Docstoc

283 D MSJ - Opp - Objections

Document Sample
283 D MSJ - Opp - Objections Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 1 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812) LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: elee@LOEL.com Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)] Date: January 12, 2009 Time: 10:00 Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger Courtroom: 3 Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: March 24, 2009

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 2 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., contends Defendants have failed to lay any foundation whatsoever for any of the over 1,000 pages of documents or deposition transcripts which they attach as exhibits to their Motion. “It is well settled that only admissible evidence may be considered by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Services, Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181-1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). A proper foundation must be established for documents used to support or oppose summary judgment motions. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA (9th Cir. 2002) 285 F3d 764, 778. As with other documentary evidence, discovery documents must be properly authenticated (e.g., by affidavit or declaration establishing accuracy of copy attached). Id. at 774. A portion of a deposition transcript must be properly authenticated by showing the deponent’s name and attaching the court reporter’s certification. Ibid. In submitting their Motion, Defendants have failed to lay any foundation whatsoever for any of the over 1,000 pages of documents or deposition transcripts which they attach as exhibits to their Motion. Other than 5 “sham” declarations intended only to controvert sworn deposition testimony, Defendants have failed to submit a single affidavit or declaration. The deposition transcripts are condensed transcripts intended only for informal attorney use which are not accompanied by reporter certifications. Plaintiff separately submits evidentiary objections to Defendants’ Motion. The complete absence of admissible evidence justifies denial of Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff hereby submits the following additional objections to, and moves to strike all, evidence submitted by Defendants in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, including the following: Δ’s MATERIAL FACT 1. First Employment Contract between Kern Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as KMC) and David F. Jadwin, D.O. (hereinafter referred to as Jadwin) entered into on October 24, 2000. 2. Employment Verification letter of 3/3/05 (giving original date of hire as December 3, 2000). Δ’s EVID. DFJ0002500046 Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE None.

DFJ00358

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 3 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3. Memo from Bryan to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 (showing Jadwin received the Medical Staff Bylaws). 4. Medical Staff Bylaws, approved as of 12/13/04. 5. Exhibit A to Employment Contract (stating responsibilities and duties of the pathology dept. chair are set out in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws, sections 6. through 6.4-3). 6. Second Employment Contract between KMC and Jadwin was effective October 5, 2002. a) Exhibit A to the Second Employment Contract: Job Description, David F. Jadwin, M.D., Pathology Chairman.

0000202203

Lacks foundation. Document not authenticated. Document not complete – wrong bylaws effective as of 12/13/04 attached. None. Lacks foundation. Document not authenticated. Document not complete, the exhibit is provided without the contract. Hearsay. Best evidence rule.

0000272358 DFJ00046

00014791499

None.

None.

7. Letter to Peter Bryan (hereinafter DFJ00723 referred to as Bryan) from Jadwin, dated 1/9/06, requesting administrative leave with pay until hostile environment is corrected. He demanded action on 1) sending transfusion Product Chart Copies (hereinafter referred to as PCCs) to the blood bank; 2) KMC’s alleged lack of compliance with their weekly oncology conferences by reporting themselves (KMC) to the American College of Surgeons (hereinafter referred to as ACS); 3) reviewing time limits on pathology presentations; and 4) implementing protocol of collection of Fine Needle Aspiration (hereinafter referred to as FNA) specimens.

Document not complete, second page is missing.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 4 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7A. Dutt recalled Jadwin’s threat of taking a leave of absence until the medical staff and the administration apologized to him.

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pgs. 52:553: 18

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper Speculation as to Plaintiff’s intent. Misstates the testimony. Dutt was speculating: Q. He told you, I'm going to take a leave of absence to pressure the administration to apologize? A. What he said was I'm going to take a leave of absence. That occurred in the context where he was upset about a letter he had received regarding the October tumor conference, and he kept saying all I want is an apology. Q. So he didn't say the exact words I'm going to take a leave absence in order to force the administration to give me an apology? Is that what he said? A. He didn't use those exact words. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 47 (Dutt depo, 52:1623)] […] A. I think he was trying to -- he thought he could pressure the medical staff and the administration into giving him an apology. All he wanted was an apology. [Id. at 53:8-10] Irrelevant and immaterial. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Irrelevant and immaterial.

8. Plaintiff’s email to/from medical executive recruiters in January 2006. a) “You know, I wish I could go back because I enjoyed that job. I mentioned multiple times during my recruitment and elsewhere that that was the last position that I wanted to take, that I saw myself retiring out of that position and not moving. And I was very disappointed when-when things-when people that were in a position to do the right thing didn’t do the right thing.” 9. Sandi Chester effectively refutes any argument that Jadwin’s letter to Peter Bryan of January 9, 2006 was notice to KMC that Jadwin needed medical leave or that, by implication, Jadwin was absolved of the responsibility to notify HR that he was taking a leave of absence. As Sandi Chester said “I mean, anybody can write a letter.”

DFJ024222459 Jadwin Depo., 10/21/08, pg. 1087:917

Chester Depo., 8/28/08, pgs. 135:12137: 6 Pg. 136:17-18

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Testimony lacks foundation. Improper legal conclusion as to notice and responsibility to notify HR re leave of absence. Improper opinion testimony. Irrelevant and immaterial.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 5 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

10. Certification of Health Care Provider dated 1/13/06 for Jadwin. Includes the duration of the medical condition (2-3 months) and the expected date to return to work (3/16/06). It gives the date the medical condition commenced as 12/16/05. 11. Jadwin did not communicate with Human Resources (hereinafter referred to as HR) at all, HR discovered that Jadwin ------ had unilaterally assigned himself to 1 to 2 workdays per week but, per policy, an employee must use vacation, sick time, or leave of absence when not working full-time. It was HR that brought Jadwin into compliance with County policy by putting him on leave of absence. 12. KMC had to designate Jadwin’s medical leave retroactively because Jadwin was late in giving appropriate requests. 13. Jadwin’s submission of his healthcare provider’s certification was not timely and was only provided upon prompting from HR.

DFJ00726

None.

Chester Depo., 8/28/08, pgs. 75:1976:10

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates the testimony in all respects. Irrelevant and immaterial.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 195:9196: 14 Chester Depo., 8/28/08, pgs. 113 :23- 114: 12

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Irrelevant and immaterial. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Lacks foundation. Speculative as to who put Plaintiff on leave and whether self-imposed.

14. Certification of Health Care Provider, dated 4/26/06, stating that Jadwin’s medical condition goes back to 10/30/03. The Certification states that Jadwin requires “part-time or less to avoid worsening of his serious medical condition.” 15. Jadwin’s Request for Leave of Absence (hereinafter referred to as LOA), dated 3/2/06, notes that the LOA started on 12/16/05.

DFJ01150

Irrelevant and immaterial. None.

DFJ00746

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 6 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16. KMC’s responsive document to the LOA request, dated 3/2/06, indicating that the leave ends on 3/15/06 and stating “ ... have the right to be reinstated to the same or an equivalent job with the same pay, benefits and terms and conditions of employment.” 17. E-mails dated 3/16/06. One to Peter Bryan from Jadwin telling him that he (Jadwin) will take Bryan’s suggestion to take 2-3 months additional leave; the other to Dr. Kercher from Jadwin telling him that he (Jadwin) is having surgery and will I need 2-3 months of additional leave for the surgery and requesting apologies from Dr. Ragland (President-elect), Dr. Abraham and Dr. Taylor and an investigation into Dr. Roy. 18. Notice from Human Resources to Jadwin, dated 4/20/06, that his leave of absence expired on 3/15/06. 19. Jadwin’s request for Leave of Absence Extension, dated 4/26/06, has a starting date of 3/15/06 and an ending date of 9/16/06.

DFJ00747748

Irrelevant and immaterial.

DFJ00752753

None.

DFJ00796

Irrelevant and immaterial.

DFJ01158

Irrelevant and immaterial to Defendants' argument that Plaintiff failed to give notice of his need for extension of medical leave prior to being placed on Forced FT Leave by Bryan as of 4/28/06. Irrelevant to excusing Defendant's liability under any of Plaintiff's counts. None.

20. Memo from Bryan to Jadwin, dated 4/28/06, notifying him that his leave would be up on 6/16/06 and he either returns fulltime or resigns. Also, it notes that Jadwin was provided a medical leave history, along with the calculations and policies about his medical leave. 21. Bryan noted that he gave the option to Jadwin whether to go on full-time leave, although full-time leave was preferable to Bryan. Bryan asserts that it was Jadwin’s decision to go on fulltime leave and that Jadwin never communicated with Bryan any contrary intent.

DFJ01121

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 250: 15- 251:6, Exhibit 303

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 7 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

22. Memo from Bryan to Jadwin dated 4/28/06, summarizing a meeting held with Bryan, Karen Barnes, Steve O’Connor, and Jadwin. The meeting was held to “insure that [Jadwin] had all information available concerning his status and what was possible and not possible according to County policies for leaves of absence.” It was not a disciplinary meeting. 23. A letter to Bryan from Jadwin, dated May 31, 2006, where Jadwin requests more time to make the decision by June 16th of whether to return full-time or resign. Bryan did not have the authority to make an exception to County policy by extending leave beyond the maximum period granted for leave. Jadwin wasn’t being asked to return full-time on June 16th, he just had to give his decision to return full-time by June 16th. He did not do that. 24. Letter from Peter Bryan to Jadwin, dated 6/14/06, granting him Personal Necessity Leave of 90 days, pursuant to Rule 1202.2, but only for his employment with KMC, not for his position as pathology department chair. 25. Bryan artfully explained why the Chair of the Department of Pathology needs to be present full-time. “It’s not just the task orientation of handling a duty. It’s being present within the organization to influence the organization’s policies and practices. Organizations tend to drift without the constancy of leadership, because that is part of what a leader does is monitor the performance to ensure things stay on track, and without that constant dialogue present, you can find yourself getting off track. In the medical arena when patient care is involved, you don’t allow it to get to the point where you don’t have the leadership necessary. So that’s inferred in it being a full-time position.”

Bryan Depo., 8114/08, pgs. 240:9244: 2, Exhibit 303 pg 243 :2225 pg.244:1-2 Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 248:16249: 9 Exhibit 311

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper legal conclusion. Improper opinion.

DFJ01141

None.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pg. 216:3·22.

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Speculation as to what is “inferred” in a position being “full-time”.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 8 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a) Responsibilities and duties of the pathology dept. chair are set out in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws, sections 6. through 6.4-3. 26. Mortgage verification of employment for Jadwin, dated 6/22/06, noting that the probability of continued employment for Jadwin was good and he was okay to return to work when well. 27. Letter from Dr. Harris (writing on behalf of Bryan) to Jadwin, dated 6/26/06, stating that he (Jadwin) has been seen in and around KMC and that while he (Jadwin) is on leave, he is not to enter the hospital except for seeking medical attention. He is also not to contact any employee or faculty member of KMC while on leave. 28. In his letter of June 14, 2006, Bryan notifies Jadwin that Jadwin will be removed as chair and tells Jadwin to call him if he has questions. Bryan states that put the burden of challenging the action or asking for reconsideration on Jadwin who never called him about the letter. 29. According to Exhibit 303, Jadwin’s leave and all allowances by the County expired by June 16th. After that date, Bryan had no authority to extend Jadwin’s employment relationship. 30. By June 2006, Jadwin had fully exhausted his rights and the institutional obligation to grant him medical leave.

DFJ00046

Lacks foundation. Document not authenticated. Document not complete, the exhibit is provided without the contract. Hearsay. Best evidence rule.

DFJ01343

No foundation. Unauthenticated. Hearsay. Irrelevant and immaterial.

0001424

No foundation. Unauthenticated.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pg. 257:9-15

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper conclusion as to burden. Improper opinion.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pg. 244:6-16

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper legal conclusion. Improper opinion.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 280:21281: 4 Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pg. 258:7-16

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper legal conclusion. Improper opinion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper legal conclusion. Improper opinion.

31. Adherence to the Medical Staff Bylaws afforded Jadwin the due process that he was entitled to.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 9 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

32. Tort Claims Act Complaint, dated 7/3/06, Jadwin admits that he had used up his CFRA leave by June 14th, 2006. Page 1 of the Attachment (page 3 of the entire complaint), Section A, paragraph 1, last sentence reads “As of June 14, 2006, Complainant had taken 12 weeks of CFRA sick leave and approximately 3-4 weeks of County sick leave based on doctor’s certifications which he submitted.”

Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Complaint

Irrelevant and immaterial. Improper legal conclusion.

33. Memorandum to the Joint 0001476Conference Committee (JCC) from 1565 Bryan, dated 7/10106, recommending 0000073-75 that the Committee approve the demotion of Jadwin from chair of the pathology department to staff pathologist. “This recommendation to rescind Dr. Jadwin’s appointment as Chairman, Department of Pathology, is based solely on his continued nonavailability to provide the leadership necessary for a contributing member of the medical staff leadership group. KMC must have its key personnel available, and Dr. Jadwin has provided no indication that he is committed to return to work or resume his duties as chairman.” Also, “Dr. Jadwin has made no attempt to contact me concerning my decision to relieve him of his chairman duties nor has he indicated any desire to negotiate a new contract.” JCC meeting minutes confirm that the committee took Bryan’s advice and they did it for the reason that he gave in his memorandum. 34. Ray Watson (hereinafter referred to as Watson) testified that he only remembers a discussion on removing Jadwin from the department chair position; he was quite clear (and he was asked three times) that he did not remember any discussion about Jadwin’s “termination.” He affirmatively stated that he knew of no discussions about Jadwin resigning or being denied privileges. Watson Depo., 8125/08, pgs. 13:1714:14

Misstates evidence. JCC minutes state only that the JCC voted on Bryan’s recommendation for demotion and approved it. There is no disclosure of the JCC’s reasons for their vote. [Lee Decl., Exh. 17 (JCC Minutes of 7/10/06 at Item 10 on Bates 0009820-9821)].

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 10 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

35. Watson testified that he became aware that Jadwin’s contract was not renewed although he could not give a timeline as to when things happened. He also testified strongly that he does not recall a vote taken on the nonrenewal “although [he] imagine[s] it was,” 36. Watson testified that the fact that Jadwin was suing KMC was brought up in discussions of whether to renew Jadwin’s contract although he would not say it was a consideration, only that it was discussed. In addition, it became obvious after a few questions that Watson was confused about the sequence of events which can lead to the inference that he does not recall anything specifically or correctly.

Watson Depo., 8/25/08, pgs. 28:630:23

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony, Watson did not testify “strongly” that he didn’t recall a vote.

Watson Depo., 8/25/08, pgs. 110:12112: 13

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony. Watson answered the question affirmatively. He never denied that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was a consideration for the Nonrenewal. In fact, in later testimony, Watson volunteers that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was a “reason” for the Nonrenewal.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 11 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a) Kern County Board of Supervisors did not discuss the non-renewal of Jadwin’s employment agreement or made any decisions regarding the nonrenewal of the employment agreement. The subject never came before the Board of Supervisors.

Decl. of Michael Rubio, 11/10/08, ¶2; Decl. of Raymond Watson, 11/10/08, ¶¶3, 4 and 5; Decl. of Mike Maggard, 11/10/08, ¶2; Decl. of Jon McQuiston, 11/10/08, ¶2; Decl. of Don Maben, 11/10/08, ¶2

Rubio Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundation as to dates of attendance at JCC meetings. Para. 2: Speculation as to Plaintiff’s being “upset”. Improper conclusions and speculation regarding Board of Supervisors’ discussions, decisions re Plaintiff’s agreement. Watson Decl.: Para. 2 & 3: Sham declaration that contradicts sworn deposition testimony after the fact that the JCC did in fact make a decision not to renew Plaintiff’s contract. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson Depo. at 30:1013; 110:12-111:5; 111:15-24; 113:15-114:4)]. A party cannot create an issue of fact by a declaration contradicting his or her own deposition or other sworn testimony. See Block v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2001) 253 F3d 410, 419, fn. 2. The same rule applies to postdeposition affidavits that contradict the affiant’s deposition testimony. Aerel, S.R.L. v. PCC Airfoils, LLC (6th Cir. 2006) 448 F3d 899, 907–908; Bank of Ill. v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Systems (7th Cir. 1996) 75 F3d 1162, 1169. Para. 4: Improper conclusions and speculation regarding Board of Supervisors’ discussions, decisions. Maggard Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundation as to dates of attendance at JCC meetings. Para. 2: Speculation as to Plaintiff’s being “upset”. Improper conclusions and speculation regarding Board of Supervisors’ discussions, decisions re: Plaintiff’s agreement. Maben Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundation as to dates of attendance at JCC meetings. Para. 2: Speculation as to Plaintiff’s being “upset”. Improper conclusions and speculation regarding Board of Supervisors’ discussions, decisions re: Plaintiff’s agreement. McQuiston Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundation as to dates of attendance at JCC meetings. Para. 2: Speculation as to Plaintiff’s being “upset”. Improper conclusions and speculation regarding Board of Supervisors’ discussions, decisions re: Plaintiff’s agreement.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 12 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

37. Letter from Karen Barnes DFJ01359(hereinafter referred to as Barnes) to 1361 Plaintiffs attorney Eugene Lee, dated 7118/06, in which she mentions (pg. 2) that Jadwin was removed as pathology department chair on 7/10/06 at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Joint Conference Committee, pursuant to Bylaws article IX, section 9.7-4 “removal of a department chair may occur with or without cause ... “ 38. Plaintiffs’ attorney Eugene Lee Bryan agrees that Jadwin was not removed as Depo., chair during his medical leave. 8/14/08, pg. 222:8-13

Hearsay. Best evidence rule.

Irrelevant, immaterial, and is an improper legal conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Lacks foundation. Hearsay. A deposition question is not evidence, particularly when its purpose is solely to elicit testimony from a deponent. None.

39. Letter to Dr. Harris from Jadwin, DFJ01388dated 9111/06, stating that he (Jadwin) 1389 will be returning to work on 9/18/06 and enclosed was a doctor’s certification that he was able to return to work full-time. 40. Letter from David Culberson to Jadwin, dated 9/20/06, explaining the reasons for reduction in pay. 41. Letter from David Culberson to Jadwin, dated 12/7/06, putting Jadwin on administrative leave with pay and confining him to his home during business hours, pursuant to Kern County Policy and Administrative Procedures Manual section 124.3. DFJ01398

None.

DFJ01482

None.

a) Kern County Policy and 0016941 Administrative Procedures Manual, pg. 1:22, Section titled “Administrative Leave with Pay.” “During the administrative leave, the employee shall be ordered to remain at home and available by telephone ... “.

Incomplete document – Bates 0016940 and 16943 were omitted. Bates 0016940 establishes that Defendant County can only put an employee on administrative leave for “good cause”. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 19 (Kern County Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual at Section 139 (Disciplinary Actions) and 139.6 (Administrative Leave with Pay) on Bates 0016940-16941)].

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 13 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

42. Letter from Mark Wasser to Eugene Lee, dated 4/30/07, allowing Jadwin to pursue his own activities during the work week and retaining him, at his usual salary, for consulting. 43. Letter to Mark Wasser from Eugene Lee, dated 5/1/07, noting that on 4/28/07 and in several following emails he was notified that KMC wanted to terminate Jadwin’s contract and would not renew it on 10/4/07. 44. Exhibit 644 is an e-mail with an amendment attached to it. The amendment is a contract amendment which Jadwin had to sign before returning to work. Exhibit 581 is also the same contract amendment although Exhibit 581 is signed. There are differences between Exhibit 644 and 581, in subparagraphs “h” and “i”. Jadwin confirmed that he had discussions with his attorney about the amendment; Jadwin does not know if his attorney negotiated any of the terms in it. Jadwin does not know if his attorney made proposals to KMC with suggested changes in the language of the amendment. Jadwin was aware of the changes at the time they occurred but he does not recall how the changes came about. One change that Jadwin recalls talking about is the cut in his salary which he didn’t agree with. 45. The last two pages of Exhibit 581 is Exhibit A which is a job description. Jadwin confirms that he read it at the time of signing the amendment. Jadwin looked at the tasks listed and does not believe that any of those tasks require accommodation. Jadwin does not recall asking anyone with the County for an accommodation of any of the tasks listed in Exhibit A.

DFJ01701

Irrelevant and immaterial to excusing Defendants' liability under any of Plaintiff's counts, as evidenced by Defendants' failure to cite to this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 29). Misstates evidence. None.

DFJ017031704

Jadwin Depo., 3/12/08, pgs. 969:1974:2 (Exhibits 644 and 581)

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Lacks foundation. Improper speculation. Plaintiff’s testimony that he spoke with his attorney regarding his disagreement about the pay reduction invades attorney-client privileged communication, a privilege which is never waived, and is inadmissible.

Jadwin Depo., 3/12/08, 974:3~976:l 2

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper legal conclusion. Vague and ambiguous.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 14 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

46. Jadwin testified that he wanted his employment contract renewed, but when presented with the fact that his employment contract in place at the time of nonrenewal contained his reduced salary, he denied wanting to renew that contract.

Jadwin Depo., 10/21/08, pg. 1011: 161016: 19

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony. Plaintiff was testifying that he viewed the Paycut Amendment of 7/10/06 as retaliatory. This testimony had nothing to do with nonrenewal. It was also outside the scope of Judge Wanger’s order (Doc. 245:3:5-6), which limited the scope of discovery at that time only to the Plaintiff’s new nonrenewal-related claims. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Misstates testimony. Plaintiff was testifying as to his desires and wants were as of 10/7/08, not as of the time his contract expired over a year earlier on 10/4/07. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 6 (Jadwin Depo at 1034:13-1035:9; 1036:7-11; 1041:5-9; 1044:23; 1060:4-7)].

47. Jadwin said that the contract he wanted renewed was his Department Chair contract.

Jadwin Depo., 10/21/08, pgs. 1032:161033: 3; pg. 1043:12-20

JADWIN’S ALLEGATIONS OF REGULATORY VIOLATIONS 48. Approved Cancer Program Performance Report for KMC, dated 7/14/04, with a rating of “I “meaning KMC’s Cancer program-including number of meetings-is approved for three years with commendation. 49. Exchange of e-mails between Toni Smith and Jadwin, dated 6115/05, about the PCC issues. In 0000423, Jadwin states that a PCC must not be signed until the time of the infusion, or KMC is not meeting American Association of Blood Banks’ (hereinafter referred to as AABB) accreditation standards. 50. Typed notes, dated 1/10106, of interviews done to rebut Jadwin’s claim that the meeting frequency standard set by the American College of Surgeons (hereinafter referred to as ACS) was not being met at KMC. 0000623630 No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.

0000421424

Irrelevant and immaterial to excusing Defendants' liability under any of Plaintiff's counts, as evidenced by Defendants' failure to cite to this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 29).

0000575

Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262). No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 15 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

51. In meeting on 2/22/06, Jadwin alleges that KMC is not meeting the ACS standard for frequency of staff meetings; was rebutted during the meeting that KMC is meeting standard based on 2 surveys and paperwork. 52. In an e-mail to Peter Bryan dated 4/10/06, Jadwin brings up noncompliance with state regulations, Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospital Organizations (hereinafter referred to as JCAHO), and AABB on the issues of the PCCs. 53. Notes of meeting with Peter Bryan, Karen Barnes and Jadwin on 4/13/06. There is no problem with the PCCs because 5 charts were reviewed (and approved) by JCAHO.

0000578

No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates evidence. Improper conclusion as to “rebutted”.

DFJ00784

None.

DFJ00788

Irrelevant and immaterial to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262). No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence. None.

54. E-mail to Peter Bryan from Jadwin, dated 4/17/06, claiming that the JCAHO review was too small of a sample so KMC was not in compliance on their handling of the PCCs and there was a need for action. 55. Gilbert Martinez, the Laboratory manager, recalls Jadwin telling him before Thanksgiving in 2006 to prepare the laboratory for possible inspections (so sometime before 11122/06). He does not recall if Jadwin told him how Jadwin might know about it. He remembers inspectors coming in from the California Dept. of Health Services (hereinafter referred to as DHS) and receiving written inquiries from the CAP. These inspections occurred several months after Jadwin had mentioned it. Jadwin did not “confide” in him or tell him that the inspections were happening because of whistleblowing by Jadwin.

DFJ00793

Martinez Depo., 4/16/08, pgs. 111: 12-118: 22

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony regarding “confide” whistleblowing.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 16 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a) CAP conducts routine inspections, unannounced, on a known periodic basis.

Martinez Depo., 4/16/08, pgs. 118:23120: 19

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony.

56. Jadwin first reported concerns to JCAHO, CAP, and DHS in November 28, 2006 (more than five years after noticing alleged violations). a) Actual complaint filed with JCAHO by Jadwin. DFJ025402541

No supporting evidence submitted.

None. None.

b) E-mail from JCAHO to Jadwin, DFJ01454 dated 11/29/06, acknowledging receipt of complaint about KMC. c) Letter from DHS to Jadwin, dated 12/1/06, acknowledging receipt of complaint. DFJ01459

None.

57. E-mail to JCAHO from Jadwin, DFJ02538dated 12/8/06, wanting to talk with the 2539 JCAHO investigator and requesting quickness on the investigation because KMC might be covering up noncompliance evidence. He brings up the issue of skull flaps being stored on-site. 58. Letter to KMC from Jadwin dated 12/13/06 notifying hospital administration that he has notified governmental and enforcement agencies of alleged violations. 59. Letter from Dr. Dutt to Gerald Hoeltge of the CAP, dated 1/11/07, telling him that Jadwin had never informed him (Dutt) that some tissue handling and storage was occurring but the situation has been taken care of. 00014551458

Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262). Misstates evidence.

None.

0020278

Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262). No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Speculation. Improper conclusion. Improper opinion. Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262). No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.

60. Letter to Dr. Dutt from CAP, dated 0020279 3/22/07, informing him that the KMC laboratory continues to be in compliance with the CAP Standards for Laboratory Accreditation.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

16

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 17 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

61. Dr. Dutt believed that Jadwin, after returning from leave, might be intentionally issuing wrong opinions to prove he was a whistleblower.

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pg. 296: 10- 19

Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262). The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Hearsay. Improper speculation. Improper conclusion.

DEPRESSION DISABILITY, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, INTERACTIVE PROCESS 62. Jadwin described his disability as severe depression, manifested by a lack of ability to concentrate; loss DFJ0y in his work; extreme anxiety and difficulty sleeping. Jadwin testified that he told Dr. Kolb, during a meeting he had with him in 2003, that he was depressed. Jadwin thought this meeting was a one-on-one weekly meeting that each department chair had with Dr. Kolb. Jadwin said that Dr. Kolb must have noticed that he was depressed because he would often ask him if he was alright. 63. Jadwin told Dr. Kolb that he suffered from depression when he notified him of the weekly half-day medical leave day off to see his therapist. 64. Jadwin asked Dr. Kolb for accommodations for his disability by requesting time off for his therapist visits. Dr. Kolb granted that accommodation. 65. Jadwin had an episode of depression in the 1990s before coming to work at KMC. Jadwin affirmed his earlier testimony that his recent depression started in 2002 or 2003. Jadwin said that he was taking weekly half-day leaves starting in or about 2003 and he told Dr. Kolb it was because of his problems with radiology and others.

Jadwin Depo., 1/9/08, pgs. 414:24418: 12

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

Jadwin Depo., 1/9108, pgs. 491:1493:17 Jadwin Depo., 1/9108, pgs. 506: 16507: 1 Jadwin Depo., 1/9/08, pgs. 452:4455:19 Pg. 455:8-13

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper medical conclusion re depression. Misstates testimony regarding reasons for feeling depressed.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

17

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 18 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

66. Bryan does not recall Jadwin mentioning to him about depression, sleeplessness, etc. nor did Bryan notice behavior that he would call mental illness.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 111: 12-113: 2 and 128:16129:3 Jadwin Depo., 3/12/08, pgs. 976: 13983: 2 lines 977:58 and lines 977:24978:8 and lines 981: 17-982: 1 and lines 982: 18-24 lines 978: 15-979:1 lines 979:24980:8 lines 982:9-24

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

67. Jadwin only discussed his disability with Dr. Kolb. When asked whether he had ever told Peter Bryan, Jadwin said that subsequently during one-on-one meetings with Bryan he had mentioned being depressed by lack of action on the concerns Jadwin was raising. When pressed on whether he had ever actually told Peter Bryan he was disabled, Jadwin said that in late 2005 or early 2006, he told Bryan that sometimes he was so depressed he couldn’t work at KMC anymore until it fixed some of his concerns. Jadwin said that he also told Dr. Yoo, head of psychiatry, that he was depressed from working at the hospital. Jadwin does not recall talking to Dr. Dutt about this issue. Jadwin could not recall any other people at KMC that he talked to about his disability. In fact, Jadwin would not use the term “disabled” just that he could not work there. 68. When asked what considerations there were in renewing a contract with KMC, Jadwin replied “All of the working environment situations. The patient quality issues, the administration, what-what type of administrative operation is there. The emphasis on quality, interest in quality. Interest in patient safety. The collaborative working environment. Are the other physicians going to be responsible in working for the betterment of patient care, or are they just going to be working for their own self-interest.” JADWIN’S ERRORS Failure to Produce Timely or Correct Diagnoses

Irrelevant and immaterial in that employer does not need to know an employee's diagnosis, only an employee's limitations, to have notice of an employee's disability. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony.

Jadwin Depo., 10/21/08, pgs. 1055:131056: 15

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Misstates testimony. Irrelevant an immaterial. Plaintiff was testifying as to his desires and wants were as of 10/7/08, not as of the time his contract expired over a year earlier on 10/4/07. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 6 (Jadwin Depo at 1034:131035:9; 1036:7-11; 1041:5-9; 1044:2-3; 1060:4-7)].

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

18

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 19 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

69. Dr. Ragland brings up the issue that a stack of FNA reports that Jadwin had given him had issue dates after the date of a double read, in each case, was done by UCLA. This raises the possibility that Jadwin waited to enter a diagnosis until the double read had come back from UCLA so that he could be in 100% agreement with UCLA. 70. Letter from Dr. Ang to Dr. Perez, Peter Bryan, Dr. Kolb, and Dr. Munoz, dated 2/20102, containing formal complaints of misconduct against Jadwin. Complaint #3 states that Jadwin failed to pass the quarterly proficiency tests on cervical pap smears so those tests are sent out. It states that this was an unnecessary cost and delay because the other three pathologists in the department could examine the pap smears because they have maintained their proficiency. a) Document asserting Jadwin’s failing test scores and the fact that the Department of Pathology has not been sued for medical malpractice in 23 years. b) Jadwin’s actual (failing) test for cervical pap smears. This test is conducted by the College of American Pathologists (CAP). Of interest, on Case #3 Jadwin marked “unsatisfactory for evaluation” when the accurate diagnosis was “squamous cell carcinoma.” 71. Report to Maureen Martin from Jadwin, dated 11/20/02, on the results of the evaluations of the pathologists (Jadwin and Lang) by resident physicians and staff physicians in surgery. On a three-point scale, where 2 means satisfactory and 3 means needs improvement, Jadwin scored low on timeliness (lower than Lang), IOC quality, completeness, and clarity of diagnosis. Jadwin blamed unhappiness of a Dr. Prunes for his low scores.

Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, pgs. 171 :5172:5 and 328:7-329: 14

Irrelevant and immaterial. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. No foundation. Misstates testimony.

0000690691, 0000736

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.

0000737

Irrelevant and immaterial to excusing Defendants' liability under any of Plaintiff's counts. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence. Irrelevant. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

00010591072

Irrelevant. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence. Improper conclusion.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

19

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 20 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

72. Twenty-nine (29) medical reports from 2004 and 2005 with all of the following in common: 1) all are FNA reports; 2) all were processed in-house and then sent to outside labs for independent diagnosis; and 3) the turn-around time for the final diagnosis ranged from three weeks to five or six months.

00011631310

Irrelevant to excusing Defendants' liability for any of Plaintiff's counts. Misstates evidence. No foundation.

73. Letter from Dr. Roy to Jadwin, DFJ00363 dated 4/15/05, complaining that samples from 2 cases still had not been analyzed and diagnosed and were over one week late. 74. Letter to Dr. Roy from Jadwin, dated 4/20/05, in response to his complaint about late diagnoses. On page 3 Jadwin writes “Pathology diagnoses are consensus based, with few gold standards to affirm accuracy. Consultants offer opinions, not accurate diagnoses. There is no universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes an ‘accurate’ diagnosis.” 75. Notes by Dr. Harris, dated 6/8105, of a meeting between himself and Dr. Roy in which Dr. Roy again raises his concerns with the pathology department. DFJ00364366

Hearsay.

Relevance. Hearsay.

002706627068

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence. Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

76. Notes by Dr. Harris, dated 7/1/05, 0027069of a meeting between himself and Dr. 27070 Roy. Dr. Roy had specific examples of his complaints about the pathology department including three missed diagnoses and an example-by name and report number--of a pathology report changed after the fact by Jadwin. 77. Letter from Dr. Roy to Jadwin, dated 7/15/05, responding to Jadwin’s letter to him dated 6/5/05 and stating that he (Dr. Roy) has raised pathology department mistakes, delays and discrepancies with Jadwin many times before. 78. Phone message from Dr. Roy, dated 11/18/05, identifying a patient error by Jadwin. DFJ00439, DFJ00437

Relevance. Hearsay.

0000506

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.
20

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 21 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

79. Letter from Dr. Roy to Dr. Harris, dated 2/22/06, identifying 19 cases (with medical records backup) where KMC pathology department was wrong in their diagnosis, or very late in getting a diagnosis, or changing an initial wrong diagnosis. a) Pathology Quality Management Policy, September 2005, “Correction of significant error must be made through a corrected report.” c) Two letters from Dr. Felix at USC to Dr. Roy, dated 3115/06 and 3/16/06, with diagnoses of samples that Dr. Roy sent to him. Handwritten notes on bottom of letters describe discrepancy with KMC pathology diagnosis and that pathology changed its diagnosis in one instance. 80. After returning from leave, Jadwin had to be told to slow down on regular case work because he was going too fast and making errors.

0000434476

Relevance. No foundation. Hearsay. Improper conclusion. Improper opinion. Speculation.

0018516

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Incomplete document. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

0000432433

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence. Improper conclusion. Speculation. Improper opinion.

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pg. 285 :6-23

Relevance. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

Other Mistakes 81. E-mail from Reyes to Dr. Harris and Tony Smith, dated 4/17/06, reporting that Jadwin was making copies of patient files which is a Title 22 violation. 82. Minutes of the meeting of the pathology/histology department on 10/17/06. It was noted that Dr. Shertukde was concerned that blades were not being removed once grossing was done. She and Dr. Dutt remove and discard the blades immediately. 83. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 11/22/06, reminding him of a rush case that Jadwin failed to process promptly and counseling Jadwin to remember it when criticizing others. 0000398 Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence. 0000899 Relevance. Hearsay. Improper speculation. No foundation.

DFJ01449 DFJ014461447

Relevance. Hearsay. Speculation. Improper conclusion. Improper opinion. No foundation.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

21

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 22 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

84. E-mail from Tracy Lindsey to Ramona Case, dated 11/27/06, stating that Jadwin had labeled some (9) placentas wrong and she gave the incorrect labels alongside the correct labels. 85. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Yolanda Figueroa, dated 12/7/06, acknowledging her report that Jadwin had left two long blades and a scalpel out after he was finished. 86. Report from Dr. Dutt to Peer Review Committee, dated 12/14/06, describing with documentation five mistakes by Jadwin: 1) missed diagnosis and failure or refusal to seek outside consultation (with backup letter from Dr. McBride); 2) misdiagnosis of prostate carcinoma and of prostatic biopsies; 3) missed diagnosis of thyroid microcarcinoma; 4) performance of sternal bone marrow examination; and 5) assignment of procedures to physician without privileges. JADWIN’S INABILITY TO GET ALONG WITH OR COMMUNICATE WELL WITH OTHERS Policy 87. Policy Statement of the Disruptive Behavior, Discrimination & Harassment Policy “It is the policy of Kern Medical Center that all associates are expected to conduct themselves at all times while on hospital premises in a courteous, professional, respectful, collegial, and cooperative manner. This applies to interactions and communications with or relating to physicians, nursing and technical personnel, other caregivers, other hospital personnel, ... “ [emphasis added]

0000823

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

0000862

Relevance. Hearsay. Speculation. Improper conclusion. Improper opinion. No foundation.

0000882895

Relevance. Hearsay. Speculation. Improper conclusion. Improper opinion. No foundation.

001068510688

Relevance.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

22

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 23 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

88. Section V Item A of the Kern Medical Center Procedure on Disruptive Behavior, Discrimination and Harassment Policy “Examples of prohibited conduct include but are not limited to the following ... a) 6. Use of racial, ethnic, epithetic or derogatory comments... b) 8. Use of medical record entries to criticize KMC associates, policies or equipment, other practitioners, or others; c) 14. Persisting to criticize, or to discuss performance or quality concerns with, particular KMC associates or others after being asked to direct such comments exclusively through other channels; ... “ 89. Jadwin was dealt with pursuant to the Disruptive Physician Policy.

001068610687

Relevance.

0010686 0010686

Relevance. Relevance.

0010687

Relevance.

Harris Depo., 8/13/08, pgs. 330:21332:3

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Misstates testimony. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo at 331:21-332:3)].

Pulling Dr. Lau’s Tie 90. E-mail to Michael Ewald from Jadwin, dated 10/9/03, telling Ewald how to conduct the investigation into the “tiepulling” incident, who to talk to, and what questions to ask. 91. Confidential file of investigation of Jadwin pulling Dr. Lau by his tie, dated 10/21/03. a) Portion of Jadwin’s interview blaming Dr. Lau for the incident, alleging a prior history of Dr. Lau being afraid of him because Jadwin (allegedly) points out Dr. Lau’s many mistakes. b) During Jadwin’s interview, conducted on 10/17/03, Jadwin accepts that he pulled the tie, says he cannot really remember. 0000260 (Exhibit 560) Relevance.

0000031-70

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence. Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

0000061-63

0000063

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

23

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 24 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

c) The investigator finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (Item #2) Jadwin violated the Workplace Violence Policy of the County of Kern and potentially endangered the quality or efficiency of patient care (because both Jadwin and Lau testified that Lau told Jadwin that he could not accompany him because he had patient work to do). 92. Letter from Dr. Kolb to Jadwin, dated 11/26/03, reprimanding him for pulling Dr. Lau by his tie. 93. Letter to Dr. Lau from Jadwin, dated 10119/05, apologizing for past wrongs. Dispute with Radiology 94. Dr. Ragland implied that Jadwin was wrong in the dispute with the radiology department because the procedurist (the radiologist) should chose the equipment he uses (gauge of needle is an example) because that is who is performing the task. 95. Dr. Abraham, while discussing the FNA Consulting Report, mentioned that the radiologists were upset with Jadwin because he was accusing them of too many inadequate specimens (“unsatisfactory for evaluation”) when there were relatively few complaints of that before Jadwin arrived. a) Jadwin’s actual (failing) test for cervical pap smears. This test is conducted by the College of American Pathologists (CAP). Of interest, on Case #3 Jadwin marked “unsatisfactory for evaluation” when the accurate diagnosis was “squamous cell carcinoma.” 96. Dr. Abraham talked about the lack of trust between the other doctors and Jadwin, which the FNA Consulting Project report addresses as communication problems.

0000034

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence, investigator did NOT apply a “preponderance of evidence” standard.

DFJ00246

Relevance.

DFJ00590

Relevance.

Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, pgs. 155:2156:13

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript No foundation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

Abraham Depo., 8/18/08, pgs. 59:660:2

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

0000737

Relevance. No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

Abraham Depo., 8/18/08, pgs. 62: 1664:3

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

24

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 25 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

97. Kern Medical Center FNA Consulting Project report by Dr. David Lieu, M.D., M.B.A., dated 5/3/04. a) Consultant’s core issue is the lack of communication and complete distrust between radiology and pathology with negative ramifications for the clinicians and administration. b) Consultant agreed with radiologists that long clinical history on the FNA reports was unnecessary. c) “ ... Dr. Jadwin and radiologists do not communicate at this level. This suggests that a breakdown in communication is the fundamental problem. This bridge was burned down long ago.” d) “Finally, both radiology and pathology will work together to find the best needle for deep FNAs.” 98. E-mail to Drs. Kercher and Kolb from Jadwin, dated 9/3/04, stating “You cannot dictate the size of the needle by policy” and calling Dr. Lieu “unjustifiably pompous,” 99. E-mail to Peter Bryan from Jadwin, dated 2/2/05, listing his suggestions for improvement on the FNA issue. Jadwin also states that the radiology department was “substantially at fault” for the conflict between the departments. He requested a formal apology from the radiology department to himself and the pathology department. He also requested (in bold lettering) a public announcement at the next Medical Executive Committee (hereinafter referred to as MEC) meeting that there are no quality issues involving the pathology department and Drs. Amin, Abraham, Munoz and Naderi should be standing at the podium during the announcement.

DFJ00251270

None.

DFJ00255

Misstates evidence.

DFJ00257

Misstates evidence.

DF100260

Relevance.

DFJ00269

Relevance.

DFJ00289290

Relevance.

DFJ00319320

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

25

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 26 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

100. Exchange of e-mails between Dr. Ragland and Jadwin, dated 2/25/05, in which Jadwin complains about some comments made by the radiologists at the February QM meeting and informing Dr. Ragland to be prepared for Jadwin to request him to call for supporting documentation from radiology or announce that the previous comments were unsupported. Dr. Ragland shot back his displeasure at the continuing conflict between radiology and pathology, and stated that his committee will not become a battleground for this conflict. Length of Presentations/October 2005 Oncology Conference 101. Exchange of e-mails between Dr. Ragland and Jadwin, dated 11/19 & 11/20/03, about the last Quality Management meeting. Dr. Ragland contradicted Jadwin’s statement that the pathology presentation during the meeting was 20 minutes; Dr. Ragland said it went on much longer than 20 minutes and proceeded to give Jadwin advice on which information was most important to present and how it could be presented succinctly. 102. Memo from Dr. Ragland to Jadwin, dated 1/21/04, that presentations must be concise and that the last Blood Usage Report-52 slideswill not fit in the allotted time. 103. Memo from Dr. McBride to Jadwin, dated 5/9/05, requesting that the time required for the pathology presentation at the oncology conference be kept to a minimum. 104. Instructions for the Cancer Conference presenters 1) the presentation is to contain less than 10 slides, 2) length not to exceed 20 minutes for comprehensive background and overview of testing, and 3) all physicians involved in the case being presented must be notified beforehand.

DFJ00353354

None.

DFJ00241242

Relevance.

None.

DFJ00381

None.

Patel Depo., 12/6/07, Exhibit 25

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

26

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 27 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

105. Pathology Dept.’s oncology conference presentation----67 slidesby Jadwin, reviewing gynecology cases and alleged errors in diagnosis by University of Southern California (hereinafter referred to as USC). 106. Memo from the Cancer Committee (Drs. Patel, Johnson, and McBride) to Jadwin, dated 10/12/05, insisting that his presentation take no more than 5 minutes per patient case.

DFJ00508574

None.

DFJ00578

Relevance.

107. Anonymous (redacted) memo DFJ00580 (author-Dr. Taylor) of complaint about Jadwin’s oncology presentation, dated 10/12/05. Some quotes: “ ... inappropriate to bring political/personal battles to an educational forum filled with residents and students,” and “ ... inappropriate to ‘bash’ reputable institutions like USC and Stanford,” and “ ...made [Jadwin] look like a conceited, pompous buffoon.” 108. Dr. Royce Johnson also voiced a complaint. Harris Depo., 8/13/08, pgs. 126:8127: 19 Exhibit 190

Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay. No foundation. None.

109. Oncology Conference Performance Evaluations of 10/12/05 where criticisms of Jadwin’s presentation are written in the comments section on the following Bates-stamped pages: 0000516,522,526,536, and 548. 110. Dr. Ragland was not present at the October Oncology Conference so his testimony was limited to the comments he heard Jadwin make regarding the conference (which is an admission against interest). Dr. Ragland said that Jadwin’s excuse for monopolizing the oncology conference was that “the only important information on that case was his.”

Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, pgs. 106: 18-109:14 and 156:1425

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony. No foundation. Vague as to time.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

27

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 28 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

111. Dr. Abraham testified that Jadwin went on much longer than a normal pathology presentation and she was embarrassed for him and by some of the things that he said. Her overall feeling was one of discomfort. She definitely felt that his criticisms of outside consultants were inappropriate and further evidence of his arrogance because the issue was not one of who was- right-and-who-was-wrong but of the actual sample and how it could be read. Jadwin’s position that it is a patient care issue presumes that Jadwin is right and Dr. Roy and the outside pathologist are wrong. 112. Dr. Dutt believed that Jadwin retaliated against Dr. Roy by verbally attacking him, angrily, at the October oncology conference.

Abraham Depo., 8/18/08, pgs. 14: 1021: 17 and 131:5133:23 and 135:24138:22

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation.

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pgs.292:25293:20

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. No foundation. No foundation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

113. Letter from Drs. Kercher, Ragland, Abraham and Harris to Jadwin, dated 10/17/05, about Jadwin’s October oncology presentation. The criticisms of the presentation were 1) it exceeded the time allotted to it, 2) Jadwin failed to follow the leader of the conference on brevity, and 3) Jadwin used a public forum for a personal agenda and/or for making a political statement. 114. E-mail from Dr. Ragland to Dr. Harris, dated 10118/05, describing Jadwin’s attitude during the meeting on 10/17/05. When handed the evaluations of his presentation, he would not look at them. The e-mail states that Jadwin has a “lack of communication skills” and fails to “extend basic courtesy to his colleagues.” 115. Jadwin’s evaluation of the 11/9/05 oncology conference (what he filled out). He complained that it ran to 8:38 a.m. and he noted he would discuss the overrun with Dr. McBride.

DFJ00588

0000094

Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

DFJ00689

Misstates evidence.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 29 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

116. Memorandum to Supervisor Michael Rubio, District V, from Peter Bryan, dated 1/17/06, giving him background on the problems arising from the October oncology conference. Bryan tells of a meeting he had with Jadwin about a week after the conference in which Jadwin was extremely angry and making loud, derogatory comments about various members of the medical staff. He said he became concerned about Jadwin’s emotional health. He also said that Jadwin has never been able to state a resolution to the impasse. Bryan also says that he will meet again with Jadwin and inform him of some expectations for future conduct, or he will consider removing him as the chairman of the pathology department. PCCs 117. PCC issue was a difference in professional judgment, the process by the nursing staff was working for them, and Jadwin failed to work within the institution and committee structure. Also, Bryan inferred that Jadwin had accused Toni Smith of ethical lapses which is an example of “a pattern of inability to establish an effective means of dialogue.” 118. E-mail to Toni Smith, R.N. from Jadwin, dated 5/20/05, inquiring after audits of the nursing department of which only one was received and arguing that PCCs should be sent to the blood bank when complete. 119. E-mail to Toni Smith from Jadwin, dated 5/20/05, recounting Jadwin’s telephone conversation with Holly Rapp, AABB Accreditation Director.

00015661567

None.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 205:6206: 25 (Exhibit 291)

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation.

DFJ00408409

None.

DFJ02499

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

29

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 30 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

120. Exchange of e-mails between 0000421Toni Smith and Jadwin, dated between 424 6/15/05 and 6/28/05, about the PCC issues. In 0000423, Jadwin states that a PCC must not be signed until the time of the infusion, or KMC is not meeting AABB accreditation standards. 121. Typed notes, dated 1/10/06, of 0000572 interviews with various people and institutions re: sending the Product Chart Copies (PCCs) back to the blood bank (pathology). The author unknown- interviewed Michelle Burris who said there is no reason to return PCCs to pathology. The author interviewed Ann Schadler, UCLA Blood Bank Director, who said their PCCs are in the patient’s record only, not the blood bank. The author interviewed Julia, UCSD Blood Bank, who said there was no reason to return the form to the blood bank. The author also interviewed Dr. Wu and Jay, supervisor of Mercy Lab and Blood Bank, who said that the PCC goes in the patient’s record and there is no reason to return the PCC to the blood bank. 122. E-mail to Peter Bryan from Jadwin, dated 4/10/06, about several issues but he brings up noncompliance with state regulations, JCAHO, and AABB on the issues of the PCCs. 123. Notes of meeting dated 4/14/06 with Peter Bryan, Karen Barnes and Jadwin on 4/13/06. There is no problem with the PCCs because 5 charts were reviewed (and approved) by JCAHO. 124. E-mail to Peter Bryan from Jadwin, dated 4/17/06, claiming that the JCAHO review was too small of a sample and KMC was in noncompliance on their handling of the PCCs and there was a need for action. DFJ00784

None.

No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

None.

DFJ00788

No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

DFJ00793

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

30

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 31 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a) Bryan criticizes Jadwin’s 57 memos to Toni Smith, R.N. as a “way of flooding the system and seeing what sticks and what doesn’t.” 125. Memo to Peter Bryan from Toni Smith, dated 4/17/06, responding to Jadwin’s e-mail to Peter Bryan of 4/17/06, disagreeing with Jadwin’s characterization of the PCC situation and stating that Jadwin’s proposals on this issue were strategies that have previously been rejected by KMC. 126. Harris had complaints about Jadwin’s handling of the PCC issueJadwin was demanding, inflexible, unreasonable in wanting the originals, impatient. 127. Toni Smith, R.N. explained that the reason that some PCCs looked like they were not complete is that the PCC form was actually in duplicate and the nurses were not consistent about writing on only one copy and throwing the blank copy away. 128. Toni Smith said that Jadwin was never interested or willing to listen to her ideas. When asked what Jadwin’s physical demeanor was like in these conversations in which he was allegedly uncooperative, she said “He was obviously frustrated, obviously not going to change his mind, obviously not willing to listen to anything. I presented cases from other hospitals, some of the lab directors that I hold in high esteem. [He] had no interest in any of that.” 129. Jadwin’s idea to have the PCCs stored in his department may violate California law, Title 22, by fragmenting the medical record. Jadwin’s idea was opposed by Toni Smith, R.N., the medical records department, and the medical records committee which ultimately determines what the contents of a medical record will be.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pg. 226: 10-16 0000401403

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper opinion. Improper speculation.

Harris Depo., 8/13/08, pgs. 268:823 Smith Depo., 8/19/08, pgs. 59:460: 13

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper opinion. Improper speculation. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. No foundation.

Smith Depo., 8/19/08, pg. 65:2-13 and 74: 12-22

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Best evidence rule.

Smith Depo., 8/19/08, pg. 71 :2-21

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Improper conclusion. Hearsay.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

31

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 32 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

130. Toni Smith, R.N. offered a succinct description of her conversations with Jadwin on the issue of PCCs. The conversations were not professional conversations-”It just was a dead-end conversation. I mean, he had his mind made up that those things-he had never seen an organization where they hadn’t been stored in the lab. I had indicated-I indicated to him that I had never seen an organization where they were stored in the lab. And I questioned him as to how he was going to be able to locate that if we needed it for patient care purposes. I think he said he was going to store them in binders or in notebooks or boxes or something. You know, it was irrelevant as far as I was concerned. I felt that it was very important to have that information-one, we needed to know that the patient had-had received the blood. We needed the vital sign information during the blood transfusion part, which would leave a huge gaping hole in patient information if that was stored somewhere in the lab.” 131. Toni Smith considered Jadwin’s conduct at the MEC meeting as uncooperative, refusal to consider other points of view or suggestions, etc. 132. Jadwin’s charges of being out of compliance with regulatory agencies were unfounded, and regulatory agencies found no jeopardy of KMC’s level of compliance.

Smith Depo., 8/19/08,pgs. 72:19-73:17

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Improper conclusion. Hearsay.

Smith Depo., 8119/08, pg. 77:9-20 Smith Depo., 8/19108, pgs. 84: 1185:7

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Relevance. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony. Speculation. No foundation. Improper conclusion.

In General Treatment of Other Staff

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

32

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 33 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

133. Dr. Abraham gradually had fewer and fewer interactions with Jadwin because his attitude was pompous and arrogant. Since the conversations with Jadwin were not cordial, it negatively affected patient care. She didn’t discuss Jadwin’s attitude with other doctors because she thought his attitude was evident to everyone. 134. Dr. Abraham testified that many or most physicians reported difficulties in getting along with Jadwin.

Abraham Depo., 8118/08, pgs. 49: 1652:9 and 75 :22-76: 19

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

Abraham Depo., 8118/08, pgs. 185:7187:9 Bryan Depo., 8114/08, pgs. 90:492:2 Bryan Depo., 8114/08, pgs. 100: 12102: 1 Bryan Depo., 8114/08, pgs. 107:16109: 11 Bryan Depo., 8114/08, pgs. 171: 17173: 11 (Exhibit 271) Bryan Depo., 8114/08, pg. 230: 10-15

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Hearsay. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Hearsay. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Relevance. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper conclusion.

135. Jadwin’s communication style was, to some people, offensive and abrasive, and he had a hard time accepting differing opinions from others. 136. “Compromise” was not in Jadwin’s vocabulary. It is not enough to be right; a department chair must exercise judgment on how to deal with others. 137. Jadwin said Dr. Ragland was not qualified to be a staff officer, and he called Dr. Harris an idiot on several occasions.

138. E-mail to Bryan from Jadwin asking Bryan what he (Bryan) has done on the cytotech issue. Bryan said that he was not the appropriate person to resolve this. Jadwin should be directing this to the chairman; Bryan only gets involved if approval is necessary. 139. Bryan recalls private conversations with Jadwin where Jadwin challenged Toni Smith’s competency as chief nursing officer.

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

33

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 34 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

140. Jadwin was so obsessed with personnel actions or inactions that he was distracted in his duties. “ ... his behavior threatened a healthy, productive work environment at the hospital.” 141. In most cases, doctors know how to calm each other down and act professionally and collegially. Jadwin was “unusual.” Jadwin was unable to interact collegially and professionally to create a healthy, collaborative working environment. 142. Jadwin denied referring to Dr. Epstein as cavalier. Jadwin said that on another matter, at another time, he said that Dr. Epstein’s diagnoses were a little cavalier. 143. Dr. Ragland testified that Jadwin acted inappropriately in several instances.

Harris Depo., 8113/08, pgs. 171: 16174: 8 pg. 173:9-10 Harris Depo., 8/13/08,pgs. 212:16218: 11 pg.215:1821 Jadwin Depo., 3/12/08,901 :12-903: 1 Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, pg. 12:8-23

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Evidence was spoliated in violation of preservation request. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

a) The first incident was when Jadwin, in a meeting, said Dr. Ragland was incompetent and shouldn’t be the medical staff president.

pg.16:1516.

b) The second incident was Jadwin taking over the blood usage committee and not letting any other physicians on it. Jadwin sent Dr. Ragland an e-mail stating that he thought having other physicians on the committee was a waste of time because “they will all rubber stamp it.” Dr. Ragland interpreted this to mean that Jadwin did not think that anyone else at KMC had the competence or experience to sit on the committee.

pgs. 59:2160: 17 and 86:5-25

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

34

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 35 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

c) The third incident was Jadwin’s fighting with the radiologists and calling them incompetent. According to Dr. Ragland, Jadwin was wrong because the procedurist (the radiologist) should chose the equipment he uses (gauge of needle is an example) as that is who is performing the task. d) The fourth incident was Jadwin hijacking the presentation at the October 2005 oncology conference.

pg. 94:16 95:15 and 155:2156:13

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

pgs. 106: 18-109: 14 and 156:1425

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay. No foundation. Improper speculation. Improper conclusion.

144. Dr. Ragland observed an incident involving Dr. Shertukde wherein Jadwin intimidated her into giving the answer he wanted and then he dismissed her from the room. 145. Watson describes how Jadwin’s disruptive misconduct was discussed at several JCC meetings.

Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, pg. 110:7-17 Watson Depo., 8/25/08, pg. 13:3-16

146. Watson testified to his impression of Jadwin’s involvement with KMC management regarding whether to remove him as chair, etc. He felt that Peter Bryan had made a lot of effort to engage Jadwin but that Jadwin was unresponsive.

Watson Depo., 8/25/08, pg. 32:6-1 0

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

35

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 36 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

147. Letter to Dr. Ko1b from Jadwin, dated 11/22/03, complaining about the situation at KMC. Jadwin asserted the following: 1) offense at Dr. Kolb’s counseling of Jadwin that his leadership style needs to be kinder and gentler; 2) distress at the criticisms he received from Drs. Ragland and Abraham at a Wednesday meeting; 3) blame for the schism between pathology and radiology over FNA was on the radiologists; 4) personally unaware of any inappropriate interpersonal relations involving himself; 5) hoped to be recognized by others at KMC as one of the best physicians and directors there; and 6) any complaints about him were “irresponsible attempts by a few inadequate individuals.” 148. E-mail to Dr. Kercher from Jadwin, dated 2/1/05, requesting Dr. Abraham be removed from the FNA Committee because she wasn’t (by implication) honest, objective or impartial. 149. E-mail from Dr. Kercher to Jadwin, dated 2/1/05, telling Jadwin that he was not acting like a team member. 150. E-mail to Peter Bryan from Jadwin, dated 2/2/05, listing his suggestions for improvement on the FNA issue. Jadwin also states that the radiology department was “substantially at fault” for the conflict between the departments. He requested a formal apology from the radiology department to himself and the pathology department. He also requested (in bold lettering) a public announcement at the next MEC meeting that there are no quality issues involving the pathology department and Drs. Amin, Abraham, Munoz and Naderi should be forced to stand at the podium during the announcement.

DFJ00243245

Relevance.

DFJ00316

None.

DFJ00317

Relevance.

DFJ00319320

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

36

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 37 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

151. Exchange of e-mails between Dr. Ragland and Jadwin, dated 2/25/05, in which Jadwin complains about some comments made by the radiologists at the February QM meeting and informing Dr. Ragland to be prepared for Jadwin to request him to call for supporting documentation from radiology or announce that the previous comments were unsupported. Dr. Ragland shot back his displeasure at the continuing conflict between radiology and pathology, and stated that his committee will not become a battleground for this conflict. 152. E-mail to Peter Bryan and Dr. Kercher from Jadwin, dated 2/28/05, forwarding Dr. Ragland’s e-mail of 2/25/05 and asserting that because of spelling, grammar, and syntax errors in it that Dr. Ragland may be an “impaired physician” with a “level of intellectual functioning well below the high school graduate level” and thought processes that are “chaotic and almost incoherent.” Jadwin alleges that Dr. Ragland may have a substance abuse, emotional and/or cognitive function disorder, and suggests monitored drug testing and that Dr. Ragland’s patient care duties be monitored as well. a) Dr. Ragland heard about the e-mail although he never saw it. He heard that the e-mail was turned over to Dr. Yoo, head of psychiatry. He also heard that Jadwin had contacted the licensing board about him with this same accusation. b) Letter to Dr. Ragland from Jadwin, dated 10/19105, apologizing for past wrongs, although he asserts that he does not know how Dr. Ragland came to dislike him. The irony is that Jadwin’s letter contains many spelling and grammatical mistakes and a Freudian slip” ... and I have never treated you and your patients exceptionally well ...”

DFJ00353354

None.

DFJ00355

None.

Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, pgs. 332:4337:2

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay.

[Compare to DFJ00355 above] DFJ00592

Relevance.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

37

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 38 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

153. Letter to Dr. Sergio Perticucci from Jadwin, dated 3/3/05, complaining about Dr. Perticucci’ s complaints about the pathology department. In particular, Jadwin attempted to assert that an original diagnosis of “atypical metaplasia” was merely a transcription error because the diagnosis should have been “atypical hyperplasia.” Jadwin also called the diagnosis rendered on the same case by Dr. Felix of use “nebulous.” Jadwin called Dr. Perticucci dishonest and demanded an apology. 154. E-mail to Dr. Kercher from Jadwin, dated 6/7/05, complaining about Dr. Abraham’s conduct at an MEC meeting and accusing her of an “inappropriate personality defect.” 155. E-mail to Dr. Kercher from Jadwin, dated 6/27/05, demanding that Dr. Abraham publicly apologize to Jadwin at the next MEC meeting. 156. Letter to Dr. Roy from Jadwin, dated 2/10/06, demanding apology “meeting my specifications” if alleged (pathology department) deficiencies are not received in 14 days. 157. Memorandum from Peter Bryan to Jadwin, dated 2/21/06, chastising Jadwin for the tone of voice he used in his letter to Dr. Roy of 2/1 0/06 and stating that “this method... exemplifies why it is becoming increasingly difficult for you to work with key members of the medical staff.” 158. Email to Peter Bryan from Jadwin, dated 2/23/06, following the meeting of 2/22/06 urging Bryan to take the moral high ground and called Drs. Ragland and Abraham “disgruntled, vindictive individuals.”

DFJ00356~ 357

Relevance.

DFJ00427

None.

DFJ00436

None.

DFJ00738

Relevance.

DFJ00740741; Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 137:1144:9

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

DFJ00744745

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

38

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 39 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

159. Exchange of e-mails with Peter Bryan from Jadwin, dated 3/24/06, 3/27/06, 4/5/06, criticizing Karen Barnes for insisting on vicarious liability of staffing agency before placing a temporary pathologist. Also, Jadwin postponed his own surgery indefinitely because his mother was ill. 160. Memo from Peter Bryan to Jadwin, dated 4/17/06, telling him that he must either work on improving his relationships with staff or step down as chairman of pathology department. Bryan states “You have made many derogatory comments about some of the staff members” and “this apparent lack of insight on your part is at the heart of your inability to meaningfully contribute as a member of the medical staff leadership group.” In Bryan’s Depo., he distinguished between the department running well on a technical level (which he notes in this memo) and Jadwin’s deficiencies as department chair 161. E-mail from Peter Bryan to Jadwin, dated 4/17/06, responding to an e-mail from Jadwin in which Jadwin pushes an issue of “pathology informatics.” Bryan’s response was stem, “I clearly indicated to you that your proposed solution of a free standing system for pathology was not going to happen. I have repeated this to you many times ... “ 162. Jadwin wanted to delete the “Complete Blood Count” from the laboratory’s test menu and only offer the “Complete Blood Count with Differential.” Gilbert Martinez believed Jadwin’s idea would pose a compliance issue so Martinez took the matter to the Compliance Committee. Both options stayed on the test menu. Martinez felt that Jadwin was being uncooperative in this incident.

DFJ00783

None.

DFJ00794795; Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 231 :9237:25; pgs. 233:2-17 and 237:211

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony.

0001581

Relevance.

Martinez Depo., 4/16/08, pgs. 121:17122: 19

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

39

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 40 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

163. Gilbert Martinez described an incident an unannounced inspection occurred and Jadwin was not present. Martinez proceeded to show the inspectors around the laboratory. Jadwin returned, became upset when he discovered the inspectors were there, stated that the inspection had been mishandled, and then said that if Jadwin had a gun, he would shoot someone. Jadwin never apologized to him for making the remark. The incident happened sometime before 2005. 164. Dr. Dutt believed that Jadwin tried to retaliate against Dr. Taylor who is married to Dr. Abraham. Jadwin’s dislike of Dr. Abraham is well-known. For instance, Jadwin refused to make the obvious diagnosis on one of Dr. Taylor’s cases. 165. Dr. Dutt reported to Dr. Harris complaints by Dr. Shertukde that Jadwin was angry and hostile toward her. Dutt did so because he was afraid that Dr. Shertukde or Vangie Gallegos would file a case against the County for harassment or hostile work environment based on Jadwin’s behavior. Meeting on February 22, 2006 166. Dr. Abraham recalled how Jadwin insulted her and how he had insulted Dr. Ragland and, in general, that he managed to insult everyone who was there but she did not remember specific statements beyond those directed at her and Dr. Ragland. 167. Jadwin insulted, literally, everyone at the meeting face-to-face.

Martinez Depo., 4/16/08, pgs. 127:22130: 3

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Misstates testimony.

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08 pgs. 291 :7-292: 11

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pgs. 298:23300:24

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Hearsay. Improper speculation.

Abraham Depo., 8118/08, pgs. 198:24207: 17

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 109: 12111: 10

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper conclusion.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

40

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 41 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

168. Bryan thanked Dr. Ragland for showing restraint in the face of Jadwin’s insults.

Bryan Depo., 8/14/08, pgs. 156:22157: 12 Harris Depo., 8/13/08, pg. 159 :2-13 Harris Depo., 8113/08, pg. 196:7-20 Harris Depo., 8/13/08 pgs. 230:4232: 13 Harris Depo., 8113/08, pgs. 234:24235: 23 and 305:20308: 22 Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, pg. 16: 12-16

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. Improper conclusion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

169. Jadwin made attacking statements and charges at attendees of 2/22/06 meeting. 170. Jadwin insulted Dr. Ragland severely at the 2/22/06 meeting.

171. Jadwin insulted all of the doctors at the meeting, including Dr. Harris.

172. Harris refused to characterize Jadwin’s behavior as crazy but he did offer “excessive” as a description and agreed with Eugene Lee’s adjectives of “unprofessional” and “unreasonable.” Harris said it was the most unprofessional, unreasonable, excessive behavior he has ever seen in a physician. 173. The first incident of Jadwin’s inappropriate conduct was when Jadwin, during this meeting, said Dr. Ragland was incompetent and shouldn’t be the medical staff president. 174. E-mail from Dr. Ragland to Peter Bryan, dated 2/23/06, stating that the meeting with Jadwin on 2/22/06 was “one of the most distasteful events I have ever participated in.” Demotion to Staff Pathologist

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript.

0000507

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

41

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 42 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

175. Pathology Dept. Proctoring Report on Dr. Dutt, dated 1/l8/06, and completed by Jadwin who said that Dr. Dutt’s performance is “responsible and excellent.” 176. Exchange of e-mails between Dr. Dutt and Jadwin, dated 11/6/06, regarding a container of specimen left sitting out. To remedy the situation, Dr. Dutt instructed that only Evangeline “Vangie” Gallegos was to process the placentas. 177. E-mail from Evangeline “Vangie” Gallegos to Dr. Dutt, dated 11/6/06, thanking him for his support and complaining about Jadwin interfering in her work area and “creating more work for everybody.” She asked if she could go home early as she was feeling sick. 178. Exchange of e-mails between Dr. Dutt and Jadwin, dated 11/13/06 and 11/14/06, wherein Jadwin requested that he have an assigned assistant and that the assigned assistant be required to notify him when leaving the lab for more than 5 minutes. Dr. Dutt’s response was to deny the need for an assistant as the department had three pathologists and to remark how “demeaning and time consuming” it would be to constantly clock in and out. 179. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 11/17/06, expressing frustration with Jadwin’s reaction to counseling which is to escalate the situation, blame others, or attack others. Dr. Dutt also promised to find the records where Jadwin did not submit a “rush” case or most of his other cases that day. He also asserted that Jadwin had done this before. 180. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 11/22/06, discussing their disagreement on the necessity for privileges for FNA and the necessity for proctoring.

0000903 913

No foundation. Not authenticated. Improper conclusion. Improper opinion.

DFJ01430

Hearsay. Speculation.

0000824

Hearsay. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

DFJ01439 (000084084 1)

Hearsay..

DFJ0144601447 (0000843)

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

DFJ01448 (0000850)

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

42

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 43 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

181. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 11/22/06, reminding him of a rush case that Jadwin failed to process promptly and counseling Jadwin to remember it when criticizing others. 182. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 12/4/06, chastising Jadwin for criticizing Dr. Shertukde’s diagnosis without consulting others first; chastising him for refusing to get outside consult on a hard case; and chastising him for failing to remove the sharps from the cutting area when he was done. a) Minutes of the meeting of the pathology/histology department on 10/17/06. It was noted that Dr. Shertukde was concerned that blades were not being removed once grossing was done. She and Dr. Dutt remove and discard the blades immediately. b) E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Yolanda Figueroa, dated 12/7/06, acknowledging her report that Jadwin had left two long blades and a scalpel out after he was finished. 183. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 12/5/06, regarding Jadwin’s uncooperativeness with him and general failure to adhere to a chain of command. 183. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 12/5/06, regarding Jadwin’s uncooperativeness with him and general failure to adhere to a chain of command. 184. E-mails between Dr. Dutt and Jadwin, dated 12/6/06, arguing over a criticism Jadwin made of a diagnosis that Dr. Shertukde did and involving alleged defamatory and retaliatory statements made by Jadwin. Dr. Dutt tells Jadwin that people are afraid of him because of his hostility and that it is Jadwin’s fault for how he treats others.

DFJ01449 (000085])

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

0000827

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

0000899

No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

0000862

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

DFJ01465 (0000856)

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

DFJ014761478 (0000857858)

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

43

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 44 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

185. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to David Culberson, dated 12/6/06, stating that he had counseled Jadwin for not sending out a case for consultation that, in fact, turned out to be a missed endometrial cancer and now Jadwin was pushing a lot of cases out for consultation, burdening the staffs time and budget. 186. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin, dated 12/7/06, chastising him for commanding Yolanda to treat the placentas when in his e-mail of 11/6/06 (0000825 above) specifically said that only Vangie was to work with placentas. 187. Jadwin was uncooperative after returning from leave. He was asked specifically to resume doing the blood bank reviews and he did not do them.

0001466

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

0000863

Hearsay. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pg. 284:25285:5

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion. The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a certified copy, it is a condensed transcript for informal attorney use. No reporter certification is attached to the transcript. No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

188. Dr. Dutt, acting Chair of the Pathology Department had concerns that Jadwin was creating a hostile work environment. This prompted meetings with Dr. Perez, David Culberson, and Dr. Harris. 189. Dr. Dutt would try to counsel Jadwin one-on-one but Jadwin would avoid the conversation. He would make an excuse to leave the room or leave the hospital. Because Jadwin made it difficult for Dr. Dutt to talk to him, Dr. Dutt had no alternative but to send his concerns about Jadwin’s work to the Peer Review Committee. 190. E-mail to Dr. Dutt from Jadwin, dated 12/6/06, with copies to David Culberson, Dr. Harris and Karen Barnes, alleging that he has been “singled out for non-transparent ‘PCC r review’“ as well as personal attacks, and he requests the KMC administration to initiate a formal review. Date: December 1, 2008

Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pgs. 286:6289: 1; 290: 14-20 Dutt Depo., 8/20/08, pgs.296:20297:13

DFJ014791480

None.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

44

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 283

Filed 12/01/2008

Page 45 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/s/ Eugene D. Lee LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: elee@LOEL.com Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

45


				
DOCUMENT INFO
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.