By Kandy Fontaine (Alex S. Johnson)

In 2019, I underwent a four-hour neuropsychological evaluation with Dr. Kimberly Lanni at Kaiser Permanente. She was never authorized to treat me as a therapist, yet the consequences of that single session have followed me for years. Not because of the evaluation itself, but because of what came after: a fabricated designation in my patient chart labeling me as a safety threat, a misdiagnosis that contradicts multiple other evaluations, and a pattern of conduct that raises serious ethical concerns—including her published autism research at the UC Davis MIND Institute.

I am a transfemme author, editor, and founder of Nocturnicorn Books, a literary imprint that has published 40 books and platformed icons like David J. Haskins, Jarboe, Caitlín R. Kiernan, Ron Whitehead, and Poppy Z. Brite. My editorial persona, Kandy Fontaine, is a glam voltage source for transgressive, queer, and mythic literature. I’ve built an archive that centers the haunted, the silenced, and the divine. And yet, despite this legacy, I am still forced to fear for my safety every time I walk into a Kaiser facility.

The Origin: One Evaluation, Lifelong Fallout

Dr. Lanni’s role was strictly limited to conducting a neuropsychological test—not therapy, not ongoing care, and certainly not long-term behavioral profiling. Yet she issued a clinical judgment that I had Dependent Personality Disorder and Severe Somatic Symptoms Disorder—labels that have since been contradicted by other licensed professionals who found no evidence of either condition.

Worse, she appears to have fabricated documentation that resulted in my chart being flagged with a safety threat notice. This designation is not visible to me—but it is visible to Kaiser security personnel, who are automatically alerted whenever I arrive for care. I’ve never made threats. I’ve never acted violently. I’ve never endangered staff or patients. Yet my presence triggers a silent alarm.

The Surreal Reality of Being Flagged Without Cause

The safety threat label has turned routine medical visits into psychological minefields. I’ve been:

• Silently profiled at check-in
• Monitored by security without explanation or justification
• Forced to relive the trauma of being falsely labeled—again and again

There was no incident. No confrontation. No behavioral justification. Just one evaluation—and years of fallout.

I recently filed a fresh grievance with Kaiser, demanding that the safety threat designation be removed. It continues to cause emotional distress, disrupt my access to care, and undermine my safety as a patient.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

My experience with Dr. Lanni raises serious concerns about her professional conduct:

• Misdiagnosis: Her conclusions were not supported by the evaluation or by subsequent assessments from other professionals
• Fabrication: The safety threat label appears to be based on false or exaggerated documentation
• Retaliation: I believe this label was applied in response to my questioning of her diagnosis and filing of grievances
• Defamation: The label has damaged my reputation within Kaiser’s system and may have influenced other providers’ perceptions of me

Autism Research and Documented Use of Restraint

Dr. Lanni’s published work includes contributions to autism studies at the UC Davis MIND Institute, including the Autism Phenome Project (APP) and GAIN (Girls with Autism – Imaging of Neurodevelopment). These studies involved:

• Simulated MRI environments to acclimate children to scanning procedures
• Use of mock MRI machines that replicate the noise and physical setup of real scans
• Participants as young as 2–6 years old, many with autism or intellectual disabilities

In her own publications, Dr. Lanni and her co-authors explicitly describe the use of restraint to keep children still during these procedures. The term “restrained” appears in the context of preparing children for imaging sessions, often in combination with exposure to loud, repetitive MRI-like noise.

While these methods may have been approved by institutional review boards, their ethical implications are profound—especially when applied to nonverbal, sensory-sensitive, or developmentally disabled children. The use of restraint, even in a research setting, demands rigorous trauma-informed safeguards, transparent consent protocols, and ongoing ethical scrutiny.

In my published critique, Spit Takes, I analyze the language and framing of these studies. The research often pathologizes neurodivergent traits and risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes. The documented use of restraint—on children who may not have had the capacity to consent—raises urgent questions about power, consent, and the ethics of data collection in autism research.

The Emotional Toll

This isn’t just a bureaucratic error. It’s a form of psychological violence. It undermines my ability to access care, damages my reputation within the system, and retraumatizes me every time I seek help.

I’ve documented my experience publicly, including on Reddit, where my posts have received thousands of views. I’ve spoken out not just for myself, but for others who may have been similarly harmed.

Call for Investigation and Justice

I am not a threat. I am a patient. I am a survivor. And I deserve care without fear.

I call on Kaiser Permanente to launch a full investigation into the safety threat designation placed on my chart, and to remove it immediately. I call on UC Davis to reexamine the ethics of its autism research protocols, especially those involving restraint and sensory exposure in vulnerable children.

I call for justice—for myself, and for anyone else who has been harmed by institutional misconduct disguised as care.