You may recall that in May I reported that two former Huntington Memorial Hospital (HMH) RNs were being investigated by our state Board of Registered Nursing (BRN). The two nurses in question are: Allysha Rae (Almada) Shin and Vicki Lin. They were terminated by HMH for violating hospital policies, they and the California Nurses Association (CNA) argued that they were fired for their unionizing activity at the hospital. Long story short the nurses with the help of the CNA filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB concluded that HMH inappropriately terminated the RNs and ruled that they were owed back pay and so forth, but HMH got the NLRB to agree that neither (Almada) Shin or Lin were eligible to work at HMH in the future.

Meanwhile the BRN began to investigate (Almada) Shin and Lin, I learned this from nurses that had been interviewed by BRN investigators regarding the incident. It would appear that the BRN investigator found the complaint to be substantiated and thus an “accusation” has been formally submitted. The accusations can be found by searching the license of both Allysha Almada and Vicki Lin.

Nurse (Almada) Shin is being cited for two causes for discipline from the BRN. They are:

  • FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Incompetence)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2761, subdivision (a)(1), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), on the grounds of incompetence in that Respondent breached the Confidentiality Agreement, aided and abetted in the falsification of a medical record, and failed to comply with the double-check process for administering insulin. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 11 through 20, as though set forth fully.

  • SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Violation of Nursing Practice Act)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under· section 2761, subdivisions (a) and (d), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), for general unprofessional conduct and/or violating or attempting to violate, any provision or term of the Nursing Practice Act. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 11 through 20, as though set forth fully.

Nurse Vicki Lin is being cited for two causes for discipline from the BRN. They are:

  • FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Incompetence)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2761, subdivision (a)(l), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), on the grounds of incompetence in that Respondent breached the Confidentiality Agreement, violated hospital policy by falsifying medical documentation and failing to comply with the double-check process for administering insulin. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 17, as though set forth fully.

  • SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE – (Unprofessional Conduct- Violations of Nursing Practice Act)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2761, subdivisions (a) and (d), as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 1443 and 1443.5(2), for general unprofessional conduct and/or violating or attempting to violate, any provision or term of the Nursing Practice Act. Complainant refers to and incorporates all the facts and allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 17, as though set forth fully.

There may be some who think, and the NLRB is one, that what (Almada) Shin and Lin did isn’t worthy of an investigation by the BRN. However we are talking about the standard of care as it applies to “double-checking specific medication” and insulin is one of these. I’ve worked NICU/PICU almost my entire career, and I can never recall a time when any nurse I worked with was “too busy” to come and go through this very basic nursing practice – perhaps that’s because I prefer not to place my patients at risk because of a calculation error in how much insulin needs to be titrated.

I also found their comments as it relates to how they handle their passwords rather cavalier, especially in today’s environment where hospitals are being locked out of their systems due to ransomware, the over 1 million Equifax customers who’s personal information that may be at risk due to a security breech and so forth. So not leaving your passwords written down and left out willy-nilly where anyone can pick it up is actually quite significant and important to maintaining security, confidentiality, and patient privacy.

What I find interesting is the following scenario, what happens if the BRN prevails and one or both (Almada) Shin or Lin is found “guilty” as per the accusations. Does this then vindicate the HMH management for their original decision to terminate these two nurses? Does this mean that perhaps the NLRB made a rush to judgment about the facts of the case? Perhaps in the future the NLRB shouldn’t attempt to dictate nursing practice and leave it to the BRN, whose mission is to do just that!

For the past several years the California Nurses Association (CNA) have launched what can only be described as a smear campaign against Huntington Memorial Hospital (HMH), its management, and ironically against many of the very nurses they purported they wanted to protect. The CNA held rallies and protests outside the hospital and of course many politicians, such as Congresswoman Chu and numerous members of the Pasadena City Council calling for HMH to “just let the nurses vote”.

So when time came for the HMH RNs to vote on the matter the RNs turnout in unprecedented numbers something that rarely happens. The outcome, which was no surprise to this RN, was that the CNA lost. The unofficial tally of the NLRB-led and supervised April 15th – 16th election was as follows – 539 No to 445 Yes with 176 challenged votes. Did the CNA honor the will of the HMH RNs, of course not? Instead they cried foul, filed complaints and demanded an opportunity to have a brand new election. The NLRB, which is not known for being all that fair and heavily favoring “unions” no matter how egregious their actions are – don’t believe me just ask the RNs from Cedar-Sinai that had to endure threats of violence against their children and pets if they opposed the CNA coming into Cedars. Threats which at first the local NLRB folks stated were no big deal, but at least the DC office disagreed and made the final decision that CNA employees have indeed made threats in order to chill the NO-vote.

The NLRB decided that HMH had made errors and that the CNA deserved another bite at the apple, and so another vote was scheduled. As the new date approached the CNA filed additional complaints further delaying the vote. Then about two months ago an interesting rumor began to spread through many of the HMH nursing units. The rumor was that the CNA had abandoned their efforts to unionize the HMH RNs, but no official announcement was made until April 26th when I received word from several of my sources that the CNA had withdrawn their petition – effectively ending the fight to unionize the HMH RNs.

So after all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth and stories from the so-called down-trodden RNs that the CNA were going to save from the “evil” machinations of the hospital administration – the CNA quietly pulled up stakes and left.

Why? You may ask did the CNA give up the battle for the hearts and souls and most importantly the dues of the HMH RNs because apparently in the end they did their math and figured that they would lose this election as well. And of course they could risk a news story about them losing an election, they only want news stories about their triumphs.   So kudos to the IStandWithHuntington nurses and their supporters for being the voice of the opposition and it was due in large part to this opposition that HMH RNs got the opportunity to stand up to the CNA.

I do wonder where are all those community leaders, religious leaders and politicians, like Chu, Tornek, Gordo and others now? They rallied with the CNA endorsing the CNA line but failed to rally to show their support when the HMH RNs won the day. The silence is deafening!

Congratulations HMH RNs for making your choice known, now its time to rebuild many of the bridges and bonds with your co-workers that the CNA had no trouble breaking. It’s time to reunite once again for the good of your nursing team, the hospital, the community and most importantly for the very patients you have committed to serve.

Suicide and Workers’ Compensation

I’ve often wondered how many injured workers either contemplate or commit suicide out of despair and feeling that suicide is their only recourse to ending the constant pain in which they’ve been forced to live with. I’ve grown accustomed to the blank stares that I receive when I’ve poised this question to various “leaders” in our state’s workers’ compensation system. No one seems to be able to provide me with a definitive answer to my question so I decided to do an Internet search. The search failed to provide any links to statistics of how many injured workers commit suicide, but it did provide pages of links about individual injured workers who had committed suicide. Most notable was an article from the Insurance Journal. Apparently in September 2007 a Massachusetts Appeals Court in Suffolk County found that a suicide qualifies for benefits if it is “simply causally connected to the unsoundness of mind resulting from the injury, without having to show any particular quantity or quality of that cause.” A very interesting finding, no doubt.

An investigative report by NBC Bay Area ran a three-part investigative news story, and in Part II they share the story of Nurse Lorrie Mays, who was injured at work in 2003 and ended up taking her own life in 2016.   Her mother, Ms. Dismuke, cited a letter her daughter received in February from an Independent Medical Review denying her appeal for additional treatment for her depression, as the proverbial last straw for her daughter. Mays committed suicide shortly thereafter. Dismuke share with the NBC Bay Area reporters about finding additional letters written by her daughter that described her despair and frustrations trying to get appropriate medical care that she thought would make her better. You can read more about her story, here.

Below you’ll find a few more links that show a link between lack of appropriate medical care and suicide.

Next up the link between financial stress and suicide

They say that Workers’ Compensation is supposed to help get the injured worker back to pre-injury condition, but as this injured worker has learned there’s no guarantee when or if that care will even be provided.

In my last post, I wrote about waiting for my treating physician’s request for physical therapy (PT) to get the green light. Of course the Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) claims adjuster decided that maybe my treating physician’s diagnosis that I needed PT was somehow inappropriate, not the standard of care, a shot in the dark diagnosis, etc. So, off she went and sent the request to utilization review (UR) – you know any excuse not to pay for medical care or at the very least delay shelling out the greenbacks to pay for care for as long as Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) can hold out, or better yet wear out the injured worker so that they either give up on seeking the care or pay for it out of pocket.

This time it only took just under three months to actually get a PT appointment scheduled. To accomplish this goal it only took numerous calls from my treating physician to the Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) claims adjuster, approval of their handpicked UR company and my attorney. All this effort and time for four PT appointments with a system like this, it’s a wonder that injured worker’s get any medical treatment at all.

More to follow . . .


Plural sequelae


  1. An aftereffect of a disease, condition, or injury
  2. A secondary result

As defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary

As I sit here at home waiting to learn when I’ll finally have my physical therapy (PT) appointment, I wondered how many other injured workers’ suffer from sequela/ae due to the foot dragging, oops I mean the review process, that’s used so very often by the Workers’ Compensation (W/C) claims adjuster to verify that the treatment recommended by the injured worker’s treating physician is “reasonable”.

On November 14, 2016 my physician submitted the form PR-2, aka Primary Treating Physician’s Progress Report, followed on November 28, 2016 a formal request for authorization to my claims adjuster (Ms. CA). So before Ms. CA could give my physician the green light off to utilization review (UR) it went and after a couple of back and forth UR approved albeit it was a “modified” approval but my physician’s PT request was authorized. Yet here I sit more than one month later still waiting to begin my PT. Why? You may ask, all because Ms. CA has yet to respond to my physician to approve the actual physical therapist facility/person. So without her green light, here I sit waiting in pain.

Under a traditional healthcare plan there’s usually a 5 to 7 day window for the plan to approve a referral, and the member then receives a referral letter that either shows the referral is approved with the name of the specialist or therapist to call. If the referral is declined the member can appeal and again there is a set period of time for which this must occur. Unfortunately, with W/C this is very often not the case with the treating physician being required by the claims adjuster through the use of UR to “justify” that the injured worker is indeed in need of the specialized care, treatment or tests. Should UR approve the request then the treating physician can refer the patient, but the claims adjuster can throw a monkey wrench in things if the specialist or request treatment still requires approval from the claims adjuster for the injured worker to see the specialist.

When this kind of foot dragging occurs the only recourse is to go back to the W/C “court” and seek the intervention of an administrative law judge. Even when the attorney makes this request for a hearing the injured worker can expect to wait 30 days or months for a hearing date. In the meantime the injured worker’s injury is left to endure an extended period of time without appropriate treatment for their injury. Meanwhile if that injured worker had been treated through the traditional medical track one can reasonably conclude that the injured person would’ve received treatment more quickly and thus be at a lesser risk of suffering additional sequela/ae.

I think that much of this waiting and foot-dragging is directly related to the adversarial system that has become rooted in our W/C system. It would appear that many employers in order to “manage the claim” come to see the injured worker as someone who is out to take advantage of the system, and while this may be true in a small number of cases it’s not so for the majority of the cases. The majority of injured workers simply wish to get back to pre-injury condition (as much as is medically possible) and back to work. But when the injured worker and treating physician have to plead and fight for treatment and then wait for the W/C courts to sort it out essential progress in healing is delayed and to some great extent denied. What I find outrageous is that even when there’s a court order that supports the injured worker the employer, through the claims adjuster, can decide to simply ignore it; leaving the injured worker with no recourse but to go back to court waiting again sometimes for months for another hearing, which stretches things out even more. And around and around it goes when it’ll stop nobody knows.

When I suffered my work-related injury being represented by an attorney was the furthest thing from my mind that is until I felt that Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) was “messing” with my care.

After my fall on the wet floor of the restroom at the hospital I was sent to our employer’s workers’ compensation clinic/physician for care. While I was somewhat underwhelmed by the physician’s level of knowledge he seemed attentive and taking the appropriate steps to evaluate and treat my numerous injuries. The problem arose several weeks later when I found myself unable to place any weight on my right leg. While I had injured this leg in my fall the physician found primarily soft tissue/strain-like injuries, so I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t bear weight on my right leg. Stumped, I returned to the clinic for re-evaluation and surprise, surprise, I had a fracture that the physician had overlooked.

The physician ordered a cast walker, better known as a moonboot. Unfortunately, he didn’t have one he could fit me with so it was up to me to call around and find a store where I could purchase one. I was expected to pay for it out-of-pocket for which Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) would reimburse me, which they eventually did thanks to a very professional and compassionate employee in Human Resources at Glendale Adventist Medical Center (GAMC). However, you’d think that a health organization would have such materials on hand or have a relationship with vendors/suppliers that could get them what they needed them stat – but I guess not.

So with the moonboot found and fitted I prepared myself to “wait-out” the almost six weeks that the physician estimated it would take to ensure full healing. In the meantime I began a series of physician visits to treat my other assorted injuries, including consulting with an orthopedic surgeon to fix the torn meniscus in my left knee, another injury that was the result of the same workplace accident. During one of my orthopedic appointments the surgeon agreed that I was a good candidate for surgery and we discussed the surgical plans. It was at this point that I asked him that if I had surgery immediately and considering that my right leg was currently in a moonboot this would leave me confined to my bed if I had surgery before my moonboot was removed. The orthopedic surgeon thought about this for about a minute and asked when the moonboot was to be removed and I replied in two more weeks. After some additional discussion he decided that since I was a diabetic we should wait until my moonboot was removed so I’d have at least “one good” leg to get around on while recuperating from left knee surgery. Since being confined to a bed for two or more weeks was not sound medicine for a diabetic such as myself and could lead to more dire consequences. I left his office that day not only with a treatment plan, but an appointment two weeks out for surgery. Everything was set, or so I thought.

Shortly before my surgery date I received a letter from the Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) claims adjuster, Mr. CA, informing me that since I had refused surgery I had been deem “permanent and stable”. This designation would also affect my workers’ compensation payments and I would now be receiving permanent disability (PD) since I was no longer eligible for total temporary disability (TTD). Shocked by this change I contacted Mr. CA (I could do this since I had no attorney at that time) and asked him about the status change, since when I left the surgeon’s office two weeks earlier I was deemed TTD. Mr. CA went on to explained that he had contacted the surgeon and asked him to review his opinion, which the surgeon did and it was decided that I was now PD. I explained to Mr. CA that, at least in California, a physician cannot change a medical diagnosis of a patient without reexamining that patient which, hadn’t occurred in my case and any way I had a surgery date set and would be having surgery shortly, so how could I have refused surgery?

It was at that time the Mr. CA would utter those fatal words “we do it all the time”. I asked him to hold on for a moment so I could get my daughter in the room to listen to our conversation on the speakerphone. Once there I asked him to repeat his response to my question of the legality of having a physician changing a medical diagnosis without reexamining the patient, and Mr. CA repeated once again “we do it all the time”.

It was at that time that I knew I would need an attorney to sort this situation all out, and the search for a shark began.

More to follow. . .

Let’s talk about pain

A while back I published several articles on pain and opioid use.  I wrote these article to shed light on the other side of the pain and opioid use debate that seemed to me to be very one-sided.  And while opioid abuse has undoubtedly destroyed many lives, what concerned me most was the focus on opioid abuse without equal time being given to the estimate 25.3 million Americans suffering from chronic pain (8/11/15 NIH press release).

That said you can find my articles on the issue here

Nov. 2011 – Working Nurse Magazine – Chronic Pain: What nurses don’t know about pain management WNM Chronic Pain1 copy

Sept. 2012 – Working Nurse Magazine – The Great Opioid Debate: Balancing the need for pain management with the potential for abuse — WNM The Great Opioid Debate1 copy

May – Apr. 2014 – Working Nurse Magazine — The Opioid “Epidemic”: Why we need to dial back the sensationalism and find common-sense solutions — WNM Opioid Epidemic1 copy

The other day I read an interesting post written by Dr. Kathleen Kozak a physician from Hawaii who has a column in Honolulu Civil Beat. Her column, which can be read here bolstered my own personal theory that has been germinating for quite some time now. I’ve often wondered over the past many years if we looked objectively at both care models, Workers’ Compensation and the private, which model would have the injured worker back to pre-injury condition (or at least as close to it as possible) faster? Based on my own experience (both nursing and personal) I think we’d find that an injured person would “recuperate” more quickly if provided care through their private insurance.

I think this story from Hawaii illustrates the problem quite well. Reading about Bonnie Chan’s struggle to get appropriate care for her work-related injury struck a chord with me, especially in her fight to get timely care. When I underwent ankle bone graft and partial fusion/surgery, I suffered an unexpected outcome and consequently developed Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and though my orthopedic surgeon made numerous requests for physical therapy, which by the way is one of the treatment of choice for CRPS his request were continually denied. At least one of the reasons given was that I had already had the maximum number of physical therapy allowed by our state’s WC regulations. While I had had physical therapy, it was ordered for my elbow as part of my recovery post-surgery elbow surgery. To this health professional it makes little sense that the physical therapy ordered for my ankle would be denied because I had “used” up my allotted physical therapy on my elbow. One would think that if physical therapy is the treatment of choice then that should supersede some arbitrarily set limit.

But then again we are talking about WC, a bureaucratic, governmental system that by definition is not always known for being logical. All thanks to the self-insured Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation).

More to follow. .

Eureka! I think I figured out how employers or at least my former employer, Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation), saves money on the treatment of my work-related injury – they pawn it off on my private insurance. I think it’s the Workers’ Compensation (WC) version of a patient dumping scheme.

Over the past several years, through the use of utilization review and the claims adjuster simply ignoring the pleas of my WC physician they, Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation), have managed to pawn of the cost of nearly a year and a half of medications and numerous labs and medical exams onto my private insurance. This is a version similar to the patient dumping that numerous hospitals in the Los Angeles area have been accused of doing. On 2014, Glendale Adventist Medical Center (my former employer and where I suffered my work-related injuries) paid out $700,000 in settlements from patient dumping claims stemming back several years.

So here’s how, I think the WC patient dumping scheme works. They simply stop providing care, hiding behind utilization review (UR), even though the injured worker hasn’t been returned to pre-injury condition and may still be living with debilitating pain. Or because the process of getting care takes so long the injured worker then suffers additional injury/sequelae from the initial injury and from the failure of the employer to address the work-related injury in a timely manner. Then if the patient is provided care or finds a way to pay for the care/medications the employer sees this as an “out” for them from providing additional care, and each time the injured worker finds a way to pay for care for their work-related injury the employer see this as a “savings” and the process continues with the employer using UR to continue to deny any care or medication requested until the injured worker learns that the only way they’ll receive much needed care for their work-related injury is pay for it out-of-pocket and/or with their private insurance.

I find it interesting that UR review will deny let’s say pain medication for a work-related injury being handled through WC, but your private physician and insurance will cover the same pain medication. How is it that the private insurance company that everyone rails against seems to believe that its medically necessary and acceptable, but your WC claims adjuster and their UR agent comes to a different conclusion?

I guess its because your private physician really believes in his/her Hippocratic Oath. Meanwhile the WC claims adjuster has no such oath and the UR agent is someone who will never see you, the injured worker, and maybe hasn’t seen a patient in years. He/she just scans “the literature” so he/she can find a way to deny or at least reduce the care the injured worker receives all in the name of saving a buck at the expense of the injured worker – sounds like a patient dumping scheme to me!

More to follow . . .

As I ended in my last post, I left my internal medicine consult with the need to get a cardiac clearance before I could be cleared for right shoulder surgery. Once again, Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) left it to me, the injured worker, to make all the necessary arrangements to secure the needed cardiac clearance.

Normally, this is something that’s paid for by the employer; but, oh no not in my case since it would appear that Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) had decided to simply abandon their responsibility and pawn it off on my private insurance and personal physician. Or perhaps Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) decided that if they refused to pay for the necessary medical clearances and thus delaying this surgery long enough as they did with my spinal stimulator permanent implantation that I’d give up on my right shoulder surgery, as well. You see after Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) delayed for almost a total of two years the approval of the spinal stimulator surgery I agreed to forgo the spinal stimulator surgery all together if Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) agreed to approve my right shoulder surgery. I suggested this since the medical literature showed that the effectiveness of a spinal stimulator lessened with time; and by agreeing to forgo this surgery I saved Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) at least $100,000 or even more in associated care.

So, while I thought I was being reasonable I would latter learn from the attorney representing Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) that he believed my cardiac issue was my own fault for having waited “so long” after my last surgical clearance. I guess he was unaware that like many things in life a surgical clearance has a “life expectancy”, and the generally medical acceptable practice is that a surgical clearance has a life span and that span is dependent on the surgeon and hospital. So the likelihood of a competent and ethical surgeon accepting a surgical clearance that was approximately 2 years old was almost nil and as such I had to start the surgical clearance process all over again.

Once again with no help from Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation), but with expert help from my private insurance and personal physician they referred me to a cardiologist four days after seeing the internal medicine physician. Unfortunately, Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) was displeased at the pace set by my cardiologist and filed to have me removed from total temporary disability to permanent and stable – their logic seemed to be that I was refusing surgery – the very surgery I couldn’t undergo until I was cleared to have – I guess that’s the logic Adventist Health (that religious hospital/healthcare corporation) uses to save themselves some greenbacks.

More to follow . . .