Mark Ravis, M.D., J.D. - Speech
| Mark Ravis, M.D. J.D.
Mr. Ravis is an experienced civil and criminal trial lawyer from Los Angeles. He is also a physician who has been licensed in California for 23 years. He has practiced family medicine and internal medicine in the Los Angeles area. He has been an attorney for 15 years and is in the full-time practice of law in Los Angeles and San Diego. Many of his cases have in some way involved health care. In addition to his medical (University of Missouri)
and law (Southwestern University School of Law) degrees, Mr. Ravis also
holds a Masters Degree in Public Administration (University of Missouri).
Mr. Ravis received his undergraduate degree from the University of California-Berkeley.
A Stacked Deck It is my privilege to represent Mr. Charles Wesley. He was released from Chino in 2000 and has since been generally gainfully employed and been successfully pursuing his college education. His goal is to work in some capacity in the legal field. But it is only by the Grace of God that he is here today. He nearly lost his life to the medical care system at Chino, where he was luckier than most because he was the Chairman of the Men’s Advisory Council, the so-called “MAC Chairman” and had easier access to educational materials and key persons. Mr. Wesley has permanent nerve damage because a needed surgery was delayed for seven months by MTAs who were angry at him because he complained and filed appeals. We have evidence that some of his medical records were shredded at the direction of an MTA. He was in severe pain, unable to make it to chow, fellow inmates brought him his food, he was observed lying on the ground on multiple occasions because of pain—none of this did anything to speed up his surgery. In fact, he was teased and threatened and told that unless you withdraw your appeals, you’ll never get your dammed operation. Unfortunately, medical care is routinely withheld or delayed as a form of punishment in California prisons. The keys to medical care are in the hands of guards, known as MTAs [Medical Technology Assistants], who effectively run the prison medical facilities. Let’s be clear: guards should not be permitted to affect in any manner life and death medical decisions. They must not be placed in a position where they can affect access to medical care because they are not competent or properly motivated to do so. We must have a prison medical system controlled by doctors and nurses who are independent of the guard union, independent of the guard culture, independent of the guard mentality and motivated not by a desire to punish but by a sincere desire to preserve the mental and physical health of our prisoners, who are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. Anything less than that is inhumane and has already proven to be a failure. In the long run it will be cheaper to provide proper and timely medical care to inmates because disease processes will be interrupted earlier and the earlier a disease is treated, the cheaper the treatment. Moreover, it is better and cheaper to release an able-bodied inmate who potentially can be gainfully employed and can be become a productive member of society instead of someone crippled by the medical system and dependent thereafter on the government for support. The solution lies in legislation, not litigation. The inmate has little chance of success in court. The deck is stacked against the inmate litigant by the code of silence among the guards and the inmate’s lack of access to legal information and professional legal assistance as well as every other possible impediment, including punishment inflicted on inmates for filing appeals which legally must be exhausted before obtaining access to the court system. Appeals can be a risky venture for an inmate especially when the appeal calls into question the conduct of an MTA. In addition to taking guards out of the business of medical care, the medical staffs themselves should be upgraded. The physician staff should be filled with energetic, highly qualified, multi-specialized and, above all, dedicated physicians AND NOT the semi-retired doctor seeking an easy avocation and plenty of spare time. The medical staff should be filled with physicians who can speak English fluently and there should be some who speak Spanish on the medical staff at each facility. Providing a doctor who can’t understand English is the same as not providing a doctor at all and may be unconstitutional. I would like to say a few words about compassionate release. AB 1946 is going to be revived, and hopefully passed, because of your combined efforts. Together we have tremendous political power which will not be ignored. Compassionate release is not only humane but makes great economic sense. It certainly costs more to care for the terminally ill or the paraplegics in prison than it would in some institution specialized to provide appropriate services for these conditions or at home. The public deserves good statistics on the number of inmates with terminal diseases or profound handicaps and the cost of providing appropriate in-prison care to them. But cost considerations aside, prisoners are people and, in general, they should be given a chance to spend their last weeks and months with their families. Let us remember that “there but for the grace of God, go I”. Most of us are free, not because we are morally superior to those in prison but because we are luckier. Most of those incarcerated are probably guilty of the crimes charged and should serve their sentences; some are innocent but couldn’t fight the right kind of legal fight for one reason or another; some have sentences which make no sense whatsoever. But it should not be left to guards to impose a death sentence to anyone who displeases them by withholding, delaying or interfering with medical and psychiatric care. Sentencing is a matter for judges, not guards, just as medicine is a matter for dedicated physicians and nurses, not guards. Thank you.
Mark Ravis & Associates
525 B St Suite 1500
|