App. 37 Plaintiff in pro per 1710 NW 87 Ave. (954) 424-4082 V. COMPLAINT and Jury Demand APPENDIX F Michael J . Hason, M.D. Plantation, FL 3322 [sic] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Michael J. Hason, M.D., Plaintiff, in pro per, The Medical Board of the State of California; Dept. of Consumer Affairs of the State of California; Arlene Adams, the Director of the Dept. of Consumer Affairs of the State of California; Neil Fippin, Individually and as the Manager, Licensing Program of the Medical Board of the State of California; Melinda Acosta, Individually and as an official of the Medical Board of the State of California; Ron Joseph, Individually and as Execu- tive Director of the Medical Board of the State of California and as Director of the Dept. of Consumer Affairs of the State of California; Bruce Hasenkamp, Individually and as President of the Division of App. 38 Licensing of the Medical Board of the State of California; Dr. Ira Lubell, Individually and as Pres. of the Division of Medical Quality of the Medical Board of the State of California; Dr. Carole H. Hurvitz, Dr. Anabel A. Imbert, Dr. Raquel D. Arias, Dr. Klea D. Bertakis, Dr. Jack Bruner, Daniel Livingston, Karen McElliott, Dr. Alan E Schumacher and Kip S. Skidmore, Individually and as Members of the Medical Board of the State of California’s Division of Medical Quality; Dr. Thomas A. Joas, Karen McElliott and Bernard Alpert, Individually and as Offi- cers of the Medical Board of the State of California and its Div. of Licensing Michael I. Sidley and Dr. Raja Toke, Individually and as Executives of the Medical Board of the State of California’s Division of Licensing; the State of California; and Senior Investigator, Medical Board of California, Defend ants Background 1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Michael J. Hason, applied for a license to practice medicine in the State of California in the Spring of 1995. In August of 1996, the Medical Board of the State of California (MBSC) denied Dr. Hason’s application, citing mental illness and an act that would require the suspension or revocation of a licensed App. 39 physician’s license to practice medicine in the State of California. After appeal, the service of a Statement of Issues and a hearing the MBSC affirmed its decision in 1998. It’s Order was stayed for approximately one month for consideration of Plaintiffs Petition for Reconsidera- tion, which was denied. The Order took effect on about April 24,1998. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the within case due to diversity of citizenship and because the suit is based upon federal statutes, including but not limited to the Civil Rights Statutes 42 U.S.C. 1980-88, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, if applicable, the Constitution of the United States of America, including but not limited to the due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, the privileges and immunities clauses and the 13th Amendment, if applicable, and the statutes and Constitution of the State of California, as applicable. As and for a First Cause of Action 3. The Defendants proceeded under statutes which were violative of the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of California, including, but not limited to their use and application of a vague and overbroad State statute that targeted applicants and physician licensees who were described in the licensing statute as mentally ill, where this group also included physicians who had a history of mental illness and who were not actively men- tally ill, or who were actively mentally ill, but able to practice medicine safely anyway. 4. All or many of these individuals and/or Dr. Hason were targeted for increased scrutiny and investigation App. 40 which promoted the exclusion of these physicians from the practice of medicine in the State of California, regardless of their ability to practice medicine safely or the fact that they were otherwise qualified. 5. The statutes on their face and as applied are unconsti- tutional, should be declared void and all decisions had under them should be declared void and of no effect, including and particularly, decisions regarding the license application of Dr. Hason, such as decisions made by Defendants August 1996 and April 1998 denying Dr. Hason’s application for a medical license. 6. The statutes referred to include, but are not limited to the statute that states that a license to practice medicine may be denied for the reason of mental illness. As and for a Second Cause of Action 7. The Plaintiff repeats the allegations numbered 1-3, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants violated the Plaintiffs rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by illegally and invasively requesting that he provide to them all medical records concerning his history of treatment for depression which extended back to the year 1970. 8. The Defendants further violated Plaintiffs rights under the ADA by not properly applying the “direct threat” standard enunciated by the EEOC and Justice Dept. as the proper standard to find that a license appli- cant is a danger to his prospective patients or others. The Defendants did this throughout the application proceed- ings, including, but not limited to, their initial decision in Aug. 1996, their behavior after getting input from Dr. App. 41 David Glaser, their behavior after getting input from Florida from Dr. Robert Perovich and Mr. David Molko, M.S.W., and did so by adopting the administrative Judge’s decision which did not properly apply this standard. The Defendants did not properly apply the standard in consid- ering the Plaintiffs Petition for Reconsideration as that Petition established Plaintiffs readiness to practice medicine safely and identified many irregularities in the proceedings had against Dr. Hason by the MBSC and its agents. 9. The Defendants violated the ADA by not accommodat- ing Plaintiff by offering him a probationary medical license, conditioned on his agreement and actual coopera- tion with some supervising physician and/or psychiatrist and/or psychotherapist for psychotherapy, guidance and/or other supervision, as needed, reasonable and legal. As for a Third Cause of Action 10. The Plaintiff repeats allegations numbered 1-9, as if more fully set forth here. Apparently, after receipt of Plaintiffs medical record from 1992 hospitalization in Philadelphia, an executive of the Medical Board recklessly determined and stated in writing that the Plaintiff was a “narcissistic jerk,” and stated that the Medical Board of the State of California (MBSC) should seek a psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff in order to block his application’s viability, thus biasing all further proceedings and destroy- ing their objectivity. On information and belief, this document was also published to Dr. Michael Meek, preju- dicing that consultant’s initial mindset and biasing his ultimate opinions later expressed in his report to the App. 42 MBSC about the summer of 1996 and in his testimony during Sept. and Oct. 1997. As for a Fourth Cause of Action 11. The Plaintiff repeats allegations numbered 1-5, as if more fully set forth here. Plaintiff was directed to pay MBSC $2000.00 as a charge for the evaluation by their psychiatric consultant, Dr. Michael Meek (Meek), which fee was calculated to illegally exclude the Plaintiff from the practice of medicine in California. for a Fifth Cause of Action -4s 12. The MBSC and Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly hired an unqualified and biased psychiatrist to evaluate the Plaintiff. 13. Further, the MBSC specifically encouraged the bias of the psychiatrist Meek, conspiring with him, by showing him the written statement of the MBSC official who had stated that the Plaintiff was a “narcissistic jerk.” Further, they controlle. and biased the psychiatrist’s perceptions and conclusions by paying him only in cases where he filed a negative report. Thus, they made it perfectly clear to Meek that they sought negative reports on physicians referred t o him for evaluation and/or on Dr. Hason and not fair and objective evaluations. These actions and the conspiracy a r mg the Defendants impaired Plaintiffs rights to a fair psychiatric evaluation and prejudiced beyond repair the objective consideration of Plaintiffs application for a medical license. App. 43 As for a Sixth Cause of Action 14. The Plaintiff repeats allegations 1-13, as if more fully set forth here. Despite the unqualified Psychiatrist’s finding that the Plaintiffs mental status was essentially normal, and despite the Plaintiffs score of normal on the highly respected MMPI psychological test, the MBSC and other Defendants accepted the Psychiatrist’s trumped up conclusions and false recitation of facts regarding Plaintiff. These facts included, but were not limited to 1) the psy- chiatrist Meek’s claim that the Plaintiff abandoned his patients when he was a resident at the State University of New York at Stony Brook during 1993-94 and 2) was absent without leave for an extended period of time from his residency post a t Stony Brook in about May of 1994 and just inexplicably turned up at a hotel in New Orleans, were patently false, calculated to obstruct justice and could have easily been checked out by Meek or the MBSC, or the Defendants. They intentionally and recklessly did not do so, even after Plaintiffs refutation, pleadings, explanations and denials under oath in Sept. 1997. The Defendants recklessly continued to use these bogus facts in an attempt to paint the Plaintiff as a dangerous physi- cian and confuse and mislead the Administrative Judge assigned to Plaintiffs case. 15. The Defendants also accepted their psychiatrist Meek’s bogus diagnosis for Plaintiff of narcissistic person- ality disorder on the basis of totally inadequate evidence and were reckless in their use of this bogus diagnosis to trump up a case against Plaintiff. 16. Similarly, they adopted and promoted a bogus diag- nosis of multiple drug dependency authored by Dr. Meek, App. 44 despite clear evidence of the incorrectness of this diagno- sis. 17. The Defendants also acted improperly by adopting the results of the inappropriately administered personality test named for its creator Dr. Millon and countenanced the exaggerated used [sic] of this unreliable data, by adopting Meek’s stretch of narcissistic trait score on the test into a diagnosis of a full blown personality disorder. 18. The Defendants also countenanced Meek’s numerous exaggerations, fabrications, wild illogical conclusions and accusations, including, but not limited to, those presented as evidence of “bias” in the Closing Statement of Plaintiffs attorney, Ms. Kollar, incorporated here as if more fully set forth, and those presented by Plaintiff in his Petition for Reconsideration, incorporated here, as if more fully set forth. As for a Sixth [sic] Cause of Action 19. The Plaintiff repeats allegations numbered 1-18, as if more fully set forth here. After receiving Plaintiffs notice of appeal MBSC and Defendants drew up a Statement of Issues that included a bogus charge relating to the claim that the Plaintiff was mentally ill. 20. They did not serve it upon the Plaintiff until months after the proper time for service. 21. Further, they included a second charge based on Plaintiffs failure to include his attendance a t a residency a t the Graduate Hospital in Aug.-Oct. 1992. They did this, after Plaintiff fully cooperated with them, giving them information about his attendance at the Hospital, which included positive statements by one Elliot Nierman, App. 45 Program Director, which showed that Plaintiff had not failed to present information that was material to the question of whether he was entitled to a license to practice medicine in California. 22. Further, they rejected positive evaluations and certifications that Dr. Hason was safe, from two Board Certified psychiatrists, Dr. David Glaser and later Dr. Robert Perovich, both of whom, had enjoyed an extended opportunity to evaluate Dr. Hason for his ability to prac- tice medicine safely. As for a Seventh Cause of Action 23. The Defendants also delayed the scheduling of the administrative hearing on appeal well beyond the 90 day limit of the relevant statute, did not apply to the Adminis- trative Hearings Division or Judge for statutorily permit- ted extensions of time for good reasons shown and scheduled the hearing beyond the date permitted even by the maximum number of permitted extensions. As for a [sic] Eighth Cause of Action 24. At Plaintiffs hearing on the appeal in the Fall of 1997, Defendants made many false and misleading asser- tions against the Plaintiff, in bad faith, regarding facts that were false and that could easily have been verified and found to be false and which also included many trumped up exaggerations obstructing justice. Thus, they provided the Administrative Law Judge with a confused and spurious database and a difficult decision concerning the safety of granting a license to Dr. Hason. App. 46 25. To repeat, they failed to properly investigate the facts that they relied upon and took no proper action to re- evaluate their data, once they were pointedly alerted to the falsity of their data by Dr. Hason’s sworn testimony at the hearing, by the questions of Ms. Kollar, Dr. Hason’s attorney and by other more obvious inconsistencies and patent absurdities, promoted for them by Meek. St. Vincent’s Hospital, Bridge- 26. They intentionally and recklessly ignored the facts that Dr. Hason had worked as a physician caring for approximately 500 patients, without suffering any sub- stantiated charge of negligence, or suffering any accusa- tion of depression, narcissism or hypomania by his supervising physicians at port, CT, 1991-92, SUNY a t Stony Brook, 1993-94 or at the VA Medical Center, W. Los Angeles, 1994-95. They further ignored the fact that on the occasions when Dr. Hason did work as a physician, while actually depressed, no supervi- sor accused him of any act of negligence. 27. By not weighing these facts, the Defendants did not obey the dictates of the ADA which required that they find and prove that Dr. Hason posed a “direct threat” to the health and safety of his prospective patients or others. If the Defendants still were justifiably concerned, they failed to accommodate Plaintiff as required by the ADA As for and [sic] Ninth Cause of Action 28. The Plaintiff repeats allegations numbered 1-27, as if set forth here more fully. The Defendants, further, abused their discretion by failing to properly evaluate, investigate and articulate a written or reasonable decision, with regard to the information advanced by Dr. Hason in his Petition for Reconsideration, including but not limited to App. 47 the information that Dr. Hason had not abandoned any patients while at Stony brook, was well and ready to practice medicine in California safely and that he was agreeable to and felt that an accommodation, such as a probationary license, was appropriate. 29. MBSC and Defendants refused to seriously consider psychiatric updates from Dr. Perovich, a board certified psychiatrist and David Molko, M.S.W., both of whom had treated and observed Dr. Hason for more than six months by the time that the Petition was being reviewed by MBSC and Defendants. Further, the statements by these health professionals made it clear that Dr. Hason was following the health maintenance suggestions of the Defendants and was stable and highly likely to remain in treatment, as long as necessary (and continue to benefit from the ther- apy) all in accord with what the Defendants had indicated was good and necessary for the safe practice of medicine by Dr. Hason. 30. Those two professionals, Dr. Perovich and Mr. Molko, were continuing to treat Dr. Hason again in line with the Defendants expressed suggestions and original reserva- tions to licensing. The mental health experts, both filed very positive reports, certifylng again Dr. Hason’s safety to practice medicine based on an even longer period of examination. They also made statements evidencing their serious reservations about the conclusions of the MBSC’s psychiatrist Dr. Meek, which apparently the Defendants did not consider appropriately and which did not prompt any further serious consideration of the situation fostered by the acts of Defendants. Once again, the two health professionals recertified to the Defendants that Dr. Hason was stable and safe to practice medicine. All of this was ignored intentionally, because of the MBSC’s bias and App. 48 invidious discriminatory inclinations regarding Dr. Hason, whom they accused of mental illness and being unsafe to practice medicine in the State of California to cover their invidious subjective discriminatory biases against him for having had a history of depression and other factors like his leaving out the Graduate Hospital from his application and their receipt of certain phony accusations by Dr. Davis of SUNY at Stony Brook and because of the false and deceptive acts and behavior of Meek, i.e., they used this accusation of mental illness as a trumped up mechanism to block Dr. Hason’s application when, in reality, they chose to deny the license on illegal and hidden bases, denying Dr. Hason the equal protection of the laws. As and for a Ninth Cause of Action 31. The Plaintiff repeats the allegations numbered 1-30, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants violated Plaintiffs right to a fair and speedy hearing under the relevant statutory 90 day period within which they must hold a [sic] such a hearing to decide Plaintiffs appeal. This period began to run after Plaintiffs appeal from Defendants’ initial decision of August, 1996 denying Plaintiffs application for a medical license. As and for a Tenth Cause of Action 32. The Plaintiff repeats the allegations numbered 1-33, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants informed Dr. Hason that his license had been denied for two rea- sons, mental illness and his doing of an act that would cause the MBSC to suspend or revoke the license of a physician already licensed in California. They failed to explain to the Plaintiff how he was mentally ill. They App. 49 failed to tell Dr. Hason what act he had done that they were relying upon. They thus severely intruded on Dr. Hason’s due process rights and ability to decide upon whether to appeal and how he could defend himself. As for an Eleventh Cause of Action 33. The Plaintiff repeats allegations numbered 1-32, as if more fully set forth here. The bare bones denial of license served in August, 1996 was also calculated to intentionally inflict emotional distress, was outrageous and did cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional and ultimately conse- quential emotion or stress induced and other physical injury. As for a Twelfth Cause of Action 34. The Plaintiff repeats allegations numbered 1-33, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants proceeded on a Statement of Issues that included charges relating to mental illness that were bogus and unworthy of serious legal consideration. The Defendants failed to state an actionable cause for license denial in the acceptable domain of mental illness reasons for denial. They trumped up some tale about how Plaintiff had a narcissistic per- sonality disorder, had been depressed in the past and would not seek treatment if he got depressed, because the narcissistic personality disorder would prevent him from understanding that he needed treatment to hide illegal or no proper bases to deny Dr. Hason a license. 35. They also relied on a second charge based on the failure of the Plaintiff to include some data about the Graduate Hospital, that was essentially collateral to the necessary determination of Plaintiffs fitness to practice App. 50 medicine safely in California, after Plaintiff had cooper- ated fully with them in the production of information relating to his training at the Graduate Hospital. As for a Thirteenth Cause of Action 36. The Plaintiff repeats the allegations numbered 1-35, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants acted in violations of 42 US. Code 1981-88, et seq., by acting under the color of state law and doing the many acts referred to in this Complaint which were intended to deprive the Plaintiff of his rights protected under the Constitution and the Statutes of the United States of America as well as the Constitution and Statutes of the State of California. The actions of the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs liberty rights by preventing him from choosing and working in the profession of his choice, obtaining the proper license and living and working in the State of his choice after recent entry into the State of California. 37. They also violated his due process rights by making an adversarial game and using lies and distortions instead of a fair and proper evaluation of Plaintiffs skills, abili- ties, mental condition and shortcomings. 38. They violated his equal protection rights by treating Plaintiff unlike others similarly situated with a history of mental illness and no recent active illness and/or those with mental illness who were still safe to practice medi- cine, by doing all of the acts mentioned herein calculated to make anyone with a history of mental illness and/or Dr. Hason particularly, or with mental illness but safe to practice medicine, despite the illness, look as if they were unsafe and that no reasonable accommodation or agree- ment or adjustment could make them safe. App. 51 As for a Thirteenth Cause of Action 39. The Plaintiff repeats each allegations [sic] numbered 1-38, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights under the Privileges and Immu- nities Clause of of [sic] the United States Constitution that protects the right of citizens to travel between States and to live in any State with the same rights as its other citizens including, but not limited to, living and working in one’s chosen profession, obtaining necessary licenses from the government, having a family and supporting it through paid work as a physician, licensed or otherwise and thus the Defendants also violated Dr. Hason’s rights and/or violated similar rights of others similarly situated with Dr. Hason with regards to his recent entry into the State and/or that factor in combination of Dr. Hason’s memberships in the class of those with a history of mental illness. They violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution by treating Plaintiff differently than other residents of the State of California, by preventing him from working in the State of California as a physician, the profession which he had chosen and in which he was qualified legally, and by harming him in further ways as elaborated in this Com- plaint and by constructively or literally driving him out of the State of California. They did this for the reasons already mentioned concerning their biases about mental illness and their hidden agenda other than a valid belief in Dr. Hason’s actual mental illness or proper evidence thereof and painted Dr. Hason as mentally ill and unsafe because Plaintiff was an “outsider,” an individual recently arrived from New York State and a person whom they wished to drive from their State and following the lead of Meek, from medicine entirely. App. 52 As and for a Fourteenth Cause of Action 40. The Plaintiff repeats each allegation numbered 1-39, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights by violating his rights under the 13th Amendment of the constitution of the United States of America by attempting to create a class of slaves including the mentally ill who were able to function safely in profes- sional positions and those with a history of mental illness. The Plaintiff was a member of this class. This class of slaves, including Dr. Hason, was deemed unable to work as a freeman [sic] who could chose their profession and seek business among the populace. Dr. Hason was treated as someone who would not be allowed to provide for himself, not be allowed to have a family which he could support and would be told how he was to care for his own health and was told not to contribute to decisions that others would make about how he should care for his health, which were a further violation of Plaintiffs liberty. As and for a Fifteenth Cause of Action 41. The Plaintiff repeats each allegation numbered 1 through 40, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights under the State of California’s Constitution and statutes, including but not limited to those clauses protecting the PlaintifYs right to pursie and obtain happiness, work, reputation, possessions with free enjoyment thereof, and to do so under conditions of liberty, due process and the equal protection of the laws. They also violated California’s statutory declaration of the right to equal protection in employment for all individuals “other- wise qualified.” App. 53 As and for an [sic] Sixteenth Cause of Action 42. The Plaintiff repeats each allegation numbered 1 through 41, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants violated the Plaintiffs rights by invading his privacy as prohibited by the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States, 14th Amendment, substantively, by acts including, but not limited to, requesting all of Plain- tiff s medical records relating to psychotherapeutic treat- ment and treatment for depression, by directing him to appear for an examination by a psychiatrist, by choosing a biased and unqualified psychiatrist, by encouraging that psychiatrist to falsify the facts and his conclusions about Dr. Hason, thus further forcing Dr. Hason to produce documents and testlfy on his own behalf concerning private matters and to testify under cross-examination about private matters and to generate arguments, state- ments and documents revealing private matters, all necessary to try and overturn, oppose and influence the decisions of the Defendants. The Defendants acted in this manner, despite constant warnings to Defendants of the illegality of their acts. As for a Seventeenth Cause of Action 43. The Plaintiff repeats allegations numbered 1-42, as if more fully set forth here. The Defendants conspired among themselves, while considering and doing the acts com- plained of in this Complaint, thus further violating the Plaintiffs rights under the federal and State laws already mentioned, including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. 1985 and the ADA. App. 54 App. 55 Damages case of Dr. Hason’s application for a medical license, and grant other and further relief to the Plaintiff that is fair and just in the premises. Dated: April 16, 1999 /s/ Michael J. Hason Michael J. Hason, M.D. Plaintiff, in pro per 44. With respect to each cause of action, the Defendants have severely injured Dr. Hason’s reputation, irreparably and permanently, and damaged Dr. Hason emotionally, physically, and financially. Further, the consequences of the Defendants’ acts mentioned herein have been to seriously impair Plaintiffs ability to proceed in an unim- paired fashion with his life and medical career. The Defendants, further, acted intentionally, recklessly and/or in violation of established law and therefore are liable to the Plaintiff for punitive damages in addition to compen- satory damages, including all consequential and/or fore- seeable damages. 45. The facts described in the entire Complaint are all alleged by the Plaintiff to be actionable under each and every theory stated in the Complaint. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Michael J. Hason, Requests that this Court decide and adjudge before or after a jury trial that the Defendants are liable for dam- ages to the Plaintiff in the amount of $20,000,000 on each cause of action and an additional $20,000,000 for punitive damages on each cause of action, plus attorneys fees, expenses and costs, and requests that this Court direct the MBSC to issue to Dr. Hason a license t o practice medicine in California, and find that the statute permitting the Medical Board of the State of California t o find individu- als, or Dr. Hason, unfit to practice medicine due to mental illness to be unconstitutional, void for reasons of its vagueness, overbreadth, violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of other federal civil rights statutes and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or to hold similarly as applied in the