Docstoc

293 P Opp - D MJOP

Document Sample
293 P Opp - D MJOP Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 293

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 1 of 7

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. DATE: TIME: CTRM: TRIAL: January 12, 2009 10:00 U.S. Dist. Ct., Crtrm. 3 2500 Tulare St., Fresno, CA March 24, 2009 Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)]

Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251)

1

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

Document 293

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Plaintiff David F. Jadwin submits his Opposition to Defendant County of Kern’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed 11/13/08 (Doc. 250). Defendants’ motion contends Defendants should be granted judgment as a matter of law because: Here, Plaintiff s [California Tort Claims Act] claim did not put the County on notice of the Claims Plaintiff actually filed in his complaint. None of the Claims in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint are identified or described in his claim. Motion, Doc. 251 at 5:3-8. Defendants’ motion is frivolous, harassing and violates Rule 11. A. DEFENDANTS JUDICIALLY ADMITTED THAT PLAINTIFF EXHAUSTED ALL ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FOR ALL OF HIS CLAIMS BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER FILING THE INSTANT MOTION Defendants have admitted on numerous occasions that Plaintiff exhausted all adequate administrative remedies for all of his claims. In fact, such admissions occurred both before and after the

12 filing of their frivolous motion for judgment on the pleadings on 11/13/08. 13 On 5/13/08, Defendants stated in discovery responses that they were not “presently aware of any 14 15 See Lee Decl., Exh. 1 (Defendants’ Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, ROG 16 6 at 5:26-6:3). 17 On 8/7/08, Defendants admitted that Plaintiff had “exhausted all adequate administrative 18 remedies for all of his claims”. See Lee Decl., Exh. 2 (Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for 19 Admission, Set One, RFA 16 at 4:23-27). 20 Then on 12/1/08, almost 3 weeks after Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the 21 pleadings, Defendants again admitted Plaintiff had exhausted all his administrative remedies as to all 22 claims. See Lee Decl., Exh. 3 (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 23 278, at PMF 210 & 211 on 37:8-17). 24 Defendants’s admissions both before and after the filing of the instant motion belie their own 25 present contention that Plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies under the Tort Claims Act. There motion is 26 27 28 The Eighth Affirmative Defense states: “As and for an eighth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has available adequate administrative remedies which he failed to exhaust and that his claims are, therefore, barred.” Defendants’ Answer to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 246 at 13:3-5.
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 1
1

facts that support the Eighth Affirmative Defense [alleging failure to exhaust administrative remedies]”.1

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

Document 293

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4

frivolous and harassing. B. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION VIOLATES THE COURT’S EXPRESS RULING AGAINST FILING OF RULE 12 MOTIONS At the hearing held before Judge Wanger on 10/6/08, Defendants requested permission to file Rule 12 motions in connection with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Defendants stated their

5 strong belief that Plaintiff’s new oppositional retaliation claims would be dismissed on a Rule 12 6 motion. Plaintiff pointed out that the parties intended to file motions for summary judgment on 11/13/08 7 anyway and that any Rule 12 motions should be subsumed by the motions for summary judgment for 8 sake of judicial economy and to minimize further delays in the trial calendar. Having heard all the 9 arguments of the parties, Judge Wanger agreed with Plaintiff and ruled from the bench that the parties 10 should not file Rule 12 motions subsequent to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint (which 11 Plaintiff filed on 10/7/08). 12 In observance of this ruling, Plaintiff refrained from filing separate Rule 12 motions to strike 13 Defendants’ 10 frivolous affirmative defenses and instead strained to include these arguments within the 14 restrictive page limits of his motion for summary judgment brief. 15 Defendants’ motion is a violation of Judge Wanger’s ruling. Plaintiff has been prejudiced. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a part) are exempt from general California Tort Claims Act requirements. In Snipes v. City of 26 Bakersfield, a case Defendant County of Kern is surely familiar with, the Court of Appeal reversed a 27 grant of demurrer by a Kern County Superior Court, ruling: 28
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 2

C. PLAINTIFF’S TORT CLAIMS ACT COMPLAINT WAS MORE THAN ADEQUATE Defendants contend: [Plaintiff’s] [Tort Claims Act] claim contains no allegation and no factual description of any violation of CFRA, no allegation of “disability,” “depression,” “whistleblowing” to a governmental agency, “reasonable accommodation,” failure to accommodate or failure to engage in the interactive process – allegations that are all integral to his complaint. Motion, Doc. 251 at 5:5-6. Defendant’s contention rests on bad law and bad facts. 1. Well-settled Caselaw Holds that FEHA Claims are Exempt from General Tort Claims Act Requirements As Defendants well know, the caselaw is well settled that actions under FEHA (of which CFRA

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

Document 293

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

In this appeal we conclude that actions seeking redress for employment discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ( Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) are not subject to the claim-presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act ( Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.).” 145 Cal. App. 3d 861, 863. The court further reasoned: We agree with appellant’s argument that the purposes and procedures of the FEHA demonstrate a legislative intent that actions against governmental entities brought under the FEHA are to be excepted from the general requirements of the Tort Claims Act. The FEHA constitutes a comprehensive scheme for combating employment discrimination, with specific time limitations related to the remedies provided. Snipes was cited with approval by the California Supreme Court in Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65, 80 (Cal. 1990) (“actions under FEHA are exempt from general Tort Claims Act requirements”).

9 In fact, on 7/31/06, Plaintiff filed, and served on Defendants, his complaint with the California 10 Department of Fair Employment & Housing regarding his claims under FEHA and CFRA. That 11 complaint included an attachment which fully detailed the chronology of transactions and occurrences 12 underlying all of Plaintiff’s FEHA and CFRA claims. It also included many of the legal catchphrases 13 which Defendants seem to hold so dear – “accommodation”, “disability”, “retaliation”, etc.: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2

[. . .] I would be pursuing claims for, among other things, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate disability, retaliation for taking California Family Rights Act medical leaves, etc.” Exhibits to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 241-2, Exh. 4 at pp. 52-54 (FEHA complaint of 8/3/06). 2. Plaintiff’s Disclosure of His Claims Exceeded the Requirements of Government Code § 911 The disclosures contained in Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint were more than adequate. Cal. Gov’t. C. § 910 requires Plaintiff only to disclose the “date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction”; it does not require recitation of the specific statutory or other legal bases for Plaintiff’s claims as Defendants contend.2 Nor does it require evidentiary detail. See Blair v. Sup. Ct. Cal. Gov’t. C. § 910 states:

24 25 26 27 28

A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following: (a) The name and post office address of the claimant. (b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. (c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 3

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

Document 293

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 5 of 7

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

(1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 224; More v. City of San Bernardino (1931) 118 Cal.App. 732. The claim need only be drafted with sufficient factual breadth and character to support the legal theories on which the plaintiff subsequently plans to sue if the claim is rejected. See Stearns v. County of Los Angeles (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 134, 138 n.3. Recognizing that laypersons often prepare claims without benefit of legal advice, courts have ruled that claims need not adhere to the standards of clarity and precision expected in pleadings. See Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 242; Foster v. McFadden (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 943. In short, the focus is on disclosure of the circumstances of relevant transactions and occurrences, not recitation of legal catchphrases like “reasonable accommodation”, “whistleblowing”, “interactive process”, etc. Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint amply fulfills these factual disclosure requirements. Regarding Plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim, the complaint discloses: Pursuant to an employment contract (“Contract”), Complainant was formerly Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center (“KMC”). On June 14, 2006, Mr. Peter Bryan (CEO of KMC) summarily informed Complainant that he was being stripped of chairmanship effective June 17, 2006, due to his taking excessive sick leaves. . . . The demotion/termination constituted retaliation by Mr. Bryan against Complainant for raising concerns relating to patient health care. Previous to June 14, Complainant had apprised Mr. Bryan and other medical staff leadership in emails and communications too numerous to count of several crisis issues which critically jeopardized patient health care at KMC: i) need for follow-up on failure of a formerly-employed KMC pathologist to detect cancer diagnoses in numerous patient prostate biopsies; ii) chronically incomplete or inaccurate KMC blood component product chart copies, in violation of state regulations and accreditation standards of JCAHO, CAP and AABB; iii) chronically inadequate fine needle aspirations collected by KMC radiologists leading to incomplete and/or incorrect patient diagnoses and greatly increased expense for KMC; iv) need for KMC pathology dept. i) to review outsourced pathology diagnoses prior to undergoing major therapy in reliance on those diagnoses and ii) to approve outsourcing of pathology to outside vendors; and v) need for effective oversight of blood usage program by pathology dept.

claim asserted. (d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim. (e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. (f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 4

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

Document 293

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 6 of 7

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

Exhibits to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 241-2, Exh. 2 at pp. 28-30 (Tort Claims Act complaint of 7/3/06). Both whistleblower statutes which Plaintiff is suing under – Labor Code § 1102.5 and Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 – expressly provide that an employee’s reports to his public employer constitute whistleblowing. H&S § 1278.5(b)(1)(A); Labor C. § 1102.5(e). That is exactly what is disclosed in the foregoing. Nor did Plaintiff blow the whistle to external regulatory authorities until much later, in November 2006. Defendants’ allegation that Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint is deficient is baseless and frivolous. Moreover, the purpose of the Tort Claims Act is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” City of San Jose v. Sup. Ct. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455. Even before Plaintiff had filed his Tort Claims Act complaint on 7/3/06, Plaintiff sent a demand letter on 6/29/06 to Defendants, fully detailing Plaintiff’s pending claims for retaliation for reporting patient care issues to his employers, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, etc. The disclosure of pending claims in that letter put Defendants on notice as to the nature of all of Plaintiff’s claims, not just those required to be disclosed under the Tort Claims Act. See See Lee Decl., Exh. 4 (Demand letter, as served by Plaintiff’s counsel upon Karen Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel for the County of Kern on 6/29/06). Similarly, the FEHA complaint of 8/3/06 referenced in Section C.1. supra provided detailed disclosure to Defendants, more than enabling them to investigate and/or settle Plaintiff’s claims had they chosen to do so. In short, there were no deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint, nor can Defendants now claim prejudice from deficiencies which they contend existed in such complaint. D. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff questions what good faith basis Defendants could have had in bringing this motion. It rests on bad facts and bad law, and is ultimately nothing more than bad faith argument. Defendants’ judicial admissions that Plaintiff exhausted all administrative remedies on all claims both before and after the filing of this motion establish that beyond question. It is apparent that Defendants’ purposes in bringing this frivolous motion are improper: to harass Plaintiff and increase his costs of litigation, as

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251)

5

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

Document 293

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 7 of 7

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

they have done throughout this action. Defendants have violated Rule 113 more times than Plaintiff can recount. This motion is but the latest example of that.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in its entirety.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on December 26, 2008. /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.

3

FRCP Rule 11(b) states:

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 6

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 1 of 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

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 DECLARATION OF EUGENE LEE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)] DATE: TIME: CTRM: TRIAL: January 12, 2009 10:00 U.S. Dist. Ct., Crtrm. 3 2500 Tulare St., Fresno, CA March 24, 2009

Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows: 21 1. 22 California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am 23 counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter. 24 2. 25 for Judgment on the Pleadings. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and 26 would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 27 3. 28
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 1

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of

I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion

Attached hereto as Exhibits are true and correct copies of the following documents which

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 2 of 120

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

were either served on me or transmitted by me on or around the dates indicated: Exh. 1 2 3 4 Date 5/13/2008 8/7/2008 12/1/2008 6/29/2006 Description Defendants’ Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One Defendants’ Separate Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 278) Eugene Lee Faxed Demand Letter to Kern County Deputy Counsel Karen Barnes

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 2

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 3 of 120

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
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 3

EXHIBIT 1: Defendants’ Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One

May

13 08 04:25p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.3

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 4 of 120

I
2 3

4
5 6

Mark A Wasser CA 5B #60160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com Bernard C. Barmarm, Sr. CA SB #60508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 9330 I Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JelUlifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy

7
8

9
10 11 12

13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17 18

DAVID F. JAD"'TN, D.O.
Plaintiff, vs.

) Case No.: I:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
) ) DEFENDANTS' SECOND

19
20 21

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.

22

~ ~ ~
) )
)

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE)
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 3, 2008

23
24 25 26 27 28

PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER:

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.e.A.p. Defendant COUNTY OF KERN ONE (1)

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

May 13 08 04:25p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

pA

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 5 of 120

Defendants hereby submit these second supplemental responses to Plaintiff David F. 2 Jad\\iin's Interrogatories, Set One.

3
4

INTERROGATORY NO.1
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affinnative Defense.

5
6 7 S 9 10 II 12 13

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1
All of the Defendants' actions and communications referenced in the complaint were done in furtherance of patient care and the administration ofKMC and KMC's peer-review, quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs, all of which are official proceedings authorized by statute. All of the letters, e-mails and statements described in the complaint were prepared and distributed within the context of hospital management, peer review and quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs. All of Defendants' statements were accurate and true. None were false. None was motivated by malice towards Plaintiff or by any improper purpose.

14
15

INTERROGATORY NO.2
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.

16
17 1& 19 20 21 22 23 24

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2
All of the Defendants' actions and communications referenced in the complaint were done in furtherance of patient care and the administration ofKMC and KMC's peer-review, quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs, all of which are officiaI proceedings authorized by statute. All of the letters, e-mails and statements described in the complaint were prepared and distributed within the context of peer review and quality:assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs. All of Defendants' statements were accurate and true. None were false. None was motivated by malice towards Plaintiff or by any improper purpose.

25
26

INTERROGATORY NO.3
State e:u:h and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.

27
28

11/

/1/
2 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

May 13 08 04:25p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.5

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 6 of 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
14

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3
Plaintiff physically assaulted Dr. Lau in a room at KMC; falsely accused Dr. Ragland of being an "impaired" physician and being "incompetent", of having a substance abuse problem, an emotional or cognitive function disorder, and an intellectual level of functioning well below the high school graduate level; he demanded that Dr. Ragland undergo immediate drug testing, be referred to the physician well-being committee, and that his patient care duties be monitored until Ragland could be evaluated. Plaintiff publicly accused Dr. Roy of being a "bad doctor" and committing malpractice and repeatedly threatened Dr. Roy with lawsuits to recover damages for what Plaintiff termed Dr. Roy's "imprudent public behavior." Plaintiffrepeatedly threatened legal action as a means of resolving his differences with members of the medical staff; repeatedly usurped time allocated to other speakers at monthly oncology conferences to make speeches, criticize other physicians and providers, inappropriately debate other members of the medical staff and disrupt the conference; wrote many letters and e-mails, all of which have been produced, in which he complained about other members of the medical statl and non-medical staff, made false accusations against KMC and members of the KMC medical staff and demanded that various members of the KMC medical staff be "investigated"; he made derogatory comments about and complained about Dr. Abrallam, including accusing her of being "nothing more than a weight-loss doctor." He made derogatory comments about and complained about Dr. Kercher, Dr. Harris, Dr. Roy, Dr. Naderi, Dr. Taylor, Dr. McBride, Dr. Martin, Dr. Ang, Dr. Lang, Dr. Liu and Dr. Shertudke, he wrote many e-mails and letters, all of which have been prodnced, falsely alleging that KL\1C was in violation or non-compliance with state law and accepted health care protocols; he used e-mail and memos to avoid more personal communication with KMC staff and as a vehicle for verbal retaliation for a variety of perceived wrongs and personal slights, he resisted repeated efforts by Peter Bryan, Dr. Harris, Dr. Abraham, Dr. Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Kolb to eounsd him and tacilitate an improvement in relationships between Plaintiff and other members of the medical staff; he dismissed the opinions and observations of other members of KMC staff if their opinions and observations did not coincide with his own, he proposed a new protocol for fine needle aspirations without 3 DEFENDA)[TS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

May 13 08 04:26p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.6

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 7 of 120

discussing it with the Radiology Department and pouted and became openly antagonistic with 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 othcr members ofKMC staff when it was not adopted; he proposed a change in the record keeping for blood product chart copies that would have violated state laws on the integrity
0

r

patient records and made accusations to several KMC staff members when it was not adopted. Plaintiff drove Dr. Aug, Dr. Lang, Dr. Liu, Denise Long and Jane Thornton from the Pathology Department as a result of his continual micro-managing of their work, criticism, interference with their work and insistence that they devote disproportionate time to preparing reports and forms of minimal importance; he created frustration and stress in other members of the staff as a result of the same behaviors, he insisted that staffin the Pathology Department devote extraordinary time to compiling information of minimal importance and dismissed their resulting concerns about workload; repeatedly tried to monopolize Medical Executive Committee and Quality Management committee meetings with issues of personal interest and complaints about KMC and other members of the medical staff; ignored and dismissed medical texts and other authorities that did not agree with his opinions and dismissed the related concerns of staff; resisted requests from treating physicians that he send pathology reports out for a second opinion and interfered with patient care while feuding witb treating physicians over the preparation and release of pathology reports, interfered with stan; including Evangeline Gallegos, by performing their jobs Hnd ignored requests that he let them to their work and do his own job. Plaintiff adopted policies for the Pathology Department but applied them inconsistently and selectively; he did not comply with his own policies despite insistence that others comply; he gave staff inconsistent and contradictory instruction and dismissed their resulting concerns. Plaintiff frequently became emotional and argumentative over routine hospital management and administration issues and gradually destroyed thc collegiality and teamwork essential to effective hospital operation. He routinely retaliated against staff members he perceived as non-supportive by threatening them, making all egaLiulls against them and demanding they be investigated. Plaintiff frequently demanded that various members of the KMC staff "apologize" to him for statements made in the course of peer-review and quality management processes. Plaintiffs

28
4 DEFENDANTS' SCPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

May 13 08 04:26p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.?

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 8 of 120

typical response to disagreements was to blame and accuse others, verbally assault them and, 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 ultimately, make complaints against them. INTERROGATORY NO.4 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY :'1"0. 4 Dr. Roy's alleged refusal to submit outside pathology reports for internal review in 2005 (Second Supplemental Complaint at 13 :23-14: 1); the Dr. Roy letter of April IS, 2005 (lbid at 14:5); the concerns Dr. Roy voiced in or before May, 2005 (Ibid at 15:1); the Roy letter of July 15,2005 (Ibid at 16:3-8); the October 12, 2005 oncology conference (Ibid at 17:5-7); the Roy letter of October 13,2005 (Ibid at 17: 16-18:3); the October 17,2005 meeting with Dr. Harris, Dr. Kercher and Dr. Ragland (Ibid at 19:8-9); the October 17,2005 letter from Dr. Harris, Dr. Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Abraham (Ibid at 19:19-20); the Febmary 21, 2006 letter from Pcter Bryan (Ibid at 21 :11-19). INTERROGATORY !'IO. 5 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5 Dr. Roy's alleged refusal to submit outside pathology reports for internal review in 2005 (Second Supplemental Complaint at 13:23-14: 1); the Dr. Roy letter of April 15, 2005 (Ibid at 14:5); the concerns Dr. Roy voiced in or before May, 2005 (Ibid at 15: 1); the Roy letter of July 15,2005 (Ibid at 16:3-8); the October 12,2005 oncology conference (Ibid at 17:5-7); the Roy letter of October 13, 2005 (Tbidat 17:16-18:3); the October 17, 2005 meeting with Dr. Harris, Dr. Kercher and Dr. Ragland (Ibid at 19:8-9); the October 17,2005 letter from Dr. I-Ianis, Dr. Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Abraham (Ibid at 19:19-20); the February 21, 2006 letter from Peter Bryan (Ibid at 21 :11-19). INTERROGATORY NO.6 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defensc.

28

Iii
5

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

May 13 08 04:27p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.8

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 9 of 120

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6
2 3 4 Defendants are not presently aware of any facts that support the Eighth Affirmative Defense.

INTERROGATORY NO.7
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.

5
6
7
8 9 10

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPO:-lSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7
Plaintiff's employment agreements and amendments, the KMC medical staff bylaws, Plaintiffs representation by counsel during the negotiation and execution of the October 3, 2006 amendment to his employment agreement, Peter Bryan's IWle 14,2006 e-mail and letter to Plaintiff, the membership ofthe joint conference committee on July 10,2006, the dates and durations of and reasons for Plaintiffs various leaves and absences, all of which have been disclosed.

11
12

13
14

INTERROGATORY NO. 48
State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at K1vlC.

15
16
17

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
Administrative responsibilities include ensuring, together with the laboratory manager, the Pathology Department is in compliance with federal and state regulations regarding clinical laboratory operation, meets the standards for accreditation by the College of American Pathologists and the American Association of Blood Banks, operates within the policies established by K1vlC and the medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations, and operates effectively and smooth Iy and provides timely reports, provided adequate resources are provided. Administrative duties include overseeing the development, implementation and

18
19

20 21 22

24

maintenance of department policies and procedures for the eiinieallaboratory and pathology department, including surgical pathology, cytopathology and autopsy pathology; operating and managing the pathology department quality assessment and improvement program; overseeing the performance of the clinical laboratory in the CAP laboratory proficiency survey program; ensuring that performance deficicncics arc addresscd in a timely manner; monitoring 6 DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

25

26 27
28

May 13 08 04:27p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.9

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 10 of 120

performance and preparing annual evaluations for staff pathologists and the laboratory manager; 2 3 4 5 6 7 serving as a member of the Medical Executive Committee, the Chairmen's Council, the FacuJty Practice Board, the Quality Management Committee, the Blood Usage Committee, and other committees that may be assigned by the president of the medical staff; through participation in the Blood Usage Committee, ensuring adequate transfusion service and utilization, coordinating and monitoring department faculty involvement in hospital committees, conducting and monitoring regular department meetings, in compliance 'With medical staff bylaws, and provides

8. timely department reports, including an annual department report for the medical staff, 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 coordinating medical student and resident training for students and residents on training rotation within the department, meeting 'With the KMC medical director at least monthly, overseeing the scheduling and effectiveness of pathology educational conferences for outside departments, including the oncology conference and the oncology clinic, and completing clinical pathology and anatomic pathology service work as may be required. Teaching duties include coordinating and participating in tcaching conferences to include weekly gynecology conference, oncology conference, and surgery conference, preparing and presenting didactic lectures, and actively participating in and presenting departmental, interdepartmental, and interdisciplinary programs 'Within KMC. Other duties may be assigned by the chief executive officer or medical director. The standard workweek for Plaintiffs position is 48 hours per week Actual hours may vary week-to-week according to specific assignments, however the objective is to achieve 2112 worked hours Juring a twelve·month period. The Chair of the Department of Pathology is responsible to the Board of Supervisors, though the Medical Executive Committee, for high quality professional management and care of patients under the jurisdiction of the department; establishing systems to monitor the quality of patient care and professional performance in the department through a planned and systematic process; specific recommendations and suggestions regarding the improvement of patient care in the department; review of professional performance of all members with respcct to clinical privileges; recommending delineated clinical privileges for each member of the department, 7 DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLANTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

2S
26 27 28

May 13 08 04:27p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.10

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 11 of 120

including practitioner appointment and classification, reappointment, criteria for clinical 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

privileges, and corrective action; discipline of members and staff pursuant to Article XI of the Medical Staff Bylaws, evaluation of all full- and part-time medical staff and other members of the medical staff who are active clinically, or teach on an annual basis; enforcing the medical staff bylaws, rules, regulations and policies within the department; promoting clinical research in the department; implementing within the department actions taken by the medical executive committee; recommending, creating, deleting or changing the divisions of the department and th appointment of division chiefs, being a member of the medical executive committee and giving guidance on the overall medical policies ofthe medical staff and medical center and making specific recommendations and suggestions regarding the department; reporting to the medical executive committee and president of staff regarding all professional activities within the department; assuring the orientation of all practitioners in the department in cooperation with medical center administration; any other activity or functions as would reasonably be the responsibility of a chair of a department of a teaching hospital or as assigned by the medical director. The Chair ofthe Department of Pathology is responsible to the Board of Supervisors, though the chief executive officer, for administrative activities of the department, establishing and maintenance of postgraduate medical education programs, participating in every phase of administration of the department through cooperation "'ith the department of nursing and the medical center administration in matters affecting patient care, including, without limitation, personnel, supplies, special regulations, standing orders and techniques, assessing and recommending to the relevant medical center authority off-site sources for needed patient care services not provided by the department or the medical center, preparing n:ports, budgetary plans and infonnation relating to the department, appointing a designee to act as chair of the department in thc absence of the chair, with the approval of the chief executive officer and president of staff, and any other administrative activity or non-clinical managerial function as
///

25
26

27

28

III
8
DEPENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

May 13 08 04:28p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.11

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 12 of 120

would reasonably be the responsibility of a chair of a department of a teaching hospital or as 2
3

assigned by the chief executive officer.

4
5
6
7 8

SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the
foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of petjury that the answers are true and correct. Dated: May 13, 2008

9
10
II
12

By:._ _---,--_ Paul J. Hensler Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center

13
14

15
16 17

18 19 20

21
22

23
24

25

26
27

28 9 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLADITIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 13 of 120

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
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 4

EXHIBIT 2: Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 14 of 120

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

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. CA SB #060508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838 IllS Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, California 9330 I Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jelli1ifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Plaintiff, vs.

Case No.: I :07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE)
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 2, 2008

COUNTY OF KERN, et a!.,
Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER:

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

Defendant COUNTY OF KERN ONE (1)

Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin's Request for Admission, Set One.

-1DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 15 of 120

I.
2

COMMON

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1

3 4
5

Admit that at all times from 10117/05 to 10/4/07, DEFENDANT acted or omitted to act through its officers and agents.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1

6 7 8 9
10

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2

Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on 10117/05.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2

11

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3

12 13 14
15

Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7/10106.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3

16
17

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4

18 19
20

Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4

21
22

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5

23 24
25

Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF the right to work on a part-time basis from 4128/06 to 10/3/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5

26
27

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6

28

Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF
-2DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 16 of 120

the right to work at home occasionally from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06. 2 3 4
S

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave from 1217/06 to 10/4/07. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of the chair of the department of pathology at KMC was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.

6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2S

26 27 28

-3DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 17 of 120

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11

2
3

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12

4 S
6

Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF the right to work on a parttime basis from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12

7

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13

8
9 10
11

Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF the right to work at home occasionally from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13

12
13

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claims.

Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave from 12/7/06 to 10/4/07 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15

Admit that DEFENDANT's decision not to renew employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16

Admit that PLAINTIFF exhausted all adequate administrative remedies for all of his

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16

Admit.

-4DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 18 of 120

1

REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17

2 3
4

Admit that throughout the course of PLAINTIFF's employment by DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF had a recurrent major depressive disorder.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17

5
6
7

Deny.

II.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18

HS 1278.5

8
9

Admit that KMC is a health facility.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18

10
11

Admit.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19

12
13

Admit that KMC is a government agency.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19

14 15
16

Defendant admits that KMC is a department of the County of Kern and the County of Kern is a government agency.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20

17
18

Admit that DEFENDANT is a government agency.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20

19
20

Admit.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21

21
22

Admit that the California Department of Health Services is a government agency.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21

23 24
25

Defendant admits that the California Department of Health Care Services is a govermnen agency.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22

26 27
28

Admit that Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations ("JCAHO") is an accreditation body.

-5DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 19 of 120

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22
2 Defendant admits that The Joint Commission is an accreditation body.

3
4

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23
Admit that College of American Pathologists ("CAP") is an accreditation body.

5
6

RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23
Admit.

7 8 9 10 II 12
13

REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 24
Admit that PLAINTIFF was an employee of a health facility from 10/24/00 to 10/4/07.

RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 24
Defendant admits Plaintiff was an employee of the County of Kern.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25
Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC prior to 6/20/05.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26
Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC from 6/20/05 to 10/17/05.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

23 24 25 26
27

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27
Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC from 12/29/05 to 4/28/06.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
-6DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

28

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 20 of 120

I

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28

2 3
4

Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC from 2114/06 to 6/13/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28

5 6

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29

7
8 9 10
II

Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC from 3/13/06 to 7110/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30

12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC from 6/5/06 to 10/3/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28

Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC from 10/3/06 to 12/6/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32

Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at KMC from 6/6/07 to 10/4/07.

-7DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 21 of 120

1 2 3
4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34

5 6

Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to the College of American Pathologists complaints about patient care at KMC in November 2006.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34

7
8 9 10 11 12
13

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35

Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations complaints about patient care at KMC in November 2006.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35

14
15

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36

16 17
18

Admit that by 10117/05 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36

19 20 21 22 23
24

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37

Admit that by 10/17/05 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37

25 26
27

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38

28

Admit that by 10/17/05 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
-8DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 22 of 120

1 2 3 4
5

presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39

6 7
8

Admit that by 10/17/05 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks lmowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40

Admit that by 10/17/05 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41

Admit that by 4/28/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42

24 25 26 27 28

Admit that by 4/28/06 Steve O'Connor was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
-9DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 23 of 120

I 2 3
4

REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 43
Admit that by 4/28/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.

5 6 7 8 9 10 II
12

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 44
Admit that by 6113/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45
Admit that by 711 0106 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

13 14
15

RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NQ. 45
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

16 17
18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46
Admit that by 711 0106 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

19 20
21

RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 46
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

22 23
24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47
Admit tbat by 7/10106 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

25 26
27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond -10DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

28

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 24 of 120

to this request.
2

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48
Admit that by 7/10106 Toni Smith was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

3
4

5
6
7
8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49
Admit that by 7110106 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

9 10 II 12 13
14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50
Admit that by 7110106 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51
Admit that by 711 0106 Jose Perez was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51
Deny.

24
25

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52
Admit that by 7/10106 David Hill was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

26 27

28
-11DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 25 of 120

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 52 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53 Admit that by 7/10/06 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54 Admit that by 10/3/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55 Admit that by 10/3/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 55 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 56 Admit that by 10/3/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant. RESPQNSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57 Admit that by 10/3/06 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 57 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond -12DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 26 of 120

1
2

to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58

3 4
5

Admit that by 10/3/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58

6 7
8

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59

9 10
11

Admit that by 1216/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59

12
13

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60

14 15
16

Admit that by 12/6/06 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60

17 18

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonllation sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61

19
20 21
22

Admit that by 12/6/06 Philip Dutt was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61

23 24 25
26

Defendant admits that Philip Dutt was aware by 12/6/06 that Plaintiff had complained about the diagnosis of specific pathology specimens. Defendant denies the balance of this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62

27 28

Admit that by 12/6/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
-13DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 27 of 120

I

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62

2 3 4 5
6

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63

Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63

7
8

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64

9 10
II

Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64

12
13

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65

14 IS
16

Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65

17
18

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66

19 20 21 22 23
24

Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67

25 26
27

Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67

28

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond -14DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 28 of 120

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

to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72 Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request. -15DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 29 of 120

1 2
3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73
Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.

4
5

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73
Deny.

6
7 8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74
Admit that by 1014/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.

9
10

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.

11
12 13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75
Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.

14
15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.

16
17 18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76
Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.

19
20 21

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

22
23 24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77
Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.

25
26 27
28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

-16DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 30 of 120

I

REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 78

2 3 4

Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on 10/17/05.
RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 78

5
6
7

Deny.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 79

8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full time leave on 4/28/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 79

Deny.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 80

Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology on 6/13/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80

Deny.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 81

Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology on 7/10/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82

Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF base salary on 10/3/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NQ. 82

Deny. -17DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 31 of 120

I

REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 83

2 3

Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83

4
5
6

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84

7 8 9 10 11 12
13

Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84

Deny.

III.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85

LC 1102.5

14
15

Admit that PLAINTIFF made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 85

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

Deny.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 86

Admit that PLAINTIFF made reports of violations of law to the California Department 0 Health Services.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 86

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87

Admit that PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that he was disclosing violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 87

26 27 28

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88

Admit that PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that he was disclosing violations -18DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 32 of 120

of law to the California Department of Health Services.
2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88

3
4

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89

5 6

Admit that by 10117/05 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89

7
8 9 10 II 12
13

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90

Admit that by 10117/05 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90

14 15
16

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91

17 18
19

Admit that by 10/17/05 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91

20 21
22

Aftcr reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92

23 24
25

Admit that by 10/17/05 Jermifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92

26 27
28

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

-19DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 33 of 120

1 2 3
4

REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93

Admit that by 10/17/05 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93

5 6
7

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

Admit that by 4/28/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95

Admit that by 4/28/06 Steve O'Connor was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonnation sufficient to respond to this request.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 96

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit that by 4/28/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 96

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97

Admit that by 6/13/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond -20DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 34 of 120

I 2 3
4

to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98
Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.

5
6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

7
8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 99
Admit that by 7/10/06 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.

9 10 II 12 13
14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 99
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100
Admit that by 7/ I0/06 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
0

IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101
Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Toni Smith was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101
After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks Imowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102
Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT. -21DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 35 of 120

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102

2 3

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 103

4
5 6
7

Admit that by 7/10/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 103

8 9 10 11 12
13

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104

Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Jose Perez was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104

14 15 16 17 18
19

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105

Admit that by 7/10/06 David Hill was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 105

20 21 22 23 24
25

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 106

Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 106

26 27

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.

28
-22DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 36 of 120

1 2 3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107

Admit that by 10/3/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107

4
5 6
7

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108

8 9
10

Admit that by 10/3/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108

11 12
13

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109

14 15
16

Admit that by 10/3106 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109

17

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 110

18
19 20 21 22 23
24

Admit that by 10/3106 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 110

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 111

25 26
27

Admit that by 10/3/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 111

28

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond -23DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 37 of 120

1
2

to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112

3 4

Admit that by 12/6/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112

5
6 7
8

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Admit that by 12/6/06 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114

Admit that by 12/6/06 Philip Dutt was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 115

Admit that by 12/6/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 115

24 25 26 27

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 116

Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.

28
-24DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 38 of 120

1 2 3
4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 116

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 117

5 6
7

Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 117

8
9

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 119

Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 119

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonnation sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 120

Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 120

24 25
26

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 121

27 28

Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to the California Department of Health Services. -25DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 39 of 120

1 2 3
4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 121

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 122

5 6
7

Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to the California Department of Health Services.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 122

8
9

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 123

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to the California Department of Health Services.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 123

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 124

Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to the California Department of Health Services.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 124

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 125

Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of violations of law to the California Department of Health Services.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 125

24 25
26

After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 126

27 28

Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations oflaw were a contributing factor in DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff
-26DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 40 of 120

1 2 3
4

file on 10/17/05.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 126

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 127

5 6
7

Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations oflaw were a contributing factor in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full time leave on 4/28/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 127

8
9

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 128

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations of law were a contributing factor in DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology on 6/13/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 128

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 129

Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations oflaw were a contributing factor in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology on 7/1 0/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 129

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 130

Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations of law were a contributing factor in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF base salary on 10/3/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 130

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 131

Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations of law were a contributing factor in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 1217/06. -27DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 41 of 120

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 131 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 132 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations of law were a contributing factor in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 132 Deny. IV. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 133 Admit that DEFENDANT granted PLAINTIFF medical leave on a "REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE" (as that term is defined in 29 C.F.R. § 825.203(a» fromI2/16/05 to 4/28/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 133 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 134 Admit that as of 12/16/05, PLAINTIFF had more than 12 months of service with DEFENDANT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 134 Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 135 Admit that as of 12/16/05, PLAINTIFF had worked more than 1,250 hours for DEFENDANT during the previous 12 months. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 135 Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 136 Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF had taken no more than 12 weeks of medical leave in the previous 12 months. CFRAlFMLA

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

-28DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 42 of 120

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 136

2
3

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 137

4

Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF was eligible for medica11eave under CFRA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 137

5
6
7

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 138

8
9

Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF was eligible for medica11eave under FMLA.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 138

10
11

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit that PLAINTIFF's recurrent major depressive disorder was a "SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION" (as that term is defined in 29 C.F.R. § 825.114) from 12116/05 to 9111/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 140

Admit that PLAINTIFF took medica11eave from 12116/05 to 4/28/06 for a SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION that made him unable to perform ftffictions of his job on a full-time basis.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 140

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 141

Admit that PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANT of his need for the medica11eave which began on 12116/05.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 141

Deny.

-29DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 43 of 120

1 2
3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 142 Admit that PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANT of his need for an extension of the medical leave which began on 12/16/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 142 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 143 Admit that PLAINTIFF timely provided certification of his SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION from a health-care provider in support of his need for the medical leave that began on 12/16/05. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 143 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 144 Admit that PLAINTIFF timely provided certification of his SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION from a health-care provider in support of his need for an extension of the medical leave that began on 12/16/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 144 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 145 Admit that from 12116/05 to 4/28/06, PLAINTIFF's medical need was best accommodated through medical leave on a REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 145 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 146 Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, PLAINTIFF's medical need was best accommodated through medical leave on a REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 146 Deny.

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

-30DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 44 of 120

I

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 147

2 3
4

Admit that on 4/28/06, DEFENDANT converted PLAINTIFF's medical leave on a REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE to full-time medical leave.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 147

5
6

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 148

7
8

Admit that DEFENDANT interfered with PLAINTIFF's medical leave on 4/28/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 148

9 10
II

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 149

Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's interference with PLAINTIFF's medical leave on 4/28/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 149

12 13 14

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 150

IS
16
17

Admit that DEFENDANT's interference with PLAINTIFF's medical leave on 4/28/06 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 150

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 151

Admit that DEFENDANT used PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave as a negative factor in recommending removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 151

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 152

Admit that DEFENDANT used PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave as a negative factor in recommending removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of -31DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 45 of 120

I 2 3
4

pathology at KMC on 7/1 0/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 152

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 153

5 6 7
8

Admit that PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 153

9 10 II 12 13
14

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 154

Admit that PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7/10/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 154

IS 16 17 18
19

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 155

Admit that PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 155

20 21 22 23
24

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 156

Admit that PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 156

25 26 27 28

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 157

Admit that PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT -32DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 46 of 120

1
2

in 2007.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 157

3
4

Deny.
V. DISABILTY DISCRIM

5
6 7 8
9

REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 158

Admit that from at least 10/17/05 to at least 10/4/07, that PLAINTIFF had a "MENTAL DISABILITY" that limited a "MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY" (as those terms are used in Cal. Gov't. Code § 12926(i)).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 158

10
II

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 159

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

Admit that throughout the course of Plaintiffs employment by DEFENDANT, he was unable to perform the "ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS" of his job (as those terms are used in Cal. Gov't. Code § 12926(f)) when provided accommodation for his MENTAL DISABILITY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 159

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 160

Admit that on 119/06, PLAINTIFF requested accommodation of his MENTAL DISABILITY from the DEFENDANT in the form of temporary part-time work.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 160

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 161

23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit that on 119/06, PLAINTIFF requested accommodation of his MENTAL DISABILITY from the DEFENDANT in the form of permission to work from home occasionally.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 161

Deny.

-33DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 47 of 120

I
2 3
4

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 162
Admit that from 119/06 to 4128/06, PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 162
Deny.

5 6 7 8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 163
Admit that from 1/9106 to 4/28106, permitting PLAINTIFF to work at home occasionally was a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

9
10

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 163
Deny.

II
12 13 14 IS
16

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 164
Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work would have been a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 164
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 165
Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, permitting PLAINTIFF to work at home occasionally was a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

17 18

19
20 21 22 23
24

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 165
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 166
Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, DEFENDANT failed to provide accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY in the form of temporary part-time.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 166
Deny.

25
26

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 167
Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, DEFENDANT failed to provide accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY in the form of permission to work at home occasionally. -34DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

27 28

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 48 of 120

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

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 167 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 168 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's failure to provide accommodation in the form of temporary part-time work from 4/28/06 to 9/11/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 168 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 169 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's failure to provide accommodation in the form of permission to work at home occasionally from 4/28/06 to 9111106. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 169 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 170 Admit that DEFENDANT's failure to provide accommodation in the form of temporary part-time work from 4/28/06 to 9/11106 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 170 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 171 Admit that DEFENDANT's failure to provide accommodation in the form of permission to work at home occasionally from 4/28/06 to 9111106 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's hann. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 171 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 172 Admit that on 4/28/06, DEFENDANT's failed to engage in a "TIMELY, GOOD FAITH, INTERACTIVE PROCESS" (as those terms are used in Cal. Gov't. Code § 12926(n)) with PLAINTIFF to determine how to continue to provide effective accommodation for his MENTAL DISABILITY. -35DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 49 of 120

1 2
3

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 172
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 173
Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's failure on 4/28/06, to engage in TIMELY, GOOD FAITH, INTERACTIVE PROCESS with PLAINTIFF.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 173
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 174
Admit that DEFENDANT's failure on 4/28/06, to engage in TIMELY, GOOD FAITH, INTERACTIVE PROCESS with PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 174
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 175
Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 11130103that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 175
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 176
Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 10/17/05that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 176
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 177
Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 4/28/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY.

25 26
27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 177
Deny. -36DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

28

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 50 of 120

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

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 178 Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 6/13/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 178 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 179 Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 10/3/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 179 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 180 Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 12/6/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 180 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 181 Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 10/4/07 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 181 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 182 Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 11/30/03 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 182 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 183 Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 10/17/05 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY. -37DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 51 of 120

1 2
3 4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 183
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 184
Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 6/13/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY.

5
6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 184
Deny.

7
8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 185
Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 1013/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY.

9
10

11
12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 185
Deny.

13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 186
Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 12/6/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 186
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 187
Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 10/4/07 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 187
Deny.

22

23
24 25 26 27 28

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 188
Admit that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff

file on 10/17/05.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 188
Deny. -38DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 52 of 120

I

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 189
Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on 10/17/05.
2

2
3

4

5
6
7
8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 189
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 190
Admit that PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full-time leave on 4/28/06.

9 10
11

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 190
Deny.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 191
Admit that PLAINTIFF's occasionally working at home was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full-time leave on 4/28/06.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 191
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 192
Admit that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full-time leave on 4/28/06.

19
20 21
22

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 192
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 193
Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full-time leave on 4/28/06.

23 24 25 26 27 28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 193
Deny.

-39DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 53 of 120

1

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 194 Admit that PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 194 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 195 Admit that PLAINTIFF's occasionally working at home was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 195 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 196 Admit that PLAINTIFF' s MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 196 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 197 Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 197 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 198 Admit that PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7/10/06.
-40DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 54 of 120

1 2
3

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 198
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 199
Admit that PLAINTIFF's occasionally working at home was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 711 0106.

4 5 6
7

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 199
Deny.

8 9 10 11 12
13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 200
Admit that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7/10106.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 200
Deny.

14
15

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 201
Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7110106.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 201
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 202
Admit that PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 1013/06.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 202
Deny.

25
26

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 203
Admit that PLAINTIFF's occasionally working at home was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06. -41DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

27 28

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 55 of 120

I

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 203
Deny.

2
3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 204
Admit that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.

4 5 6 7
8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 204
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 205
Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was, motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.

9 10
II

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 205
Deny.

12
13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 206
Admit that PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

14 15 16 17
18

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 206
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 207
Admit that PLAINTIFF's occasionally working at home was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 207
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 208
Admit that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 208
Deny.

-42DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 56 of 120

I

REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 209
Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

2
3 4

5 6 7
8

RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 209
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 210
Admit that PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT

9

lOin 2007.
II

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 210
Deny.

12 13 14
15

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 211
Admit that PLAINTIFF's occasionally working at home was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 211
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 212
Admit that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.

RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 212
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 213
Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was, motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.
-43DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

26 27 28

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 57 of 120

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 213 Deny. VI. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 214 Admit that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Kern voted on 12/13/04 to approve the Bylaws of KMC as in effect between 6113/06 and I 0/4/07 ("BYLAWS"). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 214 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 215 Admit that the BYLAWS did not provide for "DUE PROCESS" (as that term is used in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) to PLAINTIFF for removal of PLAINTIFF from chairmanship of the KMC Pathology department on 7110106. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 215 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 216 Admit that the BYLAWS did not provide for DUE PROCESS to PLAINTIFF for reduction of PLAINTIFF's salary on 10/3/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 216 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 217 Admit that the BYLAWS did not provide for DUE PROCESS to PLAINTIFF for placement of PLAINTIFF on involuntary administrative leave on 1217106. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 217 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 218 Admit that the BYLAWS did not provide for DUE PROCESS to PLAINTIFF for nomenewal of PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07. DUE PROCESS

28
-44DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 58 of 120

1 2
3

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 218 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 219 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying DUE PROCESS to PLAINTlFF for removal of PLAINTlFF from chairmanship of the KMC Pathology department on 7/1 0/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 219 Defendant admits this request to the extent Defendant relied on the Bylaws and denies this request to the extent Defendant did not rely on the Bylaws. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 220 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying PLAINTIFF DUE PROCESS for reduction ofPLAINTlFF's base salary on 10/3/06. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 220 Defendant admits this request to the extent Defendant relied on the Bylaws and denies this request to the extent Defendant did not rely on the Bylaws. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 221 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying PLAINTlFF DUE PROCESS for placement of PLAINTlFF on involuntary administrative leave. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 221 Defendant admits this request to the extent Defendant relied on the Bylaws and denies this request to the extent Defendant did not rely on the Bylaws. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 222 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying PLAINTlFF DUE PROCESS for nonrenewal ofPLAINTlFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 222 Deny.

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

-45DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 59 of 120

I

REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NQ. 223

2 3
4

Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in his position as Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC.
RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 223

5
6

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 224

7 8
9

Admit that prior to 7/10/06 PLAINTIFF's constitutionally protected property interest in his position as Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC was clearly established.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 224

10
II

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 225

12 13 14
15

Admit that prior to 7110/06 there was a mutually explicit understanding between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that PLAINTIFF would not be removed from Chair of the Pathology Department without cause.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 225

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 226

Admit that prior to 7/10/06 it was a policy and practice of DEFENDANT not to remove a core physician from Chair of a KMC department without cause.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 226

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 227

Admit that DEFENDANT has not removed a core physician from Chair of a KMC department without cause since 10/24/00.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 227

26 27 28

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 228

Admit that prior to 7/10/06, a portion of PLAINTIFF's base salary was tied to his -46DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 60 of 120

1 2 3
4

position as Chair of the Pathology Department.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 228

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 229

5 6
7

Admit that DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of his position as Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC on 7/10/06.
RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 229

8 9 10 11 12
13

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was removed from the chairmanship of the Department of Pathology on 7/10/06.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 230

Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS prior to removing him from his chairmanship of the KMC Pathology Department on 7/10/06.
RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 230

14
15

Deny.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 231

16 17
18

Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS after removing him from his chairmanship of the KMC Pathology Department on 7/10/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 231

19 20 21 22
23

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 232

Admit that Peter Bryan was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 232

24
25

Deny.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 233

26 27
28

Admit that Toni Smith was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship.

-47DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 61 of 120

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 233 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 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 234 Admit that Irwin Harris was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 234 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 235 Admit that Scott Ragland was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 235 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 236 Admit that Jennifer Abraham was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 236 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 237 Admit that Eugene Kercher was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 237 Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 238 Admit that DEFENDANT did not permit PLAINTIFF an opportunity to tell his side of the story to the KMC Joint Conference Committee in connection with the decision to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 238 Deny.
-48DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 62 of 120

I

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 239

2 3
4

Admit that PLAINTIFF's removal from chairmanship on 7/10/06 did not warrant immediate action without prior DUE PROCESS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 239

5
6

Defendant denies this request and also denies that Plaintiff was denied due process.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 240

7 8
9

Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to impartial adjudicators in connection with his removal from chairmanship on 7/1 0/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 240

10
II

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 241

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit that prior to 10/3/06, PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interes in his base salary of$287,529 pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 241

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 242

Admit that prior to 10/3/06, PLAINTIFF's constitutionally protected property interest in his base salary of $287,529 pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02, was clearly established.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 242

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 243

Admit that prior to 10/3/06, PLAINTIFF was entitled to a base salary of $287,529 per year pursuant to his employment contract entered into with DEFENDANT as of 11/2/02.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 243

Defendant admits that prior to 10/3/06 Plaintiff s employment agreement provided for a base salary of $287,529 per year.

-49DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 63 of 120

1

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 244

2 3 4
5

Admit that prior to 10/3/06, there was a mutually explicit understanding between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that DEFENDANT would not reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary without cause.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 244

6
7

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 245

8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15

Admit Amendment No.1 to PLAINTIFF's employment contract entered into by and between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT on 10/3/06 lacked consideration.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 245

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 246

Admit that PLAINTIFF's base salary was reduced by $100,842 on 10/3/06 due to PLAINTIFF's change in status from department chairman to staff pathologist.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 246

16
17

Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 247

18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

Admit that DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of $1 00,842 of his base salary on 10/3/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 247

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 248

Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in the opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 248

26
27

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 249

28

Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in the
-50DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 64 of 120

1 2
3

opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02 was clearly established.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 249

4

Deny.
REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 250

5
6 7
8

Admit that prior to 12/7/07, PLAINTIFF was entitled to the opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 250

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 251

Admit that prior to 12/7/07, there was a mutually explicit understanding between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that DEFENDANT would not deny PLAINTIFF the opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC without cause.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 251

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 252

Admit that DEFENDANT placed PLAINTIFF on administrative leave from 12/7/06 to 10/4/07.
RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 252

20
21

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave on 12/7/06.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 253

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit that while on administrative leave from 12/7/06 to 10/4/07, PLAINTIFF was denied the opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 253

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 254

Admit that DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of the opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC from 12/7/06 to 10/4/07.

-51DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 65 of 120

I
2
3

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 254
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 255
Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS prior to placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

4 5

6
7 8 9 10

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 255
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 256
Admit that DEFENDANT did not infOlID PLAINTIFF of the charges against him prior to placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

II
12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 256
Deny.

13
14 15 16 17

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 257
Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him prior to placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 257
Deny.

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 258
Admit that DEFENDANT did not permit PLAINTIFF an opportunity to tell his side of the story to DEFENDANT prior to placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 258
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 259
Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS after placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 259
Deny.

28
-52DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 66 of 120

1

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 260

2 3
4

Admit that DEFENDANT did not inform PLAINTIFF of the charges against him after placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 260

5
6

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 261

7 8
9

Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him after placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 261

10
11

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 262

12 13

Admit that DEFENDANT did not permit PLAINTIFF an opportunity to tell his side of the story to DEFENDANT after placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 262

14
15 16 17 18
19

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 263

Admit that Irwin Harris was not an impartial adjudicator in comlection with the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 263

20 21 22 23
24

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 264

Admit that Philip Dutt was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 264

25 26 27 28

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 265

Admit that David Culberson was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
-53DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 67 of 120

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 265

2
3

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 266

4 5
6

Admit that the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06 did not warrant immediate action without prior DUE PROCESS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 266

7
8

Defendant denies this request and also denies that Plaintiff was denied due process.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 267

9 10
11

Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to impartial adjudicators in connection with the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 267

12
13

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 268

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to DUE PROCESS in cOimection with the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 268

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 269

Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment by DEFENDANT after 10/4/07.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 269

Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 270

24 25 26 27
28

Admit that prior to 10/4/07, PLAINTIFF's constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment by DEFENDANT was clearly established.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 270

Deny.

-54DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 68 of 120

I
2 3 4
5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 271
Admit that prior to 10/4/07, there was a mutually explicit understanding between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that PLAINTIFF's employment contract would be renewed in the absence of cause.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 271
Deny.

6
7

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 272
Admit that prior to 10/4/07. it was the policy and practice of DEFENDANT to renew the employment contracts of core physicians at KMC absent cause.

8 9 10 II 12 13 14
15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 272
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 273
Admit that DEFENDANT extended the term of PLAINTIFF's employment with DEFENDANT on 11/2/02.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 273
Deny.

16

17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 274
Admit that, with the exception of John Digges, DEFENDANT has renewed all core physician employment contracts which were up for renewal since 10/24/00.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 274
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 275
Admit that on 10/4/07, DEFENDANT did not renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract.

25
26 27 28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 275
Admit.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 276
Admit that on 10/4/07, DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of continued employment
-55DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 69 of 120

1
2
3 4

with DEFENDANT.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 276
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 277
Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS in connection with the non-renewal of his employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.

5
6 7 8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 277
Deny.

9
10
II

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 278
Admit that DEFENDANT did not inform PLAINTIFF of the charges against him prior to failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

12 13 14
15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 278
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 279
Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him prior to failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

16 17
18

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 279
Deny.

19
20 21 22
23

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 280
Admit that DEFENDANT did not permit PLAINTIFF an opportunity to tell his side of the story to DEFENDANT prior to failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 280
Deny.

24

25
26 27
28

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 281
Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS after failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

-56DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 70 of 120

I

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 281
Deny.

2
3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 282
Admit that DEFENDANT did not inform PLAINTIFF of the charges against him after failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

4 5 6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 282
Deny.

7
8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 283
Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him after failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

9 10
II

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 283
Deny.

12
13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 284
Admit that DEFENDANT did not permit PLAINTIFF an opportunity to tell his side of the story to DEFENDANT after failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

14 15 16 17 18
19

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 284
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 285
Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to DUE PROCESS in connection with the non-renewal of his employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 285
Deny.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 286
Admit that Irwin Harris, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Eugene Kercher decided to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on October 17, 2005.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 286
Deny. -57DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 71 of 120

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 287

;\dmiltiJal Peter Bryan decided to recommend removal of PI AINTIFF from chair of the KMC Pathology department on Jnne 13, l006.
RESPONSE TO IU£QUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 287

REQUEST FOR A,DMISSION NO. 288

,·\dll1ill!lat the K\'!C' Joint Conference CDmmittee decided to remove PL \INTIFF from Ihe chair (lfthe KMC I'nthology department
l)

011

July 10,2006,

HESPONSIi; TO RE(HiEST FOH ADMISSION NO. 288

Admit. Ii
HEQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 289

Admit that the K.cTn County Board of Supervisors decided
13

10

reduce PL:UNTIFF"s base

salary on OClober 3. 200t),
RESPONSE TO REQtiEST FOR ADi\IISSION NO. 289

15
I () 17

RFor'EST FOR ADMISSION NO. 290

}\rllnll that DEFENL)i\NT decided not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract DEFENDANT on April
2007,

18

HESPONSE TO REOl'EST FOH ADMISSION NO. 290 .

l)em,
21

SIGNATURE OF PARTY tiNDER OATIl

L Panl J. Hensler, Imve read Plaintifrs lirsl sci of request I'or admissions ilnd the , 'foregoing responses thc'1'c'lo and certify under pC'naily of perjury tharlhe responses arc true and

Daled,

:\U[!Us\

200g

13 v', _.

Paul J llcnslcr ChidTxeculivt' Ol'llce1'. Kcmrvledieal Center
..5X-

",;tl"_·,~j"_"'_/-J.~ _'_"- "'"~=j=j

__"''''''''''''_

,

D1T1NDAN'IS IU'SPONSES TO PL;\INTIIT'S REQUEST lOR ·\D\,IISSION, SLT ONI

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 72 of 120

I

2
3

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

4

Dated: August

7

,2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

5
6
7 8

Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

9

10
II

12
13

14
15

16
17

18
19

20 21

22
23

24

25

26
27

28
-59DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1 2 1, Amy Remly, declare:

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 73 of 120

I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814. On 3 August 7, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admission, Set One and Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set Three. 4 D by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s) without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copy 5 of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached.

6
7
8

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth below.

9
10 11 12

o
o

of the document(s) listed above to the by causing personal delivery by person(s) at the address (es) set forth below. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Overnight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below. by transmitting via email the documents listed above to be sent by electronic mail to the email address listed below. Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010 Email: elee@LOEL.com

13
14 15 16

17 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for 18 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party 19 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true 2 I and correct. 22 Executed on August 7, 2008, at Sacramento, California.

23
24 25 26

\j

27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 74 of 120

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
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 5

EXHIBIT 3: Defendants’ Separate Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 278)

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 75of 38 Page 1 of 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr. CA SB #060508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, California 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan and Irwin Harris

11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-1DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Plaintiff, vs.

COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Date: January 12,2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Courtroom 3 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: March 24, 2009

Defendants submit this Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Facts in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication pursuant to LR 56-260(a).

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 76of 38 Page 2 of 120

1

2
3 4

Disputed Facts

Supporting Evidence

1.
2. 3. 4. 5. Plaintiff is the former Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center ("KMC" or "the hospital"), an acute care teaching hospital and health care facility that is owned and operated by Defendant County of Kern ("Defendant County" or "the County"). Deny. Plaintiff is the former Chair of the Department of Pathology. See Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts (hereinafter "DSUF") 1a, (DFJOO043-46). 6. 7. 8. In October 2000, Dr. Jadwin began full-time employment at KMC as chair of the pathology department. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant County from October 24, 2000 to October 4,2007. 9. Throughout the course of his employment at KMC, Dr. Jadwin tried to ensure that patient care was based on adequate and accurate pathology. Deny. See DSUF 152b (DFJ00592), 74 (DFJ00364366),76 (0027069-27070), 78 (0000506), 80 (Dutt Deposition, 8/20108, pg. 285 :623). 10. In May 2005, Dr. Jadwin began formally expressing his concerns that KMC was not complying with state regulations regarding blood transfusion documentation. -2DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADWDICATlON

5
6
7 8

9
10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Admit.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. See DSUF 118 (DFJ00408-409).

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 77of 38 Page 3 of 120

I 2 3 4

II. In October 2005, Dr. Jadwin presented at an intrahospital conference where he reported on uncaught pathology report errors that potentially jeopardized the care

Deny. See DSUF 107 (DFJ00580), 74 (DFJ00364366) and Plaintiffs Statement

of a hysterectomy patient and the need for a policy to address of Undisputed Facts the problem. (hereinafter "PSUF") 114 (Jadwin Dec!., Exh. 10 (Jadwin's email to Dutt, Culberson et a!. of 12/6/06 at DFJ1479; Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 61 at 13:1925); Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Rog 67 at 14:22-23 (noting difficulties outside reviewers had reaching conclusions about the diagnosis)). 12. Defendants responded by calling him into a meeting, severely reprimanding him, and informing him that letters of reprimand would be placed in his physician credentials file. Deny. See DSUF 113 (DFJ00588), 114 (0000094). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8114/01 - 9112/08. 13. Defendants retaliatory conduct exacerbated Dr. Jadwin's Deny. Defendants' conduct

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-

chronic depression and proved so disabling that, at the end of was not retaliatory. See DSUF 2005, he was forced to take a reduced work schedule medical 62 (Jadwin Deposition, 1/9/08, leave as an accommodation and seek psychiatric therapy. 14. In April 2006, Dr. Jadwin requested an extension of his reduced work schedule leave. pgs.414:24-418:12). Deny. Plaintiff requested an extension of his Leave of Absence. See DSUF 19 (DFJOI158).

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 78of 38 Page 4 of 120

1 2 3 4 5
6

15. On April 28, 2006, Defendant Bryan responded by placing him on full-time "personal necessity leave" under the County's leave policy and, a few months later, ordered him not to contact anybody at KMC or he would be fired ("Forced FT Leave").

Deny. See DSUF 20 (DFJOI121), 24 (DFJOI141), 27 (0001424), 29 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 244:616),30 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 280:21-281 :4). See Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21, Interrogatory 36.

7
8

9 10
11

16. On June 4, 2006, Defendant Bryan told Dr. Jadwin that he had decided to "rescind your appointment at chairman" and that "this decision is effective June 17,2006."

Deny. See DSUF 24 (DFJOI141), 28 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 257:915).

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17. On July 10,2006, Defendant Bryan recommended to KMC's Joint Conference Committee ("JCC") that Plaintiff be removed from his position as Chair of the pathology department "based on Dr. Jadwin's unavailability for service because of extended medical leaves for non-work related ailments" and "solely based on his continued non-availability to provide the leadership necessary for a contributing member of the medical staffleadership group....Dr. Jadwin has provided no indication that he is committed to return to work or resume his duties as chair. Other than his latest written communication requesting an extension of his medical leave, Dr. Jadwin has made no attempt in the last two months to contact me concerning his employment status or how the Department of Pathology should be managed during his absence."
-4-

Deny. The quoted material is not an accurate quotation; see DSUF 33 (0001476-1565, 0000073-75).

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 79of 38 Page 5 of 120

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

18. At a meeting of the JCC on July 10,2006, Defendant County approved the demotion ofPlaintifffrom chair of the pathology department for "unavailability." Members of the JCC based their vote on his unavailability due in part to his medical leave. 19. Defendant County then conditioned Dr. Jadwin's return to work as a regular pathologist on his medical release to full time work and entry into an amendment to his contract that contained restrictive terms and conditions and reduced Dr. Jadwin's base pay from roughly $300,000 to $200,000. 20. When demoting Dr. Jadwin, Defendants Bryan and the County did not notify Dr. Jadwin of the hospital committee vote to demote him or give him a chance to defend himself prior to, at or after the vote.

Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 33 (0001476-1565,0000073-75). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08. Deny. See DSUF 44 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and 581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08,974:3-976:12). Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 28 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 257:9-15), 31 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 258:716). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08.

21. On his return to work as a demoted pathologist in late 2006, Dr. Jadwin was placed beneath a former subordinate whom he had hired and trained the year before.

Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 9/12/08.

22. After about two months, Dr. Jadwin decided to go outside the hospital and report his ongoing suspicions of legal noncompliance and illegal and/or unsafe care and
-5-

Deny. See DSUF 56 (DFJ02540-2541, DFJ01454, DFJ01459), 57 (DFJ02538-

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 80of 38 Page 6 of 120

1

conditions of patients at KMC to regulatory and accreditation agencies, as well as KMC senior management. 23. Plaintiff also complained to KMC's senior management about the harsh treatment he was receiving.

2539).

2
3

Deny. See PSUF 114 ((Jadwin Dec!., Exh. 10 (Jadwin's email to Dutt, Culberson et a!. of

4 5
6
7
8

12/6/06 at DFJ1479; Lee Supp.
Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 61 at 13:19-25); Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 24 (Rog 67 at 14:22-23 (noting difficulties outside reviewers had reaching conclusions about the diagnosis). 24. The following day, on December 7, 2006, Defendant County placed Dr. Jadwin on administrative leave "pending resolution of a personnel matter." 25. The leave denied Plaintiff the opportunity to ear patientbased professional fees, which had amounted to roughly $100,000 per year ("Professional Fees") prior to his taking of reduced work schedule leave. 26. Dr. Jadwin formally notified KMC of his whistleblowing reports to the outside regulatory and accreditation agencIes. 27. Dr. Jadwin remained on administrative leave for another ten months until his contract expired on October 4,2007. 28. During six of those months, Dr. Jadwin was physically restricted to his home during work hours. -6DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

9 10
11

12 13 14 15 16
17

Admit.

Deny. 0018755-0018917.

18 19 20 21

Admit.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit.

Deny. Plaintiff was required by County policy to be

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 81of 38 Page 7 of 120

1

"available by telephone." See DSUF 41a (0016941). 29. The county decided not to renew Dr. Jadwin's contract, which expired on October 4,2007. 30. From October 2000 to the present, KMC - a hospital with roughly 60 full-time faculty physicians - had failed to renew the contract of only 1 other KMC physician. 31. Plaintiff s position had been that of a permanent, core physician, whose contracts are customarily renewed. 32. Defendant County based its nonrenewal decision on Dr. Jadwin's medical and recuperative leave, and the fact he had brought a lawsuit opposing employment practiced prohibited by the Family & Medical Leave Act ("MFLA"), and the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), and the Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA"). Deny. See Response to #30 above. Deny. See DSUF 36a (Declaration of Michael Rubio, Deny. Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 22, Interrogatory #28. Admit.

2
3 4

5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

11110/08, '12; Declaration of
Raymond Watson, 11110/98,

'1'13, 4 and 5; Declaration of
Mike Maggard, 11110108, '12; Declaration of Jon McQuiston,

11110108, '12; Declaration of
Don Maben, 11/10108, '12). 33. To this day, Dr. Jadwin has not personally received an explanation from Defendants as to why he was placed on administrative leave or why his contract was not renewed, despite repeated requests for an explanation. Defendants never notified Dr. Jadwin of the charges against him or permitted him to defend himself. 34. 35. 36. During the entire tenure of Plaintiffs employment, Admit. Admit. There were no charges against Plaintiff.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

-7DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 82of 38 Page 8 of 120

I

Defendant County was continuously an employer within the meaning ofFMLA [29 C.F.R. § 825.105©], CFRA [Gov't C
§ 12945.2(b)(2)], and FEHA [Gov't C § 12926(d)] engaged

2
3

4
5

in interstate commerce, and regularly employing more than fifty employees within seventy-five miles of Plaintiffs regular workplace at KMC. 37. Defendant County is a government agency. 38. 39. 40. On October 12,2005, Defendant Harris solicited and received letters of dissatisfaction from three KMC core physicians, criticizing Dr. Jadwin's presentation at a KMC monthly Oncology Conference. 41. On October 17, 2005, KMC's senior medical staff wrote to Dr. Jadwin notifying him that these letters of dissatisfaction would be placed in his credentialing file ("Credential Threat"). Deny. Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21, Interrogatory #34. (Harris Deposition, 8/13/08, pgs. 113:14-16,116:4). Deny. Plaintiff s Corrected Motion for Partial or Full Summary Judgment Against Defendants, pg. 6:1. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 Admit.

6
7
8 9

10 11 12
13

14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21

- 9112/08.
42. Some of the medical staff involved later apologized to Dr. Jadwin. Deny. 166 (Abraham Deposition, 8/18/08, pgs. 198:24-207:17), 167 (Bryan Deposition, 8114/08, pgs. 109:12-111:10),168 (Bryan Deposition, 8114/08, pgs. 156:22-157:12),169 (Harris Deposition, 8/13/08, pg. 159:2-8DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 83of 38 Page 9 of 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

13), 170 (Harris Deposition, 8113/08, pg. 196:7-20), 171 (Harris Deposition, 8113/08 pgs. 230:4-232:13),172 (Harris Deposition, 8113/08, pgs. 234:24-235:23 and 305:20-308:22), 173 (Ragland Deposition, 8/22/08, pg. 16:1216), 174 (0000507).

1--------------------+------------1 1--------------------+------------1
45. Dr. Jadwin's employment contract expressly provided that Dr. Jadwin would be chair of the KMC pathology department and paid base compensation of$287,529 ("Base Pay"). 46. On July 10,2006, Bryan recommended and the JCC approved Jadwin's demotion from department chair to staff pathologist ("Demotion"). Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 9/12108. 47. 1t is uncontested that Defendants considered a portion of Dr. Jadwin's pay to be tied to his chair position, and that the demotion therefore made the paycut a foregone conclusion. The JCC vote to demote Plaintiff was effectively a vote to reduce his Base Pay as well. Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319), 44 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 969: 1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and
-9DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICAnON

43. 44.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 10 of 38 Page 84 of 120

1

581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08,974:3-976:12). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08. 48. Defendants County and Harris informed Dr. Jadwin that his return to work at KMC was conditioned on his entry into an amendment to his employment contract, instituting a reduction in Base Pay from $287,529 to $186,687 ("Paycut"). 49. On October 3, 2006, Plaintiff executed the amendment to his employment contract. 50. 51. 52. A pathologist is valued according to the efficacy of his "eye," i.e., the training and experience that allows him to spot minute patterns and telltale abnormalities in microscopic and gross tissue samples. Deny. This is not a fact; it is an expression of opinion. The opinion is not relevant to Plaintiffs administrative duties as Chair. 53. Developing and maintaining the pathologist "eye" requires years of daily pathology work; however, it takes only a few months of being away from work to lose enough efficacy to threaten a pathologist's career. Deny. This is not a fact; it is an expression of opinion. The opinion is not relevant to Plaintiffs administrative duties as Chair. 54. Moreover, Dr. Jadwin's contract expressly provided that he was to earn patient billing-based professional fees, separate and apart from his fixed Base Pay. 55. In order to earn Professional Fees, Dr. Jadwin needed to -10DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2
3 4

5 6
7
8

Deny. See DSUF 44 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and 581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08,974:3-976: 12). Admit.

9
10

11
12

13
14 15 16
17

18 19 20 21

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. See DSUF 6 (00014791499).

Admit.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 11 of 38 Page 85 of 120

1

process and bill patient cases. 56. Restriction to his workplace at KMC by placement on leave denied him the opportunity to earn such fees. Deny. Defendants do not know what "restriction to his workplace at KMC" means. 57. Dr. Jadwin's professional fee income amounted to approximately $100,000 per year. 58. On December 7, 2007, Defendant County placed Plaintiff on paid administrative leave "pending resolution of a personnel matter" ("Admin Leave"). Admit. Deny. 0018755-0018917.

2
3 4

5
6
7 8

9 10
11

59. Defendant County further ordered Plaintiff to "remain at horne and available by telephone during normal business hours" and not to contact anyone at KMC, else he could be terminated. There was no further indication of what Plaintiff was being charged with, whether he would be permitted to respond to charges, or when the leave would end. 60. No investigation, explanation or resolution ensued.

Deny. See DSUF 41 (DFJOI482,0016941).

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. Defendants deny there was anything to investigate, explain or resolve.

61. On April 4, 2007, Plaintiff notified Defendant County that the long leave was exacerbating his depression, eroding his pathology skills and employability, and denying him the opportunity to earn professional fees. 62. On April 30, 2007, Defendant County informed Dr. Jadwin that he remained on administrative leave but removed the home restriction.

Admit.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. Defendants informed Plaintiff that he was relieved of the obligation to be available for daily work.

-11DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 12 of 38 Page 86 of 120

1
2 3 4

63. On May 1,2007, Defendant County informed Dr. Jadwin that they intended to keep Dr. Jadwin on leave and "let his contract run out."

Deny. Defendants tried to negotiate a settlement by buying out Plaintiff s contract and lifting restrictions on Plaintiffs leave. See PSUF 63 (Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Rog No. 43 at 53:3-9); Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 22 (Rog No. 44,28: 17-22); Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 6 (Wasser Email to Lee of 5/1/07 at DFJOI705)).

5
6 7
8

9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 64. Dr. Jadwin remained on administrative leave until his employment contract expired on October, [sic]4, 2007.

Admit.

f------------------+-------------1

65.

1-6:...::6~.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f - - - - - - - - - 67. Supervisor Ray Watson, then-Chair of the Board of Supervisors, voted as a member of the JCC to demote Dr. Jadwin and effectively cut his pay, and also participated in the decision not to renew Plaintiff s employment contract. Deny. See DSUF 36a (Declaration of Michael Rubio, 11/1 0/08,
~2;

Declaration of

Raymond Watson, 11/1 0/98,
~~3,

4 and 5; Declaration of
~2;

Mike Maggard, 11/1 0/08,

Declaration of Jon McQuiston, 11/1 0/08,
~2;

Declaration of
~2).

Don Maben, 11/1 0/08,

Plaintiff was not demoted. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/0 I - 9/12/08. -12DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

27
28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 13 of 38 Page 87 of 120

1

68. Ray Watson, Chair of the Board Supervisors [sic] at the time of the Nonrenewa1, testified in deposition: "My understanding was that [Plaintiff] had - he had been on medical leave, family leave, and had requested even more leave, and that for that reason and the fact that he was suing us, that we decided not to renew his contract." C'Nonrenewal") 69. Moreover, Dr. Jadwin was a "core physician" at KMC, a permanent position. 70. There was a mutually explicit understanding that, as a core physician, Plaintiff s contract would be continuously renewed.

Admit.

2
3 4

5
6 7

8
9 10
11

Deny. See DSUF 6 (00014791499). Deny. This is not a fact; "mutually explicit understanding" is one of Plaintiff s legal arguments.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

71. In fact, from October 2000 to present, only one other physician besides Dr. Jadwin has not had his contract renewed.
72.

Deny. See Response to #30 above.

73. 74. Credential Threat was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin's emotional distress leading to recurrence of his chronic major depressive disorder. Deny. Plaintiff s credential was never threatened. See DSUF 7A (Dutt Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 52:5-53:18).
~'Substantial

22
23 24 25 26 27 28 75. Credential Threat was a substantial cause of Dr. -13-

cause," "chronic"

and "major" are subj ective terms. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01- 9/12/08. Deny. Plaintiff s credential

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 14 of 38 Page 88 of 120

1 2 3
4 5

Jadwin's reduced work schedule medical/recuperative leave and loss of opportunity to earn Professional Fees from December 16,2005 to on or around April 28, 2006.

was never threatened. See DSUF 7A (Dutt Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 52:5-53:18). Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint '80. "Substantial cause" is a subjective term. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01-9/12/08.

6 7
8

9
10

76. Forced FT Leave was a was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin's emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. Jadwin's major depression.

Deny. See DSUF 7A (Dutt Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 52:553: 18), 21 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 250:15-251 :6, Exhibit 303). "Substantial

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

cause" and "major" are
subjective terms. Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21, Rog #36.
77. Forced FT Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiffs

Deny. See DSUF 7A (Dutt Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 52:553:18),21 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 250: 15-251 :6, Exhibit 303). Second Amended Complaint '80. "Substantial cause" is a subjective term. Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21, Rog #36.

loss of opportunity to earn Professional Fees as provided for in his employment contract from on or around April 28, 2006 to June 17, 2006.

78. Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Dr. Jadwin's emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. -14-

Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 15 of 38 Page 89 of 120

1 2
3 4

Jadwin's major depression.

(0000272-358, specifically 0000319). "Substantial cause" and "major" are subjective terms. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12108.

5
6 7 8
9

79. Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Base Pay reduction from $287,529 to $186,687 from October 3, 2006 onward.

Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319), Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21, Rog #41. "Substantial causes" is a subjective term. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 9/12108.

10
11

12 13
14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

80. Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of termination of Plaintiffs career as a pathology department chair due to unemployability.

Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319), 8 (DFJ02422-2459). See Levison Decl., pg. 6, ~6. KMC letters to Jadwin dated
8/14/01 - 9/12108.

81. Admin Leave, during 5 months of which Plaintiff was restricted full-time to his home, was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin's emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. Jadwin's major depression. 82. Admin Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiffs loss ofopportnnity to earn Professional Fees as provided for in -15-

Deny. See DSUF 41 (DFJ01482,0016941). "Substantial cause" and "major" are subjective terms. Deny. See DSUF 6 (00014791499). "Substantial cause" is a

23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 16 of 38 Page 90 of 120

I

his employment contract from on or around December 7, 2006 to October 4, 2007. 83. Admin Leave was a substantial cause ofloss of Plaintiffs pathologist "eye," causing him to become unemployable as a pathologist.

subjective term.

2
3

Deny. See DSDF 10 (DFJ00726), 15 (DFJ00746). Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint ~80.

4
5

6
7 8

84. Nonrenewal was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin's emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. Jadwin's major depression. 85. Admin Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiffs lost Base Pay of$186,687 and Professional Fees of roughly $100,000 per year, as provided for in his employment contract, from on or around October 4, 2007 onward. 86. 87. 88. 89. Dr. Jadwin made a protected report to KMC's medical staffleadership about (a) the medical appropriateness of a radical hysterectomy for a KMC patient (Patient No. 1142693) based on inaccurate outside pathology reportswhich case was the subject of Plaintiff s presentation at the monthly KMC oncology conference held on October 12, 2005 ("October Conference") - and (b) the unsafe conditions created for other patients by the lack of a KMC policy requiring internal pathology review of all outside pathology reports prior to treatment ("IPR").

Deny. "Substantial cause" is a subjective term.

9 10
11

Deny. Admin Leave was paid. See DSDF 41 (DFJOI482). "Substantial cause" is a subjective term.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. Nothing about Plaintiff s statements was "protected." See DSDF 105 (DFJ00508-574), 106 (DFJ00578), 107 (DFJ00580), 108 (Harris Deposition, 8/13/08, pgs. 126:8-127: 19), 109 (Exhibit 190), 110 (Ragland Deposition, 8/22/08, pgs. 106:18-109:14 and 156:14-25), III (Abraham

22
23 24 25 26
27

28 -16DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 17 of 38 Page 91 of 120

1

Deposition, 8/18/08, pgs. 14:10-21:17 and 131:5-133:23 and 135:24-138:22), 112 (Dutt Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 292:25-293:20),74 (DFJ00364-366). See PSUF 114 (Jadwin Decl., Exh. 10 (Jadwin's email to Dutt, Culberson et al. of 12/6/06 at DFJl479); Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 61 at 13:1925); Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Rog 67 at 14:22-23 (noting difficulties outside reviewers had reaching conclusions about the diagnosis)). Taylor Depo., 12/5/07 pgs. 14:19-21, 15:1-4, 22:9-10; 24:7-8, 27:16-17, 31:17-32:21,36:19-20,51:1225,55:7-23,62:19-25,63:4-11, 64:12-19,68:9-17. 90. Defendant County knew of Dr. Jadwin's whistleblowing report at the October Conference since Defendant Harris, then CMO ofKMC, and Jennifer Abraham, then-Immediate Past President, were in attendance. Deny. See DSUF 113 (DFJ00588). Plaintiffs presentation at the October Oncology Conference was not "whistleblowing." 91. Each of the letters of reprimand which Defendant
-17DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

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

Deny. Plaintiff's Corrected

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 18 of 38 Page 92 of 120

1 2
3 4

County decided to place into Plaintiff s medical credential file specifically reference Dr. Jadwin's presentation at the October Conference.

Motion for Partial or Full Summary Judgment, pg. 6:1. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01
~

9/12/08.

5
6
7 8

92. 93. 94. On January 9, 2006, Dr. Jadwin made a protected report to Bryan regarding KMC's noncompliance with state regulations regarding blood transfusion related documentation called product chart copies ("PCCs"), jeopardizing patient safety. 95. Improper documentation of blood transfusions creates patient risk of morbidity and mortality. 96. Dr. Jadwin reasonably suspected that KMC's ongoing failure to maintain accurate and complete records of patient blood transfusions did not comply with H&S § 1602.5, which requires PCC documentation to conform to AABB accreditation standards. Deny. See DSUF 118 (DFJ00408-409), 121 (0000572), 123 (DFJOO788), 124 (DFJ00793), 126 (Harris Deposition, 8/13/08, pgs. 268:8-23), 127 (Smith Deposition, 8/19/08, pgs. 59:460: 13), 129 (Smith Deposition, 8/19/08, pg. 71 :2-21). 97. During his reduced work schedule medical leave, Dr. Jadwin audited PCCs, and continued to report noncompliant incomplete or missing PCCs to Defendant Bryan, Toni Smith, KMC Nurse Executive, and Risk Management and Quality Assurance through at least April 17, 2006, when -18DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDlSPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Deny. Nothing about Plaintiff s statements was "protected." See DSUF 7 (DFJOO723).

9 10

11
12
13

Admit.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. See DSDF 117 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 205:6-206:25 (Exhibit 291», 124a (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 226:10-16).

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 19 of 38 Page 93 of 120

Plaintiff asked Defendant Bryan to set up a meeting with

2
3 4

Bernard Barmann, County Counsel, to discuss his concerns regarding PCC noncompliance. 98. The California Department of Health Services later determined during the course of an inspection that KMC was indeed failing to comply with PCC-re1ated regulations. 99. On April17, 2006, Defendant Bryan threatened to demote Plaintiff. Deny. See DSUF 132 (Smith Deposition, 8/19/08, pgs. 84: 11-85:7). Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 160 (DFJ00794-795; Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 231 :9-237:25). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 9/12/08. 100. 101. 102. Dr. Jadwin reasonably believed that storage of patient skull caps occurring in an unlicensed laboratory freezer at KMC violated H&S § 1635.1. Deny. No License was required for the freezer and Plaintiff knew it. Wrobel Deposition, pgs. 10:11-12, 18:7-24,25: 13-26:20,30:431:21,32:14-20,39:5-41:6. See PSUF 102 (Lee Supp. Dec!. Exh. 9 (Martinez Depo at 14:2-22); Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 12 (Dutt Depo at 244:69». 103. Unlicensed skull flap storage could give rise to a risk of -19DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

5
6 7

8

9
10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. Storage is not a risk.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 20 of 38 Page 94 of 120

1

patient morbidity or mortality.

Reimp1antation of improperly stored tissue is the risk.

2

3 4 5 6
7 8 9

104. Gilbert Martinez, the Manager of Laboratory Services at KMC ("Martinez") confirmed that there were typically seven to nine skull flaps being stored in the lunlicensed [sic] aboratory [sic] freezer.

Deny. KMC's freezer did not need a license. Wrobel Deposition, pgs. 10:11-12, 18:7-24,25:13-26:20,30:431 :21,32:14-20,39:5-41 :6.

105. At times, upwards of 15 to 20 skull flaps were being stored in KMC's unlicensed freezer.

Deny. KMC's freezer did not need a license. Wrobel Deposition, pgs. 10: 11-12, 18:7-24,25:13-26:20,30:431:21,32:14-20,39:5-41:6.

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 107. When Dr. Jadwin discovered skull flaps being illegally stored in the laboratory freezer, he discussed the problem with Gilbert Martinez, the Manager of Laboratory Services atKMC ("Martinez"). 106. Martinez shared Plaintiff s concerns about unlicensed skull flap storage in the laboratory freezer.

Deny. KMC's freezer did not need a license. Wrobel Deposition, pgs. 10:11-12, 18:7-24,25: 13-26:20, 30:431:21,32:14-20,39:5-41:6. Deny. The storage was not illegal. Wrobel Deposition, pgs. 10:11-12, 18:7-24,25:1326:20,30:4-31:21,32:14-20, 39:5-41 :6. Plaintiff supervised the pathology laboratory and was in charge of the freezers. See DSUF 6a (0001479-1499).

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

108. Around Thanksgiving 2006, Dr. Jadwin tipped Martinez Deny. The storage did not off that he intended to blow the whistle about his unresolved -20DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

need a license. See DSUF 55

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 21 of 38 Page 95 of 120

1 2 3

complaints about unsafe patient care and conditions, including unlicensed skull flap storage, and that inspections ofKMC by regulatory and accreditation agencies was likely.

(Martinez Deposition, 4/16/08, pgs. 111: 12-118:22). Plaintiff only told Martinez to expect inspections.

4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13

109. Within a few days, Martinez relayed this information to his supervisor, David Hill, the Director of Ambulatory Care; who in turn relayed it to a pathologist, Philip Dutt, and/or Defendant Harris. 110. Beginning November 28,2006, Dr. Jadwin formally reported his suspicions of illegal and/or unsafe care and conditions of patients at KMC - including unlicensed skull flap storage, noncompliance PCCs, and an inappropriate radical prostatectomy (see below) - to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations ("JCAHO"), the College of American Pathologists ("CAP"), and the California Department of Health Services ("DHS"). ("Outside WB Reports).

Deny. There is no evidence that David Hill communicated with either Dr. Dutt or Dr. Harris. Deny. Plaintiff has not produced his alleged letters to CAP or DHS. Defendants have never seen them. See DSUF 56a (DFJ02540-2541). See PSUF 110 (Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 35 at 8:10-14)); Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 21 at 5:2224 (DHS)); Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 22 at 5:256:2 (JCAHO)); Lee Supp!. Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 23 at 6:3-6 (CAP)).

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

111. On January 4,2007, Dr. Dutt received confirmation that Dr. Jadwin had in fact complained to CAP about the unlicensed tissue storage and noncompliant PCCs, and shared this with then-CEO Mr. Culberson. 112. -21-

Deny. See PSUF 111 (Jadwin Supp. Dec!., Exh. 2 (Dutt's Email to Culberson of 1/4/07 at 0001330)).

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 22 of 38 Page 96 of 120

1

113. 114. At 12:54 p.m. on December 6, 2006, Dr. Jadwin formally reported to KMC leadership his concerns regarding a KMC patient who was scheduled for immediate radical prostatectomy to treat possible cancer. Plaintiff had recommended the attending physician delay the prostatectomy because he believed the pathologic findings of cancer were inconclusive. Instead, Plaintiff had recommended the findings be validated by outside experts. 115. Radical prostatectomies pose numerous risks to patient care, including incontinence, impotence and other morbid factors. 116. In his report to KMC leadership, Dr. Jadwin also complained of a pattern of non-transparent "peer review" being conducted against him and asked that the Board of Supervisors be apprised of his concerns and initiate a formal reVIew. 117. Four minutes later, at 12:58 p.m., Dr. Dutt emailed Mr. Culberson complaining about Dr. Jadwin's competency, and insistence on outside review of numerous cases after Dr. Dutt had counseled him on failing to send a case out for consultation. Dr. Dutt also complained about alleged "other Problems" involving Dr. Jadwin which he worried might lead to loss of staff and the pathology department's ability to serve patients and doctors in a timely manner. 118. 119. -22DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2
3 4

Deny. See DSUF 190 (DFJ01479-1480). See Jadwin Dec., Exh. 10.

5
6

7
8

9 10
11

Admit.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. See DSUF 189 (Dutt Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 296:20-297: 13). See Jadwin Dec!., Exh. 10.

Dcny. Dutt's e-mail to Culberson does not refer to Plaintiffs "competency." See Lee Dec!., Exh. 23.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 23 of 38 Page 97 of 120

1

120. Plaintiff was eligible to take medical leave as of December 16,2006. [sic] 121. Plaintiff requested and took reduced work schedule CFRA medical leave from December 16, 2005 to at least March 15, 2006. 122. Members of the JCC subsequently voted to demote Plaintiff, basing their decision on his unavailability due in part to his medical leave. Mr. Bryan told the JCC at the removal vote: "This recommendation [for removal] is based on Dr. Jadwin's unavailability for service because of extended medical leaves ...." 123. Previously on April 17, 2006, 4 months into Plaintiffs reduced work schedule medical leave, Bryan admitted to Dr. Jadwin, "Yes the Department of Pathology continues to function well as it has for many years, and yes, you have made many positive changes in the department." 124. Plaintiff also has direct evidence that Plaintiffs medical leave was a negative factor in the Nonrenewal.

Deny. Plaintiff was eligible on December 15, 2005. Admit.

2
3
4

5
6 7 8

Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 -

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

9112/08.
Deny. See DSUF 160 (DFJ00794-795; Bryan Deposition, 8114/08, pgs. 231 :9-237:25).

Deny. See DSUF 36a (Declaration of Michael Rubio, 11110/08, ~2; Declaration of Raymond Watson, 11110/98,
~~3,

4 and 5; Declaration of
~2;

22
23 24 25 26 27 28 125. 126. -23-

Mike Maggard, 11/1 0/08,

Declaration of Jon McQuiston, 1111 0/08,
~2;

Declaration of
~2).

Don Maben, 1111 0/08,

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 24 of 38 Page 98 of 120

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

127. On April 28, 2006, Defendant Bryan represented to Dr. Jadwin that he was still entitled to 137 hours of medical leave. 128. Sandra Chester, Defendant County's Director of Human Resources, testified in deposition that Plaintiffs request for medical leave in his email to Bryan and herself on March 16, 2006; and provision by Dr. Jadwin's treating therapist, Dr. Riskin, ofleave certification on April 29, 2006 was timely under Defendant County's customary practice.

Admit.

Deny. See DSUF 9 (Chester Deposition, 8/28/08, pgs. 135: 12-137:6), 11 (Chester Deposition, 8/28/08, pgs. 75:19-76:10),12 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 195:9-196:14),13 (Chester Deposition, 8/28/08, pgs. 113:23-114:12).

129. Dr. Riskin's certifications notified it that Plaintiff s depression was serious enough to require a reduced work schedule leave and regular treatment from December 16, 2006 to September 15,2006. 130. Nonetheless, Defendant Bryan denied Plaintiff reduced work schedule medical leave, and forced him to take fulltime "personal necessity leave" under the County's leave policy.

Admit.

Deny. Peter Bryan gave Plaintiffthe option to take fulltime leave. See DSUF 20 (DFJOI121), 21 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 250: 15-251 :6, Exhibit 303), 24 (DFJOI141), 29 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 244:616), 30 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 280:21-281 :4).

131. -24DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS iN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/01/2008 Filed 12/26/2008

Page 25 of 38 Page 99 of 120

1

132. 133. 134. Dr. Jadwin was an individual with a mental disability because of his chronic major depressive disorder. Dr. Reading, Plaintiff's forensic psychologist, diagnosed Dr. Jadwin as having Major Depressive Disorder. Dr. Reading also noted Dr. Jadwin reported developing depressed mood, pervasive anhedonia, suicidal ideation, sleep disturbance, and other symptoms while working at KMC. 135. Dr. Jadwin's depression limited his ability to take pleasure from life, and to engage full-time in, and take pleasure from, the medical work to which he had devoted his life. Deny. Dr. Reading never used the word "chronic." See PSUF 134 (Reading Dec!., Exh. 1 at "Diagnostic Impressions" on p. 58; Reading Dec!., Exh. 1 at "Structured Clinical Interview" at p. 57-58.). Deny. See PSUF 135 (Reading Dec!., Exh. 1 at "Structured Clinical Interview" at p. 57-58). Dr. Reading does not comment on the effect Plaintiff's depression had on his life. 136. Likewise, Defendant County has admitted, by and through the PMK deposition testimony of its representative, Eugene Kercher, a psychiatrist, that it was familiar with the symptoms of depression and believed that Dr. Jadwin was depressed over several years during his tenure of his employment at KMC. 137. Plaintiff also required sinus surgery and required a few weeks to recover from it during May of 1005. 138. Further, Plaintiff suffered an avulsed ankle at the end of May of 2005 that limited his ability to walk. Admit. Deny. See PSUF 136 (Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 17 (Kercher Depo at 95:13-22, 96:3-8». Dr. Kercher never diagnosed Plaintiff. (Kercher Depo 9/4/08, atpg. 51:1-16). Admit.

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

-25DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 100of 38 Page 26 of 120

1

139. The limitations from these physical conditions contributed to Plaintiff s limitations from his chronic depression during May through the first part of June of 2005.

Deny. See PSUF 139 (Riskin Dec., Exh. 3 atDFJl814.). There is no evidence that Plaintiff s sinus surgery and broken ankle contributed to his depression.

2
3
4

5
6

7 8 9 10
11

140. 141. 2. Plaintiff Was "Otherwise Qualified" Deny. See PSUF 141 (Lee Dec!., Exh. 19 (Bryan's Letter to DHS of?/25/06 at 0001619); Exh. 18 (Bryan's Letter to JCC of 7/10/06 at top of 001476 and end of 001457 [sic. Should be 001477]); Exh. 14 (Bryan's Memo to Jadwin of 4/28/06 at DFJ01152, DFJOl155-1159, DFJOll64); Exh. 16 (Nunn's Cover Email to Jadwin of 6/26/06 at DFJ01346); Exh. 10 (Bryan's Letter to Supervisors of 1/17/06 at No. 10 on 0001567)). None of Plaintiffs evidence establishes that he was a qualified person under either the ADA or FEHA. 142. -26DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 101of 38 Page 27 of 120

1

143. 144. Plaintiffs physician, Dr. Lempel, disclosed Plaintiffs depression when he faxed his medical report to KMC's HR Department on November 30, 2000, around the time of Plaintiff shire. 145. Defendant Bryan admitted knowing that Dr. Jadwin needed leave because of his depression. 146. Dr. Riskin's certifications stated that Plaintiff needed medical/recuperative leave for depression from December 16, 2005 to September 16, 2006. 147. Supervisor Watson testified in deposition that he knew Dr. Jadwin was in continuous need of extensions of his medical leave. Deny. See PSUF 147 (Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 14 (Watson Depo. at 80:22-81 :2)). The page numbers are incorrect and Supervisor Watson did not express an opinion about Plaintiff s need for continuous extensions of his leave. 148. On April 4, 2007, during Plaintiff s Admin Leave, Plaintiff expressly notified Defendant County in writing that Plaintiff was depressed and that the Admin Leave was exacerbating his chronic depression. 149. 150. 4. Disability Was A Motivating Factor in Demotion, Pay Cut & Nonrenewal. Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 33 (0001476-1565,0000073-75), 36a (Declaration of Michael -27DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2
3 4

Deny. See DSUF 65 (Jadwin Deposition, 1/9/08, pgs. 452:4455:19). See Reading Dec!., pg. 59, ~3, last two lines. Admit.

5
6
7 8

Admit.

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Admit.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 102of 38 Page 28 of 120

1

Rubio, 11110/08, '12; Declaration of Raymond Watson, 11/10/98, '1'13, 4 and 5; Declaration of Mike Maggard, 11/10/08, '12; Declaration of Jon McQuiston, 11/10/08, '12; Declaration of Don Maben, 11/1 0/08, '12). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08. 151. 152. 153. On January 9, 2006, Dr. Jadwin asked Defendant Bryan to allow him to work part-time and at home while he was recovering from his disabling depression. 154. Dr. Riskin, Plaintiff s psychiatrist, certified that parttime work was medically necessary. 155. KMC accommodated Jadwin's disability from December 16, 2005 to April 16, 2006 by providing him with the reduced work schedule medical/recuperative leave and ability to perform work at home that he requested during his meeting with Defendant Bryan on January 9, 2006. 156. As customary, a Locum Tenens pathologist covered Plaintiff s clinical pathologist duties, while plaintiff performed the remaining 10-20% of his administrative duties as Chair of Pathology. 157. As usual, if Dr. Jadwin was unable to attend to an -28DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSlTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2
3
4

5
6 7 8 9 10
11

12
13

Admit.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. See DSUF 14 (DFJOl150). Deny. See DSUF 7 (DFJOO723).

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. There is no evidence to support this fact.

Deny. There is no evidence to

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 103of 38 Page 29 of 120

1

administrative duty at a particular time, then Dr. Dutt filled in for him. 158. On March 16, 2006, Dr. Jadwin requested an extension of his reduced work schedule leave. Dr. Jadwin submitted Dr. Riskin's certification of his continuing need for a reduced work schedule within three days of learning that Defendant County required it. 159. On April 28, 2006, Bryan refused to accommodate Jadwin's disability. Instead he forced him to take full-time leave, and refused to hold his job open for him any longer while he was on recuperative leave, and refused to allow Dr. Jadwin to return to work until he could work full-time. As a result, Dr. Jadwin was prevented continuing to carry out his duties as Chair of Pathology. 160. 161. 162. Defendant Bryan acted in bad faith when he tmilaterally denied Dr. Jadwin's request for continuing accommodation in the form of part-time work, and refused to allow him to return to work until he could work full time. 163. Defendant Bryan also acted in bad faith when he represented to the JCC that Dr. Jadwin's lack of communication with him led him to believe that Dr. Jadwin had essentially abandoned his job. 164. 165. 166. -29-

support this fact.

2
3
4

Deny. See DSUF 14 (DFJO 1150).

5
6

7
8 9

Deny. See DSUF 21 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs. 250:15-251:6, Exhibit 303). There is no evidence to support this fact.

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. See DSUF 14 (DFJOlI50). There is no evidence to support this fact.

Deny. See DSUF 33 (0001476-1565,0000073-75). There is no evidence to support this fact.

22
23 24 25 26
27

28

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 104of 38 Page 30 of 120

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

167. The Bylaws of Kern County Medical Center as in effect between June 13,2006 and October 4,2007 ("Bylaws") provided for due process for core physicians in numerous scenarios like loss of hospital privileges, but not for (i) removal of physicians from department chairmanship, (ii) placement of physicians on administrative leave, or (iii) nonrenewal of physician employment contracts with Defendant County. According to Bylaws Section 12.2 GROUNDS FOR HEARING, due process is provided in the following situations: "A. Denial of medical staff membership. B. Denial of requested advancement in staff membership status, or category. C. Denial of medical staff reappointment. D. Suspension of staff membership or clinical privileges for more than thirty (30) days in any twelve (12) month period. E. Demotion to lower staff category or membership status. F. Summary suspension of staff membership or clinical privileges for more than fourteen (14) days. G. Revocation of medical staff membership. H. Denial of requested clinical privileges.
1. Involuntary reduction of current clinical privileges. 1. Termination of all clinical privileges.

Deny. See DSUF 37 (DFJ01359-1361).

K. Involuntary imposition of significant consultation or monitory requirements excluding monitoring incidental to provisional status and Section 7.3)." -30DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 105of 38 Page 31 of 120

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

The due process afforded by the Bylaws in the above cases is robust, as contained in Bylaws Section 12.3-1 NOTICE OF ACTION OR PROPOSED ACTION: "In all cases in which action has been taken or a recommendation made as set forth in Section 12.2, the president of staff or designee on behalf of the medical executive committee shall give the member prompt written notice of (1) the recommendation or final proposed action and that such action, if adopted, shall be taken and reported to the applicable licensing or certifying authority and/or the National Practitioner Data Bank if required; (2) the reasons for the proposed action including the acts or omissions with which the member is charged; (3) the right to request a hearing pursuant to Section 12.3-2." 168. The Board of Supervisors of Defendant County ratified the Bylaws on December 13,2004. 169. When the defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with adequate due process in connection with the Demotion, Admin Leave and Nonrenewal, they were acting pursuant to the Bylaws. Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358), 31 (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 258:716). There is no evidence Defendants failed to comply with the By-Laws. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08. 170. 171. -31DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Admit.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 106of 38 Page 32 of 120

I

172. It is incontrovertibly established that "Any acts or omissions of the individual Defendants were under color of

Admit.

2
3 4

law." See Scheduling Order, 9:22-23.
173. 174. 175. 176. Plaintiffs employment contract expressly set forth a mutually explicit understanding with Defendant County that Plaintiff would receive Base Pay of$287,529, and that Plaintiff would be chair ofKMC's pathology department. 177. Moreover, the employment contract barred Defendant County from reducing Plaintiffs Base Pay, removing Plaintifffrom chair or terminating or otherwise modifying the Contract at will, without cause, or without Plaintiffs consent. 178. Defendant COlmty has not removed a department chair without cause since at least October 2000. 179. Defendants County and Harris told Plaintiff several times that the Demotion "necessitated" the Paycut, and that he would have to agree to it to continue working at KMC. Deny. See DSDF 44 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and 581)),45 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 974:3-976:12). Plaintiff was not demoted. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08. 180. Having no other choice, Plaintiff executed the Paycut amendment to his employment contract. -32DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADmDICATION

5
6

7
8

Deny. See DSDF 6 (00014791499).

9
10

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. See DSDF 6 (00014791499).

Admit.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. See DSDF 44 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 107of 38 Page 33 of 120

1

969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and 581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 974:3-976:12). 181. Defendant County was subjectively aware of Plaintiff's contractual interest in Base Pay, as evidenced by the numerous reminders by Defendants Bryan and County that Plaintiff would have to expressly amend his employment contract to implement the Paycut resulting from his Demotion. Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319), 44 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and 581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs. 974:3-976:12). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08. 182. There was nearly a month gap between the time Defendant Bryan informed Plaintiff he was initiating demotion procedures to the time the JCC voted to demote Plaintiff. Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 9/12/08. 183. Defendants never notified Plaintiff of the time or place of the JCC vote to demote Plaintiff gave him an explanation of the evidence against him, or provided him an opportunity to tell his side ofthe story. Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 9/12/08. 184. Before the JCC vote occurred, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant County legally challenging the Demotion.
-33DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

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

Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 108of 38 Page 34 of 120

I

(0000272-358, specifically 0000319). See PSUF 184 (Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Lee Letter to Barnes of 6/29/06 at DFJl349). There is no evidence to support this. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08. 185. Nor did Defendant County ever offer Plaintiff a postdeprivation hearing. 186. More importantly, the JCC did not constitute an impartial tribunal since it comprised individuals who had been harassing and retaliating against Dr. Jadwin and/or individuals on whom Dr. Jadwin was blowing the whistle. 187. Nor was Defendant Bryan - who invited Plaintiff to contact him, and only, him regarding the Demotion he himself had instigated - an impartial adjudicator given his demonstrated bias against Plaintiff. Deny. Plaintiff was not demoted. See DSUF 4 (0000272-358, specifically 0000319). KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/0 I 9/12/08. 188. 189. 190. Plaintiffs employment contract expressly set forth a mutually explicit understanding with Defendant County that Plaintiff would be paid Professional Fees. 191. Defendant County was subjectively aware of Plaintiffs contractual interest in Professional Fees as evidenced by the -34DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2
3
4

5
6

7
8 9

Deny. See DSUF 4 (0000272358, specifically 0000319). Deny. See Lee Decl., Exh. 17.

10
11

12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Deny. See DSUF 6 (00014791499).

Deny. See DSUF 6 (00014791499). Plaintiff was not

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 109of 38 Page 35 of 120

1

then-CEQ's letter to Plaintiff regarding the Paycut. Mr. Culberson explained that, as a demoted staff pathologist with a drastically reduced base salary, Plaintiff would nevertheless be able to take advantage of his reduced administrative duties in order to increase his Professional Fees-based income. 192. Mr. Culberson participated in the decision to place Plaintiff on Admin Leave, which denied Plaintiff the opportunity to earn Professional Fees. 193. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff any pre- or postdeprivation procedure when placing him on Admin Leave. 194. When Defendant County sent a letter to Plaintiff placing him on Admin Leave, the letter stated only that the Admin Leave was "pending resolution of a personnel matter." 195. At no time did Defendants County or Harris inform Plaintiff of the nature of the charges against him, give him and explanation of the evidence against him, or provide him an opportunity to tell his side of the story. 196. Even when Plaintiff protested the lack of due process, Defendant County refused to respond.

demoted. KMC letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 9/12/08.

2
3 4

5
6
7
8

Deny. See DSUF 41 (DFJO 1482).

9 10
11

Deny. See DSUF 4 (0000272358).6(0001479-1499). Deny. See DSUF 41 (DFJ01482).

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. There was no "charge" against Plaintiff.

Deny. See PSUF 196 (Lee Supp. Dec!., Exh. 4 (Lee Letter to Barnes of 4/4/07 at DFJ01619». There is no evidence to support this.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28 197. Since 1995, only one other department chair had ever been placed on administrative leave in excess of 1 month. 198. -35-

Admit.

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 110of 38 Page 36 of 120

1

199. 200. Defendant County customarily renews the contracts of all of its KMC medical staff. 201. When Plaintiff asked Defendant County to identify all members of the KC medical staff - which comprises roughly 60 full-time faculty physicians at any given time - who had employment contracts which were not renewed during the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, Defendant County was able to name only one doctor. 202. At no time did Defendant County inform Plaintiff of the nature of the charges against him, give him an explanation of the evidence against him, or provide him an opportunity to tell his side of the story. 203. Defendant County denies that anyone even participated in a decision not to renew Plaintiff's employment contract. Deny. See PSUF 203 (Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Rog No. 45,53:16-20)). 204. Even when Plaintiff protested the lack of due process, Defendant County refused to respond. 205. 206. 207. Defendant County itself admits that no relevant event occurred on or before January 6, 2005. Deny. See DSUF 6 (00014791499), 48 (0000623-630), 65 (Jadwin Deposition, 119/08, pgs. 452:4-455:19), 71 (0001059-1072), 90 (0000260 (Exhibit 560)), 91 (000003170),92 (DFJ00246), 97 -36DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2
3
4

Deny. See Response to #30 above. Admit.

5
6 7
8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Deny. See Response to #195 above.

This is the same as #196. See Response to #196 above.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 111of 38 Page 37 of 120

I

(DFJ0025 1-270), 98 (DFJ00289-290), 101 (DFJ00241-242),102 (DFJ00248), 147 (DFJ00243245). 208. 209. 210. Defendant County admits that Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies as to all claims except for the new FMLAlCFRAlFEHA retaliation claim added via the Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 7, 2008 (Doc. 241). 211. Plaintiff exhausted his CRFA & FEHA oppositional/participation retaliation claims by filing a timely complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing ("DFEH") on September 3, 2008, and obtaining a right to sue letter that same day. 212. 213. 214. Defendant Bryan was the Chief Executive Officer at KMC from September of 2004 until September of 2006. 215. Eugene Kercher, M.D. was the President ofKMC Medical Staff from July 2004 to July 2006, and a member of the JCC. 216. Defendant Irwin Harris, M.D., was Chief Medical Officer at KMC from July of2005 to September of2007, and a non-voting member of the JCC. -37DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2
3

4
5

6
7 8

Admit.

9
10

11
12

13
14 15 16

Admit.

17
18 19 20 21

Admit.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Admit.

Admit.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 278

Filed 12/26/2008 Filed 12/01/2008

Page 112of 38 Page 38 of 120

1

217. Jennifer Abraham, M.D. was Immediate Past President ofKMC Medical Staff during 2004-2006, and President Elect in July 2006 to December of 2007. 218. Scott Ragland, D.O. was President-Elect of the KMC Medical Stafffrom 2004-2006, Chair of the Quality Management Committee, and a member of the JCC. 219. Toni Smith was the Chief Nurse Executive ofKMC, and a member of the Jec. 220. William Roy, M.D., was Chief of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at KMC. 221. Marvin Kolb, M.D. was former Chief Medical Officer at KMC who left in September of 2004. 222. Phillip Dutt, MD., became Chair of Pathology at KMC in August of2006. 223. David Culberson was Interim Chief Executive Officer from September of2006 to May of2007. 224. Paul Hensler became Chief Executive Officer at in [sic] May of2007. 225. Gilbert Martinez was and is the Manager of Laboratory Services at KMC.

Admit.

2
3
4

Admit.

5
6

7
8

Admit.

9 10

Admit.

11
12
13

Admit.

Deny. Dr. Dutt was the interim Chair. Admit.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Admit.

Deny. Gilbert Martinez retired on September 27,2008. Change of Employee Status.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 1, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By: lsi Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al -38DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICAnON

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 113 of 120

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
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 6

EXHIBIT 4: Eugene Lee Faxed Demand Letter to Kern County Deputy Counsel Karen Barnes

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Subject:

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 114 of 120

MaxEmail Send [SendAdmin@maxemail.com] Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:42 PM elee@LOEL.com MaxEmail Send Delivery Report Job 20183519-100011.001

=============================================================================== Maxemail Send Job Confirmation For Job ID 20183519-100011.001 =============================================================================== Job Information Maxemail Job ID Number of Pages Recipient Count Total Charges Report Time Zone: : 20183519-100011.001 : 0006 : 3 : $0.65 America/Los_Angeles (GMT-0700)

Recipient Delivery Summary Delivered Errorred Rec 0000 0001 0002 : 3 : 0 Pgs* 0006 0006 0006 Duration 00:01:50 00:01:49 00:02:07 Calls 1 1 1 Status Delivered Delivered Delivered Charge $0.20 $0.20 $0.25

Fax Number 6618683809 8182499682 2135960487

================================================================================ Individual Call Detail ================================================================================ Call Detail for Item 00000 ID 3109078 Sent To 6618683809 0006 Pages Delivered Date/Time Duration Pgs* Status Charge 06/29-15:42 00:01:50 6 Transmission Successful $0.20 Call Detail for Item 00001 ID 3109079 Sent To 8182499682 0006 Pages Delivered Date/Time Duration Pgs* Status Charge 06/29-15:43 00:01:49 6 Transmission Successful $0.20 Call Detail for Item 00002 ID 3109080 Sent To 2135960487 0006 Pages Delivered Date/Time Duration Pgs* Status Charge 06/29-15:43 00:02:07 6 Transmission Successful $0.25 =============================================================================== End Of Report ===============================================================================

1

To: Eugene Lee @ 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice o f Eugene Lee

Pg I/ 6 06/29/06

3:38 pm

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

L A rDocument 293-2 I FiledE O F O F F C 12/26/2008
E U G E N E

Page 115 of 120t'dA1 L rm
W.LCIEL.ECIM
WE~EITE

ELEE@LCIEL.ECIM

L E E

12 131 506-0407
FACSIMILE

STE 2 7 0 0 4 4 5 SOUTH F I G U E R O A S T LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 6 3 2

FAX
To: Eugene Lee Fax Number: 21 35960487 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 06/29/2006

Pages: 6 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin v Kern Medical Center et al.
Comments: Please see the attached letters.

To: Eugene Lee @ 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice o f Eugene Lee

Pg 2/ 6 06/29/06

3:38 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
( a 131 ~ m a - 0 4 8 a
TELEPHONE

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 116 of 120
ELEE@LOEL.COM E-MAIL

L A WOFFICE OF E U G E N E L E E
4 4 6 E O U T H FImULROA ET, E U I T L 2 7 0 0 LOU ANmLLLE. UALIFORNIA 9 0 0 7 1 . 1 - 3 2

12 131 6 9 e . 0 4 0 7 FAUEIMILL

WWW.LOLL.UOM WLEEITL

June 29,2006 VIA US MAIL. FAX & EMAIL Ms. Kasen S. Basnes Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Kern Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, California 93301 Re: Preservation i no spoliation of evidence Jadwin v. County of Kern, Peter Bryan, et al.

Dear Ms. Barnes: I am writing to inform you that my office has been retained by Dr. David F. Jadwin to represent him in the above-captioned pending matter. We are currently preparing to bring suit against the County of Kern, Mr. Peter Bryan, Dr. William Roy, and other defendants whose identities are to be determined, and will soon be submitting the appropriate filings under the California Tort Claims Ad, California Fair Employment & Housing A d , etc. Dr. Jadwin is seeking to prosecute various employment-, tort- and contract-related claims arising out of, among other things: (i) Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Familv Riehts A d : Retaliatory adions engaged in by Kern Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as " K M C ) et al. against Dr. Jadwin for taking medical leaves, in violation of the Cal. Family Rights A d ; Wrongful Demotion i Termination in Violation of Cal. Bus, & Prof. C. 12056 & Conspiracy Relating Thereto: Retaliatory actions engaged in by KMC et al. against Dr. Jadwin in violation of Cal. Bus, & Prof. C. 5 2056 (Protection against Retaliation for Physicians Who Advocate for Medically Appropriate Health Care), and conspiracy relating thereto by certain members of KMC's medical staff; Per Se Defamation & Ratification: Various communications made by certain members of KMC's medical staff which were per se defamatory of Dr. Jadwin's professional competence, and which KMC subsequently ratified and condoned; Disabilitv Discrimination / Failure to Accommodate in Violation of Cal. Fair Employment & Housing Act: Disability-based discriminatory harassment by KMC et al. of Dr. Jadwin, and failure to accommodate disability in violation of the Cal. Fair Employment & Housing A d ;

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

To: Eugene Lee @ 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice o f Eugene Lee

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 117 of 120

(v)

Breach of Contract 1 Good Faith & Fair Dealing: Breach of Dr. Jadwin's employment contract (and implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing) by KMC et al. for failure to comply with KMC's bylaws and failure to permit Dr. Jadwin until June 16,2006 to decide whether to resign chairmanship (see Mr. Bryan's email to Dr. Jadwin of June 14,2006, where he informs Dr. Jadwin that he is abrogating the June 16 deadline and unilaterally initiating Dr. Jadwin's removal fiom chairmanship), among other things;

(vi) (vii)

I Negligent Hiring I Su~ervision Retention
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Please note that the foregoing list is preliminary and subject to change. Additional causes of action will likely materialize as more facts become known.

I. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
This letter serves as a formal demand that you take, and cause to be taken, all appropriate a r m a t i v e steps to preserve any and all evidence relating to the foregoing claims. This includes but is not limited to, all emails, oncology conference-related feedback forms and documentation, memos, letters, reports, committee and other meeting minutes, notes taken at meetings with or concerning Dr. Jadwin (including those of Dr. Marvin Kolb, Dr. Irwin Harris and Mr. Peter Bryan), administrative records (including those of Dr. Kolb and Dr. Harris), etc. Failure to do so may constitute negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence and result in, among other things, monetary, evidentiary, issue, and terminating sanctions in the pending lawsuit. In addition, intentional spoliation of evidence constitutes a criminal offense pursuant to California Penal Code 5135. That provision states: Every person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon any trial, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, willfully destroys or conceals the same, with intent thereby to prevent it fiom being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Please kindly advise us of the identity, address, and telephone number of any party who may possess any evidence relating to the foregoing claims.

11. DEMAND FOR ACCESS TO CREDENTIALS FILE
Turning to other matters, please note that KMC is currently in violation of both Cal. Labor C. 5 1198.5 and KMC Bylaws 5 14.9(E) regarding Dr. Jadwin's written request for access to his credentials file, dated May 19, 2006. Dr. Jadwin submitted his request in writing to Dr. Kercher more than a month ago, yet KMC continues to deny Dr. Jadwin (i) physical access to his credentials file, and (ii) a meaningful summary of the contents of the documents which KMC is refusing Dr. Jadwin access to. Please note, the mere recitation of titles of documents referenced

To: Eugene Lee @ 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice o f Eugene Lee

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 118 of 120

in the foregoing subsection (ii), as KMC has provided to Dr. Jadwin, does not constitute a meaningful summary. In addition, I would like to relay Dr. Jadwin's request that I be provided access to his Kern County personnel file as soon as possible. Enclosed herewith is Dr. Jadwin's written request relating thereto.

111. DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTING OF CUMULATIVE MEDICAL LEAVE HOURS
As you may know, at the meeting of April 28,2006 (and in Mr. Bryan's subsequent confirmation by fax of even date), Mr. Bryan had directed Dr. Jadwin to contact Mr. Steve O'Conner in the Human Resources department at KMC regarding all leave-related questions. Pursuant to that instruction, Dr. Jadwin spoke by phone with Mr. O'Conner on June 13,2006, and asked him to provide him with a full accounting of the actual hours of medical leave he has thus far exhausted. Dr. Jadwin has yet to receive any response. According to Kern County Civil Service Commission Rule 1201.20, Dr. Jadwin is entitled to up to 6 months' cumulative unpaid sick leave in any given 12-month period. Dr. Jadwin simply seeks to determine where he stands in terms of medical leave hours.

IV. MR. BRYAN'S EMAIL OF JUNE 26,2006
In his email to Dr. Jadwin of June 26,2006, Mr. Bryan directs Dr. Jadwin as follows: (i) "you are to refrain from entering the facility for any reason other than seeking medical attention" "you are also to refrain from contacting any employee or faculty member of Kern Medical Center for any reason other than seeking medical attention" "In accordance with KMC policy, usage of any and all equipment as well as access to any and all systems has been suspended while you are on your approved personal necessity leave of absence"

(ii) (iii)

Regarding instruction (i), please note that Dr. Jadwin had absolutely no prior notice that his leave would preclude him from access to KMC's facilities. Dr. Jadwin has a number of valuable and important personal documents and effects in his office at KMC which he requires immediate access to. For instance, Dr. Jadwin needs to retrieve CME certificates from his office so that he may submit them in response to a compliance audit, which requires submissions by early next week. Dr. Jadwin will require physical access to his office in order to retrieve these and other personal items. Please let me know what immediate arrangements can be made so that Dr. Jadwin can recover such items. Regarding instruction (ii), please provide me with the legal grounds for imposing on Dr. Jadwin (or any other KMC employee) such overbroad and blanket prohibition against association with other KMC personnel.

To: Eugene Lee @ 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice o f Eugene Lee

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

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

Page 119 of 120

Regarding instruction (iii), please provide me with the specific provisions in KMC's bylaws, KMC's rules and regulations, Kern County's Employee Manual, Kern County's Civil Service Commission Rules, or other appropriate rules and regulations, which establish that employee access to all equipment will be suspended for the duration of personal necessity (or any other) leaves. I must admit to being unable to locate any such provision. Please note, as mentioned previously, Dr. Jadwin is permitted under Kern County CSC Rules to take up to 6 months' cumulative unpaid sick leave. As we have reason to believe that such 6 month maximum has not been exhausted, we do not acknowledge nor necessarily agree that Dr. Jadwin's current leave can be characterized as personal necessity leave vis-a-vis sick leave. Finally, I would like to speak on Mr. Bryan's claims that he acts out of a "concern" for Dr. Jadwin's welfare, and that "we do not want to you to feel obligated to do work while on a leave of absence", which claims are followed by salient threats of formal termination and other penalties should Dr. Jadwin fail to comply. As Mr. Bryan is aware, the doctor's certification which Dr. Jadwin previously submitted in connection with his medical leave stated that Dr. Jadwin was capable of working 1 to 2 days per workweek. Indeed, KMC had previously reasonably accommodated Dr. Jadwin's disability by permitting Dr. Jadwin to come into work 1 to 2 days a week for several months. I fail to comprehend the sudden change in circumstance that necessitated KMC's recent decision to lock Dr. Jadwin out of the KMC campus. Mr. Bryan's expressions of concern for Dr. Jadwin's welfare strike me as particularly disingenuous.
V. CONCLUSION

Litigation is always a measure of last resort and Dr. Jadwin does not undertake it lightly. It is unfortunate that events have compelled Dr. Jadwin to consider litigation at all. If you wish to discuss the foregoing with us, please feel free to contact me anytime at (213) 4531781 or at elee@,LOEL.com. We look forward to working with you toward resolution of Dr. Jadwin's claims.

enc: cc:

Request for Kern County Personnel File Dr. David F. Jadwin

To: Eugene Lee @ 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice o f Eugene Lee

Pg 6/ 6 06/29/06

3:38 pm

06/28/2006 12;41 18182499682 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 293-2

Filed 12/26/2008

PAGE 01/01 Page 120 of 120

June 27,2006

To Whom It May Concern:

Please turn over my county personnel file to:
'Eugkne Lee 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, California 90071 -1632

David F. Jndwin, DO 3 184 Beaudly Terrace

Glendale, California 91208-174.5


				
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.