Category Archives: Tim Feeney

NY’s TBI Waiver: A New Beginning? Maybe

Posted on by
1

In an intense forthright discussion with me today, three New York State Department officials, all  part of an impressive new-leadership for the state’s TBI Waiver, made it clear that Timothy J. Feeney will not have the contractual authority he did in the past nor the ability to exceed any contractual authority as survivors (including this writer), family members and providers witnessed in the past.

It was also made clear that the “training” provided by Feeney’s company will not be the only option for providers when it comes to being approved for being PBIS (Behavioral) Directors.

Equally important to understand is that the state’s contract is with the Southern Tier Independence Center (STIC) in Binghamton, not Feeney’s company, and STIC is on the hook to make sure the neurobehavioral contract’s deliverables are provided as called for in the contract. All indications are STIC will be giving the work to Feeney and his people.

I like, and was genuinely impressed, with the three folks I met with today: Deputy Commissioner Mark Kissinger, Carla Williams, Deputy Director Office of Long Term Care and Mary Ann Anglin, Director of the Division of Home & Community Based Care Services. Kissinger is wonderfully straight forward and direct, Ms. Williams, who will never be accused of being shy or understated, is refreshingly intense and forceful, and Ms. Anglin is  a marvelously clear and creative thinker. All three made their loyalty to the best possible waiver clear to me, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. If I did (or ever do), I’ll tell you.

It is important to note too that these three were not at the helm back in the days when Feeney was able to run roughshod over people and providers, inflicting admission holds at will and, as many of us know, acting on his penchant for reminding providers that if they didn’t do what he told them to do, he’d shut off their admissions straight away. Feeney and his crew would at times direct who should be fired and who should or should not be promoted. I can even recall instances where he directed that cognitive therapy is not an option because it doesn’t work; about as absurd a claim as one can make in the world of brain injury. Kind of like telling someone summiting Everest that oxygen is irrelevant.

I was also reassured that survivors, families and providers should not hesitate to file complaints if they have them. I explained that in the past there was a reality-based fear in filing complaints against Feeney and his crew because the response was often punitive. Fear can be a helluva manager. I was assured in no uncertain terms that those days are in the past.

And so we will see. I can tell you that if you have complaints or concerns of any kind, you can file them with the Kahrmann Advocacy Coalition (kahrma1@gmail.com) as well as with the Brain Injury Association of New York State.

Reflections of an Advocate, September 17, 2010

Posted on by
Reply

Bigotry is inhumane.

For as long as far back as memory allows me I have always found it troubling when people were being treated inhumanely. This may explain why two of my childhood heroes were Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Geronimo. They still are heroes of mine. The hero list for me has grown since then. It now includes Elie Wiesel, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Frederick Douglass, Coretta Scott King, Dorothy Height, Father Mychal Judge and others.

Anyway, today’s reflections revolve around those moments all advocates face when you simply can’t believe the challenge you are facing is even there in the first place. For example, it boggles my mind that there is even a question about making sure polling sites are accessible to all. There is even a cluster of numbnuts who call themselves, I swear to God, the Lever Lovers. They seem to think  voting machines with levers are the only way to go, too damned bad if you are paralyzed. Boggles the mind, at least it does mine.

And then there were two moments this morning that boggled my mind in similar fashion.

First, I left a voice mail for Timothy J. Feeney asking why his company’s voice mail (call them yourself) has, for some time now, said they are under contract with the Department of Health whey they’re not and did he intend to continue to misrepresent his credentials to adults and children with disabilities.

Second, an email was sent to Maria Dibble, executive director of STIC (Southern Tier Independence Center) in Binghamton, NY, again asking her to explain why STIC, which is likely to be under contract with the New York State Department of Health for the Neurobehavioral Resource Project, plans to give the work to someone like Feeney.

There was a moment when I sat back, took a sip of my coffee, and shook my head. It struck me as somewhat unbelievable that any of us have to deal with someone prancing around pretending to have degrees they don’t have much less ask questions of a provider like STIC, that apart from this situation has a good reputation, why they plan to give work to the prancing ninny.

But, when I find myself shaking my head over perplexing challenges like these, I remind myself of the days people were made to ride in the back of the bus or drink and eat in specific locations because of the color of their skin. That was pretty unbelievable too.

So, the bad news? Bigotry marches on. Only bigotry would allow someone to think it is okay to be or to hire someone who is misleading an entire population of people.  The good news? Advocacy, including this advocate, marches on as well. I like my role models: King, Geronimo, Height, Mandela, Gandhi, Douglass, Wiesel.  Who might the role models for the bigots be? Maybe the likes of Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, David Duke, George Lincoln Rockwell, Adolf Hitler.

I like my role models better.

The First Brain Injury Summit – A Step in the Right Direction

Posted on by
3

While there are some difficult realities surrounding New York State’s Traumatic Brain Injury Waiver, all attendees at the first Brain Injury Summit held in Albany this week agree that the waiver is far more a blessing than it is a curse. Nearly 3,000 adults who live with brain injuries live in the community because of the waiver, and that is good news. There are also no plans to end the TBI Waiver. Deep breath all.

The summit was recorded and once I figure out how to post it online in its entirety, it will be posted. Transparency is critically important.

The attendees at this week’s two-hour summit, hosted by the Kahrmann Advocacy Coalition, pledged in no uncertain terms to work together to address the challenges now faced by waiver participants, providers and, not incidentally, by the New York State Department of  Health which deals with the perpetual pressures faced by any regulatory agency, particularly during hard economic times.

Those who attended the summit were (in alphabetical order) :

  • Marie Cavallo, president, Brain Injury Association of NY State
  • Bill Combes, NY State Commission on Quality of Care
  • Karina Davis-Corr, Providers Alliance
  • Peter S. Kahrmann, Kahrmann Advocacy Coalition
  • Mark Kissinger, Deputy Commissioner, NY State Department of Health
  • Sandra Ryden, Kahrmann Advocacy Coalition
  • Mary Seeley, acting Executive Director, Brain Injury Association of NY State
  • Joe Vollaro, Providers Alliance

While I can’t and won’t speak for the others at this meeting, I can tell you that discussion was wide ranging, direct, deeply respectful on all fronts, and serious. It was and is not lost on any of us that there are real financial pressures on everyone that are not of our own making.

I did say that they number one complaint I hear from people who live with brain injuries (and people with disabilities of all kinds) is we get treated like we are children, and in some cases like we are barely human. Part of the reason for this is a rather global lack of understanding about the brain and brain injury thus putting the most well-intentioned among us in the untenable position of having to make choices and decisions while not fully understanding the role the brain injury is playing in the person they are working with.

I also said, and all agreed, that there were no villains at the table, and this includes the DOH, the most commonly villainized of all. The DOH is like any other large entity. Some of its workers are great, some aren’t. 

As a result of the summit the Providers Alliance will begin to meet with the DOH at a cadence both parties agree on, and that is good news all around.

I am not going to go into a slew of details at this point. But I can tell you this, and if you know me or know of me you’ll know this is true, I genuinely felt everyone at the table truly gave a damn. If I did not feel this way, I would tell you.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention that I raised the subject of Timothy J. Feeney being only “moments” away from being part of the neurobehavioral project again, a disgraceful and despicable reality no matter how you hold it up to the light. However, the “hands” that manipulated the course that is poised to allow a clinical predator like Feeney back into the mix were not at the table. It is not yet clear who pulled the strings, but it will be. Trust me. It is just a matter of time.

One piece of Feeney-related good news that came to light at the summit is this: waiver providers are free to choose not to work with Feeney. Therefore, providers who do choose to work with him are, by default, acknowledging they don’t truly give a damn about the people they serve.

The next summit is scheduled for December 10, 2010.

 

Responding to a Reader about Feeney’s Work

Posted on by
1

A blog reader recently wrote in asking about the quality of Tim Feeney’s work with brain injury survivors. In short, not impressive. In fact, I consider Feeney nothing more than a clinical predator.

This writer and others have received numerous reports of assessments not being done by Feeney and his staff, assessments done in a haphazard fashion, and a seeming reluctance to put much of anything in writing.

One family set up a meeting with their attorney and their son who lives with a brain injury specifically so Feeney could attend. Not only did Feeney not attend, he didn’t even bother to call them. They set up a second meeting with the same result. Another example would be when Feeney spent 10 minutes with a man with a brain injury, claimed it was an assessment, and proclaimed the man unfit for the waiver.

This writer has heard Feeney refer to himself as ‘the angel of death” referencing his ability to close a waiver provider, stop admissions or refuse to allow a survivor on the waiver or, in some cases, toss a survivor off the waiver. Moreover, several providers, good providers, have talked about how Feeney and his group would place demands on providers that placed unnecessary economic strain on their pocketbooks while at the same time, did not translate into particularly effective care.

I can tell this reader, and others pondering the same question this person asked, that back when I first exposed Feeney’s false credentials I offered to sit down and talk with him about the situation, and offer he began to accept until I told him we needed to record the conversation so neither of us would have to worry about the other making false claims. As soon as he heard this, he declined to talk.

I would sit down with Feeney any time – in an open forum  – which allowed survivors, families, members of the media and others to attend and ask questions; give him a chance to explain why it is okay to go around the state, the country and, for that matter, the world, telling people in real need of help, people with brain injuries, children with autism and more, why it is okay for him to say he is Dr. Feeney or Tim Feeney PhD when he is neither.

Is Tim Feeney a Liar?

Posted on by
3

A friend of mine recently wrote to me wanting a closer look at the details surrounding Timothy J. Feeney’s bogus claim in an email to my blog readers that he was awarded a legitimate masters degree and doctorate by  a now defunct diploma mill called Greenwich University. The short answer is, he wasn’t. However, let’s look at the facts.

Feeney’s unsolicited email to my blog readers says Greenwich “functioned as an unaccredited institution in the US, moved it’s physical location to Australia, received legal accreditation in Australia for a two year period – period of time that my doctorate was conferred – and then lost that accreditation and closed.”

First of all, Greenwich was never given legal accreditation by the government of Australia – never.

In fact, according to the Australian Federal Government’s Department of Education, Science and Training, “Between 30 June 1998 and 2 December 2002, Greenwich University (Norfolk Island) degrees were lawfully awarded under legislation approved by the Norfolk Island Government (not the Australian Government), using its powers of self-government. While the Commonwealth Minister for Territories assented to legislation, this does not mean that Greenwich University awards were ever recognized by the Federal Government of Australia.” In fact, in January 1999, Greenwich actually sought accreditation under the  Australian Qualifications Framework. The Australian government set up a review committee that, after review, ruled that Greenwich would “not be listed on the registers of the Australian Qualifications Framework because the standard of its courses, quality assurance mechanisms and its academic leadership fail to meet the standards expected of Australian universities.”

But, for the moment anyway, ‘let’s go back to Feeney’s claim that his “doctorate” (note that he omits reference to the “masters”) was awarded during the time Norfolk Island allowed Greenwich to issue degrees: June 30, 1998 to December 2, 2002.  However, there is a rather critical document that stands in the way of Feeney’s claim. In fact, it disproves it.  It is a document, I dare say, that Feeney himself would  a tough time arguing against, mostly because the document is his resume. His resume says he was awarded his “masters” in 1992 and his “doctorate” in 1996, six years and two years respectively before the time period Norfolk Island allowed Greenwich to award degrees.

And just so we leave no stone unturned, in a January 27, 2009 email to me written by Douglass  Capogrossi, the former president of Greenwich University no less, Mr. Capogrossi writes that Feeney received his “masters” from Greenwich on August 27, 1993 and his “doctorate” on June 14, 1999. So was Feeney lying in his resume when he claimed 1996 as the year he received his “doctorate”? Hmmm, lob pitch anyone?

Having said all this, here is the bottom line. Neither document awarded Feeney by Greenwich is recognized as a valid college degree anywhere in the world and, more importantly, anywhere in the United States, including my home state of New York. The dates he cited in his email to my blog readers were and are disingenuous.

So what does this all mean, other than Feeney continues to knowingly misrepresent his credentials. It means that any business, health care provider and  or government agency who knowingly does business with him has in some way decided it is okay for him to lie about his credentials and mislead survivors of brain injury, their families, children with disabilities, healthcare providers and more.

I would urge any and all to refuse to work with Feeney or any entity he is involved with until Feeney openly acknowledges his dishonesty.