Inspectors find inadequate care at SouthPointe

February 18, 2001
By Judith VandeWater
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

SouthPointe Hospital in St. Louis is under investigation by state and federal authorities because of numerous incidents that threatened the safety, health and privacy of its psychiatric patients.

A scathing report prepared by state and federal regulators and obtained by the Post-Dispatch last week found that although no patients were seriously harmed in the incidents last year and this year, some were placed in “immediate jeopardy.”

The regulators have put the hospital on notice that it is at immediate risk of being shut down unless managers rectify the situation. State and federal officials suggested that poor training of temporary employees and inadequate staffing contributed to a lack of supervision and care of psychiatric patients at SouthPointe.

Tenet Healthcare, which owns SouthPointe and three other hospitals in the area, said in a statement that the hospital was seeking to correct the problems and to comply with federal and state requirements. The hospital, at 2639 Miami Street, was once known as Lutheran Medical Center.

Among the report’s findings:

* During 10 days in April, a male patient with a history of setting fires got cigarette lighters and used them to set fire to the beds of three patients while the patients were in their beds. No patients were injured, state inspectors said.

* Two claims of male-on-male sexual assault between patients were inadequately handled by the hospital.

* Several instances of consensual sex or sexually suggestive contact took place between psychiatric patients.

* Adolescent and adult patients on suicide watch had access to materials in unlocked laundry rooms or unwatched housekeeping carts that could have been used to inflict serious or fatal self-injury.

* Patients placed in restraints or seclusion were not always seen by a physician within one hour – a requirement under hospital policy.

* On multiple occasions, hospital employees did not make the required 15-minute checks on patients or did not make such checks thoroughly.

In one instance, a medical record review showed a patient-care assistant on Dec. 16 found a woman, 69, dead in her room at 7:45 a.m., her body stiff. Hospital records indicated that the woman had been last checked at 7:15 a.m.

The emergency room doctor who examined the body at 8:15 a.m. noted the stiffness as rigor mortis. That could suggest that the patient may have been dead for a longer time without anyone noticing. Pathology texts say that, depending on climatic and biological factors, rigor mortis sets in three to eight hours after death.

Lack of supervision

The report also notes multiple cases of inadequate supervision of patients, including a lack of monitoring patients in smoking lounges, where the hospital’s own policy requires it.

In cases in April and June of last year patients got punched by other patients in unsupervised lounges. In January, an inspector looking through the window of an empty smoking room saw something on the floor. The vice president of psychiatric services was called to the door and identified the matter as two piles of stool. A patient had just been in the room.

During one inspection this month, an elderly man wearing nothing but slippers walked into a dayroom where nine other patients were gathered. The man suffered from a psychotic disorder. A social worker took the man back to his room but did not help him get dressed. Twelve minutes later, he returned – still naked.

Fixing the problems

SouthPointe has until Tuesday to develop a satisfactory corrective action plan, including a process for educating permanent and temporary staff in hospital policy.

Carey Smith, chief of the state health department’s facility regulatory staff, said a team of state investigators will reinspect the hospital Tuesday to measure what progress has been made and to satisfy themselves that the hospital administration is working diligently to correct the problems.

In the meantime, a state Health Department inspector has been conducting a daily inspection of the hospital.

The Health Department could suspend or revoke the hospital’s license at any time. Under current law, Smith said, the state cannot just shut down the psychiatric floors and keep the rest of the hospital open. It would have to pull the entire hospital’s license to operate.

But Smith said such drastic action was unlikely and would be unprecedented.

“Nobody in the state or federal government wants to see that hospital closed,” Smith said. “There are some areas of the hospital that are functioning very well.”

Meanwhile, the Kansas City regional office of the Health Care Financing Administration, the federal agency that oversees Medicare, has set a deadline of March 3 for compliance. Unless the hospital corrects its deficiencies by then, it will lose its Medicare certification and the ability to be reimbursed for treating Medicare patients.

SouthPointe and Tenet limited comments on the regulatory action to a short statement issued last week in response to an inquiry from the Post-Dispatch.

“Patient care and safety are the top priorities at SouthPointe Hospital, and we are making this matter our top priority as well,” the statement said.

The latest disclosures aren’t the first dangerous incidents to come to light at SouthPointe. Another incident – one that proved fatal – occurred in an operating room at the hospital last April. As previously reported, an 84-year-old woman in for minor eyelid surgery was accidentally set on fire after a spark from a piece of surgical equipment ignited a flash fire in the oxygen-rich environment. She died two weeks later.

A predecessor of Tenet, National Medical Enterprises, has a dark history in its psychiatric division.

In 1994, after the company pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges, it was ordered to sell its psychiatric hospitals in Texas. In 1996, the company paid a $100 million settlement of nearly 700 suits filed by former patients in Texas who claimed that National Medical Enterprises held them against their will until it drained their insurance.

Tenet, one of the country’s largest for-profit hospital companies, was formed in a 1995 merger of American Medical Holdings and National Medical Enterprises.

National Medical Enterprises had entered the St. Louis market in 1984 when it acquired Lutheran Medical Center. In the 1990s, Tenet also acquired the Deaconess-Incarnate Word Health System and St. Louis University Hospital.

SouthPointe has 408 licensed beds. Its psychiatric service has 104 beds in seven units on six floors. Smith said that the hospital regularly fills almost all its psychiatric beds, proving there is a community need for the service.

A widening inspection

A small team of state inspectors visited the hospital Jan. 22 through Jan. 24 to investigate a complaint about psychiatric services and found conditions warranting a full investigation.

The Health Department normally acts in a dual role as an agent of the state and Medicare regulators, but in this case two Medicare inspectors joined a larger state investigation team that returned to the hospital Feb. 3 through Feb. 9.

That team conducted a review of the entire facility, but the report obtained last week was limited to the potentially dangerous problems in psychiatric services.

Smith said the problems found in general medical services were more routine concerns including deficiencies in keeping medical records. That report has yet to be completed.

Inspectors interviewed staff and patients, reviewed patient records and made observations all hours of the day and night.

They concluded that the facility failed to provide care in a safe setting, and it failed to protect patient rights to personal privacy – a deficiency demonstrated by the lack of effective security measures in place to prevent sex acts from taking place, according to the report.

“You need to protect the patients,” Smith said. “It’s not so much a rule against sex as it is a rule to protect patients’ privacy” and health. “There is concern that even consensual sex could result in the transmission of venereal disease or hepatitis.”

With psychiatric patients there is an added concern that medications or a psychiatric condition may cloud judgment and the ability to consent to sex.

Consider the case of one woman, 49, whose bipolar disease caused a psychotic detachment from reality. Two days after her admission to SouthPointe in early March last year, an entry in the hospital’s critical-incident log noted the patient had “consensual” sex.

That evening, the patient’s condition was noted as being so distressed that she was placed in seclusion for slapping staff members. She was given repeated doses of anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety and anti-mania medications. That night she stripped nude, rambled incoherently and smeared her room with feces.

Shortage of staff

SouthPointe’s staff was spread too thin and did not meet federal standards, according to the report. Although there is no federal or state regulation that mandates minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in acute-care hospitals such as SouthPointe, federal law requires the immediate availability, when needed, of a registered nurse for bedside care.

A description of a safety drill conducted at 5:26 a.m. on Feb. 5 shows that six of the psychiatric units – wards containing between 11 and 18 patients – were each staffed by only one registered nurse and one patient-care assistant. The seventh unit had a nurse and two aides.

The drill, which requires all available hospital personnel to respond to a potentially threatening situation, left some of the units with only one person to care for all the patients.

Even so, Smith said SouthPointe’s problems had more to do with poor orientation on hospital policy than with low staff-to-patient ratios.

Smith said the national nursing shortage has forced many hospital administrators to increasingly rely on technicians to deliver patient care rather than registered nurses. “There are just not enough RNs,” he said.

SouthPointe’s problems

A government audit cited numerous deficiencies in the hospital’s psychiatric wards. Among them:

* Failure to provide care in a safe setting.

* Failure to conduct 15-minute safety checks on all patients.

* Failure to have sufficient trained staff to respond to a potentially threatening situation.

* Failure to ensure the privacy rights of patients.

* Failure to assure that residents were free from abuse or harassment.

* Failure to ensure that patients are free from unnecessary physical restraints.

* Failure to provide training for temporary agency staff on the proper and safe use of restraints.

* Failure to provide supervision in smoking lounges.

Hospital Chain’s Critics Call Recovery Incomplete

Aug 6, 2000
New York Times

By KATHLEEN SHARP

AS he built the nation’s second-largest hospital chain and achieved stellar profits in a battered industry, Jeffrey C. Barbakow, the chief executive of the Tenet Healthcare Corporation, has taken a lot of heat. Over the last seven years, people from Philadelphia to Los Angeles have watched Tenet buy their community hospitals, streamline operations and cut back on staff. Labor relations have suffered. Union leaders and some public health advocates question whether Mr. Barbakow’s economizing will harm patient care, especially for the poor.

Mr. Barbakow says the financial skills he honed in a career outside the hospital business have let him improve Tenet’s performance for shareholders and patients alike. But his mission now is to keep patients and employees as happy as he has Wall Street.

At the least, he has turned Tenet, formerly National Medical Enterprises, from one of the most scandal-ridden chains into one of the most admired among its peers and on Wall Street. Since he took over in 1993, Tenet’s revenue has grown fivefold, to $11 billion a year. After four years of erratic earnings, Tenet reported a 20 percent jump in profits for the year that ended May 31, to $302 million, and its stock price has doubled in the last year.

Many analysts say they think that its days of draconian cutbacks are over. ”Tenet’s operating performance has been extremely good in a tough environment,” said John Hindelong of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. ”It could help undo the damage to the reputation of for-profit hospitals.”

As hospital reimbursements have shrunk, especially from Medicare, hospitals have lost either money or integrity. The nation’s largest hospital chain, Columbia/HCA, paid $745 million this spring to settle the government’s charges that it defrauded Medicare.

Tenet itself has problems in its history. Its predecessor, National Medical Enterprises, owned the second-largest chain of psychiatric hospitals when Mr. Barbakow became a company director in 1991. At the time, former patients contended that employees had routinely restrained and drugged them in order to loot their insurance funds. In 1993, not long after Mr. Barbakow was hired as chief executive, F.B.I. agents arrived one morning and seized company records.

Over the next two years, the company paid more than $600 million in legal settlements, agreed to install a hot line for employees to report abuses and started ethics training. In 1995, the company changed its name to Tenet and next year moved from Santa Monica, Calif., to Santa Barbara, where Mr. Barbakow already had a home. BUT in trying to rebuild his company, Mr. Barbakow faced employees who already suspected him of being in it only for the money. They recalled how Mr. Barbakow, a former investment banker, spent two years in the late 1980′s helping Kirk Kerkorian, the financier and deal maker, sell his troubled MGM/UA Studio. Even though the sale unraveled, Mr. Barbakow pocketed $20 million. ”He’s a junk-bond salesman who’s interested in fees,” said Jorge Rodriguez, an officer of the Service Employees International Union, Local 399, of Los Angeles.

After taking over at Tenet, Mr. Barbakow shed psychiatric hospitals and focused on acute care. He also consolidated Tenet’s purchasing, saving millions of dollars.

Then Mr. Barbakow acquired weaker chains, like American Medical International in 1995, and OrNda Healthcorp in 1997. He sold or closed unprofitable hospitals, some with occupancy rates as low as 20 percent.

The closings forced some patients to travel farther and required some urban hospitals to absorb more emergency room visitors.

”We often lose access to care for the people who need it most,” said Dr. Michael Cousineau, a professor of health administration at the University of Southern California. ”But it’s part of the industry’s consolidation trend.” Tenet, in response, says it has increased charity care at some hospitals.

But cases of business practices run amok continue to recur. In 1998, doctors at two Tenet hospitals in California refused to give poor women epidurals to relieve their labor pains unless they each paid $400 in cash. Tenet, which confirmed the episode, reprimanded the doctors.

In St. Louis, an uninsured patient at Lutheran Medical Center, a Tenet facility, was refused a $1,250 operation in 1997 for endometriosis, a condition of the uterus that threatens fertility. Lacking the credit to qualify for even a hospital loan, she borrowed a down payment from her grandmother.

When Tenet tried to buy the prestigious St. Louis University Medical Center that year, Archbishop Justin Rigali opposed it, saying, ”The poor will pay the price.” Likewise, when Tenet wanted to buy the Queen of Angels/Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center in California, Cardinal Roger Mahoney threatened to go to the pope.

Mr. Barbakow persevered and bought both hospitals. ”You have to fight the battle every time you enter a community, and show people that you are going to do the right thing,” he said.

Lately, Tenet has at times even been seen as a savior. The Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation, with eight nonprofit hospitals in Philadelphia, had lost $2.5 billion and was about to fold in 1998. Gov. Tom Ridge lobbied for Tenet’s $345 million purchase, which was completed late that year. Tenet immediately began cutting expenses like golf club memberships for some Allegheny officers and trustees.

Medicare cutbacks have forced Tenet to reduce costs more broadly by laying off administrative staff, subcontracting janitorial services and selling 17 hospitals last year, leaving 110.

To achieve growth, Tenet is looking to the Internet. The company has invested $37 million in Internet start-ups, mostly related to health care, and realized $73 million in gains. ”We got lucky in the beginning,” Mr. Barbakow said.

Tenet was also co-founder of Broadlane.com, which hospitals can use to buy supplies, compare vendors and track orders. Not yet a year old, Broadlane, which plans to go public, has contracts with about 2,500 hospitals that buy $7 billion in supplies.

Tenet employees, however, say the company is not sharing the wealth. Earlier this year, union negotiations between Tenet and Massachusetts Nursing Association members in Worcester stalled over mandatory double shifts two times a quarter. The nurses went on strike, and Tenet hired expensive replacements.

After nearly two months, Gov. Paul Cellucci and Senator Edward M. Kennedy forced the parties back to the bargaining table. In a new contract, the nurses agreed to work some overtime, but only voluntarily. ”Now, it seems that Tenet is more interested in working with us,” said a union spokesman, David Schildmeier.

IN California, the nurses’ union in Tenet’s hospital in San Luis Obispo, formed in 1995, struck last year for the third time before winning its first contract. The nurses’ union at its hospital in Palm Springs picketed this year and won 3 percent raises. ”Tenet consistently prolongs negotiations, provokes nurses into striking and refuses to have discussions with us about patient care,” said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association. ”It’s almost their policy.”

Mr. Barbakow, however, says that keeping his staff satisfied and productive is his top priority. ”Now we need to make sure that all of our employees are doing the best possible jobs, that they’re happy and they focus on quality and service,” he said. ”Everything else flows from that.” He cites new management training for supervisors and an online educational system that employees can use to obtain degrees from Tenet’s many academic hospitals.

Employees, however, are no longer willing to accept Tenet’s contention that it cannot afford to give them more control and better pay. Despite the Medicare cutbacks, Tenet is doing so well that Mr. Barbakow, besides receiving $1.8 million in compensation last year, also received stock options worth $26 million. His pay has become a target for union leaders and public health advocates. It is a sensitive topic for Mr. Barbakow, who dismisses the required calculations of his options’ value as unfair because they vest over three years, and adds, ”It’s embarrassing.”

But Mr. Barbakow works in an industry in which an embarrassment of riches is hard to find these days.

EX-FAIR OAKS OWNER ADMITS KICKBACKS

Star-Ledger
Date: 1994/06/30

ROBERT COHEN – WASHINGTON
One of the nation’s largest psychiatric hospital chains yesterday pleaded guilty to kickback and health care fraud charges and agreed to pay a record $379 million in penalties for illegal conduct in hospitals in New Jersey and 29 other states.

Attorney General Janet Reno said National Medical Enterprises, which owned Fair Oaks Hospital in Summit, pleaded guilty to six counts of making illegal payments to induce doctors and other professionals to refer Medicare and Medicaid patients to their hospitals for psychiatric and substance abuse treatment.

The government said the illegal payments also were used to induce the doctors to unnecessarily prolong the hospital stay of patients. The corporation, in addition, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to make unlawful patient referrals.

In legal papers, the government said National Medical paid some $22 million as an incentive bonus from 1986-91 to an unidentified New Jersey medical group that was providing services at Fair Oaks.

The government said a portion of the money represented improper payments to induce the doctors to refer patients to Fair Oaks. The government also said some of the payments represented ”more than the fair market value for the services provided.”

In the criminal complaint, a specific count referred to a $300,000 bonus check written Dec. 20, 1990, to a corporation owned by the group of New Jersey psychiatrists operating at Fair Oaks. The complaint alleged this was part of an illegal remuneration or kickback.

U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Faith Hochberg yesterday refused to identify the Garden State psychiatrists involved in the case. She said that the investigation is continuing.

Fair Oaks, a psychiatric hospital offering drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, has been under investigation by state and federal authorities for several years.

A state Department of Insurance fraud inquiry led more than a year ago to a consent agreement in which Fair Oaks paid $350,000 and its affiliate, Psychiatric Associates of New Jersey, paid $50,000 to settle charges. In March, it was announced that Fair Oaks and 46 other hospitals owned by National Medical Enterprises had been sold.

At a press conference yesterday, Attorney General Reno said the nationwide case centered on bribes, kickbacks, unnecessary medical treatment and false billings.

She said such actions hurt patients and emphasized that the costs were passed onto to taxpayers by excessive billings to Medicare, Medicaid, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program.

Reno said the fines, civil damages and penalties totaling $379 million ”amount to the largest ever obtained in a health-care case.”

The attorney general said National Medical has agreed to cooperate with ”ongoing criminal and civil investigations of other entities and individuals.”

”Today’s settlement resolves the criminal and civil liability only of National Medical and its subsidiaries,” said Reno. ”The government is continuing to investigate other entities and individuals, including officers and employees of National Medical, as well as doctors who were paid to refer business to National Medical.”

Jeffrey C. Barbakow, National Medical chairman and chief executive officer, said in a prepared statement the settlement signifies that his company ”is taking full responsibility for past conduct in certain of its businesses.” The settlement follows a series of other actions taken throughout the country.

On Monday, former National Medical regional vice president Peter Alexis pleaded guilty in Dallas to arranging up to $40 million of the payments to gain patient referrals at the hospitals. He faces up to 10 years in prison and $500,000 in fines.

One of the company’s psychiatric hospitals in San Antonio, Texas, pleaded guilty in November to making false claims and was fined $2 million. Earlier this year, indictments against officials connected with the company were returned in Kansas and Missouri.

In addition, National Medical over the past year has settled dozens of civil lawsuits filed by insurance companies and individuals who said they were defrauded by the company’s psychiatric hospitals. Some people said they were held against their will so that the company could collect fees from their insurance companies.

The former owners of Fair Oaks Hospital in Summit have agreed to pay a record fine for financial misdeeds

American health care. Mishap in the operating theatre

DATE 2-Aug-97 Economist, U.K.
NEW YORK

Led by Columbia/HCA, a handful of huge for-profit hospital chains have transformed the economics of America’s health-care business. Have they also transformed its ethics? A HEARTWARMING passage in the latest annual report from the world’s biggest for-profit health-care and hospital company, Columbia/ HCA Healthcare, describes how Richard Scott, its chairman and chief executive, was approached in a hardware shop by a woman who lavishly praised him for the care her mother had received in a Columbia hospital. These days Mr Scott might do well to avoid hardware shops. On July 25th, in the wake of a widening probe by federal investigators into Columbia’s business practices, Mr Scott quit, as did David Vandewater, the firm’s president and chief operating officer.

More drastic surgery-perhaps including a merger with its biggest rival, Tenet Healthcare-may yet be required to cure Columbia’s many ills. Yet, at first sight, Columbia, which is based in Nashville and owns 342 hospitals as well as hundreds of outpatient surgery and care facilities, looks well enough: on July 30th it announced a net profit of $891m on revenues of $10.5 billion for the first six months of this year. Appearances, it seems, are misleading. In recent years its business has developed worrying complications.

For-profit health-care and hospital chains, such as Columbia and Tenet, have prospered by cutting fat from a famously bloated business. They have done so partly through takeovers that have boosted their supply-buying power and enabled them to lop off layers of bureaucracy. (Since 1993, among other deals, Columbia has paid a total of $12 billion for Galen Health Care, Hospital Corporation of America and HealthTrust, three mergers that handed it more than 280 hospitals.) But the for-profits have also changed the way American health care is run, introducing unheard-of (at least in the hospital business) cost-cutting targets, and setting up integrated health-care systems that handle everything from heart surgery to home care.

Coining profits, however, is harder than it used to be. Health-care chains are being squeezed both by the government (on Medicaid and Medicare payments) and by managed-care schemes (which limit the sums health-care firms can charge a scheme’s members). They are also facing increasing competition from not-for-profit hospitals, which still make up 85% of the industry. These have swiftly learned many of the for-profits’ ways, and can now often beat them on price and service.

This has left the for-profits struggling to find ways to increase their earnings. Mr Scott’s long-term plan was to introduce “disease management”, a drastic standardisation of treatment that is similar to the step-by-step way in which McDonald’s prepares Big Macs. In the meantime, think investigators, Columbia opted for a swifter profit-booster-fraud.

Disease mismanagement

The full extent of the company’s alleged deception is unclear. Some actions may have been unethical rather than illegal. Most prominent among the unethical lot are Columbia’s “partnerships” with doctors at its hospitals, which allowed physicians to take a stake in “their” hospital and share in Columbia’s success. These arrangements, think investigators, encouraged doctors to refer patients only to specialists at Columbia-owned hospitals-even if this was not in a patient’s best interests.

Similarly, some of Columbia’s hospitals are alleged to have referred patients only to affiliated home-care providers-whether or not they offered appropriate or convenient care for the patients concerned. If such a practice resulted in, say, Medicare being overcharged for health-care services, it might constitute unlawful collusion.

Alleged illegal practices by Columbia are now being investigated by some 500 federal agents, who raided dozens of its facilities in July. The firm, it has been alleged, billed Medicare for blood tests on patients that doctors had not requested; “upcoded” the illnesses of some Medicare patients so that they appeared to have medical “complications” that added to Columbia’s fees; paid “expenses” to specialists who were able to increase the flow of “profitable” patients; discouraged treatment of uninsured patients at some of its hospitals; and overcharged extensively.

Columbia has denied many of the allegations, perhaps in vain. On July 30th federal investigators revealed that they have already indicted three of the firm’s executives. Messrs Scott and Vandewater, meanwhile, will say only that they “acted honourably and in the best interests of the company”-a statement that begs the question of whether they also acted in the best interests of patients.

If Columbia proves to be as guilty as is alleged, it will hardly be alone in a business that often seems to rival America’s defence industry in over-pricing prowess. In recent years big clinical-testing laboratories have been fined a total of more than $800m for overcharging. One reason why Tenet is now being considered as a merger candidate for Columbia is because Tenet now has a cleaner image. But it was not always that way. In 1994 National Medical Enterprises (as Tenet was formerly known) paid $380m to settle charges that it had all but imprisoned healthy patients in its psychiatric hospitals until their insurance ran out; this year it also paid about $100m to the aggrieved patients.

Columbia has a few old skeletons in the family closet too. Humana, a pioneer of for-profit health care (and a forebear of Galen, which Columbia bought in 1993), spent much of the 1980s besieged by investigators and lawsuits. It allegedly once charged $7 apiece for Tylenol tablets. Before HCA merged with Columbia in 1994, it was the subject of a lengthy probe into its tax affairs by America’s Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ).

Ironically, perhaps, it is the co-founder of HCA -and its chairman at the time of the IRS ‘s onslaught-who has now taken over as chairman and chief executive of Columbia. Thomas Frist says he will immediately end doctor-hospital partnerships (and dismantle existing ones), tone down Columbia’s high-pressure marketing tactics and limit the firm’s expansion into communities where Columbia has met (and often steamrollered) local opposition. Mr Frist also seems set to rethink the billing practices of Columbia’s home-care businesses and the firm’s relationships with affiliated home-care providers.

The mooted merger with Tenet now appears to be on hold-in part because Columbia’s value depends on how big a fine it will have to pay. Antitrust problems could also arise, though the two firms would argue that they account for a tiny percentage of the total hospital industry. Many analysts reckon that a merger with Tenet-and a transfer of power to Tenet’s management team-may be the only way for Columbia to clean up its image (although it could, in the tradition of health-care firms, simply change its name).

Since its run-in with federal investigators, Tenet has been a paragon of virtue, complete with annual health-care ethics courses for employees, a toll-free number for whistle-blowers and a “vision statement” boasting “integrity and honesty” as its prime principles. True, Tenet’s profit margins are slimmer than Columbia’s. But as Columbia and the rest of the health-care sector are discovering, being too wealthy is not always healthy. Or wise.

61 sue NME over past psychiatric treatment

61 sue NME over past psychiatric treatment
Company cites changes, new management

By Tracy Everbach / Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News
Published 10-18-1994

Sixty-one plaintiffs sued National Medical Enterprises Inc. on Monday, alleging that they were “lured or forced” to its psychiatric treatment centers as part of a fraudulent scheme.

The suit, filed in state District Court in Dallas, alleges that the company and several of its subsidiaries and former psychiatric hospitals subjected the plaintiffs – most of them children – to confinement, restraints, strip searches and unwanted sexual advances and harassment.

The defendants, according to the suit, “were motivated not by a desire to provide competent and appropriate psychiatric care to plaintiffs, but by greed.”

National Medical has sold or closed most of its psychiatric hospitals and is under new corporate management, said company spokeswoman Diana Takvam.

“The lawsuit stems from past problems,” she said. “For the last 15 months, NME’s management has acted aggressively and resolved the problems. But the new NME may face further litigation based on the actions of the old NME.”

National Medical has been sued in the past two years by many former patients alleging that they were hospitalized unnecessarily so that the company and others could profit.

The psychiatric division of the Santa Monica, Calif., company pleaded guilty in June in Washington, D.C., to paying kickbacks to health care workers for patient referrals to its psychiatric hospitals. The company paid the government $362.7 million in restitution and fines.

National Medical also paid 19 insurance companies $214 million to settle claims of fraud and paid fines to 28 state governments, including Texas.

Former company vice president Peter Alexis, also named as a defendant in Monday’s lawsuit, pleaded guilty in June to federal criminal charges and admitted that he paid more than $20 million in bribes for patient referrals to National Medical’s Dallas and Fort Worth-area hospitals.

Most of the plaintiffs in Monday’s lawsuit were hospitalized at various times between 1982 and 1992 in Psychiatric Pavilion of Fort Worth and Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion in Farmers Branch, said attorney Parks W. Bell. He and the law firm Baker & Botts filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The suit alleges that many were pressured into hospitalization and some were abused. For example, the suit alleges that a 6-year- old boy’s treatment included his being restrained to a bed with leather straps for hours at a time.

And a 16-year-old girl’s parents were falsely informed that their daughter, who had a learning disability, was suicidal, the suit says. She was hospitalized for more than a month until a family lawyer ” secured her release,” the suit says.

The suit says that some patients received therapy “in which a number of staff members forcibly held a patient’s back to the floor while verbally taunting and beating the patient in the rib or chest area.” The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. They allege fraud, battery, assault, negligence, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

Medical firm to plead guilty in fraud probe

$362.7 million fine would set record

By Bill Lodge / Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News
Published 06-29-1994

A division of National Medical Enterprises will plead guilty to charges of Medicare fraud and conspiracy and pay a record fine of $362.7 million to settle a sweeping federal investigation, company officials said Tuesday.

The settlement with the Santa Monica, Calif.-based hospital firm, expected to be announced Wednesday, surpasses any previous fine in a U.S. fraud case involving the health care or defense industries. One day earlier, a former Dallas executive for National Medical’ s psychiatric division admitted making at least $20 million in bribes to referring physicians and other health care professionals. Peter Alexis, former “administrator of the year” for Psychiatric Institutes of America, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and false-statement charges Monday before U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas. Company spokeswoman Diana Takvam said the timing was coincidental and followed a preliminary settlement reached earlier this year.

Under the settlement, National Medical’s psychiatric hospital subsidiary will plead guilty in Washington, D.C., to six counts of paying illegal kickbacks to gain referrals of Medicare patients and one count of conspiracy to make such payments.

Investigators have accused National Medical of accepting patients who did not need treatment and keeping them against their will until their insurance coverage ran out. Complaints from some of those patients over the last few years touched off federal and state prosecutions.

The federal charges cover bribes and kickbacks at six hospitals, in California, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Texas and New Jersey, from 1986 to 1991.

The company said it also has agreed to pay an additional $16.3 million to resolve potential claims in 28 states, including Texas, where it operated psychiatric hospitals.

It expects to reach a final agreement in those cases within 30 days.

More than 100 private lawsuits have been filed since 1991 against the hospital management company, alleging insurance fraud, overtreatment and malpractice.

In Texas, most of the private lawsuits involved patients at Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion in Farmers Branch, Psychiatric Institute of Fort Worth and Willowbrook Psychiatric Institute in Waxahachie. Those hospitals since have been sold, along with most of National Medical’s other 61 psychiatric hospitals. “This settlement will signify that NME is taking full responsibility for past conduct in certain of its businesses,” said Jeffrey C. Barbakow, brought in last year as president and chief executive to clean up the company’s problems.

The settlement – still subject to approval by a federal judge – would resolve all civil and criminal investigations of the hospital chain.

The settlement includes $364.2 million in civil restitution and penalties, $33 million in criminal fines and $4.5 million in contributions to federally funded mental health programs.

The agreement leaves open the possibility of criminal prosecution of current and former National Medical employees and doctors affiliated with the hospital operator.

In May, the company announced that it had reached a preliminary agreement with federal authorities and had set aside a reserve fund of $375 million to cover expected settlement costs.

Prosecutors said this case provided the best window yet on misconduct in medicine.

In the medical world, said Paul E. Coggins, the U.S. attorney in Dallas, “Practices that are illegal have been accepted and tolerated, very much akin to the climate that pervaded the savings and loans.” Oliver “Buck” Revell, special agent in charge of the Dallas FBI office, said federal investigators do not believe that the scandals involving National Medical and Psychiatric Institutes are isolated. “We believe there are others,” Mr. Revell said. “We will likely find similar problems in other major health-care institutions.

“People shouldn’t conclude that it’s only NME and that this is the end of the game. This is only the beginning of the process.”

He said the FBI has been working with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service on a health-care fraud task force in Dallas for six months, along with investigators for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Defense Department and the Veterans Affairs Department.

Mr. Revell noted that the continuing investigation is nationwide in scope.

“What’s happening in Dallas is happening elsewhere,” Mr. Revell said. “We are really mounting a full-court press.”

Federal officials have estimated that fraud swallows 10 percent of the nation’s health care expenses, or $80 billion to $100 billion a year. With savings and loan prosecutions winding down, the Clinton administration has made the policing of health care fraud a high priority.

The settlement was disclosed after the market closed Tuesday. The company’s shares closed up 1/2 at 151/2, on volume of 728,300 shares. The stock hit a low of 73/8 after last August’s raid by federal agents, but has gradually moved up since.

To pay for the settlement, National Medical took a charge of $255 million in April to reflect the after-tax effect. As a result, it posted a fiscal third-quarter loss of $164.3 million, or 99 cents a share, compared with net income of $54.2 million, or 33 cents, for the year-earlier quarter.

Contributing to this report were The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Bloomberg Business News.

Ex-psychiatric hospital exec admits bribing physicians

By Bill Lodge / Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News
Published 06-28-1994

A former Dallas hospital executive confessed Monday that he bought patients with at least $20 million in bribes to referring physicians and other health care professionals.

The federal government reimbursed the executive’s company, which billed Medicare for between $20 million and $40 million in bribes that were disguised as salaries, the executive admitted.

Peter Alexis, former “administrator of the year” for Psychiatric Institutes of America, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and false-statement charges before U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas. He said he helped bribe more than 50 physicians across the nation.

Mr. Alexis agreed to become a prosecution witness in a nationwide investigation, and prosecutors agreed not to seek additional charges against him.

Judge Kendall asked Mr. Alexis several times whether he was aware of the rights he waived with his guilty plea.

After Mr. Alexis repeatedly stated that he is voluntarily exposing himself to as many as 10 years’ imprisonment, Judge Kendall replied: “I’m just wondering how many doctors out there in the Dallas-Fort Worth area aren’t sleeping too well these days.”

At Judge Kendall’s request, Mr. Alexis explained his role in what he said was a companywide conspiracy. “I paid physicians to refer patients to our hospitals,” Mr. Alexis said.

“So, it was just a mass kickback scheme? You were buying patients?” the judge asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Mr. Alexis replied.

Mr. Alexis served for several years as administrator at Psychiatric Institute of Fort Worth. He became PIA’s vice president for the Texas region in 1989 but resigned in 1990 after some patients complained that they had been hospitalized unnecessarily so that PIA officials could collect huge sums from insurance companies and Medicare programs.

He declined to comment after the hearing Monday.

“Mr. Alexis is the highest-ranking PIA executive to plead guilty, so far,” U.S. Attorney Paul Coggins said. The continuing FBI investigation is nationwide in scope, Mr. Coggins said.

“There will be many other states affected by this investigation, ” Mr. Coggins said. “We think this case may take months or even years to resolve.”

Doctors weren’t the only ones bribed, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher A. Curtis said. He said that illegal payments also went to therapists and social workers.

Psychiatric Institutes of America was absorbed last year by its corporate parent, National Medical Enterprises Inc.

Diana Takvam, a spokeswoman at NME’s headquarters in Santa Monica, Calif., declined to comment on Mr. Alexis’ courtroom statements.

Ms. Takvam, however, said NME is attempting to negotiate a settlement with officials at the Department of Justice and has “established a reserve of $375 million.”

NME has not yet agreed to pay that money to the government, Ms. Takvam said.

Another NME official previously reported that the firm is selling or shutting down all of its psychiatric hospitals in Texas.

According to a written statement, NME officials hope that the proposed agreement with the Department of Justice “will close all open investigations of NME.”

Judge Kendall told Mr. Alexis that he could not predict how many of the possible 10 years federal officials will recommend under sentencing guidelines. But he advised Mr. Alexis that federal law no longer permits parole, and he said the defendant should not expect a minimum sentence.

“Without even looking, I would guess that your guidelines . . . will be off the charts,” the judge said. Judge Kendall did not immediately schedule a sentencing hearing for Mr. Alexis. He said he will wait to review the depth of Mr. Alexis’ cooperation with prosecutors.

“The prudent thing to do would be to sentence you sometime off in the future,” the judge said.

Tenet Healthcare Tries to Settle Some Old Accounts

New York Times
Aug 8, 1997 By BARRY MEIER

A decade has passed since Kelly Stafford walked through the doors of the Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavillion here. But for her, the nightmarish days that followed are fixed forever.

She had agreed as a 17-year-old to enter the hospital, expecting a brief respite from troubled family relationships. But once the doors closed, Ms. Stafford said, she remained inside for 309 days, many of them behind blackened windows in cruel darkness.

At Brookhaven and other psychiatric hospitals operated by National Medical Enterprises, patients like Ms. Stafford said they had their arms or legs strapped down for months at a time. Others said they were forced to sit motionless and silent for 12-hour stretches. And a medieval-looking device called a ”body net” was used to completely restrain some.

All this and more became widely known in 1993, when a task force of 600 Federal agents swooped down on 20 National Medical facilities. A year later, the company’s psychiatric subsidiary pleaded guilty to Federal charges that it paid kickbacks and bribes to doctors and others for patient referrals; the company paid $362.7 million in fines and penalties to settle various Federal and state charges of health care fraud.

National Medical, which was required as part of its guilty plea to sell its mental health care operations, has since risen from the ashes of that debacle, installing new management and changing its name to the Tenet Healthcare Corporation. But it is only in recent weeks that Tenet, now the nation’s second-largest chain of for-profit hospitals, has confronted the scope of the episode’s human toll, paying out $100 million to settle some 700 claims filed in two Texas courts by former psychiatric patients.

”I had to eat Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner in restraints,” said Ms. Stafford, who now works as a model. ”There’s not a day that goes by that you don’t think about it.”

Those who entered places like Brookhaven, often as teen-agers, faced problems ranging from depression to drug and alcohol abuse to suicidal impulses. In lawsuits, they charged that they had been effectively imprisoned — rather than treated and quickly released — as part of a scheme to exhaust their lucrative insurance policies.

For many mental health care professionals, National Medical came to symbolize the excesses of an era when the corporate thirst for insurance dollars overrode patients’ needs. Now, as managed care companies move into the area of mental health, many psychiatrists fear that patients’ needs are again being overlooked — but this time to scrimp on insurance costs. Today, seriously ill patients are often discharged from mental health units after just a few days, trapping them in a cycle of hospitalization, relapse and hospitalization, doctors say.

”National Medical was treating the insurance contract and not the patient,” said Dr. Fred Goodwin, director of the Center on Neuroscience, Medical Progress and Society at George Washington University Medical Center. ”Now, in reaction, doctors are being forced to react to the needs of managers, not patients.”

Managed health companies defend their practices as reining in undisciplined and wasteful spending on mental health care, where it is often hard to measure the extent of a patient’s progress. And likewise, both Tenet and the doctors who admitted patients to Brookhaven and other National Medical hospitals have consistently denied any mistreatment of patients. Along with the payments from Tenet, some doctors once affiliated with the company’s psychiatric unit also recently agreed to pay $20 million in compensation to their former patients.

Those involved in the settled cases are barred from speaking about them. But in lengthy interviews before the settlement was reached, Ms. Stafford and two other former Brookhaven patients spoke of their lives at the hospital and of the years since. What emerged were stories not only of individual suffering — and of its long-lasting effects — but also a cautionary tale with lessons for the health care industry today.

With National Medical aggressively seeking patients, a teen-ager could land in one of its hospitals for months as a consequence of behaviors that many psychologists say could have been treated with short-term therapy.

In 1987, for example, Jeanne Ford was a 14-year-old living in Dallas with her mother. When her mother refused to take her out one evening, Ms. Ford said she raided the medicine chest, washing down the pills she found with alcohol. After her stomach was pumped in an emergency room, she was admitted to Brookhaven.

”The doctor asked me if I was trying to kill myself, but I just wanted my mom to pay more attention to me,” said Ms. Ford, who ultimately spent 225 days at Brookhaven.

Patients at the psychiatric hospital — a two-story building with small windows that has since been demolished — witnessed scenes they found hard to fathom. When Sherry Sylvester entered the hospital in 1987 as a 16-year-old, she noticed that a large number of patients spent their days in wheelchairs. It took her several days to realize, she said, that the patients were not paralyzed, but instead were tied down.

Ms. Sylvester, who was referred to Brookhaven for treatment of a possible chemical imbalance, expected to be in the hospital for two weeks. But her stay stretched on for 422 days.

A constant refrain of life at Brookhaven, she said, were the calls for ”Dr. Rush, Dr. Rush” over the hospital’s loudspeaker. The pages, it turned out, were not a call for a particular doctor, but an alert for hospital personnel to converge and restrain a patient. As she wrote in an account of her experiences prepared for her lawsuit, she first heard it after she refused a nurse’s order to leave a room so a group therapy session could be held.

”Five minutes later, I’m hearing ‘Dr. Rush, Dr. Rush’ over the intercom,” Ms. Sylvester wrote. ”All these loonies are freaking out and I’m thinking ‘God, what the hell is going on, I’ve got to get out of here.’ I was still sitting on the bed when six big guys run in and tackle me.”

She said she was given an injection of thorazine and her hands and legs were tied to her bed with leather restraints. ”They stole my innocence that day,” wrote Ms. Sylvester, who is now married with two children and runs an aviation-related business with her husband. ”If I’d been raped, I could attempt the healing process. But my attackers were to remain my jailers for the next 14 months.”

Along with stolen time and fractured relationships with the parents who agreed to their hospitalization, others believe they lost the opportunity to get the treatment they needed. Kay Banner, one of 300 former patients whose suits against Tenet are still active, said that the therapy she received during an 18-month stay at Brookhaven for treatment of depression was of little help. She said that therapists expected her to silently sit in a chair for 12 hours at a time, a task she found impossible.

”I was in there for a year and half, and I expected to be helped in some way,” said Ms. Banner, who is 25 and lives in Allen, Tex. ”For the past eight years, I have felt like a failure because it didn’t do that.”

Former patients at Brookhaven say that money alone will not help them close this chapter of their life. They want apologies, and with rare exceptions, neither officials of Tenet nor the treating physicians have yet to offer any, they say.

”None of the doctors have approached me to apologize to me, to redirect to a different kind of therapy or to say ‘here’s what we feel,’ ” Ms. Banner said.

In a statement, officials of Tenet, which is based in Santa Monica, Calif., said that the individuals interviewed for this article were among many patients at the company’s hospitals who had been diagnosed with serious and, in some cases, life-threatening disorders.

”Confronted with these and other serious symptoms, physicians administered what, in their professional judgment, was the most appropriate course of treatment to help their patients,” the company said.

Lance Ignon, a Tenet spokesman, confirmed that the claims of Ms. Ford, Ms. Stafford and Ms. Sylvester were among those that had been settled. The company is approaching lawsuits by other former patients, like Ms. Banner, on a case-by-case basis, he added.

”We will continue to settle those that are appropriate and continue to defend those that we feel are not appropriate for settlement,” Mr. Ignon said.

William A. Smith, a lawyer in Dallas who represents doctors who once practiced at Brookhaven, said that his clients acted in their patients’ best interests and provided them with excellent medical care.

”We would like to see the former patients allow their medical records to be released to the public so that we could discuss their individual cases and why they needed the care,” he said.

While the approaches taken by National Medical and some managed care companies represent two extremes, many mental health care experts say that ultimately it is the responsibility of psychiatrists and other health care professionals to put their patients’ interests ahead of corporate profits. Indeed, most states hold doctors, not health care companies, accountable for patient care.

But some who were patients at Brookhaven say there may be a more direct way than filing lawsuits or conducting investigations to make health care providers understand the profound impact of their actions.

”I would like to take the staff members and tie them down for a few months,” Ms. Stafford said. ”Make them sit down until we could tell them to move. I would like to make them do everything we’d have to do. I want these people to feel what I feel. I want them to know with their own two eyes what they put us through.”

Ontario government sues Tenet

Ontario sues U.S. medical company

The Edmonton Sun
News Tuesday, April 7, 1998 25

An American medical company whose employees called the Ontario health plan “the Canadian gravy train” is being sued by the province for $175 million US.

A statement of claim filed by the government states the company went trolling for Ontario psychiatric patients to ship to their facilities in Wisconsin and kept them there until their OHIP benefits ran out.

“There were headhunters that encouraged people to come to the United States for treatment; there was inappropriate treatment provided; people were unnecessarily detained,” Health Minister Liz Witmer said yesterday. “So we do believe that we need to do whatever’s possible to recover money that is owed to the Ontario taxpayers.”

The lawsuit was launched against Tenet Healthcare Corp., its former subsidiary National Medical Enterprises and nine former company executives.

Tenet spokesman Lance Ignon said National Medical Enterprises divested itself of the controversial psychiatric division prior to forming Tenet Healthcare Corp.

“We enjoy a reputation for having the most comprehensive and effective ethics and compliance program in the health care industry,” Ignon said.

Ignon said he hadn’t seen the lawsuit and couldn’t comment on it, but he noted that all senior management of the psychiatric division were replaced in 1993 after the U.S. government began an investigation.

The alleged fraud took place between 1989 and 1992, during the NDP government’s reign in Ontario.

NDP health critic Marion Boyd said the problem should never have occurred but it was decided not to go to court.

“The legal advice that we got was that, first of all, the case didn’t have a hope in hell and it was going to be extraordinarily expensive to even initiate and there wasn’t any point in going after them,” Boyd said.

The government alleges company employees referred to OHIP as the “Canadian gravy train” and paid bonuses to headhunters who could bring them psychiatric patients “without concern for the needs or medical diagnoses of the Ontario residents.”

Lawsuits filed against Tenet Healthcare Corp

These records come from a search of public records. After searching four states, I got tired and stopped. These records reflect lawsuits filed against Tenet in California, Missouri, New Jersey and Texas. They do not necessarily represent suits filed against individual hospitals.

9. TENET appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 08-06-1998 in LOS
ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is EVINS GLORIA JEAN.
10. TENET appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 05-15-1996 in
ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is HERNDIER WILLIAM.
11. TENET CALIF HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-16-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is KREITZMAN
JACKIE.
12. TENET CALIF HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-28-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SENKANDWA
HARRIET.
13. TENET CALIF HEALTHSYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-13-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MERCADO
JOSE.
14. TENET CALIF HEALTHSYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-14-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SANDHU
RAJPAL.
15. TENET CALIF MED VENTURES I appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 11-12-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
ANTHONY & PEGGY A SANTOS.
16. TENET CALIF MED VENTURES I appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 11-12-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SANTOS
ANTHONY.
17. TENET CALIF MED VNTRS I INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 08-22-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is TORRES
DAVID. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
18. TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 09-05-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is CARRASCO
FLORENCIO. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
19. TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYSTM appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 09-23-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MC
GREGOR PHYLLIS C.
20. TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTHSYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-04-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
GUILLERMO & CONSTANZA TRUJILLO. Suit type is MALPRACTICE.
21. TENET CALIFORNIA HLTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 07-13-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
ALFONTE LUMEN. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
22. TENET CALIFORNIA HLTH SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-08-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
SEDANO GAMBINO MEZA.
23. TENET CLAUDETTE appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
10-30-1990 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is C C
FASHIONS.
24. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 10-22-1991 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is AMWEST SURETY INSURANCE
CO.
25. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 04-02-1999 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is BETTS ANNA MARIE.
26. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 05-22-1990 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is BISHOP SUZANNE.
27. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 06-26-1997 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CAPDEVILLE SARAH.
28. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 11-26-1990 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is COLDWATER CANYON CORP.
29. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 07-13-1999 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is EL TOUKHY MOHAMED SAMI.
30. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 07-05-2000 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ENGLE RAYMOND A.
31. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 11-24-1997 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is KLEIN BARBARA.
32. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 10-12-1990 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MORGAN SERV INC.
33. TENET CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 04-19-1991 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SCHWARTZ ROSE.
34. TENET CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 03-10-1997
in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First plaintiff is ANCHONDO, ARTHUR.
Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
35. TENET CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 08-05-1998
in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is GUSCOTT, CRAIG. Suit
type is WRONGFUL DISCHARGE.
36. TENET CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-08-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is EITLAND
KRISTIN.
37. TENET CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-14-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is IRIZARRY
EDNYDIA. Suit type is INACTIVE.
38. TENET ENCINO HOSP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
07-16-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is THRIFTY
OIL CO.
39. TENET GARDEN GROVE HPTL & MED appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 11-27-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
GRAHAM TERESA. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
40. TENET GEORGE J appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-07-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MORGAN
VERA A.
41. TENET HEALTH CARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-17-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is ENDOSCOPIC
SURGERY INC.
42. TENET HEALTH CARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-03-1995 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is LETVEN
BIXLER LESLIE.
43. TENET HEALTH CARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-05-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MC CLURE
CATHERINE.
44. TENET HEALTH CARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-09-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MCCLURE
CATHERINE.
45. TENET HEALTH CARE appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
06-12-2000 in SHASTA County, CA. First defendent is S C JOHNSON &
SON INC.
46. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-04-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ACHESON
RICHARD M.
47. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-07-1995 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CLAWSON
MICHAEL.
48. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-12-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ERIC
RODAS.
49. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-25-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is FUNCHES
ROSA.
50. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is FUNCHES ROSA.
51. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-08-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
HEARTSTRINGS GIFT SHOPS INC.
52. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-26-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is KATE &
STEVE MARK KLUGMAN. Suit type is NEGLIGENCE.
53. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-26-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is KLUGMAN
KATE.
54. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-28-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
MAZZARELLA LAUREEN.
55. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-11-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is WEI-LING
LIU TU. Suit type is PROPERTY DAMAGE.
56. TENET HEALTH CARE CORP (AKA) is involved in a suit filed on
10-20-1997 in ORANGE County, CA.
57. TENET HEALTH CARE INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-12-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is DIMITRI
TSIRTSIS.
58. TENET HEALTH CARE SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-27-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is LERETTE HELEN.
59. TENET HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-20-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is ZONCA
JEANNINE.
60. TENET HEALTH CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on in LOS
ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is GASKIN JAMES B.
61. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-20-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ALBA
ELEUTERIO.
62. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
11-04-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CARDENAS
FAUSTINO.
63. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-05-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CHESTNUT
CATHERINE.
64. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-30-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CHESTNUT
CATHERINE.
65. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
11-04-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is FAUSTINO
CARDENAS. Suit type is MALPRACTICE – MEDICAL.
66. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-12-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is GARCIA
MARIA D.
67. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on in LOS
ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is GASKIN JAMES B.
68. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-29-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is HERNANDEZ
ANA.
69. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-09-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MEAD
MICHAEL.
70. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-23-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is PECHTER
EVELYN.
71. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-21-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is RAY MIM.
72. TENET HEALTH SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-22-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is VALLES
MIGUEL A.
73. TENET HEALTH SYS CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-27-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ZIGMONT
CLIFFORD V.
74. TENET HEALTH SYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 02-09-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
KRAVITZ MICHELLE.
75. TENET HEALTH SYS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-09-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is HENDLER
YETTA.
76. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-14-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is ABASSI HURIA.
77. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-13-1999 in SHASTA County, CA. First plaintiff is CURTIS, JEAN
H.
78. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-03-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is HADLEY,
CINDY.
79. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-04-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is MOFFAT,
DANYA CHRISTINE.
80. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-14-1997 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First plaintiff is RIGAUD,
GILBERT. Suit type is CONTRACT.
81. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DESERT INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 09-21-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
COLEMAN, RONALD E.
82. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DESERT INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-23-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
RICHTER, JETTY.
83. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DESERT INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-25-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
RODRIGUEZ, CYNTHIA.
84. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM HEALTH appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 04-03-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is THE
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS CO.
85. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a
suit filed on 04-23-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First
plaintiff is FOSTER RICHARD. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
86. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-06-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is GAMBINO
ANGELINA.
87. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-27-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is APELES LUS.
88. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-23-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is EVELYN
PECHTER. Suit type is WRONGFUL DEATH.
89. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-27-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
CLIFFORD V. ZIGMONT. Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
90. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 12-31-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
JESTER SHELBY.
91. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-06-1997 in SHASTA County, CA. First plaintiff is RUTH
E DEAL.
92. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-21-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is LUBNAU ROBERT.
93. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 06-02-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MORENA
CLARYBEL RIVAS. Suit type is MALPRACTICE.
94. TENET HEALTH-SYS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-11-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
BROCKSMITH ADELE.
95. TENET HEALTH-SYSTEMS HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a
suit filed on 04-27-1999 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First
plaintiff is PETTA, THOMAS M.. Suit type is MALPRACTICE – MEDICAL.
96. TENET HEALTHCARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on in SAN
FRANCISCO County, CA. First plaintiff is DALEY, DANIEL.
97. TENET HEALTHCARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-10-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is HOMMAN
FLORENCE M.
98. TENET HEALTHCARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-12-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MACKLIN
RICHARD H.
99. TENET HEALTHCARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-19-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is SMITH
ELIZABETH SHAW.
100. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
04-15-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is ALLENDALE
MUTL INS CO.
101. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
04-28-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is B H C A
CANOGA PARK INC.
102. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-03-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is BABCOCK
SANDRA.
103. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-26-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is BARNETT
REBECCA.
104. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on in
ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is BEASLEY DEBRA ANN.
105. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-12-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is BUENTE
JANICE.
106. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-25-1995 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CALIF
PSYCHIATRIC MGMT SERV.
107. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-22-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is CAROLYN H..
108. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-22-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CASAS
DOLORES.
109. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-24-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is CHANG
TOM.
110. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-05-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is COAST
PLAZA DOCTORS HOSP.
111. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-20-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is COCHRAN
DEBBIE.
112. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-25-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is DHANOA
BHARPUR S.
113. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-25-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is DUTHIE
POWER SERV INC.
114. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-03-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
DZHRDZHYAN NOREEN.
115. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
12-15-1995 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is ENCINO
TARZANA REGIONAL MED.
116. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-25-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is FARAHANI
NAHID.
117. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-25-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is FERRER
AMELITA.
118. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
09-16-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is FERRER
MED CORP.
119. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
11-09-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is FLOWERS
GLENDA.
120. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
06-24-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First defendent is FULLER JAMES
LAWRENCE.
121. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-09-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is GARCIA
SULIMA.
122. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is GASKIN JAMES B.
123. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
10-06-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is GOLD
MARINA.
124. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP is involved in a suit filed on 07-20-1998 in
ORANGE County, CA.
125. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-20-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
HECKENDORN NITA P.
126. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-29-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is HIALEAH
MIAMI SPR MED FUND.
127. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is HIALEAH MIAMI SPRINGS
MED.
128. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-23-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is HILL
PETER G.
129. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-12-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is HOOPER
LUCY.
130. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-02-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is JACOBO
MARTHA.
131. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-29-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is JEAN
PUOCI.
132. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-13-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is JOHNSON
DENZAL.
133. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-07-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is JUHNKE SHARON.
134. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-05-1995 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is KHATIB
MEHRDAD.
135. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
05-26-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is LIMBO
PABLO.
136. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-13-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is LOPEZ
JAN.
137. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-13-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is LOPEZ
JAN.
138. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-13-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MACCARTHY
STEPHEN.
139. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-02-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MCSPORRAN
ALEXANDRA.
140. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-11-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
MILEIKOWSKY GIL N.
141. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-07-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MILLAR
ELEVATOR SERV CO.
142. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-01-1996 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MILLAR
ELEVATOR SERV CO.
143. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-03-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MITZ
DENISE C.
144. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-09-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MITZ
DENISE C.
145. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
10-17-1995 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is
MONTGOMERY WILLIAM.
146. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-27-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MUNOZ
ALICIA.
147. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-29-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is NICHOLAS
CALLIOPE Z..
148. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-16-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is POWELL
SYBIL.
149. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-29-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is PUOCI
JEAN.
150. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-15-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is RAFAEL DONNA.
151. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-28-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is RICHARD D
SPELLBERG. Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
152. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-12-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ROBINSON
WILLIAMS LISA.
153. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-08-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ROETHE
BETTE.
154. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-11-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ROHAN
JUDITH S.
155. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-23-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is SANDERS WENDY.
156. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-06-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SAUTO
LILLYAM.
157. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-15-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SCHILLER
BRUCE.
158. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
02-14-2000 in ORANGE County, CA. First defendent is SHAHID M KAHN,
M D. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
159. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-20-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SIDELNIK
BORIS.
160. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-28-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SPELLBERG
RICHARD D.
161. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-21-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is TIFMIS
MED GRP INC.
162. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-21-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is TIFMIS
MED GRP INC. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
163. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-11-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
TIMBERLAWN PSYCHIATRIC HOSP.
164. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-24-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is VALLES
BELINDA.
165. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-07-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is VALLIANT
WILLIAM E.
166. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-27-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is WHITE
BETTY.
167. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-22-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is WHITESIDE
ROBERT K.
168. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
08-17-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is YELLOW
CAB CO.
169. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 06-23-2000 in SHASTA County, CA. First plaintiff is DAVID D
JOHNSON A MEDICAL CORP.
170. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 07-30-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is NADA
MOHAMED.
171. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 08-22-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is TORRES
DAVID. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
172. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
12-30-1997 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First defendent is BORJA,
SANTIAGO. Suit type is INJUNCTION.
173. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
02-09-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is COCCO JILL L.
174. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-25-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is LEON ANA
MARIA. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
175. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-21-1996 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is PLATT,
ARTHUR.
176. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-31-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is ROBERT D.
EDEN M.D.. Suit type is INJUNCTION.
177. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-07-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is SPEARMAN,
DR. WILLIAM LYALL.
178. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-09-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is WINTER,
ROBERT.
179. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 08-04-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
ABDEL-MALEK NADIA.
180. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 11-04-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
ADVANCED MEDICAL ASSOCIATES.
181. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 02-06-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
BALLOU RENEE.
182. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-17-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is BLOCH
MARIE.
183. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-20-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
BORIS & KIERA SIDELNIK. Suit type is NEGLIGENCE.
184. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is BURRIS LUANNA.
185. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-03-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
CASTILLO FAUSTO. Suit type is INACTIVE.
186. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 03-08-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is CLINE
JEANETTE.
187. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 07-17-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
COCHRAN DEBBIE.
188. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-17-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
CORTEZ ALMA.
189. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-28-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
DALEY CELIA. Suit type is MEDICAL/DENTAL MALPRACTICE.
190. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 02-18-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is DANKS
ROSHENEDA.
191. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 05-08-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
EITLAND KRISTIN.
192. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 07-11-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is ENGUM
ELEANOR. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
193. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-28-1993 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
EREREN ERKAN.
194. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 11-27-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
GRAHAM TERESA.
195. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-18-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is GROSS
MARY.
196. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 05-08-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
LINDEN KATHLEEN.
197. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 08-07-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is LOPEZ
CATHY.
198. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 03-24-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
LORENZO MARIA CONCEPCION.
199. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION is involved in a suit filed on
05-08-1996 in ORANGE County, CA.
200. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 03-12-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
MANSDORF MARILYN.
201. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a plaintiff in a suit
filed on 10-06-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is
MARINA GOLD M.D.. Suit type is DEBT, NON-PAYMENT.
202. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-06-2000 in SHASTA County, CA. First plaintiff is MARY
ANNE ANDERSON.
203. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-08-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MRS.
C.
204. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 07-30-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is NADA
MOHAMED.
205. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 02-25-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
NAHID FARAHANI. Suit type is MALPRACTICE.
206. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 08-12-1997 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First plaintiff is
PICINICH, CRAIG. Suit type is WRONGFUL DEATH.
207. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 08-07-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
ROBINSON REBECCA.
208. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 02-27-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
SPRINGMAN REXANN.
209. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 08-13-1999 in SAN BERNARDINO County, CA. First plaintiff
is TAMARA J MEYER. Suit type is MALPRACTICE – MEDICAL.
210. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 07-29-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is TESTA
DONALD.
211. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-15-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
VAN DORN GEORGE. Suit type is DEBT, NON-PAYMENT.
212. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 08-07-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
VANAGS MARIS.
213. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 05-20-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
VARELA ROSALIE.
214. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-20-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
VENEGAS ROBERTA M.
215. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-07-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
VENEGAS ROBERTA M..
216. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 12-20-1995 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
WHITLEY LINDA C.
217. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 11-29-1995 in SAN DIEGO County, CA. First plaintiff is
WHITMER JULIE A. Suit type is MALPRACTICE.
218. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-03-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
WINBURN MICHAEL. Suit type is INACTIVE.
219. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a plaintiff in a suit
filed on 04-30-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First defendent is
WOMANKIND INC.
220. TENET HEALTHCARE INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-26-1999 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First plaintiff is HUGHES,
GINGER. Suit type is MALPRACTICE – MEDICAL.
221. TENET HEALTHCARE INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-04-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SNYDER
SYLVIA S.
222. TENET HEALTHCARE SYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-16-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is VERSATILE
COATINGS INC.
223. TENET HEALTHCARE SYS HOSP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
on 10-09-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is
BERNSTEIN KEITH.
224. TENET HEALTHCARE SYS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-08-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is LUEVANO
SANDRA.
225. TENET HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-16-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is VERSATILE
COATINGS INC. Suit type is DEBT, NON-PAYMENT.
226. TENET HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-08-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
SANDRA LUEVANO. Suit type is WRONGFUL DEATH.
227. TENET HEALTHSYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-25-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is DUTHIE
POWER SERV INC.
228. TENET HEALTHSYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-08-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is GALASSO
DANIEL.
229. TENET HEALTHSYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
11-10-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is LEWIN
BARBARA.
230. TENET HEALTHSYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-11-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
MILEIKOWSKY GIL N.
231. TENET HEALTHSYS appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-01-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SHINDER
ARNOLD L.
232. TENET HEALTHSYS DESERT INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 09-22-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
WHITESIDE ROBERT K.
233. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
on 04-28-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is FIVE
5240 SEPULVEDA INC.
234. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
on 10-20-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is
HORACIO RODRIGUEZ.
235. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
on 10-20-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is L A
UNION MKT.
236. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 08-18-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is LOPEZ
SABINA M.
237. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 03-02-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
MCSPORRAN ALEXANDRA.
238. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 04-03-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
REYNOLDS&REYNOLDS CO.
239. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 06-25-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ROJAS
FRANK.
240. TENET HEALTHSYS HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 09-22-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
WHITESIDE ROBERT K.
241. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-28-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ASTANI
SONNY.
242. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-25-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is MURDOCK
PHIL.
243. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-21-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is AUDREY
DRUCILLA EDWARDS. Suit type is OTHER.
244. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
05-13-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is BILLINGY
ZELDA.
245. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
02-13-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is BORELLO
MAURO.
246. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
08-30-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is BRAZINA
GARY.
247. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
08-24-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is COAST
PLAZA DOCTORS HOSP.
248. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
05-09-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is DOGALI
MICHAEL.
249. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
01-21-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is EDWARDS
AUDREY DRUCILLA.
250. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-29-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is JEAN
PUOCI.
251. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
06-27-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is KEMP
MURRAY.
252. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-08-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is PASQUALE
ROBERT.
253. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-09-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is PREUS
GERD H.
254. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-13-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is PUOCI
JEAN.
255. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-27-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is RIVERA
MARIA.
256. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-22-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is WHITESIDE
ROBERT K.
257. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-08-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is WILLIAM
PASQUALE. Suit type is MALPRACTICE – MEDICAL.
258. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
11-18-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is WOMANKIND
CALIF INC.
259. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
11-18-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is WOMANKIND
CALIF INC. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
260. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
06-03-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is WOMANKIND
INC.
261. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
06-03-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is WOMANKIND
INC. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
262. TENET HEALTHSYS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-28-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ZANIT
CLARE.
263. TENET HEALTHSYS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
05-12-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
MARIENTHAL SKAAR CAROL.
264. TENET HEALTHSYS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
06-17-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is PEARMAN
KIM H.
265. TENET HEALTHSYS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-26-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is REINHOLDS
PER.
266. TENET HEALTHSYS MED INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-22-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is WHITESIDE
ROBERT K.
267. TENET HEALTHSYS Q A INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is QUEENSCARE.
268. TENET HEALTHSYS Q A INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-29-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SEIDELMAN
JEANNE.
269. TENET HEALTHSYS SUB INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-24-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is VALLES
BELINDA.
270. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-01-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is ARNOLD L.
SHINDER, D.O.. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
271. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
11-10-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is BARBARA
LEWIN. Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
272. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-10-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is COLEMAN
DECILLION.
273. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
09-17-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is DIANA
BONTA.
274. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-14-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MARK CIZYNSKI.
Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
275. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
04-06-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
MILEIKOWSKY GIL N.
276. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-01-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is PORTER,
LEWIS. Suit type is WRONGFUL DEATH.
277. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DESERT appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 12-09-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is WINTER,
ROBERT.
278. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DESERT INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 11-29-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
EDRIDGE, ARLENE.
279. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DESERT INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-14-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
BRESSON, MARY. Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
280. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DESERT INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-12-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
GOLDSTEIN, JACK.
281. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DESERT INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-05-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
MALLET-KOCH, ROSEMARY. Suit type is NEGLIGENCE.
282. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DESERT INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-05-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
SENDJAS, ROSIE. Suit type is MALPRACTICE.
283. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HEALTH CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a
suit filed on 01-28-1998 in SACRAMENTO County, CA. First plaintiff
is MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICE, INC..
284. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HEALTHCOR appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 02-22-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
SQUIRES KIMBRA.
285. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-14-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
IRIZARRY EDNYDIA.
286. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 09-29-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
KAMALI MITRA.
287. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HEALTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 09-24-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
MARDIROSSIAN NOOSHIK DER.
288. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HLDNGS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-08-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MRS.
C.
289. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 08-14-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is ABASSI
HURIA.
290. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 10-21-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is CORY
MICHAEL.
291. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 07-25-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is DHANOA
BHARPUR S.
292. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 03-23-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is ESTRADA
RUDY.
293. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
on 01-08-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is
KJELDGAARD LOIS L.
294. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 08-05-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MC CLURE
CATHERINE.
295. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 02-23-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MIRO
ODALYS.
296. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 04-20-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is OYOS
RAYMOND SR.
297. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC is involved in a suit filed on
07-09-1997 in ORANGE County, CA.
298. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 07-09-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is PONCE RAUL.
299. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC is involved in a suit filed on
06-01-1998 in ORANGE County, CA.
300. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 09-17-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is TORRES
FABIOLA.
301. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
on 06-01-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First defendent is WOMANKIND
INC.
302. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITAL INC. appears as a plaintiff in a suit
filed on 06-05-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First defendent is
HEALTH NET. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
303. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITAL INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 05-12-1998 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
KILLEN, WILLIAM. Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
304. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-23-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
HUNTER SCOTT. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
305. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS appears as a plaintiff in a suit
filed on 06-12-2000 in SHASTA County, CA. First defendent is JOHN
COIL ASSOCIATES INC.
306. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-08-1999 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
HANSON, ROBERT.
307. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 03-06-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
KHAZAIE MARSHA. Suit type is NEGLIGENCE.
308. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 11-08-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO. Suit type is DEBT, NON-PAYMENT.
309. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-20-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
RAYMOND OYOS JR & SR.
310. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-14-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
D’AMICO ANDREA. Suit type is PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE.
311. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-28-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
DALEY CELIA. Suit type is MEDICAL/DENTAL MALPRACTICE.
312. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-14-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
DOWLER JILL. Suit type is WRONGFUL DEATH – NMV.
313. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 03-30-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
FAHEY PATRICK. Suit type is PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE.
314. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a plaintiff in a suit
filed on 02-02-2000 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First defendent is
FARRIS, CHINYELU. Suit type is CONTRACT.
315. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 03-02-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
HONE JUDITH. Suit type is MEDICAL/DENTAL MALPRACTICE.
316. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 04-09-1998 in CONTRA COSTA County, CA. First plaintiff is
LANE RICHARD A.. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
317. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-14-1999 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First plaintiff is
MILLER, IRA. Suit type is OTHER COMPLAINT.
318. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-22-1997 in RIVERSIDE County, CA. First plaintiff is
WILSON, THOMAS A. II. Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
319. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPTL INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-25-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MC
LAREN JUDY. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
320. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
12-10-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is HOMMAN
FLORENCE M.
321. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MED INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 06-29-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
HIALEAH MIAMI SPR MED FUND.
322. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MED INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 10-28-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
SMITHHISLER JOHN E.
323. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MEDICL INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 10-08-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is MRS.
C.
324. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 12-10-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
ATHERTON CLARA.
325. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 09-11-1997 in SAN FRANCISCO County, CA. First plaintiff
is .
326. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 11-24-1997 in SAN FRANCISCO County, CA. First plaintiff
is .
327. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-28-1999 in SAN FRANCISCO County, CA. First plaintiff
is YOUNG, GAIL.
328. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
01-24-2000 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is MYLES
SAUNDERS M D. Suit type is DEBT, NON-PAYMENT.
329. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS INC appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
02-03-2000 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First defendent is ZAND
KAMBIZ. Suit type is UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
330. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
07-26-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is PER
REINHOLDS. Suit type is PERSONAL INJURY.
331. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS PARTNERS INC. appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 06-14-1999 in SANTA CLARA County, CA. First plaintiff is
MILLER, IRA. Suit type is OTHER COMPLAINT.
332. TENET HEALTHSYSTM HLTHCORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 07-14-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is ARTOLA
JORGE.
333. TENET HEALTHSYSTM HOSPTLS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 03-30-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is FLAGG
RAFAELLA MARIA. Suit type is DISMISSAL – REGULAR.
334. TENET HELTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-09-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is L CAROLE.
335. TENET HLTH CARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
03-18-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is KAUFMAN
BARRY.
336. TENET HLTH CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-09-1998 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is SNOW
MARCIA.
337. TENET HLTH CR G G HS & MEDCT appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 01-27-1999 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
PATTERSON ARLIE.
338. TENET HLTH SYSTEMS HOSP INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
on 01-24-1997 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is BAKER
HARRIET.
339. TENET HLTHSYSTM HLTHCORP INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 08-29-1996 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is
TILLER-BORCICH JANICE.
340. TENET INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on 10-01-1996 in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is BEHARILAL PRAKASH.
341. TENET MED CTR TARZANA appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
12-10-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is NATIONAL
MAINTEN INC.
342. TENET PHYSICIAN SERV appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on in
LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is ACOSTA LOUIS.
343. TENET PHYSICIAN SERVICES (AKA) is involved in a suit filed on
02-18-1998 in ORANGE County, CA.
344. TENET SERVICES INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
10-09-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First plaintiff is PRENDERGAST G
LLEWELLEN.
345. TENET-ENCINO HOSPITAL appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed on
02-20-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is THRIFTY
OIL CO.
346. TENET-GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
on 09-21-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First defendent is EDGAR IRENE
VERONICA.
347.Removed at plaintiff’s request.
348. TENET-SYNDICATED OFFICE SYST appears as a plaintiff in a suit
filed on 03-03-1998 in ORANGE County, CA. First defendent is
MELENDEZ STEVEN ALBERT.
349. TENET/TARZANA REGIONAL MEDICALCENTER appears as a plaintiff in a
suit filed on 07-17-1997 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First
defendent is GRACELAND PLUMBING.
365. tenet health system appears as a defendant in a suit filed on
09-10-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is decillion
coleman. Suit type is MALPRACTICE.
366. tenet healthcare corporation appears as a plaintiff in a suit
filed on 12-22-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First defendent is
central analytical laboratory. Suit type is BREACH OF CONTRACT.
367. tenet healthcare corporation appears as a defendant in a suit
filed on 12-13-1999 in LOS ANGELES County, CA. First plaintiff is
denzal johnson aka baby boy sc. Suit type is NEGLIGENCE.

1. TENET HEALLTH SYSTEMS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
2. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
3. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
4. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
5. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
6. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
7. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
8. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
9. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
10. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM DI T TPS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
11. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
12. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
13. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
14. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
15. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM SL INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
16. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL INC ETC appears as a defendant in a
suit filed in MO.
17. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
18. TENET HEALTHCARE appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
19. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
20. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
21. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
22. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
23. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
24. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
25. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
26. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
27. TENET HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS HOSPITALS appears as a defendant in a
suit filed in MO.
28. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
29. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
30. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
31. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
32. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
33. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
34. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM CM INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
35. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM CM INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
36. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM D I INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
37. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
38. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
39. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI IN appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
40. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
41. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
42. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
43. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
44. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
45. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
46. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
47. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
48. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI INC A NOT FOR PROFIT MISSOUR appears as a
defendant in a suit filed in MO.
49. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI SNF INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
50. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI TPS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
51. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI, INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
52. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
53. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITAL INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
54. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITAL INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
55. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
56. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
57. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
58. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
59. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
60. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
61. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
62. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
63. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
64. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
65. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
66. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
67. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
68. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HL appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
69. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
70. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
71. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
72. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
73. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
74. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
75. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
76. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
77. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
78. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
79. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
80. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
81. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
82. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL-HLC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
83. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM SL-HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
84. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
85. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in MO.
86. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
87. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITALS INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
88. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
MO.
89. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS SL HLC INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.
90. TENET HEALTSYSTEM DE appears as a defendant in a suit filed in MO.
91. TENET HOSPITAL SYSTEM DI INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in MO.

1. HAHNEMANN UNIV HOSP TENET HEAL appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
2. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
3. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
4. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
5. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
6. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
7. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
8. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
9. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
10. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
11. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
12. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
13. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
14. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
15. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
16. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
17. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
18. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
19. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
20. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
21. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
22. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
23. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
24. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
25. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
26. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
27. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
28. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
29. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
30. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
31. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
32. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATI appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
33. NKA TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATIO appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
34. NKA TENET HEALTHCARECORPORATIO appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
35. NKA TENET HEALTHCARECORPORATIO appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
36. NKA TENET HEALTHCARP CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
37. TENET HALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in NJ.
38. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
39. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
40. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
41. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
42. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
43. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
44. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
45. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
46. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
47. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
48. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
49. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
50. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
51. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
52. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
53. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
54. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
55. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
56. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
57. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
58. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
59. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
60. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
61. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
62. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
63. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
64. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
65. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
66. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
67. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
68. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
NJ.
69. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
70. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
71. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
72. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
73. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
74. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
75. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
76. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
77. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
78. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
79. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
80. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
81. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
82. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
83. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
84. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
85. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
86. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
87. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
88. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
89. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
90. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
91. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
92. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
93. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
94. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
95. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
96. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
97. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
98. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
99. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
100. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
101. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
102. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
103. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.
104. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in NJ.

2. LUNA TENET HOSPITAL appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
3. PASO DEL NORTE HEALTH FOUNDATION OR TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears
as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
4. ROBINSON TENETTA ETAL appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
5. TENET HEALTH CARE COR appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
6. TENET HEALTH CARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
7. TENET HEALTH CARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
8. TENET HEALTH SYS HOSP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
9. TENET HEALTH SYS HOSPITALS appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in TX.
10. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM D appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
11. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM D appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
12. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM D appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
13. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM H appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
14. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM H appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
15. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM HOSPITALS appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
16. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM HOSPITALS IN appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
17. TENET HEALTH SYSTEM HOSPITALS,INC.,FKA NME HOSPITALS,INC DBA
appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
18. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
19. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
20. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
21. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
22. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL INC., DBA appears as a defendant in
a suit filed in TX.
23. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL,INC. appears as a defendant in a
suit filed in TX.
24. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL,INC.DBA SIERRA MEDICAL CENTER
appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
25. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
26. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
27. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
28. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
29. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
30. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
31. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
32. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
33. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
34. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
35. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
36. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
37. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
38. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
39. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
40. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
41. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
42. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
43. TENET HEALTHCARE HOSP appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
44. TENET HEALTHCARE HOSPITAL INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
45. TENET HEALTHCARE INC appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
46. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
47. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
48. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
49. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
50. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
51. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
52. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD ETAL appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in TX.
53. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD ETAL appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
in TX.
54. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD ETAL appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in TX.
55. TENET HEALTHCARE LTD ETAL appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in TX.
56. TENET HEALTHCARE NKA appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
57. TENET HEALTHCARE, LTD. appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
58. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
59. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DA appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
60. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DB appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
61. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM DI ETA appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
in TX.
62. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM H appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
63. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM H appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
64. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HI ETA appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed
in TX.
65. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
66. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
67. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
68. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
69. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
70. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
71. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
72. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
73. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
74. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
75. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
76. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
77. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
78. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
79. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
80. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
81. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
82. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
83. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
84. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
85. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
86. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
87. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
88. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
89. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
90. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
91. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
92. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
93. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
94. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
95. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
96. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a plaintiff in a suit filed in
TX.
97. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
98. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSEP INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
99. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITAL INC appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
100. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS,INC. FKA NME HOSPITALS,INC appears as
a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
101. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSITALS,INC. DBA appears as a defendant in a
suit filed in TX.
102. TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITAL,INC. DBA appears as a defendant in a
suit filed in TX.
103. TENET HEATLHCARE LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
104. TENET HELATHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
105. TENET HELATHSYSTEM HO appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
106. TENET HOSITALS,LTD. appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
107. TENET HOSPIAL LTD appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
108. TENET HOSPITAL A TEXAS LTD PART appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
109. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
110. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
111. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
112. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
113. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
114. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
115. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
116. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
117. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
118. TENET HOSPITAL LIMITED A TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP appears as a
defendant in a suit filed in TX.
119. TENET HOSPITAL LTD A TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP appears as a defendant
in a suit filed in TX.
120. TENET HOSPITAL LTD, A TX LTD PARTNERSHIP appears as a defendant in
a suit filed in TX.
121. TENET HOSPITALS appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.
122. TENET HOSPITALS A TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP appears as a defendant in
a suit filed in TX.
123. TENET HOSPITALS LIMIT appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
124. TENET HOSPITALS LIMIT appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
125. TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
126. TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
127. TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED DBA appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in TX.
128. TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED DBA appears as a defendant in a suit filed
in TX.
129. TENET HOSPITALS LTD A TX LIMITED appears as a defendant in a suit
filed in TX.
130. TENET HOSPITALS LTD A TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP appears as a
defendant in a suit filed in TX.
131. TENET HOSPITALS LTD D appears as a defendant in a suit filed in
TX.
132. TENET HOSPITALS,LTD. appears as a defendant in a suit filed in TX.

Juli Lawrence response to Bryan Cave

Terrence J. O’ Toole
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2750

September 12, 2000

Dear Mr. O’ Toole:

Thank you for your interest in ect.org.

In your email dated September 7, 2000, you demanded that I remove information from the ect.org website which you allege contains false, defamatory and misleading statements. You further allege that medical information exists that violates a patient’s right to privacy.

I am unclear as to specifics. Could you communicate with me your specific allegations and how you would propose that I correct them to your satisfaction?

Thank you,

Juli Anne Lawrence
www.ect.org

Terrence J. O’Toole/Bryan Cave letter to Juli Lawrence

Dear Ms. Lawrence:

September 26, 2000

This is in response to your e-mail to me of September 12, 2000, requesting that my client, Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Des Peres Hospital, furnish you with specifics concerning the defamatory report, dated August 24, 2000, published on your website “ect.org” regarding the treatment of Kathleen Garrett. Tenet’s obligation to uphold the privacy rights of its patients precludes Tenet from releasing information about the patient’s treatment absent competent authorization by the patient. In consequence of that obligation, we cannot furnish additional information about the inaccuracy of your reports.

Sincerely,

Terrence J. O’Toole
Bryan Cave LLP

Tenet Healthcare Corp threatens ect.org with SLAPP

Tenet Healthcare Corporation, via their attorneys at Bryan Cave in St. Louis have *demanded* that ect.org do what they say or else they’ll pursue legal action. It’s not the first time that Tenet has used our justice system to silence its critics. And I’m sure it won’t be the last time.

So grab a cup of your favorite beverage and begin the journey into the story that is: TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION! Read all about Kathleen Garrett’s experience with forced electroshock….and speak out! Tell us what you think!

St. Louis media ignores forced shock in its own backyard while Russian woman’s story highlighted

By Juli Lawrence

The court of world opinion was swift and angry when the media broadcast images of a grieving Russian mother being tranquilized after speaking her mind. Her son was one of those killed in the Kursk submarine disaster in August. Media immediately latched onto the story, outraged that a grieving mother would be injected without her consent.

Where were the media two days before, when Kathleen Garrett was being forcibly electroshocked?

Initially, St. Louis media showed a great amount of interest. However, they were quickly stifled after talking to representatives of the corporation that played a large part in Mrs. Garrett’s plight, Tenet Healthcare Corporation. Whether they honestly fell for Tenet’s line of “There is no story here,” or whether they were scared off by the great power that Tenet has in the St. Louis area, I don’t know.

Media sources have said that officials at Tenet said there was no story because Kathleen signed a release statement.

“When I arrived at the hospital the morning of her release,” said Steve Vance, Mrs. Garrett’s son, “they were trying to get her to sign a statement saying she wanted more shock.” This was shortly after they shocked her the morning of her release. Steve is a licensed social worker for the city of St. Louis.

Both Kathleen and Steve have been adamant that she did not want the treatments. Legal documents, however, gave Ricky Mofsen, and Tenet-owned hospitals Southpointe and Des Peres the right to shock her against her will.

How can this be? This is a question that I have been repeatedly asked since the story was brought to the public. Psychiatric rights activists have long understood that people can be forced into psychiatric treatment, including ECT. It seems unbelievable that in the year 2000 someone can be forced into such an invasive procedure, but it happens. And it is not infrequent.

I estimate that between 4,000 and 10,000 persons are given ECT on an involuntary basis – against their will – in America every year. It is only an estimate, and I base the numbers on statistics supplied from the California Department of Mental Health.

Why can’t I be more precise? Because only six states are required by state law to keep any records concerning ECT. We don’t even know how many people in the US have ECT. Any numbers you see (usually 100,000 to 200,000 persons annually in the US) are estimates only. (If this outrages you, as it should, contact your legislators and demand that they look into this lack of record keeping at the federal level. Contact lenses face more regulation than does the practice of ECT!)

So how did this happen to Kathleen?

She has a history of depression and had ECT twice in her life. She says that both times it did not help her, and she suffered severe memory loss. She asked her son Steve to promise that they would never do that to her again, and it’s a promise he made to his beloved mother. Sadly, it was not a promise he could keep, thanks to the actions of Ricky Mofsen, DO. (Notice that Mofsen did his residency at SUNY, home of shock granddad Max Fink!!!)

Ricky told Kathleen that he wanted her to have ECT. She said no, and he said “See you in court.” And he did exactly that, taking her to court to force it.

Her son Steve hired an attorney to fight it, trying desperately to keep his mother’s promise. Steve says that the doctor obviously drugged his mother heavily and she was deliberately unkempt, and brought in on a gurney. “Of course this made her look awful,” Steve says. “I believe it was a manipulative action to make her appear as bad as possible.”

Steve says that in the court hearing (court transcripts have been ordered and will be placed on this website when I receive them…with Mrs. Garrett’s full authority; there are some court documents here) his mother was asked if she wanted the shock treatments and she said no.

Despite her wishes, and the firm wishes of her son (who was given power of attorney in hopes that it would hold some weight in the court action), the judge ruled that Mofsen could shock Mrs. Garrett against her will.

It’s long been known that older women are the number one targets of shock docs. Statistics that are available (California and Ontario are the best stats we have) bear this out. Mrs. Garrett became another statistic that day.

Steve has expressed concerns about payoffs, and originally, I thought this was over the top. Then information began to surface about just whom Steve and his mother were dealing with.

It came to light that the hospital involved was owned by Tenet, the same chain involved in the largest fraud scandal in the history of the United States. Suddenly, the allegations that were floating around began to carry some weight.

Steve says that his mother was getting along reasonably well, but that she does suffer some depression common to older people: loneliness since her husband died, plus the fact that she had undergone extensive treatments for breast cancer: surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy.

“This would leave anyone in a sad state,” says Steve. “But she wasn’t suicidal or even close. It was depression associated with the cancer treatments. She really needed someone to talk to.”

Instead of talk, she got force. Steve says that Mofsen had repeatedly given Kathleen a number to Behavioral Health Response, and said to call anytime when she needed to talk to someone. Mrs. Garrett has stated that she believed it to be a phone line simply to chat with someone when she was lonely.

She called the line one evening, hoping to talk to a friendly person, and instead was asked, “If you were going to kill yourself, how would you do it?”

Kathleen replied, “Well, I guess I’d jump out the window.” Both she and Steve remain adamant that she was not suicidal, but feel that the question was asked in a deceptive manner. It wasn’t “Are you thinking of killing yourself,” but instead “how would you do it?”

Minutes later a fire truck was sent to her home and she was whisked off to Southpointe Hospital, also owned by Tenet.

That led to Mofsen wanting to perform ECT.

An investigation by ect.org has not turned up any affiliation between Tenet and Behavioral Health Response (BHR). It appears to be a state-funded organization, and when questioned, a representative of BHR said that they absolutely do not take any payoffs from Tenet Healthcare Corporation. He added that he could not comment on the case in any detail.

Kathleen was admitted to Southpointe Hospital in St. Louis, where ECT treatments were to begin. Steve says that by this point, he felt beaten and did not know where to turn next. He says the ECT machine broke, and she was then transferred to Des Peres Hospital. She had undergone two treatments, and Steve says he repeatedly asked her if she wanted them. Her answer was always no, please make them stop.

A chance meeting changed everything.

Steve met Paul Spencer, a local activist. Paul called me and I contacted David Oaks of Support Coalition International. (ect.org is one of 88 international sponsoring organizations of SCI) From there, we put together a release and David distributed the release worldwide.
People were asked to contact Michele Meyer, CEO of Des Peres Hospital to express their concern. Many copied their emails to me, and I received hundreds of copied emails.

Within 18 hours, Des Peres Hospital called Steve and said he could pick his mother up the following day. The world was thrilled that their outrage had gained Kathleen’s freedom. However, the medical community was not yet done with Kathleen Garrett.

Paul Spencer voiced concerns over why they were waiting a day to release her. Steve called first thing in the morning and asked. Paul’s fears became reality when a nurse at Des Peres admitted that they had again shocked her that morning.

“I am convinced they used a higher dose,” says Steve. “She is more confused than ever. Can’t even remember how old she is now.”

Only the people involved can answer the question “Why, after agreeing to back down and stop the treatments, did you shock her again?”

However, there is speculation from the public.

“I think it’s pretty obvious,” said an activist who asked not to be identified. “They wanted to blast her one last time to fry her memory as best they could. They know a major lawsuit is headed their way.”

Said another: “It was the ultimate fuck you. How dare they do this to a defenseless woman! They did it out of spite, the sadistic bastards! Tenet is an evil group. They’ve proved it in the past, and they’re up to their same evil!”

The question must be asked: Why did Ricky Mofsen, DO, Tenet-owned Des Peres Hospital and all staff involved give her one last blast, right before her friends and family came to secure her release? Officials of Tenet Healthcare Corporation were originally telling media that it was all moot, that she’d signed a release form.

Steve says that when he arrived to take his mother home, she immediately complained that they were trying to coerce her into signing such a form.

“She could have signed anything after what they did,” Steve says. “It wouldn’t surprise me to find out they did make her sign a statement.”

But activists have repeatedly talked to Kathleen and she is adamant about one thing: NO MORE SHOCK!

Staff from the hospitals became so bothersome that Steve felt he had no choice – he changed his mother’s phone number and told staffers “Leave my mother alone!”

“They know a major lawsuit is headed their way,” said an attorney. “They’re just trying to cover their asses at this point.”

For updates on Kathleen’s condition, visit the guestbook. And leave a message of support for Kathleen! Or speak your mind about Tenet’s role in all of this. Email addies not required.

Steve says that now Tenet is harassing his mother over a bill they originally said was covered by insurance. He says they’ve been rude, “snippy” and he’s outraged that they continue to “be so hateful” to his mother.

Dendrite Alert: Kathleen Garrett’s human rights

www.MindFreedom.org DENDRITE — August 23, 2000
COPY & POST to appropriate places on & off Internet:
ALERT: human rights & “mental health system.”
A free project of Support Coalition International.
http://www.MindFreedom.org email:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SIXTY-SIX-YEAR-OLD MOTHER IS BEING
ELECTROSHOCKED **RIGHT NOW** AGAINST HER WILL!

SHE RECEIVED FORCED ELECTROSHOCK MONDAY, AND TODAY.
“TEN TO TWELVE MORE PROCEDURES ARE PLANNED.”

YOU CAN E-MAIL TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOSPITAL
TO FIGHT FOR KATHLEEN GARRETT’S HUMAN RIGHTS!

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI — A 66-year-old woman is
currently undergoing forced electroshock, against
her own wishes and those of her family. Kathleen
Garrett received involuntary electroshock on Monday,
August 21, 2000 and today, August 23, 2000. Between
ten to twelve more forced shocks are planned.

Kathleen Garrett has endured a lot in the last year
– two cancer surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation.
Depressed, she voluntarily checked herself into
Southpoint Hospital in St. Louis, where her doctor,
Ricky Mofsen, informed her he would be performing
“electroshock therapy.”

She refused the treatments, having undergone shock
in the past. The doctor immediately took her case to
a judge, who ruled he could perform the treatments
against her will.

Steve Vance, the woman’s son and primary care giver,
brought an attorney to the hearing. Vance said his
mother was heavily drugged and deliberately unkempt
as they wheeled her in on a gurney to meet the
judge. The judge ruled the woman was competent, but
that the forced electroshock could go on as planned.

“She’s gone through so much in the last year,” Vance
said. “I’m so afraid this latest is going to just do
her in and ruin her mind completely. I tried
discussing this all with her doctor, but he avoids
me. In fact, they weren’t going to tell me she was
having the shock treatments at all. My mother has
repeatedly insisted she does not want these
treatments.”

Vance is a licensed social worker and says the
doctor has refused to meet with him to discuss his
mother’s treatment. He added that during the first
shock, a few days ago, the machine broke, and they
transferred his mother to DesPeres Hospital. At the
time of this news release, she has had two
treatments and is scheduled for ten to twelve more.

“When are they going to stop?” asked Vance. “When
they’ve totally fried her mind?”

“People like to say forced electroshock doesn’t
happen in the United States,” said ect activist Juli
Lawrence, also of St. Louis. “It happens much more
than we’d like to believe. In the last year, I’ve
stepped in on several forced electroshock cases. In
every case, the patient was perfectly competent,
aware, and able to make an informed decision. But
because these doctors made up their minds to forge
ahead, they weren’t allowed to have a choice.”

The federal Center for Mental Health Services and
the President’s National Council on Disability (NCD)
have both released reports admitting that, from time
to time, some individuals in the USA do receive the
controversial electroshock procedure *against* their
expressed wishes. Earlier this year, the NCD issued
a call to end electroshock all together.
Lawrence said that people are encouraged to contact
her organization via her website, http://www.ect.org
or by e-mail at emailgraphic.jpg
“How about the many people out there who don’t have
access to the Internet, or don’t have a family
member or friend who is willing to do everything
possible in the way that Steve Vance has? Forced
electroshock is real. It is happening across
America. And it’s got to stop,” Lawrence said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ACTION *** ACTION *** ACTION

Here’s an easy way you can help now:

Email, call and/or fax to the CEO of the hospital
that is giving this woman forced electroshock:

Michele Meyer, CEO
DesPeres Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri

Email: michele.meyer@tenethealth.com
Phone: (314) 966-9135
Fax: (314) 966-9274

Please keep your message civil.
Please COPY your message to: Juli@ect.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SAMPLE MESSAGE:

To: Michele Meyer
Copy:

“Stop forced electroshock in DesPeres Hospital! Stop
the forced electroshock of Kathleen Garrett! Even
her son and caretaker is against this forced
electroshock! I request an immediate response.”

Optional: Include your name, address, phone, e-mail.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS *** ADDITIONAL ACTIONS

Media contacts:

Television:
KMOV (CBS) Channel 4
Phone: 314-444-6333
Fax: 314-621-4775
email (newstip): news_suggest_no@kmov.com

KSDK (NBC) Channel 5
Phone: 314-444-5125
Fax: 314-444-5164
email: newstips@ksdk.com

KPLR (WB) Channel 11
Phone: 314-367-7216
Email: 11news@kplr.com

KTVI (Fox) Channel 2
Email: ktvinews@fox.com

KDNL (ABC) Channel 30
Phone: (314) 436-3030

Print media:

_The Post Dispatch_ reporters:

Social Justice Reporter: Ron Harris
314-340-8382
e-mail: rharris@postnet.com

Health Reporter: Adam Goodman
314-340-8204
e-mail: agoodman@postnet.com

ALL OF THE ABOVE:

If you can help e-mail all the above contacts,
just copy and paste this whole list:

michele.meyer@tenethealth.com, Juli@ect.org,
news_suggest_no@kmov.com, newstips@ksdk.com,
11news@kplr.com, ktvinews@fox.com,
rharris@postnet.com, agoodman@postnet.com

[This news release provided by "ect.org," one of 88
Sponsor Groups in Support Coalition.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.MindFreedom.org DENRITE ALERT BROUGHT TO YOU
FREE BY SUPPORT COALITION INTERNATIONAL.
DENDRITE is a one-way *occasional* e-mail
list, so you do *not* get too much e-mail this way.

**BRANCH LIKE A DENDRITE** Copy & forward this alert
to appropriate places on & off the Internet, just as
your brain uses tree-like dendrites to network
billions of neurons.

Support Coalition International is an independent
non-profit federation of 88 groups in 13 countries
united to win human rights and alternatives in the
“mental health system.” SCI is open to the public,
and led by psychiatric survivors. SCI receives no
funding from the psychiatric drug industry, the
“mental health system” or the government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: Just getting this DENDRITE e-mail does *not*
necessarily mean you are already an SCI member. Ask
if you’re not sure you are a current member. DENDRITE
is a free public e-mail alert list. _Dendron News_
is Support Coalition’s paper newsjournal for members.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The theme of the next issue of _Dendron_ is: Youth
Resistance to Psychiatric Oppression. September 30,
2000 is the deadline. Articles, resource listings,
news, letters encouraged.

You can now join, donate and renew with Support Coalition
International by VISA/MasterCard via a “secure” web server:

http://www.MindFreedom.org.

To contact or join Support Coalition International:
Phone 9 am to 5 pm Pacific Time (541) 345-9106.
Or fax anytime to (541) 345-3737. Or write to:
Support Coalition; PO Box 11284; Eugene, OR 97440 USA.
Or e-mail: office@MindFreedom.org.
Donations are tax deductible.

You can get DENDRITE e-mail human rights alerts *free*:

To get free DENDRITE alerts, simply e-mail to:

with these two words only in body of message:
subscribe dendrite

To unsubscribe from DENDRITE, e-mail to:

with these two words only in body of message:
unsubscribe dendrite