# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mills v. Nolan

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_1138%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 2005
- **Citation:** 543 U.S. 1148

## Text

Serre Cont ue

ILED

04 739 wy 2x 2004

x

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

i

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

iv
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

Vv

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

vi
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

14,27

29

ix

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

X

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
Williams’ Syndrome
Exhibits A-J
Record Transfer Issue
Record Transfer
Exhibits A-G
Evaluation Issue -
Evaluation exhibits A-I
RI Hospital Application
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

la
12a
17a
24a
110a
30a
37a

39a
Sla

59a
66a

71a
76a
82a
89a

96a
109a
llla
1l6a
123a

153a

;
i
é
{
:
4
;
§
i

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

2

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.

©
4
:
;
:
|
Bs
2
5
:
:
3
2

aire lela Ahan ni fet re ATR ar Ss las OH

3

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

4

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

5
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

6

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

7

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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.

13

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.

14

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

15

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

16

(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

17

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

18

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.

19

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

=

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

2a
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

3a
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

4a

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

Sa

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

6a

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

7a

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

8a

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

9a

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

CC

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.
vs
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
p

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_1138%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.