In Copyright Since September 11, 2000
This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente
Permission is granted to mirror this web site -
Please acknowledge where the material was obtained.
On May 09, 2016, I intend to publish a video which shows how Kaiser Foundation Hospital tried to kill Teresa Estrada. The video speaks from the point of view of Teresa’s medical records from the USC Medical Center, the medical records from the Olive View Medical Center, a memo from Kaiser’s HR Service Center, and documents from Teresa’s workers’ compensation claim against Kaiser.
The Olive View Medical Center’s disclosure of Teresa’s medical records on September 10, 2008 to Kaiser by way of Civil Code 56.10(c)(8)(A) implicates Kaiser in the attempt to kill Teresa. The Olive View medical records reveal that Kaiser used Civil Code §56.10(c)(1) and §56.10(c)(22)(e) to communicate with the Olive View Medical Center concerning Teresa. Finally, the Olive View Medical Center disclosed Teresa’s medical records on September 10, 2008 to Kaiser by way of Civil Code §56.10(c)(8)(A).
For nearly three years, Teresa suffered a series of outbreaks of lesions the last two years of which I witnessed. I noted a pattern in Teresa’s outbreak of lesions. An outbreak of lesions would continue for five months followed by a one month period for which Teresa’s skin would begin to heal. Each successive outbreak of lesion, however, produced a greater number of open sores on Teresa’s body. Teresa was taken to a hospital every three months. Teresa would complain consecutively either about the sores on her skin or the pain in her heart due to the sores on her skin. Whenever Teresa complained about the sores on her skin, the hospital would do nothing to treat her; however, whenever Teresa complained about the pain in her heart due to the sores on her skin, the hospital would treat Teresa with IV saline solution. On third time that I took her to a hospital, Teresa was treated with IV saline solution. I linked the administration of IV saline solution into Teresa to the healing of her skin.
Teresa and I were divorced when she got a part-time job at Kaiser where she was a housekeeper. Prior to her employment at Kaiser, Teresa suffered congestive heart failure which made her a high risk to healthcare acquired infections. One day in May 2008, Teresa was cleaning a room that the nurse forgot to identify as an ‘isolation’ room. Teresa sustainedb nosocomial infections which manifested, two months later, as sores inside Teresa’s mouth and sores on her scalp.
Teresa first sought treatment at the Olive View Medical Center on July 02, 2008. Teresa told the attending physician that she stopped working at Kaiser two months prior because she believed that she caught something while cleaning an isolation room at Kaiser. Teresa was discharged that day of July 02, 2008 but returned to Olive View on July 06, 2008. Teresa was admitted for treatment and discharged on July 10, 2008. During her hospitalization, Olive View informed Kaiser concerning Teresa’s injurious condition. Kaiser responded by acting in the role of a healthcare provider under Civil Code §56.10(c)(1) so as to obtain Teresa’s medical information from Olive View for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment of Teresa. Kaiser then used Civil Code §56.10(c)(22)(e) to further disclose a medical assessment plan of Teresa’s injuries to Olive View, who used the information to create medical records pursuant to Civil Code §56.10(c)(8). The medical assessment plan stated that Teresa had pemphigus vulgaris and to treat her with prednisone. Teresa was discharged on July 10, 2008 and instructed to return to the outpatient clinic at Olive View seven days for further treatment. Although Olive View diagnosed Teresa’s injuries as three bacterial infections and an infection with microorganisms, Olive View began, on July 17, 2008, calling the same injuries as pemphigus vulgaris and did so for the next six months. Finally, just after Teresa filed a workers’ compensation claim against Kaiser, the Olive View Medical Center disclosed Teresa’s medical records on September 10, 2008 to Kaiser by way of Civil Code §56.10(c)(8)(A).
Almost one year after the outbreak of lesion begun on her and ten months after she filed a workers’ compensation claim against Kaiser, Teresa approached me and asked for help. Teresa told me that the attorney she found to conduct her claim against Kaiser was not helping her and the doctors could not explain why she was having an outbreak of lesions. I dedicated the following two years caring for Teresa while researching the information found in Teresa’s medical records and the information found in her workers’ compensation claim against Kaiser. After linking the administration of IV saline solution into Teresa to the healing of her skin, Teresa was taken to the USC Medical Center where Teresa explained to the doctor how Olive View treated her in 2008. Although he anticipated that Teresa may die from treatment, the doctor was amazed over how fast Teresa’s skin healed.
I can use laws to show how Kaiser acted against Teresa. First, Labor Code §3602 states that where the conditions of compensation concur with Labor Code §3600, an employee may bring an action at law against the employer where the employee’s injury is aggravated by the employer’s fraudulent concealment of the injury and its connection with the employment. The conditions of compensation concurred with §3600 because Teresa sustained four bacterial infections while at work with Kaiser. Teresa’s bacterial infections were aggravated to pemphigus vulgaris by Kaiser’s fraudulent use of Civil Code §56.10(c)(1) and §56.10(c)(22)(e). The concealment of the bacterial infections from employment was through the disclosure of Teresa’s medical records to Kaiser on September 10, 2008. Finally, Labor Code §3602(d)(2) states that employers who has aggravated an employee’s injury shall not be subject to tort liability in the event of employee injury. After she recovered, Teresa filed an action at law against Kaiser. The court protected Kaiser from liability to the point where the court lied.
Kaiser would have let Teresa die from the infliction of a drug-induced pemphigus vulgaris. The persistence of Teresa’s ex-husband to heal her not only led to Teresa’s recovery but also to the discovery that Kaiser intentionally inflicted Teresa with a drug-induced rash. Kaiser did not want to compensate Teresa for sustaining bacterial infections at work due to her heart disease condition.