Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
__

JOSEPH CRUSSIAH.

~AlEl

ENTERED
LDDGED.RECEIVFO

FEB hf'Z016

~;i'tRE~QC;P

Plaintiff
BY

CLERK u.s. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT Of' MARYLAND
DEPUTV

v.
CAROL ATTIA,
ANTHONY MACARTHY,
ASMIR SYED,
LUC OKE, and
ANJANA DHAR

Civil Action No. TDC-15-2516

Defendants

I'LAINTIFF ,JOSEI'H CRUSSIAH'S OI'I'OSISTION TO DEFENDANT ANJANA

DHAR'S "MOTION TO DISMISS COI'MI'LAINT" (ECF No. 13) AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUI'PORT
Plaintiff Joseph Crussiah files this motion and memorandum in support, in opposition to
Defendant Anjana Dhar's Motion to Dismiss (ECI' No. 13) and states as follows:
The practice of medicine has many complexities and all sorts of surgical procedures and
analyzing cancer cells and such. Consequently there are expert witnesses who give piece by
piece analysis of the actions of a physician.
But there are also some simple things. Perhaps, a non-physician can detect when a physician
discriminates, based on race. If the physician files in court that he will suffer substantial ham1 if
he treats, perhaps, an African American patient; the reasonable inference is that, the physician
has, essentially, given a confession. The defendants. in the collective as Medstar I'amily Choice
filed precisely that same statement with This Court in the related case, as an intervenor.

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 16

These 5 defendants were delegated by the government to take care of Plainti!rs health.
Plaintiff is fully competent to manage his own healthcare; but this government program is free to
The Plaintiff and is well established, to be a set of rights. Plaintiff, even tried to purchase his
own health insurance but he was channeled into this system.
It is a very condescending and patronizing system, but there is across the board agreement
that the indigent need free or low cost healthcare and that many of the recipients are not so
competent, and need this "nanny" type of system.
Because the laws come from The Social Security Act and because of this "nanny" type
system; the instant case could be said to be a cross between a Social Security benefits case and a
prisoner suit; both of which are regularly heard in federal court.
Four defendants are physicians, Attia is a nurse and their supervisor. These physicians are
taking orders from a nurse. This nurse, Attia has even supplied coullselto the physicians who
have tiled motions. Both sets of attorneys come from the same law tim] in Baltimore. when
these physicians are from the Washington. DC suburbs. These attorneys also want to dismiss the
entire Complaint and that would include the counts against that nurse, Attia.
That nurse also is somewhat distressed from the free psychoanalysis about her personality
that Plaintiff performed. That she got to where she is. by crushing the little nurses. [Plaintiff in
the related case. cited from (nova v. NRLB and Plaintiff mainly cited some humorous facts; but
that court found extensive evidence of that type of thing]. Additionally, that court found that
these people carry their lies and deceit to the very end; even after a 14 day hearing where it was
Inova who was thoroughly crushed by their nurses.
On a good day, physicians refuse of share power with nurse practitioners who are advanced
practice nurses. Nurse practitioners argue that they can perfornl the functions of a physician in a

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 16

doctors' office setting. And here again, the distinction is highlighted between some complex
surgery and the work physicians perform in a doctors' oflice
But Attia is a BSN, so she is more of just a regular nurse, who has a BS degree. This strange
pattern of the "food chain" suggests that probably government is involved and in this medical
system, government rules are controlling. No doctor takes orders from a nurse in the
professional standards, based medical system.
These 5 defendants are part of a government medical system. In this medical system a nurse
can order a doctor around and this is because the nurse is an executive at a large corporation; but
in the normal world of medicine, Attia is still only a nurse.
Plainti ff, she even acknowledges

[fyou look at Attia's letters to

that she has the power to discipline physicians.

And if a nurse was actually disciplining a physician, that likely, relates to some private
behavior, that is the personal business of the doctor and his nurse. But then, break-time is over
and its' back to the doctor being in-charge.
With the defendants in the instant case there are numerous recorded phone calls that are on
the internet and Plaintiff made some form of transcript, and submitted them in some of his
filings. The conduct of these 5 defendants and their subordinates, sounds, virtually, identical to
things that are done to perhaps discriminate against an African American seeking to rent an
apartment. These people are very polite and give you a lot of time; but at the end. they leave you
with a big "Zero". And at the end of the day, the apartment seeker wants at least the least sought
after unit in the building, the bare minimum, which would be settling for much less than what the
law says was owed. But with a smile, they spin you around and misquote all the laws and
misquote even what you requested.

And give provide false names and other lies.

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 16

Plaintiff was consistently and overwhelmingly

requesting

basic medical care and the

initial assessment is further, a more basic component.

These people deliberately, only focused on discipline or in the instant case calling things in
the past, malpractice and adjudicating the matter, as it: the event was exclusively, some past
wrong, when these people have duties and obligations and are fully capable of delivering on
those things which were owed in the past.
One thing they can do is to amend the medical records they created to reflect facts; correcting
their wrongs of placing false and insufficient statements into those records to benefit other
wrongdoers who have harmed The Plaintiff and for some price has been able to hijack Plaintiffs
basic medical care.
The case for tortious interference by Defendant Dhar already survived the initial motions in
the related case againt lnova. Ifwasjust

that Dhar was not named as a defendant in that case.

These are government contractors, with the obligation to give healthcare; who deliberately,
harmcd The Plaintiff for the benefit of others; these are also civil rights violations.
Should defendants make simple corrections to the past records and create contemporaneous
records that fully detail Plaintiffs medical history; that will undo the benefit they gave the others
and also produce evidence of their own wrongdoing.
An added wrong, something of an unintended consequence, but with full knowledge that it
will occur is the garbage-in, garbage-out concept. And when garbage is in the medical records,
the output is garbage medical care. Then, garbage medical care for PlaintitTwho already has
severe medical problems; can only cause more medical problems.
The government, actually, never contracted out to a large corporation to perform the
governments'

functions. The government contracted out to Medstar Family Choice, a small

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 5 of 16

corporation. The federal government was comfortable with this arrangement, whereby,
Maryland would be able to control this small contractor.
But then, this small contractor is actually owned by a giant corporation. Medstar. So now. it
is this giant corporation that is calling all the shots. Furthermore, Medstar Family Choice is only
a "shell corporation". simply there to make the federal government think that Maryland has to
control some small corporation.

When facts are that Medstar Family Choice has no employees

and the agents are all Medstar. the giant corporations' employees.
PlaintifTestablished that the giant corporation has captured the state agency to the point that
someone high-up at the state agency. in the words of one of their own agents, "knocked
[Plaintiff] out of the system" at a time Plaintiff needed even more medical care.
But this was not a one time thing. even when Plaintiff gave the state agency the opportunity
to re-assert their control over Medstar Family Choice, the state remained. silent, still taking
orders from Medstar.
All this occurs because of malice and not some funding issue.
The controversy in the instant case nearly entirely concerns the initial visits to a physician.
Defendant Dhar argues that PlaintifTonly visited her only one time; she makes The Plaintiff's
argument. With all the wrongdoing during that initial visit. no reasonable person would go back
to that doctor.
The initial visit. almost always is done at a loss. This is no different than an attorney who
gives a free consultation or a contractor who gives a free estimate.
Defendant Dhar's argument that seeks to minimize the value of the initial visit is not
supported by the experts in her field. Davis Liu. M.D. has a "blog". on the internet:
"With their constellation of symptoms. it is the listening, examining and diagnostic skills of the
primary care provider that makes the difference between ordering the right tests. the right
5

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 6 of 16

treatments and if needed the right referrals. What differentiates doctors from nurse practitioners
is our training, clinical experience, disciplined thought process, and a framework to
problem solve, provide a depth of understanding.
Patients don't present with the classic
textbook description of an illness".
Dr. Liu further states: "When she has symptoms, she is trying to find a solution to allow her to
feel better. This is when she seeks care with a primary care provider".
Plaintiff entered an exhibit from a retired physician who declared that if a person, such as
The Plaintiff has a medical problem; they should visit a physician who will take care of
everything; which confers with this standard stated by Dr. Liu. and the physician will produce all
those items which could be compared to "elements".
Furthermore; the physician declared that she was employed in the VA system, a federal
government managed healthcare entity. In the instant case. the health care entity. Medicaid is
also managed by the federal government. by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. a
unit of IIHS.
1)laintifrs physicians were competent, and did all this. They are also familiar with the
"who's who" of local physicians; this is a small, intimate, universe.

They would have

known:
I.

the full scope of the criminal offenses.

2.

it was not. the medical malpractice that Plaintiff suspected. when he tiled suit against Inova

in December. 2014.
3.

it was not the "lone. horny. MRI tech theory" that Plaintiff presented in his August. 2015

suit against the defendants in the instant case.

4.

the owner of the MRI facility. Dr. Jeff Jacobson is a neurosurgeon. and only someone with

that qualification could have trained the MRI tech to navigate the needle through a complicated

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 7 of 16

maze of obstructions.

This fact alone shows that the actions were pre-planned, many days, prior.

This explains the tech's nervousness.

5.

With the catheter established and Plaintiff sealed in the tube, Dr. Jacobson who is

thoroughly familiar with, and comfortable with all the life and death motions of the human body;
administered an injection, not of drugs, but a mechanical process.
6.

Sex assault is the only motive. The person at the front desk of the MRI facility would be

aware and may have participated.

The same can be said about a similar staffer in Dr. Jacobson's

neurology office, upstairs. Because of pre-planning, others could have been present.
7.

Then to conceal everything, by persisting with the same technique, tried to produce a stroke.

it would be said to be coincidental.

The Plaintiff would be taken to nearby Suburban Hospital.

Dr. Jacobson has an affiliation and he would control the facts.

8.

Because Plaintiff was sent for the test by a neurologist. a specialist in strokes, this physician

would take over at some point; and there would have to be a pre-standing conspiracy.
9.

Dr. Jacobson harms, even his own patients:

A neurologist. back surgeon, Dr. Jeff Jacobson practicing in Washington. DC, would send
patients that did not need surgery to his MRI machine in Maryland, where Dr. John Athas, a
radiologist would produce fraudulent interpretations. Dr. Jacobson's "surgery mill" was at
Suburban Hospital in Bethesda. a hospital bought by Johns Hopkins in 2009. Dr. Jacobson used
all the shortcuts, at the same time. In one case with an opinion of an appeal; Dr. Jacobson used a
drill instead of milder instruments, used a large drill bit. used one hand to drill and the other to
do other things, did not use an assistant. and other things. The drill sucked up the nerves that
control bladder and bowel function. He took the nerves out of the drill, glued it back and went
on, like nothing happened; until the patient on his own found out that he lost those functions.
Onlinc statcment from another patient:
"Dr. Jacobson perfomled a laminectomy on my spine years ago. He left me with a life of severe
chronic pain. I had to have 5 more surgeries since in order to attempt to correct the errors.
Following the surgery he would have nothing to do with me or my family and wrote a bogus
post-surgical report. Neither he or his office staff ever called post-surgery to see if I improved.
Once, I went to the hospital he works in because of the severe pain, he refused to see and instead
sent his assistant who dismissed my pain and sent me home with medication"

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 8 of 16

There is a contemporaneous case in Texas of Dr. DUl1lsch.doing similar things and he is being
charged with criminal o/Ii!llses because facts support that he derived personal pleasure.
10.

An interpretation report of the MRI test, which was forged to show that Dr. Athas had

signed it. It said ""electrically signed". rather than "electronically".

Plaintiff thought that Mr.

Pape!. the tech. produced the forgery because the incorrect word was chosen. But, one has to be
incredibly dumb to make this error. The error was actually a simple "typo"; but it came because
it was done using medical specific. dictation software. An MRI tech would not have access to
the implements.

It is surgeons who type by mouth. because their hands are, otherwise occupied.

The word "electrically" is a part of the medical lexicon. often related to the ECG test. On the
other hand "electronically"

is a computer term. And, as with his surgeries, Dr. Jacobson was fast

and consequently. sloppy.

Plaintiff Established

Federal Question .Jurisdietion

And now. Plaintiff cut/pastes directly from Complaint and includes the paragraph number.
which is "3", essentially, at the beginning.
Defendants are Performing

State Functions

3. The Plaintiff is entitled to a federal right. that of medical assistance. The right was
triggered when Maryland agreed with the federal government to produce and distribute the
associatcd benefits to individuals. such as The Plaintitl~ Without the individual beneficiary;
qualifying by a sct criteria. signing-up for the program and performing several obligations;
Maryland would not rcceive the federal payment [100% for PlaintiffJ for that individual.
a. The program implementation is regulated by 42 CFR 438. Title XIX of the Social
Security Act, 42 USC 1396 et seq. and various federal authorities. The law rcquires Maryland to
provide a "fee for servicc" program. whcreby; the beneficiary gets medical care from a physician
of his choosing who is willing to accept reimbursement from Maryland. In that systcm it is
unlikely that the physician would be considered to be a state agent.
b. Maryland is given a "Section IllS Waiver" by Tbc Centcrs for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, a division of U.S. "US. The waiver bas allowed M:II')'land to substitute
8

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 9 of 16

a different method to fulfill Malj'land's ohligations for which it is paid. Malj'land

contracts with a Managed Care Organization [MCOI. The defendants are the agents of
one such contractor.
c. The MCO has all the powers that Maryland had within the previous system. In addition.
the MCO has much of the powers of the physicians and some of the powers of the beneficiary,
The MCO contracts with a small pool of physicians to make final delivery of healthcare.
The beneficiary is prevented from oblllining care outside the pool, even if; he pays. Many
physicians outside the pool, who want to join; arc not allowed.
d. The Enrollee I land book is reviewed and by U.S. HHS. Maryland only gets the Section
1115 Waiver if the MCO's handbook reflects federal law. The handbook must reflect what
federal law states to be, the benefiehllj"s entitlement and rights.

IThis is why Attia's assistant in a recorded phone call is heard telling Plaintiff
that, she has never heard of the enrollee handbook, because the handbook
contains Plaintiff's federal rightsl
e. The Maryland regulations are found in Title 10 of CO MAR
10,09,24,16 Except if the language of a specific regulation indicates an intent by the Department
to provide reimbursement for covered services to Program recipients without regard to the
availability of federal financial participation. State regulations shall be interpreted in
conformity with applie:lble federal statutes and regulations.
f. The MCO and all its contractors, subcontractors and employees, including the
physicians; receive extensive instruction letting them know that they arc earlj'ing out state
duties, In exchange for the MCO being allowed to earn a huge profit from federal dollars and
the physicians getting federal dollars; the MCO signs a contract with Maryland that indemnifies
Maryland and informs the MCO and their agents that Maryland will not extend sovereign
immunity to the contractor and their agents. This is recognition by Maryland that it is state
functions. that these contractors are performing.
g, The Meo is a full.time state contractor. The MCO is not like a physician who has other
business; as well.

The

Mea, exclusively;

performs a set of state functions; and nothing else.

The MCO's physicians, like the Dr. Atkins in The U.S. Supreme Court decision,
West v. Atkins (No. 87-5(96) have professional duties outside of the state contract. It was
found that Dr. Atkins owed both professional obligations and the obligations of the state to
Mr. West.
h, U,S.C. I396(a)(8). the reasonable promptness requirement. Obligations must be
performed with reasonable promptness. "Section 1396(a)(8) is unmistakenly focused on the
individU:II". Doe v. Kidd 501 F.3d 348 356 (4th Cir 2007)
8, In thosc same filings. MFC represents itself; to be a corporation. perhaps like a grocery store.
which has a core business purpose to sell food to the general public and if a customer chooses to
9

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 10 of 16

pay with Food Stamps. the business allows that; as well. In truth. MFC's creation and purpose
is entirely; to carry out a set of state functions and obligations.
Plaintiff adds in the instant motion
PeeDee Health v. Sanford NO.-2018
"The Medicaid Scheme is a cooperative federal-state program designed to partially compensate
states fro the costs of providing healthcare to needy individuals 42 USC 1396. States are not
required to participate in the program. but if they choose to do so .they must implement and
operate Medicaid programs that comply with detailed federally mandated standards". Antrican
v. Odom. 290 F.3d 178. 183 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002). To qualify for federal assistance, a state must
submit a comprehensive plan to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services describing
the nature and scope of the state's Medicaid program. 42 CFR. 430.10"
The court in Pee Dee Health discussed the history of the private right to sue, to enforce
federal law related to Medicaid.

In the instant case. the actions of the defendants are

malicious. Defendants and other individuals and entities within the same nexus of acts have
spent more money than the annual budget of the South Carolina Medicaid program and more
human resources than. that staft'the same program; to what the defendants' own manual labels,
abuse.
The issue is PeeDee Health was "funding" and that court. stated that it is well establisbed
tbat beneficiaries

of this program, such as Plaintiff may claim this as a federal right and

sue, evcn when there is a deprivation

based on the non-malicious

act of inadequate

funding.

As the history progressed, healthcare providers. such as Pee Dee Health also won the right to
sue. All this was recognized by states. such as South Carolina; to be settled. These states
responded by making these providers sign contracts, which foreclosed on their right to sue. The
l'eeDee Health court found that these contracts are controlling.

States have not made contracts

for the beneficiaries to sign. because they recognize that, absolutely, nothing can take away
the private right of recipients to enforce the sections of the laws that pertain to recipients.

10

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 11 of 16

h. U.S.c. I396(a)(8). the reasonable promptness requirement. Obligations must be

performed with reasonable promptness. "Section I396(a)(8) is unmistakenly focused on the
individuar'. Doe v. Kidd 501 F.3d 348 356 (4th Cir 2007)
One of the authorities Plaintiff cited was West v. Atkins.

The U.S. Supreme Court

unanimously found that a private physician with a contract to provider medical care to prisoners,
is a state actor. The court stated that this determination could not be made by measuring the total
hours worked for the state or whether the physician had substantial private business.
The court stated that when the physician worked in the prison; he had to follow the prisons
mandates, as well as those that arose from the duties of his profession.

In the ultimate analysis.

if the physician occupies a role. nearly identical to that ofa physician who is also an employee of
the prison, then he is said to be a state actor.
In the West case, The Supreme Court was, at most, able to postulate how the phvsieian was
related to the state, but in the instant case, the manuals show all the bonds
51. From the Enrollee Handbook. MSFCs policies. mainly derived from federal law:
The handbook distributed to physicians. who are agents of MSFC mandate the physicians
inform MSFC when a member is "not in compliance" and this is thc term given to the act of a
patient not following doctor's orders. MSFC has other agents who would, essentially, harass
the member until he submits to the doctor's orders.
You have the right to: be treated with respect
disability or type of illness or condition. Have
mental disability or type of illness or condition.
information about your health is private and
state and federal laws.
Information-

and dignity, no matter your physical or mental

access to care for no matter your physical or
Privacy- your medical records and all
will only be shared in a manner that follows

you may ask for and receive information

Medstar Family Choice,

its services,

its

about

doctors

and your rights as a member of the health plan. Make recommendations regarding your rights
and responsibilities. Be told what your health problem is, what treatment you will be given
and what risks arc related to your illness and treatment. This must be told to you so that
you understand the information. Talk to your doctor and help to make choices and decisions
about your healthcare and treatments. Refuse any treatment by a provider and be told what
might happen if you don't have treatment. Discuss all of the appropriate or medically necessary
treatment options, regardless of the cost or whether they are covered by your health plan.
11

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 12 of 16

Request and receive a copy of your medical records and request that they be amended or
corrected as allowed. Exercise your rights and know that the exercise of those rights will not
adversely affect the way that Medstar Family Choice or our providcrs treat you. Receive a
second opinion from another doctor if you don't agree with your doctor's opinion about services
that you need. Receive other information about us, such as how we arc mamlged.

Re5pOlIsibilities: Be courteous and respectful to Medstar Family Choice staff. healthcare

providers and staff. Tell the truth about your health. Vou must tell about any illnesses you had
before. Vou must tell about operations you had before. Vou must tell about what medicines
you use or have used in the past.

Do what your doctor tells

yOU

to get well.

Make appointments with your PCP during oftice hours instead of using the emergency room for
things that are not emergencies. Tell the people. anywhere that you are getting healthcare that
you are a Medstar Family Choice member. Ask questions :Ibout your c:lre. Make sure that
you understand what your bealtb problem is, that your participate in developing treatment
goals that both you and your doctor agree on. Notify Medstar Family Cboice of any car
accidents, falls, etc. wbere someone else may be :It fault. Vou must work with Medstar
Family Choice concerning the accident and bills.
Call member services if you arc having any problems getting the care you need. They did
not say call the board of physicians. Exactly like in a prison, one does not
complain

to the board

of physicians,

they complain

to the people,

in-charge.

Report any known or suspected fraud and abuse as it relates to benefits.

Family Cboice staff may read your medical records Ithey can only do this
because MSFC and its physicians are part of the same unit]
Medstar

to make sure that your are getting the care that you need. Lab tests help find out the cause of an
illness.
A case manager may be assigned to help you plan for and receive healthcare services. The case
manager also keeps track of what services are needed and what has been provided. The word
case has nothing to do with a rcgular
physician,
it is a government
term.
The PCP is your family doctor, who will be the leader of all the healthcare

you receive.

This is an act of delegation,

within the same unit. MSFC tells the PCP what
his or her role will be; that is to manage, and the specialists
to be subservient
to the PCP. In the world outside this unit. a specialist is like a consultant to the PCP.
Page 39 If your have suggestions for changes to be made in how we provide healthcare or give
you service. call. Your ideas will be taken seriously. They will be brought before the Consumer
Advisory Board. And you will receive a response from us. We want you to be happy with your
healthcare and we want you to help us take care of you.
Relevant State Laws
12

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 13 of 16

It is well established that most states by statute require that plaintiffs who file medical
malpractice claims. complete a proscribed regime of hurdles. prior to filing suit. Defendant cited
a Diversity case to argue that state law is controlling. The Plaintiffs state claims are in This
Court. under Supplemental jurisdiction and although Defendant did not cite such a case. Plaintiff
always accepted that state law controls all state claims.
With all the cases cited by Defendant asserting mandatory engagement with an arbitration
panel. the charge at issue was battery. The interpretation of the law is that ifmedical malpractice
is asserted. then prior to filing suit. a plaintiff must take his matter to that panel.
But when a plaintiff asserts any other tort. a plaintiff may file suit. Courts cannot
automatically maintain the case. and courts cannot automatically remand to the panel. Courts
have to make a finding, based on the record.
are those of "traditional

The finding has to be whether or not the facts

malpractice".

Two events in The Plaintiffs own history can be examined in this manner:
I.

In 1996 a doctor. rode in on a bicycle. wearing sweats. was "hotdogging" while taking a

nasal culture. a very simple procedure. his hand slipped and injury resulted. If such plaintiff.
files suit for battery. he would add '"malicious" and such words. The court would look for
evidence of malice and none would be found; for that reason that count would be dismissed. The
plaintiff could go to the arbitration panel and if the panel attests to merits of the evidence likely
supporting medical malpractice; a new case may be filed. but with a claim for medical
malpractice.
2.

The ofTenses in 2013 was not just sexual assault. It had to be done over The Plaintiffs

cold dead hands. otherwise the '"Deliverance on the Potomac" crew would have the paddle, rifle.
canoe. banjo and the bad teeth implanted up their derriere. Homey don't paddle. faster.

13

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 14 of 16

A court would find that these circumstances have nothing to do with traditional malpractice.
And even this type of analysis by the court would only be required if Mr. Papel. the technician
requested such a determination by a court. But, there is no such thing as an automatic remand.
Furthermore, Plaintiff puts the other individuals involved in that incident on notice: Unlike
in a doctors' office or hospital where personnel practice under the license of the treating
physician; the MR! tech, Mr. Papel has a radiographers' license. Such licensee has no authority
to delegate, and consequently the others don't even have standing to raise the issue.
Then with Dr. Jacobson, who certainly possesses a physicians' license; his role was not that
of a supervising physician. His role was to provide "Good Samaritan" services. And if a patient
had some severe kidney problem or allergic reaction, the radiographer was to call on Dr.
Jacobson to render aid, but this is like having physicians, stationed, along a marathon course.
In the instant case, defendants have not eited any case that discussed Plaintiffs state claims.
The only one, of Plaintiff s state claims that could be evaluated in the same manner as a battery
elaim, is the elaim for fraud.
Plaintiff already cited from several Kansas cases, a state that also has "malpractice crisis"
laws and where plaintiffs attempt to add adjectives that try to put elaims out of the meaning of
that states' medical malpractice acts. PlaintifTcited Robinson v. Shah, that court found that
intentional concealment and misrepresentation is fraud, and in particular, when it occurs on
multiple occasions over a lenghty period of time.
The Kansas court attributed not only the economic damages from the lapsing of the statute of
limitations but the court stated in great detail. all the physical ways in which the plaintiff
suffered. In the Robinson case a physician had, by negligence left a surgical sponge inside the

14

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 15 of 16

body of the patient. Then all the pain and injury that follows are "medical injuries" and would
come under Maryland's Act.
However, when the physician is aware of the error and even with the patient going back to
the physician to complain that something is wrong and the patient is suffering and such; and then
conceals; then from that point onward all the problems related to the injury are said to have come
from fraud and not medical malpractice.

Plaintiff further supports the instant motion with facts amI laws stated in Plaintiff's
Opposition

to Defendant Luc Oke's Motion to Dismiss.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff Joseph Crussiah. respectfully, requests that Defendant
Anjana Dhar's Motion to Dismiss. be denied. Additionally. in light of the persistent tortious
conduct of defendants, which includes a large sum of money earmarked for indigent healthcare
that was utilized to relocate a large office, in order to; obstruct service. which was ordered by
This Court; that all requests for costs by these defendants be denied.
Respectfully Submitted.

~f.:~

Dated February 12. 2016

Pro Se Plaintiff
9701 Cottrell Terrace
Silver Spring. MD 20903
Montgomery County
240-475-7737
[email protected]

15

Case 8:15-cv-02516-TDC Document 22 Filed 02/12/16 Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this, the 12th day of February, 2016, a copy of the foregoing was
mailed, via U.S. Mail to:
Goodell, DeVries, Leech and Dann, LLP
One South Street
20th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Nichole Nesbitt, Counsel for Anjana Dhar
Goodell, DeVries, Leech and Dann, LLP
One South Street
20th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Kelly Hughes Iverson, Counsel for Luc Oke
Goodell, DeVries, Leech and Dann, LLP
One South Street
20th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Lucas Chrencik, Counsel for Luc Oke
Carol Attia
Medstar Family Choice
5233 King Avenue
Rosedale. MD 21237
Anthony Macarthy, M.D.
10230 New Hampshire Avenue Suite 103
Silver Spring, MD 20903
Asmir Syed, M.D.
106 Irving Street, NW Suite 218
Washington, DC 20010
Respectfully submitted.

Joseph R. Crussiah
Pro Se Plaintiff
9701 Cottrell Terrace
Silver Spring, MD 20903
MontgOinery County
crussiah0lvahoo.col11 240.475.7737