Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mills v. Nolan

Supreme Court brief2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Serre Cont ue

ILED

04 739 wy 2x 2004

No.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GERALDINE MILLS, M.D.

Petitioner,

PATRICIA A. NOLAN, M.D., M.P.H.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH

Respondent

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Bruce W. McIntyre, Esq

November 22, 2004 3 Capital Hill, Rm 205

Providence, R.I. 02903

401-222-3855

Geraldine Mills, M.D. Joseph G. Miller, Esq

191 Squantum Drive 1345 Warwick Ave

Warwick, Rhode Island 02888 Warwick, R.I. 02888

401-463-8433 401-463-9500

Petitioner prose Counsel for Respondent

QUESTIONS .

Are there substantial due process questions and is the decision

below so wrong and “ so totally devoid of evidentiary support

as to render it unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment” or on “ any evidence at all.”

Is due process denied when Appellant is informed she will not

be allowed to see her own mental health records after the

evaluation is completed?

Was Appellant denied due process when reports were made to

the NPDB, other licensing Boards that she has a mental disorder

(with no evidence of same on record below and done prior to

any hearing at all)?

Was due process denied at the Administrative Hearing wherein

Appellant was denied all supporting evidence and witnesses?

Was due process denied after the Hearing but prior to the final

decision of the Board (proceedings still ongoing) wherein

Appellant was denied reopening for all supporting evidence and

witnesses three times? Was due process denied, was it conflict

of interest for Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse to file

C.A. No:PC 00-229 against Speedy Oil, Inc et al and then

represent as Counsel for Mclntyre/Board in objection to

Appellant’s motion to the same court to allow case 00-229 as

her supporting evidence to counter false allegations that she was

“ bizarre, irrational, or delusional to believe the contamination

existed?

Was due process denied Appellant when lower court denied

motion for letters rogatory to Bridgeport Hospital and for leave

to submit all supporting evidence and witnesses?

Was Appellant’s right to due process denied when Counsel for

the Board held four positions at the Board, exerting undue

influence on Hearing panel; 1) was a witness, 2) directly

investigated all matters?

Was due process denied as Counsel Bruce W. Mcintyre was

counsel for Director of Health concurrently with being counsel

on medical board (prosecuting counsel at hearing), investigating

member and witness to events with Appellant not privy to any

others; with tenure in excess of twelve (12) years in violation of

R.I. Gen Laws?

Was Appellant’s property interest deprived her without due

process?

Is decision of the R.I. Lower court in conflict with the US

Supreme Court’s Decision in Patrick vs Burgett case wherein

it was concluded there was no immunity because state did not

have authority to review anti competitive action undertaken by

peer review committee? (Does issue of how active a State’s

regulators must be before the “ active supervision” requirement

will be satisfied still result in questions for Court of Appeals?

Do state regulatory programs fail to provide immunity for lack

of active supervision under test adopted by Court of Appeals

citing Patrick v Burgett/California Retail Liquor Dealers vs

Midcal Aluminum, Inc?

Does conditional privilege exist for the Witnesses when with

intent to harm and malice are present?

What is the real nexus between parties Brown,Cinquegrana,

Bruce W. Mclntyre for R.I. Medical Board- private parties

working with state official, state actor or private parties?

Was it unconstitutional to deprive Appellant of the following :

R.I. Gen Law 5-37-8 1) her right to maintain an unrestricted

medical license until a hearing as Appellant had ceased seeing

ee ee ee ry -

iii

patients and was not therefore an “ immediate danger to the

public”

2) her right to a full and fair hearing within ten (10)days

after such a temporary suspension (to include specification of

charges and adversarial witness list)

R.I. Gen Law 5-37-2.1 (10) |

3) her right to a list of names of physicians ( medical and

psychiatric) to evaluate her if probable cause existed to believe

that allegations of misconduct were caused by an impairment

which directly affected her ability to conduct her practice

“professionally.”

4) her right to not be alleged with unprofessional conduct if the

cause of the conduct is related to a disability?

5) her right to witnesses and supporting evidence to prove a

disability and that others also had similar difficulty with the air

quality of the buildings.

R.I. Gen Law 5-37-2.1 (11)

6) her right to hear advice of the availability of the physicians

health committee of the Rhode Island Medical Society prior to

summarily suspending her?

R.I. Gen Law 5-37-5.2 (d) and R.I. Gen Law 5-37-5.2 (e)Public

Dissemination under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

7) her right to have a hearing PRIOR to the making public all

decisions ( report of indefinite suspension prior to a hearing,

report that Appellant had a mental disorder prior to the close of

hearing)

8) her right to a full and fair hearing which was not prejudiced

by the publishing of a notice prior to a hearing process being

completed which is not based upon the provisions

of R.I. Gen Law 38-2-2

14 110 001-13 Rules and Regulations of the Medical

Board Rule 4 b Notice to the Physician

9) her right to receive all complaints as served by the

Board upon the filing of a complaint

10) her right to receive all complaints in unaltered form

as the original handwritten by complainant

R.I. Gen Law 5037.3-4

11) her right to not release confidential health care

information in the form of medical records of patients without

the written consent of the patients ( parents or guardians in the

case of children) on a consent form meeting the requirements of

subsection (d)

R.I. Gen Law 40-11-6

12) her right when she has cause to suspect that a child

has been abused or neglected to report the incident(s) to a

department as provided in subsection (b) in this case the DCYF

Department of Children Youth and Families of RL and the

department upon receipt of such report shall thoroughly

investigate the report ( ali injuries not excluding sixteen (16) of

them) and examine the children if investigation reveals

evidence of physical abuse

Was due process denied Appellant when Counsel for the Board

made agreement with Appellant’s counsel +> pre approve a

mental health evaluation of Appellant, then alleging to have

never made agreement

Was due process denied Appellant when Counsel for the Board

reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank that Appellant

has a “ mental disorder” without evidence of such

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

a vscttannitirisntninancctnisiieaiiuen ee i

RR wiesennssssnicnttcnsyuiteisitiniicianiiibiiainiialilitaaaaaiaal v

Ree RI cccscssssrssinicesnonineiciitniniiniaaiapiiaiinsieliaaiiiiatl vi

TE i iiiincecsncetenecesitihisiegaiiieaiiiiniiieaeia xX

Introductory Paragraph and Opinions Below......................... l

I scctinicensinininnitetntsnstiigespiilnighansiinaibiitiiieasmieaiiaal 2

URINE OE CR is secinisninsicnsciisissttinnanitiindammiaaaiabamianianl 5

Argument- Reason for the granting of WTrit..................00s000000 8

Decision below conflicts with Precedents..................00s000+ 29

Conclusion and Names of Counsel

SCHSSSHSESSSESESEEEEEESESETESEOEEEESEEE

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

CASES: PAGE

Allstate Ins Co. Vs Robert P. Russo et al 641 A.2d 1304

(RI 1994) 4

Am Jur. 2d Trial 382 (1991) 21

2Am Jur. 2d Administrative Law 531 at 520-21 11

Breeden vs Weinberger 493 F.2d 1002 (4" Cir) 26

Cox Broadcasting Corp vs Cohn 420 U.S. 469,482

-83(1975) 2

Edge-January Inc. Vs Pastore 430 A.2d 1063 (R.1.1981) 25

Guarino vs Dept of Social Welfare 122 R.I. 583,410

A.2d 425 (1980) 25

Lake Terrace Property Owners Assn vs New Orleans

567 So.2d 69 (La) 25

Lemoine vs Dept of Mental Health Retardation and

Hospitals, 113 R.I. 285,320 A.2d 611 (1974) 22

Liberty Mutual Ins Co vs Janes, 586 A.2d 536

(R.L 1991) 29

Millerick vs Fascio 120 R.I. 9,384 A.2d 601 (1978) 18,28

Millett vs Hoisting Engineer’s Licensing Division

377,A.2d 229 (1977) 3

—~

———P... ——_ ~

vii

Mills vs C.H.LL.D.,Inc 04-422 US Supreme Court

Docket 13

Motor Vehicle Manufacturer’s Assoc. Vs State Farm

Mutual Auto Ins. 463 US 29, 77 L.Ed 2d 443,103

S.Ct 2856 28

NLRB vs Payless Cashway Lumbar Store, Inc 508

F.2d 24 (8 Cir) 26

Palazzolo, Anthony Petitioner vs Rhode Island et al

Supreme Court of the United States No 99-2047

2001 US LEXIS 4910 (June 28,2001) 29

Patrick, Timothy vs Burgett et al 486 U.S. 94, 108 S. Ct.

1658 30

Paul vs US.371 U.S. 245,255,83 S. Ct.426,433,9L.

Ed.2d 292 (1963) 4

Pierce vs Underwood 487 US 552,101 L.Ed 2d

490,108 S.Ct.2541 28

Randall vs Norberg 121 R.I. 714,403 A.2d 240(1979) 12

Robinson vs Workmen’s Compensation Appeal

Bd. 589 A.2d 798 (Pa Comm Ct) 26

Russell vs Clarks Ex’rs Supreme Court of the

United States 11 US 69; 3L.Ed.271 1812 U.S. LEXIS

368; 7 Cranch 69 February 1812 Term 4

Sartor vs Coastal Resources Mgt. Council 542 A.

2d 1077 RI. (1988) 28

Schware vs Board of Bar Examiners 353

US.232,238-239,77 S.Ct. 752,756, 1 L. Ed 2d

796,801 (1957)

Schwartz Administrative Law 8.33 (3d ed.1991)

Shakin vs Board of Medical Examiners 254 Cal

App.2d 102 (Cal App.2nd Dist. 1967)

Sheldon Whitehouse vs Speedy Oil Petroleum, Inc

C.A. No PC 00-229 R.I

CONSTITUTION

Amendment XIV, United States Constitution

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C. 1257 and 1257(a)

Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 U.S.C. 2000 and

Under 28 U.S.C. 1331 mx

HCQIA (1986)

HIPAA (1996)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

STATE STATUTES

R.I. General Laws 1956 42-35-15 (g)

R.LG.L. 5-37-1.3(10), R.LG.L. 5-37-1.1.6

R.LG.L.5-37-3-4,R.LG.L 5-37-3-9

R.LLG.L.5-37-5.1(19).R.LG.L.S-37-5.2(a)

109a

27.

14,27

R.I.G.L. 5-37-6.1 and 6.2, R.I.G.L. 5-37-8

3,4,9,10,12

13,16,17,27

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 42-35-15(a) 9,17a

28-7-32 109a

Rules and Regulations 14110-001-13 12

R.I. Gen Law re: reporting suspicions of abuse

and medical neglect 40-11-6 19

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix

Appendix Exhibits A-D

DCYF Complaint

DCYF Exhibits A-G

DCYF Exhibit H

Treatment Outdoors

Hearsay

Treatment Outdoors

Exhibits A-H

Williams’ Syndrome

Exhibits A-J

Record Transfer Issue

Record Transfer

Exhibits A-G

Evaluation Issue -

Evaluation exhibits A-I

RI Hospital Application

Exhibits A-P

Exhibit G

Sanctions

What Makes This a Contested Case

RI Superior Court Decision dated

November 13, 2003

RI Supreme Court Order to Deny Writ of

Certiorari dated September 23, 2004

12a

17a

24a

110a

30a

37a

39a

Sla

59a

66a

71a

76a

82a

89a

96a

109a

llla

1l6a

123a

153a

;

{

;

19 AA NA AL, 90S Paced OE is

MPL TMS nce Race R enh Fall?

i r i cihiala ene

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH

Appellant, Geraldine Mills, M.D. is appealing from the

judgment below as ordered by the Rhode Island Supreme Court

in the case of Mills v. Patricia Nolan, M.D. Director of the

Department of Health State of Rhode Island, and so signed on

September 23, 2004. This petition for Writ of Certiorari is

submitted to show that this Honorable United States Supreme

Court has jurisdiction of this appeal and that substantial

questions are presented.

CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW

The lower Superior Court denied Appellant Mills an

administrative appeal from a July 11, 2001 decision by the

Rhode Island Department of Health, indefinitely suspending her

license to practice medicine. The court found in favor of the

R.I. Medical Board’s decision that Mills was in violation of

1956 R.1.G.L. 5-37-5.1 with an amended specification of

charges of seven counts of unprofessional conduct. The Rhode

Island Supreme Court arbitrarily denied Mills a timely filed writ

of certiorari. Therefore, being arbitrarily denied a petition for

writ at the highest state court, Mills knew a motion to

reconsider based upon all court decisions was futile. The lower

court cited in its decision-standard of review @17, “ the court’s

review of a decision by the Department of Health is controlled

by R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 42-35-15 (g) which provides for review

ofa contested agency decision: (g) The court shall not substitute

its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the

evidence on questions of fact.....or it may reverse or modify the

decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been

prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,

conclusions, or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional

or statutory provisions (2) in excess of statutory authority of

agency (3) made upon unlawful procedure (4) affected by other

error or law (5) clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative,

substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary

capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly

unwarranted exercise of discretion.” Lower court found in favor

of Board’s decision by concluding the decision was supported

by competent evidence in the record. They further found there

was by the fair preponderance standard, substantial evidence to

find unprofessional conduct on the part of Appellant for each

of seven counts. Lower court addressed these as (1) DCYF

complaint @ 19, (2) treatment outdoors @ 21, (3) Williams

syndrome @ 24, (4) record transfer issue @ 25,(5) evaluation

issue @ 27, (6) Rhode Island Hospital application @ 27.

Adequacy of Evidence, arbitrary and capricious, investigatory,

adjudicatory, advisory functions, and sanctions were cited last.

JURISDICTION

This case falls within this Court’s Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

1257 (a) and offers an ideal vehicle to resolve the questions

presented. This Court has jurisdiction under “fourth Cox

category” to review state court ruling if 1) “reversal of state

court on Federal issue would be preclusive of any further

litigation on relevant cause of action, 2) refusal immediately to

review state court decision might seriously erode federal

policy.” Cox Broadcasting Corp Cohn 420US 469,482-83

(1975), for application of this general jurisdiction rule.

Petitioner is so favored by this Court, would deem the state law

causes of action by Rhode Island Superior and Supreme Courts

unconstitutional as so applied. In instant case what is at stake is

the risk of setting precedent to further deprive Physicians

throughout these United States from their civil and

constitutional rights to defend themselves. It would further

“seriously erode federal policy” as it would apply to one’s due

process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Judgment of

Supreme Court of Rhode Island was entered September 23,

2004 and was arbitrary denial of petition of writ of certiorari.

Review of state court judgment is sought. Federal questions

were raised in the lower court record. Constitutional rights were

denied under Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment.

Issues are lack of evidentiary support, unlawful procedure

abuse of discretion, error of law and violation of constitutional

provisions and appellant’s due process, as appellant pled to R.I.

;

aire lela Ahan ni fet re ATR ar Ss las OH

courts. “ The United States Supreme Court has stated that

citizens have a ‘protected property interest’ in licenses granted

to them by governmental agencies. In Schware v.Board of Bar

Examiners 353 U.S. 232,238-239,77 S.Ct. 752,756,1 L. Ed 2d

796,80 1(1957) it states, “ the state cannot exclude person from

practice of law or any other occupation in manner or for reasons

that contravene due process or equal protection clause of

fourteenth amendment.” R.I. Supreme Court in Millett v

Hoisting Engineers’ Licensing Division 377,A.2d 229 (1977).

the procedural safeguards that must constitutionally attend

granting or revoking licenses follow no certain formula and due

process within administrative procedures requires opportunity

to be heard in meaningful time and manner. Due process cannot

tolerate a licensing system that makes privilege of doing

business dependent on official whim.” Under existing law state

agency and court bear burdens to prove by preponderance of

evidence in former, competent evidence on record in latter, that

allegations raised are both true and sufficient to warrant the

drastic indefinite suspension imposed, now more than five years

on Appellant. R.I.G.L. 5-37-6.2 imposes the Hearing Panel is

required to make findings of fact and law. The court is not to

substitute its judgment for the Board but it is to determine if

there is sufficient competent evidence on record to support their

conclusions. It is error of law to take statements and expressions

of prosecuting counsel, Bruce W. McIntyre as evidence, to

allow omissions of necessary supporting evidence and alter

meaning of testimony by taking it out of context and deleting

parts of statements as testified. Court’s deliberation must only

be on the testimony as admitted in hearing process. Regardless

of motivations of agency, violations of law render the actions of

governmental agency defective and violate due process

requirements of the United States Constitution. The court did

not even address issues where Counsel Mclntyre acted in

contravention of laws, rules, regulations that govern the agency

for which he holds a minimum of three positions; at times to

include Acting Chief Administrative Officer. Well established

within law where an agency acts in contravention of the

regulations that govern it, it acts in violation of the law, Paul v

United States 371 U.S. 245,255,83 S.Ct.426,433,0L.Ed.2d

292(1963). Mills alleged misrepresentation as well as violation

of law. This predated even R.I. Constitution as Russell v.

Clark’s Ex’rs Supreme Court of The United States,11 U.S.

69;3L.Ed.271;1812 U.S. LEXIS 368;7 Cranch69 February,

1812 Term, for an early misrepresentation case. This civil cause

of action is by formal definition under R.I. case law, any

manifestation by words or other conduct by one person to

another that under circumstances amounts to assertion not in

accordance with facts. Allstate Ins Co v Robert P Russo et

al,641 A.2d 1304(R.1.1994) Mills refers to a letter dated Oct.

1,1999 by McIntyre to the psychiatrist whom Mills made an

appointment with. Prior to Mills’ scheduled appointment

Mcintyre told her that Mills refused to see a Psychiatrist for

over a year. The letter also reads that Mills would not be

allowed to see her own mental health records. Mills had not

been provided a list of potential psychiatric providers as per

R.IL.G.L. 5-37.1.3(10). Therefore, this follows as both

misrepresentations and violations of law by agency/Mclntyre.

The lower court did not address this issue. A litany of events

engaged in by Mcintyre resulting in deprivation of substantive

and procedural due process of Mills were so set forth from the

inception of this case. It is not number of references that

governs but rather the substance of allegations and nature of

their motivations which are replete with malice. Having alleged

sufficient facts as against McIntyre implicating him in his

individual capacity, his tenure outside limitations of state law

both in time and number of positions, actionable misconduct-

that is civil rights. Jurisdiction of state court was invoked under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by Equal

Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 U.S.C.2000 and under

28U.S.C.1331. Mills was denied her procedural,civil, and

constitutional rights and denied a writ of certiorari arbitrarily as

pled in Argument.

et 4 a

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant, Geraldine Mills, M.D., a Pediatrician, was

so engaged as such from 1989 until September 22, 1999, when

at an investigatory meeting ( no stenographer or record of

meeting taken), Bruce W. McIntyre told Mills to cease seeing

her patients as of that day. Mills not only had over 700

families in her solo practice but medically cared for over

15,000 other families while doing call for more than ten other

Pediatricians throughout Rhode Island. Mills has never had

any malpractice action taken against her, never had any

adverse incident as harm or injury to any patient at her hand.

There were no complaints brought before the Medical Board

by any hospital (inclusive of Rhode Island Hospital), not by

any member of her call group. Mills was favorably

credentialed each year by the Chief of Pediatrics at St Joseph

Hospital, then Alfred Toselli, M.D.( Toselli) On December

17, 1993 Mills was placed on full active staff in Pediatrics at

St Joseph at the recommendation of in part Toselli. However,

on March 31, 1994 Mills in a hearing for privileges at RI

Hospital, was told that Toselli had spoken to one John J.

Cronan, M.D. (Radiologist at RI Hospital) and told him, “ she

is a near bordering psychotic with a litigious brother a lawyer

to fight her legal battles for her, I would never hire her again,

she was incapable of doing the job.” Toselli in deposition May

18, 2000, testified that he “personally kept Mills off staff at RI

Hospital. Yet Toselli wrote to the Massachusetts Medical

Board on two separate occasions that Mills was “ good” in all

qualifications. Toselli did hire Mills again on May 31, 1994

Memorial Day. Mills agreed to his request that she do call

again for the St Joseph Pediatrics Department and completed

the 24 hour rotation completely unsupervised. At this time

Mills was no longer employed by the hospital but was on the

full active staff while practicing solo Pediatrics. (See

Appendix for full explanation) Mills filed suit against John J.

Cronan, M.D. for the slander, the discrimination as Dr Cronan

stated, “ we don’t deal with those foreign medical graduates

( FMG’s) here,” and other misquoting, tampering and removal

of witness testimony. ( See appendix)

After the above incidents, Mills began receiving

threatening calls to her private office by Bruce W. Mclntyre of

the R.I. Medical Board. ( See appendix) The harassment

slander and interference with her medical practice resulted

from the acts of misconduct and malfeasance, misfeasance of

several individuals to include Alfred Toselli, M.D., John J.

Cronan, M.D. and Bruce W. McIntyre. The only way to

remove Mills from practice and to permanently destroy the

business Mills had built was to create problems within those

entities which supported the core of her business- her on call

group and the day care to where most of her patients attended.

Mills’ call group was started by Dr Pietro Russo, before

she joined it. McIntyre made a witness list on December 10,

1999 which listed many of the doctors in Mills’ call group.

McIntyre wrote they were all going to testify to the alleged, “

aggressive and threatening behavior “ of Mills. McIntyre wrote

that Russo was to testify that Mills threatened him “

antisemitic.” Mills contacted Russo immediately upon receipt

of the witness list on December 20, 1999. Dr. Russo told her

that,” I never talk to the Board, never. I never said you said

something like that.” On May 18, 2000 Toselli in deposition, in

the presence of McIntyre (without private counsel present)

testified that one month prior he had received a call from Russo

during which Russo told him that Mills had threatened him

(Russo) antisemitic. Toselli testified that this was the only

threatening remark he could remember that Mills made, having

known Mills for over ten years. Toselli was unaware that Mills

had already spoken to Russo and that Russo had written to Milis

that he never told anyone that she had called him antisemitic.

None of the call group doctors testified against Mills.

Mcintyre told the Director of C.H.I.L.D.,Inc day care

that “something is in the works for Mills to lose her license.”

McIntyre involved directly in all actions of misconduct was a

nse PO ee eT ee

witness to each and every situation that has led to the taking of

Mills’ property interest in violation of her constitutional

rights.On October 25, 1999, Mills not represented by counsel,

but consulting with an attorney (refrained from taking case as

he was a criminal lawyer), was contacted through this counsel

by McIntyre to as he described it, “ make a deal.” McIntyre had

already reported to the NPDB that Mills was fully and

indefinitely suspended for unprofessional conduct even though

a hearing was not to occur for another year. This alone violated

the APA(Administrative Procedure Act) as well as all R.1.G.L.

At this meeting, which Mills’ brother Attorney Stephen Mills

attended, McIntyre stated, “ I never lose in court,” and “your

sister will never practice again.”

The following is a description of the proceedings and

the rulings of the lower courts.

Mills told to cease seeing patients September 21, 1999

Mills at investigation hearing September 22, 1999 ( no

stenographer preset) Mills attempted to present records on the

gasoline contamination of her building but was rebuffed.

Mills reviews Brown records September 25, 1999

Mills contacts DCYF October 5, 1999

Investigation meeting Mills not informed about votes to

temporary suspend Mills October 13, 1999

Temporary suspension order signed by DOH October

19, 1999

Hearing begins August 23, 2000

Hearing ends December 7, 2000

Mills motions to reopen for supporting evidence

January 30, 2001

Mills brings claim against Mclntyre/Board

March 1, 2001 to obtain an injunction

Mills appears in Superior court for first time on license

issue on March 16, 2001 and injunction is deferred to June 16,

2001

Mills brings second motion to reopen for evidence

May 16, 2001

Mills brings claim against Toselli June 14,2001

Mills contacts DCYF July 10,200 requesting

meeting re: suspicion of child abuse on Brown family

Board signs full suspension of Mills license July 10,

2002 and DOH signs it July 11, 2001

Mills appeals decision August 9,2001 in time

Mills files brief on Appeal July 3, 2003

Opposing brief filed July 28,2003

Mills files rebuttal brief August 28, 2003

Mills appears in Superior Court to obtain subpoena

of NEAR SIDS records from Bridgeport Hospital

September 23, 2003 and decision is deferred to November 6

November 6, 2003 Mills is denied subpoena and

motion to reopen for all supporting evidence including 6

psychiatric evaluations ( last pre-approved by McIntyre/Board

November 13, 2003 Mills is denied her appeal

December 8, 2003 Mills submits her petition for writ

Objection is filed by opposing counsel

R.L. State Supreme Court denies Mills writ of certiorari

September 23, 2004 and sends notice to Mills September 28

ARGUMENT-REASONS FOR THE GRANTING OF WRIT

The instant case is about the denial of an individual’s

right to their property interest, their livelihood. Geraldine Mills,

M.D. has been deprived of her sole means of income for five

years to date, has been the subject of irreparable harm. She has

been denied all supporting evidence and witnesses necessary to

prove facts on the record, even those asked for by the Hearing

panel. She has been the subject of myriads of violations by legal

Counsel of the Medical Board, State of Rhode Island, Bruce W.

Mcintyre who in his actions was witness outside the proper

scope of his duties as legal counsel.

The Constitution of the United States mandates that due

process be afforded before a “ property interest” be deprived.

This very information is so stated in the Administrative

Procedure Act and Rules and Regulations on agencies in the

State of Rhode Island. It furthers, “ A long history of case law

has held that professional licensees have a“ property interest”

in the professional license. An Administrative Hearing notice

is issued together with a specification of charges and is served

upon the physician. The hearing will be conducted in

accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. This act

governs the manner in which hearings before governmental

boards and agencies are conducted.”

Under 28 U.S.C. 1257 (a) Appellant’s right to due

process of law is called into question. This reads in part, “......

ae no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge

the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor

shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

On September 22, 1999 Mills ceased seeing patients as

ordered by Bruce W. McIntyre Counsel for the R.I. Medical

Board at an investigating hearing. Yet on October 19,, 1999 the

Director of Health Patricia Nolan, M.D. summarily suspended

Mills even though she had already agreed to stop the Practice of

Medicine and posed no threat to any patient. R.I.G.L. 5-37-8

gives full authority to the Director to summarily suspend a

license immediately without a hearing only if “the continuation

in practice would constitute an immediate danger to the

public.”All decisions must be” rational and logical,” and

derived in a “ meaningful time and manner.” The immediate

action taken by the Director did not meet any of the above in

“hat the Appellant was not seeing patients, and a hearing did not

segin until more than one year later, August 23, 2000 (

completion in December 2000).

28 U.S.C. 1257(a) does allow the jurisdiction of this

Court to review decisions of the state courts where the validity

of a statute of any state is drawn into question. It is not rational

nor logical to infer that Mills would be of any immediate danger

to any patient when she was not seeing any. With that erroneous

conclusion aside, the Appellant’s further privileges were

abridged when a “ fair and meaningful hearing in a timely

manner, “ did not take place. No hearing took place in ten (10)

days, the hearing once scheduled was drawn out over siX

months with only two adversarial witness families, the Board

took 7 1/2 months to make a final decision and motion to

reopen for all supporting evidence and witnesses January 30,

2001 was not answered for four months (not until after Mills

motioned the court for an answer and injunction). At no time

was the Administrative Hearing conducted in accordance with

the Administrative Procedures Act, “ an act which governs the

manner in which hearings before governmental boards and

agencies are conducted.” Further, the hearing panel is to be

composed of three members of the Board who did not serve on

the Investigating Committee. It is to consist of at least one

physician and one public member and one person to pruside

over the process as chairperson. No member of the Board who

participates in the investigation may participate in any

subsequent hearing or action taken the remainder of the board

as cited in R.I. Gen Law 5037 -5.2 (d) This is to preclude any

exercise of influence over the Hearing panel. The Board is to be

composed of as per R.I Gen Law 5-37-1.1, (6) licensed

physicians, (5) public members, one of whom shall be an

attorney with experience as plaintiff's counsel in the

presentation or prosecution of medical malpractice a question

as to whether McIntyre has that experience, the other a member

of the general public not associated with the medical field who

shall have attained the age of at least (60) years..... This

therefore means that a member of the Board one of which is the

counsel with experience in prosecution of medical malpractice

( that alone questionable), who participates in the investigation

may not per R.I. statute participate in any subsequent hearing

for reason being, it would violate ones’ due process by

exercising undue influence over the Hearing Panel. This was the

“role” of Bruce W. McIntyre but not only as above but he acted

as witness to a myriad of events to which noone else was privy

to, all of which involved the Appellant. R.I. Gen Law 5-37-1.1

furthers reads as to tenure that “....in the absence of the

chairperson, the board shall elect from its members a vice-

chairperson who shall exercise all powers of the chairperson

who shall serve for one year or until their successors are

appointed..... McIntyre held this position for more than two

years consecutively and simultaneously with position of

investigating member of the Board, counsel for and on the

Board and prosecuting counsel as above. When Appellant

began private practice in 1994, McIntyre was representing all

these positions except that of Acting Chief Administrative

Officer. At the hearing in 2000, he still maintained all these

positions at the Board. The statute reads, “no member shall be

appointed for more than two (2) consecutive full terms.” As the

record below clearly cites, McIntyre with abuse of his powers

invested him, with abuse of discretion did so “ unfairly taint the

proceedings,” as per decision of the lower court. On December

8, 1999, Appellant’s counsel did motion to dismiss McIntyre on

the basis that he was a witness to events that noone else could

testify to, that he repeatedly not only injected questions, as the

lower court decision reads, but that he made statements ( as

early on as the first date of the Hearing to prejudice Appellant

from the start) about his firsthand knowledge of events and gave

his own characterization of what had occurred.

The lower court failed to raise any of the issues of

violations of statutes referred to in Appellant’s brief as early on

as at page 2 of a 41 page brief (footnote 2), reads as, “ Dr Mills

filed an appendix to her complaint which addendum sets out

additional reasons why the Board’s order should be reversed.”

The Supreme Court will not consider court issues when not

raised below in such a manner that the justice may have had

opportunity to address them. They were all raised below but

simply ignored by the lower court whose duty is to make a

careful and searching inquiry. 2Am.Jur.2d,Administative Law

531, at 520-21 reads as in part,” In making a factual inquiry

concerning whether an agency decision was arbitrary or

capricious, the reviewing court must consider whether the

pe Ont nner

iM te

decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and

whether there has been a clear error of judgment......searching

and careful.....to determine whether ....decision, in the context

of the record, is too unreasonable given its statutory and factual

context, for the law to permit it to stand......whether agency

abused its discretion on legally relevant factors, or by omitting

to consider legally relevant factors, those the legislature

intended the agency to consider in reaching its decision in cases

like the one in question.” Even a failure to raise a constitutional

issue at the administrative level does not preclude its litigation

in the court as cited in Randall v Norberg 121 R.I. 714,403

A.2d 240 (1979).

McIntyre did not just investigate the instant case but he

found the adversarial witnesses, aided them in producing their

complaints ( altering the complaints from the Originals as

produced by the complainants). This is in violation of state

statute 5-37-5.2 (a) which reads, “ any person, firm

corporation...may submit a written complaint..., and rules and

regulations at 14 110 001-13 which reads in Rule 4b Notice to

the Physician, “ upon filing a complaint the Board shall serve

upon the physician involved a copy thereof.” The complaint

must be investigated by the Board ( in this case fully and/or in

part by McIntyre ) to determine whether it merits consideration

or whether it is frivolous or unfounded. It was in violation of

Appellant’s due process that McIntyre aided in the production

of the complaint ( as altered from original), then determined it

was with merit, and then prosecuted the issues before the

Board.

ONLY ONE COMPLAINT

McIntyre sent Appellant a letter dated September 25,

1998 ( mailed September 28,1998 but had a return receipt

notice attached at the bottom dated the 25") which reads,

“....due to the multiple complaints regarding the transfer of

medical records we authorize our right to require an evaluation

of you...” Section 5-37-1.3 (10) of RI Gen Law provides that the

board may require a physician to undergo a physical or

dad eet on aise.

psychiatric examination “ if probable cause exists to believe

that allegations of misconduct against a licensee are caused by

an impairment which has directly affected the ability of the

licensee to conduct his/her practice professionally.” When

Appellant ( Mills) received this letter, she had not received any

complaint(s). On October 15, 1998 Mills received a typewritten

complaint from the Board as affidavit of Deborah Cinquegrana.

On February 10, 1999 Mills’ counsel wrote to Mclntyre as

follows ( see appendix) “ If other complaints of professional

misconduct have been filed which in any way constitute the

basis for the board’s demand for an examination, I request

copies be provided to me immediately.” None were

forthcoming. The “sole” basis for the board’s demand that Mills

undergo an “ examination/evaluation” ( though the letter of

September 25, 1998 did not specify what type of

examination)was the one complaint of Deborah Cinquegrana.

Appellant takes leave to cite the case of Mills vs C.H.LL.D., Inc

docket # 04-422 wherein a nexus between the Director and

McIntyre alludes to “ difficulties in the transfer of medical

records,” though no medical records were not forthcoming as

admission of the Director herself. It is believed that

Cinquegrana ( recently changed day cares due to her difficulty

with a day care Director as read in record below pg 18-19 Tori

medical chart) was the vehicle by which McIntyre would create

an issue to deprive Mills of her property interest and livelihood.

The original handwritten complaint of the witness Cinquegrana,

alludes to her husband not signing a release for his children’s

medical records so as to transfer them to a succeeding

physician. The altered complaint ( aided by McIntyre does not

address this issue ). The mother testified that the father did not

sign the releases and the father testified he did. Mills contends

that no releases were signed.

It must be noted that although Dr Mills had over 700

patients and did call for thousands others, only TWO families

were involved in testifying against her, demonstrating the

isolated nature of the complaints against her.

R.I.Gen Law strictly enforces the following at 5-37-3-4

Limitations and permitted disclosures. (A) Except as provided

in subsection (b) or as otherwise provided by law, a patient’s

confidential health care information shall not be released or

transferred without the written consent of such patient or his or

her authorized representative, on a consent form meeting the

requirements of subsection (d).....(1) Any person who violates

the provisions of this section may be liable for actual and

punitive damages....(3) Any person who knowingly and

intentionally violates the provisions of this section shall upon

conviction, be fined not more than five thousand ($5000)

dollars for each violation or imprisoned not more than six (6)

months for each violation, or both.....(e) Except as otherwise

specifically provided by law an individual’s confidential health

care information shall not be given, sold, transferred, or in any

way relayed to any other person not specified in the consent

form or notice meeting the requirements of subsection (d)

without first obtaining the individual’s additional written

consent on a form stating the need for the proposed new use of

such information or the need for its transfer to another person...

The lower court “ never” addressed the issue of written

consent or release forms. The decision only reads about issue of

unpaid medical bills. The certified lower record does not

support the Justice/Board’s conclusion, “...the testimony

of...parents that the Appellant made the payment of a disputed

bill a condition precedent to sending said records.” It is in

violation of Mills’ constitutional rights to force her with threat

of suspension to release confidential health care information on

patients without their written consent. This is not only in

violation of RI Gen Law but of Federal HIPAA regulations. As

further evidence to the violation of Mills’ due process is that in

March 2000, McIntyre demanded the release of a family’s

confidential health care records once again without the written

consent by the parent(s) ( in that they were children). Mills had

sent the family three sets of releases and none were ever signed

and returned as per RI statute. Mills’ counsel wrote to McIntyre

Stating that this did not “comport with the law,” and that it

would be addressed in another forum. This court has the

for Mills being denied her Property interest and due process as

per the Fourteenth Amendment.

FULL EVALUATION BASED ON ONE

COMPLAINT

In the letter of September 1998, McIntyre demanded a

full “ evaluation” of Mills. Though the type of evaluation was

not specified and no physicians’ names were given to Mills it is

now known that he meant it to be a psychiatric evaluation ( as

to date Mills was never tendered any names of medical

evaluators). The statute reads that “ probable cause must exist

to believe that allegations of misconduct are caused by an

impairment which has directly affected the ability of the

licensee to conduct themselves professionally.”

At this point in time, 1998, McIntyre had given Mills

only “one” complaint regarding the transfer of medical records.

Mills informed McIntyre in their private conversations ( not

Privy to anyone else), that the Cinquegranas had not signed the

release forms and that Mills had sent all necessary parties all

copies of the immunizations records to afford the children full

continuity of care of their children. To then concur that Mills

had an “ impairment” which resulted in misconduct is not

rational, not logical and in complete violation of Mills’ due

Process and equal protection of the law. One need only look at

physicians in R.I. that did not release medical records and

admitted to such with sanctions of a mere $500.00. In this case

Mills contests this allegation in that she was forced with threats

of suspension by Mclntyre if she did not release records even

though she had not received signed consent to do so.

PUBLIC DISSEMINATION BEFORE

HEARING

In violation of Mills’ right to equal protection of the law

and due process, McIntyre made public to the National

Practitioner Data Bank (October 1999), Florida Medical Board

(May 2000) to the NPDB again (October 7, 2003) that Mills

according to his allegations has a “ mental disorder.” (See

Appendix “Evaluation”). The Board will state that there are no

provisions as to when in time the Physician must be presented

with the “list”of names of evaluators to complete the mandated

evaluation. First Mills contends that there was 1) no probable

cause 2) that she was not provided with a list as per R.I. statute

5-37 @ pg 86 (10) “ by a physician acceptable to the board from

a list provided to the licensee by the board if probable cause

exists...” It may not be unambiguous as to the way the statute

reads as to time allowed, but the law does state that such

proceedings should take place in a meaningful time and manner.

The issue as it stands is that McIntyre/Board did not forward a

list to Mills for one year. It can only be deemed logical and

rational ( one with such authority as that of McIntyre would

believe that Mills had some “ impairment” that was causing her

to act unprofessionally), that he would then want to obtain such

an evaluation as soon as possible. This was not the case. Mills

chose an evaluator from the list as soon as she received it.

Mcintyre contacted the doctor in writing. McIntyre fabricated

and made false allegations to her on October 1, 1999. These

were created from private conversations with Mills and from an

investigating meeting (no stenographic report). Most egregious

of all and in violation of Mills’ rights as a citizen was that he

wrote to the evaluator that Mills was not to be allowed to see

her own mental health records. She would only receive a report

from the Board which includes McIntyre clearly in violation of

not only Mills’ constitutional rights but as it reads in the very

same RI Gen Law as above, “ .... shall not be released or

transferred without written consent of such patient...” 5-37-3-4.

The penalties for the release of such confidential health care

information do include criminal penalties as per RI Gen Law 5-

37.3-9.

When Mills obtained new counsel, John Harwood

entered an agreement with MclIntyre/Board that Mills would be

seen by another Psychiatrist in Massachusetts. The evaluation

er <

— a

Was a positive one, was sent directly to McIntyre by Mills’

counsel yet McIntyre then reported to the NPDB that Mills had

a mental disorder. This violates all Mills’ constitutional rights

to a fair and just hearing, unjustly deprives Mills of her

livelihood and property interest and subjects her to

discrimination, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, and the

marring of her reputation as a professional and citizen.

DISABILITY OR HARMFUL TO ANYONE

The same RI statute Gen Law 5-37-13 (10) reads, “ the

investigating committee and the board may not discriminate on

the basis of disability ...nor subject qualified individuals with

disabilities to any discrimination on the basis of disability in its

complaint procedure....all decisions of the investigating

committee and board shall be on the allegation of

safe for anyone but affects different individuals at differing

levels. In September 1999, the only other complainant, Brown

reported to Mcintyre they believed that Mills’ buildings were

not so affected but they did not determi Or review any sources

of information to support their beliefs. It is in violation of Mills’

constitutional rights that the Administrative Hearing Officer and

the Board/Mclntyre denied Mills all supporting evidence and

witnesses including R.I. lower court C.A. No. PC 00-229

Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse v. Speedy Petroleum,

property interest be taken from her as a result. Sheldon

Whitehouse, later representing McIntyre objected to Appellant’s

Writ of Mandamus to Re-Open for supporting evidence which

included his very own case against Speedy Petroleum. The

Board erred in not presenting any expert in the field of

Environmental Safety or Psychiatry in support of their

allegations that Mills has a mental disorder. Their only expert

Dr Robert Eden, a Pediatrician, had no expertise in either

field(testifying to having no knowledge whether there were

gasoline vapors in Mills’ building and to clearly not being an

expert in Psychiatry). Eden based his decision(upheld by Board/

lower court) on the complaint letter of one mother Joyce

Brown. Appellant cites, Millerick v. Fascio 120 R.I. 9, 384 A

2d 601 (1978) wherein, medical consultant for agency reached

opposite conclusions as to plaintiff's condition basing his

findings entirely on report submitted by plaintiff's doctor rather

than obtaining an independent physical examination. The court

in this case held the only reliable,probative, substantial evidence

as to plaintiff's condition was her doctor’s report. The court

further concluded that the decision which relied solely on the

consultant’s opposite conclusion was clearly erroneous.

Without any independent review of whether Mills’ buildings

did indeed have contamination, Eden relied solely on the

mother’s complaint, admitting in testimony, “assuming

everything I have been given to be true”clearly erroneous. The

Board specifically doubted Appellant’s credibility and found

“no evidence” that such contamination had occurred but

remarkably rebuffed Appellant’s offers of the evidence on

several dates: at hearing, post hearing, lower court; then went

on to find her “incredible’based on the lack of evidence.

Appellant testified,” Yes” to presenting the monitor reports,

attempted to submit C.A. No 00-229, DEM’s Compliance

Order, xray tank report and testified to the latter (hearsay

accepted by Board/court with reference to *69 call so using

same logic and rationale Mills’ testimony regarding Tom

Campbell of DEM and others should be accepted).All of the

following issues relate to the violation of Mills’ due process

rights to a fair and just hearing and equal protection of the law.

REPORTING SUSPICIONS OF CHILD ABUSE (issuance of .

letters rogatory regarding NEAR SIDS on former patient)

Every citizen of these United States has the right and

each state has laws governing the reporting of suspicions of

child abuse to the appropriate agency or police. There is a

mandate for Physicians to report any suspicion, in particular this

may have such a suspicion, in fact many Cases go undetected for

years. There is a procedure to follow by R.I. Gen Laws 40-1 1-6

and statute does read in part, “ any physician or duly certified

registered nurse practitioner has cause to suspect .....abused

Subsection c) report by a person “other than physician or duly

certified nurse practitioner.”In this case the department(State)

Shall have the child examined by a “ licensed physician” or

duly certified NP. The lower court decision @ pg 20, “ in

addressing questions of Statutory interpretation, Supreme Court

of R.I. had held that the Court “ must literally interpret a clear

and unambiguous statute and attribute the plain and ordinary

meaning to its words.” Justice furthered it was unambiguous

Mills was 1) no longer caring for the two girls(one just 16),2)

Mills had been told to cease the practice of medicine,3) Mills

made the call from her home and not medical office.Statute as

Justice cites does not address these issues unambiguously.

Eden, state’s expert, was asked what he would do if he

Suspected abuse but was no longer the treating physician,

answering, “ this has never happened to me,” “ | Suspect the

State would have to do the physical exams.” Walter Lambert,

M.D.expert in abuse/violence verified for Mills that a call from

a home may be made anonymously even by a physician. Mills

held a Pennsylvania license, their statute reading,even for

unrestricted licensees, it is not mandatory for Physician to

identify themselves.It is without question if Mills were able to

examine the children and file a PRE, she would have signed her

name.Certainly she did not disguise her voice nor have someone

else make the report. However, Mills did fear suspension for the

father was a State of R.I. employee for DCYF as child abuse

investigator.Without Mills being required to answer the

mother’s complaint, Mills would not have reviewed illegible

old medical records and would have continued to believe the

mother’s explanations in part due to the father’s position. The

records from previous doctors were “illegible,”mother alleged

all apnea records were “lost in the Navy( father a police officer

at Naval base).Further careful review of the old medical records

revealed about eighteen (18) injuries to two of four girls in this

family and that NEAR SIDS records were not available. It was

written in the old medical record by a former Pediatrician, Dr

Edward Aspirinio as follows, “ the apnea records did not go to

Dr Barrett from the US Navy.” This is exactly what the mother

told Mills, that they were lost and there were no infancy

records.(DCYF 18a) It is arbitrary and capricious, in error of

law to have prejudiced Mills by alleging she was in violation of

this statute. Mills was denied her constitutional right to report a

suspicion of child abuse. Mills made her report to DCYF on

October 5, 1999. She reported the suspicion of abuse regarding

a then 16 year old girl. Her older sister had turned 19 in

September and had an equal if not greater amount of injuries to

that date including a NEAR SIDS event during infancy. The

lower court erred in its omission of the fact that Mills reported

the minor (DCYF 26a-28a) stating Mills only reported a patient

that had become of age in order to characterize Mills’ behavior

as unprofessional. The RI Supreme Court December 1, 2003 in

Mills v CHILD,INC cited @ pg 3, the agency found that Mills

“ made a “false” report on “ a parent of one patient’(The very ~

day Mills filed her writ in opposition to such allegations). This

eee ee oy oh aa

denies Mills all rights to due process. It must be a record

reviewed and in view of the “reliable, probative, and substantial

evidence on the whole record a decision is made. A clearly

erroneous decision by the lower court. On September 29, 1999,

Joyce Brown mother of these two girls produced a 7 page

computer printed document sent urgent to McIntyre. On page 4

it reads, “ Bridgeport apnea records missing.” Mills, Aspirinio,

and Barrett all former doctors caring for these girls were never

notified of any Bridgeport records. Mills did not even receive

this 7 page document and the knowledge of a “ Bridgeport

Hospital” until November 11, 1999 when her new counsel (as

of November 9, 1999) requested her entire file from the Board.

Mills immediately called this hospital and learned from medical

records that the NEAR SIDS records on Sarah Brown, then 19

years old, were still on microfiche, not lost in Navy as the

mother told three former Pediatricians.

When Mills made the report to DCYF, she had no idea

that the mother had already with “ intent to harm, malice and

ill will, falsely accused Mills of removing the Bridgeport

records from the medical charts. The mother had meticulously

and laboriously reported to McIntyre finding fault with every

entry Mills made into her children’s medical records-even those

of one child then just 13 years old that had seen Mills only for

two sick visits and had never had a well check in over five

years. In Memorandum in support of objection of the

investigating committee ( again signed by McIntyre), it reads,

“ likewise in this Disciplinary Hearing pertaining to Dr Mills,

it appears that all the evidence was available at trial.” McIntyre

cites, Am.Jur.2d Trial 382 (1991) in which it reads as follows,

“ The trial court should not reopen a case except for good

reasons and in proper showing.” The Bridgeport medical

records on NEAR SIDS were “not available at trial.”

Mills contends that more than good reason exists to

reopen for evidence when it involves the welfare, emotional and

physical health of a patient. Dr Eden testified that he did not

review the Bridgeport records. Dr Carol Jenny a child abuse

expert well known for writing on apnea and its relation to head

injuries in infants informed Mills that she did not receive these

Bridgeport records when she did “ an internal investigation for

DCYF,” after Mills with counsel requested a meeting with

DCYF in July 2001. Dr Jenny informed Mills that it certainly

was information that should have been on the record and

afforded her. Of importance is that what “ led to the

temporary/summary suspension of Mills was her call to DCYF”

(as per McIntyre). Mills contacted DCYF and was to meet with

them July 10, 2001. It was cancelled by DCYF and rescheduled

by Mills. After contacting DCYF her final and full suspension

was signed by the DOH. As early as May 2000, Dr Randell

Alexander Director of Child Abuse at Morehouse Medical

Center Atlanta, informed Mills by letter that her call to DCYF

was “ not out of line,” and “ not unreasonable, based upon the

paucity of regular medical care and the frequency of the

injuries.” He had agreed to testify for Mills.

McIntyre stated in objection to letters rogatory that it is

“ improper for Plaintiff to attempt to reopen an administrative

matter when the record is closed and Plaintiff litigated this issue

on the administrative record. In Lemoine v, Department of

Mental Health Retardation & Hospitals, 113 R.I. 285,320 A.2d

611 (1974), “the statute did not limit authority of superior court

to remand administrative appeals to the administrative agency

so that more evidence could be taken and agency could

reevaluate its decision.” It is neither rational nor logical for the

lower court to have denied letters rogatory on such an important

issue. It further denies Mills her due process and even as a

physician caring for these children it was her entitlement to

know and be aware of all of their medical history. 1) If the

Justice allowed the subpoena of records and there was nothing

of harm to the infant noted in them, it would simply bolster

their case that Mills had suspected abuse “ in error,” ( though to

suspect infers no error). It is controverted between the parties

but it is Mills’ testimonial that she did not remove, alter or in

any way change the medical records that were hand delivered to

her by the mother Joyce Brown. The Bridgeport records were

not made available to any of the Pediatricians, one now

deceased, the other retired and Mills.(App 18a) In fact, the old

medical records hand delivered to Mills reveal that they had

been“pasted over and cut to fit,” as determined by a handwriting

analyst hired by Mills. These altered records were from the

Naval Base where the father was employed as a police officer

and those of the now deceased physician Barrett (App 30a).

Mcintyre in the objection also states, “Plaintiff is

seeking childhood treatment records of an emancipated adult

without giving proper notice as required by the Confidentiality

of Healthcare Information and Communications Act regarding

court proceedings 5-37-6.1 and 5-37-6.2 regarding

administrative proceedings.” Lower court complemented Mills’

counsel stating he was a “ fine lawyer,” specializing in

appellate law. On July 23, 2003 he prepared a motion regarding

the Bridgeport records and filed a motion for letters rogatory.

On August 26,2003 he had a telephone conference with mother

Joyce Brown, the same day a telephone conference with

Counsel for Brown, James Currier regarding subpoena of the

Bridgeport medical records. On August 28" he was present at

a court hearing on the letters rogatory, conversed with Board

counsel regarding the language of the order, and on September

14 again spoke with Board counsel regarding the same letters

rogatory. As early on as January 27, 2003 ( Mills’ counsel from

January 14, 2003) in representation of Mills, Counsel contacted

McIntyre regarding the subpoena to Bridgeport Hospital for the

NEAR SIDS records. R.I.G.L. 5-37-6. 1 reads that the procedure

that Mills’ counsel took was done with proper notice allowing

the twenty days (20) for a motion to quash the subpoena.

Mcintyre again acted as the “ representative,” in doing so. The

lower court granted the motion to quash denying the “

reasonable ground to believe this information sought was

relevant to the proceedings and the need for the information

clearly outweighs the privacy interest of the individual.” The

court shall consider (section e) in part:1) the particular purpose

for which the information was collected-in this case to

determine if a suspicion of abuse began in infancy and what was

the cause of NEAR SIDS event; 2) the individual’s reasonable

expectation of privacy in the information-in this case if as they

allege Mills removed the records then they should not be

concerned if the same information is to be released again ( Mills

did not remove the records nor was Mills ever given these

records); and most importantly 4) the effect of the disclosure on

the individual’s future health care- if in fact there is abuse in the

individual’s history this can have long term effects;5) the

importance of the information to the lawsuit or proceeding-

Mills has been accused by the mother on September 29, 1999

of removing these records from the patient’s medical chart (

Mills did not learn of this until November 11, 1999 over one

month after Mills made the report of suspicion of abuse to

DCYF) certainly raising the suspicion of abuse.6) The

information was not available from any other source, was not

presented at the hearing

The NEAR SIDS records have enormous importance as

to the proceedings before the Board in that they would

determine if in fact the patient was 1) premature 2) had apnea

of prematurity or apnea from some other cause as to be a true

NEAR SIDS 3) would tell where the actual event occurred

which remains in question Ledyard or Bridgeport 4) would

determine if the records were ever obtained by any party 5)

whether there was abuse resulting in the NEAR SIDS.

It was in violation of Mills’ due process and right to a

fair and just hearing to deny the inclusion of this information

during the hearing, after the hearing but before the final

determination while proceedings were still open and at the

lower court on November 6, 2003, and to falsely accuse Mills

of removing, stealing or taking these records. . No proper and

thorough investigation took place as McIntyre stated when

contradicting his own witness’ testimony, “ it was a non-

investigation(T pg 64 9/21/00). Steve Brown told his supervisor

( his personal friend Ed O’ Donnell T pg 66 9/21/00)of only two

injuries(DC YF 26a), testifying, “O’ Donnell knows my children

too well,” as reason the normal procedure of investigation

would not take place. Brown testified that all the injuries

occurred but he was not asked about each of the specific dates

reported by Mills (Tpg 81 9/21/00). DCYF report reads

“Browns believe Mills has some paranoia, psychosis or other

mental illness (DC YF 27a). Mills once again was denied her

due process of law and the agency took at face value the word

of Joyce and Steve Brown without the normal course of an

investigation. A persons’ job description alone does not bar

them from being a perpetrator of abuse and especially not their

spouse, a friend of the family and other. Even after Mills met

with DCYF Dr Jenny admitted that the “ internal investigation”

did not involve a review of the NEAR SIDS medical records.

Mills has contacted the acting Governor of the State of

Connecticut to put a stay on any destruction of those records

until such time as the issue becomes moot and/or Mills may be

cleared of all false allegations.

CONCEALMENT

When more than one inference is possible a court is not

to substitute its judgment for that of the agency unless the

findings are clearly erroneous. Guarino v Dept of Social

Welfare 122 RI. 583 410 A.2d 425(1980). The term

concealment is known to us even in the insurance industry as a

covert way of hiding information necessary to make a proper

and legal decision. The scope of the Supreme Court is to

determine again by careful and searching review whether there

was any legal, competent evidence, or reasonable inference to

support the findings of the court. Edge-January, Inc v Pastore

430 A.2d 1063 (R.I. 1981) The Board and court on record have

disregarded evidence, improperly weighed evidence, concealed

or omitted words from sentences, changed wording as it was

testified by both Appellant and Board’s own witnesses,

rendering the decision arbitrary and capricious (Lake Terrace

Property Owners Assn v New Orleans 567 So.2d 69 (La)), at

error of law and clearly erroneous. It is without reasonable

inference that Appellant would 1) report to DCYF the injuries

“could still be accident prone” if she was retaliating against the

family 2) testify that DEM did not confirm to her that there was

gasoline contamination in her building when the State DEM

was involved since March 1999 in cleaning it up 3) report on an

application to RI Hospital that she graduated from two medical

schools yet submit letters from the Deans of the two schools to

that application both confirming she graduated from one school

Ross( application first page states Ross MD 1984)

In fact with concealment, lower court decision reads:

1) Mills herself testified that DEM did not confirm

contamination omitting “ that existed there for four /2 years.”

2) Mills reported to DCYF one patient then 19 years old

omitting that Mills reported a 16 year old and then spoke of her

sister who had become of age 3) Mills submitted on application

to RI Hospital that she was enrolled in a PhD/MD program

omitting “2 yrs” from the PhD/MD 4) Mills testified that she

kept the old medical records in her “home” wherein court

changed the words as testified -“ garage at her house”. 5) Mills

questioned the 16 year old about whether she used alcohol,

cigarettes, drugs, was sexually active, ever depressed or have

thoughts of suicide whereby the lower court omitted all but “

sexual activity” in its decision

In error of law these and many more changes, omissions

by the lower court prejudiced Appellant to create an appearance

that she was guilty of unprofessional conduct. The courts defer

to credibility determinations that an agency made in reaching

conclusions. On the other hand, courts may reject an agency’s

credibility determination in appropriate cases. NLRB v Payless

Cashway Lumber Store, Inc 508 F.2d 24 (8" Cir). Where the

credibility determination is irrational Breeden v Weinberger

493 F.2d 1002 (4" Cir) or where the agency has misconstrued

it, the court may ignore credibility determinations made by the

agency. Robinson v Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Bd 589

A.2d 778 (Pa Comm Ct.)

Cinquegrana mother testified that she was not told to

return for a follow up visit to the Cardiologist and that no

additional tests were necessary. Cardiology report in medical

chart @ pgs 18-19 reads, “ follow up visit scheduled for repeat

EKG.” She testified, “ the reason I switched doctors was to get

a second opinion.” This doctor ordered a head xray certainly

additional tests. Mother testified that the xray was ordered on

one of if not the first visit to the new doctor. Record below cites

the xray was ordered over one year later after many visits.

Brown mother testified it was “ bizarre” for Mills to talk

about gasoline vapor contamination to her building though the

very court records C.A. No. PC 00-229 Sheldon Whitehouse v

Speedy Oil Petroleum Inc reveal that this was a very serious

health hazard to the entire area surrounding the gas station. In

January 2000 ( Mills’ hearing began August 2000) the very

court for which this appeal concerns, approved a consent order

finding that the petroleum contamination constituted a public

nuisance. Senior Environmental Scientist Peter Sullivan at

DEM RI filed an affidavit in that action stating when he visited

Mills’ office he was “immediately hit by an overwhelming odor

of gasoline” (Affidavit para 13 DEM Public record)

Attorney Alexander representing RI Hospital stated at

hearing March 31, 1994 “ it is on the first page, why would

someone say they graduated from two medical schools” (Mills)

There is no graduation date for Case;only one school has an

MD degree-Ross Jan 1984 ( 1* page of application App 101a)

Dr John Cronan states RI Hospital does not deal with

them FMG’s here. ( Dr Vincent Armenio graduate of Ross

admitted to staff Mills applied to at RIH app 100a)

Dr Robert Eden sole expert witness for

Board/Pediatrician testified:1) she was wrong about the

possibility of Williams (He did not remember what it was

offhand) 2) I would ultimately release records without a consent

signature (Violation of RI Gen Law and HIPPA (Federal Law)

3)I do not know if her building has gasoline/hydrocarbons

vapors in it- DEM did confirm this 4) I only saw ONE injury in

the charts, the old medical records were illegible- there were 18

injuries in the charts.

He repeatedly testified, “ assuming all the information

given to me is true,” when in fact it was not. The Board relied

solely on this one expert who based his opinion on 1)

assumptions that all he was given was true- information from

McIntyre and the two complainant letters both of which were

produced in part by Mclntyre and because Mcintyre, “

convinced me he was out to help Dr Mills,” and 2) with no

independent discovery or questioning.

There must be adequate relevant evidence so that a

reasonable person could accept the evidence as sufficient to

support the agency’s conclusion. Pierce v Underwood 487 US

552, 101 L. Ed 2d 490,108 S. Ct. 2541 Examination of the

record as a whole demonstrates that the decision(s) below are

characterized by substantial factual errors. They are so

numerous and significant as to render the decisions arbitrary

and capricious. Where the Supreme Court finds that the agency

has drawn improper or irrational inferences from the evidence,

the Court will not demur from correcting such errors. Thus

where the agency’s resolution of factual matters before it is

defective and prejudicial, the court may deem it Clearly

erroneous and reverse. Millerick v Fascio 384 A.2d 601, (R.L.

1978) An agency action may be considered “ arbitrary and

carpricious” when the agency’s explanation for its decision runs

So counter to the evidence before the agency that it could not be

regarded as the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle

Manufacturers Assoc. V State Farm Mutual Auto Ins 463 US

29,77 L.Ed. 2d 443,103 S.Ct. 2856

The Supreme Court will reverse factual conclusions of

the agency only when they are “ completely bereft of competent

evidentiary support in the record .” Sartor v Coastal resources

Mgt. Council 542 A.2d 1077 R.I. (1988) Not only did the court

in the instant case “ weigh the evidence,” it altered the evidence

as the record stands. This is in error of law.

Argument rests on 1) Constitutional questions raised

below 2) legal evidence-testimony as it stands below 3)decision

must be made with reasonable inference 4( the whole record

must be reviewed by careful and searching inquiry and 5) the

decision must be vacated if it is clearly erroneous based upon

the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole

record ( Eden Brown and Cinquegrana testimony) Liberty

Mutual Ins Co vs Janes, 586 A.2d 536 (R.I. 1991).

The court cannot base its decision on concealment,

altered testimony (using words other than those testified to

which may not bear the same meaning to any reasonable person.

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the

exhaustion of administrative remedies will not be required

where to do so would be futile ( Anthony Palazzolo, Petitioner

v. Rhode Island et al No. 99-2047,2001 U.S. LEXIS 4910June

28,2001). The case of Mills vs Bruce McIntyre filed March 1,

2001 to avoid this situation has not yet been heard on appeal in

the very same RI Supreme Court. One component the APA’s

“ripeness test,” is that any adverse effects flowing from the

agency’s determination must be felt concretely by the party

seeking judicial review (Appendix-Sanctions). This applies in

the instant case.

The seven counts of unprofessional conduct alleged by

the Board/lower court will be addressed in each of the above

categories. The counts are so addressed in the Appendix and are

as follows: 1) DCYF complaint (see appendix and argument)

2) Treatment Outdoors, 3) Williams Syndrome, 4) Record

Transfer Issue (appendix and argument, 5) Evaluation issue (

appendix and argument) and 6) Rhode Island Hospital

application. _

THE DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH

THIS COURTS PRECEDENTS

The petition for certiorari shows the decision below

conflicts with this Court’s Fourteenth Amendment precedents.

A review of the whole record is so “shockingly wrong” and thus

presents due process questions. Physicians have a vested

interest in their careers and should be afforded fair and

constitutional hearings. Prohibiting all forms of supporting

evidence and witnesses violates fundamental concepts of

fairness and justice. This case is not unique since the HCQIA

Act of 1986 which gave great leeway to Boards of Medicine

for peer reviews. Instituted to maintain and improve the

quality of health care, cases of abuse of powers and medical

sham reviews have been on the increase. This is a question of

national concern. In the instant case it is not just an argument

of erroneous decisions below, though the record is so replete

but that all procedural requirements were in violation, and all

fundamental rights of due process denied Appellant. One is

left to only wonder what the real agenda or motive was for the

sequence of events in the instant case. Appellant was building

a large and successful medical practice when she was shut

down. A former superior personally kept her off staff on at

least one hospital while renewing her credentials at the one

where he was Chief of Pediatrics. This Court has ruled in the

case of Patrick v Burgett 486 US 94,108 S. Ct. 1658, that state

officials do not have the exercise of power to review private

parties particular anti competitive acts and to disapprove those

that fail to accord with state policy. The decision further stated

there has been no showing that State Health Departments,

Boards of Medicine or even State Judiciary systems even

could review private decisions to correct abuses.

CONCLUSION

Appellant requests that this Honorable U.S. Supreme

Court exercise its supervisory powers to correct this injustice

by granting her writ of certiorari for review and reversal of the

lower court’s decision to deny her an appeal on her license to

practice medicine.

Respectfully submitted,

Geraldine Mills, M.D. Prose

191 Squantum Drive

Warwick, Rhode Island 02888

401-463-8433

APPENDIX

Former RI State Supreme Court Justice Robert G.

Flanders resigned August 2004. On October 13,2004, in a

meeting to honor him, he was quoted, “ I found I could only

say ‘I respectfully dissent’ so many times before the thin

veneer of ‘respectfully’ began to erode and wear away.” He

then stated he could no longer serve a court that made so many

bad decisions. “ We have a history of all sorts of bigotry and

discriminatory and illegal and corrupt behavior,” he furthered.

This describes the instant case as best as it can be said.

Bruce W. Mclntyre, counsel for the RI Medical Board stated,

“Attorneys have a unique responsibility to see that justice be

done and not to try to dictate outcomes. I apologize for that.”

This was just one example wherein McIntyre influenced the

Hearing panel. ( T pg 71 Aug 23, 2000) McIntyre was asking

Steve Brown State of RI child abuse investigator ifhe had any

personal knowledge of Mills ever filing any reports with

DCYF other than the one on his own family, whether he ever

saw Mills in the DCYF office, and if he ever worked with

Mills on a case. (Mills had been to the office, spoken directly

to Ed O’Donnell on a suspicion of sexual abuse in a two year

old and was turned away from the office). Ed O’ Donnell was

Steve Brown’s supervisor and personal friend,(See DC YF)

who also did a “ non-investigation” on the Brown family.

Not only did McIntyre dictate the outcomes, he created

situations and fabricated variations of other actual events in

order to dictate the outcomes. At the outset of the Hearing,

Mills’ counsel had to rebut to this as follows: “ .....there were

not multiple complaints but one sine qua non complaint....so

these references to multiple complaints are not before the

Board and shouldn’t be....because the Board’s own rules and

regulations require the complaints that are received be

transmitted directly to the licensee once they are received, and

that didn’t happen in this case, so this illusion that there were

multiple complaints upon which the Board acted is

inappropriate and improper in these circumstances. The Board

has a procedure to follow. If the Board didn’t follow it, this

hearing panel shouldn’t be allowed to imagine what facts may

have existed because the Board undertook or believed that

there were multiple complaints.....Some of the correspondence

in this case refers to it as a psychological evaluation, and yet

when the Board was asked to furnish a list of psychiatrists to

conduct it they didn’t do so until September 21, 1999...The

facts of this case will show very clearly that Dr Mills’ license

should not have been suspended...will show that Dr Mills

complied strictly with the letter of the law......” ( Exhibits

A,B,C)

INVESTIGATORY, ADJUDICATORY ,and ADVISORY

In argument, tenure and concurrent multiple positions

held by Bruce McIntyre were presented. The following is a

partial list ( as cited in record below in supplemental brief and

in brief to lower court @ pg 2) of violations of both RI Gen

Laws and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as well as

the Rules and Regulations of the Medical Board. First are

several more examples of directly influencing the Hearing

Panel: 1) by aiding the mother in altering her original

handwritten complaint ( T pg 16 October 5, 2000

Cinquegrana) “ And did you come in here and prepare that

affidavit?” “ No, they asked me to write it out...” “ Okay, “

did you write that out?” “Yes.” “ In longhand?” “ Yes, I wrote

it out.” “ At some point in time did you then receive a

typewritten affidavit?” “ Yes.” “ Where did you receive that

from?” “ Now, I can’t remember.” She later remembers it was

from the, “ gentleman in the red tie.” The hearing officer

states, “ let the record reflect that is Bruce McIntyre.” The

mother testified that she discussed in detail the matters with

McIntyre and then “ they” typed the affidavit and had her sign

it. The Hearing panel got to hear matters that were not part of

Cinquegrana’s written complaint to the Board ( see violation

of RIGL and Rules and Regs)Dr Milton Hamolsky former

Acting Chief Administrative Officer of the RI Medical Board

is quoted in the Spring 1994 Medical Board Bulletin, “ When

the Board receives an allegation.....(.in writing and signed)....

The Board.....determines the “ opening” of an investigation. If

the case is opened, the unaltered allegation is forwarded to the

physician, after five days for reflection ......with a request for

a response within 14 days in writing with any supporting

documentation.”(see Violations) 2) McIntyre asks, “ You put

Yale and Brown on your resume didn’t you?” ( Mills was

rebuffed with her attempt to submit her CV which has no Yale

or Brown internship or residency listed on it), leaving the

Hearing panel with an “ illusion” and to “ imagine what facts

may have existed.” This brings one to the first of the

violations: 1) Duties of the AHO ( Administrative Hearing

Officer) shall include 1-7 @ 6, “.....to ensure evidence

sufficient to determine the facts are on the record” ( pg 15

APA) 2) RIGL 5-37 (1.3)2 and 5-37-5.2 “ All complaints are

to be forwarded to Physician in unaltered form” and “

Investigations shall remain confidential and all initial...and

full hearings before the Board shall remain confidential ... The

Board shall make public all decisions...al! conclusions ( after

due deliberation only)” also in violation was 5-37-6.3 in

which public dissemination occurred prior to conclusion of

fact and law 3) 5-37 1.3 (10) “ The Board has the authority to

require any physician undergo a physical and psychiatric

evaluation ...by a physician acceptable to the Board froma list

provided to the licensee by the Board is probable cause exists

to believe that allegations of misconduct against a licensee are

caused by an impairment which has directly affected the

ability of the licensee to conduct his/her practice

professionally.” 4) 5-371.5 Immunity “ shall be immune...

performed in good faith...” “Provided the report,

testimony....was made in good faith.” 5) 5-37-5.3

Specification of charges-“ When the Board determines...a

copy shall be served upon the accused, together with notice of

the hearing as provided in 5-37-5.4 6) 5-37-8 and Rules and

regs #9 14 110 001-16 read, “ within ten (10) days of receipt

of notice for a hearing a witness list and specification of

charges should be made available to the physician 7) Rules

and regs 14 110 -001-15 #8 Institution and Notice of Hearing

“ the hearing shall be no more than 60 days and no less than

30 days after service of charges upon the Physician and shall

include the list of witnesses and specify the charges, a

December 2™ hearing was scheduled 10 days after notice of

specified charges and no witness: list was made until

December 10, 1999 ( revised January 24, 2000) 8)5-37 2.1

(10) consent order did not read “ as promised.” It read that

Mills refused to see the psychiatrist for a year. Mills was not

given the names for eleven months after receiving notice from

McIntyre September 29, 1998. (Evaluation) 9) 5-37-3-4

Medical release laws: “.... confidential health care information

shall not be released..... without the written consent of such

patient or his or her authorized representative, on a consent

form meeting the requirements of subsection (d).....(3) Any

person who knowingly and intentionally violates the

provisions of this section shall upon conviction, be fined not

more than five thousand ($5000) dollars for each violation or

imprisoned not more than six(6) months for each violation, or

both.

As stated, this is just a partial list of the violations by

the Board, in specific McIntyre.

HISTORY

In Statement of the Case some of the background of

this case was reviewed. In order to fully understand what

McIntyre did to orchestrate and manipulate the course of

events, and perhaps why, is the following: Mills was an

employee of a community hospital, St Joseph Hospital with

two units, one in South Providence, the other in North

Providence. Mills medically cared for clinic patients in the

South Unit and attended all risk deliveries, admitted children

to the ward, and saw patients in the Emergency Room (at the

Er’s request) at the North Unit. She was employed as such

from 1989 until July 1, 1993. Mills was placed on the

December 1992 call schedule by Toselli, to work just about

one hundred hours at the hospital the week of December 16,

1992. This included Wednesday morning 7:30 AM until

Thursday at 5 PM to return Friday morning 7:30 AM to work

straight until Sunday at 8AM staying at the hospital at all

times. Mills was contracted to work for 45 hours per week,

had on her own done call nights for a time on both Tuesday

and Friday nights. The rest of the call nights were done by

Resident doctors in training from the Hasbro Children’s

Hospital. During weeks in December 1992 these residents

could not fulfill this service at the community hospital thereby

leaving only Mills and another Pediatric House Officer to do

so. The other HO rarely took call nights. Mills tried to explain

that 48 hours after 36 hours was not only unsafe for her

patients but for her as well. Toselli immediately informed( in

not so pleasant a manner) Mills that her contract would not be

renewed for her fifth year of employment at the hospital.

In July 2002 all interns at U.S. hospitals are no longer

allowed to do more than 24 hour shifts in patient care. In a

study by Dr Charles A. Czeisler at Brigham &Women’s

Hospital, the hours in Internal Medicine have been limited to

18 per shift.

Mills left St Joseph Hospital with a record according

to the Department of Labor and Training, State of Rhode

Island with “ no misconduct,” in the four years of her work.

Senior VP Mark Hough wrote that Mills, “ gave quality care

to her patients, “ and Toselli on two occasions wrote to the

Massachusetts Board that Mills was “ good” in all her

qualifications. Mills received letters of recommendation from

the charge nurses, ER physicians, private Pediatricians on

staff, specialists but not one from Toselli. On March 31, 1994,

as we have seen, Toselli was to have slandered Mills to the RI

Hospital. Since St Joseph did not have a Pediatric ICU it was

important for Mills to obtain privileges there when necessary

to admit her patients for higher risk care. Toselli “ personally

kept Mills off staff at RI Hospital” but credentialed her each

year to be on staff at St Joseph. This was not rational or

logical unless it meant that anti competitive behavior or

politics was involved. He is quoted to have said, “ she is

incapable of the job.” This was not a rational statement for he

had her working unsupervised over 100 hours per week. Mills

got a 4 to 2 vote of denial for Pediatric privileges at RI

Hospital with Frank DeLuca, M.D. abstaining ( Pediatric

surgeon who personally knew Betty Coryllos M.D. who

recommended Mills highly). Dr Richard Greco recently told

Mills he voted for her to be on staff because, “ I found no

reason whatsoever for you not to be and I believe Dr Passero

felt the same way.”

Dr Cronan not only discriminated against Mills for

being a graduate of Ross Medical School but he altered letters

of recommendation in support of Mills ( those very letters Dr

Toselli testified at deposition showed Mills as “ highly

recommended”). Elizabeth Coryllos, M.D. wrote on March

15, 1994, “ I have known Geraldine Mills, M.D. for seven

years. I worked with her extensively as both her attending

physician and preceptor............. I was very much impressed

with her knowledge, enthusiasm, ability to follow through on

projects and endeavors. Geraldine always got along well with

patients, and their famnilies.................. ” Dr Mills is honest,

completely ethical, hardworking, intelligent, well-trained,

compassionate and efficient................. Dr Cronan took this

evaluation and stated at the hearing on March 31, 1994, “ last

evening (meaning he called Dr Coryllos the night before the

hearing ) evening she spoke with me and we discussed this

and she said she worked with you: in a VERY SMALL

AREA.” Dr Coryllos wrote, “ Dr Geraldine Mills worked

with me in Pediatric Surgery as a pediatric resident liason. She

did an excellent job. We have always had a LARGE AND

ACTIVE pediatric surgery service................... ” Dr Coryllos

told Mills that Dr Cronan “ misquoted her.” Dr Terrence Stull

Acting Chairman Department of Pediatrics Medical College

of Pennsylvania wrote of Mills March 11, 1994, “ My

experience was that she rendered very good care to her

patients. My experience in supervising Dr Mills indicated that

she had a straightforward insightful approach to patient

problems which was supported by the literature.” Dr Cronan

is quoted from the hearing as stating, “ I did call Dr Stull

myself. He thought you did a wonderful job. He also described

you as somewhat erratic in you approach. He stated you had

an erratic personality .............. ”Again Dr Stull told Mills he

was “ misquoted.” Lastly, Dr Philip Carling wrote that Mills

took a 1 4 week leave of absence which was made up for by

deleting time from her vacations. Dr Cronan stated at the

hearing, “...after we called Carney Hsopital there was

significant issues there. She had been suspended.”

Dr Carling also told Mills he was “ misquoted” and sent

another letter to Dr Mills dated May 6, 1994 which reads in

part “The leave ( of absence) was not a suspension.”

Dr Mills dropped her claim against Dr Cronan and was

to receive an “apology letter” from him as per her counsel.

The letter was not forwarded to Mill until March 28, 2000

even though the letter has a date of September 1996 on it, no

letterhead, and the day in September is written in “30" rather

than typed as the rest of the letter. The last line reads, “ I did

not intend to cause you any harm.” /s/ John J. Cronan, M.D.

Not only were these evaluations of Mills altered, the testimony

of her four witness mothers was removed from the file as well

as the recommendation letter of the Senior VP Mark Hough of

St Joseph Hospital. Kerri Voisinet, Darlene Barre past

president of the Providence Chapter of Foster Parents, Cynara

Houtchens and a grandparent of one of Mills’ patients all

testified on her behalf.

When Dr Mills was leaving the Hearing, Dr Cronan

handed Mills a booklet titled, “ The Disruptive Physician.”

Mills had completed four years of work at St Joseph Hospital

with “ no misconduct”, as written by the Department of Labor

and Training, information relayed to them by Administration

of the hospital. It is only of interest to note that about the time

Mills dropped her claim against Dr Cronan in early October

1996, he was the subject of a private criminal assault

complaint by his wife whom he had evicted from their home

just weeks before.[The record now reveals “ Cronan 48, head

of radiology at Rhode Island Hospital and Brown Uni versity’s

School of Medicine ( and part owner of Rhode Island Medical

Imaging) was found guilty by Justice Fortunato in September

1998 of domestic assault and given a one-year suspended

sentence.” The judge said the doctor had not been candid in

testimony he gave during the trial and had unfairly portrayed

his wife as “ such an erratic psychiatrically impaired person

that she could not remember things”such as being beaten by

him.] as reported in March 1999 Providence Journal News. It

is of interest that the words he used to describe his wife were

the very same used in the slander of Mills. Mills was not

afforded due process as far back as 1994 in that hearing. It is

of grave concern that a Physician with such a personal history

would be making judgments about the conduct of other

physicians while committing acts of violence during the same

period of time.

Mills filed in 1995 against Cronan for the slander and

unable to believe that Toselli was any party to it ( In

-deposition May 18, 2000 Toselli admitted his part) but

dropped the suit in October 1996. Those very years, Mills

began receiving calls from Bruce W. Mcintyre at the Medical

Board. In January 1995 a new patient of Mills, a 2 year old

had fallen from a window, was admitted to Kent Hospital in

Warwick, R.I. ( Mills’ home and office in Warwick). Mills

had applied for privileges to Kent but in spite of having thirty

recommendation letters in the application she was never

allowed a hearing ( in violation of their own by laws), never

was formally denied. Mills was not told of the admission and

her cousin Dr Keith Ronald Mills’ name was put on the ER

sheet as the attending for the child. Dr K R Mills has never

practiced medicine in Rhode Island. McIntyre contacted Mills

at her office and threatened her with a full investigation for

her not reporting the child to DCYF even though Mills was

never contacted about the admission. Neither the ER physician

that saw and admitted the child or the doctors that cared for

her for over two weeks while admitted contacted DCYF.

Mclintyre brought Mills before the Board on October 23, 1996

the very month Mills dropped suit against Dr Cronan.

Mills sent in her renewal application for her license

with a $200 check on October 24, 1997. It was returned by the

Board November 8, 1997. The check was dated 10/24/97 but

the actual application was dated as 10/ /97. Mills had left out

the “24.” Mills immediately corrected this and mailed it back

that very day. On January 8, 1997 Jacqueline Landry of

theBoard contacted Mills at her home stating, “ your license

has been suspended.” Millis thought the call was about her

driver’s license. The Board then told Mills the check had

bounced. Mills contacted the back and funds were still

available. It was determined that someone had denied the

check due to the “ G” in Mills’ name not appearing like that

of her signature. However, every check prior and since has the

very same “ G.” The denied check had two dates of deposit on

the back unlike all other checks. The bank prepared three

letters of apology before the Medical Boa.d would accept

them and Mills was told she could only pay with a money

order or cash, though the funds were available in the account.

The bank had no explanation as to why this happened.

September 29, 1998 Mills received the letter from

McIntyre requiring Mills be “ evaluated” due to “ multiple

complaints,” though she had not received any. October 15

1998 Mills received the first complaint typed on Board

stationary- that of Cinquegrana.

Mcintyre contacted Mills at her office on several

occasions as the morning of October 9, 1998 telling Mills he

was “ going to get her,” and that she was “ aggressive and

could not handle things.” The only way to remove Mills from

10a

practice and to permanently destroy her business was to Create

the problems ( call group already addressed) within those

entities which supported the core of Miils’ business.

C.H.LL.D.,Inc is a day care located in Warwick RI.

near Mills’ business to which many of Mills’ patients

attended. Mills had a practice 95% welfare and low income.

On September 30, 1998, Yom Kippur day, Mills received

many calls to her office from parents of her patients Stating

that employees of the day care had informed them to find a

new Pediatrician. On October 1, 1998, when Mills returned

from her Religious Holiday, she heard the messages and

contacted her brother Attorney Stephen Mills. He contacted

the day care Director Karen Stanley who informed him that

according to her conversation with McIntyre, “ something is

in the works for Dr Mills to lose her license.”(Exhibit D App)

The case is Mills vs C.H.LL.D.,Inc and was brought

because of the statement above and the false allegations that

Mills did not release medical records when they were

requested. In deposition the Director admits to not knowing of

any medical records that were not released by Mills. Stanley

did contact McIntyre making a “ verbal” complaint to him

about the release of medical records as so alleged. Because

she did not make a written complaint, MclIntyre in the case of

Mills v C.H.LL.D., Inc submitted an affidavit (in violation of

law after discovery had closed) stating that Stanley’s call had

nothing to do with the suspension of Mills’ medical license.

Yet the letter McIntyre wrote to Mills required she undergo an

evaluation for the “ multiple complaints regarding the transfer

of medical records.” It is believed that this was the complaint

of Karen Stanley and that the Cinquegranas had changed their

day care to that of CHILD, Inc. Mills was denied all discovery

in the case and in her license case the father only testified to

the name of the day care they had left, Jack and Jill. The

Cinquegranas made a verbal request for medical records on

August 17, 1998. Mills sent them releases on September 4,

1998 but never received them back. The RIGL allows thirty

ABLE ) Y .

lla

days (30) from the time of receipt of written request to release

records. On September 11, 1998 the mother had already

reported Mills to the Medicel Board refusing for some agenda

to not sign the medical release forms and called Mills using

these exact words, “ You are preventing the continuity of care

of my children.” Though Mills informed McIntyre the releases

were not signed, that she had called all immunizations to the

succeeding doctor and answered the day care’s request for

same, he chose to require Mills undergo psychiatric

evaluation, rather than request Signatures on release forms

from the parent(s). The very day Mills informed the

succeeding doctor of the need for the signatures, McIntyre as

Notary Public, had the father sign an affidavit that he had

already signed the release. Mills was not served this affidavit.

This affidavit completely contradicted the ori ginal handwritten

complaint of the mother.

McIntyre wrote the witness lists without ever speaking

to the physicians, stating they would all testify to Mills being

“ aggressive and threatening,” spoke to the day care director,

aided the mother in altering her complaint to not include

anything about release forms. He delayed the Hearing to

discover new evidence against Mills and began going to the

doctors’ offices ( those he put on his witness lists) in the hopes

of finding one that would testify against Mills- none did. He

then “ convinced” ( mother’s own words) the only other

complainant mother Joyce Brown to write a letter. He then

told the Hearing panel that Mills “ retaliated against” the

Brown family, that as he decided, could not have been

suspected of abuse because the father was a RI State child

abuse investigator.

McIntyre was a witness to each and every event that

has led to the taking of Mills’ property interest in violation of

her constitutional rights.

ORE e Snes vations See ene nO RNS oe Seen at eae om ere

12a

APPENDIX EXHIBITS

AFUE E Aissisccccsess R.I. Gen Laws 5-37-1.3(10)

“ to require a licensee to undergo a physical or

psychiatric examination by a physician acceptable to the board

from a LIST provided to the licensee by the board, IF probable

cause exists to believe that allegations of misconduct against

a licensee are caused by an impairment which has directly

affected the ability of the licensee to conduct his/her practice

professionally.”

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

September 21, 1999

Re: Geraldine Mills, M.D.

Dear Mr. Bowerman:

Thank you for the reminder regarding the list of names of

psychiatrists who will meet the Board of Medical Licensure

and Discipline’s requirements for a psychological esamination

required by the Board........

Very truly yours,

/s/ Bruce W. McIntyre

September 21, 1999

Dear Dr Mills:

Attorney MclIntyre contacted me today to.......... I reminded

Mr Mclntyre that the Board had failed to submit a list of

psychiatrists when they proposed Jeffrey Hunt, M.D. I am

faxing you his response which I received today.

/s/ Seth Bowerman

June 30, 1999

Dear Dr Mills:

The Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline has

requested that you submit to a psychiatric examination by

Jeffrey Hunt, M.D. I do not know Dr Hunt. ..........0.......

/s/ Seth Bowerman

(Mills did contact Dr Hunt- he is a child Psychiatrist)

13a

Leah Oseas Cullen, M.D.

Bruce McIntyre, General Counsel

October 21, 1999

Re: Geraldine Mills, M.D.

Case No: 98-187

Dear Mr McIntyre:

As per your request, please find below the summary of

ssi This office was contacted by you on Tuesday September

rik 1999 with the request that this writer agree to be part of a

list of psychiatrists willing to evaluate Dr Mills on behalf of

the RI Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline. Later that

day Dr Mills called asking for an appointment within the next

72 hours because she was flying out of state that

weekend....Dr Mills was informed that the earliest she could

be seen by this office was the week of October 3 She

initially decided to call other psychiatrists on the list to see if

she could be seen sooner... Mills called back later that day

Stating she had decided to set up her evaluation with us

because this was the only psychiatrist’s office that had

returned her phone call .....Prior to the October 5t

appointment ( records regarding this case were hand delivered

to this office and a discussion of the Board of Licensure and

Discipline’s concerns was held between this writer and

yourself........

/s/ Leah Oseas Cullen

September 1, 2000

Re: Geraldine Mills, M.D.

Dear Mr Foster:

(Mr McIntyre stated Mills refused to get an evaluation so that

l4a

is why she did not get a list of evaluators until much later.

McIntyre did give Mills one name June 30, 1999 but he was

a child Psychiatrist. This was only one name, not a list and

was 10 months after his request Mills be evaluated . Mills

constantly requested names so this ordeal would end. Mills

contacted Dr Cullen the very day the list was given to her

requesting an appointment as soon as possible. Mills did

contact other psychiatrists names from the list of four on

September 21, 1999. It is false that Mills did not get any calls

back from the others. Dr Iris Shuey refused to get involved in

the politics of the situation since it was a very litigious

situation as she described it. In fact, Dr Cullen told Mills, “ it

does not matter that you cannot be seen until October, the

politics of the situation is going to keep you out of work a

very long time. There were just 4 names one of them again

being Dr Hunt who had already been contacted in June).

EXHIBIT B

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

Department of Health

September 25, 1998

Re: Board Order -

Dear Dr Mills:

The Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline has

considered past and recent issues regarding your interaction

with patients. Your continued difficulty in making

arrangements for continuity of care when patients advise you

of their desire to transfer care and your repeated violations of

the medical practice act involving medical record requests by

patients and subsequent treating physicians are of concern.

Accordingly, the Board has elected to utilize the law, which

permits the Board to mandate an evaluation of you.

You are hereby notified that you must contact this office upon

receipt of this letter in order to facilitate this evaluation.

Sincerely,

/s/Bruce McIntyre

General Counsel

( mailed on 9/28/98 but in lower right corner is a certified

receipt with “ sent out 9-25-98")

KAREN STANLEY DEPOSITION 8/15/00

PGS 21-22

Q. Were there ever any individuals whose records you tried

to obtain from Dr Mills that you were not able to obtain, to the

best of your knowledge?

A. To the best of my knowledge, I can’t think of any.

(Day cares, in particular CHILD INC, do not obtain full

medical records on any patients. They either send the

physician a form (CHILD INC forms) or have the parent(s)

bring them to the doctors to be filled out. It is a one page form

asking for immunizations dates, lead levels a blood test result

for sugar and protein, a urinalysis and asks whether the child

is anemic. There may be a section to write in any health

problems) Mills filled out each and every request by CHILD

INC, even having brought some to the day care herself when

parents could not do so in the 24 hour notice given by the day

care)

EXHIBIT C

February 10, 1999

In Re: Geraldine Mills, M.D.

Dear Mr McIntyre:

basis for the board’s demand for an examination, I request

copies be provided to me immediately. If I do not receive

16a

them by February 12, 1999, I will assume that the SOLE basis

for the board’s demand for an examination are the facts and

allegations set forth in the Cinquegrana affidavits.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Seth E. Bowerman

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

NOTICE OF DECISION

July 14, 1993

Geraldine Mills, M.D.

St Joseph’s Hospital

Name of Employer

The claimant was terminated when her contract was not

renewed.

The issues is whether or not the claimant is subject to

disqualification under the provisions of Section 28-44-18 of

the R.I. Employment Security Act.

This separation is considered to be under non-disqualifying

circumstances as there is no evidence of misconduct on the

part of the claimant.

Benefits are allowed...

/s/ Mary F. Mazza

Authorized Representative of the Director

EXHIBIT D APPENDIX

State of Rhode Island

Kent Sc. Superior Court

CANO: K99-753

Geraldine Mills, M.D.

CHILD, Inc

Affidavit of Stephen Mills

Now comes you affiant, Stephen Mills and having

been duly sworn does hereby depose and state:............

17a

On or about October 1, 1998 I called Karen Stanley at

C.H.L.LD, Inc......1 called in my capacity as the brother of

Geraldine Milis, M.D., not as her attorney. .Karen Stanley said

words to the effect that something was in the works for my

sister to lose her license.

SO ATTESTED /s/Stephen Henry Mills

The lower court cited in its decision -standard of review

@ 17, “ the court’s review of a decision by the Department of

Health is controlled by R.I. Gen Laws 1956 42-35-15(g). It

States that the court may reverse or modify the decision if

substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because

the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions

are 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, 2) in

excess of the statutory authority of

the agency 3) made upon unlawful procedure 4) affected by

other error or law 5) clearly erroneous on the whole record or 6)

arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or

clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

The seven counts of unprofessional conduct alleged by

the Board/lower court will be addressed in each of the above

categories. The counts are so addressed in the Appendix and are

as follows: 1) DCYF complaint (see appendix and argument)

2) Treatment Outdoors, 3) Williams Syndrome, 4) Record

Transfer Issue (appendix and argument, 5) Evaluation issue (

appendix and argument) and 6) Rhode Island Hospital

application.

1) DCYF complaint

Mills’ summary suspension read, “ harassed a father at

his place of work.” McIntyre stated what, “ led to her temporary

suspension was her call to DCYF.” ( This call did not lead to

Mills’ suspension. McIntyre used this as an excuse to

Mills but he knew prior to October 1, 1998 when he spoke to

18a

the day care director of CHILD, Inc telling her, “ something is

in the works for Mills to lose her license.”( Exhibit C)

Complainant Joyce Brown wrote a 7 page urgent

document to McIntyre September 29, 1999. She wrote @ pg 4,

“ Bridgeport apnea records missing.” ( from Sarah’s medical

chart) Prior to Mills’ call to DCYF on October 5, 1999, the

mother had falsely accused Mills of “removing or stealing”

these Bridgeport records. ( Again, the call to DCYF was not

what led to Mills’ temporary Suspension). It was to happen

anyway. In Sarah’s medical chart @ page 40 the progress note

of Dr Edward Aspirinio reads, “ no apnea records to Dr Barrett

from the US Navy.” No physician caring for Sarah was ever

given these records nor did any physician even know where the

records were because the mother told us all, “ they were lost in

the navy,” because we moved around a lot.”

Mills’ call could not be considered retaliation for the “

ill will” displayed by the mother in her 7 page critical review of

every statement written by Mills in her daughters’ medical

charts. Mills did not learn this letter existed until November 11,

1999. Upon receipt of her entire file from the Board, Mills

learning of a Bridgeport Hospital, immediately called medical

records and was told the apnea or NEAR SIDS records were

still on microfiche. Mills’ suspicions of abuse were heightened

with this knowledge and more so after each story by the mother

proved false. Recently in small claims court this mother

testified that she “ did not pay all of her copays at the time of

the visit to Dr Mills.” In the 7 page document she wrote to

McIntyre that she “ always” paid all her copays at the time of

the visit. When asked if she had a $ 35.00 copay she stated

“No.” When asked, “then you did not pay all your copays at the

time of the visit,” she agreed she did not. When asked it she was

untruthful when writing this to McIntyre, she testified, “ I

wouldn’t call it untruthful.” It is very clear that this mother is

unable to determine what is truthful and what is not.

To call it a retaliatory call to DCYF was deemed so by

McIntyre upon unlawful procedure. No hearing took place

19a

before Mills was so accused at which she could confront her

accusers. It violates constitutional or statutory provisions. The

only expert witness for the Board, Dr Robert Eden, a

Pediatrician employed by RI Hospital ( Eden), later testified at

the Hearing, if one believed the injuries were not of accidental

means they had to report it. The lower court De read that

according to Eden, the physician should consult patient’s record

thoroughly, contact past treating physicians, past treating

hospitals before contacting the appropriate agency. In this case,

past treating physicians were one deceased, other retired ( not

available), Mills did consult past treating hospitals (Kent) and

investigation did lead her to believe there was a suspicion of

abuse. A report of a skull fracture on the girl ( sixteen when

Mills made report) from Kent Hospital revealed that the injury

occurred from a bunk bed and not from a chiair as Mills had

been informed. The Kent records revealed these two girls ( one

not yet “ emancipated”) had an unnecessary frequent amount of

tetanus shots ( often four months apart ) at each ER visit for

each injury.

Lower court’s De read, Eden testified, “ based on the

records there was no reason for Mills to suspect abuse was

occurring.” Eden stated he saw only “one” injury in the medical

charts, that the old medical records were for the most part

illegible, that he could make his evaluation of these records

because there was enough that he could read. Eden failed to see

there were a minimum of seventeen (17) more injuries in those

old records. He testified if he knew that they all did occur and

would have to be reported. ( T pg 82 October 19, 2000).Eden

said if the Physician were no longer the treating physician,

Mills having been told to cease Practice and no longer caring

for the Brown children), it would be the State that would have

to ultimately examine the children, (T pg 10/1 9/00).(Argument)

(Statute R.I.G.L. 40-11-6 DCYF Exhibit A)(Exhibit H)

Mills was barred from having expert witness Randell

20a

Alexander, M.D., PhD of Morehouse Medical Center support

her. In his affidavit of 5-1-00, he writes” Many children of their

age would have suffered none of these injuries, some children

a few of these injuries, but it would be rare to find two children

in a family with so many injuries.....” (DCYF Exhibit B ) Mills

denied his affidavit or testimony, was further denied her

constitutional rights when this family was protected from the

usual procedures of investigating suspicions of child abuse-

wherein the children would be examined ( Eden testified, “

ultimately by the State). When, in time, an individual suspects

abuse should not deter an agency from their normal course of

procedure. Rather than this normal course, the record below

reads with parents testifying,”Ed O’ Donnell knows our children

too well” so there was no investigation. ( T pg 66 September

21,2000) The DCYF under supervision of Ed O’Donnell wrote

in their final report defamatory statements “ as told by the

Browns” rather than investigate as per normal procedures.

(DCYF final report Exhibit C). Though Steve Brown testified

that there was a “ non investigation,” (T pg 80 9/21/00)the

decision by the Board reads, the parents were “thoroughly

investigated ( pg 8 ADe July 11, 2001). On this very page 8

AD, the Board wrote, “ she became hysterical in the

conversation screaming at the parent.” However, Steve Brown,

the Board’s own witness testified, “ she was “ courteous,” ( T

pg 85 9/21/00 ). The lower court in error concluded that Mills’

call to DCYF constituted “ unprofessional conduct,” for the

following ( as one reason): @ pg 19 Decision (De) reads, “ the

Appellant began calling their home and harassing them.” The

Board and lower court arrived at this erroneous conclusion after

Mills testified she called the day she received the complaint on

September 16, 1999. The father was not home so Mills left a

message with Erin to have him call Mills. The father called

Mills to her office at 3:45 pm but Mills was doing house calls

( unable to use the office). Mills retrieved her calls from the

office at her home and called the father bacx at 8 pm. After this

ONE call to the father Mills never called again.

2la

Even after the Browns submitted a complaint against

Mills she remained courteous to the family as the father

testified. The mother testified that Mills had made 50-60 hang

up calls to their home including one just the day before she

testified ( one year after the complaint). The father testified, “

I don’t know, I get hang ups. I have no idea if it is Mills.” (T pg

63 9/21/00) Yet the mother testified she knew it was Mills and

based her belief on the one phone call that was * 69 by her then

fifteen year old daughter Erin. ( Treatment Outdoors pg 37a )

Again the parents contradicted themselves in testimony as to

what Erin had told them regarding her *69 of one phone call.

Mr Brown was a former Police officer for the US Govt @

Newport Naval Base and certainly had he been receiving 50-60

hang up calls for over one year he would know how to trace

them. ( see Hearsay )

The Board erroneously concluded Mills was hysterical

and screaming at the father, and that the family was thoroughly

investigated for child abuse. Though the Board’s findings as to

credibility of their own witnesses must not be substituted by the

lower court, the court can and should reverse or modify the

decision because Mills’ substantial rights have been prejudiced

The Administrative findings, inferences, conclusions and

decisions are erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and

substantial evidence on the whole record ( even with Mills

barred from having any witnesses and any supporting evidence).

Substantial evidence on the record includes 1) the apnea

records were never in the girl’s old medical records hand

delivered to Mills by the mother 2) these records now known to

be Bridgeport records are on microfiche at the hospital and not

“ lost in the Navy,” 3) there are now 29 known injuries and one

needs to carefully review the illegible writing of the former

doctors, 4) tetanus shots were given too frequently, 5) one girl

did not have a well check in 5 years and the other older girls

had spotty regular care, 6) the father mentioned only two

injuries when questioned by his supervisor Ed O’ Donnell ( who

had a domestic violence charge in July 1998) DCYF Exhibit

22a

D) 7) the father was previously in Navy, 8) in 1997 Erin ( girl

with history of a skull fracture from bunk bed fall and epilepsy

as result of a fall from a chair) had three hospitalizations for

severe abdominal pain. She was discharged twice from RI

Hospital with no diagnosis found, admitted to St Joseph and

operated on for possible appendicitis. The pathology report

showed no appendicitis, 9) Sarah ( with history of NEAR SIDS)

had a neck injury in 1998 for which the mother has given three

different dates as to when it took place. The mother testified (T

Pg 54 9/21/00) “ that was in the summer and Sarah had gone to

an amusement park in Mass and she went on a rollercoaster and

had gotten banged around on the roller coaster.” The father

testified ( T pg 72 9/21/00) in answer to, “ And this injury took

place in a chaperoned environment did it not?” “ Yes, I believe

a school field trip to one of the local amusement parks.” (DCYF

Exhibit E Assistant Superintendent of Warwick Schools) There

were no school chaperoned trips to amusement parks in

Massachusetts. 10) the old medical records hand delivered by

the mother to Mills, were tampered with and altered (Exhibit G)

11) T pg 27 9/21/00 the mother was asked, “ Did those medical

records from Bridgeport Hospital say apnea, to your knowledge

or did they say NEAR SIDS?” She answered, “ They said

apnea.” Again she was asked, “ There was no reflection of

NEAR SIDS?” She answered, “ They didn’t like to call it that.

They called it apnea and bradycardia is what they called it, and

she was on an apnea/bradycardia monitor.” (A common finding

in Munchaussen by proxy is the medical knowledge of persons

with this finding; these words are medical terms. In addition the

father contradicted her testimony at page 74 as, “ Did those

records describe a NEAR SIDS situation to your knowledge?”

He answered, “ Yes.” The father wrote in his affidavit of

10/15/99 the incident occurred in Ledyard Connecticut and the

mother wrote in her 7 page document it happened in Bridgeport

Connecticut- two cities on opposite sides of the state).

Dr Marc Feldman has determined just by hearing this

case that it, “ seems to involve Munchaussen by proxy but also

23a

severe non-MBP abuse as well.” He referred Mills to Dr

Alexander but Mills had already received his support(DC YF

Exhibit B). é

The lower court upon unlawful procedure and by other

error omits evidence to prejudice Mills. Mills’ report to DCYF

(Exhibit F) clearly reveals that she called about a sixteen (16)

year old but during the conversation mentioned the other girl

who had become an adult but was still living at home as well as

mentioning the 4 and 14 year old sisters and the mother. The De

reads @ pg 10, “ Dr Mills further admitted that THE patient she

was calling the Hot Line in regard to was 19 years of age at the

time and had already started college.” At pg 76 T 8/23/00 Mills

did not admit that THE patient she called the Hot Line about

was 19. This is an inference and erroneous conclusion to

prejudice Mills and create an appearance of unprofessional

conduct on her part. Mills called about a 16 year old that

happened to have an entry in her medical chart about a NEAR

SIDS event on her sister (NEAR SIDS not seen in the 19 year

old’s chart because all her records were to have been “ lost in

the Navy” according to the parents). Mills was alerted,

prompted to more thoroughly review the old illegible medical

records, after seeing the NEAR SIDS words in the 16 year old

girl’s chart. This allowed Mills to see that there were more than

18 injuries to two girls. The call to the Hot Line states the

injuries on the 16 year old but then states a concern that the

older girl had injuries on some of the exact same dates as her

sister (Exhibit C). The board also erroneously alleged Mills did

not inform DCYF of the two other children. Mills mentioned

these children four times in the report stating, “ he has a wife

named Joyce and four children and two of the children Sarah

and Erin had injuries that were all like a week apart for quite a

long time....” When Mills was asked, “ do you know the ages of

the other two,” Mills answered, “ around 4 and 14.” When

asked, “are they male or female?” Mills answered, “all

females.” When asked, “ what about the other children” Mills

answered “don’t have any information on them, ( meaning knew

of no injuries to them). The discussion at that point was about

24a

fractures and contusions; clearly Mills “ mentioned” the other

two girls. Mills stated right from beginning of the call that there

were four children. The board once again to prejudice Mills

took one statement from the hotline call and one from the CPS

protocol(Exhibits C,F)to allege unprofessional conduct. It reads,

“ there are two other children in this family that reporter did not

mention.” However, in the same report it reads, “ The caller did

state that the couple has two younger children, both females

ages 14 and 4 years old.......and had no specific concerns for

those younger children.” Clearly Mills mentioned them and also

mentioned the fact that the mother had told her she had a

fractured shoulder (a reason for not showing for a well child

check). The DCYF final report shows that the father only

mentioned a few injuries as he did in testimony at the hearing,

“ I believe Sarah has had two, I think Erin one.” When asked if

there could have been others, he responded “ there might have

been.” Later he admitted that all the injuries on the call to

DCYF did in fact happen. ( T pg 74 9/21/00).

If it was clear to DCYF ( DCYF Exhibit C) that the

“alleged victim” as Erin ( 16 years old), it should be clear to

both the Medical Board and lower court. Mills reported injuries

on the mother and 19 year old-both adults but not the “alleged

victims.” Whereby De @ pg 10 is erroneous and should be

modified or reverse. Omissions such as the report by Mills of a

16 year old to DCYF is just one example of the record below

replete with error clearly to prejudice Mills and in violation of

her constitutional rights to a fair and just hearing and review of

the record. To disregard competent evidence in the record in

order to conclude the agency’s findings are supported is

denying Mills her due process and is unwarranted abuse of

discretion. DCYF- EXHIBITS

DCYF EXHIBIT A

...-R.LGen Laws 40-11-6 statute on reports to DCYF for

suspicions of abuse and/or neglect a) when any physician

saul has cause to suspect a child brought to him or her for

examination ,care, or treatment is an abused or neglected child

as defined in this chapter...he or she shall report the incident or

25a

cause a report thereof to be made to the department as

provided in subsection (b) .

b) an immediate oral report shall be made by telephone

to both the department and law enforcement agency and shall

be followed by a report in writing to the department

and...explaining the extent and nature of the abuse or neglect

the chid is alleged to have suffered.

C) The department upon receipt of such a report by a

person other than physician....alleging that a child has been

physically abused, shall investigate the report, and if the

investigation reveals evidence of physical or sexual abuse, the

department shall have the child examined by a licensed

physician....Upon completion of the examination, it shall be

mandatory for the physician ...to make a of his or her findings

to the department

( This written report is a PRE; it cannot be made out without

having completed physical exams) Mills should not be

charged with unprofessional conduct because she was no

longer the treating physician and made the call from her home.

(Also told to cease the practice of medicine September 22,

1999)

DCYF EXHIBIT B

MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

5-1-00

Dear Mr Foster: Re: Dr Mills

This letter is in response to our recent telephone conversation

in which you wished a written copy of my opinion in this

CASe........ It appears that at least some of the children were not

getting regular medical checkups as frequently as they should

have. The listing of dates and injuries for patients “E” and “S”

shows considerably more trauma than one would expect. E

had multiple fractures, including one at a very early age. S had

even more fractures and other trauma. Many children of their

age would have suffered none of these injuries, some children

a few of these injuries but it would be rare to find two children

in a family with so many injuries. ....... I believe that a report

26a

to DCYF is not unreasonable.......Further investigation would

then help to establish whether any basis exists to enhance

these suspicions or explain them away. ..... However, the child

abuse concerns are not out of line.

Sincerely,

/s/Randell Alexander, MD PhD

YAHOO MAIL Oct 15 2003

From: Marc Feldman

Subject: Inquiry

Dear Dr Mills: Randell Alexander M.D. PhD is the nation’s

foremost expert on child abuse and this case seems to involve

Munchaussen by proxy but also severe non-MBP abuse as

i ciniinicine If he can’t help ask him for a referral.

The following document not printed in full- 4 pages

DCYF EXHIBIT C

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

Department of Children, Youth and Families

CPS Report Protocol

CPS Report Information

Name:Joyce Brown............

Report Information:

Report Date: 10/05/1999.........

Report Participants:

Name Relation

Steven M. Brown Biological parent

Joyce Brown Biological parent

Sara Brown Birth SIBLING

Erin Brown Reference Person

ALLEGED VICTIM

Erin Brown

"Reporter said that Erin suffered a skull fracture and is an

epileptic, Erin suffered fractures and contusions on the

27a

following dates: 6-29-91,10-5-91,11-19,91,2-3-93,4-22-

93,and 9-1-93 Reporter said that these fractures occurred in

such a close time frame that she is suspicious. Reporter siad

that Sara’s fractures and contusions occurred on : 1-21-91,6-7-

91,10-26-91,11-2-91,1-6-93,8-18-93,2-4-94 6-26-94,9-19-

95,9-28-95 Sara was also a near SIDS child. There are 2 other

children in this family that reporter did not mention. Erin is

about 15.” On another page it reads, “ The called did state

that the couple has two younger children, both females ages

14 and 4 years old....and had no specific concerns for those

younger children.” Parents are quoted in this report to have

said “.......and that her behavior ( meaning that of Mills), in the

presence of their children, had become inappropriate and

possibly indicative of illness, paranoia, or psychosis. In their

letter they requested DOH officials intervene to assist the

pediatrician in finding evaluations and treatment services so

that she could one day return to pediatric care. This matter was

then again reviewed with Chief Investigator O’Donnell who

stated that Dr Mills was well known to him............... "Lower

R.I. Court Decision reads that Mills reported only a 19 year

old but the CPS report composed from the DCYF Hot Line

call does not have Sarah ( then 19) as the alleged victim. It

clearly was Erin but Mills had to report her sibling due to the

amount of injuries, serious nature of the injuries and the close

proximity of injuries to the two girls. Mills also reported the

mother had a shoulder fracture (causing her to cancel a well

child checkup) and that she had no concerns regarding

fractures or contusions on the two younger girls. This did not

mean the mother was the alleged victim, just as Sarah was not.

They still both had injuries and it needed to be reported

because there is a pattern in abuse.

DCYF EXHIBIT D Full document not produced

Criminal Docket Sheet Report

Case ID: Description : Edward J. O’ Donnell

Charge Information

Count 1 1105003A SIMPLE ASSAULT-DOMESTIC

28a

Disposition: DISMISSED 48A

( this document to show that being personal friends with

someone should not be reason to not investigate suspicions of

child abuse- domestic violence and child abuse can be

happening in one’s best friends’ home and they may not be

aware of it)

DCYF EXHIBIT E

WARWICK PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Damon D’ Ambrosio,Esq March 7, 2001

Dear Mr. D’ Ambrosio:

This is in response to Geraldine Mills, M.D.

letter(attached) of February 26, 2001. .........

In speaking to the Senior Class Advisor for 1998, Ms

Penny Seacord, no senior trips were taken to any

Massachusetts amusement parks at anytime in 1998. ......

Sincerely,

/s/ Richard A Rouleau

Assistant Superintendent

DCYF EXHIBITF (Full document is 7 Pages )

Hot Line call to DCYF October 5, 1999 by Mills

(Date on the report is the date it was transcribed 10/16/99 not

the date Mills made the call)

Operator: My name is Richard

Caller: Alright that is all I need, I can do this anonymously?

Operator: You can do this anonymously.

Caller: Definitely?

Operator: Okay

Erin had injuries that were all like a week apart for quite a

long time. And Sarah Brown in 1980- | guess when she was

born-was a Near SIDS

Operator: Wait a minute Sarah is how old now?

Caller: Probably around 18

Operator: Okay so she is an adult

29a

Caller: Yea

Operator: Alright so if she is an adult there’s probably not

much we can do for her.

Caller: Alright

Caller: But she was a Near SIDS

Operator-Okay

Caller: Then Erin Brown-born in about 83 sO she would be

what 16

(Mills asked if she could be anonymous, if they told her no

she would have given her name; Mills did inform them of 4

girls but only two had injuries that she knew of. The operator

began the questioning about Sarah because Mills told them her

approximate time of birth. Mills called about Erin but had to

inform them of the NEAR SIDS because Mills never received

the records and abuse runs in families.)

Operator: Do you know the ages of the other two?

Caller: around 4 and 14

(Had the operator asked Mills their names she would have

given them too)

Operator: Are they male or female?

Caller: All females

Caller: And then there was somehow-I guess the mother also

had some kind of fractured shoulder at some point.

Operator: ....... other than the fact that there seemed to be a lot

of them and they seemed to be one right after the other.

Caller: I know. They just seemed to be very Close together and

Operator: ( interrupted caller) I mean you don’t know what

Caller: I mean it could just be coincidence

Caller: No and kids fall out of beds and there are near SIDS

Caller: But it just...I don’t know it just didn’t seem right, an

awful lot of them

Caller: they must be accident prone kids

Operator: Well. It would be nice to think that but we'll see.

(Mills would not state the above if she was doing this out of

retaliation and her suspicions are now as high as could be

regarding any case of domestic abuse/child abuse.

30a

EXHIBIT G DCYF

Observations regarding altered medical documents:

Re: Chronological Record of Medical Care, Naval Hospital

Newport R.I. (No date) The lower portion of the form was

pasted onto the upper portion after the line that reads (LAST

4 DIGITS) Re: Immunization record, Joseph T. Barrett, M.D.

(No date) The immunization record was pasted onto the lower

portion of a form with categories Family History, Birth and

Development and Feeding history. The upper portion of the

document was cut after the blocks. DATE and DOSE and

Address. The cut was not executed in a straight line but rather

in a jagged fashion. /s/ Eileen Hurley Dec.18,2000

(Deposition pg 81 6/1/00) “...the only one I recall seeing but

it’s hard to decipher some of the handwriting, admittedly...”

(D pg 84) “ Is it your testimony doctor, that the dates set forth

in this transcript you have not been able to determine to be

true or inaccurate based upon an inability to read the record?”

“ Based on an inability to read the record, I’d say yes.” (T pg

48 10/19/00) “ How then do you offer these opinions today

doctor if there are portions of the records that you can’t read

and understand?” “ Simply because there is enough I can

understand.... “ ” You can exclude whatever else is in the

record?” “ To render an opinion I can exclude what I was not

able to read, yes.” (He found a fractured right radius but

excluded a jaw fracture, skull fracture, lip laceration, wrist

fracture, neck injury, fall from a chair resulting in epilepsy and

many more)

2) TREATMENT OUTDOORS

Lower court’s De @ pg 6 “ Dr Eden explained that

assuming there was a problem in a pediatrician’s office

building preventing its use, standard practice would require

the physician secure a private environment to protect the

sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship.” (T @35

10/19/00)Lower court errs by stating Eden was “ firm” in his

testimony about Mills’ “exams outside the office. Testimony

3la

@ pg 58 10/19/00, “ Where did this alleged physical exam

occur?” His answer,“ I don’t know.” Asked, “ was there any

disrobing?” He answered, “ I don’t recall.” Asked, “ what

constituted the exam,” “ I know only to the extent reading the

family’s complaint.”

What is the purpose of a Hearing(H) if a Physician is

not allowed any supporting evidence, no witnesses, and the

Board /lower court merely base their conclusions on an “

expert” witness testimony that is per his own admission based

only upon the family’s complaint? This is absolutely prejudicial

of the substantial rights of Mills. The record below is totally

devoid of competent evidentiary support. Barring this, the

Board’s own expert admitted to not having any information

except what the Board gave him- the two complainants’ letters

and the medical records of the children. These records he

testified met the medical standard of care, explaining he was

“ quire frank about this, “ when he spoke to McIntyre T @pg

96 Dep 6/1/00.Eden was asked, “ You don’t know for a fact

what happened do you?” ( reference to the visit to Mills office

by Browns on July 30, 1999). He testified, “ No, I don’t know

for a fact what happened.” ( T pg 60 10/19/00) Eden testified ,”

it would only be appropriate if it was a very very very cursory

exam barely qualifying as a true physical.”

De by lower court @ pg 23, “ according to Dr Eden the

outdoor treatment Appellant engaged in was not justified....

such outdoor examinations were inconsistent with the

appropriate standard of care.” This decision again is an

inference, a conclusion in violation of statute, is clearly

erroneous based upon substantial evidence on the whole record.

Here one must emphasize the whole record for the lower court

makes myriads of decisions based on only parts of the record (

prejudicial to Mills), omits parts of sentences altering the

meaning of the testimony, omits sentences from paragraphs

again to alter the meaning of the testimony and as above makes

inferences based upon an “ expert” testimony which admittedly

was only based upon the Boards’ witness testimony. Eden did

32a

not know what happened; it was a very very very cursory exam

barely qualifying as a true physical, as is often done (T pg 95

10/19/00 Eden (Exhibit A Treatment Outdoors) on camp forms

filled out in doctors’ offices, that are not adversely affected by

contamination. Therefore, the De is clearly erroneous. In a few

places on the record the lower court states that Mills herself

admitted to various acts and testimony which according to the

court proved Mills was not in accordance with the minimal

standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice.

De @ pg 23, “ Appellant herself admitted that on one

occasion she treated a child in a parking lot inside the patient’s

car and other times she would treat the children in the backyard

she also conceded she administered the chicken pox vaccine in

the yard and she drew blood from patients B and D outdoors.”

At the H McIntyre questioned Mills about a patient she saw at

St Joseph Hospital yet the parent of this 5 week old infant did

not testify. Mills again could not confront her accuser This

decision by Board/ court was thereby made upon unlawful

procedure, was in violation of constitutional or statutory

provisions, and was arbitrary or capricious. Mills did admit to

examining this infant in its car seat because the mother was

concerned the infant was “ not breathing right.” The mother

adamantly refused to take the infant to the emergency room and

nad Mills abandoned the request, had the infant stopped

breathing, Mills would be held on counts of at minimum

abandonment of a patient, possible manslaughter if not more.

There is even a good samaritan rule and a physician is not

immune from such.

Mills did administer chicken pox vaccine at the rear

walkout of her office ( not in a backyard as one would

ordinarily picture a backyard of a house) during a mandatory

date set by the R.I Health Department. The vaccine was

distributed to each Physician on a set date (Mills in receipt

August 18, 1999) and in a set amount based upon the doctors’

report of how many patients in the appropriate age range they

had. The vaccine must be kept frozen until used and Mills was

33a

doing house calls at that time due to the reai and documented

contamination of her office buildings. In fact DEM and Sage

Environmental are stil] cleaning up the 107 Warwick Ave

Property and will continue to do so indefinitely. About 75

patients needed the vaccine in order to begin school ( mandated

by R.I. DOH) in the following two weeks. The vaccine could

not be brought to the patient homes by car in the heat of

summer. Only the one parent, Brown made a complaint to the

Eoard. The other approximate 74 families were not only

relieved to have their children vaccinated but welcomed Mills’

house calls, and immunization clinics ( previously a meningitis

clinic during the R.I. scare). It was brought to Mills’attention

that being “ outdoors” Mills might have to return into the

building to obtain respiratory support as oxygen and other

preventive anaphylactic medications should such an adverse

reaction occur in any child to the vaccine. Mills contacted the

CDC and learned not only would this be extremely rare an

event, out according to OSHA very few Pediatric offices are

completely prepared for cardiorespiratory arrest. Mills’ office

was prepared for such a scenario and Mills had been certified

several times in Advanced Pediatric as well as Adult Life

Support. The question then became, “ how far the equipment

was away from where the vaccines were administered.” The

equipment was within three feet of the cite of vaccinations but

would have been a minimum of thirty feet away if the vaccines

were given in the Pediatric rooms.

Blood was drawn on one child by mandate of the day care

and the State of RI. for yearly lead levels required on all

children ages one to six. It was done in the secretary’s van at the

rear of the building in a secure and private environment. It was

done by fingerstick. There are many vans set up in RI.

communities by not only the Blue Cross insurance company but

clinics as John Ferris. In these vans ful] physicals are completed

as well as cholesterol Screenings, vital signs and much more.

Recently flu vaccines have been distributed to

thousands in supermarkets and in cars even though medical

34a

offices and hospitals equipped with life support equipment are

still available. ( Mills’ offices were not available to her).

Lower court’s De about treatment outdoors there is

mention to the alleged contaminated buildings. De @ pg 24, “

Appellant failed to present any evidence during the hearings to

substantiate her claims that each of her office buildings that she

inhabited was contaminated.”” Mills was rebuffed when she

handed the information on the contamination across the table to

Dr Stutz ( as well as all other supporting evidence that Dr Stutz

helped Mills carry into the H in two large suitcases).

This very lower court denied Mills reopening for this

evidence on September 23, 2003 and again on November 6,

2003. The Board denied this reopening repeatedly from January

30, 2001 through June 2001 ( three requests to do so)when the

proceedings were still open, with reason being that it allegedly

was “ all character witnesses which would add little to further

persuade the hearing panel to change their decision.” Monitor

reports from 3 M Corporation, DEM public records R.L. State

Superior Court compliance orders on the Speedy Oil Petroleum

Company, Providence Journal News reports, Channel 10 News

reports ( June 4, 2001 of Mills and her secretary doing house

calls and pictures of the equipment solvent vapor extracting

MTBE and petroleum products from the ground waters and

beneath her building, DEM reports of hazardous to human

health silver bearing CrO xray fluids to another office, and

reports of chlordane indoors ( not outdoors)as well as high

levels of formaldehyde, hexanes, and 2 and 3 methylpentanes

were all documented, available to the H panel and denied Mills.

The lower De @ pg 24, “ the Board did not believe that every

building owned by Appellant was contaminated....” that

appellant made admissions to the effect that she permitted her

medical assistant to go in and out of the allegedly contaminated

buildings while she waited outside.” The only “ expert” witness

the Board presented, Dr Eden is a Pediatrician with no

background in Environmental safety or Environmental

Medicine. In testimony, he was asked, “ Do you know if there

35a

is gasoline below the building?” He answered, “I don’t know.”

“ Do you know what toxic building syndrome is?” He

answered, “ I heard of sick building syndrome once in the

news” ( Deposition @ pg 55-56 6/1/00) De @ pg 12-13 reads,

“ Mills did not dispute the fact that she allowed her medical

assistant and young patients to go in and out of her office, when

she herself would not enter the office because she believed it

contained deadly toxins.” (Treatment Outdoors Exhibit B,C)

The Justice cannot conclude that the Board’s De is not

arbitrary and capricious by simply ignoring competent evidence

in the record, by once again making inferences and by making

omissions in the only record below. The term “ deadly toxins”

was only used in the Brown complaint. Even in this mother’s

testimony before the Board, she used the words “ it made her

sick, there were contaminants in there,”not the words “ deadly

toxins.” When Mclntyre questioned Mills about these

contaminants, Mills testified @ pg 56 8/23/0 “ if I didn’t find

them out in time they could be deadly.” On July 30, 1999 Mills

had not yet confirmed the nature of the contaminant to the

office building. She had confirmed as did DEM/RI the MTBE,

gasoline, CrO silver bearing xray fluids and VOC’s from her

first rented office but not that of the current office. Mills and

Brown had a one hour conversation regarding this issue with

much speculation. What was known was Mills was quickly

affected by the vapors, Tina her secretary told her she could

tolerate it for several hours and any other individual was

questioned as to whether they were affected and if so were told

to refrain from entering. The Director of Blue Chip Insurance

Company had been at the building that very morning of the

complainant’s visit and authorized the building for use in seeing

Blue Chip patients. He verified that since a door was fixed the

building was fine. (Exhibits B,C,D,E,G - R.I. DEM to EPA)

Justice errs in omission of Mills’ testimony that, “ it

depends on how long you are exposed and to how much.” It

also depends on ones’ own individual response to the agent in

question. It certainly does appear unusual for one person to have

36a

to remain outside and to allow others to enter. However, we all

know that appearances may not reflect the real situation. In

particular, the lack of knowledge will make one decide

erroneously. Mills was barred from entering any information

that would educate the panel to environmental issues, inclusive

of the monitor reports, literature on the amounts of the

contaminants which would cause certain reaction in humans.

Mills was rebuffed by Dr Stutz of the hearing panel when she

attempted to submit a book on “ Formaldehyde and other

Aldehydes.” This book described the levels of safety for

individuals whether they were already sensitized to this

chemical or not. T @ pg 18, Dr Stutz stopped Mills from the

completion of her testimony when she stated, “ Tina VonHein

the secretary described it like the foul odor of uncooked

chicken. Though Tina had no knowledge of environmental

medicine, she knew exactly what formaldehyde is described to

smell like and knew before the monitor reports came back.

Mili 5 was not allowed to continue that Tina was affected after

eight hours with the symptoms she described as being like she

had three glasses of wine. (Exhibit F)

The inferences are Mills would put children at harm’s

way by letting them enter a building with “ deadly toxins.” This

bars Mills constitutional rights of due process and is so

wrongly affected by other error or law, unlawful procedure, and

erroneous in view of substantial evidence on the whole record.

Mills in fact, had protected her patients from just this

very thing. She did house calls so as to not expose those

children to the previous known contaminants. As soon as she

was certain of this building’s contaminants, she once again did

house calls ( beginning August 3% 1999). Mills determined the

other pollutants by monitoring the buildings in the very same

way as this building- via passive diffusion monitors.(Exhibit E)

The above lends to two discussions on argument and

that is to the “hearsay” issue, the other to Mills being

temporarily suspended based upon allegedly being of “ an

immediate danger to the public.” (Latter in Argument)

37a

HEARSAY

Lower court’s De, “ based on the rules governing

administrative hearings and the nature of the hearsay evidence,

this Court finds that the Board’s admittance of hearsay evidence

during the hearings did not unfairly bias the proceedings ( De

@ pg 29).

What has biased and prejudiced Mills and is upon

unlawful procedure is to allow hearsay of the complainants but

not of Mills. During the hearing ( T @ pg 12 12/7/00) McIntyre

states, “ that is a hearsay statement.” He was referring to Mills’

testimony that she was sick while in the offices with

contamination and that her employees and patients also

complained of headaches, dizziness, burning eyes and many

other symptoms. Mills testified, “ I have letters from them too

that I can present....”” Mills was told, “ she can testify as to that

she was sick and I think she could testify that she observed her

staff in some condition ..: but not any conclusion.....” Mills was

not allowed to testify that Tina told her she had felt, “ as if she

had three glasses of wine, that it smelled like foul chicken odor

and that it made her throat very dry.” This was considered

hearsay to McIntyre and the AHO. MclIntyre stated, “I believe

it is hearsay.” ( T pgs 9,10 12/7/00) Here he was referring to

Mills testifying, “ ...Tom Campbell came out and condemned

the back room....” DEM Department of Environmental

Management State of Rhode Island responded to Mills’ call

regarding the drainage pouring through the ceiling from Dr

Elisa Liberto’s dentist office, above. She allowed by human

error on two occasions, xray tank fluids to overflow onto the

floors and drip through the ceilings leaching out Mills’

belongings below. Again, the report from DEM was denied

Mills as supporting evidence. (Exhibit H, Letter from parent

Lorraine Miller)

So the issue of hearsay is very important in this case.

The court cannot without violation of Mills’ constitutional

rights and standard of review RIGL 1956 42-35-15(g)allow

hearsay from the complainants and their teen daughter’s

38a

statements and deny Mills all that was told to her from the

various State of R.I. agencies, Directors of Day cares, Child

Abuse experts, Physicians in Environmental Medicine and

others.

It was not “ just” character witnesses that Mills was not

allowed to enter as supporting evidence. Mills was ridiculed

over and over again about a comment she made to Brown about

the planes flying overhead ( Mills’ office on the landing path of

TF Green Airport in Warwick). Mills stated, “ with her bad luck

they could be dropping jet fuel.” Brown testified she believed

Mills was “ really scared.” Though a comment with some

sarcasm due to Mills’ circumstances, the fact is that DEM is

now going to measure the air quality around the airport for

“benzer:> and formaldehyde.” This is exactly what Mills did in

her offices. Mills tried to submit as evidence a CNN tape from

the Director of Charles de Gaulle airport, stating, “ the cars are

showered daily with jet fuel. This tape was made at the time of

the Concord airplane crash. It is fact.(Treatment Outdoors

Exhibit E 44a-45a, Exhibit F 49a-50a)

The other issue made by the lower court was that of

Mills questioning Erin ( 16 years old) about whether she “

smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, used any drugs, was sexually

active, ever depressed, or ever had suicidal ideation.” With

prejudice and in order to make it appear as though Mills did so

unprofessionally, the De reads that Mills “only” asked Erin

about her sexual activity and that she was “ mortified.” The

American Academy of Pediatrics has what is known as Health

Supervision standards. Each and every question that Mills asked

belongs to those standards. No 16 year old teen should be

mortified to be asked if they are sexually active in today’s

society. When asked if the teen would like privacy from her

mother, they both agreed that “ we have nothing to hide from

each other.” The questions were not asked on a front lawn or on

a side walk next to the main street running through Warwick as

the mother described it. Brown further stated, “ so that all

driving and walking by could hear.” With those planes going

39a

over Mills could not hear one foot from Brown. Certainly those

in cars and anyone walking by could not hear 75 feet from the

front lawn, sidewalk or main road where Mills met the family

at her secretary’s van at the rear of the building. Dr Stutz, an

Orthopedic surgeon and Chairperson for the Hearing did not

seem to think that these types of questions should be asked of

a teen at a visit to have a camp form signed. According to

Robert Brown, M.D. of Ohio, “ it is important that physicians

take every opportunity to ask these questions of teens because

they often do not show for well care visits. (Exhibit A

Treatment Outdoors)

TREATMENT OUTDOORS

EXHIBIT A

(T pg 95 10/19/00 Eden) “.....1 have seen camp forms where

they will just say with one line, do you think the child is in

good enough health to participate in activities, and I think in

those few instances it is probably possible to do .... less than

a full exam clothed.”

October 2002 PEDIATRIC NEWS

Use Your HEADSS With Adolescent Athletes

How to get teens talking

HOME environment

EDUCATION

ACTIVITIES

DRUGS tobacco .....alcohol

SEXUALITY

SUICIDE and depression

For more information visit the New York Medical College’s

Web site at www.complab.nymc.edu/Pediatrics/HEADSS. htm

EXHIBITB TREATMENT OUTDOORS

Department of Health Board of Medical Licensure and

Discipline In The Matter Of: Geraldine Mills, M.D. No:98-

187 Respondent’s Motion to Reopen Proceedings for

Introduction of Supplementary Documentary and Testimonial

Evidence

A. Documentary Evidence

40a

1. Call schedule St Joseph Hospital for December 16, 1992

2. Letters to Massachusetts Board of Licensure by Alfred

Toselli, M.D., Mark Hough Vice-President St Joseph Hospital

3. Paycheck May 30, 1994...

6. Correspondence of Respondent Voluntarily Withdrawing

Application to Rhode Island Hospital directed to...........

7. Correspondence from Albert Kirby PhD Associate Dean

Case Western Reserve University dated July 2, 1986

8. Photos showing proximity of gasoline station to 107

Warwick Avenue

9 . NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement Vol

6 No 6 October 1, 1986 Infantile Apnea and home

monitoring

10. 11.2 Medical Records, Prepayment for Medical Records

effective 9-8-98

11. Monitoring Reports 3M Corporation

Hexane-65 Jefferson Blvd

770 Reservoir Aver ( belongings)

Gasoline-107 Warwick Avenue

Formaldehyde 1025 Warwick Avenue

And Stipulation of September 21, 1999 ( by McIntyre)

(This is not character witnesses- therefore Board’s reason for

denial of motion being all character witnesses is erroneous and

violates Mills due process in that the proceedings did not

close until July 11, 2001 when she was suspended by a final

decision of the Board).

EXHIBIT C TREATMENT OUTDOORS

R.I. Department of Environmental Management

March 9, 1999 Mr William Torrey,Chief

Dear Mr. Torrey, “ This is to advise you that an Emergency

Leaking Underground Storage Tank site has necessitated a

State response using Federal Trust Fund monies......Speedy

Oil, 107 Warwick Ave,Cranston. ....Vapors .....have been

found in a residence and a commercial building(a

pediatrician’s office) as well as nearby sewer lines.......”

4la

(Entire document not reproduced but content is accurate)

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department

of Environmental Management Office of Waste Management

and Office of Compliance & Inspection In Re: Speedy

Petroleum, Inc. Speedy Auto Repair,Inc and Dikran Tashian

a/k/a Richard Tashian d/b/a Speedy Gas

IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE ORDER

A. Introduction Pursuant to Sections 46-12-9, 42-17.1-2(u)

and Chapter 42-17.6 of the Rhode Island General Law 1956

(1988 Reenactment), as amended, you are hereby notified that

the Director of the Department of Environmental Management

(the “ Director”) has determined that immediate action is

required to protect human health and the environment as the

result of your violation of one or more of the following

Statutes and or regulations: the Water Pollution Act

eisiataiaebaichiednbdnainicsnins Oil Pollution Control Act......0.......... the

Regulations fro Underground Storage Facilities Used for

Petroleum Products and Hazardous Materials (1993) as

amended (the “UST Regulations”) and/or the Rules and

Regulations for Groundwater Quality (1992) ..............

B. Respondents

1) Speedy Petroleum, Inc is the owner of a certain

parcel of property located at 95 Warwick Avenue in Cranston

Rhode Island...............000006.

C. Findings of Fact

i) One or more underground storage tanks......... were

located at the Facility, which tanks are/were used for the

Storage of petroleum products or hazardous

7) On 29 December 1998, Kenyon Environmental,

consultant for the owner/operator witnessed the removal of

five(5) tanks at the Facility. Evidence of leakage from the

UST systems was noted. The report of these activities was not

sutmitted to DEM within the 30 days required by the UST

Regulations.

10) On 22 February 1999, a representative of the

42a

Department investigated a complaint of gasoline vapors at the

property of Dr Geraldine Mills located at 107 Warwick

Avenue Cranston, R.I. The DEM representative confirmed the

presence of gasoline vapors. At this time Lincoln

Environmental, Inc (“ Lincoln”) was hired by the Department

to measure the air quality at the above address and to

investigate adjoining properties based on field screening of air

done by the Department’s representative.

11) Air monitoring of the basements and the first

floors with field screening instruments was performed at 107

Warwick Avenue and adjoining property.............. Results

indicate the presence of significant levels of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), in addition to gasoline odors in the

basement and first floors.

12) At this time, due to the threat to human health and

the environment the department retained Lincoln to

investigate the extent of contamination in groundwater and

i iticenieiietaeis

16) This confirmed release of petroleum products

threatens of has already resulted in pollutants entering the

soils and waters of the state and has impacted at least one

residence, one commercial building and underground utilities

in the area...........

FOR THE DIRECTOR

/s/ Terrence Gray, P.E. Chief

RI Department of Environmental

Management Date: March 4, 1999

January 2000 Providence Superior Court approves consent

order finding the petroleum contamination constituted a public

nuisance. Sheldon Whitehouse v. Speedy Oil Petroleum, Inc.,et

al C.A. No: PC 00-229

DEM’s Senior Environmental Scientist Peter Sullivan in that

action filed affidavit stating when entering Mills’ office he

was “ immediately hit by an overwhelming odor of gasoline.”

(Affidavit para #13)

January 21, 2000 Providence Journal News -Mark Arsenault-

43a

Journal Staff Writer “ The state and the owner of a Cranston

gas station that was the source of a fuel spill.....reached an

agreement... Judge....Silverstein blessed the agreement

between the attorney general’s office and....owner of Speedy...

1/15/00 Providence Journal News “ A judge yesterday gave

state....”unobstructed access” to the property of a Cranston gas

Station on Warwick Avenue --.-Contaminated soil and ground

water said Jim Martin, spokesman for Atty.Gen Sheldon

Whitehouse.....” Asst Atty. Gen. Terrence J. Tierney and DEM

legal counsel Brian A. Wagner told the court... Tashian failed

to implement an approved cleanup Strategy for the

contamination from petroleum from Speedy gas, Martin said.”

STATE of RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT

Providence, SC

Geraldine Mills, M.D. C.A.No: 01-1034

State of Rhode Island “

Department of Health Board of Medical

Licensure and Bruce McIntyre, Esq

Defendant’s Objection to Motion for Writ of Mandamus

" siiaginbihidisiacie hereby respectfully object to..... (“Mills”)

Motion....which seeks to compel a decision by the Hearing

Panel of....Board.......... on Mills’ motion to Re-Open for

Introduction of Supplementary ... -Documentary...Evidence....

Sheldon Whitehouse

Attorney General

/s/ Anne T. Turilli

Special Assistant Attorney General

EXHIBIT D TREATMENT OUTDOORS

Full article not printed- Providence Journal News Section C

Gas Station is Suspected Leak Source-Cranston-State

Department of Environmental Management has ordered

Speedy Oil...to determine if Company was responsible for an

44a

fumes...DEM hired Lincoln Environmental to assess the

extent...to install equipment in the basements of the two

buildings to extract gasoline vapors from the surrounding soil.

buildings to extract gasoline vapors from surrounding soil.

Mills’ office known as Pediatrics, Adolescent, Young Adult

and Environmental Medicine was relocated to 107 Warwick

Avenue on July 15, 1998. Mills detected odors of terpentine

in ambient air, purchased 3M monitors costing $500.00

placing one in the basement of her office building. Mills did

not call DEM about gasoline vapors but had her brother

Attorney Stephen Mills present the report finding» of 90.6

ppm gasoline to DEM and the following are the resu:is:

3M Diffusional Monitor

Analysis Report Report Number

99-00608page 1

No.of monitors

Analysis performed 02/05/99Analyzed by:Scruton

Client:Ms Geraldine Mills191 Squantum Drive Warwick,R.I.

JC1215 12/29/98 720 min

Total Hydrocarbons as Gasoline 8710 micrograms 397 mg/m3

90.6 ppm

/s/ Meredith Scruton

Project Manager

3M Analysis Services provided by Braun Intertec Corporation

B.I.C. Chemistry Department

6875 Washington Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55439-0108

(The process known as “ solvent vapor extraction” is still

ongoing today. DEM was advised as early as 1995 to

investigate basements of commercial and residential buildings

EXHIBIT E TREATMENT OUTDOORS

Not printed in original form but all information accurate

Geraldine Mills Laboratory: Braun Intertrec Corp...

99-05975 CVXX-99-123A M.Scruton/612-942-4813

45a

Pass.Mon. Date received: 08-04/99

Date reported: 08-13/99

Compound

Inorganic

Formaldehyde 3M No.4D 08/11/99

Dilution Factor MDL RL Sample

Result

1.0 0.01 0.01 0.30

ppm

(This information was received by Mills after August 13, 1999

so that on the date of the Brown visit to her office Mills did

not yet have confirmation that it was high levels of

formaldehyde that was causing the air quality problem in the

office at 1025 Warwick Avenue Warwick R.1.)

EXHIBIT G TREATMENT OUTDOORS

full document not printed but this is information in its original

content March 17, 1999

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY TESTING AT 107 PEDIATRIC

OFFICE BUILDING-BASEMENT

CAS NUMBEki COMPOUND IDENTIFIED CONC

Ug/m3 Ppb

$27-53-7 BENZENE 0.7 0.1

526-73-8 BENZENE 2.3 0.5

All the following are also benzene

95-63-6

108-67-8 8.0 1.6

933-98-2 2.2 0.4

874-41-9 0.9 0.2

611-14-3 0.9

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.