Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Debunking Wilson Senior Care and Oakhaven's Argument Against Me

       Speaking of exposing these people for what they truly are, I am now going to expose these people for what they truly are. Up until now, I have left both the written response from Sonya and the statement from Lofe unanswered so as to allow corporate/Oakhaven's argument against me sink in untainted. But now...it is my turn to expose the argument for the crock it is.
       One additional note here is a written statement by Victoria with which I am going to begin. I have not published it in a blog post for three reasons. One, all I have is a hard copy, and I do not feel like typing it all out. Two, it is boring, so you will not want to read it, and three, Sonya drafted the first portion of her letter from it. There is no reason to dig into the issue twice. The main reason I am including it is because Victoria completely fabricated a conversation between us within it. I cannot let that slide unchallenged.
Victoria's Written Statement
       I The only issue I have with Victoria’s written statement is a fictional conversation we allegedly had in Paulette's office after the latter has presented the chaperone requirement for Courtney’s visitation. According to Victoria, I went on an unhinged tirade claiming not allowing Courtney to visit was direct retaliation to me. This is completely false. Victoria was only in Paulette’s office for a few moments before Brock entered and stunned us all into silence with her attitude. The only words exchanged between Victoria and me regarded my request for the ombudsman to judge whether the compromise violated my rights as I believed. (Michelle ultimately ruled it did.) After Brock copped her attitude with me, Victoria remained silence for a few long seconds before slinking out herself.
       Victoria also claims that neither she, nor Brock, knew Courtney and I were friends. I am not sure why she felt she could claim Brock was unaware of my friendship with Courtney, but it is untrue. I requested to attend weekly church services with Courtney during late summer 2014 and was told I cannot leave the facility with an off duty staff. I do feel the need to mention here several staff—including Courtney—informed me other residents have left with staff in the past. Whether there was a rule change in the interim is unknown to me and now irrelevant. Brock was also a frequent “secret” visitor t my Facebook page to monitor my activities, particularly any I had with staff. I will concede Victoria may have not known I was friends with Courtney at the time. If she had only spoken for herself.
       Victoria also wrote “I never seen” and spelled ma'am as “mam.” I suppose her grammar and spelling errors are not a huge deal, but it is my response, so I am going to put them out.
Sonya's Response to My Initial Complaint
       I love how Sonya starts off with the sorry-not-sorry apology “we apologize that you feel your rights have been violated…” I understand corporate/Oakhaven has to avoid liability in sch matters, but those apologies always sound like the person is sorry you are too stupid to understand nothing improper was actually done. To be fair, asking Courtney to leave was an honest mistake, and one I never intended to hold them accountable for it. My issue was the chaperone requirement. So I have no beef with Sonya's recounting of the interaction between Victoria and Courtney.
       My beef begins when Brock enters the picture. According to the response, Brock explained to me the handbook rule a discharged employees must ask permission in order to visit a resident and the visit must be chaperoned. This is false. Brock actually told me Courtney was fired, banned from the facility, and if I wanted to see her, I would have to leave the facility. Whether Brock lied to Sonya about our conversation, or the two were colluding to get their stories straight, I cannot say. Given past dishonesty from both, it is impossible to know.
       One major piece of evidence pointing towards collusion is both Sonya and Brock claim the chaperoned visits is a compromise especially for me when it is the actual handbook rule rather than the misrepresentation Brock told me. Even though I cited the handbook in my initial complaint, thereby proving I had read the thing, that fact somehow slipped by Sonya. She was irritated to discover someone had given me a handbook to use later. Paulette was the one. Given her history of dishonesty, she may have denied it. When Sonya expressed anger to Oakhaven staff I was emailing her, Paulette denied giving her address to me even though I still have the lit of emails in her handwriting. I offered to show Sonya the list at one pint. She declined.
       Before delving into my claims, Sonya's devotes a log paragraph to my emotional breakdown after being abandoned to a nursing home by my sister, Denise. She does this to cast doubt on my credibility. Throughout the rest of the response, she also lays it on thick how I am emotionally unstable and prone to angry outbursts. The reality is I declined to commit suicide. I even confessed what I had been considering even though no one would have been the wiser if I kept it to myself. I tolerated sitters. I agreed to take antidepressants. I cooperated with counseling. For my honesty and cooperation, I was treated like crap.
Kendra misrepresents both the content and location of our conversation. She made her 'We're not here to baby you' comment in my room, not at the nurses' desk. I approached her at the nurses' desk after meeting with Paulette. According to Paulette, Kendra stated I had “thrown a tantrum.' I asked Kendra at the desk why she had said such a thing. I was not aggressive in doing so, either. I have experience in law and politics. I know how to address touchy issues in a calm, careful manner. What is not stated in the response, but Kendra told Sonya was Paulette had told me the tantrum accusation, but it was not true. Why Sonya's response does not reflect this is unclear, but it is one of the reasons Paulette was suspended and ultimately resigned. The omission by Sonya further strengthens the collusion argument. It is also worth mentioning Kendra acknowledges the two of us were subsequently cordial. Yes, because I am a much nicer person than these people make me out to be.
       The next part involves Robyn and Aleesha, the activities crew, alleging how the laptop disappeared from my room. This, too, is complete fabrication. I was not eating lunch when they visited. I was exercising on the arm bike with Lucy. Robyn and Aleesha were there to ask if I wanted to join an outing to the circus in a couple weeks, not to ask if I needed any 'materials.' The laptop was already gone from my room. This was the first time I noted its disappearance. Alesha told me it was at the nurses' desk. I wondered why it was there and asked it to be brought back. It was not.
       Depending on who answered and when, the story varies on what happened next. Paulette initially said Robyn took it, then later denied that and said she did not know. At one point, she said she investigated and no one would admit to taking it. Brock at first agreed it was Robyn, then changed her story to it being a mystery person, although she copped an attitude in July over my alleged refusal to accept it. Evidence point towards Robyn taking it away and falsely claiming I refused to accept it. Why? Robyn and Aleesha are good friends with Kendra and the laptop would have to have been removed while I was not in the room. The disappearance could only have taken place while I was in Paulette's office immediately after m allegedly tantrum at Kendra. So...revenge for Kendra? Maybe.
       The proof I can present is from Robyn herself. If I may spoil an as yet to be published post, I asked Robyn why she falsely claimed I told her and Aleesha 'y'all take that thing and go” when I had her as a captive audience. She turned beet red and told me “We're not going to talk about that.” she and Aleesha had not anticipated I would find out what they had told Sonya about the laptop's disappearance. It caught her off guard I exposed their lie. We never spoke outside of her official capacity as Paulette's fill in after her resignation. Aleesha never spoke to me again period. She is the only Oakhaven person to unfriend me from Facebook. So, it is pretty clear thy lied, but no one wants to clarify the truth.
       The next section refers to who made the decision to have me involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Initially, Paulette claimed it was Brock's decision, then changed her story to Dr. Hiatt. Dr. Hiatt denied suggesting I should be institutionalized and said it was Brock’s idea. Brock admitted in July it was her decision. Sonya's response claims it was Dr. Hiatt again. I had him read a hard copy of Sonya's response. He claimed it was a false accusation against him. I authorized him with written permission to discuss the matter with the ombudsman and/or DHEC as they chose to contact him. When I pointed this out to Paulette, she became visibly upset. I took this as confirmation she had falsely blamed Dr. Hiatt. Considering Brock had no problem admitting to me the involuntary commitment was her idea, the rationale for perpetuating the lie is beyond me. Maybe because she failed to get it done? I do not know.
The next section claims Paulette staged an intervention to clear up any resentments I may have had with management over Caligula. In fact, she told me the meeting was her idea, no one else knew about it, and then proceeded to blame the Caligula incident entirely on Brock and Nicole T. I am not certain it is Paulette or Sonya misrepresenting the meeting as being a group apology via Paulette. Brock had on multiple occasions to multiple people including myself refused to apologize or even admit a mistake.
       In the same section, Sonya claims I was asked to continue monthly sessions with Dr. Hiatt as though I was being begged to continue for my own sake. I was going twice monthly at the time and wanted to continue at that pace. Dr. Hhiatt agreed that was the most beneficial pace. Brock cut it down to once a month against the recommendations of Dr. Hiatt, Paulette, and me until mid-summer when a week of bullying by management and staff lead to a meltdown. I was then bumped back up to twice monthly. I developed an ulcer in the process.
Repairs on my room were done in March after I pointed out to DHEC its dilapidated condition had been ignored for the two months I had occupied it , not in July as Sonya claims. Why Sonya would want to claim they dragged their feet an extra four months on making repairs is beyond me, but there you go. Offering as much benefit as possible, she may have bee given bad information by Brock, Paulette, etc. Nevertheless, it is a falsehood presented as truth, so I point it out. Sonya's response claims I because overly aggressive and defensive at the July meeting, but does not say I explained Brock’s attitude and personal attacks were justifiable cause, and both Paulette and Nicole T. acknowledged such afterward.
The next section claims the nurse call button and orthopedic knife were removed for my protection. This is incorrect on both counts. There simply as no nurse call button in the room to which I was forcibly moved. There was one in the room in which I had previously been even during the time in which I had a sitter. As for the knife, the kitchen lost and never bothered to replace it in spite of the knife being personal property I brought with me to Oakhaven.
       Finally, Paulette claims she did not lose her temper in a meeting when I pointed out Dr. Hiatt disputed her revised claimed he wanted me involuntarily committed to a mental institution and confirmed her original assertion it was Brock's idea. She did lose her temper, was suspended by Sonya for it, and subsequently resigned.
Lofe's Statement
       Here is where it gets really strange. Lofe presents the case against me in two main points: I am an excessive drain on resources and am a danger to the well-being of other residents. The main expenditure on me is Wi Fi. While the Wi Fi was install with me in mind, it is free to use for all residents and visitors. At least four residents maintained a social media presence during my time at Oakhaven, although they did not receive the same hostile scrutiny I endured, and the Wi Fi still remains nearly a year after I departed. So my no longer being a resident has not ended the alleged largest drain on resources Wilson Senior Care suffers within its system. Sonya has gone so far as to list non-existent movies, CD, and books on tape I have supposedly been given. None had been given to me, and the matter was dropped quickly, presumably because of its petty nature rather than it not being true in the first place.
       My supposed threat to the well-being of residents is two-fold. The first is the increased scrutiny upon which I am allegedly placing on Oakhaven. The obvious question is if the facility has nothing t hide, what is it worried about? Allegedly, I threatened to bring in state an federal authorities until the doors were locked and chained. I never made this statement. But, hey...if they believe a state or federal inspection will lead to Oakhaven's closure, then then one has to wonder if the facility is hiding something that needs to be found.
       Lofe alleges I falsely accused Brock, Paulette, and Kendra. I have already addressed tho matter, but I would like to point out the claim “countless hours of investigation were wasted.” I emailed my complaint to Sonya at noon on Monday. The investigation took place entirely on Tuesday. Assuming generously it took the entire nine to five workday, which it most certainly did not, at most thirteen hours were spent. (12-5 Monday + 9-5 Tuesday.) To consider thirteen hours maximum countless is quite sad.
       Speaking of sad...the Facebook allegations. The big deal was this Garfield drawing not dissimilar from the other 700+ photos I have posted on my Facebook page since 2009, which has been acknowledged by Chrystal though dodged by Sonya:


       The second issue was an alleged death threat to Brock. According to Lofe, I posted a status update saying “Humpty Dumpty (Brock) All the king's horses...when the horses got there, they should have shot Humpty Dumpty. Here is a screen shot of the post in question:

       My twitter is connected to Facebook. All of my status updates are tweets simultaneously published on both pages. As you can see, I was heavily misquoted. Furthermore, the tweet was a joke swiped from this far side comic an has nothing to do with anything relevant to corporate/Oakhaven/Brock.

       Next, Lofe alleges I cannot my hated sister who abandoned me to Brock. I initially assumed this must have been a misinterpretation of one of the four written statements staff members made which are still unknown to me. When I asked Sonya the origin of the accusation, she first denied knowing. But when I introduced the buzzwords “slander” and “defamation” and “actual damages,” she suddenly remembered Brock is the only one making the claim. Since Brock has a long history of spying on my internet activity, it I safe to assume she is the one who came up with the creative theory I hate my sister and am projecting the feeling onto her, and probably the bizarre Humpty Dumpty death threat, too.
       There you have the bulk of my debunking the argument against me. I have not yet finished relaying the story of how I left Oakhaven, so some of these will be fleshed out more as I recount conversations with various people. But I imagine you can see why I chose to accept the discharge in spite of the false accusations. I was dealing with people who were more reckless with residents' ell-being than they were even accusing me of being.

No comments:

Post a Comment