Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services PROVIDER MANUAL Comm
unity Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA Edition) Pa
Section 8.2 Independent Case Review
8.2.1 Introduction
8.2.2 References
8.2.3 Scope
8.2.4 Did you know…?
8.2.5 Objectives
8.2.6 Procedures
8.2.6-A: Independent Case Review
8.2.6-B: Additional RBHA medical record review activities
8.2.1 Introduction
ADHS/DBHS is required to oversee the performance of an Independent Case Review (ICR) to ascertain the extent to which established guidelines regarding access to services, timeliness of services and quality outcomes are being adhered to in the public behavioral health delivery system. The Independent Case Review is an annual evaluation of the statewide behavioral health system, conducted by a Professional Review Organization, to assess contractor performance and to identify areas of needed improvement in the provision of behavioral health services. Currently, the evaluation process is primarily conducted through case reviews but may also involve interviews of behavioral health recipients or others involved (e.g., service providers) when deemed necessary. Independent Case Review findings are utilized to improve care for persons receiving behavioral health services. This section provides an overview of the Independent Case Review and describes expectations for behavioral health providers to assist with:
▪
Implementation of the Independent Case Review Tool; and
▪
Implementation of any recommended actions to improve performance.
8.2.2 References
The following citations can serve as additional resources for this content area:
AHCCCS/ADHS Contract
ADHS/RBHA Contracts
ADHS/TRBHA IGAs
Independent Case Review Tool
8.2.3 Scope
To whom does this apply?
All enrolled persons, their behavioral health records and service providers may be part of the Independent Case Review.
8.2.4 Did you know…?
▪
An independent entity, also known as a Professional Review Organization, conducts the
ge 8.2 -1 8.2 Independent Case Review Last Revised: 01/01/2004 Effective Date: 06/01/2006
Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services PROVIDER MANUAL Comm
unity Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA Edition) Pa
Independent Case Review.
▪
Independent Case Review results are used to assess the quality of behavioral health services.
▪
Each standard in the Independent Case Review Tool has pre-determined level of performance established by ADHS/DBHS.
8.2.5 Objectives
To describe behavioral health provider’s obligations regarding the Independent Case Review.
8.2.6 Procedures
8.2.6-A: Independent Case Review
Behavioral health providers must cooperate with ADHS, the Professional Review Organization and the T/RBHA by allowing access to provider staff, behavioral health recipients and their behavioral health records.
CPSA uses the ICR results in order to implement system-wide improvements. Providers will be expected to assist in analyzing the data, identifying areas that need improvement, implementing such improvements, and submitting updates in terms of approximating or meeting the standards for each of the ICR indicators.
8.2.6-B: Additional RBHA medical record review activities
In addition to the ICR, CPSA has an extensive system of monitoring its network and subcontracted providers. CPSA's main methods of obtaining ongoing improvement data are through the Annual Network Provider Profile and the Joint Site Reviews. The Annual Network Provider Profile consists of a representative sample of records for each provider being reviewed against the ICR and other quality of care standards. The Biennial Joint Site Reviews consist of CPSA staff teaming with Network staff and reviewing the Network’s subcontracted providers. Network and Subcontracted providers are expected to assist CPSA with both of these processes.
ge 8.2 -2 8.2 Independent Case Review Last Revised: 01/01/2004 Effective Date: 06/01/2006
| Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tucson JP Civil Docket | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CV11-510581A-SC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4/26/2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Maureen is one insensitive *****
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy Sevelis
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months.
Dear Maureen:
I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months. I send this only to you. This is not about my cases, per se, but a truthful & honest opinion about you. OH, I did and still do appreciate LaFrontera's assistance that was provided to me.
We've had a professional relationship since December 2008 so I believe we both have a reasonable opinion of ourselves. The one part of all this was your complete lack of honesty and trust towards me. Which to this day I don't understand. Can I just go over the cast of characters in this melodrama.
A landlord who after 3 years wanted to get rid of me and used any trick in the book to do so. Do you know why she wanted to get rid of me? Here goes. As you can tell I am a VERY assertive person. Got through basically on my own. Now comes a person who for whatever reasons does not like people who she can't intimidate. I spoke directly in person's face, just as she did to me. I can understand why the personality trait due to 80% of the residence there are on Social Security, disabled, etc. The lease contract was a one way street with the person. We both knew we disliked each other.
Now Maureen, in all this melodrama, you are the only person on the timeline who seems to be behind the curtain.
Face it - Landlord and I disliked each other so there is no mystery there.
Magnotto only had the information you provided to him.
Let's face it. 4 days to make an important decision about a person with a SMI trying to cope with many things without knowing any facts. It was by you and you alone that was the judge, the jury, and the executioner all in one. Not once did you call me in and let tell you the situation. OH, I know your answer likely is I've done violations in the past which 90% were bogus. On countless occasions, I basically begged you to get me out of there, but you always had some excuse. Living there beats the purpose of getting mental assistance, when I had to deal with, it just added to my depression, not less.
I don't understand it Maureen. I really don't. Not even a "Sorry". I might have made a wrong decision. But it never came. I know it's human nature not to admit to our foibles and shortcomings.
Well, the unbiased courts, after knowing all the facts decided with me on 2 occasions. The apartment company is paying me restitution for wrong-doings. Everything was put on the table with the judge. The preponderance of all the evidence was on my side, period. I am pleased somewhat because what happened in the end proved I was the honest one. The truthful one.
I asked Rob to transfer me to another behavioral services org. That's pretty much it.
Good Luck
--
Timothy Sevelis
----------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maureen McGannon
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:33:48 -0700
Subject: RE: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding thelast 7 months.
To: Timothy Sevelis
Tim-I have nothing to apologize for-I followed program protocol and I had met with you on 8/8/12 and the decision was made based oncircumstances-period. You even received an extension to remain in your apartment for an additional month. You benefited from the program for a number of years-I wish you the best regarding your future.
 |
| Just Following Orders! |
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy Sevelis
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months.
Dear Maureen:
I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months. I send this only to you. This is not about my cases, per se, but a truthful & honest opinion about you. OH, I did and still do appreciate LaFrontera's assistance that was provided to me.
We've had a professional relationship since December 2008 so I believe we both have a reasonable opinion of ourselves. The one part of all this was your complete lack of honesty and trust towards me. Which to this day I don't understand. Can I just go over the cast of characters in this melodrama.
A landlord who after 3 years wanted to get rid of me and used any trick in the book to do so. Do you know why she wanted to get rid of me? Here goes. As you can tell I am a VERY assertive person. Got through basically on my own. Now comes a person who for whatever reasons does not like people who she can't intimidate. I spoke directly in person's face, just as she did to me. I can understand why the personality trait due to 80% of the residence there are on Social Security, disabled, etc. The lease contract was a one way street with the person. We both knew we disliked each other.
Now Maureen, in all this melodrama, you are the only person on the timeline who seems to be behind the curtain.
Face it - Landlord and I disliked each other so there is no mystery there.
Magnotto only had the information you provided to him.
Let's face it. 4 days to make an important decision about a person with a SMI trying to cope with many things without knowing any facts. It was by you and you alone that was the judge, the jury, and the executioner all in one. Not once did you call me in and let tell you the situation. OH, I know your answer likely is I've done violations in the past which 90% were bogus. On countless occasions, I basically begged you to get me out of there, but you always had some excuse. Living there beats the purpose of getting mental assistance, when I had to deal with, it just added to my depression, not less.
I don't understand it Maureen. I really don't. Not even a "Sorry". I might have made a wrong decision. But it never came. I know it's human nature not to admit to our foibles and shortcomings.
Well, the unbiased courts, after knowing all the facts decided with me on 2 occasions. The apartment company is paying me restitution for wrong-doings. Everything was put on the table with the judge. The preponderance of all the evidence was on my side, period. I am pleased somewhat because what happened in the end proved I was the honest one. The truthful one.
I asked Rob to transfer me to another behavioral services org. That's pretty much it.
Good Luck
--
Timothy Sevelis
----------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maureen McGannon
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:33:48 -0700
Subject: RE: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding thelast 7 months.
To: Timothy Sevelis
Tim-I have nothing to apologize for-I followed program protocol and I had met with you on 8/8/12 and the decision was made based oncircumstances-period. You even received an extension to remain in your apartment for an additional month. You benefited from the program for a number of years-I wish you the best regarding your future.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Time to Leave LaFrontera
I can't support an agency that wasn't there for me. I guess truth is a concept some people have to learn on their own. If these are the kind of people working in companies, agencies that have a mission to help the client (see Below).
God save us all!
Moral Victory
Well, The case between Sarah and me is over. A moral victory was the end result.
- $900
- Sarah no longer works there
- A court record was established. Hopefully anyone considering a Weidner property will think twice about supporting a business that ONLY cared about representing an employee who went berserk.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Jury or Bench TRIAL?
I am going to ask the court to consider a JURY trial in this matter. If this farce keeps going, let a jury decide.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/judge-vs-jury-trial-faq-29139.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/judge-vs-jury-trial-faq-29139.html
 |
| http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/judge-vs-jury-trial-faq-29139.html |
2 simple words for your client to practice saying!
A simple way to end this is to have your client say the following words! But, I don't think she is capable of saying these 2 simple words. I still need compensation for the damage Ms. Choban has done!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Vista Montana Housing File
Defense Attorney:
Ask Ms. Choban where all the correspondence between LaFrontera and Ms. Choban is. I'm sure she was an excellent record keeper!
 |
| burden of proof. Compare onus probandi. |
Ask Ms. Choban where all the correspondence between LaFrontera and Ms. Choban is. I'm sure she was an excellent record keeper!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Compromise???
Defense Attorney:
I am still amenable to compromise and I proposed it to you earlier. If you think you can convince that Weidner and Sarah Janis Choban are not culpable, then I suggest you first convince the mediator and the judge that Ms. Choban can tell-the-truth.
Remember this? If SARAH can't tell the truth to a JUDGE, then she LIES! LYING is a willful act. If Sarah can't tell the truth, then YOUR case falls apart. This whole case has been about the truth and veracity of Ms. Sarah Janis Choban. Willful act means TREBLE DAMAGES!
Compromise is up to YOU!
I am still amenable to compromise and I proposed it to you earlier. If you think you can convince that Weidner and Sarah Janis Choban are not culpable, then I suggest you first convince the mediator and the judge that Ms. Choban can tell-the-truth.
Remember this? If SARAH can't tell the truth to a JUDGE, then she LIES! LYING is a willful act. If Sarah can't tell the truth, then YOUR case falls apart. This whole case has been about the truth and veracity of Ms. Sarah Janis Choban. Willful act means TREBLE DAMAGES!
Compromise is up to YOU!
 |
| SARAH HEARS ME SAY "KILL THE MANAGER" |
 |
| TELLS JUDGE BLAKE SHE HEARS IT THROUGH "HEARSAY" |
 |
| COMPROMISE |
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Housing File
Apparently, The defense attorney doesn't know how to just ask me for the file. I'm sure what I provide won't be as skimpy as the file she gave me (HINT!!!!).
 |
| LaFrontera 01312012 |
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
 |
| Introduction to the Law of the United States |
Dear Clients
Last week Judy and I attended a meeting with HUD officials to discuss the rollout of HUD’s new affordable housing programs and its goals for the upcoming year. According to the presenters, HUD is proposing two new housing programs to improve the quality and increase the stock of affordable housing. It is also taking a very close look at whether properties and political subdivisions that receive federal subsidies are complying with their obligation to affirmatively advance fair housing. As all three of these issues may affect your business, I wanted to be sure you are aware of what is happening.
Preservation, Enhancement and Transforming Rental Assistance (PETRA) Program
This program, which has not yet been funded by Congress, is intended to preserve and improve federally assisted housing through an infusion of public and private market capital. Essentially the program will combine existing public housing programs with HUD’s twelve (12) other existing rental assistance programs and offer each of them the opportunity to convert to a single funding stream under Section 8.
The new program is expected to have three variations:
Long term project based contracts (PBCs)
Project based vouchers (PBVs)
Tenant based vouchers (TBVs)
Within these variations participating properties will move from public housing rents, which are currently based on operating costs, to market based rents that can leverage private capital and encourage better location of housing. PETRA will also allow additional flexibility in the use of the subsidy to create mixed income buildings and communities, permit movement of contracts and portions of contracts between properties, and allow a shift of project-based contracts (100% assisted) to project based vouchers, which serve partially assisted properties. Tax credit properties, which are not specifically affected by this change, may be given the opportunity to contract with local PHAs to designate certain units or buildings to receive contracts for project based vouchers. Finally the existing system of different rules, regulations and requirements for each federally assisted housing program will be unified so that there is only one set of rules, regulations and requirements for all federally assisted housing.
HUD anticipates that properties that opt to participate in the shift will be able to leverage private funding sources to address needs for immediate repairs, renovation and long-term capital needs. Under certain circumstances HUD will allow properties to charge above-market rents, when comparable market rents
and the applicable fair market rent is insufficient to properly preserve the property by meeting immediate and long-term capital needs.
Choice Neighborhoods
Choice Neighborhoods is HUD’s follow-up to the HOPE VI program and has already been funded by Congress.
Under this program HUD will provide increased funding for mixed-income, mixed-use housing within new parameters. Eligible applicants will include public housing authorities, local governments, non-profits and for-profit developers in partnership with a public entity such as a public housing agency.
Housing built under this program must have access to good schools, jobs, retail and transportation and must create communities that are physically and financially viable over the long term. Proposed funding requests are required to take all of these factors into consideration. So, for example, a proposal for a Choice Neighborhoods grant will be required to show that the community has a good performing school or that a good performing charter school will be relocated nearby and that early learning programs are available. Because Choice Neighborhoods is jointly funded by HUD, the US Treasury, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Justice, grant funding can be used to bring in schools, build public transit stops, and catalyze other investments in neighborhood improvements.
In contrast to the HOPE VI program, eligible applicants for Choice Neighborhoods include public housing authorities, local governments, non-profits and for-profit developers who work in partnership with public entities. Applicants will be eligible to apply for two types of grants: (1) planning grants for communities that are not yet ready to implement a transformation plan; and (2) implementation grants for communities that have already undergone a comprehensive planning process and are ready to implement it. HUD will be posting a NOFA on its website to accept applications for these grants this summer.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
As everyone who deals with assisted housing knows, HUD imposes upon all properties and entitles an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. During the presentation on Choice Neighborhoods the speaker reminded all participants that this obligation is a very high priority for HUD in this administration and emphasized that HUD is actively looking at different communities and properties to ensure that they are taking this obligation seriously.
Properties that receive HUD subsidies and communities that obtain HUD grants, including CDBG funding, must analyze their activities on an annual basis
and determine whether their policies and programs, including outreach, are effective in encouraging the full integration of all eligible persons regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, familial status or physical or mental disability. When we spoke with the speaker afterwards he emphasized that HUD is reviewing the policies and practices of federal financial recipients to determine whether any of their policies or programs create barriers to fair housing.
Over the last couple years HUD has sued several communities for providing false information to HUD, for example, because they receive CDBG grants but have either erected or not made serious efforts to remove barriers to fair housing. This scrutiny – not only of communities but also of all grant recipients – will be increased over the next several years. If you have any questions or concerns as to whether your property is doing enough to meet these obligations, please feel free to contact us so that we can discuss it with you.
We will be monitoring all of these new programs and initiatives and will keep you apprised as more information about them comes up. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Most sincerely,
Scott Clark
I AM OUTRAGED BY THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS
.jpg)
Timothy Sevelis
734 East Roger Road,Apt. #108
Tucson, AZ 85719
Telephone: (520)870-1635
E-Mail: tsevelis@gmail.com
January 29, 2012
Ms. Judy Drickey-Prohow
The Law Offices of Scott M. Clark
3008 N. 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85018
RE: The Defendant is on the Vista Montana property on many of occasions.
Dear Ms.Drickey-Prohow:
I am getting reports from tenants that Ms. Sarah Janis Choban is on the Vista Montana property on many occasions. It would seem that her "better opportunities" elsewhere aren't working out. Also, since I have a NO trespassing notice to not step on the property, this gives Ms. Choban an unfair advantage in coercion of the residence.
I want immediately the NO trespassing notice stricken, or this unfair level playing field will be notified to Judge Segal's office and the mediation conference on February 3, 2012.
I will be asking the court to immediately rule in my favor due to this unfair advantage Ms. Choban seems to be taking and, as her lawyer, you have NOT done anything to stop it.
Respectfully,
Timothy Sevelis
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)