Excerpt of DMH Clinic Director Wendi Tovey contradictory cross-examination responses to questions asked about her previous testimony related to an email directive.

When my focus turned to the DMH policies/procedures that I had allegedly not followed, I asked her if she had a copy of the administration directive  to use the new scheduling system with the Microsoft Outlook calendar (CASS):

JS: Did you send a document to me about the CASS issue?
TOVEY: I believe I sent you emails regarding that issue, yes.
JS: Do you have copies of those?
TOVEY: No, I’m much more computer savvy now, I save my emails now.
JS: Pardon me.
TOVEY: I save my emails now, I didn’t previously.
JS: So you’re saying that you wrote me an email but you don’t have any … any copy of it?
TOVEY: Yes, I’m saying that I didn’t even know you could save emails, before, I’m sorry, I’m a social worker. I’m self-taught on what I’ve learned on the computer.
JS: Don’t you know that a computer saves emails automatically?
TOVEY: No, I don’t. I didn’t know that.
          She makes a quick change of tense.
JS: For every email, there’s a sent box, isn’t there?
TOVEY:  My mailbox … I get so many emails every day I have to empty my trash can every hour or I can’t get my emails in. I cannot keep track of all that I do … and I can’t … I didn’t know that I could save them in a different document.  I have to delete my whole delete box and inbox.

She again goes back to the present after switching to the past. It would have looked bad if she had still not figured out how to “save an email” by now as clinic director. CA Appeal Court Justice Lee Smalley Edmon accepted Tovey’s reason for the disappearance of the email as unqualified fact.

Excerpt of DMH Clinic Medical Director Alex Kopelowicz’s cross examination testimony about his many “I don’t recall responses” related to the validity of allegations he made earlier.

I decided to confront him about the over 50 “I don’t recall” responses he had made the day before and the dozen or so he had made on that day:

JS: Have you repeatedly testified that you can’t recall, you can’t recall, you can’t recall?
MCGOWAN: Well, I’ll object. It’s argumentative.
STIGLITZ: Sustained.

Kopelowiz didn’t have to answer, but at least I had underlined his evasive responses in the record. And to make so many “I don’t recall” responses about cases he allegedly reviewed would be considered catastrophic at any medical conference. Even more so when Dr. Kopelowicz is posing as an expert and touting his status as full UCLA Professor of Psychiatry. His performance did compare favorably with Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North – he gave 30 “I don’t recall” responses in three hours when he testified about the Iran Contra issue before Congress in July 1987.

Excerpt of DMH Medical Director Roderick Shaner cross examination testimony related to medical care allegations he made that were not corroborated by medical evidence.

My Cross Exam of Shaner:
I had to cross-examine Shaner right after McGowan finished his direct examination. I didn’t have time to plan my counterattack. But I knew that it was vital to force Shaner to admit he had detoured around the facts behind his conclusions:

JS: Let’s really get concrete. Let me have you turn to Department’s Exhibit 2 (The LOT (Letter of Termination) on which the hearing was based and contained the allegations he had just parroted without any reference to the charts or other clinical evidence.). Now, did you review the charts relating to the allegations?
          SHANER: I did not review the charts.

On direct he had testified that he reviewed “some aspects of some of the medical records” whatever that was supposed to mean. That admission was one way he could not be held accountable if the charts showed that the allegations in the LOT turn out to be false. He wasn’t about to subject himself to that risk. More than likely, he knew they were false.

JS: You did not review the charts. So you claim that these allegations are correct and are fairly based on the evidence, is that correct?
SHANER: Yes.
JS: What evidence is that?
SHANER: I reviewed the statements of the supervisors and discussions with those supervisors. I reviewed your … I reviewed the responses to the allegations.
           JS: But you didn’t review the charts?
SHANER: That’s correct.
JS: … you reviewed the allegations. You have not reviewed the evidence … the evidence is in the charts, is that correct?

The evidence that showed that those most important medical care allegations by Kopelowicz were all false including his claims of how important it was to review the charts.

SHANER: Could … you ... rephrase … that, ... please?

He said this in an absurdly slow manner. I knew that this was a technique used by malingerers who are “more likely to be evasive, repeat questions or answer questions slowly, to give them more time to make up an answer.” (Powell 1991).

I didn’t do any better when I tried to get him to identify the DMH policy related to patient privacy rights that I was accused of violating.

JS: The LOT says I failed to comply with DMH policy requirements under federal law, can you identify the DMH policy of that issue?
SHANER: DMH has a large number of policies pertaining to HIPAA.
JS: I’m asking specifically. I’m being accused with not following a DMH policy, which policy is it?
SHANER: I cannot identify this specific policy.
JS: So how would I know what the policy is?

Shaner couldn’t answer that. He didn’t know what policy it was. But he knew that the allegation in the LOT that I had violated it was true. And his vague answer made sure I couldn’t ask him about what it said or if it applied to the allegation DMH made. Shaner did not know what a lot of DMH policies were – neither did a lot of staff. Policies only became an issue when there was a need to use them against the unfaithful.

Excerpt of Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer Jan Stiglitz coming to the rescue of expert witness Alex Kopelowicz when he repeatedly could not recall the simplest facts supporting the validity of medical care allegations he had made.

STIGLITZ: And I can say from my own observation, you know Dr. Singer, … you’re … you’re … you …you’ve metaphorically thrown up your hands in disgust because this witness doesn’t know the intimate details of patient treatment … This witness has other responsibilities, comes in a couple of times, I don’t frankly don’t expect him to remember all the details.  

Kopelowicz wouldn’t even admit what I had pointed out in my email four years ago regarding the lethal dangers of Antabuse: cardiovascular collapse, liver failure, death, stroke, MI, seizures … for a drug that has not been shown to be effective. It is not even indicated for this methamphetamine addicted patient. And there were the additional risk factors for cardiac arrest, both from drug combinations and from her long history of substance abuse. But Kopelowicz still acted as if he recommended it, so he could make his expected contribution to getting me fired by claiming it was I who didn’t know anything about Antabuse.

STIGLITZ: And your shock and outrage and challenge to his credibility with regard to his failure to know exactly the nine steps are frankly, isn’t scoring any points.

Expert witness Dr. Kopelowicz, as Stiglitz had called him, did not recall a single major point about the major medical hazards of Antabuse or a single step from the 9-point module (for treating substance abuse), while claiming I did not know anything about these things. And I had never showed any outrage – he seemed to be dramatizing my reaction to give support for McGowan’s case.  Stiglitz was the one expressing outrage.

Excerpts of DMH Attorney Vincent McGowan closing arguments per closing brief that avoid the allegations and related facts the hearings were based on and change the focus to personal attacks.

To further promote his case he also used a favorite malingerer technique, just like Kopelowicz, Davis, and Shaner had used in the hearings – dramatization of the issues to detract attention from the lack of evidence for DMH’s case.

He poured on the terminology histrionics in another splatter attack he may have personally invented, describing me as: “defiant, dismissive, insubordinate, completely recalcitrant, deep-rooted antipathy towards the Department, flouts rules at will, unrelentingly hostile, distrusting, disdainful, persistently defiant of authority, contemptuous, confrontational, intimidating, insulting, threatening, utterly intransigent, negligent, secretive,” and more.

He claimed, “Appellant’s denials of wrongdoing are contradicted by the testimony of at least five witnesses, namely Kopelowicz, Shaner, Tovey, Davis, and Abrams.” But he didn’t cite one example.

LA County's real motive for terminating me was revealed when he stated “… our courts have recognized the importance of a governmental entity being able to preserve the Department’s image in the community...

Furthermore, misconduct by an employee that brings embarrassment and discredit to a public entity and which harms its reputation supports disciplinary action, including the ultimate penalty of discharge.” (Anderson v. State Personnel Board (1987)).

The Anderson case was likewise upheld by the Court of Appeal. It dealt with a California Highway Patrol officer who was terminated for repeatedly exposing himself to neighbors, including two teenage girls. He continued to do this, including exposing himself to another neighbor and her children, even after he received a memo that “admonished the applicant that public nudity was not in the best interests of the department.” McGowan again got it backwards. My actions, like the highway patrol department, exposed the bad behavior of the sheriff and DMH and revealed their multiple violations of civil rights, disability fraud, patient endangerment, and CA Penal Code violations. But with DMH anything goes – the end justifies the means.