A practice that is either ignorant of or has no regard for the law.
I lost my Small Claims lawsuit because "the Defendant in attendance" claimed himself as the CEO of a medical corporation and as my previous PCP Daniel Yung Tse (DYT). The Defendant in attendance's 2 staff testified that I "used to be a patient at the office." A very tricky confirmation in that the Defendant in attendance shares the same office locations with DYT, of course, I used to be a patient at the office ------ to see DYT, not to see the Defendant in attendance.
NPI profile shows that CEO PXX is the SOLE PROPRIETOR of the medical corporation in question. Indeed, I have not been able to find any document online that identifies DYT as the CEO of the unincorporated medical corporation in question or a CEO of any business. The cold hard facts are the Defendant in attendance is either PXX or DYT, but cannot be both.
I know very well who I saw as a patient. The photos in doctor's profiles on the Internet as well as on my insurance company's website can be used to prove that the Defendant in attendance is the CEO PXX, not DYT.
The CEO of a medical group claiming himself as his own staff doctor???!!!
Listed below are violations of my rights and some of my experiences.
************ V-01
I personally delivered a letter addressed to DYT on 02/13/2024 and faxed page 2 of the letter on 02/26/2024, requesting that my medical records be emailed or copied onto my USB drive without a summary DYT suggested.
My medical records were copied onto my USB drive on 03/13/2024 and a staff handed me the USB drive on 03/14/2024. DYT's office resisted emailing or providing me with medical records on my USB drive, but finally gave in.
That was (29-13+13=) 29 days and (29-26+13=) 16 days after their receipts of my requests on 02/13/2024 and 02/26/2024 respectively.
California HSC 123110 (b) (1) stipulates: 15 days to provide access to medical records, paper or electronic.
************ V-02
The History of Present Illness (HPI) sections of my medical records are not HPI-related, not as "patient records" defined by the HSC 123105 (d), but are full of incomplete or incorrect statements and misrepresentations of facts.
************ V-03
I faxed DYT my amendment requests on 04/22/2024.
DYT responded on 08/13/2024 with an undated addendum he created without my endorsement, that are full of misrepresentations of facts. That was (30-22+31+30+31+12=) 112 days after their receipt of my requests.
Federal regulation 45 CFR § 164.526, Amendment of Protected Health Information, stipulates 60 days to respond. California regulation, 30 days??
************ V-04
DYT created his own addendum on 08/13/2024 and new HPIs on 10/24/2024 without any explanations instead of attaching my amendment requests as addendum to my medical records stipulated by California HSC 123111 (b).
************ Experience (1)
It took 1 new office visit and 2 requests by iCare Pharmacy and 1 by me to get refill of Atorvastatin authorized in Sept. 2023. The new office visit was presided by a new graduate without my agreement beforehand.
************ Experience (2)
It took 9 months for DYT to release authorization to convert prescription drug Diltiazem from pills BACK to capsules in Sept. 2023.
************ Experience (3)
It took 6 requests and 9 days with 2 customer advocates' assistance to get DYT to complete refill authorizations for 4 prescription drugs requested on 01/17/2024, the previous refills being authorized in Sept. 2023.
************ Experience (4)
19 entries in the HPI sections have nothing to do with the chronological description of the development of my present illnesses, not documented in compliance with Medicare/CMS guidelines. Here is an example.
08/25/2022. DYT referred me to Cardiologist Dr. M.
08/25/2022. The HPI dated 08/25/2022 states
'She saw cardiologist for cardiac "arrhythmia" 5 to 8 years ago and she was not happy with the cardiologist.'
01/03/2023. The HPI dated 01/03/2023 and 12/05/2023 both state
'Patient was seen by cardiologist Dr. M. for cardiac "arrhythmia" 5 to 8 years ago and she was not happy with the cardiologist staff, not calling her back.' (Note: The cardiologist's name was abbreviated to M to protect his privacy.)
Fact #1: I was NOT under any cardiologist's care from 2003 through 2023.
Fact #2: Dr. M was referred to me by DYT on 08-25-2022.
Fact #3: Dr. M was NEVER my cardiologist before, on or after 08-25-2022.
Fact #4: I cancelled my appointment with Dr. M because his staff told me that my appointment would be cancelled if they got me offline.
In his undated addendum (Ref: V-03 & V-04), DYT said that I was not seen by Dr. M, but by another cardiologist in San Francisco. That does not clarify anything at all: I was under the care of a cardiologist in San Francisco BEFORE the timeframe DYT specified, and I was not unhappy with anyone.
I'd like to tell you more, especially about Danna, but I have to stop here read more