[Special foreword to the media: Something really,
    really smells about the handling of my complaint
    filed with the New Jersey Board of Nursing against
    Psychiatric Nurse Judith Sinicola. I really expected
    them to dismiss the matter with no further elaboration,
    this being standard procedure at most government
    agencies these days. At best and in my wildest
    dreams, I simply expected a minor slap on the
    wrist of the nurse. Just look at their letter to
    me (below) which nearly had me floored, and look
    at all the "name-dropping" in it! Wait a minute!
    It's not even "name-dropping;" it's no-name
    "name-dropping!" They cite the Chief Nursing
    Executive, the Administrative Director, the
    nurse's manager, plus alleged staff witnesses
    attesting to blatant lies. See this no-name
    "name-dropping" for what it is - it's the
    orchestration of a pile-on situation with me on
    the bottom, and the orchestration of a pile-on
    situation is conspiratorial. Bear in mind: The
    Board took six months - SIX MONTHS - to finally
    send their gem of a letter to me, so, the way I
    see it, during that extended period, there
    must have been numerous back-and-forth dis-
    cussions between St. Clares Hospital and The
    Board to hammer out exactly how the claptrap
    in the letter would be presented to me, and if
    this is not conspiratorial, then I don't what
    is. I sense a great degree of paranoidal
    running-scared on the part of BOTH St. Clares
    Hospital and the Board of Nursing; the question
    is, "Why?" You really have to ask: "Why have
    they gone to such great lengths to defend the
    indefensible, and why are they being so
    conspiratorial about it?" Do read on. I do hope
    that you find my write-up to be interesting.]

For those of you who don't know the case of Charles Cullen: he admitted to serially killing 40 of his patients at various hospitals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The NJ Board of nursing is the state agency which is supposed to establish and maintain high standards in the nursing profession in N.J.

In light of the Cullen case, you'd think that the NJ Board of Nursing would be just a bit more careful about how they handle complaints brought to them about NJ nurses, but... well, you be the judge.

I've included a transcribed copy of The Board's letter of final disposition of my complaint against New Jersey Advance Practice Psychiatric Nurse Judith Sinicola of St. Clares Health Systems in Denville, NJ.

I want you to review this letter while keeping in mind the proverb of a very learned man: "In a debate, I can always tell the truth-teller from the liar; the truth-teller will attack his opponent's premise while the liar will attack his opponent."

Maybe I am not as astute as the readers in the USENET audience, so I need a little help here. Is there, in the transcribed letter below, ANY denial or other form of challenge to my claim of what Judy Sinicola did to me, which is (among other things) her telling me that I was severely depressed and dangerously suicidal and then her putting me out of the C.A.R.E.S. halfway house onto the street into the darkness of night without even knowing where I was going nor what I was going to do?

I just don't see it in the letter (which was about SIX MONTHS in coming). What I do see in it is a personal attack upon ME, the complainant, to the point of demonizing ME with falsehoods, while at the same time the letter beatifies and sanctifies little dear Judy Sinicola (and why anyone would want to do this totally escapes me)!

There are other problems with the letter which I will address below.

------ Transcribed letter starts here ------

New Jersey Office of the Attorney General
Division of Consumer Affairs
New Jersey Board of Nursing
124 Halsey Street, 6th Floor
Newark NJ 07102

March 16, 2005

To: mmiicchh at hotmail.com [Name deleted for Internet security]

RE: Judith Sinicola
License #NR 74889

Dear m:

This letter is to advise you that the Board of Nursing ("the Board") has had an opportunity to review information regarding an incident in which you complained that you were told that you were severely depressed and that you were dangerously suicidal and that you possessed a personality defect and were put out of CARES (a half-way house). You also claim that Ms. Sinicola was very antagonistic to you. A Board inquiry letter was sent to the Chief Nursing Executive ("CNE") for inquiry into the complaint. The CNE at St. Clares Hospital reported that Ms. Sinicola has been an exemplary employee for over 12 years. It was reported that the complaint was investigated by her manager and the Administrative Director including a review of the incident with staff witnesses. Based upon this inquiry, the CNE believes that the complaint is unfounded. It was reported that you refused to comply or honor the contact (sic) and treatment plan that is required at CARES. Your behavior was witnessed by staff when you stated that you had no intention of being in treatment, taking your medication, and that you were not ill.

Pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement Act, the Board of Nursing may take action when the licensee has engaged in gross or repeated acts of negligence, fraud, or professional misconduct. Upon review of all available information, the Board has determined that there is insufficient cause to warrant formal disciplinary action against Ms. Sinicola at this time.

The Board will deem its investigation to be concluded. This letter will remain on file and in the event that another incident occurs, it may be re-examined. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

[Signed]

George J. Herbert, MA, RN
Executive Director

------ Transcribed letter ends here ------

The last paragraph in the letter above starts with: "The Board will deem its investigation to be concluded." Huh? What investigation? Earlier on in the letter, it is stated that a "Board inquiry letter" was sent to St. Clares Hospital to whom the so-called "investigation" was delegated. With this delegation, the hospital seems to have gone a little wild with the reigns in the matter.

The Board, having done no independent investigation of its own, just accepted at face value what was fed back to it by the hospital, and here is where a couple of really big problems lie.

First, the hospital has a vested interest in the avoidance of embarrassment, not to mention one or more very expensive lawsuits. So it was really reckless and derelict of duty on the part of The Board to delegate the "investigation" to the hospital.

Secondly, if The Board wants to claim that they conducted any kind of valid investigation, then that investigation should have afforded to me an opportunity to rebut any or all of the information that was passed to the Board by the hospital. The rebuttal phase should have occurred BEFORE my complaint was dismissed with finality, but as you now know, it didn't. The letter states: "Upon review of all available information, the Board has determined..." THEY DIDN'T REVIEW ALL INFORMATION. I was available as a font of rebuttal information; they had my phone number; they had my address; but they made no attempt to contact me.

Boy, oh, boy, do I have a lot to rebut.

The letter states: "It was reported that you refused to comply or honor the contact (sic) and treatment plan that is required at C.A.R.E.S." This is absolutely FALSE!

This is what really happened: I had a prior go-around at C.A.R.E.S. (that is, prior to the less-then-one-day go-around which prompted the complaint.) Bear in mind, participation in C.A.R.E.S. is totally optional, totally voluntary. On the first or second day of the prior go-around, I came very close to opting out of C.A.R.E.S., and I made my feelings known to C.A.R.E.S. management. On the next day thereafter, C.A.R.E.S. management APPROACHED ME with a revised plan to which I agreed and by which I abided. I subsequently stayed at C.A.R.E.S. for the maximum 21-day stay without any complaint to me about "refusals" nor violations of C.A.R.E.S. house rules. I took my medication each and every day while at C.A.R.E.S. as required. This was witnessed by C.A.R.E.S. staff and logged into the meds record book. I had a good rapport with entire C.A.R.E.S. staff, and (as far as I knew), I left C.A.R.E.S. in good standing.

The letter states that "your behavior was witnessed by staff when you stated that you had no intentions of being in treatment, taking your medication, and that you were not ill."

Well, this allegation couldn't possibly apply to my first go-around at C.A.R.E.S., because if this were the case, then I never would have been allowed to stay for the maximum of 21 days. (I admit that I stated that I was not depressed [correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the objective of Zoloft medication] at that time, but I never said that I was not ill.)

The allegation above does not apply to my less-than-one-day second go-around at C.A.R.E.S. because I simply did not exhibit this behavior PERIOD!

Here's what DID happen regarding the second go-around in question: I was told by C.A.R.E.S. management that things would be different this time, and I AGREED TO EVERYTHING! The closest thing to a refusal from me occurred when I balked at Manager Miriam's request of me to take a shower because of a dry skin condition from which I suffer, but at her insistence, I TOOK THE SHOWER!

It's absolute rubbish to say I had no intention of taking my medication. I didn't have my supply of Zoloft with me at the C.A.R.E.S. house, so I had to make a special 4+ mile trip to my mother's residence for it. C.A.R.E.S. worker Tamyra chauffeured me there. I had a difficult time finding my Zoloft because my elderly mother had gotten her hands on it and moved it to a very unlikely place. I had to frantically search for the Zoloft because Tamyra was pressed for time. I finally found the Zoloft, and, then, back at the C.A.R.E.S. house I took my Zoloft right in front of Tamyra. So, with the kind of effort I made to get and take my medication, how can anyone in their right mind accuse me of refusing to take it?!?!

You know, you don't just admit yourself into the C.A.R.E.S. house; you have to be screened and admitted by a St. Clares psychiatrist. So, at the evaluation for my second admission to C.A.R.E.S., I told the psychiatrist that "I was totally stressed-out." So RIGHT HERE the claim that I stated that I was not ill FAILS miserably being far, far out of sync with reality. Furthermore, later during my sour, ill-fated meeting with Nurse Judy Sinicola, I told her that I suffered from anhedonia and post-traumatic stress disorder, but she just blasted back: "I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO GO THERE!" and then, after what seemed like never ending berating, Nurse Sinicola kicked me out of the C.A.R.E.S. house into the darkness of night without even knowing where I was going nor what I was going to do. [Note how The Board's letter cleverly omitted the phrase, "into the darkness of night without even knowing where I was going nor what I was going to do."]

There's one issue that seems to have escaped Judy Sinicola, St. Clares Hospital, and The Board... or maybe they just choose to evade it. It is: if I really had to, had to, had to be dismissed from the C.A.R.E.S. house, why couldn't the dismissal be postponed to the morning of the next day being that I was supposedly severely depressed and dangerously suicidal? After all, wouldn't this alternative have been much preferred, caring, prudent, competent, and professional than just tossing me out into the darkness of night?

I honestly can't comprehend how anyone in their right minds can lend backing, comfort and support to what was done to me. Why, they may as well lend backing, comfort and support to Nurse Ratched in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

I cannot stress it enough: EVEN IF THE LIES TOLD ABOUT ME WERE TRUE, THIS STILL WOULD NOT EXCUSE THE BEHAVIOR OF JUDY SINICOLA.

Now, I want you to revisit The Board's letter above and review it yet again, and tell me: does it, in any way, really address my complaint against Nurse Judy Sinicola, or is it merely a personal attack against me thereby making the letter's composer look like a BOLDFACED LIAR?

I find something rather troubling and puzzling about one of the last sentences in The Board's letter above. This sentence reads: "This letter will remain on file and in the event that another incident occurs, it may be re-examined."

If you read the letter, you'll see that it is skewed so much in favor of Nurse Judy Sinicola that The Board has made the matter a open-and-shut, hands-down-conclusive victory for Judy Sinicola, yet they'll revisit the matter if any other incidents are reported. Huh? Well, if Judy Sinicola is so clearly in the right here and even if she, at some future time and by some act of supernatural cosmic rays, morphs into another Nurse Cullen, it just doesn't make sense to revisit this matter. So what's going on here?

Well, I think that one way of looking at it is that the author of the letter blundered; he contradicted and impeached himself by admitting that validity of his own letter is... just... not... there.

Another way of looking at it is that the author wanted to create a connotative illusion that I was the FIRST and only person on the face of the planet to file a complaint against Saint Judith Sinicola, for now The Board will have to wait for a sequence of subsequent complaints before decannonizing her. I think that this illusion was created because quite the opposite is true. I am under the impression (based on my own sources of information) that I am the LAST of a sequence of prior complainants against Judy Sinicola. Maybe, when I have nothing better to do, I will visit Newark to check the public records to see whether or not I am right about this.

I could write, oh, so much more, but due to time constraints, I am cutting it off here. If any of you have any insights as to what you think is really going on here with this matter, the Board, and its unseemly handling of things, by all means, do get back to me. My email address is mmiicchh at hotmail.com. (Substitute @ for "at").

mmiicchh

P.S. The Board's letter was sent to me via certified mail. Can you imagine? It's as if the extra postage affixed to the outer envelope would boost the value of a worthless, nonsensical letter... which, by the way, WAS SIX MONTHS IN THE MAKING!!! Geeeesh! Was this the best they could do after all that time? Well, people, this is your government at work!