Tamara Filas's Rebuttal to the Thompson and O’Neil Law Firm’s Blog Post

about the case, Tamara Filas v. Kevin Culpert and Efficient Design, Inc.
 

If you are seeking the truth about the case, Tamara Filas v. Kevin Thomas Culpert and Efficient Design, Inc., you've reached the right place. If you landed on this page via a search engine, I ask that you please click here first to be taken to the sections on the home page that explain what prompted me to create web pages about my past litigation.

The law firm, Thompson and O'Neil, operating out of Traverse City, MI, which is 255 miles (a 4-hour drive away) from the Wayne County Circuit Court where my proceedings took place; published a blog post containing defamatory statements about me that are not even based on the Court of Appeals Opinion, the pleadings filed with the circuit court, or the hearing transcripts. To my knowledge, this law firm was never directly involved with my case, and if they were, it was all behind the scenes. This post, appearing at the very top of a Google search of my name, has been destroying my credibility and negatively affecting my reputation for over a decade, which is why I am providing this direct rebuttal to the post on my website.

Indented below is the full text from the blog post, and underneath is my rebuttal.

"Court upholds dismissal of injury claim after woman refuses to sign medical authorizations"

Tamara Filas was rear-ended in January of 2010 by a vehicle driven by Kevin Culpert. She sued him, but then refused to execute medical authorizations that his insurer demanded to enable it to copy her records. The insurer than [sic] sought summary disposition of Filas' claim. A very patient trial judge carefully instructed Filas that her objections to the execution of record copy deposition authorizations and her objections to the breadth of the record request had already been "over-ruled" by statutes, court rules and decisions that opened her medical history to the person she sued. Filas appeared to acknowledge her duty to cooperate, but did not.

At a second hearing, the judge--still demonstrating incredible patience--offered her the choice of signing the authorizations or dismissing her lawsuit. He again explained that this was not a matter left to his discretion: having sued, she had waived the objections she was raising. The plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the authorizations and her case was dismissed. She appealed and the decision to dismiss was affirmed this week by the higher court.

The title of the blog post, “Court upholds dismissal of injury claim after woman refuses to sign medical authorizations” is untruthful because I did sign and execute copies of SCAO medical authorization Form MC 315, and both Defendants received my medical records from my health care providers, as explained in detail on my Tamara Filas v. Kevin Culpert and Efficient Design, Inc. case webpage.

The blog post states, “She sued him [Culpert], but then refused to execute medical authorizations that his insurer demanded to enable it to copy her records." I sued both Culpert and his employer, Efficient Design Inc., not just Kevin Culpert. Kevin Culpert’s attorney, Mr. Hassouna, representing Progressive Insurance Company, never objected to the executed MC 315 Forms I provided to him and was not in attendance at the 6-24-13 “special conference” at which my case was dismissed. It was solely Efficient Design Inc.’s insurer’s attorney, Mr. Wright, who complained to the court about my use of Form MC 315 to provide my medical records to him. Mr. Wright was the sole attorney who persuaded the court to dismiss my case when he complained that the forms he received from me were “altered,” which wasn’t even true since I didn’t even use his forms because he didn’t timely provide them to me, so I couldn't have "altered" them. I provided Mr. Wright with unaltered copies of MC 315 forms I had already executed and mailed to my health care providers, along with copies of certificates of mailing for each provider.

The blog post continues, “The insurer than [sic] sought summary disposition of Filas' claim.” Kevin Culpert’s insurer was Progressive Insurance Company, represented by Mr. Hassouna. Efficient Design Inc.’s insurers’ names were never disclosed in any pleadings or at any hearings. Two different attorneys (Mr. Wright and Mr. O’Malley) represented Efficient Design Inc., purportedly under two different insurance policies with two different companies. None of the three attorneys representing the Defendants ever sought “summary disposition” of my claim---there was no motion for summary disposition ever filed in this case as this blog post claims. This fact can be verified by examining the circuit court register of actions. My case was dismissed sua sponte (a voluntary action that judges take without first receiving a motion from one of the parties) at a secretive “special conference” held 6-24-13 without my knowledge, presence and ability to rebut Mr. Wright’s arguments in which he claimed he received “altered” forms. The “special conference” was not scheduled or shown on the Register of Actions until after it already occurred. Exhibit D of my 1-21-14 Answer to Culpert’s 12-30-13 Motion contains a copy of the Register of Actions printed 6-24-13, which does not show the “special conference”, and a copy of the 1-21-14 Register of Actions, which does show the “special conference,” proving the 6-24-13 “special conference” was not scheduled and I was not provided with notice. I was later informed of the clandestine dismissal on 6-24-13 via a phone call from the court clerk.

The blog post states, “A very patient trial judge carefully instructed Filas that her objections to the execution of record copy deposition authorizations and her objections to the breadth of the record request had already been "over-ruled" by statutes, court rules and decisions that opened her medical history to the person she sued. Filas appeared to acknowledge her duty to cooperate, but did not.”

First, Tamara Filas v. Kevin Thomas Culpert and Efficient Design Inc. did not involve “record copy deposition authorizations.” It was the first-party MEEMIC Case in which I was directed to sign Records Deposition Service’s forms. In the third-party case, I was directed to sign Mr. Wright’s personal authorization forms that allowed him to act similarly to a record copy service. Item 6 of my 12-20-13 Court of Appeals Brief on pgs. 32-38 contains a discussion and detailed comparison between his form and MC 315, clearly demonstrating that Mr. Wright’s personal authorization form contained clauses that went above and beyond the clauses one must agree to in MC 315. Click here for an example of one of Mr. Wright’s forms (Exhibit O of my 12-20-13 COA Brief). You can compare it with MC 315 (provided as Exhibit K of my 12-20-13 COA Brief).

Second, although by reading the 6-21-13 transcript of the hearing to which this blog post refers, one cannot hear the intonation and fast-paced speech of the judge, one can still gain a fairly accurate understanding of the patience level of this judge, which most people probably would not describe as “very patient.” Also, by reading the transcript, one can verify that the judge did not “carefully instruct” me that my “objections to the execution of record copy deposition authorizations and [my] objections to the breadth of the record request had already been "over-ruled" by statutes, court rules and decisions that opened [my] medical history to the person [I] sued.” Those words or anything similar never appeared in the 6-21-13 transcript, or any other transcript, for that matter, and I never objected to providing my medical history to the person I sued (which in actuality, would be to the person’s insurer’s attorney, not directly to the person being sued).

Further, this dispute was in regard to me providing my records to one of the attorneys representing the insurer of a company, Efficient Design Inc., not the attorney of the insurer of the person I sued, Kevin Culpert. It is important to understand that this company, Efficient Design Inc., had been claiming in its pleadings and at the hearings that Kevin Culpert was not even an agent of Efficient Design, Inc., nor in the scope of his employment, which would have meant Efficient Design, Inc. was not even liable for damages, yet they still wanted my medical records, which was ludicrous. Exhibit B of my 12-20-13 COA Brief  contains the relevant page of Mr. Wright’s 2-5-13 Answer to the circuit court Complaint against Efficient Design, in which he makes said claims. Before providing my medical records to Efficient Design, Inc., I exercised prudence and motioned for a stay of the proceedings so it could first be determined if Efficient Design Inc. was even liable for damages by having Kevin Culpert deposed, but the judge denied my motion and I was ordered by the Court to provide Efficient Design Inc. with my medical records or risk case dismissal.

I was in complete agreement that my medical history was going to be “opened” to the attorney of the person/entity I sued, provided they were liable for damages. However, I disagreed that my medical records were required to be available for copying, storage in a database and redistribution to whoever paid for them. There was no statute, court rule or decision that required me to permit those actions. SCAO Form MC 315 only allowed copies of my records to be disclosed to the Defendant’s insurer’s attorney, without storing them in a database and allowing further redistribution. I knew I had a duty to allow the Defendant’s insurer’s attorney access to my medical records, which is only common sense since I couldn’t make arguments about my injuries without providing the records. However, it was my right to stop the disclosure right there---I was not under any legal obligation to allow the Defendant’s attorney to act like a record copying service, as signing Mr. Wright’s forms would have allowed.

The blog post states, “At a second hearing, the judge--still demonstrating incredible patience--offered her the choice of signing the authorizations or dismissing her lawsuit. He again explained that this was not a matter left to his discretion: having sued, she had waived the objections she was raising.” This hearing held on 8-9-13 lasted a grand total of 2 minutes, and I wasn’t allowed to say a single word regarding my issues with Mr. Wright’s forms. No logical person would conclude after reading the 8-9-13 hearing transcript that this judge (who is female, by the way) was incredibly patient.

It should also be clear that this “second hearing” on 8-9-13 was supposed to be in regard to my Objection to the 7-day Order of the dismissal that took place at the “special conference” on 6-24-13. At the 8-9-13 hearing, the judge couldn’t have legally reversed the dismissal since an objection to a 7-day Order is merely an objection to the wording in the order, and cannot affect or overturn the results of the previous hearing for which the order pertains. Not being an experienced litigator, I was easily misled to believe I was actually objecting to the 6-24-13 dismissal itself when I filed my Objection to the 7-day Order, not just the wording describing the dismissal in the 7-day Order. The Court and defense attorneys continued this ruse in the Court of Appeals pleadings, even going so far as to give the appearance that I received special treatment by the court having waited 7 days to enter the dismissal order, when I know now this is standard practice, and the very reason it is called a “7-day Order.” Click here to read more about how I was misled to believe I was actually objecting to the dismissal itself when I filed my Objection to the 7-day Order.

The blog post’s claim that the judge “explained this was not a matter left to [her] discretion,” is untrue. The judge also never stated anything about me having “waived the objections [I] was raising.” There is no evidence in any transcript of these statements or anything similar.

The blog post fails to mention that in between the 6-21-13 and 8-9-13 hearings was the actual dismissal which took place at the 6-24-13 “special conference” without my knowledge or attendance. Click here for further details about the special conference.

The blog post states, “The plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the authorizations and her case was dismissed.” It is disingenuous to state that I continued to refuse to sign the authorizations because at the time of the 8-9-13 hearing, I had already executed copies of SCAO-mandated Form MC 315 for Mr. Wright. On Monday, June 24, 2013, at 11:24 AM, I personally delivered to his office copies of the cover letters to each health care provider, copies of each signed MC 315 authorization, and copies of each certificate of mailing, meeting my obligation imposed by the Court of providing signed authorizations disclosing my medical records to Mr. Wright by 2:00 PM June 24, 2013. Exhibit C of my 12-20-13 Court of Appeals Brief is a copy of a signed cover letter verifying copies of the executed medical authorizations were received by Mr. Wright’s law firm at 11:24 AM on 6-24-13.

I did however refuse to sign Mr. Wright’s personal authorization forms at the 8-9-13 hearing since I had already completed and mailed the copies of MC 315 to my health care providers. I’d already met my legal obligation of providing my medical records to him. It was an abuse of discretion for the judge to require me to re-do the process using Mr. Wright's personal forms. Mr. Wright didn’t timely send his authorizations to me and I didn’t want to miss the deadline and risk having my case dismissed, so I executed copies of form MC 315 instead, which was my right under MCR 2.314(C)(1)(d). Both Defendants received copies of my medical records from my execution of the MC 315 Forms. Exhibits A – E of my 11-7-14 Answer to Culpert’s 10-17-14 Motion to Affirm represent proof that both Defendants (Culpert and Efficient Design, Inc.) received copies of my medical records from the MC 315 forms I mailed to my health care providers.

To gain a more comprehensive understanding of this case, I encourage you to visit my Tamara Filas v. Kevin Culpert and Efficient Design, Inc. webpage where you can read my commentary about this case, examine more key exhibits, and read all of the pleadings filed with the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.