SPCP - The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Patients is a non-profit patient's rights organization. We are here to aid you in furthering your health and linder your health care problems. Founded on a deadly experience with no recourse, we strive to prevent further occurrences of such medical abuse in the interest of profits. SPCP Bradenton, FL Tel: 941 -794-1634 [Carol] Voice: 888-492-5856 |
Patient's Rights in Bradenton, Florida This is what Carol experienced, when she tried to sue for her mother's medical records, which she knew had been falsified for the health review agencies by their reports. She also asked for an itemized bill meeting legal requirements. These laws are covered by both state an federal law, but as you can see: Just try to get them enforced!?! It said that the petition for the records never was one. That since the motion for a temporary injunction to not destroy records had been denied [on the basis of the attorneys false assurance that no records could be destroyed before more than 4 years [sic], the court had no right to order them to do anything and they could never be held in contempt! Do you believe, that if one has to sue to get access to the medical records and information about bill, that suddenly that institution is going to voluntarily provide one with all the information asked for? I don't and they didn't. They kept shoving Volume II of the medical records at her and saying, they had complied. And no one cares. There is no such thing as patient rights in the county of Manatee, Florida. |
1..This was served by summons to Blake Medical Center, Bradenton, FL on December 14, 2000. A courtesy letter / petiton was sent to Blake's CEO on January 16, 2001. |
_______________________ 2. This motion for an injunction was filed on February 5th, 2001 to preserve medical records, from being destroyed - one party was a mobile laboratory. Carol believed that such a laboratory could destroy records within two years. Blake's attorney assured the Petitioner and the Court that this was not the case [sic]! Carol supposedly lost the right to discovery because of this. IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MANATEE COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION CAROL STRONSTORFF, Petitioner, CASE NO. : 2000-CC-004009 v. BLAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent.__________/ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION The Petitioner respectfully asks the court to post a temporary injunction against destroying any and all medical records, tests, radiographs or documents or reports related to the care and treatment of Zoe E. Stronstorff . Zoe was a patient at Blake Hospital from 1/11/1999 until 2/2/1999 and a patient at IHS of Bradenton from 2/2/1999 until her death on 2/13/1999. She also had at least one test at Blake Medical Center on 2/12/1999. She also had tests performed by Symphony Mobilex, which are also missing from the patient's IHS file and she has been unable to obtain.. Because of the "bad faith tactics" of Blake Medical Center and IHS of Bradenton, the petitioner has to date not been able to receive within over two years a true and complete medical record of the deceased patient's care and treatment at both of these facilities. (See notice of "objection to notice of Serving Medical Chart and Bill as filed today). The missing records are in danger of being destroyed because of the statute of limitations.["statute of limitations" was of course, the wrong expression. Carol meant to state the legal time for preserving documents. For mobile laboratories this is only two years. She later found out that hospital telephone conversations concerning the orders for laboratory tests could [according to the hospital compliance regulations be destroyed within two years. Blake's attorney assured the court that the time limitation was over four years. With this false assurance, Carol's injunction was denied and according to Blake the court case was over. They just forgot to tell Carol]! They are of invaluable importance of proving the state of the patient's health and the care, which was delivered. It is believed for this reason, these records have been withheld from the petitioner. For this reason, the petitioner humbly pleas that the court issue an injunction for the preservation of all related records and tests of the patient Zoe E. Stronstorff from these three corporations: 1) Blake Medical Center as represented by James Evangelista, Esquire, Florida Bar No. 600725, P. O. Box 1438 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1600 Tampa, FL 33601 2) Integrated Health Services of Bradenton RA National Corporate Research, Ltd., inc. 1406 Hays St., suite # 2 Tallahassee, FL 32301 3) Symphony Mobilex RA National Corporate Research, Ltd., inc. 1406 Hays St., suite # 2 Tallahassee, FL 32301 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by mail on February 5th, 2001 to James J. Evangelista, P.O Box 1438,Tampa, FL 33601. Carol Stronstorff, Pro Se 1840 Restful Dr. Bradenton, FL 34207 941-751-1069 or fax: 775-587-1298 |
IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2000- CIVIL DIVISION CAROL STRONSTORFF, Petitioner vs. BLAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent. PETITION FOR THE COMPLETE MEDICAL RECORDS AND AN ACCURATE BILL FOR ZOE E. STRONSTORFF acct.: L00701608791 as WELL AS Relief from continued harassment by the Blake medical RECORDS' staff I. Petitioner, Carol Stronstorff, the only daughter and legally designated health surrogate of the patient, submits this petition for the medical records of Zoe E. Stronstorff pursuant Section 395.3025 of the Florida Statutes to the respondent, Blake Medical Center. Section 395.3025 (1) of the Florida Statutes states that Blake " shall, upon written request, and only after discharge of the patient, furnish, in a timely manner, without delays for legal review, to ... to the next of kin of a decedent ... a true and correct copy of all patient records, including X rays, and insurance information concerning such person, which records are in the possession of the licensed facility, provided the person requesting such records agrees to pay a charge." ... "The licensed facility shall further allow any such person to examine the original records in its possession, or microforms or other suitable reproductions of the records, upon such reasonable terms as shall be imposed to assure that the records will not be damaged, destroyed, or altered." A. The petitioner purchased a copy of the Medical Records in April-May 1999. Respondent then provided the petitioner with a copy of the medical record in December 1999, when the hospital refused to let her see the medical records. (This was after a meeting with AHCA on 1 December 1999). The records are defaced and incomplete. It appears to have violations of state and federal law. The records have required informationmissing. Florida Statute 395.3015 as to Patient records; form and content as well as the Code of Federal Regulations , 42 CFR 482.24, seem to have been massively violated. Petitioner respectfully requests the court to order Blake Medical Center to provide the entire and complete medical record of the patient beginning with admission to the the hospital by ambulance at 12:48 on 1/11/99. 1. This includes all the items, which the petitioner has already requested of the designated lawyer, David Weil, in the unanswered fax of 28 March 2000 (Exhibit 1). 2. The "certified true copy" of the medical records, which the patient has received contain multiple errors in form and content. Records are missing, which should be there. Others are there, which appear fraudulent and/or defective and appear to be created at a later time than stated. Signatures are missing on official important reports. The Physician's Orders are also defaced with red ink notations on the left side as well as lines as if crossing out the record entirely. 3. I filed a complaints about the patient's care to both Florida medical care review organizations: AHCA and FMQAI. They maintain that the medical records, which they had received from Blake Hospital reflected no violations of state or federal laws, although the medical records, which I have appear to show both. FMQAI even stated that the patient had received "optimal care." (From my daily witnessing of the events at the hospital and my incomplete "certified true" copy of the medical, as well as discussions with professionals, this appears impossible). 4. It seems, there must be different versions of the medical records of the patient. Ms. Stone, Head of the Medical Records Department, has stated that the records, which I have received and seen, are the only ones in existence. She will not answer any questions as to the missing signatures and incorrect and missing information. 5. On hand from this for me ununderstandable situation, she humbly petitions the court to require Blake to show her the records, which were submitted to these two review organizations for their three reviews: FMQAI (in-hospital-review and post-hospital-review), and AHCA (28 June 1999 - apparently a hospital computer copy for the survey and the December 1999 hard copy version). It appears that AHCA and FMQAI have received no record of the emergency room admission with Dr. Liskiewicz (12:53-18:00) but have records which begin with a Dr. Silpa (night-shift- after initiation of the heparin therapy in ICU 505 - time unknown by the petitioner and unclear in her copy of the medical records). Carol Stronstorff, the legally designated health surrogate of the blind patient, on the other hand, has only records and her knowledge of Dr. Liskiewicz and none of Dr. Silpa. It also appears that these review organizations have received records, which are not defaced and possibly corrected and in proper form (possibly using the suggestions of the defacements in the petitioner's copy of the medical records). The patient for Dr. Liskiewicz was "stable." The patient for Dr. Silpa appears to have been "unresponsive" and in "highly critical" condition. Something appears to be wrong with the medical records. 6. She courteously requests the court to order that the risk manager or other responsible party of the Respondent review the medical records, which the Petitioner has received and explain and possibly correct all the deficiencies in her copy of the records - missing signatures, missing laboratory tests, missing emergency room records, missing consultations, defective records and diagnoses, labels (addressographs) and other discrepancies. 7. Based on past experience, she respectfully requests the court to ask the hospital employees to answer all the questions as related to the problems with the medical records without harrassing Carol. The problems with the medical records are not caused by her actions but by the hospital's apparent "normal course of business" recordkeeping. (She confesses to having numbered the pages (a small number in the right-hand corner of each page) in an effort to keep track of what was being removed from the files by the hospital. This may have been improper, yet certainly can not be considered harmful). All other problems are hospital created. Wanting to receive true and accurate records is her legal right and she should not be treated as a criminal. Her interest is in receiving accurate records, which reflect the true and factual care, which was provided to the patient as well as to document the cause of each new problem at the hospital and nursing home with regard to the patient's physical condition. This information is necessary and important for her personally as Zoe's lineal decedant as well as for every potential patient, who may be subjected to similar medical treatment. 8. She courteously requests the court to order copies of all x-rays, Ct-scans and both carotid tests (Liskiewicz's and Silpa's) beginnining with Dr. Liskiewicz at 12:48 on 1/11/99 and ending with IHS'order (from Dr. Unaeze) for the 2/12/99 Ct-scan. Also the echocardiograms (the videotape for the 1/12/99 one, which was provided by the cardiology section was defective) for the tests on 1/11/99, 1/12/99 and 1/13/99, the barium video swallow test has not been given to me, although requested many times (a tape was received from speech therapy, but this is an unknown tape, which can not even identify the patient on the film). The original video identified the patient clearly. Ms. Brenda Worley, hospital risk management, told Carol, that she must have these records subpoenaed by the court. They would not provide them to her, otherwise. 9. She requests a court order for the missing detailed hospital Physician Cumulative Order Summary for Zoe's hospitalization from 12:48 1/11/99 through discharge on 2/2/99. This should help with the clarification of the bill and the condition of the records per se. B) Florida Statute 395.1041 Access to emergency services and care under (4) RECORDS OF TRANSFERS; REPORT OF VIOLATIONS under Section 2. states : "Each hospital shall maintain records of all patients who request emergency care and services, or persons on whose behalf emergency care and services are requested, for a period of 5 years. These records shall be included in a log, as well as in the permanent medical record of any patient or person for whom emergency services and care is requested." The petitioner has no records of this in the certified true copy of Zoe's medical records, which she has received from Blake. Pursuant to the above statute Petitioner requests that the hospital emergency records for 1/11/99 (arrival of Zoe at noon and/or at night [sic]), and the possible emergency records of 1/12/99 (since AHCA reported having received an ambulance report with the patient arriving in highly critical condition and with an intravenous fluid being given to the patient [sic]). She also requests that the court supoena the emergency records for 2/12/99 as pertaining to the STAT (emergency) orders for a sonogram for suspected deep venous thrombosis at around 0600 hours and later for a STAT (emergency) order for a CT-scan for an old hip injury as supposedly had been requested by IHS of Bradenton to the Respondent for emergency care of Zoe's acute condition. The protocol of the EMS telemetry to Blake for the death of Zoe at about 1530 hours on 2/13/99 is also requested. C) The Petitioner also respectfully requests the court to have the hospital inform her of all parties, who have received information from or reviewed the patient's records or parts of the records, as already requested in writing in my e-mail of 26 July 2000 to Ms. Stone. D) She also requests that the entire medical staff, who treated the patient be identified by name, since the records do not clearly identify the names of the treating parties (nurses - actual shift ; doctors - actual date and time of consultation and/or visitations; OT, PT and ST therapists - actual visits. II. Pursuant to Section 395.301, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is entitled to an Itemized patient bill. Section 395.301 (2)(d) states : it "shall specifically identify therapy treatment as to the date, type, and length of treatment when therapy treatment is a part of the statement. Any person receiving a statement pursuant to this section shall be fully and accurately informed as to each charge and service provided by the institution preparing the statement." To date she has not received a comprehensible bill. Further Blake has begun "collection proceedings" (This is entirely incomprehensible since Medicare and Zoe's private insurance paid all legitimate costs to my knowledge). (See Exhibit 2 and 3). A) Petitioner requests the court to order the respondent to present a truthful bill reflecting the actual identifiable procedures and medications received and also to explain just why collection proceedings were started. B) In order to ensure that Medicare fraud has not occurred, she also respectfully requests that the court order the hospital to present to the petitioner the defendant's electronic billings to Medicare for Zoe's hospital stay and all post-hospital treatments up to the time of her death on 2/13/99. Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully requests the court to order the Respondent to provide her with the true and complete medical records with all tests along with a truthful bill reflecting the actual care as well as an order to discuss and correct the current errors in her copy of the medical records without harassment. Carol Stronstorff 1840 restful Drive bradenton, fl 34207 tel: 941-751-1069 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing will be furnished via facsimilie transmission to Lindell w. orr, ceo, Blake Medical Center, fax: 798-6209 today. Exhibits: "One" 1) 28 March 2000 2-page fax to the designated attorney, David Weil, to provide the records and information requested - unanswered. "Two" 2) Audited bill as returned to CEO's office on 26 July. No following action was taken other than the next exhibit: "collection action." ( 6 pages of 14-page audit) "Three" 3) copy of Blake's unjustifiable collection action dated 9 October 2000 ________________________________ITEM ONE - FAX TO COLUMBIA Blake LAWYER Carol Stronstorff e-mail cstrons@netzero.net P.O. Box 10436 Bradenton, FL 34282 28 March 2000 David Weil Columbia Legal Counselfax 615-344-2598 Re: Zoe E. Stronstorff , identified under L389183579 and L00701608791, patient at HCA Blake hospital in Bradenton, Florida from 1/11/99-2/2/99 Dear Mr. Weil: 1) Please arrange for me to receive copies of all the x-rays taken of the above patient from 1248 hours on 1/11/99 through discharge on 2/2/99. This includes the x-rays taken in the emergency room under Dr. Liskiewicz and Dr. Silpa, as well as those ordered by Drs. Malone, Arrojo, Polanco and Braxtan and DeGroat. 2) Please arrange for me to receive copies of all the CT-scans taken of the above patient from 1248 hours on 1/11/99 through discharge on 2/2/99. This includes the x-rays taken in the emergency room under Dr. Liskiewicz and Dr. Silpa, as well as those ordered by Drs. Malone, Arrojo, Polanco. 3) Also please arrange for me to receive a copy of the CT-scans taken of the above patient on 2/12/99. This was ordered by IHS of Bradenton for Dr. Unaeze. Since the test was not for an emergency, why did the hospital not bundle the costs back to the SNF instead of charging it directly to Medicare? 4) Please provide me with true color copies of the Physician's Notes from 1/19-1/20/99. 5) Please arrange for me to receive a copy of the video swallow test. 6) Please arrange for me to receive all laboratory tests for the patient. The "Discharge Summary does not show all the tests - many were noted pending by the physicians and it appears, a great effort was made to hide the 0500 testing of 1/12/99. Florida State Guidelines for stroke demand more testing, than is shown given. Results from 1/11/99 are cited by other departments. 7) Please arrange for me to receive all cardiology tests for the patient (echo, cardiac doppler, echo color flow). 8) Please arrange for me to receive all peri vascular laboratory tests. 9) Please arrange for a hospital audited bill, since the bill I have from 02/24/99 is deficient if not fraudulent. I have already requested a new bill and I have not received one. 10) The HCA doctors seem to document aphasia, although the speech therapist already rejects this condition on the 12th. Why is this? I have written notes of the patient showing "no aphasia," also stating that she can swallow. 11) The ER report shows the neurologist ordering an oral aspirin for the patient on 1/11/99. On 1/13/99 the 474a nurse documents giving the patient an "oral baby aspirin." Why did she then receive a nasal tube that afternoon without a signed consent form or a proper swallow test? On 1/20/99 the patient did not want any more tubes. I, the surrogate who as documented was regularly ignored as being nonexistent, suddenly became important and was enlisted against the patient's wishes. The second nasal gastro tube was inserted against the patient's wishes and without a proper test by Medicare guidelines. The PEG operation was scheduled while the patient was in highly critical conditions (On the 17th preparations by stopping the feeding of the patient at midnight. On the 22nd after the conference without my having given consent). I was put under tremendous pressure to have this operation (Two medical conferences were held, and the doctor threatened to take away my health surrogate status if I did not agree to the operation). When the patient finally passed the video swallow test (two weeks after admission) no aspiration was ever noted. No aspiration was ever recorded in the nurse's notes or reported to me even after oral administration of aspirin! ( It is, of course, possible in the hidden emergency room treatment around 2210 that the patient aspirated during CPR. Since this episode was hidden from me in the Medical Records. I cannot be sure). 12) Why was a Psychological evaluation of the patient considered by the HMO doctors of such great importance? 13. Please arrange for the original signed consultation reports? Why were there draft copies in the hospital computer on 2/3/99 for consultation reports as far back as 1/11/99? I expect to have the copies available in the minimum time possible, or if you insist on procrastinating the maximum time by law (I believe 10 days). Thank you very much for your efforts. I can be reached at 941- 758- 4768 (voice mail, if I'm not home or the line is busy). Often it is more effective to try my e-mail address. I am the daughter and executor of her estate. My SSN is 158-32-3724. Sincerely, Carol Stronstorff |
The following transcript is from the October 17th, 2001 hearing in the Manatee County Courthouse in Bradenton, Florida related to Carol's two motions: 1) to compel the delivery of an itemized bill (as required by both state and federal law) 2) to declare Blake Medical Center in contempt of Court. This July, Carol transcribed the taped proceeding while preparing her amended appeal for the Second District Court of Appeals. [Petition for Certiorari Review], due on July 23, 2002. The Circuit Court of Appeals (located in the same Courthouse in Bradenton) had denied her appeal on May 20, 2002. Judge Williams seemed to show total bias for Blake Medical Center and their new appeal attorney. Williams granted an opposed extension of time without a hearing. Carol had already filed her initial Brief with an appendix (list of attachments) in a timely manner. In her opposition, she mentioned that the appendix was not in order and that Blake should also file the answer Brief according to the same Rule of Procedure she had followed. Since the record on appeal was now important, Carol reviewed it with the Appeals' clerk. She found that an incredible amount of records were missing i.e.( orders, exhibits, original documents and correspondence), which had been in the file. Carol unilaterally supplemented them. Blake's attorney asked to have all their correspondence removed (Motion to strike). He compared Carol's supplementation to other rejected cases, which used newspaper articles. Carol had supplemented court correspondence. This is supposed to be in the file and was definitely brought before the Court. Judge Williams allowed the motion to strike Blake Medical Center's own courthouse correspondence. His logic was incredible. He stated that he determined just what correspondence would be placed into the file [against the local rules, as I understand]. He then asked if Blake's counsel had any notes on the correspondence, that might indicate that the judge wanted to have them filed. He continued by stating that if there were no notes, then the lower court judge did not want them filed, so he was not going to allow the correspondence to go into the record on appeal. The logic here is amazing. If there are no records, how can there be any notes on them to prove what the judge wanted? Carol made a motion to clarify court procedures (an unusual motion for a hopefully unusual court) : 1. When court correspondence, i.e. Motions are brought to the Court's attention? [Some made it in seconds and others never made it.] 2. When and how one could get hearing time? [She had been told, she had to wait until the judge decided]. 3. What were the procedures for handling court correspondence? [obviously, it appeared to be a personal decision as what was to be hidden or made public] She withdrew the motion in order to get a answer brief from Blake. (All action was being held up by this motion). After motion withdrawal, she sent the request for clarification of court procedures to the Chief Judge for answering. To date there has been no answer. Carol had a court reporter at the hearing on the motion to strike. It is believed, it is for this reason that she never received another hearing. The 12th Judicial Circuit in Bradenton, Florida, Manatee County had no desire to have it's questionable actions recorded. Judge Williams wrote an opinion denying her appeal (affirming the county court's decision on the "rehearing" motion. He tried to forget the October 17th, 2001 hearing. The "hearing" then in front of Judge Rushing was the basis of this "rehearing" motion to Judge DeFuria. Judge Williams wrote false facts accepting the incorrect and misleading statements of Blake's attorney without even allowing Carol a chance to reply. He also stated that there were no new facts in the motion for rehearing [sic]. It appears the judge did not want to read that in this motion, which was denied, it was pointed out that the temporary injunction had been denied through false representations of Blake's Counsel to the Court [as to time for destruction of the medical records]. This was new information and was never mentioned before, since Carol did not have the information herself until after October 17th. A false representation had been made by Blake's attorney to the Court. This error if not outright fraud determined the outcome of the injunction and future pleading. This was new information, which the Court did not have. It should have been considered by the Court. Carol's next motion for a {re}hearing [There was no hearing and she did not even have a chance to respond to Blake's assertions in his answer brief.] was, of course, denied. Her protest focused on the premise that the judge obviously did not understand the facts of the case and appeared to be biased in not allowing her to reply was in vain. However, the worst part of this case stems from the following action of the judge. Carol had informed the court that she would be absent from the country and asked that nothing be done in her absence. At this suggestion, the court immediately denied the {re}hearing motion. In doing so the court compromised her constitutional right of appeal, since Florida law requires filing within 30 days. Carol had told the court she would not be back until after 30 days and the court immediately denied her a rehearing and in effect actually the chance of a timely appeal. The transcript of October 17th explains the haste of this Court to deny Carol an appeal: It states that it was a sham hearing. It states that actually, the Court decided to ignore her original petition/ complaint in March without ever telling her. It states that Blake was "gratuitously" pretending compliance with court orders. It was so "kindhearted" to offer up everything [medical records, bill], which Carol failed to get before filing suit for these items. It also stated that the Court had no right to order it (Blake Medical Center) to do anything since last April, when they had written their [false] compliance statement. Judge Rushing appears to have trouble with the case and the evidence, but denies the motion for a bill. The "contempt" motion was never heard, because of time. The judge based denial on Mr. Biedler's affidavit [He did not look at either Carol's response to this affidavit or her affidavit about the video]. He obviously could not use Ms. Stone's "verification" after Carol's portrayal - and did not. In the end he says, it really does not matter since whatever was done here is inconsequential. Since the denied temporary injunction of last April, there has been no jurisdiction in this case. Can there be a better legal farce than shown here? The good guys - "Blake Medical Center" and Fowler White attorneys - were allowed to promise delivery of everything [or what they wanted to show] "gratuitously." Yet they never gave anything (legally required complete records) but "Volume II" from 1/11/99-2/2/99. They never showed Carol, what interested her the most: the emergency department records, the transfer records, the itemized bill in the name of the facility, and their hospital records for the last two days of her mother's life (February 12th and 13th, 1999). All this time Carol thought, the Court would and should enforce their own order. Not exactly. According to Blake: There never was an order and Carol never had an original petition. The hallmark of a fair proceeding is to have a clear "meaningful opportunity to be heard" The October 17th proceeding is a hallmark in judicial comedy. What a shame, they do not have awards for best script and performance. Judge Rushing is nice, friendly, and has a lovely southern accent and use of homilies. Justice aside, Carol with her sense of irony could even laugh at the end of the proceeding. "A comedy of justice." It is better to laugh than to cry. The judge, (brought in for the "farce"), was totally new to the case (108 pages -just concerning this hearing). The original judge, Judge DeFuria, wanted no part of it. He scheduled it, although he knew he would be on vacation. How often does a judge get to preside over a hearing that is non existent; to dismiss two motions in a "sham hearing" scheduled for 10 minutes; to sit and dismiss without any problem in evaluating since "this court has been ordered that there will be no more activity on this file." Residents and visitors in Manatee County, look at the poverty of this Court system! Enjoy the transcript of the tape recorded hearing below. A "meaningful opportunity to be heard" is the hallmark of procedural due process - "A FAIR TRIAL" - guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you think Carol has been denied her constitutional rights? |
Patient's Rights in Bradenton, Florida This is what Carol experienced, when she tried to sue for her mother's medical records, which she knew had been falsified for the health review agencies by their reports. She also asked for an itemized bill meeting legal requirements. These laws are covered by both state an federal law, but as you can see: Just try to get them enforced!?! It said that the petition for the records never was one. That since the motion for a temporary injunction to not destroy records had been denied [on the basis of the attorneys false assurance that no records could be destroyed before more than 4 years [sic], the court had no right to order them to do anything and they could never be held in contempt! Do you believe, that if one has to sue to get access to the medical records and information about bill, that suddenly that institution is going to voluntarily provide one with all the information asked for? I don't and they didn't. They kept shoving Volume II of the medical records at her and saying, they had complied. And no one cares. There is no such thing as patient rights in the county of Manatee, Florida. |
Justice Denied |
This page was last updated on: October 7, 2004
Violation of our Constitutional Amendments of Due Process and Equality before the Law |
3. ("Sham" hearing on a motion on contempt for disobeying the court order for an itemized bill and true medical records). |
Telephone hearing for the contempt subject.(Blake Medical Center). |
An AMENDED PETITION was served to the registered agent of Blake Medical Center in Tallahasse on February 15, 2001 giving proper jurisdiction. |
_________________________ IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MANATEE COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 2000-CC-004009 CAROL STRONSTORFF, Petitioner, 2 Hearings V. BLAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent. ________________________________________/ TAKEN BY: THE HONORABLE STEVE RUSHING SENIOR JUDGE BY: DICTATION RECORDER of Carol Stronstorff with leave of the Court For total accuracy, one must listen to the recording. Items in italicized brackets are unclear at this transcription attempt. Emphasized brackets indicate clarification - was not in the original case hearing. DATE: October 17, 2001 SCHEDULED TIME 3:15 AND 3:20 PLACE: MANATEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE Bradenton, Florida APPEARANCES: CAROL STRONSTORFF, Pro se 1840 Restful Dr. Bradenton, Florida 34207 Appearing on Behalf of the Petitioner/ Complainant JAMES A. EVANGELISTA, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs & Parker, P.A. Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601 Appearing on Behalf of the Respondent/ Appellee via telephone THE COURT: Hello this is Judge Rushing. MR. EVANGELISTA: Hello, Judge Rushing, this is Jim Evangelista, counsel for Blake Medical Center. THE COURT: OK , Mr. Evangelista. Ahh, this is Judge Rushing. I'm sitting in for Judge DeFuria today on the case of ah Stronstorff vs. Blake Medical Center. Ms. Stronstorff is here pro se. MR. EVANGELISTA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: She has requested permission to tape-record the proceedings. And Ummm, I've told her she might turn it on unless you have an objection. MR. EVANGELISTA: No, Sir. THE COURT: We don't have a court reporter here, so . OK. Umm. This is plaintiffs' motion for contempt, I believe. MS. STRONSTORFF: Um. The First is the motion, excuse me, your Honor, the motion to compel the delivery of an itemized bill. THE COURT: OK. Can you speak up just a little bit? MS. STRONSTORFF: Yes. THE COURT: Counsel, can you hear her? MR. EVANGELISTA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: OK. So you're wanting to have an itemized bill? Umm. I I have a rather lengthy motion of Miss Stronstorff of the {fifth} of October? MS. STRONSTORFF: No, this is of August 23rd. THE COURT: I apologize. I'm obviously not that familiar with this file. It's getting to be pretty thick. Umm. It's August 23rd? MS. STRONSTORFF: Yes, Your honor. THE COURT: And you're wanting to have an itemized billing ? MS. STRONSTORFF: Yes your Honor. According to its 395.301 Florida Statutes, I'm entitled to an itemized bill. I have.. This was my initial request. Uhhh. I have not received an itemized bill from them. An itemized bill should look like the last page of this and it should also be in the name of the facility, which gave provided the services to my mother and to my knowledge the only facility, which was supposed to provide services to my mother was Blake Medical Center. There have been different bills - uhh- to Medicare. The Medicare carrier has reported that ahh Blake Medical Center has billed under the name of HCA L W Blake Memorial Hospital and also another bill was made under HCA L W Blake ahh Hospital. And these are to my knowledge and ah inquiring ahh into the fictitious name registry, in the Division of Corporations, these are not valid names. The only name, the only registered hospital in Bradenton is Blake Medical Center and I have not received a itemized bill from Blake Medical Center. As I said in this order of 13th I'd like to know how Blake Medical Center billed Medicare under a facility name which does not exist and is not a licensed hospital in Florida at the time of my mother's hospitalization. THE COURT: Are you alleging that they might have double payment from them. MS. STRONSTORFF: I have no idea. They, they apparently Medicare has any case received a bill by a facility name that does not exist. There may be some explanation. Blake Medical Center has not provided me with an explanation. THE COURT: What I'm just saying is What is the question you have? Is it that.. in other words did they send out from Blake Memorial or Blake Medical as long as the bill was paid ? back ahead is OK. MS. STRONSTORFF: I suspect up coding and Medicare fraud. THE COURT: Uhh MS. STRONSTORFF: And what's more, the billing.. the bill ..the ahh the detailed bill, which is actually an audit sheet, which I received from them, does not have the things that happened to my mother and I also have reason to believe that malpractice has occurred and that I have not been informed about it at the time. And this is my report. THE COURT: Mr. Evangelista , there's a motion to compel delivery of an itemized hospital bill by Blake Medical Center for patient Mrs. Stronstorff for treatment in January through February of 1999. Do you have a copy of that ord.. motion? MR. EVANGELISTA: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: What is you all position on that? MR. EVANGELISTA: Your Honor , our position is the same as it has been throughout these proceedings, which were commenced by Ms. Stronstorff in the early part of this year [sic] involving an order denying her motion for a temporary injunction, which is the way in which, she invoked the jurisdiction of this court. MS. STRONSTORFF: not true.. MR. EVANGELISTA: We have, your honor, and I know you have not had the benefit of participating in the proceedings for the past 6 or 7 months given 8 months --ahh THE COURT: Well, the file is growing fast and rather thick rather quickly. MR. EVANGELISTA: But, what has occurred, your Honor, is that by way of the petition for a temporary injunction, which the Court ultimately considered her petition, which is called a petition to complete medical records, bills as well as relief from harassment. The Court ultimately denied the temporary injunction. On behalf of Blake Medical Center, I volunteered to have Blake Medical Center produce to Ms. Stronstorff each and every document, everything that she wanted from Blake Medical Center, which she thought, she had not received. Ah, consequently we have now been involved in producing these records and making these records available for her, filing with the Court proof that we have complied with the court orders now only to be brought back into court repeatedly ....with {deception ...that }, what we've provided her with is insufficient. Umm, All I can say to the court is that we have filed in response to this court order dated March {April 6th} .....that we have filed compliance with the court as of May 4th, 2001 and we have filed with the court a verification of completeness of records signed by a representative of Blake Medical Center on May 18th, uhh 2001. We have also... I think that's actually all we've filed at Court. THE COURT: Well, Ma'am, let me just interrupt for a second. Ma'am? What?, I'm . I'm looking here. It does appear that the Exhibit A, that you have attached to your motion that does show quite a bit of ahh detailed stuff. MS. STRONSTORFF: This is not.. THE COURT: This is from 9/28 of through.. MS. STRONSTORFF: This is not a bill from Blake Medical Center, your Honor. MR. EVANGELISTA: It's a different bill. MS. STRONSTORFF: This is the way Sarasota Memorial made an itemized bill. This is the itemized bill, which I received from This is not. It's an audit sheet at the end. When they did the audit, they lumped together everything under 2 ..under the date 2/2 so that I can not identify what they are taking off and the fact that the bill is not itemized does not allow me to control what they have done. It appears, that they have just dropped the record from the initial - uhh- arrival of my mother at the hospital in the emergency room on the 12th. [sic] She was arrived at noon and it seems like the bill seems to start maybe at midnight, which appears to have been an adverse incident about which I was never informed and there are only indications in the records. Ahh.. The records are extremely faulty. They do not even identify the physician, who ordered heparin - ahh- anticoagulant, which requires normally that a physician be identi -all records require that the physician be identified. This is not identifiable in these records, which they have presented. And they have refused to inform me, who that physician is - to date! And consequently... THE COURT: Let me. Just let me just let me verify. Mr. Evangelista, and I apologize , I'm kinda come in the middle of this but you're saying basically that her... her injunction was denied and kind of like as a act of good faith on your own, you all agreed to get her some records and now the court is ordering you to get certain records. MR. EVANGELISTA: In essence, Judge, that's correct. What, what has happened is that back in March of this year, uhh, we advised the court that we would do everything that we could to appease Ms. Stor.. Stronstorff. THE COURT: OK. Now is there actually anything pending before the court now then? MR. EVANGELISTA: No sir. THE COURT: Just her Motions to ahh? MR. EVANGELISTA: Her motions for contempt and her motions to.. ahh.. for to compel and and as I pointed out to the Judge DeFuria back again, when we had the other hearing ahhh, I don't remember when it was but April, I guess, uhh I did not know under what jurisdiction we were continuing to proceed. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. EVANGELISTA: I also did point out to Judge DeFuria that Ms. Stronstorff does have the right to pursue any type of legal action in Circuit Court - malpractice or otherwise and there are administrative proceedings that have been initiated by her in regard to compliance with Chapter 395 concerning hospital records. Judge DeFuria advised Ms. Stronstorff that she needed to consult Counsel and pursue those remedies. Ms. Stronstorff astutely pointed out to Judge DeFuria that she felt those remedies were inadequate as her mother is survived by only an adult child [sic], Ms. Stronstorff, and there are therefore no actions of financial compensation by way of Florida's Wrongful Death Statute combined with the medical malpractice statute. Consequently, we are before this court, frankly voluntarily attempting to ah a comport with or assist Ms. Stronstorff. Judge DeFuria has done the same and has provide detailed detailed order, ah which we have... MS. STRONSTORFF: not fulfilled- MR. EVANGELISTA: .. have complied with with to the best of our ability and that's all the records and I, I don't know how the court has taken jurisdiction over this, but it has been going on close to 8-9 months now. OK. THE COURT: OK, well..... Tschuu.. MS. STRONSTORFF: Your, honor THE COURT: Yes. MS. STRONSTORFF: May I please interrupt. THE COURT: Yes. MS. STRONSTORFF: Ahh. Ahh. The Counsel, Blake's Counsel says that this Court started with this motion for temporary injunction. THE COURT: Right. MS. STRONSTORFF: And this is not the case at all. I , I was pro se and I didn't know the system. I started with my very first petition was Stronstorff vs. Blake Medical Center and it was Petition for the complete medical records and accurate bill for Zoe Stronstorff as well as relief from continued harassment by the Blake Medical Records staff and I based it all on Florida Statutes 395.3025(1) and there is another one for the bill. These are Florida statutes that entitle me to these items. Ahh. Blake Medical Center and their Counsel never answered this. Actually, I should have made a motion for default. They came and they said that noted a filing the bill. The bill was ..Did I show it to you ? I guess it is this edit This umm ahhhh audit sheet. It is not a bill. it does not show the name of the hospital on it. It does say Zoe Stronstorff on it. It has an audit sheet date. It doesn't have the itemized bill. It doesn't have the hospital name. It doesn't match up with what they billed Medicare. Now I have a right as a citizen and a taxpayer to control the records. I have actually a duty to do that. If this hospital is committing fraud, I should be able to know it. And it is the only way, I can control it, is through an itemized bill. Now the way this bill was done, I have had, I got one not in their name before and ahh it was more detailed like a bill except it had a fraudulent name or rather the not valid name and like I said it had these records missing. There were questions to it. According to the law, it also says if there are questions on the bill, they should be answered. Now Blake Medical Center doesn't answer them. I had detailed questions on this. This was part of the Petition - here, I have it - all these questions - They were given to 'em, I think, in July, 1999. Not one question was answered! There are, there are, ahh, like let's say heparin, for a next example, they have it in the bill and we know bills are made electronically, which means if you have an item with the same code number, the same name, the same procedure number, it will always have the same price unless there's a price change. THE COURT: True. MS. STRONSTORFF: So one day it has 200 dollars for the value and the next day it has four hundred and thirteen dollars value - as an example. THE COURT: Was it maybe different amounts? MS. STRONSTORFF: NO, no, no, no. It's the itemized ..It is the procedure. It's identified exactly what it is. If You.. You have a unit of it. You don't have it. If they would explain it to me, it would be fine, but this is not the case. They try to get the bill to match up with the Medicare bill. And they have not given me an itemized bill. You should see there in the example. That's how an itemized bill looks and they refuse to give it to me. And the reason, they probably don't give it to me is because then I would have proof of their fraud and they are not making it easy for me. THE COURT: Well, OK. I'm, I'm no I'm not really sure what to do here. Ummm. Mr. Evangelista, if you could maybe help me a little bit. Umm. It would appear to me ahh just, I guess just as a friend of the court here or for her, cause I can't give you legal advice, Ma'am, but. Ummm it seems like to me that this motion should be denied on the basis that umm basically, I, I don't, unless I ..I.. that it would seem like that you all have complied with this ahh dates of service ahh access. If that's all you got then it seems like ya can't get blood from a turnip. Umm. That, you know, this seems like it's all kind of like a gratuitous situation on your part that now the court system is ordering you to do, which I have {___} thoughts that jurisdiction of the court should to do that. But on the other hand, I do, I understand, I think, where the judge may be coming from that Ms. Stronstorff wants to be able to I guess get these records and compare them to the Medicare uhh filings and ensure that everything is on the up and up. Which, you know, I think, if it would be my mother, I'd probably maybe do the same thing but umm I just don't know if this is the right way to get from here to there. Is there uhh? You know, it seems like can you go to Medicare and get their records and then... ? MS. STRONSTORFF: They told me to go to the hospital and get their records. And the hospital is not giving them. THE COURT: They tell you to go to the hospital. The hospital says go to Medicare. MS. STRONSTORFF: Right. But in any case the judge has ordered. Judge DeFuria ordered them. The last order was for that I was to see the original records. What happens, I had it in writing. This is the motion from the 10th. They did not give me the original records. THE COURT: Well I reckon, they have to make a copy of them. Are these something that she can kind of like what we do with attorneys in going out at her time and expense and go down and take a look at these records if there is like - I would imagine, that there is some kind of a a folder for her mother? MS. STRONSTORFF: they..they.. MR. EVANGELISTA: Your Honor, there is an order dated July 18th from Judge DeFuria THE COURT: Right. MR. EVANGELISTA: And your Honor, we ..Ms. Stronstorff has been to Blake Medical Center umm about, I don't know the exact number, but at least more than 5 times. MS. STRONSTORFF: Ten times, I believe, Your Honor. THE COURT: ten times? MR. EVANGELISTA: ten times. MS. STRONSTORFF: And I have not gotten the records yet. MR. EVANGELISTA: And that's exactly the response. Regardless of what records, we've produced for review each and every time, we're told that we haven't produced the all of the records for the complete She and everything she wants to see. So, I have representatives at court and the information provides me by my client. THE COURT: You have an affidavit here from Gary Biedler. MR. EVANGELISTA: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: He basically says that they've given -they gave her everything that they can give her. MS. STRONSTORFF: Uhh. Your Honor, he has not given me the requisitions. He says that they are available. He's just said that they're summaries and I have taken great detail to point out- I've taken a position to the that. I , I thought, Judge DeFuria would have read it. I mean, you're new to that. It's quite long, but I have written a position to Mr. Biedler's and I accused him of not answering properly and not explaining certain records in there that there is a law also - rather a compliance order - that every laboratory test must be ordered by a physician and the records - the medical records that are all in court now show that not all those those uhh uhh summaries.. THE COURT: But, but. MS. STRONSTORFF: labs. THE COURT: But this, let's say that if you get all those records here and you find that there's a discrepancy there where a lab have was a - a test was ordered by a a nurse rather than a physician. You're still going to have to file some sort of law suit or something or somewhere. I presume. This this this uhh appears . This uhh file is basically dead. MR. EVANGELISTA: Yes..{ } MS. STRONSTORFF: Why is it dead ? Because they have not fulfilled the state law. Is the state law dead? Is this law , the state law that says that.. THE COURT: No, I'm just saying that this vehicle, where basically, your motion for injunction was denied. MS. STRONSTORFF: That was an injunction was for the destruction of certain records from Symphony Mobilex and it was not even from Blake Medical Center. It was laboratory tests of a mobile laboratory. It was not to do with these records. It had nothing ..This was a temporary injunction with Symphony Mobilex because they had records and I could not get them. This is another part. THE COURT: But that was denied. MS. STRONSTORFF: It was denied. Yes. THE COURT: OK ,So but you are now doing discovery based upon that denial? MR. EVANGELISTA: That's true. MS. STRONSTORFF: No, I'm not. The discovery goes back to the to the initial petition, which has not been addressed. THE COURT: That's what I'm saying that it does not appear, I mean. I mean, my heart my heart goes out to you but I understand what you are trying to do. I think that you certainly have a right to get these records but I don't know that this is the case, the right way to do it. Umm, it seems like you should file ahh you know a based on what you have file a lawsuit against the the , you know, if you feel there's been . I know what you are saying that you need to get a certain amount of evidence, but It seems like maybe you have enough already to to file a lawsuit and then as a result of that you can get discovery and depositions and things like that. MS. STRONSTORFF: Your Honor? Does this law..?I mean it is a law that says they are entitled to I can not under this law ask that they give this to me? Is? Is? Is this law not effective in Manatee County or not in the state of Florida? Is it only to be exercised through a malpractice case? I mean, this is a law that says I am entitled to an itemized bill and THE COURT: I, Well, you know, I don't think that is what it says, Ma'am, but the problem I have is that you have, that you seems to me, as though It's like you're trying to use , you now, a car to get to an island. You need to get on a boat to get to the island. In other words, you have a right to get to where you want to go, I would think.. MS. STRONSTORFF: But.. THE COURT: But it doesn't appear that this is .. . [Carol and the judge spoke at the same time] MS. STRONSTORFF: Blake Medical Center is not following the |