RANIA HITO, NEURO-RADIOLOGIST Rania Hito, MD (@HitoRania). Neuroradiologist, Director of MRI @VABoston, food allergy mom. the veteran’s right to a fair hearing was tainted by consideration of the erroneous xray produced by Dr. Rania Hito. BOSTON MA

This is update #3

Mr. Denis McDonough,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs:

Lets begin this update with a recap from previous content:

Jan 8th 2016: veterans claim for service connection is reopened

Feb 5th 2016: 90 day window opens for vet to submit evidence

Feb 25th 2016: jenny jin fraudulently changes diagnosis made by rheumatologist.

Mar 28th 2016: rania hito provides “ERRONEOUS” Xray lumbar spine that contradicts medical hist.

Mar 31st 2016: veterans law judge Banfield orders remand.

Aug 20th 2016: medical examiner Michael fraze provides negative opinion against veteran.

Fastforward to APRIL 3RD 2020 (four years later):

Veteran meets on videoconference with veterans law judge Eric Leboff. Veteran tries to explain wrong doing by jenny jin and rania hito.  Judge Leboff tells veteran hearing is about “other issue.” (Conference transcript must be available for you to confirm.) Veteran is misled into thinking he can’t discuss/correct wrongdoing by jenny jin and rania hito.

JUN 3RD 2020: judge Leboff issues remand ordering examination of lumbar spine, without giving veteran a chance to correct wrong doing by jenny jin and rania hito.  As such, the problems created by jenny jin and rania hito SPILL into the new remand by judge Leboff.  Consequently, VA fails, once again, to consider veteran’s argument for service connection. 

Union workers at VA have an incentive to ignore veteran’s argument because it implies admitting to the wrong doing by jenny jin, rania hito, judge banfield, and medical examiner Michael frazee.

Since veteran’s previous attempts to provide his argument have failed, here it is:

veteran claims service connection for the diagnosed ankylosing spondylitis diagnosed by rheumatologist, with onset during service; knee problem secondary to diagnosed as.  Here’s the available evidence, its actually very simple:

JULY 15 2003: medical note from army medical hospital noting backpain, taking motrin, pain level 6 in a scale from 1 to 10.

AUGUST 19 2005: medical note from va el paso, noting backpain, taking motrin, pain level 6 in a scale from 1 to 10.

AUGUST 17 2011: xray study lumbar spine, noting straightening of lumbar curvature.

JANUARY 30 2012: xray study lumbar spine, noting straightening of lumbar curvature.

JULY 23 2015: va boston rheumatologist diagnoses veteran with ankylosing spondylitis

FEBRUARY 29 2015: jenny jin and Jorge Villafuerte: knee problem likely related to diagnosed AS.

(this information was faxed to the Board of Veterans Appeals on March 8th. )

MEDICAL LITERATURE:

“Chronic low back pain and stiffness are the typical presenting symptoms of AS.”

(Alphonse T. Masi, 2009)

“The study confirms that there is a direct link between chronic lower back pain and spondyloarthritis says Angelique Weel, PhD, MD; a rheumatologist at the Maasstadziekenhuis Rotterdam and an investigator in the study.  “Such patients diagnosed by primary care physicians could be helped early in their disease by referral to a rheumatologist” (American College of Rheumatology)

The inflammatory back pain in ankylosing spondylitis typically has an insidious onset and a dull quality, and the pain radiates into the gluteal regions…over time, axial arthritis can progress from the sacroiliac joints, gradually ascending to involve the cervical spine.  Limited spinal mobility results from spinal deformities such as FLATTENING OF THE LUMBAR LORDOSIS.” (Rajesh K. Kataria D.O., 2004)

VETERANS LAW:

VA has a duty to address all arguments put forth by a claimant and/or theories under which entitlement to benefits sought may be awarded.  Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet App. 545, 552 (2008) (noting that the Board is required to consider all issues raised either by the claimant or reasonably by the evidence of record), aff’d sub nom.

Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Buckley v. West, 12 Vet. App. 76, 83 (1998) (noting that where the RO and the Board have failed to address an argument reasonably raised by a claimant in support of a claim over which the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has jurisdiction by virtue of a notice of disagreement (NOD) that satisfies Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA paragraph 402, the court will remand the claim with directions that the Board address the particular arguments in support thereof)  This includes the duty to address arguments a veterans has specifically made as it relates to the adequacy of any given VA examination.  VA’s duty to assist includes, in appropriate cases, the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.  See Green v. Derwinsky, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that an applicant for veteran’s disability benefits possesses a constitutionally protected property interest in those benefits, requiring procedural due process during the application process.  In considering the claim of a veteran who injured his back while serving in the military, the court chronicled the veteran’s attempts to obtain a disability benefit beginning in 1974. After repeated denials, the veteran eventually discovered that the officials who rejected his claim erroneously relied on a medical record that had been improperly altered. 

After the BVA refused to reconsider its decision in light of the tainted medical record, the veteran unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a veteran’s entitlement to disability benefits is a property interest protected by the Dure Process Clause of the Firth Amendment. 

The court applied several circuit court decisions holding when government benefits are nondiscretionary, an applicant for those benefits, as well as a recipient, possesses a property interest protected by due process.  The court then held that the veteran’s right to a fair hearing was tainted by consideration of the erroneous medical record.  (44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 545, *549)

Mr. Denis McDonough,

Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs:

In the previous update, we saw how the union workers at VA Boston retaliated against the veteran who questioned the erroneous conclusions provided by Rania Hito.  In this second update, we will continue to examine the false claims made by Stephen J. Quinn, PhD, VA Boston staff psychologist, on his letter dated May 10 2016.   

Stephen J. Quinn, PhD, VA Boston staff psychologist:

“in recent months [veteran] lost his VASH housing, returning to homelessness due to his unwillingness to comply with program requirements.  In the later case, it is important to note that the VASH housing program is very supportive and invests considerable staff time and energy in helping veterans’ access any and all resources they need in order to remain stably housed.”

Please note that Stephen J. Quinn, PhD, is making statements without citing/providing any documentation to support his claims. As such, the staff psychologist at VA Boston, falsely claims that the veteran returned to homelessness due to “his unwillingness to comply with program requirements.”

For the sake of clarity, let us proceed to examine the issue in a chronological order.  On or about July 29th 2015, the veteran got help from the HUD/VASH program at VA Boston to rent an apartment in the city of Lynn, MA.  The problems began when the rent voucher was given to the veteran three days before it expired, leaving him no time to look for a suitable apartment. 

On the very last day before the rent voucher expired, Ms. Rebecca Faherty, a social worker at the HUD/VASH program at VA Boston, gave the veteran the information about the apartment in the city of Lynn.  An appointment was made to go see the apartment, but, the peer specialist driving the veteran to see the apartment, showed up late, the veteran missed the appointment and could not inspect the apartment.  Within hours before the rent voucher expired, the veteran agreed to move into the apartment.  Raw sewage started leaking from the ceiling soon after the veteran moved in.  The social workers at the HUD/VASH program ignored the veteran’s complaints.

The veteran went on the call the Health Department at the city of Lynn, MA.  Attached find the two-page report prepared by an inspector at the Health Department for the city of Lynn, MA, dated March 1st, 2016.  Amongst other things, the inspector found that there was “raw sewage” coming down from the ceiling of the apartment in question.  The inspector also notes that, “veteran moved out” and that there will be a second inspection on march 9th 2016 for the landlord to fix the problems identified by the inspector. 

On that same day, March 1st, 2016, the very same day that the health department inspected the veteran’s apartment, the veteran received an email from Edward Flemming, LICSW, CADC, LADC-1,  HUD/VASH Social Work Supervisor at VA Boston.  In that email, Mr. Flemming acknowledges that, “we have been in touch with the landlord and he has met with the Lynn Public Health department.  Apparently, the apartment is not in good shape.”  In fact, the apartment was in such a bad shape, that the landlord could not fix the deficiencies by March 9th, 2016, the deadline stipulated by the Health inspector. 

Here comes the spin Edward Flemming gave to this issue.  On April 5th, 2016, Edward Flemming, sends the veteran an email with a two-page attachment titled “Plan for Re-Engagement.”  In this plan, Mr. Edward Flemming, the HUD/VASH Social Work Supervisor, states that:

“your case was reviewed by the HUD/VASH Termination Committee for the following categories of non-compliance: risk to self and/or others, non-compliance with case management services, and non-payment of rent and/or utilities.”

Mr. Edward Flemming further adds that, “In order to ensure your health and safety and that of the community, the following plan is recommended…” At the end of his plan for re-engagement, Mr Flemming ends with the following statement:

“*By not agreeing to comply with the Plan for Re-Engagement and Compliance, the HUD/VASH Termination Committee will move forward on removal of your voucher and your participation will end with the program.” 

And that effectively was the end of the veteran’s participation in this VA program.  Up to this day, it is unknown how Edward Flemming went from acknowledging that the veteran’s apartment was not in good shape to accusing the veteran of “non-compliance” and being a “risk to self and others” in the community.   Nonetheless, this incendiary nonsense by Edward Flemming is the basis for the false claims made by the VA staff Psychologist, Stephen J. Quinn.  Attached find an outline that I prepared to review this situation, hopefully, it will help you organize the information to understand the false claims made by both union workers at VA Boston.

It is worth mentioning that during this time, the year 2016, the veteran made the dean’s list in the college he was enrolled in, and he also got an internship at Harvard University.  The veteran was making progress until the union workers destroyed it with their lies. 

Please note that, during this same year, the veteran’s claim for service connection was derailed by the erroneous claims provided by Rania Hito and Jenny Jin.  Six years later, in 2022, the veteran’s claim for service connection is still in limbo (JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED), and the union workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs continue to abuse the veteran with their lies.  I hope every single member of congress and senate takes notice and provide effective options to protect veterans from the union workers.  If you are accepting money from Big Labor to finance your political campaigns, you are selling veterans to ruthless union workers.  Thank you. 

Mr. Denis R. McDonough,

Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs:

The report above established how the erroneous work of Rania Hito resulted in a violation to the veteran’s right to a fair hearing in his claim for service connection.  This update attempts to document the response of union workers at VA Boston, after the veteran “respectfully disagreed” with the work of Rania Hito.  At VA Boston, the so-called “experts” at the “Disruptive Behavior Committee” characterized the veteran’s respectful disagreement as “harassment” and later went on to issue a “patient record flag,” stating that if the veteran becomes “disruptive” again, the “VA Police will be contacted to intervene and address accordingly.” 

I am asking you to please review the pertinent documentation to get your opinion as to whether or not the union workers at VA Boston are justified in their proceeding for this case.  I am asking you to do this review because a few months ago I found out a report on the internet stating that that my cell phone IP address “is a proxy connection and is associated with recent SPAM blacklist activity or abusive behavior.  IP QUALITY SERVICE (IPQS) fraud scoring algorithms have rated this IP address as HIGH RISK scoring 82 out of 100.  Users or transactions originating from this IP address should be treated with caution.  This decision is based on high confidence due to recent abuse from this connection.”  Attached find an image with the full report for your review.

It is worth mentioning that the IPQS report’s narrative is the same as the narrative used by the union workers at VA Boston: email spam, risk, violence, and then some, like fraud, suspicious and malicious behavior, etc.  I became aware of this report after I changed my password for my OUTLOOK EMAIL address, my IP address was show in the confirmation email, and I decided to google it.  I decided to change my password because I started suspecting the VA union workers were reading my personal emails. 

I suspected my email address to be hacked after I got two rebuttals within hours of filing reports denouncing VA corruption at this website (the ripoffreport). I figured that, unless the union workers were inside my email address, reading the notifications of the reports I file here, there is no way for them to find out about my publications within hours of the original posts, so as to file rebuttals.  Similarly, the IPQS report that I cite, disappeared from google within hours of me taking a screen shot and saving it on my cell phone—that reinforces my suspicion as to whether or not, the union workers are inside my cell phone. By the way, I can no longer take screen shots with my cell phone, the function no longer appears on its settings menu. 

There is more.  Last year, I enrolled in some online courses at a university in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. After finishing the second semester on or about July 9th, 2021, I notified the school authorities that I would no longer continue to enroll in the next semester. About ten days later, when I was no longer a student, I got a letter from the university stating that I had been expelled from it due to, “disrespect, threats, blackmail, etc., against teachers.  The report came about 10 days after the semester had ended and after I had notified the school I was withdrawing from the school. In response to this letter, I have contacted the Chihuahua State Commission for Human Rights, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, and the United Nations, seeking protection from further abuse from the school authorities at the university in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico.   

Again, just like in the case of the IPQS report, the narrative employed by school authorities at the University in Chihuahua, Mexico, fits very well with the narrative employed by union workers at VA Boston: harassment, threats, blackmail, fraud, abuse, violence, etc.  As you can see, it escalated quickly and it shows no sign of stopping.  This is why it is so important for you to review the letters from VA Boston, and issue an opinion in writing, so I can use it as a mechanism to defend myself from the constant abuse from the union workers. 

If the union workers are inside my email address, reading my emails; then, they know every step I am making towards my personal development, and can actively derail my efforts—like they derail my claim for service connection-- by simply creating and disseminating their false reports to all the people I communicate with on my email.

 If all of this sounds shocking to you, it should not be surprising at all considering that these union workers actually mock veterans’ suicide, as published by the Indianapolis Star, on March 9th, 2015.  You know who these union workers are: there is also the article written Benjamin Krause where he cites an AFGE insider stating that, “Cox [AFGE’s union boss] is delusional and that his newest spin in the op-ed shows AFGE, as an organization, is “out of their minds!” 

And then there is this other article published on the website, https://www.nrtw.org/top-ten/ , stating that: “Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.”

Again, Mr. Secretary, please, review the documentation that I share with you today, and tell us whether or not the union workers at VA Boston have stepped out of their bounds.  I count on your leadership to protect veterans, VA staff, and the American democracy, from a corrupt union. Thank You.  

Below, find some excerpts from the letters union workers at VA Boston sent me, and email communication with my rheumatologist about the erroneous work of Rania Hito, which started it all.  Its in chronological order. 

MARCH 21ST 2016

Email from rheumatologist:

“The pain you have in your back right now is very concerning to me for a fracture, which may compress your spinal cord and lead to permanent damage. I very strongly recommend you have spine X ray, which I will order now.”

MARCH 31ST 2016

Veteran’s email to rheumatologist:

“I am reading the xray results and noticed the following note: ‘unremarkable radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine without findings to suggest ankylosing spondylitis.’

My question is: is there, or is there not AS ?? and how does this change the previous diagnosis. Thank you.”

APRIL 1ST 2016

Veteran’s email to rheumatologist:

“ The conclusions provided by Dr. Rania Hito deserved to be looked at by the board as these seem to be fraudulent … I respectfully disagree with the conclusions provided by Dr Hito.”

MAY 10TH 2016

AUTHOR: STEPHEN J QUINN, STAFF PSYCHOLOGIST AT DEPT VETERANS AFFAIRS BOSTON.

“The patient was referred to the Disruptive Behavior Committee due to a patter of disruptive behavior that has extended over a period of months.  When [the veteran] has disagreed with an assessment or diagnosis outcome in care provided by his rheumatologist, Dr. Dubreuil, he responds with strong disagreement and accusations of incompetence, proceeding to send his written complaints to dozens od Dr. Dubreuil colleagues via their academic affiliation emails, the Massachusetts medical board, national newspapers, and congressional legislators… the veteran’s history suggests a relatively low risk of violence in spite of the harassing behavior that he has been engaging in…there is no recommendation for behavioral flag at this time”

     Stephen J. Quinn, Ph.D., STAFF PSYCHOLOGIST, 5/10/2016

MAY 17TH 2016

“The members of the Boston Healthcare System Disruptive Behavior Committee (DBC)

are writing to you today … repeated electronic communications to a random array of Dr. Dubreuil’s academic colleagues, as well as politicians, news outlets and the medical board have no functional relationship to your treatment and serve no purpose other than as a form of harassment….

VA Boston Healthcare System, Disruptive Behavior Committee

NOVEMBER 14TH 2016,

Re: PATIENT RECORD FLAG

“The Disruptive Behavior Committee, which is made up of experts in evaluating disruptive behavior and violence risk, was asked to review your case and to make recommendations about how we can continue to offer you safe and appropriate health care without exposing you, other patients and visitors, or employees to a risk of disruptive behavior or violence.

After receiving your record, the Disruptive Behavior Committee has decided to post a Patient Record Flag (PRF) on your electronic medical record to notify VA staff regarding your potential risk of disruptive behavior or violence…. The specific working of the Patient Record Flag that will be posted in your record is provided below:

Veteran has engaged in repeated harassment of providers through emailing complaints to academic colleagues, licensing boards, politicians, public figures and media outlets.  He has done this over time and across a variety of providers and specialties.  He has also obtained providers’ private cell phone numbers without permission and made harassing calls, questioning diagnostic results or treatment recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

In spite of his disruptive behavior, the veteran typically presents in a polite fashion leading provider to spend inordinate amounts of time explaining assessment results or treatment recommendations.  This has proven to be of no benefit, as disagreements are not a product of misunderstanding.

The patient can be informed that he is able to pursue his due process rights through filing a tort claim against VA, using Standard Form-95 (SF-95) available through the Patient Advocate’s Office

Pursuant to Federal Regulation, 38 CFR, Part 17.107, VA may restrict the time, place, and manner of the provision of medical care to veterans who are disruptive or pose a risk of disruptive behavior.  Accordingly, the following changes to your provision of medical care are in effect as of the date of this order:

1. if you become disruptive, VA Police will be contacted to intervene and address accordingly. As a result of any disruptive behavior exhibited, you may be asked to leave the premises for the reminder of the day….
2. A Patient Record Flag on your electronic medical record will serve as a reminder to your clinicians of the rules imposed on you, as stated in the Patient Record Flag Posting…
3. A copy of this Order will remain permanently in your medical record.
4. your flag will remain in effect for a period of two years. The Disruptive Behavior Committee will review your risk for further disruptive behavior or threats every two years and will determine whether to continue or to discontinue the flag.