County Hospital wants to take second Possession of Doctor’s Mobile Home

San Joaquin County Hospital recently filed another lawsuit to take second possession of the same Mobile Home that was previously owned by Dr. Sheikh. Previously the hospital had already taken possession of that mobile home during 2010.

San Joaquin County Hospital has Mobile Homes at the County Hospital for Resident physicians. Dr. Sheikh was a Resident physician at that hospital. She purchased a Mobile Home (aka cottages) and lived there during her residency training. After the completion of Residency Dr. Sheikh wanted to sell the cottage but could not sell the mobile home due to interference.

County Hospital initiated Court proceedings and ‘obtained’ a Writ of Eviction from the County Court without any hearing. In May 2010, County Sheriff evicted Dr. Sheikh from that Mobile Home, took possession of that Mobile Home and changed the locks. Dr. Sheikh and her family relocated to a rental home in Stockton. 

During May 2014, Hospital again filed another Petition for Judgment of Abandonment in the County Court to again take possession of the same Mobile Home. Additionally, the hospital wants $12000+ rental money for the mobile home. This time the Hospital claimed that Dr. Sheikh abandoned that Mobile Home. The hospital also sent several pictures the Mobile home that is damaged since the eviction.

Dr. Sheikh removed the petition to the federal court. (Notice of Removal) and also filed a Motion for Declaratory Relief to confirm possession of the Mobile Home. 

Why the County Hospital want to take second possession of the same Mobile Home

San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department inspected the Mobile Home and that Mobile Home was determined to be uninhabitable. Hospital sent pictures of the damaged property (March 2014).  The Mobile Home was fully functional until hospital evicted Dr. Sheikh during May 2010. Mr. Sheikh asked the hospital to assess the damage to the Mobile Home. In response, County Counsel again filed a Court Case to take possession of the Mobile Home. Now Hospital claimed that the cottage was abandoned. Second possession will enable the hospital to shift the blame (of damage to the mobile home). 

When was Eviction

County of San Joaquin’s Notices of Eviction and eviction proceedings revolved around wrongful denial of Dr. Sheikh Physicians’ license by the Medical Board of California.

Dr. Sheikh completed Medical Residency training from the San Joaquin County Hospital in around August 2008. Medical Board of California and the County Hospital shared some ‘unknown documents’ and denied Dr. Sheikh’s license. The hospital and the Medical Board did not give a copy of those documents to Dr. Sheikh. When Dr. Sheikh requested the hospital for a copy of those documents, Hospital sent an eviction notice to Dr. Sheikh (May 15, 2009).  

During April 2010, Dr. Sheikh filed a Motion in the federal Court (Eastern District of California) mandating the County Hospital and the Medical Board to release a copy of those documents relevant to Dr. Sheikh's license. In May 2010, the County Hospital evicted her from the mobile home. 

Legal Proceedings in Federal Court - Eastern District of California
Magistrate Judge issued her Recommendation to the federal Judge. Dr. Sheikh submitted her legal pleadings (Objections to the Recommendations, Fourth Amended Notice of Removal along with Motion for leave of the Court).  Now the case is before the Judge for his ruling. Here is a link to the Court Docket.

About Dr. Sheikh

Dr. Sheikh treated patients and saved lives at the County Hospital. She cannot practice Medicine as Medical Board has not issued a physicians license since 2008 though she is a highly qualified physicians. Dr. Sheikh is requesting everyone's support so that she can continue her profession and treat patients. 

Goofy For Healthcare is the First Dog Representing Doctors and Patients.

https://twitter.com/GoofyBarksFor

https://www.facebook.com/GoofyForHealthcare

================

Selective Regulations of Healthcare Professionals

https://www.facebook.com/PhysiciansForFairness

http://Physicianforfairness.com/
https:twitter.com/Voice_MD

More Reading  
Human Rights Attorney Urges the President

http://physicianforfairness.blogspot.com/2014/08/human-rights-forum-urges-president-to.html

Mr. Sheikh's Lawsuit in the Eastern District of California (to restore his driving license) -
Case dismissed without restoring driving license - Notice of Appeal filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals
http://physiciansforfairness.org/2014/04/03/federal-court-requested-to-renew-california-driving-license/

updated 10/6/14

Human Rights forum urges the President to review Actions of California Medical Board

Amnesty International Human Rights forum urged President Obama to review denial of Dr. Sheikh's Physician's license by California Medical Board.

The Medical Board denied Dr. Sheikh’s license without any hearing by Members of the Medical Board. In May 2011 most members of the Medical Board of California resigned, yet California continues to withhold Dr. Sheikh’s license. An individual who does not want to be identified inquired, "Is University of California on Probation"?

Dr. Sheikh completed her Medical Residency and received a Residency Completion Certificate from University of California. Before that, she worked at University of Texas and at Stanford School of Medicine.  Dr. Sheikh was recognized as a compassionate, hardworking and intelligent physician by Patients, Doctors, Professors and Residency Program Directors.

The issue was raised on Amnesty International Human Rights forum. Hon. Martin DePorres Walsh, Human Right Attorney suggested President Obama to take notice of denial of Dr. Sheikh's Physician's license. This is rather obvious that Dr. Sheikh deserves support from fellow American citizens and from President Obama.

Dr. Sheikh briefly presented some of her experience before California Senate during May 2013.

Considering the challenges and important of their success, President Obama has endorsed Equal Rights for women. Dr. Sheikh's example reflects one of many challenges encountered by American women. Dr. Sheikh is deprived of Equal opportunity that needs everyone's attention. I believe, when Dr. Sheikh succeeds, America succeeds. 

Rehan Sheikh

================

More on Selective Regulation of Healthcare & Healthcare Professionals;
facebook.com/PhysiciansForFairness

twitter.com/rehan_sheikh


More Reading

Civil Rights Award amid Civil Rights Violations 
http://wp.me/p4cMhN-28 


San Joaquin County filed another court case to again take possession of doctor's Mobile Home
http://physicianforfairness.blogspot.com/2014/08/county-hospital-wants-to-take-second.html

Web:        http://www.physicianforfairness.com/ 

Twitter:  https://twitter.com/voice_md

Random Drug Testing for Lawyers

In this article a veteran doctor expressed frustration on a California's ballot initiative Prop 46 (Troy and Alan Pack Safety Act) to mandate Random Drug Testing for Doctors. The Ballot initiative is sponsored by Trial attorneys. 
Author, Dr. Robert Weinmann has served as President of Union of American Physicians and Dentists for several years.   

When Should Lawyers be Drug Tested?
The correct answer is when they are awake and can give consent.
 
The next question is why aren't they already tested when they go to court especially when they represent known felons, drug traffickers, or persons indicted for murder? The correct answer is because lawyers write laws to suit themselves.

A medical tech who was reportedly addicted to drugs and who stole fentanyl that was expected to be used for patients awaiting cardiac surgery caused the death of two patients and got a few dozen others infected with hepatitis C when he altered the contents of their syringes, stole the fentanyl and replaced it with saline that turned out to be infected. That bloke is now doing 39 years in prison. As this man drifted from job to job, protected from having to reveal his erratic job history, he was protected by law.
  
Wrongful administration of fentanyl was also associated with Michael Jackson's death. This time the culprit was a physician. Now comes an effort to correct this situation, an effort, we believe that is steeped in hypocrisy and swimming in money. 

In California we expect the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act to qualify for the initiative process.
The goal is to alter MICRA's (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act) $250,000 ceiling cap on non-economic damages so that malpractice lawsuits become more lucrative for trial lawyers. So far CAPP (Californians Allied for Patient Protection) have thwarted the trial lawyer's goal. Proponents point out that there is currently no law that requires doctors to take random drug tests. They don't mention that there is also no law that requires lawyers to take random drug tests. Proponents argue that surgeons don't have to be tested randomly before operations but imply that that should be done. The same proponents don't mention that lawyers who are trying to put someone to death or save someone from the hangman's noose are also not tested. Why not? 

Both the surgeon and the trial lawyer are involved in death-struggles although, truth be told, it's the lawyers who as prosecutors are allowed to strive to put someone to death and may win kudos for so doing. But now the lawyers, especially those whose specialty is malpractice, want to impose random testing on doctors while continuing to exempt themselves. The idea, they say, is to stop the abusive overprescribing that in the case of 10 year old Troy and his 7 year old sister, Alana, was linked to their being killed by a drugged driver who had overdosed on prescription medication. 

Trouble is that this noble concept has been hijacked by the trial attorneys who for years have been trying to increase malpractice liability in the hopes of higher payouts and better paydays for themselves. A recent study by the Berkeley Research Group reported declining malpractice claims and lower awards. This trend would be turned around were the Troy and Alana Pack Safety Act enacted into law  -- one estimate is that attorneys would win about $127,500 more on average than they do now were the initiative to succeed. That explains why the ballot summary for this initiative conceals the initiative's true purpose, not patient protection, but lawyer enrichment.

So why not amend the Troy and Alana Pack Safety Act so that it also includes lawyers, e.g., random drug testing for any lawyer within a few hours of a scheduled court appearance, or anytime a lawyer is arguing a death penalty case? Lawyers, from time to time, steal from client's trust funds, sometimes to support drug habits, so why not also test lawyers randomly?

Sometimes lawyers miss statutes of limitations. Test all of them who do that. Sometimes lawyers create false documents or prosecutors fail to turn over exculpatory data to defendants. Test all of them, too. In cases where a wrongful prosecution has led to wrongful imprisonment, why not skip the drug testing and have the prosecutor finish up the sentence that was wrongfully imposed on the hapless defendant? Some lawyers, some doctors, and even some judges benefit from loopholes in the system.

If we plug these loopholes by amending the Troy and Alana Pack Safety Act, then, just maybe, with a level playing field, the proponents would improve their credibility with the public. At the moment, the initiative is tilted more to trial lawyers' enrichment than to anybody's safety. 

Robert Weinmann, MD
http://www.politicsofhealthcare.com/

================

More on Selective Regulation of Healthcare &
Healthcare Professionals;
facebook.com/PhysiciansForFairness

twitter.com/Voice_MD