At this point, I do want to pause and thank Steve Schmidly for meticulously arranging the evidence and documentation (in three large note-books) for pre-trial prep. Of course, I paid him very handsomely to do that . . . even though, in the end, the settlement he negotiated with Randolph did sell me out by several hundred thousand dollars . . . AND he lied to me about punitive damages not being taxable.
I'd also like to post a personal message to Schmid here before we proceed: Steve, after Andrew McVey left for Wilmington, I stayed with your firm and the "Asheboro bar", and I trusted you to look out for me. The settlement was about my future and my ability to move on. You can smile and smirk and laugh and make excuses and diss "crazy" Mary all you like now (as you sip your beer at the Copperheads' game). But Steve, you sold me out. And I will never forgive you for that.
Heavy sigh. At least I have most of the ugliness coherently indexed now.
The reader is probably wondering. Why do I have the files at all, you ask? Why aren't they collecting dust in a lawyer's closet somewhere? Why didn't they morph into ashes at the bottom of an incinerator?
Well, I collected my legal files shortly after all the litigation was settled (technically in my favor) in 2001. You see, despite all the promises they made (in order to avoid light and air in the Courtroom) . . . promises regarding cooperation and peacefully coexisting . . . within weeks of settling the lawsuits, it became clear that Bob Morrison and Steve Elbin were going to continue to treat me like a disease to be eradicated from Asheboro's landscape of physicians they could not control.
For instance, one of the terms of the settlement was that I be provided with a patient list.
For the benefit of all the very important RMA & Randolph Hospital Board members out there . . . the "dine-around" patrons who I know are reading this blog . . . who once penned letters bold-faced lying to patients about me being "free to start a practice" immediately after I was fired, it's kind of hard to do that when, (1) you're prohibited for six months (under threat of termination "for cause") from doing anything that might interfere with the "best interests" of RMA (that would include starting a competing practice), and (2) YOU DON'T HAVE A LIST OF YOUR OWN PATIENTS.
Now at some point during discovery, a patient list was produced (I'm fairly certain a judge had to order it) . . . but the list had no addresses or phone numbers!?! So, as an evidentuary tool, it was fundamentally useless. And after the settlement, when providing a patient list was one of the actual terms of the agreement, the list was NEVER produced.
That's called breach of contract, and it's one of the reasons (the other being that the whole deal was negotiated on a pack of lies) I can be in the blogsphere today giving Bob and the boys hell.
So like I said previously. If anybody (this means your friends too, Edward Cone) has a problem with anything I'm doing on the Internet now, don't whine to me. Talk to Bob.
Anyway, nothing pisses me off more than being treated like I don't exist by snobs & hypocrites . . . in other words, the way all the very important people on the hospital's Board of Directors (who couldn't be bothered with due process or fair hearings) did when this mess started. I began piecing things together, and it was beginning to dawn on me how badly I had been shafted. So I marched over to Schmid's office and asked for my files (which in North Carolina, are my property). Subsequently, a close examination of discovery responses in Bob & Steve's own bogus "libel" lawsuit . . . along with a trip or two to Guidestar (in addition to some correspondence with the IRS) . . . and it wasn't long until I figured out that I had been the victim of a massive fraud.
It was a fraud that neither Steve Schmidly (let this be a warning to his current clients) nor Garland Yates (let this be a warning to everyone under his jurisdiction) would do anything about. And the hospital's lawyer, painting the deliberate perjury, contempt & fraud of a "non-profit" hospital's senior executives as a mere "oversight", invited me to sue the hospital again.
I don't think so Mr. Wilson. You can kiss my giant "wrong people" ass. As far as I am concerned your clients are unconvicted felons. Moreover, their "honorable" Board members aided and abetted the multiple felonies. Randolph Hospital should be fined and sanctioned, and it's "non-profit" status rescinded. And if I sue anybody again, it's going to be the State of North Carolina (specifically NCDHHS and the Medical Board) for letting this medico-legal cluster-screw go on for eleven years.
If I were in Governor Beverly Perdue's chair right now, I'd drop Bob Morrison like the dead weight he is, and be directing my Attorney General to intervene and get this mess resolved before it all blows up in the state's face.
Because it IS going to blow up in the state's face. You wanna talk about reform? We can talk about reform - in Court. This doctor has had enough!
As another personal aside, I'll just bet, Dr. Kinlaw, that now you wish you'd done something more to stop that despicable "libel" lawsuit than sit mutely in the Boardroom like a lump on a log - rather than hiding behind your "relationship" with my parents and recusing yourself from the vote.
The SLAPP suit didn't work out the way the lawyers told you it would, did it Jim? Could it be that's because Bob and Steve lied to the Board - and maybe even to the hospital lawyers making recommendations to you? And in your due diligence as a "representative" to ALL of the physicians on staff (not just White Oak Family Physicians), it didn't occur to you that Bob & Steve could/would lie to save their own tails and fat parachutes?
I apologize to the reader. Even though it's been a very long time, this stuff is still pretty raw - because it has affected almost every aspect of my life for every day since. Needless to say, you can bet your own bootie that if I'd left these files at Steve Schmidly's office way back when, they would have disappeared or been destroyed long ago. Given the stink I've raised, I have to wonder if what was at the Courthouse is still there - or if it's there, it's intact.
I've jumped way ahead and I apologize. But it's important for the reader to understand how I came to be in possession of the original legal files - including original discovery responses with sworn signatures (originals that can be produced as evidence in criminal court).
OBTW. Hi Roch! You getting all this?
Back on track, Mike Bridge's Letter of Warning was a libelous collection of grossly exaggerated or completely fabricated accusations . . . which was not supported in ANY way by either documentation in my RMA personnel or Randolph Hospital peer review files. And, as I've said before, a good bit of it had one of my "partner's" fingerprints all over it.
Let's lay some background on that. And again, I am laying background from the legal files - most specifically the 30-page letter I wrote to Secretary Shalala in the summer of 1999 (responding to an NHSC request for feedback). It is the letter that got RMA removed from the NHSC's list of approved sites - and the letter over which Randolph Hospital sued me for "libel" in 2000.
Unbeknownst to Randolph at the time they filed suit, I had secured copies of letters to JCAHO from Dr. Laurie Anderson (my former partner at RMA) and Dr. Nancy Toy (a former colleague in OB), supporting the complete veracity of the Shalala complaint. Dr. Johnson was telling the truth. Bob and Steve were the ones who were lying.
Randolph ultimately had to tuck tail and run from their "libel" lawsuit - but not before they had humiliated me and my family . . . and cost me thousands in legal fees . . .
. . . and not before Bob Morrison and Steve Eblin repeatedly lied under Oath in their own "libel" lawsuit - in order to swindle me.
Of course, this is all cool with the "honorables" on the Randolph Hospital Board of Directors. It's the reason I want to hurl every time I heard any of them pontificate on ethics or small town values.
At some point in this series, I will post Laurie and Nancy's letters. I am still debating over putting up "Shalala".
When I came home to Asheboro, as a young & naive newbie, to work for the local "non-profit", I bought completely into the "public service" and "valued employee" snake oil the practice was selling. I wanted to do my job, do it well, collect a reasonable paycheck and go home. I was there to serve. I was not in it to get rich.
As I alluded before, the three original Pediatricians at RMA (who were hired without meeting one another) were very different ladies with different strengths, weaknesses and interests. Now Laurie Anderson and I quickly became good friends, but over time it became clear that Kathy Riley and I did not mesh and we did not socialize outside of the practice. Moreover, there had been serious problems in the office - especially as it pertained to different clinical approaches and personal styles as well as the treatment & turnover of nursing staff.
One of Kathleen Riley's interests was the business-side of medicine. It is for that reason that Laurie Anderson and I, against our better judgement, allowed her to represent us on RMA's Physician Executive Committee. We thought that if we let her do it, some of the tensions in the office would ease. But it became clear almost from the start that was a serious miscalculation . . . and we both had asked for outside mediators . . . in other words, someone besides Mike Bridges . . . because Mike was playing favorites and simply not cutting it.
Kathy Riley's problem was, purely and simply, my existence. She could head all the committees she liked, but I was still the founding member of the practice. I was "home-girl" and, of the three Pediatricians, had the best payer (insured to uninsured) mix. And, as to the go-to girl on critical care and child abuse, I was the doctor people usually called when they were in trouble. If they did not call me they called Laurie.
Kathleen Riley was an ambitious lady. She was not going to be "number one" in Pediatrics in Asheboro until/unless I was gone. And here's a key point: She wasn't going to get loan repayment either . . . which Laurie and I had been forced to fight for once we got to RMA. You see, the Federal government, out of money at the time, tried to renig on our recruitment deal. But several "inflammatory letters" to Raleigh and Bethesda on my part took care of that. Kathy's situation, however, was different. She had actually left an NHSC-type arrangement in Burgaw prematurely in order to come to Asheboro . . . without crossing the t's and dotting the i's to make the move. It was a breach of the agreement, and the government cut her off . . . saying that RMA only qualified for two Pediatric providers in the program at a time. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this behind the scenes (in which I was largely uninvolved), and I don't know that it was ever resolved to Kathy's satisfaction.
Once appointed to "represent" us, Kathy spent a great deal of time in Mike Bridges office with the doors closed . . . I believe working to the end of getting rid of me. If I was gone, she could assert her dominance and (maybe) get her money from the Feds. As her "representation" furthered her agenda, every molehill became a mountain.
One despicable stunt she pulled in that same general time frame severely damaged our working relationship.
I'm pausing to take a moment . . .
. . . okay, now we are going to take Mike's letter apart - a little bit at a time.
The primary issue is the approach you take with colleagues, both inside and outside of our practice when you express your concerns or opinions. There have been numerous occasions where your criticisms of others were destructive in nature and reflected poorly on our entire practice. Let me be clear in stating that the issues you address are not in question. It is the way in which you approach them. There are more appropriate ways to address your concerns than writing inflammatory letters, publicly berating your colleagues, or belittling parents who seek a better understanding of their child's condition.
The most recent event involved Dr. Cheryl Freeman, but this is only one of several instances that are concerning to me. Other instances, include openly criticizing your physician partner both inside and outside the practice, and discouraging patients from seeing physician extenders who are employed by our practice.
To this day, I still marvel at the profound stupidity of Mike putting in writing (even as he threatened me) that what I was complaining about was not the issue. It was that I could not always put on a happy face. It was very clear that Randolph Hospital valued style over substance.
After Mike's letter was delivered, when Eblin came to my office, I actually pulled out my file of letters, slammed them down on my desk and demanded that Steve show me what letters were "inflammatory". And if they were so "inflammatory", why weren't they in my personnel file? Because as Eblin well knew, anything in my personnel file that was of a critical or disciplinary nature had to be signed off by me - and I hadn't signed off on anything. So instead of "multiple instances" of bad behavior, apart from Cheryl Freeman's letter (which he seemed to excerpt directly from), Mike Bridges had NOTHING to back up his accusations.
And even with Cheryl's letter . . . if Mike had bothered at all to examine THE FACTS . . . he had nothing.
My file kind of unnerved Steve. He looked alarmed. I could see the wheels turning in his tiny brain, "Damn! She keeps copies of her letters!?!"
The bit about me discouraging patients from seeing physician extenders employed with the practice was another mis-representation of the facts. The physician extenders (in Randleman) then-employed by RMA had indicated to the Pediatricians that they were not entirely comfortable seeing kids without more preceptorship and closer supervision. This was something that had been discussed by ALL of the doctors, and we agreed we were going to ease into it. A Mother had actually complained to me about what she perceived to be inadequate care by these "doctors", and in talking her down, I had been placed in the position of explaining to her that her child had, in fact, not seen an MD - if she wanted the care of a Pediatrician, she was going to have to come to the Asheboro office. Somehow, this morphed into me discouraging patients from seeing extenders.
Now it would be very easy to dump the blame for Mike's missive in Dr. Riley's lap, because (as we've previously established), I was chairperson of the hospital's Perinatal Committee. As such, I had to field all kinds of complaints about problems at the hospital (on LDRP, on MSP, in the ED) and against other physicians . . . I even had to instigate some. It wasn't done "publicly" in ANY sense of the word, but I did not practice in a vacuum, and it was a small hospital. Dealing with complaints of this nature meant interviewing nurses, other doctors, and even patients (and, as we established in Part Two, right or wrong, unhappy patients can be very vocal) . . . it meant reviewing charts and protocols . . . it meant butting heads with administration over staffing and cutbacks (like say, closing down the Pediatric unit entirely) . . . and it meant coming to conclusions and/or developing opinions and/or making recommendations that did not always reflect well on the hospital . . . or other doctors (including, on several occasions, "my physician partner").
I also have this annoying habit of telling people the truth.
But I am, by no means, perfect. I made mistakes. However, it was a huge responsibility, and taking arrows and "dumps" from all sides, I did the best I could. And let's be clear, I wasn't getting ANY help from the likes of Jim Kinlaw or Bob Scott or Charles Stout or any of the other more experienced/entrenched, senior medical staff . . . the people who were nowhere to be found to take my back when the caca hit the fan.
I've actually enjoyed some hefty chuckles as I've review the files and re-lived the old turf wars . . . the stupid/silly battle over the parking tickets that security issued when Laurie and I raced in for codes (I do have to say the hospital's priorities were seriously out-of-wack) . . . in-fighting over what cephalosporins would be on the formulary . . . and EMS workers who thought it was fine to diss female physicians and call them "honey" (just to name a few). There's more serious stuff in the files too . . . patient discharges . . . peer review issues . . . Kathy's undeclared war on my nurses . . . ED/ventilator protocols . . . and the never-ending DSS/child custody wars. There's even a personal letter to Breton Juberg begging him to think with something other than his groin (God knows, the boys at the hospital didn't do it - until that nasty business blew up in their face). But there is nothing in my old letter file (as opposed to my personnel file - which essentially empty), taken in any context, that justifies the accusations Mike Bridges made in his letter to me.
While we're at it, I could also rehash all of the clinical cases (again, well-documented in my personal and legal files) that formed the root of why I did not get along with Kathleen Riley. But that's the cat-fight you might expect, and it's too easy. It's also not what this paragraph is fundamentally about.
This letter was not about Kathy. Kathy was a pawn. Mike was on a mission for Bob and Steve.
This paragraph is about what I like to call "the Cone connection". I knew it as soon as I saw Mike's bit about "inflammatory letters". So I am going to cite several letters from the legal record.
Call it serendipity, but in one of the e-mails I got this week, a former grandparent shared this with me (citing an encounter with a nurse during a hospital admission several YEARS after I was gone):
So while we were in the hospital one of the nurses and I were talking about you, and she told me that if administration found out if she were even talking about you she would be fired. Now how wrong is that?? But she also told me there were rumors that a lot your problems with the hospital started because you were sending kids out to Brenners and other hospitals. According to her, she got her info from a good source.
I stopped hiding and/or mincing words a long time ago, so I responded:
I did not keep kids at Randolph that I did not think needed to stay at Randolph. Other doctors were keeping kids on the floor that wound up crumping - and guess who they always called to fix it? It even happened the week before they fired me - AFTER I dealt with/reported the bad baby case that had their tighty-whities in a wad. This is a problem I still encounter to this day. All the little podunk nurseries everywhere like to bill themselves as "Level Two" nurseries (i.e. they can take care of sicker babies 32 weeks and above). They want to keep sicker kids on the floor. And in all cases but one that I have encountered in my travels, they are generally not staffed/skilled/equipped enough to do that.
And it was not that I was shipping kids out to Brenner's. It was that I was not shipping them to Cone.
Mick Irwin, the doctor I rescued in the bad baby case I will shortly post on, worked for Asheboro Family Physicians, then owned by LeBauer, then owned by Cone Hospital.
This was ALL about protecting the good name of Cone - and funneling the "cooperative relationship" dollars in the right direction.
Mike, you see, with Kathleen's approval, had pushed the notion in recent meetings, that Laurie and I should avail ourselves more of Cone's Pediatric services rather than Brenner's (Brenners Childrens Hospital/Bowman Gray is my alma mater - and I had a fantastic working relationship with the sub-specialists there). After all, Randolph was cultivating a "cooperative relationship" with Cone. I had smiled sweetly and advised Bridges that our contracts were clear that Randolph could not "require" us to refer anyone anywhere - and that I'd just as soon do what I thought was best for my patients - as opposed to engaging in any "tit-for-tat" arrangements that might violate Federal laws. Sometimes I sent babies to Cone, but I preferred the services of Brenner's. The NCBH PALS referral line had no equal, and their Pediatric/Neonatal transport team was (and still is) the best in the state.
Mike did not like my answer. And I knew Elbin's fat head would spin (please note I'm not holding back any more when it comes to Steve).
With this in mind, as I thumbed through the scant (if taken in context) "evidence" in the legal record of my "disruptive" and disagreeable nature, I found the proof in the pudding:
I think we are on Exhbit E (the first letter is actually from Dr. Scott Murkin to Douglas Copeland, V.P of Marketing at Moses Cone Hospital - again, patient names have been omitted):
26 August 1996
Dear Mr. Copeland,
You have been down to speak to us at least twice this year to discuss improving communication and patient flow between Randolph County and Moses Cone Hospital. It is in this vein that I would like to convey to you some recent events from my perspective.
On August 7, a patient presented by EMS to our labor and delivery unit at approximately 24 weeks estimated gestation in active preterm labor. With only a few minutes notice, we had a delivering physician, a pediatrician, a full nursing staff and all the necessary equipment to deal with this less than ideal situation. After the patient was stabilized and it became apparent that delivery was inevitable but not imminent, it was decided that transfer to a facility with NICU capabilities would be advisable.
The patient had been receiving prenatal care from a group of Obstetricians in Greensboro who deliver at Women's Hospital, so this seemed to be the obvious route for transfer. It took three phone calls and a seemingly interminable (given the gravity of the situation) amount of time on hold to reach the physician covering for this group. After two more phone calls, the transfer was finally arranged. The patient was accompanied by myself, Dr. Johnson of our pediatrics staff and an experienced labor nurse, which gives you some idea of how serious we considered the situation.
On our arrival at Women's Hospital, some forty-five minutes after our initial contact with the hospital, we found a room assigned, but not adequately set up, a nursing staff that was noticeably disorganized, and an obstetrician that had not yet arrived. To say the least, we were thoroughly underwhelmed, and the patient's family was visibly upset by the perceived level of care being provided.
Later in the week, another situation presented requiring the transfer of a patient with no prenatal care, the situation being overall somewhat less critical that that just described. The NICU at Women's Hospital was closed to new admissions when I called there, so I contacted Forsyth. One telephone call and a few minutes later the transfer has been completely arranged in a courteous and professional manner and was carried out uneventfully.
When you contrast these two situations (and I'm not sure this letter even adequately conveys the very dramatic differences), it does not require an advanced degree in anything to deduce where future maternal-fetal transfers will be going. While this is the most recent and dramatic example, neither of these situations is an isolated event.
To avoid a letter that seems wholly critical, I would like to add that I remain pleased and impressed with your adult services, particularly in the cardiopulmonary areas, and continue to use these services without any reservations.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Murkin, M.D.
By God, I love a good letter. And Scott's letter was a really beautiful thing. Straight for the jugular, albeit thoroughly diplomatic. For the record, the situation he describes was the first and only time I've ever ridden in a buggy with a Mother as yet undelivered. That's how serious the situation was. But I knew Scott had put his head on the block and that the axes would be out, so I penned one to Mr. Copeland myself . . . and I was proud to put it on RMA letterhead:
And so we have Exhibit F:
August 31, 1996
Mr. Copeland,
I have had the opportunity to review the letter sent to you by Dr. Scoot Murkin of While Oak Family Physicians here in Asheboro. I believe he stated the events/facts and our observations most eloquently and without bias. I really have nothing more to add.
However, I do feel it is important to add my voice to his, and to make it clear to you that his observations are not those of only one physician and are not isolated to a single event.
I woul d hope that your take the observations made in his letter in the spirit in which they were intended. Perhaps what happened on August 7 can help provide some insight as to how communication and patient transfer can be faciliated between Randolph County and Moses Cone/Women's Hospitals.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D., FAAP
Now the letter itself wasn't "inflammatory". But talking back to Doug Copeland was. Scott had done a very brave thing. And I was not going to let him swing alone.
Of course, later on, I would swing alone.
There's more background to these letters - which actually goes back to August 1995. Struggling to get the Pediatric practice off the ground in Asheboro (it opened in May 1995) - and trying to ramp up three doctors very quickly (Randolph wanted us to be "profitable" like YESTERDAY), I was pretty put out when I learned that Moses Cone wanted to open a primary care practice in Randleman.
And/so, here is exhibit G (curiously missing from Schmidly's trial prep, but in my letter file).
August 14, 1995
Dear Dr. Ransom (Dr. Ransom was a Neonatologist at Moses Cone),
As you probably already know, I am a Pediatrician currently associated with Randolph Hospital by virute of its affiliation with Randolph Medical Associates. I joined the practice on May 1 as its first Pediatrician.
You may not know that I am a native of Asheboro (I was actually born at Moses Cone). I am currently challenging the premise that you can't go home again.
I am greatly disturbed by reports that Moses Cone intends to purchase a practice in Randleman in what I consider a blatant attempt to steer primary care referrals towards Greensboro. It is quite frankly, a slap in the face to the physicians of Asheboro and Randolph County who have had long-standing referral relationships with Greensboro and Moses Cone Hospital. Randolph Hospital has made great strides in the last two years towards "taking care of its own" by recruiting new primary care physicians to the ares. I am proud to be one of this group.
It seems to me that Moses Cone would be doing the residents of Guilford County a greater service by "taking care of its own". I am referring to that fact that our practice is currently seeing quite a few children from Greensboro and Guilford County who cannot find primary care physicians (particularly those who accept Medicaid) in their own "backyard". We are happy to see them, but I do think the situation casts a shadow over the intentions and direction of Moses Cone. What could the hospital have in mind by expanding into another county when children in your own city cannot find care?
I had anticipated a strong referral relationship with Moses Cone (particularly the Women's Hospital of Greensboro) and Guilford County physicians when I accepted this position. Recent events have caused me to reconsider my assumptions about that relationship.
If my preceptions of the situation are incorrect, please feel free to correct them.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D.
As you can see, I started talking back to Cone fairly early on in the game.
Now, we're going to skip ahead just a little bit to another letter - Exhbit H - this time from Cone. Please note the date on the letter.
February 20, 1998
Dear Dr. Johnson,
Recently, Phil Barbee, Vice President, Network Development and I met with a group of your colleagues to discuss how our regional medical community can work together more effectively. Their insights and suggestions were extremely important, and we are working to implement a number of them now.
One of these suggestions was that we provide for you and your colleagues a directory of Greensboro area specialists. We are working on a more sophisticated referral guide similar in nature to those provided by the academic medical centers. We expect that to be available in the late spring or early summer. In the meantime, we did want to comply with this request by providing the attached directory that we have assembled to meet your needs on a temporary basis. As per our discussion, this directory is arranged by group within each specialty (i.e. all of the LeBauer cardiologists are together).
Another suggestion made by the group was that we work with Greensboro area specialists to insure that they do a better job of sharing information with you as your patients are discharged from the hospital. One method of doing this would be to fax to you a copy of the discharge summary. While this will require working with each physician on an individual basis and helping them develop this habit, this is something that could be done without creating a new burdensome or complicated form. I have enclosed a couple of samples of discharge summaries from various hospitals in Greensboro. I would very much like your opinoin as to whether having this data when a patient is discharged would be helpful to you and would meet your needs. Please be mindful that we still must put a process in place to accomplish this. The succes of this wil be dependent on each individual physician. The first step in any of this is to seek your input relative to the adequacy of this document. In addition to the sample documents, I have enclosed a simple response form for your feedback.
Again, we are grateful for your thoughts and observations and hope that the steps outlined above will make it easier for you to manage the care of your patients. Please let us know whenever you see improvements we can make.
Warmest personal regards,
Douglas W. Copeland, Jr., Vice President, Marketing
This letter was written on February 20. But I was given "notice" on February 2 and banished from the office by February 6th. First, I could not believe that Mr. Copeland was so clueless, uninformed or intentionally malicious as to send this letter to me. And second, in the weeks leading up to my termination, I was unaware of any meeting between Cone Hospital and my colleagues.
Dr. Riley, it seems, had neglected to share. Perhaps she knew I would be gone before the rest of us did?
Third, this letter reeked of the "cooperative relationship" dictating doctors' referral patterns . . . a practice that is illegal . . . and something I had railed against (as I tended to send my kids to the academic centers that already had their act together). And fourth, it only took two years (after Scott Murkin and I wrote our letters) for Cone to get its act together.
But by then, I was conveniently gone from the "regional medical community".
So maybe now, dear reader, you understand why I have good reason to believe that, when I entered the Greensboro blogosphere over four years ago . . . begging for help in getting the justice system to work . . . the treatment that local blogger-kings and queens dished out was dictated by marching orders given to them by someone working with/for . . . or named . . .
. . . Cone.
As she did not know her place and was not a "team player", Mary Johnson had to be crushed - in ALL venues where she sought justice.
Back to Mike Bridges' "warning" letter:
You are required, until further notice, to reveiw with me any letters you write regarding the dismissal of patients from our practice, or your concerns about the behavior or actions of others. I do not expect you to discuss this action with anyone other than myself. It is, however, appropriate for you to address my decision with Steve Eblin if you disagree. Failure to comply with this requirement, of one other instance of the above noted behaviors will result in the termination of your employment with Randolph Medical Associates.
Let's say you are a doctor. And you've just been given marching "orders" like these . . . from a practice Director playing favorites . . . not listening to you . . . who clearly does not know what he is doing . . . who is threatening your job based on a pile of distortions and fabrications . . . who does not understand that medically, he's crossed the line and the limits of your contract (he is simply not in the equation of a lot of things I do as a doctor - including participating in peer review) . . . and whose authority to hire and fire is questionable at best. What are you going to do?
You're going to take one look at the marching orders and say, BULLSHIT to that!
And baring an immediate retraction of a threat based on flimsy/false allegations, you're going to be consulting an attorney.
I know this, because when I showed the letter to several other doctors (including Laurie and Nancy), they all said (with minor variations), "BULLSHIT to that!" and/or "This is libelous." and/or "It is not right." and/or "It is not ethical." and/or "RMA cannot do this (to you)!"
Of course, in showing the "warning letter" to someone other than Eblin, you could say I violated Bridges' terms - and that my disruptive behaviors "continued". But Steven Eblin had declared himself to be an arrogant, clueless jerk who wanted me gone. It was time to call in reinforcments who actually had some medical training.
I know that these same doctors individually approached both Steve Eblin and Robert Morrison - and told them flat out that (1) Cheryl Freeman's letter and behavior had been way out of line, and (2) no doctor . . . especially not a doctor handling a good portion of the Pediatric & Neonatal critical care for the hospital . . . could/would agree to practice under terms like that.
When confronted, Morrison was livid. I wasn't supposed to be talking to anyone! Mary Johnson was supposed to be in the box with the lid slammed shut.
And I have to wonder if Bob Scott remembers what he told me? Maybe we will take that up on the next post:
Part Three: The Physician/Colleague (Owned by Cone) I Should Have/Could Have Successfully Sued For Slander.
*Author's note: Blogger is having issues today. This post published prematurely - before I was even finished with it - before I could check typos/syntax and do edits. Afraid to lose it completely, I simply completed the narrative and re-published. I apologize. There may be edits.
Evening update (@8 pm): I walked away for a while, and then came back to do edits. Again, I apologize for the way this one went up. But it could not be helped.
Author's note (March 16th): An alert anonymous reader alerted me to a typo in the date of the letter to Dr. Ransom published here (August 1995 as opposed to August 1998). It has been corrected. Thanks;)
0 comments:
Post a Comment