146 KC Request for Conference re DME3

Document Sample
146 KC Request for Conference re DME3 Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 146 Law Offices of

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 1 of 2

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Fax: 916-444-6405 Office: 916-444-6400

Re: Jadwin v.

.....1 ~~~"'.Y


et al.

Nevertheless, Mr. Lee is demanding that the last session be moved to Dr. Jadwin's office and is refusing to allow the examination to proceed unless the defendants agree. Mr. Lee also apparently disclosed to Dr. Jadwin the nature of the T.O.M.M. test Dr. Burchuk intended to administer at the last session. Since the test is designed to identifY malingering, its disclosure effectively destroys the test's usefulness. Dr. Burchuk is concerned about the extent ofMr. Lee's interference in the exam and sent me an e-mail on Saturday, May 31 in which he wrote that he probably should not even bother with the T.O.M.M. test now. By telling Dr. Jadwin the nature of the test Dr. Burchuk believes Mr. Lee has essentially destroyed the validity of the test. There are warnings in the test's manual about the importance of not disclosing the test's name and purpose to the examinee. Also, Dr. Burchuk believes that the results of the test, early in the second interview, would have been significant to his approach to the remaining hours of examination, had the test shown positive results for malingering. Dr. Burchuk

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 146 u.s. District Court Judge Oliver W. Wanger June 2,2008 Page 2

Filed 06/02/2008

Page 2 of 2

concluded his e-mail by stating that he believed Mr. Lee's and Dr. Jadwin's behaviors "are to process to court."

never seen a PS'ycJJlO!<)gl,cal exam so ,ntpM"'HYtpr! PS~{ctloh)glcal interruD'ted


Description: David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.