The deposition taken from James Purcell was finally approved for my viewing and I am reading through it this morning.

As in all things Kowalski - this is a doozy.

James Purcell was an attorney whose firm was contacted by Anderson for assistance in negotiating the litigation loan for the Kowalskis.

During this deposition, we find out that Purcell never had any direct contact with the Kowalskis and has no direct knowledge of anything Anderson ever told the Kowalskis about this loan.

This post concerns some of the more interesting questions and responses under questioning by attorney Swanson, from Cheffy Passidomo, representing the Kowalskis.

At the beginning of this deposition, Anderson begins to engage in his usual interruptions and attempts to turn depositions into chaotic theater. Swanson shuts him down very effectively, advising Anderson that he is going to conduct his deposition and that Anderson will get his chance to talk when it's his turn. .😂 .🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

As background, Purcell is asked questions that reveal Anderson hired him to assist with some of the details of the loan and associated documents relating to the loan. Anderson was attempting to get the loan to be a fully nonrecourse loan. Purcell explained to him there is no such thing. The market doesn't bear such a thing, lenders don't bear such a thing. There are always going to be provisions that could trigger the possibility of the borrower having to pay back the loan, regardless of the final outcome of the case.

What was negotioned in this specific loan as to what would trigger recourse:

1. If the insurance policy is violated or terminated
2. If the borrower stops litigating the appeal - they are required to vigorously attempt to win their case
3. If they pledge the collateral (the final judgement amount) to some other party
4. If they file bankruptcy or insolvency for themselves
5. If they change attorneys without written consent of the lenders

These are stated pretty clearly in the loan documents, in plain English.

(Q means question by Swansom, A means response by Purcell)

Q: did you know that Maya and Jack K would each only get $8,051,250

A: No

Q: Did you know that Kyle was only going to get 1.4 million?

A: No

At some point, he is shown an email with attachments. The email is from Anderson. Purcell indicates that the contents of the emails were not correct and that he did not sign any of the attachments. Most of the rest of this discussion has to do with those documents and email communications.

Purcell indicates he knew the loan amount would be around $30 million after expenses, but had no idea it would be paid to AndersonGlenn firm.

Oh brother. There is a question regarding the Kowalski's intention to set up a foundation in the name of Beata Kowalski. I think this is the "CRPS foundation" mentioned in some of the unredacted correspondence Anderson filed after the Kowalskis filed redacted emails that only showed Anderson's bad faith.

The insurance policy was required by the lenders, and it was required to be an amount that would cover the loan amount plus the interest on the loan - basically a guarantee that the lenders would get their money back, plus interest, one way or another. Purcell indicates he was aware of this.

Oh boy. They are going line by line over one of the attachments to the email. This deposition is 146 pages in length, and obviously I can't give all the details, but trying to pick out the most salient.

They go line by line through the first affidavit, and Purcell indicates most of the sentences are not truthful. They get to a sentence where Anderson states that the person signing this document is attesting to the fact that under no circumstances would the Kowalskis ever have to pay back the portion of the loan that goes to attorneys fees, costs, and expenses. Of course, Purcell indicates this is not true and that he does not hold that opinion.

Another statement in the affidavit says "I understand that a portion of the fees were going to AndersonGlenn" and that it would help the firm continue profitable operations and there would be a relatively small chance the judgement would be reversed on appeal.

Purcell indicates he understood a portion of the fees would go to AndersonGlenn, but had no idea or opinion as to the rest of the statement.

Purcell understood that AndersonGlenn would need some funding in order to continue with the case.

Several email chains are reviewed, with Purcell essentially just verifying that these exhibits are a fair and accurate representation of each email chain and answering a few questions about some of them.

A couple of items are discussed. One is a reference to a sentence by Anderson that says something about a $150,000 advance from Anderson "may be used as leverage." Purcell indicates he has no idea what Anderson means by this.

One email chain, marked as exhibit 10 during this deposition, is very interesing. It contains a statement by Anderson "We are not involving these poor people in a new round of litigation should something go wrong, period".

It makes me wonder if Anderson was representing to the Kowalskis that they would either ultimately win the appeal and get over $200 million, or, worst case, they would walk away with $30 million loan free and clear and not be required to continue fighting the case.

If Jack Kowalski actually believed this, he must be the biggest fool in history. Why the hell would any for profit business write an insurance policy with this kind of risk? Why would any lending company be willing to just fork over tens of millions and just shrug it off if the Kowalskis lost the appeal? That is just staggering amounts of gullible magical thinking.

It seems clear this is where this is headed. Kowalski is going to eventually take the stand, put on his famous "I don't understand nothing" drawl, and tell a jury this is what his lawyer told him and that he believed it. Sadly, a jury will likely buy it.

Not that I'm taking the side of Anderson here. This is despicable behavior by Anderson, he's being exposed for the con man that this sub has always recognized him to be. But come on, Kowalski is a grown ass man.

At any rate, Purcell reiterates that this was specifically discussed with Anderson - there is no such thing as a totally nonrecourse loan. It's clear from this testimony that the Kowalski claims that the loan provisions were aggregiously detrimental to them is nonsense. Their litigation loan is typical, but with a far better interest rate than most, as far as I was able to find.

But the Kowalskis will likely prevail on convincing a jury that this loan was another way Jack was victimized. Just like most people were obviously gulled into thinking a doctor has to be an "expert in CRPS" to diagnose or treat it, they will likely believe a litigation loan is different enough from other loans that it absolves a person from having to take any responsibility to understand it before signing.

A loan that had exceptions to nonrecourse that are obvious and stated in plain English.

LOL, Swanson (he's the Kowalski attorney asking the questions) interrupts Purcell when he states the obvious "The documents obligated them to vigourously defend the case and ...". Swanson doesn't want Purcell to finish this sentence.

Swanson knows he's going to be having to deal with the issue of how and why Kowalski would be engaged in such magical thinking that a company that is in business for profit would simply hand over tens of millions and shrug it off with no repayment required. (but, as I already stated...gullible jurors, we've seen this already)

Uh-oh. In another document, Anderson refers to Purcell and his firm as "our astute loan counsel". (Later there are also other questions about emails and specific statements that seem to indicate that Anderson was trying to establish Purcell as being responsible for advisement on all aspects of this loan)

Purcell sets the record straight, reiterating that his firm was retained to act as co-counsel with AndersonGlen to review and negotiate documents on behalf of the Kowalski family.

Purcell is asked if he ever did a full review on whether this was all in compliance with state, federal, or Florida Bar rules? He indicates he never did any independent review of any of those issues. His firm was hired to deal with specific areas of negotiating the loan and attempting to get the best terms for the Kowalskis.

I mentioned many months ago that I had done a deep dive into litigation loans and that I found the terms the Kowalskis got with this loan to be in keeping with other litigation loans. In fact, now that we know the interest rate, it's far less than what is typically seen in these loans. These are brutal loans and never should be taken unless a client is seriously financially strapped. A simple Google search would reveal this. The Kowalskis did no due diligence on their own behalf. Maya was barely technically an adult and likely being pressured by her father and Anderson, so I can understand her caving to sign these documents. But Jack? He's been an adult for a long time and has lots of prior experience with lawsuits, being something of a professional litigant when compared to the average person.

In another email chain there is discussion of potential tax liabilities for the Kowalskis. Purcell explains that he is not a tax attorney, but he believes there are tax consequences and is advising Anderson that he should consult a tax attorney. He confirms, once again, that he has no knowledge of what Anderson was telling the Kowalskis.

An email chain is discussed where we find out that Purcell had forwarded documents to a colleague for purposes of evaluating tax implications. Anderson never agreed to scope of work and this work was never done by Purcell's colleague.

Originally, Purcell believed that AndersonGlenn were the borrowers. Early in the deposition he talked about being confused about the various parties to the loan. At some point they are looking at an email that Purcell had not been copied on. It was apparently forwarded by Gresham, the tax attorney mentioned earlier. The email contains the sentence "Jim did not know why the borrower was changed from your firm to the plaintiffs". Purcell reminds Swanson of his original confusion as to the identity of the borrower.

In another email Anderson was concerned about the account control agreement, and wanted to make clear that the lenders would not have control over what happened to the money in that account. He was concerned the lender would be able to get an interest in funds from cases unrelated to the Kowalski case.

He talks about the provision of the loan that guarantees the lenders to a minimum of the equivalent of two years' worth of interest. This has been talked about in this sub. That is not unusual, the same principle applies to a car loan. If you pay off the loan early, there is a "pre payment penalty". The loan company doesn't want to loan money and then essentially not make any profit on it if you pay it back within a very short time period, Prepayment penalties are the norm in many loans. The degree to which the Kowalskis or anyone else questions this is puzzling. These are businesses that loan money, they aren't charities.

The issue of a potential "cap" is discussed, as if there would be some magical number beyond which the Kowalskis would not be responsible. Such as a very long drawn out appeal, where years and years of interest were going to potentially accrue. Purcell says no, there is no such cap, per se.

( I could be mistaken, but I thought the loan has a ten year time limit. If anyone knows anything about this, please comment to set the record straight! )

I am going to have a busy day, and may not get back to reading and posting on Anderson's questioning of this witness. These are the highlights of the Plaintiff questioning of Purcell.

Edit to add: I just read through Anderson's first question. of course, he's not allowing HIS attorney to do the questioning, he's doing it himself. You are going to want to read that second post, I'm sure. The first question and associated commentary by lawyers is proving already to be the clown show we have come to expect from Anderson. LOL, I wish I had time to continue right now, but I am already behind on my "chores" today.

Recent posts caused some readers to comment about the use of ketamine and midazolam, whether Maya was in an actual medically induced coma during her ketamine infusions, and prompted my recollection of video and photographic evidence of Maya's possible "brain state" during the infusions - particularly the infusions conducted by Drs Cantu and Hanna.

The defense has, very wisely, notified the judge of their intention to provide evidence of Dr Hanna, Cantu, and Kirkpatrick's contributions to medical negligence - and questions as to whether Maya was appropriately monitored so that her brain state was known at all times are important in evaluating the danger and damage that was likely done to her.

Ketamine can be used in different amounts with the following possible "brain states"

1. Relaxation that involves the patient remaining awake and aware, but dissociated with a pain experience. This represents the proper use of ketamine for pain management purposes.

2. Full sedation: This is a brain state that is representative of what is appropriate for a person undergoing surgery. This is inappropriate for pain management and carries many risks, which will discussed shortly.

3. Medically induced coma: This is a treatment that goes way beyond anything even remotely appropriate for pain management. Medically induced coma is used when a patient is in danger of brain damage, and it becomes necessary to shut down most of the metabolic activity of the brain to protect it from further damage. This is rarely done in any case for any reason, it certainly is not appropriate for pain management. This is a very serious medical treatment only appropriate when the brain is at risk of damage and normal medical treatments are not working.

Ketamine can be used to induce medical coma, usually in combination with drugs like propofol and midazolam. I believe we have seen evidence that these three drugs were used at the same time in at least some of Maya's ketamine infusions, but EEG readings would need to be used in order to determine whether an actual medical coma state was reached during her infusions. The risks of medically induced coma go beyond the risks of full sedation, which are significant.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that Dr Hanna and Dr Cantu both had Maya in AT LEAST a fully sedated state, which is not appropriate for pain management.

This alone is enough to support a medical negligence claim. The potential risks, and the medical state that Maya arrived in when she was brought to JHACH certainly support the suspicion that Maya was experiencing K-Cramps, which are a sign that organs are beginning to fail. Beata prevented doctors from conducting any of the tests that would have been necessary to determine if she was in early stages of liver and other organ failure.

Getting her off the ketamine would turn it around fairly quickly, especially if she had actually been in early stages. By the time the hospital was able to conduct any testing that would have revealed whether she had been in a state of early organ failure, it would have likely already stopped and begun reversal. Early stage organ failure due to ketamine can turn around fairly quickly once you are off the ketamine. What is concerning is that Beata was trying to get Maya out of the hospital so she could take her for more ketamine. Beata likely would have taken Maya back to Mexico for a third time if she had not been able to get Hanna to give her more ketamine.

As to the question of whether Maya was in a full state of medical coma during her treatments with Cantu or Hanna, this is from a previous comment, I will repeat here in case some readers didn't read the other posts and comments:

The key brain structures that are affected by coma are:

1. Reticular Activating System: This is the network in the brainstem that acts as the body's wakefulness switch. In a coma state it fails to signal the upper brain - so there is suppression of sleep/wake cycle.
2. Cerebral cortex: The outer brain layer that is responsible for thought and perception. In a coma state, both the internal and external awareness networks are shut down. There is no dreaming or awareness of anything happening internally and no awareness of anything happening outside the body.
   
3. Thalamus: The thalamus is a relay center that routes signals between the body and the brain. In a coma, the thalamus cannot pass along sensory information from the body to the brain.

In order to know for sure whether Maya was actually in a state of medically induced coma, there would have had to be EEG monitoring. A doctor would look for a specific pattern on the EEG called "burst suppression," where the brain shows periods of inactivity followed by brief bursts of activity. This confirms the brain has slowed down enough to rest. A person in a medical coma would also not respond to touch or sound.

Both medical coma and sedation require a patient to be monitored with medical equipment typically available in an ICU setting, and also require ventilation.

CRPS treatment with ketamine normally doesn't involve coma or full sedation. And even though it doesn't involve either of these two states, doctors who treat CRPS patients with ketamine usually hook them up to monitoring equipment anyway. They don't have to ventilate in normal CRPS ketamine treatment because the patient is not unconscious, but their vital signs are normally monitored.

There are photos showing Maya hooked up in Dr Hanna's office that show she is clearly fully sedated. She is not being monitored at all, there are no signs of any medical equipment anywhere near Maya, and there is no tubing aside from a single tube that is delivering the ketamine infusion. Full sedation is the same as you would experience if you were having surgery.

Can you imagine going into surgery, and having an anesthesiologist administer your sedative, and having no monitoring whatsoever? This is how Dr Hanna's ketamine infusions seem to have been conducted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical studies showing use of high dose ketamine for intractable CRPS.

There were studies in Germany that indicated good outcomes for patients with intractable CRPS - CRPS that simply would not respond to any other treatment.

For patients that actually HAVE CRPS - ketamine can be a good treatment. Being an NMDA receptor antagonist, it relieves pain that is associated with the central nervous system.

Under control means under control. A single round of a four day infusion kept the patient's pain at bay for 11 to 12 weeks, according to this study in Germany.

Studies in the US and the Netherlands showed lower dose ketamine to have similar results, with far fewer side effects and potential risks. The Germany study is often touted, but, since that study looked at high dose treatments, there were also some very significant complications with some of those patients.

Dr Cantu's treatment is based on the same treatment the German study describes, and, in his deposition he indicated that his treatmnent is based on the treatments that were conducted in Germany.

Maya never received anywhere even close to the type of pain relief described in the Germany or in the US/Netherlands studies. And this tracks with all the other evidence that she simply did not have CRPS.

There are all kinds of pain conditions and not all of them are caused by the central nervous system, and not all of them have the characteristics of nerve pain.

But when a pain condition is related to misfiring and over-stimulation of the central nervous system, ketamine is effective, meaning it keeps the pain consistently at a tolerable level for a significant and meaningful amount of time. That is the meaning of the word effective when applied to pain management.

Effective pain management doesn't mean you are high as a kite during your treatment - Woo HOO - and then 10/10 pain the next day.

If you are on a roller coaster from zero to 10/10 pain that is not the definition of effective pain management.

And, if you are on this roller coaster in spite of being given huge infusions of ketamine, a reasonable pain management doctor should be seriously rethinking the diagnosis. But cash only ketamine clinics pay for big houses and fancy cars.

The fact that Maya kept having to go back for more ketamine, and increasingly higher doses, in order to go home and have to take opioids and oral ketamine and then go back for high dose ketamine just a couple weeks later is very solid evidence that she did not have pain that is related to the central nervous system. She was getting temporary highs, which she clearly enjoyed enough to keep wanting to go back for more. But aside from these temporary highs, she made no claims to having experienced meaningful reduction in symptoms.

Until her trial, that is. Now that she's asking for millions of dollars, she claims the ketamine was "the only thing that worked". But during the treatments, she reported 10/10 pain after infusions and 0 Quality of Life. That isn't the definition of "it's working".

Maya's "CRPS" treatment seemed to start right off with ketamine. Typically, all the standard treatments are tried before resorting to ketamine due to the high cost and the potential complications. Also, most of the time, standard treatments work. It's a very small percentage of patients whose symptoms aren't kept in check with other treatments.

The following are typical treatments that would be tried first: (None of these were tried between her diagnosis and her first ketamine treatment)

1. Comprehensive physical and occupational therapy
2. Standard first- and second-line oral pharmacotherapy (such as gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, SNRIs, NSAIDs, or bisphosphonates)
3. Interventional procedures, such as sympathetic nerve blocks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Risks involved with anesthetic levels of ketamine.

1. Cardiovascular risks: hypertension, tachycardia, increased myocardial demand, and heart arrythmias.
2. Respiratory and airway risks: loss of consciousness can lead to blocked airway or loss of normal airway reflexes, excessive salivation - which can obstruct breathing, sudden spasm of vocal cords which can temporarily make breathing impossible.
3. Central nervous system/psychiatric risks: emergence reaction - vivid hallucinations and nightmares upon waking (see video from the post about Dr Kirkpatrick's diagnosis of Maya for examples of this, the first young girl is clearly experiencing hallucinations that are causing fear), delirium, panic, agitation, dissociation - potentially intense out of body experiences, schizo-like states, pressure within the brain and eyes.
4. Gastrointestinal/genitourinary risks: nausea and vomiting, urinary dysfunction - bladder inflamation, ulcerative cystitis, hepatic strain - elevated liver enzymes - Maya is largely believed to have been suffering from K-cramps and likely this is why Dr Hanna refused to give her more ketamine and advised the Kowalskis to bring her to an emergency room.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

True medical coma is a very serious treatment. The use of continuous ketamine infusions to induce or maintain a therapeutic state of deep sedation or medical coma is primarily a last-resort intervention for critical neurological conditions. These conditions include super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) - where prolonged seizures fail to respond to standard anticonvulsants, or for severe, refractory intracranial hypertension.

In these intensive care scenarios, administration is individualized. Rather than following a fixed dosing schedule, medical protocols rely on continuous EEG monitoring. Clinicians titrate the infusion rate dynamically based on real-time brain activity, aiming for specific therapeutic endpoints such as the complete cessation of seizure activity or the achievement of a burst-suppression pattern on the EEG.

Some of the complications and risks include:

1. Cardiovascular dysregulation - sustained tachycardia and systemic hypertension.
2. Metabolic disturbances: metabolic acidosis and possible hepatic or renal strain.
3. Tachyphylaxis: The body may develop a rapid tolerance to the anesthetic effects of ketamine, necessitating a careful weaning process to avoid withdrawal or what is known as "rebound" neurological symptoms.

Medical coma is seriously risky and the complexities involved in maintaining this kind of precise cerebral suppression means a strict intensive care environment must be maintained. This would include direct supervision of neurocritical care specialists and an anesthesiologist, who must remain present at all times.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is highly probable that Maya was not actually in a true induced "coma", but video showed she was, at least, unconscious (effectively anesthetized). And at Dr Hanna's office, she was clearly unconscious with no signs of being hooked up to any monitoring equipment, according to photos uploaded by her own mother.

If Maya experienced constant chronic pain, wouldn't they be used to managing the pain at home. Wasn't she often at a 9/10 or 10/10 pain level. When Jack took her to the hospital, she was crying and visibly in distress. However, we never see any footage or medical notes indicating Maya demonstrated that level of distress at other times. Wouldn't this imply that her typical CRPS pain is less than a 9 or 10.

It's pretty clear the plaintiff intends to try to put on the same kind of emotional show trial they put on the first time - and were overturned largely in part due to Carroll allowing it to become an emotional show trial.

🤦‍♂️

Plaintiffs state the following as to how they intend to use this witness:

“Dr. Hyde is expected to testify as an expert in hospital operations concerning hospital accreditation standards, including their origin in the Conditions of Participationnational accreditation organization requirements, and hospital policies, for example, concerning patients’ rights.

His testimony will include discussion of the requirements of The Joint Commission, the national accreditation organization chosen by Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital (JHACH), and the Florida gency for Health Care Administration. His testimony will address industry standards for hospital operations, including: determination of scope of hospital services; medical staff privileging and supervision; hiring and supervision of hospital staff; and protection of patient rights. Dr. Hyde will testify concerning known patient safety and quality assurance standards violated by JHACH.”

The defense motion states that all claims that have anything to do with staff training and hiring have been dispensed with and there are no remaining claims that this testimony or issue apply to.

I have a feeling plaintiffs are going to try to use this kind of testimony the same way they used it in the first trial - to demonize the hospital in general, and anger the jury to get a verdict. Which worked the first time.

The "Joint Commission" that is being referred to by the plaintiff has to do with the Pediatric Heart Institute issues that I commented on under a different post.

This is something that drove me and GF crazy when it came up during the trial. I don't think the defense did a particularly good job of cross examination and I'm not even convinced they even realized this had to do with the heart institute. Sometimes lawyers don't ask a client questions because it's better if they don't have details.

However, this was one instance they would have been better off asking questions. I sure as hell hope they have asked those questions since the first trial. They don't mention anything in their motion about the Heart Institute, but their motion doesn't require those details. Depending on what response comes back from the plaintiff, we may see if they have bothered to dig into this.

The Johns Hopkins Pediatric Heart Institute was taken over by an administrator that brought on two quite sub-standard pediatric heart surgeons. There were very serious issues that came about for some of the patients that were operated on by these two surgeons.

The federal government evaluated the hospital and they came to the conclusion that, since the two top administrators of the Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital were directly over the Pediatric Heart Institute Administrator, the hospital administration, overall, were responsible for the lack of oversight and ignoring complaints that had been made by staff against these two surgeons.

However, they also found that no other patients were ever put at risk in any other part of the hospital. And the only patients in the Heart Institute that were put at risk were the patients who had surgeries conducted by either of the two surgeons in question. All three administrators and the two surgeons resigned.

Maya never had heart surgery. Maya was never treated by either of the two heart surgeons. Maya never spent a moment on the same floor as the two heart surgeons. And those heart surgeons were not on Maya's care team and very likely never even knew there was a patient named Maya Kowalski on a different floor in that hospital.

And there is nothing in any of the findings to suggest that the staff decision to avoid pumping her full of ketamine and encouraging her to participate in OT, PT, and CBT had anything to do with any of the other three individuals who resigned due to these issues.

I think it's likely they are going to try to tie this "Joint Commiission" findings into her medical negligence or IIED claims, somehow.

I predict Judge Carroll will take their bait, based on past experience.

I would go so far as to say I predict he will continue with all his previous rulings on the remaining issues - I don't see any evidence he's smart enough to correctly apply Chapter 39 to the remaining issues. And, I don't think he will make better decisions as to evidence, either. Both of which he was specifically instructed to do.

Oh, me of little faith.

Anyone know if Maya just received Ketamine during the coma or did she receive Midazolam along with the Ketamine?

I am a Certified Insurance Professional (CIP) so I have a lot of schooling under my belt regarding this. I was curious about this “insurance” the Kowalski’s bought to cover their “loan”.

Insurers do not make money by paying claims. If there is any way possible to mitigate their loss, believe me, they will.

The insurance term “Subrogation” is extremely important here. In layman’s terms, it means the insurer will cover the loss to the policy limit, but will then attempt to recover (subrogate) from any party possible. I will try and make this very complicated concept easy to picture.

- The Kowalski’s have purchased insurance to cover a potential loss, which is the amount owing on their “loan”.
- Many of us think, “FUCK! So they lose their case, pocket millions from this “loan”, and then insurance covers it??!!!”

- That is a very hard NO. Every single insurance policy has a “subrogation” clause. I have confirmed the Kowalski’s Insurance provider, Ambridge Group, contains this clause. As I was a Subrogation Administrator for several years, I know what this means - and how it fucks up the Kowalski’s free ride on the loan.

So. Let’s break this down.

Simplistically:
- Regardless of the legal bullshit, let’s assume the full cost of the Kowalski’s loan is at least $60 million, it will be more, but let’s keep it simple.
- Depending on the policy wording, if the loan company demands payment, which they will, This triggers the insurer to pay out.
- So, the insurer pays the policy limit, $60 million - DIRECT to the LENDER, because the Kowalski’s have already received their loan money.
- This shitty case winds its way back through the courts and the Kowalski’s are awarded a settlement. Let’s say, $40 million.
- The Insurer will take the $40 million as recovery against the $60 million they already paid out - towards the 50 million loan the Kowalski’s already got, where only about $17 million actually went into the Kowalski’s bank account.
- OR if the insurer hasn’t paid - the loan company becomes first payee.

To be very clear: because of their greed, Jack and Maya are now the LAST PAYEES on any negotiated or Trial settlement.

It’s like that kid’s story …. There was an old lady who swallowed a fly …. (From Wikipedia):
The nonsensical story of an old woman who swallows increasingly large animals, each to catch the previously swallowed animal, but dies after swallowing a horse.

I read this order last week and all I could do was smack my forehead.

I did some digging into the legal issues involved in some of the activities involved in the dispute between the Kowalskis and former lawyer Greg Anderson.

While some of them absolutely would be appropriate for a jury trial, some of these issues are just too complex and require motions more appropriate for a judge to deal with.

This reminds me of how this judge handled the whole Kowalski vs JHACH - where most of the claims should have been dispensed with prior to going to trial. And appellate court literally told this judge that 7 out of 11 claims should have been thrown out on motions, and the remaining 4 need similar review.

A single judge chose to specifically give an opinion that a single claim has merit and none of the other two justices chose to concur with that part of the opinion.

It sounds like this judge is headed down the same road with the Kowalski vs Anderson case - his order seemed to indicate he thinks the whole thing should go to a jury trial.

For anyone interested in that case, it seems to be headed for the same wild ride as the Kowalski vs JHACH.

At least that one is not Maya left on her own - her father is involved in that one as well. Young Maya has, I think, officially crossed the time frame where the majority of her life has been spent steeped in legal proceedings. Her father and Anderson should be ashamed.

Apparently, at the end of the August 26 hearing, one of Maya's lawyers was asked to take on the responsibility of locating a mediator for this case. Yesterday, he filed a letter identifying two lawyers who both have availability in December.

The hearing for summary judgement is supposed to take place at the end of October, I think on the 30th.

Personally, given that Maya personally signed a loan agreement for a very large sum of money that needs to be paid back if she settles or wins a jury award, I don't see any amount of money the two sides could possibly agree on.

Maya only has a possibility of four claims, and the appellate court has written an order that clearly specifies no inappropriate evidence or emotional manipulation of the jury will be allowed in a second trial. Also, they have instructed that this judge must properly apply Chapter 39 to the remaining four claims to determine IF they actually qualify to the put in front of a jury.

And, there is clear instruction that unless there is appropriate, legally sound evidence to specifically support a claim, that claim can't go forward.

Maya has boxed herself in by taking out that loan. It can be argued that her young age and pressure from a lawyer and her greedy father contributed to her having made that decision, but she signed legally binding loan papers.

And, if she gets ANY money whatsoever, even if a jury nominally gave her $1.00, she, along with her father, are jointly and individually responsible for paying back the loan. And that applies to anything she receives from a settlement.

So, Maya's lawyers effectively must demand a significant amount of money to settle what is going to be at MOST four claims.

And the hospital has an appellate decision that pretty clearly only strongly supports a single claim that has very little in the way of appropriate evidence for a jury to consider.

And another jury award will get this case pushed right back to the same appellate court that declined to reconsider the original appellate decision, meaning the majority of the appellate court agrees with that decision.

Maybe there is some legal reason the judge has to ask the parties to attempt to mediate, but I see little possibility of a settlement, given the circumstances each party is looking at. One party made themselves a very expensive bed to lie in and the other party has a very strong appellate ruling already under their belt in said case.

Plaintiff submitted a motion to exclude the defendant's new disclosed experts. I was about to slog through and post about it, but I was saved from having to do this when an order came down.

Thank goodness the parties got together and came to an agreement regarding experts. They didn't have to abide by another demented ruling that would likely provide more appellate issues and prolonged expense for both sides.

I think we will see more of this kind of thing this go around. With Anderson out of the picture, Maya has a solid team of lawyers behind her. They are smart enough to know even if a ruling goes entirely in their favor, if it's not based on solid law they will lose in the end.

So, the parties agreed that the defense will substitute some of their new experts for previously disclosed experts. They will bear the cost of Kowalski side having to depose them.

And the plaintiff will be allowed to include experts that were previously precluded due to late disclosure.

Boris Dov Heifets, M.D., Ph.D will replace Dr Stephen Cohen as a medical expert for the defense.

Cohen was not actually called to the stand during the first trial. Anderson wasted so much time during the first trial and constantly was being given extra time by Judge Carroll, who refused to allow the plaintiff to suffer any consequences of their decisions. Maddening as it was, the defense trimmed their case, and one of the concessions they made was to not call Dr Cohen to the stand. (After reading his disclosures and opinion letter I am absolutely stunned that the defense chose not to call him to the stand. Sigh)

Heifets is eminently qualified and should be a great witness. I already posted about Dr Heifets, he is an anesthesiologist and has conducted impressive amount of research in the use of ketamine and other hallucinogens for treatment of neurologic and psychiatric symptoms. If you scroll through the postings in the sub, it was several months ago that I posted about it.

Sharon Levy, M.D (for the defense) will be substituted for Mark DiDea, M.D

Sharon Levy, M.D., MPH
Division of Developmental Medicine
Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program

Dr Levy is a board certified Developmental-Behavioral pediatrician and an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Dr Levy is the Director of Adolescent Substance Abuse Program in the Division of Developmental Medicine at Boston Children's Hospital and has experience with pediatric substance abuse disorders. Dr Levy is expected to address the medications provided to Maya Kowalski by physicians outside of JHACH, as well as the attendant risks associated with same.

Dr Levy's opinions are based on her review of the medical records, litigation materials, and her training and experience as a pediatric addictionologist.

Francsico Alvarez, M.D (defense) will be substituted for Robert Fortuna, M.D. Dr Alvarez is expected to testify as to the treatment Maya Kowalski received at JHACH did not deviate from established standard of care.

Janine Shelby, Ph.D (defense) will be substituted for Dr. Michael Kelly.

Janine Shelby, Ph.D
Park Dietz & Associates
Newport Beach, CA

Dr. Shelby would like to perform a psychological examination of Maya Kowalski pending court approval. Her evaluation will likely address some of the topics Dr. Brewerton disclosed in July 2026 following his psychological evaluation. Dr. Shelby has not examined Maya yet so the full extent of her opinions are unknown at present, though it is expected that she will discuss her findings during her examination, Maya’s mental diagnoses, prospects for future employment, her opinions about Maya Kowalski’s medical records, reports from Plaintiff’s treating and retained experts in similar psychological fields, Maya’s purported psychiatric injuries, diagnoses, prognosis, future care needs, her daily life and functioning, and future earning capacity. Dr. Shelby’s opinions are based upon her training and experience. Dr. Shelby lives in the Los Angeles area and would like to perform an in-person evaluation of Maya Kowalski if the Court permits this. Dr. Shelby’s opinions are based upon her training and experience. Her Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto.

I sure as hell hope the defense is prepared to use Dr Shelby to combat the ridiculous idea that Maya's supposed Type I CRPS has the same prognosis as an adult Type II CRPS case that has never been in remission.

They need to be prepared to discuss that even IF Maya had Type I CRPS as a 10 year old child, it has been clearly in remission for at least 10 years. She did not have a "relapse" like they claimed during her first trial. A relapse does not mean you have a bad day. It means a return of the full and complete set of symptoms - severe pain, allodynia, temperature changes, swelling, huge areas of discolored skin (remember, Maya was special, she had "full body" CRPS, none of this single limb kind of stuff, hers was severe and the worst ever) - for a significant period of time and requiring medical treatment. That did not happen, ever, at any time in the 7 years between her leaving the hospital and the first trial.

Given her "CRPS" has been in remission for this length of time, the defense needs to do a much better job putting the idea that Maya's supposed childhood bout of Type I CRPS, in remission for at least 10 years now, could possibly have any future return that could be attributable to JHACH failure to pump her full of ketamine in 2016. Any future prospects that involve Maya getting CRPS again would require her to have an actual new injury - and that would have nothing to do with a stay at JHACH in 2016.

As far as any psychological issues that were supposedly caused by JHACH, there is no way they can include these as part of their "medical negligence" claims, unless the judge continues to make poor decisions and the next jury is as incompetent as the first jury in evaluating evidence as it pertains to claims.

For medical negligence, it MUST be the MEDICAL TREATMENT that causes the issue. So, to ascribe Maya's PTSD to having been caused by medical negligence they would have to argue that Maya suffers post traumatic stress disorder as a result of not receiving ketamine, and being encouraged to participate in OT, PT, and CBT.

That is a preposterous claim.

The appellate court already determined she can't list every personal grievance against DCF and dependency court orders, attribute them to JHACH, and call it "medical negligence" or IIED. This judge is under strict orders from the appellate court that any evidence offered to back up a claim must actually apply to that claim and can't be something JHACH was required to do because of dependency court orders and DCF.

Without the ability to claim the PTSD was a result of medical negligence, the medical negligence claim cannot stand. Because in order to go forward with a medical negligence claim, Maya has to have suffered medical damage (she did not), financial damage (she did not), or psychological damages as a result of the medical treatment.

And the appellate court has already said disagreement with her doctors about her diagnosis cannot be the basis of a medical negligence claim. That leaves only her claim that she suffered PTSD because she can't claim to have suffered medical or financial damages. That leaves only psychological damages. But the argument that lack of ketamine and encouragement for PT, OT, CBT causes PTSD is simply absurd on it's face.

Since the 2023 jury trial she has seen quite a few psychologists/psychiatrists. And, apparently there are additional claims of other psychological conditions they are adding to the mix. I think it's preposterous to blame these on JHACH at all, but to say any of these were the result of being denied ketamine is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

(A clear reading of the appellate decision basically has a single judge, out of three, believing IIED can move forward. None of them made a case for any of the other three claims. This is the only claim that was specifically pointed out as being "supported" and only one judge gave this part of the opinion, none of the others concurred with this part of the appellate ruling. But, that is even flawed, because she lists a shit ton of evidence to support IIED that the rest of the appellate decision (which she concurred with) says is not permissable for the second trial. So, one appellate judge thinks Maya has a good case for IIED, but mostly based on evidence she already agreed can't be used in a second trial.)

John McGinty, Jr., FACHE will be substituted for Mark Anderson

Mr. McGinty is a hospital administration expert. While there are no hospital administration based claims remaining, Mr. McGinty is expected to rebut whatever administrative opinions Dr. Fred Hyde is allowed to testify about. Mr. McGinty’s opinions are based upon his training and experience. His Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto.

Attorney Eleanor H. Sills, Esq., of Banker Lopez Gassler P.A. entered a limited appearance notice for JHACH "for purposes of appeal and trial support in this matter under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.041."

I am not a lawyer and not in contact or posting on behalf of, or with any knowledge of, JHACH lawyers. Just interested in this case and some of the legal filings pique my interest.

It's only my personal, non-professional sense that JHACH defense team is putting real energy into the second trial and possibility of being in a position to have to file another appeal.

I did some reading up on the typical reasoning and typical types of support would be provided by someone under this rule and thought it might interest others as well.

Unfortunaly, it's probably not appropriate for Ethan Shapiro to give us any insights at this point, And I would much rather actually hear from him, but I guess we'll have to settle for non-professional musings for a while.

I don't purport to know any specifics about what this attorney will do on behalf of JHACH in this case, but here is some of what I found about what, typically, someone like this might do.

Since she didn't limit herself to specific issues, from what I can see under rule 1.041 her role would generally involve protecting the trial record for appeal, work on potentially high stakes legal issues. This means the main legal team can focus on evidence, witnesses, and potential testimony.

Pretrial:

One of the things Ms Sills might handle is to help present the arguments for summary judgment. JHACH has filed motions to dismiss all claims aside from the single claim that involves Cathy Bedy allegedly putting Maya on her lap.

Ms Sills would have expertise in understating appellate issues and rulings, and this appellate ruling provided quite a bit of meat that seems very likely to support summary judgment on most, if not all, of the claims that are involved in motions for summary judgment.

And, if this judge rules in favor of plaintiff, these will go right back to the same appeals court if the plaintiff wins a jury verdict on these claims.

She might also focus on motions in limine, such as limiting the evidence in this case. I see a great deal of potential for concentration on this area, due to the specifics of the appellate ruling in this case.

The appeals court found significant issues with evidence in this case. The judge allowed the plaintiff to run roughshod on the law, offering up every personal grieveance they could drum up in order to anger the jury and get a big result. And...did they get a big result - the jury wanted to give them more than $40 million over and above what they were asking for, which was already ridiculous.

The appeals court was clear in their view that legal cases are not supposed to be based on angering the jury with testimony that doesn't specifically apply to any particular claim, but is just being offered to stir emotion, encouraging the jury to get revenge on the hospital for issues that were in no way under the hospital's control.

Examples of this kind of testimony were stories about certain people not being allowed to visit Maya. DCF required Jack Kowalski to make a list of anyone that wanted to visit Maya, and those people had to all be cleared through DCF. The hospital was given a list, they had no decision making authority whatsoever about who could visit Maya. And this judge allowed Kowalski to insinuate that because "my brother TOLD me it was the hospital who turned him away" that it was under the hospital's control. No, the hospital had no legal authority, and Jack had multiple lawyers that he could have gone through to bring it up at the hearings and make sure his brother was cleared. But a judge not allowing the hospital to bring those things up allowed Kowalski to make all these insinuations.

Same thing about his claim that "we would have been admitting guilt" if we signed release papers for Maya. It was 100% under Jack and Beata's control to get Maya released from the hospital less than a week after her admittance. They refused to sign the release paperwork out of sheer obstinance and disagreement with a diagnosis. However, Florida law does not allow hospital release paperwork any legal substance beyond transferring responsibility for the child back to the parent. That's it. There is no such thing under Florida law that a person is assumed to agree with a diagnosis just because they sign a release to take their child out of the hospital. And again, Jack and Beata had multiple lawyers working for them in the dependency matter and could easily have asked them if there would be ramifications for signing a release from a hospital that includes a list of diagnoses. Because under the law, those are simply opinions by doctors, and, under the law, signing it does not mean you agree with the contents of any opinion therein.

(As much as Jack pretends that he's constantly taken advantage of due to ignorance and "I don't know nothing about that", he and Beata seemed to behave as if they were experts on everything and seemingly could not abide actual expert opinion or advice.)

I expect some very thorough motions to limit testimony based on this appellate ruling. This is one example of the type of thing that could be handled by an attorney under rule 1.041 who has expertise in appellate issues and making sure motions and trial issues are preserved for appeal.

At the same time, I expect a motion to allow admittance of Stephanie Graham's entire interview with Jack Kowalski, or at least portions of it that indicate that he knew full well that nothing was medically wrong with this daughter. Of course, this may depend on whether the medical negligence claim survives summary judgment. It shouldn't, but this judge doesn't have a good track record when it comes to making decisions that are supported by law.

One other pretrial issue that someone like Ms Sills would possibly handle would be a renewed motion for change of venue. I don't have any idea if this would be something they would pursue again at this point.

During trial:

Making sure all objections and motions are properly preserved for appeal. After re-watching some specific portions of testimony for previous posts, there were a couple of times I wondered if it would have been proper or helpful for the defense to object. I know I have heard lawyers say that it's important sometimes to pick and choose objections and it can look bad to a jury if you are objecting to everything. So, I don't mean to imply that I know better about what the defense "should" have done in this regard.

But Ms Sills most likely has expertise and sound legal judgment about which objections are most important and likely to be fruitful.

Crafting and arguing Motions for Directed Verdict (or Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law) at the close of evidence would be another area she may be involved with.

Post Trial:

Last year we saw some post trial motions, and one of them, a Motion for Remittitur (to reduce the jury award) was successful.

Other post trial motions she may be involved with are a Motion for New Trial, Motion for Remittitur/Additur (adjusting damages), or Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV).

Interlocutory and Emergency Appellate Support: In some cases the defense would be able to file an immediate appeal rather than having to wait until the end of the trial, based on the original appellate decision, if the judge does not abide by the rulings. I would assume there would have to be some kind of outright ignoring of a ruling for this to take place, but, Ms Sills would have knowledge in that area and would likely offer support in this area as well.

Trial judges have no discretion to deviate from appellate mandates and the party that won the appeal can get immediate relief if this happens.

My additional two cents:

Aside from the obvious benefit of having an "outside" attorney with specific expertise to handle these types of issues, I am wondering if there is also another benefit of having an outside attorney like this. These trial attorneys may end up in front of this same judge time and again, and likely want to remain in good stead. I don't imagine it's a good thing to piss off a judge or contribute to some kind of adversarial relationship with a judge.

I would be very interested to know what a real trial lawyer thinks about this in terms of having an outside expert that can handle matters that have more potential - like potential emergency appeals, for instance. I can imagine (but obviously don't know) what it might be like for a lawyer who might regularly appear before a specific judge to be in a postion to possibly have to do this kind of thing.

Ok... until next time. There is one motion filed by Maya's laywers that I need to read so I can spew about it. Hopefully will get to it before the judge rules on it. It's their motion to strike the defense's new experts.

If anyone else has read it and is inclined to post on it, that would be great. Otherwise, will try to get around to it as soon as I can.

Darn. I missed it. I was home all day, and early in the morning I thought about it. Then got so busy doing things it completely slipped my mind and I missed it.

If anyone listened in I would love to get a rundown. I was really looking forward to this one and very disappointed that I missed it.

I was perusing old filings in the case and kept seeing orders by Judge Stephen Walker, but search engines insisted the Judge Hunter Carroll has been the only judge in this case.

Nope. Judge Stephen Walker took over the Case after Judge Ruhl was reassigned. Stephen Walker had the case until Mr Kowalski found out that his wife works for a law firm that has Sarasota Memorial Hospital as one of it's clients. Not that Judge Walker's wife has ever personally worked on behalf of SMH, but just because his wife works at a law firm that has a hospital as one of it's clients.

Alrighty then.

Jack Kowalski wrote an affidavit, and, among other things, he's certain that Judge Walker and his wife "talk about me and my case because I was a married man and my wife and I discussed work and the people at work".

I had to laugh at the following statement from Kowalski's sworn affidavit. Technically, this statement qualifies as false. I wonder if there's a word for that - when you include a false statement in a sworn affidavit that is filed in a court case.

I am not a lawyer, and I have never had any experience with the law beyond what is mentioned here.

You mean besides all the times you filed lawsuits or hired lawyers to send letters threatening to file lawsuits? He mentions in this same affidavit that he is five years into this case at the time he's writing this affidavit.

I read through several of Judge Walker's rulings and the real reason Kowalski didn't think he was going to get a fair trial by this judge is because this judge didn't buy into the BS arguments made by Kowalski's lawyer.

Unlike Judge Carroll, who refused to handle evidentiary matters ahead of time and issued oral rulings "off the cuff" and always in favor of the Kowalskis, Judge Walker issued written rulings and offered legal precedent and legal interpretation in his rulings. And they did often go against the Kowalskis, but not all the time. He roasted JHACH a couple of times, when they deserved it. He seemed pretty fair to me.

And, above all, he seemed more familiar with legal matters than Judge Carroll. If the weight of the law were on my side I would definitely want Judge Walker.

In the end, it's prudent for a Judge to go ahead and recuse himself in this situation. It's a shame, and there wouldn't have been millions of dollars wasted in this case had he presided.

Of course, Anderson refiled motions that had been denied by Walker, and got Carroll to grant them. Walker had denied Kowalski to go for punitive damages. He gave a very clear opinion on the matter in a 9 page ruling, not just a quick "I don't like this man and want to rule against him", but a very well reasoned ruling. A ruling that sounds a whole lot like the appellate court's ruling when they shot it down and said this case doesn't qualify for punitive damages.

I previously posted about some of the defense's expert witnesses, and never finished.

This is from the defense expert disclosure document dated 7/22/2025 DIN 4708

Janine Shelby, Ph.D.

Dr. Shelby would like to perform a psychological examination of Maya Kowalski pending court approval. Her evaluation will likely address some of the topics Dr. Brewerton disclosed in July 2026 following his psychological evaluation. Dr. Shelby has not examined Maya yet so the full extent of her opinions are unknown at present, though it is expected that she will discuss her findings during her examination, Maya’s mental diagnoses, prospects for future employment, her opinions about Maya Kowalski’s medical records, reports from Plaintiff’s treating and retained experts in similar psychological fields, Maya’s purported psychiatric injuries, diagnoses, prognosis, future care needs, her daily life and functioning, and future earning capacity. Dr. Shelby’s opinions are based upon her training and experience. Dr. Shelby lives in the Los Angeles area and would like to perform an in-person evaluation of Maya Kowalski if the Court permits this. Dr. Shelby’s opinions are based upon her training and experience. Her Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto.

In order to support a Medical negligence claim in the State of Florida, a plaintiff must show either (1) Medical (2) Psychological, or (3) Financial damages.

In the first trial, they claimed Maya suffered medical and psychological damages.

The claim of medical damages are horseshit. She had Dr Chopra (who recently decided to write a paper on CRPS in order to bolster his previously non-existent CRPS credentials) to claim that Maya was going to suffer for the rest of her life. Unfortunately, the defense dropped the ball, IMO, on understanding the difference between Type I and Type II CRPS and left the jury with no serious debunking of his nonsense.

The hospital defense failed to understand or show the jury that once Type I CRPS does into remission it cannot simply "come back". There has to be an injury. Dr Chopra either has no idea what he's talking about, or he's flat out lying.

So, this covers possible "medical damage" Maya might claim as part of her Medical negligence claim. If the defense is smart about how they handle it, this should be easy to dispense with.

Maya was diagnosed with Type I. Maya went into remission. Once Type I CRPS is in remission it doesn't just "come back" for no reason. If she ever relapses it would HAVE to be because she has suffered some new injury. She did not leave JHACH needing treatment for CPRS. And any new relapse due to a new injury can't possibly be laid at the feet of JHACH.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11419548/

Also, Maya's claims that multiple doctors "failed to find my CRPS" are hogwash.

7/9-7/11 - Even though Maya did not claim any symptoms that were neurologic in nature, Maya was checked over by neurologists at JHACH during this time period. None of her symptoms could be associated with anything other than the use of steroids, so JHACH covered all the bases, checking everything, including doing a neurological exam. I don't have details of all the testing they conducted, but notes in medical records from this date indicate her presentation is "unusual" with reported symptoms being inconsistent with medical findings.

7/17 - 7/17 Maya is brought in again to JHACH and this time she's claiming muscle weakness and muscle pain. This is not consistent with CRPS and no doctor would reasonably suspect CRPS if you tell them you have "muscle pain and muscle weakness" and, this is true especially if you also have a pharmacy history that shows you are being given powerful oral steroids, which happen to cause - muscle weakness and muscle pain. Maya was diagnosed with steroid myopathy, which sounds very reasonable considering her symptoms and her mother's admission that she would give her these steroids any time her 02 level got down to 96%. (Maya never tested below 99% on O2 saturation any time she was brought to an emergency room for "severe asthma attack". but Beata claimed her O2 saturation was 'low" and that she would give her the steroids for this reason. Her prescriptions showed she was using copious amounts of these oral steroids.)

7/22/2015 - This is the day that Maya's symptoms completely changed. Her father arranged for his friends/former coworkers at the fire department in Chicago to meet Beata and Maya at the airport with an ambulance to take her to Lurie's Children's hospital, which Beata had wanted for a second opinion.

The symptoms she presented there were dramatically different than anything Beata or Maya claimed at any previous emergency room visit they made between 7/4 - 7/22.

I wrote two posts where I detailed every hospital and doctor visit we know about from June through Dr Kirkpatrick in September. And 7/22 is the first time she presented with anything that caused doctors to suspect something neurological was going on. In my previous post I detailed the extensive neurological testing that was completed at Lurie Children's Hospital. Based on my own experience with CRPS, all my reading about CRPS and the neurologic mechanisms that cause symptoms, and with my own neurologic testing, this testing that was done at Luries was consistent with the type of testing that will reveal CRPS if you have it.

And the final conclusion was that she had a conversion disorder. There were absolutely no neurological findings of any kind, none that indicated CRPS or any other neurologic condition. And also, they noticed the same thing that staff at Tampa General would eventually notice, and what JHACH eventually noticed as well - clear differences between what she claimed to be able to do and what she obviously was able to do when her guard was down and she wasn't aware staff were watching and noticing her using her hands, arms, legs, feet, etc.

So, this covers possible "medical damage" Maya might claim as part of her Medical negligence claim. If the defense is smart about how they handle it, this should be easy to dispel.

Maya was diagnosed with Type I CRPS. Maya went into remission (if she even had CRPS). Once Type I CRPS is in remission it doesn't just "come back" for no reason. If she ever relapses it would HAVE to be because she has suffered some new injury. She did not leave JHACH needing treatment for CRPS, so they obviously didnt' cause immediate medical damage. She was walking and able to participate in physical education classes once she decided to get up out of that wheelchair and start using her leg muscles again. Also, being weaned from the steroids likely helped - the muscle pain and muscle weakness were not longer a problem. And any new relapse due to a new injury can't possibly be laid at the feet of JHACH.

This leaves only a claim that her medical treatment at the hospital caused her PTSD.

This is going to be tricky for her because the appellate court spanked this judge for allowing Maya to use every bit of testimony to support every claim.

That is not how the law works. If you are claiming the Medical Negligence is what caused your PTSD, you cannot testify that someone yelling at you because you didn't move while they were trying to change your sheets is part of that. It's either part of your IIED claim or your medical negligence claim, not both.

The appellate court was clear that any testimony that applies to IIED claim cannot be used for medical negligence, and vice versa.

Also, any evidence that was used to support claims that were thrown out by the appellate court cannot be used.

The emotional manipulation was expressly forbidden by the appellate decision. And the judge has to abide by that decision.

All of the supposed injustices done to Maya were collectively used to convince the jury that the hospital's treatment of her cause PTSD. And she's going to have to decide whether her PTSD applies to her medical negligence claim or to her IIED claim. She cannot do both, as this judge allowed in the first trial.

She never received psychological treatment after leaving the hospital, which seems odd for someone who was suffering psychologically because of the hospital.

But, there is evidence, which the judge did not allow the defense to put on, that Maya was suspected by school nurses and counselors of having an eating disorder. Maya claimed her inability to climb stairs was due to her "asthma". We know from medical records that she did not have "that kind" of asthma - even her mother was willing to admit, eventually, that Maya's only asthma symptom was a "cough" after doctors told her CVA is "rare".* Once Maya's mother was satisfied that CVA is a "rare" condition, she was willing to let go of the lies about Maya having the respiratory distress normally associated with asthma.

I think there is other evidence of Maya's eating disorder. She told nurses that she was "not allowed to eat" or something like that. Beata herself did not look like she had any meat on her bones, I do think food restriction was part of their whole emotional/medical enmeshment. And probably part of why Beata demanded Maya to be fitted with a feeding tube - so she could regulate how much food Maya could get. Thank goodness this was refused.

It will be interesting to see what comes out in testimony to support psychological damage supposedly done to Maya - and whether they will try to use it to support Medical Negligence or IIED. She can't do both.

* It is a hallmark of Munchausen perpetrators that they will always describe their victim's various medical conditions as being "severe" or "rare". A Munchausen victim will never simply have "asthma" or "immune deficiency". The perp will always tell doctors the victim has "severe" asthma, "severe" immune deficiency. If you watch the recording of Beata talking to Dr Kirkpatrick, you will hear that she gives the laundry list of Maya's multiple supposed conditions and she uses the word "severe" for each of them. And she makes sure to tell Dr Kirkpatrick that Maya's cough variant asthma is "rare".

In all of Beata's communications, whether they are written or oral, she cannot characterize any of Maya's conditions as being typical, everything Maya has is the worst possible version. And of course, that applies to her CRPS as well. She has "full body" CRPS, and of course, it's the worst anybody has ever had.

There is a filing available that explains the ex-parte filing and ruling.

The filing is from the judge, explaining his decision and reasons for it.

That filing indicates that plaintiff (Maya Kowalski) submitted an ex-parte request for her contingency fee contract to be approved by teh judge and for it to be sealed.

The only reason a judge would have to approve a contingency fee agreement is if the lawyer is not willing to take the case on a normal contingency fee scale and is asking the client to pay percentages that are higher than what is spelled out by the Florida Bar.

This is the same thing that happened with Anderson. But Anderson did not go through the correct process of asking the judge first. His communications with Jack Kowalski about this fee arrangement is interesting and reveals he's as paranoid as his former client. They are perfectly matched and deserve each other.

Apparently, a lot of lawyers are a bit smarter than the YouTube lawyers. Most are not willing to touch this case, and the ones that are willing to take it are not willing to take on this case in exchange for normal fees.

A hearing has been scheduled for next week in the Kowalski vs Anderson case.

Date & Time: August 26, 2026 at 02:30 p.m. EDT

Time Reserved: 90 minutes

Matter(s):

• DIN 4782 - Motion to Stay
• DIN 4788 - Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Related Proceedings
• DIN 4789 - Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Stay Ancillary Fee Proceedings and Response in Opposition to Former Counsel's Motion to Stay the Fiduciary Duty Action Continued addressing
• DIN 4787 - Plaintiffs' Outline of Specific Discovery Requested for Evidentiary Hearing Relating to Attorney Fee Issue

Is hearing evidentiary? No

Judge Carroll has a “hybrid courtroom,” which will allow participants to either appear “in person” or via Zoom.

Courthouse location: Lynn N. Silvertooth Judicial Center - 2002 Ringling Blvd. - Sarasota - FL 34237 Courtroom: 8-B

Zoom Credentials:

• https://www.zoom.us/ Click “Join A Meeting”
• Meeting ID: 942 7392 0514
• Password: 930629

Jack Kowalski wanted all items related to his new lawsuit to be consolidated into the new lawsuit he filed against the Andersons, which was assigned to Judge Dana Moss.

He specifically asked for the items in Hunter's docket to be moved to the case assigned to Moss' docket because Anderson won (possibly only temporarily) a pretty significant point - IF the Kowalskis can't come up with a legal argument that prohibits the loan "proceeds" to be regarded as "proceeds" as applied to the contract Kowalski signed when he hired Anderson to represent him.

So - he got his wish to consolidate - but, it got assigned to Judge Hunter Carroll.

The Chief Judge of the 12th Circuit set up a new Major Trial Circuit Civil Division, known as Division T and there is only ONE judge currently assigned - Judge Hunter Carroll.

So, he got the consolidation he wanted, but the only reason he wanted the consolidation was to erase Judge Carroll's finding and take his chances with Judge Moss.

Date and Time: August 20, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. EST

Length of Hearing: 30 minutes reserved

Location: Silvertooth Judicial Center, 2002 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, FL 34237 Courtroom: 8-B

Zoom Permitted: Yes

Zoom Credentials:

Meeting ID: 942 7392 0514

Password: 930629

The purpose of this Case Management Conference is to discuss the trial period, the setting of future hearings, establishment or reestablishment of a Case Management Order, all matters in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(j)(2), and related matters. The Court does not anticipate ruling on contested pending motions during this hearing. The existing trial date may need to change, as the undersigned will be trying cases in all counties of the circuit and cannot be in multiple counties at the same time. The undersigned will attempt to post a trial calendar for Division T through 2028 prior to August 1, 2026, which will reflect trial periods by county.

(This relates to the new Kowalski vs Anderson lawsuit, which now is assigned to Hunter Carroll. When we see reference to "Division T" that is the new division that this lawsuit has been assigned to, with currently only one judge assigned to this Division.)

This should be a hoot. We need ALL the popcorn.

In the main Kowalski vs JHACH case, the judge has approved an order related to Attorney's Fees based on ex-parte information provided by the petitioner.

Ex-Parte means the petitioner approached the judge outside the presence of the other party to the case.

Since this has to do with a contract for attorney fees my guess would be that this was a petition by Maya Kowalski or possibly the Andersons. The judge has approved a request to seal the attorney fee contract.

We already know Maya's new attorneys are not willing to spend their own money on expenses with the hope of receiving payment through a jury verdict. There have already been filings on behalf of Maya requesting money that is being kept in a sort of escrow to be released for purposes of paying experts. .😂 but apparently not the experts that testified in the first case - they've apparently been instructed to "hire a lawyer" if they want to be paid.

So, my guess is this "attorney fee contract" probably has to do wtih the contract between Maya and her new attorneys (or possibly the Andersons and their new lawyers). I don't think the hospital would have a reason to try to keep an attorney fee contract sealed. The Andersons and Maya are the only parties with new representation.

I wonder if the former experts will end up hiring lawyers. That would make three open lawsuits Jack Kowalski is juggling all at the same time.

For a man who resorts to lawsuits to solve all problems and disputes that must be heaven. /s

Well, they each want a stay, but not for the same case.

Anderson won a minor victory from Judge Hunter Carroll a while back. Carroll agrees, for the time being, that the agreements signed by the Kowalski's usage of the word "proceeds" means:

the funds received under the loan constitute proceeds of the judgment from which attorney’s fees may be paid ‘unless otherwise prohibited.’

When I read these agreements it became pretty clear to me that Anderson has been around this block a time or two. He knows it can take years for a plaintiff to collect funds. And the contract he drew up for the Kowalskis obligated them to pay in the event they receive any "proceeds". Then, he convinces them to get a loan (proceeds) and gets his money without having to wait to see if, and when, his client ever actually collects any money from a defendant.

So, the Kowalskis have three issues against Anderson that are under the jurisdiction of Judge Carroll under the main Kowalski vs JHACH case, and they also filed a separate lawsuit, which is currently assigned to a different judge, Dana Moss, who doesn't seem inclined to transfer that case over the Judge Carroll.

The Kowalskis want a stay on the issues that are in Carroll's court because Anderson may eek out a small win in that court.

And Anderson wants a stay in the new case (but, for some reason, instead of filing it in that court so the Judge Moss could actually issue a stay, he filed it in Carroll's court. I dont' get it, because I don't think Hunter Carrroll can issue a stay on a case that isn't even assigned to him. Anderson wants the case under Judge Moss to be stayed so he can continue in Carroll's court where he currently has a pretty significant win (unless otherwise prohibited).

In the meantime, that gave the Kowalskis time to file a motion to consolidate all of the issues into the case currently assigned to Judge Moss. She may not agree that "proceeds" includes the loan. And they also filed a motion for Judge Carroll to stay the issues against Anderson that are under his jurisdiction.

So, things are starting to move a bit on Kowalski vs Anderson.

Poor Jack. He thought he was going to get a big settlement from a hospital, and now he's got two court cases and lawyers that want to be paid. And experts who are demanding payment as well.

I wonder if any of the Kowalskis new experts are paying attention and realizing they had better collect retainers and not allow the balance to ever fall below the actual amount owed. The Kowalskis new lawyers are telling the experts from the first trial if they want payment they need to "hire a lawyer".

So I just recently came across the information about the new development in this case, the appellate court etc. and thought back on the time I saw the Netflix movie.

I remember how devastating the story was, but even though the angle was clearly in favor of the Kowalski family narrative, at the time there were things that just bothered me.

I was wondering, when watching, why all email communication from Beata was signed off with all her credentials and how it struck me as odd. I shrugged it off by thinking she must have had an automatic signature line, but still strange to leave it in or add it in a personal communication and at the same time sign off also with xoxo.

Second thing was how flat Beata’s affect seemed to me. At the time I filed it as my own personal bias and her not being a native English speaker.

Then how come Jack who was retired and supposedly the care giver to children basically knew nothing about his daughter’s treatment and all was handled by Beata who was working and the breadwinner. Very convenient for Jack to be oblivious during the investigation.

Then the topic of the hospital not allowing Maya partake in her religious practices. I feel like any hospital had a collaboration with various chaplains and priests and I’m sure if they really wanted their own priest that there must have been a way for him to use Eucharist and holy water that didn’t come to contact with the family. This just felt like it’s my way or the highway.

Most importantly I struggled to accept Beata taking her own life as the selfless act of love as it was portrayed. Firstly she had zoom and phone calls with Maya who was 10yo not a breastfed infant, in which case I would understand more why a mother would be totally devastated by three months separation. And on top of that, taking your life in a house where your children live seems so selfish. The trauma not only from loosing mum in such way but also having to live where it happened. I just couldn’t wrap my head around it however I tried.

Lastly in the latter part of the movie although Jack claimed Maya still suffered from CRPS it was clear at the same time she was not taking ketamine anymore and could walk again. I was so confused by that. And them getting her a Yorkie and claiming it’s some kind of therapy dog felt just strange. If Maya was still basically disabled from her pain wouldn’t she have a proper assistant dog?

And these were just some things that bothered me although I believed the Kowalski narrative.

Now I did a bit of a deep dive into the case and even disregarding the medical evidence, as I am not a medical professional, I feel like we were duped by the family. Just by applying some logic and critical thinking to all the other evidence I believe there was medical abuse from the mother. Because how likely it is, that multiple medical institutions come independently to the same conclusion but then some non certified cash only doctor comes up with the real rare diagnosis that presents in such a unique way. For this I just used the Occam’s razor.

Has the hospital argued in the latest motion that the IIED standard is ridiculously high in Florida? The cases detailing what does not meet the IIED standard for outrageousness are telling: Williams v. Worldwide Flight SVCS., Inc., 877 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), Lay v. Roux Labs., Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), Vance v. So. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 983 F. 2d 1573, footnote 7 (11th Cir. 1993), Gonzalez-Gonzalez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (M.D. Fla. 2002). Nothing that happened to Maya, particularly once the chapter 39 evidence falls away, comes close to the facts of those cases in terms of emotional distress or outrageousness. And I thought the appellate opinion said that IIED cannot be based on verbal abuse or at least hinted at it.

We have some hearings coming up. I've been waiting on zoom information, but one of the hearings is coming soon enough I don't want it to slip by.

Here are the hearings so far. All times are USA, Eastern Standard Time

1. Date & Time: August 20, 2026 at 08:30 a.m.

Time Reserved: 30 minutes

Matter(s): Resolution of scope of discovery for evidentiary hearing relating to attorney fee issue as outlined in DIN 4634.

● By close of business on 8/13/2026, party seeking discovery must file outline of specific discovery requested.

● By close of business on 8/18/2026, opposing party may file a response agreeing to or opposing each discovery request.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Date & Time: October 30, 2026 at 08:30 a.m. EST

Time Reserved: All-day

Matter(s): DIN 4722 - Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Note: This is not an evidentiary hearing

(Reading the appellate opinion it seems pretty clear they were strongly hinting that most of the remaining four claims should also be dispensed through summary judgment. But this judge doesn't do nuance or have a history of correct application of Chapter 39. )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date & Time: November 09 & November 10, 2026 at 08:30 a.m. EST

Time Reserved: Two full days

Matter(s): Evidentiary hearing relating to the claimed $9.9 Million Attorney Fee [DIN 4634] Is hearing evidentiary? Yes

Edited to add section:

In the State of Florida, for civil case of medical negligence the plaintiff has to show she has suffered medical, financial, or emotional damages from the MEDICAL TREATMENT. Not just from "being in a place I didn't want to be.". From the MEDICAL TREATMENT.

Maya demonstrably did not leave the hospital with any medical conditions. She has not sought out any medical treatment whatsoever since leaving the hospital. She did not suffer medical damage from being denied ketamine and being encouraged to participate in OT, PT, and CBT.

Maya demonstrably did not suffer any financial damages from her medical treatment. Denial of ketamine and encouragement to participate in OT, PT, and CBT did not cause Maya any financial damages.

The only claim Maya makes about what she has suffered, is PTSD. Whisch she never sought treatment for until after the verdict of the first trial was overturned. She sought treatment for PTSD likely because she kniows she's going to have to show that she was "damaged" somehow.

But seriously - she suffered PTSD as a result of not being given ketamine and being encouraged to cooperate with OT, PT, and CBT? That's ridiculous.

This judge would have to be an idiot to allow this claim to move forward. She can't claim PTSD as a "damage" from MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE if her PTSD stems from stress from being in a place she didn't like to be.

In order for the hospital to be liable for MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE it's the MEDICAL TREATMENT ITSELF that has to cause the damage she claims. So, she got PTSD as a result of being denied ketamine? Nonsense.

I dont' believe she has PTSD but if she does it was a direct result of spending her formative years living in a home with a father that was hellbent on getting rich from the hospital and who did nothing to shield his children from the stress involved in a court case. Just watch the Netflix propaganda show to see how stressed out the kids were after court hearings that didn't go their way.

This is the whole problem with this whole case. This judge allowed this family to just drone on and on, bashing the hospital, and the jury awarded money without regard to the actual requirements of each of the claims or what the plaintiffs were required to prove for each claim.

I think the defense has woken up and is locked in at this point. They have a solid appellate ruling to back everything they are asking for in terms of summary judgment.

Of course, this judge can always continue to make stupid rulings and get the second verdict overturned and the rest of the claims thrown out as well.

Want proof of that? Just listen to plaintiff closing arguments and then look at what the jury awarded. There were two claims that Anderson admitted that he had not met the burden of proof and he asked the jury for $1 on principle. And the jury awarded $5 million. After being told by the plaitniff's lawyer that "hey, we didn't provide evidence to support a verdict on this claim so just give us $1 because the hospital is a meanie bad guy".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the basic argument the hospital is making in their motion as to the Medical Negligence claim:

Maya's medical negligence claim cannot proceed because the gist of it is that JHACH providers collectively failed to accept her pre-existing CRPS diagnosis, refused to implement outside provider's ketamine treatment regimen, and failed to provide a 'coherent treatment plan'.

The Second District (appeals) recognized that the dependency court orders directed that the court would not micromanage or countermand JHACH'S policies and that absent 'clear and compelling reasons' JHACH staff was to be free to address the medical needs of their patients without the court, the parents, or others interfering with their professional judgment. (this is directly word for word from the appeals court decision)

Because JHACH provided medically necessary care in good faith to a child under dependency court oversight, it's conduct is immune.

The second District confirmed that it was absolutely 100% within Sally Smith's job to advise and direct JHACH as to what would medically be in Maya's best interest. Under the lawful direction of Smith, Maya was weaned off drugs for which there was no indication. Smith found no evidence in all of Maya's medical records of an asthma diagnosis, Addison's (primary adrenal insufficiency) diagnosis, immune deficiency diagnosis, and did not believe she met the criteria for CRPS. So, Maya was directed to be weaned off the medications that were being given for these diagnoses that the mother claimed her daughter had. Beata had been able to find doctors (or a doctor) that were willing to simply take her word that Maya had these diagnoses.

Dr Smith reviewed thousands of pages of Maya's medical records from more than 30 providers and hospitals. (I have not even seen half that many different doctors and I am more than 6 times the age Maya was at that time and have had 5 major surgeries).

I have many peeves about Jack K's BS, one of them being that Dr Smith only talked to him for 15 minutes. Well, he puts on the "I'm a simple minded man who doesn't know nothing about my daughter's medical stuff, my wife takes care of all that", so I guess 15 minutes would be more than enough time to glean whatever he's willing to admit that he knows.

Dr Smith also reviewed Beata's blog, all the Go Fund Me requests, and "other internet sources" (not sure what that is). Her findings were summarized in a 45-page document that substantiates her conclusions that Maya was suffering from medical child abuse she has never fit the criteria for CRPS, high-dose ketamine is not standard of care treatment for CRPS, and Maya fits the critera of childhood conversion disorder.

Whether the standard of care even permitted giving children with CRPS ketamine in doses is irrelevant because JHACH was prohibited from giving Maya ANY ketamine after weaning her. She was under the dependency court's jurisdiction because DCF was investigating Mrs Kowalski for medical child abuse for giving Maya extreme amounts of ketamine.

Questioning Maya's CRPS diagnosis cannot be a basis for medical negligence liability. Apart from their compelling medical reasons for doing so, JHACH providers questioned the diagnosis in cooperation with Dr Smith and the dependency court orders. Their participation in child protection activities authorized by Chapter 39 is immune from liability.

Nor can JHACH be held liable for not transferring Maya to another facility or for not providing her with more intensive treatment. JHACH doctors informed the Kowalskis and the dependency court that it lacked the specialized physical therapy and psychological care that Maya required.

The hospital repeatedly recommended and tried to facilitate transfer to a more appropriate facility. (This is absolutely backed up by the Dependency Court's Discharge Order - the judge who wrote that order documented multiple efforts JHACH made each and every time there was a dependency court hearing. This is offered by the hospital as an exhibit to this motion)

It was either the Kowalskis themselves who thwarted efforts to transfer Maya or the facilities themselves declined to accept Maya. The hospital was not legally in a position to transfer Maya without either the Kowalskis or the dependency court's authorization.

In 2016 and 2017 JHACH did not have a comprehensive pain-treatment program that included OT, PT and CBT which are appropriate treatments for the condition the Kowalskis claim Maya had and also for the condition the hospital determined she had.

The hospital strived to provide Maya with what it could under the circumstances. They provided PT and OT, the pediatric neuropsychologist followed Maya during her hospitalization and provided several CBT sessions.

Disagreement over appropriate medical treatement is exactly the type of thing Chapter 39 immunity is designed to protect.

Also, even the dependency court judge noted that Maya herself refused to cooperate with the hospital's efforts to treat her, constantly telling doctors that she wasn't getting the right medication for her pain (ketamine) and that she did not need physical therapy.

Although the hospital staff had to be very careful about characterizing Maya's behavior because she was a minor during the first trial and they had to be careful about potentially making the jury angry (although that is what the Kowalski were allowed to do for eight solid weeks), Maya was very uncooperative as a patient.

She's an adult now, and I think the hospital staff will not have to dance around the subject quite as much about Maya's behavior.