When HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood Stop Responding, File a Lawsuit to Restart the Conversation
Published: Oct 18, 2022
Mark Burke, Plaintiff, files this original petition complaining of KPH – Consolidation Inc., DBA HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood, a domestic For-Profit Corporation, Defendant herein, and respectfully show the court the following;
Parties
Plaintiff is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas. The last 3 numbers of Texas Driving License: 949; and Social Security Number: 162.
Defendant KPH – Consolidation, Inc., DBA HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood (“HCA”), is a domestic corporation which operates as a Hospital in Harris County, Texas. HCA may be served with process by serving its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas, 75201.
Jurisdiction and Venue
This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under its general jurisdiction as conferred by the Texas Constitution because the amount of the controversy is within the Court’s jurisdictional limits.
Venue for this civil action lies in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 15.002 on the basis Defendant is operating a Hospital in Harris County, Texas, in the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
Furthermore, this court should resist any attempts to remove the case to federal court;
“At bottom, Wedgewood attempts to both transform a preemption defense into a grant of jurisdiction and recast private healthcare companies as deputies of the federal government. We reject these overtures. In doing so, we agree with the only other federal circuit courts to address these same arguments. Mitchell’s state-law negligence claims will be adjudicated in state court. – Mitchell v. Advanced HCS, LLC, 28 F.4th 580, 591 (5th Cir. 2022).
Agency, Respondeat Superior & Vicarious Liability
Whenever in this petition it is alleged that Defendant did any act or omission, it is meant that Defendant themselves or their agents, officers, servants, employees, and/or representatives did such act or omission, and it was done with the full authorization or ratification of Defendant or done in the normal routine, course and scope of the agency or employment of/by Defendant or their agents, officers, servants, employees and/or representatives.
Discovery Control Plan
Plaintiff respectfully requests this case be governed by Level 3, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190.4.
Relevant Facts
Tuesday
On Tuesday, 9th August 2022, Plaintiff had made an appointment with a general practicing Doctor to seek advice about why he was feeling very sick.
The Doctor, Huong “Mindy” Hoang, MD of Genesis Medical Group examined and questioned Plaintiff and advised him needed to go to the ER right away to obtain immediate ‘professional’ medical attention.
Early that evening, Plaintiff attended HCA’s Kingwood Hospital Emergency Room at 22999 US Hwy 59 N., Kingwood, TX, 77339.
What happened there is subject to a separate war-type story, but eventually Plaintiff was housed in a converted closet with temperatures set at well below freezing with a sheet and requested blanket around midnight.
Wednesday
The Early Morning Move From ER to Room 376
After spending overnight in the freezing ER on an IV which ran out during the evening, Plaintiff asked for and received a refill in the early morning during shift change.
Plaintiff asked the nurse how long an IV lasted and he said, ‘however long you want’.
He increased the rate to last one hour or so.
That was not a good choice, as Plaintiff’s stomach started to turn, (rejecting IV treatment) – meaning Plaintiff was about to experience excruciating abdominal pains, as he was at the early cramping stages.
Plaintiff had also requested and received several warm blankets to try and defrost.
At that time, an aide arrived, and Plaintiff was whisked away in a wheelchair to the hospital bed assigned, Room 376, South Tower.
The Imposter Doctor’s First Visit
No sooner than Plaintiff arrived at Room 376, Imposter Doctor Aguilar appeared for the first time.
Dr Aguilar would be around 38 years old, clean shaven, dark hair and built like a stocky U.S. Marine, with broad shoulders leading down to his v shaped abdomen.
He had a heavy Latin American accent and was wearing light blue Doctor scrubs with a name/credentials on his top pocket.
He was armed with a pen and a small notepad, notably no laptop as most Doctors carry.
He arrived in an energetic and engaging manner and knew all of Plaintiff’s medical history, specifically since admittance.
He introduced himself as Dr. Aguilar, and claimed he was Plaintiff’s lead Doctor during his visit.
Plaintiff advised him that he was feeling discomfort, but he ignored this comment.
A short question and answer session would follow and then he performed a quick, hands on body assessment (focusing on the lower stomach).
He summarized his notes, during which he made a couple of unbecoming comments for a Doctor, and assured Plaintiff he would return tomorrow, and then left and fast as he arrived.
The “Real Doctors” Arrive
Within 30 minutes, a specialist junior Doctor Mike Wong arrived to introduce himself.
See; https://kingwooddr.com/who-is-dr-mike-wong/
He was carrying a laptop and after another quick question and answer assessment, said he would be back in 30 mins to an hour with his ‘boss’, Dr Randy Chung.
See; https://kingwooddr.com/who-is-dr-randy-chung/
True to his word they came back, with another unknown third individual in tow.
During this session, Dr. Chung advised he was the lead, Doctor.
After a quick introduction and conversation, the Doctors left and said they would return the following morning after bloodwork was analyzed and other test results were reviewed, including the CT Scans performed at ER around 9.45 pm the prior evening.
The “Intake” Nurse and Intern
After a while, a nurse arrived and announced that she was training a new intern, who was also present. Plaintiff by this stage in time was experiencing extreme pain levels and the nurse(s) could clearly see that but she started filling in an ‘intake form’ and asking questions like “which pharmacy did Plaintiff want his prescriptions to go to”.
Plaintiff responded that he was in extreme pain and to put aside the intake form for now, and to administer some pain medication.
Apparently, the nurse did not like the tone of her new Patient, and she abruptly turned around and exited the room ‘in the huff’ and stated she would return when the Plaintiff was being reasonable, as he writhed around the bed in pain.
Just after that, Plaintiff’s parents arrived and noted Plaintiff was in distress and attempted to intervene by asking for a nurse to help relieve Plaintiff’s pain via the room buzzer and telephone, to no avail.
No nurse from the floor was responding.
The Abusive Nurses and Two Security Guards Arrive Unannounced
After an extended period of time, a cackle of nurses, including the ‘intake’ nurse arrived with two security guards, who were apparently there for the nurses ‘safety’, as Plaintiff was wriggling on his hospital bed begging for medication to end the pain and misery and his two visitors included his then 85 year old disabled father who needs assistance to walk and stand with a walker (as clearly identified in the iPhone video submitted by Plaintiff) and 83 year old mother, who was sitting huddled with a single towel around her shoulders, trying to stay warm in the freezing cold room (Plaintiff discovered the temperature control in Room 376 was fixed and could not be managed on a Room basis).
Apparently, as far as the nurses were concerned, this was the threatening environment which necessitated all these nurses and security guards to be present.
It was preposterous, an abuse of authority, a violation of the standard health care and ethics by not only failing to address and alleviate a patient’s pain, but then to come in and verbally threaten the Plaintiff when he’s in absolute agony, as well as the elder abuse directed at two law-abiding citizens.
Despite the visible condition of Mark Burke, they spent the time lecturing the Plaintiff and his parents about the fact that they would ‘not be disrespected’ and that ‘they would ask the Plaintiff and the parents to leave’.
The nurses failed to abide by their standards of care and failed to administer or otherwise obtain emergency aid for a very sick patient.
See; Texas Health and Safety Code and various provisions of the Texas Administrative Code related to standards of care for nurses and health care providers. See Act of May 26, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 803, § 9, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 1662, 1664–65; Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 257.003 (West 2010) (governing hospital’s nurse staffing policies); 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 217.19(m); id. § 217.11(1)(B), (T) (2011) (Tex. Bd. of Nursing, Standards of Nursing Practice); id. § 217.12(1)(E) (2011) (Tex. Bd. of Nursing, Unprofessional Conduct); 25 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.41( o) (date) (Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs., Hospital Functions and Services–Nursing Services); id. § 448.201 (2011) (Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs., Standard of Care Applicable to All Providers). – Castillo v. Brownsville-Valley Reg’l Med. Cent., Inc., 421 S.W.3d 263, 268 (Tex. App. 2013)
The head nurse (the one you can see in Plaintiff’s iPhone video) talked about requiring a Doctor to prescribe pain medication.
However, “Under Texas law, as an advanced practice nurse, [the] Nurse…is given the right to prescribe medication and to treat patients without the supervision of a physician” ; see Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4514, § 7; Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4514, § 8; see also22 Tex. Admin. Code § 222.1, et. seq. (1998) – Wyeth-Ayerst Lb. v. Medrano, 28 S.W.3d 87, 93 (Tex. App. 2000).
Indeed, after the entourage of abusive nurses and security guards left, Plaintiff was left to continue writhing in pain until he could throw-up, which would relieve the excruciating pain.
When the ‘intake’ nurse did eventually return, she stated that ‘I heard Mr. Burke retching’.
She did not intervene before because she thought that Plaintiff was ‘acting like a jerk’, as stated in front of the nurses, security guards, Plaintiff, and visitors.
No medication was provided during this entire episode and was only prescribed much later, after Plaintiff’s pain levels had subsided.
Thursday
The Imposter Doctor’s Second Visit
The hospital shift changes at 0700 hours and Imposter Doctor Aguilar arrived around 0730 hours, just as Plaintiff was exiting the restroom.
His opening sentence was “Good morning, Mark, do you remember me?” who replied in the affirmative, “Yes, you’re Dr. Aguilar”, to which he replied, “That’s correct, Doctor Aguilar”.
Plaintiff took a seat at the end of the bed facing the chair which Dr. Aguilar sat on, with the same notepad and pen and wearing the same attire.
Another update along with a Q & A session took place and he left.
Dr Wong and Dr Chung’s Second Visit
Shortly thereafter, Dr. Wong attended for his pre-meeting session and that would be followed by Dr. Wong, Dr. Chung., and the unknown staff member returning for an in-depth consultation with Plaintiff.
They had scheduled an MRI to be performed that day.
This was the main reason Plaintiff had to stay on a water diet as any food would result in severe abdominal pain and sickness, resulting in the MRI being delayed, something Plaintiff did not want to happen.
What should be disclosed here is the critical medical results for Plaintiff would be available for Friday morning’s meeting.
Friday
The Imposter Doctor’s a ‘No Show’
Plaintiff hardly slept as he pondered the impending results, hoping for a fast resolution to his medical ailments.
After the shift change at 0700 hours however, Dr. Aguilar was notably absent, and he would be a complete no-show that day.
Dr Wong’s Third Visit
This was followed-up by a lengthy delay before Dr. Wong attended Plaintiff that morning.
During this pre-session, Plaintiff questioned why Dr. Aguilar had not attended and to be frank, Dr. Wong looked completely bamboozled and didn’t address the issue.
The Eviction Team Arrive at Midday
Dr Wong returned with Dr Chung and two other unknown individuals this day.
During this meeting Plaintiff once again raised the question as to why Dr. Aguilar was a no-show on the important ‘results day’ to which Dr Chung responded with a quizzical look, “Dr. Aguilar?”.
He immediately informed Plaintiff that he was the lead Doctor on Plaintiff’s case, and he was not familiar with that name, Dr. Aguilar and despite further specifics from Plaintiff, said he did not know who this Doctor was but that he was the lead on this case and continued with the consultation.
This immediately alarmed Plaintiff and when they left, Plaintiff instantly performed a Doctor search for Dr. Aguilar and came up blank.
That is highly unusual, as most admitted hospital Doctors are on several local and national platforms like healthgrades.com etc.
Returning to the actual Friday consultation, there was a fourth Doctor, who Plaintiff assumes is Dr Mowla, listed on the care team.
Indeed, it is Dr Mowla who authored the midday Friday report, despite being a bystander (which Plaintiff obtained via the hospital CRM, post-discharge).
The report is false and inaccurate.
It states Plaintiff is “in the bathroom vomiting”.
That is untrue.
Plaintiff was not vomiting and did not feel like vomiting.
Nor was Plaintiff in the bathroom.
It goes on to state “VTE prophylaxis initiated: yes.”
That is also untrue.
Returning to the visit itself, Dr Chung confirmed there was nothing in the many scans and tests conducted that would aid them in resolving of Plaintiff’s medical issues.
He then went onto say he suggested Plaintiff exit the hospital forthwith as an outpatient and see one of his recommended Doctors downtown (610 area) to have the recommended ERCP and EUS procedures.
Plaintiff was not at all pleased with this bum’s rush eviction and he made the following statements to all 4 witnesses standing in front of his bed:
First, Plaintiff questioned why Dr Aguilar was a no show this morning. They thought Plaintiff was meaning Dr Agrawal, a known Doctor but Plaintiff said no, it is Dr Aguilar, the lead Doctor, and he’s been at Plaintiff’s bedside before Dr Wong on Wednesday and Thursday but now he’s conveniently absent today.
Dr Chung stated he was the lead Doctor, and they were unfamiliar with any Dr Aguilar, but certainly Chung was Plaintiff’s main treating physician.
That raised red flags for Plaintiff.
Who is this mysterious Doctor?
Plaintiff stated that he was unhappy with the state of play, that Plaintiff had presented himself for every single blood test and scan imaginable during his short stay and all the while, only able to drink water.
It appeared now Chung et al had exhausted all the options Plaintiff was being evicted without due care, despite the fact he had not eaten in two weeks, was extremely weak, had rejected IV and not received any fluids other than water since Wednesday morning.
As such Plaintiff was very concerned if he left without resolving the medical issue(s), he would be in acute pain again, still unable to eat and would eventually die of dehydration and starvation.
It should be noted Mark Burkes weight dropped from 185 lbs to 171.4 lbs (with clothes on) when weighed by Dr Mindy Hoang at Genesis Medical before he was admitted to HCA’s Kingwood Hospital on August 9, 2022.
The Hospital Report dated August 11 states Plaintiff weight is 170 lbs.
Another check on the scales at a follow-up appointment with Dr Hoang on September 7, Plaintiff’s weight is recorded as 160 lbs (with clothes on).
As of October 18, Mark Burke’s weight is 150 lbs (without clothes on).
In summary, the Doctors at HCA Kingwood Hospital exacerbated Plaintiff’s condition and did nothing to control his weight loss and ability to eat.
Returning to Dr Chung’s recommended plan, he initially stated he wanted Plaintiff discharged on Friday, and he could see his recommended specialist Doctor as an outpatient.
However, Plaintiff pushed to find out why the recommended test could not be done by a resident Doctor.
Eventually, Dr Chung stated he could arrange for the resident Doctor to be available for the ERCP and EUS procedure for Monday, but was hesitant, as that would be the soonest possible time, as hospital beds are kept for emergency treatment over the weekend and Plaintiff would have to stay here over the weekend.
Plaintiff stated that was fine, as the Hospital could keep checking Plaintiff’s stats are trending down for that 48-hour period.
Plaintiff stated to the Doctors present that despite these known urgent medical issues, at no time was his weight loss addressed nor a diet plan invoked.
Plaintiff asserted he was shocked at the lack of concern by Chung, et al as to him living off water only, especially since his GP had expressed disbelief that Plaintiff had not eaten in a week or so, was severely dehydrated and recommended he immediately head to ER, advice which Plaintiff regrettably followed.
Mark Burke had pushed to be put on an IV by the ER staff, which they eventually did, but which his body would also reject that same day.
This review by Plaintiff seemed to irk the Doctors more, and they pressed again for Plaintiff to leave as an outpatient.
Plaintiff asked that he be at least given a test meal, so he could see if the food would pass without blocking, and creating the agonizing abdominal pain, which they begrudgingly agreed to do so, on the basis Plaintiff agree with Dr Chung’s recommended outpatient colleague.
Dr Chung said he’d arrange for a lunch-tray and they’d review my situation later on that day.
Plaintiff, based on his experience with this illness, expressed doubt that timeline would be sufficient and suggested an overnight test would be better.
Also, during this conversation, Plaintiff expressed doubt about visiting a Doctor as an outpatient so far away from his residence in Kingwood, as he was a state-registered carer and responsible for his disabled father and caring for his elder mother as well.
Plaintiff advised the Doctors that his father had fallen at home and 911 had to be called to assist while he was here in hospital.
Dr Chung repeated his only recommendation, go home as an outpatient and he’d arrange for Plaintiff to see his distant-located colleague, who would provide ‘the best care’ available in this specialized medical vertical.
Plaintiff questioned once again, despite Dr Chung’s earlier assurance the hospital would provide a Doctor on Monday morning, that there must be a physician in this hospital who can perform “a test with a tube and a camera attached”, to which Chung replied, “I can do that, but the test you are having is ERCP and EUS and requires a specialist, but that I (Chung) am not qualified to do so.”
Plaintiff rephrased the question, asking if there was any qualified Doctor in this hospital who could perform this procedure. He said he’d review, and they left.
Shortly after they left, Mark Burke researched the ‘specialist’ Doctors and called one in Humble, who advised the earliest appointment to arrange ERCP and EUS would be in 6 months, but they did not accept Plaintiff’s insurance either for this type of procedure, even though they were listed on the insurer’s website.
Mark Burke is Emotionally and Physically Stressed Out
By now, Plaintiff was extremely stressed out with all the events of the week and the lack of solutions to his medical ailments after all these tests, scans and blood draws.
After this 4-Doctor meeting with a bullying type of approach to leaving the Hospital immediately, Plaintiff felt he was being evicted from the Hospital due to the issues regarding the nurses on Wednesday, combined with the revelation of the Imposter Doctor – which had only come to light when Aguilar did not show up on Friday and that raised Plaintiff’s suspicions.
Devon Alexander, a Key HCA Executive, Blanks Plaintiff
Plaintiff was visited by Devon Alexander, Director of Community and Public Relations on Friday at Room 376.
She had introduced herself directly one day prior and stated she was responsible for ensuring Plaintiff was comfortable during his stay and would consider any questions or feedback to ensure that remained the case.
Plaintiff assumed her arrival was a result of the nurse and security guard debacle and the fact they knew Plaintiff had a recording of the event.
Plaintiff advised Ms. Alexander about the Imposter Doctor and could she investigate as the Doctors attending did not know any Dr Aguilar.
Promising to do so, she left the Room and by lunchtime, no response forthcoming, he called her office and requested an update.
She said she was working on it.
Plaintiff called again later that Friday afternoon and the call was directed to voicemail.
Plaintiff never heard from her before his self-checkout on Saturday morning.
John Burke Attended by Emergency Services at Home
As stated, Plaintiff was the state-registered carer for John Burke, his father.
Around lunchtime on Friday, Plaintiff received a distressed call from his mother, alerting him to the fact that they were coming to visit but John Burke had fallen on the grass outside while switching the pool water off and she was unable to lift him and had called 911.
She was in a stake of panic.
Plaintiff attempted to calm her and waited on the call with his mother until emergency services arrived to assist.
No physical injury was recorded but Plaintiff urged his parents to remain at home.
With all the activity on Friday now weighing heavily on Plaintiff’s mind, he did not have time to dwell on the imposter Doctor anymore that day and focused on his own medical health issues and proposed plan by Dr Chung in order that he could quickly return home and where he was desperately needed.
Saturday
After a Friday evening phone call and strong disagreement with Dr. Chung, who stated the resident Doctor who could do the procedure(s) on Monday, was conveniently not available all the following week.
Once again, he promoted Dr. Dang Nguyen, M.D., Gastroenterologist, 4100 S Shepherd Dr., Houston, TX 77098.
During the conversation, Chung’s suggestions were questioned and rejected by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asserted to Dr Chung the HR management issues, namely replacing the unavailable resident Doctor to perform the ERCP and EUS procedures, was being transferred from HCA’s responsibility to the Patient by asking the Plaintiff to either; (i) go to a Doctor far away and effectively start the process all over as a new Patient, or (ii) move Plaintiff to another unknown Hospital somewhere in the Houston area, instead of HCA Kingwood Hospital bringing in another Doctor to replace the resident Doctor who was conveniently unavailable the whole of the following week.
Plaintiff said to Dr Chung that solution was both absurd and unacceptable.
Analogy; if you want a blue Mercedes from the car dealer and they don’t have one, the dealer swops a car with another dealer to close the sale, it does not tell the car buyer to go to the Dallas dealer if they want a blue Mercedes.
Plaintiff averred that Dr. Chung had violated his Hippocratic Oath and he had failed miserably to provide any meaningful solutions or care to Plaintiff. This resulted in a barnstormer end to the conversation, with Chung stating he would be transferring Plaintiff “to another Hospital in Houston in the morning”, and then hanging up the call.
During the night Mark Burke mulled his options and elected to self-checkout at around 0700 hours that morning.
On returning home and after checking in on his parents, Plaintiff registered with the hospital CRM to access his newly created medical records.
Plaintiff noted there was a list of physicians and Doctors assigned to Plaintiff.
There was no Dr. Aguilar listed.
After Self-Discharge, What’s Been Going On?
Kingwood Police Station
At around 1330 hours, Plaintiff walked into his local police station to file a report, as he was extremely concerned about his personal safety and well-being, along with the breach of his medical records.
He was advised by the attending officer that it was change of shift and to return at 1500 hours.
Noting the time delay, Plaintiff asked if he needed to provide a written statement and the officer stated that was not necessary.
He asked what the issue was.
After hearing the brief summary, the officer said, “Come back at 3pm”.
At 1500 hrs Plaintiff returned and the same officer stood in front of him and listened to a fuller account of the events.
Plaintiff reaffirmed the most important part of this investigation is to recover the video recordings from the hospital to help identify this Imposter Doctor.
Shockingly, the officer refused to take the report because ‘no crime had been committed’.
Plaintiff challenged the officer, asking for his name and badge and advising him that refusing to take a police report is in violation of the law and which point he paused for a moment and said, “Do you want to speak to a supervisor?” to which Plaintiff responded in the affirmative.
During the 10-15 minute wait, Plaintiff googled whether it was a crime to impersonate a Doctor and the response confirmed Plaintiff’s thoughts, it can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the State and/or facts surrounding the case.
Plaintiff believes this crime is a felony due to the alarming events that an imposter Doctor can walk into a patients room two days straight without being challenged and armed with every medical detail about that patient and his visitation medical exams and notes.
When the supervising officer came out, it didn’t take long for him to comply and stand down, stating Kingwood police office was a traffic (patrol) office and that only a basic report could be completed, which would be sent to Houston for further investigation.
Plaintiff said that’s all he wanted, was a report of the incident.
Subsequently, the refusing officer would then take a copy of Plaintiff’s ID, photocopy it and use that sheet of paper to manually ask questions and make notes.
He then returned with a receipt and case number which was labeled as a “Stalking” complaint.
Plaintiff asked him if he was “Officer Brown”, to which he replied ‘Yes”.
Plaintiff thanked him for his time and left.
Spoilation Letter I
On August 14, 2022, Plaintiff sent his first spoilation letter.
See; https://kingwooddr.com/spoilation-letter-to-hca-kingwood/
On August 24, 2022, HCA acknowledged Plaintiff’s spoilation letter and stated they would investigate.
See; https://kingwooddr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/hca-initialresponse-aug24.pdf
Plaintiff’s Father Frozen to Death
On September 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s father died after being admitted to ER on August 27, 2022 in ICU at Humble Memorial Northeast.
Plaintiff attributes John Burke’s premature death to HCA Kingwood’s freezing room temperatures while visiting plaintiff.
HCA Kingwood’s Contemptuous Response
On September 8, HCA replied to Plaintiff’s spoilation letter with a general denial signed by an unknown ‘John Doe’, and which failed to address the main purpose of the letter, the video surveillance footage.
See; https://kingwooddr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/hca-reply-spoil-i.pdf
Spoilation Letter II
On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff sent his second spoilation letter to HCA Kingwood.
See; https://kingwooddr.com/spoilation-letter-ii-to-hca-kingwood/
Plaintiff’s Reply to HCA Kingwood
On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff responded to HCA’s ‘investigation’ and general denial.
Plaintiff’s Reminder to HCA
On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff emailed HCA, copying known counsel for HCA in Harris County, Ms. Nicole G. Andrews of Serpe Andrews.
At the time of this filing, no response has been received.
Plaintiff’s Reminder to Houston Police
On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff emailed Houston Police Department requesting an update to the two-month old complaint.
See; https://kingwooddr.com/police-incident-report-a-follow-up-after-no-response-from-hpd-in-two-months/
At the time of this filing, no response has been received.
Counts I, II and III
Negligence; Gross, Medical and Corporate
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above as if fully written herein.
HCA’s nursing staff verbally and physically abused the Plaintiff and his family visitors rather than provide the legal duty of care necessary, and which was essential and visually evident, as witnessed by all present in Room 376 as Plaintiff lay writhing in extreme pain.
Put another way, if a person was on the street rolling about in pain, 911 would be called and the medics would assess and provide pain relief medication to stabilize the patient on scene.
In a shuttered room, the nurses became judge and jury, and took it upon themselves to refuse the Plaintiff the medical attention he so badly needed, not once, but on at least two occasions.
This is not acceptable, in any circumstance, especially a Hospital setting.
The nursing staff arrived unannounced to Room 376, in a mob with malicious intent, including two security guards and immediately threatened the Plaintiff and his parents they would be ejected from the hospital for requesting pain relief medication to help his excruciating stomach pain, which the medical nursing staff previously refused, until Plaintiff had completed the ‘intake paperwork’ after removal from ER to the South Tower, Room 376.
See; video clip of part of the incident where Plaintiff oversees his iPhone recording this horrendous event (until the memory card reached its limit, thus preventing further recording).
At the end of the nurses’ tirade, one of the security guards demanded the video be deleted or he would report it to the Police.
Plaintiff refused to stop recording or delete the video.
No Police arrived thereafter; https://kingwooddr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/kingwoodnurseswithsecurity1.mp4
HCA failed to protect the safety of its Patient and confidentiality of Plaintiff Mark Burke’s medical records; see Daywalker v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston, Civil Action 3:20-cv-00099, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 9, 2021).
The hospital either knowingly allowed an ‘Imposter Doctor’ to access the Plaintiff’s medical records, as ‘Dr Aguilar’ was intimately familiar with Plaintiff’s medical records and knew everything about his treatment at HCA when visiting with Plaintiff, or there was a major security and confidentiality of records breach within HCA Kingwood Hospital; see Walters v. ST David’s Healthcare, No. 03-03-00582-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. May 26, 2005).
In either scenario, a full investigation would have been expected as it is a criminal offense under HIPPA; see 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6, “Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information”.
Instead, the hospital has failed to identify the Imposter Doctor Aguilar and has been evasive and deceptive in its responses with Plaintiff as detailed herein, despite the seriousness of Plaintiff’s complaint; see In the Estate of Brooks, 13-09-00579-CV, No. 13-09-00579-CV, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App. June 23, 2011).
The hospital admits it has the video evidence for the period requested in the Spoilation letters submitted by Plaintiff but denies Dr Aguilar is on the requested video surveillance either entering or leaving Room 376 on two consecutive mornings and was not witnessed entering or leaving the South Tower or Hospital Campus.
Despite Plaintiff’s request(s), the hospital has failed to provide Plaintiff with access to, or a copy of the surveillance video.
The hospital suggests that Plaintiff is ‘confused’ about Imposter Doctor Aguilar and it was another known Doctor who visited with Plaintiff.
However, the hospital fails to identify this Doctor and secondly, when Plaintiff replied to HCA, he suggested if that is true (which Plaintiff rejects as untruthful), the known Doctor would be on the video surveillance entering and leaving Room 376 on two consecutive mornings and just prior to Dr Wong’s arrival each morning.
HCA have failed to answer this question.
HCA know they cannot rely upon Plaintiff’s memory being “confused” at the time, as all reports on file by visiting staff and Doctors state the Plaintiff is “alert, awake, orientated, pleasant”.
This citation was recorded by Dr Mike Wong in his Aug. 10, 2022 report, the first day the Imposter Doctor Aguilar visited Plaintiff in Room 376 and more relevant to the facts of this lawsuit, this observation was made by Dr Wong just before the nurses viciously harassed Plaintiff and his elder visitors, without justification, claiming they needed security present when dealing with the Plaintiff and/or his elder, law-abiding parents, an absurd allegation as detailed herein.
Plaintiff maintains HCA is being untruthful, and their historical record of fraud, refusing to provide data (evidence) and being untruthful is well documented.
See; DOJ: HCA Healthcare Houston Settles Kickbacks from Ambulance Services to Redirect Patients to HCA – https://kingwooddr.com/doj-hca-healthcare-houston-settles-kickbacks-from-ambulance-services-to-redirect-patients-to-hca/ ; Department of Justice: HCA Healthcare Givin’ Doctors Financial Kickbacks is a Violation of FCA – https://kingwooddr.com/department-of-justice-hca-healthcare-givin-Doctors-financial-kickbacks-is-a-violation-of-fca/ ; HCA Healthcare Accused of Excessive Billing Practices for Corporate Greed – https://kingwooddr.com/hca-healthcare-accused-of-excessive-billing-practices-for-corporate-greed/ ; Report: HCA Has a Lengthy History of Fraud and Now Accused of Defrauding the Medicare System – https://kingwooddr.com/report-hca-has-a-lengthy-history-of-fraud-and-now-accused-of-defrauding-the-medicare-system/ ; Meanwhile in North Carolina, CEO of For-Profit HCA Healthcare Sam Hazen Refuses to Sell Community Focused Hospital (admit allegations of refusing to supply mandated Hospital data) – https://kingwooddr.com/meanwhile-in-north-carolina-ceo-of-for-profit-hca-healthcare-sam-hazen-refuses-to-sell-community-focused-hospital/ ; HCA Holds the Record for the Largest Health Care Fraud in American History – https://kingwooddr.com/hca-holds-the-record-for-the-largest-health-care-fraud-in-american-history/ .
Count IV
Stalking
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above as if fully written herein.
Texas has a statutory civil cause of action for stalking; Long v. State, 931 S.W.2d 285, 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); updated in 1997, see; TEX.CIV.PRAC. REM.CODE § 85, Title 4, Liability in Tort, Chapter 85, Liability in Stalking.
As discussed in this complaint, Plaintiff has been stalked by an unknown person, impersonating himself as a Doctor and who put his hands on Plaintiff in doing so.
Plaintiff’s personal safety was jeopardized and to this very day, Plaintiff is constantly watching his surroundings when outside of his main residence, living in constant fear for his personal safety and those closest to him, by this unknown and unidentified threat.
Houston Police Department have failed to follow-up with the criminal complaint to-date although a reminder is hopefully enough to trigger an investigation into a very serious and criminal matter.
With the illness and unexpected death of his father, Plaintiff’s own illness and recovery, combined with his mother’s emotional and medical needs, time has been at a premium.
That stated, Mark Burke is very aware the personal threat to Plaintiff and potentially those closest to him by this unknown person whilst he remains at-large.
Despite reaching out to HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood many times, they have treated Plaintiff’s complaint(s) by delay, avoidance, lies, and more recently – silence.
The one ‘investigation’ HCA allege to have conducted and the subsequent letter of denial of any wrongdoing, signed by an unnamed John Doe is without doubt a fraud on the Plaintiff.
If, as HCA stated, nobody was seen entering or leaving Plaintiff’s Room, then they would not be hiding the video surveillance and would be sharing that video with Plaintiff.
HCA would have willingly provided Plaintiff the names and personal addresses of the staff involved in the investigation so Mark Burke could submit his Perpetuate Testimony civil action if they were confident in their own statements.
Instead, they have fallen silent.
In conclusion, HCA’s response to the stalking of Plaintiff by Imposter Doctor Aguilar is based on malicious mischaracterizations, deception and lies.
The threat to Plaintiff and those closest to him is both real and ongoing.
Damages
Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant. Plaintiff would show that the non-economic damages imposed by Section 74.301 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code violates the 7th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
As a result of Defendant HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered past and future damages, including but not limited to;
- Past and future pain and suffering
- Past and future medical expenses
- Past and future mental anguish
- Past and future loss of earning capacity
- Exemplary damages.
Statement of Relief
As required by Rule 47(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”), Plaintiff states the damages sought are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
And, as required by Rule 47(c) of TRCP, Plaintiff states that he is seeking monetary relief over $1,000,000.
Plaintiff is also seeking pre and post judgment interest to the maximum extent allowed by law.
Reservation of Rights
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his petition to add additional counts and/or parties upon further discovery and as his investigation continues.
Plaintiff’s investigation will most certainly include asking this Court to help obtain previously requested names and personal addresses of the investigators who were part of HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood’s response to Plaintiff’s Spoilation Letter I.
This information had been requested by Plaintiff in anticipation of filing a pre-suit Perpetuate Testimony civil action, however, HCA has chosen to ignore Plaintiffs’ requests.
Conclusion
HCA CEO Sam Hazen’s Own Words
“We have a very aggressive campaign, both operationally from a patient safety standpoint as well as a communication standpoint, with our patients on demonstrating to them the safe environment that they deserve when they come to one of our facilities.” – Sam Hazen, CEO for HCA, HCA Q2 2020 Earnings Call – July 22, 2020.
HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood failed to provide a safe environment which Mark Burke, Plaintiff deserved.
HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood has been provided many opportunities to correct the Plaintiff’s grievances directly but have refused to take Mark Burke’s complaint(s) seriously.
It is due to the unacceptable, malicious, devious, and fraudulent practices of HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood and their executives which necessitates this litigation to resolve the serious issues presented.
Jury Demand
Plaintiff hereby requests all causes of action alleged herein be tried before a jury of citizens residing in Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff tenders the appropriate jury fee.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 18th day of October, 2022.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct (Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 132.001).
______________________
Mark Burke
State of Texas / Pro Se
doctor
