293 P Opp - D MJOP

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 1 of 7
1 Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 FRESNO DIVISION
11 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
13 v. ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251)
[Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)]
14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
DATE: January 12, 2009
15 Defendants. TIME: 10:00
CTRM: U.S. Dist. Ct., Crtrm. 3
16 2500 Tulare St., Fresno, CA
TRIAL: March 24, 2009
17
Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Plaintiff David F. Jadwin submits his Opposition to Defendant County of Kern’s Motion for
2 Judgment on the Pleadings, filed 11/13/08 (Doc. 250).
3 Defendants’ motion contends Defendants should be granted judgment as a matter of law
4 because:
5 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
6 Second Amended Complaint are identified or described in his claim.
Motion, Doc. 251 at 5:3-8.
7
Defendants’ motion is frivolous, harassing and violates Rule 11.
8
A. DEFENDANTS JUDICIALLY ADMITTED THAT PLAINTIFF EXHAUSTED
9 ALL ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FOR ALL OF HIS CLAIMS BOTH
BEFORE AND AFTER FILING THE INSTANT MOTION
10
Defendants have admitted on numerous occasions that Plaintiff exhausted all adequate
11
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
facts that support the Eighth Affirmative Defense [alleging failure to exhaust administrative remedies]”.1
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
1
The Eighth Affirmative Defense states: “As and for an eighth affirmative defense, Defendants allege
27
that Plaintiff has available adequate administrative remedies which he failed to exhaust and that his
28 claims are, therefore, barred.” Defendants’ Answer to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 246 at 13:3-5.

1 frivolous and harassing.

2 B. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION VIOLATES THE COURT’S EXPRESS RULING
AGAINST FILING OF RULE 12 MOTIONS
3
At the hearing held before Judge Wanger on 10/6/08, Defendants requested permission to file
4
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
C. PLAINTIFF’S TORT CLAIMS ACT COMPLAINT WAS MORE THAN
17 ADEQUATE
18 Defendants contend:
19 [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
20 a governmental agency, “reasonable accommodation,” failure to accommodate or failure
to engage in the interactive process – allegations that are all integral to his complaint.
21 Motion, Doc. 251 at 5:5-6.
22 Defendant’s contention rests on bad law and bad facts.
23 1. Well-settled Caselaw Holds that FEHA Claims are Exempt from General Tort
Claims Act Requirements
24
As Defendants well know, the caselaw is well settled that actions under FEHA (of which CFRA
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
In this appeal we conclude that actions seeking redress for employment discrimination
1 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
2 Act ( Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.).”
145 Cal. App. 3d 861, 863.
3
The court further reasoned:
4
We agree with appellant’s argument that the purposes and procedures of the FEHA
5 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
6 FEHA constitutes a comprehensive scheme for combating employment discrimination,
with specific time limitations related to the remedies provided.
7
Snipes was cited with approval by the California Supreme Court in Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65, 80
8
(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
[. . .] I would be pursuing claims for, among other things, disability discrimination,
15 failure to accommodate disability, retaliation for taking California Family Rights Act
medical leaves, etc.”
16 Exhibits to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 241-2, Exh. 4 at pp. 52-54 (FEHA
complaint of 8/3/06).
17
2. Plaintiff’s Disclosure of His Claims Exceeded the Requirements of
18 Government Code § 911
19 The disclosures contained in Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint were more than adequate.
20 Cal. Gov’t. C. § 910 requires Plaintiff only to disclose the “date, place, and other circumstances of the
21 occurrence or transaction”; it does not require recitation of the specific statutory or other legal bases for
22 Plaintiff’s claims as Defendants contend.2 Nor does it require evidentiary detail. See Blair v. Sup. Ct.
23
2
Cal. Gov’t. C. § 910 states:
24
25 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:
26
(a) The name and post office address of the claimant.
27
(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.
28 (c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the

1 (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 224; More v. City of San Bernardino (1931) 118 Cal.App. 732. The claim
2 need only be drafted with sufficient factual breadth and character to support the legal theories on which
3 the plaintiff subsequently plans to sue if the claim is rejected. See Stearns v. County of Los Angeles
4 (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 134, 138 n.3. Recognizing that laypersons often prepare claims without benefit
5 of legal advice, courts have ruled that claims need not adhere to the standards of clarity and precision
6 expected in pleadings. See Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 242; Foster v.
7 McFadden (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 943. In short, the focus is on disclosure of the circumstances of
8 relevant transactions and occurrences, not recitation of legal catchphrases like “reasonable
9 accommodation”, “whistleblowing”, “interactive process”, etc.
10 Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint amply fulfills these factual disclosure requirements.
11 Regarding Plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim, the complaint discloses:
12 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
13 of KMC) summarily informed Complainant that he was being stripped of chairmanship
effective June 17, 2006, due to his taking excessive sick leaves. . . . The
14 demotion/termination constituted retaliation by Mr. Bryan against Complainant for
raising concerns relating to patient health care. Previous to June 14, Complainant had
15 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
16 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
17 or inaccurate KMC blood component product chart copies, in violation of state
regulations and accreditation standards of JCAHO, CAP and AABB; iii) chronically
18 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
19 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
20 to outside vendors; and v) need for effective oversight of blood usage program by
pathology dept.
21
22
claim asserted.
23 (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.
24
(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if
25 known.
(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation
26 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
27
amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall
28 be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.

Exhibits to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 241-2, Exh. 2 at pp. 28-30 (Tort Claims
1 Act complaint of 7/3/06).
2 Both whistleblower statutes which Plaintiff is suing under – Labor Code § 1102.5 and Health & Safety
3 Code § 1278.5 – expressly provide that an employee’s reports to his public employer constitute
4 whistleblowing. H&S § 1278.5(b)(1)(A); Labor C. § 1102.5(e). That is exactly what is disclosed in the
5 foregoing. Nor did Plaintiff blow the whistle to external regulatory authorities until much later, in
6 November 2006. Defendants’ allegation that Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint is deficient is
7 baseless and frivolous.
8 Moreover, the purpose of the Tort Claims Act is “to provide the public entity sufficient
9 information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the
10 expense of litigation.” City of San Jose v. Sup. Ct. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455. Even before Plaintiff had
11 filed his Tort Claims Act complaint on 7/3/06, Plaintiff sent a demand letter on 6/29/06 to Defendants,
12 fully detailing Plaintiff’s pending claims for retaliation for reporting patient care issues to his employers,
13 disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, etc. The disclosure of pending claims in that letter put
14 Defendants on notice as to the nature of all of Plaintiff’s claims, not just those required to be disclosed
15 under the Tort Claims Act. See See Lee Decl., Exh. 4 (Demand letter, as served by Plaintiff’s counsel
16 upon Karen Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel for the County of Kern on 6/29/06).
17 Similarly, the FEHA complaint of 8/3/06 referenced in Section C.1. supra provided detailed
18 disclosure to Defendants, more than enabling them to investigate and/or settle Plaintiff’s claims had they
19 chosen to do so.
20 In short, there were no deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Act complaint, nor can Defendants
21 now claim prejudice from deficiencies which they contend existed in such complaint.
22 D. CONCLUSION
23 Plaintiff questions what good faith basis Defendants could have had in bringing this motion. It
24 rests on bad facts and bad law, and is ultimately nothing more than bad faith argument. Defendants’
25 judicial admissions that Plaintiff exhausted all administrative remedies on all claims both before and
26 after the filing of this motion establish that beyond question. It is apparent that Defendants’ purposes in
27 bringing this frivolous motion are improper: to harass Plaintiff and increase his costs of litigation, as
28
1 they have done throughout this action. Defendants have violated Rule 113 more times than Plaintiff can
2 recount. This motion is but the latest example of that.
3
4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for
5 Judgment on the Pleadings in its entirety.
6
7 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on December 26, 2008.
8
/s/ Eugene D. Lee
9 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
10 Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 992-3299
11 Fax: (213) 596-0487
email: elee@LOEL.com
12 Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3
FRCP Rule 11(b) states:
20
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing,
21
submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the
22 person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
23
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
24
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
25 (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;
26 (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
27
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are
28 reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 1 of 120
1 Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7
10 FRESNO DIVISION
11 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE LEE IN
SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON PLEADINGS
14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)]
15 Defendants. DATE: January 12, 2009
TIME: 10:00
16 CTRM: U.S. Dist. Ct., Crtrm. 3
2500 Tulare St., Fresno, CA
17 TRIAL: March 24, 2009
18 Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007
19
20
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
21
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
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. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion
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. Attached hereto as Exhibits are true and correct copies of the following documents which
28
DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF Π’S OPPOSITION TO Δs MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 1
1 were either served on me or transmitted by me on or around the dates indicated:

2
Exh. Date Description
3
1 5/13/2008 Defendants’ Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s
4 Interrogatories, Set One
5 2 8/7/2008 Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission,
Set One
6 3 12/1/2008 Defendants’ Separate Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 278)
7 4 6/29/2006 Eugene Lee Faxed Demand Letter to Kern County Deputy
8 Counsel Karen Barnes
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
EXHIBIT 1: Defendants’ Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One
26
27
28
May 13 08 04:25p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3
I Mark A Wasser CA 5B #60160

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmarm, Sr. CA SB #60508
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 9330 I
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11 JelUlifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12

15
16 DAVID F. JAD"'TN, D.O. ) Case No.: I:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
)
17 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS' SECOND
~
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
18 vs. PLAINTIFF'S INTEROGATORIES (SET
ONE)
~
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
20 Defendants. Trial Date: December 3, 2008
21
22
~
)
)
23 )
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.e.A.p.

25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
26 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
27
28
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

May 13 08 04:25p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
Defendants hereby submit these second supplemental responses to Plaintiff David F.

2 Jad\\iin's Interrogatories, Set One.
3 INTERROGATORY NO.1
4 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affinnative Defense.
5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1
6 All of the Defendants' actions and communications referenced in the complaint were
7 done in furtherance of patient care and the administration ofKMC and KMC's peer-review,
S quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs, all of which are official
9 proceedings authorized by statute. All of the letters, e-mails and statements described in the
10 complaint were prepared and distributed within the context of hospital management, peer review
II and quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs. All of Defendants'
12 statements were accurate and true. None were false. None was motivated by malice towards
13 Plaintiff or by any improper purpose.
15 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.
17 All of the Defendants' actions and communications referenced in the complaint were
1& done in furtherance of patient care and the administration ofKMC and KMC's peer-review,
19 quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs, all of which are officiaI
20 proceedings authorized by statute. All of the letters, e-mails and statements described in the
21 complaint were prepared and distributed within the context of peer review and quality:assurance
22 and maintenance of quality-of-care programs. All of Defendants' statements were accurate and
23 true. None were false. None was motivated by malice towards Plaintiff or by any improper
24 purpose.
26 State e:u:h and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.
27 11/
28 /1/


2 Plaintiff physically assaulted Dr. Lau in a room at KMC; falsely accused Dr. Ragland of
3 being an "impaired" physician and being "incompetent", of having a substance abuse problem,
4 an emotional or cognitive function disorder, and an intellectual level of functioning well below
5 the high school graduate level; he demanded that Dr. Ragland undergo immediate drug testing,
6 be referred to the physician well-being committee, and that his patient care duties be monitored
7 until Ragland could be evaluated. Plaintiff publicly accused Dr. Roy of being a "bad doctor" and
8 committing malpractice and repeatedly threatened Dr. Roy with lawsuits to recover damages for
9 what Plaintiff termed Dr. Roy's "imprudent public behavior." Plaintiffrepeatedly threatened
10 legal action as a means of resolving his differences with members of the medical staff;
II repeatedly usurped time allocated to other speakers at monthly oncology conferences to make
12 speeches, criticize other physicians and providers, inappropriately debate other members of the
13 medical staff and disrupt the conference; wrote many letters and e-mails, all of which have been
14 produced, in which he complained about other members of the medical statl and non-medical
15 staff, made false accusations against KMC and members of the KMC medical staff and
16 demanded that various members of the KMC medical staff be "investigated"; he made
17 derogatory comments about and complained about Dr. Abrallam, including accusing her of
18 being "nothing more than a weight-loss doctor." He made derogatory comments about and
19 complained about Dr. Kercher, Dr. Harris, Dr. Roy, Dr. Naderi, Dr. Taylor, Dr. McBride, Dr.
20 Martin, Dr. Ang, Dr. Lang, Dr. Liu and Dr. Shertudke, he wrote many e-mails and letters, all of
21 which have been prodnced, falsely alleging that KL\1C was in violation or non-compliance with
22 state law and accepted health care protocols; he used e-mail and memos to avoid more personal
23 communication with KMC staff and as a vehicle for verbal retaliation for a variety of perceived
24 wrongs and personal slights, he resisted repeated efforts by Peter Bryan, Dr. Harris, Dr.
25 Abraham, Dr. Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Kolb to eounsd him and tacilitate an improvement
26 in relationships between Plaintiff and other members of the medical staff; he dismissed the
27 opinions and observations of other members of KMC staff if their opinions and observations did
28 not coincide with his own, he proposed a new protocol for fine needle aspirations without
DEFENDA)[TS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

discussing it with the Radiology Department and pouted and became openly antagonistic with
2 othcr members ofKMC staff when it was not adopted; he proposed a change in the record
3 keeping for blood product chart copies that would have violated state laws on the integrity 0 r
4 patient records and made accusations to several KMC staff members when it was not adopted.
5 Plaintiff drove Dr. Aug, Dr. Lang, Dr. Liu, Denise Long and Jane Thornton from the Pathology
6 Department as a result of his continual micro-managing of their work, criticism, interference
7 with their work and insistence that they devote disproportionate time to preparing reports and
8 forms of minimal importance; he created frustration and stress in other members of the staff as a
9 result of the same behaviors, he insisted that staffin the Pathology Department devote
10 extraordinary time to compiling information of minimal importance and dismissed their resulting
1I concerns about workload; repeatedly tried to monopolize Medical Executive Committee and
12 Quality Management committee meetings with issues of personal interest and complaints about
13 KMC and other members of the medical staff; ignored and dismissed medical texts and other
14 authorities that did not agree with his opinions and dismissed the related concerns of staff;
15 resisted requests from treating physicians that he send pathology reports out for a second opinion
16 and interfered with patient care while feuding witb treating physicians over the preparation and
17 release of pathology reports, interfered with stan; including Evangeline Gallegos, by performing
18 their jobs Hnd ignored requests that he let them to their work and do his own job. Plaintiff
19 adopted policies for the Pathology Department but applied them inconsistently and selectively;
20 he did not comply with his own policies despite insistence that others comply; he gave staff
21 inconsistent and contradictory instruction and dismissed their resulting concerns. Plaintiff
22 frequently became emotional and argumentative over routine hospital management and
23 administration issues and gradually destroyed thc collegiality and teamwork essential to effective
24 hospital operation. He routinely retaliated against staff members he perceived as non-supportive
25 by threatening them, making all egaLiulls against them and demanding they be investigated.
26 Plaintiff frequently demanded that various members of the KMC staff "apologize" to him for
27 statements made in the course of peer-review and quality management processes. Plaintiffs
28
DEFENDANTS' SCPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

May 13 08 04:26p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.?
typical response to disagreements was to blame and accuse others, verbally assault them and,
2 ultimately, make complaints against them.
4 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense.
5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY :'1"0. 4
6 Dr. Roy's alleged refusal to submit outside pathology reports for internal review in 2005
7 (Second Supplemental Complaint at 13 :23-14: 1); the Dr. Roy letter of April IS, 2005 (lbid at
8 14:5); the concerns Dr. Roy voiced in or before May, 2005 (Ibid at 15:1); the Roy letter of July
9 15,2005 (Ibid at 16:3-8); the October 12, 2005 oncology conference (Ibid at 17:5-7); the Roy
10 letter of October 13,2005 (Ibid at 17: 16-18:3); the October 17,2005 meeting with Dr. Harris,
11 Dr. Kercher and Dr. Ragland (Ibid at 19:8-9); the October 17,2005 letter from Dr. Harris, Dr.
12 Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Abraham (Ibid at 19:19-20); the Febmary 21, 2006 letter from
13 Pcter Bryan (Ibid at 21 :11-19).
14 INTERROGATORY !'IO. 5
15 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative
16 Defense.
18 Dr. Roy's alleged refusal to submit outside pathology reports for internal review in 2005
19 (Second Supplemental Complaint at 13:23-14: 1); the Dr. Roy letter of April 15, 2005 (Ibid at
20 14:5); the concerns Dr. Roy voiced in or before May, 2005 (Ibid at 15: 1); the Roy letter of July
21 15,2005 (Ibid at 16:3-8); the October 12,2005 oncology conference (Ibid at 17:5-7); the Roy
22 letter of October 13, 2005 (Tbidat 17:16-18:3); the October 17, 2005 meeting with Dr. Harris,
23 Dr. Kercher and Dr. Ragland (Ibid at 19:8-9); the October 17,2005 letter from Dr. I-Ianis, Dr.
24 Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Abraham (Ibid at 19:19-20); the February 21, 2006 letter from
25 Peter Bryan (Ibid at 21 :11-19).
27 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defensc.
28 Iii

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6

2 Defendants are not presently aware of any facts that support the Eighth Affirmative
3 Defense.
5 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.
6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPO:-lSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7
7 Plaintiff's employment agreements and amendments, the KMC medical staff bylaws,
8 Plaintiffs representation by counsel during the negotiation and execution of the October 3, 2006
9 amendment to his employment agreement, Peter Bryan's IWle 14,2006 e-mail and letter to
10 Plaintiff, the membership ofthe joint conference committee on July 10,2006, the dates and
11 durations of and reasons for Plaintiffs various leaves and absences, all of which have been
12 disclosed.
13 INTERROGATORY NO. 48
14 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
15 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at K1vlC.
16 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
17 Administrative responsibilities include ensuring, together with the laboratory manager,
18 the Pathology Department is in compliance with federal and state regulations regarding clinical
19 laboratory operation, meets the standards for accreditation by the College of American
20 Pathologists and the American Association of Blood Banks, operates within the policies
21 established by K1vlC and the medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations, and operates effectively
22 and smooth Iy and provides timely reports, provided adequate resources are provided.
Administrative duties include overseeing the development, implementation and
24 maintenance of department policies and procedures for the eiinieallaboratory and pathology
25 department, including surgical pathology, cytopathology and autopsy pathology; operating and
26 managing the pathology department quality assessment and improvement program; overseeing
27 the performance of the clinical laboratory in the CAP laboratory proficiency survey program;
28 ensuring that performance deficicncics arc addresscd in a timely manner; monitoring
DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

performance and preparing annual evaluations for staff pathologists and the laboratory manager;
2 serving as a member of the Medical Executive Committee, the Chairmen's Council, the FacuJty
3 Practice Board, the Quality Management Committee, the Blood Usage Committee, and other
4 committees that may be assigned by the president of the medical staff; through participation in
5 the Blood Usage Committee, ensuring adequate transfusion service and utilization, coordinating
6 and monitoring department faculty involvement in hospital committees, conducting and
7 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 coordinating medical student and resident training for students and residents on training rotation
10 within the department, meeting 'With the KMC medical director at least monthly, overseeing the
II scheduling and effectiveness of pathology educational conferences for outside departments,
12 including the oncology conference and the oncology clinic, and completing clinical pathology
13 and anatomic pathology service work as may be required.
14 Teaching duties include coordinating and participating in tcaching conferences to include
15 weekly gynecology conference, oncology conference, and surgery conference, preparing and
16 presenting didactic lectures, and actively participating in and presenting departmental,
17 interdepartmental, and interdisciplinary programs 'Within KMC.
18 Other duties may be assigned by the chief executive officer or medical director.
19 The standard workweek for Plaintiffs position is 48 hours per week Actual hours may
20 vary week-to-week according to specific assignments, however the objective is to achieve 2112
21 worked hours Juring a twelve·month period.
22 The Chair of the Department of Pathology is responsible to the Board of Supervisors,
23 though the Medical Executive Committee, for high quality professional management and care of
24 patients under the jurisdiction of the department; establishing systems to monitor the quality of
2S patient care and professional performance in the department through a planned and systematic
26 process; specific recommendations and suggestions regarding the improvement of patient care in
27 the department; review of professional performance of all members with respcct to clinical
28 privileges; recommending delineated clinical privileges for each member of the department,
DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLANTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

including practitioner appointment and classification, reappointment, criteria for clinical

2 privileges, and corrective action; discipline of members and staff pursuant to Article XI of the
3 Medical Staff Bylaws, evaluation of all full- and part-time medical staff and other members of
4 the medical staff who are active clinically, or teach on an annual basis; enforcing the medical
5 staff bylaws, rules, regulations and policies within the department; promoting clinical research in
6 the department; implementing within the department actions taken by the medical executive
7 committee; recommending, creating, deleting or changing the divisions of the department and th
8 appointment of division chiefs, being a member of the medical executive committee and giving
9 guidance on the overall medical policies ofthe medical staff and medical center and making
10 specific recommendations and suggestions regarding the department; reporting to the medical
II executive committee and president of staff regarding all professional activities within the
12 department; assuring the orientation of all practitioners in the department in cooperation with
13 medical center administration; any other activity or functions as would reasonably be the
14 responsibility of a chair of a department of a teaching hospital or as assigned by the medical
15 director.
16 The Chair ofthe Department of Pathology is responsible to the Board of Supervisors,
17 though the chief executive officer, for administrative activities of the department, establishing
18 and maintenance of postgraduate medical education programs, participating in every phase of
19 administration of the department through cooperation "'ith the department of nursing and the
20 medical center administration in matters affecting patient care, including, without limitation,
21 personnel, supplies, special regulations, standing orders and techniques, assessing and
22 recommending to the relevant medical center authority off-site sources for needed patient care
23 services not provided by the department or the medical center, preparing n:ports, budgetary plans
24 and infonnation relating to the department, appointing a designee to act as chair of the
25 department in thc absence of the chair, with the approval of the chief executive officer and
26 president of staff, and any other administrative activity or non-clinical managerial function as
27 ///
28 III
DEPENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

would reasonably be the responsibility of a chair of a department of a teaching hospital or as
2 assigned by the chief executive officer.
4 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

5 I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the
6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of petjury that the answers are
7 true and correct.

8 Dated: May 13, 2008
9
10 By:._ _---,--- _
Paul J. Hensler
II Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLADITIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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
EXHIBIT 2: Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One
26
27
28
I Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160

Sacramento, California 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. CA SB #060508
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
IllS Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, California 9330 I
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
9
Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
II Jelli1ifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12

IS
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Case No.: I :07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
17 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
18 vs. ADMISSION (SET ONE)
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et a!., Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Trial Date: December 2, 2008
20 Defendants.
21
22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
23 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
24 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
25 Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin's Request for
26 Admission, Set One.
27
28
-1-
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

I. COMMON
2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1
3 Admit that at all times from 10117/05 to 10/4/07, DEFENDANT acted or omitted to act
4 through its officers and agents.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1
6 Admit.
8 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of
9 dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on 10117/05.
11 Deny.
13 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF
14 from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7/10106.
16 Deny.
18 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to reduce
19 PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.
21 Deny.
23 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF
24 the right to work on a part-time basis from 4128/06 to 10/3/06.
26 Deny.
28 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF
-2-

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

3 Deny.
S Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF
6 on administrative leave from 1217/06 to 10/4/07.
8 Deny.
10 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision not to renew
II PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.
13 Deny.
IS Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in
16 PLAINTIFF's medical staff file was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
18 Deny.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10
20 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of the
21 chair of the department of pathology at KMC was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's
22 harm.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10
24 Deny.
2S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11
26 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary was a
27 substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
28
-3-


2 Deny.
4 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF the right to work on a part-
S time basis from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
7 Deny.
9 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF the right to work at home
10 occasionally from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
12 Deny.
14 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave from
15 12/7/06 to 10/4/07 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
17 Deny.
19 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision not to renew employment contract with
20 DEFENDANT in 2007 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
22 Deny.
24 Admit that PLAINTIFF exhausted all adequate administrative remedies for all of his
25 claims.
27 Admit.
28
-4-

1 REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17

2 Admit that throughout the course of PLAINTIFF's employment by DEFENDANT,
3 PLAINTIFF had a recurrent major depressive disorder.
4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17
5 Deny.
6 II. HS 1278.5
8 Admit that KMC is a health facility.
10 Admit.
12 Admit that KMC is a government agency.
14 Defendant admits that KMC is a department of the County of Kern and the County of
15 Kern is a government agency.
17 Admit that DEFENDANT is a government agency.
19 Admit.
21 Admit that the California Department of Health Services is a government agency.
23 Defendant admits that the California Department of Health Care Services is a govermnen
24 agency.
26 Admit that Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
27 ("JCAHO") is an accreditation body.
28
-5-

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22

2 Defendant admits that The Joint Commission is an accreditation body.
4 Admit that College of American Pathologists ("CAP") is an accreditation body.
5 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23
6 Admit.
7 REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 24
8 Admit that PLAINTIFF was an employee of a health facility from 10/24/00 to 10/4/07.
9 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 24
10 Defendant admits Plaintiff was an employee of the County of Kern.
II REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25
12 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at
13 KMC prior to 6/20/05.
15 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond
16 to this request.
19 KMC from 6/20/05 to 10/17/05.
22 to this request.
25 KMC from 12/29/05 to 4/28/06.
28 to this request.
-6-

I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28

3 KMC from 2114/06 to 6/13/06.
6 to this request.
9 KMC from 3/13/06 to 7110/06.
II After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond
12 to this request.
15 KMC from 6/5/06 to 10/3/06.
18 to this request.
21 KMC from 10/3/06 to 12/6/06.
24 to this request.
27 KMC from 6/6/07 to 10/4/07.
28
-7-


3 to this request.
5 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to the College of American Pathologists complaints
6 about patient care at KMC in November 2006.
9 to this request.
11 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of
12 Healthcare Organizations complaints about patient care at KMC in November 2006.
14 Admit.
16 Admit that by 10117/05 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
17 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
20 to this request.
22 Admit that by 10/17/05 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
26 to this request.
28 Admit that by 10/17/05 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
-8-


4 to this request.
6 Admit that by 10/17/05 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
9 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks lmowledge or information sufficient to respond
10 to this request.
12 Admit that by 10/17/05 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
16 to this request.
18 Admit that by 4/28/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
19 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
22 to this request.
24 Admit that by 4/28/06 Steve O'Connor was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
28 to this request.
-9-

I REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 43

2 Admit that by 4/28/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
4 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43
5 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 44

7 Admit that by 6113/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented

II to this request.

13 Admit that by 711 0106 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented

15 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NQ. 45
17 to this request.
19 Admit that by 711 0106 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously

21 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 46
23 to this request.
25 Admit tbat by 7/10106 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously

-10-

to this request.

3 Admit that by 7/10106 Toni Smith was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented

7 to this request.

9 Admit that by 7110106 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
II RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49

13 to this request.

15 Admit that by 7110106 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented

19 to this request.
21 Admit that by 711 0106 Jose Perez was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented

24 Deny.
26 Admit that by 7/10106 David Hill was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
28
-11-

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 52

3 to this request.

5 Admit that by 7/10/06 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
7 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53
8 Deny.
10 Admit that by 10/3/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
13 Deny.
15 Admit that by 10/3/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 55
18 Deny.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 56
22 RESPQNSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56
25 Admit that by 10/3/06 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 57
-12-

1 to this request.
3 Admit that by 10/3/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
7 to this request.
9 Admit that by 1216/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
12 Deny.
14 Admit that by 12/6/06 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
17 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonllation sufficient to respond
18 to this request.
20 Admit that by 12/6/06 Philip Dutt was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
23 Defendant admits that Philip Dutt was aware by 12/6/06 that Plaintiff had complained
24 about the diagnosis of specific pathology specimens. Defendant denies the balance of this
25 request.
-13-

I RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62

4 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
7 Deny.
9 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
14 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
IS presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.
19 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
23 to this request.
-14-

I to this request.
3 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented
4 complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services.
6 Deny.
8 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously
9 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services.
II Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
13 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously
18 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously
22 to this request.
24 Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented
25 complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services.
28 to this request.
-15-


2 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented
3 complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.
5 Deny.
7 Admit that by 1014/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
8 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.
12 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
17 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously
21 to this request.
24 complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.
27 to this request.
28
-16-

I REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 78

2 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating
3 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's
4 medical staff file on 10/17/05.
5 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 78
6 Deny.
9 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full time leave on 4/28/06.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 79
II Deny.
14 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of
15 chair of the department of pathology on 6/13/06.
17 Deny.
20 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the
21 department of pathology on 7/10/06.
23 Deny.
26 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF base salary on 10/3/06.
27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NQ. 82
28 Deny.
-17-

3 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
5 Deny.
8 reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with
9 DEFENDANT in 2007.
11 Deny.
12 III. LC 1102.5
14 Admit that PLAINTIFF made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 85
16 Deny.
17 REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 86
18 Admit that PLAINTIFF made reports of violations of law to the California Department 0
19 Health Services.
21 Deny.
23 Admit that PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that he was disclosing violations
24 of law to DEFENDANT.
25 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 87
26 Deny.
28 Admit that PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that he was disclosing violations
-18-

of law to the California Department of Health Services.

3 Deny.
5 Admit that by 10117/05 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
6 violations of law to DEFENDANT.
9 to this request.
II Admit that by 10117/05 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
15 to this request.
17 Admit that by 10/17/05 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
20 Aftcr reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond
21 to this request.
23 Admit that by 10/17/05 Jermifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports
24 of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
27 to this request.
28
-19-


2 Admit that by 10/17/05 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
3 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.
6 to this request.
8 Admit that by 4/28/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
12 to this request.
14 Admit that by 4/28/06 Steve O'Connor was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
17 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonnation sufficient to respond
18 to this request.
20 Admit that by 4/28/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
-20-

I to this request.

3 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of

7 to this request.

9 Admit that by 7/10/06 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of

13 to this request.

IS Admit that by 7/ I0/06 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports 0

19 to this request.

21 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Toni Smith was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of

24 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks Imowledge or information sufficient to respond
25 to this request.
27 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
-21-


3 to this request.
4 REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 103
5 Admit that by 7/10/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
9 to this request.
11 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Jose Perez was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
15 to this request.
17 Admit that by 7/10/06 David Hill was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
21 to this request.
23 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
27 to this request.
28
-22-


6 to this request.
8 Admit that by 10/3/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
12 to this request.
14 Admit that by 10/3106 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
19 Admit that by 10/3106 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
23 to this request.
-23-

1 to this request.
3 Admit that by 12/6/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
7 to this request.
9 Admit that by 12/6/06 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
13 to this request.
15 Admit that by 12/6/06 Philip Dutt was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
19 to this request.
21 Admit that by 12/6/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
26 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
28
-24-

3 to this request.
4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 117
5 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
10 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
15 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
18 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonnation sufficient to respond
19 to this request.
25 to this request.
27 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
28 violations of law to the California Department of Health Services.
-25-


3 to this request.
5 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
10 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
15 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of
19 to this request.
25 to this request.
27 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations oflaw were a contributing factor in
28 DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff
-26-

1 file on 10/17/05.
3 Deny.
6 DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full time leave on 4/28/06.
8 Deny.
10 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations of law were a contributing factor in
11 DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of
12 the department of pathology on 6/13/06.
14 Deny.
17 DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of
18 pathology on 7/1 0/06.
20 Deny.
23 DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF base salary on 10/3/06.
25 Deny.
28 DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 1217/06.
-27-


2 Deny.
5 DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT
6 in 2007.
8 Deny.
9 IV. CFRAlFMLA
11 Admit that DEFENDANT granted PLAINTIFF medical leave on a "REDUCED LEAVE
12 SCHEDULE" (as that term is defined in 29 C.F.R. § 825.203(a» fromI2/16/05 to 4/28/06.
14 Deny.
16 Admit that as of 12/16/05, PLAINTIFF had more than 12 months of service with
17 DEFENDANT.
19 Admit.
21 Admit that as of 12/16/05, PLAINTIFF had worked more than 1,250 hours for
22 DEFENDANT during the previous 12 months.
24 Admit.
26 Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF had taken no more than 12 weeks of medical
27 leave in the previous 12 months.
28
-28-


2 Admit.
4 Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF was eligible for medica11eave under CFRA.
6 Admit.
8 Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF was eligible for medica11eave under FMLA.
10 Admit.
12 Admit that PLAINTIFF's recurrent major depressive disorder was a "SERIOUS
13 HEALTH CONDITION" (as that term is defined in 29 C.F.R. § 825.114) from 12116/05 to
14 9111/06.
16 Deny.
18 Admit that PLAINTIFF took medica11eave from 12116/05 to 4/28/06 for a SERIOUS
19 HEALTH CONDITION that made him unable to perform ftffictions of his job on a full-time
20 basis.
22 Deny.
24 Admit that PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANT of his need for the
25 medica11eave which began on 12116/05.
27 Deny.
28
-29-


2 Admit that PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANT of his need for an
3 extension of the medical leave which began on 12/16/06.
5 Deny.
7 Admit that PLAINTIFF timely provided certification of his SERIOUS HEALTH
8 CONDITION from a health-care provider in support of his need for the medical leave that began
9 on 12/16/05.
11 Deny.
13 Admit that PLAINTIFF timely provided certification of his SERIOUS HEALTH
14 CONDITION from a health-care provider in support of his need for an extension of the medical
15 leave that began on 12/16/06.
17 Deny.
19 Admit that from 12116/05 to 4/28/06, PLAINTIFF's medical need was best
20 accommodated through medical leave on a REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE.
22 Deny.
24 Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, PLAINTIFF's medical need was best accommodated
25 through medical leave on a REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE.
27 Deny.
28
-30-


2 Admit that on 4/28/06, DEFENDANT converted PLAINTIFF's medical leave on a
3 REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE to full-time medical leave.
5 Deny.
7 Admit that DEFENDANT interfered with PLAINTIFF's medical leave on 4/28/06.
9 Deny.
II Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's interference with PLAINTIFF's
12 medical leave on 4/28/06.
14 Deny.
IS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 150
16 Admit that DEFENDANT's interference with PLAINTIFF's medical leave on 4/28/06
17 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
19 Deny.
21 Admit that DEFENDANT used PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave as a negative
22 factor in recommending removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of
23 pathology at KMC on 6/13/06.
25 Deny.
27 Admit that DEFENDANT used PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave as a negative
28 factor in recommending removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of
-31-
I pathology at KMC on 7/1 0/06.

3 Deny.
5 Admit that PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave was a motivating reason in
7 the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06.
9 Deny.
II Admit that PLAINTIFF's taking of medical leave was a motivating reason in
13 the department of pathology at KMC on 7/10/06.
IS Deny.
18 DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.
20 Deny.
23 DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
25 Deny.
-32-
1 in 2007.
3 Deny.
4 V. DISABILTY DISCRIM
6 Admit that from at least 10/17/05 to at least 10/4/07, that PLAINTIFF had a "MENTAL
7 DISABILITY" that limited a "MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY" (as those terms are used in Cal. Gov't.
8 Code § 12926(i)).
10 Deny.
12 Admit that throughout the course of Plaintiffs employment by DEFENDANT, he was
13 unable to perform the "ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS" of his job (as those terms are used in Cal.
14 Gov't. Code § 12926(f)) when provided accommodation for his MENTAL DISABILITY.
16 Deny.
18 Admit that on 119/06, PLAINTIFF requested accommodation of his MENTAL
19 DISABILITY from the DEFENDANT in the form of temporary part-time work.
21 Deny.
23 Admit that on 119/06, PLAINTIFF requested accommodation of his MENTAL
24 DISABILITY from the DEFENDANT in the form of permission to work from home
25 occasionally.
27 Deny.
28
-33-


2 Admit that from 119/06 to 4128/06, PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a
3 reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

5 Deny.

7 Admit that from 1/9106 to 4/28106, permitting PLAINTIFF to work at home occasionally
8 was a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

10 Deny.

12 Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work would have
13 been a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

IS Deny.

17 Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, permitting PLAINTIFF to work at home
18 occasionally was a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY.

20 Deny.

22 Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, DEFENDANT failed to provide accommodation for
23 PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY in the form of temporary part-time.
25 Deny.

27 Admit that from 4/28/06 to 9/11106, DEFENDANT failed to provide accommodation for
28 PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY in the form of permission to work at home occasionally.
-34-

I RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 167

2 Deny.
4 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's failure to provide
5 accommodation in the form of temporary part-time work from 4/28/06 to 9/11/06.
7 Deny.
9 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's failure to provide
10 accommodation in the form of permission to work at home occasionally from 4/28/06 to 9111106.
12 Deny.
14 Admit that DEFENDANT's failure to provide accommodation in the form of temporary
15 part-time work from 4/28/06 to 9/11106 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.
17 Deny.
19 Admit that DEFENDANT's failure to provide accommodation in the form of permission
20 to work at home occasionally from 4/28/06 to 9111106 was a substantial factor in causing
21 PLAINTIFF's hann.
23 Deny.
25 Admit that on 4/28/06, DEFENDANT's failed to engage in a "TIMELY, GOOD FAITH,
26 INTERACTIVE PROCESS" (as those terms are used in Cal. Gov't. Code § 12926(n)) with
27 PLAINTIFF to determine how to continue to provide effective accommodation for his MENTAL
28 DISABILITY.
-35-

2 Deny.

4 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's failure on 4/28/06, to engage in
5 TIMELY, GOOD FAITH, INTERACTIVE PROCESS with PLAINTIFF.
7 Deny.

9 Admit that DEFENDANT's failure on 4/28/06, to engage in TIMELY, GOOD FAITH,
10 INTERACTIVE PROCESS with PLAINTIFF was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's
11 harm.

13 Deny.
15 Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 11130103that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL
16 DISABILITY.
18 Deny.
20 Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 10/17/05that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL
21 DISABILITY.
23 Deny.
25 Admit that DEFENDANT knew by 4/28/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL
26 DISABILITY.
28 Deny.
-36-


3 DISABILITY.
5 Deny.
8 DISABILITY.
10 Deny.
13 DISABILITY.
15 Deny.
18 DISABILITY.
20 Deny.
22 Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 11/30/03 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL
23 DISABILITY.
25 Deny.
28 DISABILITY.
-37-

2 Deny.

5 DISABILITY.

7 Deny.

9 Admit that DEFENDANT thought by 1013/06 that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL
10 DISABILITY.

12 Deny.

15 DISABILITY.

17 Deny.

20 DISABILITY.

22 Deny.

24 Admit that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in
25 DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff
26 file on 10/17/05.
28 Deny.
-38-


2 Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was 2
3 motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in
4 PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on 10/17/05.

6 Deny.

8 Admit that PLAINTIFF's temporary part-time work was a motivating reason in
9 DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full-time leave on 4/28/06.

11 Deny.

13 Admit that PLAINTIFF's occasionally working at home was a motivating reason in

16 Deny.


21 Deny.

23 Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF's MENTAL DISABILITY was a
24 motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full-time leave
25 on 4/28/06.

27 Deny.
28
-39-


3 DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of chair of the department
4 of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06.
6 Deny.
12 Deny.
14 Admit that PLAINTIFF' s MENTAL DISABILITY was a motivating reason in
18 Deny.
20 Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was a
21 motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of
22 chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 6/13/06.
24 Deny.
-40-


2 Deny.

6 of pathology at KMC on 711 0106.
8 Deny.

12 of pathology at KMC on 7/10106.

14 Deny.
17 motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF's from the position of

18 chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7110106.

20 Deny.
23 DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 1013/06.
25 Deny.
-41-


2 Deny.


7 Deny.

9 Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was,
10 motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.

12 Deny.

17 Deny.

22 Deny.

27 Deny.
28
-42-


3 motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on
4 12/7/06.

6 Deny.
lOin 2007.

12 Deny.
16 in 2007.

18 Deny.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 212
22 in 2007.
24 Deny.
26 Admit that DEFENDANT's belief that PLAINTIFF had a MENTAL DISABILITY was,
27 motivating reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract
28 with DEFENDANT in 2007.
-43-


2 Deny.
3 VI. DUE PROCESS
5 Admit that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Kern voted on 12/13/04 to approve
6 the Bylaws of KMC as in effect between 6113/06 and I 0/4/07 ("BYLAWS").
8 Deny.
10 Admit that the BYLAWS did not provide for "DUE PROCESS" (as that term is used in
11 the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) to PLAINTIFF for removal of PLAINTIFF from
12 chairmanship of the KMC Pathology department on 7110106.
14 Deny.
16 Admit that the BYLAWS did not provide for DUE PROCESS to PLAINTIFF for
17 reduction of PLAINTIFF's salary on 10/3/06.
19 Deny.
22 placement of PLAINTIFF on involuntary administrative leave on 1217106.
24 Deny.
27 nomenewal of PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.
28
-44-

2 Deny.
4 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying DUE PROCESS to
5 PLAINTlFF for removal of PLAINTlFF from chairmanship of the KMC Pathology department
6 on 7/1 0/06.
8 Defendant admits this request to the extent Defendant relied on the Bylaws and denies
9 this request to the extent Defendant did not rely on the Bylaws.
11 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying PLAINTIFF DUE
12 PROCESS for reduction ofPLAINTlFF's base salary on 10/3/06.
17 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying PLAINTlFF DUE
18 PROCESS for placement of PLAINTlFF on involuntary administrative leave.
23 Admit that DEFENDANT relied on the BYLAWS in denying PLAINTlFF DUE
24 PROCESS for nonrenewal ofPLAINTlFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT on
25 10/4/07.
27 Deny.
28
-45-

I REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NQ. 223

2 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in his position
3 as Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC.
4 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 223
5 Deny.
7 Admit that prior to 7/10/06 PLAINTIFF's constitutionally protected property interest in
8 his position as Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC was clearly established.
10 Deny.
12 Admit that prior to 7110/06 there was a mutually explicit understanding between
13 PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that PLAINTIFF would not be removed from Chair of the
14 Pathology Department without cause.
16 Deny.
18 Admit that prior to 7/10/06 it was a policy and practice of DEFENDANT not to remove a
19 core physician from Chair of a KMC department without cause.
21 Deny.
23 Admit that DEFENDANT has not removed a core physician from Chair of a KMC
24 department without cause since 10/24/00.
26 Admit.
28 Admit that prior to 7/10/06, a portion of PLAINTIFF's base salary was tied to his
-46-

1 position as Chair of the Pathology Department.

3 Admit.
5 Admit that DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of his position as Chair of the Pathology
6 Department at KMC on 7/10/06.
8 Defendant admits that Plaintiff was removed from the chairmanship of the Department of
9 Pathology on 7/10/06.
11 Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS prior to
12 removing him from his chairmanship of the KMC Pathology Department on 7/10/06.
14 Deny.
15 REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 231
16 Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS after removing
17 him from his chairmanship of the KMC Pathology Department on 7/10/06.
19 Deny.
21 Admit that Peter Bryan was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC
22 Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship.
24 Deny.
26 Admit that Toni Smith was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC
28
-47-

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 233

2 Deny.
4 Admit that Irwin Harris was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC
7 Deny.
9 Admit that Scott Ragland was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC
12 Deny.
14 Admit that Jennifer Abraham was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the
15 KMC Joint Conference Committee vote to remove PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship.
17 Deny.
19 Admit that Eugene Kercher was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the KMC
22 Deny.
24 Admit that DEFENDANT did not permit PLAINTIFF an opportunity to tell his side of
25 the story to the KMC Joint Conference Committee in connection with the decision to remove
26 PLAINTIFF from his chairmanship.
28 Deny.
-48-


2 Admit that PLAINTIFF's removal from chairmanship on 7/10/06 did not warrant
3 immediate action without prior DUE PROCESS.
5 Defendant denies this request and also denies that Plaintiff was denied due process.
7 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to impartial adjudicators in
8 connection with his removal from chairmanship on 7/1 0/06.
10 Deny.
12 Admit that prior to 10/3/06, PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interes
13 in his base salary of$287,529 pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02.
15 Deny.
17 Admit that prior to 10/3/06, PLAINTIFF's constitutionally protected property interest in
18 his base salary of $287,529 pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02, was clearly
19 established.
21 Deny.
23 Admit that prior to 10/3/06, PLAINTIFF was entitled to a base salary of $287,529 per
24 year pursuant to his employment contract entered into with DEFENDANT as of 11/2/02.
26 Defendant admits that prior to 10/3/06 Plaintiff s employment agreement provided for a
27 base salary of $287,529 per year.
28
-49-


2 Admit that prior to 10/3/06, there was a mutually explicit understanding between
3 PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that DEFENDANT would not reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary
4 without cause.

6 Deny.
8 Admit Amendment No.1 to PLAINTIFF's employment contract entered into by and
9 between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT on 10/3/06 lacked consideration.
11 Deny.
13 Admit that PLAINTIFF's base salary was reduced by $100,842 on 10/3/06 due to
14 PLAINTIFF's change in status from department chairman to staff pathologist.
16 Admit.
18 Admit that DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of $1 00,842 of his base salary on
19 10/3/06.
21 Deny.
23 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in the
24 opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02.
26 Deny.
28 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in the
-50-

1 opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02
2 was clearly established.
4 Deny.
6 Admit that prior to 12/7/07, PLAINTIFF was entitled to the opportunity to earn
7 professional fees at KMC pursuant to his employment contract dated 11/2/02.
9 Deny.
12 PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that DEFENDANT would not deny PLAINTIFF the
13 opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC without cause.
15 Deny.
17 Admit that DEFENDANT placed PLAINTIFF on administrative leave from 12/7/06 to
18 10/4/07.
20 Defendant admits that Plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave on 12/7/06.
22 Admit that while on administrative leave from 12/7/06 to 10/4/07, PLAINTIFF was
23 denied the opportunity to earn professional fees at KMC.
25 Deny.
27 Admit that DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of the opportunity to earn professional
28 fees at KMC from 12/7/06 to 10/4/07.
-51-
I RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 254

2 Deny.

4 Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS prior to placing
5 PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

7 Deny.

9 Admit that DEFENDANT did not infOlID PLAINTIFF of the charges against him prior to
10 placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

12 Deny.

14 Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him prior to

17 Deny.

20 the story to DEFENDANT prior to placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

22 Deny.

24 Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS after placing
25 PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.

27 Deny.
28
-52-


2 Admit that DEFENDANT did not inform PLAINTIFF of the charges against him after
5 Deny.
7 Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him after
10 Deny.
13 the story to DEFENDANT after placing PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
15 Deny.
17 Admit that Irwin Harris was not an impartial adjudicator in comlection with the decision
18 to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
20 Deny.
22 Admit that Philip Dutt was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the decision to
23 place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
25 Deny.
27 Admit that David Culberson was not an impartial adjudicator in connection with the
28 decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
-53-


2 Deny.
4 Admit that the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06 did not
5 warrant immediate action without prior DUE PROCESS.
7 Defendant denies this request and also denies that Plaintiff was denied due process.
9 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to impartial adjudicators in
10 connection with the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
12 Deny.
14 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to DUE PROCESS in cOimection
15 with the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.
17 Deny.
19 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued
20 employment by DEFENDANT after 10/4/07.
22 Deny.
24 Admit that prior to 10/4/07, PLAINTIFF's constitutionally protected property interest in
25 continued employment by DEFENDANT was clearly established.
27 Deny.
28
-54-


3 PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT that PLAINTIFF's employment contract would be renewed in
4 the absence of cause.

6 Deny.

8 Admit that prior to 10/4/07. it was the policy and practice of DEFENDANT to renew the
9 employment contracts of core physicians at KMC absent cause.
II Deny.

13 Admit that DEFENDANT extended the term of PLAINTIFF's employment with
14 DEFENDANT on 11/2/02.

16 Deny.

18 Admit that, with the exception of John Digges, DEFENDANT has renewed all core
19 physician employment contracts which were up for renewal since 10/24/00.
21 Deny.
23 Admit that on 10/4/07, DEFENDANT did not renew PLAINTIFF's employment
24 contract.

26 Admit.
28 Admit that on 10/4/07, DEFENDANT deprived PLAINTIFF of continued employment
-55-

1 with DEFENDANT.

3 Deny.

5 Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS in connection
6 with the non-renewal of his employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.

8 Deny.

10 Admit that DEFENDANT did not inform PLAINTIFF of the charges against him prior to
II failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.
13 Deny.
15 Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him prior to
16 failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.

18 Deny.
21 the story to DEFENDANT prior to failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT
22 on 10/4/07.
24 Deny.
26 Admit that DEFENDANT did not give PLAINTIFF any DUE PROCESS after failing to
27 renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT on 10/4/07.
28
-56-


2 Deny.

4 Admit that DEFENDANT did not inform PLAINTIFF of the charges against him after

7 Deny.

9 Admit that DEFENDANT did not present PLAINTIFF with evidence against him after

12 Deny.

15 the story to DEFENDANT after failing to renew his employment contract with DEFENDANT
16 on 10/4/07.
18 Deny.
20 Admit that PLAINTIFF had a clearly established right to DUE PROCESS in connection
21 with the non-renewal of his employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.

23 Deny.
25 Admit that Irwin Harris, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Eugene Kercher decided
26 to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on October 17, 2005.
28 Deny.
-57-

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 011 July 10,2006,
l) 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 10 reduce PL:UNTIFF"s base
13 salary on OClober 3. 200t),
RESPONSE TO REQtiEST FOR ADi\IISSION NO. 289
15
I () RFor'EST FOR ADMISSION NO. 290
17 }\rllnll that DEFENL)i\NT decided not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract
18 DEFENDANT on April 2007,
.
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', _. ",;tl"_·,~j"_"'_/-J.~ _'_"- "'"~=j=j

Paul J llcnslcr
__"''''''''''''_
ChidTxeculivt' Ol'llce1'. Kcmrvledieal Center
..5X-
D1T1NDAN'IS IU'SPONSES TO PL;\INTIIT'S REQUEST lOR ·\D\,IISSION, SLT ONI

,
2 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

3
4 Dated: August 7 ,2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

5
6
Mark A. Wasser
7 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
8
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-59-

1 1, Amy Remly, declare:
2 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)
5 without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copy
of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached.
6
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
7 prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth
below.
8
9
o by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address (es) set forth below.
10
o by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
11 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.
12
by transmitting via email the documents listed above to be sent by electronic mail to the
13 email address listed below.
14 Eugene Lee
Law Offices of Eugene Lee
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
16 Email: elee@LOEL.com
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
\j
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
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
EXHIBIT 3: Defendants’ Separate Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
26
(Doc. 278)
27
28
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 75
1 ofof38
120
1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160

Sacramento, California 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
5 Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr. CA SB #060508

KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
7 Bakersfield, California 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
9
Peter Bryan and Irwin Harris
11

14
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO
16 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION
17 vs. TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
18 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
19 Defendants. Date: January 12,2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
20 Place: U.S. District Court, Courtroom 3
2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA
21
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
22 Trial Date: March 24, 2009
23
24 Defendants submit this Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Facts in
25 Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

26 pursuant to LR 56-260(a).
27
28
-1-
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 76
2 ofof38
120
2 Disputed Facts Supporting Evidence

3 1.
4 2.
5 3.
6 4.
7 5. Plaintiff is the former Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Deny. Plaintiff is the former
8 Center ("KMC" or "the hospital"), an acute care teaching Chair of the Department of
9 hospital and health care facility that is owned and operated Pathology. See Defendants'
10 by Defendant County of Kern ("Defendant County" or "the Statement of Undisputed Facts
11 County"). (hereinafter "DSUF") 1a,
12 (DFJOO043-46).
13 6.
14 7.
15 8. In October 2000, Dr. Jadwin began full-time employment Admit.
16 at KMC as chair of the pathology department. Plaintiff was
17 an employee of Defendant County from October 24, 2000 to
18 October 4,2007.
19 9. Throughout the course of his employment at KMC, Dr. Deny. See DSUF 152b
20 Jadwin tried to ensure that patient care was based on (DFJ00592), 74 (DFJ00364-
21 adequate and accurate pathology. 366),76 (0027069-27070), 78
22 (0000506), 80 (Dutt
23 Deposition, 8/20108, pg. 285 :6-
24 23).
25 10. In May 2005, Dr. Jadwin began formally expressing his Deny. See DSUF 118
26 concerns that KMC was not complying with state regulations (DFJ00408-409).
27 regarding blood transfusion documentation.
28
-2-
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT AND/OR
SUMMARY ADWDICATlON
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 77
3 ofof38
120
I II. In October 2005, Dr. Jadwin presented at an intra- Deny. See DSUF 107
2 hospital conference where he reported on uncaught (DFJ00580), 74 (DFJ00364-
3 pathology report errors that potentially jeopardized the care 366) and Plaintiffs Statement
4 of a hysterectomy patient and the need for a policy to address of Undisputed Facts
5 the problem. (hereinafter "PSUF") 114
6 (Jadwin Dec!., Exh. 10
7 (Jadwin's email to Dutt,
8 Culberson et a!. of 12/6/06 at
9 DFJ1479; Lee Supp. Dec!.,
10 Exh. 20 (RFA No. 61 at 13:19-
11 25); Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 24
12 (Rog 67 at 14:22-23 (noting
13 difficulties outside reviewers
14 had reaching conclusions about
15 the diagnosis)).
16 12. Defendants responded by calling him into a meeting, Deny. See DSUF 113
17 severely reprimanding him, and informing him that letters of (DFJ00588), 114 (0000094).
18 reprimand would be placed in his physician credentials file. KMC letters to Jadwin dated
19 8114/01 - 9112/08.
20 13. Defendants retaliatory conduct exacerbated Dr. Jadwin's Deny. Defendants' conduct
21 chronic depression and proved so disabling that, at the end of was not retaliatory. See DSUF
22 2005, he was forced to take a reduced work schedule medical 62 (Jadwin Deposition, 1/9/08,
23 leave as an accommodation and seek psychiatric therapy. pgs.414:24-418:12).
24 14. In April 2006, Dr. Jadwin requested an extension of his Deny. Plaintiff requested an
25 reduced work schedule leave. extension of his Leave of
26 Absence. See DSUF 19
27 (DFJOI158).
28
-3-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 78
4 ofof38
120
1 15. On April 28, 2006, Defendant Bryan responded by Deny. See DSUF 20
2 placing him on full-time "personal necessity leave" under the (DFJOI121), 24 (DFJOI141),
3 County's leave policy and, a few months later, ordered him 27 (0001424), 29 (Bryan
4 not to contact anybody at KMC or he would be fired Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 244:6-
5 ("Forced FT Leave"). 16),30 (Bryan Deposition,
6 8/14/08, pgs. 280:21-281 :4).
7 See Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21,
8 Interrogatory 36.
9 16. On June 4, 2006, Defendant Bryan told Dr. Jadwin that Deny. See DSUF 24
10 he had decided to "rescind your appointment at chairman" (DFJOI141), 28 (Bryan
11 and that "this decision is effective June 17,2006." Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 257:9-
12 15).
13 17. On July 10,2006, Defendant Bryan recommended to Deny. The quoted material is
14 KMC's Joint Conference Committee ("JCC") that Plaintiff not an accurate quotation; see
15 be removed from his position as Chair of the pathology DSUF 33 (0001476-1565,
16 department "based on Dr. Jadwin's unavailability for service 0000073-75).
17 because of extended medical leaves for non-work related
18 ailments" and "solely based on his continued non-availability
19 to provide the leadership necessary for a contributing
20 member of the medical staffleadership group....Dr. Jadwin
21 has provided no indication that he is committed to return to
22 work or resume his duties as chair. Other than his latest
23 written communication requesting an extension of his
24 medical leave, Dr. Jadwin has made no attempt in the last
25 two months to contact me concerning his employment status
26 or how the Department of Pathology should be managed
27 during his absence."
28
-4-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 79
5 ofof38
120
2 18. At a meeting of the JCC on July 10,2006, Defendant Deny. Plaintiff was not
3 County approved the demotion ofPlaintifffrom chair of the demoted. See DSUF 33
4 pathology department for "unavailability." Members of the (0001476-1565,0000073-75).
5 JCC based their vote on his unavailability due in part to his KMC letters to Jadwin dated
6 medical leave. 8/14/01 - 9/12/08.
7 19. Defendant County then conditioned Dr. Jadwin's return Deny. See DSUF 44 (Jadwin
8 to work as a regular pathologist on his medical release to Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs.
9 full time work and entry into an amendment to his contract 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and
10 that contained restrictive terms and conditions and reduced 581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition,
11 Dr. Jadwin's base pay from roughly $300,000 to $200,000. 3/12/08,974:3-976:12).
12 20. When demoting Dr. Jadwin, Defendants Bryan and the Deny. Plaintiff was not
13 County did not notify Dr. Jadwin of the hospital committee demoted. See DSUF 28
14 vote to demote him or give him a chance to defend himself (Bryan Deposition, 8/14/08,
15 prior to, at or after the vote. pg. 257:9-15), 31 (Bryan
16 Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 258:7-
17 16). KMC letters to Jadwin
18 dated 8/14/01 - 9/12/08.
19 21. On his return to work as a demoted pathologist in late Deny. Plaintiff was not
20 2006, Dr. Jadwin was placed beneath a former subordinate demoted. See DSUF 4
21 whom he had hired and trained the year before. (0000272-358, specifically
22 0000319). KMC letters to
23 Jadwin dated 8/14/01 -
24 9/12/08.
25 22. After about two months, Dr. Jadwin decided to go Deny. See DSUF 56
26 outside the hospital and report his ongoing suspicions of (DFJ02540-2541, DFJ01454,
27 legal noncompliance and illegal and/or unsafe care and DFJ01459), 57 (DFJ02538-
28
-5-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 80
6 ofof38
120
1 conditions of patients at KMC to regulatory and 2539).

2 accreditation agencies, as well as KMC senior management.
3 23. Plaintiff also complained to KMC's senior management Deny. See PSUF 114 ((Jadwin
4 about the harsh treatment he was receiving. Dec!., Exh. 10 (Jadwin's email
5 to Dutt, Culberson et a!. of
6 12/6/06 at DFJ1479; Lee Supp.
7 Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 61 at
8 13:19-25); Lee Supp. Dec!.,
9 Exh. 24 (Rog 67 at 14:22-23
10 (noting difficulties outside
11 reviewers had reaching
12 conclusions about the
13 diagnosis).
14 24. The following day, on December 7, 2006, Defendant Admit.
15 County placed Dr. Jadwin on administrative leave "pending
16 resolution of a personnel matter."
17 25. The leave denied Plaintiff the opportunity to ear patient- Deny. 0018755-0018917.
18 based professional fees, which had amounted to roughly
19 $100,000 per year ("Professional Fees") prior to his taking
20 of reduced work schedule leave.
21 26. Dr. Jadwin formally notified KMC of his whistle- Admit.
22 blowing reports to the outside regulatory and accreditation
23 agencIes.
24 27. Dr. Jadwin remained on administrative leave for another Admit.
25 ten months until his contract expired on October 4,2007.
26 28. During six of those months, Dr. Jadwin was physically Deny. Plaintiff was required
27 restricted to his home during work hours. by County policy to be
28
-6-
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT AND/OR
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 81
7 ofof38
120
1 "available by telephone." See

2 DSUF 41a (0016941).
3 29. The county decided not to renew Dr. Jadwin's contract, Admit.
4 which expired on October 4,2007.
5 30. From October 2000 to the present, KMC - a hospital Deny. Lee Supp. Decl., Exh.
6 with roughly 60 full-time faculty physicians - had failed to 22, Interrogatory #28.
7 renew the contract of only 1 other KMC physician.
8 31. Plaintiff s position had been that of a permanent, core Deny. See Response to #30
9 physician, whose contracts are customarily renewed. above.
10 32. Defendant County based its nonrenewal decision on Dr. Deny. See DSUF 36a
11 Jadwin's medical and recuperative leave, and the fact he had (Declaration of Michael Rubio,
12 brought a lawsuit opposing employment practiced prohibited 11110/08, '12; Declaration of
13 by the Family & Medical Leave Act ("MFLA"), and the Raymond Watson, 11110/98,
14 California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), and the Fair '1'13, 4 and 5; Declaration of
15 Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA"). Mike Maggard, 11110108, '12;
16 Declaration of Jon McQuiston,
17 11110108, '12; Declaration of
18 Don Maben, 11/10108, '12).
19 33. To this day, Dr. Jadwin has not personally received an Admit. There were no charges
20 explanation from Defendants as to why he was placed on against Plaintiff.
21 administrative leave or why his contract was not renewed,
22 despite repeated requests for an explanation. Defendants
23 never notified Dr. Jadwin of the charges against him or
24 permitted him to defend himself.
25 34.
26 35.
27 36. During the entire tenure of Plaintiffs employment, Admit.
28
-7-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 82
8 ofof38
120
I Defendant County was continuously an employer within the

2 meaning ofFMLA [29 C.F.R. § 825.105©], CFRA [Gov't C
3 § 12945.2(b)(2)], and FEHA [Gov't C § 12926(d)] engaged
4 in interstate commerce, and regularly employing more than

5 fifty employees within seventy-five miles of Plaintiffs
6 regular workplace at KMC.
7 37. Defendant County is a government agency. Admit.
8 38.
9 39.
10 40. On October 12,2005, Defendant Harris solicited and Deny. Lee Supp. Decl., Exh.
11 received letters of dissatisfaction from three KMC core 21, Interrogatory #34. (Harris
12 physicians, criticizing Dr. Jadwin's presentation at a KMC Deposition, 8/13/08, pgs.
13 monthly Oncology Conference. 113:14-16,116:4).
14 41. On October 17, 2005, KMC's senior medical staff wrote Deny. Plaintiff s Corrected
IS to Dr. Jadwin notifying him that these letters of Motion for Partial or Full
16 dissatisfaction would be placed in his credentialing file Summary Judgment Against
17 ("Credential Threat"). Defendants, pg. 6:1. KMC
18 letters to Jadwin dated 8/14/01
19 - 9112/08.
20 42. Some of the medical staff involved later apologized to Deny. 166 (Abraham
21 Dr. Jadwin. Deposition, 8/18/08, pgs.
22 198:24-207:17), 167 (Bryan
23 Deposition, 8114/08, pgs.
24 109:12-111:10),168 (Bryan
25 Deposition, 8114/08, pgs.
26 156:22-157:12),169 (Harris
27 Deposition, 8/13/08, pg. 159:2-
28
-8-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 83
9 ofof38
120
1 13), 170 (Harris Deposition,

2 8113/08, pg. 196:7-20), 171
3 (Harris Deposition, 8113/08
4 pgs. 230:4-232:13),172
5 (Harris Deposition, 8113/08,
6 pgs. 234:24-235:23 and
7 305:20-308:22), 173 (Ragland
8 Deposition, 8/22/08, pg. 16:12-
9 16), 174 (0000507).
10 43.
1--------------------+------------1
11 44.
1--------------------+------------1
12 45. Dr. Jadwin's employment contract expressly provided Admit.
13 that Dr. Jadwin would be chair of the KMC pathology
14 department and paid base compensation of$287,529 ("Base
15 Pay").
16 46. On July 10,2006, Bryan recommended and the JCC Deny. Plaintiff was not
17 approved Jadwin's demotion from department chair to staff demoted. See DSUF 4
18 pathologist ("Demotion"). (0000272-358, specifically
19 0000319). KMC letters to
21 9/12108.
22 47. 1t is uncontested that Defendants considered a portion of Deny. Plaintiff was not
23 Dr. Jadwin's pay to be tied to his chair position, and that the demoted. See DSUF 4
24 demotion therefore made the paycut a foregone conclusion. (0000272-358, specifically
25 The JCC vote to demote Plaintiff was effectively a vote to 0000319), 44 (Jadwin
26 reduce his Base Pay as well. Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs.
27 969: 1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and
28
-9-
SUMMARY ADJUDICAnON
Case
Case1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 10
84 of
of 38
120
1 581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition,

2 3/12/08,974:3-976:12). KMC
4 - 9/12/08.
5 48. Defendants County and Harris informed Dr. Jadwin that Deny. See DSUF 44 (Jadwin
6 his return to work at KMC was conditioned on his entry into Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs.
7 an amendment to his employment contract, instituting a 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and
8 reduction in Base Pay from $287,529 to $186,687 581»,45 (Jadwin Deposition,
9 ("Paycut"). 3/12/08,974:3-976: 12).
10 49. On October 3, 2006, Plaintiff executed the amendment Admit.
11 to his employment contract.
12 50.
13 51.
14 52. A pathologist is valued according to the efficacy of his Deny. This is not a fact; it is
15 "eye," i.e., the training and experience that allows him to an expression of opinion. The
16 spot minute patterns and telltale abnormalities in opinion is not relevant to
17 microscopic and gross tissue samples. Plaintiffs administrative
18 duties as Chair.
19 53. Developing and maintaining the pathologist "eye" Deny. This is not a fact; it is
20 requires years of daily pathology work; however, it takes an expression of opinion. The
21 only a few months of being away from work to lose enough opinion is not relevant to
22 efficacy to threaten a pathologist's career. Plaintiffs administrative
23 duties as Chair.
24 54. Moreover, Dr. Jadwin's contract expressly provided that Deny. See DSUF 6 (0001479-
25 he was to earn patient billing-based professional fees, 1499).
26 separate and apart from his fixed Base Pay.
27 55. In order to earn Professional Fees, Dr. Jadwin needed to Admit.
28
-10-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 11
85 of
of 38
120
1 process and bill patient cases.

2 56. Restriction to his workplace at KMC by placement on Deny. Defendants do not
3 leave denied him the opportunity to earn such fees. know what "restriction to his
4 workplace at KMC" means.
5 57. Dr. Jadwin's professional fee income amounted to Deny. 0018755-0018917.
6 approximately $100,000 per year.
7 58. On December 7, 2007, Defendant County placed Admit.
8 Plaintiff on paid administrative leave "pending resolution of
9 a personnel matter" ("Admin Leave").
10
11 59. Defendant County further ordered Plaintiff to "remain at Deny. See DSUF 41
12 horne and available by telephone during normal business (DFJOI482,0016941).
13 hours" and not to contact anyone at KMC, else he could be
14 terminated. There was no further indication of what Plaintiff
15 was being charged with, whether he would be permitted to
16 respond to charges, or when the leave would end.
17 60. No investigation, explanation or resolution ensued. Deny. Defendants deny there
18 was anything to investigate,
19 explain or resolve.
20 61. On April 4, 2007, Plaintiff notified Defendant County Admit.
21 that the long leave was exacerbating his depression, eroding
22 his pathology skills and employability, and denying him the
23 opportunity to earn professional fees.
24 62. On April 30, 2007, Defendant County informed Dr. Deny. Defendants informed
25 Jadwin that he remained on administrative leave but Plaintiff that he was relieved of
26 removed the home restriction. the obligation to be available
27 for daily work.
28
-11-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 12
86 of
of 38
120
1 63. On May 1,2007, Defendant County informed Dr. Deny. Defendants tried to
2 Jadwin that they intended to keep Dr. Jadwin on leave and negotiate a settlement by
3 "let his contract run out." buying out Plaintiff s contract
4 and lifting restrictions on
5 Plaintiffs leave. See PSUF 63
6 (Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 21
7 (Rog No. 43 at 53:3-9); Lee
8 Supp. Decl., Exh. 22 (Rog No.
9 44,28: 17-22); Lee Supp.
10 Decl., Exh. 6 (Wasser Email to
11 Lee of 5/1/07 at DFJOI705)).
12 64. Dr. Jadwin remained on administrative leave until his Admit.
13 employment contract expired on October, [sic]4, 2007.
14 65.
f------------------+-------------1
15 1-6:...::6~.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f - - - - - - - - - -
16 67. Supervisor Ray Watson, then-Chair of the Board of Deny. See DSUF 36a
17 Supervisors, voted as a member of the JCC to demote Dr. (Declaration of Michael Rubio,
18 Jadwin and effectively cut his pay, and also participated in 11/1 0/08, ~2; Declaration of
19 the decision not to renew Plaintiff s employment contract. Raymond Watson, 11/1 0/98,
20 ~~3, 4 and 5; Declaration of
21 Mike Maggard, 11/1 0/08, ~2;

23 11/1 0/08, ~2; Declaration of
24 Don Maben, 11/1 0/08, ~2).
25 Plaintiff was not demoted.

26 KMC letters to Jadwin dated
27 8/14/0 I - 9/12/08.
28
-12-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 13
87 of
of 38
120
1 68. Ray Watson, Chair of the Board Supervisors [sic] at the Admit.
2 time of the Nonrenewa1, testified in deposition: "My
3 understanding was that [Plaintiff] had - he had been on
4 medical leave, family leave, and had requested even more
5 leave, and that for that reason and the fact that he was suing
6 us, that we decided not to renew his contract."
7 C'Nonrenewal")
8 69. Moreover, Dr. Jadwin was a "core physician" at KMC, a Deny. See DSUF 6 (0001479-
9 permanent position. 1499).
10 70. There was a mutually explicit understanding that, as a Deny. This is not a fact;
11 core physician, Plaintiff s contract would be continuously "mutually explicit
12 renewed. understanding" is one of
13 Plaintiff s legal arguments.
14 71. In fact, from October 2000 to present, only one other Deny. See Response to #30
15 physician besides Dr. Jadwin has not had his contract above.
16 renewed.
17 72.
18 73.
19 74. Credential Threat was a substantial cause of Dr. Deny. Plaintiff s credential
20 Jadwin's emotional distress leading to recurrence of his was never threatened. See
21 chronic major depressive disorder. DSUF 7A (Dutt Deposition,
22 8/20/08, pgs. 52:5-53:18).
23 ~'Substantial cause," "chronic"
24 and "major" are subj ective
25 terms. KMC letters to Jadwin
26 dated 8/14/01- 9/12/08.
27 75. Credential Threat was a substantial cause of Dr. Deny. Plaintiff s credential
28
-13-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 14
88 of
of 38
120
1 Jadwin's reduced work schedule medical/recuperative leave was never threatened. See
2 and loss of opportunity to earn Professional Fees from DSUF 7A (Dutt Deposition,
3 December 16,2005 to on or around April 28, 2006. 8/20/08, pgs. 52:5-53:18).
4 Plaintiff s Second Amended
5 Complaint '80. "Substantial
6 cause" is a subjective term.
8 8/14/01-9/12/08.
9 76. Forced FT Leave was a was a substantial cause of Dr. Deny. See DSUF 7A (Dutt
10 Jadwin's emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 52:5-
11 Jadwin's major depression. 53: 18), 21 (Bryan Deposition,
12 8/14/08, pgs. 250:15-251 :6,
13 Exhibit 303). "Substantial
14 cause" and "major" are
15 subjective terms. Lee Supp.
16 Decl., Exh. 21, Rog #36.
17 77. Forced FT Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiffs Deny. See DSUF 7A (Dutt
18 loss of opportunity to earn Professional Fees as provided for Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs. 52:5-
19 in his employment contract from on or around April 28, 2006 53:18),21 (Bryan Deposition,
20 to June 17, 2006. 8/14/08, pgs. 250: 15-251 :6,
21 Exhibit 303). Second
22 Amended Complaint '80.
23 "Substantial cause" is a
24 subjective term. Lee Supp.
25 Decl., Exh. 21, Rog #36.
26 78. Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Dr. Deny. Plaintiff was not
27 Jadwin's emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. demoted. See DSUF 4
28
-14-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 15
89 of
of 38
120
1 Jadwin's major depression. (0000272-358, specifically

2 0000319). "Substantial cause"
3 and "major" are subjective
4 terms. KMC letters to Jadwin
5 dated 8/14/01 - 9/12108.
6 79. Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Base Deny. Plaintiff was not
7 Pay reduction from $287,529 to $186,687 from October 3, demoted. See DSUF 4
8 2006 onward. (0000272-358, specifically
9 0000319), Lee Supp. Decl.,
10 Exh. 21, Rog #41.
11 "Substantial causes" is a
12 subjective term. KMC letters
13 to Jadwin dated 8/14/01 -
14 9/12108.
15 80. Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Deny. Plaintiff was not
16 termination of Plaintiffs career as a pathology department demoted. See DSUF 4
17 chair due to unemployability. (0000272-358, specifically
18 0000319), 8 (DFJ02422-2459).
19 See Levison Decl., pg. 6, ~6.
21 8/14/01 - 9/12108.
22 81. Admin Leave, during 5 months of which Plaintiff was Deny. See DSUF 41
23 restricted full-time to his home, was a substantial cause of (DFJ01482,0016941).
24 Dr. Jadwin's emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. "Substantial cause" and
25 Jadwin's major depression. "major" are subjective terms.
26 82. Admin Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiffs loss Deny. See DSUF 6 (0001479-
27 ofopportnnity to earn Professional Fees as provided for in 1499). "Substantial cause" is a
28
-15-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 16
90 of
of 38
120
I his employment contract from on or around December 7, subjective term.

2 2006 to October 4, 2007.
3 83. Admin Leave was a substantial cause ofloss of Deny. See DSDF 10
4 Plaintiffs pathologist "eye," causing him to become (DFJ00726), 15 (DFJ00746).
5 unemployable as a pathologist. Plaintiffs Second Amended
6 Complaint ~80.
7 84. Nonrenewal was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin's Deny. "Substantial cause" is a
8 emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. Jadwin's subjective term.
9 major depression.
10 85. Admin Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiffs lost Deny. Admin Leave was paid.
11 Base Pay of$186,687 and Professional Fees of roughly See DSDF 41 (DFJOI482).
12 $100,000 per year, as provided for in his employment "Substantial cause" is a
13 contract, from on or around October 4, 2007 onward. subjective term.
14 86.
15 87.
16 88.
17 89. Dr. Jadwin made a protected report to KMC's medical Deny. Nothing about
18 staffleadership about (a) the medical appropriateness of a Plaintiff s statements was
19 radical hysterectomy for a KMC patient (Patient No. "protected." See DSDF 105
20 1142693) based on inaccurate outside pathology reports- (DFJ00508-574), 106
21 which case was the subject of Plaintiff s presentation at the (DFJ00578), 107 (DFJ00580),
22 monthly KMC oncology conference held on October 12, 108 (Harris Deposition,
23 2005 ("October Conference") - and (b) the unsafe conditions 8/13/08, pgs. 126:8-127: 19),
24 created for other patients by the lack of a KMC policy 109 (Exhibit 190), 110
25 requiring internal pathology review of all outside pathology (Ragland Deposition, 8/22/08,
26 reports prior to treatment ("IPR"). pgs. 106:18-109:14 and
27 156:14-25), III (Abraham
28
-16-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 17
91 of
of 38
120
1 Deposition, 8/18/08, pgs.

2 14:10-21:17 and 131:5-133:23
3 and 135:24-138:22), 112 (Dutt
5 292:25-293:20),74
6 (DFJ00364-366). See PSUF
7 114 (Jadwin Decl., Exh. 10
8 (Jadwin's email to Dutt,
9 Culberson et al. of 12/6/06 at
10 DFJl479); Lee Supp. Decl.,
11 Exh. 20 (RFA No. 61 at 13:19-
12 25); Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 24
13 (Rog 67 at 14:22-23 (noting
14 difficulties outside reviewers
15 had reaching conclusions about
16 the diagnosis)). Taylor Depo.,
17 12/5/07 pgs. 14:19-21, 15:1-4,
18 22:9-10; 24:7-8, 27:16-17,
19 31:17-32:21,36:19-20,51:12-
20 25,55:7-23,62:19-25,63:4-11,
21 64:12-19,68:9-17.
22 90. Defendant County knew of Dr. Jadwin's whistleblowing Deny. See DSUF 113
23 report at the October Conference since Defendant Harris, (DFJ00588). Plaintiffs
24 then CMO ofKMC, and Jennifer Abraham, then-Immediate presentation at the October
25 Past President, were in attendance. Oncology Conference was not
26 "whistleblowing."
27 91. Each of the letters of reprimand which Defendant Deny. Plaintiff's Corrected
28
-17-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 18
92 of
of 38
120
1 County decided to place into Plaintiff s medical credential Motion for Partial or Full
2 file specifically reference Dr. Jadwin's presentation at the Summary Judgment, pg. 6:1.
3 October Conference. KMC letters to Jadwin dated
4 8/14/01 ~ 9/12/08.
5 92.
6 93.
7 94. On January 9, 2006, Dr. Jadwin made a protected report Deny. Nothing about
8 to Bryan regarding KMC's noncompliance with state Plaintiff s statements was
9 regulations regarding blood transfusion related "protected." See DSUF 7
10 documentation called product chart copies ("PCCs"), (DFJOO723).
11 jeopardizing patient safety.
12 95. Improper documentation of blood transfusions creates Admit.
13 patient risk of morbidity and mortality.
14 96. Dr. Jadwin reasonably suspected that KMC's ongoing Deny. See DSUF 118
15 failure to maintain accurate and complete records of patient (DFJ00408-409), 121
16 blood transfusions did not comply with H&S § 1602.5, (0000572), 123 (DFJOO788),
17 which requires PCC documentation to conform to AABB 124 (DFJ00793), 126 (Harris
18 accreditation standards. Deposition, 8/13/08, pgs.
19 268:8-23), 127 (Smith
20 Deposition, 8/19/08, pgs. 59:4-
21 60: 13), 129 (Smith Deposition,
22 8/19/08, pg. 71 :2-21).
23 97. During his reduced work schedule medical leave, Dr. Deny. See DSDF 117 (Bryan
24 Jadwin audited PCCs, and continued to report noncompliant Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs.
25 incomplete or missing PCCs to Defendant Bryan, Toni 205:6-206:25 (Exhibit 291»,
26 Smith, KMC Nurse Executive, and Risk Management and 124a (Bryan Deposition,
27 Quality Assurance through at least April 17, 2006, when 8/14/08, pg. 226:10-16).
28
-18-
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDlSPUTED FACTS
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 19
93 of
of 38
120
Plaintiff asked Defendant Bryan to set up a meeting with

2 Bernard Barmann, County Counsel, to discuss his concerns
3 regarding PCC noncompliance.
4 98. The California Department of Health Services later Deny. See DSUF 132 (Smith
5 determined during the course of an inspection that KMC was Deposition, 8/19/08, pgs.
6 indeed failing to comply with PCC-re1ated regulations. 84: 11-85:7).
7 99. On April17, 2006, Defendant Bryan threatened to Deny. Plaintiff was not
8 demote Plaintiff. demoted. See DSUF 160
9 (DFJ00794-795; Bryan
11 231 :9-237:25). KMC letters to
13 9/12/08.
14 100.
15 101.
16 102. Dr. Jadwin reasonably believed that storage of patient Deny. No License was
17 skull caps occurring in an unlicensed laboratory freezer at required for the freezer and
18 KMC violated H&S § 1635.1. Plaintiff knew it. Wrobel
19 Deposition, pgs. 10:11-12,
20 18:7-24,25: 13-26:20,30:4-
21 31:21,32:14-20,39:5-41:6.
22 See PSUF 102 (Lee Supp.
23 Dec!. Exh. 9 (Martinez Depo at
24 14:2-22); Lee Supp. Dec!.,
25 Exh. 12 (Dutt Depo at 244:6-
26 9».
27 103. Unlicensed skull flap storage could give rise to a risk of Deny. Storage is not a risk.
28
-19-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 20
94 of
of 38
120
1 patient morbidity or mortality. Reimp1antation of improperly

2 stored tissue is the risk.
3 104. Gilbert Martinez, the Manager of Laboratory Services Deny. KMC's freezer did not
4 at KMC ("Martinez") confirmed that there were typically need a license. Wrobel
5 seven to nine skull flaps being stored in the lunlicensed [sic] Deposition, pgs. 10:11-12,
6 aboratory [sic] freezer. 18:7-24,25:13-26:20,30:4-
7 31 :21,32:14-20,39:5-41 :6.
8 105. At times, upwards of 15 to 20 skull flaps were being Deny. KMC's freezer did not
9 stored in KMC's unlicensed freezer. need a license. Wrobel
10 Deposition, pgs. 10: 11-12,
11 18:7-24,25:13-26:20,30:4-
12 31:21,32:14-20,39:5-41:6.
13 106. Martinez shared Plaintiff s concerns about unlicensed Deny. KMC's freezer did not
14 skull flap storage in the laboratory freezer. need a license. Wrobel
15 Deposition, pgs. 10:11-12,
16 18:7-24,25: 13-26:20, 30:4-
17 31:21,32:14-20,39:5-41:6.
18 107. When Dr. Jadwin discovered skull flaps being illegally Deny. The storage was not
19 stored in the laboratory freezer, he discussed the problem illegal. Wrobel Deposition,
20 with Gilbert Martinez, the Manager of Laboratory Services pgs. 10:11-12, 18:7-24,25:13-
21 atKMC ("Martinez"). 26:20,30:4-31:21,32:14-20,
22 39:5-41 :6. Plaintiff supervised
23 the pathology laboratory and
24 was in charge of the freezers.
25 See DSUF 6a (0001479-1499).
26 108. Around Thanksgiving 2006, Dr. Jadwin tipped Martinez Deny. The storage did not
27 off that he intended to blow the whistle about his unresolved need a license. See DSUF 55
28
-20-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 21
95 of
of 38
120
1 complaints about unsafe patient care and conditions, (Martinez Deposition, 4/16/08,
2 including unlicensed skull flap storage, and that inspections pgs. 111: 12-118:22). Plaintiff
3 ofKMC by regulatory and accreditation agencies was likely. only told Martinez to expect
4 inspections.
5 109. Within a few days, Martinez relayed this information to Deny. There is no evidence
6 his supervisor, David Hill, the Director of Ambulatory Care; that David Hill communicated
7 who in turn relayed it to a pathologist, Philip Dutt, and/or with either Dr. Dutt or Dr.
8 Defendant Harris. Harris.
9 110. Beginning November 28,2006, Dr. Jadwin formally Deny. Plaintiff has not
10 reported his suspicions of illegal and/or unsafe care and produced his alleged letters to
11 conditions of patients at KMC - including unlicensed skull CAP or DHS. Defendants
12 flap storage, noncompliance PCCs, and an inappropriate have never seen them. See
13 radical prostatectomy (see below) - to the Joint Commission DSUF 56a (DFJ02540-2541).
14 on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations ("JCAHO"), the See PSUF 110 (Lee Supp.
15 College of American Pathologists ("CAP"), and the Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 35 at
16 California Department of Health Services ("DHS"). 8:10-14)); Lee Supp. Dec!.,
17 ("Outside WB Reports). Exh. 20 (RFA No. 21 at 5:22-
18 24 (DHS)); Lee Supp. Dec!.,
19 Exh. 20 (RFA No. 22 at 5:25-
20 6:2 (JCAHO)); Lee Supp!.
21 Dec!., Exh. 20 (RFA No. 23 at
22 6:3-6 (CAP)).
23 111. On January 4,2007, Dr. Dutt received confirmation that Deny. See PSUF 111 (Jadwin
24 Dr. Jadwin had in fact complained to CAP about the Supp. Dec!., Exh. 2 (Dutt's
25 unlicensed tissue storage and noncompliant PCCs, and Email to Culberson of 1/4/07
26 shared this with then-CEO Mr. Culberson. at 0001330)).
27 112.
28
-21-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 22
96 of
of 38
120
1 113.
2 114. At 12:54 p.m. on December 6, 2006, Dr. Jadwin Deny. See DSUF 190
3 formally reported to KMC leadership his concerns regarding (DFJ01479-1480). See Jadwin
4 a KMC patient who was scheduled for immediate radical Dec., Exh. 10.
5 prostatectomy to treat possible cancer. Plaintiff had
6 recommended the attending physician delay the
7 prostatectomy because he believed the pathologic findings of
8 cancer were inconclusive. Instead, Plaintiff had
9 recommended the findings be validated by outside experts.
10 115. Radical prostatectomies pose numerous risks to patient Admit.
11 care, including incontinence, impotence and other morbid
12 factors.
13 116. In his report to KMC leadership, Dr. Jadwin also Deny. See DSUF 189 (Dutt
14 complained of a pattern of non-transparent "peer review" Deposition, 8/20/08, pgs.
15 being conducted against him and asked that the Board of 296:20-297: 13). See Jadwin
16 Supervisors be apprised of his concerns and initiate a formal Dec!., Exh. 10.
17 reVIew.
18 117. Four minutes later, at 12:58 p.m., Dr. Dutt emailed Mr. Dcny. Dutt's e-mail to
19 Culberson complaining about Dr. Jadwin's competency, and Culberson does not refer to
20 insistence on outside review of numerous cases after Dr. Plaintiffs "competency." See
21 Dutt had counseled him on failing to send a case out for Lee Dec!., Exh. 23.
22 consultation. Dr. Dutt also complained about alleged "other
23 Problems" involving Dr. Jadwin which he worried might
24 lead to loss of staff and the pathology department's ability to
25 serve patients and doctors in a timely manner.
26 118.
27 119.
28
-22-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 23
97 of
of 38
120
1 120. Plaintiff was eligible to take medical leave as of Deny. Plaintiff was eligible on
2 December 16,2006. [sic] December 15, 2005.
3 121. Plaintiff requested and took reduced work schedule Admit.
4 CFRA medical leave from December 16, 2005 to at least
5 March 15, 2006.
6 122. Members of the JCC subsequently voted to demote Deny. Plaintiff was not
7 Plaintiff, basing their decision on his unavailability due in demoted. See DSUF 4
8 part to his medical leave. Mr. Bryan told the JCC at the (0000272-358, specifically
9 removal vote: "This recommendation [for removal] is based 0000319). KMC letters to
10 on Dr. Jadwin's unavailability for service because of Jadwin dated 8/14/01 -
11 extended medical leaves ...." 9112/08.
12 123. Previously on April 17, 2006, 4 months into Plaintiffs Deny. See DSUF 160
13 reduced work schedule medical leave, Bryan admitted to Dr. (DFJ00794-795; Bryan
14 Jadwin, "Yes the Department of Pathology continues to Deposition, 8114/08, pgs.
15 function well as it has for many years, and yes, you have 231 :9-237:25).
16 made many positive changes in the department."
17 124. Plaintiff also has direct evidence that Plaintiffs medical Deny. See DSUF 36a
18 leave was a negative factor in the Nonrenewal. (Declaration of Michael Rubio,
19 11110/08, ~2; Declaration of
20 Raymond Watson, 11110/98,
21 ~~3, 4 and 5; Declaration of
22 Mike Maggard, 11/1 0/08, ~2;

24 1111 0/08, ~2; Declaration of
25 Don Maben, 1111 0/08, ~2).
26 125.
27 126.
28
-23-
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 24
98 of
of 38
120
1 127. On April 28, 2006, Defendant Bryan represented to Dr. Admit.

2 Jadwin that he was still entitled to 137 hours of medical
3 leave.
4 128. Sandra Chester, Defendant County's Director of Human Deny. See DSUF 9 (Chester
5 Resources, testified in deposition that Plaintiffs request for Deposition, 8/28/08, pgs.
6 medical leave in his email to Bryan and herself on March 16, 135: 12-137:6), 11 (Chester
7 2006; and provision by Dr. Jadwin's treating therapist, Dr. Deposition, 8/28/08, pgs.
8 Riskin, ofleave certification on April 29, 2006 was timely 75:19-76:10),12 (Bryan
9 under Defendant County's customary practice. Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs.
10 195:9-196:14),13 (Chester
12 113:23-114:12).
13 129. Dr. Riskin's certifications notified it that Plaintiff s Admit.
14 depression was serious enough to require a reduced work
15 schedule leave and regular treatment from December 16,
16 2006 to September 15,2006.
17 130. Nonetheless, Defendant Bryan denied Plaintiff reduced Deny. Peter Bryan gave
18 work schedule medical leave, and forced him to take full- Plaintiffthe option to take full-
19 time "personal necessity leave" under the County's leave time leave. See DSUF 20
20 policy. (DFJOI121), 21 (Bryan
22 250: 15-251 :6, Exhibit 303), 24
23 (DFJOI141), 29 (Bryan
24 Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 244:6-
25 16), 30 (Bryan Deposition,
26 8/14/08, pgs. 280:21-281 :4).
27 131.
28
-24-
iN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
Case
Document293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/01/2008
12/26/2008 Page
Page 25
99 of
of 38
120
1 132.
2 133.
3 134. Dr. Jadwin was an individual with a mental disability Deny. Dr. Reading never used
4 because of his chronic major depressive disorder. Dr. the word "chronic." See PSUF
5 Reading, Plaintiff's forensic psychologist, diagnosed Dr. 134 (Reading Dec!., Exh. 1 at
6 Jadwin as having Major Depressive Disorder. Dr. Reading "Diagnostic Impressions" on p.
7 also noted Dr. Jadwin reported developing depressed mood, 58; Reading Dec!., Exh. 1 at
8 pervasive anhedonia, suicidal ideation, sleep disturbance, "Structured Clinical Interview"
9 and other symptoms while working at KMC. at p. 57-58.).
10 135. Dr. Jadwin's depression limited his ability to take Deny. See PSUF 135
11 pleasure from life, and to engage full-time in, and take (Reading Dec!., Exh. 1 at
12 pleasure from, the medical work to which he had devoted his "Structured Clinical Interview"
13 life. at p. 57-58). Dr. Reading does
14 not comment on the effect
15 Plaintiff's depression had on
16 his life.
17 136. Likewise, Defendant County has admitted, by and Deny. See PSUF 136 (Lee
18 through the PMK deposition testimony of its representative, Supp. Dec!., Exh. 17 (Kercher
19 Eugene Kercher, a psychiatrist, that it was familiar with the Depo at 95:13-22, 96:3-8».
20 symptoms of depression and believed that Dr. Jadwin was Dr. Kercher never diagnosed
21 depressed over several years during his tenure of his Plaintiff. (Kercher Depo
22 employment at KMC. 9/4/08, atpg. 51:1-16).
23 137. Plaintiff also required sinus surgery and required a few Admit.
24 weeks to recover from it during May of 1005.
25 138. Further, Plaintiff suffered an avulsed ankle at the end of Admit.
26 May of 2005 that limited his ability to walk.
27
28
-25-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 100
26 ofof38
120
1 139. The limitations from these physical conditions Deny. See PSUF 139 (Riskin
2 contributed to Plaintiff s limitations from his chronic Dec., Exh. 3 atDFJl814.).
3 depression during May through the first part of June of 2005. There is no evidence that
4 Plaintiff s sinus surgery and
5 broken ankle contributed to his
6 depression.
7 140.
8 141. 2. Plaintiff Was "Otherwise Qualified" Deny. See PSUF 141 (Lee
9 Dec!., Exh. 19 (Bryan's Letter
10 to DHS of?/25/06 at
11 0001619); Exh. 18 (Bryan's
12 Letter to JCC of 7/10/06 at top
13 of 001476 and end of 001457
14 [sic. Should be 001477]); Exh.
15 14 (Bryan's Memo to Jadwin
16 of 4/28/06 at DFJ01152,
17 DFJOl155-1159, DFJOll64);
18 Exh. 16 (Nunn's Cover Email
19 to Jadwin of 6/26/06 at
20 DFJ01346); Exh. 10 (Bryan's
21 Letter to Supervisors of
22 1/17/06 at No. 10 on
23 0001567)). None of Plaintiffs
24 evidence establishes that he
25 was a qualified person under
26 either the ADA or FEHA.
27 142.
28
-26-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 101
27 ofof38
120
1 143.
2 144. Plaintiffs physician, Dr. Lempel, disclosed Plaintiffs Deny. See DSUF 65 (Jadwin
3 depression when he faxed his medical report to KMC's HR Deposition, 1/9/08, pgs. 452:4-
4 Department on November 30, 2000, around the time of 455:19). See Reading Dec!.,
5 Plaintiff shire. pg. 59, ~3, last two lines.
6 145. Defendant Bryan admitted knowing that Dr. Jadwin Admit.
7 needed leave because of his depression.
8 146. Dr. Riskin's certifications stated that Plaintiff needed Admit.
9 medical/recuperative leave for depression from
10 December 16, 2005 to September 16, 2006.
11 147. Supervisor Watson testified in deposition that he knew Deny. See PSUF 147 (Lee
12 Dr. Jadwin was in continuous need of extensions of his Supp. Dec!., Exh. 14 (Watson
13 medical leave. Depo. at 80:22-81 :2)). The
14 page numbers are incorrect and
15 Supervisor Watson did not
16 express an opinion about
17 Plaintiff s need for continuous
18 extensions of his leave.
19 148. On April 4, 2007, during Plaintiff s Admin Leave, Admit.
20 Plaintiff expressly notified Defendant County in writing that
21 Plaintiff was depressed and that the Admin Leave was
22 exacerbating his chronic depression.
23 149.
24 150. 4. Disability Was A Motivating Factor in Demotion, Deny. Plaintiff was not
25 Pay Cut & Nonrenewal. demoted. See DSUF 33
26 (0001476-1565,0000073-75),
27 36a (Declaration of Michael
28
-27-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 102
28 ofof38
120
1 Rubio, 11110/08, '12;

2 Declaration of Raymond
3 Watson, 11/10/98, '1'13, 4 and
4 5; Declaration of Mike
5 Maggard, 11/10/08, '12;
7 11/10/08, '12; Declaration of
8 Don Maben, 11/1 0/08, '12).
10 8/14/01 - 9/12/08.
11 151.
12 152.
13 153. On January 9, 2006, Dr. Jadwin asked Defendant Bryan Admit.
14 to allow him to work part-time and at home while he was
15 recovering from his disabling depression.
16 154. Dr. Riskin, Plaintiff s psychiatrist, certified that part- Deny. See DSUF 14
17 time work was medically necessary. (DFJOl150).
18 155. KMC accommodated Jadwin's disability from Deny. See DSUF 7
19 December 16, 2005 to April 16, 2006 by providing him with (DFJOO723).
20 the reduced work schedule medical/recuperative leave and
21 ability to perform work at home that he requested during his
22 meeting with Defendant Bryan on January 9, 2006.
23 156. As customary, a Locum Tenens pathologist covered Deny. There is no evidence to
24 Plaintiff s clinical pathologist duties, while plaintiff support this fact.
25 performed the remaining 10-20% of his administrative duties
26 as Chair of Pathology.
27 157. As usual, if Dr. Jadwin was unable to attend to an Deny. There is no evidence to
28
-28-
IN OPPOSlTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 103
29 ofof38
120
1 administrative duty at a particular time, then Dr. Dutt filled support this fact.
2 in for him.
3 158. On March 16, 2006, Dr. Jadwin requested an extension Deny. See DSUF 14
4 of his reduced work schedule leave. Dr. Jadwin submitted (DFJO 1150).
5 Dr. Riskin's certification of his continuing need for a
6 reduced work schedule within three days of learning that
7 Defendant County required it.
8 159. On April 28, 2006, Bryan refused to accommodate Deny. See DSUF 21 (Bryan
9 Jadwin's disability. Instead he forced him to take full-time Deposition, 8/14/08, pgs.
10 leave, and refused to hold his job open for him any longer 250:15-251:6, Exhibit 303).
11 while he was on recuperative leave, and refused to allow Dr. There is no evidence to support
12 Jadwin to return to work until he could work full-time. As a this fact.
13 result, Dr. Jadwin was prevented continuing to carry out his
14 duties as Chair of Pathology.
15 160.
16 161.
17 162. Defendant Bryan acted in bad faith when he tmilaterally Deny. See DSUF 14
18 denied Dr. Jadwin's request for continuing accommodation (DFJOlI50). There is no
19 in the form of part-time work, and refused to allow him to evidence to support this fact.
20 return to work until he could work full time.
21 163. Defendant Bryan also acted in bad faith when he Deny. See DSUF 33
22 represented to the JCC that Dr. Jadwin's lack of (0001476-1565,0000073-75).
23 communication with him led him to believe that Dr. Jadwin There is no evidence to support
24 had essentially abandoned his job. this fact.
25 164.
26 165.
27 166.
28
-29-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 104
30 ofof38
120
I 167. The Bylaws of Kern County Medical Center as in effect Deny. See DSUF 37
2 between June 13,2006 and October 4,2007 ("Bylaws") (DFJ01359-1361).
3 provided for due process for core physicians in numerous
4 scenarios like loss of hospital privileges, but not for (i)
5 removal of physicians from department chairmanship, (ii)
6 placement of physicians on administrative leave, or (iii)
7 nonrenewal of physician employment contracts with
8 Defendant County.
9 According to Bylaws Section 12.2 GROUNDS FOR
10 HEARING, due process is provided in the following
II situations:
12 "A. Denial of medical staff membership.
13 B. Denial of requested advancement in staff membership
14 status, or category.
15 C. Denial of medical staff reappointment.
16 D. Suspension of staff membership or clinical privileges for
17 more than thirty (30) days in any twelve (12) month period.
18 E. Demotion to lower staff category or membership status.
19 F. Summary suspension of staff membership or clinical
20 privileges for more than fourteen (14) days.
21 G. Revocation of medical staff membership.
22 H. Denial of requested clinical privileges.
23 1. Involuntary reduction of current clinical privileges.
24 1. Termination of all clinical privileges.
25 K. Involuntary imposition of significant consultation or

26 monitory requirements excluding monitoring incidental to
27 provisional status and Section 7.3)."
28
-30-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 105
31 ofof38
120
1 The due process afforded by the Bylaws in the above cases is

2 robust, as contained in Bylaws Section 12.3-1 NOTICE OF
3 ACTION OR PROPOSED ACTION:
4 "In all cases in which action has been taken or a
5 recommendation made as set forth in Section 12.2, the
6 president of staff or designee on behalf of the medical
7 executive committee shall give the member prompt written
8 notice of (1) the recommendation or final proposed action
9 and that such action, if adopted, shall be taken and reported
10 to the applicable licensing or certifying authority and/or the
11 National Practitioner Data Bank if required; (2) the reasons
12 for the proposed action including the acts or omissions with
13 which the member is charged; (3) the right to request a
14 hearing pursuant to Section 12.3-2."
15 168. The Board of Supervisors of Defendant County ratified Admit.
16 the Bylaws on December 13,2004.
17 169. When the defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with Deny. Plaintiff was not
18 adequate due process in connection with the Demotion, demoted. See DSUF 4
19 Admin Leave and Nonrenewal, they were acting pursuant to (0000272-358), 31 (Bryan
20 the Bylaws. Deposition, 8/14/08, pg. 258:7-
21 16). There is no evidence
22 Defendants failed to comply
23 with the By-Laws. KMC
25 - 9/12/08.
26 170.
27 171.
28
-31-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 106
32 ofof38
120
I 172. It is incontrovertibly established that "Any acts or Admit.

2 omissions of the individual Defendants were under color of
3 law." See Scheduling Order, 9:22-23.
4 173.
5 174.
6 175.
7 176. Plaintiffs employment contract expressly set forth a Deny. See DSDF 6 (0001479-
8 mutually explicit understanding with Defendant County that 1499).
9 Plaintiff would receive Base Pay of$287,529, and that
10 Plaintiff would be chair ofKMC's pathology department.
11 177. Moreover, the employment contract barred Defendant Deny. See DSDF 6 (0001479-
12 County from reducing Plaintiffs Base Pay, removing 1499).
13 Plaintifffrom chair or terminating or otherwise modifying
14 the Contract at will, without cause, or without Plaintiffs
15 consent.
16 178. Defendant COlmty has not removed a department chair Admit.
17 without cause since at least October 2000.
18 179. Defendants County and Harris told Plaintiff several Deny. See DSDF 44 (Jadwin
19 times that the Demotion "necessitated" the Paycut, and that Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs.
20 he would have to agree to it to continue working at KMC. 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and
21 581)),45 (Jadwin Deposition,
22 3/12/08, pgs. 974:3-976:12).
23 Plaintiff was not demoted.
25 8/14/01 - 9/12/08.
26 180. Having no other choice, Plaintiff executed the Paycut Deny. See DSDF 44 (Jadwin
27 amendment to his employment contract. Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs.
28
-32-
SUMMARY ADmDICATION
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 107
33 ofof38
120
1 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and

3 3/12/08, pgs. 974:3-976:12).
4 181. Defendant County was subjectively aware of Plaintiff's Deny. Plaintiff was not
5 contractual interest in Base Pay, as evidenced by the demoted. See DSUF 4

6 numerous reminders by Defendants Bryan and County that (0000272-358, specifically
7 Plaintiff would have to expressly amend his employment 0000319), 44 (Jadwin

8 contract to implement the Paycut resulting from his Deposition, 3/12/08, pgs.
9 Demotion. 969:1-974:2 (Exhibits 644 and
11 3/12/08, pgs. 974:3-976:12).
13 8/14/01 - 9/12/08.
14 182. There was nearly a month gap between the time Deny. Plaintiff was not
15 Defendant Bryan informed Plaintiff he was initiating demoted. See DSUF 4
16 demotion procedures to the time the JCC voted to demote (0000272-358, specifically
17 Plaintiff. 0000319). KMC letters to
19 9/12/08.
20 183. Defendants never notified Plaintiff of the time or place Deny. Plaintiff was not
21 of the JCC vote to demote Plaintiff gave him an explanation demoted. See DSUF 4
22 of the evidence against him, or provided him an opportunity (0000272-358, specifically

23 to tell his side ofthe story. 0000319). KMC letters to
25 9/12/08.
26 184. Before the JCC vote occurred, Plaintiff sent a letter to Deny. Plaintiff was not
27 Defendant County legally challenging the Demotion. demoted. See DSUF 4
28
-33-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 108
34 ofof38
120
I (0000272-358, specifically
2 0000319). See PSUF 184 (Lee
3 Supp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Lee Letter
4 to Barnes of 6/29/06 at
5 DFJl349). There is no
6 evidence to support this. KMC
8 - 9/12/08.
9 185. Nor did Defendant County ever offer Plaintiff a post- Deny. See DSUF 4 (0000272-
10 deprivation hearing. 358, specifically 0000319).
11 186. More importantly, the JCC did not constitute an Deny. See Lee Decl., Exh. 17.
12 impartial tribunal since it comprised individuals who had
13 been harassing and retaliating against Dr. Jadwin and/or
14 individuals on whom Dr. Jadwin was blowing the whistle.
15 187. Nor was Defendant Bryan - who invited Plaintiff to Deny. Plaintiff was not
16 contact him, and only, him regarding the Demotion he demoted. See DSUF 4
17 himself had instigated - an impartial adjudicator given his (0000272-358, specifically
18 demonstrated bias against Plaintiff. 0000319). KMC letters to
19 Jadwin dated 8/14/0 I -
20 9/12/08.
21 188.
22 189.
23 190. Plaintiffs employment contract expressly set forth a Deny. See DSUF 6 (0001479-
24 mutually explicit understanding with Defendant County that 1499).
25 Plaintiff would be paid Professional Fees.
26 191. Defendant County was subjectively aware of Plaintiffs Deny. See DSUF 6 (0001479-
27 contractual interest in Professional Fees as evidenced by the 1499). Plaintiff was not
28
-34-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 109
35 ofof38
120
1 then-CEQ's letter to Plaintiff regarding the Paycut. Mr. demoted. KMC letters to
2 Culberson explained that, as a demoted staff pathologist with Jadwin dated 8/14/01 -
3 a drastically reduced base salary, Plaintiff would 9/12/08.
4 nevertheless be able to take advantage of his reduced
5 administrative duties in order to increase his Professional
6 Fees-based income.
7 192. Mr. Culberson participated in the decision to place Deny. See DSUF 41
8 Plaintiff on Admin Leave, which denied Plaintiff the (DFJO 1482).
9 opportunity to earn Professional Fees.
10 193. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff any pre- or post- Deny. See DSUF 4 (0000272-
11 deprivation procedure when placing him on Admin Leave. 358).6(0001479-1499).
12 194. When Defendant County sent a letter to Plaintiff Deny. See DSUF 41
13 placing him on Admin Leave, the letter stated only that the (DFJ01482).
14 Admin Leave was "pending resolution of a personnel
15 matter."
16 195. At no time did Defendants County or Harris inform Deny. There was no "charge"
17 Plaintiff of the nature of the charges against him, give him against Plaintiff.
18 and explanation of the evidence against him, or provide him
19 an opportunity to tell his side of the story.
20 196. Even when Plaintiff protested the lack of due process, Deny. See PSUF 196 (Lee
21 Defendant County refused to respond. Supp. Dec!., Exh. 4 (Lee Letter
22 to Barnes of 4/4/07 at
23 DFJ01619». There is no
24 evidence to support this.
25 197. Since 1995, only one other department chair had ever Admit.
26 been placed on administrative leave in excess of 1 month.
27 198.
28
-35-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 110
36 ofof38
120
1 199.
2 200. Defendant County customarily renews the contracts of Deny. See Response to #30
3 all of its KMC medical staff. above.
4 201. When Plaintiff asked Defendant County to identify all Admit.
5 members of the KC medical staff - which comprises roughly
6 60 full-time faculty physicians at any given time - who had
7 employment contracts which were not renewed during the
8 period from October 24, 2000 to the present, Defendant
9 County was able to name only one doctor.
10 202. At no time did Defendant County inform Plaintiff of the Deny. See Response to #195
11 nature of the charges against him, give him an explanation of above.
12 the evidence against him, or provide him an opportunity to
13 tell his side of the story.
14 203. Defendant County denies that anyone even participated Deny. See PSUF 203 (Lee
15 in a decision not to renew Plaintiff's employment contract. Supp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Rog No.
16 45,53:16-20)).
17 204. Even when Plaintiff protested the lack of due process, This is the same as #196. See
18 Defendant County refused to respond. Response to #196 above.
19 205.
20 206.
21 207. Defendant County itself admits that no relevant event Deny. See DSUF 6 (0001479-
22 occurred on or before January 6, 2005. 1499), 48 (0000623-630), 65
23 (Jadwin Deposition, 119/08,
24 pgs. 452:4-455:19), 71
25 (0001059-1072), 90 (0000260
26 (Exhibit 560)), 91 (0000031-
27 70),92 (DFJ00246), 97
28
-36-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 111
37 ofof38
120
I (DFJ0025 1-270), 98
2 (DFJ00289-290), 101
3 (DFJ00241-242),102
4 (DFJ00248), 147 (DFJ00243-
5 245).
6 208.
7 209.
8 210. Defendant County admits that Plaintiff has exhausted Admit.
9 his administrative remedies as to all claims except for the
10 new FMLAlCFRAlFEHA retaliation claim added via the
11 Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 7, 2008 (Doc.
12 241).
13 211. Plaintiff exhausted his CRFA & FEHA Admit.
14 oppositional/participation retaliation claims by filing a
15 timely complaint with the California Department of Fair
16 Employment & Housing ("DFEH") on September 3, 2008,
17 and obtaining a right to sue letter that same day.
18 212.
19 213.
20 214. Defendant Bryan was the Chief Executive Officer at Admit.
21 KMC from September of 2004 until September of 2006.
22 215. Eugene Kercher, M.D. was the President ofKMC Admit.
23 Medical Staff from July 2004 to July 2006, and a member of
24 the JCC.
25 216. Defendant Irwin Harris, M.D., was Chief Medical Admit.
26 Officer at KMC from July of2005 to September of2007,
27 and a non-voting member of the JCC.
28
-37-
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
293-2
278 Filed
Filed 12/26/2008
12/01/2008 Page
Page 112
38 ofof38
120
1 217. Jennifer Abraham, M.D. was Immediate Past President Admit.

2 ofKMC Medical Staff during 2004-2006, and President
3 Elect in July 2006 to December of 2007.
4 218. Scott Ragland, D.O. was President-Elect of the KMC Admit.
5 Medical Stafffrom 2004-2006, Chair of the Quality
6 Management Committee, and a member of the JCC.
7 219. Toni Smith was the Chief Nurse Executive ofKMC, Admit.
8 and a member of the Jec.
9 220. William Roy, M.D., was Chief of the Division of Admit.
10 Gynecologic Oncology at KMC.
11 221. Marvin Kolb, M.D. was former Chief Medical Officer Admit.
12 at KMC who left in September of 2004.
13 222. Phillip Dutt, MD., became Chair of Pathology at KMC Deny. Dr. Dutt was the
14 in August of2006. interim Chair.
15 223. David Culberson was Interim Chief Executive Officer Admit.
16 from September of2006 to May of2007.
17 224. Paul Hensler became Chief Executive Officer at in [sic] Admit.
18 May of2007.
19 225. Gilbert Martinez was and is the Manager of Laboratory Deny. Gilbert Martinez retired
20 Services at KMC. on September 27,2008.
21 Change of Employee Status.
22 Respectfully submitted,
23
24 Dated: December 1, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
25
26 By: lsi Mark A. Wasser

27 Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al
28
-38-
SUMMARY ADJUDICAnON
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
EXHIBIT 4: Eugene Lee Faxed Demand Letter to Kern County Deputy Counsel Karen Barnes
26
27
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: MaxEmail Send [SendAdmin@maxemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:42 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: MaxEmail Send Delivery Report Job 20183519-100011.001
===============================================================================
Maxemail Send Job Confirmation For Job ID 20183519-100011.001
===============================================================================
Job Information
Maxemail Job ID : 20183519-100011.001

Number of Pages : 0006
Recipient Count : 3
Total Charges : $0.65
Report Time Zone: America/Los_Angeles (GMT-0700)
Recipient Delivery Summary
Delivered : 3
Errorred : 0
Rec Fax Number Pgs* Duration Calls Status Charge

0000 6618683809 0006 00:01:50 1 Delivered $0.20
0001 8182499682 0006 00:01:49 1 Delivered $0.20
0002 2135960487 0006 00:02:07 1 Delivered $0.25
================================================================================
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
===============================================================================
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-TAGL A rDocument

O F293-2
F I Filed
C E12/26/2008
O F ELEE@LCIEL.ECIM
Page 115 of 120
rm t'dA1 L
E U G E N E L E E
12 131 506-0407 4 4 5 SOUTH F I G U E R O A S T STE 2 7 0 0 W.LCIEL.ECIM
FACSIMILE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 6 3 2 WE~EITE
FAX
To: Eugene Lee From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 21 35960487 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
( a 131 ~ m a - 0 4 8 a
TELEPHONE
L A WOFFICE OF ELEE@LOEL.COM
E-MAIL
E U G E N E L E E
12 131 6 9 e . 0 4 0 7 4 4 6 E O U T H FImULROA ET, E U I T L 2 7 0 0 WWW.LOLL.UOM
FAUEIMILL LOU ANmLLLE. UALIFORNIA 9 0 0 7 1 . 1 - 3 2 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
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 ;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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 ;
To: Eugene Lee @ 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice o f Eugene Lee
(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) Negligent Hiring I Su~ervisionI Retention
(vii) 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
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"
(ii) "you are also to refrain from contacting any employee or faculty member of Kern
Medical Center for any reason other than seeking medical attention"
(iii) "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"
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.
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) 453-
1781 or at elee@,LOEL.com. We look forward to working with you toward resolution of Dr.
Jadwin's claims.
enc: Request for Kern County Personnel File
cc: 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
PAGE 01/01
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

293 P Opp - D MJOP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

293 P Opp - D MJOP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 1 of 7

1 Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

1 frivolous and harassing.

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

1 Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)

1 were either served on me or transmitted by me on or around the dates indicated:

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 4 of 120

I Mark A Wasser CA 5B #60160

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.e.A.p.

26 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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.

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 6 of 120

1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3

DEFENDA)[TS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 7 of 120

DEFENDANTS' SCPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 8 of 120

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 9 of 120

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6

6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPO:-lSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7

15 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at K1vlC.

16 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48

17 Administrative responsibilities include ensuring, together with the laboratory manager,

Administrative duties include overseeing the development, implementation and

28 ensuring that performance deficicncics arc addresscd in a timely manner; monitoring

DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 10 of 120

DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLANTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

DEPENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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 assigned by the chief executive officer.

4 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

7 true and correct.

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLADITIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

I Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

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

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

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

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11

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

1 REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22

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

I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28

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

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32

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

1 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.

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