A PREPARED STATEMENT 9/2/93
BY James F. Osterbur
RE: James F. Osterbur V. Covenant Medical Center
case #92-C-1222
A "table of contents" regarding the attempts for justice, to date.
IN BRIEF:
An emergency: Initial cause, can NOT be negotiated, a medical event.
Covenant Med: Completely UNWILLING to listen to my complaint or poor treatment. Refused All attempts, NEVER allowed, even the opportunity, to constructively STATE THE PROBLEMS encountered at covenant. SIMPLY PAY WHATEVER THEY SAY!
Price fixing: The opportunity to discuss billing IS/CAN ONLY BE considered; FAIR TRADE PRACTICE!
Failure of Covenant: to arbitrate over inappropriate billing is CONCLUSIVE!
Not Perfect: Covenant med center makes mistakes, this is only one. This situation demanded MEDIATION.
Small Claims: was considered the most reasonable method to secure a speedy determination of DIFFERENCES
Small Claims: proved unsuitable!
Amended Small Claims: sought MEDIATION through a peer review board; trained doctors from different locations determine fault. THIS WAS DENIED, WITHOUT CAUSE! Even though LAW was supporting, and shown.
A Minor Conflict: over less than $1000.00, HAS become an instrument which will alter my life, as it proceeds through court. Because arbitration and mediation have been denied to me, to date. THIS IS UNFAIR.
EQUALITY: That reality which states, what is FAIR for you, IS FAIR FOR ME: is the simple framework of this pleading.
MONOPOLY: The legislature has allowed the medical community to police itself: IF, I must have a doctor tell/allow me, to take another doctor/hospital to court. They themselves have become their own judge and jury. THIS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL proceeding.
The Court: to date refuse to mediate this dispute and as such greater pleadings have been issued, as a warning.
Covenant Med: ONLY, at the risk of a multi million dollar lawsuit, made one SHORT, VERY LIMITED, attempt to avoid court.
Covenant Medical center, through their lawyer, HAS requested court proceedings to be enlarged: Covenant being directly handed the legal possibilities AND being fully FOREWARNED of the content and nature these proceeding would take, HAVE chosen.
SUMMARY; this case IS defined by its initial title page. The desire for truth and FAIR play, IS EVIDENT, as well as, CLEAR, that the plaintiff HAS worked in GOOD FAITH toward a FAIR and reasonable SOLUTION.
FOR THE RECORD: NO attempt has been made to cause Covenant ANY UNDUE trouble or expense. They have NOT dealt in good faith with the plaintiff THROUGHOUT.
ANY person complaining of heart problems is in NO position to sign a binding contract. IF conflict arises, it must be dealt with at a later time, dependant upon health.
TO THE COURT: The ISSUES herein have purposely been established in such a manner, as to cause: The MORAL RIGHTS of a public citizen are greater than insignificant, definitions or interpretations of minor infractions, IN EITHER, procedure or LAW.
JUSTICE establishes LAW as a part of Society
Minor infractions divide and destroy when used against the public good.
Beyond the smallest doubt, EACH public citizen IS worth more than any infraction or procedural difference, and IS surely EQUAL TO LAW.
THE LAW IS NOT greater than the citizen. The LAW IS PROVIDED BY THE CITIZEN, capable and intended, to provide JUSTICE FOR ALL!
LAW
IS FOR THE COMMON GOOD, NOT A MECHANISM, BUT A HUMAN REALITY, DEPENDENT ON MUTUAL RESPECT, FOR EACH PERSON
James F. Osterbur