| RN GUARDIAN CASE STUDY | 5/26/09 |
|
Allegations of insufficient patient care, often lead to BRN investigations. Such was the case for a San Bernardino County RN who worked at a local hospital emergency room. The RN was working a weekend swing shift which required her to work during the busiest ER hours Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. One particularly busy night, a male in his mid 20’s was admitted with moderate cuts and abrasions from an apparent motorcycle crash. Unfortunately, due to the crowded conditions of the ER, the patient was required to wait for an extended period of time. This did not appear to be a problem to the intake RN as the patient was stable, did not appear to have significant injuries, and was able to wait in a relatively comfortable state. After between 60-90 minutes of waiting in the ER waiting room, the patient went into cardiac arrest. Emergency personnel that were on scene immediately responded and attended to the patient. Unfortunately, the patient could not be revived. The patient’s cause of death and the reason for his cardiac arrest were not immediately apparent. Both the hospital and the patient’s family conducted their own highly comprehensive investigations. Legal claims and ultimately lawsuits were filed by the patient’s family. Portions of that case are still pending. However, as a result of the hospital’s investigation, the BRN was somehow notified of the incident. BRN launched its own investigation into the conduct of three RN’s, including the supervising RN. The BRN alleged that the RN somehow breached standards of patient care. By the time BRN/Department of Consumer Affairs Investigators became involved, both the hospital and the patient’s family completed thorough investigations. The BRN investigators obtained significant portions of those investigations. The most significant portion of those investigations were the detailed statements given by the RN’s. Each RN gave statements to hospital investigators without the advice of legal counsel. The BRN moved to take disciplinary action against two RN”s based, in a large, on inconsistencies in the RN’s statements and conflicts in the evidence with the RN’s statements. RN Guardian lawyers handled the administrative appeal for one of the affected RN’s. RN Guardian lawyers were able to obtain a dismissal of the charges prior to hearing. Unfortunately for the RN, that dismissal came almost 24 months after the death of the patient in the Emergency Room. It is important to note that the entire BRN investigation might have been avoided had the RN been given the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to giving a statement. Had the RN, given a more informed and, accordingly, more accurate statement it is unlikely the BRN would have initiated an investigation in the first place. The San Bernardino ER case demonstrates real value of RN Guardian which is to provide critical advice and consultation to RN’s to avoid BRN and legal proceedings. Fortunately, for the RN Guardian protected member, the entire matter ended favorably. The most difficult part for the RN was enduring the lengthy investigation process and the possibility that her license may have been interfered with by the BRN. RN Guardian urges its members to communicate with an RN Guardian lawyer at any time an event or incident occurs which may lead to some type of investigation or adverse consequence to the RN. |
|
Archive for May, 2009
ER Patient Death+Insufficient Ratios= BRN Investigation
Tuesday, May 26th, 2009Federal Judge Rules Entirely for Officers in Donning and Doffing Lawsuit Against LAPD
Wednesday, May 20th, 2009
The Central District Court in Los Angeles granted the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) in the consolidated cases of Alaniz, Mata, and Nolan against the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In short, this decision is a ‘home run’ for peace officers in L.A. and LAPD employees. The ruling finds that the pre and post shift time spent putting on (or ‘donning’), taking off (or ‘doffing’), and performing other tasks associated with required special protective gear and uniforms is compensable under the federal wage law – – the Fair Labor Standards Act. In addition, the ruling states that it does not matter whether the donning & doffing activities occur at work or at home. This ruling could affect multiple other pending donning and doffing lawsuits, including Goyette & Associates’ Nunez suit against the City of Los Angeles and the associated class grievance for members of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL).
RN Gets DUI on Vacation, BRN Demands 1 Year Suspension
Monday, May 11th, 2009| RN GUARDIAN CASE STUDY | 5/11/09 |
|
A 2008 case involved a BRN investigation and adverse action against an RN for being arrested on his weekend driving for driving under the influence of alcohol. The RN was arrested for DUI in a distant location away from his home and workplace while he was on a vacation. He reported the arrest to his employer, Kaiser Permanente who began an internal investigation as to whether any form of employment adverse action was warranted. It appears that Kaiser Permanente notified the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) of the RN’s arrest. The RN pled no contest to a misdemeanor DUI violation. As a result, he paid a fine, was placed on probation, and attend alcohol abuse classes and suffered a temporary suspension of his driver’s license. His employer, Kaiser Permanente decided that significant employment adverse action was not warranted. Approximately six months later the BRN through his Department of Consumer Affairs investigator advised the RN that it was conducting an investigation. A lengthy investigation ensued at the conclusion of which the investigator’s recommended that the RN’s license be suspended for a period of one year. Obviously, this would have resulted in the immediate employment termination of the RN. The RN appealed the proposed license suspension and, with his RN Guardian lawyer went to arbitration. After hearing the evidence, the Arbitrator issued a ruling that the BRN’s proposed action was far too severe. The Arbitrator ruled that the suspension should be held in abeyance for a period of one year. If the RN had no further alcohol related acts of misconduct, the disciplinary action would be dismissed with prejudice. In the event the RN had an additional alcohol related mishap the one year suspension of his license would be warranted at that time. The RN is doing fine and continues to work at Kaiser Permanente. Neither the RN nor his RN Guardian lawyer anticipates that he will have any additional alcohol related mishaps. |
|
Mrs. Deleon’s Letter to Paul
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009May 5, 2009
Dear Paul,
Last Friday, after the trial, there was such a whirlwind of emotions and events that I didn’t get a chance to properly express my gratitude to you. Now that we have had some time to breathe, I felt I needed to appropriately express to you my deepest and most heartfelt appreciation for what you have done for Raul. I know you were very aware that for past 17 months this nightmare has taken an emotional toll on Raul, our entire family, and friends. Paul, words do not seem enough to convey the feelings of gratitude that I feel for everything that you have done for us.
I was so proud during the trial of your professionalism and your ability to make sense of a senseless situation. That Friday morning, as we were awaiting a verdict, both Raul and I agreed that no matter what the verdict, we felt that we had the best attorney that we could have and that you had done everything that you possibly could to show that jury the truth.
If we can ever do ANYTHING for you, PLEASE do not hesitate to let us know. I know you have an office here in town, but just know, OUR HOME IS YOURS. We would be privileged to take you out for breakfast, lunch, dinner, whatever, when you are in town or just passing through. You have truly been a godsend to Raul, me, and our entire family.
On behalf of Raul, our families, and friends, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart!
Your friend always (hug!),
Patty DeLeon
FEDERAL COURT JURY ACQUITS SHERIFF’S CAPTAIN OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND FALSE STATEMENTS
Friday, May 1st, 2009FEDERAL COURT JURY ACQUITS SHERIFF’S CAPTAIN OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND FALSE STATEMENTS
A Jury of five men and seven women took less than one hour to acquit retired Captain Raul DeLeon on five counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements to a federal investigator. Mr. DeLeon’s trial was in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, before Judge Oliver Wanger. Mr. DeLeon was represented by Paul Q. Goyette and a team of lawyers of Goyette & Associates, Inc., and was a member of the Legal Defense Fund.
The United States Attorney indicted Mr. DeLeon on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice (18 USC § 1512(c)(2)(k), and four counts of false statements to a Federal investigator (18 USC § 1001). All counts arose from the FBI’s ongoing investigation of former Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Deputy Bob Holloway. For a number of years the FBI has been investigating Bob Holloway regarding his association with outlaw motorcycle gangs and, particularly the Hells Angels. Mr. Holloway was a deputy for the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department for approximately fifteen years. He left law enforcement on a disability retirement in 1985. Shortly thereafter he opened a motorcycle shop in Deniar called Road Dog Cycles. For many years, law enforcement investigators heard rumors that Mr. Holloway and Road Dog Cycles were involved with the Hells Angels. The FBI has been investigating Mr. Holloway since approximately 2003.
MR. DELEON’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HOLLOWAYS
Mr. DeLeon’s worked as a law enforcement officer for 30 years. He attained the rank of captain in the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department and enjoyed an exemplary and decorated career. Mr. DeLeon first met Mr. Holloway in the 1970s when Mr. DeLeon was an explorer with the Department. Mr. DeLeon and Mr. Holloway worked as beat partners off and on until Mr. Holloway’s retirement.
After Mr. DeLeon was promoted to Captain Mr. Holloway’s wife, Kathy Holloway worked as Mr. DeLeon’s secretary at the Department. Kathy Holloway worked as Mr. DeLeon’s secretary for approximately three years. While he worked with Kathy Holloway, Mr. DeLeon described his relationship with Mr. Holloway as very friendly. However, since 1985, they had very limited contact where Mr. DeLeon only physically saw Mr. Holloway three times. One of those times was when their families were coincidentally on the same ship for a Mexican cruise. That cruise, in the winter of 2005, was organized by the travel agent in the Modesto area. The travel agent’s husband was a deputy and, she organized numerous law enforcement families to go in the cruise.
MR. DELEON BECOMES A TARGET OF THE FBI
For reasons that probably have more to do with petty political rivalries than sound law enforcement tactics, the FBI targeted Mr. DeLeon as a possible leak of confidential law enforcement information to Holloway. Unbeknownst to Mr. DeLeon, the FBI had obtained a wiretap order for all of the Holloway phones. On September 19, 2007, Mr. DeLeon was escorting a new HR Director to different locations around the County. During this time, he saw Mr. Holloway driving his pickup truck. Mr. DeLeon did a friendly vehicle stop on Mr. Holloway. Mr. DeLeon spoke to Mr. Holloway for about five minutes and asked Mr. Holloway to say hello to his wife Kathy. Following this vehicle stop, Holloway called his wife to tell her about his meeting with DeLeon. Since the FBI was monitoring the phone calls they immediately recognized DeLeon’s name. The FBI now targeted the third highest ranking official in the Sheriff’s Department.
THE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
As a means of laying a trap for Mr. DeLeon, the FBI served a phoney Grand Jury subpoena on DeLeon referencing a phony Grand Jury hearing. The Grand Jury subpoena asked DeLeon to provide records of Kathy Holloway’s employment with the Department, which had ended about two years before. The subpoena did not contain any instructions, confidentiality notices, a proof of service, or other documentation. It was simply as single page document.
Once he received the subpoena, Mr. DeLeon was immediately confused. He had never had to work with the Grand Jury subpoena and he was not the custodian of Kathy Holloway’s personnel records. In an effort to comply with the subpoena, Mr. DeLeon naturally starts asking questions. Mr. DeLeon spoke with the Assistant Sheriff and the Sheriff who were in on the plot with the FBI. Neither the Assistant Sheriff nor the Sheriff could give Mr. DeLeon any information as to how he should comply. They both denied knowing anything about the subpoena, leaving Mr.l DeLeon even more confused as to what it was about. Over the next several days, Mr. DeLeon made a number of other inquiries about how he should comply with the subpoena.
HOLLOWAY CALLS DELEON
In what will probably be the unluckiest phone call Mr. DeLeon will ever receive, Bob Holloway called him at the Department on October 16, 2007. The call is put through to Mr. DeLeon and, of course, is being monitored by the FBI. Holloway tells Mr. DeLeon that an employee of his, Danny Dugranrut had called about a search warrant that was being executed at Dugranrut’s home. Holloway called Mr. DeLeon to find out which law enforcement agency was executing the warrant and, to organize the surrender of Mr. Dugranrut, if in fact, he was wanted. During this conversation, Mr. DeLeon naturally asked Mr. Holloway about the Grand Jury subpoena he recently received involving his wife. Mr. Holloway knew nothing about the subpoena. Mr. DeLeon told Holloway that he would look into the warrant and call him back.
Mr. DeLeon then spoke briefly with the Watch Commander and determined that no department warrants were being executed at that time as described by Holloway. A short time later, Mr. DeLeon calls Holloway back and passes this information along. Mr. DeLeon concludes the conversation by saying “I just can’t help you Bob,” where Holloway responds he would call other law enforcement agencies to obtain the necessary information.
Later that afternoon Holloway left a voice mail message for DeLeon that he had obtained the necessary information through other law enforcement sources and the Ceres Police Department. Mr. DeLeon never returned Holloway’s call and has not spoken to Holloway since.
THE DUGRANRUT BULLETIN
On October 18, 2007, Mr. DeLeon saw a bulletin in the briefing room with the name and picture of Mr. Dugranrut. The bulletin stated that while Mr. Dugranrut was not wanted he was affiliated with the FBI and was under investigation. The bulletin contained the name and number of a task force member. Immediately upon seeing the bulletin, Mr. DeLeon telephoned the task force member and reported his conversations with Mr. Holloway of October 16th. Mr. DeLeon had a lengthy conversation with the task force member about Mr. Holloway, Mr. Dugranrut, even the Grand Jury subpoena he received regarding Kathy Holloway. Mr. DeLeon expressed his interest to help the task force in anyway that he could.
MR. DELEON MEETS WITH THE FBI
On November 1, 2007, the FBI called Mr. DeLeon. The investigator complained that DeLeon had compromised or blown the Grand Jury hearing because he had been talking to so many people about the subpoena. Obviously, Mr. DeLeon responded that he was simply trying to comply with the subpoena and it wasn’t a confidential document anyway. Mr. DeLeon argued that he could talk to anybody he wanted to in his efforts to comply with the subpoena.
The FBI investigators continued to communicate with Mr. DeLeon. On November 20, 2007, Mr. DeLeon met with the FBI investigators at his Sheriff’s Department office for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes. The investigators wanted to meet with Mr. DeLeon to discuss possible leaks of information within the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. DeLeon readily agreed to meet with the investigators and express significant concern if there was a leak of information within the Department he certainly wanted to help find it and stop it. Unbeknownst to DeLeon, all of his communications with the FBI investigators were secretly tape recorded and he was the target of the investigation.
During their meeting Mr. DeLeon and the investigators spent well over an hour discussing Holloway, Road Dog Cycles, the Grand Jury subpoena, Danny Dugranrut, and other various law enforcement matters. Mr. DeLeon legitimately believed he was helping the investigator in an important law enforcement investigation.
THE ARREST AND INDICTMENT
The United States attorney sought and obtained an indictment against Mr. DeLeon on June 11, 2008. Following the Indictment, the arrest of Mr. DeLeon was an example of not only the epidemic of discriminatory prosecutions against law enforcement officers, but the extraordinary efforts prosecutorial agencies will go through to demean and humiliate them. Mr. DeLeon was arrested as his home on July 15, 2008at approximately 8:20 a.m. There were approximately eight FBI supervised officers in the street when he was ordered out of his house. The FBI blocked off his street, and, short of tanks and black helicopters, treated him as if he was on Americans’ most wanted list. Mr. DeLeon was then transported, along with numerous escort vehicles, to the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center wher he was placed in a maximum security cell. This was a facility that just a few months a before he had been I charge of. Then Mr. DeLeon, along with other arrested defendants, was transported at high speed from Modesto to Fresno. There were at least three escort vehicles with their red and blue lights on the entire trip down to Fresno Mr. DeLeon was booked into a holding facility near the US District Court in Fresno. Of course, and by design, it was Friday afternoon. Therefore, Mr. DeLeon had to spend the weekend in jail before he could be released the following Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger was apparently not as concerned about any threat Mr. DeLeon posed since he released on his own recognizance.
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Goyette & Associates, Inc., filed numerous pre-trial motions including a Motion to Dismiss the entire case for outrageous government conduct. Goyette & Associates, Inc., argued that the use of a phoney Grand Jury subpoena and a sham Grand Jury hearing were an outrageous form of entrapment and the case should be dismissed. Goyette & Associates, argued that Mr. DeLeon had absolutely no predisposition to commit any crime let alone the five felony counts contained in the Indictment. Judge Wanger denied the Motion on the grounds the Indictment turned on Mr. DeLeon’s specific statement of November 20, 2007, that the government alleged to be untruthful. Judge Wanger noted that the Government did not indict Mr. DeLeon for corruption or the leak of confidential law enforcement information but rather, took advantage of his willingness to cooperate and determined that certain statements through the course of his cooperation were lies. Simply put, the FBI investigators’ conduct did not force Mr. DeLeon to speak truthfully or untruthfully during his cooperation with them. The case was then set for trial.
THE TRIAL AND VERDICT
The trial took place between April 28, and May 1, 2009, before Judge Wanger. Goyette & Associates, purposely selected a highly educated, sophisticated jury. Virtually all members of the jury had some college education while a few had Masters Degrees and Phd.s. Most of the jurors were business owners, managers, and supervisors. The jury heard all of the evidence including key excerpts from numerous wiretap phone calls between Holloway and various parties including Mr. DeLeon. The key witness in the entire case was Raul DeLeon himself. Once on the witness stand, he calmly and professionally explained his entire involvement with the case. He explained two mistakes of fact he made at the meeting with the FBI investigators on November 20th. Jurors later commented that Mr. DeLeon’s careful and calm testimony proved to be very believable to them, along with the Government’s inability to provide any evidence linking Mr. DeLeon with any conspiracy to obstruct justice
It took the jury less than one hour to acquit Mr. DeLeon on all counts. Following the verdict, the entire jury stayed to speak with the Government’s lawyers, Paul Goyette and Mr. DeLeon and the DeLeon Family. The jury carefully listened to the evidence and applied it directly to the law as described in the jury instructions. By doing so, the jury was able to take highly complicated principles of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and make sensible decisions.
Mr. DeLeon was visibly relieve after the verdict was read, “I have been living a nightmare for the past 17 months and I am just so happy that it is finally over”, he said. “This ordeal has been extremely difficult on my entire family but they all stood by me because they knew that I was innocent.” “I have dedicated 30 years of my life to the law enforcement profession and I believed in the justice system, this verdict just reaffirms my belief in that system” he added.