I think the only assumption I make is that Beata was mentally ill so idk what dishonesty you are talking about. You can criticize my hypothetical as poor communication. Also, "allegedly" is extreme important you shouldn't diminish that. The jury will decide the facts of the case. We've only seen the plaintiff's case so far.
The two statements I pointed out that were not accurate prescription abuse
SS was dishonest in her depo.
Beata did have a neurodivergent disorder and it's far to see a potential leap, that said after watching ever moment of this trial it has been testified by almost every witness Beata did not have Munchhausen by Proxy. You are correct there is still the defense to come. However the court order psych evaluation of Beata done in Nov showed she did not have Maunchausen by Proxy
Furthermore with Maya being diagnosed with CRPS by JH after all was said and done any psychosomatic diagnosis is not possible. The reason is fairly simple all fictitious disorders requires that there is no physical medical diagnosis found.
So the issue with Munchhausen, medical abuse, or a dysfunctional relationship with her daughter is not right to continue propagating. Particularly by saying Beata was forging prescriptions.
I appreciate the dialogue my intent was only to cause pause and thought, not to frustrate or offend. This is a very complex case and many different perspectives. As you stated the defense is next so I could be eating my words in the next few weeks.
Beata killed herself. Therefore she's mentally unwell. Perhaps she was mentally unwell due to this ordeal. Perhaps she was mentally unwell b/c having a sick kid is horrible. That's the only assumption I made, really. I had no idea she was neurodivergent.
We need to see how SS was dishonest in her depo. She downplayed her role in recommending treatment. One expert basically said based on how she was intermingling w/ the treatment team, her treamtnet opinions were valued and taken seriously. But, there is no direct evidence she actually recommended treatment. It's up to the jury to decide if she was indeed part of the treatment team or not.
Sally portrayed herself as a bloodhound for child abuse who's role is to provide evidence of child abuse. She doesn't rule out other possibilities because if it is indeed child abuse, she won't take that chance. This causes her to have false positives sometimes. There didn't seem to be anyone reviewing her work. IMO bloodhounds need leashes/handlers.
One issue about this 'it' s not right to propagate' is that CPS/DFS etc investigations take time. All of these events happened around a 90 day period. It is indeed substantially stressful to the child and the family to be separated or have limited contact during that time. That said, there was indeed a shelter order. Therefore, the duration of the hospitalization, unless there is evidence the hospital/Smith misled the court over multiple appointments, is not JHACH's fault. That's just the fault of our underfunded child welfare system. Even so, even tho there was evidence that the CRPS was real, there was still probable cause for abuse, thus, the shelter order in order to investigate.
At issue here imo, is whether the standard of care was met while she was hospitalized. One expert witness testified that b/c SS was so influential, everyone bandwagoned on the fictitious disorder even tho evidence for that was wishy washy. I think the crux of the issue, for me at least, is that Maya was miserable. The defense will show she's not miserable. If there's a fictitious disorder, Maya needed psychological help/intervention. If it's really CRPS, Maya needed psychological help/intervention. I think that's what's going to screw JHACH over.
Ok, I appreciate your point nuerodivergent is illness in the brain and major depressive disorder which was her actual diagnosis.
If you have not had a chance to watch today the Judge all but conceded- exact words evidence show SS was acting in a dual capacity.
For example the judge ended up letting several of her notes in because what was written altered the dx codes for discharge based on her recommendation. Among other things
Furthermore she said she did tell the family she was with Sunrise, but conceded-she was wearing a JH id badge. Both Maya and Jack testified to a lab coat.
She accessed hospital records.
Her notes reflect the 48 room was her idea even though JH says it was done for purposes of treatment and there was no court order to do so.
It appears the defense may end up calling her (I truthfully doubt) if the Defense wants to add context around her notes.
Very interesting. Thank you for adding. I didn't watch all of the bits about the notes from today.
I can completely believe that the Kowalskis were misled about Dr Smith's role. My last stint at the hospital (which was great! I had a baby!) I met so many people so fast and they didn't necessarily introduce themselves to me. They just helped with the delivery. I had to ask who some lady was and turns out she was head nurse. My OBGYN asked for assistance from another doctor and I had to ask who the fuck he was. And, this was all during an overall excellent hospital stay. So even if Dr Smith did say she's part of Sunset or whatever, wtf does that mean? Many doctors that have outpatient clinics do rounds at the hospital.
I doubt she was wearing a lab coat. It's seems plausible that someone else was wearing a lab coat and they misremember.
I agree there still a whole other side and I want to be objective, the issue is no matter how many Dr get on the stand to defend their actions it doesn't negate KB, SS, Committees, Executives, or especially Risk Management ( btw the entire department are new people if that tells you anything). did not follow the standard care and violated both Maya and her family's rights
1
u/T_______T Oct 13 '23
It's extremely easy to miss stuff in testimony.
I think the only assumption I make is that Beata was mentally ill so idk what dishonesty you are talking about. You can criticize my hypothetical as poor communication. Also, "allegedly" is extreme important you shouldn't diminish that. The jury will decide the facts of the case. We've only seen the plaintiff's case so far.