Jane Doe Cv 14 - 261702 vs. Stanford et al. 

 

One of the components of this case ( as well as three current others Baez vs Stanford, Young vs. Stanford, and  Roe vs. Stanford- in relation to ) is Stanford's  conduct in permitting, ratifying, and failing to intervene in their operating room staff's well known practice of taking personal cell phone photos of sedated patients' bodies and freely disseminating those.

 

This happened in this case and the doctor freely admitted in deposition and verified interrogatories to taking the personal cell phone photos- but stated he did it for "a medical purpose". Taking cell phone photos by staff of patients, sedated or not, is not only unlawful against HIPAA and other codes Calif Code 1708.5, but also a direct violation of Stanford's own institutional policies on cell phone usage by staff.     

 

Despite the fact that Stanford had their Cell phone policy in 2008, and reviewed and re- posted it in 2011, Stanford has engaged in rampant violation of patients through staff cell phone practices of free dissemination of their sedated patient and patient bodies photos. 

​

(Ref. http://med.stanford.edu/shs/update/archives/FEB2011/cellphone.htm)

 

Stanford has engaged in concealment, "gas lamping", denial, and scorched earth defense- things Stanford does regularly  when they have engaged in wrongdoing. 

 

The 2nd component of the aforementioned Doe case is Stanford's demeaning treatment of women undergoing mastectomy with violation of more than three Federal statues including WHACRA. Stanford failed to comply with anti-drive through mastectomy laws in this case whereby Ms. Doe was discharged less than 20 hours after a double preventative mastectomy that was disastrous to her health. 

​

As an undisclosed aspect, Stanford has this case as well as a many others in Santa Clara Court assigned to its alumni who are members of its Founding Grant Society- i.e. donate their estate to Stanford. This undisclosed conflict by Stanford and the Judge are used to Stanford's full  advantage in these courts- with at least an appearance of bias. CCP 170.1.

 

(Reference  obtained via organic google search  "Stanford family Judge Zayner" for a Youtube video of Judge Zayner's wife talking freely on how she and her husband are lifelong devotees to Stanford and gave their estate, thus now members of the Founding Grant Society.)