On June 3, 2016, Governor Charlie Baker signed into law the first update to Massachusetts’s public records law since 1973.  The law seeks to make government entities more accountable, accessible, and efficient in their management of requests for information and mandates that each state agency delegate at least one employee to be a “records access officer.” The bill also imposes a shorter timeframe to respond to record requests. Agencies have a 10-day window to produce the requested documents or to respond and if they refuse or are unable to produce a record within 10 days they must notify the requestor and if an agency agrees to provide records outside the 10  day window it only has 15 days to do so.

When this Bill was signed I immediately requested a number of documents from the Medical Board as I assumed its implementation straightaway. They must have thought the same as on June 8, 2016, the very next day, I was provided every one of the documents I requested by Board paralegal Board Katy Condon but only one of them had a decipherable date stamp,the  December 3, 2011 “Litigation Packet” (pages 4-49). A “litigation packet” is generated in any and all forensic drug testing for legal purposes.  It documents when and where a specimen is at any point in time from collection to analysis.  It documents the specimen’s “chain-of-custody.”

The “Litigation Packet”was provided to Board counsel Deb Stoller  with a letter from my attorney requesting it be entered as evidence for a December 21, 2011 Board hearing.  The letter is dated December 15, 2011 but the date stamp on it and every page of the “litigation packet” appears to be  January 17, 2012. This was the copy provided by the Board in June. January 17th, 2012 is almost one month after the hearing.All of the other documents have illegible or absent dates.

 These documents were requested to determine if they were ever entered into evidence as none of them had ever been addressed. The date-stamps confirm they were not.  Requests to clarify the illegible dates have been curtailed and rebuffed with  the last response being  June 17, 2016 when  Katy Condon  E-mailed me that she was  “currently working on it.”

There is no evidence in the record that any of the documents requested were ever considered by anybody.  There is no evidence they were ever even acknowledged.

The “litigation packet” in addition to other documents show direct evidence of crimes.  No other evidence is needed.  The “litigation packet” proved the positive blood test reported by Sanchez  July 19, 2011 was not only invalid but falsely created by the state PHP and drug testing lab. He  reported it that very same day.  A  July 19, 2011`fax to the lab requests my  ID  number (#1310) be tacked onto an already positive test and a collection date be added to “reflect” that chain-of-custody” was maintained.   It wasn’t. A “chain-of-custody” is created in real time. A diagnosis cannot be “tailored” and a chain of custody cannot be “updated.” To do so is fraud but both seem to be standard operating procedure in the physician health swamp.  The lab followed the instructions with no apparent hesitation or concern as if it was a fast-food order.  “Have it your way” drug and alcohol testing.  The mechanics of lab fraud do not get much clearer than this.  Lab fraud does not get much clearer than this.  It is “dry labbing” in the same manner as Annie Dookhan. The crimes are serious and undeniable.  My offer of 25,000 $ to  anyone who can show that Sanchez committed less than three felonies  still has no contenders.  If less than three felonies were involved than someone would be knocking on my door and I don’t hear any knocking.

 None of the sleazy misconduct here has  ever been addressed. This is not just evidence withheld but crimes concealed and the seriousness and severity of this needs to register somewhere.  The fact of the matter is a state attorney was made aware of felony crimes that were  committed by identifiable individuals in obvious conspiratorial collusion to falsely create evidence.  The intentions are clear. This is not accidental but deliberate. The documents were provided to a state employee who  instead of  reporting what they revealed, concealed them and never brought them up again. Sanchez  is a Board of Registration in Medicine licensee.  He must abide by the same rules and regulations and laws as everyone else.  Allowances and selective application of the law are not part of good governance.

Assistant AGO Bertram, however, refers to these documents as a “chain-of-custody” issue that was “disregarded.”  This is nothing more than willful ignorance.  Any schoolchild could recognize this. In response to the date-stamp on the documents close to one month after the hearing he claimed that documents are entered into the electronic database after hearings not before hearings.  Any reasonable person knows that evidence is entered prior to a hearing not before. By what logic is this argument even imagined?  I suppose in a place where diagnoses are “tailored” and you are able to “update” a chain of custody that one could submit evidence after the hearing at which it was supposed to be heard but this is the real world where fact, truth and evidence matter.  We don’t make it up as we go along.  An Administrative Record  is compiled for the proceeding not after the proceeding and a manual put out by his department in his own agency even corroborates the sequence.  The  2012 Manual for Conducting Administrative Adjudicatory Proceedings; Edited by  Assistant Attorney General Robert L Quinan Jr of the Administrative Law Division states:

Before the hearing, the presiding officer and all board members who expect to attend the hearing should review the administrative record as it has developed up to that point in the case including,,,, any documents that have been submitted prior to the hearing. Note, however, that any such materials that are not admitted into evidence at the hearing may not be relied upon by the board in its decision. M.G.L. c. 30A, § 11(4).

If a party intends to introduce a document into evidence at the hearing, copies of it should be provided to the other parties and to the presiding officer ahead of time. A document that was not provided to other parties, if complicated, may be disregarded by the presiding officer and excluded from consideration at his discretion. (The exclusion should be noted and a copy of the document placed in the record.) It is best that all exhibits be labeled prior to the hearing.

The crimes here are not Annie Dookhan level  misconduct isolated to just Massachusetts either.  The documents sho collusion between a state physician health program and its drug-testing lab, a pattern that appears to be standard operating procedure as allegations of laboratory fraud as well as diagnosis fraud are coming in all across the country and the consequences of these tests can be grave.  These tests end careers and can end lives.  I know of multiple suicides due to allegedly false tests; many using this same test. The fact that the falsified test was requested by fax and complied with without  hesitation shows a chilling absence of empathy.  It is unconscionable.  These are more murders than suicides as it is an institutional injustice with no lifeline. No outside agency exists with authority to both investigate lab misconduct and provide punishment if it is found.

Stoller was provided direct evidence of crimes over five years ago. It is precise, clear and repugnant. How many careers have been derailed since that time?  How many innocent people have died by suicide since that time?  As a state agent it is Stoller’s  duty to report a crime when she sees a crime. A criminal investigation should have ensued. Overlooking corruption allows it to fester and spread and that is exactly what she did.  She concealed it.  This is top-down corruption also.  Sanchez is past President of the Federation of State Physician Health Pr0grams (FSPHP) and his accomplice is the VP of Laboratory Operations at the drug testing lab-an unethical tone-at-the-top if there ever was one.

Other documents have illegible and missing dates.   Full records from the lab were obtained in August of 2014 and these were also submitted  to Stoller for a hearing. But they have absolutely no date-stamp.   The documents reveal Sanchez was made aware the test he and the lab falsely created was invalidated by the lab  67-days before he claimed to have known and just two weeks before he reported “noncompliance”  to the Board.  A report to him from the lab dated October 4, 2012  provides direct evidence of perjury and concealment.  No other evidence is needed.

These documents show crimes.  I have re-requested these records under HB 4333 as well as documents that Bertram claims “puts the matter to rest.” He claims they reviewed their “records” and “minutes’ for the December 21, 2011 hearing and all of this was “carefully considered.” This  begs the question has anyone else outside this circle ever even looked at these documents?  They were never considered and if the Board complies with HB 4333 the uncensored documents will add to the already overwhelming evidence that this is the case. It is certain that every illegible date uncovered will reveal a date sometime after the  hearing for which it was submitted.   The documents  retrieved from “off-site storage”  does not exist.  The Board has not used off-site storage since 2004 when they installed the Document Imaging Unit. This fact can be found in multiple annual reports and other documents.   The question are they trying to cover-up a cover-up of a cover-up?  Why is he going to such great lengths to protect criminals,  allow this racket to continue and inevitably cause a great deal of harm to many?   Rules of professional conduct forbid attorney’s from being complicit in fraud.  The obvious cannot be ignored.  These are crimes and both the commission and concealment of them are egregious. This is not simply a matter of withholding evidence but of concealing crimes and it puts both doctors and the public in immediate or eventual danger.

So the question is how much direct evidence of crimes do we need floating around before it raises any eyebrows?  How much proof is needed before someone does something about it rather than claim “it’s not my department?”   So far those with the authority and power to investigate and sanction these people have kept their heads in the sand and overlooking  corruption is complicity with corruption.  Those who tolerate the corrupt and give them allowances are themselves corrupt.  The obvious cannot be ignored.  Sunshine may be the best disinfectant but it does not work when the shades are kept down.  I expected that Governor Baker’s Move to control professional boards  would let some sunlight in but I was wrong.  Detailed and precise documentation of fabrication and falsification and concealment as well as other criminal activity was provided to the  Director of Constituent Services at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Health,  Helen Rush-Lloyd  who informed me she would put me in touch with the appropriate person on June 7th. She never did and no one has ever contacted me on the matter and followup up attempts have been ignored. What good is Public Records Reform if dates are illegible or the contents ignored?   How does controlling  professional boards benefit the public when those tasked with controlling them no only fail to address obvious misconduct but do not even acknowledge it?    How low must the moral compass go before anyone takes note of the obvious?    By not holding them accountable we can assure ourselves of more of the same.  The records provided by the Board can be seen here:  board-records-obtained-june-2016