A Tangled Web of Perversity by a Healthcare Company Owner - Subpoenaing Emails of Law Student Critics at NYU Law School, Where He is a Trustee

At Healthcare Renewal, we are largely calling for removal from healthcare of perverse managers and perverse management practices.  <br /><br />One of those practices is the attempted silencing of critics.<br /><br />I have first hand experience with a perverse but unsuccessful attempt myself, where the apparently (and IMO, and as protected by the 1st Amendent) megalomaniacal management of a once-reasonable hospital (I did my residency there 1985-7) sought to abridge my 1st Amendment rights regarding care of my late mother.  See my August 11, 2013 post "Who Would Have Thought, Comrades, That The Most Severe Form of Attempted Internet Censorship Could Originate in a Community Hospital, Abington Memorial, That Alleges Itself A Non-Profit Public Servant?" at <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/who-would-have-thought-comrades-that.html">http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/08/who-would-have-thought-comrades-that.html</a>.<br /><br />This recent story, however, is simply stunning in the audacity of its principal regarding "shutting up" critics, this time two law students at a law school of which he is a Trustee: <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>Law School Trustee's Company Chills Critical Speech With Subpoena For Students' Personal Emails</b><br /><div class="storydate">Mon, Apr 21st 2014 1:14pm</div><div class="storydate"><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140418/18013426963/law-school-trustees-company-chills-critical-speech-with-subpoena-students-personal-emails.shtml">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140418/18013426963/law-school-trustees-company-chills-critical-speech-with-subpoena-students-personal-emails.shtml</a> </div><br /><style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }A:link </style>A New York University trustee has found a way to chill speech critical of him and the [healthcare] companies he owns: <a href="http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140417/greenwich-village/judge-orders-law-students-give-up-emails-after-criticizing-nyu-trustee" target="_blank">subpoena the personal emails of two particularly outspoken opponents</a>. <br /><blockquote><i>A New York University Law trustee's company wants two students to hand over their personal emails after they circulated a letter criticizing him, according to a subpoena.</i> <br /><br /><i>The law students, second-year Luke Herrine and first-year Leo Gertner, were targeted after they helped circulate a letter denouncing NYU Law School trustee Daniel Straus, who owns <b>Care One Management</b>, a home health aide and nursing home company embroiled in a labor dispute.</i></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>The two students <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1X8Zb-03UyyAZi4CNz8LWRN4KHRhHraOO30WO310_Wfo/viewform" target="_blank">started a petition asking for the removal of Straus</a> from the Board of Trustees, pointing out that a law school should probably be associated with someone who respects the law, something Straus' companies seem to have trouble doing. His two companies, <b>CareOne </b>(<a href="http://care-one.com/">http://care-one.com/</a>)<i> </i>and <b>HealthBridge Management </b>(<a href="http://www.healthbridgemanagement.com/">http://www.healthbridgemanagement.com/</a>)<b>, have been cited at least 38 times by the National Labor Relations Board for violating federal labor laws. In addition, HealthBridge was held in contempt of court for refusing to allow 600 workers to return to their jobs at their pre-strike pay levels. </b></blockquote><br />"A law school should probably be associated with someone who respects the law" seems an oxymoron, not to mention protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution</a>.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">CareOne's current legal battle with a local labor union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), something that has dragged on for years at this point, <a href="http://www.nyunews.com/2014/04/18/served/" target="_blank">has seemingly turned into a convenient way for Straus to get back at his critics</a>. Of course, CareOne claims otherwise. <br /><blockquote><i>CareOne spokesperson Deborah Maxson said the deadline for the requested information is April 25.</i> <br /><br />“<i>Straus is not a party to the lawsuit and is not managing the litigation,” Maxson said.</i> </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Straus may not be a party to this lawsuit, but these are his companies, and there can be very little doubt that Straus would prefer the ongoing criticism of his business efforts be halted. I<b>f CareOne wants to use the excuse that Straus isn't a "party" to this lawsuit, then it needs to extend that same courtesy to the two students</b>, who also aren't a "party" to the ongoing legal fight. </blockquote><br />But they're defenseless students, and in healthcare matters, dissing a high-ranking healthcare management  person seems to be a crime that such persons cannot seem to tolerate.  (I won't get into the psychopathological issues that may come into play).<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Then there's the content sought by the subpoenas. This, too, mentions Straus directly, even as CareOne claims this has nothing to do with him. According to a letter sent by the Board of Trustees to NYU administration, this is what CareOne is hoping to obtain: <br /><blockquote>“<i>The subpoenas <b>requested information regarding any contact the students may have had with SEIU and any activity they may have engaged in,</b> such as protests or meetings, <b>relating to Mr. Straus or CareOne...”</b></i> </blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>If Straus isn't "party" to this lawsuit, why does CareOne need information relating to Straus? Beyond that, the information requested bears all the hallmarks of <b>trying to use the power of the court to silence free speech. Protests and meetings, both activities covered by the First Amendment, </b>are mentioned specifically by the subpoena. </blockquote><br /><br />Perhaps some members of the generation after the "Greatest generation" have such low self-esteem that they have to bully mere students into submission.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">For what it's worth, NYU has stepped up and has provided the students with the pro bono help of one of the school's lawyers. It also issued a very carefully-worded defense of the students, no doubt mindful of Straus' $1.25 million annual endowment. <br /><blockquote>“<i>The Law School is not a party to the litigation between Care One and SEIU, and will remain uninvolved in it," the school wrote in a statement to DNAinfo New York sent Thursday. "We vigorously support the right of our students to express their views and to organize and participate in lawful demonstrations and other protest activity, at the same time that we acknowledge that parties to litigation are permitted, subject to applicable rules and judicial oversight, to gather evidence in support of their case."</i></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Further statements reiterated NYU's support for its students' rights but also noted it considered Straus to be an "upright and honorable person." <br /><br />That said, <b>it seems that there is a clear -- and somewhat massive -- conflict of interest for Straus to remain on the board of trustees at NYU Law at the same time he's using the legal process to demand the email contents from two of its students</b>. </blockquote><br />Conflicts of interest are nothing new to healthcare. <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />As is noted by <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Q-QfTZh1iJiN7sZNF21N42ceFFKz8GU7oJZc7ta6W0o/viewform" target="_blank">the students' new petition demanding the withdrawal of the subpoenas</a>, this sort of activity, undertaken by a "victim" of criticism, will discourage others from approaching anything remotely controversial. <br /><blockquote><i>Forcing students to turn over emails and other private communications in litigation that does not concern them can <b>chill free speech </b>on campus and make students think twice about raising their voice about controversial issues. <b>This is antithetical to NYU's mission of open academic inquiry and commitment to the public interest.</b></i> </blockquote></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">That's assuming the mission of NYU and other universities still remains "open academic inquiry."  Many have begun to doubt that, and with good reason; e.g., see <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-22/free-speech-zones-and-other-college-lies">http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-22/free-speech-zones-and-other-college-lies</a> as just one example. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Rather than address these concerns, Straus <b>is allowing (or directing) his company to shut down his critics by seeking personal communications from non-party NYU students.</b> Straus also has additional leverage with the university should this fail to keep future criticism at bay. Of course, there's always a chance NYU will side with the students and decide that Straus' companies don't really reflect the culture it's trying to instill in its students. But until this all plays out, <b>we're just witnessing the sort of tactics deployed by entities who would rather <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140129/15052326039/university-yanks-professors-email-access-after-he-criticizes-school-chancellor-compares-his-statements-to-school-shootings.shtml" target="_blank">shut people up</a> than address their concerns. </b></div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div>I note the following statement on the web page of Care One Management:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"With a <b>focus on the highest standards, clinical best practices and strong management principles</b>, CareOne has developed a reputation as a premier health care company in New Jersey.<br /><br />With services that include post-hospital care, rehabilitation, assisted living, long-term care and a variety of clinical specialty programs, CareOne offers compassionate care in gracious, professionally managed centers and communities."</blockquote><br /><div id="stcpDiv" style="left: -1988px; position: absolute; top: -1999px;"><div class="big dark">With a focus on the highest standards, clinical best practices and strong management principles, CareOne has developed a reputation as a premier health care company in New Jersey.</div>With services that include post-hospital care, rehabilitation, assisted living, long-term care and a variety of clinical specialty programs, CareOne offers compassionate care in gracious, professionally managed centers and communities.<br />- See more at: http://care-one.com/#sthash.mAHNhXEp.dpuf</div><div id="stcpDiv" style="left: -1988px; position: absolute; top: -1999px;"><div id="content"><div class="col1 museo"><br /><br /><div class="big dark">With a focus on the highest standards, clinical best practices and strong management principles, CareOne has developed a reputation as a premier health care company in New Jersey.</div>With services that include post-hospital care, rehabilitation, assisted living, long-term care and a variety of clinical specialty programs, CareOne offers compassionate care in gracious, professionally managed centers and communities.</div></div>- See more at: http://care-one.com/#sthash.mAHNhXEp.dpuf</div><div id="stcpDiv" style="left: -1988px; position: absolute; top: -1999px;"><div id="content"><div class="col1 museo"><br /><br /><div class="big dark">With a focus on the highest standards, clinical best practices and strong management principles, CareOne has developed a reputation as a premier health care company in New Jersey.</div>With services that include post-hospital care, rehabilitation, assisted living, long-term care and a variety of clinical specialty programs, CareOne offers compassionate care in gracious, professionally managed centers and communities.</div></div>- See more at: http://care-one.com/#sthash.mAHNhXEp.dpuf P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }A:link { } </div>In healthcare, I remind, the "shut people up" mentality results in patient injury and death.  It seems to me that this Trustee is not just setting a bad example for the legal profession, but it also throws the management of his healthcare organizations into question.<br /><br />-- SS

A Tangled Web of Perversity by a Healthcare Company Owner - Subpoenaing Emails of Law Student Critics at NYU Law School, Where He is a Trustee

At Healthcare Renewal, we are largely calling for removal from healthcare of perverse managers and perverse management practices.  One of th...

Đọc thêm »

Who Would Have Thought, Comrades, That The Most Severe Form of Attempted Internet Censorship Could Originate in a Community Hospital, Abington Memorial, That Alleges Itself A Non-Profit Public Servant?

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>I would not have thought such an attempt at abridgement of fundamental American rights could originate in a local hospital, until this Motion by the defense in the EHR-related lawsuit initiated by my deceased mother in which I am now substitute plaintiff proved otherwise:<br /><br /><br /><table border="1" cellspacing="0" class="ChamaeleonGrid" rules="all"><tbody><tr class="AlternatingGridItem"><td><span style="font-size: x-small;">75</span></td><td><span style="font-size: x-small;">E</span></td><td><span style="font-size: x-small;">4/19/2013</span></td><td><span style="font-size: x-small;">Motion</span></td><td><span style="font-size: x-small;">BY ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MOTION TO PROHIBIT COMMENTARY ABOUT THIS LITIGATION TO ANY PUBLIC CONTEXT WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW WITH SERVICE ON 04/19/2013</span></td><td><span style="font-size: x-small;">No</span></td><td><span style="font-size: x-small;">9267260</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />The hospital was attempting to have the Court issue a <b>Motion for Prior Restraint</b> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint</a>), including against my writings here in the Healthcare Renewal blog, in a civil matter.<br /><br />In my view this attempt sets a very deleterious precedent for others opposed to hospital practices.  A topic frequently discussed at this blog is <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/imperial%20CEO">imperial management</a>.  Hospital management seems to have now become so arrogant that it apparently believes itself to have supra-Constitutional reach.  This bodes poorly for both patients' and clinicians' rights. <b>How many other hospitals might try this, and not just against parties to litigation, </b>hoping to get a favorable ruling?<b> </b><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>Prior restraint</b> (also referred to as <b>prior censorship</b> or <b>pre-publication censorship</b>) is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship" title="Censorship">censorship</a> imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place.<br /><br />Prior restraint is often considered a particularly oppressive form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship" title="Censorship">censorship</a> in Anglo-American jurisprudence because it prevents the restricted material from being heard or distributed at all.  Prior restraint ... takes an idea or material completely out of the marketplace. Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship.<br /><br />... most of the early struggles for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press" title="Freedom of the press">freedom of the press</a> were against forms of prior restraint. <b>Thus prior restraint came to be looked upon with a particular horror</b>, and Anglo-American courts became particularly unwilling to approve it, when they might approve other forms of press restriction.</blockquote><br />Excerpts of plaintiff attorney's legal response are below (full PDF of this civil document is available at <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/Abington_Memorial_Hospital_PL%20response%20to%20DF%20motion%20for%20prior%20restraint.PDF">http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/Abington_Memorial_Hospital_PL%20response%20to%20DF%20motion%20for%20prior%20restraint.PDF</a>).  The response was, in fact, largely right out of the U.S. Constitution.   It is stunning that a community hospital, allegedly a servant of the public, would pull the legal stunts described which seem more akin to the methods of the former Soviet Union:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">... as the entirety of the blog describes, Dr. Silverstein <b>was troubled with, and expressed his opinion that, the defendant’s counsel’s repeatedly advancing an argument <span style="color: red;"><i>[that the same attorney had made three years prior regarding a medical malpractice case in the very same hospital - ed.]</i></span> that was soundly rejected by another court <span style="color: red;"><i>[related to Certificates of Merit that delayed proceedings in my mother's case for almost two years - ed.]</i></span>, and the defendant’s failure to reference that case in any substantive way as opposing authority, was, in his protected opinion, malicious and unethical. </b>As above, Dr. Silverstein’s comments on the matter are, as defendant agrees, his beliefs, opinions and viewpoints, all of which are protected speech under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions; that defendant’s counsel is dissatisfied with protected speech is not a matter for this court to address. </blockquote><br />I would expect the defendant's counsel was following the instructions of, or at least was in collaboration with, hospital counsel, hospital senior management and the healthcare system Board of Directors.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>... Unhappy that their improper tactics are now being exposed through Dr. Silverstein’s opinions in his blog</b>, defense counsel initially threatened litigation. Now they ask this court to enjoin Dr. Silverstein, via prior restraint, from expressing his views. <b>This extraordinary request comes in spite of the defendant offering nothing but pure speculation as the foundation upon which they ask this Court to strip the plaintiff of his First Amendment rights.</b><br /><br /><b>... Their request to strip plaintiff of his First Amendment rights is at odds with the Constitution, the caselaw, and the realities of the jury selection process</b>, which has multiple safeguards in place to remove anyone who may have read and been influenced by Dr. Silverstein’s writings. Importantly, because of the defendant’s procedural tactics, this case, while over two years old, has only just begun discovery and the jury section process is nowhere in the near future.<br /><br />... The simple fact is that Dr. Silverstein’s blog contains what defendant recognizes are his “beliefs, opinions and viewpoints” and, as such, they are protected. <b>Neither defendant nor its counsel can meet the strict requirements of their unprecedented request to strip Dr. Silverstein of his constitutional rights. Their Motion must be swiftly denied.</b><br /><br />Dated: 28 May 2013 </blockquote><br />The court, a civil Court of Common Pleas in this county in Pennsylvania, in fact did promptly make a decision: <b>hospital motion for censorship denied.</b><br /><br /><br /><table border="1" cellspacing="0" class="ChamaeleonGrid" rules="all"><tbody><tr class="GridItem"><td>182</td><td><br /></td><td>6/24/2013</td><td>Order</td><td>OF 6/20/13 DANIELE,J <b>MOTION IS DENIED</b>; CC</td><td>No</td><td>9343590</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br />The First Amendment lives, at least in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.<br /><br />However,  as the stories aggregated on this blog and others increasingly show, hospitals' mission of public service increasingly seems to be dying.<br /><br />Attempted use of courts to abridge First Amendment rights by a hospital seems like the pinnacle of abandonment of pretenses of public service and accountability.  Corporate interests come first, not patients.  <br /><br />This is a reason I increasingly am of the belief that hospital management cannot be trusted.  Accordingly, in my opinion, patients - especially acute inpatients - should have 24x7, independent advocates following every aspect of their care, receiving a daily full printout of any electronic records generated, and (if legal) even using one of the many new, small video/audio recording devices in encounters with hospital personnel.<br /><br />"He said/she said" is no longer an option when dealing with a <span class="st"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SYCCY7TIXo">Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик</a> mentality</span>.<br /><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SYCCY7TIXo" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5mtGnSvjYyo3OqdPT_W46MELuxp57tvQkBFlGY_tams3EFLQs4-uFZalRs3_V0nEKo7ITz59c_97mvjLCTMN0J60tz13RXxh_aWDUL2zzCMpRVH6chjTb9xLJ2NKOYw9LffH2i3PgbK_i/s200/ussr.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click for Patriotic music!</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Perhaps Abington Memorial Hospital should consider adopting the rousing music above for their HR morale-building exercises.<br /><br />I was a Medical Resident there in 1985-87.  Like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky">Lev Davidovich Bronshtein</a>, I guess I've been excommunicated for failure of obedience to the Party line.<br /><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfMhTPM8UO5Oqbng56M8WS9uOdfP0hfryV9_f6QtOjHPRr0Dlo2Z2P1Dw05u09kyJmXNUl4a8ZXYBdRuWbG7A0p7jR_uD5O7_qVH45g2q0GRFZrA5XxPewq-wzPCllo7DLlUtr2fE5bfII/s1600/amh_id1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfMhTPM8UO5Oqbng56M8WS9uOdfP0hfryV9_f6QtOjHPRr0Dlo2Z2P1Dw05u09kyJmXNUl4a8ZXYBdRuWbG7A0p7jR_uD5O7_qVH45g2q0GRFZrA5XxPewq-wzPCllo7DLlUtr2fE5bfII/s200/amh_id1.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My old residency ID.  I've now been excommuncated.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><i>Da Svedanya</i> for now, Comrades!<br /><br />-- SS<br />  <br /><br />

Who Would Have Thought, Comrades, That The Most Severe Form of Attempted Internet Censorship Could Originate in a Community Hospital, Abington Memorial, That Alleges Itself A Non-Profit Public Servant?

I would not have thought such an attempt at abridgement of fundamental American rights could originate in a local hospital, until this Motio...

Đọc thêm »