COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
CIVIL/COMMERCE AND COMPLEX LITIGATION CENTER
:
MICHAEL RAMON OCHOA, :
Plaintiff, :
: Allegheny County Civil/Commerce and
vs. : Complex Litigation Center GD-13-011757
:
DR. ARTHUR LEVINE, et al., :
Defendants. :
मैत्र्यादिषु बलानि ॥२३॥
Written Interrogatories for Dr. Ravi Chandra
1. Please attach a current curriculum vitae giving your your name, academic and professional credentials, experience, research and publication history.
ATTACHED
2. Q: Were you hired by me, Plaintiff Michael Ramon Ochoa, in your professional capacity as an MD, PhD physician and expert witness concerning clinical psychiatry?
A: Yes.
3. Q: How much were you paid by me to provide this testimony?
TBD
4. Q: Were any of your opinions influenced by the amount of compensation you received or dictated by my request?
A: No.
5. Q: Do you have specialized knowledge and experience of clinical psychiatry?
A: Yes.
6. Q: Did you apply your specialized knowledge and experience of clinical psychiatry to prepare this sworn statement?
A: Yes.
7. Q: Do you believe that your specialized knowledge and experience of clinical psychiatry could assist this court in understanding the facts or issues related to this civil suit?
A: My knowledge and experience helps me in understanding the presented facts and issues, and thus I hope will be helpful to the court as well.
8. Q: Did you previously testify as my expert witness at case FD-07-000190?
A: Yes, I answered questions via interrogatories.
9. I move to qualify Dr. Ravi Chandra as my expert witness on clinical psychiatry.
2013-01-10 Dr. Ravi Chandra Affidavit
10. I will provide a series of links to to either a .pdf file or folder on a Google Drive, then ask you a few questions about what you see there. Please go to: 2013-01-10 Dr. Ravi Chandra Affidavit.
Q: Does this folder contain .pdf copies of the 2013-01-10 affidavit, curriculum vitae, and accompanying exhibits we presented as evidence at FD-07-000190?
A: Yes.
11. Now look deeper into that 2013-01-10 affidavit to Exhibit D: 2008-05-29 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc._Redacted.
Q: Do you see a redacted copy of the 28 page .pdf you examined in your 2013-01-10 affidavit as Exhibit D?
A: Yes.
12. Now go to: 2008-05-29 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc. Components.
Q: Do these 14 .pdfs contain each of the 28 pages of Exhibit D broken down into 12 component .pdf medical records plus a cover letter and medical records request?
A: There appear to be 32 pages in the separated components, which appear to match the full document in Exhibit D.
13. I move to enter 2013-01-10 Dr. Ravi Chandra Affidavit and Exhibits A-H into evidence.
Scope of the Clinical Data
14. Please go to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data). We will refer to these 228 .pdfs as the clinical data. Please note that my name, birth date and social security number have been redacted throughout the clinical data.
Q: Were you able to access a Google Drive folder containing 228 .pdfs? Does the clinical data include all 12 .pdf components of the medical records you examined on 2013-01-10 at Exhibit D?
A: Yes, I was able to access that Google Drive Folder with 228 PDF’s. The names of the 28 PDF documents match 28 PDF documents in the larger database.
15. Now please go to: UPMC Medical Records.
Q: Were you able to access a folder of 24 .pdf files and folders? Does the last folder contain the clinical data? Does the name of the first .pdf show the date I was discharged from Mercy Behavioral Health RFTA? What was that date? How many of the names of those 24 .pdf files and folders contain the words “Medical Records Request”? What are the dates of the first and last of those 8 .pdf files and folders? How many days were there between 2007-02-12 and 2007-05-16? Therefore, did I begin requesting copies of my medical records 93 days after being discharged from Mercy Behavioural Health RFTA? How many years were there between 2007 and 2025? Therefore, have I been trying to access those records for 18 years?
A: Yes, I was able to access this folder with 24 PDF files, and folders. Yes, there is a folder named “UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data)”. Yes, there is a PDF showing a date of discharge from Mercy Behavioral Health. The date of discharge from Mercy Behavioral Health RFTA is listed as 02-12-2007.
There are 9 PDF’s or folders with “medical records request” in their title, and one of these is titled “health request”.
The dates of the folders and files labeled “medical records request” range from 2007-05-16 to 2024-06-20.
2007-05-16 is the 93rd day after 2007-02-12. According to these records, yes, you began requesting medical records 93 days after being discharged rom Mercy Behavioural Health RFTA on 2007-02-12.
There are 18 years from 2007 to 2025.The attached drive file names would indicate records requests through 2024 at least (no records requests are labeled 2025), and that would be 17 years accounted for, with 2025 being the 18th year.
16. Q: Do you understand the scope of the clinical data you are being asked to review?
A: I understand the volume of data I am being asked to review, and I understand psychiatric clinical information, as a trained psychiatrist.
Chain of Custody of the Clinical Data
17. Next we need to account for the chain of custody of the clinical data. That is, how it came to be in my possession and before us today. The following documents were handed to me or mailed to me as paper copies and scanned into .pdfs:
2007-02-12 Mercy Behavioral Health RFTA Discharge Summary_Redacted
2007-06-15 to 2007-11-16 WPIC Invoices_Redacted
2007-12-10 to 2008-02-12 Mercy Behavioral Health RFTA Invoices_Redacted
2008-02-28 WPIC UPMC Invoice_Redacted
2009-06-15 Involuntary Commitment Notification_Redacted
18. Now go back to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data).
Q: Is a copy of each of those 5 .pdfs included in the clinical data?
A: Yes.
19. Now look closer at a particular medical record request: 2008-04-14 UPMC Medical Records Request_Redacted.
Q: What medical records did I request on 2008-04-14?
A: The Inpatient, Outpatient, Emergency Room, and Physician Office/Clinic Records are requested from 10-2006 to “present” which would have been 2008-04-14.
20. Then we turn to the response: 2008-05-29 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc._Redacted.
Q: Were you able to access the 28 page .pdf version of the response from data storage vender, Duplications, Inc.? Is it identical to your 2013-01-10 affidavit Exhibit D? Did Duplications, Inc. include a copy of the 2008-04-14 request on p.4? Does the invoice on p.1 show that Duplications, Inc. sent me 24 paper pages of medical records on 2008-05-31? Again, are there 24 pages of medical records in the .pdf version?
A: Yes, I accessed the specified PDF, which appears identical to 2013-01-10 affidavit Exhibit D. Yes, Duplications, Inc included a copy of the 2008-04-14 request on p.4 of this pdf. Actually, the invoice on p.1 is dated 2008-05-29, not 2008-05-31. There are 24 pages of medical records in this specified PDF.
21. Please go to to: 2008-05-29 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc. Components.
Q: Again, do the 24 pages of medical records break down into 12 component .pdfs?
A: Yes.
22. Now go back to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data).
Q: Again, are all 12 component .pdfs of the paper medical records I was sent from Duplications, Inc. on 2008-05-29 included in the clinical data?
A: Yes.
23. Similarly, look at the request at 2009-07-21: 2009-07-21 UPMC Medical Records Request_Redacted.
Q: What medical records did I request on 2009-07-21?
A: On this date, you requested Inpatient medical records from 2006-11-07 to 2006-12-15, including consultation reports, discharge summary, laboratory reports/tests, medical history and physical exam, medication administration records, pathology report, physician orders, progress notes, psychiatric/psychological evaluation, discharge instructions, and “other” specified as “all inpatient records, physician notes, orders, including Drs. Azzam, Westmoreland, Sah, Spiker.”
24. Now look at the cover letter to that request: 2009-07-22 Cover Letter.
Q: Does the 2009-07-22 cover letter describe the specific medical incidents, physicians and institutions from whom I was requesting records? What are the names of the physicians and institutions from whom I requested records on 2009-07-22?
A: Yes, this cover letter describes the record request. The names of the physicians are Drs. Pierre Azzam, Samuel Wesdmoreland, Mukesh Sah, and Duane Spiker. The institutions are WPIC (inpatient) and UPMC Presbyterian (emergency room).
25. Please turn to the response: 2009-07-31 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc._Redacted.
Q: Did Duplications, Inc. include a copy of my 2009-07-21 request without the cover letter on p.4? Does the invoice on p.2 show that Duplications, Inc. sent me 19 paper pages of medical records on 2009-07-21? Were 19 pages of medical records included in the scanned .pdf version?
A: Yes, the 2009-07-21 request for records is included in this document. And yes, the invoice shows they sent you 19 pages of medical records. The invoice is dated 2009-08-03. Yes there are 19 pages included in this PDF.
26. Now go to the component break down of that 2009-07-31 response: 2009-07-31 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc. Components.
Q: Do the 19 pages of medical records break down into 5 component .pdfs?
A: Yes.
27. Again go back to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data).
Q: Are all 5 component .pdfs of the paper medical records I received from Duplications, Inc. on 2009-07-31 included in the clinical data?
A: Yes.
28. Please go to the next medical records request: 2021-08-20 UPMC Medical Records Request_Redacted.
Q: What records did I request on 2021-08-20? Did I attach a detailed description of each medical incident for which records were being requested? Please list all of the institutions and physicians from whom I requested medical records on 2021-08-20.
A: On 2021-08-20, you requested inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, and physician office/clinic records for an attached set of incidents which ran 5 pages. This included consultes, discharge summary/instructions, laboratoray reports/tests, emergency department reports, medical history and physical exam, medication records, operative report, pathology report, EKG report, physician orders, progress notes, psychiatric/psychological eval, and radiology report. Yes, there was a detailed description of medical incidents. You requested records from UPMC WPIC/Presbyterian/Montefiore/Mercy. The physicians named are: Drs. Arthur Levine, George K. Michalopoulos, Anthony Jake Demetris, Anne Thomston, Parmjeet S. Randhawa, Michael A. Nalesnik, Marta I. Minervini, Tong Wu, Mukesh Sah, Pierra Azzam, Rolf G. Jacob, Duane G. Spiker, Samuel Westmoreland, Erin Rubin Ochoa (a.k.a. Erin Rubin), Marc H. Oster, Laura Hrelec, April Fields, Eugene Ortiz, Alexander Strauss, Susan M. Dunmire, Kenneth D. Katz, Olapeju Simoyan, Christine Martone, John Fung, Amadeo Marcos, Liise Kayler, Kasum Tom, Julie Fuchs, and Thomas Starzl.
29. The response was in three parts. First, look at what was returned on 2021-08-27: 2021-08-27 UPMC Patient Business Services Cover.
Q: Does the cover letter p.3 show that UPMC Business Services sent me 22 paper pages of medical records invoices on 2021-08-27?
A: Yes.
30. Now: 2021-08-20 UPMC Medical Records Request_Redacted.
Q: Did UPMC Patient Business Services include a paper copy of my 2021-08-20 request including the detailed list of specific medical incidents and physicians?
A: Yes.
31. Now: 2006-10-16 to 2007-01-11 UPMC Billing_Redacted.
Q: Are the 22 paper pages of medical record invoices scanned into a single .pdf?
A: Yes.
32. Then back to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data).
Q: Is the .pdf version of the 22 paper pages of medical record invoices I was sent from UPMC Patient Business Services on 2021-08-27 included in the clinical data?
A: Yes.
33. The second response was from data storage vendor, Verisma Systems, Inc.: 2021-08-27 UPMC Presby Medical Records Verisma Download_Redacted.
Q: Does p.2 of this 101 page .pdf describe the email download process? Does the invoice on p.3 show that Verisma sent me a link to download 91 .pdf pages of medical records on 2021-08-27? Was the 2021-08-20 request included on p.4 of the download? Was the attached list of specific medical incidents included in the download? Were 91 .pdf pages of medical records included in the download?
A: Yes to all of these questions.
34. Now look at the component breakdown: 2021-08-27 UPMC Presby Medical Records Verisma Download Components.
Q: Do 91 pages of the .pdf break down into 24 component .pdf medical records?
A: Yes.
35. And again back to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data).
Q: Are all 24 component .pdfs of the medical records I downloaded from Verisma Systems, Inc. on 2021-08-27 included in the clinical data?
A: Yes.
36. The third response was from a data storage vendor called Ciox Health: 2021-09-09 Ciox Health Invoice.
Q: Does the 2021-09-09 invoice on p.2 show that Ciox Health sent me 296 paper pages of medical records on 2021-09-09?
A: Yes.
37. Now: 2021-08-20 UPMC Medical Records Request_Redacted.
Q: Did Ciox Health include a paper copy of the 2021-08-20 request including the detailed list of specific medical incidents and physicians?
A: Yes.
38. Now go to the scanned versions of the box of paper records from Ciox Health: 2021-09-09 UPMC Presby WPIC Medical Records Ciox Health.
Q: Are the 296 paper pages of medical records scanned into 63 component .pdfs?
A: Yes.
39. Again back to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data).
Q: Are all 63 component .pdfs of the 296 paper pages of medical records I was sent by Ciox Health on 2021-09-09 included in the clinical data?
A:
40. Finally, please look at the 2023-11-30 medical records request: 2023-11-30 UPMC Medical Records Request_Redacted.
Q: What medical records did I request on 2023-11-30?
A:
41. Then: 2023-11-30 UPMC Medical Records Dashboard.
Q: Did I include a dashboard tool showing a specific 28 days of my missing inpatient medical records?
A:
42. Look at the 406 page .pdf download response from Ciox Health on 2024-01-09:
2024-01-09 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Ciox Health Download_Redacted.
Q: Does the invoice on p.1 show that Ciox Health sent me an electronic .pdf download with no indication of the number of pages included? Did Ciox Health include my 2023-11-30 medical records request and accompanying dashboard tool?
A:
43. Now go to the component breakdown: 2024-01-09 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Ciox Health Download Components.
Q: Do 402 pages of the .pdf break down into 132 component .pdf medical records?
A:
44. Finally, go back to: UPMC Medical Records Components (The Clinical Data).
Q: Are all 132 component .pdfs of the medical records I downloaded from Ciox Health on 2024-01-09 included in the clinical data?
A:
45. We both agreed that verifying the certified transfer of data and component breakdown of the remaining medical records was too tedious for you to complete. The numbers get increasingly large.
Q: However, do you understand how a finder of fact could examine UPMC Medical Records to determine the complete chain of custody of each of the 228 .pdfs in the clinical data?
A: Yes.
(In)completeness of the Clinical Data
46. Next we’re going to examine that same set of clinical data with a different set of tools in order to assess the completeness of the data. Please go to: 2006-11-07 to 2006-11-08 UPMC WPIC Physician's Order Sheet_Redacted.
Q: Does the first page of this .pdf show that I was admitted to the 11th floor of Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC (WPIC) on 2006-11-07 at 14:55?
A: Yes.
47. Now look at: 2007-02-12 Mercy Behavioral Health RFTA Discharge Summary_Redacted.
Q: Does the first page of this .pdf show that I was discharged from Mercy Behavioural Health RFTA on 2007-02-12? How many days were there from 2006-11-07 to 2007-02-12?
A: Yes. 97 days.
48. We’re going to examine the 209 .pdfs in the clinical data from these 97 days.
The 5 records before and 14 records after this segment of the clinical data are outpatient records and invoices. Pennsylvania law requires that medical records were kept for each day of my inpatient medical care. Now go to: UPMC Medical Records Dashboards. This is a set of time ordered dashboard tools which show all of the medical records which had been released and included in the clinical data as of each given date.
49. Now go to: 2008-05-29 UPMC Medical Records Dashboard.
Q: Can you access each of the 12 linked medical records in the clinical data? Are these identical to the set of paper records released by Duplications, Inc. on 2008-05-29? Again, are these identical to the medical records in your 2013-01-13 affidavit Exhibit D? Does 2008-05-29 UPMC Medical Records Dashboard show how many days were missing from the required 97 days of inpatient medical records? How many?
A: I am unclear on the first three questions, and it is too tedious for me to verify the identity of the documents requested. The Dashboard mentioned shows that there are 36+37+2+2+14= 91 days missing.
50. Now look at a later time point: 2023-09-24 UPMC Medical Records Dashboard.
Q: Does this dashboard show how many days of medical records were still missing on 2023-09-24? How many? If someone swore under penalty of perjury on or before 2023-09-24 that all of my medical records had been released, would they have been saying something true or false?
A: This dashboard shows 21+7 days=28 days missing of inpatient medical records. If medical records were written as legally required, it would be false to say that “all of your medical records had been released by this date.”
51. Now look at the present state of the clinical data: 2025-11-07 UPMC Medical Records Dashboard.
Q: Could a finder of fact verify that this tool links to each of the 228 component .pdf medical records in the clinical data? Does this dashboard show how many days of medical records are still missing? How many?
A: Yes, a finder of fact could do that. This dashboard shows that 11+2+2+14=29 days are missing in the hospital stay ending 2007-02-12, and 9 dauys are missing from 2009-06-09 to 2009-06-17.
52. Q: Can you see how the clinical data was disclosed over the course of years, and that the clinical data is still incomplete?
A: Yes.
Authentication and Accuracy of the Clinical Data
53. Please go to: 2025-11-07 UPMC Medical Records Log. UPMC Medical Records Log further breaks down the 228 component .pdfs in the clinical data into 5447 individual rows of time ordered clinical data entries. The first column of the log links to each of the 228 .pdfs we have been examining. The second column identifies the Page of the .pdf from which each datum was extracted. The Index column shows the date and time when each datum was entered into the original medical records. The Field and Value columns show the content of the clinical data. The final Signature column shows the name and credentials of each qualified health care professional who signed each original entry, thereby certifying the authenticity of the clinical data.
Most of the data in the log was transcribed directly from the 228 .pdf version of the clinical data using Adobe Optical Character Recognition (OCR). However, many of the original entries were handwritten and had to be transcribed manually. In some instances (mostly signatures) the handwriting was illegible, introducing a margin of error. Illegible and redacted data is recorded in the log as a series of X’s. The accuracy of each entry in the log can be verified by comparison with the linked .pdf scans.
Q: Can you see that the log version presents the same clinical data as the .pdf version, just formatted and arranged differently? Do you understand how a finder of fact could verify the accuracy of each datum in the log by comparison with the .pdf version? Do you understand how the content of each clinical datum in the log has been authenticated by a qualified health care professional?
A: There are 5447 line items here, and a finder of fact could verify the accuracy.
Validation of Root Facts 1-25
54. Now return to your 2013-01-10 affidavit Exhibit C: 2011-10-18 Root Facts.
Q: Do Root Facts 1-25 give the first hand account of the circumstances of my hospitalization I submitted under penalty of perjury at U.S. Supreme Court 11-5664?
A: Yes.
55. The goal of this section is to validate Root Facts 1-25 by comparison with the clinical data and one exhibit from your 2013-01-10 affidavit as well as several financial documents from the trial court records at FD-07-000190. So, the 5447 individual clinical data entries in the log have been filtered for relevance to each of the 25 Root Facts. I will ask you a few questions comparing what you see in the relevant clinical data with what is being asserted by each Root Fact.
Please keep in mind that I don’t want to know whether you believe each Root Fact to be true or false. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am asking you whether the Root Fact is merely consistent with the clinical data and other evidence. That nothing in the data contradicts it. And only slightly stronger, I am asking you whether there is any support in the clinical data for each Root Fact. Whether the clinical data would give an average person any reason, whatsoever, to believe that it might possibly be true. If a Root Fact is merely consistent with or if there is any support in the clinical data or other evidence we will conclude that the Root Fact is valid.
Please go to the first filter: Root Fact 1. At the top (blue) you should see Root Fact 1 followed by scrollable rows of relevant clinical data entries (white).
Q: So, does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that my ex-wife, Dr. Ochoa, was a doctor? An organ transplant pathologist? That she was employed by UPMC? In the Starzl Institute? That she had forensics experience? That she was an NIH NIDDK K08 grant recipient? That she was in the habit of prescribing medicine, offering medical advice or otherwise acting as a trusted health care provider to me or to my 2 young daughters prior to 2006-11-07? Is Root Fact 1 valid?
A: Yes, according to this record transcribed from the medical record, Root Fact 1 was established in the clinical record.
56. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 2.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that I gave up my own academic career to support Dr. Ochoa’s career? That I was the primary care giver for our 2 young daughters, ages 8 and 10? Is Root Fact 2 valid?
A: Yes, Root Fact 2 is supported by statements made in this transcribed clinical record.
57. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 3.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that my ex-wife and I were partnering with a 503(c) charity and the State of New York to turn a former illegal abortion clinic at 631 Pelham Parkway North in the Bronx into a permanent home for severely autistic adults? Is Root Fact 3 valid?
A: This Root Fact 3 filter is not organized as the prior 2. The linked document is a handwritten medical record which is too tedious to read. However, this Root Fact was affirmed to me in my work with Mr. Ochoa, and the record does indicate “Refers to NY real estate investment but dependent on wife for financial support” on p.4 entered at 11:30 am on 2006-11-06.
58. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 4.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that I was a Classics student at the University of Pittsburgh? That I had been ghost writing an NIH NIDDK funded research paper for my ex-wife? Was I observed doing homework or working on research by the clinical staff? And yet, did the physicians assigned to my case dismiss my authorship claims as grandiose? Delusional? Narcissistic? Was their disbelief in any way reflected in their clinical diagnoses? Is Root Fact 4 valid?
A: Yes, all of this is accurate, and Root Fact 4 is valid.
59. Please go to the next filter: Root Fact 5.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that Dr. Ochoa had multiple sexual affairs after moving to Pittsburgh? How many times did I describe her to the clinical staff as a sexual predator? Is Root Fact 5 valid?
A: Yes. I see four instances in the medical record of describing Dr. Ochoa as a “sexual predator.” Root Fact 5 is valid.
60. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 6.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that learning of Dr. Ochoa’s infidelities was the proximate cause of my medical crisis? Was I accurate in describing my reaction as “acute shock”? Is Root Fact 6 valid?
A: Yes, Root Fact 6 is valid.
61. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 7.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that Dr. Ochoa administered Prozac to me after I went into acute shock? Again, was she acting as my trusted personal physician? What is an FDA black box warning of suicidality? Does Prozac have an FDA black box warning of suicidality? Was this risk noted by any of the clinical staff? Is Root Fact 7 valid?
A: Yes, record indicates Dr. Ochoa prescribed Prozac, and was clearly acting as a personal physician. Prozac does have an FDA black box warning for suicidality, referring to heightened risk of suicidal ideation following administration, and clinicians were aware of this risk. Root Fact 7 os valid.
62. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 8.
Q: Is the clinical data shown by this filter merely consistent with Root Fact 8?
A: It is consistent, meaning there is no evidence against this assertion.
63. For direct support of Root Fact 8 please look at an exhibit from FD-07-000190:
2006-10-11 Chase Mastercard xx3930 -$25,000 Balance Transfer_Redacted.
Q: Is this a page of a Chase credit card statement in my name with account ending 3930? Was a balance transfer of $25,000 made from this account on 2006-10-11?
A: Yes.
64. Compare that transfer to another exhibit from FD-07-000190: 2006-10-12 CitiBank VISA xx6443 +$25,000 Balance Transfer.
Q: Is this a page of a Citi credit card statement in my name with account ending 6443? This was identified at FD-07-000190 as a joint marital account. Was a $25,000 payment credited to this account on 2006-10-12? How many days before my 2006-11-07 inpatient hospitalization was a $25,000 balance transfer made from a credit card in my name only to this marital account?
A: Yes, and this would be 26 days before the admission.
65. Look at one more financial record from the trial court record at FD-07-000190:
2006-11-17 CitiBank VISA xx6443 p.1 of 2.
Q: Is this the same Citi joint marital credit card account that was paid $25,000 by a balance transfer on 2006-10-12? Were there charges made to this account while I was inpatient in WPIC? Is it at all plausible that I was purchasing airline tickets or shopping online at Saks Fifth Avenue while being held in a locked psychiatric ward? Is Root Fact 8 valid?
A: It seems impossible that an inpatient could make purchases as described. Root fact 8 is valid
66. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 9.
Q: Does the clinical data show that I tried to reconcile with Dr. Ochoa despite her infidelities? How well did that go for me? Is Root Fact 9 valid?
A: Yes, it does. It seems Dr. Ochoa was disgusted, so not well. Root Fact 9 is valid.
67. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 10.
Q: Did my clinical condition deteriorate between my outpatient visits on 2006-10-14 and 2006-10-16 and my 2006-11-07 inpatient admission? Is Root Fact 10 valid?
A: Yes, it did, and Root Fact 10 is valid.
68. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 11.
Q: Did I get the date of my admission to WPIC correct? Is there any indication in the clinical data of how I got to WPIC on 2006-11-07? Did I walk? Drive? Take a bus? Was I alone? Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that my judgment or ability to give informed consent was impaired? Is Root Fact 11 valid?
A: I am actually not finding a statement about how you arrived, or whether you were escorted by Dr. Ochoa. In the MSE, your insight and judgment were noted as “fair/poor” without elaboration.
69. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 12.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that Dr. Ochoa petitioned the courts for a 302 involuntary commitment petition against me? Is Root Fact 12 valid?
A: The record states that you had an argument, became suicidal, and “had to be committed to the hospital involuntarily.” I’m unable to see whether Dr. Ochoa had a hand in this.
70. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 13.
Q: Again, does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that I had been ghost writing an NIH NIDDK funded research paper to support Dr. Ochoa’s career? For more support we’re going to look closer at one particular clinical datum. What is entered in the Value column of row 7?
A: Yes. “She sent manuscripts for him to work on for her so she won't lose her job.”
71. Now follow the link in column 1 of row 7 back to p.3 of the source .pdf:
2006-11-15 UPMC WPIC Nursing Progress Note_Redacted.
Q: Did you find the original handwritten note? What date and time was this entry made into the clinical record? Who made it? Can you verify that the datum at row 7 of this filter was transcribed accurately? Was it authenticated by a qualified health care professional?
A: Yes. The note was written at 9:30 pm on 11/15/2006, and signed by a health care professional.
72. Now return to a dashboard tool we examined previously: 2023-09-24 UPMC Medical Records Dashboard.
Q: Was 2006-11-15 UPMC WPIC Nursing Progress Note_Redacted missing as of 2023-09-24? Therefore, was the clinical datum, “She sent manuscripts for him to work on for her so she won't lose her job.” missing from the clinical data as of 2023-09-24?
A: Yes, it appears that was missing as of 2023-09-24.
73. Compare that to the last download we looked at: 2024-01-09 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Ciox Health Download Components.
Q: Was 2006-11-15 UPMC WPIC Nursing Progress Note_Redacted included in this most recent download? Therefore, did the clinical datum “She sent manuscripts for him to work on for her so she won't lose her job.” first appear in the clinical data on 2024-01-09? Does the clinical datum, “She sent manuscripts for him to work on for her so she won't lose her job.” give any support to Root Fact 13? Was that clinical datum included in the scope of any medical record requests that you examined?
A: Yes, and yes. It was included.
74. For even more support please go back to your 2013-01-10 affidavit Exhibit F:
2008-06-05 Pa. Department of Health Investigation.
Q: Was even more support for my authorship claims by a Pa. Department of Health investigation already entered into the trial court record at FD-07-000190? Is Root Fact 13 valid?
A: Yes.
75. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 14.
Q: Is this description consistent with the clinical data? Are these normal conditions on psychiatric wards? Is Root Fact 14 valid?
A: I’m not seeing a record of paper clips and staples being removed, etc.
76. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 15.
Q: Is the clinical data shown by this filter merely consistent with Root Fact 15? Is Root Fact 15 valid?
A: It is consistent, meaning there is no evidence against this assertion.
77. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 16.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that I was able to page Dr. Anthony “Jake” Demetris from within a locked psych ward on 2006-11-21 at some time before 6:30 pm? Is there any indication in the clinical data of what Dr. Demetris said or did during or after that telephone conversation? How did I react to whatever Dr. Demetris said or did? How did Dr. Ochoa react the next day?
A. Records note a call to “wife’s boss,” and that would be Dr. Demetris. It appears the content of this call was greatly upsetting to Mr. Ochoa.
Now look closer at another particular clinical datum.
Q: What is entered in the Value column of row 6?
A: “pt anxiety/internally restless after phone call to wife's boss.”
78. Please follow the link in column 1 of row 6 back to p.2 of the source .pdf: 2006-11-07 to 2006-11-27 UPMC WPIC PRN Medication Documentation.
Q: Did you find the original handwritten note? What date and time was this entry made into the clinical record? Who made it? Can you verify that the datum at row 6 of UPMC Medical Records Log was transcribed accurately? Was it authenticated by a qualified health care professional?
A: Yes, at 11/21/06 at 6:30 pm by Kim Ramsey, RN. Yes, this is accurate, and authenticated by a qualified health care professional.
79. Again return to the dashboard tool we examined previously: 2023-09-24 UPMC Medical Records Dashboard.
Q: Was 2006-11-07 to 2006-11-27 UPMC WPIC PRN Medication Documentation Form_Redacted missing as of 2023-09-24? Therefore, was the clinical datum, “pt anxiety/internally restless after phone call to wife's boss.” missing from the clinical data as of 2023-09-24?
A: Yes.
80. Similarly, compare that to the last download we looked at: 2024-01-09 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Ciox Health Download Components.
Q: Was 2006-11-07 to 2006-11-27 UPMC WPIC PRN Medication Documentation Form_Redacted included in this most recent download? Therefore, did the clinical datum “pt anxiety/internally restless after phone call to wife's boss.” first appear in the clinical data on 2024-01-09? Again, does the clinical datum, “pt anxiety/internally restless after phone call to wife's boss.” give any support to Root Fact 16? Was that clinical datum included in the scope of any medical record requests that you examined. Is Root Fact 16 valid?
A: No, and yes to the second question. Yes, this does give support to Root Fact 16. Yes, it was included, and Root Fact 16 is valid.
81. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 17.
Q: Is the clinical data shown by this filter merely consistent with the claim that Dr. Ochoa and the attorneys provided by Dr. George Michalopoulos abused Pa. family law to silence me? Is Root Fact 17 valid?
A: It is consistent, meaning there is no evidence for or against this assertion.
For more support I refer this court to the whole of the trial court record at FD-07-000190 and appeals to the Pa. Superior Court, Pa. Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court.
82. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 18.
Q: Is the clinical data shown by this filter merely consistent with Root Fact 18?
A: It is consistent, meaning there is no evidence for or against this assertion.
83. For direct support of Root Fact 18 lets look at another piece of evidence in the trial court record at FD-07-000190: 2006-12-04 Citizen's Bank Checking xx2938 power of attorney = talk to lawyer.
Q: Does the handwritten note on this bank statement give any support to the assertion that Dr. Ochoa and the attorneys provided by Dr. George Michalopoulos obtained power of attorney to transfer all funds from this bank account in my name on 2006-12-04? Did I get the date wrong by 3 days? Is Root Fact 18 valid?
A: It’s unclear to me who wrote this note, just that accounts were closed or amounts transferred. I’m not sure what you mean by date wrong by 3 days.
For the record, the attorneys provided to Dr. Ochoa by Dr. George Michalopoulos were David S. Pollock PA I.D. #19902 and Brian C. Vertz PA I.D. #64822 of the law firm Pollock Begg Komar Glasser & Vertz, LLC, PA Firm #419, who were later joined by Benjamin E. Orsatti, PA I.D. #93092.
84. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 19.
Q: Did I confuse a PFA with a 302 or 303 petition? Did I conflate 2 separate discharge dates on 2006-11-28 and 2006-12-06? How many days after my 2006-11-21 phone conversation with Dr. Anthony ”Jake” Demetris was I first discharged from WPIC? Did I make a feeble suicide attempt after being released on 2006-11-28? Was I then somehow recommitted to WPIC then released again on 2006-12-06? Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that my second discharge was 2 days after Dr. Ochoa and the attorneys provided by Dr. George Michalopoulos obtained power of attorney? Was I given a 30 day supply of Trazodone and Cymbalta when I was released on 2006-12-06? Is Root Fact 19 valid?
A: Yes, it appears so to first two questions. If the conversation was 2006-11-21 and you were discharged 11-28-2006, that is 7 days. And you did make such a suicide attempt on 11-28-2006. Yes you were readmitted and re-released on 2006-12-06. Yes to all of the remaining questions and Root Fact 19 appears valid.
85. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 20.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that I earnestly tried to kill myself by overdose on that 30 day supply of Trazodeone and Cymbalta within hours of being released from UPMC WPIC on 2006-12-06? Is Root Fact 20 valid?
A: Yes.
86. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 21.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that I have been separated from my daughters since 2006-11-07? Is Root Fact 21 valid?
A: Yes. Root Fact 21 is valid per your statements.
87. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 22.
Q: Are these particular authorship claims merely consistent with the clinical data? Is Root Fact 22 valid?
A: Root Fact 22 appears valid from prior statements to me, (but there is no clinical data appended in this link.)
88. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 23.
Q: Again, does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to the assertion that Dr. Ochoa has prevented any contact with my beloved niñas perididas since 2006-11-07? That she made unsupported accusations to obtain a PFA order prior to my final release from Mercy Behavioural Health RFTA? Did I again get a date wrong? Wasn’t I, in fact, transferred from WPIC to Mercy Behavioral Health RFTA on 2007-01-11 on a 304 commitment, then finally released on 2007-02-12? Is Root Fact 23 valid?
A: Yes to all of these, and Root Fact 23 appears valid.
89. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 24. This is a matter of record at FD-07-000190. Therefore, Root Fact 24 is valid.
90. Now go to the next filter: Root Fact 25.
Q: Does the clinical data shown by this filter give any support to Root Fact 25? Is Root Fact 25 valid?
A: Yes, and Root Fact 25 is valid.
We will see this statement return later.
91. Q: How many of Root Facts 1-25 were we able to validate by comparison with the clinical data and other evidence? How many of the Root Facts were slightly inconsistent with the clinical data? Did I conflate some details? Get some dates wrong? Were any of Root Facts 1-25 strongly contradicted by the clinical data?
A: Though there were minor inconsistencies in XX facts, none of the Root Facts were contradicted or false.
Q: Overall, was the account I gave at U.S. Supreme Court 11-5664 mostly consistent with what you saw in the clinical data? Was the account I gave to the U.S. Supreme Court at 11-5664 mostly supported by the clinical data? Does my version of events “have a basis in reality”?
A: Yes to all of this.
Behavioral, Diagnostic and Pharmacological Facts
92. We have been examining the accuracy of my memory by comparing what I told the U.S. Supreme Court more than 10 years ago with the clinical data I recently recovered. Now we are going to look at that same clinical data in a different way.
The largest portion of data in the clinical record was entered by the nursing staff who monitored all of the patients on the 11th floor admissions ward of WPIC. Most of that data consists of checklists of the patterns of clinically relevant behaviour they observed throughout the day. The first filter shows some of those observations made by the nursing staff. Please go to: Behaviour.
Q: Did the nursing staff ask me repeatedly throughout each day whether I was suicidal or homicidal? Did they repeatedly urge compliance with medication? Was I in any way led to believe that compliance with medication was a condition for my being discharged from the locked ward? Did I comply? Was I cooperative with the nursing staff? Was I ever hostile or display violent behaviour towards the nursing staff? Was I ever observed by the nursing staff making threats or displaying any violent behaviour towards anyone?
A: First of all, it is not clear that all of these questions were addressed each day. However, there are no hostile behaviors noted towards nursing or anyone. Noncompliance and non-cooperation are not noted, but rather the reverse is predominant.
93. Next we’ll look at the physicians on my treatment team. Please go to: Physicians.
Q: Please list every physician who signed the entries in this filter. Who was responsible for making diagnostic, medication and other treatment decisions? Again, did my treating physicians doubt my repeated claims that I was the author of Dr. Ochoa’s NIH NIDDK funded research? Did my treating physicians make any effort to determine whether my authorship claims were true or false? Did they ask Dr. Ochoa whether they were true or false? Did they examine the manuscripts Dr. Ochoa brought into the locked ward? Did they consult her NIH NIDDK grant supervisors? Anyone within the administration of the University of Pittsburgh Medical School? Anyone at the NIH? Law enforcement? Or did they simply dismiss my authorship claims as grandiose? Delusional? Narcissistic? Again, was their disbelief in any way reflected in their clinical diagnoses? Do treatment decisions in any way depend upon accurate diagnoses?
A: Mukesh Sah MD, Attending Physician; Pierre Azzam MD, Second Year Psychiatry Resident; Samuel Westmoreland MD, Second Year Psychiatry Resident; Duane Spiker MD, Attending Physician; Rolf Jacob MD, Attending Physician. I see that they describe your statements re authorship etc as grandiose and “god-like”, and they do not appear to have examined the manuscripts or consult anyone named above. It appears their skepticism of your claims played a significant role in their diagnoses, which in large part determine treatments.
94. Let’s go a little deeper into that issue: PGY-2 Psych.
Q: What is the difference between an attending physician and a second year psychiatry resident? Was the only time I lost my temper with any member of the clinical staff when a PGY-2 psych resident kept badgering me to adopt his cynical worldview? Is that the only time I refused to cooperate with my treating physicians?
A: Broadly speaking, several years of training and experience differentiate an attending from a PGY-2 resident. You are noted to be “mad” at the resident, and they were unable to meet with you because of this.
95. Now go to: Drugs.
Q: Was there any indication in the clinical record that I might kill myself by overdose? How many times did I say that Cymbalta made me feel suicidal? Did my attending physician give me a 30 day supply of Trazodone and Cymbalta prior to my being released on 2006-12-06? Had I already made one unsuccessful suicide attempt? If someone confessed the urge to shoot themselves, would you hand them a loaded gun?
A: Yes, and at least once you said “pills sound good” as a suicide means. on 2-19-2007, you stated you believed Cymbalta contributed to your suicidality. Yes you were given a discharge supply of medication after making a suicide attempt. And this is a rhetorical question (re gun) and of course not. However, we may be comparing apples and oranges here. I can’t say that the physicians absolutely knew that the medication caused your suicidality, or believed that, based on what I’ve read here.
96. The time, date and reason for each administration of medication is entered into the clinical record and signed by a member of the clinical staff. Much of that medication history is illegible and not captured in the medical record log. Instead, we can look at the invoices in the clinical data which identify each individual pill I was billed for. In this version the date, name of the drug, dosage and cost are highlighted: 2006-10-16 to 2007-01-11 UPMC Billing_Redacted.
Q: Again, what is an FDA black box warning of suicidality? Which of the highlighted medicines have FDA black box warnings of suicidality? Is Duloxetine the same as Cymbalta? Is Desyrel the same as Trazodone? What is Lorazepam? Did I take any more Cymbalta after 2006-12-06? Did I make any attempts to kill myself after refusing to take any more Cymbalta?
A: The Black Box warning for antidepressants highlights the chance of increasing suicidal ideation and behavior. Duloxetine (Cymbalta) and Trazodone (Desyrel) have black box warnings for suicidal ideation and behavior. Lorazepam has a black box warning for addiction, abuse, and withdrawal reactions.
(I am not sure if you took more cymbalta after that date)
Malicious or Criminal Intent
97. We have measured the accuracy of my memory of events. Prior to my medical crisis Dr. Ochoa was my trusted wife and partner. We had 2 deeply beloved daughters. We shared bank accounts and credit cards. We were partners on a complex real estate deal to turn a former illegal abortion clinic in the Bronx into a permanent home for severely autistic adults. We were collaborating on her NIH NIDDK funded research into the molecular basis of hepatogenesis and liver regeneration. She was even acting as my trusted personal physician.
But we also saw that some time after moving to Pittsburgh she began carrying on multiple extra-marital affairs and began transferring our shared debt to me without my knowledge or consent.
The clinical data clearly shows that her actions precipitated my medical crisis, that she was the first physician to administer damaging antidepressants to me, and that she was somewhat less than supportive of my needs.
We saw that while I was hospitalized she continued her deceptive financial manipulations. She seized power of attorney over my remaining funds with the assistance of attorney’s provided by Dr. George Michalopoulos. We saw that Dr. Ochoa had easy access to my locked psychiatric ward and was regularly consulted on every aspect of my treatment by the clinical staff. We also saw that Dr. Ochoa withheld all access to my beloved niñas perididas while pressuring me to continue working on her NIH NIDDK funded research. And we saw that soon after I told Dr. Anthony “Jake” Demetris that I was being extorted and begged him for help, Dr. Ochoa and the attorneys provided by Dr. George Michalopoulos convinced a judge to turn me out on the street with a 30 day supply of psych meds on 2006-12-06. This was despite multiple indications that I might overdose and a recent, feeble, preliminary suicide attempt.
Keeping all this in mind, focus on the day of my overdose on psych meds. Notice the Index column of the following filter. Emergency Room data is recorded minute-by-minute, giving us a precise view of how the crisis unfolded: Emergency Room
Q: When did I arrive in the Emergency Room of UPMC Presby? What was the Brief Assessment of Complaint at 15:54 on 2006-12-07? How did I arrive? Was I on a stretcher? Were any monitors or IVs attached to me? Was I restrained? What was my blood pressure? Had Dr. Ochoa been contacted? How?
A: 2006-12-07, 15:54 arrival. The chief complaint was overdose on trazodone and cymbalta. You came in by ambulance, with an IV. BP 130/84. I can’t see whether you were restrained. Dr. Ochoa’s pager number is noted.
Q: To what Room was I taken at 15:55? Was a sitter present at 17:15 in Room 6? What was my blood pressure at 17:15? Was I in pain? How many liters of fluid were used to maintain my blood pressure?
A: To room 6. A sitter was noted then. BP is 94/60, and it appears pain was 0/10. It looks like 4 liters of fluid were administered by 18:00.
Q: What happened at 18:40 on 2006-12-07 in Room 6 of the UPMC Presbyterian Emergency Room? Can we tell from the clinical data whether the sitter remained in the room while Dr. Ochoa was “in to visit”? Was I in pain 20 minutes later at 19:00? What was my blood pressure? Did I require further IV treatment to stabilize my condition? What is the medical use of dopamine?
A: At 18:40, your wife visited. Sitter not noted. Pain not noted at 19:00, and it looks like that column is used for oxygen saturation. Hard to read. BP 90/50. Further fluids were added. Dopamine is used to treat low blood pressure.
Q: At what time did I leave the the emergency room? Was I on a stretcher? Was I restrained? Were there any IV’s or monitors attached to me?
A: The notes say you were transferred at 23:35 on a monitored stretcher with two IV’s. I can’t read restraint status here.
98. Much of that emergency room data was not released until years after the fact. However, I provided the trial court at FD-07-000190 a first hand account of what I experienced on that fateful day. I also made sure that state and federal law enforcement received the same account on 2024-11-07 and will receive copies of this affidavit on or before 2025-11-07. Please go to: 2016-11-07 Motion for Custody and Relief 67-82.
Q: Please list every person and institution named in that account. Were the Starzl Insitute and ISMETT mentioned? Was Dr. Amadeo Marcos mentioned? Was there one unnamed Starzl transplant surgeon present at that party while I was away in Kyoto with my beloved niñas perididas? Was Dr. Ochoa’s threat credible? Does this explain the clinical data entry “Pain Scale 96%”? Does the clinical data give any support to this 2016-11-07 first hand account?
A: Dr. XXX, Eli Wasserman, Glenn and Gary, Amadeo Marcos, Dr. Michalopoulos, Dr. Demetris, Tong Wu, Starzl Institute, UPMC Presbyterian, Harvard. Yes re your time in Kyoto, apparently. Yes, the threat is credible. (I believe the “pain scale” is an incorrectly scribed oxygen saturation. But other than that, the clinical data does support your account. It seems likely that you were being given IV fluids, not getting a blood transfusion, though.
99. Q: Now do you see why I fled Pittsburgh “as though the Devil were chasing me”?
A: Certainly, yes.
Benign and Lawful Intent
100. It is not a legal requirement for a plaintiff in a civil suit to establish their own motives, but in this case it is prudent. So, please look at the following dashboard tool included in the records of this trial court which documents the email conversation I had with the Deans of the University of Pittsburgh Medical School soon after these events:
2025-11-07 Dialogue with the Deans. Now please follow the links deeper into that conversation:
2025-11-07 Dialogue with the Deans >
2007-12-07 Confidential Complaint to Dean Arthur S. Levine >
2007-12-06 ethical issues 1
Q: On what date did I contact Dr. Arthur S. Levine to make a confidential complaint about these events? How long after my 2007-02-12 release from Mercy Behavioural Health RFTA did contact Dr. Levine?
A: 12-06-2007 is the date on this email. This is 298 days after your 02-12-2007 release.
101. Now go to:
2025-11-07 Dialogue with the Deans >
2007-12-07 Confidential Complaint to Dean Arthur S. Levine >
2007-12-07 ethical issues 2
Q: What was Dr. Levine’s title? To whom did he refer my confidential complaint?
A: His signature is “Arthur S. Levine, M.D., Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences, Dean, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh.” He referred you to either Vice-Dean, Dr. Steven Kanter or with Mr. Gregory Peasely in UPMC.
102. Now follow a different path into that same dialogue:
2025-11-07 Dialogue with the Deans >
2007-12-27 Confidential Complaint Forwarded to Dean Anne Thompson >
2007-12-27 ethical issues 6
Q: What was Dr. Steven L. Kanter’s title? To whom did he refer my confidential complaint?
A: His signature is “Vice Dean, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.” He states either Dr. Ann Thompson or he would speak with you.
103. Now:
2025-11-07 Dialogue with the Deans
2007-12-31 Confidential Complaint Acknowledged by Dean Anne Thompson >
2007-12-31 Your message 1
Q: What was Dr. Ann E. Thompson’s title?
A: Her signature is “Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.”
104. Now go to:
2025-11-07 Dialogue with the Deans
2008-01-11 Clinical Abuse and NIH NIDDK Research Fraud Reported to the Deans >
2008-01-09 Dr. Jake Demetris 1
Q: What was my stated intention at paragraph 8?
A: “Again, I want to emphasize that I am not seeking revenge or compensation for my losses. Everything I do is for the welfare of my children, both to demonstrate to them how to act in accordance with a deep regard for understanding the Good above all else, and to give them future guidance when they look back and try to understand why their lives were shattered at an early age.”
105. I later escalated the matter to the Board of Trustees of the University of Pittsburgh and Board of Directors of UPMC: 2025-11-07 Conversations with the Late, Honorable Ralph J. Cappy.
Q: On what date did I first attempt to contact University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark Nordenberg by email?
A: Apparently, January 29, 2008 12:58:20 PM PST.
106. Now go deeper into that conversation:
2025-11-07 Conversations with the Late, Honorable Ralph J. Cappy >
2008-11-07 UPMC Medical Records to the Board of Trustees >
2008-05-29 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc. Paper Copies >
2008-05-29 UPMC WPIC Medical Records Duplications Inc._Redacted
Q: Is this identical to the incomplete set of medical records you examined in your 2013-01-10 affidavit as Exhibit D?
A: Yes.
107. Now go to:
2025-11-07 Conversations with the Late, Honorable Ralph J. Cappy
2008-11-07 UPMC Medical Records to the Board of Trustees >
2008-11-07 UPMC Medical Records to the Board of Trustees
Q: How long after my 2006-11-07 commitment to WPIC did I send copies of my incomplete medical records to the Trustees of the University of Pittsburgh and Board of Directors of UPMC by certified mail? On 2008-11-07 did I tell the University of Pittsburgh Board of Trustees and UPMC Board of Directors essentially the same story I told U.S. Supreme Court 11-5664 at Root Facts 1-25?
A: Between 2006-11-07 and 2008-11-07 there are exactly 2 years. And yes, you did.
108. Finally, I want you to look at one final piece of evidence which has not yet appeared in the records of any trial court: གཤིན་རྗེ་གཤེད་ or the Mask of Sisera.
Q: Who are the two parties to this email thread? How many days after my 2007-02-12 release from Mercy Behavioural Health RFTA did I ask Rabbi Yisroel Altein of Chabad of Squirrel Hill to be a silent witness to my confidential email dialogue with Dean Arthur Levine? Did I swear before Rabbi Yisroel Altein and Hashem that my intention was to speak truth to power for the sake of my girls’ eternal souls? Is that what I have done to the best of my limited ability for nearly 20 years?
A: This is between you and Rabbi Yisroel Altein, and seems to be initiated on Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:23 PM. You state the need for “silent witnesses to follow my conversation…”, and do state these intentions (truth to power, good over evil, etc), and seem to be committed to throughout this time.
Standard of Proof in a Civil Suit, Legal Facts
We have a high degree of certainty in the mathematical and logical facts about the clinical data. We know that there are 228 .pdf medical records in the clinical data which include 5447 individual data entries. We know how that clinical data was collected and authenticated. We know that my medical records are still incomplete, and we know when each medical record was released by each of UPMC’s vendors. We know the sequence of financial transactions and clinical data entries. Most important, we know that the 25 Root Facts I asserted to the U.S. Supreme Court are highly consistent with and strongly supported by the clinical data.
Somewhat less certain are the clinical facts. We know what behaviours were observed and when by the nursing staff, but there is a degree of subjectivity in how those behaviours were characterized. Similarly, we know what diagnostic and treatment decisions were made by the physicians on my treatment team, but there was certainly a gap between my understanding of the situation and theirs on two points. They clearly did not take seriously my repeated, vocal insistence that I was being extorted to complete Dr. Ochoa’s NIH NIDDK funded research. And they clearly did not empathize with my life decision to put the care of my wife and children before my own academic career or personal interests.
The standard of proof for legal facts in a civil suit is much lower than for mathematical, logical or clinical facts. A “preponderance of evidence” simply means that our legal facts are more likely than not given all the available evidence.
5 counts, or related sets of legal facts are being asserted in this civil suit:
109. The first count is that UPMC remains in violation of Pennsylvania laws giving patients full access to their medical records.
Q: So, given everything that you have seen, is it more likely than not that the clinical data is still incomplete?
A: Yes, it appears that full access was not initially given, for unclear reasons, and is still incomplete.
110. The second count is malpractice. Malpractice is when some treatment had no clinical basis or fell outside of accepted norms and resulted in long term damage. It is being asserted that Dr. Ochoa’s actions in first administering damaging antidepressants to me and later in steering the course of my inpatient treatment fell outside of accepted norms and resulted in long term damage to me and to my beloved niñas perididas.
Q: So, given everything that you have seen, is it more likely than not that Dr. Ochoa committed malpractice? Would it give you more certainty if we could obtain more data or were permitted to question Dr. Ochoa?
A: Yes, it would be considered malpractice to treat a family member, or use influence to steer treatment not to your benefit or your children’s benefit.
It is also being asserted that my treating physicians misdiagnosed my condition due to their biases against my authorship claims and worldview; that they repeatedly pressured me to take damaging antidepressants while my ability to give informed consent was impaired; and that they held me inpatient for an unreasonable duration, all of which resulted in long term damage to me and to my beloved niñas perididas.
Q: So, given everything that you have seen, is it more likely than not that the named physicians committed malpractice? Would it give you more certainty if we could obtain more data or were permitted to question those physicians and other medical staff?
A: This is a harder question. Did they fail to perform duty with skill and care, and act negligently? I would say they did not fully give credence to your perspective, and seem to have dismissed you as grandiose and narcissistic in some notes.
111. The third count is civil conspiracy. A civil conspiracy is when two or more parties cooperate to break the law, and do so with malicious or criminal intent. Dr. Ochoa bears sole responsibility for whatever crimes she committed, but the count of civil conspiracy is that she cooperated with her employers to conceal her crimes in order to silence me about entrenched patterns of sexual misconduct within the Starzl Institute as well as my authorship of her NIH NIDDK funded research.
Q: So, given everything that you have seen, is it more likely than not that Dr. Ochoa bore malicious or criminal intent toward me? Is it more likely than not that Dr. Ochoa conspired with David Pollock, Brian Vertz, Benjamin Orsatti, Dr. Anthony “Jake” Demetris and/or Dr. George Michalopoulos to silence me?
A: This sure seems to be the case, if as you’ve told me, all the determining facts are in fact true.
Q: Is it more likely than not that the Deans of the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Board of Trustees of the University of Pittsburgh and Board of Directors of UPMC understand why I have been trying to get complete copies of my medical records for nearly 20 years? Is it more likely than not that they understand the Root Facts, data and analysis we have presented? Is it more likely than not that they know that I was being extorted to complete Dr. Ochoa’s NIH NIDDK funded research while being heavily medicated in a locked ward in WPIC? Is it more likely than not that they are actively participating in an ongoing conspiracy to “burn the records and bill the victims”? Might it have given you more certainty if they had ever responded to any discovery requests or interrogatories, whatsoever?
A: The lack of forthright information gives the aura of cover up or avoidance of accountability. Who knew what, when - I cannot say. But if they did know that you were being extorted, etc, then that would give motive to the aura of cover up.
112. The fourth count is that Dr. Ochoa and her co-conspirators abused the courts to further their criminal ends. Most of the evidence for this count goes beyond the scope of the clinical data and your expertise.
Q: However, is it more likely than not that the Deans of the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Board of Trustees of the University of Pittsburgh and/or Board of Directors of UPMC cooperated with their vendors, agents, representatives and/or counsel to conceal clinical data directly connecting me with Dr. Ochoa’s NIH NIDDK funded research until 2024-01-09? Is it more likely than not that the Deans of the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Board of Trustees of the University of Pittsburgh and/or Board of Directors of UPMC cooperated with their vendors, agents, representatives and/or counsel to conceal clinical data directly connecting me to Dr. Anthony “Jake" Demetris, Dr. George Michalopoulos and/or the Starzl Institute until 2024-01-09?
A: Again, I don’t know where on the scale of “medical records screw up” to “knowing cover up” this lies. But it is rather suspicious.
113. The fifth count is defamation. These parties and their counsel have tirelessly portrayed me as delusional and dangerous to state and federal courts, to state and federal law enforcement, and even to my own beloved niñas perididas. The use and abuse of the clinical term “delusional” is clearly within your professional expertise.
Q: So, am I delusional? Dangerous? Arrogant? Narcissistic? Xenophonic? Do I ramble? Are my methods of analysis unintelligible? Esoteric? Not grounded in reality? Would it have been easier to read 228 .pdfs? Or to sort through 1,000 paper pages of medical records print-outs? Does my worldview offend you? My faith?
A: I have never found you to be “delusional or dangerous.” You are quite sure of yourself and aggrieved against a power system - some people would say this is “arrogant.” I do not, because I am familiar with many stories of people being exploited and subordinated by abusive power. So you are not foreign-sounding (xenophonic) and seem grounded in reality and intelligible. Your worldview does not offend me, or your faith.
114. Q: Do you have anything that you would like to add to your testimony?
A: I have seen you irregularly since your first evaluation on August 26, 2008, for a total of 27 sessions. You’ve always been personable, knowledgeable, and sincere to my eyes. What happened with your wife is understandably devastating, and this inflamed a quest for justice and truth - which often does not win friends easily, and gets pushback. But you have persevered, and even found meaning in new relationships.
Thank you.
115. My witness is now available for cross-examination by written interrogatories.
______________________________________
Michael Ramon Ochoa
58 West Portal Ave #218
San Francisco, CA 94127
(415) 373-2172
2025-11-07
