‘Take Care of Maya’ - Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins Trial

I'm watching (or listening) to this trial every day. Currently, it seems most people appear in favor of the plaintiff. However, I haven't joined them in that opinion. I may change my mind, but at the moment... I have many, many questions/concerns.
 
Last edited:
I'm watching (or at listening) to this trial every day. Currently, it seems most people appear in favor of the plaintiff. However, I haven't joined them in that opinion. I may change my mind, but at the moment... I have many, many questions/concerns.

I am not on a side. I don't know much about this case. What are your questions?
 
I am not on a side. I don't know much about this case. What are your questions?

Here are two:

What were the optional treatments (at that time) without the 50/50 death risk than the Ketamine coma and possible side-effects of follow-up K infusions? ** I'm not sure if I've worded this correctly... hopefully, it's understandable, lol.

Wasn't a CPS court date already scheduled for January (just a few days after Beata's death)?
 
Schedule: Two depositions will be played today, Rebecca Johnson and Cathi Bedy. Those will take approx total of 2 1/2 hours today, then jury will be sent home until MONDAY. This afternoon the parties will argue several motions/instructions, etc.. No court tomorrow. Maya is expected to testify MONDAY. Plaintiffs plan to rest by next Friday, Oct. 13.

 
  • Like
Reactions: IDK
I'm watching (or listening) to this trial every day. Currently, it seems most people appear in favor of the plaintiff. However, I haven't joined them in that opinion. I may change my mind, but at the moment... I have many, many questions/concerns.
It seems this trial will last for several more weeks. I've watched every day but I'm finding it long, tedious and complex with lots of detail in both testimony and exhibits. The conflict between Maya's family and Johns Hopkins is enormous. I can't make up my mind about this one, but we're still watching Plaintiff's case and I think it will be another week before it goes to the Defense. IMO
 
It seems this trial will last for several more weeks. I've watched every day but I'm finding it long, tedious and complex with lots of detail in both testimony and exhibits. The conflict between Maya's family and Johns Hopkins is enormous. I can't make up my mind about this one, but we're still watching Plaintiff's case and I think it will be another week before it goes to the Defense. IMO

Same. I found it particularly long and tedious today and gave up watching. I'll probably just check in on the trial from now on.
 
I watched the Netflix documentary months ago and unless something comes up in the trail that wasn’t disclosed on the documentary (I’m aware there can be bias and misrepresentations in theses types of shows), I think Johns Hopkins and that awful doctor, Sally Smith (I think it was) should be held financially liable and Sally should face criminal charges. If she had a problem with Mayas treatment plan, she should have taken it up with her doctor rather than blaming the mother. She was on an ego trip with some sort of control complex and destroyed a family. Beata may have been difficult to deal with but she was a mother advocating for her sick child who was being falsely accused of child abuse. If Sally Smith can’t handle distressed parents of sick kids, then she shouldn’t be in the business of dealing with them. She did kidnap Maya and is responsible for Beata’s suicide. And this is apparently not the first family she’s done this to. She should go to prison…all my opinion.
 
DAY 9: 10/5/23

  • The jury was shown a recorded deposition by Dr. Rebecca Johnson, a psychologist who saw both Maya and Kyle Kowalski.
  • A recorded deposition of social worker Catherine Bedy was shown to the jury.
  • The jury was sent home early for a long weekend.
DAY 8: 10/4/23

  • Jack Kowalski’s testimony continued Tuesday with no other witnesses called.
  • Plaintiffs allege JHACH placed Maya in a different hospital room to record “covert” surveillance video to catch her moving out of her hospital bed.
  • Per the advisement of their legal counsel, Jack and Beata Kowalski filed for legal separation in order to get Maya back home.
  • During a meeting with hospital staff, Beata wanted Maya to leave the hospital, but Jack agreed leave Maya at the hospital and follow the treatment and discharge plan at JHACH.
  • After Maya left the hospital in January 2017, she had one relapse in 2019 where she was in the hospital for one week. She has not received ketamine or hyperbaric treatment since her discharge from JHACH.Maya Kowalski

More @link
 
 
I guess I’m not surprised there isn’t more attention on this case because the trial is a disorganized mess with many interruptions. However, it is a fascinating and emotionally gripping case.

I have been watching all of the trial. I think the Kowalskis have done a good job of getting in the evidence they need so far and painting a picture of a negligent and cruel hospital that irreparably harmed their family. The Kowalski’s lawyer is a bit lackluster, and he’s not the most organized fellow, but he’s getting the job done.

I would love to discuss this case with people if anyone’s interested.
 
Only treating physicians are allowed to access patient records unless a parent gives written consent for another party to do so. Smith was never one of Maya’s treating doctors, and on the day she opened her confidential records, there was no active DCF investigation. HIPAA violations are punishable by significant fines and up to ten years in prison.


SBMFF. I can't comment on the specifics as I didn't/don't follow the case closely enough, but the above snippet from the article isn't entirely accurate. Yes, it's a HIPAA violation to be in a patient's chart if you're not involved in the care of the patient. But you do not have to be a TREATING doctor to be in the chart. Doctors consult to other doctors all the time, within the same health system. There are three reasons to be in the chart of a hospitalized patient:

Treating doctor -- this is what we all think of and know as being legal under HIPAA obviously.

Consulting doctor -- this is when the treating doctor puts in a consult for a specialist's opinion. Generally, the specialist (say neurology) would see the patient, do their own full evaluation, then make recommendations to the treating doctor. In this case, the consulting doctor is NOT treating the patient. Their "customer" is the treating doctor. So they make recommendations to the treating doctor. The treating doctor is under no obligation to follow those recommendations if they disagree with them.

Curbside consults/E-consults -- this is when the case doesn't necessarily need a full consult (as in, the treating doctor is pretty sure what's going on but just wants another opinion without the full evaluation of a formal consultation). In this case, the curbsided specialist would look through the chart and make recommendations to the treating doctor based on chart review. These used to be called curbsides at the time Maya was in the hospital.It's become more formal now to reduce liability and is called E-consult (the E stands for Electronic Medical Record consult) with a note from the curbsided doc to acknowledge he/she was in the chart (this was not required back when Maya was in the hospital; curbsides were rarely documented because no care or patient interaction was provided).

All of the above are involved in the care of the patient and are allowed to be in the chart without a release (if working within the same healthcare system), but only one is the treating doctor.

If Smith worked within the same health system, it would have been completely acceptable and within medical standards back then to be curbsided on this case and honestly, a strong claim could be made that they wanted Smith's expertise before filing with DCF.

You don't need parent's permission to have DCF investigate a case of child abuse, but doctors should always do their due diligence before filing because DCF can cause significant disruption in non-abusive households as well just due to the lengthy investigations and legal costs.


ETA: to be clear, I'm not saying that the hospital isn't wrong. Obviously, the system broke down, they were horribly wrong, and they should be held liable here, IMO. I'm just commenting on HIPAA and the claim in the article.
 
Last edited:
I normally have an opinion about a case and know what side I’m on. But this case, it’s very hard to know what to think about it!
I at least have one opinion: the hospital shouldn’t have been billing the patients insurance as treatment for the disease if they’re also claiming she doesn’t have it and they’re actually keeping her there for munchaisen. That’s dishonest. You can’t have it both ways, claiming she doesn’t have the disease but still billing her insurance for it.
 
I agree with you. Both sides are really going at this like street fighters on every little point, nearly every exhibit and the scope of testimony. I have never seen a trial like this before.
@minor4th Good to see you here. I am especially interested in watching the Defense's case which probably won't start until a week from Monday. I personally think Johns Hopkins' lawyers are in a league of their own and I am looking forward to their evidence and presentation. Maya is scheduled to take the stand Monday or possibly Tuesday (as nothing is a sure thing with Greg Anderson). At this point of the trial, all we know is what the plaintiff has presented with added enhancement from the Netflix special (which I did not watch). The best is yet to come. MOO
 
Last edited:

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
272
Guests online
1,135
Total visitors
1,407

Forum statistics

Threads
587,552
Messages
17,884,491
Members
227,142
Latest member
brittal
Back
Top