Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Randy Wilson Lyme Disease Cover up and Spousal Neglect Case: CPS Cathy Spenser, Montana Human Rights Act, HIPAA Violations - Randy Wilson Interbel CEO Eureka Montana.

One Woman, paying the price of a massive cover up of Rocky Mountain Tick, Lyme Disease in humans in Montana and the massive amount of corruption standing behind those in power. Montana CPS, Montana Judges, County Attorney Bernie Cassidy, Judge Ted O. Lympus, North Valley Hospital, Interbel Coop, and more, now involved in the Randy Wilson case.  The facts speak for themselves, however as many of us know well, the TRUTH is down right Criminal in the State of Montana.

Here is More from Mary Wilson regarding the Randy Wilson Case.

"Randy was charged 11-13-08 w/ Discrimination and HIPPA violations, he was
represented by Darrel S. Worm, Attorney, the Attorney for the Nurturing
Center! -  Randy's personality disorder - narcissistic power and control
issues -  are not only part of his family life, this is PROOF it adversely
affects even his profession/business!

Re: Human Rights Bureau Case No. 0071012467

Case No. 1243-229  Gordon v. Interbel Telephone Coop./Randy Wilson, Manager

Gordon represented by Gary D. Seaman, Seaman Law Firm.

Randy, General Manager of Interbel, represented by Darrell S. Worm, Ogle &
Worm, PLLP.

The deposition testimony of Serban Ionescu, M.D., Michael Newman, M.D was
made part of the evidentiary record.  -

DANIEL - Michael Newman, MD, is the psychiatrist I went to for a Psych Eval.
on December 2, 2007, with proof that I didn't have Munchasuen's - he said,
"Mary, you have all the proof in the medical records, that is all you need,
you just need a good attorney."  I asked Dr. Newman to testify on my behalf,
he said - "Mary I can't do that, and I don't need to see you anymore."  Dr.
Newman is on staff with Kalispell Regional Medical Center (Dr. Stein) and
North Valley Hospital (Dr. Reeb), because he is on staff with KRMC he could
not ethically testify against a physician on his own staff under the same
corporate attorneys.


The key issues are whether Interbel (Randy) illegally discriminated against
Gordon in employment because of his disability and what reasonable meansures
the department should order to restify the harm Gordon suffered and to guard
against further discrimination.

22. Wilson did not follow Interbel's policy No. 511 (HIPPA Compliance
Policy).  There is no credible evidence that Wilson considered the policy,
or took any action to comply with the policy in his efforets to ascertain
Gordon's condition or in his decision to terminate Gordon's employment for
refusing to provide the unfettered access to Gordon's medical information
which Wilson requested.

23.  Wilson offered no credible explanation for this failure and refusal to
follow Interbel's HIPPA policy.  His rationalization at hearing (that
handling the whole matter himself, he thought he was better ensuring
Gordon's privacy) is utterly unconvincing. Wilson ignored the written policy
and required that Gordon provide a sweeping release, in addition to
undergoing an independent evaluation, with all information to be provided to
Wilson, Gordon's immediate supervisor.  It is absurd to propose that such a
procedure wouls better ensure Gordon's privacy than Interbel's written
poolicy, and it appears on its face that the information Wilson demanded
exceeded the information Interbel was entitled to obtain under HIPPA and
under its own policies and procedures.

24.  There is no evidence that either Wilson or Gordon, in their
interactions, made any reference to Interbel's HIPPA policy, let alone that
they discussed it together.  Intervbel's policy governs Interbel's conduct,
not the conduct of the employee whose privavcy is at issue.  Wilson, rather
than Gordon, had the obligation to reference and follow the policy.
Interbel has not presented any credible evidecne, let alone any substantial
credible evidence, of any legitimate business reason for treating Gordon's
privacy in a significantly different and more adversarial fashion that that
required by Interbel's HIPPA policy.

26.  Counsel for Gordon (Seaman) notified Wilson that Gordon refused to
provide Wilson with more extensive access to his medical records, and was
not required to sign the medical authorization.

30.  Interbel's attorney (Worm), sent a letter to Gordon affiarming that
Gordon's failure to authorize release of his medical records was the
immediate reason for Interbel's termination of Gordon's employment.

33.  Had Inteerbel complied with it own HIPPA policies and obtained mroe
limited medical information than Wilson requested, Wilson could havehad the
informaiton necessary to make a proper deceision about further
accommodation.  As a result, Gordon would have continued to receive his pay
after Interbel's receipt of Dr. Ionescu's letter. Thus, Gordon lost his
salary and benefits, as well as suffering substantial emotional distress, as
he described credibly at hearing, which was more distressing that it would
otherwise have been because Interbel terminated him improperly, out of
discriminatory animus, and with undue haste.

35.  Had Randy followed Interbel's own policeis, no illegal discrimination
would have occurred in this matter.  Therefore, the conditions upon
Interbel's future conduct relevant to this particular kind of disability
discrimination and the reasonable measures necessary to correct this
discriminatory practice are, in addition to a mandatory injunction, an order
requiring Interbel to submit to the Human Rights Bureau a plan for training
of its management team, including specifically its manager, regarding HIPPA
privacy requirements (including Montana statutory and regulatory
requirements) as well as applicable state and federal employment disability
law, generally for HRB review, thereafter revising and/or then implementing
that plan as HRB may direct.


Interbel fired Gordon because he refused to give unfetttered access to his
medical records to his supervisor as demanded, in violation of Interbel's
own medical privacy procedures.  Gordon was an otherwise qualified
individual with a disability.  Interbel failed and refused to accommodate
him by appropriately considering a further leave of absence.  After he
decided to fire Gordon, Interbel received a medical report indicating
Gordon could not return to work for 3 to 6 months.  Damages because of
Grodon's discriminatory discharge from              to      are -

A.  Interbel Unlawfully Discrimination against Gordon.

Coffman v. Niece (1940), 110 Mont. 541, 105 P. 2d 661.

Montana law prohibits discrimination against an employee because of
disability.  Mont. Code Ann. 49-2-303(1) (a).  A disability is a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of a person's major
life activities, or a record of such an impairment, or a condition regarded
as such an impairment.  Mont. Code Ann  $49-2-101(19)(a).  

Disability discrimination includes failing or refusing to make accommodations (that
would not be an undue hardship for the employer) for an otherwise qualified
employee.  Mont. Code Ann. #49-2-101(19) (B).  Since Grodon was such a
person, Interbel's decision to fire him for refusing unfettered access to
his private health information without attempting reasonable accommodation
was unlawful disability discrimination.

    1.  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Can Cause a Disability Under Montana

Montana has no statutory exclusion form the general definition of disabilityfor post traumatic stress disorder.  Post Traumatic Stress is a mental or
physical impairment under the Americans with Disability Act.  See 42 U.S.
C. #12114(a)  In the Analysis section of the regulations implementing Title
I of the ADA, the E.E.O.C. commented that disabled employees "includ(e)
those disabled by Post Traumatic Stress,  56 Fed. Reg. #
                        il lationrtgions im

Montana amende3d tis Human Rights act to confirm to the language of the ADA
in 1993.  House Bill 496, laws of Montana 1993, Chapter 407, see Preamble
and Section 3.  In conforming the Human rights Act to the ADA, Montana
presumably adopted the existing federal interpretations and applications of
the existing ADA provisions, including existing regulations addressing Post
Traumatic Stress as a disability in          .  On the other hand, Montana
did nhot necessarily adopt the regulations and court decisions issued after
the effective date of the Montana amendments. Subsequent federal precedent
can provide guidance when there are substantive similarities in the laws and
also in the public policy considerations and there is not controlling
Montana law, Betterfield v. Siodney Pub. Scho., 2001 MT 177, 306 Mont. 179,
32 P.3d 1243; and, Hafner v. Conoco, Inc. (1994) 268 Mont. 396, 886 P.2d
947, 950-51.

The dismissal would have been affirmed if the Montana Human Rights Act
permitted adverse employment and education action against a worker due to
Post Traumatic Stress. The Montana Supreme Court has a "longstanding
practice of affirming a trial court's result, even if that result was based
on incorrest reasoning."  Nelson v. State 34, 2008 MT 336 Mont.    P3d ;
citing Inre Truyst B (In re Will of Dunham), 19, 2008 MT 153, 343 Mont. 240,
184 P.3d 296 and W.F. Band v. Talmage                Saucier v. McDonald's
Rest.,          Estate of Voey  de

The Court would have affirmed the dismissal even if the state of
limitations defense was inapplicable, since without a potentially valid
claim of discrimination because of  PTSD the result - dismissal - would be
been correct even if the reason was wrong.  Powell is a clear indication
that Montana will follow the federal approach, as it should, under its
Human Rights Act.

2  Under Applicable Precedent, Mary's Lyme, Fraud and False Accusations of
Munchasuen's by proxy, Delusion/Somatorm-type in violations of the 1st,
2nd, 43th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments and (ADA) law, while
recipients of Federal financial assistance, Christy, a minor under (ADA)
Title I, II (504) Rehabilitation, Medicaid and Food Stamps while victims of
Domestic Violence, denied their rights to legal counsel and guardian ad
litems, with sudden removal and detainment of her daughters by law
enforcement in violation of Child Protective Services Investigation
September 15, 2006 of: No Concerns of Harm, Unsubstantiated, File Closed; in
violation of Family Court Servcies' own policies and procedures, the
improper state-mandated Agency/Duty of Authority to investigate
abuse/neglect of minor children, further, in violation(s) of  HIPPA (without
a Court Order to access their protected health information, as required by
law in a Court proceeding), further, in violation(s) of the 4th (unlawful
search and seizure of protected health information without a Court Order and
unlawful search and seizure of minor children in violations of FCSs' own
policies and procedures (improper state-mandated Agency to investigate
abuse/neglect of minor children and recommend immediate removal by law
enforcement), in violations of the 14th Amendment (due process) - 

a) Miranda Rights, right to legal counsel, guardian ad litems, the right to be heard
within (72) hours in front of a Magistrate, b) the right to offer and
present evidence (Michael Keedy and I in bad-faith with intentional malicious
intent causing emotional harm, were prohibited and restricted from access to
the medical records of Dr. Green, Dr. Stein, Dr. Reeb and Dr. Cole
physicians in care of  C.W.'s and J.W.'s  since June 2006, they all received
a 'Rubber-Stamped' ORDER from the Court per 'FAX' "Do not release medical
records of the minor children, Christy and Jessica Wilson, without
authorization of their father, given temporary sole care and custody." I
called Bonnie Olson, the 11th Judical District's Administrator who is the
only person authorized to use the "Rubber Stamp" of Ted O. Lymus, Judge, she
informed me that she never issued that Order (does Bruce McEvoy feloniously
use the "Rubber Stamp" of Judge Lympus?)  For our defense at the Show
Cause Hearing, October 17, 2006, Michael Keedy at the OTSC Hearing had to
ask Lympus for a Stipulation/Order to access our children's medical records
for our defense, further a Continuance was not scheduled/granted, c)  the
right to have witnesses testify in my behalf (Dr. Reeb, Dr. Green, Dr. Cole
and Child Protective Services, at that point, until later, after I reported
medical neglect of Randy and Dr. Stein to (CPS) for investigation,
Margarita Peterson, (CPS) Lincoln County caseworker was assigned for
investigation, I Faxed her all the medical records, her Fraudulent excuse to
not protect me from the Munchausen's Accusation, she said,  "I do not have
medical terminology to interpret the medical records"  (I told her my 6 yo
could read them and interpret them), she said that she was assigning the
case to her (CPS) Supervisor, Lincoln County, Cathy Spencer, I Faxed the
medical records to Cathy Spencer

I asked CPS Lincoln County Cathy Spenser why my daughters held in
medical neglect denied "warranted" referrals by Dr. Christine Green,
San Francisco to Columbia, an  Adult/Pediatric Lyme/Assoc. Diseases
Medical Center "both girls in May 2006 acquired tick bites w/ positive
clinical and serology's of Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever, Erhlichiosis,
Lyme disease and Mycoplasma ferm. and very low (CD57) Killer 'T
subsets - very concerning in young children this age - w/ referrals to
Drs. Fallon and Corbera at Columbia for more sophisticated testing and
to determine if  C.W. has an 'active' encephalitis encephalopathy, the
most likely cause of C.W.'s neurological urapraxia disabilities and
developmental delays.

CPS Cathy Spenser on phone said "You are not allow to accompany the
girls to medical evaluations - YOU WOULD MOST LIKELY CAUSE A BIASED
EVALUATION!!!"  I said then, you are most likely causing further
Flathead and Lincoln County Courts are "politically" prosecuting me
for bogus false-fabricated Munchausen's by proxy, I will see you ALL
in (ADA) Discrimination Jury Trial Federal Court.""

Source, Sent In TO Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

More on the Randy Wilson Story, Click Below

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.