Free Response ( Non Motion ) - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 1 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GORDON P. ERSPAMER (CA SBN 83364) [email protected] ARTURO J. GONZALEZ (CA SBN 121490) [email protected] HEATHER A. MOSER (CA SBN 212686) [email protected] RYAN G. HASSANEIN (CA SBN 221146) [email protected] STACEY M. SPRENKEL (CA SBN 241689) [email protected] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 [see next page for additional counsel for Plaintiffs] Attorneys for Plaintiffs VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, et al., Defendants. Case No. C-07-3758-SC

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION DESIGNATION OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS Complaint Filed July 23, 2007

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 2 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS: SIDNEY M. WOLINSKY (CA SBN 33716) [email protected] JENNIFER WEISER BEZOZA (CA SBN 247548) [email protected] KATRINA KASEY CORBIT (CA SBN 237931) [email protected] DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, California 94704-1204 Telephone: 510.665.8644 Facsimile: 510.665.8511

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 3 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs hereby respond to Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' deposition designations and counter-designations as follows: PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION DESIGNATION OBJECTIONS Obj. # Witness 1 William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Testimony 333:23 ­ 338:14 Q: -- in which Ms. Murphy in May of `06 is quoted in substance or in part as saying that the VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, waiting lists -- waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible. Now, can you remember at any time before now hearing that -- of -- of any criticism Frances Murphy had made with regard to waiting times? A: Frankly, I did not hear of criticism related to wait times, but did hear that she was concerned about the overall health of the mental health service delivery system. Did not see it as focused on wait times. Q: What -- what aspect was she focused on? A: Don't really know. Q: Was there discussion at -- at the center, at headquarters about what she had said or done? A: That -- I -- I really do not recall being in on any discussions related to Dr. Murphy and her statements. That was when, I think, Dr. Perlin was in the under secretary's job. Q: Okay. Let me show you a copy of that article that I'm referring to. It will be Exhibit 370. (Exhibit 370 was marked for identification and attached to the transcript.) THE WITNESS: (Reviews document.) BY MR. GOLDMAN: Q: And if you look to the second page of the exhibit, this is where I was, in effect, quoting. She noted Defendants' Objection Relevance Plaintiffs' Response Dr. Murphy was Deputy Under Secretary at the VHA and in her capacity as a top VHA official made comments regarding systemic problems with the delivery of health care. Dr. Murphy's criticisms regarding the timeliness of mental health delivery bear directly on the central issues in this case. Moreover, Dr. Murphy was retaliated against for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by VA.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

1

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 4 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony that some VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, waiting lists rendered that care virtually inaccessible. MR. SCHWARTZ: I just want it clear for the record that this exhibit, A, is an article, and, B, it is paraphrasing much of what Dr. Murphy said. It's not a direct quote of ­ MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Let ­ MR. SCHWARTZ: -- what ­ MR. GOLDMAN: -- let me ­ MR. SCHWARTZ: -- she said. MR. GOLDMAN: I -- I -- I'm glad you said that. BY MR. GOLDMAN: Q: The quotes are around "waiting lists rendered the -- that care virtually inaccessible," end quote. The rest is not quoted. Now, was this article ever brought to your attention? A: No. Q: Was -- was she correct, as of -- if you look at the first page, this article is May 5, 2006 -- was she correct as of May 5, 2006 in what she is quoted as saying, "waiting lists rendered that care virtually inaccessible"? A: I don't believe so. I guess "some VA clinics" would mean, I guess -- some -- could mean some small CBOCs. Where -- Q: That's how I would interpret it. Go ahead. A: Pardon me? Q: I -- I would interpret that she's talking about CBOCs, too. A: Yeah. And -- and I -- if -- if -- remember we went to the standard that provision of mental health or addiction services would require that there be a cohort of 1,500 veterans. In that sense she's talking about a percentage of clinics that might not have care. However, I think we also -- hopefully, I've

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

2

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 5 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response

2

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008

made the point that mental health and substance abuse initial evaluation can be done by primary care providers and, based on the severity of the condition, referred along to an appropriate service delivery. Q: Since May 2006 when this article was written -- quoted in substance and in -- in act -- in actual quote of Frances Murphy, has she continued to work at the Veterans Administration? A: My -- my read is Dr. Murphy -- and -- and, again, I don't have an in-depth understanding of what she's been doing; although, I did see her last week at the Winter Sports Clinic in Colorado -- is that she's resigned from the VA or retired from the VA and was on sabbatical for a period of time prior to that. Q: Well, is it -- is it correct that since May `06 she's left the VA? A: I -- I don't know of whether the sabbatical occurred within the VA or -- or whether she was working at -- at some other element in the VA, not in headquarters. I just don't know those details. Q: Well -- well, did she talk to you at any time after May `06 about continuing to work at the VA? A: I -- I believe that Dr. Murphy talked with me about some interest in an opportunity to work as a network director somewhere down the line should that become available, but then she end up -- ended up retiring. Q: What -- what did you say about -- to her about her prospects at VA? A: I think she could have -- I encouraged her to apply. Exhibit is 339:3 ­ 339:7 Hearsay Q: Okay. I want to show you a document we have marked as Exhibit 428. It's an article in the McClatchy Washington -- it's

Contains admission by party opponent. The exhibit quotes Mr. Feeley.
3

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 6 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony called the McClatchy Washington Bureau; Monday, June 11, 2007. 339:3 ­ 343:5 Q: Okay. I want to show you a document we have marked as Exhibit 428. It's an article in the McClatchy Washington -- it's called the McClatchy Washington Bureau; Monday, June 11, 2007. (Exhibit Number 428 was marked for identification and attached to the transcript.) BY MR. GOLDMAN: Q: And I was referring to -- on the first page, the third from the bottom paragraph. You're familiar with the McClatchy media chain? A: Yes. Q: Do you find them generally to be a reliable reporting service? A: I would say that they have a point of view; whether it's reliable, I'm not so sure I would see it that way. Q: Their headquarters are in Sacramento? A: I don't know where their headquarters are. Q: It says in the third from bottom paragraph, Waiting times for veterans to see doctors are closely watched by Congress and veterans' advocates. In February, the VA's top official, Michael Kussman, told the Congressional committee that the VA provides 39 million appointments a year, dash, and 95 percent of them are done within 30 days of the patient's request. And you -- you recall that that did happen; am I correct? A: Correct. And, again, the distinction between the IG auditing function and the approach of patient preference we think is the driver that explains the delta between the 75 percent and 95 percent. Q: And then if you turn the page and go up three -- four paragraphs, it says, In a May 18th meeting between VA officials and the

Defendants' Objection Hearsay

Plaintiffs' Response Exhibit 428 quotes Mr. Feeley. He confirms his quote is accurate at 342:17-23. His statement is an admission by party opponent.

3

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

4

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 7 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony Inspector General's office to discuss the findings, a Deputy Under Secretary for Health ­ THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. BY MR. GOLDMAN: Q: -- a Deputy Under Secretary for Health, William Feeley, said he was concerned about the Inspector General's conclusion that the VA's, quote, over-stated, close quote, the number of veterans seen within 30 days. Is that an accurate statement? A: I -- I think the -- I'm much more comfortable that the statement below -- Q: I'll go to that one, too. But is this -- A: Okay. Q: -- one -- A: I'm not sure it is. I don't recall what I said 18 months ago. Q: And is it accurate it was May 18th in advance -- A: I -- Q: -- of your -- A: I really -- Q: -- June -- A: -- don't -- Q: -- 1 -- A: -- know. Q: -- in advance of your June 1 memo? A: I -- I'm -- I'm taking your word that that's the case. I just don't recall. Q: They're not my words. I'm pointing you to the -- A: The -- Q: -- McClatchy -- A: Okay. Q: You're not taking McClatchy's word? A: I'll talk McClatchy's word, but I -- I don't know what the date was. Q: All right. And then it says,

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

5

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 8 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony According to an internal report summarizing the May 18th meeting, Feeley said that, quote, Such a statement could easily be misconstrued by readers of the report to imply that the VA was being deliberately deceptive when there was no evidence to that effect -- and that you went out to say that -- and there's no quotes here. You went out to say, this is a situation where honest people are trying to do the right thing but that processes are breaking down. Now, does that accurately portray what occurred at the meeting? A: That sounds like -- that last statement I remember making, and -- and it goes to the point of deliberate manipulation versus training errors of human beings who are in very busy clinics or patientscentric -- patient-preference scheduling where there's a failure to enter into the computer that the patient wanted it at a later time, and that's what I would mean by a process breakdown. 62:10 ­ 63:12 Q: And looking at this particular report on the second page, you see that category of per- -- under the category -- the general category of Performance Measure? I'm referring to the Appeals Resolution Time. A: Yeah, I see it. Q: And there it shows that the -- well -- well, with respect to that data element of Appeals Resolution Time, do you -- do you also have a -- a plan number as -- as opposed to the actual number? A: Yes. Q: Okay. And that -- here, for -- for example, the plan number is 500; whereas, the actual is 599? A: I see that. MR. WILTSIE: Objection. There's been no showing of personal

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response

4

Bradley Mayes April 7, 2008

Defendant renews all objections made on the record.

Defendants fail to identify the specific testimony to which they object.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

6

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 9 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony knowledge of this witness of anything in this document. BY MR. ERSPAMER: Q: And the -- and -- and -- and -- and are you aware of the color coding scheme that's used for whether you satisfy -- a particular performance measure had been satisfied? A: Not on this report. This is not a report that I -- Q: Okay. A: -- I see. N/A

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response

5

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

Relevance objections to all after 24:13 ­ Murphy has no knowledge of the VA after April 2006.

Defendants' objection goes to the weight and not the admissibility. Dr. Murphy was Deputy Under Secretary at the VHA and in her capacity as a top VHA official made comments regarding systemic problems with the delivery of health care. Dr. Murphy's criticisms regarding the timeliness of mental health delivery bear directly on the central issues in this case. Moreover, Dr. Murphy was retaliated against for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by
7

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 10 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness 6 Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

Testimony 68:21 Q: And what did he say? A: He said he'd be happy to give me an early retirement.

Defendants' Objection Relevance and Hearsay

7

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

69:5 Q: Did he tell you -- did he say anything else? A: No.

Relevance and Hearsay

8

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

110:6 Q: -- in February that -- that it was going to be very difficult for you to close things down, what did they say? A: Nothing.

Relevance and Hearsay

9

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

164:10 Q: Did anybody stand up and say, that's not right, or anything like that while you were -- while you were at that New Freedom Commission? A: I believe that at some point I

Relevance and Hearsay

Plaintiffs' Response VA. Statements not offered for the truth, but to show that Dr. Murphy was retaliated against for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by VA. Statements not offered for the truth, but to show that Dr. Murphy was retaliated against for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by VA. Statements not offered for the truth, but to show that Dr. Murphy was retaliated against for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by VA. Statements not offered for the truth, but to show the VA's consensus and knowledge of
8

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 11 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Obj. # Witness

Testimony discussed the accuracy of the statement with Art Hamerschlag when he asked about the quote.

Defendants' Objection

10

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13 27 28

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

165:8 Q: So what did he say to you and what did you say to him about the accuracy of that statement? A: That the statement was accurate; that I had said it in this statement before the President's commission members -- former President commission members and that the data that it was based on was VHA data. 196:4 Q: Okay. And what did he say? A: He was -- he was a little patronizing, but ­

Relevance and Hearsay

Plaintiffs' Response the deficiencies in the mental health care that were revealed by Dr. Murphy. Statements not offered for the truth, but to show the VA's consensus and knowledge of the deficiencies in the mental health care that were revealed by Dr. Murphy. Not offered for the truth, but to show that Dr. Feeley was among those who retaliated against Dr. Murphy for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by VA. Not offered for the truth, but to show that Mr. Feeley was among those who retaliated against Dr. Murphy for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by VA. Not offered for the truth, but to show that Dr. Feeley was
9

Relevance and Hearsay

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

196:7 Q: He was a little patronizing, but he -- but he said no? A: Yeah.

Relevance and Hearsay

Frances Murphy, M.D. April 7, 2008

196:10 Q: Okay. Understood. Did he tell you why?

Relevance and Hearsay

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 12 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony A: No. He just told me he wasn't considering me for the job.

Defendants' Objection

14

Diana Rubens April 4, 2008

219:21 ­ 221:4 MS. AMEZCUA I believe we're at Exhibit 393. (Exhibit 393 was marked for identification and attached to the transcript.) BY MS. AMEZCUA Q: Now, Ms. Rubens, before you you have the OIG combined assessment program review of the VA regional office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Have you seen this before? A: Yes. Q: How do you know you've seen it before? A: As the Western Area director in 2004, any of the Inspector General reports that had to do with the areas -- the regional offices in the West would have come to me. Q: Will you turn to page 10, please? A: Uh-huh. Q: The first sentence under the heading Multiple Rating End Products, The VSC manager should ensure that only appropriate end products are cleared. Can you read the sentence saying, Condition needing improvement, please? A: VSC personnel inappropriately cleared multiple rating end products for certain claim numbers. Q: What does that mean? A: That VSC personnel cleared rating end products inappropriately

Relevance due to age of report discussed (2004)

Plaintiffs' Response among those who retaliated against Dr. Murphy for preparing a report that revealed deficiencies in the mental health care provided by VA. Relevant to extent Ms. Rubens testimony shows VA is aware of inappropriate clearing of end products and the Office of Inspector General has uncovered such a practice occurring in at least one VARO.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

10

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 13 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony multiple times for certain claim numbers. 223:5 ­ 224:18 Q: I think my question was a little different. When you read this report, was this the first time you had heard of VSC personnel doing such a thing? A: I'm sure it wasn't the first time that I'd heard of the allegation that somebody might do something like this. Do I -- can I tell you that -- in 2004 what my thought was after I read it? No, I can't. Q: Are you aware of the VBA ever addressing the issue of inappropriately clearing rating end products? A: When I went out to the Western Area, one of the things that I did was begin to look at where did it look as though we had duplicate end products being taken within close proximity and began to monitor, demand correction and ensure that we were not doing anything inappropriate. Q: And why did you determine that that was the place you should look? A: In the Western Area? Because that's where I had responsibility for making sure we were doing what we should be doing. Q: Well, you said you came to the Western Area; you determined that one of the places you wanted to look was whether duplicate end products were being taken. Why did you determine that that was a place you should look? A: Because when I went to the Western Area, I was looking at everything I could think of to make sure that we were following the appropriate guidance. And, so, it wasn't just were we doing bad things, but it was, what are we doing well and how can I go and find out about that and how can I

Defendants' Objection Relevance due to age of report discussed (2004)

Plaintiffs' Response Relevant to extent Ms. Rubens testimony shows VA is aware of inappropriate clearing of end products; the Office of Inspector General has uncovered such a practice occurring in at least one VARO; and VA management's response to inappropriate clearing of end products.

15

Diana Rubens April 4, 2008

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

11

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 14 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony replicate that and how can I make sure that we are providing the best service to veterans. 224:4 ­ 226:7 Q: Well, you said you came to the Western Area; you determined that one of the places you wanted to look was whether duplicate end products were being taken. Why did you determine that that was a place you should look? A: Because when I went to the Western Area, I was looking at everything I could think of to make sure that we were following the appropriate guidance. And, so, it wasn't just were we doing bad things, but it was, what are we doing well and how can I go and find out about that and how can I replicate that and how can I make sure that we are providing the best service to veterans. Q: And has the VBA provided training about clearing rating end products? A: I'm not -- I guess I'm not -- VBA has provided training on processing claims, which includes all aspects of managing end products. Q: And does part of that training involve discussion about when and when not to clear a rating end product? A: That is part of managing all of the work: When is it appropriate to take any action on any claim. And when feedback is provided, regional offices get that feedback and provide it as training to ensure -- if there's been, and in this case -- you know, my -- my response back here was we have worked with the regional office; the regional office has provided an improvement plan. My goal will be to monitor and ensure that this does not continue. Q: When you're talking about your response back here, what are you talking about?

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response

16

Diana Rubens April 4, 2008

Relevance due to age of report discussed (2004)

Relevant to extent Ms. Rubens testimony shows VA is aware of inappropriate clearing of end products; the Office of Inspector General has uncovered such a practice occurring in at least one VARO; and VA management's response to inappropriate clearing of end products.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

12

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 15 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony A: My response is on page 13. Q: You signed that as the director of the Western Area; is that right? A: I did. Q: And will you turn to page 11 where it says, The area and regional office directors agreed with the findings and suggestions? Do you see that's the first sentence of the second full paragraph? A: (Witness reviews document.) Yes. Q: Does that mean, then, at the time you agreed with the finding that some VSC personnel were inappropriately clearing rating end products? A: The IG had provided the documentation to show me where they were finding this inappropriate clearing of end products. It's hard to refute fact. 230:10- 230:24 Q: Has the IG found in other regional offices, other than Albuquerque in 2004, that VSC personnel have inappropriately cleared end products? A: I would tell you that I don't know. Do I think that it's possible that the IG has a finding that I don't readily pull to the front of my memory, yes, but I -- I don't know. Q: And why do you think it's possible that the IG has a finding somewhere else about the inappropriate clearing of end products? A: Because they found it in Albuquerque, and it's possible that they found it somewhere else. I don't know that to be the case, though. N/A

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response

17

Diana Rubens April 4, 2008

Relevance and lack of personal knowledge

Objection to lack of personal knowledge waived because not made at deposition. Relevant to extent VA is aware that inappropriate clearing of end products may occur in more than one regional office.

18

Lisa Seibert, April 4, 2008

Defendants object to testimony about incidents prior to 2005 as irrelevant

Defendants fail to identify the specific testimony to which they object.
13

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 16 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Obj. # Witness

Testimony

Defendants' Objection

Plaintiffs' Response Further, any testimony regarding incidents of document destruction and tampering of veterans' benefits claims files is relevant to the extent it shows the impact of production expectations on regional office and BVA employees. Not offered for truth, but to show VA's knowledge that some employees have reported feeling pressured by production expectations, at the expense of quality.

19

Lisa Seibert, April 4, 2008

29:16 ­ 30:1 Q: Let's start there. Did you ask them when you interviewed them why they did what they did? A: Okay. I did not interview any of those people. I know for -- in Mr. Gottfried's case, he did discuss during his interview why he did it. Q: And do you know what he said as to why he did it? A: To paraphrase, I believe he said he felt overwhelmed.

Hearsay

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS

Ronald Aument April 3, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object 222:18 ­ 223:5 A: Rarely does a Form 9 come in saying send my case to the board. You know, typically there are additional evidence that is submitted along with that that starts the development cycle again, often involving requests for, you

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation N/A

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation 222:14-17 Q: Okay. We can put that one away. I have to ask, Mr. Aument, why would it take 400 days plus to certify a claim to the BVA after receipt of a Form 9 appeal?

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

14

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 17 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Ronald Aument April 3, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object know, new medical examinations that start that -- often -- they may request a formal hearing in that process. There's a -- there's a host of development actions that, you know, can conceivably take place, and it's very, very rare that a -- an appeal upon receipt of the -- of -- of -- of a -- of a Form 9 is -- is ready for board certification. 226:23 ­ 227:10 Q: Do you think the claims processing arena is in need of a revolution? A: Me? Again, are you asking for my opinion? Q: As opposed to what? I -- I don't believe you're here testifying on behalf of the VA, if that's what you're asking me. A: I'm here in the -- in the -- in the capacity that -- you probably would not want to be speaking to me as Ron Aument, private citizen, but you're interested in speaking to me as Ron Aument, former Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits.

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

Relevance, FRE 402.

N/A

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object 29:3 ­ 31:12 Q: So these two metrics that you mentioned, the filling of the mental health positions and the waiting time, the 30 days, which you say is down to 14

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation N/A

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation 31:13-15 A: They roll up the overall aggregate number, not the number by specific discipline; although, we can get that.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

15

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 18 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object -- A: Correct. Q: -- these are interrelated metrics -- A: Yes. Q: -- would you say? A: Yes. Q: Because if you don't have the people, there's going to be a longer waiting -- A; Correct. Q: -- time? Now, would you be -- when ­ when you look at these metrics of -- of positions filled, is -- is -- is that against a budget of a -- of a certain number of people? How ­ how do you -- how do you figure out what is the -- the number you're after? A: I -- I think there is two different budgetary dynamics we're talking about here, which is the overall mental health funding package by history, which I think this year was $3.5 billion and the $370 million in `08 supplemental. This is the -- a particular dynamic I'm looking at to ensure that new positions are coming on board so a more timely response can occur. Q: But then do you have -- do you have a -- a budget or a projection or a -- a listing of what you -- what is expected will be the positions in each VISN for each of the medical centers -- A: The -- Q: -- (inaudible) -- A: The -- Q: -- (inaudible) --

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

16

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 19 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object A: I'm sorry. Q: -- (inaudible) -- A: I'm sorry. Q: -- and the other facilities -- care facilities in the -- in the VISN? A: The -- the VISN directors in medical center leadership are given considerable autonomy in hiring the type of providers they need; whether it's a psychiatrist, nurse practitioner, social worker, psychologist, RN, we -- we want to be -- be able to allow them to hire the mental health workforce that they think they need because it's variable based on what parts of the country you're in. The budget is already allocated, so they've got money to hire these positions. Q: Well, do you -- do they roll up to you the -- the number of psychiatrists, the number of psychologists -- A: Yes. Q: -- the number of nurses they plan to have in their -- in their VISN? 46:3-46:24 Q: Let me -- let me go back to the discipline of directors in VISNs over suicides. You would -- you said there would only be discipline if you had found negligence. Is it correct that -- that in your view there has never been any negligence by any director arising out of suicides by veterans who are under the care of a particular VISN?

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

N/A

46:25 ­ 47:6 Q: And -- and has there ever been discipline of anyone within a VISN? It would -- it would be up to the director within a -- a -- A: Correct. Q: -- VISN to -- to discipline a person below the director? A: Correct.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

17

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 20 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object A: If -- if you were to say to me in the last two years -- Q: Since your watch. A: -- since I've -- Q: That's right. A: -- been in -- Q: That's right. A: -- the job -- Q: That's right. A: -- I have not seen it. Q: And before that? A: Well, I wasn't in the job before that, so -- on my watch I think was the question. 58:25 ­ 59:2 A: constantly traveling to various medical centers, so they may be doing that on their own and I'm unaware. 59:12 ­ 60:8 Q: If you have a -- an initiative or policy that's been issued to be followed by the VISNs and it's not being complied with, does that present a problem to you? A: That's going to get dealt with with network directors and facility directors. Q: Why -- why is that a problem if that's not happening? If your -- if your ­ if your initiatives and -- and directives are not being followed, why is that a problem? A: Well, we want standardization; we want, in particular, high levels of accountability for the constituents we're taking care of. Again, my major theme has been managing the variation between networks and facilities to reduce that variation in quality, access and
sf-2502600

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

Lacks foundation.

N/A

N/A

60:9-13 Q: Which is not what you found when you arrived; correct? A: I -- I would say the ­ the variability was more than I would like, and -- and that's what we're -- we're looking to fix

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC

18

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 21 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object satisfaction. Q: You're striving towards a national or uniform -- A: Correct. Q: -- operation; am I correct? A: Correct. 68:3 ­ 68:11 Q: So when you were director of -- of a VISN before you took over this position, were you aware there was such a plan? A: Yes, I -- I knew that -- I believe it was `04 and `05 that the plan started to be shaped, and -- and that -- and I may have read an executive summary of the plan as a network director, but I read the plan cover to cover when I came into the position I'm in.

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

N/A

68:12 ­ 69:13 Q: Let me take before you came into the position of -- of -- in February of 2004. As a director, had you read the plan? A: Do not believe I had read the plan. Perhaps in a -- this is a long way back. I may have read an executive summary, the first 20 pages. Q: But you're not sure you did? A: I think I read an executive summary. Q: Okay. Now, how did you come to get a copy of the plan or the executive summary? A: Don't recall. Q: Well, was it provided from top down? A: Would have been top down, yes. Q: Was it provided to you as a director with any instructions as to whether or not you had to follow it? A: No. Q: Did you think you had to follow it? A: I don't think the plan had rolled out. It was in the process of being worked on. Q: Well, let's take the years 2004 to 2006 when you were a direct -- director of VISN -- I forget --
19

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 22 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation A: Two. 70:6-20 Q: My specific question, 2004 to 2006, before you took over your job here in Washington, did you feel bound -- that you were bound to follow the recommendations contained in the plan? A: I don't know if the -- I just do not know if the plan had been released with recommendations. I don't know the answer to that. Q: Can you recall feeling bound by it? A: If -- if the plan hadn't been released, I don't know how I would have been bound by it. Q: Tell me what you mean by "released."

69:14 ­ 70:5 N/A Q: -- 2 in -- in New York. Specifically did you feel you had any obligation to implement within your VISN any of the recommendations contained in the MHS Plan? A: I -- I would answer that this way. Again, I did not read the plan cover to cover. I believe I may have read an executive summary. Network 2 has been one of the highest performing networks in the VA system historically over an eight- to ten-year period of time and has a very, very well developed mental health service delivery system, and is highly re ­ highly regarded for that, including having mental health professionals in primary care in the mid-'90s, long before it was being discussed in the VA as a standard. So we were already doing a lot of what was in that plan. 84:2 ­ 84:21 N/A Q: Well, apart from sending it out to them to read, did you -- was it a subject of discussion at any -- with your -- A: Yes. Q: -- directors at any of -- A: Yes. Q: -- your two-day -- let's say -- let's just take the twoday meetings. Was any time devoted to discussing the plan? A: Yes. And, in fact, at the National Leadership Board -- when we talk about face-tofaces, we have a National Leadership Board that meets quarterly. Back in `06 -- `6,

84:23-85:6 Q: And when -- when was it that there was a presentation by Dr. Katz to the National Leadership Board -- A: Wouldn't -- Q: -- regarding -- A: Wouldn't be able to give you -- Q: -- regarding this plan? A: Would -- wouldn't be able to give you the dates.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

20

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 23 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object it was meeting ten times a year; that has reduced now a bit, but I think Dr. Katz actually gave a presentation about the Mental Health Strategic Plan and has given resentations about suicide to the National Leadership Board. Q: Does the National Leadership Board include the directors of the VISNs? 95:12 ­ 96:2 A: Other -- Q: -- A-3. A: Other than to make the qualifying statement that the -- the point I think you've articulated related to the implementation time frame and the duration of the implementation as -- I'm not sure when this report was finally approved and signed off on. I -- I think the suicide prevention coordinator effort is a major effort with about 150 FTE. There are other major efforts going on with high-risk populations like traumatic brain injury and case management services for returning OEF/OIF veterans also aimed at creating a stronger safety net so people don't fall through the cracks. 97:20 ­ 98:15 Q: -- right. Now, before June 1, 2007 when you put out your -- your memorandum, had the MHSHG developed a plan for 24-hour mental health care availability throughout VHA? A: There had always been a plan for 24/7 mental health availability in the system.

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

Non-responsive.

N/A

Non-responsive.

N/A

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

21

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 24 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object There was -- at least that's my understanding. There was an effort via the June 1 memo to put more clarity in that plan by determining the role of -- again of CBOCs, the role of making sure that our complex, 1A, large hospitals had mental health professionals on site in the emergency room. That's about 30 institutions; so, for example, a greater Los Angeles or a Cleveland, these are very, very large hospitals. But even in remote areas in -- we have to have the ability to get patients care -- Q: All right. A: -- 24 -- Q: But -- A: -- 7. 102:25 ­ 103:18 Q: Your memo was telling them they had an obliga- -- A: Yes -- Q: -- -tion? A: -- when that went out on June -- Q: Be- -- A: -- 1st. Q: -- -fore that, had anyone told any VISN they had an -- they had an obligation to see to it that they had 24-hour mental health care availability throughout their VISN? A: My -- I -- I don't know the answer to that. I don't know what previous deputy under secretaries may have done. It's my understanding that we probably have policy -- although I'd -- I'd have to research that -- that indicates

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

N/A

103:19-25 Q: Well, name me the policy; identify the -- A: I -- Q: -- policy -- A: -- don't -- Q: -- for me. A: I don't know the policy.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

22

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 25 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object we have to provide that emergency care whether it's in mental health or ­ or general medical or surgery. 105:15 ­ 108:16 Q: My question is, until you sent out your June 1, `07 memo, you're not aware of anybody having articulated a -- a -- a rule or plan that needed to be followed by the VISNs for having a 24-hour mental health -- A: It's -- Q: -- care -- A: -- my -- Q: -- availability? A: -- understanding that that's been the policy right along, and that's been the policy, as I understood it as an associate director, as a director, as a network director, that I -- long before my arrival in headquarters, that that was my obligation to ensure that if a veteran presented for care that I'm going to get them the care they need either within the VA system or via contract. Q: I'm talking about 24-hour mental care. A: Correct. Correct. Q: Well, if you believe that it was your expectation that all VISNs throughout their VISN had 24-hour mental care availability, why were you sending it out in your initiative of June 1, `07? A: I think what we were doing there is, again, underscoring the importance; two, expanding it to include making sure you've got that services available in CBOCs;

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

Best Evidence, FRE 1002.

N/A

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

23

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 26 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterPlaintiffs' Objection to Designation to Which Defendants' CounterPlaintiffs Object Designation three, to add the clarity that in large urban areas where there's a significant volume of mental health patients, we want mental health professionals right in that emergency room, and that is happening at 30 of our level 1A complexity hospitals. Q: If I were a director of VISN before I got your June 1, `07 memo, would I be able to find anywhere that I had been sent an initiative, a plan, a direction, a rule that I had to have a 24-hour mental health care availability throughout my VISN? A: Well, my -- my answer to that is that I believe it's in policy, but unfortunately I can't point you to the particular -- Q: Where -- A: -- one. Q: -- are these policies? Are there -- does a manual contain the policies? A: Yeah, I -- I -- yes, would be my answer to that. But I don't know where they -- Q: What -- A: -- are. Q: -- do we call the manual? A: Don't -- don't know the answer to that. Q: But the policies of VHA regarding -- that -- that are -- are obligatory for -- for directors are contained in the manual? A: Yes. Q: Do you have the manual in your office? A: I -- I -- I'm sure I can get that, but I don't -- it's not

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

24

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 27 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object in my office, but it's in the building. Q: When you ask your assistant to get you the manual, what do you call the manual? A: My -- my guess is it's a -- a -- the title would be something like the expectations for the care delivery system in the VA. Q: Now, is it your guess that the manual contains the policy regarding 24-hour mental care availability or you know it's so? A: That's my strong belief that that's what it is. 110:11-20 A: I would tell you that I may not have linked it initially as coming from the plan, but when the network director in Network 2, we had mental health professionals going to all the post-deployment exchanges where military people, Reserves, Guard would come back together and we would have a -- a cadre of human beings that went out, including mental health professionals, to kind of expose them to what the VA had to offer. 114:6 ­ 117:17 Q: Let's turn to the next page, A-6. Now, the -- this one at the top is mental -- under Mental Health Strategies, it says, Provide a full continuum of compassionate care to veterans with mental illness. And certainly you're all for that; am I correct? A: Yes.

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

Non-responsive.

110:21-23 Q: So you say that -- A: Did not know the origins of that, but we just kind of did it.

Lacks foundation. Best Evidence, FRE 1002.

117:18 ­ 118:12 Q: Well, can you identify anything you read so I can go look at it and see if it confirms what your recollection is? A: I -- I think that that data could be gotten from OQP, and -- and they -- they would have the report on that. Q: Can you -- can you describe the report in any kind of way so that I --
25

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 28 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object Q: I think you -- you said what your duties were; you were -- that's -- you were articulating that; correct? A: (Witness nods head.) Q: Am I right -- A: Yep. Q: -- Mr. Feeley? It says, Immediate Program Office OQP. What is OQP? A: That's the Office of Quality Improvement in the organization. Q: Now, let me read what it says. It says, Implement Performance Measure for FY `05: 85 -- colon, 85 percent of CBOCs serving more than 1,500 veterans will provide on-site contract and telemental health services or -- at or above 10 percent of all clinic visits by FY `06. Increase to 15 percent of all clinic visits by FY `07. There's a parenthetical. I'll read that if you like. But has that recommendation ever been implemented? A: My understanding is that has been implemented. Q: When was that implemented? A: I think we -- pro -- probably during the last two years. It's not recent. It's a while back. Q: And how was it implemented? A: Once -- once the CBOC hurts -- hits a certain number of uniques, it's required that a mental health professional be in that community-based clinic. Q: What -- what form did the direction take? Is it a -- a

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation A: It -- Q: -- could go look at it? A: It -- it would be a -- a spreadsheet related to CBOCs, size of CBOCs and mental health professional presence and -- or lack of presence and -- and type of presence, I'm assuming. That's kind of what I recall. Q: Okay. Let's look at the next -- A: I -- Q: -- one. A: -- probably saw an aggregate report.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

26

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 29 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object memorandum; is it a policy statement; where -- where will I find this? A: Can't -- can't recall how that was -- and, in fact, that probably occurred prior to me getting to the -- in -- into the job I'm in, but -- and I don't know whether it came out via e-mail, via memo or what, but we actually are able to mon -- monitor that electronically. Q: So when -- you know today, as a matter of fact, today -- A: Yes. Q: -- 85 percent of CBOCs serving more than 1,500 veterans provide on-site contract or telemarketing (sic) health services at or above 10 percent of all clinic visits by FY `05 -- well, let's leave out the last part, but -- but 85 percent of the CBOCs serving more than 1,500 veterans provide on-site contact (sic) or telemarketing (sic) health services? A: Yes, OQP could get that information. Q: No, I'm asking is that the case today? A: That -- that would be my understanding. Q: That's your understanding. Do you know if that's the case today? A: I don't know if that's the case today. That's my understanding that it's the case. Q: And how do you come by that understanding? A: Having seen reports, but not any recently. Q: You've seen reports that

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

27

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 30 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object verify this to be -- A: Yes. Q: -- correct? What would -- A: And -- Q: -- identify -- A: -- I haven't seen one in the last six months. I mean, I -- I believe this is really now the standardization having hit in the organization in a good way. 127:19 ­ 128:6 Q: -- I'm -- I'm a suicidal veteran and I -- and I call -- and I call the -- the -- the CBOC and I get an answering machine. And that answering machine will tell me -- A: Will coach you what to do. Q: Which is to call the medical center? A: (Witness nods head.) Q: The nearest medical center? A: Correct. Q: It will give me a phone number of the nearest medical -- A: Right. 135:7 ­ 136:8 Q: All right. But tele -- let's go back to the tele -- telemental health. I could check into -- I could go to the CBOC and I could by -- by -- by a video conferencing talk to a psychiatrist at a medical center? A: Correct. Q: Instead of doing a face-toface? A: Correct. Q: So I want to understand

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

N/A

128:7-10 Q: -- center? That medical center may be hours away by -- by car; correct? A: Could be.

Lacks foundation.

136:9-13 Q: Well -- well, but -- Mr. Feeley, you're -- you're the manager of all of the CBOCs. You're the -- you're the -- you're the place where the buck stops -- A: Right.

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

28

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 31 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object how that works. I'm a -- I'm a veteran who's suicidal. I've arrived at the CBOC at 3:30, all right. Who will I -- who am I going to meet with? A: You're probably going to meet with an intake nurse, and after there's an assessment of what that situation is, you may see the doctor. Q: I say I'm suicidal. I -- A: Well -- Q: I'm -- A: -- they're going to move you to whatever they think the right level of intervention is clinically. Again, you're asking me a clinical question, and I'm in a managerial position. You're getting a layman's understanding of what will occur, but they're going to -- they're going to move you along to get you the care that you need. 136:21 ­ 138:3 You're going to need inpatient care. So I don't know whether the determination of the clinician at any one of these 800 locations would be to access telemedicine or get you in the ambulance and move you to the nearest inpatient -- Q: I got -- A: -- facility. Q: I got your point. Let -- let's suppose that in my hypothetical I have -- I don't say I'm suicidal and there's -- there's a question whether I am or not, but I want to talk to somebody. Will we set up a telemental connection -- A: If -- Q: -- with a --

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

Lacks foundation.

N/A

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

29

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 32 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object A: If -- Q: -- veteran with a -- with a medical center? A: If that's the right thing to do. And as we go to the question of equivalent, which I feel compelled to come back and address, is that you may not need to talk to a psychiatrist. You may need to talk to a trained mental health professional, all of which have to be credentialed to work for us and have the ability to make these assessments who will determine what the next level of care is going to be. Q: And they're at the medical center; correct? A: No, they're in the CBOCs if there's more than, I think, a thousand or 1,500 veterans. 142:1-20 Q: So when I -- do I have to have a scheduled appointment for this video conferencing? A: If -- that's a -- if you were a walk-in, the answer of course to that would be no. If that was going to be some type of ongoing treatment intervention because that seemed to be the right thing to do, then you'd probably have a scheduled appointment on both ends so that you could use the equipment. You -- you might have an allied health professional at the CBOC with you as you're talking to the psychiatrist at the flagship. Q: No, my question is do I have to have an appointment set up in advance for this video conference? A: The answer would be if you're a walk-in that wouldn't

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation

N/A

142:21 ­ 145:16 Q: Well, then how are we going to get somebody at the medical center available spontaneously? A: If -- Q: Is someone just waiting there for the -- A: Well -- Q: -- the video -- A: -- if -- if -- Q: -- call? A: -- if it's an emergency then we'd have to move things around and accommodate. Q: Well, how soon can I -- can I get this person at the medical center? Won't it depend on who's there at the other end? A: Sure it will. Q: But if I walk into the medical center, I'm going to see someone right away? I
30

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 33 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterPlaintiffs' Objection to Designation to Which Defendants' CounterPlaintiffs Object Designation be the case and -- because you would have to be able to do it spontaneously.

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation mean -- A: No, you're going to wait a few minutes until someone's available there, too. Q: So your feeling is -- is that telemental video conferencing is equivalent to being able to walk into your medical center? A: No, I didn't say that. Q: Why isn't it equivalent? A: Well, I think it's -- it's a different modality. It's not necessarily equivalent. Q: Now, you've seen suicide reports involving veterans who are being seen at CBOCs; correct? A: Yes. I've seen those issue briefs. Q: Have you made any association at all of the suicide reports between veterans who are being seen at CBOCs and suicides? A: No. Q: I'd like you to turn to page A-11. It says in the -- in the fourth box, Immediate VISNs -- this is immediate for -- for VISNs. Each VISN will -- will, doesn't say "should"; will. Does "will" when you see that in a -- in a -- an initiative or plan, does "will" mean the same as "must" to you or do you think it's -- it's discretionary? A: I don't think it's discretionary. Q: Each VISN will develop a planning initiative to address service gaps in outpatient mental health care identified by the MHSP model. Do you see that?
31

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 34 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation A: Yeah. Q: What is the MHSP model? A: I -- I really don't know. Q: Further down it says, Each -- A: That would be a -- a question for Katz and Zeiss. Q: Not for you, though? A: Not for me, no. Q: Each team or PTSD specialist or a plan to secure these services -- okay. I have to back up. Each VA facility that currently does not have one -- and that's one of these plans -- I -- I'm going -- I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to have you look at this box -- A: Okay. Q: -- and -- and then ask you -- after you've had a chance to read it, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. A: (Witness reviews document.) Okay. 160:13 ­ 161:12 Q: I understand that. A: Yeah. Q: And I'm going -- I'm going to ask you more about that when I get to your memo, but I'm asking something different. I'm asking about a system for tracking veterans with risk factors for suicide. Not the 24/7. I understand the 24/7 is directed to that problem. A: Right. Q: I understand that. A: Okay. Q: But I'm asking for a method of tracking veterans with risk factors for suicide,
32

159:11 ­ 160:12 Non-responsive. Q: You mentioned going out to sites. We're going to come back to that, but they've gone out to sites and they're going to see more sites. A: Right. Q: That was part of monitoring; correct? A: That would be part of the monitoring so that if -- if -- Q: Well, I'm -- I'm -- I -- that's part of monitoring? A: Correct. Q: My question is has there been that kind of monitoring to see that the tracking of veterans with --

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 35 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object A: I -- I would -- Q: -- risk factors of suicide is going on? A: I -- I would answer that, that in the site reviews at -- that we've done about six and have about eight more planned, I don't have the checklist that's being used by Vincent Kane in -- so I do not know if he's looking at the CPRS alerts. I think what I was focusing on in particular is insurance that the 24/7 coverage in the large complexity level 1A hospitals is going on the way I intended to have it go on. 164:16 ­ 165:5 Q: One of the things you've been doing and take -- take credit for -- I mean, you feel good about -- is -- is -- is the satisfaction reports; am I correct? A: I -- I think the -- the three things I'm most pleased about in the job I'm in is the opportunity to impact quality, access and satisfaction. And when I arrived in February of `06, the wait list was way too large, and I believe nearing 200,000 veterans. Via biweekly reporting and increased accountability, that wait list is down to 48,000 veterans as of April 1st, and I expect it will go to 25,000 by September `08, and the goal, of course, is to eliminate it.

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation and I wanted to know -- and I want to know what monitoring has been done -- A: I -- I'm not sure -- Q: -- to -- A: I'm -- Q: -- let -- A: -- sorry. Q: -- to let you know -- not -- not that you expect people to do it, not that it's your belief that it's being done, but that it is in fact going on within the system? A: None that I'm aware of.

N/A

165:6-22 Q: But -- but -- one of the ways in which you're gauging how good you're doing in delivering medical services is through satisfaction reports? A: Correct. Q: And what I'm saying is, you -- you have focused on that as a means for gauging how well you're doing, just one? I mean, not -- one among many, but it's one? A: Correct. One among many. Q: And you have recently instituted surprise shopper -- A: Correct. Q: -- visits; am I correct? A: I will tell you that program is rolling out as we speak with the training going on in the second quarter, January of `08 to --

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

33

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 36 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object 166:2-25 Q: Now, I want to ask you some questions about these satisfaction reports. Does -- does every VISN have satisfaction reports; is it a -- is it a requirement throughout every VISN -- A: Yes. Q: -- that they have them? A: Yes. Q: Is there a particular format that they must follow? A: Well, let me -- let me share with you so we -- we don't get things mixed up here. We actually contract for satisfaction reports by network and facility, so I'm able to get a printout of -- on basically a quarterly basis, I believe now, on how facilities are doing and how networks are doing compared to each other. Q: And these satisfaction reports are both for inpatient -- A: Correct. Q: -- and outpatient? A: Correct. And then also we'll segment them out by other categories: medicine, surgery and psychiatry. 168:5 ­ 169:7 Q: Have -- is there a segmentation from these people who do the satisfaction reports for you of how patients at CBOCs feel about the services they're getting? A: I -- I think we also get satisfaction reports related to CBOCs. We get timeliness reports related to access. We get quality reports related to performance measurements, and we get satisfaction scores

Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' CounterDesignation

Plaintiffs' CounterDesignation 167:1-7 Q: Will they separate them out by mental health care server? A: Yes. Q: Will they have a further breakdown of patients diagnosed with PTSD? A: Do not believe we've got a breakdown by diagnosis.

Lacks foundation. Hearsay. Best Evidence, FRE 1002.

169:8-23 Q: So if I wanted to know whether patients diagnosed with PTSD or mental -- or other mental health problems are satisfied with the services they receive at CB -- at CBOCs, I will find that in these satisfaction reports -- A: Well -- Q: -- that -- A: -- let -- Q: -- you have contracted for?
34

PLS.' RESP. TO DEFS.' DEPO. DESIGNATION OBJ. AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2502600

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 206

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 37 of 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

William F. Feeley April 9, 2008 Defendants' CounterDesignation to Which Plaintiffs Object as well. Q: For CBOCs? A: For CBOCs, yes. Q: And have you read the satisfaction reports -- A: Yes -- Q: -- for the -- A: -- I -- Q: -- CBOCs? A: -- I have. Q: And the people seem to be satisfied? A: Yes,