What is the name of your state? Washington
This is a hefty one. I apologize for the length but I feel the details are needed for accuracy.
In January 2006 my uncle "D." (a resident of both WA and AZ) had a heart attack in his vehicle alongside a Washington road. The officer who responded to the incident listed in his report the contents of the vehicle, including "a briefcase" (not the contents of the briefcase), and "a wallet" (it was more of a day planner that he also used to carry cash, credit cards, his checkbook etc. so it was in the vehicle but not physically on his body). He was D.O.A. but medics were able to revive him and he was taken to the hospital unconscious. Meanwhile, the vehicle was towed. What follows is shady at best.
My father, D's brother, was notified of the situation and drove to the hospital. Upon arriving there he found D's long-time girlfriend, "J" (common law marriage does not apply in WA or AZ) and her family as well as D's adult son (next of kin). The doctor asked J, D's son and D's brother their relationship to D and then told D's son that as next of kin he would be the one responsible for making decisions. While the doctor was speaking with D's son, J's family got D's brother up to speed about the situation and informed him that they had to "stretch the truth" a bit. According to J's family: J had a niece that worked at the hospital where D was taken, and when D's chart came across her desk, she further investigated the matter by claiming she was D's niece. She gave information about D and preceeded to contact J and inform her of his condition who then contacted D's son who then contacted D's brother, resulting in all of D's family being contacted, but only through word of mouth, not as next of kin, as it should have been.
D's brother inquired as to what had been done with the truck and J's sister informed D's brother that her husband was taking care of it. What D's brother later found out was that while he had been en route to the hospital, J's brother-in-law had gone to the towing yard and gained access to the vehicle claiming he was family. It is believed, but cannot be proven, that J's brother-in-law removed D's driver's license from the vehicle. J's brother- in-law later returned with the license and presented it along with his own identification and a note signed by J releasing the vehicle and verbally claiming that J was D's daughter and next of kin. He then took the vehicle to his residence. D's brother later got a copy of the note from the towing company and questioned the attendant, who told him the "daughter and next of kin" detail. Meanwhile, brain scans were being done at the hospital for a day and a half and the results showed he had severe brain damage and would not recover. D's son discussed the decision with J and D's brother and the decision was made to remove D from life support. D was pronounced dead. D's brother inquired as to D's personal belongings and was told that they were never entered into the safe. The involved parties dispersed and D's son contacted J about retrieving the vehicle. J told him to come to the residence where the truck was and they would discuss it. D's son went to the residence while D's brother waited a few miles away, planning to help transport the vehicle. J became hostile when asked about D's belongings from the vehicle and D's son left the residence without the vehicle and belongings. D's son met back up with D's brother and proceeded to call the police, who then contacted J and told her that everything that was in the vehicle when it was retrieved from the towing yard had better be in there when the police arrived shortly to pick up the vehicle. The briefcase and wallet had been placed back in the truck. The truck was taken back to the towing yard where D's son showed the proper paperwork that should have been required in the beginning and was able to have the truck released to him. However, upon inspection, D's checkbook, a significant amount of cash, and all credit cards had been removed (according to D's mother, who saw him the morning of his trip packing his belongings, including several hundred dollars and a checkbook.) The briefcase contained many important documents that pertained to D's transactions both independantly as well as with J (whom he co-owned property with) but no one knew what, if anything had been removed. D's family suspects that J was looking for real estate papers from a purchase D and J were making together, thinking that they had been signed, but that in fact were not in the briefcase but instead were at D's mother's house, unopened and unsigned.
After all was said and done, D's brother consulted an attorney to help D's son and daughter get anything they were entitled to. Most of D's accounts, including his home and two other vehicles (not the truck) were held J.T.W.R.O.S. between he and J. The attorney also helped D's brother draft a HIPPA complaint against the hospital because of what he had learned from J's sister about the actions of J's niece with D's medical information. D's brother recently received a letter informing him that the investigation had come to a close and that no wrongdoing had been found. According to the letter it was said that J's niece recognized D physically when he was brought into the E.R. and that she then was helpful in offering up information about him and that is was undetermined whether hospital personnel mistakenly thought that she was his niece or if she actually told them she was his niece so the investigation was closed.
D's brother feels as though fraud was committed by both J's niece (as admitted by her mother as "stretching the truth") as well as by J's brother-in-law when retrieving the vehicle unlawfully. It was later found out that D's belongings were never put into the safe because they were given to J's family... we know this because they were in possession of the jewelry he was wearing at the time of his accident and later produced some of it for his burial. What we don't know is if the wallet went to the hospital with his jewelry, or if it remained in the truck and the license was removed from it the first time J's brother-in-law gained access to the vehicle. Either way, it was done unlawfully and never should have happened. Since D's passing his family has learned a lot about him that we didn't want to know and probably would have respected him less for it were he still alive. Perhaps he did consider J's family to be his more than he did his own. It doesn't matter any more. What matters to us is that whether he cared about us, we certainly cared about him. We were entitled to know first about what had happened to him. We were entitled the dignity of taking his belongings back to his mother in the home he was raised in. We shouldn't have had to call the police to get his vehicle. We were entitled the right to make decisions that were taken from us. Maybe we're just bitter, but we certainly feel wronged.
So my question is... who is responsible, and what, if anything, can we do about it?
This is a hefty one. I apologize for the length but I feel the details are needed for accuracy.
In January 2006 my uncle "D." (a resident of both WA and AZ) had a heart attack in his vehicle alongside a Washington road. The officer who responded to the incident listed in his report the contents of the vehicle, including "a briefcase" (not the contents of the briefcase), and "a wallet" (it was more of a day planner that he also used to carry cash, credit cards, his checkbook etc. so it was in the vehicle but not physically on his body). He was D.O.A. but medics were able to revive him and he was taken to the hospital unconscious. Meanwhile, the vehicle was towed. What follows is shady at best.
My father, D's brother, was notified of the situation and drove to the hospital. Upon arriving there he found D's long-time girlfriend, "J" (common law marriage does not apply in WA or AZ) and her family as well as D's adult son (next of kin). The doctor asked J, D's son and D's brother their relationship to D and then told D's son that as next of kin he would be the one responsible for making decisions. While the doctor was speaking with D's son, J's family got D's brother up to speed about the situation and informed him that they had to "stretch the truth" a bit. According to J's family: J had a niece that worked at the hospital where D was taken, and when D's chart came across her desk, she further investigated the matter by claiming she was D's niece. She gave information about D and preceeded to contact J and inform her of his condition who then contacted D's son who then contacted D's brother, resulting in all of D's family being contacted, but only through word of mouth, not as next of kin, as it should have been.
D's brother inquired as to what had been done with the truck and J's sister informed D's brother that her husband was taking care of it. What D's brother later found out was that while he had been en route to the hospital, J's brother-in-law had gone to the towing yard and gained access to the vehicle claiming he was family. It is believed, but cannot be proven, that J's brother-in-law removed D's driver's license from the vehicle. J's brother- in-law later returned with the license and presented it along with his own identification and a note signed by J releasing the vehicle and verbally claiming that J was D's daughter and next of kin. He then took the vehicle to his residence. D's brother later got a copy of the note from the towing company and questioned the attendant, who told him the "daughter and next of kin" detail. Meanwhile, brain scans were being done at the hospital for a day and a half and the results showed he had severe brain damage and would not recover. D's son discussed the decision with J and D's brother and the decision was made to remove D from life support. D was pronounced dead. D's brother inquired as to D's personal belongings and was told that they were never entered into the safe. The involved parties dispersed and D's son contacted J about retrieving the vehicle. J told him to come to the residence where the truck was and they would discuss it. D's son went to the residence while D's brother waited a few miles away, planning to help transport the vehicle. J became hostile when asked about D's belongings from the vehicle and D's son left the residence without the vehicle and belongings. D's son met back up with D's brother and proceeded to call the police, who then contacted J and told her that everything that was in the vehicle when it was retrieved from the towing yard had better be in there when the police arrived shortly to pick up the vehicle. The briefcase and wallet had been placed back in the truck. The truck was taken back to the towing yard where D's son showed the proper paperwork that should have been required in the beginning and was able to have the truck released to him. However, upon inspection, D's checkbook, a significant amount of cash, and all credit cards had been removed (according to D's mother, who saw him the morning of his trip packing his belongings, including several hundred dollars and a checkbook.) The briefcase contained many important documents that pertained to D's transactions both independantly as well as with J (whom he co-owned property with) but no one knew what, if anything had been removed. D's family suspects that J was looking for real estate papers from a purchase D and J were making together, thinking that they had been signed, but that in fact were not in the briefcase but instead were at D's mother's house, unopened and unsigned.
After all was said and done, D's brother consulted an attorney to help D's son and daughter get anything they were entitled to. Most of D's accounts, including his home and two other vehicles (not the truck) were held J.T.W.R.O.S. between he and J. The attorney also helped D's brother draft a HIPPA complaint against the hospital because of what he had learned from J's sister about the actions of J's niece with D's medical information. D's brother recently received a letter informing him that the investigation had come to a close and that no wrongdoing had been found. According to the letter it was said that J's niece recognized D physically when he was brought into the E.R. and that she then was helpful in offering up information about him and that is was undetermined whether hospital personnel mistakenly thought that she was his niece or if she actually told them she was his niece so the investigation was closed.
D's brother feels as though fraud was committed by both J's niece (as admitted by her mother as "stretching the truth") as well as by J's brother-in-law when retrieving the vehicle unlawfully. It was later found out that D's belongings were never put into the safe because they were given to J's family... we know this because they were in possession of the jewelry he was wearing at the time of his accident and later produced some of it for his burial. What we don't know is if the wallet went to the hospital with his jewelry, or if it remained in the truck and the license was removed from it the first time J's brother-in-law gained access to the vehicle. Either way, it was done unlawfully and never should have happened. Since D's passing his family has learned a lot about him that we didn't want to know and probably would have respected him less for it were he still alive. Perhaps he did consider J's family to be his more than he did his own. It doesn't matter any more. What matters to us is that whether he cared about us, we certainly cared about him. We were entitled to know first about what had happened to him. We were entitled the dignity of taking his belongings back to his mother in the home he was raised in. We shouldn't have had to call the police to get his vehicle. We were entitled the right to make decisions that were taken from us. Maybe we're just bitter, but we certainly feel wronged.
So my question is... who is responsible, and what, if anything, can we do about it?