Wang Xiaotong accuses Shuangyashan People's Hospital of delayed treatment and grave injury: after four reports, police closed her case without an injury appraisal or witness statements; procuratorate and discipline channels gave no support

Full report

The contributor: Wang Xiaotong (English name Claire), of Shuangyashan, Heilongjiang. She wrote to this site's submissions inbox on October 26, 2026, and twice more in the early hours of October 27 with the full chronology and a list of materials; she then downloaded and handed over her complete evidence package - copies of four hospital case files, about 90 call recordings, and all of her documents and applications. Under this site's submissions policy, submitting means consenting to publication after checking; she may ask for changes or removal at any time. On October 28 she wrote again - a case this old, told from memory, is bound to have slips, she said - correcting and sharpening three points in the record; this site has revised the text to match, as noted in the verification note below. [1]

The hospital course: On the afternoon of November 24, 2025, Wang reached Shuangyashan People's Hospital's emergency department with an obstruction attack and was admitted to General Surgery Ward 2 at 16:41, her blood pressure just 85/64. In her latest letter she corrects one detail from admission: her actual intestinal-obstruction pain lasted one day; the three days before that were menstrual pain together with menstrual gastrointestinal upset, a different kind and intensity of pain - obstruction pain lasting five days, she says, would have been more than she could bear. She has lived with tuberculous peritonitis for over a decade and suffers recurrent obstruction: in December 2024 and July 2025 she was twice admitted to the same hospital's Ward 1 and both times recovered with conservative treatment including gastrointestinal decompression; those case files are in the package. She expected the same treatment this time. This time everything went differently. In the early hours of November 25 she phoned the hospital for help in unbearable pain - the recording is in the package. On November 25, after her family bought a gastric tube, the hospital placed it, but the tube never worked; she asked again and again for it to be adjusted and was ignored. That morning, a covering doctor, Dr Xu, had already recorded in her notes that she showed partial peritoneal irritation signs - intestinal fluid leaking out and irritating the peritoneum is what produces those signs, and they confirm that her night of unbearable pain was real. From noon that day she developed chills, trembling, blurred vision and a racing heart, and her temperature fell to 35 degrees; some of these symptoms were recorded in her notes by Dr Xu Zhe, while the 35-degree temperature was recorded by no one. That evening her family took her to Jiamusi, where Director Xia asked about the tube himself and dealt with it - decompression finally began to take effect, more than 24 hours after admission. An insurance-settlement problem forced a return to Shuangyashan that night; by November 26 her abdominal tenderness, rigidity and rebound pain were unmistakable, and she says her attending told her after examining her: 'Worse than yesterday - the root problem hasn't been solved.' At 11:10 that day she was admitted to Jiamusi University's First Affiliated Hospital, whose admission examination records 'abdominal rigidity, left abdominal tenderness and rebound tenderness positive'; a tube was placed endoscopically the same day and she stayed eight days. Her charge: the hospital, knowing her condition and its own limits, admitted her, left her untreated and did not transfer her in time - nearly 40 hours of delay that dragged her into peritonitis and the edge of shock. And in both hospitals' diagnosis columns, from first to last, stand only the words 'intestinal obstruction'. [1]

On 'second-degree serious injury': From her case files and the national Standard for Assessing the Degree of Bodily Injury, Wang concludes that diffuse peritonitis is exactly what second-degree serious injury covers; she set this out in her discipline-inspection complaint and published it on Weibo. In law, such a determination is supposed to be stamped by a forensic appraisal - and the door to that procedure was shut from the start: the police never commissioned one after accepting her case, and the procuratorate told her by phone to 'commission one herself' - though, as she now spells out, an appraisal of the degree of bodily injury can be commissioned only by the police, the procuratorate or a court; an individual cannot commission one at all. There is no appraisal report today not because her injuries are not grave enough, but because no authority with the power to start the procedure would start it for her. This site lays out her case files, her argument and the recordings in full: how badly she was hurt, the materials speak for themselves; the missing procedure is what the authorities owe her. [1]

The police reports: Wang reported four times - January 23, January 29, February 6 and February 26, 2026 - and two of those reports left paper originals from the station. At 09:02 on January 26 she phoned in that delayed treatment had caused diffuse peritonitis and a series of serious symptoms and demanded a criminal case; Wohongqiao station issued a report receipt recording her questions about the treatment plan ('gastrointestinal decompression', 'paraffin oil by tube') and advising that medical questions could go to the health commission or medical association for expert review, and complaints about individual doctors to discipline-inspection bodies. On February 26, her case 'Wang Xiaotong, intentional injury' was formally accepted (registration no. [2026] 45; case no. A2305025200002026020014; the query password and the officer's mobile on the receipt are not published by this site). What followed acceptance was not investigation but delay: the two witnesses she named - a fellow patient in the Jiamusi ward and Dr Xia who received her - were never approached; the injury appraisal she requested was never commissioned. On March 23, 2026, Wohongqiao station issued its Decision Terminating the Investigation ([2026] No. 77), closing the case because it 'presented circumstances of no unlawful facts'. That same morning she was still asking Officer Zhai by phone whether the witnesses had been approached (see the recordings check below). After the closure she queried her case on the Heilongjiang police public-enforcement portal with her password: her screen recordings of March 31 and April 4 show the case information could no longer be retrieved - on April 4 the page answered 'please fill in the parameters' and cleared the fields. She believes her case was deleted from the platform; why it cannot be found, the police have never told her. [1][3]

Supervision, inspectorate, discipline channels: After the closure, Wang applied to the procuratorate for case-filing supervision. On May 22, 2026, the Jianshan District Procuratorate issued its notice ([2026] No. 4): the Jianshan police had explained their reasons, and under Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Law the refusal to open a case was 'in accordance with the law'. Not one word answers the request at the heart of everything she had filed - appraise her injuries first, then talk about a case. She asked about an appraisal; the answer went around it. She kept calling: on May 25 a Shuangyashan municipal procuratorate staff member explained that supervision 'can only run once' at the grassroots level, and added, 'this People's Hospital - the medical accidents there that I know of are many; I do sympathise'; on June 12 a Jianshan procuratorate staff member told her her case could not be found in their system. On the police-inspectorate side, an officer surnamed Fu of the Jianshan inspectorate called her on February 27 to confirm acceptance (the recording is in the package), and her call log shows repeated calls between February 27 and March 30. The discipline channel: on December 15, 2025 she phoned to report the hospital's management and was told it was outside the remit - go to the health authorities or the courts; she also filed a written complaint with the Shuangyashan discipline commission against the city petition bureau and health commission for passing her case around; the complaint is in the package. She continues to tell the story on X. [1][2][3]

Verification note (updated October 28, 2026): This site has obtained the contributor's complete evidence package: more than ten documents and applications, copies of four hospital case files (three from Shuangyashan, one from Jiamusi), about 90 call recordings and the portal-query screen recordings. Every item has been checked: the four official documents read word by word, the key pages of all four case files read through, the recordings at the key points listened to one by one, and the results are written into the report above. On October 28 the contributor wrote again to correct three points - a case this old, told from memory, is bound to have slips, she said: the true length and nature of her abdominal pain; the fact that the gastric tube, once placed, never worked, and the exact timing of her symptoms; and the distinction between the two kinds of judicial appraisal. This site has revised the summary and the text accordingly; where her correction applies, it governs.

Medical records check: This site obtained copies of her hospital case files and read them page by page. Shuangyashan People's Hospital's front sheet and admission note record that she was admitted via emergency to General Surgery Ward 2 at 16:41 on November 24, 2025, with five days of nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain; admission blood pressure was 85/64 mmHg, with no fever or chills. (On the 'five days', the contributor has written to correct it: her actual obstruction pain lasted one day, and the three days before were menstrual pain and menstrual gastrointestinal upset, different in nature and intensity - this site keeps both the case file's wording and her correction here.) She was discharged at 07:50 on November 26, 2025; the front sheet records the discharge mode as 'left against medical advice', an actual stay of two days, a sole discharge diagnosis of 'intestinal obstruction' and no surgery. It should be said plainly: she did not leave to give up treatment - at 11:10 the same day she was admitted to Jiamusi University's hospital to continue emergency care. 'Against medical advice' is the hospital's bookkeeping label, turning a departure to save her own life into the patient's fault - one of the very things she is contesting. She had indeed been admitted to the same hospital twice before: December 25, 2024 to January 1, 2025, and July 13-18, 2025, both in General Surgery Ward 1 for intestinal obstruction, both discharged cured - matching her account of having twice been cured there with conservative treatment.

The Jiamusi records: The First Affiliated Hospital of Jiamusi University admitted her at 11:10 on November 26, 2025, for eight days, discharging her on December 4. Its admission examination records 'abdominal muscle rigidity, left abdominal tenderness and rebound tenderness positive' (peritoneal irritation signs); imaging suggested incomplete intestinal obstruction; an endoscopic tube was placed the same day; at discharge her bowel function was normal and her general condition good. Yet although the examination already showed clear peritoneal irritation - serious inflammation inside the abdomen - the discharge diagnosis still lists only 'intestinal obstruction', with peritonitis nowhere in it. Why, no one has ever explained to her. Jiamusi's discharge summary also quotes her Shuangyashan blood count (WBC 12.69 x 10^9/L) and a lower-abdominal CT showing pelvic fluid.

When did decompression actually work? The contributor has now described this stretch more precisely, and this site has rewritten this section to match her correction: on November 25, after her family bought a gastric tube, Shuangyashan People's Hospital placed it, but the tube remained ineffective; she asked repeatedly for it to be adjusted and was ignored. Only that evening in Jiamusi, when Director Xia asked about it himself and dealt with it, did decompression begin to take effect. Jiamusi's discharge summary, recounting the Shuangyashan course, states she was given 'fasting, gastrointestinal decompression and fluids, with two saline enemas, after which some stool passed and the pain eased' - that a tube was placed, the two accounts can now be reconciled; what they do not reconcile is whether the tube ever worked once placed, and why a patient begging for it to be adjusted was ignored. The order sheets and nursing records sit in the hospital's hands and have never been shown to her. If the tube was placed correctly and adjusted in time, the orders would carry the times. What decompression actually amounted to during the nearly 40 hours that ended with her showing peritoneal signs and chills should not have to be proven by the woman in the bed - Shuangyashan People's Hospital should answer with its own orders.

Recordings check: She provided about 90 call recordings; this site listened to those matching the key points. In a March 23, 2026 call with the handling officer (surname Zhai), she pressed whether police had taken statements from the two witnesses she had named - a fellow patient and the Jiamusi doctor who received her. The officer did not confirm any such statements, said the investigation centred on the hospital, and told her a written decision would issue that afternoon; the termination decision is dated that day. In a May 25, 2026 call, a Shuangyashan municipal procuratorate staff member explained that case-filing supervision can run only once at the grassroots level and that she could commission a forensic appraisal herself, adding personally that 'this People's Hospital - I know of many medical accidents there'. In a June 12, 2026 call, a Jianshan District procuratorate staff member said her case could not be found in their system. On February 27, 2026, a Jianshan police inspectorate officer had called to confirm her case was accepted. Separately, on December 15, 2025, when she phoned a discipline-inspection channel to report the hospital's management, she was told the matter was outside its remit and to go to the health authorities or the courts.

What is missing was never her evidence - it is procedure and answers from the authorities. First, there is still no injury grade, not because she lacks material, but because the police, having accepted her case, commissioned no appraisal and then closed it for 'no unlawful facts' - an appraisal report is something she therefore cannot possibly hold; the procuratorate's suggestion that she 'commission one herself' runs into what she spells out in her latest letter: an appraisal of the degree of bodily injury bears on the line between minor and serious injury and on sentencing, and only the police, the procuratorate and the courts may commission it - an individual cannot commission one at all, so that door was never open to her. She says she pushed the criminal process so hard in large part for exactly this reason - the public organs may commission every relevant appraisal in her case - and in part because witness statements not taken in time are forgotten. She pushed it to the end, and neither happened: no appraisal was commissioned, and no witness was ever approached. She asks: what is the difference between evidence lost because testimony was refused, and evidence destroyed? This site records her question as she put it, for the authorities to answer. Second, whether treatment was delayed, and whether delay worsened her condition - she corrects this site's earlier wording in her latest letter: that is determined through civil judicial appraisal, namely a medical-damage appraisal. The police, the procuratorate and the courts may commission it, and so may the health authorities; it is a civil procedure, and the conditions the judicial appraisal institutions set for accepting a commission are not onerous. That is the substance of the road the police receipt pointed her to, and more than one authority could have started it; by her account she walked it and was passed from office to office, and none ever did. Third, beyond the few documents already issued, the hospital, the police and the procuratorate have never publicly answered a single one of her specific allegations. This site will keep following the case and welcomes any response from the authorities named. The four official documents are published in the 'Key evidence' section on this page (the case-query password and the officer's mobile number on the acceptance receipt are redacted); her written submissions and the key pages of her case files, with ID numbers, addresses and phone numbers redacted, are attached in the 'Evidence downloads' section at the end of this page for readers to check.

Editor's note: Everything in this record was gathered piece by piece by Wang Xiaotong herself - four hospital case files, about ninety call recordings, and a stack of official documents. She placed them with this site so that what happened to her would be kept whole, and seen by more people. The documents and the checking results on this page will be kept permanently; any new development from her will be added. Lawyers, journalists and readers willing to help may write to our submissions inbox; any response from the authorities named will be published in full.