PRELIMINARY 9/7/02

 California's denial of services for my wife has suddenly escalated.  These changes have little to do with State law, which allows my wife 282 hours of home nursing care at an impractical low wage of $6.75 per hour, but the county interpretation of these codes.  In short, State lawmakers have allowed the misinterpretation of these laws by each county as they see fit.  When I say they, I am referring to a vague assortment of county clerks and administrators, rather than elected politicians.
    For example, in every case, the County of Los Angeles prefers to start new care givers at the first of the month, despite the reality that it is impossible to start new caregivers on the first of every month, saving the County as much as $971.75 every time I change nurses.  Another illegal clerical rule is to force the patient to pay them back every time the monthly nursing hours exceed 282, yet if the patient goes under this limit, they will not pass it on to the next month, the County benefiting both ways.  More than once, at the end of the year, they determined that I owed them money, though the monthly limits throughout the year were never exceeded.
    Several years back, my wife's nurse suddenly became violently ill and could not take care of wife.  I had to take care of my wife and the nurse at the same time.  I prepared my wife's meals and the nurse's, and I cleaned up the nurse's vomit.  I was not paid anything for this, nor was the nurse.  I suffered greatly and was exhausted, in contrast to the County who saved money, and though it was involuntary servitude, no one came to my aid, nor saw the injustice.
    State law insists that home care giving should be supported by giving caregivers, particularly those like me who are not paid, periodic respite, and though I have asked the County on many occasions for this benefit, they pretend they are not familiar with this State law.
   It has been like this all along, the County case workers, supervisors and the DPSS regional directors all pretending they know nothing about this State law.  They are not directly answerable to voters and the weak and the sick have hardly the energy to challenge them.  It is a form of democracy moderated by administrative clerks and administrative handbooks, and thus no form of democracy at all.  It suggest that the State of California's welfare system is a pyramid scheme, which in Federal terms, makes it illegal.  Federal citizens who come here are not told of these Constitutional breaches through a hidden system of clerical administrators, who can discard the law for any reason and by any whim.
    My wife came to California in 1967 and immediately starting working and paying taxes, some of which were to understood to be used for any future social services she might need, in the belief that long-term funding has been well planned by government administrators.

    In 1996, she become seriously ill, paralyzed and unable to speak.  Just like California, her insurance carrier, Maxicare of California, Ltd. was suffering financially.  To avert their own disaster, they decided to to stop all testing, evaluation and treatment of my wife.  Concurrently to this, Neuro Surgery at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) decided to go along, discontinuing further evaluation and treatment.  Their discharge of her was abrupt and without medical guidance.  No one had the money to pay for further testing and treatment, though in the interim, she had served as a fine human guinea pig for them.  Though she is one of the few living of her class of thirty to forty patients, they have only inquired once to see how she was doing.

    Just prior to this, we had received a notification from our medical supplier, Shield Healthcare, about a possible reduction of home care supplies, though already our allotment for the month was barely enough.  In response, I sent Governor Gray Davis the following letter, along with this e-mail, hoping that he would not sign the bill into law.

      I felt that else must be going on, because over the weekend, we received an inspection report from the County Health Department.  It's one of those forms one might expect if they have sanitation and pest problems.
    My wife and I live at home with live-in nurses.  One nurse has only a room and generally stays with her Aunt and Grandparents elsewhere.  It's nice to have live-in nurses, because if we need to take my wife to emergency in the middle of the night, which has happened before, they are there to help, but on Saturday, I received notification from Los Angeles County Health Services that I am taking care of my wife without a license and was out of compliance.  The whole thing was based upon an inspection dated July 18, 2002.
    Because of its timing, its simultaneity to other county actions, it seemed to me someone from higher up, a more centralized authority wanted to close my wife's case, in the sense that they no longer wanted to pay for home care costs.  I downloaded County the codes cited by this document, which do mention condominiums, along with other multiple unit dwellings with five or more families, but our condo, like all others, has operated for decades without something like this ever happening before, and by law, all condos follow State guidelines specifying a common condo association, who would normally receive such documents as this, so why us, now?

    The in the following week, on August 2, we received another IHSS Determination retracting everything and restoring my wife to full benefits she rightfully deserved and earned as a hard working California citizens since 1967.

    By now, I am very afraid that the government is going to make sure that I cannot adequately take care of my wife, I sense that they are poised to commit the horrendous act of taking my wife from her home, under the guise that we are breaking the law concerning her level of care, especially in terms of surrounding sanitary conditions.  It all seemed inconceivable, unless you happened to read an article in the L.A. Times about how easily the Governor becomes irked, shows preferential favoritism among business, and generally shows no tangible concern for the sick, other than to deep six them.
    Since the County's assurances and motives are of great question, I requested a hearing from the Administrative Adjudications Division.  On August 8, 2002, I received a letter from Ms. Katherine Bayard of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Service in response to the Administrative Adjudications Division in regard to the hearing scheduled August 29, 2002.

    Please understand that there are several monetary concerns in reference to my wife's case.  First, she is so young, now only fifty-two, MEDICAL cannot seek repayment from her estate (our home) for services received before she reaches fifty-five.  This is why they have denied so many things she rightfully deserves, because she is younger than the age they can seek repayment.  This is why it has been such an uphill battle getting anything from the government.  They are waiting for her to reach fifty-five.  When this happens, she will have been lying on her back for over seven years.  This is why all County help, such as Les Kelly Medical Group, UCLA and Rancho Los Amigos is being denied.  At Rancho Los Amigos in July, the speech specialists refused to provide her with any augmentative communication equipment to help her read, write, send e-mail and control her environment.  In attempting to get them to prescribe a camera stand to read mail, books and newspapers, they claimed that such devices, in her case, were considered entertainment and cannot be prescribed under MEDICAL, and they will not indicate that rather than chronic vegetative, she is able to read!  Since we have no money, everything must be done through MEDICAL, and since MEDICAL is unwilling to approve anything for her because it is unrecoverable under the Estate Recovery program, she is denied everything.  I particularly believe that our calling upon the very expensive assistance from Rancho Los Amigos may have had considerable influence on these happenings, finding it quite remarkable that Rancho Los Amigos feels that communicative gear for an older woman flat on her back for now five years is of entertainment value only, yet for others who pass through their doors, the same equipment and programs I am sure would be deemed essential and educational.
    Long before this, at Kelly Medical Group, they refused to attempt to put through a prescription to MEDICAL, what is referred to as a TAR, because the paperwork is demanding.  It was for a decent bed, because the original bed was broken, sagging and without important features.  At the time, the Chief Physician, Dr. Bdosky, proved to be an asshole, using foul language in front of my wife at our home, telling us directly that a bed is not considered medically necessary.  Even if he put in a TAR for a bed, I'm sure it would be blocked by the Director of the Kelley Group.

    Shortly after receiving Ms. Bayard's letter, we talked on the phone.  I believe that was a Friday, because we were going to resume our conversation on Monday after she contacted my wife's case worker, D. Foote, who she was having trouble reaching.  Since then, my wife has been assigned another case worker, Rose Roberts, to whom I have not yet spoken.  This is fairly common practice, also among HMOs, to switch case workers so that information and objectives useful to the patient, are deferred.  Ms. Bayard told me that my wife's MEDICAL had been interrupted, which is very foul play on the government's part.  After all, MEDICAL did not initiate the revocation of my wife's benefits, because they do not operate at the county level, being a State agency.  Her words alarmed me, because as you might recall, when this happened in 1998, it took thirty-three phone calls, the Supervisor's Office and six months to regain MEDICAL benefits.  However, being a State agency, MEDICAL would have closer ties to the Governor.
   The day before the hearing, Ms. Bayard contacted me.  Though I had agreed the day before to cancel the hearing, on advice of the Administrative Adjudication Division operator, I instead postponed it, knowing full well that what the County wanted to do was discontinue funding, which cannot be done while waiting for the hearing and the results of that hearing.  She seemed to know this already, being that she is stationed inside the same State Building in Downtown Los Angeles and seemed somewhat disturbed that I had not canceled the hearing.
    Because of her mannerism on the phone, I drew suspicious of the whole proceeding, and though she indicated that the hearing does not require attendance by anyone, since I had postponed it, I decided that I should go anyway.
    The following morning at the window, where you sign in, I explained to the receptionist, that the the hearing had been postponed, I though that I should come anyway.  She asked as to who postponed it.  I told her I did.  "By calling that number", she inquired.  She was referring to a 1-800 phone number.  I told her yes.  She looked on her clipboard and told me it was still on the docket.  I told her that I had just decided to show up.  "Smart man", she replied.
    Shortly after signing in, Ms. Bayard showed up asking me why I was here, explaining to me that I was not supposed to be here.  The day before, she had promised me some paperwork showing the resolution of the case to the satisfaction of both parties, but she had nothing in hand when she show up, and seem displeased when I pressed her for this or these documents which she eventually generated in another office while I waited.
    One can only ask the question, had I not come and the case was still active, what might have legally happened?
    One can only presume, at the end of the day, the presiding judge would review the disposition of all cases.  If neither party showed up, nor called on the phone, he would dismiss the proceedings for the day.  But, being that Ms. Bayard and Company were just around the corner from his chambers, they would have undoubtedly shown up, telling the judge that I failed to show up, he therefor ruling in their favor, thus discontinuing all benefits for my wife.  It is sad to think that this might happen, but the "smart man" comment sealed my convictions that this would have happened.
    When it comes to dolling out money to its citizens, I think government can be clever and downright sneaky...the same way the Crown (UK) treated Benjamin Franklin by dragging him to court, off venue, on a eighteen month sailing boat cruise to England.  Governments have been this way, will continue to be this way, and even become worse, as has California, as their inevitable nature in the retention of power.
    Despite my attempts to do what is legally expected of me in caring for my wife, the County seems predisposed to do the contrary.
    At the hearing settlement, Ms. Bayard insisted that I agree to a WITHDRAWAL, rather than a CONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL.  Not knowing the difference, nor expecting that I should need legal representation, I accepted her recommendation.  Today, as I write this, I discover that by accepting a WITHDRAWAL I lose my right to a hearing on that request.  This should please the Governor, because aid which has been paid because of this request could stop without further notice, though I may file for another hearing on the identical issue provided that the new request is timely per Manual of Policies and Procedures Section 22-009.
    Had I agreed to a CONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL, I would retain all rights I would have had not signed the CONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL, giving the County greater leverage to revoke my wife's benefits.
    It may sound all well and good, but in regards to MEDICAL which had been revoked because of these proceedings, one can only imagine that it would take months and months become eligible again, thus saving the government a great deal of money, as much as $10,000!
    Its hard to believe that a State with the fifth largest economy in the world would be either unwilling or unable to care of their sick and poor, and play such cruel games to those in the greatest need.  But, such is the case.
      Please use this opportunity to help.  please call, write and e-mail Governor Davis.  Remind him that he himself is on his third strike, in reference to committing a serious crime against a native son and his wife.  Please, if you have friends living in California, please tell them what he has done!
 

Thank you,

Joel E. Webb on behalf of Constance A. Webb
 

A message from our most unresponsive politician:

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: 559-445-5295
Fax: 559-445-5328

Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-897-0322
Fax: 213-897-0319

Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92101
Phone: 909-680-6860
Fax: 909-680-6863

San Diego Office
1350 Front Street
Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-525-4641
Fax: 619-525-4640

San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803

Washington D.C. Office
134 Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-624-5270
Fax: 202-624-5280

c/o Office of Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 445-4633

    In June of this year (2002), the County of Los Angeles came to our home to review my wife's condition.   She is completely paralyzed and unable to speak.  They found this to be true and reinstated her nursing support.  She is the largest case in the County and costing the government a lot of money.  They continue to insist that she is chronic vegetative, a prognosis tagged on her by her HMO physician five years ago.  Shortly after the County's visit, we received notification of her reinstatement for the year.
    The same week I received a letter from my wife's medical supplier asking us to contact the Governor and ask him not to sign a bill reducing MEDICAL coverage of some of her supplies, such as chucks, lotions and diapers.  I am already paying out of pocket for a goodly portion of these, but the Governor was contemplating signing a bill reducing the government's share for home care, but not other facilities, such as certified skilled nursing facilities.
    I sent the letter to him, plus put up a link on this web site, embracing his now immortal face-on-milk-cartoon spoof created by Harvey Rosenfield for a watchdog organization called Consumers for Quality Care.  I also included a direct link to his office in Sacramento.  Whatever happened next, the Governor must have taken great offense, because two weeks later (mid July), the County of Los Angeles, In-Home Supportive Services, who directly manages and approved my wife's assistance, suddenly disqualified her, setting into motion a potentially disastrous sequence of events, which could lead to her removal from her home and placement into the County General Hospital, where she would most certainly die.
    For more than four years we have received assistance from them without anything like this happening.  It was as though, behind closed doors, the Governor said, get her off the dole, she's costing the State too much money, and our tax revenues are down, and besides, I don't like her husband.
    Without warning or chance to make preparation, with only twelve working days until the end of the month, the County's notice simply stated that all coverage for the patient (who can neither move or speak) will be terminated by the end of the month.  I wept.  How could they do this?  Why?  They were just here.  Surely there is no question in their mind that she is ill.  It this were to happen, she would have no nurses during the day, I would abruptly have to close my small business, sell everything at a loss, and handle the daily nursing duties myself.  In the meantime, we would be unable to pay our mortgage, be foreclosed upon and set out on the streets.
    When I called the County to find out why, I received different stories on the phone.  I was told that they needed certain documents which they didn't have, an order issued by a new supervisor.  She wanted documentation on a car we did not own and materials they already had in possession.  She also wanted materials which they knew did not exist and materials long before in their possession which even predated my wife's case.  What they were doing was wrong, but what precipitated it?
    Then, another County agency, the Health Department, snuck around our home one day several weeks ago without ever knocking, and then mailed a document informing us that my wife's recovering in our condominium was against California Code, because she had nurses there who lived in and washed and prepared their food in our home.
    It was obviously orchestrated along with the other County action to get rid of us.  No one else in our twelve unit condominium received any notice and the condominiums legal entity for service of process was never notified.  The document had a section to check off health code violations, such as bad plumbing, roaches and things like that, but nothing had been checked off.  It had been mailed to us and no one else, and without visible cause, with a strongly worded message  stating that further legal action may follow.
    Because of the timing of these communications and actions, I feel that the Governor's office is clearly linked to everything that has recently happened, but is it murder?
    There is a motive, several motives in fact, some bureaucratic and some personal.  The Governor never liked his face-on-milk-cartoon spoof.  I was personally told this three years ago on the phone by his staff when I called his Sacramento office for help, and many articles about him in reputable papers, like the L.A. Times suggest he is aloof, vindictive, and operates on favoritism, and like many politicians around here, he is high on himself, albeit, he is supposed to be a public servant.  There is also numerous means, not unlike invisible and unwitting assailants, who come forth to do the master's bidding.   All he has to do is merely suggest doing these things, and thus it becomes conspiracy invisible to public scrutiny, utilizing public agencies.  But is it murder?
    If all were come to pass, as I have been told by the many private nurses who I have hired, we will be legally split apart, the State claiming that I am no longer able to be responsible.  She will be deposited in County General, a dirty, filthy hospital in downtown Los Angeles, where she will eventually succumb to hospital induced disease, all aided and abetted by doctors who will have no interest in her at all, by under prescribing her care, nourishment and treatment.  They will sanction this by claiming that she can never return to the work force because she is chronic vegetative.  Here, under their care, she will never receive the options of specialized communication devices, which have already been denied her.  They will never hear her story how and why she ripped out four of her lower incisors with her upper teeth because of one hundred days of agony and distress under the care of skilled nurses at her first outpatient facility, before I finally brought her home.
    The nurses told me that what happens next is commonly done.  Her fluid intake will be deliberately under prescribed, she will become dehydrated, cough and choke on her own mucous, contract pneumonia, and then further caused to decline by disingenuously prescribed doses of antibiotics and pain killers, all designed to make it appear that everyone tried to do their best to protect her against pneumonia, whilst all the time, they were ushering her along the road to death.  This will be on her medical record as cause of death.  She will have a prolong high fever, disorientation, pain and dissociation (death).  No one will care what she was thinking or what her spirits are like, though everyone will be credited for trying to save her.  Incidentally, this has already happened twice before in the spring of 1997 at Freeman Memorial Hospital when her HMO, Maxicare of California was trying to get rid of her.
    The motive, the means and the method, their all there waiting to be put in action, thus saving the State of California's tax revenues.
    In this accord and respect to the moral fiber of our family, anyone who in any way causes the death of Constance A. Webb, by these described means, as well as others, shall be considered under the eyes of God and by our family, to be murderers.  This is especially directed to physicians and nurses, politicians, administrators, clerks and civil servants who we know to be involved.