Maria Metko
550 N. MacCarran Blvd
Sparks, Nevada 89431
775-276-3233
In Proper Person
In The First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
In and for Storey County
Maria Metko ) Case No. 15 0c 00010 1E
_____________ // ) Dept No. 1
Plaintiff , )
) CIVIL COMPLAINT / TORT
NEVADA HEALTH ) Malpractice Insurance Claim
CENTERS )
------------- // )
Defendant. )
)
)
)
COMES NOW, the plaintiff and, based upon the following merited causes of complaint against the defendant, charges the defended with the following grievances :
COUNT ONE : Malicious Slander, Harassment, Conspiracy to Interfere With a Confidential Medical Appointment.
On or about, September 2014, the plaintiff had entered the defendant's establishment at, Nevada Health Centers 3325 Research Way, Carson City, Nevada 89706, as a person seeking
possibly establishing as a new patient for services. The plaintiff had sought about sliding scale services. As, they were uninsured at that time. They were directed to bring back forms upon the initial appointment.
Upon returning for the appointment, the plaintiff turned in the forms explaining that they were unable to provide monthly billing statements. As, they were a rural inhabitant who lived upon a traditional Nevada land claim of 20 years,
procurring their own utitlities and related vital needs. But, the plaintiff did offer to submit a copy of their Adverse Posession and Covenant Running With the Land Claim as well as proofs of pensions. The plaintiff was told that they'd have to return at another time for an appointment. The female clerk informed the plaintiff that they needed to seek the approval of their overseer, had the plaintiff wait. Upon their return they inform the plaintiff that " their office Administrator was at a conference in Las Vegas and needed their approval before plaintiff could return for an appointment." The plaintiff acknowledges the unusualness of the request and that " something about it didn't feel right in the gut. " the palintiff informs the clerk, " I think I'd better look elsewhere. It's not very professional to be refused an appointment already set. " The clerk attempted to disuade the plaintiff of her decision making emphasis about the overseer at the conference. They talk plaintiff into resetting an appointment after the overseer approves,. They identified the overseer as 'she' and that she'd likely approve it. The plaintiff had called to check the status once a month, weeks after this initial contact. She was told again that the overseer was still at the conference. They made same claim one month later. A third and final time, This same person who initially had contact with petitioner upon the establishment. They put plaintiff on brief hold, come back, and finally set an appointment.
Due to the receptive and cooperative nature between the plaintiff and this person, the plaintiff was able to share their impressions about this entire matter: " As long as this took this must be none other than the biproduct of Obamacare. "
The person behaved empathetic about these impressions. Later the plaintiff discovers the person was encouraged by the plaintiff's thoughtfulness and goodness about it that she created a special greeting for callers to the clinic informing them that many of the problems they were experiencing at the clinic were due to delays caused by Obamacare policy. The petitioner appears for the appointment. The male physician identifies themself as also being the medical director. The appointment is of a positive and encouraging note. Both, the plaintiff and physician expressed they looked forward to working together at future appointments. The plaintiff is given another appointment.
COUNT TWO : Malicious Slander, Harassment, Humiliation, Voyerism. Racism
On or about, October 2014, The plaintiff returns for a follow up appointment. Instead of meeting again with the physician plaintiff had specifically chosen upon the previous mutual confirmation, the plaintiff is given lab test forms instead.
Upon the right hand corner of the sheet is scrawled, " Obesity Scale " as a rude inference to the plaintiff, who most their life, is a highly active, bulky, rural wilderness athlete at almost 60 years of age. The plaintiff's long standing physician had always been impressed by the petitioner's rugged near primitive lifestyle and their resultant state of fitness. The plaintiff acknowledged that the hand writting appeared more than likely to belong to the type of female who'd write it -- effeminate, surly and hoity. The plaintiff is told that she couldn't get an appointment unless she pays $ 25 fee or it would be waived if she changed her worthy habitation status to ' homelessness. ' The plaintiff, as is her nature affirms " I don't mind paying for my part, so long as I get reasonable service. " They give plaintiff another appointment.
COUNT THREE : Malicious Slander, Harassment, Intimidation, Voyerism Through Intrigue. Medical Incompetence.
On or about October 2014, the plaintiff returns for an appointment. Again, instead of meeting with the physician mutually agreed with, the attending is a female. After the nurse intake, the medical practitioner enters the plaintiff's examination
room, sits in front of the console computer, looking away from the plaintiff. The plaintiff notices that they never introduced themselves nor attempted to communicate with the plaintiff as required to establish chief complaint, mood, make initial start, etc. Further, the MP tells plaintiff they will perscribe medication for high blood pressure, and an aspirin. This finally hits home with the plaintiff that this is a very out of parity situation. The plantiff informs the MP that she did not have a history of HBP and that she would not accept that as appropriate. And, that if all the plaintiff needed was an aspirin, she wouldn't of taken some and not come to a clinic for nothing. The MP claimed that the BP medicine 'isn't drugs.' The plaintiff immediately acknowledges that this situation and person acting as an MP is inappropriate. Informs the MP of her intentions to speak with someone that she finds the situation unacceptable. Instead of an appropriate medical staff approaching the plaintiff, they violate the plaintiff's medical privacy by using an administrative office personal to approach plaintiff's medical situation ---It later turns out that this was the very individual who others kept claiming was ' in Las Vegas.' Not realizing yet at this point who they were, plaintiff informs them that the appointment was inappropriate and that they would make a new appointment with a different physician. The plaintiff leaves the area to go home. The plaintiff set appointment over the cell phone where the appointment maker confirmed that it would be with a different available physician. The plaintiff rightfully expected that this matter would be handled by appropriate channels by this individual before her next try at an appointment as proper proceedure requires them to do for a patient. But, they never did making this self incrimination regarding their intentions towards the plaintiff.
It's important to note here,As is standard procedure, that the plaintiff, as this is a crucial priority for her benefit, made sure to, in simple, uncomplicated terms, acurately explain to her initially designated physician, the plaintiff has studied and applied, both, EMT skills and Naturopathic health throughout her lifetime which to a properly informed person means that this implies someone is of an expert in traditional healing requiring the utmost in basic physician level skills in those related areas.This coinsides with the plaintiff's personality, core nature and life experiences as expressed. The plaintiff understands and doesn't take lightly the fact that that a person must posess the right stuff in order for them to be a suitable
physician for the plaintiff. She deserves this utmost.
COUNT FOUR : Malicious Slander, Stalking-Voyerism, Threats of Assault and Battery, Violation of Medical Privacy, MENTAL ANGUISH.
On or about October / Nov 2014, the plaintiff arrives at the defendant's establishment for the appointment they had set with a different medical practitioner. They arrive at about 8 o'clock am. The plaintiff notices they are the only patient except for a short pudgy male with a beard. When the plaintiff is called by the appointment clerk, they notice that this male gets up without being called and sit at the booth next to the plaintiff's. The clerk changes the amount of the appointment fee from $ 25 to $ 35. The plaintiff questions the clerk about this. The clerk pretends this wasn't changed. Momentarily, the plaintiff is called for the appointment. The nurse just slides the plaintiff's chart into the door slot walks away without opening the door. The plaintiff opens the door to find that the same female MP was in the room instead of the new one set over the phone. The same individual stepping outside their proper boundries of office administration approaches the plaintiff again stops and just looks at the plaintiff with a rude grin. The plaintiff lets them know that they've crossed over sane boundries and it was they who owed the petitioner an explanation of their actions. The evil ignorant animal in an ugly manner tells the plaintiff ' get out or I'll call the police.' On the way out the plaintiff states, ' I'll throw you and anyone else who pulls any more pranks in jail, assholes.' Days later this flaky female calls the plaintiff's cell phone only to insult their intelligence about how ' they read them wrong.' Obviously narcistic sociopaths are retarded and therefore incapable of facing their own day-to-day realities. The plaintiff quips that if they went about doing things as they they'd of been in serious trouble long ago in life and that they'd only go to their premises one last time and only to get copies of their test results. The plaintiff had no desire to have any further dealings with these flakes. I recognize that these types only get agressive only when they're around a b unch of their own types and nevermake attempts to get in the petitioner's face just to posture for one another unless they're doing so for the others who are around.
One year later, a few days before Christmas Eve day, not having figured out yet that the male stalker is the head pastor of this predominantly Hispanic run church, was the actual stalker, the plaintiff makes another impromptu visit of the church that is part of their community food pantry the petitioner had used on occassions to resuppy and whose diner the petitioner would make small donations for using once per month out of a spirit of good will. During one of the petitioner's friendly imprompto visit to one of their church meetings, the participants were sharing their own experiences about why they claim they based their decisions in life according to their book they call a Christian bible and it's deistic inferences. When the petitioner was called upon to share and contribute, they out of a spirit of honesty made it clear that even though they did not hold themselves out as nor considered themselves a Christian, that the petitioner chooses to do what's required of her based upon the wisdom gained through her life experience, and, purely because of the ultimate and genuine deep peace and worthy satisfaction this alone this worthily brings her and not because it pleases or displeases any so-called deity or those who claim authority they're not entitled to over others. Everyone in the group acknowledged the honesty of the plaintiff as well as the integrity behind the plaintiff's contribution and continued adding their own contributions. Only one female, the main member among the pastors made a sneering comment under their breath to the primary perpetrator being the main pastor, ' Didn't you hear her call god 'it' ?" When it became the perpetrator's turn to contribute, they claimed they based all their actions on following their Christian book so they can be 'saved.' The plaintiff acknowledged to themselves that on the two previous impromptu visits to their same meeting, the primary runers of the meeting used their book in order to make inappropriate inferences about the plaintiff owning and operating their vehicle without paying fees. In their cult book, they themselves are gods ( over lords ) entitled to oppress others and not respect others rights. Because of their ' god sickness' they weren't able to recognize the legitimate realities of either the plaintiff as a person or their laws requiring their fees like they all do, further clarifying the true origins of that book. The plaintiff acknowledged their statement, " You do what you believe is right because you are concerned about your own salvation . " This individual becomes angry and walks toward the plaintiff in a threatful manner. Upon their approach the plaintiff warns them not to come any closer and to get out their way. The coward tells plaintiff that they want them to leave. Seeing the value of the realities confirmed in their totality to the plaintiff, the plaintiff gladly obliged to leave and never come back. Days later, on Christmas Eve Day, these swindlers had two of their twirps on the Carson City Police stop the plaintiff's vehicle just to impound it and have it auctioned under false pretenses of it belonging to another person.
It's clear to see who all the dramatists are and who really fail to know the meaning of life and the importance of the peacible contributions others are making daily without imposing upon or interfering with the right of others to do the same.
SUMMARY :
Medical clinics and their staff, especially medical staff, are to be held to the highest standard when it involves a patient's well being. Well being is not limited to a medical examination or proceedure but extends in actuality to the over all experience of every patient in any form of medical setting. In this situation, there were absolutely no proper perimeters established with regard to the patient as a person or their general over all privacy while enquiring as to establishing a
patient / clinical experience. Further, the medical staff in these types situations have a duty to know when actions by others, in this case administration office staff, are in any way threatening the dignity of any patient - overtly or covertly.
Based upon these facts, the plaintiff seeks, both, punitive and compensetory damages for her rights and dignity being violated as, both, a person who lives her worthy ideals and as a patient who was disrespected by violations of her privacy, defamation of character and personal dignity which are an utmost part of ones medical rights.To provide others with medical services is not a right but a priviledge. Such persons who step out of line must be made an example of through restoration of justice where the significant inequities of others zown ignorance has undermined their own life substance.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated.
To Whom This May Concern:
Under the civil tort laws renumerated within the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the colony laws of the state of Nevada, this is an attempt by the plaintiff to the above entitled matter to resolve this claim in luie of seeking damages through a public court petition.Based upon the attrocious nature of the conduct towards the plaintiff and of the facts therein and the unjust suffering this has caused the plaintiff, and based upon the average range of the settlement amounts in malpractice cases, the petitioner seeks no less than 200,000.00 in monetary damages through a malpractice insurance claim.
This matter is to be settled between the plaintiff through the defendant's malpractice insurance as soon as possible so that the plaintiff is not forced to deal with the further loss and inconvenience of seeking damages through a public court action.
Responses must be sent to :
Maria Metko, Plaintiff in Proper Person.
550 N. MacCarran Blvd
Sparks, Nevada 89431
775-276-3233
Submitted,
Dated.
Posted via Blogaway
No comments:
Post a Comment