Taking Care of Maya - FL CPS/Munchausen case

#226

The final ruling is that the plaintiff will be allowed to do a "limited rebuttal"

So, the plaintiff wants to bring in 7 exhibits. They are lengthy and I'm trying to get into the meat of them as much as I can, so I'm pausing the feed to do that.

The first exhibit, objection overruled, it's coming in. It has to do with a single patient, this happened in 2011 when Sally Smith was the CPI. A complaint was made about the hospital not fiving adequate training to the parents on how to care for their child at home after discharge. This exhibit is the investigation of the hospital that was completed in order to determine if the hospital had breached any duties.

The history of it is contained in this document. A hotline instance was called in and accepted. Sally Smith came in and determined that this was not a case of child abuse in her opinion. She deemed that the family needed some education as to how to care for their child. I think this can actually help the defense, because Sally Smith has been painted as being an evil monster that just wants to separate every child from their parents. She clearly utilized judgement, did not see evidence that normally comes in medical child abuse and ascertained that this was not a case of any intentional child abuse but parents that lacked the skills to take care of a child that had fairly significant medical problems.

A complaint was made against the hospital by the family because they say they were unprepared for how to administer medications to their child. The paperwork shows that the hospital did make an attempt at education, told the parents they would need to come in for a fairly lengthy training session. The parents showed up, but do not speak English very well and they were not prepared to stay for the amount of time needed. The hospital staff made note that although the parents came, a follow up training would need to take place.

The ball was dropped, the patient was discharged, the parents didn't remind that they were not prepared when they came to pick up the child, and they took the child home. Due to their misuse of medications further issues arose after which they filed this complaint that they were inadequately trained for taking care of their child.

The hospital got a black mark for failure to follow through on proper discharge procedures.

#227

Next document is talking points for a board presentation. It's an email that references a handful of citations and how these will be addressed to the hospital board.

This talks about the immediate resignation of some of the leadership team and restructuring Risk Management. It mentions the heart Institute specifically. Also about allowing internal complaints to be made anonymously instead of employees having to put their name to internal reports of issues.

The judge wants to redact everything about the heart Institute. This is coming in with redactions. It's a whole list of things the hospital is implementing to fix problems. Without the heart Institute information I think this hurts the defense more. They are not going to be allowed to put this into perspective for the jury. I agree that Risk Management apparently was over ALL of the children's hospital units, the only unit that had the actual issues were the heart Institute. But since some of the management that had handled that so poorly was over all of the units that is why it's coming in.

They are arguing about whether it's duplicative.

#228

Things are coming into better focus regarding the timing of Mr. Kowolski suing the hospital. he filed the lawsuit after the article about the heart institute appeared in the local newspaper.

#229

The issue of juror #1 is being pushed off until after the rebuttal.

The plaintiff aren't ready to put on their expert that is going to use these exhibits to eviscerate the hospital, but they had claimed their expert couldn't stay for the afternoon. Now they want to delay it. I've never seen attorneys on one side of a case waste more time court than the plaintiff attorneys. he's now saying he needs to leave at 2 PM. The attorney wants to spend the entire remaining rebuttal time on this witness.

Now, the judge is proposing the rebuttal tomorrow morning with this witness. Apparently now they are going to do this at noon. They are going to bring the jury in to tell them they will not be hearing testimony until noon today. he is going to try to finish testimony and jury instructions today. And then closing arguments tomorrow morning and asking them if they can come in at 8 AM so they can start closing at 8:30. he's letting them mull it over and let him know after lunch

#230

The judge just announced that on the count of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the defense is granted a directed verdict. I am uncertain as to whether this only applies to Beata or to all of them. Apparently there were multiple depositions done over the weekend, and this is the result of something related to one of those. The defense has tried to get a directed verdict on this throughout the trial, and finally has convinced the judge.

#231

The defense is about to get another win having to do with "negligent training". So, the final decision is that any reference to "negligent training" is going to be removed from any count where it could apply.

he's going to start the printing of the jury instructions at this point, because they will need 11 or 12 copies plus all the attorneys for this afternoon. If anything further comes up, they may just have to make a correction and reprint. They are having "fresh eyes" to look at it in the meantime.

#232

Dr Corcoran is the one that is plaintiff rebuttal witness that is going to probably destroy the hospital case, we'll see

Maya is watching Juror #1 to see how he's reacting to this testimony. Interesting

he says he understands that the hospital leadership in 2018 went to Tallahasee in person to deal with issues that put them at odds with accreditation bodies.

Another group went to Atlanta to discuss with CMS shortfalls that had been identified within their program (he's not allowed to say heart institute, which had nothing to do with Maya)

Maya is looking all forlorn becuse look at what a victim I am of this big had hospital where I never stepped foot in the heart institute building but the jury won't know that

She keeps looking at juror 1, she can't help herself. She's just looking at specific times during testimony, seems like trying to see his reaction. I notice that she doesn't seem to ever look at other jurors. She's always looking at the same one. She started this after it becamse quite clear that he's editorializing and prefacing all of his questions with obvious disdain for all the defense witnesses. That was pretty far back during the plaintiff case that he clearly loved those plaintiff witnesses. That seemed curious to me since they have the burdeon of proof it seems like it would be those witnesses that you would be srutinizing.

There is a letter from BMS to the interim CEO of Johns hopkins who replaced the CEO that was fired. Dr Johathan Ellen, who was CEO for 6 or 7 years prior to that. During Maya's stay at the hospital.

In the second paragraph it references somthing called "Immediate Jeopardy". When deficiencies are serious threat to patient health and safety. A plan has to be put in place in order to be able to bill Medicaid and Medicare. It would be basically a death threat to a hospital.

Conditions of participation in federal funding. There were four specific shortfalls - Governing Body (the board), medical staff, administration, Infection Control (some of the patients at the heart institute got infections)

These were the areas where their deficiencies were so agregious as to contribute to the Immediate Jeopardy. Maya is looking down, forlorn, poor me, but her eyes immediately look up at juror 1 after this sentence by the witness and then back down.

This is really damaging because they are not allowed to reference that it had to do with the hart institute. The reason the judge decided this was "systemic" was becausee the board and Risk Management, and I think the CEO were involved in ignoring complaints of the two doctors by their fellow doctors, and they were also over all the units. I'm referring to the article, which is actually very good and I think well balanced. I posted a link to that article over the weekend.

he had an opportunity to talk ot Angela Green about this. In terms of having been issued the IJ, did Ms Green conduct a retrospective, she took her look back five years and one unit was taken back three years. So back to Jan 2016 or 2014. Were specific deficiencies noted? Yes

Internal communications of the hsopital, ms Crowells tells him the exhibit number.

An email from Ms Green dated 2019, just following the notification of the IJ.

Sr Dirctor of patient Safety and Quality. They lead the team that are responsible for making sure the care is safe and outcomes are optimized.

Viewing a specific page. On the subject line it says "how about this for Kevin's Talking Points for the Board". Kevin Sowers is the interim CEO.

CMS 2567 refers to the page of the report that is made available to the hospital. Four major areas we are actively working to imrpove.

Page 5 - Governing Body - what issues were noted. What have you learned about what was lacking. The board has ultimate responsibility to oversee. It was demonstrated that there was poor communication, issued weren't being shared with the board, so they were not able to do their job.

Risk Managment did not report to Boston - Prior to this JACG was the only one of the hospitals didn't have a link to Boston. It was governed locally.

Complaint and grievance process - A grievance actually is recognized as having specific responsibilities. My hospital was required to be answered within 10 days. (this is the witness whose organizational structire is the only appropriate and competent one. he is arrogant as he can possibly be) he says taht complaints made by the Kowolskis were not addressed at all, let along within 10 days.

What was the genesis of the Massive Educational Campaingn - i(maya is now staring at Juror @1) Employees that had complaints, there were examples of retribution. (I did see that in relation to the heart institute, the main doctor was trying to bring attention to the two doctors that were killing kids)

Ms Franklin references multiple town hall meetings he saw videos of the Town hall meetings - hosted by Dr Sowers, interim CEO. he was very candid about where they were falling short and promising to do better. he acknowledged that their shortfalls in Governance contributed to lapses in care. (again , this is all having to do with the heart institute and the jury is not allowed to hear this)

Next exhibit - Shows the deficiencies in column one and the hospital's plan to fix in column two.

This has the potential to be seriously damaging. The judge did not want to have a mini trial that would have allowed the hospital to put this into perspective. Not good for the hospital.

Failure in how Risk Management were integrated within the organization - they were NOT integrated was the whole problem. The Org chart was restrucured to put Risk Management within the management structure

Maya just cannot stop looking over at juror 1, but this time it looked like she took a quick look down the line of other jurors as well. I don't think she looked at all of them, some of them she would have to turn around a little to see, they are beside and "behind" her. Juror 1 she has a direct line to just use her eyes to look right over there When the jury wasn't there the camwera at one point showed the whole layout of the courtroom and that is how I discovered that Mr K is sitting right next to the jury box. he could literally reach over and touch the juror that is at the end of row one.

There was no portal for Risk Management to report things up. after he says that the lead counsel and CEO both exited at the same time, Maya is again looking over at the juror.

The letterhead all says "Johns hopkins All Children's hospital" so that all lends to the jury impression.

Pediatric Medicine managed 15 to 20 divisions
Pediatric Surgery managed all the surgical areas

They were left to police themselves.

The board is accountable. Their feet are held to the fire. But if the information is not flowing in and they are not pulling up, they can't do their job.

Culture - fear of retribution - starts at the top ( Maya really studing the jury now). This goes to patient experience. Is anyone advocating for me. Maya was 10 years old, celebrated her birthday here.

Advocate - somone who is keeping an eye on all the moving parts. There is a lot of focus on the doctors, but there is a lot of others who are involved. Someone needs to oversee and make sure this is being done.

Did you see any witness testify that claimed to be advocating for Maya? Somewhat surprisingly, no. I don't recall hearing from anyone that was really playing Guardian Angel. I didn't see anyone that was really looking out for Maya and her care. (Well, that would have been the social worker, who tried to do that, but they demonized her efforts - i.e. she was "interfereing", she was "trying to be Maya's mother", etc. So, they demonized the very actions that this witness is now saying didn't even exist)

Communication with Families - I told my doctor and my team, if you make a mistake, own it. disclosing making a mistake in an important first step in regaining trust. Inconsistent practice means there was no "best practice"

Based on your backgraound do you believe this contributed to the harm done to Maya? Without question. The gaps in the functioning of the governing body, it is undoubtedly true. Maya looks formornly at juror #1 again.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Cross Exam:

You were provided a number of documents about surveys? Yes
I saw summary of 2015 accreditation

They are fairly arduous events - he agrees

he was involved in every day when these are done. They are very specific, went to all aspects of the hospital.

In Sept 2015 they re-accredited? yes

Then they did a random, unannounced visit in 2016? he can't remember that. Mr hunter pulls up exhibit.

You were present during Ms Green's deposition this weekend? Yes

he says he only saw a small fraction of what was turned over. Did you see a Risk Management survery by ACA? I can't recall.

(The jury leaves the room so defense can get all these exhibits together. Maya is all happy and smiling while they are gone. They come back and she's looking down, forlorn victim again when they return)

Witness is shown accreditation report from March 2016. he's never seen it before.

Plaintiff wannts to approach bench. They really do not like for defense to be able to put on any case at all)

The jury is aware that you attended a deposition Friday night? Yes

Do you have any reason to question the proposition that a Joint Commission surprise visit occurred on March 2016 and the accreditation was reafformed? Objection Overruled. I have no reason to question you, and if accreditation was renewed in 2015 unless a flagrant violation occurred they wouldn't notice it.

You have never heard of in your long experience of random visits taken place? CMD comes in to affirm that the JC is accurate.

he's trying to say this isn't the kind of survey he's talking about it. he want to see it. mr hunter gives him several documents from multiple visits by MCS and Joint Commission. he wants a few minutes to look at them.

Mays is now sneering at Mr hunter. her forlorn victim face is now replaced with sad, angry face.

On survey March they found elements of performance of insufficient compliance. (I knew this kind of thing would happen if he does there. See my previous note about htese being deep dives and on that kind of thing they are going to note any tiny little thing. this is going to back fire on defense)

Were there indications of a follow up that indicate compliance? he's avoiding the question, finally admits that one of them shows compliance. Finally he admits the 45 day survey indicates compliance. The 60 days visit shows compliance with all of them. From March to May they had issues and they corrected them

And that is very common isn't it? Yes

This happens in YORU hospital? Many times.

Incidentally, there are a number of ACA visits at your hospital, correct? Well, they visit all hospitals quite a bit?

They came to your hospital for complaints and otherwise. They were frequent, but not overwhelming.

Were you given a report of an unannounced visit in 2018? Did not see them

They resulted in re-accreditation? Yes

The point I'm making that in Aug 2018 there was a triennial accreditation and witness admits that all violations that were found are in the lower, less frequent quadrant and that is where you want them? Amen is his answer. Admits to that.

In Aug 2018 the three year accreditation taht as issues in 2015 was continued? yes, somewhat surprisingly. They got away with a remarkably benign evaluation.

WEre you provided information regarding a CMS survey of All Children's in May 2017? he shows paperwork. he has to admit I believe there were no issues found on that visit.

Let's look at reports consel had you walk through.

Wwere you aware of any JC report that was being done around the same time as this report? I'm struggling to remember, in my cursory review of just a part of the documents you shared.

Shows him correspondence regarding JC 2018 - this is an acceptance of the plan of corrective action.

A JC report at the same time showing a finding of compliance. Witness says "the services at your hospital were found to be in substantial compliance"

That was a JC commision, correct? Yes, it was 23 days after the IJ.

So, the IJ was issued by JC. And the CMS was a follow up to JC.

Whoever was doing that lifted the IJ on FEb 25th didn't they? Says they accepted the action plan. The IJ was lifted at the end of June.

We can agtee there was substantial effort towards fixing problems.

WHre is the reference to nursing services that were not in compliance? Nowhere, this is the for risk management

Whre is the reference to Risk Management in the fall of 2016? There is nothing specifically mentioned about 2016 in this investigation.

There was talk about trial exhicit 2815 - putting it up.

You talked about the four areas thet were being addressed in January of 2019. That's about two years after Maya was discharged? Correct

In this statement of the grounds and finding of the IJ, where is the reference to the Nursing Servcies? It's not in this letter, it's in CMS 2567.

Do you have that handty? No sire

No reference to the Hospitalists Servcie? NO, not in this letter. He says this is the overview, not the detail.

In the detail any mention of medical staff is in the lower left corner, correct? Witness smiles and says yes sir.

You looked at all 100+ pages of this? He says he looked at something that was 49 pages.

Did you see any reference to the PICU service? No sire

Did you see any reference to the pain management service, did you? No, the issues that were cited were the risk management taht oversaw the servcies.

Oversaw them, but no mention of any of the actual people that worked with Maya? He agrees but then says it's unusual for specific people or groups to be identified in these kinds of surveys.

did you see any reference to what was happening on the 7th floor of the hospital rooms in the fall of 2016.

Thre are specifi examples given for every one of these things. I am asking you in the original report, did you see any reference to the events of Oct, Nov, Dec of 2916? No sure

And you saw no reference to the psychology service? Correct
Psychiatry? Correct

There was reference to exhibit 2817 - it sounded like you were saying they were working to improve the situation? Yes

The extent to which Risk Management was not reported up to the board. That is the inference from the talking points.

Shows a letter dated Feb 2019 regarding statement of deficiencies. This is a response to an inspection report within 10 days. And it summarized efforts being made. Witness sayd "It was too late to help Maya" (and Maya looks over at her favorite juror again).

The executive team was already addresing the concerns before the inspection team even got there.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Redirect

you went to game on Saturday? you didn't have to remind me. WE lost.

Spent Friday night with me and Mr hunter at a deposition with Ms Green. Before that meeting did you ever see a corrective action plan? no, we left with a box of papers

You did not see every paper that was provided? No, I was a dad this weekend.

The fact that you did not see a survery is not a reflection of your diligence? I hope not

These are surveys? Yes Typically they run for several days. Multiple days iwth multiple surveyors

They will bring nurses to look at nursing things, pharmacists to look at pharmacist things, etc.

My ynderstanding were there wawere 12 surveyors that came into the hopstal.

You try to keep them at bay.

Reliant on self reporting? it's encouraged

This was all the genesis of a self report by JHACH, right. The survey that ultimately led to the IJ was self reported

What drove the self reporting? Several issues at the hospital that were well documented by local press. Jury will disregard.

Plaintiff wants to go to the bench, plaintiff says he's done with that line of questioning. But the dameage is already done.

Want to know if he saw anyone at vice Presient or higher than came here to say they have this all under control?

Objection = wants to approach. It doesn't matter. The jury can't unhear things. nd when an objection is sustained they don't tell the jury to "disregard the last question and answer". I've never undersaood why they don't do that.

Objection sustained.

-------------------------------------------------------
Nothing from defense
------------------------------------------------------
Questions from the jury. Will be interesting to see if juror #1 is snarky. If not, he's probably following and iknows there is a motion to dismiss him. THere were several questions that made me think he is doing outside investigation on this trial and definitely on this issue he his quesion way back in the beginning showed that he had read that articale bout the Heart Institute. (My capital H is working now)

He is not going to ask the qustion that was posed.

-----------------------------------------------
Theer was a retrospective analysis that ws done? Right, so yes, they look at what lead to the problems. A firefighter shows up and puts it out, but looks to see if the elctrcial panel had an issue or a carpet that has a cigarette burn

Is it accurate to say that the issue atht are contained surfaced as early as 2015? Yes, there were 4 or 5 pediatric surgery....he is stopped at this point by plaintiff attorney becaue they DO NOT want the jury to know this had nothing to do with anything taht affected Maya.

There were 4 or 5 PA's in the operating room that....stopped again.

Were thee self reports at the employee area that had to do with patient care? Objection...approach.

Now Mr Corcoran, witness, is looking over at the jury and smiling to all of them. This has the potential to bury the defense.

------------------------------------------
No more questions from counsel. None from jury.

Maya smiling over at the jury.

PLAINTIFF RESTS REBUTTAL CASE

#233

Judge is going to read the instructions to the jury. Some discussion is happening now before the jury comes in. They are going to talk about juror #1 after he reads instructions and sends the jury home.

The verdict form will be discussed with jury tomorrow. Only instructions are going to be presented today.

There is a special Dependency Court instruction, which is going to be given tomorrow - agreement by all counsel. Judge says he has about 10 minutes of comment he will need before bringing in the jury. I am wondering if he already knows he's going to let Juror #1 go, and that may be what he needs to talk about in the morning.

The plaintiff wants a special instruction to tell the jury not to hold it against Dr Corcoran that he didn't read 1000's of pages over the weekend. It was because of the plaintiff that the defense was required to supply those 1000's of pages, so i don't know what they are boo hooing about. Judge says no special instruction will be given.

Bring in the jury for jury instructions to be read.

#234

Something interesting happened after jury instructions. They are just too long for me to try to include and I had to cook and feed mom while I was listening to the instructions.

So, there was supposed to be discussion after reading the instructions about possible releasing a juror who sits in the #1 seat. Once the judge finished with instructions he called the lawyers up to the bench. After which he released all the jurors to go back to the jury room briefly, except for juror #181. I don't know what seat that juror sat in, but I have a suspicion it's the one in seat #1.

The judge released this juror from the jury based on a note that juror wrote to the judge. The attorneys and judge never discussed he juror issue, but the judge said something about a "medical issue" being the reason this juror is being released. But given that they ended up not discussing the juror that was the subject of the motion, I have a suspicion, it s just a suspicion, that juror wrote a note about having a "medical issue" to avoid the embarrassment of being kicked off the jury. I do honestly believe the judge would have let that juror go based on the motion to dismiss him. There are six alternates, so there is no harm done in releasing a juror who is suspected of entering the case with bias and lying on voire dire about already having a baked in opinion.

Given that this juror was male, as was the juror in question, and that they had no need to discuss the motion to dismiss a juror, which the judge said was going to happen after he sent the jury home, I do believe this was that same juror and that is why there was no discussion. At least I sure hope so. Nothing else happened that would explain why all the sudden they had no need to discuss the motion to dismiss the juror when that was the plan just a couple hours ago.

Oh wait. They started a new feed. Hang on, there might still be the juror issue.

#235

Ok, both parties actually agreed (I have no idea why) that juror #1 will move to an alternate position and juror #106, who is an electrician.

Jack K wants Juror #1 so the plaintiff changed their mind. Of course they did, he is clearly smiling at Maya all the time and she's constantly looking to him to see his reaction to everything.

The judge says that juror #1 is a former law enforcement and would be expected to "ask a lot of probing questions". And now he's accusing the defense ot not wanting this witness because of the number of questions he asked, which is NOT what they claimed. He's arguing that he has seen NOTHING that shows that this juror has prejudged the case.

I would say that I'm truly stunned, but at this point, I guess not really.

The number of questions is not the problem, nor did the defense ever say it was While the plaintiff has the burden this juror's questioning of the plaintiff witnesses suggested he took their answers to be absolute truth, he did not question their veracity or their testimony at all. He definitely asked questions of them, but not "testing" or "probing" the witness, just getting additional information from them. But when the defense witnesses started giving testimony, he was prefacing questions with wording showing skepticism of every single defense witness. I think that is a problem. He was not "probing" plaintiff witnesses at all, only defense witnesses. And honestly, given the plaintiff is supposed to have the burden of proof I would think those witnesses should have been "probed" at LEAST as much as defense witnesses.

#236

We are on verdict watch now.

Here is this morning stream with closing arguments. Each side got 2 hours and the defense was allowed to reserve 45 minutes for rebuttal.

I think ACH defense did as good a job on closing as possible, and, I think a far better job of actually pointing the jury to testimony in order to back up each of their claims.

The plaintiff was mainly Mr Anderson, who was as big a disaster on closing as he was on opening in terms of bumbling. Also, his closing misstated evidence which got a couple of objections, overruled, so then he did it a lot after the first couple were overruled. Maya left the room during the defense closing, just like she left the courtroom every time any staff that interacted with her on a regular basis, nurses, physical therapists, and pysch staff, testified. She vilified them during her testimony, not just the ACH staff, but apparently all staff at Lurie's and Tampa General were also in on the conspiracy against the K family, according to her testimony.

Still not sure if I will watch the verdict. In addition to the disservice a verdict in favor of the family would be to true CRPS patients, I think it has even worse implications for hospitals reporting suspected cases of medical child abuse. Probably will not impact straight child abuse that is obvious, but definitely medical child abuse. I do expect the hospital to challenge a verdict against them.

#237

There is a note from the jury and obviously they found for the plaintiff on some counts because they are confused as to calculations as to the "future" amounts. There is no reason to worry about how much to award if they did not find for plaintiff.

Not surprised. But the note was not impressive in terms of communication. It started with the word "ya'll" and used the word "ain't" several times. And said without calculations they will be lucky to get enough money to pay for gas to come to court. Yikes.

The judge and lawyers are talking about how to proceed, they did not ask for a "readback". Both sides are willing to suggest a readback of Mr Kirby testimony.

They don't know which count they are talking about.

#238

This morning the judge and lawyers talked about a possible readback. The plaintiff brought the actual witness in and wanted her to read back her own testimony. The judge said that is inappropriate and not going to happen. The defense brought in what the law says and what case law says regarding whether a jury has to ask for specific testimony to be read back if they specifically say they want a readback.

They settled on letting the jury know that they have all the evidence in the jury room and they have an excel spreadsheet that points them to everything, including the exhibits and reports by experts. They are to retire to the jury room and discuss among themselves, and if they want a readback they need to be very specific on what they want read back.

Maya entered the hospital having not been able to walk for almost 2 full years. She had so little core strength that they had to stuff pillows around her body to hold her upright in her wheelchair. This was just a smidgeon of the bad shape she was in after having nine months of not only large infusions of ketamine, but her mother was giving her ketamine at home as well, pretty much on a daily basis. The hospital, within a few days, had come up with a plan for treatment involving physical therapy, occupational therapy, and cognitive behavior therapy. The hospital did not have resources to put someone in that type of treatment at the intensity that Maya needed, but they started her down that path with Maya, on may occasions refusing to participate in any of these therapies. But they did the best they could with an unwilling patient under the circumstances, at least getting her to participate sometimes. The judge from the dependency court required Maya to continue that treatment after she was released from the hospital. In April, the judge released the family from any and all orders. So, she was free to go back to ketamine if her father wanted. Instead, she continued with physical therapy. While she did not get out of the wheelchair while in the hospital, it was the exact treatments (minus the cognitive behavioral) that she followed up until this very day. An interesting thing to note is that it was only 7 months from the time she left the hospital and continued with treatment roughly along the lines of what the hospital recommended that got her completely out of her wheelchair and back to school in person for the first time in two school years.

It will be stunning if a jury awards the family for malpractice by the hospital. It was their recommended treatment, regardless of whether she participated in that treatment during her actual 3 months in the hospital, that finally got this child out of a wheelchair and into what is now a normal life. Aside from obvious emotional scars, which the family has been told that psychological treatment helps with that kind of thing. But would probably make it harder for them to get on that witness stand and misrepresent their experience with the hospital.

I went back and listened to the jury question. They had deliberated for more than 4 hours at this point, so it seems clear they have found for the plaintiff on at least one count if they are concerned about what the award amount is going to be.

"Ya'll, we have not been able to locate any of the calculations about future amounts. Witness Kirby was on Zoom, and Whitney mentioned them today, it was said we'd have all this at deliberation. Well, if we do have it, we ain't found it in all these files. So, without these witness figures, you'll be lucky if there's enough awarded to pay your gas to drive to court or we'll be here till next Friday".

#239

The verdict is in for anyone who is interested. I made the mistake of listening to the very first count, and in spite of believing that the jury is going to act just like the general public it still made me sick to hear it. I stopped before it got any further, but if they gave her the first count it will be a clean sweep.

So, the first count was false imprisonment for the first few days in the hospital. Not only did they give her that but they want to award punitive damages. This is for the time period that the staff was working furiously to help get her transferred to Nemours, which the parents wanted. But they wantedt transfer to inpatient and Nemours was not willing to take her as an inpatient, they were willing to take her as an outpatient. The family declined to sign the paperwork for the transfer, so of course, that is all entirely the fault of JHACH to the point where even punitive damagers are in order.

I couldn't stand to listen to any more. But here it is if anyone else wants to make themselves nauseous, have at it.

Suranis · #240

No thanks. What a travesty.

#241

The really sick thing about it is had Beata Kowolski not taken her own life it would have likely been a criminal trial against HER that we would have been watching. Or reading about.

#242

There is going to be a second part to this case for the jury to give the K family millions of dollars. I'm not sure if I will watch any of that testimony or not. If so, I will report on it.

I don't think Mr K is doing Maya any real favors. I can see any doctor in the future "not taking any new patients at this time" or "I don't treat that kind of thing" when Maya needs care in the future. Any competent doctor should stay as far away from that litigious family as possible.

She'll be making the media circuit as soon as this jury awards the family more millions in punitive damages. She'll be on Good Morning America and every other morning show. The View will fawn over her. It will be sickening.

#243

I don't know if I mentioned this, but there is a very interesting podcast about MBP. There are three seasons and some discussion about the Kowalski case. It seems the person on the podcast went through much the same kind of transformation I did, first believing it, then having lots of questions about the illnesses, possible MBP, and, in my case, disbelief in the CRPS dx.

Season 3 Episode 3 includes discussion about some, but not all, of the investigation of Beata. There were a couple things that I had not known about, some additional false medical diagnoses that Beata claimed Maya had and she blogged about them. Included in the investigation were subpoenas for all the contents of 9 social media accounts where Beata was posting was amounts to copious amounts of medical porn. Including claims for medical conditions that Maya was never diagnosed with. According to the podcast this is an incomplete list.

Here is a list of the false dx that Beata claimed, several of which she was able to get medications to actually treat Maya.

1. asthma - she was able to get someone to continue prescribing large amounts of steroids in spite of at least three doctors confirming with extensive testing that Maya did not have asthma. All three advised Beata to stop giving Maya the steroids. It is suspected that the steroids were the cause of both the all over body pain and also why Maya was wheelchair bound. I also found the transcript for the entire interview between Jack and Detective Graham. During this interview Graham asked Jack if he was aware that it had been determined that Maya never had asthma. He was not aware of any of that.

2. Immune deficiency - the trial revealed that at least three Immunologists were told by Beata that Maya already had a dx for immune deficiency. She never gave them the name or records of a doctor that diagnosed. All three did due diligence and ordered their own labs and all three told Beata that Maya's labs indicated normal immune system function. Despite this, she was able to get IVIG which she was infusing Maya with at home using the port that was placed after Dr Hanna (ketamine doctor) ordered the port. The port was removed by JHACH during Maya's last stay and she has not been given any IVIG since this time as there is no evidence she ever needed it

3. CRPS - talked about at length here.

4. Addison's Disease - this was a new one to me. I learned about this from the podcast, it was one of the false dx the criminal and medical child abuse investigations discovered. The podcast did not indicate whether Beata was successful in getting a doctor to prescribe any medication or treatment for this

5. Pott's Disease - this was also a new one to me. Also learned about it from the podcast and also do not know if Beata was successful in obtaining medications/treatments for this.

The name of the Podcast is "Nobody Should Believe Me"

Link to some of the court documents, including the entire transcript of Jack Kowalski/ Detective Graham interview.

#244

I'm wondering how much the judged tipped the scales here. And why.

#245

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:39 pm I'm wondering how much the judged tipped the scales here. And why.

He definitely tied the defense hands in several respects. Whether it was enough for a successful appeal who knows. And who knows how much it would have made a difference.

Lots of people in chat sessions supposedly were watching the trial, so they would have knows the same things I was privy to, and they still just bought the plaintiff case no matter how much of it was contradicted by evidence that the jury heard, as well as information that the jury did not hear.

One of the things make me shake my head: There was a proffer for potential appeal of Dr Sally Smith regarding her finding of a great deal of evidence of medical abuse by Beata. The dependency court is like any other court where DCF presents it's case to the judge and the family presents whatever witnesses they want to present to the court. Dr Smith took into consideration all of Maya's medical records going back to her very first pediatric visit when the family lived in Chicago. She also interviewed Dr Kirkpatrick, Dr Hanna, got their records, and attempted to get records from Dr Cantu.

At the hearing, Sally Smith was one witness, and she presented her reports, findings, and her final opinion as to whether she believed medical abuse was taking place. And her proffer indicated that she found substantial evidence of medical abuse. So, when she was cross examined by the plaintiff lawyer during the proffer in this case, the attorney lambasted her with "questions" about who made HER the judge and why didn't she present Dr Kirkpatrick and Hanna's side of the story. I'm sure that was done for members of the general public, because anyone who understands that the dependency court is like any other court, where both sides present and the k family brought Kirkpatrick, Hanna, and who knows who else to present their opinions. But I was stunned at how many people in chat sessions just repeated this nonsense about how "Dr Smith acted like she was judge and jury and she never gave Dr Kirkpatrick's side or Dr Hanna's side..."

I guess I feel like yes, this judge absolutely put his finger on this case. But I'm not entirely sure that made any difference at all. The general public seem utterly unable to set aside sympathy for a pretty young blonde girl and actually listen to testimony, and the jury comes right from that same general public. I was not at all surprised at this verdict. Sickened. But not surprised.

#246

I learned new details of the events surrounding Beata's suicide from the podcast. This podcaster has the complete police reports and other documents that I haven't found.

Beata and Jack had filed for legal separation and Beata had been sleeping in her son Kyle's room.

The final hearing in dependency court prior to her suicide was a doozy, and quite a bit of Beata's medical shenanigans were the subject of much of this hearing. There was going to be a final hearing about a month away, but the evidence of Beata being a danger to Maya had stacked up pretty high by this point in time. The board certified child abuse doctor, Sally Smith, had completed her report, but the criminal investigation was still under way and had uncovered much. Quite a bit of Dr Smith's work would be incorporated into that because in these cases the medical records offer up quite a bit of evidence of glaring differences between what doctors saw, diagnosed, and recommended, as opposed to Beata's giving certain medications to Maya and constant blogging of false information about Maya's illnesses, doctor shopping, and lying to doctors about symptoms and lying to doctors about Maya having been diagnosed with some serious illnesses and asking them about "treatment options".

The podcast features a detective from Tarrant County, Texas, who has gained a great deal of experience investigating these cases and throughout the seasons they talk about specific cases and he points out how the abuser will manipulate the victim, and at every chance they get, "remind them of how sick they are". Beata did this with one of her notes she left at her suicide.

A big deal is made of her note where she says "Take care of Maya" and that became the title of the Netflix special. However, the Netflix special blurs out the rest of the sentence. The entire sentence reads "Take care of Maya, but don't let her suffer". The detective talked about how that is Beata manipulating her daughter, keeping her daughter steeped in the belief that she is very sick.

There are many times throughout this ordeal where Beata told people and blogged about Maya being "terminal". On more than one occasion she brought up the idea of killing herself and of Maya "going to heaven". She even wrote the words "terminally ill" at the bottom of a prescription that had previously been denied by the pharmacist, in efforts to get that prescription filled because her daughter was "dying anyway". She succeeded in getting that filled. She also was able to get her hands on liquid ketamine, I believe Dr Hanna filled that. She obtained more liquid ketamine 23 days after Maya was already in the hospital and under a shelter order.

So, back to the day of the last hearing that Beata attended. It was going way downhill for her. Additional information about her faking and creating illness in her daughter had come to light and presented to the judge. Beata wanted to hug her daughter and the judge said "no". Jack says that is all Beata talked about all the way home.

Either that night or the next they could not find Beata. Jack also could not find his gun. He called 911 and reported his wife missing and his gun missing and he was afraid she would kill herself. This becomes important to what happened the night she actually DID kill herself. Eventually he found the gun. There is no mention of when Beata finally came home, but she did.

Jack called Beata's brother and sister in law to fly down because Beata was so distressed. The night they arrived nobody had seen Beata and Kyle's bedroom door was closed so they assumed she was in the bedroom. Kyle and Jack watched TV, then Jack went to bed and Kyle fell asleep on the couch. When the brother and SIL knocked on the door, Jack got up and let them in. The story gets very weird from here. Jack goes to bed without even talking to his BIL/SIL. BIL asks Kyle where Beata is, he points to the bedroom. BIL opens the door and she's not in there. They don't do anything or look further for her. Given the night before they were afraid she was suicidal, it seems weird to me that now they have no idea where she is and nobody looks for her.

The next morning BIL goes out to the garage to get something from the freezer. He finds his sister. (The Netflix and I think in court they claim that Kyle found his mother and made a huge deal about how much harm was done to him from finding his mother dead. But the police report says the adults reported that it was Beata's brother who went into the garage. So, part of the jury award for Kyle is based on a big freaking lie, he never saw his mother with the belt around her neck.

Beata had attacked her arm to an infusion bag, and I am quite sure that is the liquid ketamine that she had gotten 23 days into Maya's stay at the hospital. She didn't hang herself from above. She stood on the ground with that infusion going into her arm, and since ketamine is used for anesthesia, I totally believe she used that to ease herself to sleep so she wouldn't feel anything when her body drooped from the anesthetic. They never tested what was in that bag, so we don't know for sure. But she had gotten liquid ketamine, nobody ever found it, and it wasn't given to Maya because Maya was already sheltered in the hospital.

In one note, she wanted the kids to go to her brother and sister in law after he death. The plaintiff lawyers told the jury that she meant in case her husband ever passed away. And they bought it. They blamed her death on the hospital, not on any of the actual circumstances that surrounded her death - separation from husband, under criminal investigation. The defense was prohibited from bringing up the criminal investigation, the jury could only use their brains about a detective showing up at the hospital and TELLING THEM she was investigating. Apparently that went right over the jury's heads as well.

Sam the Centipede · #247

Thanks RV, please keep reporting what you find, whether in summary or in detail. It's much appreciated, and I don't want to trawl the ranting nonsense about this on parts of the web.

#248

Thanks!. I'm staying away from all the YouTubes that are praising the jury and high fiving that the evil hospital got what's coming to them. I just can't.

And, I had been selectively listening to different episodes of the podcast based on the title and description. But while I took my morning walk I listening to Season Three, Episode one : Special Report: Watching Take Care of Maya

This episodes feature a number of experts, a pediatrician, psychologist, Detective Weber, and a medical child abuse survivor who is now in college. They all lament this Netflix special, how one sided it is, how they missed the perfect opportunity to actually educate the public about medical child abuse and how the perpetrators are always seemingly sympathetic people who appear to be Mom of the Year or Caretaker of the Year types. They dispel all the misinformation from that so-called "documentary", including how "easy it is for CPS to convince a judge to take a child away from their parents". He says in his experience it is "quite the opposite". He says it's a very high bar in his experience. He has investigated 50 cases of suspected medical child abuse and was able to get as far as filing criminal charges in 16 of them. 12 of them resulted in guilty verdicts by jury. He says as hard as it is to convince a judge, it's even harder for people on a jury to wrap their heads around a mother deliberately using the medical system to harm their child. Because it's a medically related abuse, it takes a judge to give permission for detectives to obtain medical records and that is where half of the necessary evidence comes from.

And they all lamented that the Maya Kowalski "documentary" is going to set back efforts to stop this child abuse. Which is something I had brought up that I thought could happen as a result of the "documentary" and now the resounding jury verdict. Det Weber talked about judges are just people and in his experience they behave and act just like the public as well. And he expects it to become much harder to get justice and stop medical child abuse than it already is. And it's already an uphill climb.

The survivor of this abuse talks about the fact that she STILL has medical issues from the damage done to her as a child. It's really heartbreaking.

#249

This shows a real CRPS patient and how a non-quack treats with ketamine.

What was interesting to me about this woman's story is that after a break was discovered in her toe she was casted. When the cast was removed the CRPS had set in. Injury that is tightly compressed is a common element in people who get CRPS after an injury or surgery such as mine. When my original hip replacement was done, back in those days they used to wrap the hips up like a mummy, super tight. They don't do that any more. Many cases of people who develop CRPS while in the hospital have in common where the surgical site was tightly compressed or a bone break where a solid cast was in place for a long period of time.

Compare this woman's ketamine treatment with the quack treatment Maya K was getting from Dr Hanna. My lord, the photo of her totally anesthetized with absolutely no life support equipment in sight was frightening. This grown woman is receiving a fraction of the amount that Maya was getting from her quack. This woman is receiving a safe amount, in a safe setting. Most non-quack type doctors that treat CRPS with ketamine require a patient to try all the other types of treatments first, it's a treatment of last resort. Many start a 140 lb patient with around 200 mg over 4 hours, but a hard core case up to 400 mg over 4 hours. they require an ICU setting for anything above 200 mg dosage, but many of them won't administer any amount without an ICU type setting. Maya was getting 1250 over 4 hours. She weighed only 60 lbs at the time.

Because the woman here really does have CRPS, the low dose treatment she is receiving actually works. Her pain pathway is physical rather than psychological and so the ketamine works. She gets a single treatment one day every 12 weeks. Maya was getting 4 days in a row of massive doses and needed to come back every 3 weeks and took oral ketamine at home and still didn't get relief. Because her pain pathway was likely mostly psychological. It's horrid that her mother, an actual nurse, would allow that. Beata was sick, indeed, IMO.

Here is this patient's story. The video is slightly over 20 mins in length. She's pretty loopy at the end of her treatment when she is coming out of the ketamine infusion.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

#250

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.