Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10172000 - C9 and HOUSING AUTHORITY Cfq CIAIN1 BOARD-A0 OCTOBER177 2000 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by } the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, } NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. } notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below}, given yr pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and SEP I 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". AMOUNT: None Stated . MAIRTNEZ CALIF, CLAIMANT: Afroz Eskandarzadeh ATTORNEY: DATE RECEIVED: September 18, 2000 ADDRESS: 2100 BUCHANAN ROAD, C•-508 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK. ON: September 18 00 ANTIOCH CA 94509 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: .September 15,,_ 2000 L FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. RYT&BER 19, 2000 PHIL BA. HELOR, Cl#r Dated: By: Deputy II. FROM County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervi cors ( } This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( L„).--This claim TAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days {Section 910,8}. { } Claim is not timely filed, The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim {Section 911.3}. { } Other: Dated: By: ¢"- l "Deputy County Counsel III. FROM Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( } Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant {Section 911.3}. rV. BOARD CORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: &A This Claim is rejected in full. Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. bated: bal.1 'HIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov, code section 13) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately, *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFF]DAVIT OF MAILING declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully )repaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated:6 (`t' By: PAIL BATCHELOR By fDeputy Clerk :C: County Counsel County Administrator This warning does not apply to claims which are not subject to the California Tort Claims Act such as actions in inverse condemnation, actions for specific relief such as mandamus or injunction, or Federal Civil Rights claims. The above list is not exhaustive and legal consultation is essential to understand all the separate limitations periods that may apply. The limitations period within which suit must be filed may be shorter or longer depending on the nature of the claim. Consult the specific statutes and cases applicable to your particular claim. The County of Contra Costa does not waive any of its rights under California Tort Claims Act nor does it waive rights under the statutes of limitations applicable to actions not subject to the California Tort Claims Act. Office of the County Counsel Contra Costa County n . 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: 335-1800 Martinez, CA 94553 Fax:646-1078 Date: September 26, 2000 To: Anne Cervelli, Clerk of the Board l From: Victor J. Westman, County CounseL_,,t�� Yom. by: Gregory C. Harvey, Assistant Coin&f!C nO, I , f Subj: Claim of Afroz Eshandarzadeh Please be advised that the correct address for the claim on this claim is Afroz Eskandarzadeh, 2100 Buchanan Road, C508, Antioch, CA 94509. We will be sending a copy of the notice of insufficiency to that address. Please use this address for further contact with the claimant. cc Risk Management HAMEMOSTOWEMO-FRM.WPD CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION 1 VICTOR J.WESTMAN a PHILLIF S.ALLIP EA LTHOFF 6OUNTY COUNSEL JANICE L.AMENTA NORA G.BARLOW B.REBECCA BYRNES CASSIDY SILVANO B.MARCHES! -�r�► ANDREA,COOPER� ��� COSTA, �"�";� MON3KAL.COQPER CH IEF ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL �-.+�• 9 �, VICKIE L.DAWES OFFICE t31`"THE CL�}U O NSE M CHAEL D FARR SHARON L.ANDERSON ` f . ',- RI{i£N� 1LC3#Nt3 ,I LILLIAN T FUJII ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL 1REET.. DENNISC,GRAVES JANET L.HOLMES MAfXId�fEZ, CALIF t'29 KEVINTKERR GREGORY C.HARVEY EDWBERNARDDV. ANE,J „-: t ^�' ��=t EDWARD V.LANE,JR. ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL. � � BEATRICE LIU MARY ANN MASON PAUL R.GAYLE MUGGLI VALERIE M RANOHE OFFICE MANAGER NOTICE ( F INStTFFICIENCY D EVEN S REMIDT DAVID F.SILVER DIANA J.SILVER PHONE(925)335-1800 A JACQUELINE Y WOODS FAX(925)6481078 NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Afroz Eskandarzadeh c/o Carl Warren& Company Attn: Steve Gooch Centre Pointe 165 Lennon Lane, Suite 101 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 RE: CLAIM OF AFROZ ESKANDARZADEH Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: [X] 1. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. [X] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. [ ] 3. The claim fails to state the date,place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted, [ ] 4. The claim fails to state the name(s)of the public employee(s)causing the injury, damage, or loss,if known. [X] 5. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars($10,000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars($10,000),the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation,the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars($10,000),the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court. [X] 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on his or her behalf, Page 1 Risk Management Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity; separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp Afrooz Eskandarzadeh/akbarinejad Against the County of Contra Costar DODO or The Housing Authority of Contra Costa (District) (Fill in name) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of$ and in support of this claim represents as follows: SEE ATTACHED INCIDENT REPORT FILLED OUT BY CI TM❑ Z'S DAUGMTE1i 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? clmform 1 `5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attached two estimates for auto damage.) 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) 3. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEA� AMOUNT Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICE TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney (Claimants Signature) (Address) Telephone No. Telephone No. NOTTCE Section 72 of the Venal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand($1,000), of by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by both such imprisonment and fine." clmform a • • r P j t M - ! } • "► , ,, 4r t ! t IMP 4 pill 11 Pll MWAM AZIA A1,41, Li TW— .4 • # F r r 1 Ali V_ ILF.777f, /77 ci AA F � � ` � '�� a �`, � o � � �� �� � � `'�' �' y � � � vti vs :.• :. ;,. :- i .. � :-. '� r 4\' 3 i k. ..y:t{��` lw ��a `� w�i *y ''iS �V µ` � �F ~ 4 C. w-.. C "` ` �; 4 t{ 4A �3 t _„ s.� r ` CLAIM j BOARD AOOIIE OCTOBER 17, 20( Crim Against the County, or District Governed by } the Board of Sup rvisorsy Routing Endorsements, NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All fiction references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Governmen! Codes, awn) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Ran Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given g pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". NZOLF AMOUNT: COUNTY COUNSEL Jurisdiction of Superior Court CLAIMANT: Sheridan Johnston ATTORNEY: c/o Gregory L. McCoy DATE RECEIVED: September 13, 2000 ADDRESS: McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 13, 2000 279 Front Street P. 0. Box 218 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand-Delivered Danville CA 94526 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PIRL BATCHELOR., Clerk Dated: September 13 2000 By: Deputy H. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board odVSupervisors ( „. This claim complies substantially with Sections 914 and 910.2. { ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( } Other: Dated: _ By: j Deputy County Counsel ffi. FROM Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORUER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. M Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: L&by, /:Z,;QQ0Q PML BATCHELOR, CIerk, By , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice, in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional "turning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18, and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: y: PHIL BATCHELOR By Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator C` CLAIM OF SHERIDAN JOHNSTON VS. TOWN OF DANVILLE and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA SHERIDAN JOHNSTON, Claimant, CLAD FOR DAMAGES VS. TOWN OF DANVILLE andREC COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, mu.-.:.. SEP n Respondents. cc ISORS TO THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF DANVILLE AND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: You are hereby notified that Mr. SHERIDAN JOHNSTON, whose address is c/o Gregory L; McCoy, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon &Armstrong, 279 Front Street, P.O. Box 218,Danville, California 94526,claims damages from the TOWN OF DANVILLE and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. This claim is based on injuries sustained by Claimant as a result of a trespass and invasion of his privacy which occurred on July 28, 2040. Claimant is a resident of the Town of Danville. On July 28, 2000, members of the Danville Police Department authorized, ratified, and assisted three non-law enforcement individuals, Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. David McCallough and Mr. Carlos De Leon, to enter without permission the private residence ofMr.JOHNSTON. Neither these individuals,nor rAcLcL2728rgo,t-dam. -1- the representatives ofthe Danville Police Department had any warrant authorizing entry upon Mr. JOHNSTON's property, or his private residence. The Danville Police Department in fact did nothing to determine the owner of the property at 1304 Still Creek Place,even though Mr.JOHNSTON had been the owner ofthat property for thirteen years. When Danville Police Officers arrived at the property on July 28, 2000, the assigned officers did nothing to contact the owner of the property at 1304 Still Creek Place. Similarly, members of the Danville Police Department did nothing to determine the ownership of a vehicle which Mr.Albert Smith had provided the license plate number of, which he claimed to be at that property. The Danville Police Department did nothing to determine whether Mr.Albert Smith was in the possession of a search warrant for the property at 1304 Still Creek Place,or an arrest warrant for Mr.SHERIDAN JOHNSTON. The Danville Police Department in fact fully cooperated with and assisted the breaking and entering of Mr.JOHNSTON's property by three individuals who were not law enforcement personnel and cooperated and followed the instructions which such individuals gave them during the course of their trespass, invasion of privacy, and breaking and entering into Mr. JOHNSTON's private residence. After the illegal entry onto Mr.JOHNSTON's property and into his private residence, the Danville Police Department failed to contact Mr. JOHNSTON to advise him of such entry or trespass. The Danville Police Department, although its officers were on the scene of the illegal`entry into Mr. JOHNSTON's property, did nothing to determine whether the non-law enforcement individuals who entered Mr.JOHNSTON's private residence removed any of Mr. JOHNSTON's private property therefrom, including private financial and identifying information. Members of the Danville Police Department allowed three non-law enforcement individuals to enter Mr.JOHNSTON's home who were armed. Mr.JOHNSTON fortunately was not at home, but upon learning of such illegal entry by armed non-law enforcement FACLor.M32728\govc..iaim.,vpa -2- personnel was placed in fear and has sustained considerable emotional distress,and has also incurred economic loss by his inability to perform consulting activities due to the emotional distress to which he was subjected. Members of the Danville Police Department cooperated with the three non-law enforcement individuals to create the impression that a law enforcement activity was taking place at Mr. JOHNSTON's home on July 28,2000,and that Mr.JOHNSTON was guilty of a crime or involved in criminal activity. Claimant has been informed that the TOWN OF DANVILLE has an agreement indemnifying it and holding it harmless from the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA in connection with the TOWN OF DANVILLE contracting with the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA to provide police services. This claim is therefore also made to the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. The wrongs committed by the three non-law enforcement individuals consisting of trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breaking and entering into Mr.JOHNSTON's property,invading his privacy,and possible theft ofhis personal property, were made possible by Danville Police officials and were officially aided by such officials. Ey the actions referred to herein, representatives of the TOWN OF DANVILLE interfered with constitutionally protected liberty and property interests of Claimant. Injuries sustained by Claimant, as far as known as of the preparation of this claim, consist of damage to Claimant's personal reputation,negligently and intentionally inflicted mental anguish and emotional distress,loss ofmcome from Claimant's consulting business, invasion of Claimant's constitutional right of privacy, and personal injury. Jurisdiction over this claim will rest in the Superior Court with the claim in excess of $25,000. The place of the occurrence and transactions giving rise to these claims were within the boundaries of the TOWN OF DANVILLE. Those with knowledge with respect to the r:%cLGLW2728\govt-G1 .,pd -3- claim include Claimant, Robert B. Ewing, Esq., Chief Greg Gilbert, Town Manager Joe Calabrigo, and others currently unknown to Claimant who participated in the law enforcement activity on July 28, 2000, at Claimant's residence. All notices or communications with respect to this claim are to be sent to Gregory L. McCoy,Gagen,McCoy,McMahon&Armstrong,279 Front Street,P.O.Box 218,Danville, California 94526, telephone number: (925) 837-0585, facsimile number: (925) 838-5985. Dated: SHERIDAN JOHNSTON A F:\CLGLM\327281govt-daim.wpd `4` ClArq IWARD ACTIO OCTOBER 17, 2000 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph 1V below), given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". AMOUNT: $40,000.00 SEP 1 �; CoUlf4TY COUNSEL CLAIMANT: TUM LAHEY MAPT"NEZ CALIF. ATTORNEY: C/O LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK E DATE RECEIVED: September 15, 2000 CLANCY ADDRESS: Attn: Patrick. E. Clancy BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 15, 2000 1600 So. Main St. , Ste 185 Walnut Creek CA 94596 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: band-Delivered Tel: (925) 256-4600 L FRONL• Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TQ County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BA .0 LOP, Clerk r Dated: September 15, 2000 By: Deputy U. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervi s (This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2., and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( } Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( tJ'C►ther: -Fk e- c,taj'm (5 or) l c_� - e=:12 Ir-7 ., t ri! } t4 f sty. `t?rY12 ¢"' � �? l� r� - Dated: -' By: �_ ��'..-� Deputy County Counsel III. FROM Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDM- By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: (. This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: j� 1-7,9-aO PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, ByGnAe_�_ , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you l ave only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated:_(Dbat,_ f By: PHIL BATCHELOR By� Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator e Maim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS Q CLAZIAt�`"I° A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 1001'day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov't Code 911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Roam 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. fl u . See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. RE: Claim By TOM LAHEY, individually Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp and as the parent: and natural guardian ) of JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, and MARY DOE hid RECENED Against the County of Contra Costa or ) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ) SEP Ims , OOO CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et. District) 4, CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (flir in name) CONTRA COSTA ca. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named district in the sum of S, „1 jo 0i1 n 010 in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur?(dive exact date and hour) See attached. 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) See attached, 3. How did the damage or injury occur?(Give full details;use extra paper if required) See attached. 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants, or employees caused the injury or damage? See attached. 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants, or employees causing the damage or injury? See attached. 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage.) See attached. 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) See attached. & Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors, and hospitals. See attached. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury. DATE JD�LE AM-Q = See attached. Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides "The claim must be signed by the claimant or by some person on his behalf" SEND NOTICES TO: (Attornev Name and Address of Attorney ) LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK E. CLANCY ) Attn: Patrick E. Clancy ) 1600 So. Main St. ,- Suite 185 ) (Caimant's ature) Walnut Creek CA 94596 Tel : 925 256 4600 Thomas H. Lahey (Address) c/o Law Office of Patrick E. Clancy 1600 South Main St. , S11ite 185 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Telephone No. }Telephone No. NOnCE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: Every person who,with intent to defraud,presents for allowance or the payment to any state board or officer,or to any county,city,or district board or officer,authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine,any false or fraudulent ch&n,bill,account, voucher,or writing,is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year,by a fine of not exceeding one thousand(S 1,000),or by both such imprisonment and fine,or by imprisonment in the state prison,by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars($10,000),or by both such imprisonment and fine. aA � Re: Claim by THOMAS LAHEY, individually and as the parent and natural guardian of JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, and MARY DOE, his minor children by and through his attorney: Law Office of Patrick E. Clancy 1600 South Main St. , Suite 1.85 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Telephone: 925 256 4600 Item No. 5 Names of county or district officers, servants, or employees causing the damage or injury: The CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, JANET BISBING, individually and in her official capacity as a social worker for the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services, KATIE WILLIAMS/ individually and in her official capacity as a supervisor for the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services, FRAN CLARK, individually and in her official capacity as an emergency response intake worker for the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services, P. PERKINS, individually and in his or her official capacity as an emergency response intake supervisor for the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services, LORI LARKS, individually and in her official capacity as Division Manager for the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services, PETER HARRIS, individually and in his official capacity as a social worker for the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services ONE UNKNOWN STAFF SUPERVISOR OF FRAN CLARK, and ONE UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBER. The undersigned claimant hereby makes a claim against the above I The true names of each of the minor children will be provided to the legal representatives of the County of Contra Costa upon request to claimant's counsel. Page 1 of 21 named Department and Individuals, in their individual and official capacity in the sum of $20, 000, 000 compensatory damages, $20, 000, 000 punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs, and in support of this claim represents as follows. BACKGROUND A Petition for Legal Separation was filed by Z.L.2, spouse of Claimant TOM LAHEY on 10 September 1997 . They have three children, MARY DOE, born 07 October 1985, JANE DOE born 22 December 1987, and JOHN DOE, born 25 October 1995. A contentious custody battle for the children ensued. The court ( Hon. Maria Rivera, Contra Costa Superior Court ) admonished Z.L. on the record on 07 Jan 1999 that mother had a history of falsely reporting physical abuse of the children by her ex-husband to Child Protective Services, attempted to alienate the children from their father, constantly reported non-abuse incidents in an effort to gain the attention of the authorities, and gave medication to the children without consent of the father. On 22 February 1999, Judge Rivera ordered temporary custody of all three children to claimant TOM LAHEY with the mother Z.L. to only have professionally supervised visitation with the children. On 25 February 1999, the DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY removed all three children from the home of claimant TOM LAHEY on a report of alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by the claimant TOM LAHEY with JANE DOE when JANE DOE was between the ages of 6 and 9 years old, more than two years prior to 25 February 1999. The minors were 2 The true name of the Claimant's former spouse will be provided to the legal representatives of the County of Contra Costa upon request to Claimant's counsel. Page 2 of 21 �aly placed in foster care for a period of nearly six months. In the Juvenile Dependency Petition, Case Nos . J99-00454, J99-00455, and J99-00456 filed on 01 March 1999, and amended on 30 March 1999, and again on 14 May 1999, the DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, predecessor of the CONTRA COSTA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, alleged that JANE DOE, MARY DOE, and JOHN DOE, children of the claimant TOM LAHEY and his former spouse Z.L. , were children who had suffered, or there was substantial risk that the children would suffer serious physical harm by the parents pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 (a) and who had suffered, or there was substantial risk that the children would suffer serious emotional damage as a result of the conduct of the parent pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 (c) . It was further alleged that JANE DOE, had been sexually abused when she was between the ages of 6 and 9 years old by the claimant pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 (d) . The parents Z.L. and claimant TOM LAHEY stipulated that there was a history of domestic violence in the home in the presence of the minors and the minor' s parents had failed to protect the minors from this violence pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 (b) , and that the minors suffered from clinical depression pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 (c) . The allegations of sexual abuse pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 (d) involving JANE DOE were dismissed by the Juvenile Court on 08 July 1999. Except for the period from 22 February 1999 to 25 February 1999, and several weekend visits with her siblings between April and August 1998, and during the period when she was in foster care, JANE DOE has resided Page 3 of 21 zotr with her mother Z.L. since April 1996 . JANE DOE has had no contact with claimant TOM LAHEY except for a weekend visit in August 1996 and for the period from 22 February 1999 to 25 February 1999. On 13 September 1999 the Juvenile Court ( Hon. Lois Haight } approved a Family Maintenance Plan for Mother Z.L. for JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, placing JANE DOE and JOHN DOE with mother, and a Normalization Plan for Mother for MARY DOE. The court also approved a Family Maintenance Plan for Father, claimant TOM LAHEY for MARY DOE, placing MARY DOE with Father, and a Normalization Plan for Father for JANE DOE and JOHN DOE. All three minors were appointed counsel by the court for the pendency of the Juvenile Court proceedings. On July 20, 2000, the Juvenile Court dismissed the Dependency Petitions as to all three children, and issued Exit Orders referring the custody issues of the children back to the Family Court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 362 . 4 . The Juvenile Court awarded physical and legal custody of JANE DOE and JOHN DOE to mother Z.L. , and physical and legal custody of MARY DOE to claimant TOM LAHEY. Such orders are subject to modification by the Family Court. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Claim form are suet forth below: FIRST CLAIM Obtaining Testimony by Fraud, Duress, and Undue Influence On or about 07 April 2000, Z.L. , mother of JANE DOE took JANE DOE to a new therapist without the knowledge or consent of social worker JANET EISEING. Therapy for JANE DOE had been discontinued in November of Page 4 of 21 1999 according to the CONTRA COSTA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES Service Log ( hereinafter "Service Log " ) entry of 05 November 1999 prepared by social worker JANET BISBING because JANE DOE' s therapist at the time reported to JANET BISBING that JANE DOE saw therapy as " representing all that she has hated in the last two years - thinks of therapy as going backwards. Feels powerless. " It was further reported to the court in a Status Review Hearing Report dated 18 Feb 00 prepared by JANET BISBING that JANE DOE " appears to have stabilized, " and that the minor was a " delightful young lady " with a " sense of well being." However, upon being advised by claimant TOM LAHEY' s counsel that mother Z.L. had taken JANE DOE to a new therapist, JANET BISBING approved the new therapy, despite the prior comments of the minor' s former therapist, and knowing such therapy could jeopardize the Normalization Plan and Family Maintenance Plan of 13 September 1999 approved by the court. Claimant TOM LAHEY' s counsel advised JANET BISBING in a letter written on 11 April 2000 ( EXHIBIT A ) that if the purpose of the therapy was to focus on the unproven and dismissed allegations of sexual abuse by claimant TOM LAHEY, which were alleged to have occurred when JANE DOE was between 6 and 9 years old, then JANE DOE would suffer iatrogenic harm and would become further alienated from her father. Yet, despite these warnings, JANET BISBING maliciously encouraged and facilitated such therapy to obtain testimony by fraud, duress, and undue influence for the purpose of further alienating JANE DOE from claimant TOM LAHEY, and to circumvent the Normalization Plan and Family Maintenance Plan approved by the court, so as to prevent visitation between claimant and his son JOHN DOE or justify continued supervised Page 5 of 21 visits between claimant and JOHN DOE, and attempt the removal of MARY DOE from claimant' s home and place her in her mother' s home. SECOND CLAIM Obtaining Testimony by Fraud, Duress, and Undue Influence Predictably, on or about 05 May 2000, the new therapist for JANE DOE filed a report with the DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES reporting that JANE DOE was telling the therapist that she had been sexually abused by her father between the ages of 6 and 9 years old. The investigation of this report was assigned to FRAN CLARK, an Emergency Response intake worker for the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services. Despite FRAN CLARK' s knowledge that JANE DOE' s report of sexual abuse during the ages of 6 and 9 years old had been dismissed by the juvenile court on or about 08 July 1999, FRAN CLARK immediately began engaging in malicious conduct to further alienate claimant father from JANE DOE and from his other children, JOHN DOE, and MARY DOE, and to obtain testimony through duress, fraud, and undue influence to circumvent the Normalization Plan and Family Maintenance Plan approved by the court, so as to prevent visitation between JOHN DOE and claimant or justify continued supervised visitation of claimant with JOHN DOE, and attempt the removal of MARY DOE from claimant' s home and place her in her mother' s home. Specifically, as set forth on pages 1 through 9 of the Investigation Information Report for ReferrallNumber 1043-0282-8042-0021134, Page 6 of 21 hereinafter " Investigation information Report ") beginning on 11 May 2000, FRAN CLARK went to the high school of MARY DOE, sibling of JANE DOE, to question MARY DOE, without MARY DOE' s attorney being present, about whether claimant had ever sexually abused her. MARY DOE was removed from class by FRAN CLARK and questioned by FRAN CLARK. According to the Investigation Information Report prepared by FRAN CLARK, on page 1, MARY DOE denied that claimant TOM LAHEY had ever been inappropriate with her, and further, indicated that the purpose of FRAN CLARK' s inquiry must be about her sister, JANE DOE. MARY DOE told FRAN CLARK that JANE DOE had told her that the allegations of sexual abuse of JANE DOE by her father, claimant TOM LAHEY " were not true " and that the alleged sexual abuse didn' t happen. " On 11 May 2000, and again on 22 May 2000, FRAN CLARK went to the middle school of JANE DOE, removed JANE DOE from her class, without JANE DOE' s attorney being present, and questioned her about whether her father had engaged in inappropriate behavior, despite the exact such claim having been previously investigated by the Pleasant Hill Police Department on or about February 25, 1999 and the allegation of the same having been dismissed by the Juvenile Court on 08 July 1999. According to the report prepared by FRAN CLARK, JANE DOE reported that the allegations were true, but JANE DOE also acknowledged that she had not had any contact with her father since February 1999. Furthermore, FRAN CLARK engaged in malicious duress by continuing to question JANE DOE on 22 May 2000 after the minor informed FRAN CLARK that JANE DOE didn' t want to go further with the discussion and only wanted to discuss the matter in therapy and that JANE DOE had already given a videotaped Page 7 of 21 interview about the matter at the request of CPS one year before. FRAN CLARK indicated at page 2 of the Investigation Information Report that the °` referral mostly emphasized the need for cps to check on [ MARY DOE' s ] report on anything inappropriate in the past and her feelings of safety in the present as she now lives primarily with dad, so pressing [ JANE DUE ] on exact details seemed less relevant since she no longer has contact with dad and is in therapy. " According to the Investigation Information Report, pg 3, on 11 May 2000 FRAN CLARK was told by JANE DoE' s mother Z.L. that the allegations were the same allegations she had related one year ago and further, that JANE DUE' s therapist at the time thought what JANE DUE was saying was fantasy. THIRD CLAIM Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Despite FRAN CLARK' s stated purpose that the referral was to determine the safety of MARY DUE, and having determined that MARY DUE had not reported any inappropriate conduct by the claimant, and with the knowledge gained on 16 May 2000 from a staff conference noted in the Service Log for that date that the allegations of sexual abuse of JANE DUE by claimant TUM LAHEY had been dismissed by the juvenile court in July 1999, FRAN CLARK maliciously continued to pursue an investigation involving the dismissed allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior by claimant TUM LAHEY against JANE DUE. on 16 May 2000, according to written statements of FRAN CLARK set forth on page 3 of the Investigation Information Report, FRAN CLARK Page 8 of 21 contacted the Pleasant Hill Police Department and reported that a " possible molest " had occurred at the former residence of claimant TOM LAHEY, and requested a juvenile detective " participate with me as soon as possible ", and that FRAN CLARK further requested another videotaped interview of JANE DOE at the Child Interview Center ( CIC ) . FRAN CLARK maliciously failed to disclose to the police exculpatory evidence that JANE DOE' s allegations had not been sustained by the Juvenile Court, that JANE DOE' s mother told her that JANE DOE' s former therapist thought these allegations were fantasy, that medical records for JANE DOE indicated that on 13 August 1998 JANE DOE told her doctor LINDA WILCOX, MD that her father had not molested her, that JOHN DOE and MARY DOE denied anything sexually inappropriate by their father or anyone else, and that JANE DOE' s allegations had been previously reported -to the Pleasant Hill Police Department on 23 February 1999 (Case No. 99-1004 ) and that the Pleasant Hill Police Department refused to file charges against the claimant. According to the Investigation Information Report, the Pleasant Hill Police Department declined to take action on 16 May 2000 unless and until FRAN CLARK sent a suspected child abuse report for the detective to review. FRAN CLARK falsely and maliciously reported a " possible molest " by claimant TOM LAHEY against his daughter JANE DOE for the purpose of preventing normalization between claimant TOM LAHEY with his children, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE as ordered by the court on 13 September 1999, to prevent visitation between JOHN DOE and claimant or justify continued supervised visitation of claimant with JOHN DOE, and to facilitate the possible removal of MARY DOE from claimant' s custody. Page 9 of 21 FOURTH CLAIM Conspiracy to Fabricate Evidence As a result of the Pleasant Hill Police Department declining to take action on 16 May 2000 in response to FRAN CLARK' s report of alleged molestation, FRANK CLARK conspired with ONE UNKNOWN SUPERVISOR OF FRAN CLARK on 17 May 2000, according to the Service Log for that date, to attempt once again to convince Pleasant Hill Police Department to authorize another videotaped CIC interview of JANE DOE, in an attempt to prevent normalization between claimant TOM LAHEY with his children JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, and as ordered by the court on 13 September 1999, to prevent visitation between JOHN DOE and claimant or justify continued supervised visits between claimant and JOHN DOE, and to facilitate the possible removal of MARY DOE from claimant' s custody. FRAN CLARK and ONE UNKNOWN SUPERVISOR OF FRAN CLARK maliciously fabricated evidence that JOHN DOE and MARY DOE were at risk being in the presence of their father. It is reported on page 4 of the Investigation Information Report that FRAN CLARK called Detective De La Torre of the Pleasant Hill Police Department on 18 May 2000 and reported that JOHN DOE and MARY DOE were at risk by living with or visiting with claimant, failing to disclose to the police that all visits between claimant and JOHN DOE were supervised by a Parent Aid from the CONTRA COSTA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, and further failing to disclose that MARY DOE reported no inappropriate behavior toward her by claimant during FRAN CLARK' s interview with MARY DOE on 11 May 2000. Page 10 of 21 Ile j In doing the alleged conduct above, FRAN CLARK and ONE UNKNOWN SUPERVISOR OF FRAN CLARK, acted individually and in conspiracy with each other to deprive claimant, under color of state law of his rights, as guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution, including without limitation 42 U.S.C. 671 (a) , and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 300.2, et. seq. FIFTH CLAIM Conspiracy to Fail to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence When the Pleasant Hill Police Department still would not authorize an interview of JANE DOE on 18 May 2000, FRAN CLARK conspired with Emergency Response Supervisor P. PERKINS to convince the Pleasant Hill Police Department to authorize an interview of JANE DOE, by having P. PERKINS talk to Detective De La Torre. P. PERKINS then spoke to Detective De la Torre and requested an interview of JANE DOE, failing to disclose to the police exculpatory evidence that JANE DOE' s allegations had not been sustained by the Juvenile Court, that JANE DOE' s mother told her that JANE DOE' s former therapist thought these allegations were fantasy, that medical records for JANE DOE indicated that on 13 August 1998 JANE DOE told her doctor LINDA WILCOX, MD that her father had not molested her, that JOHN DOE and MARY DOE deny anything sexually inappropriate by their father or anyone else, and that JANE DOE' s allegations had been previously reported to the Pleasant Hill Police Department on 23 February 1999 { Case No. 99-1004 ) . Page 11 of 21 FRAN CLARK and P. PERKINS failed to disclose exculpatory evidence for the purpose of preventing normalization between claimant TOM LAHEY and his children, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE as ordered by the court on 13 September 1999, to prevent visitation between JOHN DOE and claimant or justify continued supervised visits between claimant and JOHN DOE, and to facilitate the possible removal of MARY DOE from the claimant' s home. In doing the alleged conduct above, FRAN CLARK and P. PERKINS, acted individually and in conspiracy with each other to deprive claimant, under color of state law of his rights, as guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution, including without limitation 42 U.S.C. 671 (a) , and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 300.2, et. seq. SIXTH CLAIM Conspiracy To Violate Civil Rights of Claimant FRAN CLARK and ONE UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBER conspired on 18 May 2000 to re-interview JANE DOE as set forth on page 4 of the Investigation Information Report and noted in the Service Log for that date, because it was reported to them that JANE DOE had denied the alleged abuse during the videotaped CIC interview a year before,, and failing to obtain police permission to conduct another videotaped CIC interview, it was decided by the ONE UNKNOWN STAFF PERSON and FRAN CLARK that FRAN CLARK would interview JANE DOE one more time, for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the alienation of affection between JANE DOE, MARY DOE, and JOHN DOE and claimant, preventing normalization between claimant TOM LAHEY and his children, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE as ordered by the court on Page 12 of 21 13 September 1999, preventing visitation between JOHN DOE and claimant, and to facilitate the possible removal of MARY DOE from the claimant' s home. On 22 May 2000, FRAN CLARK did reinterview JANE DOE in furtherance of the conspiracy, by removing JANE DOE from her class at the minor' s school the for the purpose of questioning her about the previously dismissed allegations of sexual abuse by the claimant. As noted in the Service Log for 22 May 2000, FRAN CLARK continued to question JANE DOE on 22 May 2000 after the minor informed FRAN CLARK that JANE DOE didn't want to go further with the discussion and only wanted to discuss the matter in therapy and that JANE DOE had already given a videotaped interview about the matter at the request of CPS one year before. In doing the alleged conduct above, FRAN CLARK and ONE UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBER, acted individually and in conspiracy with each other to deprive claimant, under color of state law of his rights, as guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution, including without limitation 42 U.S.C. 671 (a) , and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 300.2, et. seq. SEVENTH CLAIM Conspiracy To Violate Civil Rights of Claimant On 06 July 2000, FRAN CLARK and JANET BISBING conspired to alienate claimant TOM LAHEY from the affection of his children by meeting and deciding, according to a Service Log record for that date, that the allegations of sexual abuse of JANE DOE by claimant were true for the Page 13 of 21 purpose of alienating claimant from his children, even though the allegations of such abuse were dismissed by the Juvenile Court on 08 July 1999 . FRAN CLARK and JANET BISBING therefore planned and conspired to pursue a course of conduct, including preparing court reports, contacting therapists, attorneys, and the children' s mother, Z.L. , informing them that JANE DOE had in fact been molested by the claimant and that claimant was a danger to his children, for the purpose of depriving the claimant of the affection of his children. In furtherance of the conspiracy, JANET BISBING recommended on 13 July 2000 that the Juvenile Court find by clear and convincing evidence that the return of JOHN DOE to the custody of his father, claimant TOM LAHEY, would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, physical, and emotional well-being of the child. Such course of conduct was done by FRAN CLARK and JANET BISBING, despite being informed that the Department could not re-file the allegations of sexual abuse against claimant, despite being informed that the claimant passed a lie detector test, despite having possession of medical records of JANE DOE that indicated that on 13 August 1998 JANE DOE told her doctor LINDA WILCOX, MD that her father had not molested her, despite JOHN DOE and MARY DOE denying anything sexually inappropriate by their father or anyone else, and despite the fact that MARY DOE reported that her sister JANE DOE told her a year prior that the allegations were not true. In doing the alleged conduct above, FRAN CLARK and JANET BISBING, acted individually and in conspiracy with each other to deprive claimant, under color of state law of his rights, as guaranteed to him by the Page 14 of 21 United States Constitution, including without limitation 42 U.S.C. 671 (a) , and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 300.2, et. seq. EIGHTH CLAIM Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Pursuant to the Family Maintenance Plan and Normalization plan ordered by the court on 13 September 1999, Mother Z.L. was required to participate in a program of individual counsel ing/psychiatric treatment. See Case Plan, Family Maintenance Plan for Mother with JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, Item II . C. ) Despite such a requirement, social worker JANET BISBING did not require Z.L. to see a psychiatrist qualified to provide any psychiatric treatment. On 20 April 2000, claimant TOM LAHEY advised JANET BISBING that Z.L. had not participated in psychiatric treatment and needed a psychiatric evaluation, and in the Service Log for that date, JANET BISBING acknowledged such an evaluation would be helpful. Despite such a requirement, and acknowledging to claimant that such an evaluation would be helpful, JANET BISBING failed to require Z.L. to be psychiatrically evaluated. On 12 June 2000, as noted in the Service Log of that date, Jeff Smith, court ordered conjoint therapist for the claimant TOM LAHEY and Z.L. reported to JANET BISBING that Z.L. was having increased paranoid ideation in spite of decreased anxiety due to a recent increase in anti-depressant medication. However, JANET BISBING failed to require Z.L. to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. On 19 July 2000, as noted in the Service Log of that date, Jeff Smith, conjoint therapist stated to JANET BISBING that Jeff Smith Page 15 of 21 recommended a psychiatric evaluation of the mother Z.L. because of her anxiety and fears and somewhat bizarre and .paranoid ideation. Despite the Family Maintenance Plan order of the court of 13 September 1999 requiring that Z.L. participate in psychiatric treatment, despite acknowledging to claimant on 20 April 2000 that a psychiatric evaluation would be helpful, despite a report from Jeff Smith on '12 Jun 2000 indicating Z.L. was having increased paranoid ideation in spite of increased anti--depressant medication, and despite a direct recommendation from Jeff Smith on 19 July 2000 that Z.L. undergo a psychiatric evaluation, no psychiatric evaluation or treatment was required of Z.L. by the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. JANET BISBING maliciously refused to require such psychiatric evaluation and treatment of Z.L. knowing that such an evaluation would disclose exculpatory evidence in favor of claimant. The malicious refusal of JANET BISBING to require Z.L. to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and treatment placed and continues to place JOHN DOE and JANE DOE at substantial risk of physical and emotional harm while in the care of their mother. NINTH CLAIM Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence JANET BISBING maliciously failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the court which would have undermined JANET BISBING' s decision to substantially reduce visitation between claimant and JOHN DOE. On 30 June 2000, JANET BISBING informed claimant that his weekly visits with his son Page 16 of 21 JOHN DOE would be changed to every other week. On 13 July 2000 JANET BISBING wrote a report to the court in which she discussed changing visitation between claimant and JOHN DOE from once a week to once every other week, indicating that JOHN DOE' s therapist and pediatrician recommended supervised visits between claimant and JOHN DOE, but JANET BISBING purposely and maliciously failed to disclose to the court that father' s therapist JOHN OSBORNE had indicated in a letter to JANET BISBING on 21 June "2000 that he recommended unsupervised visits, and that JOHN DOE' s therapist did not initially recommend a change in visitation. In addition, JANET BISBING maliciously failed to disclose to the court that she was informed by MARY DOE that her brother JOHN DOE had stated to her that he liked his father a lot and told MARY DOE not to tell anyone. JANET BISBING acknowledged in a Service Log entry for 30 June 2000 that she did remember MARY DOE telling her, but that she " didn' t write [ every ] single thing everyone tells her. " TENTH CLAIM Conspiracy to Prevent Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence On 31 May 2000, JANET BISBING, FRAN CLARK, KATIE WILLIAMS, PETER HARRIS, and LORI LARKS, conspired to prevent the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the court to prevent normalization between claimant TOM LAHEY and his children, JANE DOE, and JOHN DOE as ordered by the court on 13 September 1999, prevent visitation between JOHN DOE and claimant or justify continued supervised visits between claimant and Page 17 of 21 he,, JOHN DOE, and to facilitate the possible removal of MARY DOE from claimant' s custody. In furtherance of the conspiracy, JANET BISBING, FRAN CLARK, KATIE WILLIAMS, PETER HARRIS, and LORI LARKS, met and agreed not to open an investigation into allegations of physical, psychological, and medical abuse ( Munchausen' s By Proxy Syndrome ) of JOHN DOE by his mother Z.L. , and psychological/emotional and medical abuse ( Munchausen' s By Proxy Syndrome ) of JANE DOE and MARY DOE by her mother Z.L. , as reported on 23 May 2000 to the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES by Dierdre Rand, Ph.D. and Steve Gabaeff, M.D. , following a complete independent review and evaluation of the medical records of the JANE DOE, JOHN DOE and MARY DOE by Drs . Rand and Gabaeff. A copy of the reports of Dr. Rand and Dr. Gabaeff are attached hereto as EXHIBITS B and C, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full . Dr. Rand and Dr. Gabaeff reported that JOHN DOE may have suffered physical abuse by sustaining a broken wrist while in his mother' s care, and recently sustaining a black eye while in his mother' s care on or about 26 April 2000. In addition, a review of the medical records of the three children indicated a strong suspicion of Munchausen' s by Proxy Syndrome by mother involving all three children. Each of the conspirators knew that by failing to open an investigation into allegations of physical, psychological, and medical abuse ( Munchausen' s By Proxy Syndrome ) of JOHN DOE by his mother Z.L. , and psychological/emotional and medical abuse ( Munchausen' s By Proxy Syndrome ) of JANE DOE and MARY DOE by her mother Z.L. , exculpatory Page 18 of 21 evidence in favor of claimant could be suppressed, thereby furthering the conspiracy to prevent normalization between claimant TOM LAHEY and his children, JANE DOE, and JOHN DOE as ordered by the court on 13 September 1999, prevent visitation between JOHN DOE and claimant or justify continued supervised visits between claimant and JOHN DOE and to facilitate the possible removal of MARY DOE from claimant' s custody. Each of the conspirators knew, or should have known, that failing to open an investigation into allegations of physical, psychological, and medical abuse ( Munchausen' s By Proxy Syndrome ) of JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, and MARY DOE, and failing to require a psychiatric examination of the mother Z.L. , as required by the Case Plan, each child was at substantial risk of physical, and/or emotional harm while in the care of their mother Z.L. In furtherance of the conspiracy, on 31 May 2000, according to a Service Log entry for that date, LORI LARKS instructed the other conspirators that the allegations " will continue not to be opened and just collateral calls will be made and later gone over in disposition." The collateral calls consisted of FRAN CLARK and JANET BISBING calling Dr. Wilcox and Dr.Lum ( an associate of Dr. Wilcox ) and asking if either of them saw any signs of Munchausen' s By Proxy Syndrome ( MBPS ) in the care of JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, and MARY DOE by their mother Z.L. Each of the conspirators knew, or should have known, that calling Drs . Wilcox and Lum for their opinions, as professional participants in the MBPS, such professional participants would be unable to diagnose MBPS by Z.L. 3 In furtherance of the conspiracy, no investigation into the 3 See, Zitelli, Basil J., et. al. American Journal of Diseases of Children, vol. 141, pp. 1099-1102, Oct. 1987. Page 19 of 21 za ey allegations of physical, psychological and medical abuse was opened even after FRAN CLARK was provided with a detailed 19 page report by Dr. Gabaeff, dated 12 June 2000, and no disposition as to the allegations was ever conducted by the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. In doing the alleged conduct above, JANET BISBING, FRAN CLARK, KATIE WILLIAMS, PETER HARRIS, and LORI LARKS acted individually and in conspiracy with each other to deprive claimant, under color of state law of his rights, as guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution, including without limitation 42 U.S. C. 671 {a7 , and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 300.2, et. seq. Item 7: How was amount claimed above computed ? 1 . Compensatory Damages in favor of the individual claimant TOM LAHEY $5, 000, 000, and the minor children, in the sum of $5, 000, 000 each. 2 . Punitive Damages of $20, 000, 000 against the individual employees, and each of them, for their malicious conduct in willful and wanton disregard for the rights of the claimant TOM LAHEY, and the minor children. 3 . Plaintiff' s attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 .U.S.C. 1988 . Item 8: Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors, and hospitals: Steve Gabaeff, MD, FAAEM 2229 Del Mar Scenic Parkway Del Mar CA 92014 858 755 2950 Page 20 of 21 Deirdre Rand, Ph.D Marin Psychological Services 650 E. Blythdale, Suite M Mill Valley CA 94941 415 485 5991 John Osborne, LCSW, BCD Family Resolution Center 1280 Boulevard Way, Suite 212 Walnut Creels CA 94595 925 932 0173 Jeff Smith Touchstone Counseling Services 140 Mayhew Way Pleasant Hill CA 94523 925 Item 9. List the expenditures you mads on account of this accident or injury: 1 . Attorneys fees and investigation costs for the six months preceding this claim in an amount of approximately $43, 135. 2 . Expert witness fees and costs for the six months preceding this claim in an amount of approximately $36, 875. 3. Visitation supervision for the six months preceding this claim in an amount of approximately $600. Page 21 of 21 L=t y EXHIBIT A YW QMCES OF PATRICK E.CLANCY A LEGAL CORPORATit N PATRICK E.CLANCY* JULIE SCHUMER.,,OF COUNSEL CERTIFIED SPECIALIST CERTIFIED SPECIALIST CRIMINAL LAW** APPELLATE LAW** JOHN P.HOLLINRAKE ACCUSED WEB WAGE ADMITTED:STATE OF CALIFORNIA y-y.a awd.cam FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIAjaacctu�d. c+m RITA CLANCY MEDICAL SCIENTIST,ASSOCIATE MEMBER AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGIST'S Via Facsimile Transmission to 646 2790 11 April 2000 (� Janet Bisbing Children and Family Services 30 Muir Rd. Martinez CA 94553 Re: 40M OIW J99-00453 Further re My Letter of 10 Apr 00 Dear Ms. Bisbing After some reflection upon our telephone conversation yesterday, 2 am deeply troubled by the conduct of ia�- --— in taking d ► out of school and then taking her to participate in a therapy session with at a therapist in San Francisco. Since this was done without the knowledge and consent on my client, and apparently without your knowledge, I find the conduct irresponsible and suspicious, given 0OWs later participation in a therapy session with 000ft I will bring this matter to the attention of the court. Would you please provide me with the name of 'the therapist that ANNOM is now seeing in San Francisco. What is the purpose of the therapy that NOW is receiving from this therapist ? Was this therapy approved by you prior to s visit ? I assume you did not gave .prior consent to dM participating in the session on Friday ? In light of your comments in your Report and Recommendation of 28 Feb 00, wherein you report that 4�s former therapist Ms. Sinshimer indicated in Oct 99 that � needed to take a break from therapy, - and further, that IMM " appears to have stabilized," I am perplexed that suddenly UUM is back in therapy. If this therapy is focusing on the unproven and dismissed allegations of sexual abuse of my client, there is a real danger that SIMM will suffer lotrogenic harm from further therapy focusing on this issue. This can only serve to further alienate 410ft from her father, rather than having a reunifying 1600 S.MAIN ST..SUITE 185,WALNUT CREEK,CA 945% TEL:(925)2564600 eFax:(888)802-5089(toll fire) FAX:(925)256-8040 *A LEGAL CORPORATION **THE STATE BAR.OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION Hollinrake to Bisbing 11 April 00 Pg. 2 effect. If you need further information regarding this issue, please let me know and I will be happy to provide you with references. Please provide to me at your earliest, a response to my questions posed above. Please inform +1 — that she is under no circumstances to remove 4� from school without my client' s knowledge and consent, and thatd0ft is not to be seen by any therapist other than Julianne Kaufman, without Ms. Kaufman' s prior approval and consent. I thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Sinc rel P. HOLLINRAKE cc: Barbara Hinton Margaret Carter EXHIBIT B A-17-2000 2:39PM FROM P. 1 1 Im OWAM of 1MN P G10LOGICAL SERVICB 650 E.OlWodole Avenue,Second Flom Suitt M,Mail Vt7ffllY.CohkxNa 94941 Tie:415/485-5991 Fox: 413/383.9595 Deirdf* Conway AOf d, Ph,D. UL PSY A04 Indy Rand, Ed.D. Pric►►.tic.P3b 12157 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA In the Juvenile Court matter of Case Nos.J99-00453,J9900454,J99-00455 Report and Declaration of Deirdre Conway Rand,Ph.D. 1,Deirdre Conway Rand,Ph.D.,declare as follows: 1. Oetalifieatigns. I am a licensed psychologist in the State of CalJfornia and have been so licensed since 1974. 1 am also$Board Certified Forensic Examiner. During my 25 years of practice 1 have evaluated and treated hundreds of children,parents and families. I have been qualified as an expert in both juvenile and family law courts on a variety of issues related to divorce,parental alienation,and child abuse. I have been court appointed in dependency proceedings in the following counties. Contra Costa,Marin,Sacramento, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Solano. My resume is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Pgnse. This report and declaration will address questions now before the Juvenile Court. Would theme be substantial risk of detriment if supervision were withdrawn? Do conditions still exist which would justify maintaining jurisdiction? Would such conditions be present if supervision was withdrawn? These questions are particularly complex because i visitation to the mother. The court admonished M04JNM for. violating court orders, constantly filing motions,engaging in a campaign to alienate the children from their father,using allegations of abuse in this campaign to gain support from professionals and legal authorities, diappearing with the children,needlessly uprooting them from the family homier to live in a shelter,and secretly enrolling the children in different schools. Mrs,.AW responded to the Ftuat;ily Law Judge's orders by mobilizing the CPS system to remove the children from their father's home based on allegations of sexual abuse. According to Family Law Judge:James Stewart: "The impact of such an allegation in custody litigation is swift and major...Child Protective Services undertakes an investigation and the Family Court judge is apt to cut off the accuse d's access to the child pending completion of the investigation...If the allegation is true,a parent is under a moral and legal duty to make the charge. If it is not true,there is no more reprehensible act. The terrible consequences of an unuw charge are not lessened by the fact that you believed the molestation occurred,unless some reasonable objective evidence supports the allegation(sex Exhibit 2)." 5. $ask of Tet MgM Aik Detal&a. The allegations of sex abuse:were eventually dtw in the:Lahey case but,as Judge Stewart pointed out,the damage was done. In the press of removing the children from Mr.Lahey's home,CPS learned from Judge Rivers.and Ms. Fenstermacher,the children's attorney,of mother's manipulation and that it would be detrimental to place the children with her. Recognizing Mrs.IM11fthistory of instability,the Family Court had given custody of the children to their father for the second time. The:children were only with him for three days when this placement,meant to provide stability, was disrupted by the consequences of the sex abuse allegations. The children wcm then placed in foster care, where they remained for six months,experiencing a series of diffet^ettt care providers. + was only 3 1/2 at the time. He had no way of knowing whether he would ever be reunited with either one of his parents. While:in faster care he lust valuable time with the only 3 A-17-2000 2:41PM FROM R parent capable of providing him with stability and continuity,his father, MrAM used this time to convince CPS that Judge Rivera and the children's attorney were mistaken about Mrs. ,padrerrting. As a result, NO resentMONNOWNUMIL from foster care to the custody of his mother, instead of being placed with his father,where he belonged. There is no one to protect ONNOW from the intense stress caused by his mother's insistence that she and the children are victims of abuse by the father. In lois mother's care, ability to maintain the loving bond with his father is being increasingly threatened and eroded. 6. Hbk of Detriment After On2inal Allegations Di missed. Unfortu nmly,the findings and orders of the Family Court were not followed once the sex abuse allegations were dropped. Instead of returning the children to their father,CPS maintained jurisdiction and allowed Mn. JMto take the two younger children,INIkowdJONNOW The oldest child,Masked to live with her father. Child Protective Services allowed this but remained aligned with Mrs. ► As a result,CPS has not protected W from Mrs.114ftefforts,to punish wand undermine her placement in father's home. This is evident in the events of last two weeks,as outlined in letters of I& Hollinrake to CPS. It was also evident.last fall,when M AM went out of her way to undermine 4ONtrehoice of school enrollment,which would have helped JW maintain the continuity of her friendships. Im need for stability and for relationships independent of family conflict went unrecognized by CPS,who defended Mrs. vindictive act and castigatedr Where ONINWis concerned,there may be a risk of physical abuse by the mother which was overlooked by CPS when they dropped the allegations of father breaking wrist. had been visiting with hia father for the weekend. 4 4-17-2000 2:d1PM FROM Twenty-four hours after he retumed to his mother's,she took him to emergency for wrist pain. It is possible Mrs.§W broke the boy's wrist when she became angry with him for enjoying his weekend visit with his father. This would be consistent observations when bath parents and�were in in Nis.Fee stermacher's waiting room. OJ11NOW was sitting on his fltther's lap and cuddling when his mother came towards him muttering obscenities about his loving father more than her. That is why 811IRM screamed. Int any event,it seems highly unlikely that wrist was broken at his father's since a mother as protective and vigilant as Mrs.Ift would have noticed the child's pain immediately upon picking him up. ,According to Dr. Wilcox, lr was too young at the time to provide meanningful information about what happened and had a tendency to say yes to everything. He may have said yea,that he was hurt at his mother's but nobody believed him. 7. SuRgAsion of Child ProtaclLyl$ BcbAylor and Pr=otcci Aliciation from the Fates. Mrs.INWontinue s to in hostile,erratic, and disruptive behavior. Her propensity for visitation interferes is evident in her efforts to havevisitation with his father stopped and her refusal to be on time in bringing him for those visitations. As events of the Iast fbw weeks demonstrate, she is disruptinql� - custody time with her father. Mrs."W is not under the control of CPS any more than she was under the control of the Family Law Court. Since MrsdEW regained custody ofMOMM under the auspices of CPS, she hes continued to use allegations of abuse to enlist the aid of professionals and authorities in stopping father's contact with 80�and to alienate the boy from his fWbc r. This campaign has succeeded to the point that Dr. 'Wilcox andtherapist are now on record as opining that 411MOM is so stressed by visits with his father that they should be supervised or 5 4-17-20M 2:42PM FROM P terminated altogether. The reasons given forlINIQpw to be in therapy are that father allegedly abused bath mother and children. Mrs.40W has been telling this narrative to so many people for so long that some have come to believe it,despite facts to the convey. Judge Rivera was particularly concerned about Mrs.UW constant discussions with doctors giving lengthy histories of abuse which the doctor would them have to report to CPS. lodge Rivera also found that Mrs.YMMwas encouraging the children to say troublesorne things about thein father in order to pl ase her. Clearly,Mrs.+ cvntintu s to be deeply invested in presenting her children as victims of abuse by their father. it is harmful tomato be involved in therapy which reinforces Mrs.INM false abuse scenarios and teaches him that:his father is a - bad man of whore he should be afraid. The detriment tooMis her mother's having involved her in false allegations of abuse against her father. Involving a child in false allegations,especially doting so to advance a parental alienation agenda, is a serious form of psychological abuse. Although Judge Rivera wanted father/daughter reunification to proceed and actually'placed U�in the custody of her father,Child Protective Services has taken the position thatIOM should not have visits with her father if she does not want to. Tree problem with this stance is thatg�would incur the wrath of her mother if she were to say she wanted to we her father. In order for father/daughter reunification to occur,';,must be protected from mother's punishing her. 4UWis younger than tW and not as able to stand up for herself 400 can also sec what Mrs.�is doing to a%which would be a powetfW motivator to go along with the status quo. 9. 12O "ire gAum WAmma n guxrery sign Sill Ex:st"? The record shows that Child Protective Services detained the children because of the seat abuse allegations. These were dropped more than six months ago. CPS has Justified continued jurisdiction based in part on 6 4-17-2000 2:42PM FROM P. 17 A*of serious emotional harm because of the children's involvement in their parents' custody battle,as if both parents were to blame. Records of the Family Court present a different picture, with Judge Rivera finding that it was Mrs.MWwho was continually filing new motions,which I am informed that she continues to do today. If this warrants CPS supervision,one wonders why CPS has not put a stop to it. It is clinically significant,in my opinion,that even with the supervision of a powerful government agency like CPS;Mrs.Ift has been unable or unwilling to control her disruptive behavior. The Family Court decided to solve this problem by giving sole custody to the father with supervised visitation to the mother. This is the only solution which works when one parent cannot or will not stop their relentless campaign to destroy the children's relationship with the other parent, sometimes referred to as the"target." 'typically,this does not change the alienating parent's behavior but,with the backing of the Family Law Court that parent's behavior can be contained and the stability of the children protected. The other allegation which CPS has used to maintain jurisdiction in this case is that the parents failed to protect the children from exposure to domestic violence when the family was still in tact. In my opinion,the alleged history of domestic violence by Mr.JEWmay be a construct or distortion of Mrs.%oft which the children were often asked to validate. When the entire record is reviewed, it appears that the children gave contradictory accounts,probably in response to+ca Wtations of the adults interviewing them at the time. When children are subject to repeated interviewers,as in this case,their ability to independently recollect events is often contaminated. It is quite possible that Mrs. is the parent prone to outbursts of rage and that the allegations of domestic violence against Mr.Lahey began,paradoxically,when he called the police for help because Mrs. 's rage was out of control. 7 P. 18 d-17-2M 2:d2PM FROM My analysis suggests that Mr. Lahey was under duress during the Juvenile Court proceedings to stipulate to"history of domestic violence" and failure to protect because this was the only condition under which CPS would drop the allegations of sexual abuse and of Mr. Lahey brewing■ wrist. Mrs.INM also had to stipulate to the failure of both parents to protect the children from exposure to domestic violence. This was an advantageous stipulation on her part because she had to convince people that Mr.Lahey was a bad parent in order to regain custody of the children. Whether or not the child=witnessed domestic violence between their parents,such exposure would have ended in September, 1997,when Mrs. led for divorce and forced Mr.Lary to vacate the family residence. There has been no justification since then for CPS supervision based on failure to protect the children from exposure to domestic violence. 10. CoWM&d Disks. Based on my experience with these difficult parental alienation cases,all three children are at risk for severe psychological abuse if allowed to remain with their mother. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 'This document was executed on April 17,2000,at Mill Valley,California. Deirdre Conaway Rand,Ph.D. S } 'y •�ri111��Y `�a�^� App' 1991 Vol. 7, No. 9 •4, CALiFoRNiA . FAMI' TV L A�JN MONTHLY • �t�e:Yl�6iauC1 .rr�u�rNwr��uur�rlrw^•i�rlr�r�lr���r�rr�rrr�r.r r - 0y #lomat w.MwMi' F Coe a natior wido ars feeling do ejects of a never fad bednp ua kd by parties to a oislody dMpreixl--ffu 40P 1101"ofhswp,wnt is=188ft ftts CtW&If they ' ' - depedcn is truer a parsent is under s nwat and htye,t daty to mstce,the ems. It it is not true. More is no moray Mrohensbie Mit•The terr,'t*wrrttarwences of an wfta duvo we riot fesserod by the fact Hatt you ballsived Ow mairstatitan octwrr ed,uniess some,reasoca ie o*cwo widen"Awpcft Mie eaegaliom The ImWoofsuchatna oonoo0%custody titipationisoft andmajor.County cies (+often'Caked Chad P000c" Sertrk=) undertake an in+vestooJon. The Fw* Court a is apt to cut on the awAses aocoess to the, chad pending mnpbtion of the inv stip won. The child is sublW id to Wanted � Rtes(t haw,saes one case with mon f►n 2q'1 by poko offirons.social wodws„ digs,awltat MOM Mt profes~ stonefa Abudy kwo vtyd to the cart, and court edaff et+aitr ll0m. The bn¢tarm psycho damage in Wit.The dfd may tie denied►mesa to a loatrq and suppalre pmt for or monette.Thi 091t cherw rth irnraeb" ttw "Otter Ire it tow priority.V tn?Via Mfgo has suspended tto bion or cushy i ice. 7 Few** tib,MA ,t i!bOMY teraMw ar aOUinabra dlvaoe#�tiara Imo'at p►es1s« ►��`�'+'+' ! tM sim rRIR11M1 W.!llama l*SARtw est rtM1 am cbm C omw*wwwam !r,r:■rMtr t:MN*&4" etwrart V**■n l3.di reoo go,it d llmWw+*,ww w$vp*dw4cW lA 1084 dW ewr4q in&*Mk *C&A% wad hat awl as r BMWOOV.Wdp b wady luny in Ow aifaa CWa C kVW Cwt."S dM aq hWW Uft OWS amu lbw►or w Fway Cawk in~dill.+Naha ft*WE Ma an it amp*offl rel l im ldwok rrMvw No arido. w".how (aoerrirnwpd c,rt pia8af 3�'j w seems 329 .. f rw r, �• t + ... 6 .. i r If s7717.1�- ti7-71F 7-1 s7WVTF1!171#TU-A.u. At IT -CCt1 • c« b♦ `.R R «i •Yrs M` •'# '• • f... • hAn:. # • 1. �#. f' is • r f #• t ,.,...rl All ;.A + ♦' ♦:# r # ! > 1i #". •.") # CHILD CWTODY 333 Urrfoettrn ilk the evidence IS ssidorn �lo pw"such an=94 It d usually hrtprnwaeRtie to detsm*w #0 the simmer had no good4ekh rbs#wt�' re clmge.lista can say for certetn what a d9d mmV or nmyy not have said pdvaiawiY to twaortutr o ?t"3o*inthedvmotad%SokdonaonepedartirvmftViobsiienw about tre QdW trd`WOW have s0lced an indfprrarrt denial at a hgPplsrr time In the marrAge. V ft"dooirt'ion you we wnxrgfy acasad d moi"Ov car erg YOW cift you dint hove marry''ins d your dspossf. but you con.do a few tt W to kVmn yo<wr posillon.insid flet your m0orney it m what*ask the WW to XVWM an attorney to represent VOW ted.The primary My of#0 attorney shoo be to prom adrorities to txynoluicdw #rets lwes#Igsdon wilt sonwrthtng cruors #an aft dutroe were not saubwtan#ated"at.wow,'suwsre not pmvebie."The dWneyr for the ted con also form Ofibris an the MOWSWOO iaue,but probably limb not be pen"Wed b irre9►rrcom to r#riid erDncwrradng to ettirge.The atmnwry would be watherinalongtkreofevaiuwatrs. arrdbukgaa+aund to render an opinion, YOU Sloan cooperate fully wits the invss*tlon orf the pow and sagraw swim wsgencie& Be prompt for all apperhawrts and f fifth any rnlorrristion re- quested. Insist on having a poWsph test.You may wish to WoM on a teat given under Ctrs maploss of sorrre agency trthosr thrrut law Oftrenwrant.doper ft an ttur reputWon d arae pomp or agency#W raudmseiyr tests Rom the police.t your request for a poWsph taeat is not quicdy garantwd,obtain yaw own tot lass►s patesomalr of krVscar c raedendaK comae located by yore'attorneys or r+wcortnrnendaarrs by an otlomey who apsdattzes in the practice of � tees. Thm. the results of a potydrs ph test fire mftmmilly&drys"in a cmA ort lures,but wlh eschsisomenive count appewarmovur m ara#yy Weird In lige that you Vassecr a pohVrwh tM that you cdenmaand+td.Over Om,oris dome aflem a)xfp%#**Mg.As the curare ada�tgs on srra3 tris wu3ausawtiorr is unr+rreotvrrcl,the fur+thwr Jauadgs twmcmea Flu tty,as Wm puses and the police or juv011e millorlltea do not resolve the low%%yawn attorrt@y.should oaxOually a*the Fm*Comet WO to hold a heerinp on wlwittratar a nxftsbftn actually took pime and b msmsbfth your mom to your dW#the Judge MO flet one cars rant occur,Forillyy Court�oro trot want to bW this hearlrg for s+evrrnal rm orAL ftsi.they know thw Jt vWJS Court hm mftft suthorttyr to#ahs situattom It teat should rule In yourfervor+lard the Juvenile Court u0mm** renders a contrary mkV. the F y Court rdinp to overtunted and the Pdp is wAmmusa Socood, s am am*thea tlle Juvenile Cmut,Juvenile Probesticnt7wpeastrnent,ando#wcoumyaW4nhwsve'beWkwodi reftlsftn does the Faraardyr Court.The Family Court stat is gmillisd to nra ft wadtasatlrns bawled esti a trr+rrifwwd nvambet'af lmervies+lvrs.but k►poorlrtrdns�d awnd wrderartssled to irwrew�ate all"W tutmas. Firretryr, family law 'goges are vutrwrrable to Mnidetaiori by law a drown . On more than one pion.a rnerrrber at the Dtstrlct A t toy$Cfte or Juvenitw Pmble on has coed nw wkhh the tat weft Ov est ort the eve of a how":mW you hold a hear"whits out lnv`ts#Jgtttiorr Is in proceft(st this pdrrt at Jsawrrt 40 do"aid)and malts a ptap+mwt of the cold that t do not We*wkh.t will invoice aW power under w+r.r irwr a�ww 334 CHILD CUSTODY the Wegare and Institutions Cade to remove the chin from either pow and place child the chid in the public children's shelter,pending the Ming of a petition to pike the Univ* child In the status of a dependent of the Juvenile Court' That threat is quite intimidatiM because Judas generally believe children do boner to their own home, and no one wants to cam the suffering of a child who is uprootsd from home and placed in a pub'li'c sheitec It is Intsresting to note that on those occasions when f Cros Ignored the threat and hard a Cult hearing(Accompanied with specific findir gs of fact For a and an exterAft sMment of reasons),the threat has never been carried out. I deco: suspect no probation officer or bureaucrat wants to face the possible wrath of the ac presiding JuverMe Court judge,g the latter should learn of an attempt to overturn the Aar reason tuft of another Jude atter a full hearing on the sum.Some JauVagnile To Court des take a different view,however,and tend to emphasize the supremacy of the Juvenft Court in custody matters, R11;4 If your attomey makes repeated demands for a custody hearing In Fwv*y Court on the molestation charge and enough time passes during which your child Is denied Cour access to you that the Family Court Judge's sense of fair play and due process is Trial orended,you may yet a hearing. In sorra countles,the Family Court and Juvenile Effec Court have entered Into informal agreements or protocols that state thak once tris to re. juvenile authtuffles corn mence an Investigation. Family Court kicips will defer p.... hearing a matter for a given number of days to see it a petition Is filed to make the P. child a dependent of the Juvenile Court. In Santa Clara County, the period is --C approximately, 20 days, and your attorney's statement that the Invesdation hasz dr�ged on for 90 days will carry some weight.Unfortunately,other counties two oonc unwritten understanding*that Family Court Judges will now act on a truer during an W"Migation by juvenilia authorities or the police.The latter are given no tiro The for finishing the Invesdthan ation. In these cQuntles, the plight of parent fals0y Court charged with molestation Is Indeed bleak, and months may puss while an seamed parent. parent is denied access to his or her child. empla I suspect the problem of false or unsubstantiated charges of child abuse and Busses molestation during dissolution proceedings will recelve greater scrutlny' by the Ing to Legislature, and more pAllc discussion. Currently,it represents taco easy a way to MOM pit either parent at a disadvantage in a cuMtody or vieltatfon dispute. As an in" . clue to proposal, t asuggest that the charge of aurae or molestation trigger an sulomatic heard t- appointment of counsel for a child.Although the chili will uttkW*have counsel if was rx a petition is filed In Juvenile Court,that attomey(often the dIsM attomey)may have home a conflict of interest g involved in the prosecution of the seamed parent.Moreover, formatit that appcwourd maycomo,it at all,many nv"hs after the socuseft rtgteot access try the child was suspended. appoint int Comment l condo: l ("Mtarac It is my hope that the Caffornis L3it+orr s Hartdbooir will be an efficient tool with plate which attorneys can educate clients. The book Is intended to Slave fill" on V.mars• understanding of what an attorney can realistically accomplish,as wag as warn them Rptr. 15 of the financial comequenres of insisting upon a court resolution of fkwnr W or the met, rrtertts . -before t ever, It 1. r ADOPTION 336 cMkH*Ioed issues. this use of the book edDeanQrarald tleimen AftL University of Santa Clars Law School,in his F . � � pip .. i Commentary by Non.Jam"W.Stewart Crceaetti-Aeferetr to MUtKEY,CAUFOW&A FAWY taw Pte/tC iC!'Aw Ispoot Me% For a general discussion of custody gwarft, SM 22.70, 22.90, 44.02(2]. For diacussion of related dependency jurisdiction.S"3 80.01(2(. ADOPTION: N. M thers Parental under Wets. & Terminating Parental Inst. code U 2=a)(2*)r(7)• She W night$ goateed. ----- - The appellate Court affirmed.it sated 3 i Court Conducwd Exemplary that the mothers appeal was Prow, Trial and Heteerings Invohring because Parents have a dueprocess Sflete:tivee Aar sumo of Counsel fight to efts we assistance of counsel An rig Jatrrtetffi in proewe fts to terminate Parental � - (Civ.No. 2) rights(aft Lassiter v. Dqx.of Social (Ct.App.,4th Dist.,01v.3.2/M t) Services(1981)452 U.S.18.101 S.Ct. --^,SL App.Set--,--cat.Rum-- 2163. 68 L. Ed.2d 540). HW."ver, it By Sills t that the trial oourt aer,c ted rr j (Crosby,Moors,JJ„ a thorough Inquiry into the effeetiverm"' of the mother's counsel,and that it had The court of &Meal held that a trial• done mane than was necessary by wn- court properly terminated a mothers ducting the l "d0rr hearing. Further- Parental riryhts after t corAucted an ex- more.tt said that the trial Court's€udg- emplary trial and related hearings. Ment was suPported by substantial which fr4kated that she m eived eftec- wvidence. WeaseuistanCeof Counsel.Inaproceed- Crcrsei-Rot+erances to LMwey, � Ing to terminate parental rights. a CAuRxm FawLy#Jaw tR►cTm Aao mothers attortreeetr moved to withdraw P ?CEttctRE: 71.�1a}. duet to a conflict of Interest. The court heard the matter and determined there _- was no conflict. ►w*lt"requiring the x attorney to disclose any confidential In- formation. n• Ptueental RI h#a of IflcBrGterB#ltd f artreatlon. Fadw Were Properly 6atve the COW kftncupted tete tria), TerminlsW iD estplt&His appointed counsel taa►r the mother, and Absence From Hearing a two-day. in cama►ra ("Marwan")fteearingtoexplor9ehercom• In to RW Q. ptaints about her attomey 2S"Pettpls mv.No.des) v.Marsden(1970)2 Cal.3d 118,84 Cal. (Ct.App.,4th Dirt.,Div.3.2rAW1 W. 156,486 P.2d 441.it also granted —Cod.App.3d....,—4W.Rptr,-- titre mother leave tit Present more docu- By Mcearr*.J.(Stk.P.J.,Wailin,J.. Off mems and Call additional witnesses 00"WMV) before the close of tdaL Finally, h*►- Thecourtof appeal hekf that art incar ever, the trial court terminated the +cerateri fathers perentai rights over his f Curriculum vitae NAME. Deirdre Conway Rand, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist and Board Certified Forensic Examiner OFFICE ADDRESS: Marin Psychological Services 850 East Blithedaie, 2nd Floor, Suite M Mill Valley, CA 94941 OFFICE PHONE: (415) 485-5991 LICENSURE: Psychologist California State License #PSY 4094(1974 to present) Marriage, Family and Child Counselor California State License#M 5688 (1972 to 1975) EDUCATION: Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Mi (1971) M.A. in Psychology from Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI (1988) B.A. in Philosophy from Pomona College, Claremont, CA(1966) PROFESSIONAL Marin Psychological Services (1974 to present) PRACTICE: Forensic Testimony -family law and juvenile courts; civil, criminal, federal and military court martial proceedings;child abuse, including Munchausen syndrome by proxy and psychological maltreatment; sexual harassment and discrimination; personal injury; high conflict divorce and parental alienation Psychotherapy -children, adolescents and adults, couples and families,for a range of human problems including marital conflict, behavior problems of children and adolescents, spousal abuse, developmental disabilities, divorce, post-traumatic stress, chemical dependency, etc. Evaluations - court appointed in juvenile, family law and criminal proceedings; pre-employment screening and fitness-for-duty assessments for police and probation officers; Juvenile Probation; Adolescent Recovery Center; St. Vincent's Home for Children Consultation Services - mental health professionals, attorneys and managers i Special Services - parenting shills course; critical incident stress debriefing with police, fire and rescue workers; exit counseling for people coming out of cults/ coercive environments University of California Medical Center(1974-1990) Student Health Service, Consulting Psychologist III San Francisco, CA American Baptist Center for the Ministry (1975-1977) Career development consultant for church leaders Oakland, CA Alysan Center(1973-1974) Inpatient psychological services San Jose, CA Behavlordyne Assessment Services (1973) Psychological Assistant to Murray Tondow, Ph.D. Palo Alto, CA Santa Clara County Drug Abuse Clinic (1972-1973) Affillate Staff San Jose, CA i Stanford University (1971-1972) Staff Psychologist at Cowell Mental Health Service Pala Alto, CA (1973) California School of Professional Psychology(1971-1973) Instructor of course "Child and the Arts" Field placement supervisor San Francisco, CA St. Lawrence Comm. Mental Health Center(1970-1971) Staff psychologist Lansing, MI Alameda County Mental Health (1959-1970) Pre-doctoral Psychology Internship Fremont, CA PROFESSIONAL Diplomate, American College of Forensic Examiners ASSOCIATIONS: American College of Forensic Psychology American Psychological Society National Register of Psychology Providers Marin County Psychological Association PREEMPLOYMENT B-PAD for Police Constables, copyright 1995 VIDEO TESTS: B-PAD for Fire and EMS Personnel, copyright 1595 B-PAD for Police Service Aides, copyright 1995 B-PAD for Firefighter Promotions, copyright 1994 B-PAD for Police Promotions, copyright 1994 B-PAD for Managers, copyright 1993 B-PAD for Corrections, copyright 1993 B-PAD for Police, copyrights 1987 & 1992 2 RESEARCH: Test validation, reliability and adverse impact studies Behavioral Personnel Assessment Devices (B-PAD), 1984 to present The Effects of Family Play Therapy: A Preventive Mental Health Procedure for Early Identified Children Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971 PROFESSIONAL Misdiagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy PUBLICATIONS: coauthored with Dr. Marc Feldman Accepted for publication in January, 1999, by Harvard Review of Psychiatry Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome America Journal of Forensic Psvcholoav Part I - 15(3), 1997 and Part 11 - 15(4), 1997 Comprehensive Psychosocial Assessment in Factitious Disorder by Proxy Chapter in tr m 'Factitious i 9rd,es Edited by Drs. Feldman and Elsendrath American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1998 Factitious Disorders in the Legal Setting Chapter co-authored with Drs. Eisendrath and Feldman The .Qf Factitious Disorders Edited by Drs. Feldman and Eisendrath American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1998 Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: A Complex Type of Emotional Abuse Responsible for Some False Allegations of Child Abuse in Divorce Issues in Child Atui se Accusations, 5(3), 1993 Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: Integration of Classic and Contemporary Types Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 2(2), 1998 Police Officer Selection: a Psychological Video Test co-authored with Randy Rand, Ed.D. eta/ toumgl of California Law EnfQrcement, 23(3), 1989 Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy as a Possible Factor When Abuse is Falsely Alleged Esme in=Child Abuse Ac usations, 1(4), 1989 I'm Gain-to Visit my Daddy Academic Therapy.Publications, 1977 3 MAJOR PRESENTATIONS: American College of Forensic Psychology San Francisco, 1995 Preemployment Video Testing of Police California Psychological Association San Francisco, 1994 Sexual Harassment, Forensic Psychological Assessment Including Emotional Distress Damages American Psychiatric Association Convention New Orleans, 1991 Factitious Disorder.by Proxy -a cont. ed.workshop American Psychological Association Convention Boston, 1990 Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy as a Possible Factor When Abuse is Falsely Alleged- symposium on false accusations of sexual abuse in divorcelcustody disputes California Peace Officers Assoc.Tralning Conference Napa, 1989 Current Practices for Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluations References available upon request 4 EXHIBIT C Steven C. Gabaef�M.D.,FA.A-E.M. 2229 Del Mar Scenic Pkwy. Del Mar,CA 92014 858 755 2950 Introduction As a practicing Emergency Medicine Specialist for 23 years,I have, throughout my career, evaluated allegations or suspicions of abuse or intentional physical injuries in children and adults. In my capacity as medical expert I have studied the results of examinations by others in detail that far exceeded the energy I expended as an exat rining physician.With my clinical experience, considerable training and knowledge of abuse and extensive and ongoing research of the medical literature, I have been a medical expert in over 400 cases over the last 11 years. Of that number approximately 150 involved allegation of possible child abuse (both physical and sexual) and approximately 250 have involved adults. I have been the past director of one of the two Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) programs is San Diego County,lectured to the California Private Investigators,Public Defenders and Alternate Public Defenders. In 1995, I was the only physician appointed by the District Attorney to his Ad Hoc Task Force on Child Abuse which reviewed and made recommendations to his office regarding the manner and method of the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases. I authored the 18 page written summary of our proceedings and hand delivered that document to the DA. Based on my credentials, I have been designated an external reviewer for C:WW MalUealin=the journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. I have examined more than 50,000 children and adults with injuries or complaints in which abuse was considered as a possible diagnosis. I have testified both as a percipient witness and expert for the DA in matters relating to domestic violence and abuse and prepared numerous reports that were used for the prosecution of abusers. In the defense of people accused of abuse I have testified in only,approximately 25%of cases in which I am retained. In the majority of cases,I have made findings which the defense has found to be unhelpful, been in agreement with prosecution experts or brought forth analysis that have lead to pretrial resolution or dismissal of the charges. In general and in this case,my evaluation consists of evaluating the history of the case, reviewing the medical records as I do in almost every case in the normal course of practice in Emergency Medicine.These records in a legal context would be the allegations. I also review any other reports from all relevant parties about what may or may not have happened,and the physical findings. I attempt to integrate these components with the applicable medical literature and make a de tion of the probability of abuse and if possible,reach a diagnostic conclusion. I attempt to identify both consistencies and inconsistencies in the history and the physical findings and if I am going to testify,make those results available to either counsel. In the matter of the'children I reviewed the following materials: the apparently complete medical records subpoenaed from Dr.Linda Wilcox (the family pediatrician) for the 3 - - .Ift IMW^and VJ1111100 for a juvenile court appearance set for April 27,2000 (filed 4-17-00) and a time line document provided by Attorney John Page 1 of 19 i t Hollinrake that list events in"date followed by text" form from 9-97 to 1-00.The events relate to the family interactions,divorce, fiamily court and juvenile court proceeding and Furthermore,I have had approximately 7 conversations with Dr.Deidre.Hand,a forensic psychologist retained by Attorney John Holliutake to address the psychological issues in this case. My discussions with Dr.Rand have focused on attempts by me to corroborate various statements made by the mother to the treating physician,Dr.Wilcox and to gather some background information regarding the impression of the evaluators with respect to how the children have behaved in private sessions with the evaluators and with the parents. Dr.Wilcox's medical records contain a number of letters written by Mn. to the authorities and to the doctor and some writings of the childrenINNOwdlo that Mrs. copied and sent to Dr.Wilcox to be included in the medical record. Ove At the conclusion of my review Dr.Rand and I conjointly filed a "Suspected,Child Abuse Report"with the county authorities asking them to investigate the mother for various forms of psychological and physical abuse including probable.Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MSPS).The mother had not previously been formally investigated as a perpetrator of abuse. The review of the entire medical record in detail suggests a pattern of abuse of the children through involving them in the medical system for the purposes other then their welfare. MBPS is a relatively uncommon form of.child abuse in which a patent induces or fabricates an illness in a child..The voluminous nature of the records of the children who have no chronic medical problems (4" of Xeroxed sheets)was the first indication that the diagnosis should be considered The number of times the children were seen suggests overuse of medical resources and the content of the records contained many suspicious and disturbing behaviors by the mother that will be discussed in greater detail below. In general the mother appears to have "used" the children as pawns in a medical context to cast negatives of all sorts on the father.The father was named as the cause of various medical problems either real,induced or fabricated that I believe the mother herself was responsible for. She took advantage of tendencies within the medical system,the child abuse investigation establishment and tendencies-within specific individual physicians who were inappropriately sympathetic and helpful to her plight as a"victim"in a contentious divorce and custody battle.The mother seethed to be aware of hour the"system worked," the impact of the strategies she employed and had no compunction about employing ever more nefarious tactics based on her perceived circumstances and need The tactics included but were not limited to,false allegations of child sexual abuse,making false statements to physicians to "augment" the medical records with incriminating remarks about the father, fabricating symptoms to make the child appear to be ill,intentionally creating a stressful home environment to induce misbehavior which she repeatedly"reported to authorities, illegally disp (without a prescription) powerful Psychotropic medications to her minor daughter,nuking false statements to physicians to seduce them into prescribing anti- depressants to children and possibly inflicting serious injury to her son,all for the sole purpose of being able to blame the father and gain advantage in legal proceedings. The mothei demonstrated a pati em of Inaking relentless accusations against the father for various behaviors in the children,that she would then tell the doctors,therapists,social Page 2 of 19 a� workers and lawyers all about.The mother appeared to engage in a purposeful campaign to use the authority of the doctor to fiirther her cause by drawing the doctor into the family legal proceedings.The mother supplied the doctor with misinformation and demanded written documentation from the doctor of the things that the mother had reported.'Dais documentation generally addressed"TCS WHOM IT MAY CONCERN"was generally given to the mother to be dispersed to other authorities at the mother's will. In the end,after reviewing the entire record it was clear that the doctor made numerous notes in the record regarding symptoms and physical findings relating to the children based on statements by the mother that were apparently never observed directly by or noted in the presence of the doctor herself.This involved both the family pediatrician and other physicians including an ENT specialist and emergency department physicians. The mother repetitiously reported to the doctor and blamed the father(at tithes repeating the accusations word for word in various forms) for a variety of medical complaints and bad behaviors supposedly occurring to the children.When necessary,the mother asked the doctor to write letters of support for her legal positions in various proceedings using these letters to support her legal positions.The doctor demonstrated"supportive"behaviors and professional conduct in alliance with the mother that I have never seen before and went well beyond the role that the child's physician would normally play in divorce,custody,abuse and Juvenile court proceedings. Retying,generally on the mother and occasionally on statements made by the children (which at times were contradictory),Dr.Wilcox's efforts appear to violate the standards of care,common sense,allegiance to the facts and objective analysis. Furthermore,there appeared to be a blind belief in the statements that the mother reported to her,consistent dis of the consideration of the diagnosis of MBPS (Munchausen),a failure to report the possibility of the mother as the cause of at least one major injury(and possibly a second) to and a failure to consider the mother as the cause of ongoing psychological stress in the children,stress that appeared to be present only when the children were under the care of the mother. The mother demonstrated a well-organized and consistent effort to use the medical records of the children to record multiple accusations and negative remarks about her husband, some which may have been true,and many of which are false. She also used these records to deposit letters defining her own state of mind, fears and inner thoughts to enlist the sympathy and allegiance of the children's doctor by any means necessary in fighting for the custody of her children and against her ex-husband. She finthetmore used the pediatrician's medical records as a repository for all manner of legal documents that had nothing to do with the children's health. By taking advantage of the standard of care in clinical practice to include any patient related material sent to physician in the medical record of the relevant patient,the mother was able to build a huge volume of material.She took advantage of a circumstance that exists for all physicians that in general there is no means to judge the validity of a parent's complaints on an tum by item basis.All complaints are generally recorded as stated. As the record was built the mother exploited another tendency in abuse investigations to believe that"with so many allegations that something must be true." In general her strategy appears to have been successful The mother's allegations of abuse of the children,misstatements about things her husband did and may have done, statements implying that she herself had been abused and Page 3 of 19 unsubstantiated accusations of sexual molest of one of the children when taken together,are very suspicious of a pattern of manipulation and deceit designed by the mother to achieve victory over her husband at the expense of the welfare of the children. 33M MedicalC The records, for the most part,will be reviewed in chronological order with the visits of the children collated into a single time line.My belief is that the mother's behaviors moved through different phases that affected each child in a similar manner. The quotes that are presented contain many grammatical and spelling errors and are presented with those errors unchanged and unmarked to reflect more accurately the feel of what was being created. Items in square brackets "[]" are added by me to clarify. Elim to the Diy=c Swing in Sot=ber 1997 There is minimal significant contact with the physician prior to the divorce starting.A few entries are noted and appear to demonstrate a tendency by the mother that later after the divorce started,evolved into a persistent and consistent pattern of behavior. The first entry of note is in January 1995,when the mother demands a consultation for with an ENT physician for what she feels is a serious problem with chronic sore throats.The doctor makes the arrangements at the demand of the mother to see an ENT specialist.The ENT after seeing the child made the unusual entry in the record "I feel the patient's symptoms are out of proportion to my physical findings..."" Af=The III=Begins As we enter the year of the1W separation the number and frequency of suspicious interactions with medical personnel explodes.A pattern,of'calling,reporting and complainirtg about various symptoms emerges.The mother frequently demands to be seen on short notice.All routine well child and well baby checks were reviewed and were normal. 'The well baby checks and immunization visits were scattered throughout the record and are not specifically noted in this report. In this report,for all relevant visits,the date,nature of the contact or complaint by the mother,and the findings by the doctor,are discussed. The first entry after the divorce starts involves a request for the doctor to document a visit that had occurred 5 and half years before. On 12-9-97 the mother makes the first of many requests for written documentation that the mother would use against the father in various ways. She leaves a phone message saying "Father took children away from Mom,Mrs.100 doesn't know where there at. Mom needs a letter from you in regards tovisit of 5-27-93. parents divorcing. Please call if any questions." On 12-13-98 the doctor writes "Dear Mrs.1WW Per your request,this letter is to confirm my visit withIMon 5-27-93 at which time you brought her to me because of wrist pain and atypical Page 4 of 19 OR Is T 0 444 to Vlk# f i • :a•t + ♦ o OR 00 a lu • Rt w • i � r t #f r • t # # f i + •� # # #! # ++# t # ► • '. i # • # N ! rt ! i{ • t r'.M - ♦' • * t t .ti i f M # t • # :! tt i# r t # ! i # •t i Y ' # i. f � # < :*" tt # +' t - i # t# .i • • t t # t# s' t - •,� # # a' R :# # • • s# •r .*` Y ! + ! ti t f.# Y +t i M# t' # t !j # ' K. »*' # • r # t + . ♦• i •t#-: i # t 4• r.f # # s4 ti • ♦ i!t • • • t • # w # t t t' • Y -r #.i t' R i r t## t # on Is +IFA t f ! • • #ifi A• • YR0s # # #! • • • # may# ! # : # ! } ! # ' • { M M • • # of f t# 0 00 M # i #'. *• f ++F A i R i f: of #' '.*. w## # .+! ! M Y • A ft ! ! i `# i / # A # i f ' r �d # � s`, r # ! ! # ! # # i • t ! t�,# f. # a ## • #..i • � if Ms' ! }". f! 1 # t ! i ! !'. • +} ', # ! ! .# # rt # ! # # ! #'. f ! • , r . • .f' •ti !t t+ } ! tM �� + eft 1 # • . R ! } #N ! ++ • # A # #. ##.i' i f ' • •'♦� ' i+Alf i k'. • r #! ! # Y r F } r # } # it +• t r ► t 0 + IN # • t #4 # # !' #i lt.:}# R.f � • # # t # k' t • ' 1 R a +} .. •a x s... ; - #- !' R i t # i. # �R i ! - t i R }# ♦ .�..!„ R'. k i k i • f i •1# • t.a } # t'` - t i ♦- ♦ f! A# # it • 1t# # a •R k". ## 1 t # • f 4 t f f ` ..s f #♦ M #. it w . i 41 4 pool OTZI i.'^ • aRR#+ # ..'. #it a xr #TWiTic f r .1 #. #! .t!# R • F x. 10 is is M # t* # # • *+ t -. # '. ## R � }'. M # Mf :1tt # " ! R4 ! # # # • R # R 1 IR tF • t ## # 4 ' t4 • • # t tF t# '# ,a{#x xx ; :'. ' t! t ! i#t } N• s+a R ` # # �i t ## #:. # [ 1 Mt ## ! } F # x,. # # ##+*• rr' # •. # ♦+ # 4 !' # - R ! t# two ! • rt ! ! • Al za needs. She advocates a change in therapists.This appears to be part of pattern that unfolds wherein the mother tries to get rid of any therapist that do not support her point of view. The mother writes another letter,the same day,to the same person,that is essentially a repeat of the second but shorter and sends that to the MD too'. On 4-27-98 there is a nate saying the mother is "recently out of jail" that is never explained. She informs the doctor she is resuming care of the children. On 5-15-98 with.the kids under the mother`s care, the mother tells the doctor that she thinks the needs an antidepressant. The mother tells.the doctor that the "counselor also recommends antidepressant."There is no indication in Dr.Wilcox's records that she ever contacted the therapist to corroborate this statement.The doctor does not check the validity of the remark nor does she request a psychiatric consultation,which would have been appropriate. Instead she startsM on Paxil. Paxil is a strong,poorly understood psychotropic medication with unpredictable effects.The Physicians Desk Reference(PDR),which is the Primary text for information about different medications states with regards to pediatric use: "The safety and effectiveness in the pediatric population have not been established."The power of the medication is demonstrated by referring to a side effects chart for Paxil in the PDR.The following symptoms occurred in 10-26%of all patients taking Paxil:headache,asthenia(fully feelings), sweating,nausea,dry mouth,constipation,diarrhea, somnolence,dizziness,insomnia (this was one of the symptoms that was used to justify giving M the medicine),ejaculatory and genital disorders in men.There is no recommended dosing schedule for the pediatric population. According to Dr.hand there is no recommendations for antidepressants in the therapy records. Furthermore,the therapists,who are all psychologists and MFCC's,have no authority to recommend any psychotropic and it very unlikely that they would without requesting a psychiatric consultation first.The mother goes on to tell the doctor(and it is placed in the record) that"conditions placed on Dad (by the legal system] seem,to be being waived for no good reason."This remark shows up in a letter written by the doctor 8-13-98 (see below). On 6-26-98 the mother calls in "wants to discuss psych issues and wants an antidepressant now for�ft The mother admits that she has been givmg „SM Paxil without the knowledge or consent of the physician.This is illegal, dangerous and extremely irresponsible. Instead of being admonished and reported by Dr.Wilcox to the authorities for illegal prescribing and dispensing of medication to a minor, 3 days later the mother is handed another"To whom it may concern"letter in which the doctor says that "All three children have suffered emotional disruption already as a result of being removed from their mother...they are both needing antidepressant medication to cope with their problems" On 7-10-98 Dr.Wilcox gives the mother a 3-month supply of Paxil for ANIM Again there is no psychiatric consult. In fact this prescription is given;to the mother without the doctor even seeing the child to determine her current psychiatric state.This powerful medicine is prescribes for the first time over the phone without an office visit. The child is involved in court appointed therapy and no recommendation from the treating therapist or any psychiatrist for the use of antidepressants is noted.The effect of this drug is Page 8 of 19 .r # ♦ # !`. b. 1 r • F►'. • *. !R • # f • M( •• i i' F ! i IY # < •. R Y '. } ♦; sf� ,. ; # t ;.* # t+ ! f' # s • * ♦4 ## 4i # 11! i. • ! F'. i t#. r t i! i # + R #t !; t' i ii #.t • •: F R ••4' fi • • f i + MMR #« F 4 ! •` • ## • '# 1 • i * N F - # # • t NIP.; y « ;; # Y : ♦i • *+ s 4 • i t : i �•� a R tF i # rR w ! w R +f * i K •t t f t '.i t• # il.# f 4 R #; ;f i *! ! ! *• ! ! i # i is i t► # • +� •- Wa#Fi ##ji4jjR' f # ## ♦ K ! "++" ' .•:f# i ♦ •; if # F" • t' •.# r. i a i F' • K« i ♦ „S f: t4•. t - # • ++ ' F i i # # t �"! t i # a # R it ,+ # i # i :# _ Mt 1 t# ► • ' Rf R • i` i 4 R. FR f F •R i { ## * M4 r • f # F t :,{ ! +.t K.- #i # i i ok b # # 1 R t • 1 ! # 1 1 F t is toil ! •f ♦ ! i# t . obit Y= #.-. # -.ib i tf'. s F � if ! # # 4 .. i • # t.*G i - t ! t '.! No GY R i # i _ .! r + r ..♦ # 1 + • i # If# ' Fi t# �� # * ♦ • 1 i F4 i K ti F t # # • Ri.•' ♦ t• f 4 F F". ..• • • MFF ' + �• 4 ♦' 4f• Mt ++ No i # t * r t Ff # • +. 4t R4 - ♦ l^ ! It-4 ' # R tR " i ►f • F ! ' 4f FoR f R +�!. # • ++ a 4 k4 f • 4: # 4 t ! #f f K • t # « # its RM• + # # i •' # •R#; # ♦ ti ` + M41 OINP I ill i + .F K i ♦ # . ' t '` r 4 • ! ! • # t +. •t ! iFf� f # f # tK }4 # R # # f• W4 f-K*21fo • AW041 14 i! •M t A f '.i !. • 4 • • ia) t. ;.# + R • • • x • i! • • - t`. t tt#. t s# ! • #, ' #• w#s ++! #.. - ! e# is # ^. • # ## ++ • # " # M y+ • • M t#; k' f AR i i .+• i # i yN t w4f # •# + - 1 sN R' i ! 4 Rx - A #* # •^. 1 t `t +# #. t.^ { r R • [ t •` • .. +.- # � i r 4 f• ' ♦ ' i .+# r # •)) # • .di s # # # ' s♦ # #» � i r � M i • ! f # # •' • is � } � ' #a # • s # # t : #• '. „ t • - } ., / a # • / 1 ,•. • 1t ! • # '. / ' rM • r t k t f •,.. 1 ; t s • R f :i " t i ## t # i#w # s # } !+ # t t# f t i. ' f + }• 1.• i 1 # # # #t1 • - ! } • # i ♦t♦ . }: i#. • i # i a ' Ra t to ft :.l ;..' .: # } •A• .•" # # i # } tf.• • s... t # ! ' # t - ' {. • • ,..rt 14 1i«# t. ♦ a � tM } ". Ii !# 1 • • :t #: { M i !• *T4 il OVI Y # • f 1 I. 1 • :/1 1 f•# ♦ ##. ! M ! " f R4 • } # / '. } • t t 3t• 1 ' } f f1 # 'tt#! t• # • s #. s .+! t ♦' # # if so i a1" ! ! •+.wt .F t -} • ! ! •#T 1 ii: #. ! # # r4 t' • ♦ # #} *: i 4' +.- i t # N} a Rol f t# • i' too .10 . R ' a.• ..# # R ♦♦. • M * a -# } * `.ti i1#4 ! ! f! ,• • # i + n • ^ t' • • ' #• #+i. # t •} f •� +#- ! i at f #.r t .t# • ! # # / f" • •1. ,e } + .,"t t is i # ! V #a at! # #... # tt # { MM • R ! •. }. { • i / f . f 1'+ / Mt tt 7 • •# t ' #' >' ! i• t R K R #2 !' K ` i• !a : #• i i f+ # - t i s si R• t ! .fit � # • • • •R • ## t R '. # K '. # .rK 4* t t# � # ' ## # -. # r !' # t # ' ## • f *. • i� a s t t+ # # }J• i } } + • ! f i ! t #' • ri #i - t • ,.i i • i a • * } ! • #.#Kt # 4• R# # } i #• ,�� # ! } + i � i. • # R4 t # - k • + aiR .« # ##. ♦i R # ! f } ; t • # i olfoluolp !# > - ti t f - it.t ## • # # i# s� i # t R.# # ti Kt' ## y,• tom* i#• } " s+♦ • R Mf '.i # ►#t K iRRi i fs • -. <i # f.itf } .. ..lir #!.# ra t - rs # � r ♦ # + # + # •A i ♦ # # + lt,� h ! # •fi..Iit # ! • 1' I#< f # ;. t1 A • ` f # f • M #� # # f - • # • # 1 ► ` f • A • # ► i # «. # Art # ; go # ' t q1 .aM R i. # f • � ! 4 .r w + ♦ ; ; I f• #t t ' # # f. M i! M� # �# 1 R # ,r • # ! - # ` # • � M• •ft'. A tr•. M ■: # t° ': # t # t ! 1 R ! # A .i Ai. • * • A - M F •t ' • i }. !.# • � x # I ; rr ►... l ! « w A # #f # t w :: }`. i, 4 # A M/ # • • ! ♦ M 11 f ! t !# i I # • it#f •f f • f1 # lii • I `+" ♦ !!: # ! • ! A i •". • # ♦ ,.• ! # t • t # } IF • • 'ONA � 1 k � '.; ►t •r f t#* #' ' •# kik 1" ♦ .# # +i ' f # #'. ! l #i4' t# go 4 i # Mt• + ! # • i � w f• i' ♦ # .+it • „ .• ! # '. 1 t• It t' i # ..rtt # w w t # "t!! # «. ! � # # i M # # * I # ! 1J.t .,,. w • ! f - M ! • # #t r7 77R # ! # # #; t,;i' M as ## ! ♦ E#C i I ► + ► .«� ► � • < i #• t •, • f• ! R •# •! ari "t r at+ + E R ! • E' i < R ' t ii - ■ ! ► r • ".• !' rt •' ♦s; - • # t #.#. ! r r" • i xt Ie' r t r• r � i r � R # r ! # it• • 'r1' t.!•. • f • • i' ► ! ♦ i t !t' • •! 4 •i1` r - R i f ! 0 r +t ti • # t xt + • !.r• it t - s :. S t r #: t' .• M Y #• ! • • r • � 4 t r ;.x t xr. • t # • .- t "t 4 t # ## r• f + • it! - #! • r x t � ! i . • aT .i• ♦ *+# . • • t.:r • ' . t • + ##• • .t + #! t{. r� r ! x lret , t < ir • • ixi•• # r i � r • ► • r •_ R + • inMm# • r. • t t+ • r ►# - r •. i t r i ♦ + r " • xH # r! i !t. # # • t i` i ♦ • t r• # ' t# r a• i # • i` E • + ., t i ♦• r � ` • f y ! t t f -. R•• t t" i � . •• } ! x •• • # i ! t • • ' • + t r # • f � exf t r • •R ext • r • ' i• ! + • } # i t «t• wt# r » r.. # x •" ,# #• r * f • *. • • .. !k. ", t • i r i• •. x� • 4. • # # ! f E 4 # • +ti t M • # # # r r d♦Ir' f •. ♦ t M r r x ♦t # :+► 1 • - • 4 # # # i r • # t • rt • t # * # • ml*T' *T4 t f ' tt.! �4 t t :# 1` • # +T ! - f .. r •• + +t :df 1 • M► •1 # + t t � t •t ' rk' •• r" r # t ++ + t ## • • .. •t t r.R • •# r � .+ � t'� r + • r s i t i1 i • x • • r # r •' • •f # E' f t• • t i• • a # # • • i .+M !t • t + i.ii' i; i f•• t i t ; :.x•#. t# #; `.#' go ffr mak' iit # .. # # •.: #' f t" i # RlMi ! # # ## ♦i # .st #: t r r • • R r ►', ►M +rt ♦ # ' •i + r fx r. r f ! • + r ♦ �w• Yt ! r sw 1 + #• • • • 4t 1 IMC • ex•i 1 t <<t On 1-31-00 the mother writes to Dr.Wilcox again and says "I am requesting a letter/report concerning IMMM molestation by her father." She goes on to say that"SUM would come out of therapy angry upset and vomiting.INUftwas sick and vomited before and after her therapy sessions." It should be noted that Dr.Wilcox has never observed any vomiting by any of the 11M children in her presence nor did any of the therapists makes notes that such behavior was present or that therapy was as the mother described for ► The mother continues... "I believe for I&MM safety and the Court Records are concerns, molestation need to be addressed by a professional medical doctors such as yourself as INS*years and years of medical physician." The doctor responds and on the same day,January 31,2000 in a letter given to the mother again addressed"To whom it may concern." The doctor writes the children... "have been in the center of the battlefield with the mother doing everything in her power to provide an adequate home and stable lifestyle while the father has used(and abused) the children,seemingly for no clear reason except for his own purposes." This is a very biased remark The doctor repeats the sexual molestation allegation and adds a,new statement not previously reported that the father had invited the girl to take a shower with him (again before the divorce). She states the father"has forced them to stay in some questionable Places." although she has never seen nor does she have anj direct knowledge of these places. I.astly she states... "I hope this is helpful and you can help retain her currant:status." On 2-9-00 the mother sends the doctor a copy of a letter she has written her lawyer dated.2- 7-00 stating that the"child has not seen the father in days" which is probably not true. She says the father does not believe in antibiotics although as shown above,that is not true. The mother writes in the letter of 2-7-00 the following disturbing and revealing statements IJMs learning to ignore her injuries and her own doctor,be passive,to be abused and treated worthless.She is getting the message it was okay to be abused not only physically,emotionally,mentally but also ignore her abuses "y',with her abuses and the abuser as the abuser is in Control and make her feel helpless,powerless,hopeless,as the abuser repeatedly emphasizes his ,""his'powerful legal attorneys'and the money he will spend to achieve his goals and gain the children back.80 has said in several occasions that she is tried reaching out hopelessly and she has said'it is no use to talk or say or reach out'anymore".06said you just have to tory to forget about what happened by giving parties,going out,watch movies,..his being taught and 1 self destruction,not to value hersa her needs,... Page 15 of 19 1 Ash has been an instrument by!ba and'evidence' for her father and brainwashed that all happened to her are okay and,_,,,[can't read] to be ignored or blame a target for the events. Mr.Lahey has repeatedly said takes care of CXCW1k&for 'Mr.Lahey's behaviors toward the children have been dangerous for the children and unsafe.There have been incidents with,4=(W I I 1 11 also recently.At this time with the knowledge and continuous unsafe behaviors of Mr.Lahey,I request for no visitations for the Best interests of the children with Mr.Lahey as Mr.Lahey psychological issues appeared to continue. Safety of the children should not be Sincerely On 2-8-00 more stomach aches are reported for 01001pM after a visit with father. Mother tells doctor that he said"I hate Daddy."The boy,when asked about what happened with father says "nothing happened."Abdominal exam is again normal. On 3-6-00(Monday) the mother brings the boy to the ED with complaints of vomiting and not being able to hold down any food.The child is noted to be"awake and alert" has normal vital signs and a normal exam,He never vomits in the ED not demonstrates any pain or discomfort. He does not appear dehydrated.He is given unnecessary intravenous (IV) fluids and unnecessary medication N for vomiting that was reported by the mother but never seen by the doctor, He has a normal blood count(no infection)and his blood chemistry tests for dehydration and electrolyte imbalance,are completely normal(no indication of even slight dehydration).There is no indication of anything being wrong with the child and the patient is noted after a while to have"complete relief of his symptoms" and is discharged home. He is seen again the next day 3-7-00 for follow-up and again has a normal exam The mother sees Dr.Lum this time(Dr.Wilcox's associate). She seizes the opportunity to make additional false statements to a new physician who may help her achieve her goals. The mother reports and the doctor notes "visits Dad weekly and came back from visit to Did same pattem->aggressive behavior bed wetting." It is significant that Dr.Rand states that the last weekend visit the father had was in November 1999, four months before.In fact according to the records,the father saw the boy only once between 11-99 and 2-00 for one day on 12-29-99. On the 3-7-00 visit to the doctor,the child appears to act normally during the exam. It should be noted that the boy apparently acts normal around everyone else except the snottier. On 3-8-00 the mother calls in urgently to ask for an appointment because the child is acting out.The day before he had been in the doctor's office acting normally.When he is seen he is noted to have a black eye.We know this occurred under the care of the mother. Supposedly he hit his eye on a table.The mother informs Dr.Lunn,who is not evens the children's regular physician, that the husband's own therapist suggested supervised visits for the father in spite of the fact that Dr. Hayward had reconnnended unsupervised visits.This according to Dr. Rand not is true.john Osborne,the father's therapist at that time,apparently had Page 16 of 19 # t .• M. « ! tR # i i' .+ ! �t # ■ �i ! cx # t • YI !R .w{ } t# N #c r f # # YR. la {• # �- tie! i M i 4 # # # i' ! • ' #. 6' - # # t • # • # i • « ' ! # i w 11 of # i ` ' # # # at•WOW R 10 1 0#W. # M` 'It # • } �. • • #.Mtf ♦ • ..# � #.. ! a i -•i # M! '. Y # ! •t f M .. # # { } ! f • • # t! w . f t Yt t ## " t i -... # .aa. « -. R # #. • t i * #.# #. M • , M «« i a «r ! # t ! ' 11 • # tti { # i#.# {a i ♦- { �'.. t # « l�,• Il f 11 f I } ftR • ! t i«!!." Y :.t R wi; a! Ilt Y 111 « # ♦• # • t' #« r •Y ! ♦' ! � # # a f # t r not". w OWNS of 4161%1A " .A • i t a i !t I • r' i. { • t # R t No '. t ♦ N R • • } # t - A R r t.• 4 R a a ! w t R f # t } } t t '. t� .. } #-: # t f # w� ! '. f w • • f` f # i e l }!- a # t... ♦:. w - •• •; # ! .t » r ' ,• • i • • < w♦ • + aw a r. }..a :• #• I � ► z #. R i" w M w # w � wl R!! i' • R i . ■ rMlt # f } w► w # • ♦# # school illegally and brought her to therapy.This is completely inappropriate and in violation of court orders. It reflects extremely poor judgment and deconstructive behavior to say the r least , Cdurjmion After completing the extensive review of the medical records,a clear pattern emerged.The mother executed a relentless campaign over the years of malting hundreds of statements to both the doctor and other authorities,many of which were false, with the goal of getting those statements into the medical record.The mother used this strategy to gain the sympathy and cooperation of the chiklren`s doctor.As the number of statements increased the ability to track and sort out what was being said and what was true or false,got lost and the impression that was left was that there a massive amount of information in the record to in to the father.In reality the doctor had no resources to do any investigation or validate what the mother was saying yet she became an extremely valuable resource to the mother who used her to legitimize her accusations and bolster her campaign against the father since the separation in September 1997. The doctor in the end contributed a significant amount of legitimacy to the mother's tactics when they deserved very little or none. The mother's behavior with all the children suggests abuse of the children and abuse of the medical system:consistent with Munchausen by Prey Syndrome (MSPS).She has consistently presented the children for complaints that only she has seen and subjected them to testing and hospital visits which based on the clinical and objective findings,were unnecessary.The mother frequently projects the blame for these medical problems on the father,another feature of MSPS.The mother,according to tW him been verbally oppressive and persistent in aggressively talking(yelling at the children and controlling. Furthermore,it is also my opinion that the mother had`inappropriate influence over especially with respect to the letters that were written to the Fudge. Luting the period of time in which the children were away from the mother another feature of MSPS was demonstrate&The periods when the children were in foster care represented "separation tests" for Viand ONMM*M These separation tuts are used by physicians to see if children react in a different way during the time they are away from the offer parent suspected of MSPS.These separation,periods that can occur during hospitalizations or under ci=umstances like this,are significant diagnostic tools in identifying MBPS. In this case,we see these test periods,the times they are away from the mother in foster care,are dunes in which the children have very few visits to the doctor and appear to have very few or no medical complaints.When returned to the mother the pattern of frequent medical visits recurs. There are documented incidents of the mother lying to achieve her goals. TIM creates doubt about all of the statements that she makes. The "stress" that was so frequently discussed regarding fJJMM4Mover the last year 1s, almost without doubt,completely attributable to the mother as these behaviors only occur while he is under care of the mother. In my opinion there should be ongoing concerns about the welfare of the children with the mother and a long series of supervised visits with the mother should be ordered to determine the exact behaviors that are occurring while the children are with the mother. Page 18 of 19 86/14/2809 20:44 7146692022 Tei I1 SU�CER PAUL lYJ i 1 t t t detbenn ine t:h$ ra tbAt ste occur4sag the ch;ildm we with the;smoth8r. fturftmxwi� that a ptevioua we 5 to snow the father Uaripetvilped visitx m valid. have been obsuvedl2t 1ngth and had no pcoblemwt aneit the ab&q©f*Miipo rt 4no=W behavrots ovhir ve:not Oyu should be ; conaide w& I Gou�s O lei invohvmmt in the cue.I recowmead the count ap<pe nt an: eud t to raprem ent the. 'l i,ntuat»Dr.wacol,in my o4ulon VPCM to heiv a !tett and bai,4cei in ds tions to the ebutt. .L�eet'dy,the to hsevc bei for at leapt two mjo r injw iea i o A�# yet A#sf not ans weteed to LAtC that casae use is this cut iia the bop s owu tb;trr"Mommy hit me.'# patf II r vmdty of`p n*y 13*day of,jeme 2 in Del M k, cAf nnia.. f t stet m c Gosef M.D.,P.A x NLM of JEme: erscy fAwidat FeHow of they of • i t 7 i I r f t i t ' � t I i S , I; P*,19 of 19 1 j mois�s ix:ea � � _.,.�.. WALTN Cat SWn we Ca�iaslu4riAln ftWU 0. 40j"tt. N.D., F.A.AAM. F�d41Y Adirac DRiDNmvm.. o talk" DWWr,CA OM44M 7+Ef�tpnr t7Riiw 810.766.2"o Lbowuw OWN" OWN RNWAb 74000Tt "Wye* Ivw WMAO IMM 040"W. >rlMlffAlNn*dN#*Vo*jjk411iD 19144000.SA.F*Ow W VA"sobak UIYY�tII at C410ornt�larAny , *Wamk VMA).i0WfM unwi *"vW^Ojwwk tO7Mt070 , Cuw4!Pti Sow tiM*P"W MWWW 1Nark� &'PK +tio�twaid W�C+w�rr Pob coy, tYsiMi�`4MltiMi mk Fan**Opw 1aNAGt pwbfti�CA f t101.1'L+MIi 1410 Rep rya, 19CwAvkCA 82M r 03 SO 12.05 X04 40-A&IO �+W'� �p pd� j0ia4 +ate twaw La ' boo 0gglo ett5'�1YD p qtr� voo „ '° w ► tt2J1f/199w #x:es 6sr�ie9e ++EatTHLw�o SVS . . ..,r as �Iwwrtr+Ci.+AwluwwR,lwt.D pops howowlw OMOWIF PMw� smam(^Owoft idommowbrWomom in-T*M at TOrkr.'SLOIwgGlt.11Wi W foh, awtsweaiwp Iwwrl w�twhwtgw iwf ow�3+wn, �,�,$y�p,AAAaa1ww11pwi�� OWU VW" t+wr am t*p UWAn ION. IftowdY d Fiww ►+aMm ebb WwwMCbMIAbW fJpiw'id'ylrorfCf�lYt�tlrA�t Tnlnln�M iiri,'DYppwrYfp!{biMr` Nruwwaiww d�IwAwd+dNKb�rUMdiblLaoow�,41�4 �k+pM�w�rrli�MY►brlu� bM+wparMwwwwiaaw irrAidw�we►ridreUdaditlwoir{iwolr�Yrit►a rim arm Cuolmom 01 Fa1vir►attlnAR+wrMkrn Aawdrwgrd #Awr MlwAwwn F"Oodond *n*wwAb+f i �iiN+i MmAl C ■od*QnifiwAbww'dCbNdAaww l a"i .i Aww00�i�M�q�i+ ' :Cwr�l4ii�wrs . 111'. filN,inw A'Ri Prwvliwr ttipltw#kiwawt Rwwrl CwwuwCM�Iwd iM.tbwwwrlon llwnl6wrFlrl► tCw.rPalm 4kgidWw,AkmWJwO*my*A%M •ubwawwwMrw, WerirwbdwwaP AlwwwbwrUnMwd'YYrwpL t'brin Gpww�wn,,Mtdy wtiiwr Plf�wn at t�w/dn►t in �� C1OnNwilMw•Af 1CwbtC++1wM,'xpw�rww boawapwwinb tlswlw�wnw+nlrwiwn wwondwarwlol>i�wn b MMw+t OYgot�wuuw�r YwenbwuAdtiaw�aPtShAdllMurs VIM wppofnwwd w PWW 1'lrgwwt,tlfr4iwt AMwrrwir,Cbungr at wr ' �X*Aoodm 01,11 uprrNrwirwdxoll. ww1..Bawaiatq�crwrw Arewwrloawrllwnuat ��ireituhrtfli�d�rAarrkynCbMrp�rwtrbyp CIAM RIMA OCMBER 17, 2000 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, } NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. I notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below, given < , `l pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and .a ., 815.4. Please note all "Warnings". AMOUNT: $29,000.00 .r CLAIMANT: Lillian Torres ATTORNEY: c/o Steven E. Mendelson DATE RECEIVED: September 18, 2000 ADDRESS: Mendelson & Mendelson BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 18, _2000 120 Eleventh Street, 2nd Floor Oakland CA 94607 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: September 15, 2000 L FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TU: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATC 'LOR, Clerk Dated: September 19, 2000 By: Deputy � t H. FRONT= County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervis s ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). { ? Other: Dated: '�1 } By: '� J',✓L- Deputy County Counsel III. FROM Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: (� This Claim is rejected in full. ( } Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: 00&i 1 `'PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By , Deputy Clerk WARMING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully ;prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. ated By: PHIL BATCHELOR By Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator VICTOR 1 WESTMAIY DEPUTIES: PHILLIPS.ALTHOFF COUNTY COUNSEL JANICE L.AMENTA NORA G.BARLOW B.REBECCA BYRNES W.CASSIDY SILVANO B.MARCHESI 'OST ANDREA,COOPER �`� T A C I M MONIKA L.COOPER CH IEF ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL VICKIE L.DAWES OFF#C 1=THE cS � NSEL MARKEs.esTls MICHAEL D.FARR SHARON L.ANDERSON LILLIAN T FUJII ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL JA NNIS C.OLMESs ��_, ������ ,� ,, JANET L.HOLMES MART Z CALIF 4�`2 KEVINT.KERR GREGORY C.HARVEY BERNARD L.KNAPP o EDWARD V.LANE,JR. ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL MARY M MARY ANN MASON GAYLE MUGGL! PAUL R.MUn�iz VALERIE J.RANCHE OFFICE MANAGER hjpti �+I�rE �F 7�T �TP y �y7 �T MIG DAVIDSTEVF.P HMIDT NOTICE VV 11 ll 1iV I 1V DAVID F.SILVER DIANA J.SfLVER PHONE(925)335-1800 AND/OR JACQUELINE Y.WOODS FAX(925)845-1078 NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Lillian Torres c/o Steven E. Mendelson, Esq. MENDELSON&MENDELSON 120 Eleventh Street, 2'Floor Oakland, CA 94607 RE: CLAIM OF LILLIAN TORRES Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2,or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: [ ] I. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. ] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. [ ] 3. The claim fails to state the date,place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. Cx 4. The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public employee(s)causing the injury, damage, or loss,if known. 5. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000),the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation,the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known,or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars($10,000), the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court. [ ] 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on his or her behalf. Page 1 clouew Lillian Torres c/o Steven E. Mendelson, Esq. Re: Claim of Lillina Torres September 20, 2000 Page Two [x 7. Other: The claim fails to state where the accident took place. VICTOR J. WESTMAN COUNTY COUNSEL Monika L. Cooper Deputy County Counsel MLCikmo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P. §§ 1012, 1013a,2015.5;Evidence Code§§641,664) 1 declare that my business address is the County Counsel's office of Contra Costa County,651 Pine Street,Martinez,California 94553;I am a citizen of the United States,over 18 years of age,employed in Contra Costa County,and not a party to this action. I served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope addressed as shown above,sealed and postage fully prepaid thereon,and thereafter was,deposited this day in the U.S.Mail at Martinez,California. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September 20,2000,at Martinez,California. a leen O'Connell cc. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors(original) Risk Management I.\TOR'IIRISR-MGI1 CLRIMMSL.T RTorms.wpd Page 2 MENDELSON MENDELSON STEVEN E. MENDELSON 120 ELEVENTH STREET (510) 451-1988 ROBERT A. MENDELSON, RETIRED OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94607 FAX (510) 451-1994 SEMENDELGAOL.COM SHELt7ON OTiS, r�ArzALeGal SEMENDELGLAWYER.COM MARIANA M. HARRIS, PARALEGAL September 15, 1000 SEP 10 2000 Contra Costa County Clerk Beard Of Supervisors 651 Pine .Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Lillian Torres CLAIM PRESENTED TO TIFF COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Dear County Clerl.: Enclosed please find the original and two copies of the Claim Presented to Centra (,,)sta County above-referenced matter. Please file the originals and return the endorse- Aed copies to me ,r. the envelope provided. Thank you for your cooperation. if you have any questions, please contact me immediately. Very truly yours, Sarah M. {carman Legal Assistant to Steven E. Mendelson CLAIM AGAINST: Contra Costa County CLAIMANTS: Lillian Torres CLAIMANTS'ADDRESS: 14433 Bancroft Avenue, #6 San Leandro, Ca 94577 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES IS TO BE SENT: Mendelson & Mendelson 120 Eleventh Street, 2nd door Oakland, CA 94607 DATE OF INJURY: May 10, 2000 WHAT HAPPENED: Ms. Torres was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by a County employee. ACTOR(S)WHOSE CONDUCT FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM: Unknown AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $25,000 ± ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM: HOSPITALIZATION $2,0100 t MEDICAL TREATMENT $2,000 ± FUTURE MEDICAL Unknown t LOSS OF EARNINGS $ 5,000 ± GENERAL DAMAGES $ 20,0010± TOTAL DAMAGES $ 29,000 (Claimant's Agent) 15 451-1988 Telephone Number FAA\0 Cifforreftovt tort torm.w,pd If 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I declare that: 3 I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to within entified cause; my business address is 120 Eleventh Street, 2nd floor, 4 Oakland, California 94607. 5 ' Oil September 15, 2000, 1 served the attached documents: 6 CLAIM PRESENTED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 7 By Facsimile Transmission on all parties by transmitting said document(s) from our office facsimile machine (510-451-1994) to facsimile machine ntunber(s) shown below. Following 8 transmission, I received a "Transmission Report" from our facsimile machine indicating that the transmission had been transmitted without error By iklail oil all parties in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § I013a(3), 1.9 o by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope in a designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the business 11 practice for collection and processing of mail in this office. That in the ordinary course of business said document would be deposited with the US Postal Service in Oakland on that 12 smite day. I understand that service shall be presumed invalid upon motion of a party served if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is more than one day after 1.3 the date of deposit for mailing contained oil this affidavit. 14 By Personal Delivery by causing personal delivery of a true copy thereof to the person at the address set forth below. 15 By Federal Express by depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed packet for overnight 16 �' � delivery, with charges thereon fully paid in a Federal Express collection box at Oakland, California and addressed as set forth below. 17 18 Contra Costa County Clerk Board Of Supervisors 29 651 Pine Street, Roorn 106 Martinez, CA 94553 20 21, I declare ander penalty of perjury that the fnregoing is trite and correct and that on the date 22 stated above this declaration was executed at Oakland, California. 23 '// 24 arman 25 25 27 28 1 . � �- . -- � » f «�'\ » » � ® U � g , \ # OA � r « . \ ■ � « � o40\ � }\ m ) � « 0 � d \ \, � = g f $ 0 (�k 0 -4 � :. .: CLAIM � BOARDS�? ' US OF Y CMTRA CUSTA C012i , CALIF NIA BOARD AMD 0C WBER 17, 2000 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, } NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to The copy of this docurnent mailed to you is your California Government Codes. } notice of the actio taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors, (Paragraph IV below}, given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". SEF' 6l { AMOUNT: $372.56 eoUNr-t'00UNSZL CLAIMANT: Candice Turd MAR T NEZ CAlr R ATTORNEY: DATE RECEIVED: SE1 rEMBER 15, 2000 ADDRESS: 312 Benson Avenue BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: September 15, 2000 Vallejo CA 94590 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand-Delivered L FROM: Clerk of the Beard of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL B LOR, Clerk Dated: September 15, 2000 By: Deputy II. FRONL• County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervi rs { This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. { } This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). { ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). { ) Other: By: 2 �rr Dated: _ Deputy County Counsel IIL FROM Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). 1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: (% This Claim is rejected in full. { } Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: ' /7-r`- "PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By91V_� = , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AF>EWAVIT OF M.AILIC'dG declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United hates, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Sated: "7 �' �By: PHIL BATCHELOR Al /L Deputy Clerk p Y '_C: County Counsel County Administrator RE IVSD SEP t i ^,��' CONTRA C TA COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 12, 2000 Mr. Teti Brasier Deputy Director Centra Costa County Animal Services Dept. 4849 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Mr. Brasier, Pursuant to our telephone conversation of 8/31/00, please send me a written explanation for the denial of my claim regarding the pup which I adopted from the Pinole shelter. Sincerely, etc -- � .� Candice Turci 312 Benson Avenue Vallejo, CA 94590 (707) 552-5414 RECEIV SEP 1 d0 CL AKCB ART TROF SUAERVI 0 S ��j`" Aniffial Services Deartment lJ���GI Michael G.Ross Contra�' Animal Services Director 4849 Imhoff Place Costa Martinez,California 94553-4393 (925)646-2995 County 651 Pinole Shores Drive `J Pinole,California 94564-2632 (510)974-3966 August 23, 2000 Candice Turci 312 Benson Avenue Vallejo, CA 94590 Dear Ms. Turci: This is in response to your letter to the Animal Services Department regarding your recent adoption of a pup from our Pinole facility. Your letter indicated your belief that the animal had a skin condition that may have been contagious. I have attempted to reach you by telephone several times at the number you indicated in your letter(707-552-5414), but have received no answer. Please contact me at(925) 646- 2935, as I am anxious to discuss this matter with you as soon as possible. Sincerely, t Ted Brasier Deputy Director cc: Michael G.Ross.Animal Services Director Sue Beadle,Administrative Services Officer Animal Services Lieutenants Risk Management Files Printed- Jun,27 00 05.�I d P User:mi Concord Leisure Services Receipt City of Concord (925)671-3404 Receipt : 61992 Candice 7`urci 312 Benson Avenue Vallejo, CA 945% Issued: Tue 27 run 00 02:17 pm User: regi Client Home#: 552-5414 Description Amount Previous balance SU00 Registration: Candice Turci $55,00 05987:FCPUP-SUMMER,2000-0 Dog Training Puppy Classes:8 Hours:8:00 Days:Mon Starts: Jun 19 00 06:00 PM-07:00 PM Ends: Aug 07 00 06;00 PM-07:00 PM Location. Lime Ridge Lime Midge Classroom Please do not bring your puppy to the first class. Proof of immunization is required.Aggressive dogs will be dropped from the program at the instructor's discretion.Students must wear tennis { . shoes.Classes are held in the communirty building in the Lime Ridge Open Space at 3701 Treat Blvd,You may parte in the lot and walk up the hill to the building.If you wish to drive in to .- the open space to park new the building,you must enter via the grave[fire road off Treat / Blvd. If you are coming from the south,drive past the parking lot and make a u-turn.The fire road will then be on your right.Drive carefully. ,,,, Thank You for choosing Concord Leisure Services.Enjoy your class. Payment: Check 181457 ($55.00) Current Balance $0.00 4 M • .. s•`"•/w,r`". rte.s+�w �sw I^�Y•w ri r•.•r�r•+ /�a s•,.ar'•w.i•,.r�.,r4 r`�w.rw.+"..i+w.. �t�iw,a•..'^M raw m.+r.+.•+..may,,✓ti++•w V � 1TY Pn v wry WW w..w✓wr..O/v wrw V�...w.. \/w�r�V owr"V v q �� 5� m -n y v, � _ c� m-` -n 10 CL 1p CD to t7iCfl care d a. Ca Ute+ ��' COCO-4ciScn4�6 W • Jim+' i ....... ...... m �. r, r wy...,, w., , _ ......., ....._.......,. —o.r.... ——wr,w.,.— CD a -=----- �- �- -ate - -_ CD CD `-Aj t7�� M .� �*< b A M Z.. Ii4 •• 'itr!FN�r' NC Cl) C� cn c; Com ' . 0 ro ic N �' REDWOOD VETERINARY HOSP. r 731 ADMIRAL CALLAGHAN LANE VALLEJO, CA 94591 i.. 707 553-1400 �r t a�F SUPPLIES/DIETS 000001 DATE: 07/09/00r REDWOOD VETERINARY HOSPITAL INVOICE: VALLEJO, CA 94591 PANE; I DATE ANIMAL CODE DESCRIPTION PRD QUANT PRICE AMOUNT PRIOR. BALANCE -1 .48 07/09/00 PET 7770 E-J COLLAR RX 1 . 000 12 . 63 12 . 63 SALES TAX 0 . 93 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INVOICE TOTAL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT 13 .$6 NEW BALANCE ********** ************ RELEASE INSTRUCTIONS 3 5y. NN06/18/95 y� y C o �t 1 �4q Y 07/ '_7/'2000 PATIENT PROFILE Last Name- ,JACKSON Third Party- HNT First Name- CURTIS Birthdate- 08/13/1952 { 47) Street- 312 BENSON AVE Sex- M City-- VALLEJO Plan- 001 Stag- CA Group- 74030A Zip- 94590 Member- 568925587 Phone- (707) 552-5414 Family Code- Safety Cap? (Y) - Y Relationship- SELF Show- Address? (N) - Y Co-pay- Manual Price? (N) - N Display? (Y) - Y Cardholder Last- JACKSON First-- CURTIS Dependents- Card Expires- NONE Other Ins. Coverage (N) - N Allergies- NONE Ins. Company- 07/17/2000 DRUG PROFILE JACKSON, CURTIS 346175 LINDANE LOTION 1.000PC (NA) G,PEREZ 07/11/00 VVV 120 $5. 00 CO-PAY HNT RF= 1. 00 EDS= 14 346170 DIPHENHYDRAMINE HCL CAPSULE 25. 00OMG (QU) G.PEREZ 07/11/00 VVV 100 $10 . 50 RF= 2 . 00 EDS= 50 OLD �- � 00 -04 CA to el rn Tktr�a O 0,-40 �m A ..0 CP WR U) as co i "d co rn r+ -- Z W m -xuJI IT, ' m -" r 00 r y...H 00 CO m �ti � co !Cr�� CT1 IN't ru i m ? c ' Cj7 CO 1 00 -4 fj M C D m M 7 G � Lri s r Oft oi- r§WF V 9- F 1p * 0 —————————— —-- - ————————— Off m Ro 0 m HIM. go co 3 m maowm TO 13 0 0 M z V) g m 0 r. 4 0 21 ca CD CO3 �+y st m G7 r, " f�wS Na � R71 t CC CD � i}7 t31 � N � ► C1S h7j � t31 j► Ca7 h7 � 0 AQ •�w+'re W V`f....A V Z wr+►.°�v 1�4....+v Yui/^.✓V v'ti+.r+V v v V J- v V wry wr• ire ter+wr+v' � O � t7 •wa�i GS � �dr -nwr-&0)u F0 -0a -6 �7vta Zt�7 m "00 a w a_ a 3 m s. Osn sss m mc� �3r_ v, 5rnt3 $ ° ©'mom ro � "` � c ?_CL 01 to m� {gyp CD 1p -- tT7 CJt A W Its -+ •a + a -i Cp CD ri 157 Cri w w " = !13 - 9 CO ib V C7 Cri ly is7 IV + .. .. ... ..-.... �! m � 0m -0 � -nLnm t7 Cy ?Itn � `ax )do r"aoorju) x -na 7a► c> c� x -� c`eoarss�n a_ a mz9 sz: � � t� c � � � l . -� to Ct l�7 tra c� 0 f vs m °3 C► 7 Cn.=: �. th D Hcn i' c� 7' �s t7 +. C). _ Pff - co m --t m •c L� to CD CD ch m m m , m Z Fn w 09 P w :e (D C7 m O 0 m, m A ( j to -< � � '• .. f 0 : _ m NI CA � V cn 0* co 'L3 'a V m r July 26, 2000 ANhAAL S6ViGCS pEE,pA�l'E;ANT Mr. Mike Ross Contra Costa County Animal Control Services 4849 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Mr. Ross, My name is Candice Turci . I live in Vallejo with my significant other, of 17 years, Curtis Jackson. In early April, our Labrador retriever, of 10 years, died of cancer. For two months, we struggled with the idea of purchasing a pup from a breeder, or giving a shelter pup a second chance at a good home. I visited your Pinole location several times in May, and on June 8, we adopted a female Lab mix, 3 months old, from your shelter. We went through the usual paperwork, and were told that, because of a parvo prevention program at the shelter, we could take the pup home and have her spayed at a later date. Total deposit and fees were $92 . 00 . Later that day, .I accidently ran into one of your officers, who had knowledge of my pup, and was kind enough to share, with me, the fact that she came from a North Richmond neighborhood that has been known to harbor the mange mite. I decided to keep a close eye on the pup to insure that we did not end up with a problem like that, (no help from the current department policy in which a person has little information on an animal ' s history) . On June 12 , I took the pup, now named "Chancy" , because we gave her a second "chance" , to her first vet visit, (free through your services) . I took her to Pinole Pet Hospital . At this point, I had only three days to decide if I wished to treat and keep the pup, per your policy. At this visit, I mentioned the possible mange mite exposure, and had a fecal test done for worms . The vet said the pup was fine and the test for worms was negative . Total cost for the fecal test, $18 . 50 . Within 5 days, the pup was itching and developing pustules on her hind legs . Within 5 more days, "Chancy" was scratching uncontrollably and loosing the hair on her legs . I would later find out that 10 days is the approximate hatching time for .the mange mite . On June 22 , I took her tq.our family vet in Vallejo, Broadway Pet Hospital . I mentioned, oncp- again, the possible exposure to the mite. At this point, because of,,no visible signs of the mite, the vet diagnosed the problem as a severe skin allergy, (a common diagnosis problem regarding the mange mite) , I later learned. Total bill for this visit was $68 . 00 for the * antibiotics and an antibiotic injection, plus office visit . I already had "Advantage Flea product" , so I used my own, hoping that perhaps she had a flea allergy. The next day, I took "Chancey" to the Contra Costa vaccination clinic. She recieved her second DALPP shot and a rabies shot . I mentioned the possible mange mite exposure to the vet there, as well . He was unconcerned, as he felt it was "very rare" and hard to contract . (My later understanding was that the mite is easily spread from dog to dog and, as I would soon experience, dog to people) . In the meantime, I enrolled the pup in obedience school through the City of Concord, believing that she had a skin allergy, not a contagious condition. We attended 2 classes, June 26 and July 10 . on July 7, I realized that "Chancy" was not improving. She had developed crust on her ears and was loosing more and more fur. I called the Broadway clinic and purchased more antibiotics . I also purchased a cone at another vet, to try to keep her from scratching, and vitamins from Walgreens, hoping that her immune system was just weak. Total bill for $47 . 56 . On July 10, both Curtis and I developed red spots on our stomachs and began to itch violently. Because we have the same health care provider, the Doctor, Ms . Perez, prescribed enough medicine for both of us when Curtis was seen on July 11 and diagnosed. with "scabbier" , the human version of the mange. Total bill for office visit and 4 weeks worth of lindane cream, and benedryl, $20 . 00 . On July 11, after Curtis came home from the doctor' s office, we took "Chancy" back to Braodway Pet Hospital and a skin scraping confirmed, at last, that she had the mite. Total bill, $168 . 00 . $82 . 00 was for Revolution flea protection, which washes off when the pup is dipped for the mites with Mitaban, once a week for 6 weeks ! Curtis and I had previously planned a week vacation, from July 10 to July 14 . We spent, what was going to be a nice quiet week with our new pup, from the pound, in the country, cleaning and scrubbing our house, where the pup from the pound had had the run of the place. We threw out all of her bedding and everything which she had used outside, $15 . 00 for the dump charge, and cleaned and disinfected the carpets, $20 . 00 for the machine rental . We will also have to purchase 1 more vial of mitaban for the completion of "Chancy' s" treatment , $24 . 00 , as I purchased the second vial today, $24 . 00 . Please find enclosed a list of charges, for which I am requesting reimbursement from your office, which totals $372 . 56 . I am not re- questing reimbursement for any charges for which I will be reimbursed from other sources, i .e . the puppy classes will reimburse me, as I could not return to classes with a contagious pup; my wasted vacation time, which I will chalk up to experience; the spay deposit, etc. My concerns regarding this experience are many. I would think that the pups that are offered by your service would be held, at least, long enough to detect a situation like this one if the area is known to be - affeoted. If children in the area had contact with this pup, they may `have contracted the mite and taken it to school . Also, if anyone ' s dog runs away and is picked up and put in a County shelter, there is a possibility that their dog could go in totally healthy, and come out affected. I never expected to end up with a problem like this, just because I chose to use the County Animal Services. Total charges for which I am requesting reimbursement are as follows : 06-22-00 Vet visit Broadway Pet Hospital Allergy diagnosis $ 68 . 00 06-27-00 07-17-00 Cancel Obedience Classes 5. 00 07-08-00 2nd Round of Antibiotics 15 . 00 07-09-00 Cone to prevent itching from "allergy" 13 . 56 07-11-00 Human Dr. Visit and lindane/benedryl 20 . 00 07-22-00 07-11-00 Vet visit Broadway Pet Hospital Mange mite diagnosis Treatment/Dip/antibiotics/Revolution 168 . 00 07-12-00 Dump Charges 15 . 00 07-13-00 Carpet Cleaner .Rental 20 . 00 07-26-00 2nd Vial of Mitaban 24 . 00 Furture/Final Vial of Mitaban 24 . 00 Total $372 . 56 Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at you convenience . The telephone number listed below is a message phone. Sincerely, Candice Turci 312 Benson Ave. Vallejo, CA 94590 .�,... ..........,� 9 4 W' 'k m LONGS DRCUG CHORE VAL.. *. 1008 10 1113 11# .090 5 3 r6p1 oPjJ',�., CHECKOUT SIGN—OFF LONGS DRUG STORE ' VALLEJO, CA .;. 3 10 1114 111 090 ** CHECKOUT SIGN—OFF LONGS DRUG STORE VALLEJO, CA, 6003 33 1115 111 090 " LONGS DRUG STORE VALLEJO, CA, 6001 10 1116 111 090 TAXABLE MDSE 1T 19,99 NON—TAXABLE MDSE 1 5.00 SUBTOTAL 24.99 7.375 X TAX 1.47 a TOTAL 26.46 9 CHARGE 26.46 CHANGE .00 THANK YOU FOR SHOPPING AT LONGS "THE BEST DRUG STORE IN TOWN" n JULY 13, 2000 9:20 AM a ffi tip P , r i s s r st r s I 2.c 'nt,�i ''t�+.f° P ` g,xr` '.. ' 2 k : a s >,� f a t t`;"�'S*`.a a.a R' �>='' `' x `�' r i rvm ° s l a '; ���� 1. v �F s a I _ i' l A{ r,' 3 _V "NO �`� , �. J k ,�ygF.S. zyr�au+��. ,a t"a ? i;Y , �§d' , ' k'4y5 Sr ���J'k, '3"fd i .`h }p J `'� ,a.,'1 # n i+a we,-,Al 6 9 k f .��:, e' k '` :"� t'a t x e'i -%�"��w t 2, f€t 101 w..�,. sir�W%'.X.a{v? tat i '`5#. ,�, c r. IZ + ,� fk: �"'� .� Lxt g 4 ` €� #C "' .�a� 'a'"u' .^t �3ry i..ni.'K5'—icg twijj�#'� �2^s *;,' y,�,,,r.FF� s3rv- 9b e k #,�€ j t O+ ;�� *x� a t � { ; �'` i pit{ �r'��,�{^ �rr3'.� + :: t, I7 { rst �, r g sC z t;' ^F �'I "'�'y;'�`kq' �' ra.,`d ..r `�s ,. ,.. rf � a , 'try ;�`gra � + ,Ty 2 .5t'r >,u+(a Ji? ,� a 1 1�1111.1tr t } i t f t .F ' >sLI' r �7 i ,'fix. ,Y`�,1�,�4 f",,,., T 'a*r`�' ' S r 3 1'.c s F ;#{ ..+ ,i2 �, r a '^ ; ?{ t z ? 2 -,> .y b.{ '•4T" rs tt i t*'r '"S'l j rly "K` f N. •+ t k� f° r , { ,, ix� .x .x.' '� ^id M'Iii > is d.[;r t r 11 , v 5'�. .r 3., + ems` ,r v t `'t y ,I'ltit11 t t a. f'Y ,' +,.Ii i � 4p f' lilT-3,;',x� , �'s� { .''^h 2'd`4 1 f"! ah i o i a, Fv"✓ ? �w' 3�` t-'` S v!1 2 "+• r�zc s ;, ,2'")..r ,.t.s s t a a. r •#c + i'� i > 3 -11i 3 ;3 3 ;'`,�iXi 11 d max'4 ,t fid"' n ' ,^ sy, t t r"`',4�#Y r x11 11 tg `' ��f i t t i i { 7+ a. !t t " t ;t ' t � ' s z t } t � t�+ .% —11L c L f w f { q h 1 � {VA-j a y ;11 i�� ' I � I a a -,,. �' 3 -s k '''';i5,3 $fi $ ii x: 'r ; s t � 11V 3 .f s 3 t , t ., y r k s i h # rr r 1 r t w a .v r & E �r v r G' t� ups fit, ,' �v�. ,, v y «., {. is ,, s ff•�•e tt# �a c� ..< ;h^F+ 'f — �.,:�. ---1K t i4x�': t l 5 ',--,)i ' t..,r .t xy. '£ i II ! ; v ,� t t+§,utt. :,L`5 .s� IIII*.,✓ ., '�'"�'" �9: ' a -s, ,t" Asa k .,. _. � ,7C err 1, ''VRA its "F�Zts S x� '�' ,? >r, f`'? i - 3;� a p a �t s a $ a k i a-n% t ."a,�t's` sv a� N i' - ':r f 'i`�-''';a'' 'c p'1 b ,% y 6'rT �§ u°"f Z K i rs 't r tw *'"��`, a2 u'E , t t I , k S' c'9 4 tFt 1j j ' i t,.-i i z # �t F < f y{, s' it it t ;f` !.t i� s j3 . 'I g i s a*�e I j+ c ..�,, , ? r { z a a t j � , f� y � 4 ysr k a F e"�l y �� i � fY la < { I i I '! s r' P S 'n'5 11 t t 1 t ) w +r s r+ S' i 1 I i ,rr{ y c l t"; t I t it14—� ! ! 1 b' �- , L_ rig f ,�'�� 'r,.sj. t .i t �jfs s f I ' Y� " a"a-"> f t ,; i h �� kst• � �as,ji ���� l :1,;,. ..4 r .at� }.p S I y t! t '�� 5 k `4WT ii f t �) -. If - � l F�t t4 t t� "�77 a:� 3 j i 1 11 Rc a ri. 44 1', t", n: €*, ;i G� ��' 'r I mr -'� r f S +2 f�` 7 «E s , a p`} 3 .<� < r f "sus s r 'r f + r r x � ,hl , '� i„ �t I�, .,o-i,.� .: ' t.."' �r'r. ,., d. �v=> �#. +. s`r.- i�4 )?,^,A 1 't"}:""f "�,�' °•�''�qp, ,�' �•Ua'"t 'a't , r`• C �'�` ..�e���; s{ " k � �"K a �?','��'{ x t�.y a s,wwww 7 t} t ,.:` Z, S� u 1 t,. * b 3 k +1s 7` Y a, + {s '" e i I JF �`}� ti ra,;> t C�#R i`ti.�. s ! w e N „�', Y "'^ �` 3€ rr ra i 3 � �� , !t, 11 I �� ! E f� �� hj> ` �i'#lm s`�n}:e t ���, J A, P x r S < m u ,gam t r t t t ff t� 1 t t 1,y. # taxNI i i*1 C 4s.;Y',� rz:,b'pv i I t s t t I �r a s I ,"Ill t iq �€ !{ Z"I 1 3 `! o f yt 11 — ) / 1 I I G. 11 I <r z i ,.. 1 :.t ! I X11 �, , x' '11 vdI,I ' .t p 11 F t t + t r 1 S t �. r?dx,d rad$ .n $ x r x" -, • a'!+r' I ,411 „r 4 $ F Y 6 a/ , 4 .A £ tE'47 §F” , If 9, `E w 4 t t k ! 01 'i "�'",#&' `� ,� '.� h., ,sck 0 ,I -t t t ,, � hc,'"�, i, y `�f,f d �4;'4 r'''a ?�' ���` ?Iu { f a I 3-J�;`^' > k i p r a'y' e c Z a}r' 7 C k dx `"�Y„,,1, 4�`ri 'xraJ � r "9 y,�a S _ t` L fi 4V h t S�pRI f 1O z,' 1. 11 � t 7 S 1 �>•'* t F". 1 . d a ,k"t$ }rsf,Ke s) 3'tY f#,."`+ ACL �7 x'� I i Y 2 _�+. X s i Iii ,! k ,hs 1�`�, « Saw fir �y�_=l. .s y. C'G 4I ' t d 3 w E -..( r -�,� +. tr t ¢ C vs' qty„ �' f +QCs I t f + I s ,t! t 1 r ', a a t %.�P! .1La +},,a., *'r,,', ` a k 2 z_..l $a ?.lknt..0 i.»- L ,� `' "`` w 1 i t # y .t ,x^ 4 .f sti > "S9Ytr< r - �t .`C'..1 s '?i' € ^' xx „�?Ew.S x 3' }}W::� a ..rt .S*, i# 7 ;, +! ,'iu i 5., " ``5 r e' r r z x J ; ..tt ¢ � { >r�. 3 ` ," }} a+^ k`'9 �1 { t ka74 i, la ' z r11 r4f iet 3 ;: r K ,`x r,ar+P'.. k °t1;,',.,�+.. nr 4 .s^,;. kAY +'C'n '�<8 n ,ti v""-q.r # ,. <'� t i i a r + o- ws knit { �, 0 '� s'a� �tif l6J.�j rl r,,qq W 4f .,kr' S s ,ei- f J ? Si 4 P.. � V».�h. Aw,4 a +x. r -i �Y#tt.�Tx �S' ,�+s"' .� k�'x �}tr�. ',+.. r .: a?,fir, '�,4+,k. rj s '" e'�?•...''sfi ^1 '+.W c `' Ski F `a'+' i r S ` +, ? 0 4 I' ,I .�L +. 5,l f' c jt ems' , r ,..t 1 Z,, a ny<? &&£"Naz ^ fi r ` ,' 4 �F a rca r ', t fit} t A'; ,y,f„ v�. d r Iw „, t>,... ;.'�.�;k 's6" —k,J �.._- .d s- ,s Y ,.c Fx� 3 ItiSa �Y,i, UU k .; P @ R - x .0 5 - 0. IQO 0 W W?Z n ® - - W R - ♦ f t • as .f.�:- • :e: f • *� i .: 'r � +► •" • 4r e ,t• 1, * � � * � 1: #!# al �.," -•'. -• i i #Ii# *♦ rsa_ �f s r�ifl�_Myli'�1� M ### ► ' oil I.#I* : ### MM tai •" j! �` WIA am�uy`` y 4.. • 6 f ! - •f • • - it • * f �' I Y1s `� � t #• f 1 : R I ,fix � ,; f _, ►�� �� � �M+ - it• a • - ►.. * * i w • �r a:: • ♦ ii • of • * • 1} • * fir/ f - -.* *!! * *114 x-- *! -►" • .• _4 !! s*". •. w f f ! wl • * w�:. ! ► •• • a f i/a I t.:l 4 i t E:i/f ,«• i •11 September 15, 2000 Xy Sandra Lo 4029 Mozart Dr., f m El Sobrante, CA 94803 " z 1 2000 The Board of Supervisors f Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sir or Madam: Re:claim No.: 07700RL200146 with Cid of Richmond • On February 11, 2000, the accident was occurred. • On May 5, 2000, I filed a claim with the City Clerk Office of Richmond. The claim form was delivered by me and was accepted, stamped by the clerk. Claim No.: 07700RL200146(Please see the attached copy). • On August 18, 2000,I received a copy of letter written by Cale Carlos-Hernandez, Liability Claims Investigator of Richmond to Sharon Humes-Offord, Centra Costa County Risk Management, stating that "The Streets Division has just advised that the accident occurred is in the County", and asking Ms. Hymes-Off'ord to follow up with the claimant. • On August 22, 2000, I received a letter from Sharon Hymes-Offord and a claim form. • On September 7, 2000, I mailed the claim form to the Board of Supervisors. • On September 15, 2000,1 received the returned claim form saying that my claim was not presented within six months. Upon the above facts, who is responsible for the cased I consider my claim date was May 5, 2000 but not September 13. I am re-sending my claim form with all copies of the correspondences. Please examine the facts, contact with Cale Carlos-Hernandez and keep me informed. Thank you for your time and reconsideration, Sincerely, Sandra Lo ,The Board of Supervisors Contra jerk Batchelor Cn County Administration Building tcounty 335i9tratOr 651 Pine Street, Room 108 (92s)say tsaa Martinez, California 94553-1293 County John Gioia, 1 st District Gayle Uiikema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Joe Canciarnilla,5th District 4 4a�a TO: Sandra S. Lo 4029 Mozart Avenue EI Sobrante, CA 94803 NOTICE TO CLAIMANT (Of Late-Filed Claim) (Government Code Section 911.3) The claim you presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California, as governing body of the County of Contra Costa on September 1, 2000, has been reviewed by County Counsel and is being returned to you herewith because: M Your claim for an injury to person or personal property was not presented within six months of the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Government Code sections 901 and 911.2) ,._._ Your claim relating to a cause of action other than injury to person, personal property or growing crops was not presented within one year after the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Government Code sections 901 and 911.2) Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay for leave to present a late claim. (See Government Code sections 911.4 to 912.2 and 946.6) Under some circumstances leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Government Code section 911.6) You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Date: SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Clerk Enclosure Affidavit of Mailing I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18, and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid, a copy of the above NOTICE TO CLAIMANT (OF LATE-FILED CLAIM), addressed to the claimant as shown above. Date: SEP"I'EMBER 13, 2000 Dep4ily Clerk l:\TORTMSK-MGnCI,AI iS\LATE\Ls.wpd Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100tb day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988,must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code§911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building,651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA 94553. C. If Claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity,separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 73 at the end of this form. RE: Claim by } Reserved for Clerk's Filing Stamp Sandra S. Lo M Against the County of Contra Costa ASor District) (.Fill in Nance) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above named District in the sum of S 237_94 and in support of this claim represents as follows. 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact tate and Hour) 2/11/2000 4:00.PM.. vu 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (znciude city and county) On East Hilltop Drive, between Santa Maria and El Patio. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details,use extra paper if required) It was a heavy raining day. My son Henry Lo was driving a Honda Accord on East bound hilltop Drive. There was a hole on the. road, and his car ran into the hole. _____.,_____.._______a_a____m_o_..___o____.._.._____-_______m_______________,._.._______o_W_ 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants, or employees caused the injury or damage? There was no sign/barrier before the hole. After my son's accident, construction workers put a barrier to block the hole. (Over) "aug pug;uautuosyduti Bans gloq lq.to '(000'0;S) sxgiiop pugsnogl ua;2uipaaaxa ;ou,io aug g Sq'uosud a;g;s aq;ui luatuuosuduti Sq xo'auU pug ;uatuuosixduti Bans q;oq Aq xa'(OOWIS) sxniiop pussnoq;auo SuipaaM IOU;a auk g Sq 'xga f aua ugg;axout ;OU;a popad g xoj umf fi;unoa aq; ut;uautuosixduti Sq xagl!a a;gggsiund si luppm-to'xaganon ';unoam 'ilig Itum a mainpng.t; to aslvj gut,'aulnua2ji awns aq;Srd ao.holly al pazuog;ng 'xaat„}3o xo pxgog lacgsip xo s:pjunoa xug o;xa'xa3wo xo pxgoq air;s Sun o;;uautfgd xo,; to aammogg xo;s;uasaxd'pngx ap o;;ua;ui q;ttt'oq,tt uosxad tizana„ .sopttoxd apoj igua,d aq;;o ZL not;aaS � r10N "oN auogdaial -aN auogdaia L {ssaxppV) (axn;gugiS sjuptul ) fiauxoliv JO ssaxppv pug aurum ,,,jlvgag siq uo uosxad autos Sq xo Vauxouv) :O.L S213110M(IMIS ;uguimp aip Sq pau2is aq;snut lump aqy„ .sapinoxd Z`016"aaS apaJ :taf) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M, M M hS"L£T$ sazTa Mau oral OOOZ/ZT/Z 00"003 SuTMos 000Z/TT1Z iunowv Wall axvu C.tniui xo luapiaag sig;jo;unoaag uo apgut not saxt4ipuadxa ag;;siZ .6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g01M V0 'oTgs'd usS `9ATaa TSaaagS LSE aAogdmnosaagd "S Tnud aoa -slg;idsoq pug'sxo;aop'sassaullmjo sassaxppg pug sautgu .8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "sadTaaaa TsuT2Tx0 3o saTdoo pasoTauH (-a3mvp xo d rnfut aapaadsojd$uu 3o muouce M-Apsa av apnlauI) Lpa;ndutoa;uno(ug patump a toqu aq;sum MOR L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- •SuTmO a03 OOT$ 'saxTI m9u 2uT3eTd9z ao3 i7S"LST$ •uaMosq aaam apTs a9Vuas9gd ago 30 99aTa xaa' pun auoaj gaog ( a8exuep o}n13 aoa salsulpsa 0-4%Pwnv •pain-2"msp as satm(' io mam mv antD) Zpalinsax migia noC op saunfui xa saSgutgp ;ggM -----------------------------------------------------------------I-------------------- .saso0 saaauo0 3o Sauno0 ��.tnfui xa a�gutgp ag;8uisnga saa�oTduxa xa's;ugntas'sxaat�o;atx;sip xa�;unaa,ia sawgu ag;axg;gq�, •S February 15, 2000 To: City's Attorney Fax. (510)620-6542 From: Sandra Lo 4029 Mozart Dr., El Sobrante, CA 94803 Tel. (510)223-1567 -home (415)557-5289 -work On Friday, February 11 afternoon around 4:OOPM, (it was raining hard), my son Henry Lo was driving the Honda Accord on East bound Hilltop Drive. There was a big hole on the road. He did not see the .hole and his car ran into the hole which caused both tires of the passenger side flatted. We called the Pinole Valley Towing and had the car towed to Larry's Tires in El Sobrante. It costs me $100 for the car towing and$140 for replacing two new tires. It was lucky that no accidentlinjury was happened. Amer my son's car was flatted,the construction worker block the road and fixed the whole. I would like to file a claim and get the reimbursement. I was told by the Richmond Police Department to contact you. I have never done this before. Can someone contact me to inform me what to do?Thank you very much. Sincerely, Sandra Lo 00 0 Kava t - r� ✓e , Y f j CMC CENTER AUTO CARE PINOLrE VALLEY TOWING } � Ploacl T`�' '� 2San Pablo Dam .SOBRA1 ' , CA r` REPORT Phone(510)223-CARE "y Name Data fes{ Address f sy - Cly p / Sip Homs Phone Insurance Com ? insursnca Phone Business Phone YjV I Make4hl Model Co A4icense Mileage N TOWED FROM �7 ,+' CALL NO. 4t " Ty PE OP CALL EXTRA MANTOWED TO MILEAGE START . s REMARKS (�S7A T p WRECK CD BATTERY [ TOW FLAT TRE ❑ CARRIER GAS, FLAT BED d LOq'KOUT. El INSURED TOWING CHARGE STORAGE CHARGE MECHANIC'S NAT E' AUTHOR , RE SUB TOTAL I � i ,I 00242 41 TOTAL i' VDIEtA Ino.,Caldwell,ID 83805.8902 GALL TOLL FREE 1-800-635.9281•item No.1043 . ............................... . M LARRY'S 22269 Mission Blvd. 1650 Concord Ave 31 Pitt Way ,CA' s TIRE EXPRE (510)Hayward 510)5611-020 (925)1691-1400,CA2D (510)2221914 "The perfomNanCe buyers Choke' FAX(510)581-2308 FAX(925)609-1202 FAX(510)222-2167 1ARRY' d 1F:4s:., i:�s6w 4fIJk.i.6Y lPr ,. .z's �+ AL 7 -41 PITT WAY qy 7 J. �.L h i7i11 ;OLD EL SOBRAIME, CA 94803 SHAM i l eage.020 r x+00 ` r:99 Nk t HONDA TO (510)222--1914 TO A14M LO iiP", �f��3 ,€�Y,, s �'°i�k����*e � � •�v LL�1 &? rF � ��` � j"� 7� t x' i`5 ,r axe e xr M� 'r H� S,` �y.�i WIS �000M VWw"l C.Tkfinr= HIGH SPEED MIAN �' �3 ' 12 TIP' f.1ispbsdTJ,J - ,G 2 2 e it `> .. „ . '3;'° q4 y � q°'^' si s �rf a r ,. iJ's tt xV, o ia1 *.€I,� } s-.s I V►f i �fY6 � > r 9^ 6.#'qtr r `mak VeNde Condition& Tr }}G LBS � 4,��,071 vnl�ttt '' ' .axs*x"4; sx%'rt ye." r r �,c �y=t ger r {,+� t ac.,�:v; 'Ek a �. H-C s ai,F 30 B=Rings C7 PAt t Lac 1ft, ' � 13 Best to Spate 0 L-Nutt •_ � A��- ��t "�<� 0 ewry in rims TERMS AND CONDITIONS '^ All deposits are void and non-refundable after 45 days. No exceptions. + All sales final. Refund or exchanges subject to a 20%restocking fee.Mounted merchandise not returnable. The wheels should be re-torqued after 25 miles.They may loosen after the initial installation. 1��� � No refunds on auto accessories and lighting products. �� � ��6 All mileage claims must show tire rotation records at 5,000 intervals. Tire balancing warranty is 90 days or 4,000 miles,whichever comes first. Tire manufacturers warranty does not covernail holes,flats,cuts,bruises,holes or punctures. �� �x� Special orders and layaways cannot be returned or exchanged. We offer a store credit for merchandise returned in original condition. Sorry,no cash or credit card refunds, ; Our layaways require a monthly payment. d Please call 2 days before picking up merchandise, X Date a s CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF RICHMOND (Pursuant to Government Cade Section 910,at seq.) CLAIMANT; Phone Address . r, Et Sob0jn:Le CA PERSON TOWHOM ANN NOTICES CONCERNIMG CLAIMS OutD>aE SEIY7. Flaexae irYt P D ' Phone{ ). Address WHEN- 0I12 DAMAG MIMJURY OCCUR: Gats � ��� ! �l �7 Tkne 4,2 am nprn(Circle One) LOC1{,TtON OF OCCURRENCE; On 4- YIC ` CIRCUMS`T`ANCE OF OCCURRENCE Wz-*the back Qf fob,If neadadl. a ren 15 bCJI,I YA 4I"i erre_ t,11cZ * R . n ► •12 +4 t i " car- i 4 DESCRIPTIO 2F LOSS,DAMAGE OR INJURY(Us*the back of form,If needeclt. l X111 LTA . 1 Scr E, i t, ✓ t� '.1' 0 F�V"� , �'+° r ±2W i NAME(S)QF CITY EMPLOYEE($)CAUSING LOSS,DAMAGE OR INJURY,IF KNOWN: NAMES AND ADORKSSES OF ANY WITNNF, SF—S.Q CTDRS ANDIORFfiOSPITALS: Feud Dri'VeRh IQ. -A F THEAMOUNT CLAIM IS$10,000 OR5 EAs iN ICA TH 8A518 FOR THE AMOUNT CLAIMED: E'L ,-�o r re 0 taz i 2= n 8Li t re IF THEAMOUNT CLAM xC S$10,000,PLEME INDIS;Ajg THE JURISDIC OM OV R ME CLAIM { )MUNICIPAL COURT ( }SUPERIOR COURT DATE: Signa re of Claimant or person acting on his behalf CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED BY CLAIMANT OR PERSON ACTING ON CLAIMANTS BEHALF y Deliver or mail to: city Cierk.City of Richmond l;�r�' ✓`�'� �"� j P.O.Box 4046 2600 Barrett Avenue,Room 302 ^� f Richmond,CA 94804 dam' Risk-Management Division Office of the City Attorney 2600 Barrett Avenue, Room 301 Richmond, CA 94804 City of August 17, 2000 Sharon Hymes-Oflbrd Contra Costa County Risk Management 2530 Arnold Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Re: CIaim No.: 0770OR.L200146 DfLoss: February 11, 2000 Claimant: Sandra S. Lo bear Sharon: I am enclosing a copy of claim recently filed against the City of Richmond, Our Streets Division has just advised that the intersection where this loss occurred is in the County. By copy of this letter, I am advising the claimant of your involvement in this matter and ask that you follow up with her as soon as possible. As always, thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Gale Carlos-Hernandez Liability Claims Investigator GCH:vl Enclosure Copy to: Sandra Lo Workers' Compensation Claims: Liability Claims: Police and Fire: (510)620-6973 (510)620-6709 All other departments: (510)620-6711 Fax Number. (SIO) 620-6811 County Administrator Contra Risk Nt'anagerhent Division Costa 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 140 Liability Claims (925)335-1440 Martinez,California 94553County Fax Number (925)335-1420 August 22, 2000 Sandra Lo 4029 Mozart Drive Bl Sobrante, CA 94803 Re: Claimant: Sandra Lo Insured: Contra Costa County D/Accident: 02/11/2000 Claim No.: 45548 Dear Ms. Lo: The above captioned matter has been referred to my office by the City of Richmond. Please complete the enclosed claim form and return it to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for review and consideration. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Sharon Hymes-{7fford Liability Claims (925) 335-1442 k '�a v �"ZF 4 lit k�yF ) WA �#�� �;�4#;s''rz-�' ��'�;k{t��� �"fit�+c �„ �t.,.§r `5���.. .Cy��.• �,.. `�qq�''n �,} -� t" � � '�r" w 3r a*b fi"' e2t`'Y 2 b `'�� ,. "y } � t X14�s,��m•t`�jh s4 y ry a s y '.'`�a `3Xf y iy stb T a t9 ..is Lr "Y rs � llx a x � .f£: N?,r� $,�:-., *yt i'�.,��#P. :c�,�S�'�, r $'� N•#,t .lr�` s ,r �1'° ` '�: ysy,F 'i�•1�� fr � < jI if 't �� ������� yr ;•�'���p�t �� �� 1� l '�" .,,cam;lk y � � r � t _ -� "-+•:err•p� ..y�.5��f4 i F � � �' ,+ =d^sJ'd°T t��t,S fvG� �.•a t k,,y� i•� TA 5 S* ,7-b i �+ sk r 5 u � box�`' � �{� �' F n�; t y �.• >:, #}. rR` ( F '