The LA County Observer

Observations of a LA County Resident

What happens when you “code” during a Workers’ Compensation approved surgery?

Written By: raconte - Dec• 23•16

You’d think that if you surfer a life threatening emergency while undergoing a surgical procedure you’d think that your employer’s Workers’ Compensation insurer carrier wouldn’t question your surgeon’s medical decision – but that didn’t happen in my life-threatening moment. Here’s what happened.

After several years of going back and forth with Adventist Health (who’s self-insured) to get them to approve surgery on my right shoulder I finally got the green light. This process had been very contentious and time consuming, but on August 17th, I arrived at the “hospital” to have my surgery. All was going along as planned until just after the anesthesiologist performed a nerve block. I almost immediately began to experience problems breathing and informed the operating team that I was having severe chest pains and couldn’t breathe. And as they say “all hell broke loose”. I remember the anesthesiologist screaming “I need help over here” and I asked God to please let me live.

I awoke sometime later in the ICU, hooked up to a BPAP and other various monitors and medical personnel. It was then that I learned that not only had I suffered respiratory arrest but a cardiac arrest as well – in short I “died” on the table. After a little more than a day in the ICU, I was discharged home. Not long afterwards I received a letter from Excel Utilization Review (UR), the UR company that my Adventist Health claims adjuster, who shall remain “nameless to protect the guilty” so I’ll just call her Ms. CA. Apparently she thought that my surgeon’s decision to have me admitted to ICU after such a serious medical event required a review and approval of Excel, you know just in case it was an inappropriate and costly decision to admit a patient who’d suffered a full respiratory and cardiac event to ICU. Yeah, you read that right, Adventist Health, a hospital/healthcare corporation, was unsure that my surgeon had made a medically sound and financially correct decision!

Excel denied my admission to ICU! However, in their defense one of the reasons was the failure of my surgeon to send them “appropriate” information, but as a medical professional myself I was rather incredulous that they (Adventist Health and Excel) even questioned the need to admit a patient to ICU – most surgeons don’t just do this on a whim. But this is Workers’ Compensation after all so logic goes out the window and often doesn’t seem to apply.

Sometime later I received another letter from Excel that approved my ICU stay – whew! The irony was that Excel actually commented that the average ICU stays in a case such as mine was just less than 5 days, while I stayed just over 1 day. So while Ms. CA thought my stay was possibly inappropriate and costing Adventist Health unnecessary money that turned out not to be the case.

In the meantime, Ms. CA refused to return me to “total temporary disability” (TTD) status as order by my surgeon and have taken no action to discover what might have happened to cause this serious medical event.

Stay tunned for more . . . .

 

 

 

 

When Workers’ Compensation fails the injured worker!

Written By: raconte - Dec• 21•16

Just a little over a year ago tragedy struck San Bernardino (SB) County when two radicalized individuals attacked SB County employees during a training/holiday party. 14 people were killed and 22 more were seriously injured that fateful day on December 2, 2015.

Flash forward a year and the public discovered that many of the 22 seriously injured employees are having to fight tooth and nail to get treatment through our state’s horrible Workers’ Compensation program. You can read about their struggles in the coverage provided in the Pasadena Star News and in the Los Angeles Times. Being a person who, while not a victim of such a horrible attack, has been winding my way through the Workers’ Compensation system for my work-related injury felt compelled to respond. You can read my letters to the editors that were published in the PSN San Bernardino terrorist attack survivors and the LTE SB Attack.

San Bernardino County isn’t the only self-insured employer who seems to be abdicating their responsibility to care for their injured worker and help them return to pre-injury condition, as much and as quickly as possible. This employer isn’t the only one; next up I turn the spotlight on Adventist Health and how they provide compassionate and excellent care to their injured workers – NOT!

I think I’ll title this post “The Los Angeles Times motto ‘Don’t Publish the Story Especially when it comes to the LA County Board of Supervisors’”

Written By: raconte - Nov• 06•16

A couple of weeks ago the LA County Board of Supervisors ordered the boardroom cleared, went into closed session and when they returned kept the meeting closed to all but the press. They did this in response to a disruption caused by a handful of protestors. Unfortunately, few in LA County are probably aware that this had happened since the LA Times failed to report on what happened that day, but in their defense they had no reporter assigned to cover the Board that day.

I thought I’d submit an op-ed to the LA Times with the hope that they’d run it – silly me thinking that they’d run an op-ed from just a “regular old person”. So since the LA Times couldn’t be bothered I’ve attached what I submitted to the LA Times below.

===

On October 25th the Board of Supervisors made the rare decision to clear the boardroom and go into closed session. What could drive the Supervisors to such drastic action, you may ask. The answer would be protestors.

Over the past several months there’ve been numerous individuals who’ve come to the Board of Supervisors meeting to petition that the Supervisors vote no to the building the Mira Loma Women’s Detention Center to be located in Lancaster. They’ve addressed the Board each and every time the item has been before the Board enumerating the many reasons why they oppose not just the Mira Loma Women’s Detention Center, but also the building of any jail!

Last Tuesday their protests reached a crescendo when a group of about 15 individuals began to shout “No More Jails!” “What do we want?” “No More Jails!” They shouted down Supervisor Solis and Ridley-Thomas. And as the protestors grew louder Solis called the meeting into recess and ordered the room cleared. Shortly after clearing the room the Board went into closed session, but when they returned from closed session the Pubic was barred from returning. The Board choose to only allow the Press to join them for the remainder of the meeting.

The Board’s decision may or may not have violated the Brown Act, that’ll be up to DA Jackie Lacey – as I’m aware that there’ve been several Brown Act violation complaints filed with her office – mine included. The Brown Act allows the Board to remove disruptive individuals and it even allows them to bar those individuals from returning. However, I wonder if the Board had other options available to them rather then clearing the entire room and then closing the meeting to all members of the public, you know those of us not involved in the disruptive behavior?

There were about 15 people causing the disruption and they were gathered together on one side of the Boardroom. Could they have been ushered out as a group? Perhaps. Then after the recess, when cooler heads prevailed and most if not all the protestors had left, perhaps the Board could’ve allowed the remaining members of the public back into the Boardroom, after all there were still items to be discussed. The Board could’ve chosen to allow us in with the understanding that any disruptive behavior would be met with immediate expulsion, but that wasn’t an option they chose.

There have been several Board decisions and actions of late that have made me quite concerned about the whittling away of the Public’s rights under our State’s open meeting laws, and specifically the Brown Act, to address the Board. Long gone are the twice a week meetings (Tuesdays and Thursdays) that the Board once held, now the business of 10 million people is condensed down into one day and often a large portion of the meeting is dedicated for awards. While the Public is given time (six minutes in total) to address items on the agenda, we now have no control on how we can use those six minutes since Solis has become the Chair we are limited to 3 minutes for agenda items and two minutes at public comment. Of course that assuming the County Counsel doesn’t interrupt you with her opinion that the speaker is off topic – the function of the Chair. I guess County Counsel is under the delusion that she’s been elected the “sixth supervisor”. Several weeks ago County Counsel even went so far as to make a motion to prohibit a member of the public to attend Board meetings until after the New Year. How do I know this, well County Counsel order the person kicked out and banned until after the New Year, Solis uttered the magic words “so moved” – sounds like County Counsel made a motion to me. But by this Tuesday, November 1st, this same public member was allowed back and provided an opportunity to address the Board.

How long will the public accept the tyranny of the Board? Granted some members of the public shouldn’t behave the way they did the other day, but the constant eroding of the public’s rights and the lack of civility from both sides will only continue to breed contempt from both sides and I’m afraid that things will not finish well.

LA County Board of Supervisors thumb noses at Brown Act and the Public yet again!

Written By: raconte - Oct• 26•16

Over the past several months, the Board of Supervisors has implemented many rules that have in my opinion slowly eroded the Public’s rights as permitted under the Brown Act. However today I think I observed the most egregious abuse of their authority and complete disregard for the Public and our right to address them, not to mention their disregard of the Brown Act.

There have been several meetings where members of the public opposed to the proposed new jail have been very vocal about their opposition. Most of the time the opponents, while they could be very vocal about their opposition they did so within the rules of the Board. Unfortunately, today was not the case. Those opposed to the new jail chose instead to disrupt the weekly Board meeting. Their loud and raucous behavior caused the Chair to announce that the Board would go to close session and then ordered the chamber cleared.

So out everyone went, with many of us waiting for the Board to return from close session so that we could speak to the items we had signed in for and the Board had not yet heard. Alas this was not to be, as we would learn several hours later. Imagine my surprise when we learned that the Board had returned from close session but had decided that only members of the Press would be allowed in and the Public would be barred. And, if this wasn’t insult enough the Board went forward with their meeting which still had multiple items left to be heard and of course the ever popular adjournments. I know that they heard from Drs. Katz and Ghaly on at least one item and voted on at least one of those items. But then again how’s anyone to really know what transpired since the Board closed the Public portion of the meeting to the Public. Can we say Brown Act violation?

How is this a Brown Act violation, you may ask? Simple the Brown Act allows the Public to address the Board on items on the agenda; by forbidding the Public to participate in the remainder of the meeting they violated the Brown Act. Of course you could argue that the Board was trying to avoid additional disruption, but this could’ve been handle by simply ejecting any one who continued to disrupt the meeting. In addition, by hearing and then voting on items without allowing those members of the Public that had signed up to speak on said items was yet another violation and requires that the Board rescind their vote and rehear the item – but I wouldn’t hold my breath since quashing Public involvement and slowly eroding the Brown Act seems to be de rigueur these days when it comes to the LA County Board of Supervisors.

Candidates for the 5th District are “duking it out”

Written By: raconte - Jun• 05•16

The LA Times may have endorsed Najarian for the 5th District, but my money is on Barger to be the one elected to fill the soon to be vacant 5th District seat. As a long time county observer I strongly feel that we need some institutional memory on the Board, and its apparent to me that even though Kuehl and Solis are working hard to serve their constituents their learning curve has been steep – Barger won’t have that challenge.

As a voter, besides knowledge and intelligence, some of the most important characteristics for me in a candidate are: ethics, fairness, and a truthful nature. In that vein I’ve had the opportunity to attend various debates and forums where many of these candidates had an opportunity to present their views to the audience. At one such event Huff and his supporters swarmed the stage at the end of the event holding up campaign signs and having their picture taken. This action could easily leave someone with the impression that the host had endorsed Huff – which was not the case. I found it concerning that Huff, as a seasoned campaigner, allowed this electioneering to go on unchecked.

Then there’s Englander who initially listed himself as “councilman/police officer”, the excuse given was that he was allowed only three words to describe himself. So instead of listing himself with a title representing his primary role as a LA city councilman (see three words) he chose to include “police officer” in his job title (not clarifying that he serves as a reserve police officer). Almost every mailer I’ve received shows him in his police uniform, and not at the LA City Council. Maybe he’s afraid that the constituents of the 5th District will see him as yet another politician looking for his next political office if he emphasized his role as a LA city councilperson. Not to mention the numerous allegations that his campaign has received money from companies that have business before the LA City Council.

Then we have Najarian, endorsed by not only the LA Times, but also former Pasadena Mayor Boggard (a nice man, but someone who definitely leans more left than center). Not to mention that he referred to President Obama as a former roommate before he corrected himself and changed that to classmate. And though Glendale seems to have muddled well through the recent downturn, one can’t help but notice how much the community has changed going from a tree lined, single home community to a city that appears to be on the brink of being gentrified like so much of LA city.

And don’t get me started on Carr. Park and Carr are the only two candidates that have put out negative campaign pieces. Marring what I can only describe as one of the few elections where it would appear that all the other 5th Supervisorial district candidates and their “independent groups” have focused on what the (their) candidate brings to the table, their accomplishments and what not.

Here’s the latest LA Times article on the 5th District race to fill one of the two soon to be vacant seats on the LA County Board of Supervisors

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-antonovich-race-20160605-snap-story.html

Flawed Pasadena process still gets good results — maybe not

Written By: raconte - Jun• 28•15

The following – http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinion/20150616/flawed-pasadena-city-hall-selection-process-yields-a-good-result-larry-wilson – was a Pasadena Star News opinion piece regarding the recent selection process used to fill the then vacant District 7 seat. And though Wilson felt the process was flawed he concluded that it still yielded good results – this Pasadena resident couldn’t disagree more. So what follows is my letter to the editor, which for what every reason Wilson felt was unworthy to be printed.

RE: Flawed Pasadena process still gets good results

 

Dear Editor:

 

I agree wholeheartedly that the process of our city council was flawed, but only time will tell whether this process garners good results. However, there was an option that our “good old boys club” could’ve chosen. That option and one that would’ve more closely matched the will of District 7’s constituents would’ve been the appointment of Margaret York. York was the second top vote getter in the April 2009 election, and since she had thrown her hat in the ring for consideration for the now vacant District 7 seat, I think it would’ve been wise to appoint her. After all in 2009, 47.3% of District 7 voters had cast their ballot for her as their pick for their city council seat. That our freshly elected Mayor Tornek was the vote that decided the selection of Mr. Wilson really disappointed me. Perhaps Tornek couldn’t deal with his previous rival, which might explain why Tornek didn’t support her nomination.

 

I guess that this logical and commonsense solution eluded our erstwhile council people. I’m just glad I’m not a District 7 resident because though Mr. Wilson might’ve appeared a good choice, I think overlooking the April 2009 election results is a slap in the face of the good people of District 7. Personally, I found such display of hypocrisy by our city council difficult to swallow.

 

===

AFTERNOTE – I found it interesting that neither Tornek nor Wilson thought it important to let the good people of Pasadena know that Andy Wilson contributed to Tornek 2015 mayoral campaign. Though Wilson’s contribution was small, somewhere around $1200.00, and Tornek might not be expected to recall each and every individual who financially contributed to his campaign. Mr. Andy Wilson should be expected to recall whose campaign he contributed to and at the very least he should’ve declared this prior to the city council taking a vote – and Mayor Tornek should’ve recused himself from the vote.

CD-14 Debate — and the winner is . . .

Written By: raconte - Feb• 21•15

Gloria Molina!

In case you missed it Cal State LA was the place to be to hear the four contenders for the Los Angeles City Council District 14 seat. The contenders in alphabetical order were Mario Chávez, Nadine Diaz, José Huízar (the incumbent), and Gloria Molina.

Yours truly attended primarily to show my support for Molina, who in my personal opinion is the best person for the job – and her performance didn’t disappoint. She was in top form and got in some real zingers at the incumbent. In fact Chávez and Diaz also fired off several tough barbs at the incumbent.

Both Chávez and Diaz did a respectable jobs holding their own, but it was Molina’s experience that won the day. Huízar, all but ignoring Chávez and Diaz, aimed his barbs at Molina who met them with steely-eyed determination. Of course this is nothing new to those of us who’ve watched her during her tenure on the LA County Board of Supervisors.

And, though the audience applauded comments made by all four of the candidates, it was Huízar’s comment that CD-14 hadn’t seen such low crimes rates since the 1950’s that elicited so many groans of disbelief that I couldn’t help but award him my very own Pinocchio award for this obvious misrepresentation.

If I lived in the City of Los Angeles Council District 14, I’d vote for Molina. I’ve encourage all my friends and associates living in CD-14 to get out and vote for her because she’s got what it takes.

The Problem with the Patient Safety Act

Written By: raconte - May• 07•14

In case you missed it there was a press conference held at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office this past Monday, March 24th. The purpose of this press conference was to announce that they (supporters of the Patient Safety Act) were submitting 830,000 signatures to qualify for the November 2014 ballot. The proposition has three main components first to raise the cap on the limit of pain and suffering damages in malpractice cases from $250,000 that was set in 1975 to about 1 million dollars and to tie future awards to the rate of inflation. Second would be to mandate random drug testing of physicians and Third would be to require doctors to use the CURES database when prescribing opioids to help reduce physician and prescription shopping used by addicts to fills multiple scripts for opioids such as vicodin, Percocet, morphine and so forth.

As both a nurse and a victim of malpractice I know first hand the frustrations faced by victims of malpractice who struggle to find representation as attorney after attorney turn them away, not for lack of a valid case but because of the 1975 MICRA cap which makes it nearly impossible to mount the defense needed to take a case to trial. Back in 1975 physicians, especially obstetricians clamored that settlements for pain and suffering in malpractice case were causing rising premiums and potentially driving good doctors out of the state. Such doom and gloom predictions lead to The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) of 1975. This statute was enacted by the California Legislature in 1975 and signed into law by then Gov. Jerry Brown (yes, the very same Gov. Brown that currently serves as our state’s chief executive) that same year. MICRA’s constitutionality has been repeatedly challenged, but mostly upheld by either the California Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court of California – thus almost all of MICRA remains in effect and still part of California State law.

Personally, I don’t think its asking all that much that the MICRA cap increases, it’s been nearly forty years since the cap was placed on pain and suffering awards in malpractice lawsuits. Unfortunately, there’s a large contingent (especially in the healthcare arena) that are opposed to increasing the MICRA cap. In February of this year Darrell Steinberg, Senate President pro Tem of the California Legislature, introduced SB 1429 (follow this link to learn more – http://openstates.org/ca/bills/20132014/SB1429/) a “spot bill” that would amend MICRA and lift the cap on pain and suffering awards in malpractice lawsuits. At this point in time the bill appears stalled and it looks like the voters will have the final say on this issue in November.

The second part of the Patient Safety Act of 2014 is a provision that would require the random drug testing of physicians. At the press conference Mr. Jaime Court rationalized that airplane pilots, bus drivers and truck drivers are required to submit to drug tests, why not physicians. However, during the press conference not one of the grieving families that shared their story of the loss of a loved one to malpractice cited physician impairment as the cause of the error that lead to the death of their loved one. Most of the stories presented were due to human error on the part of the physician and in another case the error were due to nurses failing to due their job. It would’ve been helpful if those of us attending the press conference had been provided a story on how physician impairment had impacted them.

A 2000 Rand report estimated that impaired physicians have about a 25% higher claim rate than the non-impaired physician and twice the negligence claim rate. So it seems to make sense that physicians should undergo random drug test, but should they be the only ones? The actor Dennis Quaid is on record supporting the Patient Safety Act and the random drug testing of physicians. However the medical error that endangered the lives of his twins wasn’t that of a physician but of the hospital pharmacist who placed the wrong strength of heparin in the units drug lock box and the nursing team that failed to follow simple nursing protocols that require nurses to double check when administering certain types of medication, such as insulin and heparin. The process is simple the nurses read the vial’s label to ascertain that it’s the right medication, the right strength and right amount, none of this was done by the Cedars-Sinai nurses in the Quaid incident.

So why just mandate random drug testing of physicians only? If you really want to ensure that impaired healthcare providers are weeded out before they make an error that can lead to harm or even death to the patients why not mandate random drug testing on any member of the healthcare team that has access to drugs, such as pharmacists, nurses, respiratory therapist and so forth. And since the people are being asked to weigh in on this issue, then why should the physician bear the burden of paying for these random drug test – the state should. I also wonder whether the voters can mandate what is in reality a regulation? Isn’t this the responsibility of our legislature or the Medical Board?

Finally, the requirement to that all physicians use the CURES database prior to writing a prescription for a patient for such medication as opioids and other schedule II through schedule IV drugs. Forty-eight states have some form of prescription drug monitoring program in place, California is one of those states but few physicians use the CURES database. Passage of the Patient Safety Act would require physicians to use this system, but I wonder if an evaluation has ever been done to learn why so few physicians use this system. I know from first hand experience that an unwieldy computer program can be a huge obstacle for a practitioner. While a nurse at a local area hospital the computer system that had been designed for the nurses in the NICU was so horrible that the nurses wished the computer would simply “die” and the nurses seldom used it (this was a very long time ago). On the other hand the respiratory therapists (RT) seemed charmed by it. It turns out that when the program was developed for our NICU, the RTs were closely involved in its development, the nurse not so much, which explains why the RTs felt so at home using it. Physicians already deal with more and more pressures placed on them to use electronic medical records, order prescriptions electronically, and complete their patient examination in 15 minutes and so forth. Thus when mandating physicians to use yet another electronic system, this time to check whether or not their patient is doctor shopping or not that system better be very doctor friendly.

Just as the provision mandating that physicians submit to random drug testing the provision on using CURES focuses in on physicians only. Why? According to the California Department of Justice CURES can be used by licensed prescribers, licensed pharmacists, law enforcement personnel and regulatory board personnel strictly for patient care or official investigatory/regulatory purposes. So why not mandate that pharmacists check CURES when a person comes into their pharmacy with a prescription that requires being checked by the CURES system. Doing so is a good way to catch the potential pill mill, not to mention a patient that might’ve slipped by the doctor’s scrutiny.

The Patient Safety Act of 2014 has potential, but I fear that by including so many parts that are in some way disparate from the primary goal, which is to raise the MICRA cap, voters might not vote in the affirmative. The proposition is billed as the Patient Safety Act, so having doctors get drug tested and requiring that doctors check the CURES database makes sense – this involves patient safety. Sorry to say, but raising the MICRA cap has nothing to do with patient safety. So since leaving the press conference I’ve conducted several “man on the street” interviews and found that many of the people I’ve spoken to are more inclined to vote no on the Patient Safety Act of 2014 if they don’t support one or more of the three items. Does this mean the Patient Safety Act of 2014 is doomed to failure, not necessarily but I do see it as a problem? I know that as it stands now I’m not likely to vote in the affirmative, because though I support all three components of the proposition in principle I can’t vote for it if it mandates only the physician to be subjected to drug testing and using the CURES database. Yes, the Patient Safety Act of 2014 can always be amended down the road, but that doesn’t mean it will. Just ask the author of MICRA who thought that a rider to tie the cap to inflation would follow – which it never did.

To further complicate matters is the recent decision from the Florida Supreme Court that struck down that state’s 10-year old MICRA LAW. Whether it’ll have an impact on our MICRA law is not yet known – but the Florida ruling might just set a precedence that can’t be ignored.

It’s quite possible that with so many issues that evoke strong responses in individuals the authors of the Patient Safety Act of 2014 may very well have shot themselves in the foot. I know that as much as I’m in support of raising the MICRA cap I can’t in all good conscience vote for a proposition that also includes provisions that mandate random drug testing of physicians (and makes the physician pay for the drug testing themselves) but ignores other key healthcare providers whose impairment can also cause medical errors. Nor can I vote to mandate physicians use the CURES database when other key people, specifically pharmacists, are excluded from the same mandate.

So I’ve had my say on this matter. Here are links to both the supporters’ (www.packact.org) and the opponents’ (www.micra.org) websites. I hope you’ll take the time to peruse both sites and inform yourselves. You might also find the following links informative, the first provides the actually language of the Patient Safety Act of 2014 (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/troyandalanapackpatientsafetyactof201400202344.pdf). The second provides the link to the Secretary of State campaign reporting site where you can investigate who’s giving what money to support the Patient Safety Act of 2014 campaign (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1361562&type=monetary&view=late1).

Soon Californians will be bombarded by mailers, ads and commercials many dramatic and meant to pull at your heartstrings. There’s nothing wrong in this, but educate yourself beyond the rhetoric (both pro and con), discuss the proposition with those whose opinion you value and finally slog through the very complicated language of the proposition that is available in your voter’s pamphlet – because how we vote on this proposition may have unintended consequences, just as when our state legislature passed MICRA back in 1975 only to see what that bill wrought 38 years later.

State of California orders LA Care to “cease and desist”. . .

Written By: raconte - Aug• 10•12

On July 13, 2012 the State of California Health and Human Services Agency Department of Managed Health Care issues LA Care, a quasi-governmental agency of Los Angeles County, a cease and desist order.  California Watch first reported this in their August 6. 2012 Daily Report, they reported that 12 “cease and desist” orders had been issued to Accountable, a Los Angeles doctors’ group that provides care for 148,000 patients.  One organization that contracted with Accountable was our very own L.A. Care (LA CARE Cease&Desist) and on whose Board of Governors Supervisor Molina and John Schunhoff (now retired) sit and represent the County’s voice.  So, I was surprised this past Tuesday to find that neither the Board of Supervisors nor Dr. Mitch Katz appeared aware of the cease and desist order.  But then again the Board does love to play at being blissfully unaware of many problems until someone, usually not one of their sycophants, makes the information public.  Just ask Noguez and his seven special assistants (still on County payroll as far as I can ascertain) about how ignorant the Board was about their bosses actions – that is until the Los Cerritos Community Newspaper and Randy Economy reported on the alleged corruption going on at the LA County Assessor’s office.  I wonder does the Board even know that the county taxpayers are footing the bill for Mr. Noguez’s seven special assistants even while he’s on paid administrative leave?

So good citizen that I was I gave the Board of Supervisors and Dr. Katz copies of the cease and desist order and I wonder what excuse Mr. Howard A. Kahn (Chief Executive Office, LA Care) or Mr. John Wallace (Chief Operating Officer, LA Care) will come up with regarding their foot dragging as it relates to their foot-dragging on shedding their association with Accountable or when for that matter they will make public that they got dinged by the State?

The Los Angeles Times speaks about “Term Limits” for Board of Supervisors

Written By: raconte - Aug• 07•12

Jim Newton writes about the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors attempt to extend term limits from 3 consecutive four year terms to 5 consecutive four year terms.  Read it here