My question involves malpractice in the state of: HI
I've been on state welfare for several years, due to a physical disability. It is long term, ever-lasting, it will never resolve itself nor does it ever get better, it only gets worse. I am in the process of my 2nd round with Social Security Disability, but in the meantime, I am still on State Disability for physical limitations.
Recently, The State of HI Dept of Health (DHS) made an error, where my benefits were stopped. I filed a complaint, and a fair hearing request to fight it, and they admitting some kind of fault and then rescinded everything, including the suspension, sanction of benefits, and my right to a fair hearing to prove I was indeed disabled (they claimed I wasn't and somehow got better or something). This gets resolved...A few weeks pass, and I'm switched from physical disability to a psych disability and have to go in for a pscyh eval. I am switched to it, but it came with several state mandated requirements. I did follow most of them, but I also became very sick and ill with a new medical diagnosis of diabetes, and had serious health problems and complications. This led to a couple of missed state mandated appointments, as well as other appointments not related. Seems reasonable that I had good reason to miss some appointments, because the medical evidence backs it up. However, the state argued during a recent fair hearing that I made other appointments, while not others. I simply responded with my health came first, not the mandated state requests that do not improve my well-being and health during this time frame.
Now, here comes the interesting part that I never knew about. I read all the legal preparation, chapters, sub chapters, revisions, and I was the only one in the informal setting who seemed familiar with what was going on, nobody had really read my case until the hearing started, and the tele-conference doctor said he is just now reviewing the medical papers during the hearing procedure (who was working against me). I was given a packet of papers, a briefing, of how the hearing would proceed and with what arguments. There was also a sheet of paper I never saw before. It listed about 4 exceptions to any state mandated medical requirements. One of them had to do with religious beliefs and was non specific. It only said that I am exempt if it is against my religion or beliefs.
This stood out to me. Not as a loophole, but the fact it was never in anything I was ever given, signed or prepared for. Had I known about this exception the day I was to sign and agree to these state mandated requests, I would have argued religion. And it is not just a way to circumvent. Even though I'm on state aid, I own a 501(c)(3) not for profit charitable organization (a church). I am very serious about religion and it is a touchy subject.
I was given extra time to make my argument, and I believe I fulfilled and satisfied any and all reasons that would allow me to win my case. The only argument I see is the state could call BS, because I proceeded with treatment anyway, without showing any objection due to religious reasons. My response is simple. I didn't know it was available, and it is a tough decision. Without state aid, I cannot get health benefits, food, or housing.
So, I had plan to list all my arguments, specific notes I had written from 3 doctors, my hospitalization and others as reasons why I was 3/4 compliant with the state mandated medical treatment. And also argue being on pscyh treatment was literally forced upon me (I couldn't get back on physical) and this information is all a part of my hearing record.
And lastly, I wanted to argue religion, to at least make a point of it, in the event I lose, and then have to take it to Federal Court of Appeals.
Should I proceed this way, or just forget about the religious part? I have absolutely no issue with that argument because it is a truthful statement. However, others may see it differently and this has a concern with me and how I should proceed.
Thank you in advance.