IS SHE WAGERING HER CAREER ON A KANGAROO COURT?

On the surface the manager's progress notes appear innocent of any wrongdoings. However, a critical examination of it contents and subtle messaging will expose  the underbelly of a kangaroo court. A document of this nature works in a closed kangaroo court in which the defendant, in this case Carey,  must argue his case to a jury hand-picked by the program manager. And, he is not given the opportunity to argue in his defense nor present supporting evidence of his innocence. Furthermore, in a closed court the prosecutor is also the judge. In this case they're one in the same, the manager of the treatment center.

It's safe to say that if the progress notes had not been leaked to the client, that document, alone, would  serve as the primary and only source of information concerning the ongoing affairs of Carey's grievance and his interactions with Leah as they discussed his case. In such, we have exhibit "A" in the formation of a kangaroo court.

Unfortunately, to an untrained eye the progress note may have been successful in promoting the images of a soft spoken manager who is innocent of all wrongdoing. Yet, the "progress note" would also promote the image of an unruly, loud and less than average thinking drug addict with tunnel vision, whose primary concern was to obtain more drugs.

Needless to say, the progress note was actually intended to serve as a character assassination by painting the manager as the quintessential "good guy" and the client as the stereotypical "bad guy".

However, in the eyes of a skillfully trained investigator the progress note reads quite differently.

We are trained to identify that which is NOT being said or purposely omitted.
We also seek motives. In Leah's progress note several issues stand out.

1. The program manager, did not write in first person. She writes "Client and counselor met in regards to his grievance." Leah is the counselor in question. Why was that distinction omitted?

2. Every person in attendance was not identified. Another person was present. Why did she omit her?

3. This "progress note" would have us believe that this articulate man that I've come to know, who is highly opinionated, did not have anything to say when asked 3 very important questions. The program manager writes:

 "Counselor asked client why he did not tell this to the nurse and she could see about a dose adjustment. Client [failed] to answer this question. Client just kept stating that counselor has placed him on a taper and counselor is denying him his dose."  

That statement is unequivocally false and deliberately misleading.  Carey did have a very specific answer to her question. He told Leah that it was known throughout the treatment center and surrounding community agencies who relied on its services that all operations incumbent on the doctor's care were suspended during his sickness. New clients were not being accepted and individuals in Leah's methadone program could not expect any changes in their prescriptions during that period.

Carey said he continued telling Leah that it was known throughout the agency that clients should not even expect an increase in their take-home allotment while the doctor's status was unclear. Clients waited months for adjustments to their prescriptions. Carey also stated it would be unreasonable to believe he would be an exception to the rule. Additionally, it was not customary in that facility, with that particular nurse to have an in-depth conversation concerning ones medical problems. Everyone viewed the nurse, who generally wear street clothing, as if she was sort of a pharmacist who fills a prescription. 

The above dialog and more is missing from the so called "progress notes".  Why? Why did Leah purposely lie and fail to include important details?

 Leah continues writing:

"Client did not understand this because he continued to say that is(sp) was counselor who was doing this and that he is going to sue counselor and the whole Unity Point organization to get counselor fired. Client asked counselor what she would do if her doctor said she could no longer have her medication. Counselor told client that she would find a new doctor.

Carey said her assessment is total fiction.

 My critical review of Leah's written chain of events is that she is attempting to spin four narratives. 1) Carey is not very bright. 2) Leah has done absolutely nothing wrong by allowing Carey to lapse into a withdrawal that nearly killed him 3) Leah is the victim. 4) Carey is the bad guy who you should not trust. And remember, in this court there is not a single voice to argue against Leah's narrative. However, today,  Carey's differing interpretation of the same chain of events is in my possession. The following is his assessment of that day. 

After waiting nearly 3 weeks for Leah to respond to my grievance, that day had finally arrived. After calling her several times and writing her over 7 times, some by certified mail, I wondered why she was stonewalling me? I became skeptical and leery of Leah because of her avoiding me and other unflattering things I heard about her from other clients and her own staff. So prior to our meeting I called to ask if I could bring along someone as a support and witness. She denied my request. Yet, when I arrived for our  meeting, there was another person in the room. It was the nurse. I asked Leah why she was there. Leah said she was the person who gave out the medication so she thought she should be here to explain to me how the system works. Having worked in Quality Control at the Central Base Personnel Office (CBPO) while in The United States Air Force, my worst fear came alive, I had walked into a trap.

While working specifically in Unfavorable Information Files, a file I maintained on everyone on the base who committed a violation of military code or broke the law off the base, as part of my duty, I'd seen hundreds of documents describing scams, fraud, rape, child abuse and garden variety mischief. I'd also seen how airmen were setup by senior personnel in situations similar to the one I found myself. A devious senior official or anyone who wanted to rig a hearing or court proceeding would place a subordinate in a room as a witness while another airmen, who was being "written up" gave his testimony. When it was all said and done the subordinate (the plant) later agreed to anything and everything the senior official coerced him to agree with. Having witnessed that scenario while maintaining my files and in person, I did not believe it was wise to continue this meeting. I disagreed with Leah's reasoning for having the nurse there and asked her to leave. I told Leah that there is nothing in my grievance that speaks about her and she did not have a "need to know" my personal business. The nursed looked at Leah as if asking her permission to leave. Leah nodded her head in agreement. The nurse left and never came back. But later, after our meeting ended, the nurse plays another part in this event. Anyway, upon entering into our discussion I asked Leah why she waited so long to address my grievance. She rambled on about some meetings she had to attend and started blaming others for her missteps. I said she should be ashamed of herself for letting me damn near die in withdrawal before someone intervened and she didn't even offer an apology. She said it wasn't her fault it was the doctor's doing and I apologize for him not showing up. I asked her, so it was the doctor that intervened and stopped my withdrawal? She said, not really, I called the doctor. I said so let me get this straight... throughout the entire time that I was sick as a dog, blood pressure off the chart, 220 over 115, bowels moving uncontrollably, weak and barely able to walk, you could have called and stopped it at any time, is that right? With a smog and arrogant voice she said I did call and stopped it, didn't I, what do you want. She continues with a load of rhetoric about their procedures and it wasn't her fault.  She didn't want to admit that not only did she let me go into withdrawal for 7 days when she could have stopped it, but she gave the initial order to staff to start my withdrawal on the first day (day 1) of the 7. So she cannot say she wasn't aware of the fact of my impending withdrawal. She started it, she knew it was happening and she failed to stop it. I even wrote her 2 letters and called her several times begging her and pleading with her and informing her of my impending doom. I wrote and called telling her to be aware that if she does not step up to stop my withdrawal, it was going to happen very soon. People can die of withdrawal from methadone. And to this day she still feigns ignorance to those details and her transgressions. Speaking of the nurse, when my meeting with Leah was coming to an end, I asked Leah did she really believe that the nurse does anything other than dispense the methadone, something like a pharmacist? I asked because Leah had implied that this nurse does all the things that nurses in major hospitals are required to do. I replied I beg to differ. On the way out we crossed paths with the nurse. Leah jumped into action giving a (I assumed) prearranged question for the nurse. After Leah asked her the question the nurse seemed a little puzzled, then she responded, "No, that's not the way it goes". I broke out in loud laughter because the nurse had just blown the question by failing to give Leah's pre-orchestrated answer. You should have seen the looks on their faces as they scrambled to put the cat back in the bag, so to speak.

The beat goes on. Leah writes

"Client did not understand this because he continued to say that is(sp) was counselor who was doing this and that he is going to sue counselor and the whole Unity Point organization to get counselor fired. Client asked counselor what she would do if her doctor said she could no longer have her medication. Counselor told client that she would find a new doctor.

Please excuse my french but that's BS, complete poppycock. I did not tell Leah I was going to sue her to get her fired. That makes no sense at all. Who sues to get someone fired? I actually said that Leah is binding my hands by not giving me the exact reason I was being put on an administrative Withdrawal and my take-home privileges taken away. It was difficult continuing my grievance because I didn't have the specifics of what I was alleged to have done wrong. I said I needed that information to continue my grievance. I also needed the list of her chain of command as outlined in the grievance procedure. How was I going to protest an alleged violation when the violation is not known? I said I also needed the names and addresses of the people listed in the grievance procedure (who are they, what's their title and where can they be found). The grievance procedure states:

"If after discussion with the manager, the client grievance is still unresolved, the client may continue to pursue the grievance. At the point the grievance and attempts to resolve it shall be clearly stated in writing, as well as the relief requested. Until the grievance is resolved the client may continue to pursue the grievance first with the supervising Director, then the President and finally the Program Committee of the Board of Directors. The CENTER will have (5) working days to make  a decision at each level that the grievance is pursued. The decision will be presented to the client in writing."

After asking Leah several times

 photo of certified letter - 1 of several sent to manager 

(by certified mail and by phone) to comply with the grievance procedure guidelines, I finally told her that she was denying me due process by stonewalling me. I said I was not going to stop because I wanted to stay in recovery, I was not mandated to be there. I finally said even if I have to go to court to have someone hear my case, I will borrow and beg for enough money to retain a lawyer to do just that. As you can see Leah flipped my words around to make it appear as if I threatened to sue her, which is preposterous. I would not trade my recovery for her job. That makes absolutely no sense to me.  More importantly, a person who leaves a methadone treatment program by way of an Administrative Withdrawal, statistic point out that he/she will die within three years. I am in no hurry to be a statistic on that list. Before I left I asked Leah one more time for the requested items, i.e., chain of command, the written reply to my grievance, etc. BTW, CADS statistics are high in the area of those given Administrative Withdrawal Orders and subsequently died within 3 years. Estimates are 10-20 people were unfavorably discharged and subsequently died within 3 years

The actual hand written note Leah gave to the client. 

She put out her hand in a gesture that implied that I should stop. She then reached for a sticky pad and  wrote the name Mary Petersen on it. She then said "Here, take it, that's all you need. We are done here."  I was flabbergasted but I took the note (above) and opened the door.

Please read the full grievance.