283 D MSJ - Opp - Objections

8/14/2019 283 D MSJ - Opp - Objections

1/45

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

S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487

email: [email protected] for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCESUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT[Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)]

Date: January 12, 2009Time: 10:00Judge: Hon. Oliver W. WangerCourtroom: 3

Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: March 24, 2009

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 283 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 1 of 45


2/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., contends Defendants have failed to lay any foundation

whatsoever for any of the over 1,000 pages of documents or deposition transcripts which they attach as

exhibits to their Motion. It is well settled that only admissible evidence may be considered by the trial

court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Services, Inc., 854 F.2d

1179, 1181-1182 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). A proper foundation must be established

for documents used to support or oppose summary judgment motions. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA

(9th Cir. 2002) 285 F3d 764, 778. As with other documentary evidence, discovery documents must be

properly authenticated (e.g., by affidavit or declaration establishing accuracy of copy attached).Id. at

774. A portion of a deposition transcript must be properly authenticated by showing the deponents

name and attaching the court reporters certification.Ibid.

In submitting their Motion, Defendants have failed to lay any foundation whatsoever for any of

the over 1,000 pages of documents or deposition transcripts which they attach as exhibits to their

Motion. Other than 5 sham declarations intended only to controvert sworn deposition testimony,

Defendants have failed to submit a single affidavit or declaration. The deposition transcripts are

condensed transcripts intended only for informal attorney use which are not accompanied by reporter

certifications. Plaintiff separately submits evidentiary objections to Defendants Motion.

The complete absence of admissible evidence justifies denial of Defendants Motion.

Plaintiff hereby submits the following additional objections to, and moves to strike all, evidence

submitted by Defendants in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, including the following:

s MATERIAL FACT s EVID. S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

1. First Employment Contract betweenKern Medical Center (hereinafterreferred to as KMC) and David F.Jadwin, D.O. (hereinafter referred toas Jadwin) entered into on October 24,

2000.

DFJ00025-00046

None.

2. Employment Verification letter of3/3/05 (giving original date of hire asDecember 3, 2000).

DFJ00358 None.



3/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. Memo from Bryan to Jadwin dated8/14/01 (showing Jadwin received theMedical Staff Bylaws).

0000202-203

Lacks foundation. Document notauthenticated. Document not complete wrong bylaws effective as of 12/13/04attached.

4. Medical Staff Bylaws, approved as

of 12/13/04.

0000272-

358

None.

5. Exhibit A to Employment Contract(stating responsibilities and duties ofthe pathology dept. chair are set out inthe KMC Medical Staff Bylaws,sections 6. through 6.4-3).

DFJ00046 Lacks foundation. Document notauthenticated. Document not complete, theexhibit is provided without the contract.

Hearsay. Best evidence rule.

6. Second Employment Contractbetween KMC and Jadwin waseffective October 5, 2002.

0001479-1499

None.

a) Exhibit A to the SecondEmployment Contract: JobDescription, David F. Jadwin, M.D.,Pathology Chairman.

None.

7. Letter to Peter Bryan (hereinafterreferred to as Bryan) from Jadwin,dated 1/9/06, requestingadministrative leave with pay untilhostile environment is corrected. Hedemanded action on 1) sendingtransfusion Product Chart Copies(hereinafter referred to as PCCs) to theblood bank; 2) KMCs alleged lack ofcompliance with their weekly

oncology conferences by reportingthemselves (KMC) to the AmericanCollege of Surgeons (hereinafterreferred to as ACS); 3) reviewing timelimits on pathology presentations; and4) implementing protocol of collectionof Fine Needle Aspiration (hereinafterreferred to as FNA) specimens.

DFJ00723 Document not complete, second page ismissing.



4/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7A. Dutt recalled Jadwins threat oftaking a leave of absence until themedical staff and the administrationapologized to him.

Dutt Depo.,8/20/08,pgs. 52:5-53: 18

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not acertified copy, it is a condensed transcript forinformal attorney use. No reporter certificationis attached to the transcript.Improper Speculation as to Plaintiffs intent.

Misstates the testimony. Dutt was speculating:Q. He told you, I'm going to take a leave ofabsence to pressure the administration toapologize?A. What he said was I'm going to take a leaveof absence. That occurred in the context wherehe was upset about a letter he had receivedregarding the October tumor conference, andhe kept saying all I want is an apology.Q. So he didn't say the exact words I'm goingto take a leave absence in order to force theadministration to give me an apology? Is thatwhat he said?A. He didn't use those exact words.[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 47 (Dutt depo, 52:16-23)][]A. I think he was trying to -- he thought hecould pressure the medical staff and theadministration into giving him an apology. Allhe wanted was an apology.[Id. at 53:8-10]

8. Plaintiffs email to/from medicalexecutive recruiters in January 2006.

DFJ02422-2459

Irrelevant and immaterial.

a) You know, I wish I could go back

because I enjoyed that job. Imentioned multiple times during myrecruitment and elsewhere that thatwas the last position that I wanted totake, that I saw myself retiring out ofthat position and not moving. And Iwas very disappointed when-whenthings-when people that were in aposition to do the right thing didnt dothe right thing.

Jadwin

Depo.,10/21/08,pg. 1087:9-17

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not a

certified copy, it is a condensed transcript forinformal attorney use. No reporter certificationis attached to the transcript.


9. Sandi Chester effectively refutesany argument that Jadwins letter to

Peter Bryan of January 9, 2006 wasnotice to KMC that Jadwin neededmedical leave or that, by implication,Jadwin was absolved of theresponsibility to notify HR that he wastaking a leave of absence. As SandiChester said I mean, anybody canwrite a letter.

ChesterDepo.,

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

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not acertified copy, it is a condensed transcript for

informal attorney use. No reporter certificationis attached to the transcript.

Testimony lacks foundation. Improper legalconclusion as to notice and responsibility tonotify HR re leave of absence. Improperopinion testimony.




5/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10. Certification of Health CareProvider dated 1/13/06 for Jadwin.Includes the duration of the medicalcondition (2-3 months) and theexpected date to return to work(3/16/06). It gives the date the medical

condition commenced as 12/16/05.

DFJ00726 None.

11. Jadwin did not communicate withHuman Resources (hereinafterreferred to as HR) at all, HRdiscovered that Jadwin ------ hadunilaterally assigned himself to 1 to 2workdays per week but, per policy, anemployee must use vacation, sicktime, or leave of absence when notworking full-time. It was HR thatbrought Jadwin into compliance withCounty policy by putting him on leaveof absence.

ChesterDepo.,8/28/08,pgs. 75:19-76:10

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not acertified copy, it is a condensed transcript forinformal attorney use. No reporter certificationis attached to the transcript.

Misstates the testimony in all respects.


12. KMC had to designate Jadwinsmedical leave retroactively becauseJadwin was late in giving appropriaterequests.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08,pgs. 195:9-196: 14


Irrelevant and immaterial.13. Jadwins submission of hishealthcare providers certification wasnot timely and was only providedupon prompting from HR.

ChesterDepo.,8/28/08,pgs. 113:23- 114: 12


Lacks foundation. Speculative as to who put

Plaintiff on leave and whether self-imposed.

Irrelevant and immaterial.14. Certification of Health CareProvider, dated 4/26/06, stating thatJadwins medical condition goes backto 10/30/03. The Certification statesthat Jadwin requires part-time or lessto avoid worsening of his seriousmedical condition.

DFJ01150 None.

15. Jadwins Request for Leave ofAbsence (hereinafter referred to as

LOA), dated 3/2/06, notes that theLOA started on 12/16/05.

DFJ00746 None.



6/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16. KMCs responsive document tothe LOA request, dated 3/2/06,indicating that the leave ends on3/15/06 and stating ... have the rightto be reinstated to the same or anequivalent job with the same pay,

benefits and terms and conditions ofemployment.

DFJ00747-748


17. E-mails dated 3/16/06. One toPeter Bryan from Jadwin telling himthat he (Jadwin) will take Bryanssuggestion to take 2-3 monthsadditional leave; the other to Dr.Kercher from Jadwin telling him thathe (Jadwin) is having surgery and willI need 2-3 months of additional leavefor the surgery and requestingapologies from Dr. Ragland(President-elect), Dr. Abraham andDr. Taylor and an investigation intoDr. Roy.

DFJ00752-753

None.

18. Notice from Human Resources toJadwin, dated 4/20/06, that his leaveof absence expired on 3/15/06.

DFJ00796 Irrelevant and immaterial.

19. Jadwins request for Leave ofAbsence Extension, dated 4/26/06, hasa starting date of 3/15/06 and anending date of 9/16/06.

DFJ01158 Irrelevant and immaterial to Defendants'argument that Plaintiff failed to give notice ofhis need for extension of medical leave prior tobeing placed on Forced FT Leave by Bryan asof 4/28/06. Irrelevant to excusing Defendant'sliability under any of Plaintiff's counts.

20. Memo from Bryan to Jadwin,dated 4/28/06, notifying him that hisleave would be up on 6/16/06 and heeither returns fulltime or resigns. Also,it notes that Jadwin was provided amedical leave history, along with thecalculations and policies about hismedical leave.

DFJ01121 None.

21. Bryan noted that he gave theoption to Jadwin whether to go onfull-time leave, although full-time

leave was preferable to Bryan. Bryanasserts that it was Jadwins decision togo on fulltime leave and that Jadwinnever communicated with Bryan anycontrary intent.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08,

pgs. 250:15- 251:6,Exhibit 303

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not acertified copy, it is a condensed transcript forinformal attorney use. No reporter certification

is attached to the transcript.



7/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. Memo from Bryan to Jadwin dated4/28/06, summarizing a meeting heldwith Bryan, Karen Barnes, SteveOConnor, and Jadwin. The meetingwas held to insure that [Jadwin] hadall information available concerning

his status and what was possible andnot possible according to Countypolicies for leaves of absence. It wasnot a disciplinary meeting.

BryanDepo.,8114/08,pgs.240:9244: 2,Exhibit 303

pg 243 :22-25pg.244:1-2


23. A letter to Bryan from Jadwin,dated May 31, 2006, where Jadwinrequests more time to make thedecision by June 16th of whether toreturn full-time or resign. Bryan didnot have the authority to make anexception to County policy byextending leave beyond the maximumperiod granted for leave. Jadwinwasnt being asked to return full-timeon June 16th, he just had to give hisdecision to return full-time by June16th. He did not do that.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08,pgs.248:16249:9 Exhibit311


Improper legal conclusion. Improper opinion.

24. Letter from Peter Bryan to Jadwin,dated 6/14/06, granting him PersonalNecessity Leave of 90 days, pursuantto Rule 1202.2, but only for hisemployment with KMC, not for hisposition as pathology departmentchair.

DFJ01141 None.

25. Bryan artfully explained why theChair of the Department of Pathologyneeds to be present full-time. Its notjust the task orientation of handling aduty. Its being present within theorganization to influence theorganizations policies and practices.Organizations tend to drift without theconstancy of leadership, because thatis part of what a leader does is monitorthe performance to ensure things stayon track, and without that constantdialogue present, you can find

yourself getting off track. In themedical arena when patient care isinvolved, you dont allow it to get tothe point where you dont have theleadership necessary. So thatsinferred in it being a full-timeposition.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08, pg.216:322.


Speculation as to what is inferred in aposition being full-time.



8/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a) Responsibilities and duties of thepathology dept. chair are set out in theKMC Medical Staff Bylaws, sections6. through 6.4-3.

DFJ00046 Lacks foundation. Document notauthenticated. Document not complete, theexhibit is provided without the contract.


26. Mortgage verification ofemployment for Jadwin, dated6/22/06, noting that the probability ofcontinued employment for Jadwin wasgood and he was okay to return towork when well.

DFJ01343 No foundation. Unauthenticated. Hearsay.Irrelevant and immaterial.

27. Letter from Dr. Harris (writing onbehalf of Bryan) to Jadwin, dated6/26/06, stating that he (Jadwin) hasbeen seen in and around KMC andthat while he (Jadwin) is on leave, heis not to enter the hospital except forseeking medical attention. He is alsonot to contact any employee or facultymember of KMC while on leave.

0001424 No foundation. Unauthenticated.

28. In his letter of June 14, 2006,Bryan notifies Jadwin that Jadwin willbe removed as chair and tells Jadwinto call him if he has questions. Bryanstates that put the burden ofchallenging the action or asking forreconsideration on Jadwin who nevercalled him about the letter.

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


Improper conclusion as to burden. Improperopinion.

29. According to Exhibit 303,

Jadwins leave and all allowances bythe County expired by June 16th.After that date, Bryan had no authorityto extend Jadwins employmentrelationship.

Bryan

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




30. By June 2006, Jadwin had fullyexhausted his rights and theinstitutional obligation to grant himmedical leave.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08,pgs.280:21281:4



31. Adherence to the Medical StaffBylaws afforded Jadwin the dueprocess that he was entitled to.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08, pg.258:7-16





9/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32. Tort Claims Act Complaint, dated7/3/06, Jadwin admits that he had usedup his CFRA leave by June 14th,2006. Page 1 of the Attachment (page3 of the entire complaint), Section A,paragraph 1, last sentence reads As of

June 14, 2006, Complainant had taken12 weeks of CFRA sick leave andapproximately 3-4 weeks of Countysick leave based on doctorscertifications which he submitted.

Exhibit 2 toSecondAmendedComplaint


Improper legal conclusion.

33. Memorandum to the JointConference Committee (JCC) fromBryan, dated 7/10106, recommendingthat the Committee approve thedemotion of Jadwin from chair of thepathology department to staffpathologist. This recommendation torescind Dr. Jadwins appointment asChairman, Department of Pathology,is based solely on his continued non-availability to provide the leadershipnecessary for a contributing memberof the medical staff leadership group.KMC must have its key personnelavailable, and Dr. Jadwin has providedno indication that he is committed toreturn to work or resume his duties aschairman. Also, Dr. Jadwin hasmade no attempt to contact meconcerning my decision to relieve himof his chairman duties nor has he

indicated any desire to negotiate a newcontract. JCC meeting minutesconfirm that the committee tookBryans advice and they did it for thereason that he gave in hismemorandum.

0001476-15650000073-75

Misstates evidence. JCC minutes state onlythat the JCC voted on Bryansrecommendation for demotion and approved it.There is no disclosure of the JCCs reasons fortheir vote.[Lee Decl., Exh. 17 (JCC Minutes of 7/10/06at Item 10 on Bates 0009820-9821)].

34. Ray Watson (hereinafter referredto as Watson) testified that he onlyremembers a discussion on removingJadwin from the department chairposition; he was quite clear (and hewas asked three times) that he did not

remember any discussion aboutJadwins termination. Heaffirmatively stated that he knew of nodiscussions about Jadwin resigning orbeing denied privileges.

WatsonDepo.,8125/08,pgs. 13:17-14:14


Misstates testimony.



10/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35. Watson testified that he becameaware that Jadwins contract was notrenewed although he could not give atimeline as to when things happened.He also testified strongly that he doesnot recall a vote taken on the

nonrenewal although [he] imagine[s]it was,

WatsonDepo.,8/25/08,pgs. 28:6-30:23


Misstates testimony, Watson did not testify

strongly that he didnt recall a vote.

36. Watson testified that the fact thatJadwin was suing KMC was broughtup in discussions of whether to renewJadwins contract although he wouldnot say it was a consideration, onlythat it was discussed. In addition, itbecame obvious after a few questionsthat Watson was confused about thesequence of events which can lead tothe inference that he does not recallanything specifically or correctly.

WatsonDepo.,8/25/08,pgs.110:12112:13


Misstates testimony. Watson answered thequestion affirmatively. He never denied thatPlaintiffs lawsuit was a consideration for theNonrenewal. In fact, in later testimony,Watson volunteers that Plaintiffs lawsuit wasa reason for the Nonrenewal.



11/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a) Kern County Board of Supervisorsdid not discuss the non-renewal ofJadwins employment agreement ormade any decisions regarding the non-renewal of the employmentagreement. The subject never came

before the Board of Supervisors.

Decl. ofMichaelRubio,11/10/08,2; Decl. ofRaymond

Watson,11/10/08,3, 4 and5; Decl. ofMikeMaggard,11/10/08,2; Decl. ofJonMcQuiston,11/10/08,2; Decl. ofDon Maben,11/10/08, 2

Rubio Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundation as todates of attendance at JCC meetings. Para. 2:Speculation as to Plaintiffs being upset.Improper conclusions and speculationregarding Board of Supervisors discussions,decisions re Plaintiffs agreement.

Watson Decl.: Para. 2 & 3: Sham declarationthat contradicts sworn deposition testimonyafter the fact that the JCC did in fact make adecision not to renew Plaintiffs contract. [LeeOpp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson Depo. at 30:10-13; 110:12-111:5; 111:15-24; 113:15-114:4)].A party cannot create an issue of fact by adeclaration contradicting his or her owndeposition or other sworn testimony. SeeBlockv. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2001) 253 F3d410, 419, fn. 2. The same rule applies topostdeposition affidavits that contradict theaffiants deposition testimony.Aerel, S.R.L. v.PCC Airfoils, LLC(6th Cir. 2006) 448 F3d899, 907908;Bank of Ill. v. Allied SignalSafety Restraint Systems (7th Cir. 1996) 75F3d 1162, 1169. Para. 4: Improper conclusionsand speculation regarding Board ofSupervisors discussions, decisions.

Maggard Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundation asto dates of attendance at JCC meetings. Para.2: Speculation as to Plaintiffs being upset.Improper conclusions and speculationregarding Board of Supervisors discussions,decisions re: Plaintiffs agreement.

Maben Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundation as todates of attendance at JCC meetings. Para. 2:Speculation as to Plaintiffs being upset.Improper conclusions and speculationregarding Board of Supervisors discussions,decisions re: Plaintiffs agreement.

McQuiston Decl.: Para. 1: Lacks foundationas to dates of attendance at JCC meetings.Para. 2: Speculation as to Plaintiffs beingupset. Improper conclusions andspeculation regarding Board of Supervisors

discussions, decisions re: Plaintiffsagreement.



12/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37. Letter from Karen Barnes(hereinafter referred to as Barnes) toPlaintiffs attorney Eugene Lee, dated7118/06, in which she mentions (pg.2) that Jadwin was removed aspathology department chair on 7/10/06

at a regularly scheduled meeting of theJoint Conference Committee, pursuantto Bylaws article IX, section 9.7-4removal of a department chair mayoccur with or without cause ...

DFJ01359-1361


38. Plaintiffs attorney Eugene Leeagrees that Jadwin was not removed aschair during his medical leave.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08, pg.222:8-13

Irrelevant, immaterial, and is an improper legalconclusion.


Lacks foundation. Hearsay. A depositionquestion is not evidence, particularly when itspurpose is solely to elicit testimony from adeponent.

39. Letter to Dr. Harris from Jadwin,dated 9111/06, stating that he (Jadwin)will be returning to work on 9/18/06and enclosed was a doctorscertification that he was able to returnto work full-time.

DFJ01388-1389

None.

40. Letter from David Culberson toJadwin, dated 9/20/06, explaining the

reasons for reduction in pay.

DFJ01398 None.

41. Letter from David Culberson toJadwin, dated 12/7/06, putting Jadwinon administrative leave with pay andconfining him to his home duringbusiness hours, pursuant to KernCounty Policy and AdministrativeProcedures Manual section 124.3.

DFJ01482 None.

a) Kern County Policy andAdministrative Procedures Manual,pg. 1:22, Section titled

Administrative Leave with Pay.During the administrative leave, theemployee shall be ordered to remain athome and available by telephone ... .

0016941 Incomplete document Bates 0016940 and16943 were omitted. Bates 0016940establishes that Defendant County can only put

an employee on administrative leave for goodcause.[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 19 (Kern County Policy& Administrative Procedures Manual atSection 139 (Disciplinary Actions) and 139.6(Administrative Leave with Pay) on Bates0016940-16941)].



13/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42. Letter from Mark Wasser toEugene Lee, dated 4/30/07, allowingJadwin to pursue his own activitiesduring the work week and retaininghim, at his usual salary, for consulting.

DFJ01701 Irrelevant and immaterial to excusingDefendants' liability under any of Plaintiff'scounts, as evidenced by Defendants' failure tocite to this DMF anywhere in their motionbrief (Doc. 29).

Misstates evidence.43. Letter to Mark Wasser fromEugene Lee, dated 5/1/07, noting thaton 4/28/07 and in several following e-mails he was notified that KMCwanted to terminate Jadwins contractand would not renew it on 10/4/07.

DFJ01703-1704

None.

44. Exhibit 644 is an e-mail with anamendment attached to it. Theamendment is a contract amendmentwhich Jadwin had to sign beforereturning to work. Exhibit 581 is alsothe same contract amendmentalthough Exhibit 581 is signed. Thereare differences between Exhibit 644and 581, in subparagraphs h and i.Jadwin confirmed that he haddiscussions with his attorney about theamendment; Jadwin does not know ifhis attorney negotiated any of theterms in it. Jadwin does not know ifhis attorney made proposals to KMCwith suggested changes in thelanguage of the amendment. Jadwinwas aware of the changes at the timethey occurred but he does not recall

how the changes came about. Onechange that Jadwin recalls talkingabout is the cut in his salary which hedidnt agree with.

JadwinDepo.,3/12/08,pgs. 969:1-974:2(Exhibits644 and581)


Lacks foundation. Improper speculation.Plaintiffs testimony that he spoke with hisattorney regarding his disagreement about thepay reduction invades attorney-clientprivileged communication, a privilege which isnever waived, and is inadmissible.

45. The last two pages of Exhibit 581is Exhibit A which is a jobdescription. Jadwin confirms that heread it at the time of signing theamendment. Jadwin looked at thetasks listed and does not believe thatany of those tasks requireaccommodation. Jadwin does not

recall asking anyone with the Countyfor an accommodation of any of thetasks listed in Exhibit A.

JadwinDepo.,3/12/08,974:3~976:l2


Improper legal conclusion. Vague andambiguous.



14/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

46. Jadwin testified that he wanted hisemployment contract renewed, butwhen presented with the fact that hisemployment contract in place at thetime of nonrenewal contained hisreduced salary, he denied wanting to

renew that contract.

JadwinDepo.,10/21/08,pg. 1011:161016: 19


Misstates testimony. Plaintiff was testifying

that he viewed the Paycut Amendment of7/10/06 as retaliatory. This testimony hadnothing to do with nonrenewal. It was alsooutside the scope of Judge Wangers order(Doc. 245:3:5-6), which limited the scope ofdiscovery at that time only to the Plaintiffsnew nonrenewal-related claims.

47. Jadwin said that the contract hewanted renewed was his DepartmentChair contract.

JadwinDepo.,10/21/08,pgs.1032:16-1033: 3; pg.1043:12-20


Improper speculation. Misstates testimony.Plaintiff was testifying as to his desires andwants were as of 10/7/08, not as of the time hiscontract expired over a year earlier on 10/4/07.[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 6 (Jadwin Depo at1034:13-1035:9; 1036:7-11; 1041:5-9; 1044:2-3; 1060:4-7)].

JADWINS ALLEGATIONS OF

REGULATORY VIOLATIONS

48. Approved Cancer ProgramPerformance Report for KMC, dated7/14/04, with a rating of I meaning

KMCs Cancer program-includingnumber of meetings-is approved forthree years with commendation.

0000623-630

No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.

49. Exchange of e-mails between ToniSmith and Jadwin, dated 6115/05,about the PCC issues. In 0000423,Jadwin states that a PCC must not besigned until the time of the infusion,or KMC is not meeting AmericanAssociation of Blood Banks(hereinafter referred to as AABB)accreditation standards.

0000421-424

Irrelevant and immaterial to excusingDefendants' liability under any of Plaintiff'scounts, as evidenced by Defendants' failure tocite to this DMF anywhere in their motionbrief (Doc. 29).

50. Typed notes, dated 1/10106, ofinterviews done to rebut Jadwinsclaim that the meeting frequencystandard set by the American Collegeof Surgeons (hereinafter referred to asACS) was not being met at KMC.

0000575 Irrelevant to excusing Defendants liabilityunder any of Plaintiffs counts, as evidencedby Defendants failure to cite this DMFanywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).




15/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51. In meeting on 2/22/06, Jadwinalleges that KMC is not meeting theACS standard for frequency of staffmeetings; was rebutted during themeeting that KMC is meeting standardbased on 2 surveys and paperwork.

0000578 No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.Misstates evidence. Improper conclusion as torebutted.

52. In an e-mail to Peter Bryan dated4/10/06, Jadwin brings up non-compliance with state regulations,Joint Commission for theAccreditation of HospitalOrganizations (hereinafter referred toas JCAHO), and AABB on the issuesof the PCCs.

DFJ00784

None.

53. Notes of meeting with PeterBryan, Karen Barnes and Jadwin on4/13/06. There is no problem with thePCCs because 5 charts were reviewed(and approved) by JCAHO.

DFJ00788 Irrelevant and immaterial to excusingDefendants liability under any of Plaintiffscounts, as evidenced by Defendants failure tocite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief(Doc. 262).

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

54. E-mail to Peter Bryan fromJadwin, dated 4/17/06, claiming thatthe JCAHO review was too small of asample so KMC was not incompliance on their handling of thePCCs and there was a need for action.

DFJ00793 None.

55. Gilbert Martinez, the Laboratorymanager, recalls Jadwin telling him

before Thanksgiving in 2006 toprepare the laboratory for possibleinspections (so sometime before11122/06). He does not recall ifJadwin told him how Jadwin mightknow about it. He remembersinspectors coming in from theCalifornia Dept. of Health Services(hereinafter referred to as DHS) andreceiving written inquiries from theCAP. These inspections occurredseveral months after Jadwin hadmentioned it. Jadwin did not confide

in him or tell him that the inspectionswere happening because ofwhistleblowing by Jadwin.

MartinezDepo.,

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



Misstates testimony regarding confidewhistleblowing.



16/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a) CAP conducts routine inspections,unannounced, on a known periodicbasis.

MartinezDepo.,4/16/08,pgs. 118:23-120: 19



56. Jadwin first reported concerns toJCAHO, CAP, and DHS in November28, 2006 (more than five years afternoticing alleged violations).

No supporting evidence submitted.

a) Actual complaint filed with JCAHOby Jadwin.

DFJ02540-2541

None.

b) E-mail from JCAHO to Jadwin,dated 11/29/06, acknowledging receiptof complaint about KMC.

DFJ01454 None.

c) Letter from DHS to Jadwin, dated12/1/06, acknowledging receipt ofcomplaint.

DFJ01459 None.

57. E-mail to JCAHO from Jadwin,dated 12/8/06, wanting to talk with theJCAHO investigator and requestingquickness on the investigation becauseKMC might be covering upnoncompliance evidence. He brings upthe issue of skull flaps being storedon-site.

DFJ02538-2539

Irrelevant to excusing Defendants liabilityunder any of Plaintiffs counts, as evidencedby Defendants failure to cite this DMFanywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).

Misstates evidence.

58. Letter to KMC from Jadwin dated

12/13/06 notifying hospitaladministration that he has notifiedgovernmental and enforcementagencies of alleged violations.

0001455-

1458

None.

59. Letter from Dr. Dutt to GeraldHoeltge of the CAP, dated 1/11/07,telling him that Jadwin had neverinformed him (Dutt) that some tissuehandling and storage was occurringbut the situation has been taken careof.


No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.Speculation. Improper conclusion. Improperopinion.

60. Letter to Dr. Dutt from CAP, dated3/22/07, informing him that the KMClaboratory continues to be incompliance with the CAP Standardsfor Laboratory Accreditation.





17/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

61. Dr. Dutt believed that Jadwin,after returning from leave, might beintentionally issuing wrong opinionsto prove he was a whistleblower.

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

Irrelevant to excusing Defendants liabilityunder any of Plaintiffs counts, as evidencedby Defendants failure to cite this DMFanywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).



No foundation. Hearsay. Improper speculation.Improper conclusion.

DEPRESSION DISABILITY,

REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATION,

INTERACTIVE PROCESS62. Jadwin described his disability assevere depression, manifested by a

lack of ability to concentrate; lossDFJ0y in his work; extreme anxietyand difficulty sleeping. Jadwintestified that he told Dr. Kolb, during ameeting he had with him in 2003, thathe was depressed. Jadwin thought thismeeting was a one-on-one weeklymeeting that each department chairhad with Dr. Kolb. Jadwin said thatDr. Kolb must have noticed that hewas depressed because he would oftenask him if he was alright.

JadwinDepo.,

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



63. Jadwin told Dr. Kolb that hesuffered from depression when henotified him of the weekly half-daymedical leave day off to see histherapist.

JadwinDepo.,1/9108, pgs.491:1-493:17


64. Jadwin asked Dr. Kolb foraccommodations for his disability byrequesting time off for his therapistvisits. Dr. Kolb granted thataccommodation.

JadwinDepo.,1/9108, pgs.506: 16-507: 1


65. Jadwin had an episode of

depression in the 1990s before comingto work at KMC. Jadwin affirmed hisearlier testimony that his recentdepression started in 2002 or 2003.Jadwin said that he was taking weeklyhalf-day leaves starting in or about2003 and he told Dr. Kolb it wasbecause of his problems withradiology and others.

Jadwin

Depo.,1/9/08, pgs.452:4-455:19 Pg.455:8-13



Improper medical conclusion re depression.Misstates testimony regarding reasons forfeeling depressed.



18/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

66. Bryan does not recall Jadwinmentioning to him about depression,sleeplessness, etc. nor did Bryannotice behavior that he would callmental illness.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08,pgs. 111:12-113: 2and 128:16-

129:3


67. Jadwin only discussed hisdisability with Dr. Kolb. When askedwhether he had ever told Peter Bryan,Jadwin said that subsequently duringone-on-one meetings with Bryan hehad mentioned being depressed bylack of action on the concerns Jadwinwas raising. When pressed on whetherhe had ever actually told Peter Bryanhe was disabled, Jadwin said that inlate 2005 or early 2006, he told Bryanthat sometimes he was so depressed hecouldnt work at KMC anymore untilit fixed some of his concerns. Jadwinsaid that he also told Dr. Yoo, head ofpsychiatry, that he was depressed fromworking at the hospital. Jadwin doesnot recall talking to Dr. Dutt about thisissue. Jadwin could not recall anyother people at KMC that he talked toabout his disability. In fact, Jadwinwould not use the term disabled justthat he could not work there.

JadwinDepo.,3/12/08,pgs. 976:13983: 2lines 977:5-8 and lines977:24-978:8 andlines 981:17-982: 1and lines982: 18-24lines 978:15-979:1lines979:24-980:8 lines982:9-24

Irrelevant and immaterial in that employerdoes not need to know an employee'sdiagnosis, only an employee's limitations, tohave notice of an employee's disability.



68. When asked what considerations

there were in renewing a contract withKMC, Jadwin replied All of theworking environment situations. Thepatient quality issues, theadministration, what-what type ofadministrative operation is there. Theemphasis on quality, interest inquality. Interest in patient safety. Thecollaborative working environment.Are the other physicians going to beresponsible in working for thebetterment of patient care, or are theyjust going to be working for their own

self-interest.

Jadwin

Depo.,10/21/08,pgs.1055:13-1056: 15



Improper speculation. Misstates testimony.Irrelevant an immaterial. Plaintiff wastestifying as to his desires and wants were asof 10/7/08, not as of the time his contractexpired over a year earlier on 10/4/07. [LeeOpp. Decl., Exh. 6 (Jadwin Depo at 1034:13-1035:9; 1036:7-11; 1041:5-9; 1044:2-3;1060:4-7)].

JADWINS ERRORS

Failure to Produce Timely or

Correct Diagnoses



19/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

69. Dr. Ragland brings up the issuethat a stack of FNA reports thatJadwin had given him had issue datesafter the date of a double read, in eachcase, was done by UCLA. This raisesthe possibility that Jadwin waited to

enter a diagnosis until the double readhad come back from UCLA so that hecould be in 100% agreement withUCLA.

RaglandDepo.,8/22/08,pgs. 171 :5-172:5 and328:7-329:

14



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

70. Letter from Dr. Ang to Dr. Perez,Peter Bryan, Dr. Kolb, and Dr.Munoz, dated 2/20102, containingformal complaints of misconductagainst Jadwin. Complaint #3 statesthat Jadwin failed to pass the quarterlyproficiency tests on cervical papsmears so those tests are sent out. Itstates that this was an unnecessarycost and delay because the other threepathologists in the department couldexamine the pap smears because theyhave maintained their proficiency.

0000690-691,0000736

Relevance.


a) Document asserting Jadwinsfailing test scores and the fact that theDepartment of Pathology has not beensued for medical malpractice in 23years.

0000737 Irrelevant and immaterial to excusingDefendants' liability under any of Plaintiff'scounts. No foundation. No authentication.Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

b) Jadwins actual (failing) test forcervical pap smears. This test is

conducted by the College of AmericanPathologists (CAP). Of interest, onCase #3 Jadwin markedunsatisfactory for evaluation whenthe accurate diagnosis was squamouscell carcinoma.

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

71. Report to Maureen Martin fromJadwin, dated 11/20/02, on the resultsof the evaluations of the pathologists(Jadwin and Lang) by residentphysicians and staff physicians insurgery. On a three-point scale, where

2 means satisfactory and 3 meansneeds improvement, Jadwin scoredlow on timeliness (lower than Lang),IOC quality, completeness, and clarityof diagnosis. Jadwin blamedunhappiness of a Dr. Prunes for hislow scores.

0001059-1072

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



20/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

72. Twenty-nine (29) medical reportsfrom 2004 and 2005 with all of thefollowing in common: 1) all are FNAreports; 2) all were processed in-houseand then sent to outside labs forindependent diagnosis; and 3) the

turn-around time for the finaldiagnosis ranged from three weeks tofive or six months.

0001163-1310

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

73. Letter from Dr. Roy to Jadwin,dated 4/15/05, complaining thatsamples from 2 cases still had notbeen analyzed and diagnosed and wereover one week late.

DFJ00363 Hearsay.

74. Letter to Dr. Roy from Jadwin,dated 4/20/05, in response to hiscomplaint about late diagnoses. Onpage 3 Jadwin writes Pathologydiagnoses are consensus based, withfew gold standards to affirm accuracy.Consultants offer opinions, notaccurate diagnoses. There is nouniversally agreed upon definition forwhat constitutes an accuratediagnosis.

DFJ00364-366

Relevance.

Hearsay.

75. Notes by Dr. Harris, dated 6/8105,of a meeting between himself and Dr.Roy in which Dr. Roy again raises hisconcerns with the pathologydepartment.

0027066-27068

Relevance.


76. Notes by Dr. Harris, dated 7/1/05,of a meeting between himself and Dr.Roy. Dr. Roy had specific examples ofhis complaints about the pathologydepartment including three misseddiagnoses and an example-by nameand report number--of a pathologyreport changed after the fact byJadwin.

0027069-27070

Relevance.


77. Letter from Dr. Roy to Jadwin,dated 7/15/05, responding to Jadwins

letter to him dated 6/5/05 and statingthat he (Dr. Roy) has raised pathologydepartment mistakes, delays anddiscrepancies with Jadwin many timesbefore.

DFJ00439,DFJ00437

Relevance.

Hearsay.

78. Phone message from Dr. Roy,dated 11/18/05, identifying a patienterror by Jadwin.

0000506 Relevance.




21/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79. Letter from Dr. Roy to Dr. Harris,dated 2/22/06, identifying 19 cases(with medical records backup) whereKMC pathology department waswrong in their diagnosis, or very latein getting a diagnosis, or changing an

initial wrong diagnosis.

0000434-476

Relevance.

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

a) Pathology Quality ManagementPolicy, September 2005, Correctionof significant error must be madethrough a corrected report.

0018516 Relevance.

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

c) Two letters from Dr. Felix at USCto Dr. Roy, dated 3115/06 and3/16/06, with diagnoses of samplesthat Dr. Roy sent to him. Handwrittennotes on bottom of letters describediscrepancy with KMC pathologydiagnosis and that pathology changedits diagnosis in one instance.

0000432-433

Relevance.

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

80. After returning from leave, Jadwinhad to be told to slow down on regularcase work because he was going toofast and making errors.

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

Relevance.


Other Mistakes

81. E-mail from Reyes to Dr. Harrisand Tony Smith, dated 4/17/06,reporting that Jadwin was makingcopies of patient files which is a Title22 violation.

0000398 Relevance.


82. Minutes of the meeting of thepathology/histology department on10/17/06. It was noted that Dr.Shertukde was concerned that bladeswere not being removed once grossingwas done. She and Dr. Dutt removeand discard the blades immediately.

0000899 Relevance.

Hearsay. Improper speculation. No foundation.

83. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to Jadwin,dated 11/22/06, reminding him of arush case that Jadwin failed to processpromptly and counseling Jadwin toremember it when criticizing others.

DFJ01449DFJ01446-1447

Relevance.

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



22/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

84. E-mail from Tracy Lindsey toRamona Case, dated 11/27/06, statingthat Jadwin had labeled some (9)placentas wrong and she gave theincorrect labels alongside the correctlabels.

0000823 Relevance.


85. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to YolandaFigueroa, dated 12/7/06,acknowledging her report that Jadwinhad left two long blades and a scalpelout after he was finished.

0000862 Relevance.


86. Report from Dr. Dutt to PeerReview Committee, dated 12/14/06,describing with documentation fivemistakes by Jadwin: 1) misseddiagnosis and failure or refusal to seekoutside consultation (with backupletter from Dr. McBride); 2)misdiagnosis of prostate carcinomaand of prostatic biopsies; 3) misseddiagnosis of thyroid microcarcinoma;4) performance of sternal bonemarrow examination; and 5)assignment of procedures to physicianwithout privileges.

0000882-895

Relevance.


JADWINS INABILITY TO GET

ALONG WITH OR

COMMUNICATE WELL WITH

OTHERSPolicy

87. Policy Statement of the DisruptiveBehavior, Discrimination &Harassment Policy It is the policy ofKern Medical Center that allassociates are expected to conductthemselves at all times while onhospital premises in a courteous,professional, respectful, collegial, andcooperative manner. This applies tointeractions and communications with

or relating to physicians, nursing andtechnical personnel, other caregivers,other hospital personnel, ... [emphasis added]

0010685-10688

Relevance.



23/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

88. Section V Item A of the KernMedical Center Procedure onDisruptive Behavior, Discriminationand Harassment Policy Examples ofprohibited conduct include but are notlimited to the following ...

0010686-10687

Relevance.

a) 6. Use of racial, ethnic, epithetic orderogatory comments...

0010686 Relevance.

b) 8. Use of medical record entries tocriticize KMC associates, policies orequipment, other practitioners, orothers;

0010686 Relevance.

c) 14. Persisting to criticize, or todiscuss performance or qualityconcerns with, particular KMCassociates or others after being askedto direct such comments exclusivelythrough other channels; ...

0010687 Relevance.

89. Jadwin was dealt with pursuant tothe Disruptive Physician Policy.

HarrisDepo.,8/13/08,pgs. 330:21-332:3


Improper speculation. Misstates testimony.[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo at331:21-332:3)].

Pulling Dr. Laus Tie

90. E-mail to Michael Ewald fromJadwin, dated 10/9/03, telling Ewaldhow to conduct the investigation intothe tiepulling incident, who to talkto, and what questions to ask.

0000260(Exhibit560)

Relevance.

91. Confidential file of investigationof Jadwin pulling Dr. Lau by his tie,dated 10/21/03.

0000031-70 Relevance. No foundation. No authentication.Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

a) Portion of Jadwins interviewblaming Dr. Lau for the incident,alleging a prior history of Dr. Laubeing afraid of him because Jadwin(allegedly) points out Dr. Laus manymistakes.

0000061-63 Relevance. No foundation. No authentication.Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

b) During Jadwins interview,conducted on 10/17/03, Jadwinaccepts that he pulled the tie, says hecannot really remember.

0000063 Relevance. No foundation. No authentication.Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.



24/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c) The investigator finds, by apreponderance of the evidence, that(Item #2) Jadwin violated theWorkplace Violence Policy of theCounty of Kern and potentiallyendangered the quality or efficiency of

patient care (because both Jadwin andLau testified that Lau told Jadwin thathe could not accompany him becausehe had patient work to do).

0000034 Relevance. No foundation. No authentication.Hearsay. Misstates the evidence, investigatordid NOT apply a preponderance of evidencestandard.

92. Letter from Dr. Kolb to Jadwin,dated 11/26/03, reprimanding him forpulling Dr. Lau by his tie.

DFJ00246 Relevance.

93. Letter to Dr. Lau from Jadwin,dated 10119/05, apologizing for pastwrongs.

DFJ00590 Relevance.

Dispute with Radiology

94. Dr. Ragland implied that Jadwinwas wrong in the dispute with theradiology department because theprocedurist (the radiologist) shouldchose the equipment he uses (gauge ofneedle is an example) because that iswho is performing the task.

RaglandDepo.,8/22/08,pgs. 155:2-156:13

The transcript is not authenticated. It is not acertified copy, it is a condensed transcript forinformal attorney use. No reporter certificationis attached to the transcript

No foundation. Improper opinion. Improperconclusion.

95. Dr. Abraham, while discussing theFNA Consulting Report, mentionedthat the radiologists were upset withJadwin because he was accusing themof too many inadequate specimens(unsatisfactory for evaluation) whenthere were relatively few complaintsof that before Jadwin arrived.

AbrahamDepo.,8/18/08,pgs. 59:6-60:2


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

a) Jadwins actual (failing) test forcervical pap smears. This test isconducted by the College of AmericanPathologists (CAP). Of interest, onCase #3 Jadwin markedunsatisfactory for evaluation whenthe accurate diagnosis was squamous

cell carcinoma.

0000737 Relevance. No foundation. No authentication.Hearsay. Misstates the evidence.

96. Dr. Abraham talked about the lackof trust between the other doctors andJadwin, which the FNA ConsultingProject report addresses ascommunication problems.

AbrahamDepo.,8/18/08,pgs. 62: 16-64:3


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



25/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

97. Kern Medical Center FNAConsulting Project report by Dr.David Lieu, M.D., M.B.A., dated5/3/04.

DFJ00251-270

None.

a) Consultants core issue is the lack

of communication and completedistrust between radiology andpathology with negative ramificationsfor the clinicians and administration.

DFJ00255 Misstates evidence.

b) Consultant agreed with radiologiststhat long clinical history on the FNAreports was unnecessary.


c) ... Dr. Jadwin and radiologists donot communicate at this level. Thissuggests that a breakdown incommunication is the fundamentalproblem. This bridge was burneddown long ago.

DF100260 Relevance.

d) Finally, both radiology andpathology will work together to findthe best needle for deep FNAs.

DFJ00269 Relevance.

98. E-mail to Drs. Kercher and Kolbfrom Jadwin, dated 9/3/04, statingYou cannot dictate the size of theneedle by policy and calling Dr. Lieuunjustifiably pompous,

DFJ00289-290

Relevance.

99. E-mail to Peter Bryan from

Jadwin, dated 2/2/05, listing hissuggestions for improvement on theFNA issue. Jadwin also states that theradiology department wassubstantially at fault for the conflictbetween the departments. Herequested a formal apology from theradiology department to himself andthe pathology department. He alsorequested (in bold lettering) a publicannouncement at the next MedicalExecutive Committee (hereinafterreferred to as MEC) meeting that there

are no quality issues involving thepathology department and Drs. Amin,Abraham, Munoz and Naderi shouldbe standing at the podium during theannouncement.

DFJ00319-

320

None.



26/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

100. Exchange of e-mails between Dr.Ragland and Jadwin, dated 2/25/05, inwhich Jadwin complains about somecomments made by the radiologists atthe February QM meeting andinforming Dr. Ragland to be prepared

for Jadwin to request him to call forsupporting documentation fromradiology or announce that theprevious comments were unsupported.Dr. Ragland shot back his displeasureat the continuing conflict betweenradiology and pathology, and statedthat his committee will not become abattleground for this conflict.

DFJ00353-354

None.

Length of Presentations/October

2005 Oncology Conference

101. Exchange of e-mails between Dr.Ragland and Jadwin, dated 11/19 &11/20/03, about the last QualityManagement meeting. Dr. Raglandcontradicted Jadwins statement thatthe pathology presentation during themeeting was 20 minutes; Dr. Raglandsaid it went on much longer than 20minutes and proceeded to give Jadwinadvice on which information was mostimportant to present and how it couldbe presented succinctly.

DFJ00241-242

Relevance.

102. Memo from Dr. Ragland toJadwin, dated 1/21/04, thatpresentations must be concise and thatthe last Blood Usage Report-52 slides-will not fit in the allotted time.

None.

103. Memo from Dr. McBride toJadwin, dated 5/9/05, requesting thatthe time required for the pathologypresentation at the oncologyconference be kept to a minimum.

DFJ00381 None.

104. Instructions for the CancerConference presenters 1) thepresentation is to contain less than 10slides, 2) length not to exceed 20minutes for comprehensivebackground and overview of testing,and 3) all physicians involved in thecase being presented must be notifiedbeforehand.

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

None.



27/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

105. Pathology Dept.s oncologyconference presentation----67 slides-by Jadwin, reviewing gynecologycases and alleged errors in diagnosisby University of Southern California(hereinafter referred to as USC).

DFJ00508-574

None.

106. Memo from the CancerCommittee (Drs. Patel, Johnson, andMcBride) to Jadwin, dated 10/12/05,insisting that his presentation take nomore than 5 minutes per patient case.

DFJ00578 Relevance.

107. Anonymous (redacted) memo(author-Dr. Taylor) of complaint aboutJadwins oncology presentation, dated10/12/05. Some quotes: ...inappropriate to bringpolitical/personal battles to aneducational forum filled with residentsand students, and ... inappropriateto bash reputable institutions likeUSC and Stanford, and ...made[Jadwin] look like a conceited,pompous buffoon.

DFJ00580 Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

108. Dr. Royce Johnson also voiced acomplaint.

HarrisDepo.,8/13/08,pgs. 126:8-127: 19


Hearsay. No foundation.109. Oncology Conference

Performance Evaluations of 10/12/05where criticisms of Jadwinspresentation are written in thecomments section on the followingBates-stamped pages:0000516,522,526,536, and 548.

Exhibit 190 None.

110. Dr. Ragland was not present atthe October Oncology Conference sohis testimony was limited to thecomments he heard Jadwin makeregarding the conference (which is anadmission against interest). Dr.

Ragland said that Jadwins excuse formonopolizing the oncologyconference was that the onlyimportant information on that casewas his.

RaglandDepo.,8/22/08,pgs. 106:18-109:14and 156:14-

25


Misstates testimony. No foundation. Vague as

to time.



28/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

111. Dr. Abraham testified that Jadwinwent on much longer than a normalpathology presentation and she wasembarrassed for him and by some ofthe things that he said. Her overallfeeling was one of discomfort. She

definitely felt that his criticisms ofoutside consultants were inappropriateand further evidence of his arrogancebecause the issue was not one of whowas- right-and-who-was-wrong but ofthe actual sample and how it could beread. Jadwins position that it is apatient care issue presumes thatJadwin is right and Dr. Roy and theoutside pathologist are wrong.

AbrahamDepo.,8/18/08,pgs. 14: 10-21: 17 and131:5-

133:23 and135:24-138:22


Misstates testimony. Improper opinion.

Improper conclusion. Improper speculation.

112. Dr. Dutt believed that Jadwinretaliated against Dr. Roy by verballyattacking him, angrily, at the Octoberoncology conference.

Dutt Depo.,8/20/08,pgs.292:25-293:20


Improper speculation. Improper opinion. Nofoundation.

113. Letter from Drs. Kercher,Ragland, Abraham and Harris toJadwin, dated 10/17/05, aboutJadwins October oncologypresentation. The criticisms of thepresentation were 1) it exceeded thetime allotted to it, 2) Jadwin failed tofollow the leader of the conference onbrevity, and 3) Jadwin used a public

forum for a personal agenda and/or formaking a political statement.

DFJ00588 No foundation. Improper opinion. Improperconclusion.

114. E-mail from Dr. Ragland to Dr.Harris, dated 10118/05, describingJadwins attitude during the meetingon 10/17/05. When handed theevaluations of his presentation, hewould not look at them. The e-mailstates that Jadwin has a lack ofcommunication skills and fails toextend basic courtesy to hiscolleagues.

0000094 Improper speculation. Improper opinion.

115. Jadwins evaluation of the11/9/05 oncology conference (what hefilled out). He complained that it ranto 8:38 a.m. and he noted he woulddiscuss the overrun with Dr. McBride.




29/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

116. Memorandum to SupervisorMichael Rubio, District V, from PeterBryan, dated 1/17/06, giving himbackground on the problems arisingfrom the October oncologyconference. Bryan tells of a meeting

he had with Jadwin about a week afterthe conference in which Jadwin wasextremely angry and making loud,derogatory comments about variousmembers of the medical staff. He saidhe became concerned about Jadwinsemotional health. He also said thatJadwin has never been able to state aresolution to the impasse. Bryan alsosays that he will meet again withJadwin and inform him of someexpectations for future conduct, or hewill consider removing him as thechairman of the pathology department.

0001566-1567

None.

PCCs

117. PCC issue was a difference inprofessional judgment, the process bythe nursing staff was working forthem, and Jadwin failed to workwithin the institution and committeestructure. Also, Bryan inferred thatJadwin had accused Toni Smith ofethical lapses which is an example ofa pattern of inability to establish aneffective means of dialogue.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08,pgs. 205:6-206: 25(Exhibit291)


Hearsay. Improper opinion. Improperconclusion. Improper speculation.

118. E-mail to Toni Smith, R.N. fromJadwin, dated 5/20/05, inquiring afteraudits of the nursing department ofwhich only one was received andarguing that PCCs should be sent tothe blood bank when complete.

DFJ00408-409

None.

119. E-mail to Toni Smith fromJadwin, dated 5/20/05, recountingJadwins telephone conversation withHolly Rapp, AABB Accreditation

Director.

DFJ02499 None.



30/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

120. Exchange of e-mails betweenToni Smith and Jadwin, dated between6/15/05 and 6/28/05, about the PCCissues. In 0000423, Jadwin states thata PCC must not be signed until thetime of the infusion, or KMC is not

meeting AABB accreditationstandards.

0000421-424

None.

121. Typed notes, dated 1/10/06, ofinterviews with various people andinstitutions re: sending the ProductChart Copies (PCCs) back to theblood bank (pathology). The authorunknown- interviewed Michelle Burriswho said there is no reason to returnPCCs to pathology. The authorinterviewed Ann Schadler, UCLABlood Bank Director, who said theirPCCs are in the patients record only,not the blood bank. The authorinterviewed Julia, UCSD Blood Bank,who said there was no reason to returnthe form to the blood bank. The authoralso interviewed Dr. Wu and Jay,supervisor of Mercy Lab and BloodBank, who said that the PCC goes inthe patients record and there is noreason to return the PCC to the bloodbank.

0000572 No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.Misstates the evidence.

122. E-mail to Peter Bryan fromJadwin, dated 4/10/06, about several

issues but he brings up non-compliance with state regulations,JCAHO, and AABB on the issues ofthe PCCs.

DFJ00784 None.

123. Notes of meeting dated 4/14/06with Peter Bryan, Karen Barnes andJadwin on 4/13/06. There is noproblem with the PCCs because 5charts were reviewed (and approved)by JCAHO.

DFJ00788 No foundation. No authentication. Hearsay.Misstates the evidence.

124. E-mail to Peter Bryan from

Jadwin, dated 4/17/06, claiming thatthe JCAHO review was too small of asample and KMC was innoncompliance on their handling ofthe PCCs and there was a need foraction.

DFJ00793 None.



31/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a) Bryan criticizes Jadwins 57 memosto Toni Smith, R.N. as a way offlooding the system and seeing whatsticks and what doesnt.

BryanDepo.,8/14/08, pg.226: 10-16


125. Memo to Peter Bryan from Toni

Smith, dated 4/17/06, responding toJadwins e-mail to Peter Bryan of4/17/06, disagreeing with Jadwinscharacterization of the PCC situationand stating that Jadwins proposals onthis issue were strategies that havepreviously been rejected by KMC.

0000401-

403

No foundation. Improper conclusion. Improper

opinion. Improper speculation.

126. Harris had complaints aboutJadwins handling of the PCC issue-Jadwin was demanding, inflexible,unreasonable in wanting the originals,impatient.

HarrisDepo.,8/13/08,pgs. 268:8-23


No foundation. Improper opinion. Improperspeculation.

127. Toni Smith, R.N. explained thatthe reason that some PCCs looked likethey were not complete is that thePCC form was actually in duplicateand the nurses were not consistentabout writing on only one copy andthrowing the blank copy away.

SmithDepo.,8/19/08,pgs. 59:4-60: 13


Improper speculation. No foundation.

128. Toni Smith said that Jadwin wasnever interested or willing to listen toher ideas. When asked what Jadwinsphysical demeanor was like in these

conversations in which he wasallegedly uncooperative, she said Hewas obviously frustrated, obviouslynot going to change his mind,obviously not willing to listen toanything. I presented cases from otherhospitals, some of the lab directorsthat I hold in high esteem. [He] had nointerest in any of that.

SmithDepo.,8/19/08, pg.65:2-13 and

74: 12-22


Improper speculation. Best evidence rule.

129. Jadwins idea to have the PCCsstored in his department may violateCalifornia law, Title 22, by

fragmenting the medical record.Jadwins idea was opposed by ToniSmith, R.N., the medical recordsdepartment, and the medical recordscommittee which ultimatelydetermines what the contents of amedical record will be.

SmithDepo.,8/19/08, pg.

71 :2-21



Improper speculation. Improper conclusion.Hearsay.



32/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

130. Toni Smith, R.N. offered asuccinct description of herconversations with Jadwin on the issueof PCCs. The conversations were notprofessional conversations-It just wasa dead-end conversation. I mean, he

had his mind made up that thosethings-he had never seen anorganization where they hadnt beenstored in the lab. I had indicated-Iindicated to him that I had never seenan organization where they werestored in the lab. And I questionedhim as to how he was going to be ableto locate that if we needed it forpatient care purposes. I think he saidhe was going to store them in bindersor in notebooks or boxes orsomething. You know, it wasirrelevant as far as I was concerned. Ifelt that it was very important to havethat information-one, we needed toknow that the patient had-had receivedthe blood. We needed the vital signinformation during the bloodtransfusion part, which would leave ahuge gaping hole in patientinformation if that was storedsomewhere in the lab.

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


Improper speculation. Improper conclusion.

Hearsay.

131. Toni Smith considered Jadwinsconduct at the MEC meeting asuncooperative, refusal to consider

other points of view or suggestions,etc.

SmithDepo.,8119/08, pg.

77:9-20



Relevance.132. Jadwins charges of being out ofcompliance with regulatory agencieswere unfounded, and regulatoryagencies found no jeopardy of KMCslevel of compliance.

SmithDepo.,8/19108,pgs. 84: 11-85:7


Misstates testimony. Speculation. Nofoundation. Improper conclusion.

In General Treatment of Other

Staff



33/45



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

133. Dr. Abraham gradually had fewerand fewer interactions with Jadwinbecause his attitude was pompous andarrogant. Since the conversations withJadwin were not cordial, it negativelyaffected patient care. She didnt

discuss Jadwins attitude with otherdoctors because she thought hisattitude was evident to everyone.

AbrahamDepo.,8118/08,pgs. 49: 16-52:9 and 75:22-76: 19


No foundation. Improper speculation.

Improper opinion. Improper conclusion.

134. Dr. Abraham testified that manyor most physicians reporteddifficulties in getting along withJadwin.

AbrahamDepo.,8118/08,pgs. 185:7-187:9


No foundation. Improper speculation.Improper opinion. Hearsay.

135. Jadwins communication stylewas, to some people, offensive andabrasive, and he had a hard timeaccepting differing opinions fromothers.

BryanDepo.,8114/08,pgs. 90:4-92:2


No foundation. Improper speculation.Improper opinion. Hearsay.

136. Compromise was not inJadwins vocabulary. It is not enoughto be right; a department chair mustexercise judgment on how to deal withothers.

BryanDepo.,8114/08,pgs. 100:12

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	eugene-d-lee
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

283 D MSJ - Opp - Objections

Documents