Major Update on Ken Stoller’s Lawsuit: New Amended Complaint Brings in Department of Public Health for Privacy Violations and Other Alleged Improper Actions

Major Update on Ken Stoller’s Lawsuit: New Amended Complaint Brings in Department of Public Health for Privacy Violations and Other Alleged Improper Actions

Based on documents received in response to a public records requests, we are seeking to bring into the lawsuit Robert Schechter MD, who is the Chief of the Clinical Policy and Support Section of the Department of Health’s immunization branch. The documents reveal that his department is receiving privacy protected medical exemption information, and is providing legal/medical advice to schools about the validity of medical exemptions. The new complaint traces these actions back to a pilot program initiated by the Santa Barbara Health Department in 2016.

The new complaint also seeks to stop the Medical Board’s new illegal tactic of trying to confuse and intimidate parents of medically vaccine exempt children into releasing their children’s medical records. I have written about that tactic recently.

Here is that post:
https://rickjaffeesq.com/2019/07/31/no-you-were-not-just-subpoenaed-by-the-california-medical-board/

Here is a copy or our (proposed) Second Amended Complaint which has been submitted for filing to the clerk’s office.
SAC992019

This case has a somewhat unique procedural posture: all of the original (San Francisco) defendants have been dismissed from the case, because the San Francisco City Attorney agreed to withdraw his subpoena against Dr. Stoller. That might mean we can serve and file our new complaint without court permission, or we may need court permission. To be safe, we are doing both. But at least you can see the new complaint which are will be asking the court to allow us to file, based on information developed after we filed the First Amended Complaint on July 15th.

The new complaint still seeks a judicial determination that California families have a constitution right to obtain a medical exemption beyond CDC contraindications, whether or not SB 276 becomes law.

The Defendants are seeking to dismiss the prior complaint (the First Amended Complaint). The hearing on that motion is presently scheduled for September 20th, but we think that dismissal motion (called a “demurrer”) may be functionally moot because of our new (proposed) complaint.

Stay Tuned!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

4 thoughts on “Major Update on Ken Stoller’s Lawsuit: New Amended Complaint Brings in Department of Public Health for Privacy Violations and Other Alleged Improper Actions

  1. Will this complaint hold in court? There ARE still medical exemption being accepted with or without SB276/SB217, it’s just the state determining if they are valid or not and intimidating drs to not write them due to fear of triggering an investigation by the medical board is the issue. The state practicing medicine IS illegal though right? As well as under the recently passed FEDERAL CONSCIENCE RULE, discriminating against and individuals and denying healthcare and public or private education based on race, color, national origin, DISABILITY, sex or age IS illegal from what I heard? Your professional opinion? You are much more competent than myself so I look forward to your response.

  2. Thank you for your tireless commitment to this cause, Mr. Jaffe.
    While considering the inclusive approach to educating HIV positive students, I wonder – could this civil rights protection apply to vaccine injured/medically fragile kids?
    I found this section particularly relevant, (emphasis on the last sentence):
    “Persons with AIDS are also substantially limited in a major life activity due to the reaction of others to their PERCEIVED contagiousness. The fear of AIDS includes a perception that a person with the disease is substantially impaired in his/her ability to interact with others, for example, to attend school. Persons, such as those with AIDS, who are “regarded” as impaired, are just as “handicapped” under the law as those who possess the physical limitations that arise from actual impairment.
    Discrimination based solely on the fear of contagion is discrimination based on handicap when the impairment has that effect on others.”

    https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq53e9.html

Leave a Reply to Cynthia Gillette Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *