9th Cir. Motion For Preliminary Injunction Case No. 22-35794

Case 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ Document 273-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 29
Case: 22-35794, 03/31/2023, ID: 12687042, DktEntry: 19-1, Page 1 of 29
No. 22-35794
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
UNITED STATED COAST GUARD, [DOES 1–155], ET AL.
Defendants–Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
No. 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

CANDIDCAROLYN®
PO Box 38097
Phoenix, AZ 85069
(253) 588-8100
candidCarolyn@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................ii
STATUTORY [& REGULATORY] AUTHORITIES ...................................iii
I. IDENTITY OF MOVING PARTY .......................................................1
II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT ..................................................1
III. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ............................................................1
IV. ARTICLE III STANDING .....................................................................3
V. APPELLANT IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS

OF THE COMPLAINT..........................................................................4
VI. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................4
VII. MORE VETERANS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY .......20
VIII. GRANTING AN INJUNCTION:

WILL NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO DEFENDANTS
AND IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ...............................................22
IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................24
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES UPDATE.........................................25
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................................25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................25
///
///
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Acosta-Plascencia v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., (2019)
926 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir.) .....................................................................16
Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, (2010) ..................................................2
Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, (1999)
200 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.) .......................................................................13
Beckman v. Match.com, LLC, (2016)
817 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.) .....................................................................16
Canterbury v. Spence, (1972)
464 F.2d 772, 787 (D.C. Cir.) ..............................................................4
Carlson v. Green, (1980)
446, U.S. 14, 19 ..................................................................................17
City & Cty. Of San Francisco, 944 F.3d at 789 ..............................................2
Davis v. Passman, (1979)
442 U.S. 228, 248–49 ........................................................................17
EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., (2013)
707 F.3d 824, 832 (7th Cir.) ...............................................................19
Farmer v. Brennan, (1994)
511 U.S. (U.S.) ...................................................................................17
Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, (2003)
324 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir.) ...........................................................19
Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965)
381 U.S. 479 .......................................................................................16
Gutierrez v. Peters, (1997)
111 F.3d. 1364, 1366 ..........................................................................17
Lands Council u. McNair ................................................................................3
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, (2002)
536 U.S. 101, 117 ...............................................................................19
Schooley v. Pinchak, (1953) ..........................................................................21
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547-48 .................................3
State v. Carruthers, (1992)
332 N.C. 269, 273, 420 S.E.2d 712, 714 .............................................15
Stoleson v. United States, (1983)
708 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.) ......................................................................17
Trump v. Hawaii, (2018)
138 S.Ct. 2392, 2416 .............................................................................3
United States ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, (1996)
91 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.) ........................................................................13
United States ex rel. Kelly v. Serco, Inc., (2017)
ii
846 F.3d 325 (9th Cir.) .........................................................................14

United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., (2004)
380 F.3d 488, 494 (D.C. Cir.) ...............................................................14
United States v. Hernandez-Meza, (2013)
720 F.3d 760, 772 (9th Cir.) .................................................................13
United States v. Mark, (1990)
906 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir.) .......................................................................14
United States v. Polizzi, (1986)
801 F.2d 1543 (9th Cir.) .......................................................................13
White v. Lee, 227, (2000)
F.3d 1214, 1225 (9th Cir.) ...................................................................12
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, (2011)
632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir.) ...............................................................2
Winter v. NRDC, (2008) 555 U.S. 7, 22 ........................................................2, 3
Rules
Cir. R. 27-3 ......................................................................................................24
Cir. R. 28-2.6(c)................................................................................................24
Cir. R. 32-1 ........................................................................................................1
Reference
p. 2: 1. Rachel A. Weisshaar, Hazy Shades of Winter: Resolving the Circuit Split
over Preliminary Injunctions, 65 Vanderbilt Law Review 1011 (2019):
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol65/iss3/7.
Statutes & Laws

Accountability Act of 2014 ...........................................................................20
Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3012 ......................................................7
False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733) .................................................14
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause...........................................................17
HIPPA Law (1996) ........................................................................................15
Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 .................................20
///
///
iii
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN, No. 22-35794
Plaintiff – Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ

U.S. District Court for Western
v. Washington, Seattle
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3
STATES COAST GUARD (USCG), U.S. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, INJUNCTION, RELIEF 04/21/2023
[DOE’S 1-155], ET AL,
Defendants - Appellees. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
I. IDENTITY OF MOVING PARTY
Appellant Carolyn Sioux Green (“CSX”) files this Emergency Motion Under
Circuit Rule 27-3, Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
CSX respectfully asks that this Court grant the appellant’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, while serious consideration is given to remanding the case
back to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, at Seattle,
2:21-cv-01276-RAJ.
III. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Preliminary Injunction “Generally, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is
to preserve the status quo and the rights of the parties until a final judgment issues
1
in the cause.” City & Cty. of San Francisco, 944 F.3d at 789. Plaintiffs can obtain a
preliminary injunction where they establish four factors:
(1) that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits,

(2) that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief,
(3) that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and
(4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
Id. at 788-89 (quoting Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). In the
alternative, however, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of
hardship that tips sharply towards the plaintiff[s] can support issuance of a
preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff[s] also show[] that there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id.
at 789 (quoting Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). See
Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816, 823 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Some
circuits have more stringent tests than the one outlined in Winter, requiring the
movant to show a "substantial" likelihood of irreparable harm or success on the
merits.
In Hazy Shades of Winter: Resolving the Circuit Split over Preliminary
Injunctions, p. 1040 states in C, the Ninth Circuit: Intracircuit Split:
“The Ninth Circuit used a balancing approach before Winter's rejection of

the irreparable-injury component of that test. The Ninth Circuit stated in Lands
Council u. McNair, "A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff
demonstrates either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of
irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions going to the merits were raised and
2
the balance of hardships tips sharply in [the plaintiffs] favor."193 Winter overruled
the "possibility of irreparable injury" language in the first part of the test, holding
that "likely" irreparable injury was required.194
The Ninth Circuit has split as to whether Winter permits any version of the
Ninth Circuit's pre-Winter sliding-scale test.1
VI. ARTICLE III STANDING
The appellant established and has demonstrated Standing. “One of the essential
elements of a legal case or controversy is that the plaintiff have standing to sue.”
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392, 2416 (2018). To demonstrate Article III
standing, a plaintiff must show a “concrete and particularized” injury that is “fairly
traceable” to the defendant’s conduct and “that is likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision.” (See DocketEntry 7).
V. APPELLANT IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE

MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT
Drug violations against the United States of America, et al, were promptly
filed, and CSX has established clear legal standing. Defendants have flagrantly
breached Federal and State laws, regulations, policies, and ethical codes, while
violating basic patient rights. This is evident from the opening brief DE #7, which
presents a compelling case. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that CSX has
suffered physical harm that is directly attributable to the USCG. This harm was
further exacerbated by the Dept of Veterans who grossly neglected their duty to
properly treat the injuries sustained. The excessive prescribed drugs, treating a
3
physical injury as a mental disorder, is a clear indication of the defendant’s gross
negligence in this matter. Therefore, it is imperative that the defendants be held
accountable for their actions and that justice is served for the harm caused to CSX.
VI. ARGUMENT
In general, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical obligation to inform
patients of their diagnosis and to provide appropriate care and treatment. See
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1972)"The patient's right of
self-decision, often referred to as informed consent, has two aspects. First, it is
generally recognized that the physician has a duty to disclose to the patient such
information as will enable him to make an intelligent choice. Secondly, there is the
equally well-recognized right of the patient to make a choice, which varies from
patient to patient, as to the kind of treatment or therapy he wishes to receive."
On March 2, 2023, I [Carolyn Sioux Green (“CSX’)] was informed for the
FIRST TIME that on October 29, 2007, the Madigan Army Medical Center
(“MAMC”), in the Dept of Veterans records, diagnosed me with “Multiple
myeloma cancer”. The defendants waited 15 years 4 months 3 days (800 weeks) to
inform the veteran of this life-threatening blood cancer, that can cause damage to
the bones, organs, kidneys, nerve damage and with an increased risk of infections.
Not only was CSX not informed of this life-changing cancer diagnosis prior to
March 2, 2023, CSX was not informed by the doctors she saw after this diagnosis
4
of 2007: 18+ doctors at Puget Sound Veterans’ Hospital: Five+ doctors Phoenix
(“PHX”) Arizona Veterans’. 20+ doctors with no mention of this life-threatening
cancer diagnosis. At the PHX Veterans Dental Clinic, Dr. Ambrose did mention
“Multiple myeloma” in the hallway after Dr. Dorfman, the oral surgeon, informed
the patient for the first time on March 2, 2023 from this Oct. 29, 2007 diagnosis.
Both Veterans’ Hospitals failed to provide standard tests for this diagnosis.
Failed to provide or offer any treatment. There were no standard tests to diagnosis
me of this blood cancer. I have not had an examination of my “bone marrow.”
No biopsy for bone marrow has ever been taken or examined from my body. I have
not had any specific imaging (X-ray, MRI, CT or positron emission tomography
(PRT) to detect bone problems. In addition, I have not had any treatments.
Standard tests and procedure guidelines provided by the Mayo Clinic that are used
to diagnose Multiple myeloma cancer include: Examination of your bone marrow,
Blood tests, Urine tests, Imaging tests; Tests such as an X-ray, MRI, CT or
positron emission tomography (PET). There was no assigned stage and risk
category to indicate the aggressiveness of this disease. Dept of Veterans failed to
provide the Standard treatment options for Multiple myeloma cancer: Targeted
therapy, Immunotherapy, Chemotherapy, Corticosteroids, Bone marrow transplant,
Radiation therapy. No treatments were offered.
5
Then defendants denied the appellant-CSX dental treatment to extract my
two lower back molars (#31, #18) that defendants considered an “urgent” matter.
These molars were very painful and to chew, “infected,” both internally “cracked”.
CSX was informed by Dr. Dorfman, an Oral Surgeon at PHX Veterans that in
order for both painful lower molars can be extracted (#31, #18), that I would need
to have Multiple myeloma cancer removed from my record. CSX was informed by
the Community Care Call Center on 03/10/23 that the PHX Veterans’ would not
pay for non-VA Community Care until this diagnosis/ misdiagnosis was removed
from my medical record. (Side Note: This call center personnel informed me they
had been there shy of a decade, and was just notified from Human Resources that
when “I got hired I was classified incorrectly they’ve been taking out less for my
retirement than they should have.” “I’m going to owe about ten grand now.”
Defendants refused to schedule or provide the needed extractions at a later
date due to this exponentially delayed possible life-changing information. If fact,
the Dept of Veterans required the veteran to have “Multiply myeloma cancer”
removed from her record before performing any tooth extractions. “PT to go to
med records to address her claim of misdignoses as well as becuase will not be
able to move forward without proper workup especially with multiple myeloma
diagnosis.” (see attached Dkt. #271, #272 series). The refusal and intentional delay
of dental treatment to the Veteran for an urgent painful dental matter due to the
6
diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma cancer in 2007 may be regarded as discrimination.
This is in direct violation of the Dept of Veterans Patient Rights (Dkt. #209
original, copy in #64).
Appellant informed the oral surgeon and his “resident” that I did not have
Multiple myeloma cancer. The resident noted in the patients dental record about
the Multiply myeloma cancer diagnosis: “When prompted about this, patient states
they have “no idea about this, this is the first I’m hearing of it.””
If I may, Your Honor, enlighten the Court with the truth and a clear
perspective of the conversation that transpired in the appointment verse what the
disgruntled resident documents.
In accordance with the Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3012, which
states that it is legal to record a conversation if one party to the conversation
consents to the recording.
"A person may intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication if the

person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication
has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted
for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the
constitution or laws of the United States or of this state." Therefore, the audio
recording is admissible as evidence.
The quotes between Dr. Dorfman and the Appellant-CSX;
• Dr. Dorfman stated “you also have a diagnosis of Multiple myeloma.”
o CSX, “what is that?”

7
• Dorfman, “cancer, bone cancer.” (for the record, it is plasma (blood) cancer).
o CSX, “No, I didn’t know anything about that.”
• Dorfman, “It’s in your chart.”
o CSX, “Oh it is, can I have a copy of that please?”
• Dorfman, “Yeah, you can go to medical records and get it.”
o CSX, “Can you show me on your screen where you saw that and where is that
located?”
• Dorfman, “... “It’s in JLV, where is FEHR? That’s what it says for location.
You have a bunch of diagnoses in your chart.”
o CSX, “Does it have pyriformis syndrome or anything about my hip or injury?”
• Dorfman, “There’s lots of...”
o CSX, “There is lots of bogus stuff in there too.”
• Dorfman, “There’s lots of like pain muscle stuff, bone looks like bone pain.”
o CSX, “I don’t’ have bone pain, I don’t have any bone pain.”
• Dorfman, “The one diagnosis is Multiple myeloma which is bone cancer.”
o CSX “I don’t’ have any bone cancer.”
To speak candid and straightforward here, the disgruntled resident was
ticked off that I chose not to have a resident or fellow involved in my dental
extractions. The resident listed many one-sided fabricated misleading comments.
The disrespectful resident further made a derogatory comment that “PT is
8
aggressive and stands up when speaking.” CSX was calm. Since when does
standing up equate to being aggressive in a dental appointment? The oral surgeon
and patient were having a conversation. No examination being performed. The
Audio Recording reveals the fact, truth.. Id. Resident stated CSX “demanded”, was
“demanding” which are more false statements. It is obvious that the disgruntled
resident failed to listen to the “pain and muscle” problems associated with the “hip
injury” of CSX. This resident failed to consider the physical injury and pain when
sitting in a hard uncomfortable chair. He did not ask either. His false fabricated and
misleading documentation bashing the Veteran by not being able to receive credit
hours for practicing a procedure.
In furtherance,
o CSX “Can you tell me when that was put in the record, any of those things?”
• Dorfman, “Yeah, they all have dates next to them.”
• Dorfman, “This wasn’t the VA that diagnosed this, this says FEHR (which I
later researched and learned with Cheryl VA in records that it was MAMC), the
Department of Defense.
 Other conversations between and with others
• Dorfman, “Multiple myeloma is a big deal because that just doesn’t go away.”
o CSX, Well, actually, somebody said that in 2007 and I’m just hearing about it
today in 2023, ah, March 2 is it.”
9
• Dorfman, “We need something updated, for sedation purposes. We can’t have
someone put to sleep without an updated medical history.”
o CSX, “What do I need to do to actually have to satisfy the needs of the Dept of
Veterans Affairs to have my teeth pulled with sedation. What is that going to
require.”
• Dorfman, “You need a history and physical.”
o CSX, “Which means? What kind of history?”
• Dorfman, “Medical and physical just like when you go to a physician’s office
for your annual check-up.”
o CSX, “Okay.”
• Dorfman, “You need an annual check-up, recent lab work.”
o CSX, “Okay, so you need blood work. Can you write me a ... for blood work
today?”
• Dorfman, “Oh, you wanna get it done here?”
o CSX, “Sure, why not?”
• Dorfman, “I don’t know your history, so I don’t know how to order proper
blood work. Like a CDC and stuff like that.”
o CSX, “So you need a proper blood panel, is that right?”
• Dorfman, “A basic blood panel.”
o CSX, “Okay, okay, I’m just asking so I can fulfill what your request is.”
10
• Dorfman, “A basic blood panel. If you have certain diagnoses that you know of,
or that’s in your chart, like if you have Multiple Myeloma, you need..”
o CSX, “I don’t’ have that.”
• Dorfman, “I know you’re saying that, but it’s in the chart. So, you need to
address that first.”
o To be clear: If the record states that I am obese, yet showing I am a well-
proportioned female for my height, does this mean I am obese according to the
VA chart? How about bald yet have a full head of hair? The median survival
rate for Multiple myeloma blood cancer is 5-7 years, some may live for a
decade or more. It’s been more than 15 years without knowledge or treatment.
o CSX, “Well the chart could say a whole bunch of other things that aren’t true.”
• Dorfman, “I agree.”
o CSX addressing the GI CLINIC due to the inaccurate record. “Does it have my
GI from this [PHX] VA, is that in my record, GI from the EUS I had here about
4-5 years ago, 3-years ago maybe?” (and the conversation continued).
Somewhere on the audio CSX: “And I’d like it clear in my record that I do not
want a resident or a fellow doing any of my work on my mouth, please, thank
you. I’d like that to be honored.”
///
///
11
 Disgruntled Resident, “PT demanded that “no resident or fellow” is allowed to
work on her PT is aggressive, demanding, denies all medical hx yet her JLV
chart list several significant diagnoses going back almost 2 decades.”
Apparently, “please” and “thank you”, is now considered demanding at the VA.
This appointment was for information on the protocol of sedation and to
schedule a date for the extractions. There was no oral examination. The
solidification that the resident received approval from the oral surgeon re:
fraudulent billing under D9220, is the addendum by Dr. Dorfman on 03/02/2023 @
8:55 am which states, “Upon further review... pt has signed a pain contract 2x in
the past, 2015/2016 for long term morphine therapy.... placed on a heart monitor in
2016 for heart palpitations ... sedation [after] multiple nerve blocks [neck], upper
GI’s etc. Seems that pt is not forthcoming regarding her PMH or possibly in denial
This all will need to be clarified prior to any treatment.” PHX Dental created more
loops to jump through for the Veterans needed extractions, with no mention of
their fraudulent charges for treatment not provided.
Dr. Dorfman, his resident, Mr. Daniel Jameson, DMD Post Graduate Year-1,
made false written or published statements, half-truths, misleading any medical
provider with access to my record. CSX is very aware of the horrific criminal
mistreatment and excellent medical experiences at VA. Appellant is an open book
12
with her medical experience with defendants.., see White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214,
1225 (9th Cir. 2000), "Statements that are capable of defamatory meaning on their
face are actionable without the necessity of explaining extrinsic facts." For Slander,
libel, see Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 200 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.
1999)."A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to injure a plaintiff in his or
her trade or profession, or otherwise subject the plaintiff to public contempt,
ridicule, or disgrace." In United States ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261, 1266
(9th Cir. 1996) "A false statement or record in connection with a claim may be said
to be material if it has a natural tendency to influence the government's decision to
pay the claim." See United States v. Polizzi, 801 F.2d 1543, 1553 (9th Cir. 1986)
"Falsification of official records is a serious crime, as it strikes at the integrity of
the governmental process."
"Obstruction of justice is a serious offense that strikes at the heart of the
government's ability to function. It is a crime that undermines the integrity of the
justice system and threatens the rule of law," see United States v. Hernandez-Meza,
720 F.3d 760, 772 (9th Cir. 2013).
The resident with the approval of the oral surgeon is billing the Dept of
Veterans for services not provided. Charging for each cracked tooth for Dental
Procedure Code D9220 Behavioral Management. Defendant is billing two-times
for D9220 for services not provided is blatant fraud. D9220 code is from the
13
Arizona Dental Association's Code on Dental Procedures and Nomenclature,
which is used to describe a specific dental procedure. The reimbursement payment
code D9220 refers to “Deep sedation/general anesthesia” for 30 minutes, and is
used to bill for dental procedures that require the use of deep sedation or general
anesthesia, or for comprehensive oral health care for persons with developmental
disabilities. No procedures performed. No oral examination. No sedation.
This appointment was to understand what my part was and the defendants’
part for sedation, and to schedule an appointment for extraction. An extraction
appointment was refused. "Billing for services not rendered is a fraudulent scheme
designed to cheat the government," see United States v. Mark, 906 F.2d 1305, 1313
(9th Cir. 1990). Both charges fall under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-
3733), this includes submitting claims for reimbursement that are based on false or
misleading information. In United States ex rel. Kelly v. Serco, Inc., 846 F.3d 325
(9th Cir. 2017), “A person or entity 'knowingly' presents a false claim when it acts
with 'actual knowledge,' 'deliberate ignorance,' or 'reckless disregard' for the truth
or falsity of the information contained in the claim." See United States ex rel.
Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2004), "False
certification of compliance with a statute or regulation can render a claim 'false or
fraudulent' under the FCA [False Claims Act]."
14
Appellant-CSX followed through with the standard required protocol for
sedation by defendants. This entailed having a physical examination and a current
blood panel. Defendant-Dept of Veterans removed the “Walk in Clinic,” therefore,
appellant paid $335.66 on March 13, 2023 to meet this requirement. The Veteran
then paid a non-VA oral surgeon to treat the painful dental matter by extracting
#31 and #18, adding bone graft material, under sedation on March 17, 2023. This
cost appellant $3,641.00.
Dept of Veterans removing “Walk in Clinic’s” causes more problems, such
as: Reduced access to medical care, increased wait times, increased costs to
patients and the Dept, decreased patient satisfaction, and negative impacts on staff.
The Appellant-CSX requested her Panoramic Dental X-ray ("Pano") from
the Dept of Veterans to bring to the non-VA oral surgeon referred by her non-VA
dentist, whom the Dept of Veterans pays for her dental care (crowns, cleanings,
and other dental treatment). However, the Dept of Veterans provided only a very
small portion of the requested Pano X-ray and included four other Veterans' Pano
X-rays, complete with their Social Security numbers. This action is in direct
violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996), codified as amended in
scattered sections of 18, 26, 29, and 42 U.S.C., aka the HIPPA Law. Dental records
are used to identify the deceased. "Once dental records have been properly
15
authenticated, they may be admitted into evidence to identify a body or remains,”
See State v. Carruthers, 332 N.C. 269, 273, 420 S.E.2d 712, 714 (1992). Plus, after
four-visits and four-CD’s later, appellant-CSX was still not given her Pano X-ray
records for the non-VA oral surgeon prior to extractions. After the extractions on
March 17, 2023, the non-VA oral surgeon commented on a follow-up phone call
check-in, “Those definitely needed to come out.” (#18, #31).
Defendants violated a national standard for protecting the privacy and
security of certain health care information, including dental X-rays. In addition,
violating the breach of confidentiality, see "Beckman v. Match.com, LLC, 817 F.3d
1091 (9th Cir. 2016), "A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to perform
a contractual obligation. A breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing occurs when one party deprives the other of the benefits of the contract."
Unauthorized disclosure of personal health information in violation of
disclosure, see Acosta-Plascencia v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., 926 F.3d 1205 (9th
Cir. 2019), "Unauthorized disclosure of medical information can cause serious
harm to an individual's privacy interests, including embarrassment, discrimination,
and stigma, as well as risks of physical harm, and can undermine trust in the
medical profession and the confidentiality of the health care system." Sharing this
information of other Veterans’ records and appellants without consent is
considered an invasion privacy violation, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.
16
479 (1965), "The right of privacy... is a right of the individual, not a right
of the state. As such, it is entitled to protection under the Constitution
against undue infringement by the state."
Noteworthy, in Carlson v. Green, 446, U.S. 14, 19 (1980), allowing damages
remedy for an Eight Amendment violation for failure to provide adequate medical
treatment. Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 248–49 (1979), permitting damages
remedy for gender discrimination under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d. 1364, 1366 (1997), intentionally delaying medical
care for a known injury (i.e. broken wrist) has been held to constitute deliberate
indifference. [Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. (U.S. 1994). Then with the exponential
delayed diagnosis informing the appellant of Multiple myeloma cancer, see
Stoleson v. United States, 708 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1983), "We hold that if a
prisoner is under the control of prison authorities and if the prisoner's medical
needs are obvious, the prison authorities cannot delay medical diagnosis simply
because they are not aware of the exact medical problem." Damages were awarded
to the Plaintiff. "Delay in providing medical treatment may constitute deliberate
indifference where the delay exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged an
inmate's pain."
Many other Veterans’ including the appellant have had their health
compromised, quality of life diminished, due to the Dept of Veterans failures to
17
treat procedurally, while prescribing excessive drugs, and for failures to inform
patients of diagnosis, or make corrections for those misdiagnosed. How many have
had violations of breach of confidentiality, unauthorized disclosure of medical,
invasion of privacy? How many Veterans nationwide?
The appellant-CSX went to the Pain-Clinic seeking treatment for her cervical
spine (neck), with a long history of cervical pain. Dr. Anthony Mariano, on
11/02/2015 @ 11:39 am, “will continue to work on establishing trust and
completing psychosocial evaluation longer term goals will include reengagement
with mental health care...”. He offered no treatment for the neck. In fact, denied.
Even after it was recorded in her record, “She had an MRI of the cervical spine
done Oct. 2015 that showed severe facet degeneration at C2-3 and also facet
changes at C3-4,” Pain-Clinic noted on January 4, 2017 @ 10:34, and in Oct 2015.
Let’s go back to 02/16/2000 by Women’s Health PCP, “She will see Rob
Weeks (Rheumatology) later this month for fibromyalgia. She has been advised
many times to seek care from PTSD and she doesn’t do it. She no-shows for appt
and doesn’t call back.” (see 1-ER-167-206). There is no listing and no diagnosis of
“fibromyalgia”. There is, “Right pelvic girdle pain, Right Iliac up-slip, Pyriformis
syndrome, Right pelvic upslip, Lumbopelvic dysfunctions, . . ” Id. 193. Defendants
are side-tracked for a “mild” case of post-traumatic stress while leaving the
appellant STILL INJURED; now 5 years 11 months 26 days (312 weeks). Drugs,
18
excessive drugs are not sustainable for treatment of a seriously physically injured
individual.
See Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, 324 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th
Cir. 2003)."To establish a continuing violation, a plaintiff must show that there
was a policy or practice of discrimination that continued into the limitations period
or that the conduct during the limitations period was sufficiently similar to earlier
conduct that it is considered a continuation of the earlier conduct." See EEOC v.
AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824, 832 (7th Cir. 2013)."Where there is a pattern or
practice of discrimination that persists into the limitations period, a plaintiff can
demonstrate a continuing violation and bring claims for discriminatory conduct
that occurred outside the limitations period." See National Railroad Passenger
Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117 (2002).
In furtherance, the defendant-Dept of Veterans is notorious for this
continuous bad standard of practice in informing the patient, as well as fraudulent
and false record keeping (to include pharma data records). Such as, on November
21, 2007 @ 07:26 AM patients record states “I [Dr. M. Hatzakis] suspect root
lesions here due to reduced reflexes, but give the right leg and left arm distribution,
cannot rule out remote possibility of CNS lesions.” (CNS, central nervous system).
The first time the patient was informed of this was when CSX read the record on
Nov. 8, 2018 (10 years 11 months 19 days, later.). (And see DE #7 pp. 39-41).
19
Let’s take this a step further by examining August 2017, with the discussion
of numbness to my left labia for over a year. The Dept of Veterans failed to
document this after it was reported. Then sent CSX on a goose chase making an
appointment with a neurologist (with his resident) who both failed to document my
left labia had numbness. Numbness to my left leg to my heel, A DOE-1 Providence
inflicted injury. Then the resident with the neurologist referred me back to the
clinic that initially referred me to neurology. A one-year cycle with no help. Failed
to offer treatment. No treatment was offered. Welcome again to below the standard
of care by the defendants. Thankfully, my non-VA Community Care doctor, Dr.
Adam Geiger, documented this genital injury caused by the USCG, Dept of
Veterans, and DOE-1 Providence. Dr. Adam Geiger used effective treatments of
Prolotherapy and PRP (platelet rich plasma therapy) that alleviated numbness to
my left labia.
VII. MORE VETERANS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE

INJURY ABSENT AN INJUNCTION
Dept of Veterans has a legal and ethical obligation to provide healthcare
services to eligible veterans. This obligation is based on laws such as the Veterans
Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 is Public Law 104-262, which was
signed into law on October 9, 1996. This sets out the eligibility criteria for
20
Veterans healthcare services, and Veterans Access, Choice, Patient Rights, and
Accountability Act of 2014.
The Appellant-Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to them, will suffer
irreparable injury for lack of informed medical diagnosis and/or misdiagnosis. The
lack of personal funds to sustain their means of living, cost of living increase,
necessary effective appropriate medical procedure and/or treatments, as well as
delayed life-threatening diagnosis. It is unreasonable and unsustainable to be
expected to pay for injuries, and of those that occurred during honorable active-
duty Military service. Then heaping on the gross negligence from the Dept of
Veterans, and DOE-1.
Defendants continue to operate below the standard of care with this
continued bad standard of practice. See Schooley v. Pinchak 42 Wn.2d 455, 459
(1953), which states: "The standard of care required of a physician is that degree of
care and skill which is exercised by reasonably prudent physicians practicing in the
same or similar locality, taking into consideration the state of medical science at
the time." Continuation of the earlier conduct to treat a well-documented physical
injury as a mental illness proves a continued pattern. Males are taken at their word
when injured, sent for treatment, instructed to stop whining, go see a doctor.
Females when injured are considered to have a mental illness. I qualified for the
American Gladiators, which was no small task. Defendants are bias toward
21
females. This continued violation is well established. Then add this failure to
inform, failure to treat, then refused to provide needed medical treatment
contributes to suicide, homelessness, and bankruptcy. Additionally, absent
injunctive relief, appellant-CSX will indisputably suffer irreparable harm and
greater hardship, and file for bankruptcy. Maiming of my lower extremities, bodily
drug damage from the excessive inappropriate drugs, and with recommended
needed dental extractions, is expensive. It is possible to recover your human being,
with years upon years of time. This takes an enormous amount of financial
resources (credit card debit now), diligence, discipline, determination, grit and
tenacity, persistence, with a deep-rooted faith in God.
VIII. GRANTING AN INJUNCTION WILL NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL

HARM TO DEFENDANTS AND IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Disclosing a diagnosis to patients in a timely manner is not only harmless
but also crucial in saving lives. By informing patients of their condition, healthcare
providers uphold patient rights and comply with case law, especially for Veterans
and active-duty Military personnel. This preventative approach can reduce the
causes of suicide, homelessness, and bankruptcy. It is unacceptable that a record
entry initiated from MAMC of Multiple myeloma cancer in 2007 took (800 weeks)
to inform the patient. Healthcare providers have an ethical and moral obligation to
prioritize patient well-being and act with transparency and honesty. Timely and
22
honest communication with patients ensures they can choose which effective
treatment options are best for their individual needs, for optimal health and well-
being. Physical injuries need to be treated appropriately whether male or female.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
23
IX. CONCLUSION
It is imperative that this Court grants appellants' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction submitted in good faith with good cause showing. It is the only just and
fair course of action in this matter. The relief sought was initially brought forth in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle matter
2:21-cv-01276-RAJ, and the drug violations against the United States were filed
timely. Given the gravity of the situation, perhaps the Ninth Circuit Court should
seriously consider remanding the case back to the district court for further review,
as evidenced in DocketEntry #8-1, #8-2 Excerpts of Record, 1-ER, 2-ER, 3-ER.
Therefore, the appellant urges this Court to consider the urgency of the matter and
the overwhelming evidence presented. It is the duty of the Court to ensure justice is
served, and granting appellants' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is the only
equitable solution.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statement is made under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington and Arizona foregoing
is true and correct, and I am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein.
RESPECTFULLY and sincerely submitted this 31st day of March 2023.
s/ Carolyn Sioux Green/ candidCarolyn®

CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN aka (3-ER, Dkt. #54)
CANDIDCAROLYN®
PO Box 38097, Phoenix, Arizona 85069
(253) 588-8100, candidCarolyn@gmail.com
Appellant-Plaintiff self-represented
24
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-2.6(c) the appellant-CSX notes related cases. It

involves the different parties as this matter: DOE-1 is Providence St. Peter Hospital
in the Court of Appeals Division-II No. 57429-2-II is a related case. This case is
referenced in WAWD matter 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ, (Dkt. #48 DOE-1). Carolyn
Sioux Green v. State of Washington, Washington State Department of Social and
Health Services, Western State Asylum, et al., is a related case that is eligible for
filing in The United States Supreme Court.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief complies with all applicable rules. Cir. R. 32-1. It was
produced in 14-point type and consists of a total of 5186 words.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This emergency request for relief was brought to the attention of the Court
via emergency@ca9.uscourts.gov, and the defendant-Appellees via the email on
record james.waldrop@usdoj.gov @ 11:03 PM PST, pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3,
prior to filing. I hereby certify that the foregoing has been filed on March 31, 2023
via the CM/ECF system, and the foregoing has been served on Respondent.
DATED: March 31, 2023,
s/ Carolyn Sioux Green/ candidCarolyn®

CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN
CANDIDCAROLYN®
25

9th Cir. Motion For Preliminary Injunction Case No. 22-35794

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9th Cir. Motion For Preliminary Injunction Case No. 22-35794

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ Document 273-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 29

Case: 22-35794, 03/31/2023, ID: 12687042, DktEntry: 19-1, Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................ii

STATUTORY [& REGULATORY] AUTHORITIES ...................................iii

I. IDENTITY OF MOVING PARTY .......................................................1

II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT ..................................................1

III. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ............................................................1

IV. ARTICLE III STANDING .....................................................................3

V. APPELLANT IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS

VI. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................4

VII. MORE VETERANS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY .......20

VIII. GRANTING AN INJUNCTION:

IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................24

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES UPDATE.........................................25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................................25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................25

846 F.3d 325 (9th Cir.) .........................................................................14

Statutes & Laws

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN, No. 22-35794

Plaintiff – Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01276-RAJ

Defendants - Appellees. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

I. IDENTITY OF MOVING PARTY

Circuit Rule 27-3, Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT

Preliminary Injunction, while serious consideration is given to remanding the case

III. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Preliminary Injunction “Generally, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is

preliminary injunction where they establish four factors:

(1) that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits,

Id. at 788-89 (quoting Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). In the

alternative, however, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of

preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff[s] also show[] that there is a

movant to show a "substantial" likelihood of irreparable harm or success on the

In Hazy Shades of Winter: Resolving the Circuit Split over Preliminary

Injunctions, p. 1040 states in C, the Ninth Circuit: Intracircuit Split:

“The Ninth Circuit used a balancing approach before Winter's rejection of

VI. ARTICLE III STANDING

traceable” to the defendant’s conduct and “that is likely to be redressed by a

favorable decision.” (See DocketEntry 7).

V. APPELLANT IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE

presents a compelling case. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that CSX has

physical injury as a mental disorder, is a clear indication of the defendant’s gross

negligence in this matter. Therefore, it is imperative that the defendants be held

In general, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical obligation to inform

self-decision, often referred to as informed consent, has two aspects. First, it is

patient to patient, as to the kind of treatment or therapy he wishes to receive."

(“MAMC”), in the Dept of Veterans records, diagnosed me with “Multiple

(“PHX”) Arizona Veterans’. 20+ doctors with no mention of this life-threatening

me of this blood cancer. I have not had an examination of my “bone marrow.”

to diagnose Multiple myeloma cancer include: Examination of your bone marrow,

category to indicate the aggressiveness of this disease. Dept of Veterans failed to

therapy, Immunotherapy, Chemotherapy, Corticosteroids, Bone marrow transplant,

Radiation therapy. No treatments were offered.

Then defendants denied the appellant-CSX dental treatment to extract my

Defendants refused to schedule or provide the needed extractions at a later

date due to this exponentially delayed possible life-changing information. If fact,