Why is Kaiser allowed to continue deny wrong doing?

On October 27, 2007, Hillarie Levy wrote to the California Medical Board expressing her concern over tissue transplant issues that Dr. Attarchi of Kaiser Permanente did not respect.  Kaiser also did not respect the law, the family nor the patient’s wishes and they do not appear to care to this day that what they did […]

Augustin R. Jimenez – Special Counsel to the Secretary of the Transportation Agency

Violations of sections 4733 and 4736 of the California Probate Code by a physician affiliated with Kaiser Permanente (Woodland Hills Medical Center) (Kaiser) relative to organ donor protocols. These Probate Code sections concern, generally, (1) compliance with individual health care instructions by a health care provider, and (2) prompt notification to a patient or authorized person when the health care provider declines to comply with individual health care instructions. This allegation was the subject-matter of an investigation undertaken by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC or Department) and its letter to you dated February 6, 2008, concluding its investigation. In your letter of February 18, 2008, you now allege Department “inaction” regarding alleged violations of the above Probate Code sections and “Knox Keene Act Title 42 part 482, and Title 28 § 1468.B(5) and § 1300.68(3).” Subsequently, in a facsimile transmittal dated April 3, 2008, you added an additional claimed violation of Health and Safety Code section 7154, subdivision (b).
A careful reading of the Knox Keene Act makes it clear that the Department has been conferred no authority by the Legislature relative to any provisions of the Probate Code.

Robyn Libitsky, her wedding, her illness, the pleas for medical assistance, her and condolences followed by insults from DMHC.

Robyn developed a backache that would not go away and she went to her health care provider, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan who contracts for actual medical care with The Permanente Medical Group and because of a special affiliation with the county of Los Angeles is offered free or for a very low cost to the employees. They operate as one single unit, sharing both funds and information but are designated by the IRS as two separate entities. A for profit and a not for profit entity operating as a single unit passing themselves off on the public with advertising they refer to themselves as – Kaiser Permanente, a name not recognized as an actual business by the IRS.

Kaiser Arbitration as experienced by Robyn Libitsky.

The legal brief filed for the Kaiser Arbitration https://robynlibitsky.kaiserpapers.org/robyn-libitsky-vs-kaiser/ The attorney that handled the case and final papers – close to $1,000,000 awarded to Robyn Report from DMHC on this arbitration DMHC Report Response to lack of enforcement of California Law from Dr. Harvey Frey

9. DMHC Concluding Summary from Carmen Todd – Dec 15, 2008

…..DMHC’s 2007 Consent Agreement with Kaiser that identifies deficiencies found by the DMHC and provides for a $2 million fine

8. What if ERISA allows Kaiser to deny blood transfusions to cancer patients?

Could ERISA also allow Kaiser to deny blood transfusions to cancer patients? Although this denial will not kill them immediately, the resulting delays in treatment and keeping patients weaker, makes chemo less effective, allowing for a slow death of these expensive patients.