pulse stops on its own, then I'll be able to live with that and say that's what she wanted. That's what God wanted. That's what's meant to be. But until her heart stops, no, I'm not lettin' them take my child off that [vent?]
UR: Have you brought in a third party doctor to look at the results? (Cross chatter)
NW: (to OS) Didn't you try to contact the mayor?
OS: Yeah. I tried to call the mayor a couple of times last night. She hasn't returned my calls. But my phone has been going off all night, and I, I'm gonna be going through my messages here in a minute to see if she did return my call. So Mary-Jean Kwan, that 510-499 number that kept calling you last night, that text message you got from me last night, that was me calling. Um, also I am working on something as well this morning that hopefully could prevent the coroner from coming regardless of what the results are. Um, and it is, it's a business. The reason they want her off is it's the difference between a three, a thirty million dollar lawsuit and a $250,000.00 lawsuit. With limited damages the most you can get for a child is $250,000.00 and they know that. But there's unlimited damages that you can get thirty million dollars for. And the unlimited damages are for the economic costs of keeping someone alive. That's why they want her off.
NW: And I don't care.
OS: And this is the difference between chump change, $250,000, and thirty million dollars. That's what, that's what this really is about.
NW: And with me, it's about keepin' her on. I don't want no, no money. I want my child's life. That's all I want. 'Cause I want her to wake up. I could care less about money. Now, my only focus is her, and gettin' her, and gettin' up. 'Cause when I tell you, I walked my child in here. I walked her in here, she was happy. She was nervous about surgery. I promised her she would be OK. I reassured her and her surgeon axed her "What's your worst fear", and she said "Not wakin' up." And he said, "Oh don't worry, you'll wake up." And now I'm lookin', at my child's worst fear every day when I walk in there. I haven't been home since Monday, December 9th. I'm just livin' in Childrens' Hospital. They were lucky. They were actually half-way nice to us yesterday, and let us sleep somewhere else besides asleep in chairs all around the hospital. Um, but I refused to leave because I don't trust this place, and I want to make sure that nobody accidentally does any thing to make my child's heart stop beating. So we got going sitting with her 24 hours of every day. We take shifts as a family. Everybody sits with her.
UR: Marvin had also mentioned about possibly going to another hospital. Has that been in consideration? Have you guys contacted another hospital?
NW: Well the problem is, is they told us since she's a coroner's case her only room she can go to is the coroner's office. I woulda loved to take her outa here and bring her somewhere else but they say you can't take her nowhere else 'cause she's a coroner's case and I just don't understand how something so warm, with a heartbeat and a pulse is so pretty. 'Cause she just so beautiful and she just looks like she's asleep and I can feel her chest and I can hear her heartbeat. How can that be a coroner's case? Like it just, it makes me sick to my stomach 'cause when they talk about my child with no compassion. And I'm like this is Childrens' Hospital. You should just have the utmost compassion for me, especially in ICU.
#############################
Just a reminder. This is my transcript of the footage, so any mistakes are ones I have made.
Looks right to me, from what I remember watching it a long time ago and the brief reviews since then.
(I love their Freudian slips)
Notice on page 2, section (b)(1), which statements and words he bolded in the letter. All meant to imply that CHO somehow discriminated against Jahi and/or her family because of their economic status, race, color, religion, and national origin.
It's my understanding that the chief demographic of patients at CHO are economically depressed, black (and minorities) Christians. In Jahi's case, inferring discrimination on national origin is also absurd, because the national origin of her/the family is USA. Bottom line here is: Dolan implied in that letter that CHO intends to discriminate against what amounts to (my guess) >50% of their patients? I'm sure someone can find the actual statistics, but I would guess further that this is probably closer to at least 60 or 70%? What realistic purpose would it serve CHO to want to "kill" most of their patients and/or their families?
It's sad that lawyers know they can use politically-sensitive accusations in order to get their foot in the door of a court room.
Thanks for posting the transcript. The Uncle is pretty clear that his reference to the $250,000 was what he believed to be the motive of CHO to disconnect life support quickly. I think he's right. CHO is a not-for-profit hospital and keeping a patient on a vent is very expensive. Of course the Hospital was looking at the $$$ at that point. But it is ridiculous that they would not provide the mother with her child's medical records. To me, that is an indication the Hospital knew somebody had screwed up terribly. No hospital is perfect and when there's a screw-up, families hold them accountable in court. That's the way our modern system works.
JMO
JMO
K_Z
Verified Anesthetist
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 6,657
- Reaction score
- 2,500
Families routinely try to hold hospitals accountable for complications when there is no evidence of any "screw ups", too. The presence of complications, even catastrophic complications, is not evidence in and of itself of "screw ups" on the part of the medical staff. There may, or may not have been any screw ups. And if there were, it will have to be determined who exactly screwed up, and what they did to cause, or worsen the situation. We just aren't at that point in the family's legal adventures yet. It's coming.
The statute of limitations on wrongful death is 2 years, so we have more than a year before the family switches to that strategy, IMO. As I said earlier, they have to run this "alive again" strategy till they get to the point where they are told by the courts emphatically that the matter is settled. I can't think of the legal term for that at the moment, but it means "stop filing the same complaint that has been decided already."
From where I'm sitting, it appears the staff acted quite promptly and was clearly able to secure the airway and stop the hemorrhage without even needing to place an emergent tracheostomy. And clearly her heart was not excessively damaged during whatever duration the cardiac arrest was. So I don't think it's at all clear that the licensed, professionals employed by CHO "screwed up". JMO.
The statute of limitations on wrongful death is 2 years, so we have more than a year before the family switches to that strategy, IMO. As I said earlier, they have to run this "alive again" strategy till they get to the point where they are told by the courts emphatically that the matter is settled. I can't think of the legal term for that at the moment, but it means "stop filing the same complaint that has been decided already."
From where I'm sitting, it appears the staff acted quite promptly and was clearly able to secure the airway and stop the hemorrhage without even needing to place an emergent tracheostomy. And clearly her heart was not excessively damaged during whatever duration the cardiac arrest was. So I don't think it's at all clear that the licensed, professionals employed by CHO "screwed up". JMO.
All important to note and remember, thanks. Also of importance to remember is that we have a family who made public statements that they took it upon themselves to perform procedures on Jahi while she was in PICU, things that they are not only unlicensed to do, but have no business doing. (Shoving a suction device into her mouth and down her throat...which very well could have led to many of the complications experienced, and/or exacerbated any other existing problems.) I think their attempts at placing blame on CHO for any wrongdoing, is merely deflection from the fact that they (the family) did things which could have been a root cause of her death.
Then there's the statements they made which demonstrated a concerted effort to be disruptive in the PICU, and encouraged numerous people to harass the staff as well as other families in the PICU. All very telling...
bbm sbm
Perhaps you were thinking of Res Judicata.
"Res judicata or res iudicata , also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.
The legal concept of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion....
The principle of res judicata may be used either by a judge or a defendant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
Res judicata
Literally "a matter judged", res judicata is the principle that a matter may not, generally, be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits.
Res judicata encompasses limits on both the claims and the issues that may be raised in subsequent proceedings:
- Claim preclusion is the principle once a cause of action has been litigated, it may not be relitigated.
- Bar: A losing plaintiff is barred from re-suing a winning defendant on the same cause of action. (Scenario: Plaintiff P unsuccessfully sues Defendant D on Cause of action C. P may not try for better luck by initiating a new lawsuit against D on C.)
- Merger: A winning plaintiff may not re-sue a losing defendant. (Scenario: P successfully sues D on C. P may not again sue D on C to try to recover more damages.)
- Issue preclusion (Collateral estoppel): Once an issue of fact has been determined in a proceeding between two parties, the parties may not relitigate that issue even in a proceeding on a different cause of action. (Scenario: P sues D on C. P sues D on C1. Element E, which was determined in the first trial, is common to C and C1. At the second trial, P and D cannot attempt to get a different disposition of E.)
"[Latin, A thing adjudged.] A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit."
http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Res_Judicata
Nore
New Member
--------
Please listen to mod..we don't argue on WS.. we dont want to lose posting priviliges. (sp) but we will.
K_Z
Verified Anesthetist
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 6,657
- Reaction score
- 2,500
Thank you, al66pine! Res judicata is one of the terms that escaped me.
I think perhaps collateral estoppel might even be more precise, in this particular matter of dead versus alive. But either theory means "just stop it already!"
More about collateral estoppel:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
I think perhaps collateral estoppel might even be more precise, in this particular matter of dead versus alive. But either theory means "just stop it already!"
More about collateral estoppel:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 14
The issue of medical records release was addressed by David Durand (Chief of Pediatrics CHRCO) in a media statement issued by Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland in response to the Consumer Watchdog press release of 12/18/13. (http://www.childrenshospitaloakland.org/main/Response-to-Media-Coverage-Decemb2013.aspx)
Durand stated that, although Jahi's family had refused permission for CHRCO to correct the many mistakes made in the CW press release, CHRCO was able to speak to the issue of releasing Jahi's medical records without violating HIPAA rules.
JMO, but I think that NW did not understand the nature of medical records. Until a patient was no longer the responsibility of CHRCO, all interactions between staff and the patient would have been kept track of and put into that patient's file. The function and purpose of hospital medical records has been eloquently stated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies-publications/policy/medical-records).
As well, it seems that NW did not understand that there was a protocol to be followed by CHRCO. As a patient's mother, she was entitled to read the document pertaining to Jahi in the hospital. She was not, however, entitled to be given a copy of the record until it was complete, ie. when Jahi was released from CHRCO. This would have been the policy that applied to every patient in CHRCO and was not instituted by CHRCO to inconvenience NW, or to mask any aberrations in Jahi's care. So, I disagree with your comment that it was "ridiculous that they would not provide the mother with her child's medical records". It was a standard practice for CHRCO to allow a patient's family representative to review the patient's medical record. It was standard practice to provide medical records to a patient's family representative when the document was complete--that is, when a patient's hospital stay was complete. CHRCO was under no obligation to make an exception for NW.
The fact that NW didn't get what she wanted when she wanted it doesn't indicate anything other than that NW was unaware of what she was entitled to receive. That CHRCO followed its stated policy regarding the release of medical records does not indicate any blunder, or wrongdoing, or malicious intent on anyone's part.
Payment for hospital services in the USA is another issue which also involves records of interactions between hospital staff and a patient. Whether the interaction is a surgical procedure or taking a temperature or picking up kleenex from the floor, every interaction must be noted and recorded. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521175_2)
This is an incredibly complex accounting system, but one that is present in some form in all hospitals. The hospital provides services. The patient pays for those services. How the patient pays for the services is the concern of the patient (or the patient's guardian). Keeping Jahi on a ventilator, with all the technical and medical support that demands, would have been the financial responsibility of Jahi's family. If the family disagreed with the amount of the bill, they would have every right to contest it.
The costs of hospital care is a subject of much discussion. For instance, recently CNBC published an article (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148) on this topic.
If I understand this correctly, CHRCO did not have a financial incentive to "disconnect life support quickly" since the bills would have just kept adding up for NW, or the insurance company handling Jahi's medical insurance, to pay. The longer Jahi was on a ventilator, the more money, in theory, would have been due CHRCO.
Every facility I've worked at has had the same policy: Patients/or other designated individuals may view the medical record at the hospital. The medical records will not be copied and distributed to these individuals until patient is discharged, and the request must be made in writing to assure that only the proper person is receiving the record.
Thank you wendiesan for your insightful input and objective explanation. I also agree that NW merely claiming she was denied access to medical records is either a complete misunderstanding on her part as to the procedures - legal and SOP - for records release...or was just another grandstanding attempt to paint CHO in a bad light. Or a combination of both. As Dolan said, "These are not stupid people." So I tend to lean more towards those claims merely being another attempt to say bad things about the hospital, rather than just being a misunderstanding. Since they (the family) took the stance of legally blocking CHO from being able to publicly defend its reputation against most of her public statements, it lends even more credibility to the theory that it was a ploy to influence public opinion negatively against CHO. It has obviously worked for many people.
Whenever I start to feel a little bit of sympathy for her or feel like she may be speaking the truth about anything - beyond just being sympathetic that her child tragically died - I just remind myself of all the very cruel, uncivilized, mean, and disrespectful things she posted to IG or Twitter when she thought nobody was looking. The one that really sticks out in my mind was her comment that, "If my children cause me problems, I will get rid of them." As a parent myself of 4 daughters, I cannot find or think of any situation where it would be appropriate to say something like that...even jokingly. My children are not mere "problems to get rid of if they are an inconvenience to me."
Whenever I start to feel a little bit of sympathy for her or feel like she may be speaking the truth about anything - beyond just being sympathetic that her child tragically died - I just remind myself of all the very cruel, uncivilized, mean, and disrespectful things she posted to IG or Twitter when she thought nobody was looking. The one that really sticks out in my mind was her comment that, "If my children cause me problems, I will get rid of them." As a parent myself of 4 daughters, I cannot find or think of any situation where it would be appropriate to say something like that...even jokingly. My children are not mere "problems to get rid of if they are an inconvenience to me."
I take any public spinning by a hospital with a grain of salt whether it be CHO or Dallas Presbyterian.
When a hospital publicly speaks about the care of a patient, the public perceives it as an attempt to cya and that leads to the public wondering what else they are covering up. It's happened in both Jahi's case and in the Eboli case.
JMO
When a hospital publicly speaks about the care of a patient, the public perceives it as an attempt to cya and that leads to the public wondering what else they are covering up. It's happened in both Jahi's case and in the Eboli case.
JMO
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 106
- Guests online
- 1,157
- Total visitors
- 1,263