Partners in Recovery complaints
Partners in Recovery complaint: put false and unsustantiated claims in my rule 25
Filed 1 Mar 2021 by Terry
i have used 2 times in the last 5 years. i was taking au at least once per week from 642017 to 8102020, and never had a failed one. i had a lapse that produced 2 separate dirty au within a six week period. I had a rule 25 done at range treatment, and they said that I needed extensive inpatient treatment. i was not in full blown addiction, and i didn’t feel that i should have been recommended for that. So i requested a second opinion from Partners in Recovery, once again, 2 documented uses, extensive outpatient treatment. So with that i decided to appeal to DHS. I informed Branden Mattson hat i was appealing it, and i would like a copy of my rule 25. He flew off the handle, i don’t care who you complain to. I told him that i would just request a copy from DHS. When I said that he gave it to me. From the begging i felt that something wasn’t right. He told me one day that He could legally recommended a person with no documented use to treatment. I didn’t know if it was true, but i was gonna find out. the next day i brought that up, and he told me that i was putting words into his mouth. My assessment was done on 2221. i decided to just do, and according to them, i was doing great. I filed the appeal a week after. now i read the rule 25 because i didn’t think i needed to. from the day that i filed the appeal, DHS called to find out what county it was done in. they have called at least a dozen times asking the same question cause they cant find anything in the system. this past Friday they called, i missed them, but now this is just not adding up. i decided to read my rule 25 and i was completely blown. Lee Mattson who did the assessment filled it with a bunch of lies. in order for you to understand the ramifications of all this. we need to go over this thing piece by piece.
Report
Discussion
0 comments
No comments yet. Been through something similar with Partners in Recovery? Start the discussion above.