Will rise again! Hawaii: the referral state.
Isles hailed for shielding patients from bad doctors
ByHelen Altonn
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Apr 24, 2010
[The medical board is charged with protecting the public from "dishonest, fraudulent or unskilled practitioners ... through legislative, executive and adjudicatory functions," Cabral explained.
The Regulated Industries Complaints Office, the board's enforcement arm, arbitrates, investigates and prosecutes licensing violation complaints.
Enforcement action could include formal prosecution, which might involve an administrative hearing before a hearings officer, or a proposed settlement could be proposed to the board for consideration.
The board determines the appropriate outcome and sanctions, including revocation, suspension, fine, censure, reprimand and probation.]
Jo Ann Uchida
Complaint and
enforcement officer,
Regulated Industries Complaints
Office
"We started sending staff to national training," said Jo Ann Uchida, complaint and enforcement officer in the regulatory office. "That really made a difference, getting an idea what other states were doing and networking with similar agencies.
"As we get more effective, we get more people willing to come in and complain," Uchida said.
Vernon says,
Ms. Uchida and the gang should have been trained in the difference between what is Regulated Industries kuleana and that of the Medical Board; the difference in review and refer; the meaning of jurisdiction.
2010
fromrico@dcca.hawaii.gov
to:"f@gmail.com"
dateThu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:41 PM
subject: Re: Complaints
mailed-bydcca.hawaii.gov
Dear Mr. Balmer:
I'll attempt to answer the questions you've raised:
1) Why your complaint was assigned to an investigator:
All complaints filed with RICO are received and reviewed by the Consumer Resource Center. A Consumer Resource Center intake investigator is assigned to conduct a review of each complaint.
2) Why your letter stated "insufficient evidence":
As my prior email indicates (2nd paragraph, 1st sentence), the Consumer Resource Center intake investigator determined that there was insufficient evidence, your complaint was closed for this reason, and you were notified accordingly.
3) Why other complaints on the complaints web site have an outcome of "insufficient evidence":
As my prior email indicates (1st paragraph, 3rd sentence), if the Consumer Resource Center investigator determines that the complaint and any documentation is sufficient to sustain possible licensing violations, the complaint is referred for further investigation or prosecution. These cases still can be closed for a variety of reasons, such as insufficient evidence, after further investigation. What you have seen on the complaints web site likely refers to complaints referred for further investigation and eventually closed for insufficient evidence.
4) Outside RICO's jurisdiction and referral to Optometry Board:
As my prior email indicates (2nd paragraph, 1st sentence), your complaint was closed for insufficient evidence, not because it fell outside RICO's jurisdiction. As the enforcement arm to the Optometry Board, RICO receives and investigates all optometry complaints. If prosecution of a complaint is warranted, the Board is the ultimate decision-maker and issues a final decision on the complaint. Complaints closed short of prosecution are not referred to the Board.
I do hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Regulated Industries Complaints Office
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
f@gmail.com
torico@dcca.hawaii.gov
dateThu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM
subject: Re: Complaints
mailed-bygmail.com
That being the case, I am now wondering why it was assigned to an investigator and why my letter stated "insufficient evidence", and why I see a complaint at the site that also states insufficient evidence. And if, as I am told now, it was not RICO jurisdiction, why it was not referred to the optometry board.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM,wrote:
Dear Mr. Balmer:
RICO's Consumer Resource Center handles all intake functions for RICO. In that capacity, the Consumer Resource Center receives and reviews all complaints and any documentation submitted and determines whether an actionable violation is involved. If the Consumer Resource Center determines that the complaint an any documentation are sufficient to sustain possible licensing violations, the complaint is referred for further investigation or prosecution, or handled through mediation or other resolution. If not, the complaint is closed. Possible reasons for closing a complaint include: 1) the complaint is outside RICO's jurisdiction; 2) there is insufficient evidence submitted to implicate a licensing violation; or 3) the complaint is civil in nature and the courts are the appropriate venue.
Our computer records show that the Consumer Resource Center reviewed the complaint you filed in OPT 2006-5F and determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a possible licensing violation. As such, the Consumer Resource Center closed this complaint. As part of standard complaints processing and procedures, you should have been informed that the complaint would be closed and the reasons for the closing. I apologize if this was not the case.
Sincerely,
RICO
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
"f@gmail.com"
08/04/2010 10:05 AM
To:rico@dcca.hawaii.govSubject: Re: Complaints
What does it mean to have a complaint closed in the intake section? What would be the disposition?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM,wrote:
Dear Mr. Balmer:
Our records show that you filed a complaint against Dr. Seulyn Au in 2006. The complaint, OPT 2006-5F, was closed in our intake section that same year. As I mentioned previously, some cases closed in our intake section do not appear on our complaints website. It appears that OPT 2006-5F falls within that category of cases and, as a result, does not appear on the RICO complaints website.
Sincerely,
Regulated Industries Complaints Office
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
"f@gmail.com"
08/03/2010 10:53 AM
To:rico@dcca.hawaii.gov
Subject:Complaints
My name is Vernon Balmer Jr. I made a complaint about Dr. Au & Lau Optometrists.
fromrico@dcca.hawaii.gov
to"f@gmail.com"
dateMon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM
subjectRe: Complaints
mailed-bydcca.hawaii.gov
hide details 3:09 PM (19 hours ago)
Dear fnitts:
You are correct in that RICO's retention schedule for cases that did not result in any disciplinary action is five years from the end of the calendar year of the outcome date.
There could be a few reasons why a complaint does not appear on our complaints website. For example, some complaints are closed in our intake section for a variety of reasons, e.g. outside RICO's jurisdiction, and these complaints do not appear on our complaints website. Without the respondent name or case number, I am unable to check and provide you with a definitive answer. I would be happy to check on this for you should you provide me with more information on this case.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Regulated Industries Complaints Office
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
"f@gmail.com"
08/02/2010 02:13 PM
To:rico@dcca.hawaii.gov
Subject: Complaints
I made a complaint about an optometrist in 2006. I don't see it at the site anymore. I was told they were there for 5 yrs. I do see one from 2007. Can you tell me why I don't see the one I made anymore?
11/21/2006 04:21
To: PM optometry@dcca.hawaii.gov
ccSubject: Grevience
Lee Ann TeshimaDCCA-PVLAtt: OPT
P.O. Box 3469
Honolulu, HI 96801
I was supplied with a response that I feel does not address the specific
aspects of a complaint that I submitted to DCCA/RICO. My experience here
in Hawaii leaves no surprise, concerning the handling of complaints. Where
the investigative body only addresses what it picks and chooses, and uses
language to gloss over other pertinent issues brought to it's attention.
I would like to know the grievance procedure.
Vernon BalmerJr.
401 Atkinson DR211
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
2006
To: yinsay@aol.com '')
Sent: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Grevience
Dear Mr. Balmer:
Your email to the Optometry Board was forwarded to me for review. I am
the Complaints and Enforcement Officer for the Regulated Industries
Complaints Office. If you have concerns that specific aspects of your
complaint were not addressed, please let me know what those concerns are
and I will review the case file and provide you with a response.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Uchida
Complaints and Enforcement Officer
Regulated Industries Complaints Officeyinsay@aol.com
2010
fromrico@dcca.hawaii.gov
to:"f@gmail.com"
dateThu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:41 PM
subject: Re: Complaints
mailed-bydcca.hawaii.gov
Dear Mr. Balmer:
I'll attempt to answer the questions you've raised:
1) Why your complaint was assigned to an investigator:
All complaints filed with RICO are received and reviewed by the Consumer Resource Center. A Consumer Resource Center intake investigator is assigned to conduct a review of each complaint.
2) Why your letter stated "insufficient evidence":
As my prior email indicates (2nd paragraph, 1st sentence), the Consumer Resource Center intake investigator determined that there was insufficient evidence, your complaint was closed for this reason, and you were notified accordingly.
3) Why other complaints on the complaints web site have an outcome of "insufficient evidence":
As my prior email indicates (1st paragraph, 3rd sentence), if the Consumer Resource Center investigator determines that the complaint and any documentation is sufficient to sustain possible licensing violations, the complaint is referred for further investigation or prosecution. These cases still can be closed for a variety of reasons, such as insufficient evidence, after further investigation. What you have seen on the complaints web site likely refers to complaints referred for further investigation and eventually closed for insufficient evidence.
4) Outside RICO's jurisdiction and referral to Optometry Board:
As my prior email indicates (2nd paragraph, 1st sentence), your complaint was closed for insufficient evidence, not because it fell outside RICO's jurisdiction. As the enforcement arm to the Optometry Board, RICO receives and investigates all optometry complaints. If prosecution of a complaint is warranted, the Board is the ultimate decision-maker and issues a final decision on the complaint. Complaints closed short of prosecution are not referred to the Board.
I do hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Regulated Industries Complaints Office
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
f@gmail.com
torico@dcca.hawaii.gov
dateThu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM
subject: Re: Complaints
mailed-bygmail.com
That being the case, I am now wondering why it was assigned to an investigator and why my letter stated "insufficient evidence", and why I see a complaint at the site that also states insufficient evidence. And if, as I am told now, it was not RICO jurisdiction, why it was not referred to the optometry board.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM,
Dear Mr. Balmer:
RICO's Consumer Resource Center handles all intake functions for RICO. In that capacity, the Consumer Resource Center receives and reviews all complaints and any documentation submitted and determines whether an actionable violation is involved. If the Consumer Resource Center determines that the complaint an any documentation are sufficient to sustain possible licensing violations, the complaint is referred for further investigation or prosecution, or handled through mediation or other resolution. If not, the complaint is closed. Possible reasons for closing a complaint include: 1) the complaint is outside RICO's jurisdiction; 2) there is insufficient evidence submitted to implicate a licensing violation; or 3) the complaint is civil in nature and the courts are the appropriate venue.
Our computer records show that the Consumer Resource Center reviewed the complaint you filed in OPT 2006-5F and determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a possible licensing violation. As such, the Consumer Resource Center closed this complaint. As part of standard complaints processing and procedures, you should have been informed that the complaint would be closed and the reasons for the closing. I apologize if this was not the case.
Sincerely,
RICO
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
"f@gmail.com"
08/04/2010 10:05 AM
To:rico@dcca.hawaii.govSubject: Re: Complaints
What does it mean to have a complaint closed in the intake section? What would be the disposition?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM,
Dear Mr. Balmer:
Our records show that you filed a complaint against Dr. Seulyn Au in 2006. The complaint, OPT 2006-5F, was closed in our intake section that same year. As I mentioned previously, some cases closed in our intake section do not appear on our complaints website. It appears that OPT 2006-5F falls within that category of cases and, as a result, does not appear on the RICO complaints website.
Sincerely,
Regulated Industries Complaints Office
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
"f@gmail.com"
08/03/2010 10:53 AM
To:rico@dcca.hawaii.gov
Subject:Complaints
My name is Vernon Balmer Jr. I made a complaint about Dr. Au & Lau Optometrists.
fromrico@dcca.hawaii.gov
to"f@gmail.com"
dateMon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM
subjectRe: Complaints
mailed-bydcca.hawaii.gov
hide details 3:09 PM (19 hours ago)
Dear fnitts:
You are correct in that RICO's retention schedule for cases that did not result in any disciplinary action is five years from the end of the calendar year of the outcome date.
There could be a few reasons why a complaint does not appear on our complaints website. For example, some complaints are closed in our intake section for a variety of reasons, e.g. outside RICO's jurisdiction, and these complaints do not appear on our complaints website. Without the respondent name or case number, I am unable to check and provide you with a definitive answer. I would be happy to check on this for you should you provide me with more information on this case.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Regulated Industries Complaints Office
235 S. Beretania, 9th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
586-2666
Fax 586-2670
"f@gmail.com"
08/02/2010 02:13 PM
To:rico@dcca.hawaii.gov
Subject: Complaints
I made a complaint about an optometrist in 2006. I don't see it at the site anymore. I was told they were there for 5 yrs. I do see one from 2007. Can you tell me why I don't see the one I made anymore?
11/21/2006 04:21
To: PM optometry@dcca.hawaii.gov
ccSubject: Grevience
Lee Ann TeshimaDCCA-PVLAtt: OPT
P.O. Box 3469
Honolulu, HI 96801
I was supplied with a response that I feel does not address the specific
aspects of a complaint that I submitted to DCCA/RICO. My experience here
in Hawaii leaves no surprise, concerning the handling of complaints. Where
the investigative body only addresses what it picks and chooses, and uses
language to gloss over other pertinent issues brought to it's attention.
I would like to know the grievance procedure.
Vernon BalmerJr.
401 Atkinson DR211
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
2006
To: yinsay@aol.com '')
Sent: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Grevience
Dear Mr. Balmer:
Your email to the Optometry Board was forwarded to me for review. I am
the Complaints and Enforcement Officer for the Regulated Industries
Complaints Office. If you have concerns that specific aspects of your
complaint were not addressed, please let me know what those concerns are
and I will review the case file and provide you with a response.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Uchida
Complaints and Enforcement Officer
Regulated Industries Complaints Officeyinsay@aol.com
1 comment:
That goes for the Ombudsman too.
Post a Comment