Planning on having a baby at Kaiser Permanente? Read this first!
[After over two and a half years of wrangling with Kaiser Permanente
Hawaii, I recently completed my final response to Kaiser's
false claims regarding the events that led up to my
complaint to the State of Hawaii Insurance Division. The "Ms. Carson" I refer to is
Ellen Godbey Carson, the attorney Kaiser hired to defend the
substandard treatment I received during the birth of my son, and the
subsequent cover up by high level Kaiser executives.
Ms. Carson's profile on the Alston, Hunt, Floyd & Ing
web site indicates that she fancies herself as some kind of protector of women's
and civil rights. This did not discourage her from accepting payment from Kaiser to revictimize me repeatedly in
correspondence to the Insurance Division, or from distorting the facts and lying outright on Kaiser's behalf in
its response to my initial complaint. It is unusual for Kaiser to hire an attorney to defend a consumer complaint. I'll let my readers decide for themselves why
Kaiser felt it was necessary. November 8, 2005]
November 7, 2005
Ms. Carla Chu
Health Insurance Branch Investigator
State of Hawaii, Insurance Division
PO Box 3614
Honolulu, Hawaii 96811
Re: Complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Inc.
File Name: HC-03-103150
This is my rebuttal to Kaiser’s letter to the
Insurance Division of June 9, 2004, in response to my above referenced
complaint.
I came to the Insurance Division for help because at
no time has Kaiser cooperated with me or made any effort to get to the
truth of this matter, as the information I am about to provide will
illustrate. In fact, I was deliberately deceived by more than one person,
and in such a way that has gone beyond any possibility of mere clerical
error or innocent oversight and into the realm of out and out fraud. So
while I concede that it was my choice not to pursue the appeal at Kaiser,
which apparently affects my eligibility for the Insurance Division’s
review, I believe I should not be required to participate in what was
proven to me time and time again to be a rigged and corrupt internal
process at Kaiser. If nothing else comes from this complaint I would like
these issues to be addressed for future victims.
Kaiser's response to my initial complaint contains
several major errors of fact. In many instances Kaiser’s attorney parrots
the false statements in Risk Management’s denial of June 9, 2003 (copy
previously provided), and because none of those statements are supported
by the documentation it is clear that after the initial denial there was
no further investigation into the circumstances leading up to my
complaint, and no attempt to resolve my issues.
Ms. Carson states that I was admitted early April 2,
1998 in early labor. In fact I was a patient in Labor and Delivery since
the night before, April 1st, and I was in labor 35 hours by the
time I was officially admitted April 2nd. This is not early
labor in anyone’s book. Refer to my complaint where I state that I was
told by the L & D nurse that I was not considered to be in labor because I
was not dilating, even though there was scar tissue on my cervix
preventing dilation, which is why they delayed officially admitting me
while at the same time keeping me in the hospital.
The scar tissue was the result of complications from
an earlier miscarriage that caused permanent damage to my cervix. There
was a detailed discussion about the circumstances surrounding the prior
miscarriage, and how my failure to dilate related, but the nurse either
failed to record any of it in my chart, or those records have been
withheld or altered by Kaiser.
About a week earlier a Kaiser doctor (Dr. Randall
Yanagisawa, not my regular OB/Gyn) remarked during an exam that he had
never seen a cervix like mine “go without help.” He asked me if I had
ever had surgery on my cervix, and I discussed the prior miscarriage with
him at that time. He also failed to record this discussion in my chart, or
those records are also missing. Neither scenario is acceptable, so of
course Kaiser will say I’m making it all up. I’ll give you my response in
advance: Why would I?
The fact is my cervix did not “go without help,” and
after barely dilating at all 35 hours into my labor I was suffering
badly. I hadn’t slept for two nights, I was in excruciating pain and
suffering from severe exhaustion, and I literally begged for an epidural
at this point, but it was refused due to Kaiser’s rule preventing
epidurals before 4 cm dilation. The American College of Obstetrics and
Gynecology supports pain relief on demand for women in labor (Ex. A), but
because more complications are possible when epidurals are given early,
and because enforcing the 4 cm policy regardless of the individual
patient’s circumstances or level of pain presumably saves Kaiser money in
most cases (“evidence based medicine” in a nutshell), I was left to suffer
needlessly for hours.
Let me make it clear that I did not want a C-Section.
My goal for labor and delivery was to have a completely natural birth
without drugs and with as few interventions as possible (as evidenced by
the fact that I labored at home for 22 hours before going to the
hospital). When it became apparent that a natural birth would not be an
option, I was perfectly willing to continue to wait it out for a vaginal
delivery, but with pain relief, and I only began to demand a
C-Section when Kaiser refused to acknowledge I was in labor, and refused
the epidural even though my failure to dilate was a result of the
complicating scar tissue!
The nurse eventually broke the scar tissue with her
finger and manually stretched my cervix to 3 centimeters to help me get
approved for the epidural. The doctors refused again, and only after much
crying, yelling and demanding on my part was the epidural finally
administered late on the morning of April 2nd. Numerous complications
followed and I requested and was denied a C-Section several more times
that day before my son was finally born at 8:38pm on April 2, 1998. He
then spent the first four days of his life in the NICU.
Not quite the uneventful “admitted in early labor,
baby born a few uncomplicated hours later, so what the hell is she
complaining about” story Kaiser and Ms. Carson would have you believe, but
because much of what happened is mysteriously missing from my chart it
boils down to my word and that of my family members who were present
against Kaiser’s. Again I ask, why would I make it up? I don’t think I
could if I tried.
Giving birth is risky business for mother and baby;
everyone knows that. But the simple fact is that if I had been given a
C-section the injuries wouldn’t have occurred. While a C-section was not a
life or death necessity, it could have been, and it was certainly a
medically justifiable option considering the escalating series of
complications experienced by both me and the baby. It should be noted
that all of the breaking and stretching and probing while Kaiser made up
its mind about approving the epidural probably contributed to my infection
and the other complications we experienced. So much for saving money by
denying me pain relief!
On page one Ms. Carson’s states “Ms. W was seen
for routine postpartum follow-up on April 30 and May 4, 1998, but did not
complain of any complications from this laceration at either visit,”
apparently to support her later statements that there were no
complications and I caused my own rectocele by getting fat several years
later. This is ridiculous.
As I stated in my original complaint, regarding the
April 30th follow-up, “Even though I
had an appointment I was told the doctor was ‘too busy’ to see me, and
asked if I was willing to see a nurse practitioner…. The nurse was visibly
shaken, saying my tear was the worst she had ever seen. She called in a
different, more experienced nurse practitioner to look, they showed me in
a mirror, then only after I demanded was I allowed to see my
doctor.”
I did complain to the NPs
(and later to the doctor) about how I was treated during the labor and
delivery, among other things, and about how I felt that mismanagement of
my labor and refusal of the C-section had resulted in my problems, as well
as my son’s complications following his birth. I then demanded to see the
doctor. How can this possibly be construed as “did not complain of
complications,” (as if there were none), and where are the notes from two
separate nurse practitioners who examined me prior to the doctor? Again,
missing.
I was very upset when I returned home from this
appointment, and the next morning I gave a detailed report of the events
that occurred to my mother, who was keeping a pregnancy journal for me. I
am enclosing a photocopy of the journal page with my mother’s handwritten
notes from May 1, 1998, that supports my version of what occurred at the
appointment (Ex. B) – details that are again conspicuously missing from my
chart.
The following passage describes what I saw in the
mirror the NPs handed me that day:
“C was very upset when I called her
today. She’d been crying all night long. She’d gone to the Dr. a nurse
practitioner had seen her and examined her. The N.P. said her vaginal
area is torn, that it is the worst she’s every (sic) seen, never seen
anything like it. C said she herself looked and all of her
insides are exposed. She can see the muscles.”
I now know the “muscles” I saw bulging out of my
vagina is the rectocele, although it certainly was not explained to
me that day. When I was finally allowed to see my doctor I was insulted
and given the wrong diagnosis, and I was told I needed a simple episiotomy
to repair the tear, which even Kaiser now admits is not true. I also got
the distinct impression Dr. Simpson was covering up for the delivery
doctor – an on-call resident – and the fact that her notes downplay what I
saw in the exam room with my own eyes suggests this.
Never once does Dr. Simpson even use the term “2nd
degree laceration” in her notes. She uses the terms “slight tear with
delivery,” “small perineal laceration consistent with breakdown of
suture,” and “small perineal defect possibly consistent with breakdown of
episiotomy repair.” (Ex. C).
Kaiser’s own OB/Gyn, Dr. Randall Yanagisawa, later
contradicts Dr. Simpson’s statements in his notes on April 18, 2003, when
I saw him for evaluation for the repair. He states: “She has no perineal
body...” (Ex. D). How exactly does one spontaneously go from “small
perineal defect” to “no perineal body” without an additional childbirth in
between? I suppose I caused that myself too.
Ms. Carson’s statement that there is a “lack of any
causal connection between the two events” (the birth and the pelvic
relaxation) is clearly false. I saw the rectocele myself at my postpartum
checkup, and reported it to my mother the next day. I have proven Dr.
Simpson’s notes to be – at the very least – inaccurate and incomplete, as
evidenced by the pregnancy journal entry and Dr. Yanagisawa’s discovery
that I have no perineal body remaining, and therefore they simply cannot
be relied upon.
It was at this same appointment that Dr. Simpson
recommended that I should wait two years to have the repair done, which
coincides with the two-year statute of limitations on malpractice cases in
Hawaii (as I noted in my complaint). Ms. Carson denies there ever was a
two-year recommendation, but this is something my mother also dutifully
recorded in the pregnancy journal entry from May 1, 1998, (Ex. B):
“[The doctor] said the skin in the area
is thinned because she is nursing and so they can’t operate on her until
she quits nursing 2 years from now.”
What Dr. Simpson actually said was that I should wait
two years until my son was in preschool (per my complaint), but my mother
mistakenly combined what I told her about the two-year recommendation with
the information about the thinning skin due to nursing, because they are
related. In fact I did not nurse my son for two years and never planned
to. I also never told Dr. Simpson I planned on sending him to preschool
in exactly two years (and I did not; he went at four), which is why I
believe there was an ulterior motive for choosing the two-year time frame
specifically.
In the same sentence where Ms. Carson denies any
causal connection between the birth and the injuries to my pelvic region,
she goes on to state: “…Ms W was offered reconstructive surgery for her
pelvic relaxation at Kaiser, but was properly advised on repeated
occasions that if she desired to have any more children, it would be best
to wait until after that time to undergo reconstructive surgery. Ms. W
has somehow construed this advice to be a refusal to provide the surgery
for two years. This allegation, however, is completely without factual
support and in context, makes no sense.”
The reason it makes no sense, in any context, is
because it isn’t true. I absolutely did not construe “this advice to be a
refusal to provide the surgery for two years.” Dr. Simpson and I did
discuss the fact that the repair should be done after I had completed my
family, and it was only after I told her I was not planning to have more
children that she recommended the two-year wait. Reconstructive surgery
was never discussed because Dr. Simpson never admitted it was required for
my “small perineal defect,” and of course none of what actually transpired
at this very eventful appointment was recorded in my chart, or those
records are conveniently missing. Again.
Kaiser’s own Patient Rights and Responsibilities
states that I have choices regarding my health care, and I believe the
Hawaii Patient Bill of Rights contains similar language. At no time did
Kaiser allow me any choices. I was traumatized, my son had complications
and could have died, and I felt I had been treated so badly by Kaiser
staff that I was afraid to go back. Ms. Carson makes the fact that I
didn’t return to Kaiser for gynecological services for four years sound
like some sort of failure on my part. When I wrote in my complaint that I
was afraid to let Kaiser touch me again I was entirely serious, and my
failure to return is the most obvious evidence of that fact. In fact when
I did return years later, Dr. Nakamura was quite sympathetic about my
fears – at least to my face – and told me that Kaiser would pay for a
non-Kaiser physician to do the surgery. But more about that later.
Ms. Carson claims that on July 25th, 2002,
I consulted a nurse practitioner for constipation, which I erroneously
blamed on the tear. As I stated in my letter to the Insurance Division of
June 12, 2003, in response to Kaiser Risk Management’s similar claim, “I
saw Kathy Farly, FNP, for a routine physical examination because Kaiser
doesn’t allow physicians to conduct physical exams. My tear was one of the
things we discussed…” It should be noted that Ms. Farley is the same NP
who was called in to consult by the less experienced NP on the day of my
postpartum follow-up (see complaint), and she said she remembered me.
If Kaiser is claiming my presenting complaint was a
constipation problem that I blame on the tear, which it was not, why did
Ms. Carson fail to provide notes from the appointment supporting that
claim? What Ms. Carson did provide is nothing more than the referral slip
to the OB/Gyn (Kaiser’s Ex. D), and the only mention of constipation is in
this note: “Assoc with pain with sex and with BM if constipated.” Pain in
the area of the tear with BM if constipated does not support
Kaiser’s claim that I believe the constipation was caused by the
tear, or even that I was seeking treatment for constipation, which I was
not.
Why didn’t Kaiser Risk Management or Ms. Carson
mention pain with sex, which was written in the same note, and which to me
was and still is the most troublesome symptom? The answer to that
question is obvious: this was another deliberate attempt by Kaiser and its
attorney to distort the facts and create the illusion of unreasonable
conclusions and expectations on my part. That isn’t even supported in the
document they did provide, and certainly is not supported by the
actual appointment notes, which I have attached (Ex. E). You will note
that nowhere in those notes does it say I blamed a constipation problem on
the tear, or that I was even complaining of constipation, so this
conclusion was a complete fabrication by Kaiser Risk Management that Ms.
Carson simply repeated without regard to the evidence.
Per the progress notes, at that same appointment Ms.
Farley discovered a breast lump that required several follow-up
appointments to determine it wasn’t cancerous. I canceled the referral
with the OB/Gyn for two reasons. I was too stressed out with the breast
cancer scare and wanted to wait for a better time; and I was acting on my
gut feeling that Kaiser couldn’t be trusted based on my prior experience.
The scheduling nurse’s notes on the referral slip speak of my state of
mind: “9/13/02 called pt. pt reluctant to schedule gyn appt.” Darned
right I was reluctant.
It is apparent from the appointment notes that Ms.
Farley did correctly diagnose my rectocele and cystocele at this time,
although those words were never used in any discussion she had with me. I
still believed I had only a minor tear that could be repaired anytime,
although I wasn’t certain not being the professional in this situation.
Jump ahead to Spring of 2003, when after six years of
near constant problems at Kaiser we finally decided to get out of there
for good. I was not sure we would be able to afford the higher premiums of
HMSA, and it was possible we would have to go uninsured for a time (and we
did), so I knew I had to have the repair done before I left Kaiser.
Because of my level of discomfort due to prior dealings with Kaiser
related to this problem, I decided it would be prudent to get an expert
opinion outside of Kaiser to find out exactly what was needed before going
back to Kaiser for the actual procedure. The doctor, who was adamant
about not wanting to be involved in any kind of complaint process or
lawsuit, diagnosed me with a cystocele, rectocele and a prolapsed uterus.
I had seen four separate OB/Gyn providers at Kaiser, none of whom had ever
mentioned anything of the sort, so I was justifiably shocked and upset.
She recommended a hysterectomy and reconstructive surgery be performed by
a properly trained urogynecologist specialist, and she stated that because
Kaiser did not have a qualified specialist on its staff it would be
required by law to refer me out for the surgery.
I did then consult Dr. Randall Yanagisawa on April 18th,
2003, as Ms. Carson states, but it was not for stress incontinence, which
was not the main focus of the appointment at all, only one of the
resultant symptoms we discussed. This was after I had seen the non-Kaiser
OB/Gyn and I was specifically there to find out what Kaiser was going to
do about my injuries. I was clear with everyone on this point, from the
phone operator to the RN who scheduled the appointment.
Ms. Carson’s most blatant misstatement in her version
of what transpired at the consultation with Dr. Yanagisawa is this notion
that “Ms. W reported that she wanted to get pregnant again.” Ms. W
most certainly did not! I had just been told by another doctor whom I
trusted more than anyone I’d ever seen at Kaiser that I needed a
hysterectomy, which would have meant an end to my childbearing days
forever. It was staring me in the face that I had to make my final
decision about having more children, and I wanted to make certain a
hysterectomy was absolutely necessary and that it was my only
option, not just the least expensive option for Kaiser. I asked what
would be done for a woman in my condition who wanted to have another
child, but I never indicated I intended to have another baby. If there
was some procedure that would save my uterus I wanted it regardless.
Because Dr. Yanagisawa disagreed with the non-Kaiser doctor about the need
for a hysterectomy, I decided to proceed with the reconstructive surgery.
This pregnancy issue comes up frequently in Ms.
Carson’s argument so I would like to dispel it for once and for all for
what it is – another Kaiser
distortion. When I did see Dr. Nakamura later in April I clearly told her
I did not want more children, as she indicates in this note (Ex. F):
“Patient states she has completed her child bearing, though has not had a
TL. She would like to have incontinence surgery and have vaginal vault
repaired.”
Dr. Yanagisawa referred me to Urology, and when I
spoke to the Urology department a few days later I was told they were not
making appointments until three months later in July. We were leaving
Kaiser June 30th and they knew it. I told the appointment desk
clerk this and she replied “Oh well, it’s not an emergency.” This is what
led me to contact Dr. Chaffin by phone, and Dr. Geoff “who needs
integrity?” Galbraith called me back days later. Pardon me for stating the
obvious again, but if Kaiser was cooperating there would have been no
reason for me to complain and no need for Galbraith to refer me to Dr.
Nakamura in the first place.
I explained everything that had transpired up until
this time to Dr. Galbraith, down to the last detail, including my feelings
about Dr. Simpson’s motives when I complained at the postpartum checkup.
He was kind and concerned and I was relieved to finally have someone in
power taking an honest look at my case. I had no idea at the time that
Dr. Galbraith had no intention of helping me, and that as I was pouring my
heart out to him over the phone, he was in fact gathering information for
Kaiser to use against me to vigorously deny all responsibility for
anything they had ever done to me. That was the extent of Kaiser’s
“investigation” into my complaint.
Galbraith referred me to Dr. Nakamura for treatment
recommendation, per his letter of April 21st, 2003 (Ex. G), and
he assured me that he would follow through on her recommendations. Risk
Management was never discussed, and he even went out of his way to state
“We have no incentive not to help you.” Yeah, right, they’ve been so
helpful they drove me to activism!
We briefly discussed the possibility of having the
surgery performed outside Kaiser at this time. I shared what the
non-Kaiser OB/Gyn told me about the law requiring Kaiser to refer me out
if it didn’t have the proper specialist, and Dr. Galbraith replied that he
thought they “might have someone.” Because I was not yet aware of
Kaiser’s penchant for working all of its practitioners above their level
of expertise to save money, I was still willing to have the surgery at
Kaiser. I hung up the phone feeling confident that my issues would finally
be addressed.
Regardless of what Ms. Carson writes, it was Dr.
Nakamura who suggested the outside surgery because my confidence in Kaiser
was so diminished. My husband was present during the entire appointment,
and he can tell you that she asked me how I felt about having the surgery
at Kaiser before she was even all the way in the door! I told her that I
originally thought I would like to have the surgery at a non-Kaiser
facility, but now that enough people in power were aware of the problems I
had encountered I didn’t think they would possibly let anything bad happen
to me again, but that if they were offering I would indeed accept an
outside referral. I also told her that I was nearing the end of my
patience, and that if one more thing went wrong I would have no
understanding remaining.
After I assured Dr. Nakamura I was not planning to
have more children, she said she would recommend the outside surgery to
Dr. Galbraith, and that she saw no problem with Kaiser paying for it even
if it went into July or August (we were leaving Kaiser June 30th). She
even volunteered that Kaiser had a contract with Dr. Aileen Yee for these
purposes (how else would I know?). She brought it up before I did, and I
only accepted her offer of the referral.
When I returned home I sent the following email to a
close friend, which demonstrates what I clearly believed to be true at the
time (a notarized copy, including my friend’s statement regarding
conversations we had at the time is attached as Ex. H):
“Everything went fine. She was really
nice and is going to give me the referral to the non-Kaiser Uro/gyn
specialist. They've agreed to pay for everything even if it takes longer
than June 30th, which is the date we're changing health plans (yes I'm
making them put it in writing). OH and she agreed that I DO NOT NEED A
HYSTERECTOMY, which concurred with what the other Kaiser doc said, but the
specialist will make the final determination on that. Mike made it by bus
about 5 minutes before my appointment and was very supportive.”
I did ask Dr. Nakamura to put everything we had
discussed in writing because I had a feeling they would drag it on until
we were out of Kaiser, and then deny the surgery on those grounds. I
waited and no one contacted me again until I had to call Dr. Nakamura
myself on May 5th 2003. I never got my proof in writing, and
nothing in Kaiser’s response to my complaint resembles the truth.
As I stated in my complaint, when I did finally speak
to Dr. Nakamura again on May 5th, 2003, she told me that Dr.
Galbraith had denied the surgery and that he wanted me to see Kaiser’s
urologist. I was very disappointed, but because I believed Dr. Nakamura
had done all she could on my behalf I was still willing to have the
surgery at Kaiser if they could schedule me in a reasonable amount of time
before we left Kaiser. Her nurse called me later that day to tell me my
appointment for the initial evaluation with the urologist would be on June
30th – the very day we were leaving Kaiser – again
making it impossible to have the surgery! (Ex. I).
That was the last straw. I had been more than
understanding and cooperative under the circumstances, and I had finally
reached the end of my patience with Kaiser’s bureaucratic baloney. I
refused to communicate directly with Kaiser again because I felt I was
being defrauded, and I filed my complaint with the Insurance Division one
week later on May 12, 2003.
I wanted the outside referral that I was promised,
and Dr. Nakamura recommended, and I wanted the surgery with the proper
outside specialist because Kaiser’s Dr. Aspera is not a
urogynecologist. Her Kaiser profile does not indicate any special
certification in urogynecology (Ex. J), and she is not listed on the
American Urogynecologic Society’s list of urogynecologists in Hawaii,
although Dr. Aileen Yee, whom Dr. Nakamura said she would refer me to, is
listed (Ex. K).
I had always believed from the beginning of this
ordeal (as I have stated repeatedly), that Dr. Nakamura did what she told
my husband and me she did, which was to recommend the surgery. After the
Insurance Division helped me obtain my medical records I found out she
either deliberately wrote something completely different in my chart, or
it was changed after the fact. Either of these things is against the law,
and she and Galbraith had to have had it planned that way from the
beginning. I know this because during the lengthy telephone conversation
I had with Dr. Nakamura on May 5, 2003, (after her assessment of my
situation would have been recorded in my chart), she assured me again that
she had recommended the surgery, and that the denial was all Galbraith’s
doing, as the first sentence of my letter to Dr. Galbraith of May 5th
(which was written immediately upon hanging up the phone with Dr.
Nakamura) demonstrates (Ex. L):
“I just spoke with Dr. Nakamura and was
told you never intended to help me regardless of her recommendations.”
This is not only fraud; it is a conspiracy to commit
fraud.
Contrary to what she told me and my husband, Dr.
Nakamura states in my records that she did not believe I should have the
surgery at all, per the following notation (Ex. M):
“I feel that delay of repair and
surgical treatment of USI should occur after definitive completion of
childbearing with tubal ligation or menopause.”
There is so much wrong with this statement that I
don’t know where to begin. I have used birth control successfully for
over 25 years and the most convincing evidence I can think of that I do
not want more than one child is the fact that at nearly age 42 I have only
one child. This is not Nazi Germany. Kaiser doesn’t get to decide
whether my decision not to have more children is permanent or not. They
have absolutely no choice but to take my word for that if that is what I
tell them, and I clearly did more than once.
Accidental pregnancies do happen, but the worst case
scenario is that Kaiser would have had to perform a C-section if I did get
pregnant again after reconstructive surgery. I’ve already established
that Kaiser will avoid a C-section at all costs regardless of the
consequences to mother or baby, but this is ridiculous considering I was
leaving Kaiser and my future reproductive choices would no longer be their
problem.
Dr. Nakamura was also aware that I was experiencing
complications such as urinary incontinence, painful intercourse, and
yes, the occasional painful bowel movement (OK!). I was 39 at the
time and by recommending that reconstructive surgery be delayed until
menopause, Dr. Nakamura would doom me to live with these complications for
ten more years or longer! The American Urogynecologic Society’s advice to
women with complaints like mine is that one does not need to learn to live
with them when surgical remedies are available (Ex. N). Kaiser clearly
does not subscribe to the same philosophy as the AUS about a woman’s right
to properly functioning pelvic organs before menopause, and this is but
one more reason not to have the surgery with an under-qualified,
Kaiserized surgeon.
Now I’m going to tell you what I want Kaiser to do to
make this right, and I’m also going to tell you what I’m willing to do in
return. When Kaiser receives its copy of this response, and has the
opportunity to read my entire story in a continuous format, with
supporting documentation and in context, I can’t imagine that they would
want to do anything other than the following:
 | Pay for my treatment by a qualified, board
certified urogynecological surgeon not associated with Kaiser; |
| Issue an apology for the poor standard of care and
the cover up afterwards; |
| Agree not to withhold pain medication from women
in prolonged labor; and |
| Acknowledge when surgical repairs are needed and
provide them to Kaiser members promptly in the future. |
If through some miracle of Hippocrates Kaiser does
choose to do the right thing, I am willing to make a statement on my web
site to the effect that Kaiser addressed my concerns and provided the
treatment I required out of the goodness of its precious little heart, and
that I am happy with the outcome (as long as I am).
In the more likely event that Kaiser chooses to
continue to add insult to injury by denying everything I just spent the
last seven days of my life reliving while writing this; and by continuing
to pay its lawyer to call me an angry, lying, loon, then I would request
that the Insurance Division take steps to compel Kaiser to fulfill its
obligation to me, as I have outlined above.
I am still not clear on where I stand under the law
considering that I believe fraud was committed, but at the very least I
believe it would be difficult for Kaiser to ignore a strong suggestion
from the Insurance Commissioner himself.
Mahalo for your assistance and continued attention to
my complaint.
Very truly yours,
Enclosures: Exhibits
Joyce Nakamura, MD
Theresa S. Simpson, MD
Geoff Galbraith, MD
Michael Chaffin, MD
Randall Yanagisawa, MD
Ann Michelle Aspera, MD
|
