AMENDED CLAIMS 92-S-1561

The desire for a FAIR appraisal of services rendered.

THE ISSUES

WHY must I pay, when the payment and credit agreement, WHEN PROPERLY VIEWED, as signed by a person experiencing SERIOUS PHYSICAL DISTRESS, CAN NOT be considered a free enterprise decision.

There is NO determination to say NO BILL is due RATHER after a period of time and self healing it is NOW time to come to a reasonable decision REGARDING: HONEST MONEY OWED for services rendered! As I am NOW able to defend MY RIGHT!

There is a philosophy common to many which says "PAY the doctor, hospital, etc ANYTHING, what good is money if your dead."

I personally believe in FAIR AND EQUITABLE dealings in EVERY MATTER. Meaning honest work will be done at a FAIR wage. The description of serious physical pain is NOT a license to STEAL, yet will refuse to sign their papers when life, health, mobility, work, and so much more DEPENDS on reasonable HEALTH.

I have tried to discuss with the hospital on several occasions, with several different people the REALITY that I think this bill is unjust. EACH ONE clearly said "I" have no rights pay the bill on our terms, period.

TAKEN FROM ACTIVE ORDERS REGARDING MY CASE, as provided by Covenant Medical Center

Admitted 1:33PM time involved; approximately 10 minutes of time (1) person

Was helped to main emergency room at 3:12PM approx 10 min (1) person

Given injection 3:32 approx 5 minutes (were 4 nurses)

says given oxygen Fails to say was refused

Moved to hospital 8th floor

nursing assistance 2:25- 2:51 given pill

nursing assistance 10:33 PM time approx 15 minutes

Blood work 12:28 5:59 12:48 3:13

portable chest x-ray 1:00 5 minutes 1 person

To the Defendant: Covenant Medical Center

The deliberate and willful disregard for JUSTICE, within the confines of a FAIR and legal billing dispute: ARE the entire cause and legal action contained within case 92-s-1561. Take a closer look at the amended complaint. Your suggestion there is a cause for malpractice is unsupported, but acceptable to me; HOWEVER that cause of action rests entirely within case 92-C-1222, NOT case 92-s-1561, which is and always has been strictly a billing dispute.

Your suggestion that I have not met the requirements of section 2-622 is unsupported, case 92-s-1561, is a billing dispute case NOT a malpractice case.

I am personally surprised at your lack of knowledge regarding said amended complaint perhaps you have spent too much time fighting over the "letter of the law" RATHER than the "intent of the law". Read the material again, WITHIN the words written at the bottom: Democracy is a government by all the people FOR ALL THE PEOPLE. We live in a Democracy, do we not, which does mean LAWS that apply to one, apply to ALL! Sec 1154 (a) (11) as was sent to you is a subsection of Social Security Act, under title XVIII: health insurance for the aged and DISABLED.

Perhaps I should have included the portion of pleading in case 92-c-1222 regarding the disability I have incurred; page 5 subtitle (1) clarifies this disability (by your written words it is apparent; to you, case 92-s-1561 and 92-c-1222 are involved in these matters). IRREGARDLESS of how you view this claim; YOU have clearly stated my entitlement regarding this social security act XVIII within your medical file "physical examination" signed by P. Thopiah MD, read it again!

While it is true I do NOT collect any such benefits AND FURTHER: I DISAGREE entirely with the claim! YOU have made it possible for me to collect, at any time, with just my signature. THEREFORE I DO claim the RIGHTS, YOU SAY I HAVE and demand a review by an appropriate, peer review organization. I DO claim this right within the words page 530 sec 1155 [42 U.S.C. 1320c-4], as sent.

It is the defendant actions which has made legal action a reality NOT the plaintiff's actions. It is the defendants actions which have increased the cost of these legal actions. It is the defendants actions which have made it necessary to increase the time I have spent in court and out of court ONLY INTENT UPON JUSTICE. It is the defendants actions which have made case 92-c-1222 AND 92-s-1561 NECESSARY. I the plaintiff came looking only for monetary justice regarding a billing dispute BUT DO NOW claim my RIGHTS as defined by case 92-s-1561 and 92-c-1222 BECAUSE I do NOT want to endure these things, NOR do I wish anyone else to endure them.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that the case 92-s-1561 AND case 92-c-1222 AND the Peer Review (as demanded herein) be SPEEDILY commenced, as JUSTICE will allow.

James F. Osterbur

AMENDED CLAIMS 92-S-1561

The desire for a FAIR appraisal of services rendered.

THE ISSUES

WHY must I pay, when the payment and credit agreement, WHEN PROPERLY VIEWED, as signed by a person experiencing SERIOUS PHYSICAL DISTRESS, CAN NOT be considered a free enterprise decision.

There is a philosophy common to many which says "PAY the doctor, hospital, etc ANYTHING, what good is money if your dead."

TAKEN FROM ACTIVE ORDERS REGARDING MY CASE, as provided by Covenant Medical Center

Admitted 1:33PM time involved; approximately 10 minutes of time (1) person

Was helped to main emergency room at 3:12PM approx 10 min (1) person

Given injection 3:32 approx 5 minutes (were 4 nurses)

says given oxygen Fails to say was refused

Moved to hospital 8th floor

nursing assistance 2:25- 2:51 given pill

nursing assistance 10:33 PM time approx 15 minutes

Blood work 12:28 5:59 12:48 3:13

portable chest x-ray 1:00 5 minutes 1 person

To the Defendant: Covenant Medical Center

Your suggestion that I have not met the requirements of section 2-622 is unsupported, case 92-s-1561, is a billing dispute case NOT a malpractice case.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that the case 92-s-1561 AND case 92-c-1222 AND the Peer Review (as demanded herein) be SPEEDILY commenced, as JUSTICE will allow.

James F. Osterbur

THE ISSUES

The foundation of this nation as DECLARED in general congress assembled, july 4, 1776

".....but, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such (government) and to provide new guards for their future security..........!"

The "government" written above is for/within this instance, exchanged with the words "medical establishment", which has become in this day not unlike the tyrant for which these words were written! This "medical establishment" has invaded this land, not with soldiers, but with a long train of abuses and arrogance, with only one goal in mind: To amass the largest fortune possible! In achieving this goal, the people have lost their RIGHT:

to REASONABLE ARBITRATION

to a legitimate trial as provided by the constitution, a trial where one may peacefully seek JUSTICE!

to a FAIR and fitting cost regarding services that were NEVER ASKED FOR, OR DESIRED, RATHER these services are the result of personal war against outside forces, REQUIRED FOR SURVIVAL.

to the PROTECTION of ourselves from those UNFIT for this service; by denying our right to a FULL and impartial PATIENT SURVEY available for public inspection at all times

to Define what is life among the living and what is not (these things are for everyone, they are NOT for legislatures or doctors)!

TO BE EQUAL: there is a limit to what anyone can HONESTLY charge for wages above and beyond the REST.

to RETAIN as a citizen LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness! Men/women/ and children have NEEDLESSLY LOST life, limb, and health AS WELL AS their homes, their work, and everything they worked for BECAUSE OF GREED!

to An honest wage for honest work, NOT FLAT RATES where 30 seconds is a charge for $50.00 or more

to Uncontrolled interest rates and payment schedules in area's where there was NO INTENT to ask (NEED) these services. (accidents, illnesses are NOT chosen).

to the FAIR appraisal of what is little more than a poor hotel room.

to Services rendered, NOT a charge for services NEVER received (IF a nurse attends to a patient, that to, should be an hourly rate, or ________________)

to The control of people who say "in effect" we want gold trim everywhere, when a simple building would do just as well.

to A business that should NEVER have been a business, HONEST CARE, PEOPLE, AND TRUE NEEDS require situations where MONEY IS NOT on everyones' mind. RATHER quality care at a cost everyone can afford (a percentage of income and/or community service if the community must pay).

to LAW that protects both sides from improper retribution.

to Realities that deal with, "mistakes will be made".

to Control the teaching institutions so that doctors MAY NEVER AGAIN, CONTROL THEIR OWN COMPETITION

to Control as well, the experimentation which_____________called genetic engineering.

to The right of citizenship: TO BE EQUAL, I have NO RIGHT according to the hospital, regarding billing

to Competition from competing suppliers of services or products.

to Determine as a NATION the proper conduct for a hospital and the penalty for improper conduct!

to Admission, without the papers which REEK OF EXTORTION!

Those who would say, "these things interfere with free enterprise, "FAIL THE SIMPLE TEST: SICKNESS OR ACCIDENT IS NOT A CHOICE!

Free enterprise is a situation where BOTH parties have the UNDENIABLE OPTION to enter and accept the business deal OR WALK AWAY UNHARMED!

Let it be further REMEMBERED: DOCTORS CONTROL THEIR COMPETITION, which makes free enterprise, IMPOSSIBLE! (control is based within college admissions, medical exams, and hospital acceptance) AND THE DELIBERATE fatiguing and control over new Interns, for the sole purpose of pressing them into compliance.

There are people from every walk of life who contribute to the healing of other people; those who make drugs and surgical instruments, those who make machines, those who transport products, grow food, supply fuel, provide clean areas, housing, etc. A doctor is simple the last worker on a very long line of people involved in health care.

To show the arrogance of the "medical profession" at large, you need only look at the symbol of "the american medical association AMA" (an association of many doctors) TAKE AN HONEST LOOK

We live and work together, for the benefit of all, OR we will DIE together, FOR WE ARE TOO MANY for any other way! IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS

JAMES F. OSTERBUR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) NO. 92 S 1561

)

COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER, )

)

Defendant. )

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss in the above-entitled cause before the Honorable Ann A. Einhorn, Judge presiding, on the 3rd day of December, 1992.

APPEARANCES:

MR. JAMES F. OSTERBUR

Appearing pro se

MR. DAVID KRCHAK

Attorney at Law

appearing for the Defendant

Doncy L. Tracy, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter

Champaign County Courthouse

Urbana, Illinois 61801

THE COURT: And I have 92 S 1561, which is James F. Osterbur versus Covenant Medical Center. And in this matter, Mr. Osterbur appears pro se. And Mr. Krchak appears on behalf of Covenant Medical Center.

This matter is called for hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

And, Mr. Osterbur, you've received a copy of that motion?

MR. OSTERBUR: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: And, Mr. Krchak, anything that you wish to add to your written motion?

MR. KRCHAK: Your Honor, there has been something filed or something has been sent to me by Mr. Osterbur --

(End of Side B of Tape

No. 1349, and beginning of

Side A of Tape No. 1350.)

THE COURT: -- which is Osterbur vs. Covenant Medical Center. Mr. Krchak on behalf of the defendant on his motion.

MR. KRCHAK: Yes, your Honor. In part, I feel that my Motion to Dismiss speaks for itself; and I don't have anything to add to that.

However, I do advise the Court that I have received some additional papers from

Mr. Osterbur. I don't know whether they've been included in the Court file or not. There is no proof of service with the papers. There's nothing to indicate that --

MR. OSTERBUR: May I?

MR. KRCHAK: There's nothing to indicate that they have been filed with the Court. I don't know the purpose of those papers. I don't understand the meaning of those papers.

What happened in this case was originally he had sued for an amount of money, but that was dismissed. He was given an opportunity to re-plead. Now he's alleging some portion of the Social Security Act, Federal Social Security Act, as a new and distinct cause of action against Covenant Medical Center. And I'm just at a total loss to understand what the additional writings that he has apparently filed in this case have to do whatsoever with this case.

THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur, let me just note for the record that these are the filings that I have. I have filed on December 1st a copy of certain notices or a notice of mailing to Thomas, Mamer and Haughey, and that written notice is apparently in your handwriting. I have also filed with that xerox copies of a number of handwritten sheets without caption, as well as a number of typed sheets which I take to be the Amended Complaint, as well as a xerox copy of a part of the -- I believe, the U.S. Code, 42 U.S. Code, Section 1155 of the Social Security Act.

Okay. Mr. Osterbur, anything that you wish to say on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss?

MR. OSTERBUR: Well, this whole matter has come about a legal dispute more than anything else (inaudible). I received rejection by a doctor that was (inaudible). I might have went to the emergency room. The doctor came in and thoroughly rejected me and actually slandered me in front of my own dad. I was given drugs that I specifically said I don't want. I was not treated well. I was in my opinion used and abused and rejected and so on. And that is the cause of what has came from the -- the -- I lost my train of thought for just a minute.

From that point, after I began to feel a little bit better, I began to present a bill for a full amount as if I was treated as well as anyone might expect to be treated. I was not treated that well, and I sought to come to a point where I could have a hearing of sorts with the hospital simply to explain to management or upper management that I was treated badly and therefore and specifically I was given drugs that I should not have been given, I thoroughly rejected, and I was given them and in fact was left alone in the emergency room. People came in and gave me shots and what have you, and all of a sudden then it turned out to a machine malfunction. I was not treated well.

And in my efforts to get to a point where the hospital would hear me at all, I've written several letters over the past, over that period of time, which I will be happy to give you if that's acceptable. And all of them stating the same thing, that I was treated badly and that I want to be heard, that I want to have an adjustment in this billing arrangement. And I talked to -- at the hospital I talked to the sister, a nun, originally that was supposed to help me. She said that she would look into the matter. She did, and came back and said that we've over billed you $70. And she did not look, she did not hear my complaints at all. She just said she would look into the matter. That took about 30 seconds to do with me, and I was supposed to be happy with the $70 coming back or being off the bill. I made it clear to her that was not really the issue, that I wanted to talk to someone about what I think is fair in this billing matter; and she utterly refused and walked away immediately.

I talked to two or three different billing people, and all of them have said, with no regard for me whatsoever, that the bill is due, just pay it. That's it.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Osterbur, at this point, let me explain procedurally where we are. You have brought this complaint against Covenant Medical Center. They are not suing you for collection of any bill. You are suing them, and you are suing them in the context of the Small Claims Court in which you must establish a complaint, a cause of action.

Now, when you were in court previously in October, I dismissed your first petition and I gave you leave to re-file that petition so as to state a cause of action. And in Small Claims Court, the Court in enjoined to construe the pleadings, especially the pleadings of pro se defendants as broadly as possibly, understanding that you are representing yourself and without benefit of counsel.

However, Mr. Osterbur, I have read the pages that have been submitted to the Court and have tried to construe them as best I can as a complaint, and --

MR. OSTERBUR: May I for just a second?

THE COURT: Well, I'll let you continue for just a moment before I give the dismissal.

MR. OSTERBUR: I was -- I was -- I gave you the articles in Social Security, that I feel that I fall within the Social Security Act, that being due. And because of the -- because of the doctor's orders, they allege that gives me cause to be a beneficiary under the act, which is Social Security disabled act. I feel that as a beneficiary under this act, I'm entitled to a cause or a peer review, organizational meeting or whatever they do under that act and do ask for that.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Osterbur, what the Court was about to explain to you is that much of what you have alleged in the papers perhaps might be construed in the context of a medical malpractice; but it does not amount to a small claims court case. It does not amount to a complaint which states a cause of action by you against the hospital.

MR. OSTERBUR: I feel it was the hospital's duty to inform me that there was a possibility for this type of action that I specifically asked for many times at the hospital. Why is it that they cannot simply say to me that this is what I was asking for.

THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur, if you have a complaint as to the nature of the treatment, or --

MR. OSTERBUR: Well, I --

THE COURT: I'm not asking this as a question. I'm making a statement, Mr. Osterbur.

If that's your complaint, then you may want to look into it and research out to bring a different complaint.

You may have, the Court has no way of knowing, you may have a complaint within the context of a malpractice suit. If so, the statutes tell you how to go about doing that and what you must establish to bring such a complaint; but I am making a ruling in this case that you have not in your Amended Complaint established the cause of action, and I am going to allow the defendant's Motion to Dismiss this cause with prejudice.

MR. OSTERBUR: The reason that it was brought to take me to -- (inaudible), they were intending to take me to -- handing it over to creditors for that type of thing; and to eliminate that becoming a reality or a part of what I am dealing with, I felt it was necessary to simply make that, come forth and get the thing over with in this matter.

THE COURT: Well, the allegations that you have raised in your Amended Complaint as well as in the original complaint all go to the nature of the treatment, and this is not the forum for deciding that complaint. Therefore, I am going to dismiss it with prejudice at this time.

MR. KRCHAK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Osterbur.

(Which were all the

proceedings had in this

cause on this date.)

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

)

COUNTY OF CHAMPAIGN )

I, Doncy Tracy, an Official Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of Champaign County, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Illinois, do hereby certify that I transcribed the proceedings had in the above-entitled cause from a taped recording into typewriting, which I hereby certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings had before the Honorable Ann A. Einhorn, Judge presiding.

Dated this day of , 1993.

__________________________

Doncy L. Tracy, CSR, RPR

License No. 084-002830

Official Court Reporter