[blindlaw] Issues with RSB

[cory McMahon]

I am not a member of NFB (I would like to become one), but am wondering if someone might have a good recommendation of an attorney located in St. Louis.

I was sent by Nancy Goebel of RSB to who I thought was a qualified individual (Denise Rexroat) to undergo a thorough neuropsychological evaluation. Nancy told me that she was qualified, and that I would be would be working with both of them. However, I learned later that Denise Rexroat was unqualified to administer psychological evaluations and that the only qualification she has is a Master's In Education. Please also be advised that I was informed by Nancy Goebel, Senior VRC that both Dr. Paul Rexroat, PHD. and Denise Rexroat would be conducting the evaluation, however, I learned upon arrival for the evaluation that Dr. Paul Rexroat, PHD. was out-of-town on business. It is also important to note that although a neuropsychological evaluation was paid for, it was not administered.

Based upon the results of this evaluation, Nancy believes I'm not employable.

In addition, I hired an attorney to represent me at a Fair Hearing that was to be held on 2/17/09. Due to a hospitalization, I was unable to be there.

I would like a good, competent attorney to represent me.

If anyone has any questions, please contact me at: (314) 603-7949.

Thanks,
 
Cory

A fair Hearing was set-up to take place on 1/27/09, however, due to poor weather, it was canceled at the request of RSB administrative officials.

A hearing was then re-scheduled to take place on 2/17/09. Due to a hospitalization, I was unable to attend. An attourney was sent on my behalf, however. Because of my not being able to attend, RSB officials elected not to have the Fair Hearing. Instead, they elected to meet for an hour andahalf with my attourney, although he never met with me to let me know what it was that they discussed.

Please read the information below, and let me know if one of you feel as though you would be able to assist in the upcoming Fair Hearing, whenever it is scheduled to take place:

I am not a member of NFB (I would like to become one), but am wondering if someone might have a good recommendation of an attorney located in St. Louis.

I was sent by Nancy Goebel of RSB to who I thought was a qualified individual (Denise Rexroat) to undergo a thorough neuropsychological evaluation. Nancy told me that she was qualified, and that I would be would be working with both of them. However, I learned later that Denise Rexroat was unqualified to administer psychological evaluations and that the only qualification she has is a Master's In Education. Please also be advised that I was informed by Nancy Goebel, Senior VRC that both Dr. Paul Rexroat, PHD. and Denise Rexroat would be conducting the evaluation, however, I learned upon arrival for the evaluation that Dr. Paul Rexroat, PHD. was out-of-town on business. It is also important to note that although a neuropsychological evaluation was paid for, it was not administered.

Based upon the results of this evaluation, Nancy believes I'm not employable.

In addition, I hired an attorney to represent me at a Fair Hearing that was to be held on 2/17/09. Due to a hospitalization, I was unable to be there.

I would like a good, competent attorney to represent me.

If anyone has any questions, please contact me at: (314) 603-7949.

Thanks,
 
Cory
Cory McMahon Case

Documentation and Evidence for Fair Hearing

February 17, 2009

Prior to delving into any of the issues that I will be presenting during 
this fair hearing, I feel that I need to make a few brief points.

First, and foremost, no blame should be placed on Michael Merrick, Assistant 
Deputy Director at Rehabilitation Services for the Blind, (RSB). He has only 
been the Assistant Deputy Director for a very short time. All issues center 
around the way I have been treated by Nancy Goebel, Senior VR Counselor at 
RSB; Naomi Soule, District Supervisor at RSB; and Mark Laird, Deputy 
Director of RSB.

All communications with Mike have been positive, timely, helpful, and 
honest.

It is unfortunate for Mike that the dirty work (this fair hearing) has been 
delegated to him by Mark Laird.

Now I will address the issues and concerns I have regarding services with 
Rehabilitation Services for the Blind.

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION: On July 18, 2008 I agreed to see Dr. Paul 
Rexroat, Ph.D. For a neuropsychological evaluation as requested by Nancy. I 
was informed that I would be seeing Dr. Paul Rexroat and his wife, Denise 
Rexroat who is equally as qualified according to Nancy.

On August 8, 2008, I met with Denise Rexroat only, as Dr. Paul Rexroat was 
out-of-town. I thought it odd that I completed a 
neuropsychological/psychological evaluation administered by Denise Rexroat, 
an Administrative Assistant/Secretary. It is my understanding that the WAIS 
III and the MMPI in particular must be administered by a qualified 
individual, which Denise obviously is not.

In an effort to gather the facts, I requested in writing on August 22, 2008 
from Nancy, a copy of the written evaluation and all supporting 
documentation that she received from Dr. Paul Rexroat. My written request 
was ignored.

Therefore, on September 2, 2008 I requested again in writing from Nancy a 
copy of all documentation pertaining to the evaluation that was completed on 
August 8, 2008.

On September 3, 2008, I received a telephone call form Dr. Paul Rexroat, who 
informed me that he had been contact by Nancy Goebel and she had indicated 
to him that I requested a copy of the documentation form the psychological 
evaluation. Also, he informed me that: "It is the general rule, (and even I 
think the legal rule) that a copy of the information you are requesting is 
not customarily released to clients, as it is confidential in nature". I 
responded, acknowledging that I understood what he said. He went on to 
present me with a couple of options.

  1.. "Although I will be out-of-town for a few weeks and booked for several 
weeks after that, I can set-up an appointment with you to go over the 
report, or
  2.. The best thing to do would probably be to contact Nancy Goebel, as she 
is as equally as qualified as I am to interpret the report and go over it 
with you. Wouldn't that be the thing to do"?
Frustrated, I let him know that I would contact her, which I did immediately 
after I hung up from talking with him. I inquired of Nancy as to why she 
contacted Dr. Paul Rexroat, especially since it wasn't him from whom I had 
requested the documentation. She reported to me that she met with her 
supervisors (Naomi and Mark), and that they "advised" her to: "Call Dr. 
Rexroat, advise him as to what Cory is requesting, and see what his thoughts 
are". I asked her when she" "met with her supervisor", as I was perplexed 
that it took her two weeks before she followed up on this request. She 
indicated: " met with them late Friday afternoon (8/29/2008. I asked: "Can 
we go over the report"? She informed me that "Dr. Rexroat is recommending 
that you and I set-up a meeting at which to go over the report". I calmly 
explained to Nancy that Dr. Rexroat instructed me to call her to go over the 
report, which, even after notification of this instruction, she appeared to 
still be unwilling to do so.

Realizing that she was not going to go over (via phone) the report and/or 
any other documentation that may have resulted from the psychological 
evaluation, and also that her and I needed to amend my Individualized Plan 
of Employment (IPE), I agreed to meet with her (Nancy) on September 18, 2008 
at 12:30 PM at her office. In the meantime, however, I contacted the Client 
Assistance Program (CAP), and received a call back form them on September 9, 
2008, during which they began the short application process.

I then received a call from Kathryn Koch, Advocacy Specialist and her 
supervisor, Pat Wheeler on September 16, 2008, during which I learned that 
they are the advocates that have been assigned to my case. After a 
discussion with these two advocates, we agreed that it would be advantageous 
for me to call Nancy and re-schedule our September 18, 2008 meeting, so that 
CAP had a sufficient amount of time with which to work to obtain my complete 
RSB case record, including documentation resulting from the psychological 
evaluation. I was advised to let Nancy know that I opened a CAP case, which 
I did. She appeared not to be upset at this point, however, that would 
quickly change days later. She let me know that she would wait for a form 
from them (CAP), and that the issue had become an administrative matter. 
Nancy then let me know that she was going to go talk with her supervisor, 
Naomi Soule.

The next two conversations I had with Nancy worth noting were conversations 
that occurred on September 18, 2008 and September 19, 2008. I contacted her 
to inquire about items that were being shipped back from Lions World 
Services for the Blind, LWSB, since I elected not to return to this facility 
for training, and also to check on a cab trip scheduled for later on that 
afternoon for which RSB way paying. After discussing those two issues, she 
informed me that she had a discussion with Naomi Soule and that RSB would 
like to offer me the opportunity to have cab arrangements made and an 
appointment set-up for me to meet with Dr. Rexroat to go over the 
documentation pertaining to the psychological evaluation that his wife, 
Denise, conducted on August 8, 2008, in Nancy's words: "since he wrote the 
report. That way if you have any questions, you can have the opportunity to 
ask him directly". I let her know that I wanted to think about it and would 
get back with her. I called her back a couple of hours later, at which point 
I indicated to her that I would like to meet with him. She informed me that 
due to his schedule, I would be meeting with him on a Tuesday. She reported 
that he is out-of-town the week of 9/15, so she would need to wait until the 
week of 9/22 to contact him to inquire as to when he would be available to 
meet with me. She reported to me that as soon as she found out this 
information, she would get back in touch with me to advise me of the 
appointment date/time, as well as the time at which the cab will be picking 
me up from my apartment to take me to the appointment.

Next, Nancy asked: "On another issue, what is the basis for your contacting 
CAP"? I stated: "I do not feel comfortable commenting on this matter". Her 
response: "So, in essence you're not going to tell me what the issues are"? 
My response: "No". She then stated: "Well, since you will not tell me what 
the issues are that caused you to open up a CAP case, and since we are not 
currently offering you services at this time, your case has been placed in 
"Services Interrupted" Status". I said: "OK", and then she reported: "I 
guess I don't need to stay in touch with you accept to let you know of your 
appointment with Dr. Rexroat". I said: "OK", and then the conversation was 
concluded.

I met with Dr. Paul Rexroat on October 14, 2008 with Kathryn Koch, my CAP 
Advocacy Specialist present. Dr. Paul Rexroat reviewed the contents of the 
evaluation report. I inquired about recommendations and he indicated that he 
hadn't made any specific recommendations. I didn't believe him, as I have 
never completed an evaluation where there weren't any recommendations made, 
especially written reports. Further more, Nancy implied that there were 
recommendations. Dr. Paul Rexroat provided Kathryn a copy of the written 
evaluation.

I questioned Dr. Paul Rexroat about the qualifications necessary for 
administering the WAIS III and the MMPI. He became defensive and informed me 
that a secretary can administer the MMPI. He obviously knew that I was on to 
him.

Evidence: E-mail to Cory from Kathryn containing notes from meeting, dated 
October 14, 2008, 2:38 PM

Dr. Paul Rexroat became concerned about the legalities of the entire 
situation, as he contacted me by telephone on October 14, 2008 in an effort 
to feed me a line and to get me off his back. He agreed to mail me a copy of 
his written evaluation and a two page letter that he had sent to Nancy on 
August 25, 2008. I believe that his intent was to silence me regarding the 
legal ramifications of the way he does business with clients and referral 
sources by giving in and giving me a copy of the report and follow-up 
letter.

Evidence: Psychological Evaluation Report dated August 8, 2008

Evidence: Letter to Nancy from Dr. Paul Rexroat, dated August 25, 2008

Evidence: Copy of envelope containing the above documents with a postmark of 
October 15, 2008

Needless to say, I was quite shocked by the content of the letter. The 
recommendations are pretty serious and certainly considered to be drastic 
measures. It is repulsive to even think that Nancy would attempt to 
implement any of the suggestions for the following reasons:

  1.. Dr. Paul Rexroat wasn't even present during the psychological 
evaluation
  2.. The evaluation was completed by an unqualified individual
  3.. Dr. Paul Rexroat hadn't seen me in over five years (age 15 to 21). I 
have matured greatly since working with him in any capacity at the Missouri 
School for the Blind
  4.. Deception on the part of Dr. Paul Rexroat, Nancy Goebel, Naomi Soule, 
and Mark Laird
  5.. Dr. Paul Rexroat fails to identify any of my strengths in his 
follow-up letter. Surly, he could have mentioned at least one positive 
attribute about me in the follow-up letter.
  6.. The letter had a tone of hatred towards me
Obviously, I am not the only one who is concerned about the qualifications 
of Denise Rexroat, given that Nancy sent a letter to Dr. Paul Rexroat, Ph.D. 
and Denise Rexroat, M.Ed. on December 12, 2008 inquiring about their 
credentials to administer psychological and neuropsychological testing.

Evidence: Letter from Nancy to Paul and Denise Rexroat, dated December 12, 
2008.

It is apparent that Dr. Paul Rexroat was aware of Nancy's hidden agenda for 
inquiring about credentials, which wasn't for the purpose of updating her 
vendor resources. Rather, it was to verify the truth. I am confident that 
she was looking forward to receiving documentation that verified appropriate 
credentials that she could submit as evidence at this Fair Hearing. However, 
the written response that she received only further confirms what I believe 
to be the truth. And that is that Denise lacks the qualifications for test 
administration.

Evidence: Letter to Nancy from Dr. Paul Rexroat, dated December 16, 2008

Initially, I do not believe that Nancy was truly aware of the fact that 
Denise wasn't qualified to conduct a psychological or neuropsychological 
evaluation. However, Nancy has a responsibility and an obligation to 
investigate in an even-handed manner the facts of the matter as an employee 
of RSB; as a competent Senior VR Counselor; and as a Licensed Social Worker. 
Inappropriate vendors should not be utilized for the provision of goods or 
services.

The efforts to cover up the facts; failing to confirm the truth of the 
matter; and the retaliation directed towards me by Nancy, Naomi, and Mark 
are contrary to ethical behavior of these professionals.

I called Dr. Paul Rexroat myself on December 10 , 2008 to request 
information about credentials of Denise Rexroat. I did not receive the 
requested documentation. However, I did receive a very nasty and threatening 
letter from him, dated December 22, 2008. His comments were directed towards 
Nancy and myself. It is interesting to note that this letter was not carbon 
copied to Nancy since the contents of it pertained to us both. Maybe he didn't 
think I would be sharing this letter with her.

Evidence: Letter to me from Dr. Paul Rexroat, dated December 22, 2008

Evidence: Copy of envelope containing the above letter with a postmark of 
December 23, 2008

OTHER ISSUES, CONCERNS, & COMMENTS:

COUNSELING WITH AMY PAIS, LPC: I find it interesting that I received 
counseling from Amy Pais, LPC two-to-three times a week for several months 
while in training at Lions World Services for the Blind. All of her reports 
were fairly positive with the exception of her last report.

I cannot help but wonder why the change of attitude. Was she disappointed 
about the loss of income or did Nancy request such a report.

Evidence: All counseling reports from Amy Pais, LPC

INAPPROPRIATE REFERRAL: I was referred to The Center for Head Injury 
Services by Nancy without my knowledge. On September 24, 2008, I receive a 
letter from Dee Wolk, Vocational Tech of The Center for Head Injury 
Services, thanking me for "choosing The Center for Head Injury Services to 
provide your vocational services." The letter also states "Your vocational 
program is scheduled to start on Monday, October 6, 2008."

I question the appropriateness of this referral, given that I do not have a 
head injury. I also believe that the information shared by Nancy far 
exceeded a "general inquiry" as she states in her narrative dated September 
24, 2008. Nancy may not have even bothered to contact me regarding this 
referral. However, she was carbon-copied on the letter. Nancy's actions are 
contradictory to informed choice, selection of assessment services, and 
treatment as an active and full partner in the vocational rehabilitation 
process as outlined in the Policies and Procedures Related to Choice 
Throughout the Vocational Rehabilitation Process guidelines in my opinion.

Evidence: Letter to me from Dee Wolk, dated September 23, 2008

Evidence: Copy of envelope with September 23, 2008 postmark

Evidence: Copy of Policies and Procedures Related to Choice Throughout the 
Vocational Rehabilitation Process

INAPPROPRIATE USE OF E-MAIL: On several occasions, I have been criticized 
for using e-mail inappropriately, and "e-mailing the world". I use e-mail 
for the same reason that staff at RSB use it, as a means for maintaining a 
paper trail through written documentation which cannot easily be disputed.

Given the need to request a Fair Hearing, I have no regrets for using 
e-mail. It should also be noted that Nancy used e-mail inappropriately after 
case transfer. I did not appreciate the two e-mails that she sent me while I 
was at Lions World Services for the Blind. Counseling via e-mail is 
inappropriate. Sending demanding e-mails when just beginning to work with a 
client is no way to go about establishing rapport. Other individuals at LWSB 
had access to these e-mails because of being connected to a server. 
Criticizing the facility that I am attending and bad mouthing the staff of 
the facility was distasteful.

I know for a fact that Mark Laird did not approve of the two e-mails that 
Nancy sent to me, as I was informed of this by Amy Pais, LPC during 
counseling. Amy had a telephone conversation with Mark during which the use 
of e-mail was discussed.

Evidence: E-mail to me from Nancy dated June 25, 2008, 3:15 PM

Evidence: E-mail to me from Nancy dated June 30, 2008, 12:07 PM

Evidence: E-mail to me from Nancy dated July 3, 2008, 4:21 PM

Evidence: E-mail from Nancy to Amy dated July 10, 2008, 10:40 AM

NAOMI'S OVERALL SNIPPY ATTITUDE: I feel that Naomi has had an extreme 
dislike for me from May 1, 2008 to the present. On Thursday, May 1, 2008 
Penny was informed by Naomi that renting an apartment to me was considered a 
"conflict of interest". The transfer of my case was not an option; the plan 
was for me to find alternative housing within a time period of six months.

On Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Penny informed me that my case with 
Rehabilitation Services for the Blind was being transferred to Nancy Goebel, 
another counselor in the St. Louis South office, per instructions from 
Naomi.

The tone of Naomi's e-mails to me have been snippy. Naomi was rather rude 
towards Kathryn Koch, my CAP Advocacy Specialist and me. I am of the 
understanding that Kathryn expressed similar concerns and feelings regarding 
Naomi's approach with her own supervisor. Naomi's attempt to obtain consent 
through intimidation is another reason that I sought legal counsel.

Evidence: E-mail to me from Kathryn Koch dated December 1, 2008, 11:51 AM 
(Notes taken at IPE meeting on 11/21/2008

OTHER REASONS WHY I'M NOT CONSENTING TO A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION:

  1.. I was evaluated every three years while at the Missouri School for the 
Blind for 10 years
  2.. I completed an eight week comprehensive personal and vocational 
adjustment training program at the Cleveland Sight Center in Cleveland, Ohio 
during the summer of 2007.
  3.. I completed a one month comprehensive personal and vocational 
adjustment evaluation at Lions World Services for the Blind beginning in 
January 2008, prior to completing six months of training at this facility.
  4.. I saw Dr. Douglas, Psychiatrist several times while in training at 
LWSB.
  5.. I saw Amy Pais, LPC for individual counseling two-to-three times a 
week while at LWSB.
  6.. I completed a neuropsychological evaluation with Denise Rexroat on 
August 8, 2008 at the request of Nancy Goebel, Senior VR Counselor at RSB.
  7.. I am currently under the care of Dr. Habib, Psychiatrist for 
medication management for major clinical depression.
  8.. I am receiving individual counseling through Provident counseling once 
a week.
Given the facts outlined above; leaving no stone unturned; is it, or should 
it be any surprise as to why I will not consent to any further evaluations 
by vendors that have been hand-picked by RSB.

The emotional damage from Dr. Paul Rexroat's letters; retaliation from RSB 
personnel who should be supportive; and the general runaround that I have 
been given has been difficult to comprehend, understand, and dismiss. In 
less than 10 words, I have been a victim of the system.

I feel that my relationship with RSB is one of disrepair. I chose to be 
represented by Michael Ackerman, Attorney at Law for the purpose of exposing 
the deception, lies, unethical behavior, lack of professionalism, and total 
disregard to me as a client by RSB personnel over the past several months.

I do not feel that I would be served fairly by RSB from this point forward. 
Therefore, I am requesting that my Vocational Rehabilitation Case with 
Rehabilitation Services for the Blind be closed. I am further requesting 
that I be allowed to retain all equipment that has been purchased for my 
use. I would like this request to be acknowledged in the closure letter sent 
by Nancy.

I am open to other reasonable solutions for receiving services without 
further retaliation. However, if other acceptable arrangements cannot be 
worked out, then I have no choice but to pursue litigation through the 
appropriate psychological and social work boards which govern Licensed 
Psychologists and Licensed Social Workers. In addition, I will seek remedy 
through the Governor's Office.

Thanks in advance for your assistance,

Cory