ATTACHMENT C

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

A « w w k i>1

FEB 2 2018

-January 19 2018 Case No. 2016-1302

OAH No.2017020330

Respondent's Argument-againstthe prapos.edilecisiQniof OAH

I am 1st requesting the OAH to follow their" Duty To Correct" & make absolutely sure that thefacts provided in this decision are at the very least accurate & lawful please. After all you all areresponsible for these decisions directly Impacting the lives,health and economic welfare of the

members that trust in this process and trust in the Judge to make sure it is thorough andaccurate.. The inaccurate facts, omissions and errors that came out In OAH decision , denyingmy application for disability retirement, needs to be right, otherwise Justice is Denied on

falsehoods instead of just a rigged system . All that is needed is simply to look at the recordsand testimony to easily find these errors. Please also let it be recognized no one has abided bytimelines except me. Even this decision was past timelines.

I am also writing to you, the Calpers Retirement Board to let it be known that i do not

understand why the findings by OAH were made and how these skewed rules are applied on a

regular basis to the detriment of your "valued members" in order to deny a benefit we were toldwe were entitled to upon being employed by the State of California. I wonder how calpers would

feel if they had to sue to take $ from the members each month and prove they were entitled to

them? Your "valued members" voluntarily allow you to take these hard earned funds because

we were made promises by you and our employer that,you, our fiduciary, who states its #1 duty

is to provide timely benefits to its members and beneficiaries and to do what's in the best

interest of them, in good faith .

Your members trust that the employer and fiduciary will do what was promised and do the right

thing when a member/employee needs help to obtain these benefits. Little do we know and are

shocked & disheartened when we find out the extent of the adversarial techniques and

discriminatory procedures used by our employer and fiduciary to deny accommodation or offerfair lawful treatment to their disabled members. Somehow if a finding of disability is made byState Fund,State of California and the members own treating physicians, CP has been able o

make those findings irrelevant These are clear blatant violations of your fiduciary duty. You have

the system set up quite nice that unless we have thousands of dollars to pay doctors to testify orare on our deathbed....we are to expect nothing from you and instead are treated like lying

beggars with their hand out.

Little did I/we know the depths of this system you've championed that systematically oppressesyour members who are simply at their wits end and no longer able to be the productive .reliable

workers they once were and fall on hard times due to injury .serious illness or both.

I would like to point out a number of discrepancies & factual inaccuracies in the proposed

decision by the OAH as well as the decision itself being almost a month late.ln this whole

process no one has followed designated timelines except me.

First let me point out CalPers was sent a letter by me and Ellen Tashima from the CEO David

Smiley of MCSP/CDCR, drafted by Ellen Tashima, in may of 2016,after your denial of myapplication in Feb 2016 telling me to go back to work.

Attachment C

The memo stated CDCR was refusing to accommodate me as 1 requested and allow me totry(even though 1 knew it wouldn't last long, i was willing to try at least part time).My RA filed in Apr 2016 was being denied due to the fact "even with the use of your legbraces,crutches and scooter still wouldn't allow you to complete the essential functions of yourduties as a pharmacy technician therefor we support the appeal of your denial of your DR

application. See Beckley v. BOA, 11-27-20132 &( CGC 21151 b, 21153)They directly wentagainst your decision and left me hanging,stuck between both entities,denying my constitutionalrights & due process to either my benefits or my job as laid out in the CGC & the Califomia

Constitution's 14th amendment property rights and the right to be heard.lt is supposed to be

"Due Process" not Skewed process and how is one to be heard when CP has the ability todismiss large swaths of evidence as hearsay ?

If I could have afforded to have my Drs testily to only the information they had documented thati provided in court under testimony, with the same information,it would have been considered to

hold more weight? .CDCR had a obligation after denying RA at that time to allow me to attempt

to come back, file DR or join on my behalf in the DR application process yet CP nor CDCR

cared to close that gap that legislation was written to close.l suspect its kept this way on

purpose to make it more difficult for members.

These discriminatory practices Calpers utilizes have been overturned in the Federal Retirement

System in " Vanieken-Rials v 0PM" landmark case US Court of Appeals 11-26-2007.

Also there is a "Bruner Presumption" that applies when a employer removes a employee due to

medical disabilities which is what CDCRs letter exactly states that's why they refused to allow

me back (after said to go back) because i was to disabled even with the use of my disability

devices to perform essential functions of my position,of which as stated before you were

provided by Ellen Tashima/CDCR in may 2016.

As to the inaccuracies, falsehoods & omissions in this OAH Decision:

I would be able to prove these inaccuracies if i was able to afford the transcripts from court but

once again unlike calpers i do not have unlimited resources and can not afford the $4,500.00

plus $ that it costs.$4.50 per page with 1000 plus pages for the 3 hearings.

• PG 2 par 2 ,The date of (may 26 2016) OAH states i filed for Disability Retirement is off

by a year.lt was filed in 2015. 1 amended the application in Jan 2016 to include

autoimmune arthritis(psoriatic arthritis, fibromyalgia because i had drs had not figured

out thats what was causing a great deal of my joint degeneration & pain until appx aug

2015)

• PG 2 par 3 OAH states there was not a amendment to include rheumatic conditions until

may 5 2017,sec VIII of statement of facts when it was done by Anthony Suine.As stated i

amended it in a letter to CP Jan 2016

• PG 3 par4 OAH/CP states PT duties DO NOT require licensure yet they DO. My Licence# is 51434 Exp April,30,2019

• PG 5 par 16 Nowhere in this report does it mention Dr Yang & Dr. Siy ,2 of my treating

physicians who completed the "CalPers Physicians Disability Retirement Forms" that are

forms for Drs completely provided by CalPers. If those don't meet CP standards then i

don't know what does.

It seems a sham to even have them complete the forms if calpers is just going to consider them

as a "non competent medical opinion" and give them no weight.The forms should say" the Dr

will have to testify in order for us to care about this form"

• PG 5 par 16 OAH states i had only 2 reports from Dr. Ambrose yet i submitted 4 from

him plus the others as well as Dr Siy & Dr Yang CalPers Disability Retirement Forms

• PG 8 par 23 Dr Templeton stated she reviewed Pts medical records. In Those records

were X Rays, Blood tests and other clinical documents ,i know because i took them to

her. CalPers Drs reviewed no,nor ordered "imaging or diagnostic studies" yet their

reports are acceptable? I offered records yet they declined. See testimony.

• PG 9 par 26 Dr Barnett stated that i was i was "Bummed Out" forgot the rest of the

statement that i was bummed out because i had become disabled and was losing my

career because i had become unable to be productive.

• PG 10 par 29 OAH states "Respondent did not call any expert to testify on her behalf.

I subpoenaed both Dr Templeton & Dr Barnett yet CDCR told Templeton to not show and

Cynthia Rodriguez told Dr Barnett he didn't need to show because calpers was going to hire a

new psych Dr to force me to see. I showed the email where CP Attorney told me she knew Dr

Barnett wasn't coming and refused to keep him under subpoena, to Judge Washington at the

2nd hearing.

PG 11 par 34 Dr Heinrichsen" states there are inadequacies of important medical

records" yet in testimony stated he refused medical records from me pretending in his report

they don't exist and relied only on what calpers sent him. PG 14 par 40 dr admits spinal

abnormalities and trouble bending,then say nothing wrong.

This happened on all calpers DRs. I suspect this is in order to pretend the don't exist so a

finding of no disability could be had.

Please also see Dr A.Lopez testimony where he admits i is unethical for him to opine on a

patient that he never examined yet somehow that's acceptable in this system?

Dr Hasselwood testimony directly disputes Calpers other drs testimony of no disability and

Heinrichsens assertion that i have "a significant disconnect between my symptoms and

findings". Hasselwood found disability yet put a arbitrary timeline and never reevaluated me

after treatment to see the status.

PG 15 par 44 , 45, 46 Dr Hasselwood opined my disability had to go back to 2013 (and the court

repeated it) but that is false, i only need to prove it since i applied for DR with calpers (see pg 18

#2) in 2015 of which he states its possible that psoriatic arthritis could have been disabling

during that time

PG 17 par 54, 55 Reports from Dr Siy my treating physician for 17 yrs and Dr Yangs report, my

spine Dr and treating physician for 5 yrs are omitted. These are on calpers own special forms.

Par # 57 Dr Templeton wrote the EXACT type of information the other drs did yet somehow "yes

she is disabled & can not work" does not utilize the appropriate standard? Most likely doesn't fit

the narrative calpers wants instead of these unobtainable standards unless i guess I'm on my

deathbed.

• Hearsay evidence rule 803(4)(6) has "Catch all" exceptions" and" Business Record"

exceptions. CalPers was made aware i was going to submit all the same information iprovided to them in court through discussions and emails and the same information was

provided to calpers over the application process.

• I was present when all of my medical documentation was processed by my physicians

during the regular course of business and these records are a systematic entries, kept

on file within the Kaiser department of member services which is where i was provided

copies/CD's and i testified in court to the contents thereof therefore this information

should definitely be considered as direct evidence. ,901 ( B)(10) O.R.C. 2317.422

• These records are "self authenticated" because each document is electronically signed

and dated and do not describe my opinions but the Drs findings

• . & diagnoses we're all made after direct clinical observations, medical testing that is well

known and accepted objective testing and examination procedures which are not of such

technical nature as to require cross examination and are widely used among current

medical communities and relied on blood tests, MRIs, Xrays etc, not my opinions .

Testing and records of which calpers Drs did not attempt to obtain the records for when

they in their own reports knew of their current existence yet we're not interested in

obtaining.

• The diagnoses were made by competent medical professionals in good standing in their

communities and have no derogatory marks on their records and work under

professional ,ethical guidelines unlike Dr A.Gonzalez, Calpers ,psych Dr who testified

under oath it is unethical to proceed to write a opinion report on a person they have not

examined.

• The use of these records are competent and relevant for the purposes of providing the

truth of the matter presented in court and they are properly authenticated by personal

signatures and contact information .

• PG 18 par 58 OAH states i only presented subjective complaints in my substantial

amount of medical information yet the court was presented under my testimony the

blood work, xrays and mri readings. This is directly the information my drs used in

making my diagnoses. OAH states my drs reports we're written under the standards of

workmans comp yet the 2 reports that we're presented under testimony we're directly

from calpers to have my dr complete and i had 2 of them completed by Dr Siy & Dr Yang

and have been completely omitted from this decision. As i stated earlier, if calpers own

forms they hand out for members too present to their physicians do not fit calpers

standards what does?

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,

Shauna Lea Butler

We seem to only be valued as long as you are able to take money from our checks but god

forbid a legitimate life altering disability in someone's life occurs .because we are treated like

common beggars. Somehow our promised benefits have become a litigation fund that members

have to sue to attempt to obtain them and still after 2& half years are unable to obtain. Unlike

Calpers most of us suffering the inability to work do not have a 10 thousand dollar retainer for a

attorney and 3 thousand dollars x4 to pay doctors to testify against us, along with support staff

and unlimited members funds to terrorize your members in the hopes hey will just give up and

go away i guess. CalPers acts in Bad Faith & uses unfair business practices literally &

knowingly perpetuating fraud against their own members by hiring doctors to give

fraudulent,false "opinions" contrary to the members treating physicians who have seen and

treated them for years.

This seems like a far cry from the Legislators intent when it created this system in order to

protect employees upon retirement & knowing these type of situations occur yet somehow themain beneficiary has become Calpers and it's wants and needs.

As to PERS, the Legislature declared its purpose as, "...To effect economy and efficiency in the

public service by providing a means whereby employees who become superannuated or

otherwise incapacitated may, WITHOUT HARDSHIP or PREJUDICE be replaced by more

capable employees and to that end provide a retirement system consisting of retirement

compensation and death benefits (CGC 20001).

This is a clear violation of your fiduciary duty and promise to your members. You taut howCalpers reduces "overhead" & "saves" so much money, now i understand how you do it, bykicking your members in the face as they lie on the ground asking you for help in obtainingbenefits. Somehow over the years you have been able to twist the meaning of" a competentmedical provider" and "Disability" to really mean ..."even if you have a lot of medicaldocumentation, Dr's reports, test results, unless you can pay for a high priced attorney and Drs

to blatantly lie on the stand, you are on your own .