Attachment 6 EDNY Hodge v Cuomo 21-cv-01421 Complaint

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No. 3011 Document 1 25-6 Filed 03/17/21 Filed 06/24/21 Page 14 Page of 154 14 of PageID 154 #: 270 lacks the minimum training, skills and preparation needed to be eligible for the jobs that become available, and those who do secure work as a result of affirmative action mandates are often unable to keep their jobs and the dignity of work. Apprenticeship is the bedrock foundation upon which our country and freedom is based. Opportunity to gain basic work skills is necessary. But equal opportunity to gain skills doesn’t exist in many instances, exposing unskilled workers and the public to unmanaged risk, one example is the recent virus pandemic and its rapid spread. Apprenticeship, identified as affirmative action, is the natural right of all peoples because “The greatest wealth results from the greatest economic liberty, freedom of all individuals to work, save, buy, and earn at their pleasure, and economic life would settle into a natural order and productivity would thrive.”[ 1 ]. A natural right identified in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution mandating equal protection of laws that affect these rights, Apprenticeship envisioned in Abraham Lincoln's forgotten last speech, from the balcony of the White House to a crowd gathered on the White House Lawn at the end of the Civil War, twice envisioning apprenticeship for freed people to gradually reconstruct the nation, yet in the 155 years since, not only has it not occurred, it has been thwarted by the same State Government Agencies of the Governor charged with protecting equal opportunity. BASIS AND SUMMARY OF CAUSES FOR ACTION 1. The Class Plaintiff is a class of victims, first looted of their benefits by Owner Operator Defendants who had a fiduciary duty to protect and steward Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) Plan assets; and second, victimized by State Officer Defendants that received Cost Reports but neglected or intentionally ignored and never examined to see if accrued and expensed costs for employee benefits were in fact expended for the benefit of the Class Plaintiff. We now know that the costs reported as expensed for employee benefits, were not used for employee benefits amounting to tens of millions of dollars diverted, converted and embezzled for years while the State Officer Defendants failed to discover this defalcation because of either gross negligence or conscious disregard so that the per bed reimbursement rate remained elevated, even while human resource costs were gutted, the net difference going to the pockets of Partyand-Interest Defendants and Employer Operator Defendants. Is there a money trail to the State Officer Defendants? It is not unreasonable and within the authority of a trier of 1 The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, studied and emulated by Jefferson and the Franklin over two centuries ago 14
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No. 3011 Document 1 25-6 Filed 03/17/21 Filed 06/24/21 Page 15 Page of 154 of PageID 154 #: 271 fact to make the connection between the Owner Operator Defendants and the State Officer Defendants as herein described. 2. In March 2020, the Owner Operator Defendants were losing a significant portion of their income with residents going to hospitals with Covid 19 sickness, leaving beds unoccupied. Unoccupied beds are not paid for by Medicaid/Medicare under the reimbursement per occupied bed formula of 10 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. § 86-2.10. Owner Operator Defendants took back Covid 19 positive patients to fill beds and increase their occupied bed count, with little, if no effort to isolate infected persons from the general population, a general population of vulnerable elderly or disabled persons extremely susceptible to infection spread. 3. If the Covid positive patients went to the Jacob Javits Center or to the USN Comfort Ship, the Owner Operator Defendants would not see the recovery boost in their income that the March 25, 2020 Order provided. The Owner Operators sought a surge increase with occupied beds from Covid infected hospital releases. But because of the extremely contagious virus, the virus spread from these infected people to a vulnerable existing population unable to escape the virus spread from contagious persons. It was all about filling beds. There was no drilled and practiced quarantine or isolation, no ability or even intent by the Owner Operator Defendants to follow protocols and procedures because even if there were such written documents, no one had been drilled or practiced in implementation of safeguards for existing population. It was all about filling beds and the March 25, 2020 Order was the ticket. 4. The March 25, 2020. Order was the ticket to fill beds that caused infection, sickness, and death in the general population and to the Class Plaintiff employees. 5. It is possible that some of the infection into the facilities of the Owner Operator Defendants was from the workforce, in this litigation that would include the employee Class Plaintiffs. However, the Class plaintiff employees were equally vulnerable due to lack of protective equipment, ignorant of policies and procedures to deal with contagious disease spread, never practiced or drilled to deal with infection spread, poorly trained, making the Class Plaintiff employees themselves victims. 6. The Class employees were victims of the Employer Defendants’ greed to fill beds, greed in diverting Plan assets intended to benefit the Class plaintiff employees who were now exposed to the State Officer Defendants’ orders, with no way to protect themselves from infection spread, called a fire through dry grass. 7. The Class plaintiff employees were victims of the enterprise to fill beds to increase occupied bed reimbursement from Medicaid/Medicare. The Class Plaintiff employees were expended as casualties unprepared and unequipped by the Owner Operator Defendants and the State Operator Defendants for this war. The situation was nothing 15
Page 1 and 2: Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Page 13: Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Page 65 and 66:
Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No.
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
show all

Attachment 6 EDNY Hodge v Cuomo 21-cv-01421 Complaint

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?